Congressional Hearings
THE STATE OF THE RURAL ECONOMY
Congressional Hearings
SuDoc ClassNumber: Y 4.AG 8/1
Congress: House of Representatives
CHRG-116hhrg35465
| AUTHORITYID | CHAMBER | TYPE | COMMITTEENAME |
|---|---|---|---|
| hsag00 | H | S | Committee on Agriculture |
[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE STATE OF THE RURAL ECONOMY
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 27, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-1
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture
agriculture.house.gov
___________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
35-465 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota, Chairman
DAVID SCOTT, Georgia K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas, Ranking
JIM COSTA, California Minority Member
MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania
JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
FILEMON VELA, Texas ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD,
STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands Arkansas
ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee
Vice Chair VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri
ABIGAIL DAVIS SPANBERGER, Virginia DOUG LaMALFA, California
JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois
ANTONIO DELGADO, New York TED S. YOHO, Florida
TJ COX, California RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota MIKE BOST, Illinois
ANTHONY BRINDISI, New York DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina
JEFFERSON VAN DREW, New Jersey RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana
JOSH HARDER, California TRENT KELLY, Mississippi
KIM SCHRIER, Washington JAMES COMER, Kentucky
CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine ROGER W. MARSHALL, Kansas
CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois DON BACON, Nebraska
SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York NEAL P. DUNN, Florida
SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California DUSTY JOHNSON, South Dakota
AL LAWSON, Jr., Florida JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona JIM HAGEDORN, Minnesota
JIMMY PANETTA, California
ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
CYNTHIA AXNE, Iowa
______
Anne Simmons, Staff Director
Matthew S. Schertz, Minority Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Conaway, Hon. K. Michael, a Representative in Congress from
Texas, opening statement....................................... 3
Peterson, Hon. Collin C., a Representative in Congress from
Minnesota, opening statement................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Witness
Perdue, Hon. Sonny, Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Washington, D.C................................................ 5
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Submitted questions.......................................... 75
THE STATE OF THE RURAL ECONOMY
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2019
House of Representatives,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to other business, at 10:00
a.m., in Room 1300 of the Longworth House Office Building, Hon.
Collin C. Peterson [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Members present: Representatives Peterson, David Scott of
Georgia, Costa, Fudge, McGovern, Vela, Adams, Spanberger,
Hayes, Delgado, Cox, Craig, Brindisi, Van Drew, Harder,
Schrier, Pingree, Bustos, Carbajal, Lawson, O'Halleran,
Panetta, Axne, Conaway, Thompson, Austin Scott of Georgia,
Crawford, DesJarlais, Hartzler, LaMalfa, Davis, Yoho, Allen,
Bost, Rouzer, Kelly, Comer, Marshall, Bacon, Dunn, Johnson,
Baird, and Hagedorn.
Staff present: Kellie Adesina, Melinda Cep, Patrick
Delaney, Jasmine Dickerson, Emily German, Brandon Honeycutt,
Keith Jones, Prescott Martin III, Clark Ogilvie, Troy Phillips,
Lisa Shelton, Anne Simmons, Mike Stranz, Alison Titus, Katie
Zenk, Paul Balzano, Bart Fischer, Rachel Millard, Matthew S.
Schertz, Patricia Straughn, Jennifer Tiller, Dana Sandman, and
Jennifer Yezak.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. COLLIN C. PETERSON, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM MINNESOTA
The Chairman. All right, the Committee will come to order.
We welcome all the Committee Members, all the new Members. This
is the first official hearing of the Committee, and we
appreciate you all being here, we appreciate the Secretary
being willing to join us. We have plenty of ground to cover
today, and I am sure there will be all kinds of questions that
I am glad you have to answer, and not me.
Mr. Secretary, I look forward to hearing your outlook for
the farm economy in the coming year, your take on the
implementation of the farm bill, an update on the overall
health of the Department, and any other thoughts that you would
like to share with us.
Before we move on, I would like to take a second to talk
about money. Your visits to the Committee over the last 2 years
have come roughly at the same time that the White House has
called for billions of dollars of cuts in USDA programs. This
year, it appears, is no different. Just this week, the White
House called for a five percent cut to non-defense spending,
and while that is concerning on its own, it is compounded by
your comments that this number may potentially be as high as
ten percent or higher. That worries me a lot, and given the
broad range of challenges that we are confronting as farmers,
ranchers, rural communities, and working families, we are
concerned about that.
Mr. Secretary, as you know, things have not gotten any
better in farm country. Whatever you can tell us about where
that process is at, I have no doubt that you are on our side,
that you are concerned about our farmers and ranchers, but you
have a role to play. We understand that. I would just like your
take on things.
As these incomes continue to be down or prices continue to
be down and continue to decline, the wins on the trade which I
hoped were going to happen have not materialized. The bankers
are telling me that they are not going to be financing some
people. We are just concerned about where we are heading, and
whatever you can tell us in that regard will be helpful.
When it comes to the farm bill, the main thing that I have
been focusing on is the dairy provisions. I am very proud of
what we were able to do in the farm bill for dairy, and I thank
the former Chairman for his help with that, and the other
Committee Members. What I am concerned about is that the dairy
people were so soured on the old program that it is difficult
to get them to look at the new program. And we have a couple
dairy farmers in our part of the world going out of business
every week or every month. And what I am worried about is that
we get the message out to these people that this is a different
world that we are facing with these new provisions in the farm
bill.
I have had some people tell me that the safety net we put
in there is actually too good, because you are going to have
$9.50 above feed cost, which is $17.50 milk that you can get
for a pretty reasonable price.
I am doing what I can to get this message out. I have been
talking to the co-ops, talking to the farm press, dairymen, and
so forth to get the word out to dairy farmers that if you are
thinking about pulling the plug, give us a couple months until
we can roll out this program before you make a decision.
Because, if you look at what is in this bill, that will change
your mind and the future for dairy is actually pretty good,
given this new safety net.
Whatever the Department can do to help us with that
message--as I understand it, it is going to be probably early
summer before you get these regulations written, but they will
be retroactive, as I understand it, to the first of the year.
We have some information, for any of you on the Committee, that
show what you would have gotten last year if this program would
have been in effect in 2018. If you have 5 million pounds of
milk and you signed up for the whole thing at $9.50, it would
have cost you about $5,000 to get almost $100,000 of benefit if
the program would have been in place last year.
I just hope that we can all talk to our dairy farmers and
make sure that they factor that in before they go off and make
a decision that is going to be irreversible, because when we
lose these dairy folks, they are hard to replace. It is hard to
get the expertise and what it takes to learn how to be a dairy
farmer back into place.
The farm bill also provides the resources to small
communities for broadband, and we hope that that will be
focused on people that don't have broadband, and not overbuild
existing systems like we have done over the last number of
years. There has been help for mental health and substance
abuse, which are problems in rural areas. As I said, what
doesn't help would be to take an indiscriminate whack at this
funding. I know you are on our side. We will do whatever we can
to help convince the Administration that this is not a good
idea, and we will see where that all goes.
It is my hope that you have good news to share with us
today, and that there is some blue sky amongst the clouds that
I have mentioned. The thing about it is you have always given
it to us straight, and I expect that you are going to do that
again today. You have always been a fierce defender of the
programs at USDA, and we appreciate that. We look forward to
your comments.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Peterson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Collin C. Peterson, a Representative in
Congress from Minnesota
Good morning, and welcome to our witness, Agriculture Secretary
Sonny Perdue. We've got plenty of ground to cover today, so I will be
brief in my comments.
Mr. Secretary, I look forward to hearing your outlook for the farm
economy in the coming year; your take on the implementation of the farm
bill; an update on the overall health of the Department; and any other
thoughts you'd like to share. Before that, I want to take a second to
talk about money.
Your visits to the Committee over the last 2 years have come
roughly at the same time as the White House's call for billions in cuts
to USDA programs. This year is no different. Just this week, the White
House called for a five percent cut to non-defense spending. While that
is concerning on its own, it's compounded by your comments that this
number may potentially be as high as ten percent or higher. That
worries a lot of us given the broad range of challenges confronting
farmers, ranchers, rural communities, and working families.
It's worrisome, Mr. Secretary, because the situation hasn't gotten
any better in farm country. In our discussions the last few times
you've been up here, I've sadly started my comments by pointing to the
growing economic storm in farm country.
Incomes continue to decline, wins on trade have yet to materialize,
credit and capital are becoming harder to obtain, and folks are
deciding it's easier to sell the farm and move to the city than to
continue trying to grind out a living.
When it comes to dairy, I'm worried that folks are so soured on the
old program that they'll decide to hang it up before they give the new
dairy provisions in this bill a chance. That's a mistake, because the
new Dairy Margin Coverage is specifically designed to give those
smaller and medium-sized dairies the safety net they need. We need them
to know that this program will help. But they're ``snakebit'', and it's
going to take persistent outreach to get them on board. I hope that's a
challenge you're committed to tackling, Mr. Secretary.
Beyond the dairy provisions, the farm bill helps provide resources
to small communities for broadband connectivity, mental health
services, and substance abuse prevention.
But what doesn't help is taking an indiscriminate whack at funding
for these and other programs in the midst of a farm economy like this
one.
Now it's my hope that you've got some better news to share--that
you see some blue sky through these clouds. You've always given it to
us straight, Mr. Secretary, and you've always been a fierce defender of
the programs USDA is charged with administering. I appreciate that very
much. I look forward to your comments and with that I recognize the
distinguished Ranking Member from Texas for any remarks he would like
to make.
The Chairman. And with that, I recognize the distinguished
Ranking Member, former Chairman of the Committee from Texas,
Mr. Conaway.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM TEXAS
Mr. Conaway. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you
convening this important hearing this morning on the state of
the farm economy.
Mr. Secretary, welcome back. Thank you for being here with
us as well.
Earlier during the consideration of the Committee's budget
and views estimates letter, I commented on the extremely
difficult conditions in farm and ranch country. As I said then,
I wish we could have strengthened the farm safety net more in
the farm bill, but folks in the other body had different ideas
about what to spend money on. In any event, worsening
conditions certainly warrant our close attention.
Thankfully, there are some things we can do right now to
improve conditions in rural America and farm and ranch country,
and Mr. Secretary, I believe you are at the tip of the spear on
this front. You ably defended the critical market access for
our farmers and ranchers gained at NAFTA while the agreement
was improved upon under the USMCA. If we truly want to help our
nation's farmers and ranchers, and the entire U.S. economy,
moving USMCA should be a priority of every Member of Congress.
Mr. Secretary, I know you are also working hard to ensure
there is a successful resolution very soon to the ongoing trade
dispute with China, a resolution that will help level the
playing field for the United States and require China to live
by the same rules that we do. During this process, I greatly
appreciate the initiative you took to provide farmers and
ranchers the Market Facilitation Program to help them weather
the unjustified retaliatory tariffs that had been imposed. And
Mr. Secretary, I am behind you and the Administration, and your
efforts to unwind all the arbitrary and costly regulatory
burdens that have been heaped upon our nation's farmers and
ranchers, including the prior Administration's Waters of the
U.S. regulation and its climate change regulations. Expanding
markets, regulatory relief, and a strong safety net are three
essential ingredients to a healthy environment in rural
America, and you, Mr. Secretary, have worked hard to ensure all
three.
I am looking forward to visiting with you further at this
hearing and offline about how we can improve the lives of those
who feed and clothe our nation, and the lives of all rural
Americans. Our farmers and ranchers and rural Americans are
still the backbone of our country, and if we keep them strong,
we will also have a much stronger country.
Mr. Secretary, I know you and I share this conviction. I am
grateful for all that you do. I look forward to your testimony,
and I yield back.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
I just want to notify the Members that you are going to be
put in order by seniority, based on the fact that you were here
when the gavel was struck. Anybody that comes in later will be
put down the list, and you will keep your place if you have
to--I know there are a whole bunch of committee meetings going
on and all that. If you have to step out, as long as you get
back here in time to keep your place, you will keep your place
in line. We will try to work this in an orderly fashion and
make sure everybody has a chance to weigh in.
Mr. Secretary, again, thank you very much for being with us
today. We appreciate it. We know you have a tough job, and I
was dealing with some of your Georgia constituents last week,
and I know they are having a very tough time. We appreciate
what you do and we want to be supportive and helpful with USDA
to complete your mission.
The floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF HON. SONNY PERDUE, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Secretary Perdue. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and [audio
malfunction in hearing room] good partnership with this
Committee, as well as your Members.
I come willingly. I thought it was better than being
subpoenaed, but nonetheless, you stated the obvious. The farm
economy and coming to speak about the farm economy, we know it
is tough out there. You mentioned one sector, certainly, that
probably has been under more duress than most any, and that is
the dairy industry. We will talk more about that later on. If
they can hold on, help is on the way, thanks to the farm bill.
We know that the farm income has fallen about 50 percent
over the last 5 years. There are very few businesses that can
survive that kind of revenue decrease. That is from probably
the peak in 2013. Most commodity prices have fallen, while
global stock levels due to good growing seasons around the
world, primarily in other places, have rebounded with several
years of record production. Working capital, farmers, just like
any other business, depend on working capital to fund their
operations, and that has decreased by 70 percent since 2012.
Farm debt has been rising more rapidly over the last 5 years,
increasing by 30 percent since 2013. But fortunately, we are
not to the levels of the early 1980s. I don't think we will get
there, but what you all have done in this farm bill, and
previous farm bills, has been a great safety net with crop
insurance, primarily, that enables our farmers to be better
risk managers.
Certainly, one indication of that is relatively firm land
values have kept farmer debt-to-asset levels relatively low. By
historical standards, and certainly our low interest rates over
the last period of years have helped as well.
USDA and our economists are projecting a net farm income of
$77.6 billion. That is an increase from last year, not
including the Market Facilitation Program, but it remains to be
seen, and farming, as you well know, it is never over until the
crops are in the bins and the check is in the bank. Many things
can happen, as we saw in 2017 and 2018, regarding disasters.
The current state of the rural economy, as you indicated
Mr. Chairman, leaves many producers vulnerable to market
disruptions, including illegal retaliatory tariffs and
disasters, as we said. Overall, the new farm bill fulfills the
primary goal of farm programs, helping farmers and ranchers
manage risks and continue to produce food, fiber, fuel in good
years, as well as bad, as well as taking care of our consumers
and food safety in many ways as well.
We were honored to participate in the deliberation of the
farm bill last year. I was very proud of our team in providing
over 2,000 items of technical assistance, both to Majority and
Minority in that area, both Senate and House, and we believe
that you all gave a good product at the end of the day. We are
eager to implement that farm bill.
Our Deputy Secretary, Steve Censky, is already leading
those implementation efforts. We had been since the beginning,
even prior to the signing, as I had some heads-up about some of
the provisions there. We actually continued during the
shutdown, although on a more limited basis, during that period
of time, and so we are following a process similar to one that
USDA put in place to implement the 2014 Farm Bill. Our farm
bill implementation group formally met on December the 20th,
and as the signing of the bill, enactment, and catalogued
provisions requiring action, assigned them to responsible
agencies and finalized timelines for implementation.
We have already begun and are getting stakeholder input on
how best to implement the provisions. Just on Tuesday,
yesterday, our FPAC production and conservation group held a
public listening session. I think over 600 people were there
and present, and many others joined by the Internet. These
formal and informal listening sessions will continue.
Although not under the direct jurisdiction of the
Agriculture Committee, these are the top three legislative
issues that farmers continue to raise for me as I travel.
Certainly, we will have some discussion about that today.
Labor, a legal farm workforce. Labor is becoming more and more
difficult to attract in most all areas of the country. I don't
hear of any people that are flush with ag labor in that regard.
Regulation, as the Ranking Member mentioned, we are continuing
to work on regulations to keep it safe but make it productive.
And the third thing that we hear more about now, certainly in
certain regions of the country, from California to Florida, the
Carolinas to Georgia, are the disaster programs.
In conclusion, over the past 2 years as I have traveled
across the country--in fact, I have been to 48 states since May
of 2017 and will finish up those last two this year, hearing
directly from the people we serve. It is important for us to
get out among them, and to look them in the eye and to hear
directly from them.
I am proud of the great strides that the good men and women
of USDA are making. I found them to be an honorable, hard-
working workforce when we got there. Our goal and our mantra
that drives us each and every day is to be the most effective,
the most efficient, the most customer-focused agency in the
Federal Government.
As we work to implement the 2018 Farm Bill, we want to keep
in mind our motto that we think drives us in all that we do,
and that is: ``To do right and feed everyone.''
Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I look
forward to discussions with your Members.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Perdue follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Sonny Perdue, Secretary, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
Chairman Peterson, Ranking Member Conaway, and distinguished
Members of the Committee, I am honored to be with you this morning.
Today's hearing marks my third occasion to appear before this Committee
as the 31st Secretary of Agriculture. I thank you once again for the
opportunity to testify about the current state of the rural economy and
our work at USDA on behalf of the American people and our farmers.
Over the past year, USDA made great strides toward becoming the
most effective, most efficient, and most customer-focused department in
the Federal Government. Our Rural Development agency delivered the
ReConnect program to create high-speed, reliable broadband e-
Connectivity. The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) finalized a rule to
make school meals more appealing to children and reduce food waste
through flexibilities in the National School Lunch Program and School
Breakfast Program. FNS proposed another to encourage able-bodied adults
without dependents to take steps toward self-sufficiency through the
dignity of work. We refocused USDA to be more customer-oriented,
merging offices and agencies where it made sense to maximize
efficiencies, while modernizing and optimizing IT to improve delivery
of services. The Interagency Task Force on Agriculture and Rural
Prosperity, which President Trump established and appointed me as
Chair, completed a report identifying over 100 Federal actions to help
improve life in rural America.
In addition to these notable achievements, USDA responded in 2018
to conditions that tested the resilience of the American farmer with
initiatives to create economic conditions where they can prosper. With
the help of crop insurance, natural disaster assistance programs, and
short-term trade mitigation programs, many producers are managing the
stresses of these difficult times and are indicating increased
optimism, particularly with expectations that trade partnerships will
strengthen in the near future.
The State of the U.S. Rural Economy
Ever since the record prices and farm income levels reached in 2013
the U.S. farm sector has faced declines, leaving producers increasingly
vulnerable to production disruptions posed by natural disasters and
market disruptions. Net farm income has fallen nearly 50 percent from
its peak in 2013, as most commodity prices have fallen over the past 5
years while global stock levels have rebounded with several years of
record production. We saw the largest U.S. soybean crop ever in 2017
and again in 2018, U.S. corn production was the second highest ever in
2017 and third highest ever in 2018. However, other countries have also
seen high production numbers. In 2019, global production will continue
to expand, trade challenges will persist, and these factors will
continue to impact commodity prices.
As a result, many farmers will continue to face tight bottom lines
with fewer resources. Our Chief Economist at USDA calculated that
working capital has decreased by 70 percent since 2012. However, total
cash receipts are forecast to be slightly higher in 2019 across crop
and livestock commodities and average net farm income is forecast to be
higher in 2019 compared to 2018. Overall, the record levels of crop and
livestock production we have seen over the past few years have helped
to stabilize farm incomes, despite their contribution to continuing low
prices. Producers have reduced spending on inputs and tapped a
combination of savings, loans, and off-farm income and assets to remain
in business in the face of continuing stresses in the farm economy.
After 5 years, however, those resources are dwindling for many.
Farm debt has been rising more rapidly over the last 5 years,
increasing by 30 percent since 2013--up from $315 billion to $409
billion according to USDA data, and up from $385 billion in just the
last year--to levels seen in the 1980s. Demand for commercial farm
operating loans continues to increase in most regions despite a steady,
if slow, rise in interest rates on agricultural loans. Although the
Farm Service Agency's (FSA) Farm Loan Program saw another slight annual
decline in lending in 2018 following a year of bumper crops, loan
demand remains historically high. Increasing farm financial stress
could lead commercial lenders to seek more loan guarantees. FSA may see
an increase in repayment difficulties with continued low commodity
prices and expected increases in costs, though delinquencies have been
stable and restructuring of direct loans fell slightly in 2018.
Relatively firm land values have kept farmer debt-to-asset levels
low by historical standards at 13.5 percent and continued low interest
rates have kept the cost of borrowing relatively affordable. But those
average values mask areas of greater vulnerability. The strength of
land values varies geographically, with some regions seeing greater
weakness even as others hold steady or see modest increases. Debt-to-
asset ratios vary among farm businesses by commodity specialization.
Overall, however, the number of crop farms in a highly leveraged
financial situation sits at about one in ten and the number of
livestock or dairy farms in a highly leveraged financial situation sits
at about 1 in 15. Highly leveraged operations are more vulnerable to
low prices or market disruptions and less able to recover from natural
disasters.
U.S. farmers faced a number of natural disasters, including
wildfires, hurricanes, droughts, severe freezes, and even a volcanic
eruption. USDA responded with all the tools available to it, making
timely payments for loss claims on crop insurance policies and through
FSA's suite of disaster assistance programs for non-insured crops,
livestock, trees, vines, and bushes. USDA also provided assistance to
producers to install conservation practices on land damaged by severe
weather and continues to provide help to communities to restore and
enhance damaged watersheds and floodplains.
Producers also received payments during 2018 for losses from the
disasters experienced in 2017. The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018
provided $2.36 billion for expenses related to crop, trees, bushes, and
vine losses from hurricanes and wildfires in 2017. The funds are being
distributed to producers through the 2017 Wildfires and Hurricanes
Indemnity Program, also known as WHIP. The program provides benefits
above the crop insurance program and incentivizes future participation
by requiring recipients to purchase buy-up coverage for the next 2 crop
years.
In addition to weather and low commodity prices, farmers contended
with significant market disruptions in 2018 arising from retaliatory
tariffs that were affecting billions of dollars of agricultural trade
and disrupting markets for commodities ranging from soybeans to almonds
to hogs. To aid producers facing those disruptions, USDA developed a
three-pronged approach at the request of President Donald J. Trump: the
Market Facilitation Program to provide funds to help producers
implement alternative marketing strategies for their products, the Food
Purchase and Distribution Program to direct surplus food commodities to
low-income Americans who need them, and the Agricultural Trade
Promotion to develop new markets overseas. To date, those programs have
provided more than $8 billion to assist with the disruption in
commodity markets caused by unfair tariffs on U.S. agricultural
products.
In many ways, 2018 underscored the financial risks farmers take to
produce food, fiber and fuel for the fellow citizens. Regardless of the
challenges the past year brought to rural America, farmers and ranchers
are resilient and remain optimistic about the future.
Looking forward, USDA projects 2019 net farm income at $77.6
billion, a $14 billion increase from the projections made last year.
The upward swing comes as USDA projects an increase in 2019 cash
receipts--$375.8 billion in this year's report, rising $11 billion from
last year--and a drop in cash expenses--$322.3 billion, a $3 billion
drop from last year's projections. Direct government payment
projections for 2019 rose $1.2 billion to $10.2 billion. The majority
of farm households are at or above the median income for all U.S.
households; and farms of all sizes face lower effective income tax
rates due to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA)[.]
It is in this context that USDA is undertaking the important work
of implementing the 2018 Farm Bill.
Implementing the 2018 Farm Bill
The 2018 Farm Bill provides a strong safety net for farmers and
ranchers, who need the long-term decision-making tool it affords. This
farm bill also invests in important agricultural research and supports
trade programs to bolster exports. While I feel there were some missed
opportunities in forest management and in improving work requirements
for certain SNAP recipients, this bill does include a number of helpful
provisions, and USDA will continue to build upon these through our
authorities. Overall, the new law fulfills the primary goal of farm
programs: to help farmers and ranchers manage risks and continue
producing food, fiber, and fuel in good years and as well as bad.
I applaud the many of you who worked to complete the 2018 Farm Bill
just a couple of months ago. Having a farm bill in place gives our
farmers, ranchers, foresters and producers peace of mind to make
decisions for the future. At USDA, we committed to provide counsel to
Congress at the outset of the legislative process and were pleased to
complete over 2,000 pieces of technical assistance to the Congress as
you wrote the bill. Now, we are eager to implement it.
I want to assure you that USDA is implementing the farm bill as
quickly as possible. Deputy Secretary Stephen Censky is leading
implementation efforts within the Department, following a process
similar to one put in place by USDA to implement the 2014 Farm Bill.
The implementation working group met initially on December 20th before
the recent shutdown began. The entire team is working aggressively on
implementation, and has catalogued the provisions requiring action,
assigned them to responsible agencies and staff, and is finalizing
timelines.
Agencies have also started gathering stakeholder input on how best
to implement the provisions, in line with Congress' direction laid out
in the law. On Tuesday, our Farm Production and Conservation mission
area held a public listening session. Formal and informal listening
sessions will continue in the weeks ahead.
As example of our early efforts, USDA already allocated Fiscal Year
2019 funding to recipients for the Market Access Program (MAP) and the
Foreign Market Development (FMD) Program, which were both reauthorized
in the farm bill. The allocations mark a significant investment in
creating new export opportunities for our farmers and ranchers.
Other examples include USDA's work on core conservation programs--
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), Conservation
Stewardship Program (CSP), Agricultural Conservation Easement Program
(ACEP), and the Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP)--which
are on-track for FY 2020 implementation as required by the farm bill.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) utilized mandatory
program funding to keep staff working throughout the recent shutdown,
providing significant time to begin building the framework for the new
and revised conservation programs they are responsible for
implementing.
In addition, the FSA dairy task force has begun to identify policy,
software, training and other implementation issues and gather
recommendations for leadership decisions. We understand the dairy
industry's critical financial situation and we will make sure we
prioritize the quick yet sound implementation of the industry's safety
net.
My commitment is that USDA will plow ahead with implementation,
working diligently to deliver quality programs that serve the urgent
needs of our customers.
Among the provisions of the new farm bill are significant
investments in USDA research. Congress' continued support for these
programs is a reflection on our world-class research scientists and
their track record of providing solutions to problems that affect
farmers and the American consumer. I want our research programs to be
on the cutting edge, and I believe that the research our scientists are
conducting at USDA will be even more effective if the team is closer to
the farmers they serve.
In August, USDA announced we would realign the Economic Research
Service (ERS) under the Office of the Chief Economist and would
relocate both ERS and the National Institute for Food and Agriculture
(NIFA) outside of the National Capitol Region. Those changes are
intended to improve customer service, strengthen offices and programs,
and save taxpayer dollars. USDA received 136 expressions of interest
submissions from 35 states. The firm Ernst & Young was retained to
evaluate and conduct the site selection process. We recognize there are
outstanding questions regarding this decision and are committed to an
open process as we move forward together to address concerns.
Creating Conditions for Rural Prosperity
Before I conclude my testimony, I would like to address three
topics that lie outside of the direct jurisdiction of this Committee
but are among the top legislative priorities that farmers raise with me
as I travel the country--I know these are important to the Members of
this Committee as well. As we implement the 2018 Farm Bill, we must
also focus attention on favorably resolving these issues if we expect
the full potential of our farm communities to be realized.
The first is that our farmers--the backbone of America--need access
to a legal and stable workforce so American-grown products will
continue to feed our nation and the world. In today's booming economy,
many farmers are having trouble recruiting workers during peak seasons
of need in rural parts of America. Estimates show currently over half
of the experienced agricultural labor force is working without proper
documentation on our farms, and the H-2A program is in need of
improvement and modernization. Despite being a program used as a last
resort, we have seen exponential growth in the H-2A program, suggesting
that local workers are not available to do farm work. Farmers need
long-term solutions that guarantee access to a legal and stable
workforce. USDA is working closely with the Departments of Labor,
Homeland Security, and State on revisions to the H-2A program; however,
farmers need legislative reform that ensure access to a legal
workforce.
The second is the importance of rebalancing our trading
relationships with key agricultural trading partners, and we can start
with Mexico and Canada. President Trump negotiated a better deal for
U.S. farmers in the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), as
he promised. The USMCA represents greater export opportunities in these
vital markets and will maintain and improve the highly productive
integrated agricultural relationship we have as nations. Notably, as
one of the President's top goals, this deal eliminates Canada's unfair
`Class VII' milk pricing scheme, cracks open additional access for U.S.
dairy into Canada, and imposes new disciplines on Canada's milk pricing
system. The agreement also preserves and expands critical access for
U.S. poultry and egg producers and addresses Canada's wheat grading
process, so it doesn't discriminate against U.S. wheat growers,
including those along the border. We also hope for rapid progress in
negotiating agreements with Japan, the EU, and the UK, resolution of
China negotiations, and potential new agreements with other Asian
markets that will expand opportunities for agriculture.
Finally, farmers and ranchers were battered last year by a series
of monumental storms, robbing them of their livelihoods and inflicting
damage well beyond the financial risks they normally assume in their
operations. These are the men and women who dedicate their lives to
feeding, fueling, and clothing this nation, and we cannot turn our
backs on them when they need assistance. Just as important, another
devastating wildfire season left our Forest Service badly in need of
replenished funds to fight fires, remove excess fuels, and conduct
necessary forest management. Without these resources, we risk falling
behind in forest maintenance and inviting even more severe wildfire
seasons in the future. In 2017, Congress provided supplemental
assistance for producers who experienced losses not covered by existing
forms of relief. USDA stands ready to quickly implement assistance,
bolstered by lessons learned, for similar losses in 2018 should
Congress decide once again to act.
The distinguished Members of this Committee represent the size,
scale and reach of American agriculture, and rural America is counting
on your leadership as these issues come before Congress for
consideration. I look forward to continuing to work with President
Trump and the Members of this Committee to address these critical
issues on behalf of those living in rural America.
Conclusion
Over the past 2 years, my team and I have traveled across the
country to hear directly from the people we serve: farmers, ranchers,
consumers, foresters, school children and others touched by the work of
USDA each day. I am proud of the men and women at USDA who strive each
day to improve life in rural America and provide the highest level of
customer service. As we work to implement the 2018 Farm Bill, we will
always keep in mind our motto to ``Do Right and Feed Everyone.''
Thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning. I would be
happy to answer any questions at this time.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. We appreciate that.
And with that, I will recognize myself for a couple of
questions.
I talked to you a month or so ago about this African swine
fever situation in China, and my constituents are still very
concerned about this, they are worried about grandmothers
bringing meat in from China. Has there been any significant
upgrade at the airports with these flights that are coming in
from mainland China to make sure that we don't have this
potential swine fever coming in?
As far as I understand it, it has decimated the hog
industry in China, and if this gets in the United States, it is
going to put us out of business. Are we on the ball here?
Secretary Perdue. Well, I think we are, but there is no
doubt with these kinds of transmissible diseases and the
mobility of society today, there is no way to guarantee that,
Mr. Chairman. APHIS, our Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service, is on the job at borders, working hand-in-glove with
our Customs and Border Protection, using, obviously, dogs,
rescue beagles in order to sniff out incoming travelers,
internationally, particularly in those areas that we fear.
But the pest transmission, both of animal and plant, is a
real concern always. We are ever vigilant about that. We feel
that we have a good protocol in place. We are working both with
our primary threats, although there is no evidence of African
swine fever in Canada or Mexico, you know that we both enjoy
very long borders and fairly porous borders with each, and that
is a concern. We work with those countries. We are going to
Ottawa in the end of May to, again, collaborate on our
protocols, making sure that we are all aware and doing the same
thing. Awareness is the first key, but inspection and checking
is second. I think we are doing that.
Something like this, there is just no way to guarantee, but
I believe we are doing everything possible at this time to be
as preventive as possible for a very devastating disease. It is
the mobility of our swine population in the United States, as
you well know, from your area. Many of these pigs are born
elsewhere and they transfer to be fed out in other parts of the
country, and there are a lot of pigs on the road at any given
time, which makes it very difficult. Unlike maybe a
regionalization or a concept in poultry where you can more
identify and encapsulate, the mobility of our pig population
makes that more difficult. But I believe we are doing
everything we can.
The Chairman. Well, thank you. I am glad to hear that, and
whatever we can do to help, we are here.
You were last weekend, I guess, at Pheasant Fest in
Illinois, am I right?
Secretary Perdue. I was, in Chicago last Saturday.
The Chairman. I guess you indicated that you are going to
hope to reopen the CRP signup by the end of the summer. Is that
just the continuous, or does that include a general sign-up?
Secretary Perdue. We will begin with the continuous. If I
can refer to notes, I have some notes about when we expect
those deadlines of those to begin. The answer to the question
as you well know, and these regulations on top of all the
things we do, are based on how we have wrapped ourselves in a
lot of checks and balances in this world. It is very difficult
and onerous, many times, to get through.
We expect all the CRP pieces on the general sign-up to be
around December the 1st. We will probably be available sooner
than that and continuous in that way. I know that is an
interest of yours, and the things you have done with the whole
field and Senator Thune's contribution over the short-term
prospects make a real purpose of CRP from producing on the
healthy lands and keeping these fragile lands for passive
fallow with the wildlife growth in others will be helpful.
The Chairman. Well, we hope so, and we will have to see how
this plays out.
But, I have been concerned that all of the focus has been
on continuous, and there has been no focus on general sign-up,
which is a big mistake.
Secretary Perdue. Sure.
The Chairman. And especially for wildlife. Big field CRP is
what made wildlife come back and the reason we are losing it is
because we are losing those big tract CRP, in my opinion, in my
part of the world, but anyway.
Secretary Perdue. Right.
The Chairman. I am over my time, but just your
implementation of dairy, as I understand it, you are hoping to
get that done by June? Is that correct?
Secretary Perdue. We are. I just had that in front of me
here, and I think I covered it up. Let me give you the dates on
our Dairy Margin Coverage.
We think that we will have sign-up beginning June 17, if
that is specific enough. We make these predictions. We are not
totally in control, as you know. It goes through OMB process,
whether it is significant or not significant, but these are
what we think we can achieve. The interesting thing on the net
refund provision that you all had on prior premiums, we think
we can get that out in early April, middle of April, and the
end of April on the net refund begins there. We think the
calculator for farmers to calculate will be ready in the middle
of April, and we think on July the 8th--we think that they can
begin receiving the retroactive payments up to then.
One of the challenges we have had on calculating it, and
the effort in the 2014 Farm Bill, in order to get people served
quickly, they used paper recording there on many of the
components. It is not electronic. It is much more laborious to
go back on the first 2 years and calculate who got payments,
who didn't, and whether the farms have been converted, they are
still in business. There is really a lot of manual
administrative work that has to be done on those first 2 years.
We could achieve even faster results if we didn't have that
provision.
The Chairman. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr.
Secretary.
I recognize the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. Conaway. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, many of your predecessors have shied away
from reorganizing the Department. You seem to have taken this
head on. You have taken a lot of heat on some of the decisions
you have made, but most of them seem pretty rational to me.
One of those was to create FPAC and the FPAC business
center. Would you please provide an update on the business
center, plans to modernize the IT infrastructure, and how far
along you are with the process, and are those efforts improving
program delivery and customer service at FSA, RMA, and NRCS?
Secretary Perdue. Thank you, sir. Again, while many people
maybe misunderstood our motives initially on that, we began
with the premise that if we are going to be customer focused,
we need to not have customers going here and yon or reporting
to different lines of reporting there. And having NRCS in with
the Forest Service, we felt, made more sense to have it align
with our FSA offices and created FPAC, the Farm Production and
Conservation mission area, with a single Secretary, Bill
Northey of Iowa, who was the Secretary of Agriculture in Iowa,
an authentic farmer himself, and I have been very pleased with
the assimilation. After the early move your cheese kind of
problems, I have been very, very pleased with anecdotal results
that we hear from internal and external customers. Both our
NRCS and FSA, and as well as our customers have given good
accolades to that.
One specific example, during the shutdown, as you recall,
NRCS was funded through mandatory programs, and they were in
the FSA offices co-located in many places, and were helping
answer farmer questions there, even though they couldn't do the
FSA work. They worked together and helped them catch up that
way. It is really a joint effort. The primary focus is serving
that customer across the counter, whether it be from farm
plans, conservation issues, or signing up for programs or loans
for the FSA office. By all accounts, that combination has been
a success.
Mr. Conaway. The backbone IT infrastructure, all the
resources needed to be able to combine those, that one-stop
sign-up, you have the resources to make that happen?
Secretary Perdue. We are making progress. You know that IT
doesn't move as fast as many of us would like, but we are
making progress on that. Our goal initially was to have one
application. Between RMA or the risk management or crop
insurance, we have different criteria and different blocks
there. NRCS has different blocks than FSA.
What we are trying to do, from an IT perspective, or have
some commonality there where people could look from a crop
insurance, an NRCS to an FSA application and have some of the
common things filled out there where farmers would not be asked
to go fill out all three. They use different units. Sometimes
one uses acres, one uses bushels, and it is a lot of things to
work together, but the business center and the IT is making
progress on that, and hopefully we will have that soon. I would
say soon would probably be early 2020.
Mr. Conaway. Thank you for that.
In the time remaining, would you give us your thoughts on
USMCA? Where the wins are for production agriculture, and just
your perspective on that trade deal?
Secretary Perdue. Well, certainly. It is a very, very
important trade agreement, and like any negotiated agreement,
you don't get everything any side wants, all they want in that
regard. If you remember when we began this process, there was
sort of a big sucking sound from all of agriculture in the U.S.
that said, ``Oh no, don't withdraw.'' NAFTA has been relatively
good for agriculture. And I think we would agree with that.
The fact is, there were some things that had been left out
of the original NAFTA. President Trump had committed to a
better deal, and if one is honest and objective in looking at
the USMCA agreement, basically in every sector, in every
section, in every chapter, you will find an improved agreement
from labor to ag, to phytosanitary provisions to intellectual
property to electronic trading, certainly to rules of origin
that will bring more jobs back to the U.S. But for agriculture,
it is improved.
Certainly, there are people in some parts of the country,
both in the southernmost part and Florida and Georgia and
vegetable producers were not able to get the seasonal and
perishable vegetable provisions they wanted. I can tell you
that Ambassador Lighthizer hung tough and promulgated those
until the very end, and at trading day, that fell off. But by
and large, they continue to work on side agreements whereby
they can still have their day in court regarding a dumping
countervailing duty type of situation on those products.
But, all in all, the USMCA agreement is improved, and I
hope that we can all look at the objectivity of it and
understand this is in the best interest of the United States of
America's economy, and vote for its ratification.
If you would like me to continue on the section 232
tariffs, I can do that, or I can answer that later.
Mr. Conaway. There will be other Members that want to talk
about USMCA, but Mr. Secretary, thank you for your solid
service to rural America, and you are making a great Secretary.
Thank you. I yield back.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Scott.
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, first, I want to thank you. I want to thank
you for the great work and partnership that you provided in
helping us get the $80 million for the African American 1890s
land-grant colleges and universities. The $80 million in the
farm bill. Thank you so much. I can't tell you how appreciative
we all are.
And while I am at it, please say hello to my good friend,
your cousin, Senator David Perdue, who provided the sterling
leadership in the Senate. What an extraordinary, bipartisan
program we have started together. Thank you for that. I deeply
appreciate it.
Now, Mr. Secretary, I am very disturbed. I am very
frustrated with the treatment or lack of treatment of our
farmers with these natural disasters.
According to the University of Georgia, Georgia suffered
$2.8 billion in losses. On top of that, Mr. Secretary, we have
to do something. This is terrible. Agriculture is the single-
most important industry we have. It is the very foundation of
this country. Still is. You recognize that. You have traveled
to all 50 states, and you know as I do that in 44 of those
states, it is agriculture and agriculture businesses that is
the largest share of these states' economies. It is the food we
eat, the water we drink, clothes we wear, our shelter. Who can
be any more important to us than that?
But right now, Mr. Secretary, we have to sound the alarm
bigger. If we don't get some payments down to our Georgia
farmers by April, we lose the planting season. That means 2
years that we are losing the planting season, just coming from
one natural disaster, Hurricane Michael. And in the last 3
years, we have had three different back-to-back. In 2016, we
had Hurricane Matthew; 2017, we had Hurricane Irma; 2018, we
had Hurricane Michael, and some of our Georgia farmers haven't
had a crop since 2015. If that ain't enough to get us moving
here, Mr. Secretary, I know you share the angst, the
frustration that many of us do. Austin Scott, Rick Allen, and
myself, we have been up here beating the drum left and right.
But this stuff has to stop. We have farmers hanging on by
their fingernails. The suicide rate among farmers is alarming,
up in our dairy farmers particularly, but all over.
Please tell us, what is it we have to do from your
standpoint to get the respect and the dignity that our farmers
deserve, and help them?
Secretary Perdue. My friend, Congressman Scott, I would
probably be better off just saying Amen and stop, but it is
heartwarming to see you and your colleagues, Mr. Scott and Mr.
Allen, on the same team there, advocating for those disasters.
And you all live it. You know it. You have constituents
there. I thought Congress did a wonderful job in the 2017 bill.
We did, I thought, an extraordinary job in administering the
WHIP Program there. You have no difference, and it is really a
sad state of affairs that we have not cared for the 2018
victims as we did earlier. I believe there is still time to do
that. You said April. We need it sooner rather than later. I
hope we can do it even before April.
I know that the Senate has dropped a bill that does take
care of that. We were, frankly, disappointed because it had
been in most versions of the appropriations bill prior until
the last times, and hopefully, we can see that restored. It is
the right thing to do, and frankly, it is the necessary thing
to do, as you said, in your part and from your observation. I
appreciate your passion about that. I certainly appreciate your
passion about the scholarship money that was done. I feel a
little bit like Davy Crockett's son, me and daddy killed the
bear. You killed the bear and I was there and watched. We
appreciate your passion in that.
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Thank you.
Secretary Perdue. I am happy that we agreed very early on
that these are students that we want to cultivate and
incorporate into the future of agriculture and USDA, and we are
making good progress there. I have been to many of the 1890s
schools, and they have some great programs. I have been down
with your colleague, Mr. Lawson, at his alma mater, and your
alma mater, I believe, and they are doing good work.
We look forward to utilizing the extra money. I am glad to
see you are presuming about that other $40 million from the
appropriators, and our $40 million. We will see how that works
out. But nonetheless, we are going to do a good job with that.
I want to echo your comments to your colleagues, primarily,
and I know the message is to all of us. This disaster must be
done. It must be done soon, or there will be some real harm
going on. Thank you.
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Absolutely. Thank you, Mr.
Secretary.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from
Georgia, Mr. Scott.
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Well, guess what I want to
talk about.
Secretary Perdue, always good to see you. You mentioned the
USMCA, the seasonal issues with the dumping. Obviously, for the
farmers that I represent, the number one concern is that there
are no provisions in the current draft that would keep Mexico
from dumping at a subsidized price into our markets at harvest
time, and so that is something I look forward to having further
discussions about. I have talked with Secretary Lighthizer
about it as well, and I appreciate the fact that you brought
that up without even having to be asked about it, that you
recognize that that is a concern for our growers.
But, the number one issue right now--and quite honestly, I
get more phone calls from bankers than I am getting from
farmers these days about disaster relief. I know that you were
there with the President, it was October the 15th, and the Vice
President on October the 16th when Vice President Pence, who I
very much like and respect, made the statement: ``We will be
with you until we succeed,'' I believe was what he said.
Certainly, there was a sense of relief that came across the Ag
Expo in Crawford County when those statements came from Vice
President Pence.
I know a Senate bill has been introduced. I know Senator
Perdue, I saw him on Monday and Senator Isakson have both
indicated they are doing everything they can to push that bill
as soon as possible.
Before I go any further, I want to thank Jim McGovern, the
Chairman of the Rules Committee, and Sanford Bishop for their
work in helping us plus up the amount available to agriculture
to a number that is much more reasonable with regard to what
the total losses are.
But I am at a loss for what to tell my people. When I get
off of I-75 and I go home, I drive past these fields. I drive
past these farmers' homes. I know these people. We go to church
with them. I have been telling them since October, help is
coming. And I honestly don't know what to tell them anymore. It
feels like a broken promise back home to the people when we
just keep saying help is coming.
Secretary Perdue. I think that is certainly understandable.
I believe, based on what we were all led to believe, that this
money was in that appropriation bill and was removed in the
crisis of whatever. I don't know that it does any good to even
try to do the forensics on a blame game from a diagnosis. We
have to go forward and use the structure that is before us
right now to cure this as quickly as possible so we don't have
to answer those questions very long. We have both gotten them,
and they are reasonable. Not only, as you said, were producers,
it was as much their financiers asking that of whether they are
going to be able to pay out loans for people that had great
crops.
We know that we have a good safety net in the farm bill,
but things like pecan trees and timber and those kind of
things, even losing the bumper crop in cotton that was blown
away and the safety net there doesn't replace the profit that
was needed to repay loans and go forward again the next year.
We just need to go forward expeditiously, as quickly as
this Congress can move, to rectify what was a significant
leave-out of the previous appropriation there. I do believe
that your colleague in the state and the Chairman of the
Appropriations on Ag, Mr. Bishop, is very interested in that.
You know that he has many of these producers in his district
that got hardest hit, and we do appreciate Mr. McGovern and
others plussing that up. If you look back at how we expended
the WHIP Program for 2017, you will find that we did it very
judiciously and frankly, there have been very little complaints
that I am aware of since that time as well. We expedited that
and, I think, made you all proud of putting the money out
there, and we got it in the hands of the people that needed it
most.
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. And I think that the previous
WHIP is proof that the checks and balances are there with that
system so that we provide the relief that is necessary, but
that we are not making somebody more than whole prior to the
storm.
I appreciate your support of the farmers. I know you feel
the pain as I do when you go home. You live in the 8th
district, and just any help with getting this thing expedited
would be appreciated. Thank you.
Secretary Perdue. The good news, Mr. Scott, is that having
had the experience last year of designing that program, we are
way ahead of the curve. It won't take us nearly as long to
implement and get money into those hands as it did last year.
Even though that was quick, it will be a very similar type of
program. Trees and those kinds of things have not been a
typical issue of the farm bill before, or part of USDA, but we
think after the citrus experience last year, we have a better
idea of how to do that.
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Thank you.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman, and as I said in my
opening statement, I will do anything I can do to--I don't know
how much anybody will pay attention to me--but whatever good it
will do, we are there to help you.
The gentleman from California, Mr. Costa.
Mr. Costa. Mr. Chairman, I always pay attention to you. And
for the Ranking Member, this is an important hearing for our
House Agriculture Committee to get a report early in the year
by our Secretary of Agriculture to discuss the status of the
challenges that American agriculture is facing, and they are
many. And we know the farm economy is suffering, not only
across the country, but in California as well.
As the new Subcommittee Chairman of Livestock and Foreign
Agriculture, in speaking with the Chairman of our Committee and
Members of the Subcommittee, we intend to hold a hearing early
on as it relates to the challenges facing U.S. dairy industry
and the changes in the program that you cited earlier in your
comments. And the timeline that you laid out to us, Mr.
Secretary, will be probably good as it relates to better
understanding how we attempt to address the economic
challenges, the loss of liquidity that is affecting dairy, not
only in California, but around the country. We look forward to
coordinating with you on that timeline and on that very
important Subcommittee hearing, probably in April, I would
guess.
Let me also cite to you, before I get to my question, Mr.
Secretary, that on February 1, a significant portion of the
California Congressional delegation sent you a letter about the
impacts of the devastating forest fires that have impacted not
only California, but the entire West. The United States Forest
Service obviously has the responsibility, the jurisdiction of
coordinating with individual states, and the question that we
cited in the letter that we sent to you about a month ago was
trying to determine the impacts of the 35 days of the
government shutdown, the closure, as it relates to contracts
that had been noted for hiring, training for new firefighting
personnel and other mitigation efforts that were put on hold
for 35 days. We have not yet received a response, Mr.
Secretary, and I can speak for the California delegation. We
would like to find out where we are on that, because obviously,
after the winter, we will have another fire season that we will
have to contend with, and we hope for the best.
If you can get back to us, give us an idea when you can get
some answers to us on the questions that we asked.
Secretary Perdue. Absolutely, and I am embarrassed that we
have not responded already. We have set new accountability
terms in our office over the timeliness of responses. As you
finish, I will do my best to give you a verbal answer.
Mr. Costa. All right. Very good.
Let me ask you my question. It is on trade, part of the
jurisdiction of the Subcommittee.
Last week, Canadian Ambassador David MacNaughton to the
United States and White House Economic Advisor Larry Kudlow
predicted that the Administration could remove Section 232
tariffs on steel and aluminum in a matter of weeks.
Mr. Secretary, I don't need to tell you that the
retaliation of U.S. agriculture as a result of these tariffs
have been incredibly difficult to our producers. Dairy
producers, processors depend on exporting their cheese to
Mexico. I have a significant processor that you met when you
came to California last year. Twenty percent of his product
goes to Mexico. We have products that are in decline in China
and India, exports to Canada, the list goes on. Forty-four
percent of California agriculture depends upon foreign trade.
The President admitted last week that his strategy to get
the USMCA approved was to threaten the use, or increase of,
section 232 tariffs on Canada and Mexico. That has also
impacted our European allies. He also threatened to withdraw
from NAFTA before USMCA is brought to a vote.
I think that strategy is a mistake. I was in Mexico in
December for the inauguration. They simply said, ``Look, we are
willing to reduce our tariffs, but we want you to pass USMCA,''
and that is our only leverage.
My question to you is whether pursuing new markets and
trade deals, which we need to do with Japan, and we need to
resolve with China where are we with regards to USMCA and these
section 232 tariffs. Can you confirm that Ambassador
MacNaughton and Larry Kudlow have hinted on that the
Administration will finally remove these misguided section 232
tariffs in the next few weeks?
Secretary Perdue. I can confirm that we have had
discussions at my level with my contemporaries, both Minister
MacAulay in Canada and Secretary De Lobos in Mexico regarding
the interest of all three countries to ratify USMCA, which we
all believe would need to have the section 232 tariffs resolved
as well.
Mr. Costa. I mean, that is their only leverage, obviously.
They want it to pass. We want it to pass, but we need to get
going.
Secretary Perdue. Certainly, again, the removal of the
tariffs is in the interest of all and we are advocating to the
Administration to do that. Certainly, the President has
responsibility for the whole economy. He began the section 232
investigation, demonstrated a weakness in our steel and
aluminum sector, and the potential for losing----
Mr. Costa. But the 80 percent target date on aluminum, that
has been met.
Secretary Perdue. Yes, sir, and what we are moving towards
is a resolution over the tariffs possibly to be replaced by
reasonable quotas with which Canada and Mexico can live, and
have the retaliatory tariffs removed.
Mr. Costa. We look forward to continuing to work with you,
and my time has expired, but this is a critical issue,
obviously for American agriculture, as you know.
Secretary Perdue. Let me respond on the Forest Service
regarding your letter and your question.
Overall, the hiring program, while we were concerned about
that, preparing for the 2019 Fire Service, our Under Secretary
and Chief tell me that they have regained the momentum that
way. We don't think there will be any permanent harm.
I do want to mention, however, I failed to mention earlier
regarding the disaster provision. In the appropriations bill
that was passed, the backfill of money that we used to fight
and suppress forest fires this past year was not refilled. That
has been typically done. Over $720 million that we took from
operations to help prevent forest fires and suppressing forest
fires, that is money that we need to fill that back so we can
continue to do the things you have authorized us to do.
Mr. Costa. Duly noted. We will work with our friends with
the Appropriations Committee.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
The gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Crawford.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, I appreciate you being here today. I think
my colleagues have been drinking muddy water, because I can't
see through them, but anyway.
Secretary Perdue. It is the Red River Valley up there.
Mr. Crawford. Exactly. It took them a second to figure out
what I was talking about there.
I want to commend you on the regulatory reform that you are
undertaking. We worked on a deal in the farm bill the last time
around that removed the SAM and DUNS requirements, and I know
that you are working on that. Thank you for that. That is going
to go a long way.
I wanted to ask if there was specifically any other
regulatory initiatives that you are undertaking right now that
also might provide some relief to farmers?
Secretary Perdue. Well, working on, I believe we have that
SAM DUNS issue that was very troubling, we have it done, and
the good news is farmers don't have to do that any longer. That
was an unnecessary provision.
Again, in the overall management of being the most
effective and efficient, whether regulations or policy or just
management tactics, we are ongoing, working on things that will
make us better customer servants there of the people that
depend on us to implement the farm bill in that way.
Obviously, many of the things that you talk about from a
regulatory standpoint have to do with implementation of the
farm bill. We are trying to make it as user-friendly as
possible. Again, labor is a great issue there, over the H-2A
Program. We are working with the Department of Labor to
eliminate the very onerous provisions of having to advertise in
several counties and regions in order to qualify to get H-2A
provisions. We are creating at USDA sort of a Turbo Tax type
model portal where the farmer can come there, fill out all the
information. We send that then to Labor, DHS and Secretary of
State, State Department, as the primary statutory provisions on
H-2A to help do that. We think that will be a big help. There
still need to be statutory changes made in the labor force, but
that is one area that we are trying to work on as well that
will enable people to get the labor they need on their high-
touch crops.
Mr. Crawford. Some of my colleagues have mentioned USMCA,
and you have addressed that as well, but just give me your gut
assessment of what happens if we don't close the deal on USMCA.
Secretary Perdue. I don't like to think about that.
Mr. Crawford. I don't either.
Secretary Perdue. It would be devastating, and I hope all
434 of your colleagues understand the threat it would be to the
U.S. economy, especially the ag economy, if we don't ratify
that. I hope that, frankly, everyone here, I believe, is well-
intended and will put partisan politics aside to vote for the
benefit of the country and ratify the USMCA.
Mr. Crawford. Let me just ask you, finally, and you don't
have enough time to answer this completely, but just give me
your assessment of the Green New Deal. There are some estimates
out there that it is going to cost a ton of money, money that
we don't have. Certainly, what we know is that farmers are
active environmentalists, as opposed to environmental
activists, and so we can count on farmers to do the right thing
with regard to protecting the environment.
But give me your assessment on the Green New Deal as it
proposed, and what the impact might be on agriculture in
general.
Secretary Perdue. You are right, I don't have time to
answer that. But aside from giving our cattle Pepto-Bismol, I
am not sure what we can do.
Mr. Crawford. Well, I won't ask you anything further, Mr.
Secretary, but I do want to commend you again for doing a
fantastic job. It is very satisfying to see the right person in
the right job at the right time, and you are certainly that
person. Thanks so much for all you do.
Secretary Perdue. Thank you.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
The gentlelady from Ohio, Ms. Fudge.
Ms. Fudge. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
so much, Mr. Secretary, for your testimony.
Mr. Secretary, under your leadership, USDA has implemented
a series of what I really believe are kind of half-baked
proposals to reorganize the Department and introduce harmful
regulations that we have had to come behind you and correct.
In May of 2017, you eliminated the position of Under
Secretary for Rural Development. Congress restored it
permanently in the farm bill. In August of 2018, you proposed
the relocation of ERS and NIFA, as well as decided to put ERS
under the direction of the Chief Economist. Just in our most
recent appropriations bill, the language delays this because we
want to be sure that you are doing this in a way that makes
some sense. We have requested that you provide cost estimates
and a detail analysis to show us this plan before it can
proceed. This past December, you issued a proposed rule on
ABAWDs, and it is my understanding that you are getting ready
to develop another rule to limit categorical eligibility.
Congress debated these proposals just last year during the
farm bill. They were rejected. You call it a missed
opportunity. We call it intentional rejection.
It is important to me to try to understand what your
disdain is for poor people or people who have fallen on hard
times or people who are just living on the edge, because what
you are doing in these proposals is hurting those very people.
Further, you have tried to circumvent other rules, and this
one in particular really, really bothers me. There is a woman,
her name is Naomi Churchill Earp who has been nominated for the
position of Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights. This is a
person who couldn't even get confirmed to be an EEOC
commissioner. This is a person that the entire civil rights
community has said is not good for civil rights, and so, I am
not sure if you really are interested in civil rights, or if
you just want the person because you want them for some other
reason. But I am concerned that now you have made her a deputy
to go around the process of confirmation.
It is just difficult for me to figure out where you are
going, and if, in fact, you really do care about under-served
communities, about people who have had problems with the
Department, or those who have difficulty finding a job.
My first question to you, Mr. Secretary, is with your new
ABAWD rule, can you please tell me what percentage of ABAWDs
are veterans, are homeless, have mental or physical
limitations, lack access to public transportation, or need
language interpretation? That would help me determine how many
people you are really talking about.
Secretary Perdue. Ms. Fudge, I don't have those statistics
in front of me today. I can get them for you, but I would
respectfully disagree with many of your conclusions.
If I can begin with the Secretary of Rural Development, as
you mentioned, we still don't have a confirmed Secretary and
two other important issues, along with Ms. Naomi Earp, in civil
rights. There are three of those out there that are all three
very qualified people. We wanted to get started very quickly on
rural development. The farm bill before had created an Under
Secretary for Trade that had not been filled because there was
not money appropriated for that. We moved that to an Under
Secretary for Trade because we thought trade was one of the
most important ones, and asked Anne Hazlett to come from the
Senate committee----
Ms. Fudge. Reclaiming my time. You thought that, but the
Congress who makes these decisions didn't think that.
Secretary Perdue. Well, that was totally under the purview
of the USDA to do that, ma'am.
Ms. Fudge. Well, we put it back in the farm bill, so it
couldn't have been entirely under your purview.
Secretary Perdue. And we are delighted to have that. I look
forward to having a confirmed Under Secretary for Rural
Development. I welcome that. There was no provision to do that
prior to that. You had seven and we needed eight.
Ms. Fudge. That sounds like a problem in your Department,
sir. I mean, Congress determined what we wanted to see, and
that is what we expect to see.
Secretary Perdue. And I am happy to have the eighth, and I
appreciate that, and we will certainly comply with that. We
have already had----
Ms. Fudge. Reclaiming my time. You say you comply with it,
but you turn around and try to promulgate a rule that is in
direct conflict to something we just put in the bill last year.
Secretary Perdue. I do classify it as a missed opportunity,
and I want to, since you brought that up, I would like to give
you a couple of quotes from former Democratic Presidents. When
this bill was signed, for instance, President Clinton said: ``I
have made my principles real well for a reform very clear from
the beginning. First and foremost, it should be about moving
people from welfare to work. It should impose time limits on
welfare. It should give people all they need in order to go to
work. This legislation meets these principles. It gives us a
chance we haven't had before to break the cycle of dependency
that has existed for millions and millions of our fellow
citizens, exiling them from the world of work. It gives
structure, meaning, and dignity''----
Ms. Fudge. My time is up, Mr. Secretary, but let me just
suggest to you. President Clinton he was in office 20+ years
ago. Second, the economy has changed; and third, and more
importantly, you can't even tell me who this affects.
I yield back my time, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Perdue. I would like to quote from another
President who was in office long before that, President
Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who said; ``The lessons of history
show conclusively that continued dependency upon relief induces
a spiritual and moral disintegration that is fundamentally
destructive to the national fiber.''
The Chairman. I thank the gentlelady.
The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. DesJarlais.
Mr. DesJarlais. I thank the Chairman.
Secretary Perdue, we are very grateful to have you here
today. So many of my friends back in Tennessee at the Tennessee
Farm Bureau, Tennessee cattlemen and poultry industries, Cotton
Council, et cetera, have been so pleased with the attentiveness
you have shown to Tennessee, making many trips there, and they
are very, very grateful for your service. We thank you for
that.
One concern we have in our district, and I am sure many
others here, is the rural areas have continued to struggle with
insufficient Internet connectivity and broadband service. Can
you talk about the changes made in the new farm bill to improve
rural broadband, as well as the USDA's plan to implement those
changes and help bridge the digital divide?
Secretary Perdue. I appreciate this question very much. It
has the potential to be one of the most transformative things
we can do for rural America to bridge the urban rural divide
with connectivity and data access, certainly in telemedicine,
distance learning, rural economics of entrepreneurship, as well
as precision agriculture. We need a moonshot of broadband
connectivity all over this country, not just in Tennessee, but
in every rural hamlet, field around this nation. And the sooner
we get there, the better off the economy of the country will
be.
We have taken the $600 million that you all appropriated
last year and developed a very good program based on those
unserved areas, not duplication for applications. People are
busy doing their applications. We have given them information
and we hope to receive those applications very soon to deploy
these and demonstrate to you all that USDA can get the job done
regarding rural broadband connectivity.
Mr. DesJarlais. What does really soon mean? Can you give us
a timeframe?
Secretary Perdue. Yes, the applications should be accepted
around May 1.
Mr. DesJarlais. Excellent.
I want to turn it over to rural lending for a minute. You
are aware credit availability is crucial to farmers, ranchers,
and forest owners. There has been some concern in my district
regarding USDA's lending branch of the Farm Service Agency.
What is the USDA doing to ensure FSA offices are staffed and
ready to meet the needs of the vulnerable producers?
Secretary Perdue. Well, obviously labor and workforce
continues to be at the forefront. We can't get things done
without appropriate people to do that. We continue to work. We
have authorized a hiring plan, and you probably are aware that
it is not the most easy place to onboard workers into, the
Federal Government, but we are aggressively pursuing on a
needs-based area. We have tried to put not a cookie cutter
approach, but look at the workload in every FSA office to make
sure they have the people to meet the needs. But that is a
continuing challenge.
Mr. DesJarlais. Well, speaking of labor and workforce, that
is one comment I hear from constituents and employers in my
district time and time again. They are very thankful for this
booming and robust economy, but very frustrated about the
insufficiencies in the workforce. Can you discuss USDA's
proposed rule that would adjust requirements for able-bodied
adults without dependents on SNAP, and how this would foster
self-sufficiency and bolster our workforce?
Secretary Perdue. Well as part of our previous
conversation, we think, again, we believe the purpose of our
welfare system should help people to become independent, rather
than permanent dependency. We believe it does this with 6\1/2\
million people unemployed and over seven million jobs out
there. We think, again, from the 20 hours a week of training or
volunteer even, or working, if people have a job that they
still qualify for SNAP, they will still be eligible to get food
assistance in that way.
We think we are helping people to, again, move into the
dignity of work and the respect of providing for their
families.
Mr. DesJarlais. It amazed me that that was taken out of the
farm bill when across the country, over 80 percent of people
agree with this concept, whether you are Democratic,
Independent, Republican, you can go ask your constituents,
people believe that able-bodied people who can work, should
work. Do you have any idea why there might be so much pushback
and concern on this measure, and can you clarify to help
alleviate that issue?
Secretary Perdue. I have no clue.
Mr. DesJarlais. Well, me either. Thank you for your time.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
The gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. McGovern.
Mr. McGovern. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, Mr.
Secretary.
I was here, the first time you testified before this
Committee, back in May of 2017. And as you know, I care very
much about the issue of food insecurity and hunger, and I asked
you a question back then. I said I am looking for some
assurances that you are a strong defender of the program,
meaning SNAP, that you are not advocating structural changes or
trying to put more hurdles in place to make it more difficult
for people to get food, because it is a concern a lot of people
in this country have. I would be interested in hearing your
views on what you plan for SNAP. And I thought your answer was
brilliant. You began with Mr. McGovern, I agree with you.
Secretary Perdue. And I still do.
Mr. McGovern. And then you went on to talk about how you
support the program, and you ended with but as far as I am
concerned, we have no proposed changes. You don't try to fix
things that aren't broken. And when the motto is: ``Do right
and feed everyone,'' I view that as very inclusive. And I was
comforted by that, but like my colleague, Ms. Fudge, I am
concerned about some of the actions by the Department,
especially in the aftermath of the farm bill which rejected
some of the issues that have been raised here by my colleague
from Tennessee, and that is with regard to able-bodied adults
without dependents.
Just by the way, if the gentleman was still here, I would
tell him that the concern that many of us have is that this is
a very complex population. This is just not a bunch of people
hanging around doing nothing trying to take advantage of
government programs. This population includes returning
veterans who are having a difficult time reintegrating into our
society. It includes young people who have recently aged out of
foster care. It includes people recovering from opioids, and
individuals who are subjected to mass incarceration.
And I also want to say to the gentleman who left, and Mr.
Secretary, to you, you mentioned that we don't want to
encourage a life of dependency on these programs. That is not
the reality. The average person on SNAP is on the benefit for
less than a year. And that is according to your own statistics
in your Department. I am concerned about the proposals that you
are putting forward, and your language in the proposed rule
continues to stigmatize people on SNAP, and it blocks states
from using their own discretion and waiving work requirements.
Different states have different needs, and as we all know, this
would especially create a crisis in rural areas. Able-bodied
adults without dependents, as I said, are a complex, already
vulnerable demographic that will be further immobilized if you
take their food away.
My question to you is was there any specific research FNS
used to justify this rule change?
Secretary Perdue. I appreciate your passion for this
constituency, and I stand by my answer when you referred to my
question last year, and I still think that we agree on many of
those things. I do believe that what I said earlier regarding
dependency, as I agree with President Roosevelt. I think it
leads to a decline in personal dignity.
We are talking about able-bodied adults without dependents.
Mr. McGovern. Correct.
Secretary Perdue. Some of them have issues. I think what
you all have done masterfully in criminal justice reform,
destigmatizes that part of the population. We are talking about
not just getting a job, but getting prepared to go to work,
which enables them.
I was a former governor. My job as a governor was to draw
down as much Federal dollars as I could, because I didn't have
any skin in the game.
Mr. McGovern. Right.
Secretary Perdue. And that is what we see across the
country with these waivers, which I know that they were abused
in Georgia. I believe they are being abused in many places.
Mr. McGovern. Well, I mean, I have talked to a lot of
governors who would take issue with you on that. But, as I
said, a lot of people who will be affected by this change are
veterans, children who have recently aged out of foster care,
people recovering from opioids, and individuals who were
subjected to mass incarceration. I am just trying to understand
the basis for the change. Does USDA have data on the
demographics within the ABAWD classification?
Secretary Perdue. We will be happy to provide you what we
have.
Mr. McGovern. I would request on the record that you share
this data with the Committee because it would be helpful. Is
there specific research in FNS to justify the rule change, or
can you point me to specific research that proves that taking
someone's SNAP benefits away will help them get a job?
Secretary Perdue. Sure. Mr. McGovern, we are simply trying
to preserve the integrity of the law as it was passed by
Republicans and Democrats in 1996, which indicated there is a
time period when a loss of a job or a health issue would give
people an opportunity to have these benefits for 120 days.
Mr. McGovern. No, and I understand that, and because the
population we are talking about is complicated, and there are
hurdles for many of these people to be able to get into a work
training program or to get a job. I mean, returning veterans
who are having a difficult time reintegrating back into the
community, for example. I am just trying to understand the
benefit of throwing these people off of a food benefit, how
that helps them get a job? I don't understand that. I mean,
this is not a population, contrary to what some have suggested,
who are just lazy who don't want to work. This is a very
complicated population, and I want to know what the research is
and what the data is that the Department is using to basically
justify this rule change. And I would appreciate it if there is
such data, if there is a study, if FNS has done something, to
be able to share that with this Committee.
Because one of the problems, when we talk about SNAP and we
talk about ABAWDs, we tend to generalize. Everything fits into
a nice, neat category. It is a much more complicated
population. It is a vulnerable population, and I am worried
that if we go forward with what you are proposing, a lot of
people are going to be hurt.
And by the way, it goes against what the farm bill, which
was passed in a bipartisan way, advocated for, and we will do
everything we can to protect this population. And if that means
going to court, we will go to court as well.
Secretary Perdue. I appreciate that. We are actively and
aggressively addressing many of the needs of the veterans and
incorporating them into USDA, as well as the agriculture
environment, to help these people. We have education training
programs specific for them as well as some of the other
vulnerable populations that you mentioned.
Mr. McGovern. Again, we would appreciate any research that
you have or any data that could justify what you were doing.
I appreciate it. Thank you.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
The gentlelady from Missouri, Mrs. Hartzler.
Mrs. Hartzler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr.
Secretary, for all that you are doing. I know that you care
about all Americans, no matter their income level. Specifically
regarding the conversation we just had, I just wanted to
clarify that the changes in the proposals that you are putting
forth don't kick people off. They give them an opportunity to
get some training, and then if they participate in a training
program to help them link to the 7.3 million open jobs
available right now, that they can keep their benefits. Isn't
that correct?
Secretary Perdue. Better said than I did.
Mrs. Hartzler. Okay, thank you.
I wanted to move on to the program that was referenced
earlier about relocating the two USDA research agencies, the
National Institute for Food and Agriculture, and the Economic
Research Service. And I just want to let you know that those of
us in Missouri are excited about that opportunity. You have
gotten some letters from us commending you on that. We believe
that we have the personnel and the individuals with the skills
necessary, and we would love to have those located there. Could
you kind of give us an update on your rationale for why you
wanted to move this agency out of D.C., out of the beltway, and
move it closer to the heartland, closer to where the farmers
are?
Secretary Perdue. Surely. You, along with 135 others, would
be happy, with the expressions of interest that we got, and we
are certainly doing a very thorough, objective process. In
fact, we engaged an accounting firm Ernst and Young that is
used to doing these kind of relocation assessments in order to
make sure that we did not involve any kind of political
pressure or biases in any way, evaluating these, and there are
some very interesting offers out there.
Certainly, from a management perspective, having been
governor as well as a businessperson, you go where you can
attract the best labor force, and what we saw from a letter
that Mr. Ramaswamy, who is the former director of NIFA, talked
about the difficulty of living in Washington, D.C., with its
cost of living. We think also it is costly to the Federal
Government here. NIFA had a lease that was up and had the need
to move locations, and that is what began me thinking about the
possibility of both these agencies being relocated closer to
the heartland of where most of their customers are. We plan on
leaving a contingent of leadership in both those agencies, ERS
and NIFA, here to be responsive to Congress and any other
agencies here, interagency type of relationships that we need
to develop from a professional perspective there. But frankly,
most of the recruits that we have in an early Ph.D. program, it
is very difficult to uproot young families and try to give them
a definite quality of life here in the D.C. area in many ways.
I understand it is a change and people don't like change.
We think that there are adequate reasons. We would be happy,
outside these hearings today as we don't have time, I would be
happy to discuss with anyone who has some major questions about
that, our reasoning.
Mrs. Hartzler. Sounds good.
Your tweet on Friday about the commitment from the Chinese
to purchase 10 million metric tons of soybeans was great news.
Can we look forward to purchase commitments on other
commodities like ethanol and DDGs as part of the negotiations?
Secretary Perdue. I sure hope so. I will give you a cute
anecdote that happened in the meeting there. When the Vice
Premier Liu He gave that commitment, the President said,
``Sonny, go out and tell your farmers that we got 10 million
more bushels. That is a big deal, right?'' I said, ``Yes, Mr.
President.'' He said, ``Go and tell them.'' I kept sitting
there. I did not leave, and he said, ``Aren't you going to go
tell them?'' And I said, ``No, I am hoping there will be
more.'' And the Vice Premier looked at me and said, ``There
will be more.''
But we are optimistic. We have to be cautiously optimistic.
These negotiations are never over until they are over with the
Chinese, and we have a lot of details, a lot of, frankly,
hurdles in order to get there. There are some structural
reforms and non-tariff measures that have to be agreed to in
order to reach the kind of lofty purchase potential that is out
there for the Chinese, so we are hopeful. That will be
determined later. We will continue to make progress, but
ultimately, President Xi and President Trump will have to
decide that it is time to restore relationships in a meaningful
and forcible way that reforms the intellectual property
transfer issues that we felt were damaging our national economy
initially.
Mrs. Hartzler. Absolutely. I appreciate all your work and
all your leadership. Thank you.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I thank the gentlelady, and I am pleased to
recognize the gentlelady from North Carolina, who, by the way,
is the Vice Chair of the Agriculture Committee.
Ms. Adams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our
Ranking Member as well for hosting this hearing and Secretary
Perdue, thank you for your testimony and welcome back.
I was proud to work with a bipartisan group of my
colleagues to authorize at least three Centers of Excellence at
1890 land-grant universities in last year's farm bill, and $5
million have been appropriated for these centers in the 2019
appropriations bill. And many of us on the Committee and in
Congress want to ensure that the 1890s get the funding and the
support needed from USDA to establish these Centers of
Excellence and to do the kind of research that is necessary for
them to do.
I am curious about your commitment to work with us to
ensure that the farm bill authorized level of funding of $10
million is included in the President's 2020 budget.
Secretary Perdue. I don't know that I can commit what will
or won't be in the President's budget, but I can commit if it
is there as you all appropriate it, we are going to, obviously,
fulfill your vision for what we do with that in fine fashion.
I want to mention one other thing about that. One of the
better things you all did regarding 1890s and the farm bill was
to stop the rescission of the money that you are giving out
there, them being treated differently than others. That will go
a long way.
Ms. Adams. Well, I want to thank you for that. That was an
amendment that I had, and you supported that. You saw the
inequity there. Certainly, that is what it was, and I
appreciate your support there.
Secretary Perdue. Right.
Ms. Adams. And again, I would just like to have your
support going forward. I know you can't tell the President what
to do, but I certainly hope that you will certainly emphasize
that.
I also want to ask about your decision to appoint Naomi
Earp as the Deputy Assistant Secretary. I understand there are
some issues around her views on civil rights and so forth that
have raised some concerns by the NAACP and other communities,
and you may have responded to that. But if you could just tell
me a little bit more, I would appreciate it.
Secretary Perdue. Yes, I was extremely impressed in looking
at her resume, but more impressed when I met her personally,
quizzed her on her passion and commitment to fulfilling the
laws of the land regarding our responsibility at USDA to
fulfill the civil rights components in all aspects there. I was
assured that she was prepared to do that, and certainly looking
at her, she is professionally qualified, having led efforts at
EEOC and others in that realm. I found her to be eminently
qualified, and I look forward to her confirmation.
Ms. Adams. Well, okay. I won't go any further with that,
but just to say that there are lots of concerns in the
community about not only things that she said, but the way she
has conducted herself as it relates to civil rights.
Our Committee appreciates the work of the Food and
Nutrition Service. I just wanted to add my support for SNAP,
and my colleagues who have raised that issue when we talk about
able-bodied folk and people needing to work, that there are
many circumstances that create problems for them. We have a
skills gap. Yes, there are lots of jobs, but in terms of
whether or not people have those skills to do those jobs, that
has to be considered as well. And also, in terms of the
children who will be impacted. If you take from the parents and
those who are responsible for those children, the children
suffer at home and at school.
I wanted to just raise that and say that childcare and many
other things come into play, and sometimes if your bellies are
not hungry, you have not suffered that pain. We don't
understand the pain of other folk.
But anyway, I am running out of time, but I will submit any
other questions I may have to you in writing.
Thank you very much, and Mr. Chairman, I am going to yield
back.
The Chairman. I thank the gentlelady. The gentleman from
California, Mr. LaMalfa.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, we appreciate your appearance here today.
Thank you for your time with us here, and also for your
diligence in what we have dealt with in northern California
with the fire season, with the fire in Redding, California,
which we thought was devastating, and then after that, the camp
fire in Paradise, California, on top of that. The diligence of
your office and our other partners in Interior and Homeland
Security has been pretty amazing and appreciated.
As we know, 650,000 acres burned just in my 1st district of
California this year, 93 lives have been lost in the two fires
combined. That points out that we need to dramatically change
how we manage forests in California and the western states and
across the country.
Just in California, we have 130 million dead trees and
counting across our 9 million acres in the state of forested
lands. And we need to do treatment on them. We have to do the
kind of treatment that will help us to mitigate wildfire risk.
You don't eliminate wildfire risk because lightning happens and
people happen too, but you can certainly make a forested
situation much more manageable when a fire does occur, as we
had many years ago when the inventory of trees per acre and
brush, et cetera, was much lower and much different in a
natural setting. We have been putting fires out for 100 years,
and now we have an overload of inventory of that material.
Needless to say, we had some really good provisions in the
farm bill that passed the House on the forestry title. A lot of
that was eliminated over on the Senate side. I am glad we got
the farm bill done. We did get some good pieces in there, but
some really important leaps for all of us would have been there
with that other parts in that title. We did a lot of work on
that and then the work that was said in the omnibus previously
that had forestry efforts in it really falls short of what we
need to do. It is very important to the assets that we are
supposed to be stewards of, and USDA, through the U.S. Forest
Service, the forest asset, the habitat that it means, and the
human lives that are affected.
We have to have strong management here, and at the rate
that we are going under previous regimes with basically one
percent of our U.S. Forest Service land being touched per year,
it will take 100 years to get across and treat them. We don't
have 100 years for the hundreds of thousands of acres that burn
in the West every year.
We have tried to ensure the Forest Service has every tool
available on funding, on separating disaster funding from your
main course of funding. But we need to be much more aggressive
at this. Can you, Mr. Secretary, update me on how we are
putting in place something that will move at a greater speed
than one percent a year nationally or even maybe up to a 30
year period to cover California on the treatment we need on all
of our acres to be better habitat, more fire-safe, more
healthy, and to boost an economy?
Secretary Perdue. Thank you. I will do my best. We are
making progress in both policy and authorities and in funding.
As you know, the fire funding fix doesn't begin until this next
fiscal year. That is why I felt compelled to mention the $720
million that we had taken out of the kitty of operations to do
exactly what you are asking to do. In order to suppress fires
coming up, we need that to refill so that we can begin to do
that.
We have to prioritize. As you said, there is so much. What
we are trying to do--what I have challenged the Forest Service
to do is to prioritize on those wildland-urban interfaces that
are the most threatening. Certainly, you saw it firsthand in
your district in Paradise how we need to focus first on those.
But also, we are so far behind the curve. We need those other
categorical exclusions that you mentioned, such as the dead
trees and being able to remove them on a landscape scale,
rather than having to go one application after the other, which
all of them are subject to NEPA and litigation, and that just
slows the process down.
Mr. LaMalfa. Yes, sir. We have good work on the Good
Neighbor Authority allowing local Tribes, local governments,
and even neighboring private lands. We need a lot stronger help
from the private-sector on this to do it faster than what we
are.
Let me touch real quickly. Good work on getting rice into
China. How is it going on Japan with the discussions on getting
rice a little more strongly into that economy?
Secretary Perdue. We don't know yet. Obviously, Ambassador
Lighthizer will focus on Japan, along with China, over the
understanding that TPP implementations are coming and our
producers will be at an extreme disadvantage there. He
understands how important Japan is and has committed to me that
he will move on that as quickly as able with them, and
hopefully can get an agreement that is TPP or better very soon.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
I recognize the gentlelady from Virginia, also the new
Subcommittee Chair of Conservation and Forestry, Ms.
Spanberger.
Ms. Spanberger. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Good
afternoon, Secretary Perdue. It is so nice to see you. Thank
you for being here.
First of all, I would like to start by inviting you to join
me in central Virginia, visit my district sometime. We have
bison farmers, vineyards, dairies, small and large soybean
farms, hydroponic farms, small family certified naturally grown
farms, and I would like to take you on a tour of quite a few of
our farms, if and when you have the time.
But my question today is about rural broadband. I know
there has been a number of questions about this already, but
according to the FCC's 2018 Broadband Deployment Report, almost
30 percent of Virginians living in rural areas don't have
access to fixed broadband at what is considered a minimally
acceptable speed. That is 3 megabytes per second upload. This
creates significant challenges, from the ability of businesses
and farms to operate in these communities, to the ability of
our kids to do their homework. And across my district in
central Virginia, we have some students who sit in McDonald's
parking lots so that they can get access to Internet, and it is
drastically impacting their ability to compete with other
students, to have the same experience as other students in some
of our more populated suburban areas that have stronger
broadband Internet.
The Fiscal Year 2019 appropriations included $550 million
for the ReConnect Program, a broadband loan and grant program,
and the USDA's Rural Utilities Service also has other programs
to support broadband, such as Community Connect Grants and the
Distance Learning and Telemedicine Grants.
You spoke briefly about USDA's rural broadband effort, so
my question is, do you think that the funding level is
sufficient, and the structure of the programs are appropriate
to address the challenge of getting broadband to rural
communities across the country, and in my case, across central
Virginia?
Secretary Perdue. Surely. Certainly not across the country.
It is enough to indicate that we can deploy these in a
competitive way, working with private-sector partners. There
are three tranches of that money. There is grant money, $200
million, land-grant money of $200 million, and $200 million of
loan, just loan money, of which there has to be equities in
there. It is only the tip of the iceberg in the beginning. You
have a beautiful district and I would love to come visit and
tour and visit with your farmers, but the fact is, you are
absolutely right. Not only your district, but many of the
districts of your colleagues around here have situations that
are exacerbating the rural-urban divide.
Ms. Spanberger. Yes.
Secretary Perdue. And if we want people to live in
beautiful places like you have all of your district, they are
not going to do it without the kind of services that are just
as important as electricity was in the 1930s.
Ms. Spanberger. That is right.
Secretary Perdue. And that is what I would love for this
Committee to be a champion to help us moonshot to cover this
country from coast to coast with broadband.
Ms. Spanberger. Thank you, sir, and thank you very much for
your comments on that. My district is a perfect example. We are
a majority suburban in population, majority rural in land mass,
and that divide that you mentioned is happening right in
central Virginia in our Congressional district.
I have one more question about broadband, and I am curious.
What do you expect the impact of the ReConnect Program funded
at the 2019 levels to be on the number of people who can access
broadband? Sort of what percentage of the need do you think
that that program might be able to address?
Secretary Perdue. I am not sure I want to tell you these
numbers. I don't have a specific number, but this is very
broad. Not nearly enough. This is, as I said, I don't know what
quantification the tip of the iceberg is, but this is just a
test case to demonstrate what we are trying to develop are
public-private partnerships. The Federal Government, frankly,
doesn't have enough money to do all this itself either. We use
the REAs and all the EMCs across the country in the rural
electrification and telephony. We had other private businesses
there. What we are going to try to learn is how to optimize and
leverage Federal incentives where there is not an economic
reason to do this, get people who are in that business that
know how to do it, and to do the most of it.
I can't give you a specific number, but it is only a
beginning.
Ms. Spanberger. Well thank you, and thank you for your
support of these initiatives overall, and for your recognition
of what a significant issue this is to so many communities.
Thank you, and Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. I thank the gentlelady, and I want to remind
Members that we are recognizing people in seniority order based
on who was here when the gavel fell.
Under that list, the next person to be recognized, Mr.
Rouzer from North Carolina.
Mr. Rouzer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Secretary,
great to see you. We all appreciate the great work that you are
doing, and I just want to thank you again for coming to my
district a few weeks ago, and that is not the first time that
you have been there.
The unfortunate thing is, part of the draw to my district
is that it has been so devastated by Hurricane Florence, and
before that, Hurricane Matthew. We have had two major
catastrophic floods, one a little broader in scope and
literally in depth than the other, but nevertheless, both of
them were very significant. And then those that weren't flooded
had so much rain that basically they lost the millions of
dollars that were plowed into the ground, so to speak, with no
return. And that on top of the fact that the farm economy has
really been struggling the last 5 to 6 years, anyway, for a
variety of reasons. Of course, you got the increase, which has
a big impact on our folks, and we have talked about that
already.
I have two things I want to focus on here at the moment,
though. One is directly related to the flooding, and that is
the role of NRCS, and I want to commend you for the work that
you all have been doing there, particularly in eastern North
Carolina, but it is an area that needs a lot more focus.
We have so many rivers, creeks, streams, swamps, that are
just gunked up with junk from years and years of sediment
traveling east and southeast into the district. Tree logs, you
name it, beaver dams. It is a mess, and it is going to take a
long and sustained effort to clean out all these rivers,
creeks, streams, and tributaries to where the water can
actually move and keep so much of our farmland and a lot of
residential property as well from being flooded. And in North
Carolina, we have the added impact--and this is both good and
bad, in that you have such a huge influx of population growth
in the central and western part of the state, and all that
water has to go somewhere. You probably have observed, like I
have, that when they build homes these days, they are a
wingspan apart, literally 6. Well, when you have a big rain
shower, that water goes straight to the drain, goes straight to
the river, and it won't be too long where in eastern North
Carolina when Raleigh has a 2" or 3" or 5" rain, it is going to
be the equivalent of a Hurricane Matthew or Florence flood in
eastern North Carolina because this water just has nowhere to
go.
With all that said, and that backdrop, I want to make sure
that we are doing everything possible at USDA and the other
agencies as well to really focus on that, and I would love to
have your commitment and attention to is as we move forward.
Secretary Perdue. Sure. One of the benefits of getting out
and visiting with you all in your districts is that what I
learned when we were with your constituents a few weeks ago was
that I found that some of our NRCS people misinterpreted their
ability to get into some of these creeks and streams and do
what needed to be done. We came back and rectified that by
sending down clarity of what they are able to do. Hopefully, we
will have some impact over doing some of the things of clearing
out these results of the devastation from the hurricane.
Mr. Rouzer. The second thing I would like to raise with
you, I just would like to get your update on where we are with
the vaccine bank that was authorized and funded with the farm
bill, and what you think the timeline for that is.
Secretary Perdue. We appreciate the attention that Congress
gave to the transmissible diseases. While we refer to it as a
vaccine bank, it is actually a broader strategy than that. We
call it the three legs of the stool. One is really an awareness
system, working with states, and then a laboratory network, and
then a real vaccine bank. These transmissible diseases that
kind of began with foot-and-mouth, African swine fever has kind
of taken the attention most recently because of the news in
China, but they are all devastating, and either of those
diseases and others could be crippling to our ag economy and
livestock economy in the United States, and we can't be too
vigilant about that.
But the money you have given, Under Secretary Greg Ibach
has a great plan for working with private industry and
producers in order to develop both a network of early
laboratory detection, as well as understanding the network of
vigilance of reporting out here, and then the vaccine bank as
well. We are still looking and trying to determine what is the
best expenditure of taxpayer money regarding the technology of
vaccines in that regard.
Mr. Rouzer. Thank you.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
The gentleman from New York, Mr. Delgado.
Mr. Delgado. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Perdue,
thank you for being here today.
As noted by the Chairman, I represent New York, upstate New
York, New York District 19. That does come as a surprise to
some folks that I represent the third most rural district of
any Democratic Member in Congress, and the eighth most rural
district of any Member in Congress, and I am proud to do so. It
is the home of numerous small family-owned farms, thousands,
and many of whom are small dairy operations.
This past week, I visited farmers at their operations
across the district. Among them was Don Coager, owner of Don's
Dairy Supply, and Duane Martin, President of the Delaware
County Farm Bureau, and owner of a small dairy operation. These
folks and others I have visited with spoke about the challenges
and opportunities small family farm operations face today. And
I know the farm bill has done some good work with the Margin
Protection Plan rebranded, I believe it is now the Dairy Margin
Coverage Program. I know there is a lot of good stuff in there
that hopefully gets implemented.
But I want to focus a little bit on localized
infrastructure, because we have to think more broadly about how
we allow these small localized farmers to deal with the global
market that sometimes is marginalizing them and pushing them
out. There are dairy operations in ten of the eleven counties I
represent, and the number of dairy farmers has declined in each
of these counties over the last 13 years. In some counties, we
are talking about from 400 down to 100, or from 100 down to 12
over the last 20+ odd years. It has been devastating.
My question is what can we do, aside from the insurance
program, the Dairy Margin Coverage Program, from a localized
infrastructure piece and resources piece to provide the sort of
local USDA personnel and technology and services in rural farm
economies, like the ones that I represent?
Secretary Perdue. Well, it is a challenge. Obviously, what
you all have done in the farm bill is the best start,
particularly for your smaller dairies in upstate New York will
be benefitted by this, both on the refund of previous insurance
premiums under the prior program which did not result in any
benefit that they perceived, as well as the upcoming one will
help a lot.
You have technologies coming like robotics, robotic
milkers, which will help, but these are economy-of-scale issues
that deal with all throughout the economy, not just in
agriculture, and the economy-of-scale of a dairy industry from
a small dairy is going to be extremely difficult, going
forward, even with the new farm bill. I don't think any of us
would submit that we are compelled to keep anyone in business
if it is not profitable or they cannot justify that. But it is
challenging. I wish there were more that we could do, and we
are open to any suggestions from that and using all the tools
of USDA to get that done.
But dairy on a small scale, a small economy-of-scale, is
like a lot of agriculture. When I grew up, a man and wife could
probably have 300 or 400 acres and support a family of two, put
the kids through college, and do that. Now, even in row crop,
non-dairy, it is up to 1,200 or 1,500, maybe 2,000 acres in
that regard. You see not only the number of dairies going out,
but the number of cows are not reducing that much. We have
actually gotten more productive per cow in many places in the
economy-of-scale. These are challenges that are really
intractable, and we look for any ideas that you may have in
visiting with your constituents of how we can help.
Mr. Delgado. I appreciate that.
I did have another question on a separate matter, but your
answer makes me think otherwise.
I would hope that given what these communities have done
for our country, the rural quality of life that they provide
for so many wonderful communities everywhere, that we don't
allow the economies-of-scale, as you put it, to deter us from
doing the necessary work, to think about how we can do better
by these communities, and not let the concentration, the
monopolization of the industry be guided by our democratic
principles. Because at the end of the day, these communities
are being left behind, and I do think it is imperative that on
some level, we don't just dismiss the problem as an effect of a
growing economy, but that we have a responsibility at some
level to do the work and to figure out how we can help, where
appropriate.
Thank you.
Secretary Perdue. We are willing to explore and implement
any ideas you may have.
Mr. Delgado. Thank you.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman, and the gentleman from
Nebraska, Mr. Bacon, is recognized.
Mr. Bacon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr.
Secretary, for being here today and sharing with us.
First, I regret some of the comments made on what you are
trying to do with the SNAP Program. I think they are being
misconstrued. We know your goal is to set money aside to
provide technical training, college training for those who are
able-bodied, don't have small children, don't have a handicap,
and helping them get a high-paying job. The goal here is to
break the cycle of poverty. This is a war on poverty, not a war
on the impoverished. I just want to say, I thank you for your
leadership on this. I think it is needed.
Second, I wanted to follow up on the foot-and-mouth disease
discussion, because that is one the highest priorities that I
hear from our beef producers and our pork producers, and so, I
appreciate your comments that you made already.
My question to you is, what more can Congress do to partner
with you and the Department of Agriculture to make the future
of this a success? Because we want to have this vaccine bank
down the road so we don't have an outbreak. When I talk to our
cattlemen and our pork producers, a foot-and-mouth disease
outbreak would shut down trade for 5 years, or maybe more, and
that would have a devastating impact there, but also on our
corn producers and a ripple effect across the entire economy.
What more can we do to support you in this effort from
Congress?
Secretary Perdue. Well again, the initial appropriation
over the vaccine bank will be a beginning as it will help us to
determine the right technology to use and the right product to
use. I think there will probably be more appropriations needed
to fund a vaccine bank. I don't know that we are able to give
you the right direction to do that, but as soon as we have some
direction, we would recommend to you, it will probably, like
most solutions here, require some more money.
Again, just the awareness that the industry and Congress
has brought to this issue helps everyone be vigilant about it.
Awareness is the first step in any kind of solution, and you
all, by funding it and putting it in the farm bill, have helped
to make awareness for all producers across the United States.
Mr. Bacon. Well, thank you. I intend to work closely with
Mr. Ibach and your team, because we want to make sure that we
are ready to react and respond here to give you the tools
needed to make this a success.
In the end, the beef industry, we are the number one
exporter in Nebraska for beef of all 50 states, and this is a
critical program, so I want to thank you there.
Finally, I just wanted to ask a little bit about USMCA. It
seems to me that Congress, we are taking some votes right now
that have no chance in the Senate, no chance to become signed
by law by the President. But yet, the USMCA agreement is ready
to debate, ready to vote on. Is there any other priority in
Congress for the Department of Agriculture that has a higher
priority right now than getting USMCA passed, from your
perspective?
Secretary Perdue. Maybe aside from the disaster bill that
we talked about previously, again, this certainly is critical.
As I have told you, I don't think we want to contemplate the
consequences of non-ratification, and I know that we are
heartened by the coalition that is already forming out there,
very strong Farm Bureau, Chamber of Commerce, both business and
major ag groups. There is a lot of energy and a lot of momentum
there right now, so I hope we don't tarry too long on that.
Obviously, the trickiness of the section 232 tariffs play
into that to some degree, but I am hoping that we can resolve
that sooner, rather than later.
Mr. Bacon. And what I heard you say today, and I heard
previously from other leadership within the Administration that
we didn't get every change that we wanted in the USMCA compared
to NAFTA; however, every change that was made was to our
advantage. Do I have that right?
Secretary Perdue. Absolutely. That is--I challenge anyone
to go line-by-line, chapter-by-chapter, and verse-by-verse and
say where it is worse than it was. I don't think you will find
it.
Mr. Bacon. Well, in some of our counties in Nebraska,
$50,000 of their income is directly related to trade with
Canada and Mexico. This is a priority. We have to get it done.
Thank you, Secretary, for your answers today, and Mr.
Chairman, I yield back.
Secretary Perdue. Under Secretary Ibach reminds me of that
on a regular basis.
Ms. Adams [presiding]. Thank you very much. We will now
give 5 minutes to Mrs. Craig.
Mrs. Craig. Thank so much, Mrs. Chairman.
Thank you, Secretary Perdue, for testifying this morning
about the state of the rural economy in particular. I am
thrilled to serve on the Agriculture Committee, and I am from
the great State of Minnesota, with our Chairman, Mr. Collin
Peterson, and about half of my district is rural in nature, so
it is a pleasure to be here today.
Mr. Secretary, farmers throughout my district are
struggling with record low farm incomes and low commodity
prices. My farmers have made it clear that maintaining the farm
safety net is critical to keeping their operations afloat.
Thanks to the work of this Committee before I got here, the
farm bill gives producers access to valuable risk management
tools. The farm bill also provides producers with an
opportunity to update their payment yields for the 2020 crop
year, and moving forward, make a yearly election between ARC
and PLC.
What assistance will your agency provide to producers to
ensure these opportunities are used to the fullest extent, and
what impact in particular did the shutdown have on your ability
to implement these changes?
I am a freshman. I am new here. Apparently, we have had 22
CRs since 1996, and we have shut the government down ten times,
so any chance I get to put on record how bad an idea government
shutdowns are on everyone, I am going to take an opportunity to
do it.
Secretary Perdue. I hope you will. You can't imagine how
painful it is from an agency perspective.
Certainly, you talked about two provisions regarding
updating the crop yields. What we are doing right now is
designing the granularity of the rules and regulations of how
that will be done. You all give the intent and the will of
Congress, and we go and put the rules and regulations in place.
We are working feverishly to get that done as quickly as
possible. It will not be done, obviously, by the planting
season this year, but the payment for those programs are done
in a year in arrears, and so we will have it done by the time
that the next planting period for the 2019/2020 crop is done in
that regard, so they can update their yields at that point in
time.
Mrs. Craig. Terrific, thank you.
And how behind did you become because of the shutdown?
Secretary Perdue. I failed to answer that part of it. It
was disconcerting, but I will tell you, you may have heard or
seen from some other agencies or groups over threatening to be
sick or be out or whatever. We had our FSIS workers, our food
safety inspection workers, didn't miss a beat, and while they
were anxious like everyone else over not receiving a paycheck,
they were stalwarts in the way they did their job in that
regard. We were able to negotiate with OMB over getting
critical people back into place.
You may recall in your district we were able to get our FSA
workers back for a couple of days prior to the shutdown, and
then we were going for 3 days a week after that, which is
extremely helpful to take care of the business. As I mentioned
earlier, we had NRCS personnel who were funded helping in those
offices in that way as well.
I was very proud. These are people that are pretty
dedicated to their customers. When I talk about being customer-
focused, they love to hear that, because that is what they want
to do.
While we were behind on a few things like the
implementation of the broadband thing that got delayed a little
bit, and some other contracts that were not essential, for the
most part, only the bad memory remains. I think, for the most
part, we have caught up. It will delay some things, the
applications I said for the broadband and a couple other
things, for a few days, but we are not letting it hold us back.
We have kind of put a rule out within internal USDA. We are not
going to use the shutdown as an excuse for any kind of delay of
what we have to do.
Mrs. Craig. Thank you for that, and just one follow-up
question on trade.
As many of my colleagues have continued to say, we rely on
USDA to be a voice for ag within the Administration, especially
during this self-inflicted, in my view, trade war.
I worked in business for over 22 years, so I am new to
government here, but it is often the case that once you lose
some of these big countries, from a trade perspective, it is
awfully hard to get them back. Chinese importers of U.S. grains
may look elsewhere. I know we have some soybean issues.
Do you believe our farmers will be able to get back these
markets once we lose them?
Secretary Perdue. Yes, I had that same fear initially that
you refer to. I have since become much more optimistic about
that, primarily because of the China discussions and the kind
of numbers that we see there. While you refer to it as a self-
inflicted, it certainly was self-initiated. Again, to allow
China to continue to build their economy on the backs of
intellectual property theft and cyber transfer and different
things like that would have been long-term damaging to our
economy. I applaud President Trump for calling the question on
that. Even though it induced some short-term pain that some
remains to this day, the Market Facilitation Program made up
for a lot of that. I hope you have heard from your rural
constituents about that, and by and large, that we are going to
be better off in the end, agriculture-wise and U.S. economy-
wise in order to get that done.
The good question is, I am much more optimistic about
regaining those markets. I know there is a fear that you lose a
market and it takes a long time to get it back. While other
people do look other places for a diversity of options they
have, just as we look for a diversity of options in our
personal shopping, the good news is the U.S. still provides the
most reliable, the most abundant, the safest, the best quality
food supply there is in the world.
Mrs. Craig. Well, Mr. Secretary, for the sake of our
farmers, I sure hope you are right.
Ms. Adams. The gentlelady yields back.
Mr. Dunn, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Dunn. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you,
Secretary Perdue, for being here today and taking so much of
your valuable time. I especially thank you for visiting my
district after Hurricane Michael struck it. Shortly after it,
you were there on the ground. I know you know the value of the
losses due to that storm, and that it rivals everything in
2017.
You and I know that the key to standing a rural community
back up after a hurricane, or a wildfire, is to ensure
agricultural economy recovers quickly. Unfortunately, Congress
so far has failed to pass a disaster supplemental program for
2018. Like many issues in Washington, it is hung up on other
unrelated political things, not questions of policy.
My first question to you is, how can we help you to be
better equipped in the future to respond to natural disasters
like this? And I know that is a long, complicated question, so
you may direct your staff to respond to that, work with us, as
we go along down the pike.
And let me say, your staff has been an absolute joy to work
with on this.
Secretary Perdue. Well, thank you. We appreciate it and we
are proud of our staff and the response that they give to your
Members' questions. We know that these are not things that you
think up. They are constituent service issues, and we want to
be responsive to them.
Again, the farm bill does a great job in ordinary type of
risks that are involved in farming from a safety net
perspective. No one can contemplate a major disaster as we have
seen in 2017 and 2018, and therefore, again, from Congress'
ability to move very quickly from an appropriation restoration
thing, we will be prepared to move very quickly.
As I said, this year, having learned what we learned last
year over the WHIP Program, we are ahead of the game in order
to be able to implement that and get those resources into the
pockets of your constituents that need it desperately.
Mr. Dunn. I look forward to working with your staff on
developing more quick response methods.
Eighty-seven percent of the ag losses in Florida due to
Hurricane Michael were timber, $1.3 billion worth of trees on
the ground. I have spoken to constituents who have lost their
entire retirement savings, which were in the form of timber,
with the destruction of this. What can we do to help these
folks, and do you believe the block grant like we did with
citrus last year would be appropriate for timber?
Secretary Perdue. Well, that is a great question. We
actually will have to design a program for timber. It has not
been typically in a disaster program, because it typically
hadn't suffered like it did with Hurricane Michael. The swath
of timber loss between the panhandle of Florida, all the way up
150 to 175 miles inland in Alabama and Georgia was like nothing
I have ever seen. That is not a typical crop that we think of,
but it is an agricultural crop. It just has a longer growing
cycle. And we certainly, as you indicated, that was many of
these couples' 401(k) that they were using to fund their
retirement in that area, and we will develop, you mentioned the
block grant. More than likely, there will be some of that in
there.
Mr. Dunn. Let me go on here. I appreciate your help with
that.
We also have a crisis in Apalachicola Forest, so many trees
on the ground. They have been on the ground for 4 months. That
makes them pretty much past the point of salvage. We had some
categorical exclusions in the House farm bill language which
didn't make it the final version that would have allowed you to
much more rapidly salvage and remove that debris. I want you to
know that we will work together with you to try to get that
language across the finish line this session. Again, because we
could have salvaged a lot more trees than we did salvage.
And finally, with the devastation of our timber crop, many
of my sawmills will not have any wood that they need for
decades after this. I am going to ask you to work with our
office, where we can, to ease the regulatory burdens and give
sawmills access to the wood that they need to continue their
timber operations. And that is just a yes----
Secretary Perdue. One of the best ways we can do that is
making available timber sales in our National Forests, and that
is what we are in the process of----
Mr. Dunn. Music to my ears, Mr. Secretary.
Again, let me tell you, staff has been great to work with,
and I want to echo the words of Mr. Crawford. You are the right
man in the right place at the right time. Thank you very much
for all of your efforts.
I yield back.
Ms. Adams. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Brindisi, 5 minutes.
Mr. Brindisi. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Mr.
Secretary. Good to see you.
My district is also in upstate New York, and half of the
district is considered rural. As you know, rural broadband is a
big issue for us in rural areas. Eighty percent of Americans
who don't have access to high-speed Internet live in rural
communities.
I do want to ask a question. Because of the shutdown, I saw
on the USDA's ReConnect website that many of your webinars and
other programs informing people about this funding opportunity
were postponed, and, in fact, on the website no upcoming events
or training programs are currently scheduled. My question is,
how does USDA ensure that folks are aware of this rural
broadband funding opportunity ahead of the April 29 deadline?
Will you be rescheduling any of the canceled events that were
planned, and do you plan on hosting any in-person events? We
would love to have you back in upstate New York.
Secretary Perdue. Sure. The April 29 deadline has been
delayed by a month. That should be up on the website, assuming
people have access to broadband. And you really ought to be
proud of your state. It is one of the more progressive, from a
state perspective, over promulgating broadband across the
state. We are looking for state partners like that that have
the passion for this. For many states and many governors who
were in town this weekend, broadband is a huge issue for those.
But regarding the program over the ReConnect, everything
should be back up. The contractors were not deemed essential,
and they had to suspend their work. But they are back at it now
and all these programs should be certainly delayed not any more
than the 30 days.
Mr. Brindisi. Okay, and then also you talked about our
state. We have had some issues in our state in terms of
oversight of some of the providers.
You had talked about working with our private-sector
partners to expand broadband into rural communities, and I know
that in some states like New York, we have had some issues with
cable providers who have said that they were going to expand,
have taken tax dollars, have said they were going to expand
into certain under-served communities in rural areas. I am
trying to figure out, what is USDA's role in oversight of tax
dollars are going to private-sector partners, and they are not
using that tax dollar wisely or not expanding into rural
communities. What oversight does USDA provide ensuring that
those taxpayer dollars are spent wisely?
Secretary Perdue. An exact concern I had going into this,
that is why we have taken probably a long time to develop the
rules and the accountability provisions that way. Ours will be
more of a reimbursement type of issue in that regard than money
up front, and if you look at the accountability rules that are
there on the website, there now, you will find fairly good
accountability that never dismisses or excuses or eliminates
some degree of fraud that may be out there. We have so much
demand out that, we think we will be able to pick the best
partners.
Mr. Brindisi. Okay, and I just encourage--if you are
looking at this, make sure if they are making commitments to
expand into rural communities, that they actually follow
through on their commitments to expand to X number of
households that they promised that they were going to do.
I also just want to----
Secretary Perdue. I don't know that we have any claw-back
provisions, but I am in favor of claw-back provisions as well.
Mr. Brindisi. Me too.
Putting on my other hat, I also sit on the Veterans'
Affairs Committee, and I know there was a recent report from
USDA about older veterans who tend to reside in rural
communities and rural counties and near military bases. It
notes that seniors, as a whole, participate in SNAP at rates
much lower than the general population. Only about 40 percent
of eligible seniors participate in SNAP.
My question is, what is USDA doing proactively to ensure
that older veterans, and all veterans who struggle with food
insecurity, participate in SNAP?
Secretary Perdue. Well again, what we are doing for our
veterans and older veterans, we find that we are trying to
encourage a program of mentorship. You have aging farmers that
also want to mentor young people who want to get into farming.
They may not have any heirs that want to carry on the farm, and
many times, they can grow their own buyer if they mentor them
over a period of time. That is one of the things we are
encouraging.
Other than the regular outreach between the Administration,
as you know, the states administer this nutrition program, and
many of them have various outreach efforts there. We don't, to
my knowledge, have any specific outreach over the nutrition
program targeted to veterans or seniors.
Mr. Brindisi. Okay. You all don't work with the Department
of Defense or VA on any of those programs?
Secretary Perdue. We have worked with Defense over that in
collocation with them, primarily in the jobs.
Mr. Brindisi. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
I yield back my time, Madam Chair.
Ms. Adams. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Johnson, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Johnson. Madam Chair, thank you very much.
Mr. Secretary, thanks for being here. As you know, I have a
real passion for expanding opportunities for working class
folks, and in the last farm bill, there were ten state pilots
set up regarding SNAP employment and training. I don't think a
final report on those completed pilots is due until next year,
so I am not looking for a lot of depth or detail from you, but
do you have any initial observations about some of the state
successes we saw in those pilots? And if you don't have any
initial reactions, maybe just share with us some of your
thoughts about some of the progress and successes that we can
be making here in the years to come?
Secretary Perdue. Well, I don't, unfortunately, have any
interim type of report on that. We, like Congress, typically
deal in deadlines of evaluation in that regard, and frankly,
have so much else to do we don't have much of a chance to check
on interim type of progress over these types of things.
Regrettably, I don't have much information to share with you
today.
Mr. Johnson. Not a problem, Mr. Secretary.
We have talked a fair amount about trade, and I have been
encouraged by a fair amount of progress as we have talked about
getting USMCA ratified, as it seems like we are making headway
with China. We have talked a fair amount today about Japan. I
mean, does USDA and other agencies, to your knowledge, have the
tools that you all need to continue to expand market access,
particularly for American producers?
Secretary Perdue. We believe we do, and we are using it
very well. As I answered a question earlier about our Under
Secretary for Trade, the 2014 Farm Bill called for an Under
Secretary for Trade. It had not been filled until we got there.
I chose Ted McKinney from Indiana, a former director of
agriculture there. He is quite a salesman, and he is well on
his way to his million-mile status around the world, primarily
focusing on new markets and going to places that have a lot of
potential like India, Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, Taiwan,
and other places around the world.
The other thing that we have done, we can't do it, again,
all by ourselves. It takes a private-sector, and we want to
help them. The Market Access Program that you all fund on an
ongoing basis, the mitigation program, we dedicated $200
million of ag trade promotion dollars that we allocated out to
over 57 collaborators in order to develop markets in different
places, or go back and repair markets that felt like may have
been damaged by some of that.
We are working. They have been well-received, and we are
working with not only regional, but commodity groups in order
to reach other markets.
Mr. Johnson. I have heard a number of Members ask about
rural broadband, and prior to joining Congress, that was my
career, focusing on helping communities design, build, and
maintain great rural networks. And in the appropriations
package that was passed, I guess, a few weeks ago now, there
was $600 million of additional funding for rural broadband. Are
there any observations from your perspective about what USDA
may do with those dollars differently than what has been done
in the recent past with Community Connect or other programs?
Secretary Perdue. We will continue, unless we have better
ideas or new ideas regarding this additional money. My goal
initially was to do so well in the initial appropriation of the
2018 omnibus of the $600 million to demonstrate that we would
be great optimal stewards of that money in order to encourage
you all to do more. We will continue to prosecute that
additional money as well in that regard, and hopefully
encourage the Federal Government as a whole to really take on
broadband e-connectivity across the country, both urban and
rural, as the real moonshot transformational opportunity I
believe it is.
Mr. Johnson. Well, and clearly, again, there has been a
fair amount of interest on both sides of the aisle and from
veteran Members as well as newbies. If your Department is able
to identify any particular challenges for you getting done the
kind of progress that you describe, certainly, let us know and
if we can help, we want to.
Secretary Perdue. We will definitely have more of those and
the challenges and the impediments as we move forward in the
application and the judging process of where we deploy those
resources.
Mr. Johnson. Yes, excellent. Thanks, Mr. Secretary, and
Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Adams. I thank the gentleman.
Secretary Perdue. And based on your previous experience, we
could use you as a consultant in that area.
Mr. Johnson. Well, you don't want me out digging the
trench, I will tell you that. Some things I don't do as well.
Ms. Adams. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Harder, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Harder. Well thank you, Madam Chair, for yielding, and
thank you, Mr. Secretary, for taking the time to be with us
this morning, and for being an ally to our farmers and to our
national and rural economy.
I have been in office for just a couple weeks, but I am
happy to say our office has already been able to work together,
and thank you for extending the deadline on the Market
Facilitation Program during the shutdown. Farmers in my area
really needed that extension, and you helped us get this done,
and I am very grateful for it.
As you know, emergency is a word that is flying around a
lot nowadays in Washington, but there really is an emergency,
but that emergency is in rural America. An emergency in an area
like the Central Valley, my home, where close to 50 percent of
our residents are on Medicaid, where \1/3\ of our jobs are
connected to agriculture, and a lot of those jobs are
increasingly at risk, thanks to, as you said in your testimony,
the fact that farm income has dropped by 50 percent since 2013
due to commodity prices that are tanking, skyrocketing farm
debt, crops like fruits and tree nuts, major exports from my
district, having huge losses from trade, about $3 billion lost
from trade.
And when I look at this, that the last time we had a
decline of net farm income to this degree was during the Great
Depression. And during the Great Depression, we had an enormous
amount of public attention, huge efforts to fix this, real
mobilization and public action. And then I look at what we are
seeing today, in your testimony, you said that the Agriculture
Department is actually going to cut the President's Fiscal Year
2020 request, estimating about a five percent cut. And I see
that as sort of the opposite of what we actually need to be
doing in a time like this, that really has this moment of
crisis.
My question for you is given your testimony and the scale
of the issues that we are seeing in rural America, do you
believe that we could be doing more to support our farmers
today?
Secretary Perdue. Congressman, we are happy to do anything
you appropriate to do that, and we will do it as efficiently
and as effectively as possible.
I guess I would slightly disagree. We saw some areas in the
early 1980s, since the Depression that were difficult in that
area. The other difference is--and that down 50 percent, we
were coming off a career high commodity and production areas in
probably the 2008 to 2013 area. We began at a much better
place, and those comparative numbers, you can do anything with
statistics. Those comparative numbers were sort of career highs
that we saw in agriculture.
There is no doubt there are challenges. Can we do more? I
hope so. I hope we will do more, and again, working together
with what you all did in the farm bill and what you all will do
in appropriations and we are going to optimize our efforts as
much as possible. If you see holes or gaps that we are missing,
we would welcome your comments.
Mr. Harder. One of the things that is so important in our
community, and it has been talked a lot by a lot of the Members
is what is going on with trade and tariffs. Specialty crops are
the backbone of our economy, and I have been talking to some of
my friends and hearing about what is going on and the impact of
trade, especially given the short shelf life that a lot of our
crops really have, and how time is of the essence in making
business decisions. When do you expect producers in a district
like mine will feel meaningful market access due to the new
promotion dollars through programs like MFP, MAP, and FMD?
Secretary Perdue. I would say March 1.
Mr. Harder. Perfect. I will take you at your word.
Secretary Perdue. Obviously, markets are really created
slowly. These new markets, frankly, it does depend on the
success of the China negotiations primarily. The West Coast is
a huge export to southeast Asia, and primarily that large
market, but what we can do in Vietnam and the Philippines and
Thailand and those other countries out there are also
important, and that is this Market Facilitation Program.
You probably know some of your producers benefitted from
our procurement program where we took those crops off the
market to support the prices and gave that money, distributed
it in feeding everyone, to food banks and others across the
country.
Mr. Harder. One last question. Farmers in my community
often feel ignored, and I would love you to see the impacts of
what is happening in our district firsthand. Can you commit to
visiting my district and seeing what is actually going on with
this trade war over the coming months and years?
Secretary Perdue. Do you have a record of how many times I
have been already?
Mr. Harder. I do, but not in the last 2 months.
Secretary Perdue. I promise you I will be back. It is the
cornucopia of the United States.
Mr. Harder. I look forward to having you. Thank you for
coming.
I yield back my time.
Ms. Adams. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Baird, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Baird. Thank you, Madam Chair, and Secretary Perdue, we
really appreciate this opportunity to be with you.
I bring you greetings from myself and other Hoosier
farmers. We really appreciate the work that you did and the
other Members of this Committee in order to get a farm bill
finished at the end of last year. That was important to adding
some stability to the farm community, so we had some way to
predict what might be happening. You did a great job there, and
we appreciate all that work.
We are looking forward to the opportunity to work with you
to implement this farm bill and look for ways that we might
make improvements in the future. Indiana, as you know, because
you have been there, there are almost 100,000 Hoosier jobs
related to agriculture. About 84 percent of our land area is
either farmed or is in forests. We produce a significant amount
of corn, soybeans, wheat, cattle, hogs, and poultry are
extremely important. And then I don't want to forget the
hardwood lumber industry as well.
We have talked about many of these issues and you have
answered these questions, so I am giving you a chance to take a
breath here while I make these comments. But anyway, we have
talked about rural broadband. We have talked about the impact
of the tariffs for a lot of our soybeans are exported, as well
as our hogs and cattle. We have talked about that.
The one area that we might not have mentioned, and this
doesn't necessary come under your purview, but the Renewable
Fuel Standard when we take corn, run it through an ethanol
plant, I have several of those in my district, then we end up
with the DDGs, and those are also a product that we can market
overseas, and it retains about 80 percent of the feed value of
that corn. I just wondered if you could give us an overview of
your perspective on the ethanol industry, and the impact that
has on the agriculture community?
Secretary Perdue. Sure. This was a big topic last year,
obviously, for E15, and I appreciate, again, the EPA Acting
Administrator Wheeler and their progress over E15 year-round.
Unfortunately, those rules probably will not be out for the
driving season, but they are committing to, the term of art is
discretionary enforcement about those folks that want to
continue to sell E15 in the summer, and when they get the rules
established, as you well know, building that market and the
process of creating ethanol, you get a byproduct of DDGs, which
is a great feed ingredient.
The good news is, Congressman, is that both of those items,
both ethanol and DDGs are on the list that we are discussing
with China, and they need the ethanol and again, we would be
looking for them to take DDGs as well. We had been selling a
good number, a good amount of DDGs into China, and they stopped
when they started on the corn trades, and hopefully we can get
that restored as well, which would be great for your corn
farmers in Indiana and all across the West.
Mr. Baird. I yield back.
Ms. Adams. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Van Drew, you are recognized for 5 minutes, sir.
Mr. Van Drew. Thank you.
Welcome. It is wonderful to see you here.
Just on the slightly humorous side, I wanted to be on the
Agriculture Committee, and some people were surprised because I
am from New Jersey. And they don't realize that in New Jersey,
it is a small state, but we have a lot of agriculture. We have
cranberries, blueberries, tomatoes, peaches, lettuce, and I can
name a whole bunch more. And just the interesting part of that,
so I had them research when the last time was when somebody
from New Jersey actually sat on the Agriculture Committee for
the House of Representatives. Take a guess.
Secretary Perdue. I am not sure there has been one.
Mr. Van Drew. There has been one, but it is before our
time, 1949. And before that, it was 1888. I am going to try to
do a good job here, because there haven't been too many of us.
I will see what I can do.
A couple things I was thinking about, first of all, just to
mention, it really is important in New Jersey. Actually, it is
the third biggest industry in the State of New Jersey. The
whole southern half of it and parts of the northwest are
involved in agriculture, and it really does make a difference.
That is why it is the Garden State.
Any sense of feeling how, in general, nationally we are
doing, locally we are doing, whatever, with high quality
specialty crops? In other words, the organic market. Some of
these things that is what you see a lot of in New Jersey as
well. I just was wondering if you had thoughts on that.
Secretary Perdue. Certainly. We are making a lot of
progress, obviously. Those were crops that had been somewhat
ignored in years past, but I think probably beginning around
the 2008 Farm Bill began to acknowledge that and pay attention.
I think we are making progress. This farm bill continues to
make progress in that regard, encouraging both alternative
methods of growing, both in the inside and outside, farm to
market-type of efforts. From a marketing perspective, our
nutrition programs encouraging fresh vegetables going into both
our food banks as well as our school nutrition programs.
We are making progress in that. The organic industry is
probably north of a $50 billion industry now. Almost a few
years ago, it was strange to hear about that. You see from the
consumers making their choices in the grocery stores, their
preferences in that regard, and the USDA is supporting that as
we go forward.
New Jersey, we were there and there is some beautiful
farmland there. We were on a vegetable spinach harvesting farm
there, and watched the processing as well as the harvesting,
and it was first class.
Mr. Van Drew. Good. Actually, I went to Rutgers University,
the part I went to, the College of Agriculture and
Environmental Science, and now it is the College of
Environmental and Biological Sciences. But the land-grants, and
I know that you know about them, and just ag research as well,
could you just give a small overview of how that is going?
Secretary Perdue. That is probably a good news story with
the collaboration of USDA and our Agricultural Research
Service, the collaboration between the scientists there and the
scientists in our land-grant universities, Rutgers and Cornell
and others included across the country. I truly believe that is
the reason we are dependent upon exports today, because we can
produce more than we can consume.
For the last 70 years, we have had the basic research, the
applied research, and the delivery system of that information
through the extension services all comes through land-grants,
but we work hand-in-glove. We work through NIFA to appropriate
capacity building there for extension, as well as 4-H programs
in that regard. It has been a great opportunity, and we
consider the land-grant universities and their people great
partners.
Mr. Van Drew. They are, and it is so important, and it
really truly does help the farmers.
The farmers aren't always ones to say, ``Oh, I need help,''
or whatever, but at times they do, like we all do, and I know
they reach out to them, we appreciate that.
My last question has to do with, actually, tomatoes, which
we grow a lot of, and even grow much more of than Florida. I
have met with tomato growers, sort of up and down the East
Coast over time, and they are still concerned that a lot of
tomatoes are coming in from other countries, particularly
Mexico, and they are taking a hit. And the reason I know about
it is because some of the Florida companies also have companies
or subsidiaries in New Jersey. Any thoughts on that?
Secretary Perdue. Yes. You have some of your companies that
began in southern Florida and come all the way up the East
Coast because their buyers, like the major retailers, want a
good supply all year long. As you know, we go in the grocery
store and in December, where it wouldn't be normal growing
season in the United States, we expect nice, fresh tomatoes
there. That is what our consumers have come to expect.
While the seasonal and perishable fruit provision was not
finally included in the USMCA, Ambassador Lighthizer over
straight agreements, and as you may know, the Secretary of
Commerce, the Department of Commerce has just suspended this
tomato agreement there that we had with Mexico in order to
explore, probably in a legal fashion, or allow the industry to
explore in a legal fashion whether there are unfair subsidies
being produced in Florida that would create an onslaught of
product in the U.S. that considers dumping in our markets.
Tomato growers particularly are concerned about that from
Florida all the way through the East Coast.
Mr. Van Drew. You are well aware of it and you are working
on it and working through it?
Secretary Perdue. We are very aware of it. This really
falls under the purview of the Department of Commerce and USTR.
Mr. Van Drew. Okay.
Secretary Perdue. But we are advocates.
Mr. Van Drew. I will speak to them as well, okay.
Thank you very much.
Secretary Perdue. Thanks.
Ms. Adams. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Hagedorn, you have 5 minutes, sir.
Mr. Hagedorn. Madam Chair, thank you, and Mr. Secretary, I
appreciate your testimony and all that you are doing and
working together to sustain agriculture and our rural way of
life. It is very important, and you are doing a terrific job.
We really appreciate it.
One of the most important things that we can do is keep
farmers in business, especially when times are tough. And when
generational farmers sell out, as you know, they usually sell
out to bigger operators, and bigger operators are not bad
folks, but it means fewer people working the land, holding the
land, living in our small communities, going to our schools. It
puts enormous pressure on rural America.
And so, the things that we are trying to do here--and we
appreciate your efforts in implementing this 5 year farm bill
to make sure we can keep the farmers in business relates to the
E15 Program. Can we get your assurance that you will be working
closely with your EPA colleagues to maybe deal with that waiver
issue which has been misused a little bit, and undercut the
ethanol industry?
Secretary Perdue. We certainly advocated very strongly
about that, and while no commitments, the interagency process,
we have made our views very well-known, and I feel like I have
a gentleman's understanding that that will be policed in a much
more aggressive fashion than it had been prior to that.
Mr. Hagedorn. Thank you.
In the area of trade, the progress made with Mexico and
Canada, I certainly support that. Thank you for that. As far as
the EU and South Korea, that looks to be very promising. And
then with China, everybody gets focused on tariffs and all of
that and how we have impediments to trade, but there are some
non-tariff issues that China has used to use technicalities to
keep our products out. It could be a GMO issue with soybeans or
some sort of growth hormone or that type of thing with our
pork. Can you address any of that and the ongoing negotiations
in those areas?
Secretary Perdue. Yes. Those have been at the foundation of
our requests and discussions with China, while they want to
talk about exciting purchase numbers, we know that in order to
get there, they are going to have to address these fundamental
non-tariff reforms, such as a couple that you mentioned. The
MRLs or the levels there that occur naturally over ractopamine
or hormones or other types of things as well as the other types
of provisions over biotechnical traits in our grains and
others.
Those are key issues that we have been discussing with them
over what it will take to reach the levels that they committed.
It doesn't do any good to put fancy numbers on a piece of paper
if you don't have the commitment that these are the things we
will do in order to ensure that we can achieve those numbers.
Mr. Hagedorn. Thank you.
The farmers in southern Minnesota will almost say uniformly
that you can do a lot of things to help us in these program
areas, but if you have bad government, it is still going to run
people out of business. And one of the worst areas is this
overreach and regulations. The onerous Federal regulations in
almost every sector of our economy is driving up costs,
limiting business, making us less affluent, making consumers
pay more. And it really affects farmers and agribusinesses,
transportation sector, energy sector, healthcare and medical
care. You go right down the list.
I know you have worked very hard on things like Waters of
the United States, the Clean Power Plan, to do the right thing
in these areas. Do you also support the reforms down the line
that would have the House and the Senate affirm major
regulations to make sure that the peoples' body here is making
sure the Executive Branch is doing the right thing?
Secretary Perdue. I certainly hope so. In fact, we would
encourage you and your constituents to let us know of the
impediments. When it gets to food safety, there is a zero-
tolerance kind of thing, but other than things like that, what
are things that can make us more productive and less onerous
from a Federal perspective?
We have people laugh when you say, ``I am from the Federal
Government. I am here to help you.'' They mostly want you to
help them by leaving. But the fact is, if there are specific
regulations, now, every group I talked to, we serve a
constituent that knows how to complain in a very professional
way, but they need to be specific about these regulations or
impediments so we can address them specifically. We feel like
we are identifying many and are in the process twice a year of
putting those on the agenda to get those done.
Mr. Hagedorn. We will make sure we follow up on that.
Last, I used to work for a Congressman named Stangeland who
sat on this Committee in the 1980s, and Arlan Stangeland and
Charlie Stenholm of Texas had a bipartisan bill, Work for
Welfare. And it was the bill that we carried for many years
before Gingrich and Clinton and the rest of them got it down.
And I can tell you what you are doing in that area, trying to
change these regulations so it can't be undercut, promoting
self-sufficiency, getting away from dependency of government,
able-bodied folks getting back in the workforce, it is God's
work, and thank you for what you are doing, Mr. Secretary. I
support you 100 percent.
Ms. Adams. The gentleman yields back.
Ms. Schrier, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Schrier. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I may come back to the issue of work requirements for food
assistance at the end, if I have a few minutes. But I am happy
to see that a lot of my colleagues are talking about trade and
tariffs, and we spoke briefly this morning about this, but I
wanted to paint a real picture of what is going on in
Washington State right now.
We are the nation's top producer of apples, pears, and
cherries, and many of those are grown right in my district in
Chelan County. And our growers produce top-quality foods there
that are in high demand around the globe. In fact, our best
cherries go to China.
Our North American neighbors are really important trading
partners for the fruit growers that I represent, and Mexico is
the top export market for apples and pears, while Canada is the
number two export market for cherries and pears and the number
three for apples. And unfortunately, Mexico has now imposed a
20 percent tariff on apples in response to the tariffs on
aluminum and on steel, and this has had a significant impact on
our farmers, and it is really jeopardizing our farmers to the
point where if we lose this market, and others around the
world, they really may never come back and recover that market
share. I wanted to encourage speed in eliminating these section
232 tariffs.
Our growers are watching the USMCA as it progresses, and
so, I was wondering, given the urgency that we are feeling in
our district, if you could give a timeframe for when we might
see final text for this agreement, and the accompanying U.S.
International Trade Commission impact assessments?
Secretary Perdue. There are certain timelines governed by
your rules of Congress over when these kind of trade agreements
have to be done. I am understanding Ambassador Lighthizer is
following those specifically in that regard. I wish we could
ratify the USMCA today. It will have an opportunity probably in
April to do that, and I hope that we can also, as you
indicated, resolve the issue of retaliatory tariffs between all
three countries in and around that time, or sooner, if
possible, in order to get back to a trade where the people in
Mexico and Canada can enjoy the great products from your
district, and we can, once again, restore the free trade that
this agreement indicates.
Ms. Schrier. Thank you.
And I should note, just for the record, that this involves
Mexico and Canada, but also, of course, significant tariffs now
at 50 percent from China, also retaliatory, so trade deals are
what we are looking for in our state.
Since I have just a moment left, I thought I would just
comment about work requirements, because I have a little bit
different take. One out of six families in my state rely on
SNAP. In addition, a lot of the people are able-bodied, but
live in rural environments or other places where they simply
cannot find employment, and there is no effort in these
restrictions to provide employment training or a path to
employment.
My fear is that what will happen with these requirements is
that ultimately what it will result in is more hunger, not more
jobs, and ultimately penalize the people in our communities who
can really least afford that. I will just make a plug as a
pediatrician and a community member and who is representing
rural areas that are particularly affected, to not have those
requirements.
Secretary Perdue. I appreciate your concern. There are
provisions there. If there are localized regions that are
contrasted or different from the national unemployment by a
certain level, then they would receive waivers. There are
limits of waivers, but the fact that states have abused the
waiver process and having statewide waivers over maybe one
county or more that fall in this category. As a former
governor, our jobs were to draw down as much Federal money as
possible, and I am kind of on the other side now as a steward
of the Federal taxpayer.
Ms. Schrier. And I understand. I would just note that we
are talking about hunger, and it is not an abused program. I
would also mention that it is not just in certain regions, but
there are certain demographics, minorities who are
disproportionately hit. We know that it is harder for
minorities to get work, that there is discrimination in the
workplace as well, and so I think that should be taken into
account that people with exact, equal resumes but from
different backgrounds may have different job opportunities.
Secretary Perdue. We would love to have further discussion
with you about that.
Ms. Schrier. Thank you.
Ms. Adams. Thank you. The lady yields back.
Mr. Davis, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Mr.
Secretary. It is great to see you again.
I love the discussion on our SNAP Program, but the sheer
facts are right now, we have 21 million more people on SNAP
benefits today than when the last time unemployment was this
low. And this Committee tried to actually fill the gaps in
workforce investment programs through the last farm bill. We
weren't successful, but I look forward to working with all of
my colleagues throughout this Congress to make sure that we do
something to address that, the fact that we have millions of
more families still on SNAP benefits, while still not getting
access to the training to get the jobs that are available
throughout this country, and in all of our districts.
But thank you very much for being here. Thanks for coming
to my district last year and talking with my farmers.
I really want to ask you about hemp. We look forward to
having the opportunity to have possibly a third rotational crop
in the Midwest, and many of our local producers are interested
in hemp. We see it as a valuable opportunity for not just the
Midwest, but for our economy, and I want to know, how is the
Department working to expeditiously implement the rules around
the production, transportation, and the sale of hemp products,
and when can we expect to see a rule issued?
Secretary Perdue. Obviously, we are proceeding very
judiciously, obviously, because of the uniqueness of the hemp
crop, and its relationship to other crops that we are not
encouraging. But nonetheless, it is complex. We are working,
certainly, to develop these rules. States are able to continue
under the 2014 rules that were already there until we can get
that. We don't believe it will be until the 2020 planting
season until we can have the definitive rules regarding hemp,
going forward. There is a lot of interest nationwide in here.
We would love to think that the potential for hemp agriculture
is as great as the anticipation is, but that remains to be
seen. We are going to proceed slowly to make sure we don't have
another situation where our productive farmers overcompensate
and blow out a market before it can get started.
Mr. Davis. Oh, you expect that to happen, Mr. Secretary?
Secretary Perdue. Pardon?
Mr. Davis. You expect that to happen?
Secretary Perdue. I think our farmers are very productive.
Mr. Davis. You know my district, and I know you are
absolutely correct. Our farmers are very productive, and thank
you for that.
Any other ways that you think we, in this Committee, can
work together to help you through this process?
Secretary Perdue. No. Again, I think passing off ideas or
impediments from your constituents is always the best way. We
rely on feedback, and they typically will reach out to you
before we hear from them, but sometimes, we hear from them as
well. But if you have ideas or questions from your constituents
about that, pass them along, and it all helps us to be better.
Mr. Davis. Well hey, I appreciate that.
One last question. A bill was recently introduced that
would direct the EPA to cancel the registration of
chlorpyrifos. I understand that your Department does not
approve these pesticide registrations, but you certainly
understand the importance of this tool to the ag industry.
I have heard from many producers regarding this issue, and
I just wanted to give you an opportunity with the time I have
to discuss the importance.
Secretary Perdue. It would be devastating in so many crops
if the crop protection chemical chlorpyrifos was not renewed.
It would be very damaging. We believe the science justifies its
use, and the labeling that has been there, so we would
recommend and encourage EPA to defend that. We are also
recommending that the Department of Justice defend any threats
against that as well.
Mr. Davis. Well, thank you, and one last question.
The farm bill requires USDA to issue a final rule on
strengthening organic enforcement by December 2019. Can you
provide an update on how USDA plans to meet this deadline, and
is there anything about the timeframe that you are concerned
about?
Secretary Perdue. I don't know that it is. We really have
paid attention to that. That is an accountability dateline of
strengthening our auditing and enforcement process. We are
aware of sort of the counterfeit knockoff of imports that are
not truly organic and used, and we are on it. I think the
things that we will do in compliance with the farm bill can be
met and will be met.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I yield back.
Secretary Perdue. Thank you.
The Chairman [presiding.] I thank the gentleman.
I now recognize the gentlelady from Maine, Ms. Pingree.
Ms. Pingree. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you
for being here with us today, Mr. Perdue. It is a pleasure to
see you again, and I want to add, as many of my colleagues did,
thank you so much for coming to visit the State of Maine. You
did a wonderful job talking to people about the opioid crisis
and broadband and Value-Added Producer Grants and organic
vegetables, and really covered the gamut in our state. I know
people appreciated it deeply, and I certainly did, so thank
you.
I also want to thank you for the roundtable you have
created on food waste, bipartisan work you have been doing, and
that is just really helpful, recognizing the importance of
dealing with food waste in our country. About 30 percent of the
food, as we know, is wasted, and that is a huge resource that
farmers produce, and water loss and everything else that we
want to make sure goes to hungry people and into the right
places.
I have a couple of questions, there is never enough time. I
just want to comment briefly. I know climate change has come up
a little bit in this hearing, and I just want to make sure that
as a Committee, we don't toss this off as kind of a joke. I
know there has been some kind of joking around about we are
going to have to stop eating hamburgers or you mentioned that
maybe cows are going to have to take Pepto-Bismol. It made me
think of the fact I have a few beef cows on my farm, and it is
hard enough to get those guys into the trailer when they have
to go to freezer camp. But if I had to give them a dose of
Pepto-Bismol every morning, or my farmers did, that just would
not work out.
But I have been recently to UC-Davis where they are doing
some really interesting work on seaweed additives in the diet,
which I guess reduce the amount of methanol. We think that is
great, because we produce seaweed in Maine, so it could be a
good partnership for all of us. And of course, there are a lot
of really positive things we can be doing around recognizing
the role that farmers can play in climate change. Sequestering
carbon in the soil, many of our conservation practices really
encourage that. Pasture farming is a great way to do that. We
need to look at this in a positive perspective and think about
how farmers can be a great part of the solution, and we can
support them in that in ways that are good for their economic
output and good for our environment as well. At some point, we
need to have a serious conversation about that, just as we are
having one on food waste.
Secretary Perdue. Well, I hope my one attempt at humor
didn't indicate to you that I don't consider it very serious,
and I do believe that our farmers are very much mindful of that
effort, and taking steps such as cover crops and many other
things to do that means lesser inputs and more outputs.
Ms. Pingree. I believe you do, and I understood the humor,
and I totally appreciate it.
But I do need to talk to you briefly about something that
has come up a little bit. I am one of the people who doesn't
support the proposed relocation and reorganization of the two
USDA agricultural research agencies, NIFA and ERS. My concern
comes from around the science of this, and I know that one of
my colleagues mentioned it would be great to have it in her
home State of Missouri, and I am sure there a lot of people who
would like to have it moved to their home state. Missouri, of
course, is no closer to Maine than Washington, D.C., so we
don't see that as an advantageous move. And while I don't
disagree with the idea that reorganization is good and not
everything has to be in Washington, I just think there could be
negative effects. I think that the reorganization of ERS
jeopardizes some of the scientific integrity by injecting
politics into the work, and there have been some concerns, such
as the 2019 budget proposed to cut ERS by 48 percent. A long-
term and highly qualified administrator of ERS on the same day
was moved as you announced that proposal. You appointed
somebody as acting administrator of ERS who is not an
economist.
There has been a little bit of mistrust and concern about
this, and I just would like to hear your thoughts on this, and
I hope you will continue in the dialogue with many Members of
Congress who do not support this potential move and
reorganization.
Secretary Perdue. Well, I certainly hope we can have a
dialogue, and I know it is beyond the scope of this hearing
today, but I will give you my initial reasons, and I would
invite you to come and let's have a lengthy discussion about
this so I can further give you my reasons for this.
You mentioned, for one, scientific integrity on ERS and the
realignment under the Office of the Chief Economist. Here is
the way I view it is that the Office of the Chief Economist,
you may know or may not know, is a career position. It is a
career person. The alignment of the Chief Economist, as the
scientific economist in agriculture, we feel like is a better
alignment of the Economic Research Service in alignment. You
will have the administrator of ERS, a career person, reporting
to a career person, which we think is more division than
reporting to a political Under Secretary, in REE.
I know there have been rumors about scientific integrity. I
have really been confused about it, which means that we need to
have a lot of discussions. I want you to know that I look
forward to hearing and hopefully persuading you all of our
reasons and the benefit that we see in doing that. I am very
serious about that, so hopefully you will take me up on that,
and let's have a further discussion.
Ms. Pingree. I am out of time, but I absolutely will take
you up on that, and I will take you up on talking more in depth
about the role of USDA and helping us work on the climate
change challenges.
So, thank you very much for being here today.
The Chairman. I thank the gentlelady.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Thompson.
Mr. Thompson. Chairman, thank you so much.
Mr. Secretary, good to see you. Thanks for your leadership,
and please extend my appreciation to your staff as well that
are on the job and doing a great job, not just for rural
America, as we know, but without a robust rural America, as I
have said before, every American will wake up in the cold dark
and hungry. Every American benefits from what we do and what
you do.
I wanted to start out with just touching base on the number
one commodity of our number one industry in Pennsylvania, and
our number one industry is agriculture, and our number one
commodity is dairy. You know the struggles here. We have had
lengthy conversations on that. The fiscal demise of our dairy
farms really have tracked heavily, starting in about 2010 when
we lost an entire generation of milk drinkers. It is really at
that point, it wasn't this Committee, it was Education and the
Workforce, now Education and Labor that kind of starved our
kids for nutrition when it came to milk. They demonized
milkfat. The science was bad then. We know that now. The
science is very clear today. I was just talking to a friend of
mine who is the President of the Pennsylvania Medical Society,
and she was sharing with me the studies of what it is today.
I want to thank you also for implementing the one percent
milkfat and flavor option back to our schools. I think that
just better serves the needs of our kids, from a nutrition
perspective, and quite frankly, as a result of that, we are
seeing the demand for milk marginally increase, and the futures
look marginally good, there is more that we need to do.
And I know not to ask your opinion on specific pieces of
legislation, but I did want to check with you on the issue, I
have introduced, along with the support of these two gentlemen
to my right here, as original cosponsors of the Whole Milk for
Healthy Kids, and I know you have jurisdiction over school
meals in terms of nutrition. Any thoughts on that initiative? I
am not asking your opinion on the specific bill, but on
restoring an option, among other options, for whole milk in our
schools?
Secretary Perdue. Well, thank you, sir. You probably are
aware that I answered from our personal conversations that we
would be supportive of that. We just announced the Dietary
Guidelines panel, which is a very balanced panel. That is where
many of these things come from. You talk about demonizing or
disparaging milk or whole milk, and now it is back. You
remember we went through that with eggs over cholesterol, and
now they are okay.
We need to have the latest scientific research guide us in
these areas. For the most part I don't see; honestly, I don't
believe that childhood obesity is caused by drinking too much
milk now. It is caused by a lot of other things that include
sugars, but not whole milk. I would welcome some guidance in
that from Congress, and we will certainly be delighted to
implement those kinds of rules.
You are probably aware of the allegations and the concern
when we did that that we were trying to roll back different
things. If you look at what we did, we didn't roll back a lot.
We said let's see what is working and what is not to proceed
very closely. Nutrition is very important, and feeding 30+
million school kids every day is very important, and we want to
do the best we can.
Mr. Thompson. I thank you for your work in that area.
I don't know if this has been touched on. I apologize, I
have had to come in and out of the hearing. But the new farm
bill does require USDA to calculate the price for high quality
alfalfa hay as purchased by dairy farmers in the top five milk
states. And to help the program accurately reflect the dairy
farmer costs, USDA should begin incorporating this price point
into the DMC formula once it becomes available. Has USDA
directed NASS to begin collecting that data yet?
Secretary Perdue. Not yet. That will be part of our
implementation of the farm bill rules that we are working on,
and I say, from my direction, not yet. That is because I am not
aware that we have, but much good work goes on at the
Department that I am unaware of, and they may have already
begun, but I am not aware of it.
Mr. Thompson. One of the most important things we do, the
gentlelady mentioned relates to climate change. I think this
Committee takes a leading role in that, because we have
jurisdiction, really, over forests. And a good healthy forest
is the world's best carbon sink. We have been doing a lot of
great work with, at least, the past two farm bills to make sure
we have healthy forests.
I was always looking to make sure that our U.S. Forest
Service, as it comes to our National Forests, has the tools to
be able to do that, to manage those forests in a healthy way,
to make sure we have multiple generations of forests. That
means we are doing some timbering. We are harvesting, certainly
with a sustainable growth rate.
I wanted to check, do you agree that the agency needs more
tools for more proactive management of our National Forests?
Secretary Perdue. Absolutely. And I do just want to comment
right away, for Ms. Pingree's sake. Agriculture doesn't get the
credit that it does for carbon capture many times, both in our
forests and also our annual crops over carbon capture in that
way. Agriculture and the growth of plants are very, very
important from a carbon capture perspective that usually I
don't see included in many calculations of carbon footprint.
Mr. Thompson. I know officially we are on record now,
healthy forests are carbon neutral. That is not quite accurate.
It is carbon negative, what is taken out of the air and
manufacturing topsoil through those trees.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
The gentleman from California, Mr. Carbajal.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome,
Secretary Perdue.
I look forward to you visiting my district, as our Chairman
recently did a few months back. Hopefully, we can arrange
something like that in the future.
California and the rest of the western United States face
unique farming and ranching obstacles that differ from those of
the midwestern and southern states. Specifically, my district
on the Central Coast is home to diverse agriculture ranging
from strawberries to wine grapes to avocados, and other
specialty crops, all of which require intensive labor. Farmers
in my district have reported millions of dollars in losses of
crops due to labor shortages, and it is clear that the shortage
of and inadequate labor force is one of the greatest challenges
facing U.S. agriculture today.
Our broken immigration system is at the heart of this
issue, and I believe we must finally take action to legalize
our existing ag workforce, while implementing a viable
guestworker program to provide a future flow of labor.
In your testimony, you emphasized the need for farmers to
have access to long-term solutions regarding a stable
workforce. What are you doing as Secretary to address the
challenges our farmers are facing in securing a reliable
workforce due to our broken immigration system?
Secretary Perdue. Sure. We don't have priority in those
areas, but one of the things we are doing is being an advocate
for everyone who will listen regarding those in those areas
that do have authority in that.
We are working with the Department of Labor, the Department
of Homeland Security, and the Department of State certainly for
our Guestworker Program to make the H-2A Program more viable.
We are also encouraging you all in Congress and our
Administration to look at a comprehensive immigration bill.
Last time we tried to do that was when President Bush was
here, and we got close, but it didn't happen. Again, we have
looked at the various components regarding border security or
asylum or chain migration, all those kinds of things. I think
there are enough equities for everyone in there. Certainly, our
interest is in the ag labor issue, and we have encouraged the
White House, as well as others, to look at our immigration
policy comprehensively and make sure that we have enough
workers in this country, not just in agriculture, but in other
places. When you have unfilled jobs that need workers,
certainly sometimes low skill, sometimes merit-based high skill
workers.
We think it is in the best interest of the United States to
have a comprehensive legal immigration system, going forward.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you.
I think that was in 2013 when the United States Senate came
up with a compromise that the House wasn't able to move
forward. I am not sure if that was under Bush or Obama. It is
escaping me.
Secretary Perdue. The last one I recall was the Bush
proposal, but you may be right.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
It is also clear that the need for mechanization continues
to grow. In your testimony, you mentioned the farm bill's
significant investment in USDA research. Can you please tell me
how the USDA plans to ensure the prioritization of research
into mechanization for labor intensive agriculture commodities
through the implementation of the 2018 Farm Bill?
Secretary Perdue. Well again, that is part of the research
overall that we do. As you asked me to ensure that USDA does
that, some would be concerned that the appointed Secretary of
Agriculture was directing the integrity of scientific pursuit.
We fund people out here in various land-grant universities, as
well as Agricultural Research Service, to determine the best
product methods, going forward.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you very much.
I will yield my time back.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Yoho.
Mr. Yoho. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it.
Secretary Perdue, great to see you again. I appreciate all
the hard work you have done in implementing the farm bill and
the things you have done in the past, and your leadership. And
what you have done on the SNAP Program is monumental, and it is
the right thing to do. As you quoted President Roosevelt, and
we saw what President Clinton did and other Presidents, that is
the right thing to do, and we will support you any way we can.
With that, with the technologies that we have today, and I
have brought to the USDA's attention, and you were privy to
these meetings, we brought people in from the Duval County
Sheriff's Office where Jacksonville, Florida is on the fraud
that was being implemented in the EBT Program by the vendors.
Have you guys moved forward on that to make sure that has gone
away? We had somebody at a meeting. They said there was a
minimum of $1 billion in fraud in the EBT vending the way it is
done, and possibly up to $4 to $7 billion.
Secretary Perdue. It is a constant pursuit, Congressman,
and certainly we are moving out. One of those areas is trying
to get the FOIA interest. If you know that when we go against a
retailer who we have reason to believe that is defrauding the
taxpayer and the EBT Program and the food stamp program, they
get stayed through those consequences if they file a FOIA
request. And it is those kind of legal deterrents, there are
certainly cottage industry attorneys who take advantage of
those kinds of rules, and it is those kinds of things that we
are trying to minimize.
We believe that data collection system that we are going
for, the multi-state data will help us to determine if people
are double-dipping in other places, but the retailer fraud
continues to just be very frustrating.
Mr. Yoho. Well, it is something, if we bring that person
back up here again, it needs to be a full Committee hearing to
where both sides see this. It is not a Republican or a
Democratic issue. This is something that is breaking the
integrity of the SNAP Program as it was designed, and the
people that are getting hurt are the ones it was really
designed for. We will let you know on that.
I want to touch base on something Rodney Davis brought up
about the chlorpyrifos. Along with that same bill, I heard
there was another one that came up on glyphosates to ban them
for use. How detrimental would that be for agriculture?
Secretary Perdue. It would be very consequential for ag
production. I hope that the culture of the United States does
not pursue the European model of the technology free zone, I
call it, in the EU. This has been a help. If you look at the
preponderance--we like to call ourselves sound science-based.
If we look at the sound science on this issue, it is
overwhelming----
Mr. Yoho. Overwhelming.
Secretary Perdue.--regarding the safety of glyphosate and
certainly hopefully we will not take the tact of Europe of
banning.
I am very concerned, Congressman, about the fear of our
food and the fear mongering out here that talk about the lack
of safety we have in our food supply system.
Mr. Yoho. Well, it is just like the argument over the GMOs.
We have 100 Nobel Laureate scientists that have said there is
no human risk of that, and it is science-based versus what is
on the Internet.
Going down that, with the technology as it pertains to the
CRISPR-9 gene technology, the FDA is going to be the one making
the rules on this. We want to make sure that people are moving
forward. As you are well aware, with dairy cows, they can do
CRISPR-9 technology and give the long-haired Holstein short
hair so they are more heat tolerant. They can remove the
testicle genes in pigs, and so they can farm them out without
testicles because the EU doesn't want domestic animals
castrated.
What do we need to do in this body to help that rulemaking
process? And I know that is the FDA. Do you have any
recommendations on that so we can move forward with the
research we are doing at our land-grants?
Secretary Perdue. You left out the dehorning that is
already there.
Mr. Yoho. Right.
Secretary Perdue. I would hope that this Committee would
take that and really move with it, as you indicated,
statutorily.
Mr. Yoho. Be proactive.
Secretary Perdue. It has jurisdictional issue, but in
working with your colleagues and other committees, for the
record, CRISPR-9 technology is non-transgenic.
Mr. Yoho. Right.
Secretary Perdue. That is not taking genes from some other
organism, plant or animal, and in placing it in an animal for
this fear of Frankenstein-type animals.
Mr. Yoho. Right.
Secretary Perdue. This is a gene that has been proven in
many species that can be effective, and I would hope if we
don't do this, we are going to see United States lose its lead
as far as a technology leader in agriculture. And then, God
help us.
Mr. Yoho. You are so right. Thank you, and I yield back.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
The gentlelady from Iowa, Mrs. Axne.
Mrs. Axne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Secretary Perdue, for being here. It is great to see you again
today. I want to thank you for all you are doing for our
agriculture community. As you know, Iowa is a key player, not
just in food but also in fuel and feed for our cattle and pork
and fish, everything. We are big players here, so I appreciate
that. And thank you for helping to get the FSA offices open
during the shutdown. That was instrumental in helping our
farmers, so I appreciate that.
As you are probably aware, Iowa State University, which is
one of our nation's top agricultural research institutions,
recently released a report showing that Iowa's entire economy
has been negatively affected by the trade tariffs. And overall,
as you mentioned, U.S. net farm income has fallen by almost 50
percent, down to $65.7 billion this year, down from just 5
years ago.
How close do you think the President and China are to
reaching a trade deal? I know you mentioned earlier that
negotiations are, I believe, done when they are done, but I
have to go back to my constituents with a better answer than
that.
Secretary Perdue. Sure.
Mrs. Axne. What can I tell them?
Secretary Perdue. Well, you can tell them that you believe
there are substantive, meaningful trade negotiations taking
place by both sides. I think I sense that. Now you know that I
am not at the table. Our Under Secretary of Trade, Ted
McKinney, has been in the agricultural sectors, Ambassador
Lighthizer and Secretary Mnuchin have been leading these
principle to principle. But based on my observations in the
Oval Office, there is a sincere desire, really on both sides,
to resolve the trade disputes.
As has been from the beginning, the ball is in the Chinese
court. We will not have an agreement without fundamental
understanding that the intellectual property illegal transfer
must stop, and the enforceability provisions about that. That
is for the future of the United States' economy.
I believe we are making progress on those fundamental
structure reforms, but I don't want to raise expectations
either for you to go back and say, ``Well, Secretary Perdue
said we are going to have it by this time.'' I would love to be
able to do that. If it were in my ability, then I would give
you the date and the hour, but they don't give me that
authority.
Mrs. Axne. Would it be safe to say that within this
quarter, within a few months?
Secretary Perdue. I think we will know something. As you
know, the latest delay of these additional tariffs, the
President announced just this past week over a delay in that. I
believe he and the President of China, President Xi, will
probably be meeting face-to-face again before the end of March,
and if we are going to have a deal, we will have a deal pretty
much there at that point in time. But that means when you make
a deal at the principle level, there are a lot of details to
work out. That is what they are trying to do ahead of time now
is really going line by line over these very sectors, over the
non-tariff trade barriers that must be corrected in order for
them to purchase our ag products.
Mrs. Axne. Speaking of those details, as a matter of fact,
my next question would be what have you recommended to the
President as the minimum amount of soybean sales that we can
expect to see in a deal? Specifically, I am wondering what is
that floor that you are looking at? Is it 50 million metric
tons? What can we plan on?
Secretary Perdue. In the spirit of negotiation, I am not
sure it is appropriate to answer that question in public here
today. We have a list, not only of soybeans, but also your feed
grains, a couple of products you are interested in, ethanol and
DDGs as well, and corn and sorghum and other types of things,
beef and poultry. A variety of things. We are not going to
enumerate different levels.
Again, negotiations are negotiations. What is the capacity?
We put proposals on the table. China has come back with that,
but it is not appropriate to do specific digit negotiations in
public.
Mrs. Axne. All right. Well, I have 30 seconds left, so I
just want to get a plug in there for E15 as well. I appreciate
what you are doing. I want to echo my peers here across the
aisle as well to say that, of course, Iowa really relies on our
ethanol industry. As you know, 2.1 million acres of harvested
corn goes into that, and we know that those waivers went to
extremely profitable refiners, while our hardworking Iowa
farmers didn't get that opportunity. What can we expect in the
future from you to help with that?
Secretary Perdue. Well again, you understand those waivers
are controlled by the Environmental Protection Agency. We have
advocated long and hard over the rulemaking about that. We have
objected in interagency relationships of clearance over putting
amounts in there for waivers in the prospective portion. I
believe Administrator Wheeler when he says that you will see a
different type of enforcement, going forward, and I trust him
in that regard. I think he has been very supportive. He also
has made an attempt, had the shutdown not occurred, we would
have been able to see the E15 rules before driving season. Now
it won't happen, but we are encouraging them to announce
discretionary enforcement of that soon.
Mrs. Axne. Well, thank you for your continued efforts, and
please help us continue to put that money back into our
hardworking farmers across this country, and not just to
support very profitable companies.
Thank you.
The Chairman. I thank the gentlelady.
The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Allen.
Mr. Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Secretary, you
have been here an awful long time, so I am just going to make
some very, very quick remarks.
I do think for the benefit of those here, 2 years ago you
were sitting there and we were talking about farm income and
commodity prices, and how farm income has dropped roughly 55
percent, which has been a tremendous impact on our industry
throughout the nation, and of course, the only solution that we
could offer up and talk about at that time is we had to
renegotiate these trade deals. Because we were getting taken
advantage of, both through NAFTA, there were some dumping
issues, and also in Asia.
So here we are, and obviously from a trade standpoint, you
have addressed all of that. Thank you for your hard work. I
know you have been a big part of these negotiations, and you
are a farmer and you are a friend of the farmer, and we thank
you for what you are doing in that regard. But obviously, the
sooner we can get that done, the better for our farmers,
because we are, as you know, in planting season. And what I am
hearing is, ``Hey current cotton prices, I don't know if I want
to plant cotton.'' They are trying to make decisions.
The other thing is the disaster funding. I know from your
side, you have been down there, you looked at it. We were
picking 1,400 pounds an acre before the storm and after the
storm, and we were lucky. We are getting 400 pounds now, but it
still is a tremendous impact on our farmers. And we were going
to have a heck of a crop before that storm hit. It is just a
really, really devastating blow, but we have to do something
there. And of course, we had the blueberry freeze that you are
familiar with also.
But with that, you have addressed all of these things.
Broadband is another one. Our rural economies would really
benefit, and so we need to really--and this body, I know, has a
lot of that responsibility. But certainly, you have a big
voice, and those are the things I hear over and over again when
I go back into the district.
Anything that you haven't shared with us that you would
like to share, as far as where we are going and how we get
there?
Secretary Perdue. I appreciate your mentioning many of
those things, Rick, and I will tell you, if Congress saw fit to
see the power of appropriation to the USDA, we would cure that
disaster tomorrow. And I don't think that is going to happen,
but nonetheless, we are willing and able to implement as
quickly as possible.
They are serious issues. I am agriculture. My friends are
agriculture, and they are pretty professional complainers
sometimes. This came true on many of them, and it is a
dangerous situation. Hopefully, we can get it rectified.
Mr. Allen. That is principally why we passed the
legislation we did right before Christmas was to get the
disaster relief in here before we left for Christmas, and then,
of course, it didn't go anywhere, and then we had this terrible
government shutdown, so it has been a bit of a mess.
But listen, thank you for being here this long, and thank
you for your service. You are a great Georgian, one of my
mentors and heroes, and I just really appreciate everything you
do for us.
Secretary Perdue. Thank you. That is an awesome
responsibility.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
The gentleman from California, Mr. Cox.
Mr. Cox. Yes, Mr. Secretary, thanks so much for staying so
late, and sharing your time with us.
Your testimony might not be as titillating as some of the
other hearings going on today, but it is much more substantive.
As you know, I come from California's 21st Congressional
District, which is the top agricultural district in the top
agricultural state, and just last year, California became the
world's fifth largest economy. And you know, that is attributed
to lots of things, financial services, entertainment, ecology,
but left out of that story is our state's ag industry and our
rural regions. And as you know, our rural regions are some of
the most beautiful and bountiful places in the world. They
produce our commodities for all of our Americans, food, water,
open spaces. And our farmers and ranchers are the cornerstones
of these economies, and when they succeed, our communities
succeed.
One crucial piece of this success is the USDA rural
development programs. And as you well know, you have been
there, and you can attest that our district throughout the
Central Valley, they are very rural, but the problem I keep on
hearing when I talk to these communities is that they can't
access these programs because of the myriad of definitions of
what is rural as defined by the USDA. I would like to hear what
the Administration is doing to make sure that these programs,
these very valuable programs, are available to our really rural
communities so that they can access this Federal assistance.
Secretary Perdue. You have hit on a very serious issue.
Unfortunately, it is not determined by USDA. It is statutorily
defined in these rural definitions, and I would encourage this
Committee to look at a common definition of rural that you
could direct in many of our programs regarding access. We are
limited to defining rural as under 20,000 in many places, under
ten in some other places. We would love to have a common
definition because the places that might have been 10,000 10
years ago may be 20,000 now, and those who might have been
20,000 are now 40,000 and 50,000 and still need help many times
in their growth, water, water treatment plants and others in a
more definitive way.
We would love to have a comprehensive definition of rural.
We were hoping to get that in the farm bill, and that was not
one of the things we could agree upon.
Mr. Cox. Well, I guess that is why we are elected to
Congress and why we sit on this Committee.
And certainly, we talked about it a little earlier and
touched on it. I just want to hit on it again, but with regard
to disaster relief; but really, we haven't spoken about the
causes of the disasters in the first place, and just once
again, how does the issue of climate change affect, influence,
and guide the forecasts, the policies, and the programs of the
Agriculture Department?
Secretary Perdue. Well again, we are trying to do better
meteorological forecasts on a longer-term basis, our Drought
Monitor and different things like that. Aside from causes, we
are trying to mitigate the effects with better research of
crops and seeds. There are also practices regarding cover crops
and things like that that have better quality water runoff and
less carbon footprint for less trips across the field, those
kinds of things, and limiting that, no tilling, all those
practices. I think our producers are doing a much better job.
They are much more aware than they ever have been. But we can
always do better.
Mr. Cox. Well, thanks so much, and to reiterate Mr.
Harder's, Mr. Carbajal's, Mr. Panetta's, Mr. Costa's
invitation, and myself, we sure would like to see you back in
California sometime soon.
Secretary Perdue. Well, I won't come to your district. I
have already been there.
Mr. Cox. Thanks again, Secretary, and I yield back the rest
of my time.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
The gentleman from Kansas, Mr. Marshall.
Mr. Marshall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good afternoon,
Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Perdue. You have been patient.
Mr. Marshall. Yes, I appreciate your being here.
My folks back home are concerned about how the FDA is
handling gene editing. I actually just walked out of an
Science, Space, and Technology Committee and the folks from, I
assume, Oregon State or Washington State concerned about the
oyster industry and gene editing.
Just to be frank, our livestock and poultry folks think
that gene editing supervision ought to come under the USDA
jurisdiction. I just want to know your thoughts on what we can
do to work in that direction.
Secretary Perdue. Well again, we believe certainly from an
agricultural perspective we could implement those issues in a
very safe way. I think we have demonstrated that through our
Food Safety Inspection Service. Obviously, FDA has some
equities that we may not have in the beginning of the science
of that, but I would hope that we could come to some resolution
between your Committee and the jurisdiction of the Committee
that has jurisdiction over FDA so that we do not lose out in
the technological advances of CRISPR-9, non-transgenic gene
editing, going forward.
We have a trade problem today because this country has led
in research and development for over 70 years in better
productivity. If we lose that lead internationally, we are at
the beginning going down. I am hoping that we can resolve this.
It shouldn't rely upon jurisdictional issues. It ought to be
based on science and moving forward, because if we take as long
to approve these kinds of things as we have taken to approve
pharmaceuticals, it will be, again, this technology will be
located outside the boundaries of the United States.
Mr. Marshall. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
I want to talk a second about the SALE Act of 2017 (H.R.
4058, Securing All Livestock Equitably Act of 2017), the dealer
statutory trust. You may recall that my life, I started off
working on the family farm. My first real job was working at a
sale barn. And we, through the last farm bill, we provided for
you guys to study the SALE Act a little bit, what its impact
would be. I just wanted to know if you have any type of update
on what the timeline looks for it?
Secretary Perdue. You have caught me totally unawares and
unbriefed, Congressman. Congratulations.
Mr. Marshall. I apologize.
Secretary Perdue. We will answer your question by written
comment later.
Mr. Marshall. Okay, I apologize for that.
Moving on, from my dairy producers, obviously in the new
farm bill we have some new programs going on, and I am still
trying to wrap my arms around all of them. There are both
options in the FSA and RMA. What kind of a timeline is there,
going forward, with that, and any words of advice I can give to
my producers back home?
Secretary Perdue. I would probably say you ought to
encourage your wheat producers to go in the dairy business with
the new farm bill.
Mr. Marshall. Okay.
Secretary Perdue. The timelines that we talked about
earlier is that you remember, it has provisions for net refunds
for those that have been in the prior program or Margin
Protection Program. Those refunds we expect to begin around
April the 30th, and that way the transfer of paper recording
for the first 2 years of that program has impeded the progress
of that. We could have done it sooner. The calculator of where
it should determine ought to be out around April 15 of where
they should participate. We believe the retroactive insurance
participation MPP March the 18th allows farmers with insurance
retroactive there, and the sign-up, we think, for the new dairy
program will be around June 17, and we think the payments
initially may begin as early as July 8.
Mr. Marshall. Great.
Speaking of wheat farmers, they are asking about the sign-
up for ARC and PLC, and of course, they want to make sure that
China is still interested in buying wheat. We have a WTO
project or case out there, year number 3. China is
supplementing their wheat and corn farmers to the tune of $100
million per year. Let's talk a little bit about the ARC and PLC
sign-up, and then the wheat situation in China.
Secretary Perdue. Yes, the ARC and PLC sign-up we are
hoping to be around September the 1st. There was an earlier
statutory requirement, but that was the assumption of passing
in the previous fiscal year as well. We were delayed about
that. I think that is about as soon as we can do it. We will
complete the rule probably around the 1st of May, but then by
the time we get it OMB cleared, whether it is significant or
insignificant it is probably going to be September 1 before we
get sign-up.
The interesting thing, though, it will affect the 2019/2020
crop, not the 2018/2019 crop, not the crop they are planting
right now, but for the next crop year.
Mr. Marshall. Got it, thank you.
I yield back.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
The gentlelady from Illinois, Mrs. Bustos.
Mrs. Bustos. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and hello, Mr.
Secretary.
Secretary Perdue. Hey, ma'am.
Mrs. Bustos. You have good stamina. I went and had lunch
and came back, and had a couple meetings and came back.
I talked with you before about the ag lab in Peoria, very,
very important to my region. We share Peoria with Congressman
LaHood, as I told you before, we have a Democratic Member and a
Republican that represents that town, and we work very hard
together to make sure that the ag lab is doing well.
The big concern that I have is with the Administration's
thought of closing, threatened twice now to close the Peoria ag
lab. It is the largest agricultural research lab within the
U.S. Department of Agriculture. We have about 100 Ph.D.s that
walk through those doors every work day, and 250 people total.
They have done things, and you are aware of this, but they came
up with the mass distribution method for penicillin. They are
just on this great breakthrough that they think they have found
a mosquito repellant that is more effective than DEET. We have
all these great things that are coming out of those doors, and
I know your stated commitment to ag research, and I applaud you
for that.
I just want to know, what can we see, going forward? Can
you be on the same page with us in making sure that those doors
stay open? In fact, can we grow the presence of the Ph.D.s that
walk through those doors and do even more great work in
agricultural research?
Secretary Perdue. Actually, we have a proposal to move them
to the National Capital Region so they can be here with NIFA
and ERS. Joke.
Mrs. Bustos. Joke?
Secretary Perdue. Joke.
Mrs. Bustos. Psych.
Secretary Perdue. If I am not mistaken, probably the
careers at OMB have been after these labs out here in the
country for the past--more than the past 2 years, and I kind of
did a hissy fit last year about the need for research in
agriculture over the funding. Hopefully--ARS, it is a big deal,
and these people make huge progress.
I believe it is fundamentally the reason that we are so
productive and have to depend on exports and trade now to be
profitable, because our farmers are so productive based on the
basic research, the applied research, and the delivery system
of an extension service, and we will continue to advocate for
that. I believe you will see a better research budget proposal
coming forward. Hopefully you will, and we are going to do the
best to implement that.
Mrs. Bustos. That would be great.
Secretary Perdue. I appreciate you being proud of those
folks, and they do a great job.
Mrs. Bustos. Yes, very much so.
Have you had a chance to visit that yet?
Secretary Perdue. Not yet.
Mrs. Bustos. We would love to have you. Darren and I, we
can both host you there, but we would love to have you. I know
you are probably getting five million invitations to go to
people's districts, but I would love for you to see it. It is
this wonderful art deco era building, and just the amazing work
that comes out of that. We would love to have you, if you think
you could fit that into your schedule at some point.
Secretary Perdue. I appreciate the invitation. We try to
get to our labs and our other USDA facilities that 90 percent
of them are out of the region here, and we try to get around
and encourage those folks and let them know that we still know
they are part of our family.
Mrs. Bustos. Okay. Well, we would host you in grand fashion
if you could make it.
Another question I have, I have been to Cuba a couple
times. Rodney Davis and I actually did a bipartisan ag tour of
Cuba to look for what markets we had potential to trade in for
our producers and our growers. This was under the Obama
Administration. President Trump doesn't seem to be as open to
having Cuba as a trading partner. I know we have the Market
Access Program and we have some funding to look for expanding
our markets, but any thoughts you could share with us about
your feelings of growing our relationship with Cuba as an ag
partner?
Secretary Perdue. I will. I have a personal response based
on when I was governor, and we tried to do the same thing. I
think probably eliminating or the restriction over the Market
Access Program down there. The real issue with Cuba is just
cash, and they don't have the resources to do that. We are
still shipping poultry and rice and other things down there,
but they could do more if they really had the money. They have
been supported by sponsors around the world in a way, and there
is obviously conversation with Venezuela having supported their
fuel and energy issues, and that is kind of certainly cloudy
right now.
But we would love if Cuba were able to. I have been in the
business and I would love to sell some customers, but if they
couldn't pay you, you didn't need their business. And that is
kind of the problem right now with Cuba, but we are sitting
right on the doorstep ready whenever they are able to get
financially able to buy our products.
Mrs. Bustos. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, and my time has
expired. I yield back. Thank you.
The Chairman. I thank the gentlelady.
The gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Comer.
Mr. Comer. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and Mr.
Secretary, it is always an honor to have you before our
Committee. I am a big fan of yours. I speak to Farm Bureau
groups and ag groups all the time, and I brag on you, and you
are extremely popular within the ag community, and I appreciate
the good work you are doing.
I know it has been a long day for you today. I just ran
over here from the Oversight Committee hearing, and I can
assure you, you are having a better day than the sole witness
testifying before that Committee is having. Again, it is great
to have you here.
I wanted to talk to you about tobacco. Being from Kentucky,
I probably have the biggest, if not one of the biggest, tobacco
districts in America, and Mr. Secretary, the FDA is mounting a
Federal assault on tobacco growers. In Kentucky and throughout
the South, in just 2 years, we have seen more tobacco
regulations out of the FDA than the entire 8 years under the
Obama Administration.
My biggest concern is about dark tobacco growers. As you
may know, the vast majority of dark tobacco is grown within a
100 mile radius of Hopkinsville, Kentucky, right in the center
of my district. The previous Administration literally dropped a
midnight rule related to smokeless tobacco that would wipe out
the entire American moist smokeless tobacco category, and
subsequently wipe out the dark tobacco growers in Kentucky.
Tobacco growers are truly struggling with the FDA. With its
proposals, it is adding to the economic challenges that they
already face.
Can you assure this Committee that you will continue to
educate Commissioner Gottlieb and the FDA on rules they have
proposed which directly impact tobacco producers in Kentucky
and throughout the United States?
Secretary Perdue. Yes.
Mr. Comer. And I appreciate that. We have had this
conversation before. I know that you support farmers,
hardworking farmers, it is just the nitrosamine rule is
unattainable, and there is just too much uncertainty right now
within the tobacco industry. There are only two types of
farming in Kentucky now that a young, beginning farmer can do
that will cash flow, and that is tobacco and poultry.
Secretary Perdue. How about hemp?
Mr. Comer. Well, that is my next question. I appreciate you
bringing that up. We are really excited in Kentucky. We were
the first state to start legally growing industrial hemp. We
have probably 35 processors in the state. I know Senator
McConnell has spoken to you as well on his support and
excitement about the hemp industry, and Rodney Davis mentioned
it in his remarks.
I know that it is a bureaucratic nightmare to come up with
rules and regulations with the new emerging industry. We had
lots of learning experiences in the Kentucky Department of
Agriculture when we began a very, very small program.
I just want to offer my assistance from my experience
regulating a new industry, the hemp industry in Kentucky, when
you come to trying to implement the new law. I believe that
what you said is exactly correct with respect to we as farmers
do a very good job producing anything. Give us time, and we can
overproduce it in a very short period of time.
There are a lot of potential pitfalls out there that could
probably be avoided from a regulatory standpoint. I would love
to continue that discussion with you. I know we have people in
the Kentucky Department of Agriculture that would offer their
assistance, as well as Senator McConnell, on that.
The last thing I wanted to mention, and I will yield back,
we post all of our Committee questions on our Facebook, and my
farmers call every day. I know you have answered this question
a few times already today, but can you kind of give us a quick
update of where we are with trade with China, especially with
the soybean market?
Secretary Perdue. Sure. Again, we are cautiously
optimistic. I believe substantive progress was made over the
last 2 weeks and the last two visits, both us there and them
here. And but again, I don't want to prematurely raise
expectations. There is a lot of work to be done. We have made
some progress on structural reform, including intellectual
property, but there is more to be made. And there are hurdles
here in agriculture over structural non-tariff barriers to
reach the kind of numbers that we would want to see and they
would like to commit to. We have to change some things, and
hopefully we can see those happen.
While we want to continue to assume the best, we have to
continue to work hard to make sure it happens.
Mr. Comer. Well thank you, and I will conclude by saying
this. Kentucky farmers support President Trump and they support
you, and I appreciate the good work you are doing for Kentucky
agriculture.
Secretary Perdue. Well, we do want to rely on you, and
obviously Secretary Quarles over the hemp issues as we navigate
not only a new emerging, but a unique crop.
Mr. Comer. Thank you.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
The gentlelady from Connecticut, Mrs. Hayes.
Mrs. Hayes. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you for being
here today. I apologize for my tardiness. I had another
Committee assignment. But this is my first Committee, for
agriculture, representing Connecticut's 5th district, and
bringing forth the voices of our small family farmers and our
inner city students who rely on programs like school nutrition
and SNAP.
I want you to know that one in eight people in Connecticut
are food-insecure, about 17 percent, or 100 in 17,000 children.
And as a teacher, I know exactly how important SNAP and
programs like school meals are for my students to succeed in
the classroom.
I have to add this, because I hear a lot of talk about the
economy and trade and production and budgets, but as a history
teacher, I know that one of our basic functions of government
as outlined in the Constitution is to promote the general
welfare as well. I recognize as a Member of this Committee that
those children are also our responsibility. Kids don't learn
when they are hungry.
Also, when we are talking about these programs, children
can't go to job training programs. When we are talking about
able-bodied adults and SNAP Program and things like that, I
just hope that we don't forget that most of the people who
receive these benefits are children. And I appreciate the work
that the Department has gotten done. Actually, I thank you. I
thank you for what you did to maintain the operation of
nutrition programs, including SNAP, school meals, and WIC
during the partial government shutdown. We have heard from
school food service directors and commodity distributors that
the shutdown had an impact on their ability to procure and
distribute food to schools.
Can you outline what impacts were experienced and the
implications in the short- and long-term the shutdown had on
nutrition programs, and what is the Department doing
specifically to address those impacts?
Secretary Perdue. Sure. I am sure there must have been, but
I appreciate your compliments regarding that. We think probably
most of those things were taken care of. We kind of did
backflips to make sure that the February SNAP benefits were
done. States participated and cooperated magnificently with us
to get that done by submitting their files by January the 20th,
and that enabled them to continue to do that.
That was a heroic effort with our Food and Nutrition
Service people, and we are very proud of that. I think we have
recovered in most all aspects. We see WIC numbers going down,
but that is simply a function of the economy as well in that
way.
I would remind you, and I appreciate your passion for
children, and as an educator, you understand that I was with
the School Nutrition Services, and it talked about feeding
bodies, fueling minds, how important nutrition is for education
and learning. But the ABAWD, A-B-A-W-D, stands for without
dependents, so that is very critical function to understand. We
are talking about able-bodied adults without dependents.
Mrs. Hayes. Okay, thank you.
You also outlined a plan to relocate and what I feel is
disruptively restructure the Economic Research Services under
the Office of the Chief Economist. As you know, ERS is
responsible for assessing food insecurity or hunger rates in
the United States. This is critical information for policy
makers who oversee nutrition assistance programs.
ERS also conducts research to assess how nutrition programs
like the ones I just described are working to reduce hunger and
improve the health of Americans. Relocating and restructuring
the agency will have significant impacts on this important
work. Did you or the Department consider any of these impacts
when developing this new proposal, and what specific steps has
the Department taken to mitigate these impacts?
Secretary Perdue. We did try to take all those
considerations into place.
First of all, the work and the research that you discuss
will continue to go on in that way. There will be a cadre of
leadership in NIFA and ERS to remain here in a leadership
perspective to visit with Congress, to answer questions, to
appear over all those kinds of research functions, so we do not
anticipate losing any of that capacity from ERS, nor NIFA, in
that move. We did consider that, and we believe aligning the
ERS, Economic Research Service, under the Office of the Chief
Economist, he is like the chief scientist in REE, the political
Under Secretaries call the chief scientist. Well, the chief
economic scientist is the career person in the Office of the
Chief Economist there. You will have a career person reporting
to a career person there, which we think is less likely to have
political influence over the outcomes or trying to cook the
books, if you speak, regarding the outcomes of research in that
arena, rather than reporting to a political Under Secretary
that may have an agenda.
Mrs. Hayes. Thank you. Sorry we went over the time.
The Chairman. No problem.
Mrs. Hayes. Please don't forget those children in any of
these conversations.
The Chairman. I thank the gentlelady for her questions.
And last, but certainly not least, my good friend from
California, Mr. Panetta.
Mr. Panetta. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate my
position on the dais as I get to be closer to the Secretary and
other witnesses throughout this, thank you very much for this
opportunity.
Mr. Secretary, good afternoon by now. Always good to see
you. I appreciate listening to you, although I have to say, I
was quite surprised that you actually got stumped today,
because I have never seen that in a question and answer session
with you.
Secretary Perdue. I think Congressman Marshall studied a
long time to do that.
Mr. Panetta. Well, he is a doctor, and if we knew what type
of doctor he was, that would make it more reasonable why he
stumps us. But we will talk about that later.
Look, I just obviously want to say thank you for all your
work, especially your coordination with Ambassador Lighthizer
in dealing with the current issue in regards to China, as well
as the upcoming USMCA potential deal, hopefully deal. I was
just in a hearing this morning with Ambassador Lighthizer, and
we had a good discussion on that. And obviously, with some of
your answers, we are definitely hopeful that something occurs
and that there is agreement that is reached.
My first question is if there is not an agreement reached
any time soon, do you see additional mitigation funds?
Secretary Perdue. I do not, sadly. Again, I think that
depends on the outcome. It would be devastating to markets if
we don't see a success here, and we don't know how badly that
would be, and we would have to make those recommendations at
that point in time. The motivation and the reason behind the
mitigation payments in 2018 is that the trade disruptions began
after the planting and farmers could not plan for that, so I
hope that farmers will look at the market signals today, make
their determinations over marketing the same way they would do
in any other year.
Mr. Panetta. Understood.
Now, obviously you know as well that although farmers
appreciate those types of mitigation funds, they are not about
aid, they are about trade. They are not about short-term
bailouts, they are about long-term business.
Secretary Perdue. Right.
Mr. Panetta. And with that, some of the markets that they
have, have been lost. Are you coordinating with Ambassador
Lighthizer in order to ensure that some of those markets that
were lost are gained back?
Secretary Perdue. We are really taking the lead, I would
say, in that through Under Secretary Ted McKinney and our
Foreign Agricultural Service people around the world, and
really, we are kind of the salespeople when it comes to the
deal and the contract. USTR serves as the lawyer there to write
the contract and bless the deal. That is their statutory
responsibility. But we are out selling everywhere, and we can
recover those markets. That is why we talked about the Market
Access Program, that $200 million of the Market Facilitation
Program that goes to market access and building markets in
places where we haven't had markets, and shoring up current
customers.
Mr. Panetta. Great. Thank you.
And quickly, I have a letter here dated January 25 that was
sent to the USDA in regards to early issuance of February 2019
SNAP benefits, your questions and answers that you guys send
out. I was wondering if I could get this to your staff to make
sure that it gets on your radar, if that is okay?
Secretary Perdue. We could. I think we have it. Was there
not a timeline of reply on that? I think that is what my staff
told me, because we usually like to reply by now, but I thought
there was 90 days or something, if that is the same letter I am
thinking of.
Mr. Panetta. Okay. I didn't see a timeline on this, but I
will talk your staff after. Thank you.
Secretary Perdue. Sure. Please give it to me.
Mr. Panetta. I will. Thank you very much.
Talk to me about, if you could, how is Kristi Boswell and
the progress of the work that she has been doing in regards to
immigration?
Secretary Perdue. She is a star, and the progress we are
making from a regulatory perspective with DOL and DHS and State
is largely due to her efforts in that in helping to guide their
regulatory language. We have also committed to lend her to the
White House folks to help work on the ag labor portion of a
comprehensive immigration proposal, and so she is a very much a
necessary part of our operation, because you have heard me say
before, trade, labor, regulation over and over any part of the
country you want to go to.
Mr. Panetta. Great, thank you.
And quickly, I know the farm bill has given you a new
program to respond to a host of animal, agriculture, pest and
disease outbreaks. The example with the virulent Newcastle
disease outbreak, and USDA's response is a good example of
this. How is that process coming along, the flexibility, do you
have any plans to continuing to apply it?
Secretary Perdue. The proposal dealing with the vaccine
bank and the other portions of that from a lab network, it will
go a long way. Certainly, when we get to the point of
determining the right technology of vaccines or maybe more
funds needed, but in working with the Department of Agriculture
in California over this virulent Newcastle disease, we have to
get ahead of that. We have been somewhat unhappy regarding the
progress over the backyard birds and the issue to control their
movement, and it is a serious issue. If it moved out of
California and got across the country in our poultry industry,
which is significant, it would be devastating. We need to work
diligently on that together, and I have met with Secretary Ross
recently, and hopefully we can have some new abilities to
accomplish those things.
Mr. Panetta. Thank you. Mr. Secretary, an absolute
pleasure. I look forward to seeing you out in central
California. Thank you.
Secretary Perdue. Thank you.
Mr. Panetta. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
We are going to wrap this up, Mr. Secretary. Are you happy
with that?
Secretary Perdue. Do I have to?
The Chairman. You are having fun, huh?
I am going to recognize the Ranking Member for a closing
statement.
Mr. Conaway. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
I want to get on the record that I am in full-throated
support of your efforts to reform the waiver abuses that are
going on with the ABAWD population. Many of my colleagues,
either intentionally or unintentionally, conflate children and
disabled and elderly with ABAWD populations, and nothing could
be further from the truth. These are able-bodied adults without
dependents, and we need to continue to focus on that.
The House version that passed the House did address this
waiver abuse, and then in conference with our colleagues across
the building, the Senators, we are both in agreement that the
waiver issue is being abused across this nation and needed to
be reformed. They were concerned that the House fix would
offend certain sensibilities of certain Senators that they had,
and they couldn't get it passed, but maybe the best path
forward was to do it by regulation and that you, in fact, have
all of the authorities you need to do the able-bodied adult
without dependents rule change that you are proposing. I am
hopeful that this moral hazard can be continued to be
addressed.
By example, today California has a 4.2 percent unemployment
rate. Fifty-five out of 58 counties are under a work waiver.
Every one of my colleagues from California mentioned the lack
of labor to be had in these agriculture industries. If there
are jobs available--may not be the job that they necessarily
want, but a job is a job, and so having these folks have the
initiative to get off the welfare programs and go to work is
particularly important.
I am also aware that there be certain groups out there that
will take advantage of your ample comment period to suggest,
perhaps, some changes in tightening of the way that the
counties are counted, the way that the numbers come together,
all those kids of good things, and I hope that you guys will
pay attention to that.
But, I fully support what you are doing and look forward to
getting this rule implemented, and getting this moral hazard
addressed across this country.
Thank you, sir. I look forward to working with you, going
forward.
I yield back.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman, and I want to thank
the Secretary for his persistence with being able to sit there
this long, and it is not easy at our age, Mr. Secretary, to do
that. We appreciate it.
Just the last thing.
Secretary Perdue. I am not sure what to say.
The Chairman. Well, yes. I am not either.
Anyway, one last thing: When the shutdown was going on, I
was getting calls from my producers and my employees out there
about what the heck was going on? The NRCS office would open
and the FSA office wasn't, I went and visited offices. When you
had that first round when you opened up for 3 days or whatever
it was, and talked to the employees and went back when you
opened up full-time, which by the way, was controversial,
because they had gone out and gotten unemployment, and they
finally had some money so they could pay their rent, and then
they got called back and they are not getting paid. That didn't
go over all that well.
But anyway, I found out that the NRCS employees, because
whatever they are doing, they were able to be paid somehow or
another, and your lawyers or whoever at the FSA people couldn't
be.
On that, I have drafted a bill which says, and I just got
it now and it is not completely right, but what it says is that
if somebody is administering a CCC mandatory program, like in
FSA, that they would not be laid off, that they would be paid
out of the CCC, for whatever length of time that shutdown
happens, and then when it is over with, you pay them back, pay
the CCC back, because they get paid anyway. I would assume
something like that might be helpful to your agency. What I am
going to do is give you this copy of what we have been working
on. I would like you to take a look at it, your lawyers, and
work with us. But there is no sense in if they are doing these
mandatory programs, there is no sense, in my opinion, for us,
if we have another shutdown, hopefully we won't have another
one, but if we do, there is just no sense not to have them
working, and they are going to get paid anyway, this is a way
to deal with it.
Secretary Perdue. I couldn't agree more. Again, we would be
happy to look at that, see if there are any legal issues or HR
issues or pay processing issues, but the best solution is no
shutdown.
The Chairman. Yes. If you guys would take a look at it, and
have your most problematic lawyers look at it.
Secretary Perdue. We have some of them.
The Chairman. They will pass muster on it and hopefully we
will never have that problem again.
Again, thank you very much for your patience and hanging in
there. All of the Members appreciated the opportunity to visit
with you, and all your willingness to answer their questions,
and we look forward to working with you and working through the
issues we have getting this farm bill implemented. Thank you
very much.
Secretary Perdue. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:50 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Submitted Questions
Response from Hon. Sonny Perdue, Secretary, U.S. Department of
Agriculture
Questions Submitted by Hon. Collin C. Peterson, a Representative in
Congress from Minnesota
Question 1. USDA's biotechnology regulatory program has been the
subject of multiple legal challenges within the last decade, including
cases in the Ninth Circuit and the Supreme Court. The existing biotech
regulations at USDA, or Part 340, have withstood those challenges
because of the specific way in which they were formulated. Will you
commit to Congress that your Department will not propose or finalize
any new Part 340 regulations that ignore the important lessons of prior
litigation, or that introduce substantial new legal risk to the
program? Before submitting Part 340 revisions to OMB for review, will
you work with all interested intervenors in those previous, successful
cases to ensure that USDA is fully considering the legal defensibility
of its biotech regulations?
Answer. I will commit that any updates to the regulations are
defensible and within our statutory mandates. While we cannot guarantee
that no legal challenges will exist, we will have a robust rulemaking
process and use the feedback and comments we solicit to improve the
rule. USDA should also note that, while our biotechnology regulations
were previously challenged, the most successful challenges were not
related to USDA's safety or review process, but on the sufficiency of
the supporting environmental documentation required under the National
Environmental Policy Act. USDA has taken numerous steps to improve our
environmental review process, and we are confident that that would
remain legally defensible.
Throughout the regulatory revision process, USDA has considered and
will continue to consider the important lessons of prior litigation.
Our work in issuing two previous proposals to update and revise the
USDA plant biotechnology regulations has provided invaluable
experience. As we propose and finalize revisions to USDA's plant
biotechnology regulations we will ensure that we have the best and most
up to date regulations possible, and work to minimize litigation risks.
Question 2. Mr. Secretary, we now know that the EPA granted 48
retroactive small refinery exemptions in 2016 and 2017, and this
effectively took 2.25 billion gallons of renewable fuels out of the
marketplace. These exemptions are continuing to cause economic harm to
farmers, and it worries me that there are many current petitions for
refiner exemptions awaiting a decision by EPA. Have you had discussions
with the folks at EPA and the White House about how these exemptions
are undermining the RFS and weakening the rural economy?
Answer. Yes, USDA had discussions with EPA and the White House
regarding the impact of small refinery waivers. USDA has looked at the
impact of the bankruptcy settlement that released Philadelphia Energy
Solutions from part of its RFS obligation. The retroactive waivers, and
pending waiver requests if approved, effectively reduce the RVO. A
reduced RVO translates to lower demand for corn ethanol and biodiesel.
Question 3. During the 35 day long government shutdown, the
Committee received some information from the Department about how and
why some Farm Service Agency employees were called into service for
various periods during the lapse in appropriations. Can you further
describe the decision-making process as to how Farm Service Agency
employees were brought back to work during the shutdown?
Answer. FSA county offices were open for two periods during the
most recent lapse in appropriations: the last week of December and
January 24th and 25th just before the shutdown ended, using carry-over
funding. Additionally, nearly 40% of FSA offices were open January 18-
19 and January 22-23 focused on administrative services related to
existing farm loans and provision of tax documentation to ensure the
agency provided 1099 tax documents to borrowers by the Internal Revenue
Service's deadline. USDA used the full range of its authorities and
available funding to serve America's farmers and ranchers during the
shutdown.
Question 4. African Swine Fever, Avian Influenza, Foot-and-Mouth
Disease, and other animal diseases are major threats to animal
agriculture. The 2018 Farm Bill authorized the Animal Disease
Preparedness and Response Program and National Animal Vaccine and
Veterinary Countermeasures Bank and also reauthorized the National
Animal Health Laboratory Network. Congress also provided $300 million
in mandatory funding over 10 years. These three programs are intended
to help prevent and respond to animal diseases and were supported by
nearly 400 Members of the House in the last Congress. When will all
three of these programs be implemented and what priorities does USDA
have for each program in 2019?
Answer. USDA is committed to getting these important programs up
and running as quickly as possible. On March 21, USDA held a listening
session on these provisions to hear from industry and other
stakeholders. We are in the process of reviewing and considering all
comments from that session. Additionally, the National Animal Disease
Preparedness and Response Program requires us to develop a consultation
process with states, universities and industry partners to develop
program priorities. USDA is organizing that process, after which we
will begin soliciting project suggestions to assist with the
advancement of animal health.
Question 5. While I didn't vote for the original NAFTA deal, it has
been generally positive for agriculture and withdrawing from it now
would be a mistake. The new agreement would make the Canadians end
their Class VII dairy pricing strategy that has undercut exports of
U.S. dairy ingredients for the last few years. Will you commit to
working within the Administration to make sure these new commitments
can be enforced?
Answer. Yes, USDA will continue to support the ratification process
of the new agreement and is committed to working within the
Administration to ensure Canada upholds its obligations to
transparently terminate its Class [VI] and [VII] dairy pricing system.
In fact, the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement includes a number of
transparency and consultation commitments on milk class pricing, in
addition to a mandatory review of dairy provisions 5 years after its
entry into force, which are all fully subject to dispute settlement. We
intend to use all of these tools to ensure that the new commitments are
implemented and enforced.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Alma S. Adams, a Representative in Congress
from North Carolina
Question 1. The President signed into law the 5 year farm bill,
P.L. 115-334, on December 20, 2018. This bill was negotiated in good
faith between Republicans, Democrats, the House and the Senate. Months
and years went into refining language and coming to an agreement that
received overwhelming votes in both chambers (87-13 in the Senate and
369-47 in the House), yet the USDA has decided to unilaterally change
plain Congressional intent, not even 3 months after that carefully
negotiated law was signed by the President, as it relates to
requirements for Able-Bodied Adults Without Dependents.
My district has thousands of households that rely on SNAP benefits.
Mecklenburg County alone has approximately 55,472 households that rely
on SNAP benefits each month. Please elaborate on the agency's thinking
on this rule, because through the USDA's February 1st SNAP Requirements
for Able-Bodied Adults Without Dependents proposed rulemaking, you seem
to be ignoring the will of Congress.
Answer. USDA recognizes and appreciate the hard work that went into
the farm bill, and has taken care to ensure that the rulemakings we
have proposed since its passage, including the one you reference, are
consistent with the Department's authority under the new law.
As stated in the proposed rule, the Department is committed to
enforcing the work requirements established by the law and is concerned
about the current level of waiver use despite a strong economy. The
current regulations afford states broad flexibility to develop
approvable waiver requests. The Department's operational experience has
shown that some states have used this flexibility to waive areas in
such a way that was likely not foreseen by the Department when it
developed the current regulations. Given the widespread use of ABAWD
waivers during a period of historically low unemployment, the
Department believes that the current regulatory standards should be
reevaluated.
Additionally, the President's Executive Order on Reducing Poverty
in America by Promoting Opportunity and Economic Mobility (April 10,
2018) directed Federal agencies to review regulations to determine
whether they are consistent with the principles of increasing self-
sufficiency, well-being, and economic mobility, and to strengthen
existing work requirements for work-capable individuals where possible
in order to improve employment outcomes and economic independence.
Consistent with the Executive Order and the Administration's focus on
fostering self-sufficiency, as well as the Department's extensive
operational experience with ABAWD waivers, we have determined that the
standards for these waivers must be strengthened so that the ABAWD work
requirement is applied to ABAWDs more broadly. The Department is
confident that these changes would encourage more ABAWDs to engage in
work or work activities if they wish to continue to receive SNAP
benefits.
The Department looks forward to reviewing comments and will
consider all comments received in drafting the final rule.
Question 2. When will USDA have a point of contact for the Office
of Urban Agriculture and when will the office be up and running? A lot
of folks are excited to start talking with USDA about implementation
but do not know who to talk to.
Additionally, when will we get more information about how USDA
plans to do outreach to build the advisory committee?
Answer. The 2018 Farm Bill did not provide funding for the Office
of Urban Agriculture. Should funding be appropriated for this activity,
USDA will implement this provision and establish this Office.
Question 3. Over the last 2 years, how many Community Facilities
Direct Loan and Grant (CFDLG) and Community Facilities Guaranteed Loan
(CFGL) loans and grants used for jail construction or renovation (1)
involved a plan to expand their existing jail capacity (number of total
jail beds), and (2) resulted in expanded jail capacity?
Answer. Over the last 2 years, the Community Facilities Program has
invested $5 billion in essential rural community facilities across the
country. Of this, $67,218,200 (1.34%) was obligated for jail projects
not yet completed, and $19,985,000 (0.40%) was for jail projects that
have been completed with funds over the last 2 years, for a total of
$87,203,200 (1.74%). During this time, two facilities expanded the
number of total beds available, and three facilities were for new
detention centers to alleviate overcrowding/outdated facilities and to
safely house those serving short-term sentences.
Question 4. What level of priority is given to proposals for CFDLG
and CFGL loans and grants that would fund jail construction, compared
to priority level given to applications for other types of community
facility projects? For example, would a substance use treatment
facility receive a similar prioritization?
Answer. The Community Facilities Program follows the regulation
outlined in 1942.17(c)(2)(ii) for implementing application selection
priorities which include population, health, income, and other factors.
Other factors that are prioritized include the provision of and/or the
improvement of public safety. These are taken into consideration when
the purpose of the project is to construct, enlarge, extend or
otherwise improve public safety and/or healthcare facilities. The farm
bill includes a provision to prioritize combating substance use
disorder in rural America for the CFDLG. RD is currently working to
implement this provision with an expected completion date in July 2020.
A substance use treatment facility would be evaluated for the
population and income levels it serves, along with applicable other
factors, as compared to the other applications received.
Also, prioritization is implemented only when the program has more
applications than available funds, which was not the case in FY 2018.
Question 5. What analysis or assessment is done when awarding CFDLG
and CFGL loans and grants to determine the availability of community-
based treatment or other resources that might reduce the need for jail
beds and serve the broader community before funding jail construction
or expansion projects?
Answer. The Community Facilities (CF) program offers direct loans,
loan guarantees and grants to develop or improve essential public
services and facilities in communities. Public bodies, nonprofit
organizations and federally recognized American Indian Tribes can use
the funds to construct, expand or improve facilities that provide
health care, education, public safety, and public services. Projects RD
has funded include fire and rescue stations, village and town halls,
health care clinics, hospitals, adult and child care centers, assisted
living facilities, rehabilitation centers, public buildings, schools,
libraries, and many other community-based initiatives.
Additionally, the Program is a tool that can be used to support the
Administration's goal to combat the opioid epidemic by building
facilities and purchasing equipment for prevention, treatment and
recovery in rural communities. CF supports and partners with
stakeholders on prevention efforts by funding construction, expansion
and/or improvement of rural education and mental health facilities, and
the purchase and installation of equipment. For example, a nonprofit
community service agency used CF direct loan funds to purchase a
building where they provide behavioral health, social services, and
counseling to at-risk youth. The nonprofit partners with its state
agency to operate youth anti-substance use programs.
Rural Development assesses applications on financial viability and
whether the facility is one that provides an essential service to the
local community.
Question 6. Which CFDLG/CFGL loan and grant proposals were
disapproved in Federal Fiscal Year 2018?
Answer. Applications for CF are reviewed by the state Rural
Development offices rather than by the National Office. At this time,
we do not keep a consolidated list at the national level of all
Community Facility Direct Loan and Grants or Community Facility
Guaranteed Loans that were denied.
Question 7. Can you share more information on when you think the
Section 232 tariffs will be lifted on Canada and Mexico?
Answer. Ambassador Lighthizer is leading the discussions with
Canada and Mexico regarding the potential for removing the Section 232
tariff on imports of steel and aluminum from those countries. I have
relayed to the President and Ambassador Lighthizer the concerns in the
U.S. agricultural community about those tariffs, and the corresponding
retaliatory tariffs that our agricultural exports are now facing. It
has not yet been determined how this issue will be resolved, but we are
hopeful that an agreement can be reached so those tariffs can be
eliminated.
Question 8. When do you think the U.S. will be able to set a free
trade agreement (FTA) with Japan?
Answer. Achieving a high-standard trade agreement with Japan is a
top priority for American agriculture and this Administration.
Following the guidelines of the Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), USTR
has published its negotiating objectives and the U.S. International
Trade Commission has issued a report on the probable economic impacts
of the agreement. These were the final two procedural requirements
under TPA, which means that formal trade negotiations can begin at any
time.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Jim Costa, a Representative in Congress
from California
Question 1. Mr. Secretary, as you know, in California many of our
farmers grow Extra Long Staple (ELS) cotton, also known as Pima cotton.
Growers of ELS do not participate in the traditional farm safety net
programs except for crop insurance. Instead, they rely on the ELS
competitiveness program and recourse loans. Fortunately, in the 2018
Farm Bill, Congress was able to slightly raise the ELS loan rate.
However, I would like to bring to your attention one area of needed
adjustment to the competitiveness program. Whether the competitiveness
program is triggered is tied to the market price of other competing
varieties of comparable quality cottons in the same export markets as
U.S. ELS cotton. It is my understanding that in recent years one
variety used in the calculation was removed because the quality was not
high enough to be considered, but now there is a variety of comparable
quality competing directly with U.S. ELS cotton. Unfortunately, those
quotes are not currently used in the calculation to determine if a
payment is warranted. The negative impact this is having on U.S. ELS
cotton is being felt directly by producers due to a 20 per pound price
decline in less than a year.
The intent of this program is to protect the industry by keeping
U.S. ELS cotton competitive in global markets when world prices are
below U.S. prices for competitive growth. I urge you and your team to
work with the U.S. cotton industry stakeholders to address this
situation by making the necessary adjustments to the ELS
competitiveness program before our producers suffer even greater
losses.
Answer. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Stakeholders
have brought this issue to the attention of USDA staff in recent weeks
and we are reviewing the issue.
Question 2. Mr. Secretary, I, like several of my Committee
colleagues, represent a specialty crop-heavy state that has been facing
a growing labor crisis for years--a crisis that is only projected to
worsen. It has been said many times over, but farmers simply cannot
find the willing workers they need to harvest the nation's food. With
more and more positions going unfilled, fruit and vegetable farmers are
placing their money and hopes in mechanization and automation to not
only stem the shortage, but also aid the actual job tasks to make them
more appealing to potential workers.
That is why I am pleased that the 2018 Farm Bill made strides in
supporting mechanization research. I would stress that USDA must do all
it can to ensure that all the provisions and programs are implemented
in an effective and timely matter.
Could you provide a sense of where your agency is on this? I want
you to particularly focus upon the development of the Agriculture
Advanced Research and Development Authority (AGARDA) pilot program
which allows for mechanization funding, and then the equally important
report that will identify a plan to find additional funding for further
mechanization research projects. As you know, we expect you to execute
that plan and ensure more funding flows to mechanization research
sooner than later.
Answer. The 2018 Farm Bill did not provide funding for AGARDA. USDA
looks forward to evaluating options and implementing this provision
should funding be appropriated for this activity.
Question 3. One of the biggest concerns I hear from my trade-
reliant farmers is how they will be able to regain market shares in
China. Commodities, like tree nuts, citrus, and other fruits, face
stiff competition from other countries, and gaining access in the first
place took years.
Mr. Secretary, you recently commented that you expect the United
States to quickly recover lost markets for farm products once we reach
a deal with China. Do you feel that rings true for our fruit, vegetable
and tree nut exports? Could you offer insight into how USDA will
support our farmers' push back into China, once this whole trade war is
resolved?
Answer. I believe that we can only achieve meaningful increases in
agricultural exports to China if we address a broad range of structural
barriers that have impeded U.S. exports. If President Trump is
successful in negotiating an agreement with China that addresses these
structural barriers for agriculture, I am confident that U.S.
agricultural exports--including exports of fruits, vegetables, and tree
nuts--will exceed the levels of our exports before China imposed
retaliatory tariffs.
As President Trump has said recently, trade negotiations are going
well, but the deal has to be right. Upon reaching an agreement in which
China addresses structural barriers for agriculture, USDA is prepared
to work vigorously with our agricultural exporters, including on the
ground in China, to assist them in renewing longstanding trading
relationships and in developing new ones. USDA will also be working
closely with USTR to ensure that all of China's commitments are
carefully monitored and vigorously enforced.
Additionally, the Agricultural Trade Promotion (ATP) Program has
injected an additional $200 million into agricultural export promotion.
Many of the awards recipients have plans for using funds for the
Chinese market as well as expanding opportunities throughout the world.
Organizations representing fruit, vegetable, and tree nuts exporters
received awards based on the quality of their proposals.
Question 4. In the ongoing trade feud between the U.S. and China,
our farmers and ranchers have been harshly targeted, forced to bear the
brunt of increased tariffs and lost market shares that may take years
to regain. In response to their compounding losses, the President has
continued to assure them the feud will end with a much better deal for
the United States, especially (and specifically) for agriculture. That
said, the Administration has been particularly vocal about its demands
on behalf of steel, aluminum, and IP protections.
It should be reiterated that a `better deal' for agriculture does
not just mean a return to the status quo, or a return to pre-
retaliatory tariff levels. I also appreciate your recent comments that
the U.S. won't be bought off simply by commodity purchases. The growers
in my state want to see real net gains, real market access, real SPS
reforms. What other ag-specific demands are you and the rest of the
negotiating team pushing for, particularly for specialty crops?
Answer. Last month, I was in the Oval Office with the President
when he received a briefing from the U.S. and Chinese trade
negotiators. After hearing from the lead negotiators, President Trump
made it clear that any deal with China must address the concerns of our
farmers and ranchers.
I agree with you that a good deal with China on agricultural trade
must address the structural barriers that our exporters have faced for
many years. USTR is leading the negotiations with China. Phytosanitary
barriers and are among the many barriers that we are striving to
eliminate during the negotiations. USDA will be working closely with
USTR to ensure that all of China's commitment are carefully monitored
and vigorously enforced.
Question 5. What is the status of negotiations between the U.S. and
Japan? Can you provide a sense of where this is on the Administration's
priority list, as well as a tentative timeline of when we may see an
agreement?
Answer. On December 21, 2018, the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR)
submitted to Congress and released to the public a summary of the Trump
Administration's specific negotiating objectives for its U.S.-Japan
Free Trade Agreement negotiations. One of the Administration's top
negotiating objectives is to secure comprehensive market access for
U.S. agriculture goods in Japan by reducing or eliminating tariffs. The
Administration has begun negotiations, and certainly understands that
Japan's recently negotiated agreements with other countries
disadvantages U.S. farmers and ranchers.
Question 6. This past December, it was reported that President
Trump publicly expressed his intentions to withdraw from NAFTA, as a
means to pressure Congress to pass USMCA. This is a misguided approach
in my view. I would strongly dissuade the Administration from pursuing
such a tactic and would appreciate your response as to the likelihood
of NAFTA withdrawal.
Answer. Canada and Mexico are our first and second largest markets
for U.S. food and agricultural products, making up 28 percent of total
food and agricultural exports in 2018. USMCA contains important
improvements for U.S. agricultural exporters. I strongly support the
agreement and, if voted on by the merits of the agreement, would expect
Congress will approve USMCA.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Marcia L. Fudge, a Representative in
Congress from Ohio
Question 1. Mr. Secretary, with your new ABAWDs rule, can you
please tell me what percentage of ABAWDs are veterans, are homeless,
have mental or physical limitations, lack access to public
transportation, or need language interpretation? That would help me
determine how many people you are really talking about.
Answer. Currently, USDA has FY17 data on race and ethnicity, age,
and citizenship status of ABAWDs, which is tabulated from the FY17
Quality Control (QC) Report.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Race/Ethnicity Count Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
White, not Hispanic 1,324,786 41.1%
Black or African American, not Hispanic 899,641 27.9%
Hispanic, any race 401,090 12.5%
Asian, not Hispanic 47,946 1.5%
American Indian or Alaska Native, not 55,197 1.7%
Hispanic
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific 11,418 0.4%
Islander, not Hispanic
Multiple races, not Hispanic 59,583 1.8%
Race unknown 421,721 13.1%
-------------------------------
Total 3,221,380 100.0%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Age Ranges Count Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
18-19 294,490 9.1%
20-24 566,890 17.6%
25-29 533,640 16.6%
30-34 429,431 13.3%
35-39 359,706 11.2%
40-44 433,441 13.5%
45-49 603,781 18.7%
-----------------------------------------------
Total................. 3,221,380 100.0%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citizenship Status Count Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S.-Born Citizen 3,038,619 94.3%
Naturalized Citizen 66,183 2.1%
Refugees 46,297 1.4%
Eligible Noncitizens 70,282 2.2%
-------------------------------
Total 3,221,380 100.0%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
USDA does not collect information from SNAP participants concerning
veteran status, access to transportation, language barriers, or
homelessness.
As noted in the proposed rule, the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008
specifically exempts individuals from the ABAWD time limit and
corresponding work requirement for several reasons, including, but not
limited to, age, physical or mental unfitness for work, having a
dependent child, or being pregnant. Additionally, the Food and
Nutrition Service (FNS) issued guidance in November of 2015 that
outlines the discretion state SNAP Agencies have in determining an
individual's fitness for work. The second page of the memo states,
``Many individuals with physical or mental challenges are unfit for
work and must be exempted from the time limit. To be clear, an
individual does not need to be receiving disability benefits to be
exempted from the time limit under this criterion. States can exempt an
individual as unfit for work if they are obviously mentally or
physically unfit for employment or, if the unfitness is not obvious,
based solely on a statement from a medical professional''. This
statement reflects the exception to the ABAWD time limit for
individuals physically or mentally unfit for employment in the SNAP
regulations at 7 CFR 273.24(c)(2). A copy of this memo is attached.
Attachment
United States Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service,
3101 Park, Center Drive, Alexandria, VA, 22302-1500
November 19, 2015
Subject: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program--ABAWD Time Limit
Policy and Program Access
To: Regional Directors, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program,
All Regions
This memorandum provides guidance to states in taking the balanced
approach necessary to properly implement the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP) time limit for able-bodied adults without
dependents (ABAWD). On March 4, 2015, the Food and Nutrition Service
(FNS) released a memorandum that anticipated fewer states would qualify
for ABAWD time limit waivers and provided guidance in identifying,
notifying, and tracking ABAWDs when those waivers expire. To comply
with Federal law, states must do more than track ABAWDs. States must
also carefully screen for exemption from the time limit and connect
ABAWDs to the information and resources necessary to maintain
eligibility consistent with Federal requirements.
This memo goes beyond tracking to address screening and other
challenges that face states in serving eligible ABAWDs and properly
administering the time limit. As predicted, the economy has improved
and fewer states and localities now qualify for the ABAWD time limit
waivers that were in place during the economic downturn. At the same
time, jobs are still scarce in many parts of the country and many
ABAWDs continue to face barriers to employment.
Implementation of ABAWD time limit policy not only impacts client
eligibility and access, but also has consequences for state
administrative measures. Administering the time limit inaccurately,
either by failing to apply it to those who meet the time limit or
inadvertently applying it to those who are exempt, can impact Quality
Control (QC) error rates. Failing to apply the time limit to ABAWDs who
have used their 3 countable months can cause a payment error. Likewise,
misapplying the time limit to ABAWDs who are in fact fulfilling the
work requirement, or applying the time limit to exempt individuals can
cause payment and/or case and procedural errors (CAPER).
In order to ensure accurate application of the time limit while
also protecting program access for all eligible individuals, FNS
reminds states of the following requirements, flexibilities, and best
practices:
Screening for Exemptions and Fitness for Work
States must screen for exemptions as part of their process to
identify ABAWDs. Accurate screening is fundamental to the state's
implementation of the time limit consistent with Federal law. Federal
law and regulations exempt certain individuals from the time limit
based upon their circumstances,\1\ including individuals who may be
unable to work due to physical or mental challenges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 7 CFR 273.24(c) details the criteria for exemption from the
time limit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
State agencies are responsible for assessing an individual's
fitness for work methodically and comprehensively. The certification
and recertification interview is critical in identifying fitness for
work. Many individuals with physical or mental challenges are unfit for
work, and must be exempted from the time limit. To be clear, an
individual does not need to be receiving disability benefits to be
exempted from the time limit under this criterion. States can exempt an
individual as unfit for work if they are obviously mentally or
physically unfit for employment or, if the unfitness is not obvious,
based solely on a statement from a medical professional. If the
unfitness is not obvious and verification from a medical professional
is unavailable, states should make every attempt to verify the
unfitness using an acceptable collateral contact (e.g., medical
personnel or social worker). When an individual's unfitness for work is
obvious to the eligibility worker, the state should exempt the
individual without requiring a statement or verification from medical
personnel. For example, a chronically homeless individual who is living
on the street may be considered unfit for employment as determined by
the state. Federal rules at 273.24(c)(ii) allow states this flexibility
to prevent placing unnecessary burden on individuals who are clearly
unfit for employment.
Maintaining Eligibility through Work Programs and Workfare
FNS strongly encourages state agencies to offer qualifying
education, training, or work experience placements to ABAWDs through
their SNAP Employment and Training (E&T) Programs or other work
programs. Following 273.24(a)(1), ABAWDs must work or participate in a
work program for 80 hours per month, or participate in workfare. State
agencies have a great deal of flexibility to design E&T programs that
provide ABAWDs with valuable skills and experience while also meeting
the ABAWD work requirement. E&T and other work programs can provide
qualifying activities that count toward the 80 hour requirement and may
be combined with work hours to meet the 80 hour requirement.
Workfare provides another means by which ABAWDs can maintain
eligibility. Unlike participation in a work program, workfare does not
require 80 hours of participation each month for fulfilling the ABAWD
work requirement. Instead, workfare allows ABAWDs to ``work-off'' their
SNAP benefit amount by requiring an hourly participation equal to the
household allotment divided by the minimum wage, which is generally []
lower than 80 hours. States may consider offering workfare \2\ to
ABAWDs as part of their SNAP E&T Program and/or a comparable state or
local workfare program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 7 CFR 273.7(m) details the rules and flexibilities on workfare.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hours devoted to job search or job search training, when offered as
part of other E&T components, are acceptable for the purpose of
fulfilling the work requirement as long as those activities comprise
less than half of the total required time spent in the components.
Hours devoted to job search or job search training, when operated by a
program under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act or Section
236 of the Trade Act of 1974, are also acceptable and could represent
more than half of the required time spent in the component. In
addition, state agencies may establish a job search period of up to 30
days following initial SNAP certification prior to making a workfare
assignment. This job search activity is part of the workfare
assignment. Therefore, participants are considered to be participating
in and complying with workfare requirements during this job search
period and are meeting the ABAWD work requirement. This job search
period of workfare may only be conducted at certification, not at
recertification.
Maintaining Eligibility through Unpaid or Volunteer Work
In addition to paid or in-kind work, unpaid or volunteer work also
counts for the purposes fulfilling the ABAWD work requirement. It is
often difficult for people with few job skills or no significant job
history to obtain paid employment. In some cases, volunteer work may be
the only way for these individuals to obtain needed job skills. ABAWDs
may volunteer with religious or community organizations. For these
reasons, Federal rules provide that individuals can fulfill the ABAWD
work requirement through unpaid or volunteer work, provided that it is
verified under standards set by the state agency.\3\ Moreover, states
have the flexibility to consider unpaid or volunteer work performed at
a public or private nonprofit institution as workfare or comparable
workfare. As explained above, workfare presents a lower hourly burden
and may be a better fit for certain ABAWDs, especially those facing
high barriers to obtaining paid employment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 7 CFR 273.24(a)(iii) provides that unpaid work, verified under
standards established by the state agency, meets the definition of work
for the purpose of fulfilling the work requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good Cause for Failure to Meet the ABAWD Work Requirement
The regulations at 273.24(b)(2) also allow states to determine good
cause for failure to fulfill the ABAWD work requirement. When an ABAWD
has good cause for failure to fulfill the required number of hours in a
given month, it does not count toward the time limit. Good cause
applies to situations in which an individual would have normally met
the ABAWD work requirement by working or participating in a work
program, but does not due to circumstances beyond the individual's
control. In cases where an individual is fulfilling the ABAWD work
requirement through participation in SNAP E&T or workfare, but fails to
meet the 80 hour or workfare requirement in a given month, states would
determine good cause under 273.7(i) rather than under 273.24(b)(2).
Regaining Eligibility
ABAWDs who have used their 3 countable months can regain
eligibility at any time. ABAWDs regain eligibility by fulfilling the
ABAWD work requirement for 30 consecutive days, by meeting a criterion
for exemption, or when their 36 month clock is reset. ABAWDs that
regain eligibility by working during a break in SNAP participation need
not be working at the point of reapplication. Moreover, ABAWDs that
regain eligibility by working are entitled to an additional set of 3
consecutive countable months. These 3 months go into effect immediately
when the ABAWD first notifies the state that they are no longer
fulfilling the ABAWD work requirement. In addition, they must be used
consecutively and can only be granted once in a 36 month period.
We encourage states to contact FNS with any questions and for
additional technical assistance on ABAWD policy and program access. As
with any administrative change that may affect a significant number of
households, we also encourage states to communicate with their partner
agencies and food banks to ensure they are aware of how the time limit
may affect those in need of food assistance. More details on the above
described best-practices and flexibilities can be found in the Guide to
Serving ABAWDs Subject to Time-Limited Participation, available on the
FNS PartnerWeb and at http://www.fns.usda.gov/node/9310.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Editor's note: the hyperlink is no longer valid. As of the
publication of this hearing the correct hyperlink is https://fns-
prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/Guide_to_Serving_
ABAWDs_Subject_to_Time_Limit.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have any questions concerning this memorandum, please
contact Casey McConnell at casey.mcconnell@fns.usda.gov.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Lizbeth Silbermann,
Director,
Program Development Division.
Question 2. Mr. Secretary, water quality is a pressing concern for
rural and urban areas like mine across the country. I was pleased the
farm bill included several provisions that provide farmers and ranchers
the tools they need to address and improve water quality. Within the
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), the farm bill establishes a new
statutory initiative to address water quality--the Clean Lakes,
Estuaries, and Rivers Initiative (CLEAR). The conference report also
states that Congress expects ``USDA to take greater steps to report on
the water quality benefits'' as a result of CLEAR.
Can you please provide an update on how USDA is moving forward on
these provisions? When do you anticipate making continuous CRP sign-up
available for the CLEAR Initiative? What ``greater steps'' will the
department take to monitor and report on program outcomes?
Answer. FSA is evaluating changes made to the Conservation Reserve
Program by the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, analyzing the CLEAR
Initiative provisions, and will work to implement those changes as
quickly as possible.
Question 3. Mr. Secretary, with implementation of the farm bill
underway and some pretty large changes in the conservation title, I
continue to hear concerns that hiring at NRCS offices is not keeping
pace with what is needed. The President's 2019 Budget Request indicated
that NRCS will have almost 2,000 fewer permanent positions in FY 2019
than in FY 2017. These staffing restraints are compounded by a 61
percent increase in attrition at NRCS between the first quarters of FY
2017 and FY 2018.
It is critical that NRCS has the necessary staff to not only
implement the new law but also continue serving their customers and
delivering programs. Can you tell me what efforts are planned or
underway to ensure that NRCS offices are fully staffed at levels that
will continue to deliver the enhanced customer service we all desire?
Answer. I would like to clarify the staffing information you cite.
In FY 2018, the Farm Production and Conservation (FPAC) mission area
consolidated mission support services across FSA, NRCS, and RMA into
the FPAC Business Center (BC). The FPAC BC is a ``one-stop, full-
service shop'' for mission support services. Its objective is to ensure
employees and partners have the tools and resources needed to provide
best-in-class service to our customers.
The establishment of FPAC BC did not increase the number of
positions in FPAC; instead, FPAC BC positions and associated funding
were transitioned from FSA, NRCS, and RMA to ensure ``zero sum.''
NRCS's transfer of 882 mission-support positions and associated funding
is therefore reflected in the FY 2019 President's Budget Request. Its
approved staffing levels have not otherwise changed since FY 2018.
IN FY 2018, NRCS was approved to hire up to 10,800 positions,
reflecting 400 new, customer-facing positions in field offices. NRCS is
in the process of filling over 350 positions within the next 45-80
days. NRCS will also be aggressively filling vacancies throughout 2019.
FPAC BC's Human Resources (HR) division has a multi-pronged plan to
address this workload that includes, but is not limited to:
Obtaining temporary surge support within HR to aggressively
address the remaining hiring actions and reduce the number of
vacancies;
Establishing open continuous announcements for common
positions, such as Soil Conservationist, Soil Conservationist
Technician, and Engineers. By maintaining current certificates
of eligible candidates, NRCS hiring managers can more quickly
identify, select, and on-board qualified staff for these
critical positions;
Implementing business process improvements to streamline
Federal and county hiring procedures, improving overall
efficiency and effectiveness; and
Digitizing manual hiring processes, which greatly improves
FPAC's efficiency and effectiveness. Streamlined processes are
built into the system, clear roles and responsibilities, and
system integration to minimize duplicative data entry.
Questions Submitted by Hon. James P. McGovern, a Representative in
Congress from Massachusetts
Proposed Rule: SNAP Requirements for Able-Bodied Adults Without
Dependents
Question 1. On December 20, 2018, USDA announced a proposed rule to
amend the regulatory standards by which the Department evaluates state
SNAP agency requests to waive the time limit and to end the unlimited
carryover of ABAWD percentage exemptions. USDA stated that this
proposed rule intended to ``move more able-bodied recipients of
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits to self-
sufficiency through the dignity of work.'' Please provide all data that
USDA and the Trump Administration used to support this proposed rule
change.
Answer. The full Regulatory Impact Analysis was published as an
appendix to the proposed rule, which includes important data used to
support this proposed rule. This includes the impact analysis of the
proposed rule and alternative proposals. You can access this analysis
here: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FNS-2018-0004-6000. The
Department looks forward to reviewing comments and will consider all
comments received in drafting the final rule.
Question 2. Please provide data on the specific demographics within
the ABAWD classification, including but not limited to:
a. Participant race and ethnicity
b. Participant veteran status
c. Participant age
d. Participant criminal record status
e. Participant ward status
f. Participant citizenship status
Answer. As noted in the proposed rule, the Food and Nutrition Act
of 2008 specifically exempts individuals from the ABAWD time limit and
corresponding work requirement for several reasons, including, but not
limited to, age, physical or mental unfitness for work, having a
dependent child, or being pregnant. USDA does not collect information
on veteran status, criminal record status, or ward status for any SNAP
participants.
Additionally, the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) issued guidance
in November of 2015 that outlines the discretion state SNAP Agencies
have in determining an individual's fitness for work. The second page
of the memo states, ``Many individuals with physical or mental
challenges are unfit for work and must be exempted from the time limit.
To be clear, an individual does not need to be receiving disability
benefits to be exempted from the time limit under this criterion.
States can exempt an individual as unfit for work if they are obviously
mentally or physically unfit for employment or, if the unfitness is not
obvious, based solely on a statement from a medical professional''.
This statement reflects the exception to the ABAWD time limit for
individuals physically or mentally unfit for employment in the SNAP
regulations at 7 CFR 273.24(c)(2). A copy of this memo is attached.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Editor's note: the memo referred to is located on p. 80.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below is FY 2017 data on race and ethnicity, age, and citizenship
status of ABAWDs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Race/Ethnicity Count Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
White, not Hispanic 1,324,786 41.1%
Black or African American, not Hispanic 899,641 27.9%
Hispanic, any race 401,090 12.5%
Asian, not Hispanic 47,946 1.5%
American Indian or Alaska Native, not 55,197 1.7%
Hispanic
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific 11,418 0.4%
Islander, not Hispanic
Multiple races, not Hispanic 59,583 1.8%
Race unknown 421,721 13.1%
-------------------------------
Total 3,221,380 100.0%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Age Ranges Count Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
18-19 294,490 9.1%
20-24 566,890 17.6%
25-29 533,640 16.6%
30-34 429,431 13.3%
35-39 359,706 11.2%
40-44 433,441 13.5%
45-49 603,781 18.7%
-----------------------------------------------
Total................. 3,221,380 100.0%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citizenship Status Count Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S.-Born Citizen 3,038,619 94.3%
Naturalized Citizen 66,183 2.1%
Refugees 46,297 1.4%
Eligible Noncitizens 70,282 2.2%
-------------------------------
Total 3,221,380 100.0%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
School Meals
Question 3. Recent rollbacks on school nutrition regulations in
rural and urban areas (Flexibilities for Milk, Whole Grains, and Sodium
Requirements) are in potential violation of Federal statute requiring
school nutrition standards to be consistent with the Dietary Guidelines
for Americans. These changes have placed low-income students (in both
rural and urban areas) at risk and could cause negative health impacts.
Please describe and provide any health data that USDA used to justify
maintaining higher amounts of salt, providing less access to whole
grains, and providing more refined grains in school lunches.
Answer. As a key part of USDA's regulatory reform agenda, the final
rule seeks to ensure that school meals regulations work for all
operators, while reflecting the recommendations of the Dietary
Guidelines for Americans, as required by law. All participating
children will continue to have access to fruit, an array of vegetables,
whole grains, and fat-free and low-fat milk. School meals must also
continue to provide appropriate calorie ranges and limit saturated fat.
The modifications in the final rule are targeted to three specific
areas and address USDA's commitment to alleviate regulatory burdens and
ensure that program regulations are practical for all local providers.
This rule will help program operators provide wholesome and appealing
meals that reflect the Dietary Guidelines and meet the needs and
preferences of their communities. It is important to note that schools
are not required to change their menus and can choose whether or not to
use the flexibilities this rule provides.
Question 4. Many schools and food service companies in the school
lunch industry are working towards or are already providing healthy
meals and products with less sodium. Please provide data detailing:
The number of schools that are meeting sodium-reduction targets, as
defined in the final rule entitled ``Nutrition Standards in the
National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs'' published by the
Department of Agriculture in the Federal Register on January 26, 2012
(77 Fed. Reg. 4088).
Answer. As of June 2018, 98.89 percent of all school food
authorities were certified as meeting Sodium Target 1 and 99.63 percent
of all NSLP lunches were certified as having met the meal pattern in FY
2018.
Question 4a. The proportion of schools that meet the second sodium-
reduction targets either fully or partially.
Answer. School food authorities are currently required to meet
Target 1; there is no requirement for states to track and USDA does not
have data on the proportion of schools meeting standards beyond Target
1.
Question 5. Please provide documentation of any technical
assistance, training materials, and resources USDA will provide to
schools to assist in meeting sodium-reduction targets.
Answer. USDA provides ongoing technical assistance on meeting the
meal pattern requirements in a variety of ways. We currently have
available a Team Nutrition's Menu Planner for School Meals resource as
well as archived webinars on sodium reduction. USDA is also updating
the meal pattern charts in the Food Buying Guide suite of resources for
Child Nutrition Programs. USDA is also in the process of hosting a
planning session on the development of additional technical assistance,
training materials, and resources needed to assist program operators in
meeting the sodium reduction targets.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Filemon Vela, a Representative in Congress
from Texas
Question 1. With a new crop coming off in June, and with unusually
full storage facilities, what can we do between now and then to open
elevator space for new crops of grain and make sure farmers are not
hurt further?
Answer. The Department developed the Market Facilitation Program
(MFP) in recognition of the marketing disruptions that would occur due
to retaliatory tariffs on U.S. crops and livestock products. MFP
payments were intended to help farmers find alternative marketing
channels and help offset the impact of tight storage. As of March 13,
$8.1 billion has been paid out under this program. At the same time,
the Department is working to open new and expand existing markets for
U.S. agriculture, including through the use of the Agricultural Trade
Promotion (ATP) program, which is providing $200 million in cost-share
funding to U.S. agricultural groups for overseas market development
activities. Negotiations with China are focused on reopening that
market and addressing access concerns, and the Administration is
gearing up for trade negotiations with Japan, the European Union, and
the United Kingdom. USDA has seen some increase in the pace of export
sales commitments for some of the affected commodities, especially
soybeans, which will also help ease storage constraints.
Question 2. During a recent meeting with Texas cotton growers, I
heard from them that the Market Facilitation Program (MFP) has been
helpful for those who've had a crop. But not every farmer has had a
crop. Given that MFP payments were only paid toward 2018 production,
and factoring in the many areas that had to delay harvest due to lack
of bin space, allowing rainfall to damage the harvest, how can the
Committee work with USDA to use MFP to its full potential and stop the
harm that is being done to our farmers due to the ongoing trade war?
Answer. The Market Facilitation Program for crop commodities is
limited to 2018 mechanically-harvested crops, including cotton. The
last day producers can certify their harvested 2018 production is May
1, 2019. Cotton producers have the option to certify their estimated
quantity of harvested lint in module form, regardless of whether it is
to be ginned. USDA received reports of limited cotton ginning capacity
in parts of Kansas and Oklahoma; however, there are no reports of
warehouse or storage capacity issues. We are also aware that some
modules will not be ginned due to rot and mold issues. Crop damage from
weather related events may be eligible for crop insurance or the
Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP).
Question 3. If the trade war persists and our producers cannot
clear bin and silo space and the cost basis widens for farmers due to
lack of markets, will you consider another round of assistance?
Answer. Yes, we are considering another round of potential
assistance if the trade disruptions persist.
Question 4. Many of my constituents suffered through the aftermath
of Hurricane Harvey, while others had debilitating drought or general
flooding in 2017 and 2018. Congress passed disaster assistance, but it
only applies to those affected by hurricanes and wildfires. With
similar assistance being considered for 2018 hurricanes and wildfire
areas, could you describe the differences between hurricane related
losses and flood or drought related losses and whether USDA is
considering ways to better coordinate our farm programs so that
producers from all regions who suffer extreme weather events are
eligible to receive disaster assistance?
Answer. FSA currently administers multiple disaster assistance
programs, including the Emergency Conservation Program, Emergency
Forest Restoration Program, Livestock Forage Program, Livestock
Indemnity Program, Emergency Assistance for Livestock, Honeybees, and
Farm-raised Fish Program, and Tree Assistance Program, which provide
farm, ranch, and forest land rehabilitation and livestock and forage
replacement assistance for hurricane, wildfire, flood, drought, and
other natural-disaster-affected farmers, ranchers, and foresters. The
Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program also provides disaster
assistance for losses due to natural disasters.
In 2018, Congress deemed it appropriate to provide supplemental
disaster assistance to producers who incurred substantial losses in
2017 due to devastating hurricanes and wildfires and proceeded to enact
the 2017 Wildfires and Hurricanes Indemnity Program (2017 WHIP). We
understand Congress is now considering extending similar assistance to
producers impacted by disaster events over the course of 2018 and 2019.
USDA stands ready to quickly implement disaster assistance Congress
decides to enact.
Question 5. With citrus greening currently affecting an estimated
40-70% of citrus trees in Florida and an increasing number of citrus
groves across the country, including in my district, how will research
provided by the Specialty Crop Research Initiative (SCRI) provide
farmers increased security to prevent the further spread and infection
of their citrus?
Answer. NIFA began supporting Huanglongbing (HLB), or citrus
greening, research and extension efforts in February 2016, with $20.1
million in grants through the Specialty Crop Research Initiative's
(SCRI) Citrus Disease Research and Extension Program (CDRE). CDRE
funding has helped pave the way for new approaches to control the
insect that vectors HLB. Several potential products (biological
molecules) that have been shown to clear the HLB bacterium from
infected citrus are in the hands of commercial partners, who are
working on the registration of these products. The 2018 Farm Bill
created a separate Emergency Citrus Disease Research and Development
Trust Fund to continue the work funded by SCRI's CDRE.
Question 6. The Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP)
provides important risk management tools to farmers in under-served
counties, and is very helpful to growers of specialty crops or crops
with limited production. However, farmers must be assured that the
program will be consistent. A situation in Rio Arriba County in New
Mexico has come to my attention in which farmers who signed up for
alfalfa/grass mixed forage coverage through NAP saw their level of
assistance for the 2018 crop cut by 33 percent from the coverage level
posted at the beginning of the year. Furthermore, their expected county
yield was further reduced by another 52 percent for 2019. Can the
Department provide further clarity as to what procedures were used to
justify two significant changes to the expected county yield in
successive years? Why was the method of calculating the county expected
yield for 2018 not used again in 2019?
Answer. The Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP)
provides coverage for crops for which crop insurance policies are
unavailable and uses the actual production history the producer has
achieved for the crop to calculate an approved yield. The approved
yield is an average of the producer's actual production history, which
consists of a minimum of 4 and a maximum of 10 crop years. A county-
expected yield is based on an Olympic average of the county average
yields from the previous 5 crop years and can be used as a substitute
yield when calculating an approved yield for coverage under NAP when
using actual yields is not possible or feasible. There are only two
situations when the use of the county-expected yield is applicable: (1)
when less than 4 years of actual production history is available to
establish an approved yield; or (2) when an eligible disaster event
occurs and the producer's actual yield for the year is below 65 percent
of the county-expected yield. Ideally, NAP coverage should be based on
what a producer has historically been able to produce; however, in the
case of NAP participants in Rio Arriba County in New Mexico, there were
multiple years where the county-expected yield was used to calculate
the producer's approved yield because the production for the year was
less than 65 percent of the county average yield. In 2017, an error was
noted in the data used to establish the county-expected yield for
alfalfa/grass mixed forage that resulted in the county average yield as
well as producer's approved yields being significantly higher than the
yield that could be achieved. Because the error was discovered after
farmers had obtained coverage for crop year 2017, the corrections were
not made until crop year 2018, with further refinement in 2019. The
data used to establish the county-expected, as well as the producer's
approved, yield is now consistent with the establishment of alfalfa/
grass mixed forage in other areas.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Stacey E. Plaskett, a Delegate in Congress
from Virgin Islands
Agriculture Census
Question 1. The Agriculture Census is very important to inform
Congress on the state of America's rural communities.
Where is USDA in the process of the next Agriculture Census?
Answer. The Census of Agriculture (COA) is conducted every 5 years
to obtain agricultural statistics for each county, state, and the
nation. The COA is the leading source of statistics about the nation's
agricultural production and the only source of consistent, comparable
data at the county level. The COA is conducted in close cooperation
with the nation's agricultural user groups and farmer organizations.
NASS will complete its summary and disclosure processes and release
the results of the 2017 Census of Agriculture in April. During FY 2019,
NASS will begin preparing for the 2022 COA. These activities include
evaluation of the previous COA, mail list development, and content
development.
Question 1a. Will the next Agriculture Census include data for the
U.S. Virgin Islands?
Answer. Yes. The COA includes the outlying areas of the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands, the United States Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and Guam.
During FY 2019, NASS will collect COA data for all of the outlying
areas. NASS plans to release COA data for the outlying areas in FY
2020.
Question 1b. What type of resources are being devoted to the
Agriculture Census?
Answer. Yes. The COA includes the outlying areas of the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands, the United States Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and Guam.
During FY 2019, NASS will collect COA data for all of the outlying
areas. NASS plans to release COA data for the outlying areas in FY
2020.
United States Department of Agriculture
National Agricultural Statistics Service
Census of Agriculture
5 Year Budget Outlook 2018-2022
(Dollars in Thousands)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Amount Activities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2018 Actual $63,350 Data Collection, Processing &
Analysis, CAIRs
2019 CR a 63,350 Products, Follow-on Surveys,
CAIRs, Plan for next Census
2020 Presidents Budget 45,300 Follow-on Surveys, CAIRs,
Maintain, List Frame
2021 Estimated 47,000 Follow-on Surveys, CAIRs,
Maintain & Develop List Frame
2022 Estimated 47,000 Preparation & Planning, CAIRs,
List Frame
----------------
Census Cycle Total $266,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Data from the 2017 Census will be released in April 2019.
Definitions:
CAIRs: Current Agricultural Industrial Reports.
List Frame: Activities necessary to develop a robust and proficient list
frame.
Maintain: Activities associated with maintaining and enhancing the list
of producers that will receive the Census of Agriculture and Census
Follow-on questionnaires.
Products: Producing tangible and electronic products for external data
users, including the public.
Question 1c. Are there any new approaches to expand information
collection to under-served areas like the U.S. island territories?
Answer. USDA consulted with key stakeholders from each respective
island territory on content and data collection. All data collection in
the outlying areas will be completed by personal interviews. The COA
results will be disseminated online through the USDA website.
Wildfires and Hurricanes Indemnity Program
Question 2. The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 provided supplemental
appropriations for disaster relief, including $2.36 billion to cover
agricultural losses in 2017 disaster areas.
In July of last year, the Department of Agriculture announced the
availability of the bulk of the funding for agricultural losses through
a special ad hoc program called the Wildfires and Hurricanes Indemnity
Program (WHIP).
I have heard from constituents that they have not received
assistance under WHIP, despite having submitted the required
documentation.
What is your assessment of how WHIP has worked in the U.S. Virgin
Islands?
How much assistance under WHIP has the U.S. Virgin Islands
received?
Answer. The Wildfires and Hurricanes Indemnity Program has been
effective in the U.S. Virgin Islands. There are more than 70
applications on file, 32 of which have been paid. There were two crops
being grown in the U.S. Virgin Islands that FSA did not have prior
knowledge of and, as of March 2019, the data was provided to the local
offices for them to process remaining applications. Thus far, $431,886
has been paid.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Abigail Davis Spanberger, a Representative
in Congress from Virginia
Question 1. The USDA's conservation programs provide critical
support to farmers while at the same time helping to protect our
environment, such as by enhancing soil health and water quality.
The 2018 Farm Bill made some important policy changes to the
working lands programs--in particular, to the Conservation Stewardship
Program (CSP) and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)--
to facilitate farmer access, to improve flexibility, and to increase
coordination between the two programs.
Given the changes, it will be important to make sure that field
agents fully understand the new processes, so that they can help
producers access these funds efficiently.
What is the timeline for implementing the changes the farm bill
made to the working lands programs?
Answer. NRCS has been providing its state and field offices
guidance regarding the 2018 Farm Bill changes that can be implemented
in FY 2019 consistent with the transition authority provided by Section
2504. Key programs such as the Environmental Quality Incentives Program
and the Conservation Stewardship Program operate under a continuous
enrollment so applications can be filed at any time. NRCS is developing
its new regulations and policies to ensure that the farm bill's
improvements and flexibilities to the programs are fully available to
producers in FY 2020.
Question 1a. What is your strategy to make sure field agents are
prepared to support farmers who apply under the new structure?
Answer. NRCS will initiate a robust nationwide training effort to
ensure that all field offices are able to effectively implement the new
opportunities made available through the 2018 Farm Bill. In addition,
NRCS is creating a quality assurance process to ensure customers
receive high-quality service regardless of location.
Question 2. When you and I spoke by phone on February 6, you
assured me that the Dairy Margin Coverage program was on track to open
for enrollment on March 2, as specified in the farm bill. However, the
Department has now announced that the program will not open for
enrollment until June. This creates a hardship for our dairy farmers,
who have been struggling and are urgently in need of the new program.
Can you please elaborate on the reasons for the delay?
What actions are being taken to ensure that the implementation
timeline is not further delayed, and checks begin going out in July as
currently expected?
Answer. USDA fully understands the current challenges facing the
dairy industry and will work expeditiously to implement the Diary
Margin Coverage (DMC) program. Because of the significant changes to
the dairy title as part of the 2018 Farm Bill, USDA must proceed with a
rule development process whereby the program can be planned according
to statute. The timely implementation of the DMC program is a priority
of this Administration and we are working diligently to implement the
DMC program as soon as possible. We believe the reported timelines are
on course for a June sign up, with payments to begin shortly thereafter
for those producers who selected levels of coverage that triggered DMC
assistance.
Question 3. The outdoor recreation economy generates $21.9 billion
in consumer spending in my home state and supports jobs at more than a
dozen outdoor companies in my district. In total, outdoor recreation
accounts for over 2% of national GDP.
Work through the Forest Service's National Partnership Office like
the webinar series on building Partnership Opportunities to Support the
Recreation Economy is critical to the continued success of this
industry and its support of rural communities.
As you implement the 2018 Farm Bill, how will you leverage this
office to build partnerships that support rural economies and healthy
national forests, and ensure that the shared stewardship work includes
recreation economy stakeholders?
Answer. The USDA Forest Service's National Partnership Office is
poised to build strategic, national-level partnerships that support
rural economies and healthy National Forests. These national
partnerships complement thousands of Forest Service regional
partnerships across the country to improve trails, engage the public,
strengthen recreation-based local economies, and more. The farm bill
contained several authorities that will help the Forest Service more
efficiently implement our mission and the National Forest System
leadership, including the Partnership Office, will be involved in
helping to implement these authorities across the agency.
Question 4. In August 2018, USDA released a 3 year action plan to
improve water quality, boost soil health, and enhance wildlife habitat
throughout the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
How will the conservation and forestry provisions of the 2018 Farm
Bill support that action plan?
Answer. The action plan communicates meaningful conservation
outcomes that USDA seeks to achieve in collaboration with farmers,
private landowners, and other partners in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
The action plan is not tied to any particular program and, therefore,
enables USDA to achieve the conservation outcomes with programmatic
mechanisms that are provided in the 2018 Farm Bill. We anticipate that
streamlining mechanisms and partnership enhancements provided by the
2018 Farm Bill will support strong voluntary conservation participation
in the Chesapeake Bay.
Water quality, soil health, and wildlife habitat are natural
resource priorities for USDA across the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The
2018 Farm Bill continues the historical priority placed on improving
water quality through programs such as the Environmental Quality
Incentives Program and the Conservation Stewardship Program. Mandatory
funding provided for Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP)
is strong, and under the Wetlands Reserve Easement option of ACEP,
wetland restoration projects may include an increased focus on water
quality improvements to go along with the traditional habitat benefits.
The action plan also focuses on public engagement and partnerships.
Amendments to the Regional Conservation Partnership Program offer
increased opportunities for USDA to work with state and local agencies
and non-governmental organizations on cooperative conservation programs
to implement land conservation.
Question 4a. Do you anticipate any changes to the action plan or
corresponding acreage and engagement targets?
Answer. The natural resource and public engagement goals included
in the action plan remain highly relevant to public and private efforts
to restore the Bay watershed while supporting agricultural and forest
productivity and sustainability. USDA will soon publish a report on the
progress made in 2018, showing that targets have been met thus far and
anticipating they will continue apace in 2019 and 2020. If significant
data becomes available indicating that priorities or targets should be
revised, NRCS can update the plan before the end date of the current
plan in 2020.
Questions Submitted by Hon. TJ Cox, a Representative in Congress from
California
Question 1. Mr. Secretary, as you are aware, I represent a state
whose specialty crop sector has been facing a labor shortage for years.
My grower constituents simply cannot find a stable supply of workers
willing to produce and harvest their crops. Because our agricultural
labor market is fundamentally different from other labor markets in
terms of seasonality, many California specialty crop growers view
mechanization and automation as the only workable response to our
chronic labor shortage.
That is why I strongly supported the insertion of the Agriculture
Advanced Research and Development Authority (AGARDA) pilot program into
Title VII of 2018 Farm Bill. This innovative public-private pilot has
as a priority the awarding of grants for projects that address critical
research and development needs for the application of technology within
the specialty crop sector.
Here are my two questions: When will AGARDA be ready to receive
proposals on specialty crop mechanization and automation
When will you identify additional private-sector funding for
further mechanization and automation research projects?
Answer. I appreciate your interest in this new program. The 2018
Farm Bill did not provide funding for AGARDA. USDA will implement this
provision should funding be appropriated for this activity.
Mitigation Funds
Question 2. In the midst of the disruptive and costly trade wars
with China and others, USDA's trade mitigation programs have provided
some small reprieve to affected farmers. That being said, latest
reports state that roughly $7.7 billion of the originally promised $12
billion has been spent. At the same time, it's been reported that USDA
received nearly $600 million in applications for the Agricultural Trade
Program (ATP), which only had $200 million to award. This clearly
demonstrates the popularity of the export program amongst industries
that are fighting to maintain their place in China's markets or find
alternative ones.
I am concerned that some portion of the $7.7 billion allocated will
go unclaimed. In the direct payment program there may be producers that
can't claim money due to AGI concerns--so money will be left unclaimed.
Additionally, the food purchasing program may have some funds left over
as well. If there are unspent funds left over from the purchase program
or from the direct payment program it seems to me those funds should be
reprogrammed to the export promotion activities of those respective
crops.
Have there been any internal discussions to reprogram the remaining
funds or unclaimed/left over funds, either to the ATP or other
assistance programs? Is this something the Department is considering?
Please elaborate.
Answer. Reprogramming is not under consideration at this time.
Question Submitted by Hon. Angie Craig, a Representative in Congress
from Minnesota
Question. Mr. Secretary, I am committed to bringing attention to
LGBTQ+ civil rights issues in agriculture and in youth organizations.
As you may know, with the leadership of my colleague Mr. Panetta, we
sent a letter to you asking for detailed information about the Agency's
actions in rescinding guidance developed by 4-H staff which outlined
how the organization could best support LGBTQ+ youth. Disruptive
actions like this send a clear and harmful message to the over six
million 4-H members that LGBTQ+ youth are not welcome in the
organization. Did you, in your role as Secretary of Agriculture, direct
this action? What is USDA's stance on the participation of LGBTQ+ youth
in 4-H? Would USDA be supportive of issuing nationwide LGBTQ+
nondiscrimination guidance?
Answer. I cannot emphasize enough that USDA will never tolerate
mistreatment of a student by anyone associated with the 4-H program.
All students should be able to learn and grow in a supportive
environment. USDA strongly affirms the dignity of all persons and we do
not condone harassment against any 4-H participants. My First Amendment
policy for the Department clearly sets out that the freedom of
expression flourishes in a climate of mutual respect and tolerance
(https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/5817-Policy-
Statement.pdf). Further, my expectation for all USDA employees and
affiliates is simple--``Do right and feed everyone.'' USDA's commitment
to doing right by treating everyone with respect and dignity is
exemplified by the Department's Civil Rights Policy Statement and Anti-
Harassment Statement, both of which are available online (https://
www.ascr.usda.gov/civil-rights-statements).
The document that you reference was developed by state 4-H Program
leaders in the Western Region. In March of 2018, it was published by
the regional working group on USDA stationery, despite having not been
reviewed or approved by the Office of the Secretary, the Administrator
of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, or USDA counsel. The
4-H program has a national reach, but it is primarily run as a local
program in coordination with the National 4-H Council, a private
nonprofit organization, and cooperative extension programs at state
land-grant universities. USDA firmly believes that state 4-H
organizations should retain the power to decide issues of governance at
a local level.
Question Submitted by Hon. Anthony Brindisi, a Representative in
Congress from New York
Question. Mr. Secretary thank you for your testimony. I represent
many family dairy farmers in Upstate New York. Coming off 4 years of
depressed milk prices, many dairy farmers are in dire financial
straits, so I urge you to be as flexible as possible when it comes to
the timing for when producers must pay their premiums under the Dairy
Margin Coverage program. It would be helpful if producers are able to
pay in installments instead of all at once, so that they don't have to
struggle to pay a larger amount right at the beginning. Will the USDA
commit to flexibility when implementing this program, and keep my
office informed about implementation?
Answer. FSA is committed to offering flexible options to
participate in Dairy Margin Coverage (DMC) as much as practical and
will periodically report the progress of implementation of the DMC
program.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Josh Harder, a Representative in Congress
from California
Question 1. Mr. Secretary, as you know, new 2018 Farm Bill
provisions within the Specialty Crop Research Initiative (SCRI)
explicitly encourages research and development into the mechanization
and automation of labor-intensive tasks for production and processing.
I strongly encourage USDA do all it can to ensure all these provisions
are implemented in an effective and timely matter.
In addition to SCRI, I want to draw your attention to a new
provision in the farm bill's research title; the Agriculture Advanced
Research and Development Authority (AGARDA) pilot program. This pilot,
essentially USDA's version of DOD's Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency, provides USDA with a novel mechanism for it to join with the
private-sector in researching challenges in engineering and
mechanization related to the growing, harvesting, handling of
agricultural products with a priority on challenges faced by the
specialty crop sector.
Given that harvesting mechanization within the specialty crop has
lagged other crops, what are your plans to ensure that USDA takes
seriously this new authority particularly the pilot's ability to tap
private-sector funds for incubation and commercialization of harvest-
focused mechanization and automation projects targeted at the specialty
crop sector?
Answer. The 2018 Farm Bill did not provide funding for AGARDA. USDA
will implement this provision should funding be appropriated for this
activity.
Question 2. USDA's trade mitigation programs have provided some
reprieve to affected farmers. Some of the latest reports state that
roughly $7.7 billion of the originally promised $12 billion has been
spent. I have heard concerns about some portion of the $7.7 billion
going unclaimed. In the direct payment program there may be producers
that can't claim money due to AGI concerns--so money will be left
unclaimed. Additionally, the food purchasing program may have some
funds left over as well. Secretary Perdue, have there been any internal
discussions to reprogram the remaining funds or unclaimed/left over
funds, either to the ATP or other assistance programs?
Answer. Reprogramming is not under consideration at this time.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Al Lawson, Jr., a Representative in
Congress from Florida
Question 1. Mr. Secretary, I want to begin by expressing my
continued concern over the threat that Florida's tomato industry faces
due to Mexican dumping practices. As the United States continues to
negotiate the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), I want to
work with you to make sure that the hardworking tomato farmers in my
district are given a fair shot in the market.
Can you please detail what actions the Department of Agriculture is
taking to defend Florida's tomato sector during and after USMCA
negotiations?
Answer. The Administration is sensitive to the challenges faced by
Florida's tomato sector. Following the request from the Florida Tomato
Exchange in November 2018, the Department of Commerce notified Mexican
signatories of the existing suspension agreement of Commerce's intent
to withdraw, terminate the agreement, and resume the anti-dumping
investigation on fresh tomatoes from Mexico. The Department of Commerce
has jurisdiction of anti-dumping and countervailing duty actions,
including suspension agreements. USDA stands ready to help with
technical assistance and policy guidance as needed.
Question 2. On January 9, 2019, the United States Government
Accountability Office (GAO) published a report on food insecurity
within college student populations throughout the country. There are
several issues highlighted in the GAO report that concern me, including
the inaccessibility of resources and lack of communication by the Food
and Nutrition Service (FNS) to colleges regarding student eligibility
for SNAP. It is a priority of mine this Congress to address food
insecurity within college student populations and to make sure that no
student goes hungry.
Has the Department of Agriculture made any steps to disseminate
this information and how are you working with your state agencies?
Answer. FNS works with its state partners to ensure that those who
are eligible for SNAP have access to the program. FNS provides
technical assistance and oversight to state SNAP agencies. State SNAP
agencies, in turn, administer SNAP and are ultimately responsible for
the certification of households and issuance of benefits.
In order to better serve low-income college students who may be
eligible for SNAP but not participating in a state or Federal work-
study program, FNS codified a SNAP state option related to averaging
student work hours on a monthly, quarterly, trimester or semester basis
instead of requiring 20 hours per week to qualify for a student
exemption. This policy change helped reduce administrative burden on
both state SNAP agencies and eligible, low-income students whose work
hours were variable. Since 2014, FNS has also invested considerable
resources in expanding state SNAP Employment and Training (SNAP E&T)
programs and working with states to make high-quality education and
training services available to SNAP participants, including through
community colleges. In addition to providing employment and training
services, state SNAP E&T programs provide participants with necessary
supportive services such as transportation, childcare, and textbooks,
which may make it easier for participants to complete their educational
programs.
FNS values the recommendation of the GAO report referenced to make
information regarding student SNAP eligibility requirements easier to
understand and more accessible to a variety of stakeholders. As such,
FNS will undertake a review of the information regarding SNAP student
eligibility requirements on its website and make changes where possible
to reduce the amount of legal and technical language and increase
accessibility of content for college administrators, college students,
and other interested parties.
Question 3. Florida's Panhandle and the entire state continue to
struggle with the aftermath of Hurricanes Irma and Michael. Hurricane
Michael devastated North Florida's timber industry. According to the
Florida Forest Service, approximately 72 million tons of timber was
destroyed, calculating to a loss value of $1.3 billion. As it stands,
WHIP does not cover timber as a crop.
What guarantee can the Department of Agriculture give to the people
of Florida's Fifth Congressional District, that timber will be included
in current and future assistance programs to help communities like
those in my district as they recover from hurricanes and other natural
disasters?
Answer. FSA currently administers the Emergency Conservation
Program (ECP) and the Emergency Forest Restoration Program (EFRP),
which provide farm and forest land rehabilitation assistance for
hurricane, wildfire, flood, drought, and other natural-disaster-
affected farmers, ranchers, and foresters. Additionally, the
Apalachicola National Forest is currently engaged in post hurricane
salvage operations to put up for sale as much downed timber as
possible. These activities build on the Forest's long-range plan that
outlines timber volumes to be harvested each year. That volume is
calculated using criteria such as desired future conditions and
allowable sale quantities to ensure sustainability of our natural
resources.
Question 4. Over 16,000 forest landowners were harmed by damages
caused by Hurricane Michael in Florida's Panhandle. There are currently
only three full time agents in the Gadsden County Farm Service Agency
office that oversees five counties in the disaster zone. This isn't
enough. Mr. Secretary, we need more agents on the ground in my
district.
Can you please provide a timeline as to when North Florida will
receive more Farm Service Agency agents to assist with Hurricane
Michael recovery efforts?
Answer. USDA has been providing additional staff in recent months
to assist Florida producers impacted by Hurricane Michael. FSA deployed
15 employees on temporary assignment in Florida to assist with the
Hurricane Michael recovery. These employees remained in Florida through
April 13. The employees were deployed to the following counties: Polk,
Glades, Jackson, Gadsden, and Holmes.
Prior to the recent deployments, FSA sent 27 employees from 14
states in the months of November and December to assist in Hurricane
Michael efforts in the following counties: Holmes, Jackson, Gadsden,
Polk, Hardee, Okeechobee, St. Lucie, Lee, Glades, and Miami-Dade.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford, a Representative
in Congress from Arkansas
Question 1. Cuba was once one of the largest markets for U.S. grown
rice, with pre-embargo shipments reaching as much as a quarter million
metric tons, accounting for more than half of Cuba's rice imports. The
farm bill takes positive steps by allowing cooperators to utilize MAP
and FMD dollars in Cuba and through the creation of the Priority Trade
Fund. However, when submitting their 2019 UES application, many
cooperators were unaware of the ability to use FAS funds in Cuba, and
therefore it wasn't included in requests for funds. Rather than taking
away from existing programs and priorities with the MAP/FMD funds, is
it possible to ``apply'' for Priority Trade Funds to conduct activities
in Cuba?
Answer. Congress directed that the Priority Trade Fund provide a
greater allocation to one or more of the Agricultural Trade and
Promotion Facilitation programs. USDA is working towards implementing
the new provision regarding the use of MAP and FMD funds for Cuba
consistent with all relevant statutes and plans to make decisions on
allocating the funds later in the year.
Question 2. Cuba is a cash-deficient economy, and the Cubans need
flexibility in attaining credit to purchase U.S. agriculture products.
Without the extension of credit, Cuba will continue to source their
rice from countries such as Thailand, Vietnam, and China. What steps is
your Department taking to encourage the White House to work with the
Cuban government to normalize relations and allow the extension of
credit so our farmers can regain a once important market?
Answer. USDA abides by the prohibition of United States export
assistance and any credit or guarantees for exports to Cuba established
in statute, (7 U.S.C. 7207(a)(1)). I respect the Administration's
policy regarding Cuba and I respect the White House and the State
Department in charting the course of relations with Cuba.
Question 3. Mr. Secretary, the 2013 Census of Aquaculture reported,
nationwide, 3,093 farms of which 1,479 utilized ponds to grow aquatic
animals that totaled 153,040 water acres. Within the 36 states east of
the Rocky Mountains, 1,275 farms manage 24,783 ponds with 148,466 water
acres which we believe are underestimates for this region. Open pond
farms are vulnerable to predation by birds such as great blue herons
and double-crested cormorants, and the ability to protect those ponds
from predation by federally protected birds can be limited and
imperfect. For example, during 2016 and 2017, as a result of a Federal
lawsuit against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the aquaculture
industry endured massive fish losses resulting from avian predation
without any real ability to protect fish farms. These losses are not
covered under whole farm or Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program
coverage. In essence, aquaculture falls through the cracks when it
comes to predation by federally protected bird losses. The Livestock
Indemnity Program (LIP) covers bird losses but aquaculture is
ineligible. The Emergency Livestock Assistance Program (ELAP) covers
farm-raised fish but excludes catfish. Finally, the Noninsured Crop
Disaster Assistance Program (NAP) covers catfish but excludes bird
predation as an eligible loss. LIP and ELAP regulations provide
administrative discretion to amend covered livestock and eligible
losses under each program. What is USDA doing to assist the industry in
finding an adequate and fair solution in dealing with bird predation
losses across the aquaculture industry?
Answer. USDA understands the industry's concern regarding fish
losses due to predation by birds such as great blue herons and double-
crested cormorants. We are researching all options to find a possible
solution to this issue using existing authorities under our disaster
assistance programs. In addition, USDA APHIS supports aquaculture by
providing direct and technical assistance to producers to manage
predatory birds. APHIS conducts harassment efforts to relocate
cormorant roosts away from aquaculture facilities in several states and
assists producers with obtaining depredation permits from the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS). APHIS is also working with USFWS, states
and industry in developing new techniques for managing predatory birds
to help reduce aquaculture losses.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Vicky Hartzler, a Representative in
Congress from Missouri
Question 1. Mr. Secretary, thank you for your continued support of
broadband initiatives. What is the outlook for the broadband program
and how will USDA hold grantees accountable under the new provisions to
ensure that the service promised is delivered?
Answer. The 2018 Farm Bill made several significant changes to our
broadband program and as a result will help USDA improve broadband
access to unserved communities. These changes include requiring
grantees to submit an annual report to USDA for 3 years following the
completion of their project and providing precise geolocation
information as well as mapping for the new broadband service being
provided. Most important, however, is that milestones and objectives
will be part of the grantee's agreement with USDA, such that USDA may
be able to recoup grant funds for project milestones and objectives
that are not met. We believe these new measures will help us monitor
our projects and ensure awardees are fulfilling the objectives for
which the assistance was provided.
Question 2. Secretary Perdue, a recent Informa report found that
from 2011-2016 China's unpredictable, untimely biotech crop approval
process inflicted more than $5 billion in losses to U.S. farm income,
prevented the creation of nearly 34,000 U.S. jobs, and has delayed
farmers from accessing new technologies for years. The study also found
similar loses are expected through 2022 unless China reforms its
regulatory process. Those hardest hit by this predatory trade practice
are the same corn and soy growers who have already suffered years of
low prices and are currently bearing the brunt of Chinese tariffs. As
the Administration seeks an agreement with the Chinese to resolve the
ongoing dispute, do you see systemic reform of China's flawed biotech
approval process as a possible win for growers from a trade deal?
Answer. I appreciate that the Informa report has taken on the
difficult task of estimating U.S. economic damages caused by China's
dysfunctional biotech regulatory system, and the estimates in that
report are significant. The Administration is seeking an agreement with
China to resolve several long-standing issues, including those on
biotechnology. For too long, China's biotech policy has stymied U.S.
agricultural innovation and restricted farmers' access to critical
tools and technologies necessary to help feed the world as new
challenges emerge and the global population increases.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Roger W. Marshall, a Representative in
Congress from Kansas
Trade
Question 1. Mr. Secretary, I want to ask about the status of U.S.-
Japan trade agreement talks. As you know, Japan is the most important
export market for the beef and pork industries. The U.S. Meat Export
Federation estimates that export sales to Japan for beef totaled over
$2 billion last year, and export sales in pork were approximately $1.6
billion. Unfortunately, with both the Japan-EU trade agreement and the
Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership
(CPTPP) now in force, our products are at a tariff disadvantage in
Japan to many of our global competitors. The reality is we are
beginning to lose market share in Japan.
Can you give the Committee an update on the Administration's plans
for a U.S.-Japan agreement and assure us there is a sense of urgency to
reestablish a level playing field for our agricultural products there?
Answer. On December 21, 2018, the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR)
submitted to Congress and released to the public a summary of the Trump
Administration's specific negotiating objectives for its U.S.-Japan
Free Trade Agreement negotiations. One of the Administration's top
negotiating objectives is to secure comprehensive market access for
U.S. agriculture goods in Japan by reducing or eliminating tariffs. The
Administration has begun negotiations, and certainly understands that
Japan's recently negotiated agreements with other countries
disadvantages U.S. farmers and ranchers.
Rail Rates
Question 2. Secretary Perdue--First, thank you for your efforts to
open markets for U.S. ag producers. One of U.S. agriculture's strengths
as an export competitor has been world class infrastructure. Today,
while our infrastructure is still world class, wheat farmers in Kansas
and across the country are being priced out of using it.
Unfortunately, Class 1 carriers' tariff rates on wheat have
increased in each of the last 3 years resulting in wheat rates being
priced higher than other commodities, from the same origins to the same
destinations by nearly $.30 per bushel. This has hurt wheat's
competitiveness in the world market, prices being paid to farmers in
Kansas, and our overall ability of this great state and nation to
fulfill your proclaimed new motto of ``Do right and connect everyone.''
Can you speak to ways USDA can work with industry to curtail these
annual price increases while in the face of these low commodity prices,
declining wheat acres, all the while the World, our global customers,
are consuming far more wheat today than just a decade ago?
Answer. USDA does not have jurisdiction over rail rates, which
falls to the Surface Transportation Board (STB). USDA has submitted
comments to STB in various proceedings on how to make its rail rate
challenge procedures more accessible and effective for agricultural
shippers to challenge unreasonable rail rates. In addition, USDA met
with STB's Rail Rate Review Task Force to suggest new and streamlined
methods for rail rate challenges. Finally, USDA has met with industry
representatives--with both Kansas Wheat and the National Grain and Feed
Association--about railroad pricing of wheat movements.
Gene Editing
Question 3. Secretary Perdue, as you know, there are several U.S.
companies developing interesting animal biotech products that not only
would bring jobs to rural America but also would feed a growing world
and improve sustainability. Unfortunately, the animal biotech industry
is frustrated by the regulatory and legislative barriers that are
blocking their products from being marketed or approved in the U.S. As
a result, some of these companies are leaving the U.S. market and
looking for opportunities to sell their products overseas.
What do you believe can be done to encourage these companies to
stay in the U.S.?
Answer. USDA understands that its ability to lead the way in
agricultural innovation will lead to good jobs and economic success. We
also know that biotechnology can help solve some of the most pressing
challenges facing animal health, animal welfare, and agricultural
productivity.
We have heard from agriculture stakeholders that they want a clear,
predictable, and transparent regulatory system. Stakeholders need to
get an answer from regulatory agencies in a timely manner.
Additionally, the development of a new product must have clearly
defined rules, so stakeholders do not spend valuable time and resources
working on a project that will not see commercialization in a
reasonable timeframe. If USDA offers domestic developers some certainty
and responsiveness through a solid, transparent regulatory framework,
the U.S. will continue to outcompete and ``out-innovate'' the rest of
the world.
Question 3a. Additionally, could you please comment on how closely
USDA worked with FDA on drafting the National Bioengineered Food
Disclosure law (Disclosure Standard) final rule?
Did FDA review the final rule on the Disclosure Standard before it
was released on December 21, 2018?
Have the agencies been working together to make sure that their
policies are consistent?
Answer. Yes, FDA reviewed the final rule before it was published on
December 21, 2018. For both the proposed and final rules, FDA
participated in the Office of Management and Budget's inter-agency
review process. Since publishing the final regulations, USDA has
continued to work together with FDA to ensure that policies are
consistent wherever possible.
[all]
| MEMBERNAME | BIOGUIDEID | GPOID | CHAMBER | PARTY | ROLE | STATE | CONGRESS | AUTHORITYID |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| McGovern, James P. | M000312 | 7968 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | MA | 116 | 1504 |
| Scott, David | S001157 | 7910 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | GA | 116 | 1722 |
| Costa, Jim | C001059 | 7825 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | CA | 116 | 1774 |
| Fudge, Marcia L. | F000455 | 8101 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | OH | 116 | 1895 |
| Kirkpatrick, Ann | K000368 | 7220 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | AZ | 116 | 1907 |
| Pingree, Chellie | P000597 | 7984 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | ME | 116 | 1927 |
| Thompson, Glenn | T000467 | 8123 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | PA | 116 | 1952 |
| Scott, Austin | S001189 | 7905 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | GA | 116 | 2009 |
| Hartzler, Vicky | H001053 | 8012 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | MO | 116 | 2032 |
| DesJarlais, Scott | D000616 | 8151 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | TN | 116 | 2062 |
| LaMalfa, Doug | L000578 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | CA | 116 | 2100 | |
| Yoho, Ted S. | Y000065 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | FL | 116 | 2115 | |
| Davis, Rodney | D000619 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | IL | 116 | 2126 | |
| Bustos, Cheri | B001286 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | IL | 116 | 2127 | |
| Maloney, Sean Patrick | M001185 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | NY | 116 | 2150 | |
| Vela, Filemon | V000132 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | TX | 116 | 2167 | |
| Adams, Alma S. | A000370 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | NC | 116 | 2201 | |
| Allen, Rick W. | A000372 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | GA | 116 | 2239 | |
| Bost, Mike | B001295 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | IL | 116 | 2243 | |
| Abraham, Ralph Lee | A000374 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | LA | 116 | 2244 | |
| Rouzer, David | R000603 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | NC | 116 | 2256 | |
| Kelly, Trent | K000388 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | MS | 116 | 2294 | |
| Comer, James | C001108 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | KY | 116 | 2297 | |
| O'Halleran, Tom | O000171 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | AZ | 116 | 2306 | |
| Panetta, Jimmy | P000613 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | CA | 116 | 2309 | |
| Carbajal, Salud O. | C001112 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | CA | 116 | 2310 | |
| Dunn, Neal P. | D000628 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | FL | 116 | 2315 | |
| Lawson, Al, Jr. | L000586 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | FL | 116 | 2317 | |
| Marshall, Roger W. | M001198 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | KS | 116 | 2328 | |
| Bacon, Don | B001298 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | NE | 116 | 2337 | |
| Harder, Josh | H001090 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | CA | 116 | 2377 | |
| Cox, TJ | C001124 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | CA | 116 | 2378 | |
| Hayes, Jahana | H001081 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | CT | 116 | 2386 | |
| Axne, Cynthia | A000378 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | IA | 116 | 2395 | |
| Baird, James R. | B001307 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | IN | 116 | 2400 | |
| Hagedorn, Jim | H001088 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | MN | 116 | 2411 | |
| Craig, Angie | C001119 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | MN | 116 | 2412 | |
| Van Drew, Jefferson | V000133 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | NJ | 116 | 2419 | |
| Delgado, Antonio | D000630 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | NY | 116 | 2428 | |
| Brindisi, Anthony | B001308 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | NY | 116 | 2429 | |
| Johnson, Dusty | J000301 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | SD | 116 | 2439 | |
| Spanberger, Abigail Davis | S001209 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | VA | 116 | 2456 | |
| Schrier, Kim | S001216 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | WA | 116 | 2458 | |
| Peterson, Collin C. | P000258 | 8007 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | MN | 116 | 910 |
Disclaimer:
Please refer to the About page for more information.