U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

93–959 PDF 2015

HEARING TO REVIEW THE STATE OF THE 

RURAL ECONOMY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

FEBRUARY 11, 2015 

Serial No. 114–1 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture 

agriculture.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE 

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas, Chairman 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas, 

Vice Chairman 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York 

VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri 

DAN BENISHEK, Michigan 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

DOUG LAMALFA, California 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana 

RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia 

MIKE BOST, Illinois 

DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina 

RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana 

TOM EMMER, Minnesota 

JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan 

DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington 

COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota, Ranking 

Minority Member 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

JIM COSTA, California 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio 

JAMES P. MCGOVERN, Massachusetts 

SUZAN K. DELBENE, Washington 

FILEMON VELA, Texas 

MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico 

ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

PETE AGUILAR, California 

STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands 

ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina 

GWEN GRAHAM, Florida 

BRAD ASHFORD, Nebraska 

SCOTT C. GRAVES, Staff Director 

ROBERT L. LAREW, Minority Staff Director 

(II) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Conaway, Hon. K. Michael, a Representative in Congress from Texas, opening 

statement .............................................................................................................. 1 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 2 

Lujan Grisham, Hon. Michelle, a Representative in Congress from New Mexico, submitted letter on behalf of David Sanchez, Vice President, Northern 

New Mexico Stockman’s Association .................................................................. 84 

Peterson, Hon. Collin C., a Representative in Congress from Minnesota, opening statement ........................................................................................................ 3 

WITNESS

Vilsack, Hon. Thomas ‘‘Tom’’ J., Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Washington, D.C. ................................................................................................. 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 6 

Submitted questions ......................................................................................... 63 

(1) 

HEARING TO REVIEW THE STATE OF THE 

RURAL ECONOMY 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2015 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 

1300 of the Longworth House Office Building, Hon. K. Michael 

Conaway [Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Conaway, Neugebauer, Goodlatte, Lucas, King, Thompson, Gibbs, Austin Scott of Georgia, 

Crawford, DesJarlais, Gibson, Hartzler, Benishek, LaMalfa, Davis, 

Yoho, Walorski, Allen, Bost, Rouzer, Abraham, Emmer, Moolenaar, 

Newhouse, Peterson, David Scott of Georgia, Costa, Walz, McGovern, DelBene, Lujan Grisham, Kuster, Nolan, Maloney, Kirkpatrick, Aguilar, Plaskett, Adams, Graham, and Ashford. 

Staff present: Bart Fischer, Haley Graves, Jackie Barber, Jessica 

Carter, John Goldberg, Leah Christensen, Margaret Wetherald, 

Matt Schertz, Scott Graves, Ted Monoson, Anne Simmons, Keith 

Jones, Lisa Shelton, Liz Friedlander, Mike Stranz, and Nicole 

Scott. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM TEXAS 

The CHAIRMAN. I now call the hearing to order. I have asked 

Ralph Lee Abraham to open us with a prayer. Ralph? 

Mr. ABRAHAM. Our Father, we thank You for Your presence 

today on this beautiful day. As always, we ask for knowledge and 

understanding, but more importantly, we ask for wisdom, so we 

can take that knowledge and apply it to our country. To our servicemen and servicewomen in harm’s way today, please give them 

comfort and security always. In Jesus’ name we pray, amen. 

Thank you, Ralph, I appreciate that. The hearing will come to 

order. This hearing of the Committee on Agriculture to review the 

state of the rural economy, will come to order. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for appearing before the Committee today. We know you are 

really busy. We appreciate you coming here to visit with us today. 

You have, and we all enjoy, a good working relationship with each 

other, including with our previous Chairman, Mr. Lucas, and I look 

forward to continuing that tradition. 

Saturday marked the 1 year anniversary of the signing of the Agricultural Act of 2014. As you know, economic conditions for many 

producers have changed dramatically since then, with commodity 

prices plunging up to 50 percent. Drought, and other natural disasVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:50 Jun 16, 2015 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\114-01\93959.TXT BRIAN
2 

ters, have resulted in disaster declarations in 32 states across the 

country last year. The net effect is an estimated 43 percent decline 

in net farm income over the past 2 years. 

A good many producers are struggling to demonstrate to lenders 

that they can cash flow their operations in order to secure credit, 

and to farm for another year. Adding to the anxiety of producers 

is the implementation of the farm bill, where hard decisions, with 

very significant consequences, will have to be made in the coming 

weeks. 

While the agricultural economy has been turned on its head, Mr. 

Secretary, you and your team have been hard at work implementing the 2014 Farm Bill, and I want to publicly thank you for 

the work your team has done thus far. I also want to thank, here 

at this hearing, the RMA Administrator, Brandon Willis in particular, for your dogged determination in getting the actual production history adjustment, now called the yield exclusion, implemented in time for spring planted crops. This was a significant lift, 

and the efforts did not go unnoticed, so thank you very much. 

While there have been a few bumps along the way, and certain 

challenges remain, you and your team deserve to be commended for 

your work in this effort. 

While I thank you for your hard work in implementing the farm 

bill, including several improvements made to crop insurance, I 

must admit that I was disappointed to see the Administration’s 

2016 budget proposal, which slashes $16 billion from crop insurance, a reduction of over 17 percent. With commodity markets 

plummeting, and producers struggling to find financing, now is precisely the wrong time to weaken crop insurance. 

I would also note that, despite the economic turbulence in rural 

America, the commodity title of the farm bill is still slated to save 

taxpayers money relative to the old direct payment system, and the 

cost of Federal crop insurance is also expected to decline. Moreover, 

overall farm bill savings anticipated during the farm bill debate remain intact under the January baseline. 

We are at the beginning of a new Congress, and a new year, and 

just like farmers don’t know what the year will bring in terms of 

weather and markets, we too cannot predict the twists and turns 

of the political process. But what we do know is that hard work always finds its rewards. To that end, my colleagues and I look forward to rolling up our sleeves and getting to work. 

Mr. Secretary, again, thank you for being with us today. I look 

forward to your testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Conaway follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM TEXAS

Thank you Mr. Secretary for appearing before the Committee today. You are a 

very busy man (we might have contributed to that) so we appreciate you taking the 

time to be here with us today. You have long enjoyed a good working relationship 

with this Committee, including with our previous Chairman, Mr. Lucas, and I look 

forward to continuing that tradition, going forward. 

Saturday marked the 1 year anniversary of the signing of the Agricultural Act 

of 2014. As you know, economic conditions for many producers have changed dramatically since then, with commodity markets plunging by up to 50 percent. 

Drought and other natural disasters also resulted in disaster declarations in 33 

3 

states across the country last year. The net effect was an estimated 43 percent decline in net farm income over the past 2 years. 

A good many producers are struggling to demonstrate to lenders that they can 

cash flow in order to secure credit and farm for another year. Adding to the anxiety 

of producers is the implementation of the farm bill where hard decisions with very 

significant consequences will have to be made in the coming weeks. 

While the agricultural economy has been turned on its head, Mr. Secretary, you 

and your team have been hard at work implementing the 2014 Farm Bill, and I 

want to publicly thank you for the work your team has done thus far. I also want 

to thank you—and RMA Administrator Brandon Willis in particular—for your dogged determination in getting the APH Adjustment—now called the Yield Exclusion—implemented in time for spring-planted crops. That was a significant lift, and 

it did not go unnoticed. 

While there have been a few bumps along the way—and to be certain, challenges 

remain—you and your team deserve to be commended for your work. 

While I thank you for your hard work implementing the farm bill—including several improvements made to crop insurance—I must admit that I was disappointed 

to see the Administration’s FY 2016 budget proposal that slashes $16 billion from 

crop insurance—a reduction of over 17%. With commodity markets plummeting and 

producers struggling to find financing, now is precisely the wrong time to weaken 

crop insurance. 

I would also note that, despite the economic turbulence in rural America, the commodity title of the farm bill is still slated to save taxpayers money relative to the 

old direct payment, and the cost of federal crop insurance is also expected to decline. 

Moreover, overall farm bill savings anticipated during the farm bill debate remain 

intact under the January baseline. 

We are at the beginning of a new Congress and a new year. And just like farmers 

don’t know what the year will bring in terms of weather and markets, we too can’t 

predict the twists and turns of the political process. But what we do know is that 

hard work always finds its reward. To that end, my colleagues and I look forward 

to rolling up our sleeves and getting to work. 

Mr. Secretary, again thank you for being with us today. I look forward to your 

testimony. 

The CHAIRMAN. And now an opening statement from the Ranking 

Member, Mr. Peterson. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. COLLIN C. PETERSON, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM MINNESOTA 

Mr. PETERSON. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this 

hearing, and thank the Secretary for joining us today. Welcome 

back to the Committee, Mr. Secretary. Today we are looking at the 

rural economy, which, over the past few years, has done pretty 

well. I think that is partly why it was so difficult to get a farm bill 

passed, frankly. 

And it is good that we were able to get it done, because the farm 

bill provides a safety net to farmers during difficult times. Although I have been to some of these meetings that they have been 

putting on in our state on the provisions of the farm bill, I am concerned about some of the things that I have heard. And this is no 

reflection on the Department. They have done a great job of implementing it. These are problems that we caused with this base acre 

situation, which was not something that Frank Lucas and I were 

for. 

I am concerned about some of the things that I am hearing. And 

I am a little bit worried that we might run into a time constraint 

of getting this thing done by March 31, because you have a lot of 

farmers out there maneuvering around. So we will just have to see 

how it happens. At least we have the farm bill in place, and we 

still have crop insurance in place, so we will see how things work 

out. 

4 

Even with the budget savings we provided, there are still people 

out there talking about re-opening the farm bill, and saving money 

in crop insurance, or SNAP, or other areas of the farm bill. This 

is, in my opinion, a very bad idea. We had a hard enough time getting this bill done. We do not need to get back into that quagmire 

again, and so I hope the Committee stays together in opposition to 

any cuts to farm bill programs, or any opening of the farm bill. We 

have done our work, and we were the one committee that stepped 

up to the plate and actually reduced the budget. 

With regard to the implementation, as I said, I have been generally pleased. We didn’t make this easy, and some of these programs, as I have indicated, are more complicated than I would 

have liked, but it seems like things are going along, and hopefully 

people will meet the deadlines of updating their bases and yields 

by the end of this month, and making the decisions on which program to choose by the end of next month. 

So, again, I thank the Chairman for holding today’s hearing, and 

look forward to hearing from the Secretary, and the discussion that 

ensues. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the Ranking Member. The chair will request that other Members submit their opening statements for the 

record so the witness may begin his testimony, and to ensure there 

is ample time for questions. 

With that, I would like to welcome our witness to the table, the 

Honorable Tom Vilsack, Secretary, 30th Secretary, I believe, of the 

Department of Agriculture in Washington, D.C. Secretary Vilsack, 

please begin when you are ready, sir. 

STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS ‘‘TOM’’ J. VILSACK, SECRETARY, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Secretary VILSACK. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and to 

Representative Peterson, and Members of the Committee, I appreciate the invitation that was extended by the Chairman to address 

you today. Let me spend just a couple of minutes, if I might, giving 

more detail on the implementation of the farm bill so the Committee is fully aware of the steps that have been taken over the 

last year. 

We have conducted over 4,600 events and interactions with producers to explain some of the complicated provisions of the farm 

bill. We are pleased with the activities of our very dedicated people 

at USDA. Over 546,000 payments have been made under the disaster assistance programs established by Congress in the farm bill, 

resulting in close to $4.8 billion being provided, primarily to livestock producers who suffered through some very difficult times as 

a result of drought and other issues. 

We are excited about the opportunity to continue to promote 

credit to farmers. The microloan program limit has been increased, 

as Congress directed, to $50,000, and we are taking a look at how 

we might be able to help beginning farmers access new credit opportunities that were created by the farm bill. Supplemental crop 

insurance, the STAX program has been established. Over $500 million has been provided in the Cotton Assistance Transition Program. The organic price election is in place. Changes have been 

5 

made to the Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP) 

to expand opportunities for specialty crop producers. 

Over 23,000 producers did, in fact, sign up to participate in 2015 

in the Dairy Margin Protection Program. Approximately 55 percent 

of that number decided to buy up coverage, and it may very well 

be at the end of this year that those who purchased buy up coverage may be happy that they did. 

Mention has been made of the safety net, and indeed we are in 

the process of implementing the Agricultural Risk Coverage Program (ARC) and the Price Loss Coverage Program (PLC). Over 1⁄2

million farms have already re-allocated their base acres, and over 

208,000 farms, which represents roughly nine percent of eligible 

farms, have already made the election of ARC or PLC. Obviously, 

this is an extremely important election. 

Our hope is that farmers who have made up their mind, who 

have looked at the numbers and made the determination of what 

is best for each individual farm will get to make that decision 

quickly, so that we are not faced with a situation where everyone 

makes that decision at the last minute. We obviously want to be 

able to process all of this work in a timely way, so to the extent 

that people can be encouraged to do so early, that would be beneficial. 

The Foundation for Food and Agricultural Research has been set up. Several meetings have been held: $200 million has been directed to an account, and we anticipate and expect that private 

foundation will begin making decisions about research projects 

sometime in 2015. 

We are pleased with the response to the Regional Conservation Partnership Program: 115 projects were funded, with $372 million. 

We anticipate another round of this Regional Conservation Partnership Program competition at the end of the year. Roughly $200 

million will be made available at that time. 

Easement programs have been consolidated. In the forestry title 

the stewardship contracting has been extended. We worked with 

governors across the country in 35 states to identify millions of 

acres of forested land that provide an opportunity for us to focus 

our attention, and used a streamlined NEPA process to encourage 

more treatment, and more resilience in restoration of our forests. 

We are working on amendments to the section 9003 energy program to expand that opportunity to include the bioeconomy. Local 

and regional food systems have benefited from the Farmers’ Market Promotion Program and the Local Foods Promotion Program 

established in the farm bill. And we are now in the process of reviewing over 40 applications we received from states to take advantage of the SNAP employment and training pilot, and we are very 

pleased with the interest that that program has generated. 

Mr. Chairman, I remain very bullish on the economy, the agricultural economy, and the rural economy. I think we are focused on 

an opportunity of not only expanding at a record level of exports, 

a record expansion of local and regional food system market opportunities, the development of new ecosystem markets, and additional investment in conservation, and the expansion of the bioeconomy, where we are seeing manufacturing returning to the 

rural economy. We still have work to do, no question. 

6 

Obviously, commodity prices are down a bit, but, as I said yesterday to our team, it is sort of like major league baseball players who 

begin spring training, you hit .370 one year, you hit .320 the next 

year. Maybe you are down a little bit, but you still had a pretty 

decent year. We have the best farmers in the world, the most productive farmers in the world, providing the best product in the 

world. I am confident that that will continue. 

[The prepared statement of Secretary Vilsack follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS ‘‘TOM’’ J. VILSACK, SECRETARY, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Chairman Conaway, Ranking Member Peterson, and Members of the Committee, 

I am pleased to provide an update on the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) 

progress in implementing the Agricultural Act of 2014 (2014 Farm Bill) and the 

state of rural America. First, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the 

Committee for its hard work in crafting this critical piece of legislation. The farm 

bill provides the necessary tools to allow the proud men and women of rural America to feed hundreds of millions around the world and resources to support economic 

development and job creation in rural America. 

The new farm bill, with 12 titles and more than 450 provisions, is a large piece 

of legislation and implementing it has required a coordinated effort across all areas 

of USDA. We made implementation a top priority at the Department. Immediately 

after enactment, USDA established a 2014 Farm Bill implementation team composed of key sub-cabinet officials and experts from every mission area of the Department to put new programs in place and make mandated reforms to existing programs. I am proud of the work USDA employees have undertaken to implement the 

farm bill. Through their hard work, this effort has been called ‘‘the most successful 

farm bill implementation’’ to date. 

As we mark the 1 year anniversary of the farm bill being signed into law, I am 

pleased to say that we have made major progress on every title of the law and 

achieved significant results for those impacted by the law. I have no doubt that 

these results will only continue as we begin year two. 

Title I: Commodities 

Farmers, ranchers and those working in supporting industries maintain an agriculture sector that has seen strong growth over the past 5 years. Agriculture accounts for about $775.8 billion in economic activity, supports one out of every eleven 

jobs in the economy, and helps to maintain vibrant, thriving rural communities. 

U.S. agriculture is expanding into new markets around the world, spurring innovation, and creating jobs and opportunity on and off the farm. 

The future of rural America depends on the continued leadership of our farmers 

and ranchers, and we must make sure they have the tools they need to continue 

to grow, and a strong safety net to support them during tough times. 

At the direction of the President, USDA made the disaster programs our number 

one priority and expedited the implementation of these programs. The new farm bill 

reauthorized disaster assistance programs (including the Livestock Forage Disaster 

Program, the Livestock Indemnity Program, the Emergency Assistance for Livestock, Honeybees, and Farm-Raised Fish Program, and the Tree Assistance Program) that had not been operational since 2011. 

These programs provide much-needed relief to struggling farmers and ranchers 

impacted by natural disasters. I’m proud to say that within 60 days of enactment, 

USDA began accepting applications for disaster assistance programs restored in the 

2014 Farm Bill. This was truly a significant accomplishment, as it took a year to 

implement disaster relief programs after the last farm bill was passed in 2008. 

USDA has received over 567,000 applications for these programs and more than 

$4.7 billion in disaster program payments have been issued to producers to assist 

in their financial recovery. While these disaster payments will not replace all of the 

losses farmers and ranchers faced, they provided some relief to ensure that extreme 

weather won’t cause families to lose their farms. 

In September, USDA ushered in one of the most significant reforms to U.S. farm 

programs in decades by unveiling the Agricultural Risk Coverage (ARC) and Price 

Loss Coverage (PLC) programs. Producers will have through the end of March 2015 

to select which program works best for their operations. 

To help farmers choose between ARC and PLC, USDA helped create online tools 

that allow farmers to enter information about their operation that is used to provide 

7 

projections about what each program will mean for their operation under possible 

future scenarios. USDA provided $3 million to the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI) at the University of Missouri and the Agricultural and 

Food Policy Center (AFPC) at Texas A&M (co-leads for the National Association of 

Agricultural and Food Policy), along with the University of Illinois (lead for the National Coalition for Producer Education) to develop the tools. 

USDA’s Farm Service Agency and Risk Management Agency also worked together 

to offer certified yield data that producers can use to better calculate how the new 

safety net programs can offer the best protection against market swings. This is the 

first time that producers will update yields since 1986. 

More than 23,000 of the nation’s dairy operations—over 1⁄2 of all dairy farms in 

America—have enrolled in the new Margin Protection Program. During the 3 

months of the enrollment period, USDA conducted a robust education and outreach 

effort to the nation’s dairy producers. The Department held over 500 public meetings, sent out nearly 60,000 direct mailings, and conducted more than 400 demonstrations of the Web-based tool designed to help applicants to calculate their specific coverage needs. 

Title II: Conservation 

USDA’s conservation efforts have enrolled a record number of acres in programs 

that have saved millions of tons of soil, improved water quality, preserved habitat 

for wildlife and protected sensitive ecological areas. To accomplish these goals, 

USDA has partnered with a record number of farmers, ranchers and landowners on 

conservation projects since 2009. In addition to protecting cropland and critical habitats, conservation can help to boost local economies. For example, a 2013 study commissioned by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation found that conservation activities supported more than 600,000 jobs. 

USDA launched the Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) in May 

2014. This new farm bill program is an entirely new approach to conservation efforts. RCPP is a competitive program where local partners, in partnership with Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS) design conservation projects that are 

specific to their region. It has three funding pools: 35 percent of total program funding directed eight to designated critical conservation areas, including the Great 

Lakes Region, Chesapeake Bay Watershed, Mississippi River Basin, Longleaf Pine 

Range, Columbia River Basin, California Bay Delta, Prairie Grasslands, and the 

Colorado River Basin; 40 percent directed to regional or multi-state projects through 

a national competitive process; and 25 percent directed to state-level projects 

through a competitive process established by NRCS State leaders. 

Nearly 600 pre-proposals were submitted for RCPP, and the top pre-proposals 

were invited to submit a full proposal. This resulted in 210 full proposals requesting 

$1.4 billion—four times the available funding for the first round ($370 million). In 

January, USDA awarded funding to 115 high-impact, locally-led projects across all 

50 states and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. USDA provided more than $370 

million that will leverage an estimated $400 million in partner contributions. The 

total investment of nearly $800 million will improve the nation’s water quality, support wildlife habitat and enhance the environment. 

These partnerships empower communities to set priorities and lead the way on 

conservation efforts important for their region. 

RCPP builds on the results achieved by USDA’s traditional conservation programs, which have achieved significant results over the past 6 years. USDA has enrolled more than 79 million acres of agricultural working lands in the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) to help producers implement conservation practices. In addition, more than 67 million acres, an area about the size of 

the State of Colorado, have been enrolled into the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) to incentivize the most productive, beneficial conservation practices. 

At the end of 2014, USDA published interim final rules for CSP and EQIP. The 

EQIP interim final rule includes efforts to simplify the existing regulation regarding 

conservation practice scheduling, payment limitations and other administrative actions. 

The 2014 Farm Bill extended authority to enroll acreage in Conservation Reserve 

Program (CRP) through September 30, 2018 and requires enrollment to be no more 

than 24 million acres beginning October 1, 2016. Enrollment under continuous CRP 

and 1 year extensions were offered last year and FSA expects to publish a rule late 

this spring to fully restart the program and implement the remaining farm bill 

changes. With the cap on acreage, the Department is focused on ways to increase 

per acre conservation, wildlife and environmental benefits through a variety of targeted approaches. 

8 

Title III: Trade 

USDA is supporting America’s farmers and ranchers as they build on record agricultural exports. In FY 2014, exports of U.S. food and agricultural products reached 

a record $152.5 billion and supported nearly one million American jobs. The potential for agricultural exports is considerable and USDA is already taking action to 

help producers secure and expand market access for American agricultural products. 

But it is also critically important that we have Trade Promotion Authority as we 

seek approval of trade agreements that support and create U.S. jobs while helping 

American agriculture to compete even more successfully. Trade Promotion Authority 

will help ensure that America’s farmers, ranchers, and food processors receive the 

greatest benefit from these negotiations, and builds on efforts that have helped 

achieve record agricultural exports over the past 6 years. 

Thanks to resources in the new farm bill, USDA is also able to continue funding 

for trade promotion and market expansion for U.S. agricultural products overseas. 

An independent study released in 2010 found that trade promotion programs like 

Market Access Program (MAP), and Foreign Market Development (FMD) provide 

$35 in economic benefits for every dollar spent by government and industry on market development. USDA moved quickly to implement trade promotion programs reauthorized under the 2014 Farm Bill. Through the MAP, USDA has provided $173.2 

million in FY 2015 to 62 nonprofit organizations and cooperatives to help build commercial export markets for U.S. agricultural products and commodities. Participants 

contribute on average a 214 percent match for generic marketing and promotion activities and a dollar-for-dollar match for promotion of branded products. Through 

the FMD Program, USDA has provided $26.7 million in FY 2015 to 22 trade organizations to help create, expand, and maintain long-term export markets for U.S. agricultural products. 

In addition to the MAP and FMD programs, eligible organizations can apply for 

funding through the Quality Samples Program (QSP), Emerging Markets Program 

(EMP), and the Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops (TASC) Program, which includes the programmatic change under the 2014 Farm Bill to allow participants to 

address technical barriers to trade regardless of whether they are related to a sanitary or phytosanitary barrier. 

Title IV: Nutrition 

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) provisions of the 2014 

Farm Bill preserve the fundamental structure of the program, invest in helping 

SNAP participants move to self-sufficiency, strengthen program integrity efforts, 

continue to modernize the program through technology, and emphasize the importance of good nutrition through enhanced retailer standards and grants for incentives that help SNAP participants stretch their dollars further to buy fruits and 

vegetables. 

SNAP helps millions of hardworking families put healthy food on the table as 

they get back on their feet. More than 1⁄2 of SNAP recipients are children and the 

elderly, and less than 7% of households receive cash assistance. Among SNAP 

households with at least one working-age, non-disabled adult, more than 1⁄2 work— 

and more than 80 percent work in the year before or after receiving SNAP. With 

a stronger economy SNAP participation is beginning to gradually decline. Comparing Fiscal Year 2014 with Fiscal Year 2013, average participation decreased 2.3 

percent or by approximately 1.1 million people. While the economic trends are encouraging, SNAP remains critical to millions of Americans. 

The farm bill provided $200 million for SNAP employment and training pilots to 

help participants find jobs and increase their earnings. The funds will be used to 

develop and test innovative approaches that connect SNAP recipients with the preparation, training, work supports, and opportunities they need to enter and remain 

in the workforce, to move off of SNAP, and to build stronger futures for their families. The pilots are intended to help recipients build their skills and match them 

with good paying jobs. The goal of the pilots will be to increase the number of work 

registrants who obtain employment, increase their earned income, and move toward 

self-sufficiency. USDA put out a request for proposals for pilot projects in August 

2014 and plans to award funding for up to ten projects. We were pleased with the 

strong response to this RFP with proposals from over 30 states. USDA plans to 

work with all states to maximize the core E&T program, even if they are not recipients of the farm bill funding. 

The new farm bill builds on USDA’s ongoing efforts to root out any waste, fraud, 

and abuse from the program, protect the taxpayer investment in SNAP and make 

sure that the program is there for those who truly need it. In FY 2013, SNAP 

achieved a record level of payment accuracy of 96.8 percent. Payment errors in FY 

2013 were almost 64 percent lower than they were in FY 2000, among the lowest 

9 

in the Federal Government. USDA efforts have also resulted in a significant reduction in trafficking—USDA’s The Extent of Trafficking in the Supplemental Nutrition 

Assistance Program: 2009–2011 study shows that the exchange of SNAP benefits for 

cash—which was estimated to be as high as four percent 15 years ago, down to just 

1.3 percent according to the most recent data. 

The farm bill authorized a Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (FFVP) pilot to 

allow participating schools in at least five states to serve canned, frozen, and dried 

forms of fruits and vegetables through the program. Four states—Alaska, Delaware, 

Kansas, and Maine—applied to participate. The pilots are operating this school 

year. Each pilot has an evaluation component and results of the evaluations are expected in fall 2016. 

USDA also issued guidance and provided technical assistance to state agencies regarding the requirement that state and local agencies begin phasing out the participation of women, infants and children in the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, resulting in a smooth transition to a seniors-only program. 

Title V: Credit 

The 2012 Census of Agriculture data indicate there is tremendous growth potential for small and mid-sized producers, but many need additional support in order 

to become competitive. Accordingly, USDA has expanded efforts to connect smalland mid-sized farmers and ranchers with tools and resources to help them access 

capital, get information about land management and conservation practices, manage 

risk, find local markets, and other educational resources that will help them grow 

their operations and expand into new markets. The new farm bill expands lending 

opportunities for thousands of farmers and ranchers to begin and continue operations, including greater flexibility in determining eligibility, raising loan limits, 

and emphasizing beginning and socially disadvantaged producers. 

USDA has acted quickly to implement changes to Farm Loan Programs, including, among other things, eliminating loan term limits for guaranteed operating 

loans; modifying the definition of beginning farmers; allowing debt forgiveness on 

youth loans; and increasing the guaranteed amount on conservation loans from 75 

to 80 percent and 90 percent for socially disadvantaged borrowers and beginning 

farmers. USDA also implemented changes in the interest rate on Direct Farm Ownership loans that are made in conjunction with other lenders and increased the 

maximum loan amount for the down payment loan program from $225,000 to 

$300,000. On March 25, 2014, FSA issued an agency directive implementing nondiscretionary microloan provisions. USDA also raised the borrowing limit for its 

microloan program from $35,000 to $50,000. Since the program began in January 

2013, USDA has issued more than 10,000 microloans, 70 percent of which went to 

beginning farmers. 

Title VI: Rural Development 

USDA has made strategic investments in infrastructure, housing and community 

facilities to help improve quality of life in rural America. Since 2009, USDA has 

helped more than 900,000 families buy, repair or refinance a home; extended new 

or improved broadband service for 1.4 million Americans; improved or constructed 

more than 158,000 miles of electric line; invested in approximately 7,000 water and 

wastewater projects for nearly 14.5 million Americans; invested in more than 6,600 

critical community facilities projects; and provided grants and loans to assist nearly 

89,000 small and mid-sized businesses in rural America, creating or saving an estimated 420,000 jobs. 

The 2014 Farm Bill reauthorized the tools that enable USDA to continue offering 

municipalities, businesses, and families the financing tools that can prompt economic growth and prosperity in rural communities. USDA is making good use of 

these tools in communities across the country. Because the farm bill included funding to address the backlog of water/wastewater improvement projects across the 

country, USDA acted quickly and on April 22, 2014, awarded $150 million in grants, 

plus an additional $237 million in loans and grants through the Water and Environmental Program, to 116 projects in 40 states and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico 

to improve water and wastewater services and ensure that rural communities have 

access to reliable, clean and safe water. These awards go predominantly to very 

small, remote, and poor places. 

USDA has also acted quickly to implement key new farm bill provisions that invest in rural businesses and critical infrastructure in order to strengthen rural communities and build on its rural development initiatives. In FY15 USDA will reopen 

the farm bill broadband program with new rules that align with the changes the 

Congress included in the 2014 Farm Bill and make approximately $50 million in 

loans available to help ensure every corner of this country has reliable, high-speed 

10 

Internet access. Similarly, in FY15 USDA will accept applications for the ValueAdded Producer Grant program, which helps agricultural producers generate new 

products, crate and expand marketing opportunities, and increase income. Since 

2009, USDA has awarded 863 Value-Added Producer Grants totaling $108 million. 

The new farm bill streamlines the Rural Business Opportunity Grant (RBOG) 

program and Rural Business Enterprise Grants (RBEG) program to create a new 

Rural Business Development Grant Program with all the same authorities as the 

previous two programs. In FY 2014, USDA ran RBOG and RBEG as separate programs and in FY 2015, will issue a final rule establishing the new Rural Business 

Grant Program. In September 2014, USDA announced nearly $3 million in grants 

to 28 organizations in 12 states through the two programs. 

Even as we make these investments, rural America continues to face a unique set 

of challenges when it comes to combating poverty. While poverty is not limited to 

rural America, nearly 85 percent of persistent poverty counties are located in rural 

areas. In fact, 1⁄3 of rural counties have child poverty rates of over 30 percent, at 

a time when research increasingly demonstrates the negative effect of poverty on 

child development and educational attainment. Children are our future and we 

must do more to create better futures for our children and families and those striving to reach the middle class—this is something I look forward to working on with 

all of you. 

Title VII: Research, Extension, and Related Matters 

Scientific breakthroughs have helped our farmers, ranchers and growers increase 

production on the same amounts of land, using fewer inputs. Studies have shown 

that every dollar invested in agricultural research returns up to $20 to the economy. 

In the past 6 years alone, research by USDA scientists has led to over 750 patent 

applications covering a wide range of topics and discoveries. USDA also continues 

to aggressively partner with private companies, universities and others to transfer 

technology to the marketplace to benefit consumers and stakeholders. In Fiscal Year 

2014 alone USDA received 83 patents, filed 119 patent applications, and disclosed 

117 new inventions. Helping drive these innovations, USDA also had 267 active Cooperative Research and Development Agreements with outside investigators, which 

includes universities and other organizations, including 102 with small businesses. 

In July, USDA created the Foundation for Food and Agricultural Research 

(FFAR) and appointed individuals to a 15-member board of directors. The foundation’s board of directors was chosen to represent the diverse sectors of agriculture. 

Seven of these board members were selected by the unanimous vote of the board’s 

five ex officio members from lists of candidates provided by industry, while eight 

representatives were unanimously elected from a list of candidates provided by the 

National Academy of Sciences. Congress mandated that the ex officio members 

choose the initial 15 board members from among the lists provided by these two 

groups. The board members have the option of adding additional members, if they 

so choose. 

FFAR will leverage public and private resources to increase the scientific and 

technological research, innovation, and partnerships critical to boosting America’s 

agricultural economy. In a time of Federal budgetary restraints, the new foundation 

is another innovative way to continue and expand investment in agricultural research. It will complement existing Federal and federally-funded agricultural 

science research endeavors and accelerate solutions to the challenges American agriculture. 

Other research provisions of the 2014 Farm Bill focus on investments at colleges 

and universities throughout the United States, with an emphasis on Land-Grant institutions. The farm bill provides new or expanded investments in research critical 

for the success of beginning farmers and ranchers, specialty crop producers, and organic producers. 

As authorized by the farm bill, USDA has provided significant sums for a variety 

of research, extension, and education efforts. For example, on Feb. 2, 2015, USDA 

announced more than $18 million in grants to educate, mentor, and enhance the potential of the next generation of farmers to sustain careers in agriculture through 

the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program. This program aims to 

support those who have farmed or ranched less than 10 years with workshops, educational teams, training, and technical assistance throughout the United States. 

USDA’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture awards grants to organizations 

that implement programs to train beginning farmers and ranchers. 

On October 2, 2014, USDA announced the award of $51.8 million in grants 

through its Specialty Crop Research Initiative to support the specialty crop sector 

by developing and disseminating science-based tools to address the needs of specific 

crops. These research and extension project grants fund a wide variety of efforts, 

11 

including research to improve crop characteristics, identifying and addressing 

threats from pests and diseases, improving production and profitability, developing 

new production innovations and technologies, and developing methods to respond to 

food safety hazards. 

Through the Organic Research and Extension Initiative (OREI), USDA awarded on September 29, 2014, more than $19 million in grants to help producers and processors who have already adopted organic standards grow and market high-quality 

organic agricultural products. OREI’s priority concerns include biological, physical 

and social sciences. OREI-funded projects assist farmers and ranchers with whole 

farm planning by delivering practical research-based information and will improve 

the ability of growers to develop the Organic System Plan required for certification. 

Title VIII: Forestry 

Under the new farm bill, the Forest Service is provided greater tools to maintain 

the nation’s forests and grasslands, including permanent stewardship contracting 

and Good Neighbor authorities, and provisions to aid efficient planning and implementation of landscape scale projects that reduce insect, disease and fire risks. 

These tools give the agency increased ability to work collaboratively with states, 

Tribes and a wide range of citizens and stakeholders to accomplish critical forest 

and watershed restoration work and conserve the nation’s forests and grasslands. 

Last May, USDA designated 94 National Forest areas in 35 states to address insect and disease threats that weaken forests and increase the risk of forest fire. 

Title IX: Energy 

New opportunities in advanced biobased products and renewable energy expand 

the potential to strengthen rural manufacturing, particularly of products made from 

renewable materials from our farms and forests. Rural America desperately needs 

those jobs, and every American benefits from our expanded competitiveness in this 

globally emerging market. 

USDA is helping to create markets for advanced biofuels from non-food, non-feed 

sources—from the farm field to the end-user. To encourage feedstock production for 

renewable energy, the Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP) is incentivizing 

more than 850 growers and landowners farming nearly 48,000 acres to establish 

and produce dedicated, nonfood advanced biofuel feedstocks for energy conversion 

facilities. In July, we selected 36 energy facilities in 14 states to accept biomass deliveries supported by BCAP. 

USDA has also invested in the work needed to create advanced biofuels refineries. 

Since 2009, USDA has invested in efforts to create nine new advanced refineries nationwide. We have also created six regional research centers across America to develop advanced biobased energy technology that’s appropriate to every region. With 

the nearly $900 million in mandatory money provided in the Energy Title of the 

2014 Farm Bill, we can continue these efforts to expand the biobased economy and 

support economic development opportunities in rural America. 

The new farm bill makes significant investments in the bioeconomy and renewable energy programs. The legislation preserves the Rural Energy for America Program (REAP), which provides critical investments in renewable energy and energy 

efficiency across rural America, helping to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. 

Over the past few years we have collected good feedback from folks around the 

country about how we could improve the REAP program—and Congress also provided some direction in the 2014 Farm Bill. In December, USDA published a new 

REAP rule, which takes these changes into account and also strives to make the 

program more accessible to rural business owners and producers of all kinds. The 

rule goes into effect this week and USDA will be announcing the availability of approximately $280 million in grants and loan guarantees for the new REAP program 

in the near future. 

Title X: Horticulture 

A surge in consumer demand for locally-produced food is creating jobs and opportunity throughout rural America, for farms as well as small businesses that store, 

process, market and distribute food locally and regionally. USDA data indicate that 

local food sales were at least $6.1 billion in 2012, with industry sources estimating 

the market’s value at more than $9 billion. Perhaps more important for USDA’s 

mission, our research shows that money spent on local food continues to circulate 

locally, creating demand for other businesses and services in rural communities. As 

such, this strategy is a critical piece of USDA’s work to support rural economies 

more generally. 

With the release of the Census of Agriculture results last year, USDA learned 

that over 160,000 farmers and ranchers nationwide are selling their products locally. They’re tapping in to growing consumer demand for locally-grown food; conVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:50 Jun 16, 2015 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\114-01\93959.TXT BRIAN
12 

sumers want to support their local economy when they purchase food, whether 

that’s at a farmers market, a grocery store, or their workplace cafeteria. 

Direct-to-consumer sales like those that take place at a farmers market help consumers connect with the source of their food and learn more about agriculture. 

Today, we have more than 8,200 farmers markets registered with the AMS National 

Farmers Market Directory. But this economic sector is more than that. As it matures, it is opening opportunities for farms of all sizes, especially mid-sized farms, 

to supply larger-volume buyers like local retailers. USDA has invested in local food 

infrastructure—from cold storage facilities, to processing plants, to food hubs that 

aggregate and distribute local products—and has helped facilitate new market access for these producers. Recently, we launched a new set of Local Food Directories 

to help consumers find Community Supported Agriculture enterprises, food hubs 

and on-farm stores. 

The 2014 Farm Bill continues to build on programs established in the 2008 Farm 

Bill to promote local and regional food systems and support specialty crop and organic agriculture. Sales of specialty crops total nearly $65 billion per year, making 

them a critical part of the U.S. economy. In October, USDA announced $66 million 

for 838 Specialty Crop Block Grants to State Departments of Agriculture for projects 

that help support specialty crop growers, including locally grown fruits and vegetables, through research and programs to increase demand. As directed by the farm 

bill, the block grants were allocated to U.S. States, the District of Columbia, and 

territories based on a formula that took into consideration both specialty crop acreage and production value. Nearly all states saw an increase in funds. 

In September, USDA awarded over $27 million in competitive grant funds for 

projects through the new Farmers Market and Local Food Promotion Program that 

support local and regional food systems. As directed by the 2014 Farm Bill, priority 

will be given to projects that benefit under-served communities, including those that 

are located in areas of concentrated poverty with limited access to fresh locally or 

regionally grown foods. 

In order to help prevent the introduction or spread of plant pests and diseases 

that threaten America’s agriculture economy and the environment, in April 2014 

USDA allocated $48.1 million to 383 projects in 49 states, Guam and Puerto Rico 

through the Plant Pest and Disease Management and Disaster Prevention Program. 

The projects are helping states and other partners continue providing and strengthening protections against agricultural threats and could also allow the reallocation 

of resources to other critical programs. In addition, in June, USDA allocated $5 million to support 19 projects in 14 states through the National Clean Plant Network 

cooperative agreements program. 

Title XI: Crop Insurance 

The crop insurance program has become an increasingly important component of 

the farm safety net, and crop insurance protections for all farmers, particularly beginning farmers and ranchers, have been strengthened under the new farm bill. For 

example, changes made by the 2014 Farm Bill have allowed us to provide better 

crop insurance coverage for almost 1,300 beginning farmers and ranchers already, 

only ten percent into the reporting cycle. We’ve also expanded coverage for 26 organic crops so that these producers can buy the level of insurance that meets their 

production needs. 

USDA is now able to offer Whole-Farm Revenue Protection plan of insurance to 

provide safety net protection for specialty, fresh fruit and vegetable growers and organic producers, as well as reward farm diversification through premium discounts 

on crop insurance coverage. The Whole-Farm Revenue Protection plan of insurance 

was made available in 45 states for 2015. USDA has started the work to expand 

Whole-Farm Revenue Protection to the rest of the country. These areas are targeted 

for expansion for the 2016 crop year. 

USDA staff worked hard to implement several 2014 Farm Bill programs ahead 

of schedule, such as ARC, PLC, the Price Loss Coverage, Supplemental Coverage 

Option and Stacked Income Protection Plan. Because of that, USDA was able to leverage data from ARC and PLC to extract the information needed to implement Actual Production History (APH) Yield Exclusion earlier than expected. 

In October, USDA announced that the APH Yield Exclusion will be available for 

farmers of select crops starting in spring 2015. APH allows eligible producers who 

have been hit with severe weather to receive a higher approved yield on their insurance policies through the Federal Crop Insurance Program. The APH Yield Exclusion is being implemented beginning with the 2015 crop year for corn, soybeans, 

spring wheat, cotton, grain sorghum, rice, barley, canola, sunflowers, peanuts, and 

popcorn. 

13 

APH Yield Exclusion will be available for additional crops beginning with the 

2016 crop year, including winter wheat. USDA is currently reviewing crops that will 

be eligible for APH Yield Exclusion for the 2016 crop year. The choice of crops and 

counties selected for 2016 and subsequent crop years will be based on data availability criteria designed to ensure actuarial soundness and program integrity. USDA 

expects to announce the new crops throughout the year with most of the announcements to be made in the fall of 2015. 

Title XII: Miscellaneous 

In November, USDA announced Karis T. Gutter, a Marine Corps Reserve veteran 

and current USDA Deputy Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural 

Services as the first USDA Military Veterans Agricultural Liaison, a position created by the 2014 Farm Bill. The MVA Liaison will coordinate USDA leadership 

across the Department to provide information, resources and support for active duty 

military and veterans interested in agriculture. The MVA Liaison will also have authority to facilitate formal relationships between USDA and other government agencies and nonprofit organizations to strengthen USDA support for veterans. 

In December, USDA awarded grants to 62 community-based and nonprofit organizations and educational institutions to conduct training, outreach and technical assistance for socially disadvantaged (including Tribal) and veteran farmers and 

ranchers through the 2501 Program. USDA has assisted more than 6,100 beginning, 

small, veteran and socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers through the program since October 2014. 

USDA also implemented the receipt for service requirement in the 2014 Farm Bill 

and has issued 101,462 receipts for service to USDA customers between December 

1, 2014 and January 28, 2015. 

Conclusion 

Again, thank you for this opportunity to update you on USDA’s progress to implement the 2014 Farm Bill. Farmers, ranchers, rural communities and other USDA 

stakeholders have waited several years for this legislation, and USDA has made implementation of the bill a high priority. 

I am pleased to say that in just over a year, important progress has been made 

on every title, including updates to risk management tools, modifications to farm 

loan programs, announcements regarding available funds for agricultural research 

and much more. Moving forward, USDA staff and I will continue to engage with 

Members of Congress and stakeholders during the implementation process and as 

we continue to carry out critical mission of serving America’s farmers, ranchers and 

rural communities. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you, Mr. Secretary. Again, thank you 

for being here today. The chair would remind Members that they 

will be recognized for questions in order of seniority, for the Members who were here at the start of the hearing. After that, Members will be recognized in order of arrival. I appreciate our Members’ understanding. I recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

Mr. Secretary, again, thanks. Crop insurance is clearly the backbone of our safety net, and for several budgets in a row the Administration has proposed additional cuts, on top of the money that 

was cut in 2008, on top of the money that was cut as a result of 

the SRA. You are on record with Politico saying that you think the 

company returns are way too healthy. I am a CPA, and return on 

investment, and whether or not somebody is making money, that 

is a mathematical computation, and there seems to be some differences of opinion. 

RMA thinks that the companies are making a lot—in the six percent range, well south of the 14 percent cap that is put into the 

farm bill. We have had crop reinsurance folks come to us saying 

they are exiting the business, they are making very difficult decisions whether or not they can continue to allocate capital to this 

important initiative. It is the public-private team that has driven 

the success of crop insurance. 

14 

Could you give us your thoughts on this? Could you share with 

us how RMA computes the numbers, and can we get a better sense 

of why the Administration believes that crop insurance folks are 

making too much money? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, first of all, Mr. Chairman, I certainly 

acknowledge the importance of crop insurance as a critical component to the safety net. Over $55 billion has been paid out since I 

have been Secretary in crop insurance payouts, so obviously it is 

extraordinarily important. 

It is a balance between producers, insurance companies, and the 

taxpayer. And the reality is that both the Government Accountability Office (GAO), our own Inspector General, have raised questions and concerns about various aspects of the program. 

What we have proposed is a reform in the Prevented Planting 

Program. Essentially, it creates a current disincentive for planting 

the second crop. We think that should be dealt with and addressed. 

In terms of the harvest price option loss coverage, that is a question of whether or not we, or you, or us, believe that the partnership should be more of a 50/50 partnership, instead of a 65/35 partnership, in terms of the level of subsidy. 

The bottom line is you can look at any 1 year, and you can make 

a conclusion about whether or not this is a profitable or not profitable enterprise. The reality is, if you look at a long enough period 

of time, and it is important because folks can point to a year where 

maybe it was a loss, 1 or 2 years out of the last 15 or 16. We can 

also point to a place where the return on premiums was 34 percent, 

32 percent, so you have to look at the long trend. 

What we have found is that this enterprise can be actuarially 

sound at 12 percent on balance. Over history, the return has been 

somewhere between 14 and 17 percent. So it is just a matter of the 

long term. This is a healthy industry, and we are seeing an expansion of the number of insurance policies and crops being insured. 

The CHAIRMAN. You are clearly saying that, but you are not saying it expands the number of folks. If this is such a profitable business, there would be folks trying to get in it, and what we are 

being told is that there are folks getting out. It seems like there 

is a sense at OMB that they don’t want a public-private partnership. They want crop insurance to be solely public, and that makes 

no sense to many of us. 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, I don’t think that is quite accurate, Mr. 

Chairman. I think that OMB’s position, and our position, is that 

it is a balance. It is a proper balance, and a partnership. When 

subsidies are as high as 65, 70, 80 percent, the question is, is that 

the right level? 

The CHAIRMAN. And those have been coming down. 

Secretary VILSACK. They—— 

The CHAIRMAN. In those early years, I mean these guys are in 

the arena for today forward. I get the historical look back, but the 

trend is in the wrong direction. Much of that happened before the 

2008 Farm Bill, as well as the standard reinsurance agreement 

that was done in 2011. I am hard pressed to see how those previous years can be used as an excuse for further cuts. 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, again, we have seen years where the 

profits have been pretty good—— 

15 

The CHAIRMAN. All right, which year was that, post-2011? 

Secretary VILSACK. I will get that to you. I think it is—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. 

Secretary VILSACK.—2012, 2011–2012. 

The CHAIRMAN. Right: 2012 was a disaster drought year. The 

other thing I would like to get, if we could, is an agreement that 

whatever RMA is using to drive the conversation, that that would 

be shared with the rest of us so we could see the numbers. This 

isn’t rocket science. This is premiums in, expenses out. What expenses get included in the number ought to be a part of the conversation, so rather than talk about what it ought to be we can talk 

about what it is, and then talk about what it ought to be? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, I am happy to provide you, but 2011 

was 18 percent. 

The CHAIRMAN. Was what? 

Secretary VILSACK. It was 18 percent. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, and 2011 was prior to the SRA renegotiation, which stripped another $8 billion out of the system, so I have 

you on that. I understand the 2008. This is an important industry, 

all of us believe that. Your statement is full of compliments to the 

crop insurance system. We need to keep it in business, and my personal opinion is we need to keep it as a public-private partnership, 

so—— 

Secretary VILSACK. I don’t disagree with that, Mr. Chairman. I 

think you are right about that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. Thank you. My time has expired. Mr. Peterson, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. PETERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary, you and I 

have had many conversations about the future of CRP. We are in 

agreement that this has been a good program, and it has a number 

of different aspects which I support, improving water quality, protecting highly erodible land. But one of the components is also 

wildlife, and we made that 1⁄3 of the components. 

So as we go forward, because we had to lower the cap, and we 

have all these different continuous programs within the system and 

so forth, I am concerned that we are going to lose kind of the way 

it was spread across the landscape when it started. And it started 

not as a conservation program, but as a way to get land out of production, so it is a little different situation. 

But one of the reasons, in my opinion, it has been so successful 

with wildlife is the fact that it kind of was all over the place, and 

we had big tracts that spread out predators, and allowed these 

birds to survive. What are your thoughts about doing a general 

sign-up? I know there are things that are being looked at, in terms 

of programs within the system, but we have 1.9 million acres coming out this year, and we have room to do a million acre general 

sign-up. And, according to your folks you are considering it, but you 

haven’t made decisions yet? I would like to know where you are at 

with that. 

Secretary VILSACK. We are taking a look at this, and the decision-making process is probably going to lead us to an early spring 

decision-making process, in terms of what we do. 

I am confident we will have, at some point, a general sign-up. I 

think the general sign-up will focus, as it should, on highly erodible 

16 

areas, and making sure that we use our precious resources in the 

most effective way. We obviously will continue some of the continuous programs that have been pretty popular, the Safe Program, 

for example, the programs that refocused on upland bird populations, that, obviously, will continue. 

And we are also looking at a way in which we could use Conservation Reserve Program creatively to complement the regional 

conservation partnership efforts to the extent that folks are not 

able to qualify for the competitive resources in that program. There 

is a possibility of using CRP in a very creative way to enhance 

larger watershed and larger scale conservation efforts. I don’t think 

you are going to be disappointed, Congressman, in terms of our 

commitment to CRP. 

Mr. PETERSON. And are you looking at using some of the grassland reserve to maybe take the place of some of this land that is 

going out? Have you looked at that? 

Secretary VILSACK. That is a possibility. It is also a possibility 

of taking a look at the new easement programs in an effort to try 

to encourage utilization of these. We have created greater flexibility in those programs to be able to adjust to the individual state 

requirements and needs. 

Mr. PETERSON. And I don’t know what the answer to this is, but 

I understand we want to protect highly erodible land, but if you 

focus the whole program on that, what you are going to do, at least 

in my part of the world, is concentrate this in a very narrow area, 

and exclude a whole bunch of other people. I am not sure that is 

where we want to go long term. 

There should be some way to move this CRP into some of these 

areas where you have traditionally had CRP that are going to be 

excluded because they don’t meet the highly erodible land test. In 

terms of wildlife, I am concerned about that. I don’t know what the 

answer is, necessarily, but that is what I am worried about. 

And you have people concentrating on these highly erodible 

areas, and you have the wildlife groups involved, and what you 

have happening is you have a lot of folks that are going out there 

and buying farms for wildlife, and using these programs to fund it? 

Which I guess is okay, but we want to have the ability for ordinary 

farmers to be involved in this too, farmers that are going to put 

this land into CRP, and open it up for hunting. If this goes to only 

people that are buying things for wildlife, they are not going to let 

anybody on the land except their friends. So I am just concerned 

about making this too restrictive. 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, I certainly hear you, and I would also 

say that you have raised an issue that is an even larger issue to 

converse about, which is this issue of land tenure, and who is going 

to own the land, and who is going to operate the land in the future. 

In the next 10 to 15 years we are facing a significant shift in transfer of land ownership, based on the age of existing landowners. And 

it is something that I have just instructed our beginning farmer 

and rancher advisory group to take a very concerted look at this 

issue. It is a serious one. 

Mr. PETERSON. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield 

back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir. Mr. Neugebauer, for 5 minutes. 

17 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, 

thank you for being here this morning. Now, first of all, I want to 

also thank you for your efforts to go ahead and resolve the production history issue. That was very important to people in my district. I also want to associate myself with the remarks of the Chairman. 

As you know, Mr. Secretary, when we did the farm bill, we 

moved a lot of the safety net to, basically, the risk management 

area, and so a lot of the safety net for farmers across the country 

today relies more on crop insurance than it did on the commodity 

programs, and so protecting them is extremely important. 

An issue that has come up, and maybe you can reflect on it a 

little bit, over the past few weeks we have been hearing from the 

cotton producers and cotton marketing cooperatives that there is a 

large amount of uncertainty surrounding the payment status on 

any gains realized in the cotton loan program as it relates to payment limits. And while this issue affects individual producers, 

there is some concern that it will impact the marketing practices 

for cotton, and the follow of cotton, through the supply chain and 

the textile mills. 

The issue is, with the payment limits in place, some of the producers don’t know exactly what their gains are. In certain circumstances, they might have to pay those monies back. Is the Department working on a real-time basis to kind of keep producers 

up to date on what the status is? 

Secretary VILSACK. We are aware of this, and we have been 

working with the Cotton Council to try to figure this out. Part of 

the challenge is the statute is written in such a way that we don’t 

have a great deal of flexibility, in terms of the timing of all of this, 

but we are working to try to figure out a way in which producers 

will not be harmed and not be hurt by this. And we are working 

directly with the Council to try to figure this out. 

I don’t know that we have found the answer yet, but we are certainly aware of the problem, and we are diligently working to try 

to figure out how to do it in the confines of the fairly strict direction from the statute. We can’t create the flexibility that you might 

be able to create by waiting for another year to institute the program. We don’t think we have that flexibility, so we have to figure 

something out. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I appreciate that. And if you could keep the 

Committee advised on that process, I would appreciate it. The 

other thing that I wanted to visit with you, when you came to sit 

with some of the Members of the House Agriculture Committee last 

week, and talked about what is going on in trade. As you know, 

trade is extremely important to agriculture. With the recent defeat 

at the WTO with cotton with the Brazil case, we were forced to 

kind of basically re-draft our farm program, particularly for cotton 

producers. 

One of the concerns that a lot of the people in cotton have right 

now is, particularly with China, are they playing by the rules? 

Their policy is not very transparent, and they have a huge influence on the world price of cotton. Right now the price is down. Can 

you kind of expand on what the Department is doing to help make 

sure that our friends in China are playing by the rules? 

18 

Secretary VILSACK. That is a big challenge, Congressman. I 

would say that we are heartened by the announcement today from 

the U.S. Trade Representative’s office beginning the process within 

the WTO to raise questions about the export subsidies that China 

is engaged in, and agriculture is one of the industries that was 

identified as being part of that effort. And certainly it is fairly clear 

that they have not necessarily been playing by the rules in a number of areas. 

We have also urged them, in terms of their reserves, their cotton 

reserves, to have much greater transparency in terms of what they 

have, and where they have it, and what they are going to do with 

it, because that obviously does indeed impact and create instability 

in the market, which we don’t need. This is an issue that is raised 

in every meeting that we have with the Chinese, along with several 

other issues that we have with them. 

In the last meeting I have had, we suggested that there needs 

to be a strategic dialogue with China, a much more in-depth dialogue and conversation about a variety of issues, from biotech, to 

regulatory processes, to subsidies, to the way in which they control 

markets. And they have agreed to the strategic dialogue. We will 

be submitting to them a proposed agenda, and the hope would be 

that that dialogue will begin this spring. 

They are our number one customer, and so we obviously have to 

be sensitive to that. But, at the same time, we want a sciencebased and rules-based system, because if everyone plays fair, we 

will do just fine in that system. If we are at a disadvantage, obviously that is a problem. We are calling them out, and we should. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. Mr. Scott, for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Mr. Secretary. 

Mr. Secretary, the Federal Government has had a drastic, very 

dangerous decline in their Federal purchases of peanut butter. This 

is very devastating to our peanut producers and farmers, and all 

throughout our retail industry. This is going on while peanut butter is perhaps one of the most nutrient packed protein foods that 

you can eat. It helps fight our children’s obesity, and it helps with 

our nutrition and food program. 

Yet, just listen to this fact, Mr. Chairman: 20 years ago, in 1995, 

the Federal Government was purchasing 80 million pounds of peanut butter; 20 years later, last year in 2014, it is just below 13 million pounds. That is almost 150 percent loss. I mean, that is devastating to any industry, but can you imagine what that is to the 

peanut industry? And we have to find out a reason for that. 

So what I want to ask you to do, Mr. Chairman, is to stop by 

the side of the road here for a moment and help the peanut industry. Help particularly in Georgia. Many of our states share this 

problem, but Georgia leads the nation. I want you to know that I 

am leading the fight to get an answer to this situation. 

So what I want to ask you, if you would be kind enough, and 

your staff, to review this situation with the urgency that these 

farmers and producers are sensing. We are losing farms. Our children are not getting the nutritious food that they need. Our food 

19 

and nutrition program is losing. To go from 80 million pounds of 

purchasing down to less than 30 million, that is unacceptable. Mr. 

Secretary, I know you care about our children and our families; so, 

please, will you direct your staff to report back to this Committee 

some solutions that we can go to work on to turn this train around? 

Secretary VILSACK. Congressman, I will direct my deputy, who is 

a Georgia native, to pay some attention to this issue and get back 

to you. It is a question I am not prepared to answer today, but you 

have raised it, and you deserve an answer. 

Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Thank you so much, and you 

couldn’t have a better person leading the fight than a good citizen 

from Georgia. 

Let me go back to COOL for a second, the Country-of-Origin Labeling. How do we fix this problem, Mr. Secretary, with the country-of-origin labeling? It is a grave concern to our beef, our poultry 

folks, who are very concerned. Can you give us an update on 

COOL, and how we will be able to fix this problem so it doesn’t 

cause any more harm to the United States agriculture industry? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, Congressman, I would say three things. 

One, we are in the process of appealing the adverse decision in the 

WTO. That decision is likely to come out sometime this spring, 

and, obviously, that would potentially solve the problem. If we 

aren’t successful in that appeal, we have looked at this from a regulatory perspective, and we have concluded that we cannot, at the 

agency and Department level, navigate the difficult path between 

what Congress has mandated to us, and what the WTO says is acceptable. 

So Congress is either going to have to rescind the rule, or modify 

the rule, to create some kind of more generic label, a North American label, for example, that would enable enforcement and implementation without segregation of livestock. I would say that our 

Canadian friends, with all due respect, overstate the challenge and 

the issue that it is created for them, in terms of the damages they 

sustained. There is a recent report by the National Farmers’ Union 

that suggests that they have not been damaged anywhere near as 

much as they claim. 

Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. All right, Mr. Secretary, thank you. 

I have just a few seconds. Could you give us an update on the proposed rule that could very well allow South American beef entering 

into this country? And many of our farmers are concerned about 

that, because it could bring in foot and mouth disease. 

Secretary VILSACK. If I can ask the chair for just about 30 seconds to respond to this, because it is a very important question. We 

have traveled around the country, and around the world, touting 

American agriculture, and suggesting that we need in our trading 

relationships a rules-based and science-based system, which means 

that we have to live by that system that we advocate. If we are 

asking the Chinese to play by a certain set of rules, we obviously 

have to play by those rules as well. 

That involves, basically, a focus on risk assessment, and our 

folks at Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) have 

done a very detailed risk assessment, and have concluded that certain regions of countries can indeed be allowed to export fresh and 

chilled beef to the United States without raising an undue risk relVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:50 Jun 16, 2015 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 P:\DOCS\114-01\93959.TXT BRIAN
20 

ative to foot-and-mouth. In other regions, the risk assessment has 

not indicated safety. So the ability to export to the United States 

would be restricted to those areas where we have already done a 

very extensive risk assessment. There would obviously also be 

checks at the border when this beef comes in. 

If we don’t do this, then it is very difficult for me to go to China 

and say, ‘‘You need a rules-based and science-based system for 

GMOs,’’ or to Europe and say, ‘‘Hormone beef ought to be allowed 

to be traded, because the science says it is okay, and the rules say 

it is okay.’’ It is about consistency, and it starts with a very strong 

and significant risk assessment that we have done over the course 

of years. 

Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Right. Well, thank you very much, 

Mr. Secretary, but the major point I want to make in conclusion 

is that we need to give our beef, and our pork, and our poultry 

folks here some kind of relief. Particularly our beef, because there 

is a reason why they are fearing that this South American beef 

could cause foot-and-mouth disease. And I just hope that before we 

let the chickens out of the barn here, so to speak, that we close the 

barn door. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. Mr. Lucas for, 

5 minutes. 

Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Secretary, for participating in a little anniversary, the first anniversary of the farm bill when you were in Oklahoma a couple weeks 

ago. 

Secretary, I think we would all agree, and certainly you and I 

would agree, that using cover crops is a good conservation practice. 

In fact, I know the Administration has been doing a lot to encourage the use of cover crops. You can imagine my surprise when I 

hear from my producers that perhaps FSA may not be counting 

cover crops as eligible for ARC or PLC on generic base. Can you 

help us make sure that we don’t punish producers who are trying 

to adopt sound conservation practices like planting cover crops? 

Secretary VILSACK. I am used to referring to you as Mr. Chairman, so I may slip, Mr. Chairman, if I—— 

Mr. LUCAS. No, that title goes with you, no matter where you 

are—— 

Secretary VILSACK. It goes both sides—— 

Mr. LUCAS. Absolutely. 

Secretary VILSACK. Congressman, look, we are indeed a strong 

proponent of cover crops, and we have seen a 350 percent increase 

in the amount of cover crop activity in the last several years, which 

is a good thing. We recognize that cover crops are part of the stewardship ethic that farmers and ranchers have. The problem is that 

we are not certain that there is the kind of flexibility that we 

would need to have in terms of the definition under ARC and PLC 

to be able to cover this. It is an interpretation of the statute. 

So the question is whether or not we can work together to see 

whether or not there is a change, or a modification, or if there is 

additional information you want to supply to us that would suggest 

that our interpretation of the statute is not correct. 

Mr. LUCAS. I would just note, Mr. Secretary, the practice is a 

solid conservation practice. The Department has encouraged whatVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:50 Jun 16, 2015 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 P:\DOCS\114-01\93959.TXT BRIAN
21 

ever we can do to work together to help make sure this continues 

forward would be in the best interest of the environment and the 

soil out there. That said, while you were in Oklahoma, some peanut producers expressed their concerns—and not just in Oklahoma, 

but a number of adjoining states—of their issues where they were 

contracted with a company for their peanut crop that is now going 

through bankruptcy. Can you assure us that you are doing everything in your power to protect those producers, and to ensure that 

they are able to stay in their marketing—which is a really important issue with them. 

And I know this is sort of a unique circumstance, we have not 

gone through this process before, but can you shed a little light on 

that, Mr. Secretary? 

Secretary VILSACK. Congressman, indeed there were a number of 

producers that did business with this entity that has now filed 

bankruptcy. We are working with the lawyers of the new licensee, 

or the new owner of the facility, in an effort to try to navigate the 

tricky bankruptcy laws to ensure we do everything we possibly can 

to protect producers. I am hopeful that we can get something 

worked out, but I don’t want to over-represent where we are in this 

process. We are trying to get to a place where producers can be 

protected, those contracts can be honored, and it doesn’t cause significant financial harm to those producers. But it does depend a 

great deal on the new owner, or licensee. 

Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. And I would simply note 

to my colleagues on the Committee that farm bills are written not 

for the good times, but the bad times. And when we started this 

process, Mr. Chairman, some years ago, corn, wheat, things were 

in an amazingly different set of circumstances, and now we are in 

potentially some challenging times. 

But that is what the farm bill is for, and that is the effort that 

we put into it, and how we implement all that is critically important to our constituents, our neighbors’ ability to survive. I would 

just simply, once again, I thank the Secretary for his help through 

that long and daunting process, and the patience of everyone, from 

our present Chairman on down. And by the way, I have gotten to 

the point where I kind of like the phrase Chairman Conaway. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate 

that very much, and the gentleman yields back. Mr. Costa for, 5 

minutes. 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking 

Member, for holding this timely hearing, and, Mr. Secretary, for 

your good efforts in implementing the farm bill on the first year 

anniversary. I have a number of questions. I want to go quickly. 

A number of them relate to California specifically. 

You came out almost about a year ago this month with myself 

and the President and, firsthand, looked at the impacts of this devastating drought, that now is in its fourth year, that is having catastrophic impacts. I would like to get a sense from you as to what 

the USDA is doing for farmers in the San Joaquin Valley who are 

suffering because of a lack of a reliable water supply, 600,000 acres 

out of 6 million acres in California have been fallowed last year. 

Could you please quickly talk about any mitigation efforts? 

22 

Secretary VILSACK. Obviously additional livestock disaster assist- ance, $109 million, additional EQIP resources have been provided, 

additional emergency community water resources have been provided. Emergency water grants totaling roughly $40 to $50 million, 

that are in the process of being distributed and provided to producers to look at irrigation systems. There is also additional research that is taking place, not just in California, but around the 

country, through the Conservation Innovation Grant, to see how we 

might be able to deal with the consequences of drought. 

Mr. COSTA. Well, I would like to talk with you about this at 

greater length. Let me move on. This is more West Coast oriented. 

Has the Department conducted an economic analysis on the results 

of the labor dispute on West Coast ports? 

The Administration obviously has a mediator that is involved 

right now. I don’t know if the President has been made aware of 

the current strain on products that have been sold that are sitting 

at Long Beach, L.A. Harbor, Oakland, up the West Coast now for 

several months. It is really having the ripple effect, in terms of 

from the farm to the selling of these products. Well, the products 

have been sold, and they are sitting there. 

Secretary VILSACK. Congressman, I personally wrote a letter to 

the President several weeks ago, advising him of the concerns that 

we had about the situation at the port. I can you tell you that we 

know from prior history, where there have been labor issues at the 

port, that it is a serious issue to containerized supplies. Bulk grain 

supplies are moving, but the containerized supplies have been, as 

you have indicated, delayed. So we are looking at a very serious situation in—— 

Mr. COSTA. The implications for employees, retailers, processors, 

transportation sector, farmers, ranchers, consumers, are significant. 

Secretary VILSACK. We are fully aware of this. We meet on a day 

to day basis encouraging the sides to get this resolved. It is my understanding that there are just a couple of remaining issues. They 

are serious issues, but the hope is that these folks can get the last 

two issues resolved so this thing can—— 

Mr. COSTA. Well, your support, and your efforts with the Secretary of Labor, would be very much appreciated to bring this to 

an end for all the right reasons. 

The trade agreements, both TPA, T–TIP, have potential benefits 

to America’s agriculture economy, and I am wondering if you have 

been doing an economic analysis that we could look at on a region 

by region basis, sector by sector benefits to American agricultures, 

and have that finalized before Fast Track is proposed, or comes to 

the Congress? 

Secretary VILSACK. Congressman, we will get you an evaluation 

we have done by Congressional district. 

Mr. COSTA. That would be terrific. A year ago, as a part of the 

negotiations with the farm bill, we had a segment in there as it related to allowing California dairy industry to participate in the 

Federal Milk Marketing Order. Can you assure me that we are 

moving ahead on schedule? Three of the major dairy industries 

have written a letter, and they would like to get moving, that you 

have done your due diligence, and we appreciate that? 

23 

Secretary VILSACK. If I am not mistaken, a petition has been 

filed, and the process—— 

Mr. COSTA. Yes. 

Secretary VILSACK.—has started. That involves, obviously, a 

hearing, and then there is a referendum, but we are moving forward. We have had folks go out there on four occasions to talk 

about this issue. 

Mr. COSTA. Yes, and they have done a good job. I want to thank 

you and the Department. Finally, this Argentine lemon import situation, will the Department be following up with APHIS in permitting access of Argentine lemons to the U.S. market? 

Secretary VILSACK. It will, consistent with an appropriate pest 

risk analysis and assessment. It gets back to this issue of sciencebased and rules-based systems. Absolutely. 

Mr. COSTA. Right. And I just want to add my thoughts on the 

COOL effort. This does need to be resolved sooner than later. You 

and I have had a different take on it, but whether or not a North 

American labeling is a solution I am not sure, but, for the benefit 

of good trade for our partners, and for America, we need to resolve 

it. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. Mr. Gibbs, 5 

minutes. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Secretary, for 

being here. There is one big issue that the agriculture community 

is really concerned about, and you mentioned in your testimony the 

EPA and the Army Corps WOTUS rule, and almost every agricultural organization and agricultural entity is opposed to the proposed rule. The majority of the states are. 

We had a hearing in another committee last week, with the EPA 

Director and Secretary of the Army, Civil Works, and one thing 

they talk about is significant nexus, meaning that waters that have 

biological or chemical relationship to navigable waters could be a 

significant nexus, which is kind of open-ended, case-by-case determination. 

And we also learned that if, in furrows, grassed waterways, if 

they have significant nexus under that determination, then a farmer and an adjoining land owner would come into that dictate, that 

they would have to get a section 404 permit if they are doing any 

plowing activities, dredge or fill, or a section 402 permit from the 

EPA in regard to apply pesticide and herbicides if they are waters 

of the United States. And we heard from, I think it was the Deputy 

Attorney General of Oklahoma that said that that can cost over 

$300,000. 

So the impact to American agriculture can be quite severe in this 

area. What has USDA done to advocate for farmers on this? Did 

you make comments during the comment period that has been ongoing? What has USDA’s role been to address the agricultural community’s issues? 

Secretary VILSACK. Congressman, we have indeed discussed this 

issue with the Administrator, and with EPA officials. The ephemeral issue is one that we have specifically commented on, the difficulty of establishing something with a bank and a bed, and an occasional water resource, and how that actually in the real world 

works. So we have educated—that is—we see our role as educating, 

24 

as providing input in terms of how this might impact. Obviously, 

it is not our decision to make. It is another sister agency, we have 

to respect that, but we have expressed some issues and some concerns about the ephemeral definition. 

Mr. GIBBS. Well, if I was in your position, I would take a tough 

stance advocating, which I I assume you are. But with the aspect 

of saying that agriculture is so important, and that they ought to 

go back and work back with the states. They did not involve the 

states. They are saying they are involving the states now, but they 

didn’t, because we have had a majority of the states actually testify 

that there was no interaction with them. 

And the Clean Water Act was really set up to be a partnership 

with the Federal Government and the states, with the states implementing the Clean Water Act and enforcing it under the guidance 

and advisement of the Federal Government, and not just a complete power grab. 

The other issue I wanted to mention, and Mr. Costa mentioned 

a little bit, a concern about the work slowdown on the West Coast 

ports, and especially when we are looking at the trade agreements, 

and the possibility, as this continues or even gets worse, of losing 

market share because our foreign customers are going to look for 

other options if they don’t think we are a reliable customer. 

You made the comment that you have and the Administration 

tried to work on this, but if it comes to a complete lockout or a 

strike, would the USDA advocate to the President to invoke the 

Taft-Hartley Act? 

Secretary VILSACK. Congressman, the issue with Taft-Hartley is 

an interesting one, because, as you know, it requires a Federal 

Judge being convinced to issue an injunction. Thirty years ago that 

was a relatively simple process. Recent port difficulties, and recent 

requests for Taft-Hartley, have indicated a much higher bar, from 

an evidentiary standpoint, to inject that. 

Frankly, the preferred option, obviously, is for the parties to get 

this resolved. And it is my understanding that, as I said earlier, 

there are just a couple of issues. If there are only a couple of issues 

left, it—— 

Mr. GIBBS. Well, I think the couple of issues are pretty significant. 

Secretary VILSACK. They are significant. I am not suggesting 

they are not. But, as you all have outlined, the impact of this is 

quite significant. And when you take a look at how this could ripple throughout not just agriculture, but a variety of other parts of 

our economy, at a time when we are seeing the economy begin to 

pick up, it seems to me that the parties ought to be doing everything they possibly can—— 

Mr. GIBBS. I guess I would just advocate that the Administration 

needs to use all the resources they can to make sure that the slowdown ends, and it doesn’t get worse, because the ripple impact, 

even to my state, to Ohio, is significant. 

Secretary VILSACK. I can tell you that we have reached out to 

both parties, encouraging them to get this done, and we have literally daily meetings on this. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. 

25 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. Ms. DelBene, 

for 5 minutes. 

Ms. DELBENE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being with us today, and I want to thank you and your 

staff for all the work you are doing to quickly implement the farm 

bill. And I would also like to extend an invitation for you to come 

out and visit Washington’s First Congressional District and see 

some of the great work happening with our farmers and agriculture 

there. I sent you a more formal invitation, but I hope you will be 

able to find the time to come out. Plus, we are getting starting to 

get to the time of year where weather gets better, and it will be 

pretty beautiful out there. 

I have very high hopes for the new SNAP employment and training programs that are out there, the pilots that are out there. We 

introduced a bill that was based on work we had done in Washington State, and that has kind of been the model of the program 

that we included in the farm bill, and I wanted to get your feedback. I think you said you had 43 responses so far, but I wanted 

your feedback on how the request for proposal process has been 

going, what types of proposals you have received, and are you on 

track to make a decision on those later this month? 

Secretary VILSACK. There have been 35 states, over 40 applications. They are in the process of being reviewed. I believe that our 

decision-making will probably take place in the first part of March. 

Ms. DELBENE. Okay. 

Secretary VILSACK. The projects range everywhere from demand 

job opportunities—some of these folks are obviously very difficult, 

in terms of their circumstances, their barriers to employment, so 

there will be a concerted effort in some of these projects to remove 

those barriers, and to provide the help and assistance that folks 

need to get to work. Some are folks on potentially apprenticeships 

that could potentially lead to gainful employment. So there is a 

broad array of options. 

You are correct, Washington is a model for the rest of the country, and our hope is that, through these ten projects, that we create 

a best practices model, if you will, or manual that other states can 

follow. We also hope that the conversation allows states that are 

currently receiving over $300 million to utilize those resources fully 

and more efficiently. Many states do not take full advantage of the 

50/50 money in employment training, which is unfortunate, and 

many states may not be using those resources as efficiently and as 

effectively as they can. 

We have put a lot of time and effort into this, and I am personally involved. 

Ms. DELBENE. Well, thank you. I look forward to hearing the results in March. On trade, in your testimony you highlighted the 

importance of trade to agriculture, definitely in our region, and 

making sure we open new markets. Ambassador Froman came out 

to my district and met with my farmers on the Trans-Pacific Partnership in particular, and it is very, very important to our dairy 

farmers that any access that U.S. grants under imports is balanced 

with commercially meaningful access in Canada and Japan. 

And my farmers are very concerned at this point that there may 

be new access to the U.S. market without making sure that we 

26 

have made meaningful new access into Japan and Canada. And 

while we made great progress on the safety net in the farm bill, 

I hope you will encourage a positive deal for our dairy farmers, and 

I wondered if you have engaged with your Canadian counterparts 

at all on this issue, or have any other feedback for us on this issue. 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, we have engaged with the Canadians, 

but they have been very reluctant to negotiate. Very reluctant to 

negotiate. And, in fact, they have acknowledged an unwillingness 

to put any real significant deal in the discussion. I am not quite 

sure whether it is their politics, or whether they are concerned 

about whether or not we can make a deal without the President 

having the trade promotion authority that every President has had 

since Franklin Roosevelt, but, whatever the reason, they have been 

far less willing to negotiate than the Japanese. 

We have been making some progress in terms of our conversations with the Japanese. There is still work to be done, but the 

with the Canadians are another matter. My hope is, given the magnitude of this deal, and the importance of it to American agriculture, and to the American economy, that the Canadians take a 

different view and engage more meaningfully in negotiations. 

Ms. DELBENE. Thank you. 

Secretary VILSACK. I would say—let me, if I—— 

Ms. DELBENE. Go ahead. 

Secretary VILSACK.—could just say, this is not about getting a 

deal, it is about getting a good deal. And if it is not a good deal, 

then there won’t be a deal. 

Ms. DELBENE. Thank you. This is a very important issue, so 

thank you for being engaged and involved there, and I will yield 

back the remainder of my time, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentlelady for yielding back. Mr. 

Austin Scott, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Vilsack, thanks for being here today. And I want to just 

kind of, again, follow up on what Chairman Lucas said about when 

a producer is planting multiple crops, a cover crop, or a grazing 

crop. And I hope that you will continue to work with the Committee to give the farmer the flexibility that they need. I certainly 

don’t pretend to speak for the Committee as a whole, but if you do 

need flexibility or additional language, I hope that you will let us 

know sooner rather than later so that we can work together to resolve that issue. 

When we talk about the economy in rural Georgia, in my part 

of the state, it revolves on a couple of different commodities. One 

of them is cotton. And I have read the most recent World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates. I have watched cotton prices 

lately, and I can tell you I am extremely concerned about what I 

see happening in the cotton market. And I am going to give you 

a couple of numbers, and then I am just going to ask, if you would, 

that someone from your Department could maybe look a little further into this and follow up with us. But the National Cotton Council is estimating 15 percent fewer acres. We, the USDA, in the most 

recent report revised export projections up, yet, on the World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates, our expected price is holding at 61¢, the 61¢, 65¢ range. 

27 

One of the things that we are seeing is that Pakistan’s production would actually go up in our report. News reports from Pakistan actually estimate that they may miss their crop by as much 

as 3 million bales of cotton. So I would just ask, if we could, that 

we would have your specialist in cotton look at that, again, specifically with regard to Pakistan. I am extremely concerned about 

what appears to be a dysfunction in the market with price, and 

that is coming from some manipulation in some other countries, 

not Pakistan, but China more so, and a couple of others. 

And I would just ask if you could get your people to check that 

Pakistan estimate again? Because we are saying it is that we are 

anticipating that it is going up, their reports are suggesting that 

it is going down, and it would be helpful to our producers if we just 

took a second look at that. Because I am extremely concerned that, 

if these prices stay where they are, that the number of acres planted will be significantly less than 15 percent. 

Secretary VILSACK. Congressman, you made the request, and we 

will follow up on it. 

Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Thank you for that. And one other 

thing that I would mention, in the President’s budget, he has given 

no authority for guaranteed lending, but given $2.2 billion for direct lending. And my question is since the USDA, in the past, has 

worked in this partnership with the guaranteed lending, and why 

have we seen the shift to 100 percent direct lending, instead of the 

guaranteed lending from the Administration? 

Secretary VILSACK. Congressman, I want to make sure I know 

which loan program you are talking about. Are you talking about 

the Community Facility Program? 

Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Yes, sir. 

Secretary VILSACK. Okay. First of all, we have had better luck 

with the direct program working with folks locally. We have seen 

a continued interest in this. It has to do with the subsidy rate. 

Guaranteed program, obviously, the subsidy rate is less and less of 

the impact on the budget. Part of the challenge that we face is that 

our discretionary budget, which this is part of—— 

Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Yes. 

Secretary VILSACK.—is less than it was in Fiscal Year 2010: more 

than 50 percent of the budget is in four areas, WIC, it is in fire 

suppression, and forest maintenance. It is in food safety, and it is 

in rental assistance. And part of the challenge is that, when you 

are dealing with sequester, and dealing with cuts, and dealing with 

reductions, when 50 percent is going up, the other 50 percent, obviously, you have to take a look at it. We can continue to do as much 

work with the guaranteed as with the direct, but it doesn’t cost as 

much to the budget. 

Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. I would appreciate it if you would 

be willing to share the loss ratios in both of those programs. And 

it just seems to me that with the lending program, where we have 

the private sector participating, we actually get more dollars into 

the economy than if it is the direct lending. 

Mr. Chairman, I will yield my time, and apologize, Secretary 

Vilsack. I am going to be stepping out to an Armed Services Committee meeting. 

28 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. Ms. Plaskett, 

for 5 minutes? 

Ms. PLASKETT. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, 

and a pleasant good day to you, Mr. Secretary. I first also want to 

invite you to visit the U.S. Virgin Islands, which I hope you and 

your staff could make a visit to, I am sure you will find the weather to be much more pleasant now, if you make that trip earlier 

rather than later. 

But the U.S. Virgin Islands, in all seriousness, at one time was 

considered the bread basket of the Caribbean. Particularly on the 

island of St. Croix, which was primarily agriculture at one time, 

and has since fallen off of the track, in terms of its agricultural— 

not only it—feeding itself, but also its exports. 

I notice so many of the programs that are available in the Department of Agriculture, your MAP, your Farmers’ Market Development Programs, particularly the Emerging Markets Program, 

which would be of great assistance to us in the U.S. Virgin Islands, 

we seem to have a bottleneck because so many of those offices come 

through Puerto Rico. 

And I wanted you to speak on the availability of this funding to 

those areas that your agency has identified as being remote, small, 

and impoverished as well. We have, over the entire island, 1⁄3 of the 

children in the U.S. Virgin Islands living in poverty. So I wanted 

to know if you could talk about the effectiveness of these programs 

on growing new markets, in terms of agriculture, and how the Virgin Islands could benefit from that. 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, Congresswoman, the programs you 

mentioned are primarily export promotion programs—— 

Ms. PLASKETT. Yes. 

Secretary VILSACK.—that work with commodity groups and organizations that are involved in exports. I think what I would suggest, in terms of rebuilding the economy, is that there may be an 

opportunity for us to focus on some of our value-added processing 

resources, some of our local and regional food promotion resources 

to create more product that could potentially be available for export 

and/or to furnish the needs of the island. 

We are seeing a significant increase in local and regional food 

systems, and it is a multi-billion dollar opportunity, and we have 

a number of programs under our Know Your Farmer, Know Your 

Food initiative that would potentially be useful. I would be happy 

to have our team at USDA reach out to your staff to give you a 

full briefing on both the export assistance programs, as well as the 

local and regional food promotion programs. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Additionally, with respect to that, if you would 

also talk about the rural development? We are, in fact, as your 

statement talks about, very small, remote, and a poor place. We 

know that your water and environmental programs were available 

to 40 states, as well as the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico received 

the benefit from those programs. We, in fact, have infrastructure, 

as well as housing and community facilities issues which are at an 

extreme rate. 

In terms of our facilities, we haven’t had a new school built in 

the U.S. Virgin Islands in over 30 years, so you can imagine the 

great need that the people of the territories have for some of the 

29 

availability that comes under the agency. And I was hoping you 

would talk about the awarding of that $150 million grant that 

those other places, who had access to—in terms of our waterways— 

and some of the other things that those things could be used to 

strengthen rural communities. 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, the $150 million was an allocation from 

the farm bill, but we have a series of infrastructure projects under 

Rural Development. Electric, water, community facilities, and 

broadband, and all of those would potentially be available—— 

Ms. PLASKETT. Yes. 

Secretary VILSACK.—for utilization in the Virgin Islands. In fact, 

we have been having conversations with folks down there about 

some of the high costs of electricity and power—— 

Ms. PLASKETT. Yes. 

Secretary VILSACK.—and whether or not—either the Rural Energy for America Program, or our general electric program could 

provide help and assistance to create more reliance on renewables, 

and less reliance on high cost energy sources. So all of those programs, again, are available. It is just a matter of prioritizing and 

figuring out what is the most important thing you need, and having our teams work with your office to identify the program, and 

to make sure that the application is in an appropriate form. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Well, my office wants to work very vigilantly with 

you on alleviating any bottlenecks, or any problems we may have 

in those applications. With our cost of electricity at potentially, in 

some instances, 49¢ per kilowatt, when, here on the mainland it is 

about 11¢ to 14¢, that is cataclysmic to families, as well as businesses there. 

Secretary VILSACK. It may be helpful for one member of your 

staff to attend a function we are holding on March 23 down at the 

Department, where we are going to outline some of our programs 

to a group of folks who are interested in knowing more detail about 

them. So we will get an invitation out to your staff. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Thank you very much. I yield the balance of my 

time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady’s time has expired. Mr. Crawford, 

5 minutes. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, a couple of quick questions, but first I want to thank you on behalf of 

Arkansas rice farmers. We had a little bit of a snafu due to a price 

reporting issue that would have delayed payments, PLC and ARC 

payments, specifically to rice farmers, and you and your staff have 

been very diligent in helping us rectify that problem. So, on behalf 

of Arkansas rice farmers, thank you for that, I appreciate it. 

I have an issue with the safety net sign-up deadline. I know you 

and your team have been working on the farm bill implementation, 

and I certainly appreciate that. What I am hearing at home from 

my farmers is that there is still an awful lot to learn about it, and 

they are working with the decision aides in evaluating their options. Do you suspect that there is going to be adequate FSA resources at local offices to handle what I would assume would be a 

rush of farmers here in the latter part of the sign-up window? 

Secretary VILSACK. That is why we are encouraging folks who 

have made a decision, Congressman, to let us know now, as over 

30 

200,000 producers have. And, obviously, if they decide now, and a 

week or 2 from now they decide they wanted to change, they could 

do that. So we are encouraging folks as they make decisions to basically implement those decisions. 

We are obviously going to do what we have to do to make sure 

that we meet the demand, but it would be lot easier for us if it was 

spread out over a period of time, than—— 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Sure. 

Secretary VILSACK.—everybody waiting until the last minute. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Is there a protocol possibly in place for a situation that might arise, where the appointment slots are unavailable, 

due to just the volume? Is there a possible protocol to address that 

issue? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, we have in the past, in situations like 

this, created a process. At this point it really is an issue of folks 

going online, taking a look at the models, and making a decision. 

And it really is not quite as detailed as perhaps making an appointment to sign up for disaster assistance. It is a little bit different than that. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Yes. 

Secretary VILSACK. So I am not sure that we necessarily need a 

specific protocol. We have already done 4,600 meetings, so we are 

obviously getting out there. And hundreds of thousands of hits on 

the model, so this is about folks getting online, doing the calculation, coming to a conclusion, and just simply letting us know. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Okay. Last question here, and I know I am going 

to sound like a broken record, particularly to my colleagues here, 

and I am hoping this is the last time I will have to ask this question, but we had this hearing last year, and I asked this question 

at the same time last year, when would USDA issue a final rule 

implementing a catfish inspection program? And you told me then 

it will be ready to go by December of 2014, and we still haven’t got 

that. December has come and gone, and I haven’t seen the progress 

we need. This was authorized 7 years ago. Can you give me a datecertain when we can actually expect a final rule on catfish inspection? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, I am very, very hopeful that you will 

see something in April of this year. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Okay. All right. I appreciate you being here, and 

look forward to working with you. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back. Ms. Lujan Grisham, 

5 minutes. 

Ms. LUJAN GRISHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, 

Secretary Vilsack. I get to be one of the Members that says thank 

you for coming to New Mexico, and meeting with me, and our farmers and ranchers, and thank you very much for increasing the staff 

of USDA, in New Mexico and in the region. I think that that is 

going to facilitate many of the programs and heighten the success 

of the rural economic development investments that you have made 

in New Mexico, and I appreciate all those. 

I want to focus today, really, on the SNAP program in the state. 

As you know, New Mexico still ranks last. We are the worst for 

child hunger. We are third in the nation for adult hunger. We have 

one of the worst economies in the country, if not the worst. Our unVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:50 Jun 16, 2015 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 P:\DOCS\114-01\93959.TXT BRIAN
31 

employment is much higher than the national average. And, basically, in fact in most of rural New Mexico, there are no job opportunities, except for oil and gas, and actually that is beginning now 

to diminish in the state, so we are really suffering. 

So, as a result, we have many able-bodied adults without dependents that are looking for work, but remain unemployed, because, 

quite frankly, there are just no jobs in the state. I am very concerned that the state did not seek a Federal waiver of the SNAP 

work rules, despite the economic situation in the state. And, in addition, the state has developed a 2015 employment and training 

program, which USDA has approved, that, as we all know, requires 

additional participants to sign up online for job searches, to appear 

in local benefit offices, and, in many cases, do community service. 

And while I think that these are all productive requirements in 

circumstances where they are available, many New Mexicans cannot meet these requirements because they don’t have access to 

technology, and they frequently lack access to child care and transportation. So instead of helping New Mexicans find jobs, or access 

job training opportunities, I am afraid that the unworkable employment and training (E&T) plan will, in fact, result in more needy 

families getting kicked off SNAP. 

While the 2015 E&T plan was put on hold due to court action, 

I expect the states to resume the programs, in limitation, later this 

year. Can you talk to me a little bit about what kind of oversight 

you conduct when evaluating and approving state E&T programs, 

and maybe in light of the fact that New Mexico has such a terrible 

economic situation, and the hunger rates are so high, would that 

oversight be enhanced in some way? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, we are going to learn something from 

the pilots that we are trying to fund through the farm bill pilot program. I am not sure if New Mexico applied, if they are one of the 

35 states that did. If they didn’t, they should have, given the outline of the circumstances that you have addressed. 

We are spending more time taking a look at this issue because 

of the fact that so little of the 50/50 money is actually spent by 

states, and the money that is spent, the $90 million that is 100 

percent Federal money, I have raised questions about whether or 

not it is as effectively spent as it should. 

I can tell you that our teams have gone out and actually have 

visited Workforce Development Centers, they visited human resource departments, they have visited states throughout the country to identify who is doing well and who is not doing very well. 

And I am happy to have our team take a specific look at New Mexico, if they haven’t already taken a look at that. So there has been 

heightened oversight, and we are very focused on trying to make 

sure that these dollars are used wisely and effectively. 

Ms. LUJAN GRISHAM. Mr. Secretary, I would really welcome more 

attention to New Mexico. Given my opening remarks, I think that 

you have done an outstanding job investing in the state, and really 

taking a look. We don’t want to see any of these pilots, or these 

initiatives, cause more hunger in the state, and I would really encourage you not just to look at the operations of the state, but really the impact on the beneficiaries. 

32 

And, in fact, New Mexico does have some of USDA money that 

would help with the reimbursements for participants to pay for 

transportation and child care costs in the E&T program, but the 

problem is they can’t fund those costs, so getting a reimbursement 

when you are at or below the poverty line isn’t helpful. And, also, 

the state only requested funding for about 900 people, but we have 

tens of thousands of individuals who were affected, and are on 

SNAP, and now required to do either the E&T or the work requirements. 

So I am very concerned we are not seeing the kind of movement 

to move away from the really tragic hunger problems we have in 

New Mexico. So I appreciate that offer. 

I would like to submit the following letter and two supporting reports that were sent to our office by the Northern New Mexico 

Stockmen’s Association (NNMSA) on February 11, 2015. The letter 

details NNMSA’s concerns regarding the Forest Service’s management of grazing permits and Forest Service’s inconsistent implementation of regulations toward minority ranchers. 

[The documents referred to are located on p. 84.] 

Ms. LUJAN GRISHAM. I know I am out of time, and anything else 

that we can do to support you to do that oversight, you can count 

on my office. Mr. Chairman, thank you, I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady yields back. Mr. Benishek, 5 minutes. 

Mr. BENISHEK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for being 

here today, Secretary Vilsack. The many rural areas in the country 

that are very dependent on the timber industry for their economic 

sustainability and growth, including my district, which covers 

northern Michigan, I have three large Federal forests in my district, what changes are being advocated by the Department that 

would encourage the Forest Service to focus on growing the timber 

harvest, enhancing mineral development, and offering additional 

recreational opportunities on Federal forest land? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, there are several things, Congressman. 

First of all, we are, each and every year, attempting to treat more 

wood so that we create more opportunities for timber industry. 

Last year it was close to 2.8 billion board feet. I think the goal is 

close to 3 billion board feet this year. Second, we are focusing on 

wood energy opportunities. There are over 230 wood energy 

projects that the Department has funded. We have looked at a way 

of streamlining the NEPA process so that we can get work done 

more quickly, and that is some of the areas that have been designated as a result of the farm bill. 

We have created a new wood energy—a wood contest that is taking a look at cross-laminated timber to create a new industry that 

doesn’t exist in this country that would allow wood to be used as 

structural materials in multi-story buildings. The contest is essentially challenging someone to come up and actually build a—— 

Mr. BENISHEK. Well, no, that is very admirable, but, to tell you 

the truth, Secretary Vilsack, in my experience, it is very difficult 

to get the timber out of the woods. In the last 5 years, the three 

National Forests of Michigan, all of which are in my district, have 

just sold over 49 percent of their ASQ. What is preventing you from 

getting a higher percentage of the ASQ out of the forest? 

33 

Secretary VILSACK. Part of the challenge is the budget, and the 

reason it is a challenge is because 40 percent of our budget is spent 

on fire suppression. That is 15 years ago it was about 15 percent. 

And so what happens is we cannot do the kind of work that we 

would like to be able to do because we have to borrow from the restoration resiliency funds to put fires out. That is—— 

Mr. BENISHEK. Well, and this is the answer I get from you guys 

a lot, and that is in the private sector, when you cut down trees 

in your forest, you make money, and you produce money. And, actually, in the Federal forests, in our areas, part of the income from 

the Federal forests goes to local schools. And from industry, you 

are talking about the timber industry, and the structural timber 

stuff, and that is all well and good, but the real problem is we have 

difficulty getting the timber out of the forest. 

And a lot of it is due to the fact that, to get timber out of the 

forest, it costs the Federal Government a lot more than it costs the 

average person on the state forest, or on a private forest. And when 

you keep asking for more budget, it doesn’t make any sense to me, 

because states and private industry, they make money when they 

cut trees down, and you are supposed to be the steward of America’s resource, the American forest, which belongs to the American 

people. And you should be able to find a way to harvest these resources, manage these resources that provide a return for the 

American people, not asking for more budget, so—— 

Secretary VILSACK. Well—— 

Mr. BENISHEK.—tell me a way we can make that more efficient. 

Secretary VILSACK. Congressman, we are not asking for more 

money. We are asking it to be structured and budgeted in a slightly 

different way. It is not more money. Essentially, we would like 

some of these catastrophic fires to be treated as the disasters that 

they are, and funded out of that source. That would free up the resources—— 

Mr. BENISHEK. Well, Mr. Vilsack, let me tell you this. If you 

could give me some guidance into how to direct this Committee to 

change the law that would allow the Forest Service to be more efficient in managing the Federal forest, I will be right there to make 

that happen. Because I have been looking for some ideas to make 

the Forest Service more efficient and not cost so much to manage 

our forests. And I would look for your, or anyone else’s, input as 

to how to make that happen. 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, we have created a lot of efficiencies. I 

am happy to sit down with you and talk about the efficiencies that 

we have had to create because our budget is less than it was when 

I first became Secretary. 

Mr. BENISHEK. I have time for maybe one more question here. 

When you submitted your budget last year, you requested a budget 

increase of $50 million, and estimated that you would harvest 3.1 

billion board feet, but you didn’t get to that. Why weren’t you able 

to achieve your original goal? 

Secretary VILSACK. It gets back to the point I tried to make to 

you, sir, that when we have to borrow money from the restoration 

and resiliency portions of the budget because Congress doesn’t provide adequate resources to fight fires, it creates a situation where 

we can’t contract for the work that you would like us to do because 

34 

we don’t have the resources. Congress repays the fund the following year, but there is never the stability. 

That is why it is important to treat these catastrophic fires as 

the catastrophes they are, fund that out of the emergency fund. 

That frees up resources, and provides stability that would allow us 

to do a lot more work. We have been asking for this for a couple 

years. That is the answer. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. Mr. McGovern, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MCGOVERN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have another hearing, so I am going to be very brief. Mr. Vilsack, as you know, hunger still remains a problem in this country. Ms. Lujan Grisham 

talked about the situation in New Mexico, but it is all over this 

country. And USDA has reported that last year that nearly 60 million children, one in five, lived in households that were food insecure, and they found that a food insecure household is a household 

at a level with an economic and social condition of limited access 

to food. And this is an issue that impacts not only urban areas, but 

rural areas as well. 

I am concerned about reports that there are some in this body 

who want to go back after the SNAP program. It is one of the most 

efficiently run Federal programs that we have. I think there is 

more than enough data to prove that. It is a benefit that, quite 

frankly, is inadequate for a lot of people. They end up going to food 

banks and food pantries as well. But this idea of going back after 

the program would be a huge mistake. I don’t think SNAP should 

be used as an ATM machine to pay for other priorities, or to balance the budget. There are people who literally depend on it to put 

food on the table. 

My request to the Administration, and to you, is to draw a line 

in the sand on this issue. No more cuts to SNAP, no more cuts to 

food and nutrition programs. We cannot balance the budget on the 

backs of poor people. I am all for, if you want to do oversight hearings, that is fine. You want to find ways to make the program more 

efficient, but not at the expense of taking benefits away from people who need it. 

The majority of people on this program are children, and are senior citizens, and are people who are disabled. Of those who work, 

the majority do work, but they don’t earn enough to be able to not 

require this benefit. So my request is simple. It is important to 

draw a line in the sand so we don’t start going down a road that 

would be detrimental to a lot of people in this country. 

This is an important program, again, SNAP is given. We gave it 

in the farm bill, gave for the Child Nutrition Reauthorization Act. 

The ARRA monies weren’t extended enough, and we need some 

strong pushback from the Administration to make it clear to everybody here that we are not going to tolerate any more cuts in this 

program. 

Secretary VILSACK. Did the gentleman have—— 

Mr. MCGOVERN. Yes. If you could give me the answer yes, that 

that is all I am looking for, and then I am done. 

Secretary VILSACK. I think the President is the person who 

draws the lines in the sand, and I am certainly not going to preempt him, but I will certainly, obviously, express concerns we have 

35 

about the level of food insecurity. I will express concerns about 

folks who suggest that this is a program that is overrun by fraud 

when the fraud rate is a little over one percent, one of the lowest 

in the Federal Government. Or the error rate, which is about 31⁄2

percent. So, combined, it is the lowest it has been in history. 

And you are correct, that 80 percent of the folks that are on 

SNAP are either people with disabilities, senior citizens, children, 

or folks who are actually in the workforce. The right way to deal 

with the cost of this program is to figure out ways in which we can 

get folks who are able-bodied and want to work to work. 

Mr. MCGOVERN. And I will just point out that CBO estimates 

show that the costs are starting to fall as a result of the fact that 

we didn’t extend the ARRA monies, but also the economy is getting 

better. 

Secretary VILSACK. Two percent reduction apart from the recovery money not being extended because, as you indicated, the economy is getting better, and people are finding opportunities. That is 

the right way to do this, which is why we are putting a lot of time 

and emphasis on the employment and training aspect of it. 

Mr. MCGOVERN. All right. Well, I appreciate it. Again, the 

strongest possible signal should be sent for the Administration, 

that enough is enough, and I appreciate all your work, and your 

service, and the people who work with you over at USDA. They do 

a great job, and they are always responsive, and so we are very 

grateful, so thank you. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back. My apologies to Mr. 

Ashburn, you should have gone ahead of Mr. McGovern. Mr. Yoho 

for, 5 minutes. 

Mr. YOHO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Vilsack, thank 

you for being here, and I want to commend you on implementing 

so much of the farm bill so fast, especially the emphasis put on citrus. I come from Florida, and Florida is the number one citrus producer in the country. But you also realize that we have 90 percent 

of our trees affected by citrus greening, and it is a devastating situation. 

Florida without oranges would be like, for those old enough to remember, Sears without Roebuck. They kind of go hand in hand. 

And it is important that we work—and I commend you—what the 

University of Florida, and IFAS, the Institute of Food and Agricultural Science is doing in that area. It is estimated in our area that 

the citrus industry is a $1.3 billion in lost revenue just from citrus 

greening, and it has roughly put 6,500 people out of work. 

One of my questions to you is that I have heard from growers 

in Florida that the antimicrobials and bactericides seem to be key 

in developing a cure for this. How does the USDA plan to work 

with the CDC, the FDA, EPA, to ensure these treatments are approved in a timely manner? And if we can focus on fast-tracking, 

because if we lose those groves, they are going to go into condominiums, they are going to go into something else, and I would prefer 

to keep them in ag. 

Secretary VILSACK. Congressman, I certainly understand the challenge that citrus greening represents to your state. It is a $9 

billion industry, and 76,000 jobs impacted and effected. We will do 

everything we can to make sure that whatever the treatments are, 

36 

or whatever the solutions are, get into the marketplace as quickly 

as we can. As you know, we announced yesterday $30 million of assistance divided among a variety of different avenues. We have had 

an entity that involves state and local folks working with us to try 

to prioritize where we should spend this money. When we come up 

with a solution, I guarantee you we will do everything we possibly 

can to get it implemented as quickly as we can. 

Mr. YOHO. Okay. And then I agree with Mr. Scott on a couple 

things. We are going to have to work together, Mr. Scott, to revisit 

peanuts, especially peanut butter, and look at ways to increase the 

consumption here domestically. And if you look at the nutrient contents of that, it is a high protein, high energy source, and it can 

solve a lot of the problems we have here. 

In addition, when we look at other countries and foreign aid, I 

hope that we put a lot of emphasis on the assistance to other nations instead of money, we look at ways of giving trade, not aid. 

And the aid and, good, healthy nutritional sources, and that would 

help solve a problem here with our oversupply of domestic peanuts. 

So if you would work on that with the trade people, I know a lot 

of people would really appreciate that. 

And going, again, back to what Mr. Scott said about foot-andmouth disease in our beef imports from South America, Brazil, and 

northern Argentina, you said our policy should be based on science, 

and it is what our policy should be based on. We sent a letter to 

Mr. Shea, in charge of APHIS, requesting transparency on the 

studies. Because if you look at what they have done over there, as 

far as a study with APHIS, what they have come out with it is not 

a requirement for the written reporting or documentation of the 

visits by the APHIS personnel, so we don’t know really when they 

got there, when they inspected the plants. 

And since that region is still actively vaccinating for foot-andmouth disease, and looking at the rules, Title 9 of the Code of Federal Regulations, they can’t be deemed free of foot-and-mouth disease. That economic impact on our country, if foot-and-mouth disease, came to America, would be devastating to our livestock industry. Reports I have heard is $50 to $100 billion, and it would kill 

our export market. So I implore you to really stand strong on that. 

And if it is based on science, we could use that same argument 

on BSE in our cattle. You know, going to other nations, as far as 

a source of contamination, which it is not. When we have had two 

cases in the span of—since it has been diagnosed, two cases, and 

one of them was an atypical case, and we have 330 million people 

here, and a lot of us are meat consumers, and that is a pretty good 

study, that we don’t really have a problem, but yet other nations 

are using that to prevent us from importing our beef. 

Secretary VILSACK. We make that case to the Chinese every single time we meet with them. It is the case we made to re-open in 

Japan. It is the case we made to re-open in Korea. It is the case 

we made to re-open in Hong Kong. It is the case we made, and are 

making, in Taiwan. So this is the consistency issue, Congressman. 

Mr. YOHO. It is. 

Secretary VILSACK. You have to be consistent. You can’t say to 

China, follow science, follow the risk assessment. And then disagree when the risk assessment and science tells us that we have 

37 

to open up opportunities here in the U.S. to import, we have to be 

consistent. 

Mr. YOHO. But without the transparency—— 

Secretary VILSACK. That is a fair point. 

Mr. YOHO.—and we need to get that out. And the last thing is 

that I hope—— 

Secretary VILSACK. That is a fair point. 

Mr. YOHO.—you stand strong on WOTUS, especially with our agricultural income down 25 percent, the net income, and stay strong 

on the ag side. Thank you, and I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. Ms. Adams, 

for 5 minutes. 

Ms. ADAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Secretary 

Vilsack. North Carolina is the nation’s third most diverse agricultural state, with nearly all climatic and soil conditions represented. 

The state is also home to a strong public university system, with 

robust research in the agricultural sciences, and this includes 

North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University, of 

which I am a proud graduate, twice, of. 

The USDA budget requests $10 million for research at 1890 institutions, and that includes North Carolina A&T. The budget also 

requests $2 million for facilities improvement. My question is, how 

will these funds translate into improvements at individual institutions, such as North Carolina A&T? 

Secretary VILSACK. It is an application process, where universities will come to us with plans, in terms of how they could use 

the resources most effectively, and then those applications are sort 

of judged and scored, and the folks who have the strongest application, the folks who have leveraging resources, the folks that have 

partnerships with other universities or other entities, obviously 

score higher. And it is an effort to try to compliment the additional 

resources that are provided on a formula basis to the 1890s. 

Ms. ADAMS. Okay. My next question, when I look at the budget, 

and there is no new funding for STEM programs through the National Institute for Food and Agriculture, why was this program 

cut, and what can STEM schools do for funding through other programs? How can they seek that funding? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, NIFA has a variety of programs. If 

someone has a STEM opportunity, they can participate in the other 

competitive programs that NIFA is engaged in. We provide hundreds of millions of dollars of competitive grants every single year. 

Again, I don’t know specifically about the STEM budget item. I 

know that there was a conversation with a number of other entities, NASA, the National Science Foundation, the Department of 

Education, in an effort to sort of coordinate all STEM programs. 

So they were sort of put under a different heading in the budget, 

so the resources are still there, but there is a more collaborative 

process in deciding where they are spent, so that we have a coordinated and consolidated approach to STEM. And, in fact, the budget 

the President submitted actually has a 50 percent increase over 

last year for those programs. So there is more money, it is just not 

necessarily in our budget. It is sort of a U.S. Government-wide effort. 

38 

Ms. ADAMS. Okay. First of all, let me just make this comment: 

North Carolina is a specialty crop state, third most diverse state 

for crops, 90 commodity groups. Specialty crops include fruits, vegetables which are fundamental to a healthy diet. The USDA Specialty Crops Grant Program is a good start to help support all of 

these specialty crops, which are important to North Carolina, but 

much more could be done to improve the yield, the variety, the 

drought tolerance, and nutritional value. What is the Department’s 

plan to improve research for specialty crops? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, there is a specific Specialty Crop Research Initiative, which is designed to focus on greater protection 

and productivity of specialty crops. It is a different part of the farm 

bill, and that is part of that also we had the discussion about citrus 

greening, and it is sort of included in that. But I believe it is over 

$100 million that was allocated for this initiative, so there is a research initiative. 

The block grant initiative is essentially money that is given to 

states to promote, to market, to create new market opportunities 

for specialty crops. It is a slightly different program. 

Ms. ADAMS. Thank you, sir. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady yields back. 

Mr. Ashford, I apologize to you one more time. I skipped you 

again. You need to be more vocal or something down there. No, not 

yet. Mrs. Walorski, for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. WALORSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, I am 

grateful that you are here today. We have never formally met, and 

I am thrilled to already hear the discussion that has been going on 

about the SNAP program. And I will be chairing the Subcommittee 

on Nutrition, and I am grateful for that opportunity. We are going 

to take on a full scale review of the SNAP program. It is intended 

to be a thoughtful, deliberative process, so as we approach re-authorization, we will be prepared to make meaningful improvements 

to the program to benefit the recipients, the program administrators, and the taxpayers. I want to ensure that we protect the most 

vulnerable populations, that we have already talked about here, 

and find a collective means to not have hungry kids in America. 

That is a passion of mine. 

As legislators, we are accountable to the taxpayers who fund the 

program. We have an obligation to ensure that these programs run 

in the most efficient and effective way possible. To do this, it is 

going to take a systematic approach to reviewing the various aspects of the SNAP program, from its overall mission down to the 

administration of benefits, and ultimately the recipient experience. 

The review process will include a range of stakeholder perspectives, 

including current and former recipients, nonprofits, the on the 

ground service providers, states, and localities, the food industry, 

nutrition experts, and policy researchers. 

I know you have an incredible history, and I commend your history on being active in this program. You have been a positive 

force, and I appreciate that as well for the changes that came out 

in the last farm bill. One of the things I am asking for is your commitment to fully engaging with us on this dialogue in this thoughtful, deliberative process that we are going to embark upon, and 

that your staff will be a useful resource to us so we all get to the 

39 

end goal here. And I just wanted just to give you the opportunity 

to say that you are going to be a willing partner, and not be wary 

in the ensuing process. So, sir? 

Secretary VILSACK. We, obviously, will cooperate, and try to be 

as helpful as we possibly can in the review that you undertake. 

Mrs. WALORSKI. Well, and I believe we share the same goal. We 

want to see what works too, and we want to be able to stand by 

some of the programs you have already been talking about here for 

the last hour and a half. And I appreciate that you are holding the 

task of getting that stuff done, even from the new farm bill. 

I also want to just go on the record quickly, like many of my colleagues here, on the issue with the WOTUS Program, the Waters 

of the U.S. I live, obviously, in northern Indiana. We have about 

12,000 family farms. This has been one of the general concerns 

since I was elected to Congress, and I just want to make sure that 

you are on board. 

And I appreciate some of your answers in this, but being able to 

stand up in the position you are in and fight for both rural and 

urban farms, this is one of the most devastating regulations that 

I hear about in my district. Can you take just a second and just 

speak to that again? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, first of all, we have made a concerted 

effort to—myself directly, with the Administrator, and through our 

senior staff, and through our technical staff to do what we can to 

educate folks at EPA, as they formulate policy, on the impacts of 

potential policies on folks in the real world. 

Second, we have encouraged Administrator McCarthy to actually 

talk to farmers, to go out and visit farm areas, which she has. 

Third, we have encouraged the Administrator to meet regularly 

with commodity groups so that there is a vehicle for which they 

can express concerns. And we have clearly indicated some issues 

that have arisen, especially as I related to earlier with ephemeral 

streams. The reality is that those of us who own farmland are very 

familiar with those circumstances and situations, and it is a very 

difficult task, and so we have conveyed that. 

Now, it is a sister agency, and I have to respect that. And it is 

sort of like asking you to make sure the Senate does what it should 

do. Well, you can’t dictate to the Senate, can you? I mean, you try, 

maybe, but—— 

Mrs. WALORSKI. True, I appreciate that, and I do appreciate the 

bully pulpit, though, you do have. I think there is a difference 

when you are a Secretary, and you have the opportunity to speak 

to another Secretary. I would just encourage you to keep holding 

a line for the family farmers. They don’t feel like they are being 

heard by this Administration, so I feel like, with my fellow Hoosier 

farmers, they feel like there is really nobody at the table arguing 

for them. But I want to thank you for what you have done for it. 

Secretary VILSACK. If I can respond to that, there are a multitude of ways in which this Department is speaking up for, and 

defending, and advocating on behalf of American farmers. We were 

engaged in making sure that folks across the country understood 

the importance of having a farm bill to them. Not just to the producers, but to the entire country. We have been very aggressive in 

our trade promotion. We have been very aggressive in opening up 

40 

new markets here locally, so that big guys and small guys can coexist and prosper. 

This Department is not very well understood by a lot of folks, 

and we are trying our best to make sure that everybody understands how significant and important it is. And I go out and speak 

to groups all across the country in an effort to try to make sure 

that rural America and farmers are not forgotten. 

Mrs. WALORSKI. I appreciate that, sir, and I was one that voted 

for the farm bill three times, every which way it came, every which 

way but loose, and I appreciate that as well, and I want to commend you for that. But I wouldn’t be doing my duty as well if I 

didn’t stand up for Hoosier farmers today and say thank you, and 

please keep them in mind. We appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady’s time has expired. Mr. Ashford, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ASHFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary, just as a 

quick aside, I am from Omaha, and when you were Governor, I 

want to thank you for the vision that you had then in developing 

the riverfront between Council Bluffs and Omaha. We are now seeing a 50 year vision statement that started, really, with your Administration, and it is a big deal for Sarpy County, and Douglas 

County, and Pottawattamie County, Iowa too. I want to thank you 

publicly for starting that process. It is a big deal for our state. 

My question, one topic is the USDA Center, Clay Center. And I 

know we did ask the Mead Animal Research Center issue that was 

focused upon in The New York Times article a couple of weeks ago, 

or 10 days ago or so. What is going on in that area? We did send 

a letter over, and I know we will get a response, but the University 

of Nebraska is very concerned about it, as are Nebraskans generally. Do you have any comments or thoughts on—— 

Secretary VILSACK. Sure. I would say three things. First of all, 

obviously, we take any assertions along the lines of that article 

very seriously. I would point out that some of the issues that were 

raised in that article are no longer the practice, and no longer the 

case, and haven’t been for a number of years. But, nevertheless, 

out of respect for the concerns that had been raised, I ordered a 

60 day independent review, outside of our people, to take a look at 

processes and procedures that are taking place, in terms of approvals of research projects, and the oversight of research projects. 

We appointed an ombudsman, so that individuals who are at research facilities who have concerns about practices, and want to 

raise those concerns, but are fearful in doing so, that they will now 

have an outlet to be able to do that without retaliation. 

And, third, after we get the report, and whatever recommendations are made, we will certainly take a look at those and implement them as quickly and as effectively as possible, and then we 

will follow up with a more general review of other facilities in the 

USDA network that are involved maybe not as much as the Center 

is in animal research. So we are taking a look at this, we are being 

thoughtful about it, and we are being proactive about it. 

Mr. ASHFORD. Thank you. There are many at the University that 

are very concerned, because they are involved, to some extent, at 

the Center. 

41 

Secretary VILSACK. They are. 

Mr. ASHFORD. It is a USDA facility, obviously, and there have 

been some concerns raised by veterinarians, and others at the University of Nebraska, and researchers. So I appreciate that, and I 

will yield back the rest of my time. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman yields 

back. Mr. Allen, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Secretary, first I want to thank you for coming 

before the Committee today, and thank you for your works for agriculture across America. I would also like to echo a few of my colleagues’ statements, and encourage you, as the voice of agriculture 

in the President’s cabinet, to stand up for America’s farmers and 

ranchers, and defend these hardworking men and women against 

any policies that could threaten their livelihood. 

As you know, in my home State of Georgia, agriculture is the 

number one economic industry. In 2012 alone, Georgia planted over 

1 million acres of cotton. Specifically, in my district, cotton is 

among the largest crops planted, and currently many of my farmers are very concerned. The 2014 Farm Bill made necessary 

changes to the cotton program, and with extremely low prices, 

many of my farmers are worried, and even debating whether or not 

they should plant cotton. 

You had mentioned good progress in the implementation of the 

STAX Program, but what can USDA do to address some of their 

concerns, or what would your advice be to some of the cotton farmers in my district? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, first of all, we did provide nearly $1⁄2

billion of transition assistance to cotton producers. We have the 

STAX Program up and going. We continue to promote exports, and 

we continue to try to make sure that countries like China play by 

the rules. Those are four very important points to be made. And 

that last point, in particular, is that I am very pleased with the 

USTR’s announcement today of additional actions potentially 

against China to try to get them to play by the rules. At the end 

of the day, that is extremely important, especially in the cotton 

area. 

Mr. ALLEN. Yes. 

Secretary VILSACK. And greater transparency from our friends in 

China. I recognize they are our number one customer, and I respect 

that, and we, obviously, are providing them a good quality product 

at an affordable price, but they are, at times, unpredictable in their 

approach towards trade. And to the extent we can get them more 

aligned with a science-based and rules-based system, it would beneficial not just for us, but also for them. 

And we are just going to continue to promote trade as a vehicle 

for advocating for all of agriculture. We have the best farmers in 

the world, and we have the best product in the world, and it is affordable. The current situation with the dollar makes it a little bit 

more challenging, but that means that we need to do an even better job of aggressively promoting agriculture overseas. That is why 

these trade agreements are important. That is why we believe the 

trade promotion authority is important. 

This Trans-Pacific Partnership is a big deal. Just to give you a 

sense of this, you may know this already, but I want you to know 

42 

that I know that, in Asia, we are looking at 525 million middle 

class consumers today, and in 15 years, that number is 2.7 billion. 

So there is an enormous opportunity there for high value products 

that American producers can provide. 

But if we are shut out of that, if we cannot conclude that agreement, it is not as if nothing else happens. China fills the void, creates agreements that is an all Asia trade agreement that doesn’t 

have side standards, doesn’t provide us a fair opportunity, or members of TPP negotiate their own individual side deals, at which 

point we are also left out. So it is extremely important long term 

for your producers that we continue to promote fair, high standards, trade opportunities where everyone plays by the same set of 

rules. 

Mr. ALLEN. I agree. Also, one other follow up question. The Conservation Reserve Program has changed considerably over the last 

30 years. As you know, the Agricultural Act of 2014 reduces the 

CRP acreage cap. What do you see is the future of the CRP Program? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, it is a continuation of the good work 

that it does. In earlier discussions I pointed out that there no doubt 

will be a general sign-up, and there will be a continued focus on 

the continuous programs that have been popular. 

I do think, because we are seeing a reduction in acres, that we 

need to find creative ways to encourage CRP, and one of the creative ways that I am interested in doing is a better coordination 

between NRCS and FSA, in terms of this regional conservation 

partnership effort, and CRP. I think there is an opportunity to leverage, potentially, and get more acres involved in conservation. 

Maybe not specifically in CRP, but leverage those resources more 

effectively. We are looking at creative ways to do that. 

Mr. ALLEN. I want to put on your radar that I have some constituents who are having trouble with the opt-out provision in the 

CRP Program, and I may ask for your help at a later date, should 

some of these issues not get resolved. 

Secretary VILSACK. Mr. Batta is right behind me—— 

Mr. ALLEN. Okay. 

Secretary VILSACK.—he is our person. Let us know what the 

issue is, and we will definitely get you an answer. Hopefully it will 

be the answer you want, but we will definitely get you an answer. 

Mr. ALLEN. Okay. 

I yield back my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. Mr. Rouzer? 

The CHAIRMAN. David Rouzer? 

Mr. ROUZER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, I appreciate you coming—did I lose my microphone? There we go. I appreciate you coming before the Committee today. I have had to step 

out a couple times, and I apologize, during the course of one of my 

excursions, on the way back, I heard you talking a little bit about 

Country-of-Origin Labeling. This is such an important trade matter 

that I want to bring that back up, and forgive me if I am asking 

a duplicate question. 

I know the farm bill, which was enacted a little bit more than 

a year ago, included language requiring USDA to conduct an economic analysis of the impact of our nation’s current mandatory 

43 

country-of-origin labeling regulations on consumers, livestock producers, and packers. I understand this report was due last August. 

Do we know when this report will be completed? 

Secretary VILSACK. I just wanted to check with my staff. We 

have contracted with an outside entity, and we expect their report 

shortly. 

Mr. ROUZER. Very good. One follow-up associated with this. Can 

you take a moment to outline the timetable associated with the 

current WTO process on this COOL case? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, we expect and anticipate sometime this 

spring seeing where we are headed, in terms of the appeal. And if 

we win the appeal, then, obviously, that is one route. If we lose the 

appeal, then the question is whether or not Canada and Mexico decide to retaliate, and if so, what. There will be some issues relative 

to the size of the retaliation, based on studies that I have seen. 

There is also the opportunity for Congress to weigh in on this. 

The problem, Congressman, is that Congress has said to us, ‘‘Look, 

we want a label that identifies U.S. product.’’ The problem, from 

a WTO perspective is that, once you have that label, then you have 

to segregate livestock that comes in from different sources. WTO 

says once you segregate, that is a problem, that is an undue burden, you can’t do that. So there is no way we can square the hole 

here. We either have to get rid of the rule, or we have to amend 

the rule to provide a more generic label that gets away from segregation. Or we win the appeal. One of those two routes. 

Mr. ROUZER. Assuming we would lose the appeal, how soon do 

you anticipate Mexico and Canada would retaliate? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, our hope would be that we would be 

able to, first and foremost, talk about the extent. There are some 

serious differences of opinion about how dramatic this has been, for 

Canadian producers in particular, and so that would have to be resolved. I don’t think it would be immediate, as in the next day or 

next week, but certainly would be in the short term, there would 

be an effort. We looked at this, we tried to figure out, if there is 

a regulatory way around this? We tried a couple of times, and we 

have not been successful, so either we win the appeal, or Congress 

has to act. 

Mr. ROUZER. Thank you. One final question with the time I have 

remaining. I represent southeastern North Carolina. We have everything from tobacco, to sweet potatoes, to strawberries, to blueberries, a lot of livestock. My question for you with regard to the 

implementation of the unified payment limit: how is that proceeding? How is that coming along? 

Secretary VILSACK. Congressman, I am going to have to get back 

to you on that. I don’t know the answer to that question, and I will 

find out, and get back to you immediately. 

Mr. ROUZER. I have a lot of producers that would have an interest in that. 

Secretary VILSACK. Okay. 

Mr. ROUZER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back 

my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Emmer, for 5 

minutes. Mr. Emmer, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. EMMER. I have to—sorry. 

44 

The CHAIRMAN. Excuse me. 

Mr. EMMER. I think in the old country it was Congressman. 

Secretary VILSACK. Excuse me for just a second. 

The CHAIRMAN. I am sorry, yes, sir? Secretary. 

Secretary VILSACK. I didn’t understand your question. If you are 

asking about the actively engaged definition, if that is what you are 

asking about, yes, sir, then I can tell you that we are in the process 

of completing work on that, and we would anticipate something 

perhaps this spring in terms of what it is. 

Let me just simply point out to you, and to everyone who is interested in this issue, the area that we are dealing with, and the number of farmers that we are dealing with, and the type of farmers 

we are dealing with is very narrow. This does not apply to family 

farms. It doesn’t apply to corporations. It is really pretty much limited to partnerships and limited partnerships, based on the language that is in the farm bill, so we are talking about a relatively 

very small percentage of producers that may be impacted by whatever we decide. But we are completing work on this, and I would 

anticipate sometime this spring. 

Mr. ROUZER. Thank you. 

Secretary VILSACK. Sorry, I—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Mr. Emmer, 5 minutes. 

Mr. EMMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for having 

this hearing. Mr. Secretary, it is nice to have a dialogue. I will just 

say to you I have been very impressed. When we get the little 

sound bites that you see, it is not quite the same as when we have 

an opportunity to have a dialogue with you, and listen to you. 

There are three areas that I am going to try to cover in the limited time that I have. One, I just want to quickly go back to the 

issue on waters of the U.S. that you have commented a couple 

times already today. It is my understanding that the Small Business Administration’s Department of Advocacy had written a letter 

to the EPA asking to pull the rule. And I listened to your answer 

to Representative Walorski, if I said it right, earlier, where you 

pointed out, or you commented that it is a sister agency, and because of that you respect the agency process. 

But I guess my question to you is, if it is harmful, and I hear 

this all over Minnesota, where I come from, not just in the district 

that I represent, they are very concerned with this potential rule, 

the finalization of the rule, based on the one that was proposed. If 

there has been a call by others to pull the rule, and you have some 

concerns that you have even expressed, why wouldn’t you, or your 

agency, request the EPA actually pull the rule? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, it is about how you could have the most 

effective relationship on not just a single issue, but on all issues 

impacting agriculture. EPA is engaged in quite a few. I wake up 

every morning, when I say my prayers, and I am thankful that I 

am not the EPA Administrator, because we are involved in a multitude of issues with the EPA. And so it is a question of style, I 

guess. Some people want a more open style, some people think it 

is more effective to work, in a sense, behind the scenes. You and 

I can have a difference of opinion about that, but I am concerned 

about making sure that I have a relationship so that I am in a poVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:50 Jun 16, 2015 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 P:\DOCS\114-01\93959.TXT BRIAN
45 

sition to have an impact on not just one rule, but on all of the 

rules. 

Mr. EMMER. And I take that back, Mr. Secretary. I appreciate 

that. After listening to you today, even though we might disagree 

on some things, I would actually be happy if you were at the EPA, 

but we will leave that alone. 

Secretary VILSACK. You obviously—— 

Mr. EMMER. I didn’t mean to upset—— 

Secretary VILSACK. You have some serious concerns with me, if 

that is the case. 

Mr. EMMER. No. I am teasing too. I hope you appreciate the levity. Trade Promotion Authority, very quickly. You have talked 

about that a little bit. That is something that I am seriously interested in. We have a letter going around right now amongst Republican freshmen, trying to encourage them to give the President a 

strong message that we are supportive of trade promotion authority in getting these deals done. 

I asked the Trade Representative the other day, Michael 

Froman, he said that the President is going to make actual phone 

calls to people in his party to get support for an eventual vote. 

What are you doing personally, or your agency, to try and educate 

and encourage votes on the President’s side? 

Secretary VILSACK. I have a list of 13 individual Members, either 

Representatives or Senators, that I am responsible for calling, and 

I am looking at a couple of them as I speak that I call on a regular 

basis to inform on the impacts of trade. I have made two rounds 

of calls. We have also created, within the Department, fact sheets 

so that folks understand and appreciate the impact that trade has 

on their state, or on their Congressional district, and the importance of getting this done. And we have also, obviously, in public 

appearances, expressed support for a strong effort on the part of 

TPA, because without it it is very difficult to negotiate, when the 

folks on the other side of the table think that you can’t actually deliver whatever it is you are negotiating, because somebody else is 

going to have the ability to amend or modify. 

Mr. EMMER. You probably already know this, but I met with 

some of the Canadian folks in our area the day before yesterday, 

and they told me the reason that they are hesitating doing anything is because they want to know that when they come to the 

table that the Administration has the ability to do a final deal. At 

least, that is their position. 

Secretary VILSACK. I think that is part of it. I think they are 

waiting to see what other deals are negotiated, and they also have 

an eye on their own politics, which is—— 

Mr. EMMER. Right. 

Secretary VILSACK.—understandable. 

Mr. EMMER. Well, and that is all the more reason to eliminate 

another excuse, by taking—— 

Secretary VILSACK. Right. 

Mr. EMMER.—care of TPA. Last, with whatever little time I have 

left, could you just give me a thumbnail as to how the Beginning 

Farmers and Ranchers Loan Program is working? 

Secretary VILSACK. Sure. Well, there are two aspects of this. The 

first aspect is roughly $18 million is allocated to a number of entiVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:50 Jun 16, 2015 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 P:\DOCS\114-01\93959.TXT BRIAN
46 

ties to basically create systems that impress upon young people, 

veterans, and others who are interested in farming the various programs that are available. The second piece of this is the loan portfolio that we have. We do roughly 42,000 loans a year. Well over 

50 percent of those loans go to beginning farmers. I think the budget the President proposed would be roughly 23,000 loans would be 

made available, either operating or ownership loans. 

Third, there is a new opportunity with reference to crop insurance, where beginning farmers are given a slight break on premiums. The last is the conservation part of it. Most of our conservation programs require match, and require up-front investment 

for beginning farmers. There is a little flexibility in terms of advancing conservation resources. So all of that is taking place right 

now. And we have a very aggressive effort that the deputy is leading to go out and make sure that folks are aware of these programs. 

We are trying to encourage the Department of Defense to allow 

us to come on to bases before people are discharged from their military service to give them a sense of what the programs are. And 

we are also heavily engaged in encouraging them to even look at 

our microloan program. A number of beginning farmers have taken 

advantage. We have done about 10,000 of those loans in the past. 

The majority of them are to beginning farmers. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. Mr. Gibson, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GIBSON. Well, thanks, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr. Secretary, 

thank you for being here today. I think this hearing has been very 

productive. I have read very closely your testimony, and have also 

been enlightened by your elaboration here today. And let me also 

say, and I believe I have shared this with you when you have come 

here before, that my area in upstate New York deeply appreciates 

your commitment to agriculture, and to helping New York. You 

have been to our area a number of times, and certainly, from a 

nonpartisan perspective, we view you as somebody who has been 

very helpful. And I know you have some roots there with Hamilton 

College and Albany Law, so thank you for all that you are doing. 

I do want to make another pass at waters of the U.S. I am opposed to this proposed rule, very concerned about it, but I am going 

to come at it in a slightly—perhaps a different way here, and I 

have a question for you. It is a difficult one, but I would appreciate 

your response to it. And, really, thinking about it conceptually, how 

important the environment is to all us, and to future generations, 

and you would be hard pressed to find stronger stewards of our environment. 

And, when you think about how the Administration is approaching this, it seems to me that, from a conceptual standpoint, you 

have the EPA, that is bringing forward this proposed rule at the 

same time the Administration is proposing cuts to conservation 

programs, like EQIP, which is a really good program that helps 

with the environment. So I just wonder, has anybody engaged—and 

I understand that you have a purview, and you have a charter, and 

you have to work with your colleagues, and I certainly appreciate 

that, but has anybody broached that just as a point that it seems 

contradictory that, while we all want to advance balanced policies 

47 

that help promote the economy, and balance our need to protect the 

environment, that we are bringing forward, what I would describe 

as an onerous regime under the EPA, at the same time we are taking back money from farmers, who are good stewards of the environment. 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, I have a slightly different view on 

terms of the overall financing of conservation, in the sense that it 

may very well be that individual programs may not have as much 

increase as they were destined to, based on the farm bill, based on 

the authority, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that less money is 

being spent on conservation. And the reason I say that is because 

we are really focused at USDA in trying to figure out how best to 

leverage the dollars we have. 

So creating ecosystem markets, creating incentives for corporations to invest in conservation to fulfill some social responsibility 

that they have identified—we do business with Coca-Cola. We recently had Chevrolet purchase some carbon credits for a working 

ranch, that is extending the amount of money that is actually invested. And we actually have a record number of acres enrolled in 

conservation today, and a record number of participants and producers, and we are doing an assessment, trying to make sure that 

people understand that this conservation is working. 

I understand the point you are trying to make, but what we are 

trying to do is to work around tight budgets and difficult budgets 

to figure out ways in which we can be creative to use the dollars 

we have, to leverage them to actually do more work in the field. 

And the great deal of interest in the Regional Conservation Partnership Program is reflective of that. We are going to double the 

amount of conservation activity in those 115 projects because of the 

leveraging opportunity. 

Mr. GIBSON. Well, I certainly appreciate those comments. And, to 

your broader point that, how smartly we use these resources is at 

least as important as the total extent of investment. I agree with 

that point. I would also share with you that, in our area, we always 

have a list of folks who want to be involved in these conservation 

programs. We don’t get to all those that want to use these programs, and I think that they have been a good investment, by way 

of the American taxpayer dollars, and so we will continue to work 

with you on this. And, once again, I just appreciate your diligence 

and your commitment. 

I am going to submit for the record—we have been working with 

you guys on broadband extensively. Thank you for that as well, and 

we will be submitting, a question for the record on that score too, 

in terms of this year, and the years to come. So with that, Mr. 

Chairman, thank you. I think this has been a productive hearing, 

and I appreciate that very much. So thank, you, Mr. Secretary. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back. Mr. LaMalfa, for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Secretary 

Vilsack, for appearing today. To echo just a little bit on what Mr. 

Benishek was very frustrated, as am I, on our forestry, U.S.—National Forest Service in northern California as well, we appreciate 

your visit to Trinity County a year or 2 ago. The neighboring county, Siskiyou County, suffered 250,000+ acres of fire loss last year, 

48 

much of that on national lands, but it also affects the neighbors as 

well. 

The point you brought up, separating the funding, the emergency 

funding, that is something we will work on. We understand, and 

get that. That should be a separate pot so you can do your work, 

but also there is a component that there is revenue generated by 

getting these sales out there. And when one of the forest units, all 

they could put out was a couple of sales for a couple loads of firewood, we are not going to get very far at that rate, so we need to 

be much more aggressive on meeting these numbers for how each 

of these forest units would perform. 

Of critical importance to the West Coast, obviously, coming back 

to the ports that have been mentioned a couple times here, we have 

estimates of beef sales are down $40 million for a recent period of 

time, per week, I think. Citrus exports, of course, 1⁄3 of our citrus 

in California is exported. It is getting to the point where it is spoiling, and they don’t have the time period to wait for this much 

longer. It will take 4 months to clear a backlog: $20 million a week 

to the citrus industry. Almonds, we grow a lot of those in California 

as well, and we have a lot of containers sitting on the port docks, 

as well as back at their facilities at home, and so this is a very real 

effect. We are looking at—if this gets to its worst—one estimate, 

$2.1 billion a day to the national economy. In an economy that is 

trying to recover, that doesn’t help much. 

So what I would ask you, as one arm of the Administration, is 

to be really aggressive, and urge your colleagues inside the Administration—and I know you are. You have been working at them, but 

this needs to be taken to the next step, because of the effect on the 

ag economy, on all of our exports, and the American economy. 

One more stat I have is that USDA released, just yesterday, an 

estimate of farm income decreasing 43 percent in this coming year. 

Sir, how much of this decrease can be attributed to either the 

drought in California, the western states, and/or this West Coast 

port slowdown? 

Secretary VILSACK. The answer to your question would probably 

be better answered by our Chief Economist, and I am going to have 

him provide a more detailed response to your question. 

But let me suggest that the primary reason we are seeing a decrease is because commodity prices have come down across the 

board. This is not just one or two areas of agriculture, this is—and 

you would expect that, because we had bumper crops. 

Mr. LAMALFA. You see market share from this port thing being 

a part of that, or because of drought? 

Secretary VILSACK. Not today, if this thing continues to linger, 

there is always that risk, because we become a less reliable supplier. One of the things we market to the rest of the world is how 

reliable a supplier we are. So there is a consequence to this, which 

is why we meet on a daily basis, and are encouraging these folks 

to get these things worked out. There are two issues, as I understand it, and both of those issues, it seems to me, could be worked 

out if reasonable people got in a room, and really were dedicated 

to getting it done. And I hope that they do. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Let us get the reasonable people in the room, 

then. 

49 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, there are other issues. There is the rail 

issue, which we haven’t talked about today, which is not as acute 

as it was maybe a couple of months ago, but it is still something 

that is a long term challenge, especially in the upper Midwest, in 

terms of the competition for rail, and the need for rail service, and 

the rail companies to continue to invest in new locomotives, and 

new cars, and new track, and improved track. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Certainly. 

Secretary VILSACK. There is also the fact that other parts of the 

world have also had pretty good crops. So, I mean, it is a combination of things, but—— 

Mr. LAMALFA. There is a market, we just need to be sure we are 

as strong as possible. I am sorry, my time is so limited here. To 

the waters of the United States, this really is a vast overreach of 

property rights, and we need you to be a strong voice to have sense 

restored back to that. We have things we can do here to slow it up 

via funding, like that, but it really needs to go back to the drawing 

board, and not have them put in this rule that is devastating—they 

are already getting ahead of the curve in my district, enforcing 

things that go against the section 404 of what is a legitimate farming practice. They are interpreting beyond their bounds. 

Last, I know—— 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. We have 

other Members to come, so the gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. DesJarlais, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Secretary Vilsack, for being here today. I have two issues. First, each 

year, in Tennessee’s Fourth Congressional District, we host the 

Tennessee Walking Horse National Championship, known as The 

Celebration, and since my election in 2010, my staff and I have 

been working closely with the staff and members of APHIS to find 

an amenable solution to some of the discrepancies that have been 

highlighted in the current inspection process. I think horse owners, 

trainers, staff members, and Members of this Committee all can 

agree that the welfare of these beautiful animals are certainly worthy of our concern. 

However, as I learn more about the process, it is my belief that 

many participants, in fact, the overwhelming majority, have been 

subjected to an inspection process system that is inconsistent, and 

overly subjective. And I simply bring this issue to your attention 

today, Mr. Secretary, to ask for your agency’s continued engagement to find a common sense workable solution that will allow this 

time-honored tradition to continue and flourish. So can I have your 

assurance that your staff will continue to work with me in this 

matter? 

Secretary VILSACK. As we have, and the key here is to continue 

to focus on technologies that would allow us to do a good job of 

making sure that we protect these wonderful animals, and at the 

same time allow this important tradition. I am very well aware of 

this issue, and I know it is hotly contested among a lot of folks 

down your way. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Well, I think that people are coming together, 

and we are just trying to have a set of rules that everybody can 

50 

play by that is fair. And I appreciate the efforts of USDA, and 

them coming to the table and talking, I really do. So we will look 

forward to continuing to work with you on that. 

Second, this issue has been plaguing a lot of farmers and cattlemen throughout Tennessee and other states, and that is getting 

compensated for losses by the black vultures. And, in one instance, 

the farmer had pictures of a live calf, and a couple hours later another picture of the same calf that was dead, with the vultures flying around it, but yet it is hard to get compensation. 

Losses are higher this year, and we have been working primarily 

with Fish and Wildlife Services on this issue. But one of the issues 

my constituents have raised is the trouble they are having getting 

necessary documentation of such losses to satisfy the requirement 

for FSA offices. The Tennessee Cattlemen’s Association said that 

FSA is claiming that they need someone from a Federal agency to 

come out to farms and verify losses. However, FSA believes that 

Fish and Wildlife folks are not able to come and make such 

verifications, so currently it seems as though there is no way for 

producers to receive payment through the Livestock Indemnity Program for such losses. 

Long story short, this seems to be a communication issue, and 

I would greatly appreciate if your staff could follow up with mine 

to see if we can sort through this matter. 

Secretary VILSACK. We will absolutely do that. The wonderful 

thing about this Department is that you get things like black vultures, and issues involving black vultures. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Thank you for your time, sir. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back. Mr. King, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr. Secretary, I 

thank you for your testimony here today. It is a bit of a long haul 

through here. A whole series of things come in front for me, and 

some of it has been addressed. I wanted to take up the case, and 

ask if you are aware, or if not, I encourage you to take a look at, 

a case that was decided in the Central District of California in Federal Court. A Canadian company, a French-Canadian corporation 

also, Hot’s Restaurant Group, Inc. v. Harris, (Association des 

E ́ leveurs de Canards et D’Oies du Que ́bec, a Canadian nonprofit 

corporation; HVFG LLC, a New York limited liability company; and 

Hot’s Restaurant Group, Inc., a California corporation, Plaintiffs, v. 

Kamala D. Harris) the Attorney General of California on foie gras 

liver. Have you happened to see that decision at this point? 

Secretary VILSACK. I have not, Congressman. 

Mr. KING. Thank you. I will briefly, then, touch that, and direct 

your attention to it. There has been an objection on the part of 

some of the animal rights organization, included HSUS, against 

force feeding ducks and geese to enlarge their liver, the French foie 

gras liver. And, in that case, it was decided, this is a couple of 

weeks ago, by my information, that Federal pre-emption supersedes California law. 

And it would be a case, I believe, exactly on point with the ag 

issue in California that I know you are aware of. And so I want 

to direct the attention of you and your office to that case, and perhaps we could get some support for our egg producers who are 

51 

watching as California is dictating the cage size in all of the states, 

and created the beginnings of a patchwork of regulations. 

The second thing I would bring up, then, would be the President’s State of the Union Address. It caught my attention when he 

said that they would be creating new jobs by converting sunlight 

into liquid fuel. I am an Iowan. That sounded like ethanol to me. 

How did you interpret that statement? 

Secretary VILSACK. I think that is a consistent interpretation. 

Mr. KING. Thank you. Then I will take it that way as well. And 

you also mentioned that there have been $55 billion in payouts in 

crop insurance. And that $55 billion in payouts, can you tell me 

what percentage of that is the unsubsidized portion of the producer 

premium versus the subsidized portion of the premium, and then, 

of course, the shortfall? 

Secretary VILSACK. I am not sure I understand the question, 

Congressman, but, basically what I know is that $55 billion has 

been paid out in indemnification, so—— 

Mr. KING. That means $55 billion worth of—— 

Secretary VILSACK. Total. 

Mr. KING.—claims—total. When I ask the question of the premiums that are billed to our producers, a portion of that premium 

is out of their pocket, a portion of that premium is subsidized. And 

so can you break that down as to how much of that is paid for by 

the producers, and how much of it is paid for by the taxpayers? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, I will try to answer the question, and 

if I don’t answer it correctly, we will get you the correct answer. 

What I do know is that roughly 62 percent of overall premiums are 

subsidized by the taxpayer, paid by the taxpayer, and 38 percent 

is paid by the producer. 

Mr. KING. That is generally what I am looking for. Have you or 

your office looked at this from any perspective on disparity, could 

you identify if there were a geographical transfer taking place consistently under Federal crop indemnity payments? 

Secretary VILSACK. In other words, is one region of the country 

paying a disproportionate share of premiums, and not getting much 

in the way of recovery versus another that is—I don’t know that 

that exists. I am fairly certain that the Midwest, obviously, pays 

a significant part of those premiums, because of the commodities 

that are grown there. We could certainly ask our folks to take a 

look at that. 

Mr. KING. And you do have people that are the go-to people for 

me to have a conversation with—— 

Secretary VILSACK. Sure. 

Mr. KING.—as well? 

Secretary VILSACK. Yes. I do know that there is a disparity in 

terms of the size of operations, and the amount of premium subsidy, and so forth; whether it is geographic—but certainly the size 

of the operation, there are significant disparities. 

Mr. KING. And did you know how broad the span is of years we 

use to measure and set those premiums? 

Secretary VILSACK. I don’t know the answer to that question, but 

I know that we have, in the past, talked about 10, 15 year timeframes, but that may not be what is used. I—— 

52 

Mr. KING. And I am aware we have 30 years’ worth of records, 

and so raise this topic, and I would like it if you could inform my 

office of who my contact person should be in your Department to 

drill into this a little deeper, if you could, Mr.—— 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, Brandon Willis, the RMA Administrator, would probably be the best place to start. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Newhouse—I 

missed you a while ago. You are recognized for 5 minutes. I am 

sorry about that. 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. It is hard to see me down here, Mr. Chairman. 

I appreciate the—— 

The CHAIRMAN. That is outpost forward. 

Secretary VILSACK. It is easier for me to see you. 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Yes. We are closer. But thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, Mr. Secretary. I appreciate you sticking it out to the bitter end here, and the opportunity to be part of 

this conversation. I very much appreciate your answers so far this 

morning, and I look forward to working with you, just let me say 

that. Let me agree with one of your earlier statements, our American farmers are some of the best farmers in the world, producing 

some of the best products in the world, which I have had the honor 

and privilege to represent in different venues. And I agree with 

that statement, and it truly is a privilege to represent agriculture 

in the United States of America. 

Having said that, let me add to what some of my other colleagues 

are talking about, as far as the labor dispute we are experiencing 

on the West Coast ports. Being from the State of Washington, this 

is a huge issue for us. If we can produce the best products, and 

can’t get them to our markets, what good is that? Just to personalize this a little bit, some of my friends, my farmer friends, are 

experiencing potential bankruptcies because of the slowdown at the 

ports because of the labor disputes. 

We are seeing, as you know, in Washington State we have a 

record apple crop this year, which we had plenty of challenging 

marketing, even without the labor problems, so that is causing a 

huge upheaval in the apple industry. We were seeing layoffs of people at warehouses, loss of jobs. I am seeing a tremendous loss in 

opportunities when it comes to marketing those apples in Asia, or 

some of our primary markets. We just can’t get the fruit there at 

particular times, like the Chinese New Year, which is a huge marketing window for us we are losing. 

Just, daily I am hearing stories about the hardships people are 

facing. Organic poultry producers are unable to get organic feed 

greens and are at the risk of losing their certification. So just huge 

implications all up and down the agricultural sector. As you know, 

Washington State is a very—I hate to use the word dependent, but 

we are very involved in exports. At least 30 percent of our crops 

are exported, but on some commodities it is upwards of 90 percent. 

When you are talking about hops or wheat, potatoes, 40 percent. 

It is a huge part of our economy. 

From a little different perspective, investments in MAP dollars, 

certainly the Foreign Agricultural Service, trade partnerships, all 

those things add up to a huge investment in this area. And so I 

53 

guess my question is, how can we help you? I know you have been 

a tremendous advocate, and that is something that we would like 

to get to the bottom of, and puzzle it out. 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, Congressman, you have helped producers in your area, and producers who are impacted by this, by 

the series of questions that have been raised here, because obviously that has been a focus of our conversation here today, and 

that will, obviously, be reported, and that will strengthen the resolve that we have to try to put appropriate pressure on both sides 

to work out whatever differences remain, because there are real 

people being affected in a real way by all of this, and it is not just 

the people around the negotiating table who get impacted. There 

are good, hard-working folks who, through no fault of theirs, are 

faced with some very serious issues, which you have outlined. 

The very fact of bringing it up, and continuing to bring it up, 

puts the spotlight on it. As the spotlight gets brighter and brighter, 

the hope would be that people would be reasonable and get it 

worked out. 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. I appreciate that. Let me switch gears really 

quickly, limited amount of time. Headlines every year, the West is 

burning. In my state we had a record forest fire approaching 

500,000 acres, so the issue of forest management by the Federal 

Government is at the top of a lot of people’s minds. I know in the 

2014 Farm Bill there was a section that allowed states to designate 

some landscape scale area. Just maybe briefly an update on that, 

and maybe get some help on where Washington’s application is, 

and how can we move the dial improving the partnership with 

states and local entities in order to improve forest management? 

Secretary VILSACK. Thirty five states have expressed a desire to 

have segments of their forest involved in that program. The Forest 

Service Chief expanded the acreage, so it now constitutes 45 million acres that have been identified, in terms of pest and disease 

issues. Unfortunately, the farm bill basically provides for the accelerated NEPA process for 3,000 acres, which is important, but, obviously, we are talking about millions of acres, not thousands of 

acres. We will use that power. 

The other thing the Forest Service has done is they have created 

a large scale NEPA, where they are basically taking a look at large 

scale landscapes, which means that when individual projects come 

up, the time it takes to do the NEPA analysis that is required for 

the project will be less. So we are trying to figure out ways in 

which by using a large scale effort we can reduce the amount of 

time overall to get projects. 

The other thing we are doing is we are trying to expand market 

opportunities across the board. It is traditional, it is wood to energy, and it is new market opportunities. And this—the structural 

material—we at the Forest Service, every building over 10,000′

2

has to be first and foremost built with wood, if it can be. That is 

sort of a directive that we have provided as part of a green building 

initiative. So there are a number of things we are doing in that 

space. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. Mr. Goodlatte, 

for 5 minutes. 

54 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary, welcome. 

In the new farm bill, there is a key bipartisan compromise that I 

was proud to spearhead with Congressman David Scott that protects dairy farmers, as well as restaurants, food processors, grocery 

stores, and consumers. This amendment formed the framework for 

the dairy title of the farm bill, and was designed to provide our nation’s dairy producers with a viable safety net, without supply management, or new administrative burdens. And it was supported by 

more than 140 diverse groups, and 291 Members of the House 

voted for it. 

In implementing the regulations, as I understand it, they restrict 

individuals with significant ownership interest in one dairy from 

establishing ownership in a new dairy, and gaining eligibility. 

Could you please confirm the ability of a dairy farmer to expand 

his dairy production capacity through new farm operations, and 

maintain eligibility in the MPP? 

Secretary VILSACK. I think we are still in the process of working 

on precisely how that can be done, and we have solicited input 

from the producers in terms of how we navigate the ability to expand against the assurance that the program will not be misused. 

And we are still in the process of formulating a final determination 

and decision about that. It is not an effort to try to avoid expansion, but we have to be sensitive, obviously, to making sure that 

folks don’t take advantage of the system when it is inappropriate. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Well, we certainly understand that, but we also 

want to encourage having an abundant supply of milk, both for use 

here at home, and for export, and would encourage you to take an 

open-minded approach to not replacing one form of supply management with another. So thank you. 

I would also like to switch gears and talk about demand management, I am not from Iowa, as you are, and my friend Mr. King is. 

I am from a district where my livestock producing farmers do not 

have demand management on the chickens, and turkeys, and beef 

cattle, and dairy products that they produce. And, therefore, I am 

concerned about the continued growth of the consumption of corn 

under the Renewable Fuel Standard. 

According to the Congressional Budget Office, if implemented, 

the heightened 2017 RFS requirements would increase the amount 

of total U.S. food expenditures by $31⁄2 billion in just that 1 year, 

and it is going to continue to accelerate and get worse in years 

where there is a shortage of corn production, and in years down the 

road, when you get closer to 2022, when the requirement is that 

we produce 36 billion gallons of ethanol a year. 

This problem is only going to get worse, so I would like to ask 

if you would let us know how the Department of Agriculture is 

working with the EPA and impacted livestock producers to ameliorate the cost of what I consider to be, and an increasing number 

of Americans considered to be, unworkable RFS standards. That 

seems to pit one sector of U.S. agriculture against another. 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, you and I are going to have to respectfully disagree about this, Congressman. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. We always have. I—— 

Secretary VILSACK. I mean, I am sure that you are not surprised 

by that. And the reason why I feel as strongly as I do on the other 

55 

side of this is because of the productivity of American agriculture. 

Corn production has increased significantly. I remember practicing 

law in 1975 with my father-in-law, and doing income tax returns, 

and producers were planting, in my state, about 16,000, 17,000 

seeds per acre. Today those very same producers, on that very 

same land, are actually utilizing somewhere between 30,000 and 

40,000 seeds per acre. The technology has allowed us to grow more. 

So, in terms of the percentage of food—of corn that is being used 

for production of feed, and food, and exports, that hasn’t changed. 

The excess is basically going into production of ethanol. 

Second, when ethanol is produced, it is not just ethanol, it is also 

co-products and byproducts, as you well know. And the DDGs are 

a feed supplement that is pretty significant, and represent roughly 

1⁄3 of everything that goes into the ethanol production. And then, 

finally, we are obviously gravitating away from an over-reliance on 

corn towards corn stover, towards woody biomass, towards perennial grasses. And there are plants now that are up and running, 

and work towards commercial-sized operations, where you are not 

going to have—— 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Secretary, reclaiming my time, which is 

running out, I don’t disagree with the ability to produce fuel from 

a wide variety of sources, and certainly from non-productive 

sources today. That would be a good thing, but that has been the 

promise for a long, long time. In the meantime, there are growing 

concerns by consumer groups, hunger organizations, environmental 

organizations, as well as those of us who traditionally believe in 

free market agriculture, to make sure that our corn crop is not manipulated the way it is by an artificial government policy. 

So I understand your disagreement. I understand that you are, 

as Mr. King noted, from Iowa, the capital of ethanol production, 

but I will just note that it doesn’t sell as well in the hinterlands 

of many other parts of American agriculture, or the American economy in general. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. Mr. Davis, 5 

minutes. 

Mr. DAVIS. It is good to be sandwiched between Mr. King, and 

then my colleague, Mr. Goodlatte. And I come back to you and say 

I agree with many of your statements. It is good, maybe, not to be 

the king of ethanol like Iowa is, but we are a close second in Illinois, and I do believe that many in the livestock industry are going 

to be taking advantage of the low prices, and also the oversupply 

of some of our corn this year. And I am concerned about what EPA 

is going to do with the RFS myself, so thank you for your support 

on that issue, and I will respectfully disagree with my friend and 

colleague Mr. Goodlatte. 

A couple of issues that have already been brought up, I don’t 

want to continue to ask you questions about them, but I at least 

want to give my thoughts. I hope that the Administration can do 

whatever it takes to help end the strike on the West Coast, because 

it is severely impacting products in the Midwest. And I would urge 

you to do whatever you can, and thank you for your vigilance. 

Also, crop insurance, I am concerned with the President’s proposal. I oppose the President’s call for a $16 billion cut to crop inVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:50 Jun 16, 2015 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 P:\DOCS\114-01\93959.TXT BRIAN
56 

surance. Farmers have endured an estimated 43 percent decline in 

net farm income over the last 2 years, and now is not the time, as 

Chairman Conaway said, to cut out this public-private partnership. 

And this is working, and it requires producers to have skin in the 

game. 

Now, a question I have, it relates to a provision that I helped author in the farm bill that would give agriculture a seat at the table 

as part of the EPA Science Advisory Board. I think we need agriculture to have a seat at the table as part of this board, and I was 

hoping that the EPA has consulted with you on appointing new 

members, since they extended the time period. Have they—has Administrator McCarthy reached out to USDA on this issue? 

Secretary VILSACK. There has been communication about this, 

and I know that there has been communication—two-way communication, in terms of our suggesting and responding. The application period is extended to March—— 

Mr. DAVIS. Right. 

Secretary VILSACK.—30, and they have focused on a variety of 

agricultural expertise that they are looking for, so—— 

Mr. DAVIS. Great. But they have reached out to you, and you 

guys have been in communication? That is great. Thank you. I am 

actually very glad to hear that. I reinforced last week to Administrator McCarthy, Mr. Secretary, the Congressional intent of this 

bill, and I would hope the USDA would agree with me that we 

want somebody who is not just an agricultural scientist to be a part 

of this board. We want some real world production agriculture experience. And I would hope that you would take my Congressional 

intent to the Administrator when the decision is made. So thank 

you very much for your time there. 

Now, the issue that I always talk to you about, school nutrition. 

I wanted to thank you for putting out the guidance memo for the 

exemption that our schools can apply for, if they show hardship, for 

the whole grain requirement. And, also, I want to thank you for 

implementing the freeze in current sodium levels until science can 

further back up target levels, which would be shown to benefit the 

health of children. 

In your view, how are the schools going to be able to benefit from 

these provisions, and do you support efforts to continue providing 

this flexibility? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, throughout this process we have indicated a willingness to be flexible, as circumstances dictated. We are 

very excited about the opportunities that we are pursuing with our 

Team Up For Success Initiative, which is designed to mentor and 

pair up school districts that are having a difficult time dealing with 

the new requirements, for whatever reason, with school districts 

that are similarly situated, similar size, similar geographic location. 

There was a day and a half seminar that was done down in Mississippi, University of Mississippi. We sort of piloted this notion. It 

was very well received, and so we want to see if we can continue 

doing that. We obviously want to continue the smarter lunchroom 

grants, and the school equipment grants, and the other financial 

resources that we are making available. So it is a combination of 

a variety of things, and that is why we are seeing—— 

57 

Mr. DAVIS. Yes. 

Secretary VILSACK.—general acceptance notwithstanding, some 

of the concerns that have been expressed by school districts and by 

students. A recent survey showed 70 percent of elementary students, and 63 percent of high school students, were okay with what 

is going on. When I was governor, I would have died for a 63 or 

70 approval rating, and I suspect Members of Congress would too. 

Mr. DAVIS. I wouldn’t die, but I would be very excited for that 

approval rating. I want to thank you for sending members of the 

USDA to my district to talk with school lunch officials, and hear 

some of their concerns. And I appreciate what you are doing in implementing the flexibility, Mr. Secretary, and I look forward to 

working with you on this issue as we continue to move forward, 

and express the concerns of my school districts. And I still have an 

open invitation to have you come to central Illinois and talk to our 

superintendents. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. Mr. Thompson, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary, good to see 

you. 

Secretary VILSACK. Good to see you. 

Mr. THOMPSON. I wanted to revisit, as a number of Members 

have, Title VIII—Forestry. A robust forestry program through 

USDA and the Forest Service, U.S. Forest Service, that is best for 

a healthy forest and healthy rural communities. And you had 

talked about wildfires as being a big issue, and it certainly is, but 

my perspective on that is that, quite frankly, we have had decades 

of bipartisan neglectful management within our forests, which has 

resulted in forests that are not healthy, that have not been well 

maintained. And a lot of that comes from outside influences, 

through courts, and sometimes not through courts, onto the USDA 

and the Forest Service. 

But the fact is, though, I sense that we are making some 

progress, let me just say. I want to thank you for the 230 wood energy projects. I think that is a part of what we are working together, putting together to make progress, but we have a long ways 

to go. 

And what I would like to do is work with you and the Subcommittee that has shared, once again, responsibility for forestry 

and conservation to look at that. How do we continue that transition, going from burning money, and that is what we do when we 

don’t properly manage our forests, to making money, to growing 

money. We know that we can do that, because timber is a commodity. It is an ag commodity. I am pleased with the things that 

we are doing that you have talked about, as I have, about the construction, mobile storage. We are creating market demand, and 

that is really good. 

So there were a couple tools that we did give you that you didn’t 

address in the testimony that you submitted, and I just wanted to 

touch base on—these are additional helpful tools to help us in that 

transition. If we properly manage the forest, and get close to that 

yield rate, we will reduce wildfires. We can never totally eliminate 

them, but we will reduce dramatically. And taking money away 

58 

from marketing and selling timber only compounds wildfires, so we 

really need to step back and look at that. 

So some of the things that we had in there—just three things 

real briefly, and get an update, if you can, for me. The Bio-Preferred Program, where we actually added timber, first time ever, 

into the Bio-Preferred Program was really good for forest products. 

That helps our domestic timber industry. That speaks to increasing 

demand. 

The forest roads—a point source of pollution designation was, 

quite frankly—if we are going to get in and do good timbering, we 

have to re-open some of the roads. A lot of our roads were shut 

down in the 1990s. Thirty percent of National Forest roads were 

shut down in the 1990s by an Administration, and I am hoping 

that this non-point source of pollution would help us get more 

roads. 

And, finally, the categorical exclusion, which we granted for routine activities on the forests, but, quite frankly, we were sucking 

money out of timbering, and harvesting, and production of green 

timber sales. Stewardship contracting is good, but it is the green 

timber sales that really makes the most progress, and helps, financially, in rural communities. So the categorical exclusion for routine activities I hope will help strengthen the budgets. In the end, 

we won’t be taking monies. 

So those are at least three tools we provided in the farm bill. 

Just real briefly, I didn’t know if you had any update on any of 

those three. 

Secretary VILSACK. We are moving forward on the Bio-Preferred 

Program. In fact, I have this on the list that I ask our folks on a 

monthly basis about when progress is being made. And we are 

looking at guidelines for designating those entities sometime summer to late summer. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Great. 

Secretary VILSACK. I am trying recall the issue of roads, and, 

honestly, right now I am having a hard time remembering—— 

Mr. THOMPSON. Well, of course, we are pushing this into a point 

source—— 

Secretary VILSACK. Right. 

Mr. THOMPSON.—pollution designation, which means we wouldn’t 

be able to get in to access the natural resources of the forest. 

Secretary VILSACK. I will have to get back to you on it. I think 

there has been progress on that, but I want to make sure that I 

give you the right answer on that, so I will ask staff to get back 

to you. 

On the categorical exclusion, we definitely want to move forward 

on that. We have designated areas where that can be used, and we 

are looking at not just the 3,000 acres that are involved in that. 

We have, as I said, 45 million acres. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Correct. 

Secretary VILSACK. To your point earlier, there is plenty of blame 

to go around here. This is not about blame. It is really about what 

we do about this. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Where we go in the future. 

Secretary VILSACK. And so we are aggressively using this, and 

we are aggressively looking at ways in which we can comply with 

59 

all the requirements, and evaluations, and assessment requirements, but also get this thing moving. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Well, I look forward to working with you as we 

transition away from burning money to growing money, so thank 

you. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. Mr. Secretary, 

I have a second question I want to ask you really quickly. It is rumored that the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee—— 

Secretary VILSACK. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN.—is wanting to eliminate red meat from our diets 

as a part of those guidelines. Coming from cattle country, I am a 

little fired up about that. I hope that the whole panel is focused 

on nutrition science in developing those guidelines. Can you talk to 

us a little bit about if, in fact, you have all the authorities you need 

to insist that it is nutrition science that drives that train? 

Secretary VILSACK. Yes, and the operative word of your question 

was rumored. That is just not the case. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, with reducing portion sizes, all those—— 

Secretary VILSACK. No, first of all, these are recommendations, 

which the Department of Health and Human Services, and Department of Agriculture are free to accept, reject, or modify, based on, 

ultimately, the decision-making that we are responsible for. Second, these folks get together, they look at a literature review of the 

latest science. It is supposed to be driven by science, and it needs 

to be driven by science. There are a lot of issues that have to be 

resolved yet. This is by no means finalized. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. 

Secretary VILSACK. And then last, but not least, I would be surprised if the recommendations relative to meat are fundamentally 

different than they were in previous guidelines. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. Can you give me a sense of what the 

timeline is, and the steps between here—— 

Secretary VILSACK. Sure. 

The CHAIRMAN.—and that final recommendation and report, 

whatever it is that goes on? 

Secretary VILSACK. I think that we will be getting the recommendations, rather, very soon, within a matter of weeks, if not 

days. Then our team basically begins the process of working collaboratively with HHS, and they are the lead agency in this goround. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. 

Secretary VILSACK. I would anticipate and expect by the fall to 

early winter we have whatever the guidelines are going to be. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Well, again, we have mentioned this 

science-based decision-making process, and nutrition science ought 

to drive the train, and not sustainability, or environmental things, 

or other things like that. It ought to be nutrition based science, so 

I appreciate that. Mr. Peterson has one more question. 

Mr. PETERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When I was out, I 

apologize, but I was talking to our State DNR Commissioner, and 

he reminded me, this issue where the court stopped the wolf management system in Minnesota, and Wisconsin, and Michigan. Hopefully the Fish and Wildlife is going to appeal this, although they 

60 

have not told us, and it has to be done pretty quick, so whatever 

you could do there. 

But his concern is that if we turned over the management to the 

state, and they were using that system to trap and hunt the wolves 

to keep them in line. Now that they have been put back on the endangered species list, or whatever they have done, their concern is 

that there is no funding for the Wildlife Services situation in Grand 

Rapids. Apparently you had $1⁄2 million in your budget for Wildlife 

Services for wolf control, and you transferred that, because there 

wasn’t need anymore or something. And so his question is, in light 

of what happened with this court case, is there going to be a way 

that we can get money back into Wildlife Services to deal with 

this? 

Secretary VILSACK. There was a little over $700,000 that was essentially taken out in the Fiscal Year 2011 budget process, and I 

am not sure whether we took it out or you all took it out, but in 

any event, it was taken out. 

We are currently providing technical assistance to producers, and 

we will, obviously, be careful in how we are providing resources 

and prioritizing those, but we are still able to provide technical assistance. 

Mr. PETERSON. What does that mean? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, basically providing information as to 

how they might be able to control against predators, and if they 

have a predator problem, the possibility of partial or full reimbursement for losses. 

Mr. PETERSON. Now, they were using the money to hire trappers, 

so would technical services include that? 

Secretary VILSACK. I don’t want to say yes or no to that because 

I am not sure of the answer, so let me get back to you. 

Mr. PETERSON. That is what they need. There are some trappers 

out there—— 

Secretary VILSACK. Okay. 

Mr. PETERSON.—so I wanted to put it on your radar, that it is 

a big issue out there. And the other thing, in the previous discussion we had on CRP, our State DNR Commissioner corroborated 

what I was trying to bring up to you about where this stuff could 

end up, so I would request you—if you could, if you could have your 

people talk to the state? Because they had a big summit out there 

on CRP, and they have some of the same concerns that I have. And 

if you could have your people visit with them? And they have some 

good ideas about what maybe should be looked at, going forward. 

Secretary VILSACK. This would be the DNR of Minnesota. 

Mr. PETERSON. Yes. 

Secretary VILSACK. Okay. 

Mr. PETERSON. State DNR, yes. 

Secretary VILSACK. Okay. 

Mr. PETERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. LaMalfa, the Secretary has a meeting at 

1:00, so be very brief. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Yes, sir, thank you. I did not get another shot, so 

one more time on the drama with Waters of the United States, what 

we have is pretty clear, pretty sensible section 404 exemptions on 

what a farming activity is, with regard to plowing, disking, land 

61 

use, planting, things like that, and that is what is not being interpreted well, to reasonable people. So we really need your strong 

voice in those discussions you have with fellow Secretaries, and in 

the Administration. We really need that help on that, because they 

are doing it to us up in the district at home. 

Coming back to the ports issue here, please get the word out, 

with additional force with Secretary of Labor and others in the Administration that have a piece of that, because we have citrus in 

my state, and others, they are going to go bad, as well as the almonds I mentioned that are sitting on the dock. And I will finish 

on the almonds. 

I slipped you a note, in case I didn’t get a chance to talk to you 

again, on almond exports to Pakistan, and there is a lot of funny 

business going on with that, and how they are also getting pushed 

in through India without our tariffs, without our pricing on that. 

So they are underselling the value of our almonds, mislabeled as 

some other fashion. So we will need to have that discussion in the 

USTR to help make sure that that the integrity of that trade with 

our almonds going over there is held in place, and—— 

Secretary VILSACK. We will make sure that they know you are 

concerned about this. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Okay. Congressman Denham, my colleague, is 

also very interested in that too as well. 

Secretary VILSACK. Yes, I have it. 

Mr. LAMALFA. So, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. 

Secretary. I appreciate the indulgence. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. Ranking Member, you 

have a—— 

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Secretary, thank you so very much. I want 

to reiterate what I said at the beginning of the meeting. You and 

your team did a great job on implementing the farm bill to date, 

and I don’t want any kind of nits and nats remain to cause us to 

lose sight of the very hard work that went into not having nits and 

nats in a lot of other places. 

But as we go forward, there will be some things that we will 

need to have conversations with, but I want to thank you, your 

team, Brandon Willis over at RMA as well, for the work that they 

did on getting us to where we are today, and we shouldn’t discount 

all that other hard work that kept it from being a problem, should 

we have anything like that, going forward. So thank you for your 

views today. We all share a keen interest in a vibrant rural America, and it is based in production agriculture at its core, and so we 

all share that goal. And I appreciate you being here today, and I 

appreciate the working relationship that we have had so far, and 

that we intend to have in the future. 

Secretary VILSACK. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the 

opportunity, and certainly look forward to working with you and 

the Committee. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Under the rules of the Committee, the 

record of today’s hearing will remain open for 10 calendar days to 

receive additional material and supplementary written responses 

from the witness to any question posed by a Member. This hearing 

of the Committee on Agriculture is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:49 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

62 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

63 

SUBMITTED QUESTIONS

Response from Hon. Thomas ‘‘Tom’’ J. Vilsack, Secretary, U.S. Department 

of Agriculture 

Questions Submitted by Hon. K. Michael Conaway, a Representative in Congress 

from Texas 

Question 1. During consideration of the farm bill it was estimated that CC would 

affect a very limited number of producers. What is the number of producers that 

have been notified (total and per state) that they don’t have an AD–1026 on file in 

order to be eligible for crop insurance premium subsidy? 

Answer. In December 2014, the Risk Management Agency sent letters to those 

(see chart below) that were identified as possibly not having an AD–1026 on file. 

However, this is not necessarily an accurate reflection of the number of producers 

affected by conservation compliance as many producers may have received multiple 

letters due to the fact that a producer could be a member of several entities such 

as a corporation or LLC. Further, some of these individuals and entities may no 

longer farm or be in existence. Therefore, a significant amount of the letters went 

to individuals or entities that may not actually need to file an AD–1026, but this 

methodology was the only way to ensure that everyone was notified. The cost benefit 

analysis associated with the interim conservation compliance rule estimated 16,000 

to 25,000 persons or entities would be impacted by the expanded requirements, and 

that slightly less than 1⁄3 of those producers will need a conservation plan. 

Producer Letters 

State Sent State Sent 

Non-U.S. 12 MT 628 

AK 15 NC 1,007 

AL 378 ND 2,013 

AR 551 NE 2,582 

AZ 265 NH 33 

CA 11,029 NJ 111 

CO 1,058 NM 221 

CT 124 NV 83 

D.C. 4 NY 845 

DE 48 OH 1,346 

FL 3,196 OK 931 

GA 1,118 OR 791 

HI 67 PA 716 

IA 2,853 RI 13 

ID 530 SC 353 

IL 3,333 SD 1,222 

IN 1,221 TN 694 

KS 3,140 TX 5,401 

KY 1,468 UT 64 

LA 506 VA 486 

MA 256 VI 1 

MD 168 VT 153 

ME 170 WA 2,261 

MI 1,163 WI 1,376 

MN 2,965 WV 51 

MO 2,260 WY 211 

MS 418 Total 61,909 

Question 2. Does the USDA support working in partnership with the Private Sector regarding investments in rural infrastructure and projects to provide essential 

services? 

Answer. Yes, USDA is working to ensure that rural communities have increased 

financing options for investments in rural infrastructure and essential services. For 

example, in July 2014, the White House Rural Council, Chaired by USDA Secretary 

Vilsack, convened the inaugural Rural Opportunity Investment Conference (ROI) to 

64 

promote the investment opportunities that exist throughout rural America. At the 

event the Rural Council announced a new public private partnership to drive more 

investment to rural infrastructure. The U.S. Rural Infrastructure Opportunity Initiative represents a new approach to catalyzing private investment in infrastructure 

projects in rural America. 

USDA currently uses a variety of ways to encourage public-private partnerships 

to provide affordable and sustainable infrastructure projects through financing and 

technical assistance. StrikeForce was launched in 2010 as a pilot project to strengthen economies. Since 2010, StrikeForce teams have collaborated with more than 500 

community partners and public entities across twenty states to bring targeted assistance to rural areas experiencing chronic poverty. USDA’s Rural Utilities Service 

funds projects and provides training in rural areas to ensure the delivery of quality 

water and wastewater service, necessary for healthy, growing rural communities. 

Question 3. Wouldn’t the Public-Private Partnership model be enhanced if a more 

balanced budget allocation were applied to the guaranteed lending program rather 

than the USDA being the sole lender with the taxpayers’ money entirely exposed 

through the direct loan program? 

Answer. The direct lending done by the Federal government occurs primarily to 

achieve a policy goal that is not be fulfilled by the private sector or through loan 

guarantees. This is the case with USDA’s direct loans. Many of USDA’s direct lending programs were established to serve those families, farmers, and communities 

whose rural and economic condition do not afford them access to private lending. 

Many of these programs have a ‘‘credit elsewhere test’’. The public-private partnerships found in the guaranteed lending programs administered by RD and FSA are 

robust and growing. In addition, the Department has successfully used Community 

Facilities (CF) Direct funds to leverage over $1.2 billion of private investment into 

335 of the CF Direct projects built between FY11 and FY14. Every year CF Direct 

loans combine with hundreds of millions from institutional investors and the capital 

credit markets to strengthen investment in critical community infrastructure 

projects spurring economic growth, job creation and access to improved health care, 

education and other critical services. Working together, the direct and guaranteed 

programs expand access to credit into markets not well served by private lenders, 

in a way where the underwriting risk is captured in the subsidy rate and budgetary 

decisions to fund these programs to achieve the policy goals can be debated with 

the cost to the taxpayers clearly defined. 

Question 4. Doesn’t the probability of loan defaults become elevated if the Private 

Sector is excluded from shared underwriting, monitoring and overall risk? 

Answer. Consistent with Federal policies, credit assistance should be targeted to 

avoid displacing private markets, and where assistance is warranted, partial guarantees through private lenders should be used unless a deeper subsidy is necessary 

to meet policy goals, or loans on reasonable financing terms are not available. Moreover, there is no evidence that Federal direct loans default more frequently than private sector loans in a similar risk category. USDA’s careful underwriting and servicing standards maintain strong portfolio performance with modest delinquency and 

foreclosure rates. 

Question 5. Considering the burden on the Agency’s reduced staff to deploy a $2.2 

billion in Community Facilities Direct loans annually, how can USDA assure this 

Committee that monitoring loans made in prior years remains a top priority? 

Answer. The Community Facilities (CF) Direct Loan program continues to make 

the soundness of its portfolio a top priority, as shown by consistently low delinquency and default rates. RD is cognizant of our responsibilities to properly manage 

credit risk, and has not changed its strong underwriting criteria and practices despite the opportunity presented by increased program levels. It should also be noted 

that CF staffing was increased by 44 percent in the first quarter of FY15. All of 

the new hires are underwriters. 

CF Direct Lending is also expanding its monitoring of loans through public private partnerships (PPP) with institutional investors and the capital credit markets. 

PPPs bring additional underwriting and monitoring to a transaction, and distribute 

risk among the partners. CF has also used the PPPs to improve its knowledge and 

technical expertise on financing large and complex community infrastructure 

projects and build long-term partnerships for future transactions, servicing current 

loans, and communicating with applicants and borrowers. 

Question 6. Since commercial banks are highly regulated by Federal or state authorities, won’t the safety and soundness of the USDA’s loan portfolio be strengthened when partnering with the Private Sector instead of ‘‘going it alone’’? 

Question 6a. Consider the following when partnering with the Private Sector: 

65 

Commercial bank partners will underwrite the entire risk of the loan, not just 

their share to determine the financial health and repayment ability of the borrower. 

Their conclusions are submitted to the USDA for their secondary review and concurrence thus easing the burden on Agency staff, especially for highly complex situations such as hospital loans. 

Question 6b. Risk underwriting will follow bank policies and procedures which are 

examined annually by Federal or state regulators to ensure safe and sound lending 

practices (banks will have ‘‘skin’’ in the game). 

Question 6c. Continuous monitoring is required after loan origination as the risk 

of default and loss is inherent throughout the life of a loan. Partnering with the 

Private sector enhances the proactive nature and effectiveness of this critical area 

of credit management. 

Question 6d. In the event of a default, Private sector partners collaborating with 

the Agency provide additional attention and strategies to correct deficiencies and 

avoid loss. 

Answer 6–6d. USDA–RD is not going it alone. The largest portion of RD’s loan 

portfolio comes from its Guaranteed Loan programs. These loans are originated by 

commercial lenders in accordance with their regulators. For those markets commercial lenders do not serve, loans may be originated directly by RD in accordance with 

an equally effective set of laws, regulations and practices that assure the safety and 

soundness of its portfolio. The Department welcomes private sector lending to families and communities whose rural and economic conditions do not currently afford 

them access to commercial credit. 

Question 7. I am sure you are aware of the many concerns that the agriculture 

community have raised over the Administration’s waters of the U.S. proposed rule. 

The rule, as proposed, will have far reaching consequences for the agriculture community. Can you give us some examples of how have you advocated for rural America throughout this rulemaking process? 

Answer. USDA is aware that its role in the development of waters of the U.S. proposed rule is one of informing and educating, and that the authority and responsibility for developing and implementing regulations to achieve the objectives of the 

Clean Water Act reside wholly with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

and U.S. Army. Throughout the rulemaking process, USDA consistently emphasized 

agriculture’s outstanding stewardship track record in delivering water resource benefits locally, regionally, and nationally. The commitment in the proposed rule to 

maintaining and clarifying existing agricultural exemptions underscored the recognition of agriculture as a valuable partner in achieving clean water objectives. 

USDA also highlighted the need for straightforward language for the many complex 

concepts contained in the proposed rule, for example in definitions of tributaries and 

other waters, as the agricultural community has consistently called for clarity. 

Question 8. What role will USDA play during the interagency review of the waters 

of the U.S. proposed rule? 

Answer. USDA is invited to review and provide comments on Waters of the U.S. 

rule via the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) interagency review process. 

The Department is in the process of reviewing that draft currently and will be providing comments to OMB for EPA and Army for consideration as it works to finalize 

the rule. USDA’s objective in this process is to continue to ensure the impacts on 

agriculture are fully evaluated. 

Question 9. Do you feel that stakeholders in rural America where properly consulted in the development of the waters of the U.S. proposed rule? 

Answer. The Federal Government has established processes and procedures for 

developing regulations that allow for public input. In general, the public is normally 

provided 60 days to provide comments on a proposed rule. However, recognizing the 

significant public interest in this rulemaking, the EPA and Army, extended the comment period on the proposed rule several times. All involved recognize that this is 

an important rule with potential to affect many sectors in achieving its objective of 

good water quality for all Americans, rural and urban alike. 

Question 10. The Committee is aware of APHIS’ proposed rule to establish a performance standard for authorizing the importation and interstate movement of 

fruits and vegetables. This appears to be a significant modification of the current 

process for reviewing import petitions by foreign governments, as it eliminates certain economic analysis requirements and also eliminates interagency review. Therefore, the Committee is interested in how the important rights of due process that 

are embedded in the current process will be maintained under this modified proposal. Additionally, the Committee would like an explanation as to why this modiVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:50 Jun 16, 2015 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\114-01\93959.TXT BRIAN
66 

fication only addresses fruits and vegetables rather than the full scope of import petitions for which APHIS is responsible. 

Answer. In September 2014, USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

(APHIS) proposed a rule to streamline the approval of fruit and vegetable imports 

into the United States and the interstate movement from Hawaii and the U.S. territories. Reducing the regulatory burdens associated with our import approval process 

will give us more leverage with trading partners when negotiating more streamlined 

approvals for U.S. exports and access to new markets, to the benefit of U.S. producers. By putting in place a process that will allow us to be more responsive to 

our trading partners’ requests, we expect to obtain quicker and more immediate access for U.S. commodities into their markets. 

Under the proposed rule, instead of codifying region- and commodity-specific requirements in the Code of Federal Regulations, APHIS would use a streamlined noticed-based process. However, USDA would continue to use the same rigorous, 

science-based pest risk evaluations it does now when it reviews import requests. 

Further, the public would still be able to provide comments on the Agency’s proposal 

at two separate times: for 30 days when APHIS publishes the draft pest risk assessment, and for 60 days when APHIS publishes the notice. APHIS, as it does under 

the existing process, would not take final actions before considering and responding 

to the public’s comments. APHIS would also ensure that the Office of Management 

and Budget and other interested Federal agencies receive advanced notice of APHIS’ 

actions and have the opportunity to provide input. APHIS would also continue to 

analyze the economic effects of a potential pest introduction as part of the pest risk 

analysis process. 

In developing the proposed rule, APHIS actively solicited feedback from the public 

and reached out to explain the need for the rule; APHIS twice extended the comment period to allow stakeholders more time to provide comments and held a 

webinar with interested stakeholders to address their questions. APHIS is currently 

reviewing the comments and input it has received—including comments expressing 

some of the same concerns in your question—and will address them and incorporate 

them, as appropriate, when publishing a final rule. 

Although the 2014 proposed rule only addresses fruits and vegetables, it is not 

the only instance of APHIS using this type of approach. A 2007 rule established a 

notice-based process for certain fruits and vegetables that do not have region- or 

commodity-specific phytosanitary import requirements, such as irradiated or fumigated fruit. There are other instances of APHIS using this notice-based approach. 

This includes notices that recognize the animal health disease status of certain 

countries; notices to prohibit entry of certain articles under the plants-for-planting 

regulations; and notices that quickly add or remove acceptable treatments for imported commodities. APHIS will continue to look for opportunities to streamline its 

regulations to provide more flexibility and adaptability, especially where the regulations lay out clear performance-based standards. 

Question 11. The President’s FY16 budget request states that under the goal of 

enhancing mitigation capabilities, APHIS provides technical assistance and develops 

new mitigation tools and strategies to address plant pest outbreaks. In FY14, 

APHIS spent $17.6 million on 73 projects in this goal area. 

How many of these projects addressed Mexfly exclusion and eradication? 

Answer. The projects referenced in the question are specific to those funded by 

section 10007 of the 2014 Farm Bill, Plant Pest and Disease Management and Disaster Prevention Programs. In 2014, there were two Farm Bill projects for Mexfly 

exclusion and eradication, totaling $1.793 million. There is a separate appropriated 

line item that specifically includes fruit fly activities. 

Question 11a. What was the total funding level allocated to Mexfly? 

Answer. Aside from the farm bill funding mentioned above, APHIS funds ongoing 

activities to detect and respond to exotic fruit flies, including Mexfly, from the Specialty Crop Pests line item. In FY 2014, APHIS spent $56.175 million on fruit fly 

activities, with $11.6 million of this amount going towards Mexfly eradication and 

prevention activities. APHIS plans to use $59 million from the Specialty Crop Pests 

line item in FY 2015 for fruit fly activities overall and anticipates spending a similar amount on Mexfly as in FY 2014. 

Question 12. The Mexican Fruit Fly Rearing Facility located in Edinburg, Texas 

is a critical component of the USDA APHIS Mexfly Eradication program. However, 

APHIS’s ability to effectively manage and prevent Mexfly populations has been hindered due to the condition of the Edinburg sterile fly production facility, which is 

nearly 30 years old. 

How does this facility rank based on the APHIS facility condition index (FCI)? 

67 

Answer. The last FCI rating evaluation of the Edinburg, Texas sterile fly facility 

was in 2011. The facility scored 0.21, which placed it into the category of USDA facilities that need the most repair. 

Based upon the results of the FCI, and the needs of the sterile insect program 

(notably a need for an increased insect-rearing capacity), APHIS is developing a 

plan for potential construction or renovation of the facility. 

Question 13. PPQ requires 200 million sterile fly releases per week in order to 

manage Mexfly populations in Texas, but as a result of constant problems and lack 

of production capacity at the Texas facility this goal is never achieved. In addition, 

Mexfly populations have significantly increased in Mexico within the last year, 

meaning it is imperative that USDA take immediate action to reduce the threat of 

Mexfly in Texas and other citrus producing states. 

How many sterile flies are currently being released on a weekly basis? 

Answer. On average, APHIS is releasing approximately 100 million sterile male 

Mexflies per week produced by the Texas facility. In addition, APHIS brings in approximately 70 million sterile male Mexflies per week from the facility in Guatemala to supplement the Texas program. 

Question 13a. How many more are needed to address increased Mexfly populations? 

Answer. Based upon the technical review APHIS has conducted of the needs of 

the fruit fly program in the Lower Rio Grande Valley, the Agency believes the total 

needs are 400 million sterile male Mexflies, over 200 million more than it currently 

produces. APHIS recognizes that the demand for sterile insects in the Lower Rio 

Grande Valley is unable to be met by the existing sterile insect facility in Texas. 

Accordingly, the Agency is preparing a report to evaluate how best to meet those 

needs and what resources may be required. 

Question 14. It has been reported that APHIS is in the process of developing a 

construction and renovation plan for the Edinburg sterile Mexfly production facility. 

When will this report be finalized? 

Answer. APHIS expects the report on design and construction specifications to be 

completed in summer of 2015. 

Question 14a. What can you tell me about USDA’s plans for upgrading this facility? More specifically, what is the timeline for construction and when is the earliest 

date the facility can be completed? What resources are needed? 

Answer. APHIS recognizes that the demand for sterile insects in the Lower Rio 

Grande Valley is unable to be met by the existing sterile insect facility in Texas. 

Accordingly, the Agency is preparing a report to evaluate how best to meet those 

needs and what resources may be required. 

Question 14b. What is APHIS strategy for future investments? 

Answer. APHIS recognizes that all of the fruit fly rearing facilities in Florida, 

Texas, and California are aging facilities and are likely in need of significant improvement or replacement. A systematic review of facility needs is being conducted 

to develop technical specifications, the statement of work, and other requirements 

for these three facilities. The information will be used in developing future plans 

for ensuring adequate production in all three facilities. 

Question 15. In order to limit the economic damage caused by Mexfly, PPQ has 

successfully contained, controlled, eradicated pest populations and lifted Federal 

quarantines within the span of one growing season. However, on January 23, 2014, 

the Texas Department of Agriculture filed an emergency quarantine that has since 

been extended through January 2015. 

What steps has APHIS taken to address this quarantine? 

Answer. To prevent the spread of Mexfly to noninfested areas of the United 

States, APHIS and the Texas Department of Agriculture established a Mexfly regulated area that restricted the interstate movement of regulated articles in the quarantine area. APHIS has activated its emergency response protocols for fruit fly 

which include mobilizing Agency personnel to the Brownsville area and concentrating sterile fly resources in this area. The emergency response also includes intensive trapping and the use of chemical treatments. APHIS and the Texas Department of Agriculture are implementing additional strategies which include ‘‘new attract and kill’’ stations and targeted insecticidal ground sprays. 

Question 15a. How does APHIS intend to improve Mexfly management and eradication efforts? 

Answer. APHIS will continue with eradication efforts until full eradication is 

achieved. Central to this is the ongoing evaluation of the program’s technical and 

infrastructure needs referenced in the previous question. Additionally, the Mexfly 

Technical Team, which includes APHIS and its international partners, is closely 

68 

evaluating the outbreak and making recommendations to enhance detection and 

control. 

APHIS is also working to establish systems in Mexico to reduce the influx of the 

Mexfly population from Mexico into the United States, and is conducting risk analysis to understand the epidemiology of the outbreak in order to respond more effectively. 

Question 16. We keep hearing from NIFA about an ‘‘iterative process’’ to improving the SCRI review. What recommendations have been received and how are they 

being implemented? 

Answer. NIFA received 18 recommendations from the Specialty Crops Committee 

of the NAREEE Advisory Board and provided detailed responses to each recommendation. The Specialty Crops Committee recommendations and NIFA’s responses are included in the Farm Bill mandated Secretary’s report to the Congress, 

which is currently under development. 

Question 17. The farm bill specifically included the statement, ‘‘final awards determinations should, to the maximum extent practicable, emphasize the results of 

the merit/relevance review process.’’ How did each grant application score on merit/ 

relevancy review and how did this impact the final awards decision? 

Answer. For the Specialty Crop Research Initiative Program, six page pre-applications were evaluated by panels of industry experts using a specific and consistent 

criteria for relevancy. The relevancy criteria include the level of stakeholder involvement in developing project goals and program evaluation, their continued engagement in the activities, and whether information developed by the project team will 

be delivered to stakeholders in ways that allow them to implement new and/or improved practices. These panels decide which pre-applications would be invited to 

submit full proposals for the program. If a pre-application was not deemed highly 

relevant, it was not invited to submit a full proposal. Full proposals are first evaluated for scientific merit. After the scientific merit discussion, the panel considers 

both evaluations (relevancy and scientific) and the comments of the relevancy reviewers to decide on the final ranking of priority for funding. Final award recommendations are developed by consensus after all evaluations are considered. The 

merit review panel also has a specific set of criteria on the scientific merit, including 

the potential impact of the work on the industry and outreach to the stakeholders. 

Question 18. As you know, Congress has indicated its very clear intent through 

the most recent Farm Bill that industry be substantively and significantly involved 

in the review of the competitive grants programs including, but not limited to the 

Specialty Crop Research Initiative. Please tell us specifically what changes you are 

making in this year’s Request for Proposals to ensure that the projects funded are 

industry’s top priorities. 

Answer. This year, content of pre-applications and full applications, as well as the 

process includes, industry representation. Currently SCRI has two separate and sequential review stages: relevancy review by the industry representatives and merit 

review by scientists from academia and industry. Only the preliminary proposals 

rated highly relevant by the industrial representatives are invited as full proposals. 

The merit review panel also contains industry scientists and considers both relevancy review panel comments as well as scientific merit in determining the ranking. Thus industry is involved in the initial selection of project pre-proposals as well 

as in final ranking of the projects for funding. 

NIFA has always strived to ensure and improve industry involvement in the SCRI 

review process. In addition to the involvement of industry representatives during 

the relevancy review, industry scientists have been, and will continue to be, involved 

in the scientific merit review process. Whenever possible, other NIFA competitive 

programs include industry representatives and scientists on the review panels. 

NIFA offers several methods to submit stakeholder input including webinars and 

ongoing solicitation of comments on requests for proposals. NIFA considers this 

feedback when new requests for proposals are developed. 

Question 19. Please describe in detail for us how the industry ranking of the most 

recent proposals to the SCRI will be conducted. 

Answer. The Request for Applications, posted March 3, 2015, (http:// 

nifa.usda.gov/sites/default/files/rfa/15_SCRI%20final%20to%20post.pdf) details 

how NIFA will conduct the industry relevancy review and the scientific merit review 

and how the outcomes of these processes will be combined to develop a funding recommendation. There are 3 points in the overall process where industry ranking will 

be considered. Industry relevancy reviewers will recommend which applicants will 

be invited to submit full applications. NIFA intends to abide by those recommendations. 

69 

Question 20. Please tell us exactly how the industry rankings were considered 

during the scientists’ review of the proposals. Were all of the proposals considered 

by the science panel regardless of their industry rankings? Were the industry 

rankings communicated to the science panel reviewers? 

Answer. SCRI is competed as two distinct areas: SCRI and the Citrus Disease Research and Extension program (CDRE). For both programs in 2014, applicants were 

invited to submit full applications based on the recommendation of the industry relevancy review panels. Presumably, the industry panels only recommended submission of applications that were highly relevant to their industries. All applications 

reviewed by the scientific merit panels contained the pre-application containing the 

Stakeholder Relevance Statement, and the reviews and comments from all industry 

reviewers. CDRE was competed after NIFA consulted with the SCC, so industry 

rankings were considered as described in the SCRI Management Plan. 

Question 21. Mr. Secretary on November 13, 2014, the U.S. Forest Service issued 

a press release (http://www.fs.fed.us/news/releases/forest-service-exceeds-yearly-forest-restoration-goals) stating that you had exceeded your yearly restoration goals for 

Fiscal Year 2014. Among other things, the Forest Service claimed that they had 

maintained or restored 2.9 million acres and resulted in 2.8 billion board feet of timber volume sold. Since over 1 million acres appear to have been prescribed burned 

(89% of which was in the Southeastern Region), please provide for the committee 

the following information: 

Of the 2.8 million acres on which the Forest Service conducted restoration work, 

how many acres: 

Were treated with prescribed fire? Which Regions were these treatments in? 

Answer. There were a total of 1,357,791 acres treated with prescribed fire. 

Region Rx Fire Acres 

01 24,559 

02 19,968 

03 61,681 

04 38,422 

05 23,522 

06 64,084 

08 1,045,312 

09 80,040 

10 203 

Grand Total 1,357,791 

Question 21a. Were treated by wildfires being allowed to burn within prescription, 

or allowed to burn for resource benefit? 

Answer. For 2014, 246,018 acres burned by wildfire were judged to have met land 

management objectives and were counted as fuel treatment accomplishments. 

NOTE: The 2009 guidance for federal fire policy does not categorize certain fires as 

‘‘beneficial’’ at their onset as was the previous policy. Current policy guidance does 

continue to recognize that fire effects can produce beneficial results, however it does 

not require that there be explicit management intent to seek beneficial outcomes 

from a wildfire in order to count its’ effects as beneficial. As a result, many wildfires 

are found to produce effects that are beneficial to natural resource objectives even 

though protection concerns required that they be suppressed either in part or in 

whole. At the discretion of the local Forest Supervisor, any wildfire initiated from 

a natural ignition source, such as lightning, may be assessed after the fire has been 

controlled to determine where fire effects have improved resource conditions and 

where they did not. 

Question 21b. Were treated during fire suppression operations by ignition of backfires or other burnout operations? 

Answer. We do not attempt to attribute acres burned to either the wildfire or firefighting efforts, because such estimates would be highly suspect and unreliable. 

When timing and conditions allow, firefighters may design their fire suppression actions with the intent of controlling the intensity and patterns of burning so as to 

minimize the negative effects and possibly even improve forest conditions. However, 

the convergence of the wildfire and any burnout actions initiated by firefighters 

typically occurs out of sight of the firefighters because safety concerns do not permit 

personnel to linger near the convergence zone; smoke, vegetation and terrain obVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:50 Jun 16, 2015 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\114-01\93959.TXT BRIAN
70 

scure the view from any vantage point; the convergence may occur at night or several days or even weeks after the burnout occurred, so we do not have the means 

to track the information requested. 

Question 21c. Were treated by mechanical removal of hazardous fuels?, including: 

i. Removal of non-commercial trees or brush 

ii. Removal of commercial timber that was sold pursuant to a timber sale or 

IRTC 

Answer. 107,083 acres saw the removal of biomass which includes non-commercial 

trees and brush. ‘‘Removal of Biomass’’ is the physical removal of biomass from the 

site which is typically done by trucking the materials to a site where the biomass 

is stored for utilization. 150, 951 acres were treated with commercial timber harvest. This includes acres treated through Integrated Resource Timber Contracts 

(IRTC). 

Question 21d. Were treated by other methods including: 

i. Removal of noxious weeds 

ii. Hand trimming of brush 

iii. Treatment of lakes or streams to improve water quality. 

Answer. The number of acres treated on Forest Service lands for invasive plants 

(noxious weeds) was 229,587. In addition, 30,721 acres of lakes and 3,488 miles of 

streams were treated for water quality and aquatic habitat restoration. Forest Service does not discern between hand trimming/thinning and other methods of trimming/thinning nor do we discern between activities in brush vs. tree forms of vegetation. Any manipulation done by hand is lumped together with mechanical treatments according to the treatment classifications found in table below. 

71 

2014 Forest Service Hazardous Fuels Treatment Acres Accomplished by Region and Method 

2014 6

Region Rx Fire Fire Use Biological Biomass Removal Chemical Chipping Crushing Grazing Lop and Scatter Machine Pile 1 Mastication or Mowing Thinning Total 

01 24,559 51,788 0 11,711 0 212 140 4,500 10,950 4,102 0 17,573 125,535 02 19,968 1,571 0 39,921 89 659 920 1,930 11,329 6,016 0 38,634 121,037 03 61,681 63,833 0 4,985 0 0 514 534 5,754 6,003 0 54,789 198,093 04 38,422 53,789 0 2,266 0 5,131 6,003 1,500 10,411 5,177 35 31,474 154,208 05 23,522 35,876 0 11,561 0 2,703 2,794 1,974 4,334 14,352 0 54,927 152,043 06 64,084 38,305 0 14,157 0 6,045 1,524 0 16,508 27,271 272 108,235 276,401 08 1,045,312 842 0 11,163 6,519 605 3,158 610 2,276 6,023 0 78,955 1,155,463 09 80,040 14 0 11,273 123 1,363 69 389 3,168 4,314 0 27,330 128,083 10 203 0 0 46 0 52 0 0 0 99 0 43 443 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total 1,357,791 246,018 0 107,083 6,731 16,770 15,122 11,437 64,730 73,357 307 411,960 2,311,306 

* Includes Recovery Act acres 1FY14 Data Source: NFPORS Extract as of 11/01/2014 a.m. 2 Includes Hand and Machine Pile acres. 

72 

1Summary of Proposed Rule available at http://www.regulations.gov/ 

#!documentDetail;D=APHIS-2013-0021-0002 (last visited Feb. 11, 2015). 

Question 22. How many projects do you intend to implement this fiscal year under 

the Farm Bill Insect and Disease Treatment Areas authority? Please include how 

many acres you believe will be treated, and where those acres are. 

Answer. Currently, nine farm bill projects have been entered in the Agency’s Planning Appeals and Litigation System (PALS) database. Seven are categorical exclusions and two are EAs. Two of the seven CEs have decisions associated with them, 

and the Forest Service plans to implement them this year. The estimated size of 

these two projects to be implemented in FY 2015 is approximately 700 acres. The 

initial projects were developed in California, Idaho, Montana, New York and Utah 

where the new insect and disease provisions were identified as appropriate tools to 

address insect and disease issues on units of the National Forest System and where 

the projects are in areas where there has been support from the state and other 

partners. These initial projects will help the agency and its partners better understand and implement the new CE authority while additional projects are identified, 

planned and implemented. 

Question 23. Please provide the Committee a detailed breakdown on CFLR project 

accomplishments, particularly: 

a. The state of NEPA documentation on CFLR projects, including: 

» Project selection date. 

» Date of scoping initiation. 

» NEPA documentation method selected (Decision Notice, CE, EA, EIS). 

» NEPA completion date (signed final EIS). 

b. How many acres have actually been treated on each CFLR project. 

Answer. The agency has funded 23 projects through the Collaborative Forest 

Landscape Restoration Program. Through the CFLRP, the agency and partners 

have made significant progress in reducing wildfire threats while exceeding the 5 

year target for timber volume sold by nearly 25 percent. In addition to making 1.45 

million acres more resilient to wildfire, the program improved the health of 1.33 

million acres of wildlife habitat, and helped local economies support an average of 

4,360 jobs each year. 

Questions Submitted by Hon. Rodney Davis, a Representative in Congress from Illinois 

Question 1. Mr. Secretary, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Animal 

and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has proposed a new rule (‘‘the proposed rule’’) that would revise Agricultural Quarantine and Inspection (AQI) fees on 

commercial transportation arriving at U.S. ports. This proposed new rule would affect incoming aircraft, ships, trucks and railroad cars. According to the summary of 

the proposed rule, APHIS is: 

[We are] proposing to amend the user fee regulations by adding new fee categories and adjusting current fees charged for certain agricultural quarantine 

and inspection services that are provided in connection with certain commercial 

vessels, commercial trucks, commercial railroad cars, commercial aircraft, and 

international passengers arriving at ports in the customs territory of the United 

States. We are also proposing to adjust or remove the fee caps associated with 

commercial trucks, commercial vessels, and commercial railcars. We have determined that revised user fee categories and revised user fees are necessary to 

recover the costs of the current level of activity, to account for actual and projected increases in the cost of doing business, and to more accurately align fees 

with the costs associated with each fee service.1

However, according to certain industries, under the proposed fee structure, a single international passenger flight would pay somewhere between $225 and $1,800 

in AQI fees. In contrast, an all-cargo flight (regardless of size and how much cargo 

it is carrying) would pay a flat fee of $225. Private flights (regardless of size and 

how many passengers or how much cargo it is carrying) would pay nothing at all. 

All flights—as you know—are subject to inspection. 

It is unclear to individuals and entities outside of government what level engagement APHIS had with industry and affected parties, prior to drafting the proposed 

rule. In the future, I would encourage APHIS and any other rulemaking body to engage in dialogue with affected parties prior to proposing rules. 

73 

As to my questions and requests, please provide the following documents and information to the U.S. House Agriculture Committee and my personal office: 

➢ A narrative justifying the proposed fee structure and its failure to account for 

commercial carrier’s cargo size. 

➢ All documents and communications related to the analysis APHIS did to determine the proposed fee structure. 

➢ All AQI cost data for both commercial cargo and passenger aircraft. With regard to passenger aircraft, identify which AQI costs for these flights are not covered by air-passenger paid AQI fees. 

➢ A narrative justifying APHIS’ decision to collect amounts from air passengers 

that exceed their inspection costs in order to fund reserves rather than collect 

amounts from commercial air passengers. 

Answer. USDA agrees that stakeholder engagement is an important part of rulemaking; and in that spirit, went to great lengths to educate interested parties and 

obtain their feedback about this rule. Throughout the process, APHIS held meetings 

with industry and affected parties to: 

• Explore potential regulatory alternatives to adjusting user fees, 

• Determine the need for a formal review of AQI user fees, 

• Share the user fee review methodology, 

• Provide an overview of the detailed findings of the user fee review, 

• Explain the proposed user fee adjustments, and 

• Receive feedback from affected stakeholders on the proposed changes. 

In total, APHIS conducted six formal stakeholder meetings between 2011 and 

2015 along with numerous small group meetings with affected stakeholders upon request. In addition, APHIS published information on its site about the user fee review, including two reports prepared by Grant Thornton on the fee setting process 

and the comprehensive findings of the review. In April 2014, when APHIS published 

the proposed rule to adjust user fees, the Agency conducted extensive outreach to 

impacted and interested stakeholders. This included briefings for House Agriculture 

Committee staff and other congressional Committees; courtesy calls and direct 

emails to representatives of affected industries, national associations, and potentially interested industry groups; and a conference call with interested stakeholders. 

In addition, APHIS sent messages through the APHIS Stakeholder Registry to announce the proposed changes and inform stakeholders of upcoming stakeholder 

meetings. Messages sent via the Registry in 2014 and 2015 were delivered to more 

than 11,000 unique subscribers. 

➢ A narrative justifying the proposed fee structure and its failure to account for 

commercial carrier’s cargo size. 

APHIS followed federal guidance, including OMB A–25, Government Accountability Office (GAO) guidance for fee setting, and Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board Statement of Accounting Standards Number 4, to appropriately account for the AQI program costs used to determine the appropriate fees. The proposed fees represent the true cost to the Federal government for providing AQI services for commercial air carriers for cargo and passenger inspection. All arriving 

international commercial flights, except those specifically exempted under 7 CFR 

§ 354.3(e)(2) (exclusive government aircraft, emergency landings, etc.) are subject to 

inspection because they may pose a sanitary or phytosanitary risk and are therefore 

subject to paying the commercial airline user fees. 

In establishing AQI user fees, the proposed rule did not differentiate based on 

cargo size. Any cargo could carry insect pests, weed seeds, waste material from garbage, or other waste that is capable of harboring animal disease and may therefore 

be subject to inspection. Rather, the costs of our AQI activities were made contingent upon the time and effort required of APHIS and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) staff to perform those activities identified via activity based cost modeling. Those activities must be performed regardless of the size or volume of the 

shipment; therefore, the size of the shipment does not determine the amount of the 

fees. 

➢ All AQI cost data for both commercial cargo and passenger aircraft. With regard to passenger aircraft, identify which AQI costs for these flights are not covered by air-passenger paid AQI fees. 

74 

* Editor’s note: the docket, in toto is retained in Committee file. 

The 2010, 2011 and 2012 actual cost data for both air passenger and commercial 

aircraft used in the model for calculating the proposed fees are available at http:// 

www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2013-0021. The air passenger fee covers the cost of inspections related to passengers and the 

passenger and crew compartments of the plane, while the commercial aircraft fee 

covers cargo-related inspection costs. Specifically, the air passenger fee covers the 

costs for, among other things, screening passengers upon arrival for agricultural 

products by CBP Agriculture Specialists and CBP Officers; inspecting baggage using 

CBP agriculture canines and specialized non-intrusive inspection equipment; inspecting the interior of the passenger aircraft; monitoring the storage and removal 

of regulated international garbage from the aircraft; safeguarding and disposing of 

any seized or abandoned prohibited agricultural products; and identifying pests 

found on prohibited agricultural products brought into the country by air passengers. 

The commercial aircraft fee charged to passenger flights covers, among other 

things, costs incurred in reviewing manifests and documentation accompanying incoming cargo; targeting higher-risk cargo for inspection or clearance; inspecting agricultural and agricultural-related commodities, international mail, expedited courier packages, containers, wood packaging and other packing materials and determining entry status; inspecting the aircraft hold or exterior for contaminants, pests, 

or invasive species; identifying pests found during those inspections; and safeguarding shipments pending PPQ determination for treatment or final disposition. 

If cargo being transported on a passenger flight requires treatment due to pest infestation, there would be an additional fee for such treatment. 

➢ A narrative justifying APHIS’ decision to collect amounts from air passengers 

that exceed their inspection costs in order to fund reserves rather than collect 

amounts from commercial air passengers. 

The proposed air passenger fee is $4 per passenger—a reduction of $1 from the 

current fee structure—and represents the true cost to the Federal government for 

providing AQI services. Section 2509(a) of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and 

Trade Act of 1990 (21 U.S.C. 136a, FACT Act) authorizes APHIS to establish fees 

in a reasonable manner to recover funds spent on safeguarding activities. In addition to authorizing APHIS to collect user fees for inspection and related activities, 

the FACT Act directs APHIS to ensure that the fees cover the costs of administering 

the user fee program and maintaining a reasonable balance, also known as a ‘‘reserve,’’ to ensure that funding is available in the event that there are temporary 

reductions in the demand for AQI services leading to reduced fee collections, as was 

experienced in the past. As there are fixed costs (i.e., cost that do not fluctuate with 

demand for AQI services) that the program incurs, a reserve is needed to ensure 

continuity of service in times of reduced fee collection. This provides certainty to importers regarding the availability of inspection services. In addition, the FACT Act, 

as amended, also requires that the cost of AQI services with respect to passengers 

as a class should include the cost of inspections of the aircraft or other conveyance. 

In the case of air passengers, the inspection of the aircraft includes the passenger 

and crew compartments. 

➢ All documents and communications related to the analysis APHIS did to determine the proposed fee structure. 

In April 2014, APHIS published the proposed rule, User Fees for Agricultural 

Quarantine and Inspection Services, with a 60 day comment period that was extended 30 days. APHIS made several documents available with the proposed rule 

outlining the data used and analysis conducted in support of the proposed fee structure. These documents, ‘‘Fee Setting Process Documentation and Recommendations, 

October 2011’’ and ‘‘AQI Fee Schedule Assessment and Alternatives, May 2012’’ along 

with the approximately 250 stakeholder comments submitted on the proposal are 

available at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2013-0021.* 

Question 2. Mr. Secretary, on the subject of pollinators and pollinator health, I 

have the following questions: 

What research is currently being conducted on proper habitat and nutrition for 

managed bees? Are forage and nutrition significant contributors to bee health? How 

significant is the Varroa mite problem for bee health and what steps is the Department taking to address this problem? 

Answer. Currently, investigations are underway through the Agricultural Research Service (ARS). These investigations study the nutritional needs of colonies 

75 

throughout the year and the effects of nutritional stress on immunity, queen retention, and colony growth and survival. Studies are conducted at multiple levels. At 

the molecular level, the role of beneficial microbes in the bees and the colony food 

stores are being investigated by scientists in Tucson, Arizona, to determine the contributions of microbial communities to nutrient synthesis and food digestion and 

storage. 

The effects of nutrition on the chemical communication system in the colony, especially as it relates to worker-queen interactions, also are being investigated. This is 

particularly important due to high queen losses experienced by commercial beekeepers. Studies were conducted comparing the nutritional quality of supplemental 

diets and natural forage and the effects on colony health. The resulting pathogen 

loads, and queen and overwintering colony loss, were determined and found to be 

higher in colonies fed the supplements. The nutritional analyses can serve as a 

basis for improving the nutritional quality of commercially available supplements. 

The study results pointed to the need for natural forage to ensure colony health and 

survival. 

ARS scientists in Logan, Utah, are also evaluating the use of Conservation Reserve Program acreages to provide floral forage to multiply alfalfa leafcutting bees 

to supplement commercial populations for alfalfa seed production. Canadian populations must now be bought to pollinate alfalfa for seed. After 2 years of successful 

pilot trials, the scientists are now monitoring commercial production efforts (in collaboration with Forage Genetics). ARS scientists are quantifying pollen and nectar 

production, the bees’ nest cell production, and specific losses (e.g., release dispersal) 

and mortality factors that subtract from reproduction. Sweet clover is delivering annual, profitable population increases, which will be improved once several pestilence 

problems are fixed. 

ARS scientists are addressing the continued feeding and reproduction of blue orchard bees for almond pollination after that crop’s petal fall. Working with commercial growers, they are field-testing growing flowering resources that bloom right 

after almond, monitoring flower use, and later, provisioning and reproduction back 

at the nests. This promising strategy is needed to sustain these pollinators’ managed populations for almond pollination, thus making it an economically attractive 

complement to honey bees. 

These scientists are also studying ways to improve shelter designs for managed 

leafcutting bees. Diverse shelter designs in use today vary greatly in interior microclimate, and some are harmful (too hot) for bees or their progeny. Shelter design 

may also be influencing when and under what conditions healthy diapausing (a 

state of metabolic arrest similar to hibernating bears) alfalfa leafcutting bee brood 

is produced. The goal is to understand variation in shelter microclimate so that 

changes to design and/or board placement can provide environmental conditions 

most favorable for brood production. 

ARS scientists are studying ways to improve the acceptability and practicality of 

nesting materials for cavity-nesting mason bee species, such as the blue orchard 

bee, which are useful for pollinating western U.S. berry and nut (almond) crops. 

New and practical designs are being tested to improve a prototype design by ARS 

of an affordable, portable nesting shelter. Alternate cavity designs to supplant straw 

inserts in polystyrene nesting boards are being explored with a manufacturer. A 

foolproof emergence box design has been designed and tested. A bee nesting attractant product was developed and a patent application has been filed. This product attracts blue orchard bees to nesting blocks, thus increasing the ability to maintain 

these orchard pollinators in commercial domiciles. 

ARS scientists recently completed studies about wildflowers used by bees and 

grazing management practices, specifically their effect on the abundance and diversity of wildflowers utilized as forage by native bees in rangeland pastures of Wyoming. They found that, over time, a large-scale (30,000 acres) nest-rotation, pasture 

management scheme used by The Nature Conservancy led to less bare ground and 

shrub cover and more grass for cattle to eat. Wildflower diversity and densities remained mostly the same, although highly variable from pasture to pasture. At more 

favorable sites and years, wildflowers used by bees benefited. In harsh sites or 

drought years, the effect was not apparent. 

NIFA also funds extramural research to address honey bee nutrition. NIFA-funded researchers at Iowa State University a combination of laboratory and field-based 

studies to examine the effects of three viruses and nutritional stress on worker bees 

and their colonies to determine whether these two negative factors together can 

cause the symptoms of CCD. These findings may lead to changes in apicultural 

management, such as: more informed virus quarantine practices, colony supplementation with multi-source pollen when bees are nutritionally stressed, allowing bees 

76 

to forage on crops of high nutritional value after low, and encouraging farmers and 

beekeepers to use land management practices that increase floral diversity. 

NIFA-funded researchers at University of Florida, Gainesville are assessing the 

effects of exposure to pesticides and other xenobiotics on the survival, health and 

productivity of honey bee colonies and pollinator abundance and diversity. One component of this project is to determine how land management practices affect pollinator nutrition and how nutation affects honey bee colony productivity and success 

in the context of pesticide and xenobiotic exposure. 

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) supports surveys and 

research to protect the health of honey bees and other pollinators. APHIS is funding 

projects with the Pollinator Partnership to test the associations between honey bees 

and common nursery plants to determine the current capacity of the nursery industry to promote bee forage. In addition, this will help identify plants for which the 

nursery industry should actively investigate alternative pest and disease management strategies. In addition, Project Apis m. is conducting an APHIS-funded study 

to support an increase in the quality and amount of habitat and forage for honey 

bees, and to relate the impact of that forage on mitigating honey bee pests and diseases. 

USDA is also monitoring and assessing the effectiveness of CRP and EQIP conservation covers established to provide honey bees and other pollinators with nutritious forage habitat. FSA and NRCS have entered into an agreement with USGS’s 

Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center to identify the plants used by honey bee 

colonies in 5 states: Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wisconsin. This information will combined with observations of colony survival rates to 

enhance USDA honey bee conservation effectiveness. In addition, FSA has agreements or contracts with USGS in Ft. Collins, the Oklahoma State University USGS 

Cooperative Study Unit, Iowa State University, and the Pollinator Partnership to 

monitor and assess the effectiveness of various CRP practices on honey bee productivity and native pollinator use. 

As for the Varroa mite problem, Varroa is one of the most important threats to 

honey bee health worldwide. Beekeepers rely on a variety of control measures including resistant lines of bees, two of which were developed by ARS scientists in 

Baton Rouge, Louisiana, that have won Federal Consortium Technology Transfer 

awards. Other measures include chemical and non-chemical control strategies, e.g., 

the commercial HopGuard developed by ARS scientists in Tucson, Arizona. 

ARS continues to screen compounds for activity in controlling Varroa. Research 

into the interactions of Varroa and viruses is ongoing and ARS is involved in working to control Varroa with a variety of sustainable techniques, including RNAi (gene 

silencing) and biological control agents. 

NIFA also funds a variety of work on pests and diseases of pollinators. University 

of Minnesota extension specialists are assisting honeybee queen breeders in selecting for hygienic behavior, a trait that helps bees defend against Varroa mites and 

two other diseases, American foulbrood and chalk brood. 

NIFA-funded Cornell scientists are testing the hypothesis that producing smaller 

colonies will give the mites fewer opportunities to reproduce and so will lower the 

per capita level of mite infestation of the bees. 

NIFA-funded researchers at Penn State University are investigating the overall 

role of formulation ingredients added to chemicals used to control Varroa mites. The 

bulk of synthetic organic chemicals are formulation ingredients, generally recognized as safe, having no mandated tolerances, and whose residues remain 

unmonitored. Surfactants and solvents are showing high eco-toxicity to fish, amphibians, honey bees and other non-target organisms. 

Varroa mites are a particularly detrimental honey bee pest so APHIS is supporting research to monitor for resistance to pesticides used for Varroa control. 

APHIS also collaborated with ARS and EPA to register oxalic acid as an active ingredient in pesticides for Varroa control. In addition, ARS and North Carolina State 

University are investigating interactions between Varroa and viruses through 

APHIS-funded projects. 

Question 2a. Two summits on pollinator health were conducted last year on the 

impact of Varroa (February) and forage and nutrition (October). When will the findings from those summits be finalized and made public? 

Answer. The proceedings from the Varroa Mite Summit and the Forage and Nutrition Summit are completed, have been reviewed by USDA and EPA, and have been 

released in support of the Strategy developed in response to the Presidential Memorandum on Creating a Federal Strategy to Promote the Health of Honey Bees and 

Other Pollinators. 

77 

Question 2b. Reliable data on bee population is challenging to find. What work 

is USDA doing to create a reliable system for a bee census so that a baseline can 

be determined? 

Answer. USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) plans to measure 

colony loss on a quarterly basis. Survey work is anticipated to begin this spring. The 

current plans are for NASS to publish its first colony loss estimates in April 2016. Additionally for FY 2016, NASS has requested an increase of $500,000 for Pollinator Health Surveys as part of the government-wide Pollinator Health Initiative 

on Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD). These additional funds will allow NASS to collaborate with USDA and other Federal partners to create an annual survey designed with the primary purpose of providing: 

(a) Improved baseline data and annual data to determine the extent of CCD, 

(b) Quantitative information on potential causal factors. 

(c) Enable more analysis of the Colony Loss survey data; 

(d) Determine if a larger sample size is needed for the Colony Loss surveys; 

(e) Discover if and the extent to which pollination costs for any commodities 

have increased in association with CCD; and 

(f) Enable more analysis of the pollination cost data. 

NASS is committed to collaborating with USDA and the other departments on a 

unified and complementary approach to develop and support the Pollinator Health 

Initiative. This will allow NASS and its collaborators to address critical information 

needs at an accelerated pace and guide honey bee management at a national scale. 

Question 2c. EPA has encouraged State Departments of Agriculture to work with 

local stakeholders to determine the best practices for managed pollinator partnership plans. How is USDA coordinating with State Departments of Agriculture and 

providing any needed expertise or resources to help the departments develop plans? 

Answer. The USDA Office of Pest Management Policy (OPMP) staff is participating in the process with the American Association Pest Control Officials (AAPCO), 

which is the association that is spearheading the development of these plans. OPMP 

staff is also involved with individual states, and the land-grant universities in those 

states, in the development of the crop specific pollinator plans. USDA also contracted with the Pollinator Partnership in producing baseline data on adoption of 

best management practices by major cropping systems in protecting honey bees. 

That report was posted in 2014. 

Question 2d. What steps is the Department taking to ensure that findings from 

research and other pollinator-related activities are coordinated with any actions 

EPA is taking to enhance bee health? 

Answer. USDA–ARS has worked closely over the past few years with EPA to enhance our understanding of the potential role of pesticide exposure on pollinator 

health. Activities include several ARS scientists serving on an EPA Science Advisory 

Panel to examine protocol testing and potential improvements needed to test for 

sub-lethal effects. ARS scientists have worked closely with EPA to design research 

protocols that would generate data to inform EPA of potential pesticide impacts. 

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Scientific Advisory 

Panels (SAP), providing a public review of their reports, include: 

• Characterization and non-target organism data requirements for protein plant 

pesticides, Arlington, VA, 1999. 

• Bt plant pesticides risk and benefit assessments, Arlington, VA, 2000. 

• Pollinator Risk Assessment Framework, Arlington, VA, Sept. 11–14, 2012. Jenkins, R., M. Berenbaum, K. Delcos, N. Fefferman, G. Hunt, R. James, S. Klaine, 

J. McManaman, N. Ostiguy, J. Pettis, J. Pistorius, T. L. Potter, M. Sandy, A. 

Schwab, D. Schlenck, D. Tarpy. A set of scientific issues being considered by the 

United States Environmental Protection Agency regarding pollinator risk assessment framework. Advisory Panel Meeting Sept. 11–14, 2012. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. (Government Report). 

The Bee Research Laboratory in Beltsville, Maryland, has hosted two workshops 

specifically for EPA personnel to help educate individuals within EPA on pollinator 

biology. ARS continues to consult regularly with EPA on a variety of pollinator related issues, including sub-lethal pesticide effects and the need for alternative 

Varroa mite controls. ARS worked closely with EPA in 2015 to bring a new mite 

control product to market, oxalic acid, which provides a new tool to beekeepers to 

manage Varroa mites. 

Another contribution is in the area of bee and mite population modeling. Quantifying the effects of pesticides on honey bees is difficult due to the social structure 

78 

of colonies. Effects from sublethal exposure to pesticides might not be obvious or immediate. One tool that may facilitate the evaluation of pesticide effects on honey 

bees that also incorporates multiple stressors that bees encounter is a model that 

simulates the processes of a honey bee colony and the impacts on the colony following pesticide exposures. 

There are several models in the literature with varying levels of complexity and 

evaluation (e.g., validation with empirical data, analysis of model sensitivity and uncertainty); however, none of the models were considered suitable for pesticide risk 

assessments in a regulatory context by the EPA because the models did not adequately account for effects of pesticides on bees. 

When reviewing the existing honey bee colony models, EPA identified the 

BEEPOP model developed by ARS scientists in Tucson, Arizona, as one of the most 

important of the colony simulation models given that portions of other models that 

simulate in-hive dynamics are based on BEEPOP. The model allows for consideration of site-specific weather, which makes the model transferrable to different locations in the United States. Furthermore, ARS scientists updated BEEPOP to include 

the effects of Varroa mite infestation and treatments on colony growth and survival 

(VARROAPOP). ARS scientists are now working with EPA to incorporate pesticide 

exposure in the VARROAPOP model to determine the effects on colony population 

dynamics. With these modifications, VARROAPOP will be readily parameterized 

using existing biological and pesticide-specific data to determine the effects of pesticides on colony growth and survival. 

ARS scientists also contribute to EPA collaboration by presenting talks, e.g., the 

Webinar, ‘‘3,500 Species of bees: what to do with them all?’’ for the Environmental 

Protection Agency, Arlington, VA, 2011. 

ARS and other USDA, EPA, and other government agencies also participate in 

the Bee Health and Colony Collapse Disorder Steering Committee (since 2007) and 

now the Pollinator Health Task Force, initiated in response to a memorandum by 

President Obama on pollinator health (2014). 

Questions Submitted by Hon. Ted S. Yoho, a Representative in Congress from Florida 

Question 1. Secretary Vilsack, in most instances, fine schedules are made public, 

for example with traffic infractions, because the public has a right to know. 

In that same regard, the general public has a right to know how government 

agencies, like USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), calculate fines. Could you tell me why USDA or APHIS have not shared the table of 

penalty guidelines as disclosed in a March 2013 press release with the regulated 

community? As I understand it, some in the regulated community were denied the 

opportunity to see this information by FOIA and even Members of both the House 

and Senate are still waiting for a response to a letter asking for this. 

Secretary Vilsack, transparency in government is an important facet of democracy 

and a pillar of principle with the current Administration. I and several other Members requested to see information regarding a table of penalty guidelines that USDA 

and APHIS use to enforce the Animal Welfare Act. Could you tell me, so I may 

share with my colleagues, the status of our request to see the table and when could 

we expect a response? 

Answer. I appreciate your interest in this issue and am happy to provide you with 

additional information on this issue. As outlined in my June 9, 2014, response to 

your and several other Members’ letter on this issue, APHIS takes into account four 

factors outlined by the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) for assessing penalties: (1) the 

size of the business; (2) the gravity of the violation(s); (3) whether or not the regulated entity has shown good faith; and (4) the history of previous violations. APHIS 

staff would be happy to brief you or your staff on the factors we take into consideration in determining penalties under the AWA. 

While I understand the interest in reviewing the AWA penalty guidelines themselves, USDA has not provided the guidelines in their entirety to the regulated community or others because the guidelines contain agency procedures and techniques 

for enforcing the AWA and assessing penalties for violations of the AWA. Moreover, 

release of these guidelines could lead to circumvention of the AWA. For example, 

the penalty guidelines contain additional information considered policy and guidance that would allow licensees to calculate the cost of doing business with certain 

AWA violations and to circumvent the penalty assessment. Additionally, subjects of 

enforcement actions may try to use them as a basis for arguing for reduced penalties in their own cases. If you are interested in receiving a copy of the version of 

the redacted guidelines we have released previously, I am happy to provide it to 

you. In addition, I am sharing below a simplified version of the AWA penalty workVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:50 Jun 16, 2015 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\114-01\93959.TXT BRIAN
79 

sheet that has been released publicly by the USDA Office of Inspector General and 

provides a general overview of how penalties are currently calculated. 

Table 1 Simplified Penalty Worksheet 

AWA Maximum Penalty for One Violation $10,000 

Factors to Consider Range of Reduction Scenario 

Size of Business 1 0 to 50% ($5,000) 

Prior History 0 to 30% ($3,000) 

Gravity 0 to 17% ($1,700) 

Penalty Subtotal $300 

Good Faith 0 or 25% of Penalty Subtotal ($75) 

OGC Amount 2 $225 

Settlement 0 or 75% of OGC Amount 3 ($169) 

Initial Stipulation $56 

Discretionary Up to Ò30% of Initial Stipulation ($17) 

Final Stipulation4 $39 

Highest Reduction Possible 5 99.6% 

1This reduction is up to 50 percent for dealers. For all others, the reduction is up to 43 percent. 

2The OGC amount may also be affected by the use of the discretionary reduction. 

3The actual effect of this reduction in most of the cases we reviewed was significantly higher than all other 

reductions on the worksheet. 4This hypothetical example is for one violation only; stipulations usually include fines for multiple violations, 

which would increase the stipulation accordingly. 5This is the highest reduction possible; the highest reduction in the cases we reviewed was 97 percent. 

I would like to note, however, that the USDA Office of Inspector General published an audit in December 2014 that focused on APHIS’ oversight of research facilities. OIG raised concerns with respect to two examples of reduced penalties that 

APHIS had calculated; therefore, the Agency is reviewing the penalty guidelines and 

worksheets to determine whether APHIS should adjust the reductions offered when 

determining penalties under the AWA. 

Questions Submitted by Hon. James P. McGovern, a Representative in Congress from 

Massachusetts 

Question 1. I have heard from farmers in my district with questions about H.R. 

609, the Safe Food Act of 2015, which would establish a single Federal food safety 

agency. What are your thoughts on this legislation? How might it impact animal 

and meat inspections by USDA and USDA food safety programs such as GAP and 

harmonized GAP? 

Answer. While USDA has not fully evaluated the Safe Food Act, proposals such 

as H.R. 609 are part of a larger conversation on improving public health. 

The Administration’s FY 16 budget included a proposal for a single food safety 

agency. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) estimates that 48 million Americans 

are affected by foodborne illness each year. 128,000 of these individuals become hospitalized and 3,000 die. It is clear that the food safety system could benefit from 

increased coordination beyond the extensive efforts that already exist. Nothing 

about the way FSIS conducts its work changes as a result of the President’s proposal. This is an initial step in what, if it goes forward, will be a long process. Constant line inspection is the cornerstone of FSIS’ work and the President’s budget requests $1.012 billion dollars in operational funds for FSIS to continue this year 

within USDA. FSIS employees will continue their important work of ensuring the 

safety of America’s supply of meat, poultry and processed egg products. 

Question 2. I have also heard from several farmers about the issue of soil health. 

I understand that NRCS has a main focus on soil health and works with growers 

nationally on the importance of soil health for successful crop production and environmental stewardship. What role, if any, does EPA have in soil health? Does USDA 

have a plan to work cooperatively with EPA on soil health? 

Answer. USDA–NRCS has a major emphasis on Soil Health and works with many 

partners to promote soil health systems and practices. Fully functioning, healthy 

soils absorb and retain more water, cycle nutrients better, are easier to manage, and 

suppress pests and pathogens more effectively. Healthy soils are more resilient to 

drought as they store more water that plants can access. With lower runoff and eroVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:50 Jun 16, 2015 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\114-01\93959.TXT BRIAN
80 

sion during heavy rainfall, the risk of flooding of downstream communities and 

water pollution is reduced, and food production can be maintained even with extreme weather events. Additionally, soil health management practices help maintain 

biodiversity, including supporting habitat and food for agriculturally critical pollinators, among other important functions. 

USDA–NRCS has been working to expand the tools and approaches and partnerships to accelerate the adoption of soil health management systems (SHMS). In 

2014, USDA awarded $9.5 M in NRCS Conservation Innovation Grants to 23 partners in 24 states to evaluate and increase adoption of SHMS. The new Regional 

Conservation Partnership Program awarded at least 17 projects with a soil health 

focus in FY 2015. A National Cover Crop and Soil Health Conference in 2014 conducted in partnership with the Howard G. Buffett Foundation, reached approximately 6,000 landowners on the benefits of cover crops and SHMS. USDA already 

partners with many entities to enhance soil health, and is open to expanding that 

partnership to include any agency or organization with a mission and an interest 

in adoption of soil health management systems. 

EPA’s Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Federal Advisory Committee 

(FRRCC) established in 2008, provides independent policy advice, information, and 

recommendations to the Administrator on a range of environmental issues and policies that are of importance to agriculture and rural communities. In January 2015, 

this Committee dedicated its deliberations to soil health and the environmental benefits of healthy soils. Those deliberations culminated in discussions about opportunities to advance soil health, agricultural certainty, and outreach to agriculture. So 

while soil health is not a specific mission for EPA, the agency has demonstrated interest in the potential benefits of soil health practices related to issues over which 

the agency has regulatory responsibilities, such as water or air quality. 

Question 3. The rule for the Agriculture Conservation Easement Program (ACEP) 

is pending at the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Do you 

have an estimate on when that rule will be published? Because this program was 

a consolidation of three well-known existing programs, the need for stakeholder engagement and farmer education will be significant. Can you tell us what your plan 

is to get farmers and organizations up to speed on the new program and rule 

changes so we can best utilize this program? What is the timeline for that process? 

Answer. The ACEP Interim Rule was published on February 27, 2015 and has a 

60 day public comment period that ended April 28, 2015. NRCS will be conducting 

outreach and providing educational opportunities to stakeholders through a series 

of instructional and question and answer webinars. For example, NRCS will provide 

‘ACEP–ALE 101’ and ‘ACEP–ALE Certification Process’ webinars for partners in 

April. Additionally, at the invitation of various stakeholder groups, NRCS State and 

National Headquarters staff will be participating in stakeholder meetings over the 

coming months to provide information and address questions. NRCS is also providing extensive training for Agency employees at the state level to ensure that they 

are well equipped to provide assistance to interested applicants on the new ACEP 

policy and procedures. Throughout April, NRCS will participate in a series of at 

least four live net-conferences hosted by Tribes to provide specific information and 

answer questions on the ACEP related to Tribal lands and opportunities for Tribes 

to participate in the program. 

Question 4. I understand that because the ACEP rule is currently under review 

you can’t talk about specific provisions, but I would like to take this opportunity to 

highlight the need to make this program work for farmers of all sizes—specifically 

access to this program for beginning and new farmers. As you know, the farm bill 

included specific language that talked about the viability of these easements for 

keeping land in agriculture and keeping farmers on the farm. That is especially critical to my constituents in Massachusetts. Can you talk about your strategy for beginning farmers and this program? 

Answer. During the process of developing and finalizing the interim rule, NRCS 

actively engaged the stakeholder community to outline key statutory changes. 

NRCS paid attention to the needs of beginning and new farmers in the process. For 

example, the ACEP interim rule addresses important issues such as, identifying as 

a criterion for projects of special significance whether a farm or ranch is operated 

for the purpose of increasing participation in agriculture and natural resource conservation by under-served communities, veterans, beginning farmers or ranchers, or 

farmers or ranchers with disabilities. 

NRCS has skilled professionals at the field level who work with beginning and 

new farmers as well as other historically under-served producers, to recommend 

conservation solutions to their current natural resource concerns that may be available under ACEP, and assist with establishing long-term viability of their operVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:50 Jun 16, 2015 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\114-01\93959.TXT BRIAN
81 

ations through ACEP and other NRCS programs. In addition to its dedicated county 

staff, NRCS has entered partnership agreements with Community Based Organizations, Tribal Organizations, 1890 and 1994 Land-Grant Institutions, to expand the 

agency’s reach to historically under-served farmers and ranchers. 

Question 5. I have also received questions about regional equity, which as I under- stand, is no longer based on a flat $15 million minimum, but on a percent of overall 

funding. Can you tell me what that percentage will likely translate to in available 

dollars per state this year? 

Answer. The Agricultural Act of 2014 (2014 Farm Bill) revised the calculation for regional equity from a flat amount of $15 million per state to a calculated amount 

based on 0.6 percent of the funding made available for the conservation programs 

authorized under subtitle D, (except the Conservation Reserve Program), subtitle H, 

and subtitle I of the Food Security Act of 1985. For FY 2015, the regional equity 

calculation for the covered programs is shown below: 

Program Funding Provided RE per State 

EQIP $1,347,000,000 $8,082,000 

ACEP 393,975,000 2,363,850 

RCPP 92,700,000 556,200 

CStP 1,164,151,375 6,954,908 

Total 1,950,477,000 17,956,958 

States are required to annually submit a State Resource Assessment that reports 

on the resource needs in the State and demonstrates the State’s ability to use at 

least 0.6 percent of the funds made available, as required by Section 1241(e) of the 

Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3841), as amended by section 2603 of the 2014 

Farm Bill. The State Resource Assessment is the basis, in part, for allocating available funding across the States. 

Question 6. I have also received questions about allocations between the ALE and 

WRE programs. How will USDA decide allocations between ALE and WRE this 

year? What percent of FA will go to each? What percent of TA? 

Answer. NRCS is implementing Agricultural Conservation Easement Program 

(ACEP) to respond to demand on an annual basis and is not establishing a funding 

split between the Agricultural Lands Easement (ALE) and Wetlands Reserve Easement (WRE) components of ACEP over the life of the farm bill. We anticipate that 

the funding proportion will fluctuate reflecting partner and landowner demand and 

the dynamic nature of agricultural lands. 

Funding for ACEP is less than 1⁄2 of that previously available under the repealed 

programs (Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP), the Grassland Reserve Program 

(GRP), and the Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program (FRPP)). Despite reduced funding, in FY 2014, 90,000 acres of farm and ranch lands were enrolled in 

ACEP–ALE; about 46 percent of the historic average acres under FRPP/GRP. Over 

55,000 acres of wetlands were restored and protected through new ACEP–WRE; 

about 31 percent of the historic average acres under WRP. NRCS worked diligently 

to provide an equitable allocation of acres and funds across states and will continue 

to do so in FY 2015. 

Question 7. Overall, I am pleased with the Regional Conservation Partnership 

Program in the new farm bill. Can you talk about ways we can encourage partnerships back home in our districts? What have you seen as successful projects so far 

and how can we apply lessons learned to our own states? For those projects that 

weren’t selected, will NRCS be giving us more information as to how those applications can rise to the top during the next round? 

Answer. The Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) demonstrates 

the importance of strong public-private partnerships in delivering local solutions to 

tough natural resource challenges. In the first offering of RCPP funding, over 230 

strong final proposals were submitted by partners nationwide, and of those 115 proposals were selected for funding. These final projects demonstrated strong, diverse 

partnerships; leveraged significant contributions to the project; showed innovative 

solutions to identified natural resource challenges; and an emphasis on demonstrating positive results. 

NRCS is committed to continuing outreach work to engage with interested partners to expand the reach of RCPP and further leverage the federal investments. 

NRCS provided feedback to partners who were not selected for funding in order to 

help improve future proposals the partners may wish to submit. On the RCPP 

82 

website, NRCS provided guidance about strengths and opportunities for improvements for applications submitted at the pre-proposal stage. 

NRCS plans to increase webinars and outreach meetings, both nationally and at 

the state level, once the FY 2016 RCPP Announcement of Program Funding is released in April. Further, the agency is open to and regularly meets with applicants 

that were not selected in the initial round to provide additional feedback on ways 

to strengthen or improve the application. 

Question 8. Finally, the allegations of horrific animal welfare abuse uncovered by 

The New York Times at the Agricultural Research Service’s (ARS) U.S. Meat Animal 

Research Center (USMARC) shocked the American public. During your testimony 

before the Committee on February 11th, you mentioned that some of the practices 

in the article were outdated and no longer in use. Can you expand upon your comments? What practices in the article have been phased out and what practices described in the article are still in place? 

Answer. The New York Times article alleging mistreatment of livestock at 

USMARC is of great concern to me. Therefore, I established an expert panel of veterinarians and experts in animal welfare to review ARS’s animal welfare policies, 

to assess the status of animals at USMARC, and to make recommendations to address any shortcomings they uncovered the draft report was released on March 9th 

(http://www.ree.usda.gov/ree/news/USMARC_AWHR_Panel_Report_PrePublic_ 

Hearing_030602015.pdf). 

The Department has solicited public input since release of the draft report. On 

March 18, 2015, a public teleconference was convened to present the expert panel’s 

findings. A public email address has received thousands of comments. And on April 

14, 2015, the NAREEE Advisory Board held a public teleconference to share their 

review of the expert panel report, offer their comments, and listen to public input. 

The final report will be provided to the committee upon completion. 

Questions Submitted by Hon. Ann Kirkpatrick, a Representative in Congress from 

Arizona 

Question 1. What have USDA and the USDA Office of Tribal Relations done to 

expand outreach efforts to assist Native American farmers and ranchers start and 

grow their businesses? What has USDA done to address underutilization of the 

Farm Service Agency and rural development programs within our tribal communities? How is USDA working to assist these under-served populations? 

Answer. USDA provides outreach to Native American Farmers and Ranchers at 

the federal level as well as the state level. The USDA Office of Tribal Relations in 

the Office of the Secretary (OTR) serves as a singular point of contact for Tribal 

leaders, representatives, producers, and business owners seeking to gain more information on the USDA programs that can benefit their Tribe, business, or organization. The OTR works to ensure questions are answered and to arrange meetings 

with local USDA representatives in the tribes’/farmers’/ranchers’ locale as well as 

in Washington, D.C. Through the Secretary’s StrikeForce Initiative for Rural 

Growth and Opportunity, targeted assistance addressing poverty has been the focus 

in 880 counties, parishes, Colonias, boroughs and tribal reservations across 21 

states and Puerto Rico. 

The Office of Tribal Relations administers the USDA Council for Native American 

Farming and Ranching (CNAFR), a FACA Committee established pursuant to the 

Keepseagle legal settlement. The CNAFR has made numerous recommendations to 

the Secretary that have resulted in USDA programs becoming better accessible to 

tribes and tribal citizens and other historically disadvantaged communities as well 

as small and beginning farmers and ranchers. 

The role of the CNAFR is to: 

• advise the Secretary of Agriculture on issues related to the participation of Native American farmers and ranchers in USDA programs including farm loan 

programs; 

• transmit recommendations concerning any changes to USDA regulations or internal guidance or other measures that would eliminate barriers to program 

participation for Native American farmers and ranchers; 

• examine methods of maximizing the number of new farming and ranching opportunities created through USDA programs through enhanced extension and 

financial literacy services; 

• examine methods of encouraging intergovernmental cooperation to mitigate the 

effects of land tenure and probate issues on the delivery of USDA programs; 

• evaluate other methods of creating new farming or ranching opportunities for 

Native American producers; and 

83 

• address other related issues as deemed appropriate. 

In FY 2013, USDA’s Farm Service Agency (FSA) provided over $71 million in direct farm loans to 1,200 Native American-owned farming and ranching businesses. 

These funds were used to purchase land, equipment, and breed stock. The program 

assists Native American farms and ranches with their initial financing needs, providing the ability to create or enhance credit and strengthen small businesses, to 

improve rural economies. Additionally, the Agency guaranteed over $35 million in 

commercial loans made to Native American farmers and ranchers. In the last 5 

years the Agency has made or guaranteed $470 million in assistance to Native 

American farmers and ranchers. Additionally, the USDA Farm Service Agency is 

working closely with Treasury’s Community Development Financial Institutions 

(CDFI) Fund and the Native American CDFI Network to certify Native American 

owned CDFIs as eligible lenders for FSA’s Guaranteed Loan Program. This partnership of FSA and Native CDFI’s will improve access to capital for Native American 

farmers and ranchers. 

USDA made significant investments in economic development, housing and infrastructure projects to benefit Tribes in 2014. For USDA Rural Development alone, 

$290.8 million was invested to directly benefit American Indians/Alaska Natives (AI/ 

AN). 

USDA Rural Development Business Programs guaranteed four loans to AI/ANowned businesses. The loans provided $30.9 million in financing. Additionally, 18 

Rural Business Enterprise Grants (RBEG) (totaling $2.7 million) and 11 Rural Business Opportunity Grants (RBOG) (totaling $812,000) were awarded to Tribes and 

tribal entities, which will help create and save AI/AN jobs. One RBOG award will 

be used by the United South and Eastern Tribes (USET) to develop a comprehensive 

economic development plan for 26 Tribes in the southern and eastern United States, 

while the Passamaquoddy Tribe in Maine received a $99,500 RBEG grant to establish a revolving loan fund for maple syrup businesses. 

In Fiscal Year 2014 USDA Rural Development invested $12.7 million to help 

Tribes finance essential community facilities including schools and clinics. Twentynine grants ($4.1 million) were provided to 1994 Tribal Land-Grant Colleges and 

Universities through the USDA Rural Development Community Facilities Program. 

USDA loans and grants also provide much needed financing for AI/AN families 

to purchase and repair single-family homes. This year, AI/AN homeowners received 

116 direct home loans ($14.8 million) and 961 Single Family Housing loan guarantees ($133.3 million). USDA also provided $1.4 million, through 229 grants and 

loans to elderly and very low income AI/AN homeowners to help make safety and 

efficiency repairs and improvements to their homes. 

Through the Housing Preservation Grant program, USDA provided funding to assist tribes improve low income and elder housing in six states (Alaska, Arizona, 

California, Nevada, Utah and Washington). For example, in California the Los 

Coyotes Band of Cahuillo and Cupeno Indians received $50,000 to rehabilitate the 

homes of 15 tribal families. The Nevada Rural Housing Authority also received 

$50,000 to weatherize homes in four counties, including homes of tribal members. 

In Washington, the Lummi Nation Housing Authority received over $54,000 to help 

24 very-low-income Tribal families rehabilitate and repair their homes. 

In 2014, USDA’s Telecommunications Programs provided 26 Distance Learning 

and Telemedicine (DLT) grants totaling $9.6 million to entities serving Tribal lands. 

Funding helps grantees purchase equipment to facilitate distance learning and telemedicine services. Navajo Technical College received a DLT grant of $447,000 and 

the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe received $336,000 to create virtual learning and telemedicine networks that will bolster educational opportunities and facilitate AI access to specialized medical care. 

USDA invested in 71 water and environmental projects benefiting Tribal communities throughout FY 2014. In total $53.3 million directly benefited AI/AN. Total development cost of these projects—including funding from additional investors—totaled $147.7 million. Nearly 57 percent of the project financing came from USDA. 

In total, 18 of these projects were in Alaska and 11were funded through the Rural 

Alaska Village Grant program. 

This year, USDA’s Electric Programs invested $17.2 million in direct loans to 

rural electric utilities. This investment brought new and improved electric infrastructure to 10,086 Native American electric consumers. USDA also provided four 

High Energy Cost Grants for Tribal projects, totaling $6.2 million. Two of these 

grants were awarded to the Anchorage-based Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, 

which serves communities in Southwest Alaska, one was provided to the Denali 

Commission and another was awarded to Sacred Power Corporation for projects 

within the Navajo Nation. 

84 

Question 2. In 2010, you visited my District at the beginning of the 4 Forest Restoration Initiative, to restore the fire adapted ecosystems and prevent deadly forest 

fires in the Ronto, Kaibab, Coconino, and Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. What 

additional resources does the U.S. Forest Service need to expeditiously complete the 

environmental impact study for 4FRI? 

Answer. The final Record of Decision on the phase one environmental impact 

study for 4FRI was signed April 17, 2015. The selected alternative includes mechanical treatment on approximately 430,000,000 acres, and just under 600,000 acres of 

prescribed burning, in addition to spring and stream channel restoration, road decommissioning, and aspen and grassland restoration. This summer, the Kaibab and 

Coconino will begin preparing timber from the EIS for harvest, and both forests expect to issue task orders and contracts under the 4FRI project beginning in late 

2016. 4FRI is now shifting from a planning focus to an implementation focus. The 

Forest Service continues to work toward full staffing for successful implementation 

of the EIS. 

SUBMITTED LETTER BY HON. MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM NEW MEXICO; ON BEHALF OF DAVID SANCHEZ, VICE PRESIDENT, 

NORTHERN NEW MEXICO STOCKMAN’S ASSOCIATION

February 9, 2015 

Hon. MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, 

House Committee on Agriculture, 

Washington, D.C. 

Subject: February 11, 2015 Agriculture Hearing Rural Economy 

Honorable Representative Lujan Grisham, 

Greetings, the purpose of this letter is to identify and communicate Rural Economic issues and concerns for the upcoming Agriculture House Committee [hearing] 

on the Rural Economy. Northern New Mexico Stockman’s Association represents 

twenty thousand farmers and ranchers in northern New Mexico and southern Colorado. These farmers and ranchers are examples of the economic engines of rural 

America. Their origins in agriculture are the longest standing in record for the history of American Agriculture. The information in this letter and the attached documents are being submitted for the upcoming subject hearing on Rural Economy. The 

most important issue we can raise for the hearing that impacts the rural economy 

of our state is the availability of land and natural resources which directly sustain 

agriculture families economically and also socially. 

Important fact’s to reference with regard to ‘‘agriculture land mass’’ is the percentages of private property vs. Federal lands in the rural counties. We would like 

to make example of just one county in our state ‘‘Rio Arriba’’ in this economic scenario, only 22 percent of the land mass is private property and the majority of the 

land is being controlled by Federal agencies such as the U.S. Forest Service under 

the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). The huge agriculture dependency on Federal lands is at the heart of the economic and social issues for the people 

of New Mexico. The Social and Economic sustainability of our people is directly tied 

to land and access of natural renewable resources. Historic Grass Root Industries 

such as ranching and farming have sustained the Hispanic and Native American 

populations since the late fifteen hundreds (Livestock Grazing). 

We would like to identify a critical economic dilemma for the Committee hearing: 

Grass Root industries such as farming and ranching are diminishing at an alarming 

rate in northern New Mexico. The income losses from these industries make it impossible for these families to remain economic or socially viable. Our county governments and school districts are also suffering from the lack of economic activity and 

the diminishing Payment In lieu of Taxes revenue from the Federal Government. 

The Forest Service Agency is a major contributor to this economic dilemma and has 

stifled the ability of the two minority groups in this region ‘‘Hispanic and Native 

Americans’’ agriculture families to remain economically and socially sustainable. At 

this point in our correspondence we would like to identify and submit as evidence 

for the subject hearing the: Economic, Social, and Cultural Aspects of Livestock Ranching on the Espan ̃ ola and Canjilon Ranger Districts of the Santa 

Fe and Carson National Forests: A Pilot Study, by USDA Forest Service, 

General Technical Report RMRS–GTR–113, September 2003, authors Carol 

Raish, Alice M. McSweeney. Report attached. 

This Pilot Study examines current and historic economic, social, and cultural aspects of livestock operations owned by ranchers dependent on Federal lands U.S. 

85 

Forest Service Federal grazing permits. The study focuses on both the economic and 

non-economic contributions of livestock ownership to local families and communities. 

The Pilot Study also identifies harsh economic actions by the U.S. Forest Service 

agency against minority ranching families in the reduction of Federal Grazing Permits as depicted on page 5, under the ‘‘American Period’’, right column, paragraphs 

7 and 8, Example: ‘‘On the Carson and Santa Fe National Forests there were 2,200 

individuals holding permits in 1940, which by 1970 had been reduced to fewer than 

1,000 (de Buys 1985)’’. ‘‘One community had herd reductions of 60 percent, while the 

ranchers of another lost permits for 1,000 cattle in a period of a few years (de Buys 

1985’’). Also identified in the Pilot Study on page 6 is the 1968 Hassell Report this 

report also identifies economic conditions in the rural economy: ‘‘Problems remain 

in the area, and many of the situations discussed in the Hassell Report 

(1968) have not improved. Severe poverty, disappearance of traditional life 

ways.’’ The Pilot Study reports on economic conditions on Page 5, 6 and provides 

shocking information on the negative impacts the U.S. Forest Service has had on 

the two minority classes of people in northern New Mexico ‘‘economically and socially’’. 

The second USDA report we would like to bring to the attention of the Committee 

for the Hearing is the recent Forest Service Compliance Review Report Civil Rights 

Program Review (copy attached), which was released in June 2013 by the United 

States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Office of Civil Rights, through the Office 

of Compliance, Policy, Training, and Cultural Transformation (OCPTCT). The report 

determined that the U.S. Forest Service were non-compliant with several civil rights 

requirements and that there had been inconsistent implementation of USDA/Forest 

Service regulations toward minority ranchers Hispanic and Native Americans. The 

report identifies several program areas of noncompliance which includes at page 5, 

the process used in ‘‘Terminating or suspending grazing permits.’’ This report 

much like the Pilot Study referenced above identify the negative actions by the U.S. 

Forest Service Agency against the same ‘‘minority groups’’ of people that has caused 

great economic determent. 

In closing, the economic state of the rural counties in the State of New Mexico 

is below the national poverty levels. The rural agriculture community has a very 

clear and complete dependency in the USDA Forest Service Federal Lands and 

USDA programs. The reports provided give a narrative of the current and historic 

economic and social issues with regard to USDA’s role in the economic and social 

well being of northern New Mexico Families. We need a vigorous effort by our Representatives in Congress to return the Federal lands as an economic productive engine revitalizing the economy of rural New Mexico. Utilizing natural and renewable 

natural resources is healthy for the entire ecosystem. Northern New Mexico Stockman’s Association has communicated the Forest Service agency issues, and the current economic social state to Secretary Vilsack. We feel at this time it is justified 

to ask for a ‘‘Congressional Hearing’’ for northern New Mexico families on the many 

Forest Service Grazing issues, and the economic status of northern New Mexico. 

Secretary Vilsack has ignored the formal cries for help from a destitute people. 

Sincerely, 

DAVID SANCHEZ, 

Vice President, NNMSA. 

CC: 

Congressman BEN RAY LUJA ́ N; 

CARLOS SALAZAR, NNMSA President; 

TED TRUJILLO, Attorney; 

ALMA ACOSTA, U.S. Congressional Staff; 

RUDY ARREDONDO, NLFRTA; 

JAMIE CHAVEZ, Rural Coalition/Coalicio`n Rural. 


11401127.eps
86 

ATTACHMENT 1


11401001.eps
87 


11401002.eps
88 


11401003.eps
89 


11401004.eps
90 


11401005.eps
91 


11401006.eps
92 


11401007.eps
93 


11401008.eps
94 


11401009.eps
95 


11401010.eps
96 


11401011.eps
97 


11401013.eps
98 


11401014.eps
99 


11401015.eps
100 


11401016.eps
101 


11401017.eps
102 


11401018.eps
103 


11401019.eps
104 


11401020.eps
105 


11401021.eps
106 


11401022.eps
107 


11401023.eps
108 


11401024.eps
109 


11401025.eps
110 


11401026.eps
111 


11401027.eps
112 


11401028.eps
113 


11401029.eps
114 


11401030.eps
115 


11401031.eps
116 


11401032.eps
117 


11401033.eps
118 


11401034.eps
119 


11401035.eps
120 


11401036.eps
121 


11401037.eps
122 


11401038.eps
123 


11401039.eps
124 


11401040.eps
125 


11401041.eps
126 


11401042.eps
127 


11401043.eps
128 


11401044.eps
129 


11401045.eps
130 


11401046.eps
131 


11401047.eps
132 


11401048.eps
133 


11401049.eps
134 


11401050.eps
135 


11401051.eps
136 


11401052.eps
137 


11401053.eps
138 


11401054.eps
139 


11401055.eps
140 


11401056.eps
141 


11401057.eps
142 


11401058.eps
143 


11401059.eps
144 


11401060.eps
145 


11401061.eps
146 


11401062.eps
147 


11401063.eps
148 


11401064.eps
149 


11401065.eps
150 


11401066.eps
151 


11401067.eps
152 


11401068.eps
153 


11401069.eps
154 


11401070.eps
155 


11401071.eps
156 


11401072.eps
157 


11401073.eps
158 


11401074.eps
159 


11401075.eps
160 


11401076.eps
161 


11401077.eps
162 


11401078.eps
163 


11401079.eps
164 


11401080.eps
165 


11401081.eps
166 


11401082.eps
167 


11401083.eps
168 


11401084.eps
169 


11401085.eps
170 


11401086.eps
171 


11401087.eps
172 


11401088.eps
173 


11401097.eps
174 


11401090.eps
175 


11401091.eps
176 


11401092.eps
177 


11401093.eps
178 


11401094.eps
179 


11401095.eps
180 


11401096.eps
181 

ATTACHMENT 2


11401098.eps
182 


11401099.eps
183 


11401100.eps
184 


11401101.eps
185 


11401102.eps
186 


11401103.eps
187 


11401104.eps
188 


11401105.eps
189 


11401106.eps
190 


11401107.eps
191 


11401108.eps
192 


11401109.eps
193 


11401110.eps
194 


11401111.eps
195 


11401112.eps
196 


11401113.eps
197 


11401114.eps
198 


11401115.eps
199 


11401116.eps
200 


11401117.eps
201 


11401118.eps
202 


11401119.eps
203 


11401120.eps
204 


11401121.eps
205 


11401122.eps
206 


11401123.eps
207 


11401124.eps
208 


11401125.eps
209 

Æ 


11401126.eps