U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

87–513 PDF 2014

HEARING TO REVIEW THE STATE OF THE 

RURAL ECONOMY

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

APRIL 3, 2014

Serial No. 113–11

(

Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture 

agriculture.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma, Chairman 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, 

Vice Chairman 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas 

GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia 

SCOTT R. TIPTON, Colorado 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York 

VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

KRISTI L. NOEM, South Dakota 

DAN BENISHEK, Michigan 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

STEPHEN LEE FINCHER, Tennessee 

DOUG LAMALFA, California 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

VANCE M. MCALLISTER, Louisiana 

COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota, Ranking 

Minority Member 

MIKE MCINTYRE, North Carolina 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

JIM COSTA, California 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio 

JAMES P. MCGOVERN, Massachusetts 

SUZAN K. DELBENE, Washington 

GLORIA NEGRETE MCLEOD, California 

FILEMON VELA, Texas 

MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico 

ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

PETE P. GALLEGO, Texas 

WILLIAM L. ENYART, Illinois 

JUAN VARGAS, California 

CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

NICOLE SCOTT, Staff Director 

KEVIN J. KRAMP, Chief Counsel 

TAMARA HINTON, Communications Director 

ROBERT L. LAREW, Minority Staff Director 

(II) 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Costa, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from California, submitted 

letter ...................................................................................................................... 61

Lucas, Hon. Frank D., a Representative in Congress from Oklahoma, opening 

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

McGovern, Hon. James P., a Representative in Congress from Massachusetts, 

submitted memo ................................................................................................... 61

Peterson, Hon. Collin C., a Representative in Congress from Minnesota, opening statement ........................................................................................................ 9

Prepared statement ..........................................................................................

WITNESS

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

Washington, D.C. ................................................................................................. 1

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 3

Supplementary material .................................................................................. 63

Submitted questions ......................................................................................... 66

(1)

HEARING TO REVIEW THE STATE OF THE 

RURAL ECONOMY 

THURSDAY, APRIL 3, 2014

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

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:31 a.m., in Room 1300 

of the Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Frank D. Lucas 

[Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Lucas, Goodlatte, King, 

Neugebauer, Conaway, Thompson, Gibbs, Austin Scott of Georgia, 

Tipton, Crawford, DesJarlais, Gibson, Hartzler, Noem, Benishek, 

Fincher, LaMalfa, Hudson, Davis, Collins, Yoho, McAllister, Peterson, McIntyre, David Scott of Georgia, Costa, Walz, Schrader, 

Fudge, McGovern, DelBene, Negrete McLeod, Vela, Lujan Grisham, 

Nolan, Enyart, Vargas, Maloney, and Courtney. 

Staff present: Bart Fischer, Brandon Lipps, Debbie Smith, John 

Goldberg, Josh Mathis, Matt Schertz, Nicole Scott, Pelham 

Straughn, Skylar Sowder, Tamara Hinton, Anne Simmons, Keith 

Jones, Lisa Shelton, Liz Friedlander, Mary Knigge, Robert L. 

Larew, Merrick Munday, and Riley Pagett. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK D. LUCAS, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM OKLAHOMA 

The CHAIRMAN. This hearing of the Committee on Agriculture to 

review the state of the rural economy will come to order. By a gentlemen’s agreement, the Ranking Member and I are foregoing opening statements in the spirit of allowing as much time for the Secretary—who has a schedule conflict later this morning. I would also 

note that we would request that other Members submit their opening statements for the record so the witness may begin his testimony, and ensure there is ample time for questions. 

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

Honorable Tom Vilsack, Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Washington, D.C. Secretary Vilsack, please begin when you are 

ready, sir. 

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

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

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

the Members of the Committee, thank you for this opportunity to 

appear before you this morning. I will just take a few minutes to 

briefly review where we are relative to farm income and the rural 

2

economy, and then I know that there are—an opportunity for a 

number of questions on issues of concern to all of you. 

Last year we experienced a record farm income, and this year we 

are expecting and anticipated farm income will be above average, 

roughly $8 billion above the 10 year average. This is in part a result of record exports. We had a record year last year in agricultural exports. The first quarter of this year actually has surpassed 

the first quarter of last year by roughly eight percent, so we expect 

and anticipate again strong exports, records in beef, poultry, and 

pork, as well as a 40 percent increase in volume in some of the 

bulk commodities that are now being traded. 

A record enrollment in conservation activities, nearly 500,000 

producers are benefitting from the conservation programs established by Congress, and a record expansion of local and regional 

markets gives opportunities for small and mid-sized operators to 

succeed. Debt to asset ratios, and debt to equity ratios, are the lowest they have been since 1954. There are concerns, obviously, and 

I am sure we will address many of them, but some of these concerns that we are focused on at USDA is the lack of predictability 

in workforce, and the need for comprehensive immigration reform, 

the impact of weather, specifically drought in the Western part of 

the United States, and, based on the recent Agricultural Census, 

a continued concern about the declining middle-sized farms within 

agriculture, and the aging nature of farmers. 

The rural economy, despite agriculture’s record income, still continues to have its challenges with persistent poverty, with stagnant 

job growth, and with population loss for the first time in quite 

some time. I think the farm bill that you all worked so extensively 

on, and we thank you for the work in getting it passed, provides 

real hope for a brighter and better future in rural America. It not 

only provides a strong safety net for our producers, it also expands 

market opportunities both domestically and foreign. There will be 

creative use of our conservation programs that will open up new income opportunities for our producers, and it lays the cornerstones 

for a new natural resource economy, with production agriculture 

and exports, local and regional food system expansion, conservation 

and its opportunity to expand outdoor recreation and ecosystem 

market opportunities, and a new opportunity to bring manufacturing back to rural America through the bio-based product manufacturing sections of the farm bill, that will expand beyond fuel and 

energy to now include chemicals, polymers, and other fabrics. 

We are committed at USDA to a timely and transparent implementation of the farm bill that you passed. At your desks I believe 

there is a report that we issued today, indicating the steps that 

have already been taken, in terms of implementation. We are significantly ahead of where we were in implementing the 2008 Farm 

Bill. I would say we are absolutely on track to have the Livestock 

Disaster Assistance programs up and going, so producers can apply 

on April 15, and hopefully will receive resources shortly thereafter. 

Our focus in the spring and summer will be on getting the educational materials out about the new safety net programs, ensuring 

that we work diligently on the establishment of the regional conservation partnership effort outlined in the farm bill, and also establishing the Agricultural Foundation, which offers great hope 

3

and opportunity for us to leverage existing agricultural research 

dollars. 

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the questions from the Committee, and again, appreciate the opportunity to be here, as well as, 

again, appreciate the good work of this Committee in getting the 

farm bill passed. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Vilsack follows:]

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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am pleased to have this opportunity to discuss the state of the rural economy. The U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA), under President Obama’s leadership, has helped to build a strong foundation for future economic growth in rural America. The potential in rural America 

is almost limitless. Expanded opportunities in the bio-economy and renewable energy, rural manufacturing, and emerging markets for agricultural products are providing new revenue opportunities for farmers, ranchers and foresters, expanding the 

potential for job creation in rural small businesses, and spurring economic growth 

across the country. 

The 2012 Census of Agriculture data, released in February, provide an important 

backdrop for this discussion. While the results reiterate what we have known for 

many years—that the farming population is aging—they also show growth in key 

areas. The number of young farmers has increased slightly. The number of minority 

farm and ranch principal operators increased dramatically, reflecting the changing 

face of America as a whole. The Census data also show that the number of small 

and very large farms held steady, but the middle—farms and ranches that are middle-sized and mid-income—has suffered in recent years. 

We can and we must do more to support those living and working in rural America now, including a focus on assisting the middle-sized farms, while creating the 

kind of jobs and opportunity that encourage young people to get into the business 

of farming, and attracting and retaining the next generation talent in rural America. 

Working with community and local government partners, our efforts have had a 

significant impact thus far. We have invested billions in critical infrastructure, essential nutrition assistance, and land and water conservation. For hardworking 

rural families who need additional help putting healthy food on the table, USDA’s 

nutrition assistance programs are available as they return to work and rebuild in 

the wake of tough times. The unemployment rate in rural America fell to 6.8 percent for the 4th quarter of 2013—down from 9.0 percent during the same period in 

2009. Moving forward, we must step up our efforts to invest in areas with high potential for growth, including expanding marketing opportunities for farm and ranch 

products both at home and abroad; investing in the emerging bio-economy; advancing conservation efforts that preserve land and water resources; and supporting critical research that will prepare our farmers and ranchers to address modern challenges. 

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Committee for your hard work 

in crafting the newly-signed 2014 Farm Bill. The new farm bill provides certainty 

that has been lacking for several years and allows USDA to now move forward confidently with the tools and resources we need to accomplish our mission of serving 

America’s farmers, ranchers and rural communities. 

Supporting Production Agriculture 

Farmers, ranchers and those working in supporting industries maintain an agriculture sector that has seen strong growth over the past 5 years. Agriculture accounts for about $746 billion in economic activity, supports one out of every twelve 

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

They are expanding into new markets around the world, spurring innovation, and 

creating jobs and opportunity on and off the farm, even in the face of uncertainty. 

The future of rural America depends on their continued leadership, and we must 

make sure they have the tools they need to continue to grow, and a strong safety 

net to support them during tough times. In the roughly 8 weeks since the farm bill 

was signed into law, USDA is working diligently to implement the programs to ensure the effectiveness of the farm safety net going forward. 

In the face of recent historic drought throughout the United States, USDA has 

provided assistance to farmers, ranchers and rural communities, including conservation assistance, and grants to help rural communities improve access to fresh drinkVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:40 Jun 27, 2014 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 I:\DOCS\113-11\87513.TXT BRIAN
4

1Figure reflects domestic exports and does not include re-exports. 

ing water. The new farm bill also reauthorizes disaster assistance programs that 

have not been operational since 2011, allowing USDA to provide additional, muchneeded relief to struggling farmers and ranchers. At the direction of the President, 

USDA has made the disaster programs our number one priority and expedited their 

implementation. Sign-up will begin on April 15, 2014. 

Helping Farmers and Ranchers Access New Markets 

USDA is supporting America’s farmers and ranchers as they build on record agricultural exports. In Calendar Year 2013, exports of U.S. food and agricultural prod- ucts reached a record $144.1 billion 1 and supported nearly one million American 

jobs. We are on track for another exceptional export year in FY 2014, with shipments of farm and food products forecasted to reach $142.6 billion. 

USDA has helped secure new agreements with Panama, Colombia and South 

Korea. These agreements will generate new markets for U.S. farmers and ranchers 

to the tune of more than $2 billion per year in additional exports. USDA has also 

removed numerous barriers to trade. For example, since 2012, USDA, in partnership with the U.S. Trade Representative, has removed unwarranted restrictions to 

help farmers provide more U.S. apples to South Africa, beef to Japan, organic 

produce to the European Union, and more. For example, over the past year, USDA, 

working closely with the U.S. potato industry, expanded market access for U.S. potatoes in the Philippines, Taiwan and Korea. As a result of the removal of trade 

barriers, potato exports to these three markets rose 13 percent from the previous 

year, reaching nearly $21 million. 

The potential for agricultural exports is considerable, yet only a small percentage 

of American companies export, and, of those that export, 58% export to only one 

market. Recognizing the tremendous potential of U.S. exporters to reach additional 

markets, in February the Administration’s White House Rural Council launched the 

Made in Rural America export and investment initiative, which brings together Federal resources to help rural businesses access new customers and markets abroad. 

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

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

For example, through the Market Access Program we will be able to provide trade 

promotion and marketing funding to over 600 small companies annually. 

At the same time, USDA is helping create strong local and regional supply chains 

and the rural jobs that come with them. In 2008, USDA estimates valued local food 

sales at $5 billion nationally—a figure that industry estimates grew to approximately $7 billion in just 3 years. Our research shows that money spent on local food 

often continues to circulate locally, creating demand for other businesses and services in rural communities. USDA’s investments in local and regional supply chains 

help producers break into new markets and meet consumer demand in under-served 

communities. As such, this strategy is a critical piece of USDA’s work to support 

rural economies more generally. 

USDA has invested in local food infrastructure—from cold storage facilities, to 

processing plants, to farmers markets, to food hubs that aggregate products from 

many farms and help smaller producers reach larger buyers. There are over 230 

food hubs in operation nationwide today, and more than 8,100 farmers markets registered with the AMS National Farmers Market Directory. The 2014 Farm Bill 

builds on this progress by expanding funding eligibility through the Farmers Market and Local Food Promotion Program to include both direct-to-consumer opportunities like farmers markets, and supply chain projects like food hubs, which will 

allow USDA to invest up to $30 million annually in local and regional food systems. 

Schools, hospitals, retailers and other institutional and wholesale buyers are a 

rapidly expanding market opportunity for local producers and an investment into 

local economies, and USDA has helped to connect farmers and ranchers to local buyers. For example, USDA’s Farm to School efforts are working directly with producers and schools to supply nearly $355 million in local food, reaching over 30 million students in school cafeterias and investing in the health of America’s next generation. 

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

to become competitive. 

Accordingly, USDA has expanded efforts to connect small- and mid-sized farmers 

and ranchers with tools and resources to help them access capital, get information 

about land management and conservation practices, manage risk, find local markets, and other educational resources that will help them grow their operations and 

expand into new markets. For example, the hoop house cost-share program, which 

5

began as a pilot in 2010 through the NRCS Environmental Quality Incentives Program, provides revenue opportunities by extending the growing season for high 

value crops, while also promoting conservation for small and mid-sized farmers. 

Since 2010, more than 10,000 hoop houses have been constructed, with projects in 

all 50 states. 

Since its launch in January 2013, the Microloan Program has issued more than 

6,000 microloans totaling $116 million to beginning, small and mid-sized producers 

across the country. Housed within the FSA Direct Operating Loan program, the program allows farmers and ranchers to access of up to $50,000 to help launch startup 

farm businesses, provide needed resources, and increase equity so farmers can graduate to commercial credit and expand their operations. This tool is especially helpful 

for new farmers, including veterans and women, and socially-disadvantaged farmers, such as those operating in Strike Force regions, as they tend to be under-capitalized and smaller. 

Investing in Critical Research and Innovative Technology 

Amazing scientific breakthroughs have helped our farmers, ranchers and growers 

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

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

economy. 

USDA continues to work with our Land-Grant University partners to deliver 

science-based knowledge and practical information to farmers, ranchers and forest 

landowners to support decision-making, innovation and economic opportunity in 

rural America. In the past 5 years alone, research by USDA scientists has led to 

nearly 400 patent applications covering a wide range of topics and discoveries. 

USDA also continues to aggressively partner with private companies, universities 

and others to transfer technology to the marketplace to benefit consumers and 

stakeholders. In 2013, for example, USDA entered into 1,924 cooperative research 

agreements, issued 23 licenses on patented technology, filed 134 patents, and received 46 patents on a variety of innovations to boost American agricultural productivity. 

Looking ahead, we know that farmers, ranchers and foresters will be on the front 

lines when it comes to dealing with the impacts of a changing and shifting climate. 

That’s why USDA has established a set of seven regional Climate Hubs and three 

subsidiary hubs. These hubs will help producers to get the latest information to help 

them mitigate the risks of climate change. The regional model ensures that the facts 

they’re getting are geared toward what’s happening in their part of the country. 

Each hub will serve as a repository for information on risks associated with climate 

change and deliver science-based, practical options for dealing with these challenges 

to farmers, ranchers, forest landowners and other stakeholders. 

USDA is also helping farmers and ranchers to use what is already grown and 

raised on our farms and ranches in innovative and unexpected ways. New opportunities in advanced bio-based products and renewable energy expand the potential to 

strengthen rural manufacturing, particularly of products made from renewable materials from our farms and forests. Rural America desperately needs those jobs, and 

every American benefits from our expanded competitiveness in this globally emerging market. 

For example, USDA is helping to create markets for advanced biofuels from nonfood, non-feed sources—from the farm field to the end user. In 2010, USDA established a program to incentivize hundreds of growers and landowners farming nearly 

60,000 acres of advanced biofuel feedstocks for energy conversion facilities. To ensure those feedstocks are put to use, USDA has invested in the work needed to create advanced biofuels refineries. Since 2009, USDA has invested in efforts to create 

nine new advanced refineries nationwide. We have also created six regional research 

centers across America to develop advanced bio-based energy technology that’s appropriate to every region. With the nearly $900 million in mandatory money provided in the Energy Title of the farm bill, we can continue these efforts to expand 

the bio-based economy and support economic development opportunities in rural 

America. 

USDA scientists are also conducting research on the use of wood, helping companies meet green building design standards and creating jobs using forest products. 

Forest Service research into wood-based nanotechnology is leading the way to plantbased construction materials, body armor, and more. Earlier this month, USDA also 

announced a new $1 million partnership a nonprofit organization to educate architects, engineers and builders about the benefits of advanced wood building materials. We also have plans for a new prize competition to design and build high-rise 

wood demonstration projects, which we believe will help spur increased sustainVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:40 Jun 27, 2014 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 I:\DOCS\113-11\87513.TXT BRIAN
6

ability in construction and encourage builders to source materials from rural domestic manufacturers and domestic, sustainably-managed forests. 

Expanding Opportunity in Rural America 

USDA has made strategic investments in infrastructure, housing and community 

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

helped more than 800,000 families buy, repair or refinance a home; extended new 

or improved broadband service for more than seven million Americans and 364,000 

rural businesses; improved or constructed more than 90,000 miles of electric line; 

invested in 6,700 water and wastewater projects for nearly 20 million Americans; 

and provided grants and loans to assist nearly 75,000 small and mid-sized businesses in rural America, creating or saving an estimated 377,000 jobs. New tools 

provided in the 2014 Farm Bill will allow USDA to build on its investments in the 

prosperity of rural communities. 

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

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

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

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

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

child development and educational attainment. The Administration believes that we 

must do more to create better futures for our children and families and those striving to reach the middle class. 

That is one reason USDA has established the StrikeForce initiative. StrikeForce 

represents a broad commitment to grow economies, increase investments and create 

opportunities in poverty-stricken rural communities through intensive outreach and 

stronger partnerships with community organizations. From increasing access to 

healthy, affordable food; to closing farm loans; to building housing, libraries, hospitals and clinics; to expanding the productivity of our farmers and ranchers, 

through StrikeForce, USDA is working in close partnership with communities to 

provide technical assistance and a hands-on approach to ensure that knowledge of 

USDA programs and assistance is accessible to anyone, regardless of education attainment, place of residence or local capacity. 

In 2010, USDA started StrikeForce as a pilot in persistent poverty counties in 

rural Arkansas, Georgia and Mississippi. As we saw this community partnership 

strategy working, we expanded our efforts. Now, through StrikeForce, USDA has 

partnered with more than 400 community organizations, businesses, foundations, 

universities and other groups across 770 rural counties, parishes, boroughs, Tribal 

reservations and Colonias in twenty states. Through these partnerships, USDA has 

supported 80,300 projects and ushered more than $9.7 billion in investments into 

poverty-stricken rural areas. 

Conclusion 

In closing, I want to reiterate the importance of the passage of the new farm bill. 

The tools and resources provided by the farm bill will help USDA to carry out its 

mission, but there is more to be done to ensure the long-term viability of America’s 

farms and ranches. It is critical that Congress move on immigration reform to maintain a stable, productive agricultural workforce. Agriculture needs the surety of a 

stable and adequate workforce, and that is possible only through a comprehensive 

set of rules that enact a pathway to citizenship for many of the workers who help 

to drive the productivity of our farms and ranches. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for this opportunity to 

speak briefly about the state of the economy in rural America. I believe that rural 

America—and those who live, work and raise their families there—continues to remain strong. Thanks to their resilience and willingness to adapt and innovate, our 

farmers, ranchers and rural communities are prepared to take on the challenges 

that the coming years will bring and keep the rural economy moving forward. 

ATTACHMENT

Progress on 2014 Farm Bill Implementation 

Title I—Commodity Programs 

• Supplemental Agriculture Disaster Assistance: USDA will publish a final 

rule to implement the disaster assistance provisions and begin sign-up by April 

15, 2014.

• County and Regional Loan Rates: USDA issued a press release on March 

28, 2014 announcing county and regional loan rates.

7

• Extension of Programs: On March 28, 2014 FSA published on the Federal 

Register notices for the extension of the following programs: (1) Marketing Assistance Loans; (2) Milk Income Loss Contract; (3) Dairy Indemnity Payment 

Program; (4) Non-Insured Crop Disaster Assistance Program; and (5) Sugar.

• Dairy Forward Pricing Program: Final rule published on March 21, 2014, 

that re-established the Dairy Forward Pricing Program. 

Title II—Conservation 

• Conservation Programs: Applications are currently being accepted for the 

Conservation Stewardship Program and Environmental Quality Incentives Program. 

Title III—Trade 

• Market Access Program (MAP): During the week of April 7, 2014, the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) will announce 2014 MAP funding.

• Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program (FMD): During the 

week of April 7, 2014, FAS will announce 2014 FMD funding. 

Title IV—Nutrition Programs 

• Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) Payments: On 

March 5, 2014, the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) released an Implementation Memorandum to States on the elimination of standard utility allowances 

in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) for LIHEAP payments less than $20.

• SNAP-related Provisions: On March 21, 2014, FNS released an Implementation Memorandum to States communicating major SNAP related provisions of 

the Act.

• Community Food Projects: On February 27, 2014, the National Institute of 

Food and Agriculture (NIFA) released a Notice of Funding Availability for the 

Community Food Projects Competitive Grants Program, with $5 million available.

• Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP): On March 10, 2014, 

FNS released an Implementation Memorandum to States on phasing out the 

eligibility of women, infants and children.

• Multiagency Taskforce on Commodity Programs: On March 14, 2014, the 

Under Secretary of Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services issued a memorandum to solicit names for a multi-agency task force to provide coordination 

and direction for commodity programs. 

Title V—Credit 

• Farm Loan Programs/Direct Farm Ownership: On February 7, 2014, FSA 

implemented changes in the interest rate on Direct Farm Ownership loans that 

are made in conjunction with other lenders.

• Modifications to Farm Loan Programs: On March 24, 2014, FSA issued a 

news release in announcing changes to Farm Loan Programs as part of the 

Farm Bill.

• Microloans: On March 26, 2014, FSA issued an agency directive implementing 

non-discretionary microloan provisions. 

Title VI—Rural Development 

• Value-Added Producer Grants (VAPG): On March 25, 2014, Rural Development published a notice in the Federal Register extending the application period 

for Fiscal Year 2013 and 2014 funding for VAPG, with up to $25.5 million available for these grants.

• Definition of Rural Housing: On March 13, 2014, Rural Development issued 

guidance to State Directors, field staff and stakeholders on implementing new 

eligibility requirements regarding the definition of rural housing. 

Title VII—Research and Related Matters 

• Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative: On March 17, 

2014, NIFA released a Notice of Funding Availability for the Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative, with $20 million available in FY 

2014.

• Specialty Crop Research Initiative: On March 17, 2014, NIFA released a 

Notice of Funding Availability for the Specialty Crop Research Initiative, with 

$76.8 million available in FY 2014.

8

• Citrus Disease Subcommittee: A subcommittee has been formally established 

within the National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board, under the Specialty Crop Committee, and solicitation letters 

for nominations were issued March 17, 2014.

• Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research (FFAR): Letters soliciting 

nominations to the FFAR Board were mailed to interested parties and a Federal 

Register notice was submitted for publication on March 31, 2014.

• Budget Submission and Funding: On March 10, 2014, REE submitted its 

first Budget Submission and Funding report to Congress. 

Title VIII—Forestry 

• Insect and Disease Infestation: On March 19, 2014, Forest Service Chief 

Tom Tidwell sent a letter to all state governors notifying them of the opportunity to submit requests for designating their priority insect and disease areas 

for treatment. 

Title X—Horticulture 

• Plant Pest and Disease Management and Disaster Prevention: On April 

3, 2014 USDA announced $48.1 million in funding for 383 projects to help prevent the introduction or spread of plan pests and diseases.

• National Clean Plant Network: The Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service announced a Request for Applications (RFA) on March 24, 2014 for the 

National Clean Plant Network, with $5 million available.

• Bulk Shipments of Apples to Canada: On April 3, 2014, AMS will publish 

a final rule in the Federal Register amending regulations under the Export 

Apple Act to allow bulk containers to be shipped to Canada without U.S. inspection. 

Title XI—Crop Insurance 

• Premium Amounts for Catastrophic Risk Protection (CAT): During the 

first week of April, the Risk Management Agency (RMA) will issue documents 

to revise the premium rates charged for CAT coverage to be based on the average historical ‘‘loss ratio’’ plus a reasonable reserve. 

Title XII—Miscellaneous 

• Catfish Inspection: On March 14, 2014 the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) submitted the first status report to Congress on the development of 

the final rule establishing a catfish inspection program.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. The chair would like 

to remind Members that they will be recognized for questioning in 

the order of seniority for Members who were here at the start of 

the hearing. After that, Members will be recognized in order of arrival, and I do appreciate the Members’ understanding. And, with 

that, I recognized myself for 5 minutes. 

Mr. Secretary, I would be remiss if I didn’t note how greatly I 

appreciate the heavy lift that you now have in front of you in implementing the farm bill. And we certainly felt that weight on this 

side of the room in the process of getting it to your desk. And I also 

appreciate greatly the efforts of you and your team during the farm 

bill process generally, especially in those final days of negotiations. 

And you know what I speak of, but thank you for making that happen. 

Could you take a little more time and provide more of an overall 

view of the implementation efforts as they have occurred so far, 

and how you see them working through the rest of the summer and 

the fall, and if there are difficulties that you are encountering that 

would be appropriate to share with us, so perhaps we can help address those? I would be interested in that too, Mr. Secretary. 

Secretary VILSACK. Mr. Chairman, we actually began preparing 

for the passage of the farm bill before the bill was actually passed 

and signed by the President. We established individual committees 

9

within each title of the farm bill, and asked them to identify the 

steps that would have to be taken in order to implement it fully, 

whether it would be a rural guidance policy directive, a notice in 

the Federal Register, whatever it would be. We identified roughly 

450 additional steps—significant steps would have to be taken 

within the overall farm bill. We have a convening group that has 

re-prioritized the priorities within each title to determine what 

needs to be done immediately. 

Obviously our focus was on getting the disaster assistance programs up and going. We recognize that we have an equal set of 

pressure and stress on making sure that there is educational materials prepared and given to producers so that they can begin the 

process of understanding the various elections that they have to 

make, both in crop insurance, and in the safety net programs. We 

want these producers to be prepared to make those decisions in an 

informed way sometime in the fall, late fall, early winter of this 

year, so that they are in good shape for the 2015 crop year. 

So we anticipate livestock applications on or before April 15, resources provided thereafter—shortly thereafter. Educational materials, we are in the process now of deciding how to allocate the $3 

million that you all provided to establish the educational outreach, 

and the $3 million that will create the education pools that will be 

used by folks to make decisions. We also understand the significance of what you have done in conservation, and we know there 

is great interest in these regional partnerships, so we are focused 

on making sure that we get those in order in a relatively quick 

way. We are in the process right now of making conservation programs available, Environmental Quality Incentives Program 

(EQIP), Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP). There are signup opportunities at this point in time, and we anticipate obligations 

being completed on the regular programs sometime this summer. 

In terms of the Foundation, we have a number of steps legally 

that we have to take, which we expect and anticipate taking very, 

very shortly. There will be a meeting of the ex officio Board members, the interim Board. We will, this week, have provided a notice 

to the world to submit applications and nominations for folks who 

can serve on the Board. We will vet those folks, and hopefully 

sometime late spring we will be in a position to have a full Board 

appointed. 

We expect and anticipate a lot of activity in 2014. And, at this 

point in time, we think we have what we need, but we appreciate 

the offer that if we are in need of assistance, we will certainly let 

you know. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I yield back, and turn 

to the Ranking Member, and recognize him for 5 minutes for any 

questions he may have. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. COLLIN C. PETERSON, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM MINNESOTA 

Mr. PETERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary, I appreciate you being here. And currently you guys have decided not to 

do a general sign-up in CRP in 2014, or until the fall, I guess, is 

that the decision? 

10

Secretary VILSACK. I am not sure that that decision has been 

final. As you well know, the amount of acreage available in CRP 

has been somewhat contained and restricted by Congressional action, so we are in the process of taking a look at precisely where 

we are relative to continuous sign-up, which, obviously, continues. 

What I do know about CRP is that, because of limitations, in the 

future we are going to have to be quite targeted and quite focused. 

We think we have some flexibility in the continuous programs, but 

at this point I wouldn’t say that we have finally made a decision 

relative to a general sign-up. 

Mr. PETERSON. Well, I would encourage you to take a look at it, 

because I think there is—from what I can tell, there are 11⁄2 million to 2 million acres left in there, even with the 24 million acre 

cap, so I am concerned that, given what is going on with commodity prices and so forth, I think things are going to change. I 

mean, we have been having people tear up their CRP because of 

the high rents and so forth, but I think that may change. The continuous sign-up is not going to solve all the problems that I am interested in. We need big track CRP to maintain these wildlife populations. That is what has brought back pheasants, and deer, and 

some of this other stuff. And so the continuous by itself isn’t going 

to get it, in terms of wildlife, in my opinion. 

Secretary VILSACK. I don’t disagree, and, as you know, we have 

had a number of general sign-ups since I have been Secretary. 

Mr. PETERSON. Well, thank you, and I would just encourage—because if you wait until fall, we are going to miss the year up in 

our part of the country. The way this winter is going, we may not, 

or we may have snow in July. I was reading in a story someplace 

the last couple days about the bee pollinator situation, and it was 

reported that there is apparently some kind of Federal program or 

something to encourage people to plant alfalfa and clover. Do you 

know what they are talking about? 

Secretary VILSACK. We provided $3 million to encourage better 

habitat for pollinators, given the challenges and concerns we have 

seen. 

Mr. PETERSON. How does that work? How does the $3 million—

what does it do? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, it is essentially focused on the upperMidwest area, in an effort to try to see whether or not incentives 

will work to encourage the planting of grasses, et cetera, that will 

be attractive to pollinators. And it is part of an overall effort that 

involves the establishment of a pollinator working group at USDA, 

and it is something that the White House is also quite interested 

in. The science—John Holdren is involved in this as well. And we 

are doing additional research, in terms of trying to establish precisely what the threats are, what the challenges are for pollinators. 

It is complicated, and it is not—it doesn’t lend itself to a simple answer. 

Mr. PETERSON. Yes, I am aware of that, and we appreciate your 

efforts, but I guess—is it like a cost-share? Is that what you are 

looking at? So if you are going to plant—say you have some land 

that is a general crop: corn, or soybeans, then you are going to put 

it down into alfalfa and clover, how would this—would it be like 

a cost-share that——

11

Secretary VILSACK. Well, I think it helps to defray the expenses 

if you make that decision. 

Mr. PETERSON. To plant it? 

Secretary VILSACK. Yes, sir. 

Mr. PETERSON. Yes. Okay. So it would be like the cost-share that 

you get for planting CRP, or some of these other things? 

Secretary VILSACK. Yes, sir. 

Mr. PETERSON. On the dairy front, I know you are moving rapidly on that. One provision in the bill was to allow California to 

come into the Federal Order System, and I understand there have 

been meetings with California processors and so forth. So can you 

kind of update me on—or do you know where that is at, and how 

that is progressing? 

Secretary VILSACK. There have been three or four specific trips 

by our Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) personnel to California. I think we have probably addressed nearly 80 percent of the 

producers, manufacturers, and trade organizations, as well as the 

California Department of Food and Agriculture. 

We would expect and anticipate that the formal proposal that is 

required to trigger this will be submitted sometime this spring. 

Once that industry submits the proposal, we may have to go 

through, as you know, one or more formal rulemaking hearings, 

and then, obviously, there has to be approval by the producers. So 

the process is moving, and we are prepared to cooperate, should the 

producers want to be part of this. We basically have ten of these, 

representing roughly 60 percent of the dairy industry in the country today. 

Mr. PETERSON. Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from 

Texas, Mr. Neugebauer, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Secretary, thank you 

for being here. Just a couple of things. I guess one of the things 

that was—wasn’t really resolved in the farm bill was the actively 

engaged rules, and that was left up to your agency to determine. 

And, obviously, a lot of the producers in my district are very interested in this process. Can you elaborate a little bit of kind of how 

you see this process being developed, and what kind of input that 

you might seek from producers and producer groups? 

Secretary VILSACK. This is, obviously, an issue that raised a lot 

of concerns and interest, as you indicated. I would say first and 

foremost, we are dealing in a very narrow band, in terms of what 

Congress has directed us to do. As you well know, there is a family 

farm provision, as it relates to the actively engaged, which will 

probably address a large percentage of operations in the United 

States, so that obviously won’t be part of our review or conversation. It will be primarily focused on general and limited partnerships. It is not likely to be focused in great—to a great extent on 

corporate structures because of the nature of liabilities. 

So we will be looking at the universe of folks that we are dealing 

with. We will propose an interim rule process so that folks will be 

given the opportunity to weigh in, to have comment, to express concerns. This is a very difficult issue to provide the kind of clarity 

and certainty that everybody would like to have. We are working 

on it. I had a meeting just yesterday with my staff on this, so we 

12

are very—we understand our role. We understand the narrow 

focus. We understand where the attention needs to be placed, and 

we understand the process has to be transparent, and has to give 

people an opportunity to weigh in and comment on whatever we ultimately decide. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. The other thing is 

that recently Fish and Wildlife, last week, listed the Prairie Chicken as threatened. I am on the record saying that I don’t believe 

that was necessary. But one of the things I do understand is that 

supposedly Fish and Wildlife did consult with USDA about this 

issue. And what I was wondering is did they ask, or did you furnish them any information that would lead them to have information of the economic impact of listing this species, and the hardship 

or burden that it might place on producers? 

Secretary VILSACK. Congressman, our primary conversations 

with Fish and Wildlife Service on this particular issue was how we 

might be able to provide the same kind of regulatory certainty for 

Lesser Prairie Chicken that we have provided for Sage Grouse. So 

we have been able to enter into an arrangement with Fish and 

Wildlife for the benefit of landowners and producers in which we 

lay out specific conservation practices that, if farmers, pursuant to 

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), working with 

NRCS, adopt these conservation practices, then they don’t have to 

worry about incidental takings, relative to conservation practices, 

or relative to their operation for a period of 30 years. So our focus 

has been primarily on trying to figure out ways in which we can 

mitigate the impact on farming operations. 

I will have to check with my staff as to whether or not economic 

information was provided, but I know that I did direct the staff to 

look at ways in which we could create more regulatory certainty for 

folks who may be impacted by this decision. 

[The information referred to is located on p. 63.] 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Thank you, and I would appreciate it if you 

would follow up about the economic, which kind of leads me to the 

next question on COOL labeling. One of the things that was a part 

of the farm bill was that, within 180 days of enactment, that the 

agency would furnish a study of the economic impact on COOL labeling. And I can tell you firsthand it has had an economic impact 

on my district, and it hasn’t been in a positive way. For example, 

they closed a packing plant, Cargil did, in Plainview, Texas, lost 

2,000 jobs. And when you talk to local leaders, and leadership at 

Cargil, they will tell you that the COOL regulations had a substantial part to do with that. And so I am very anxious to hear your 

progress, and kind of see how you think that is playing out, and 

when can we expect that report? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, the report will be furnished in a timely 

way. We obviously will—are in a situation where Congress has directed us, pursuant to statute, to establish a labeling responsibility. 

The World Trade Organization (WTO) has given us direction and 

guidance as to what those labels require. We are obviously in a current litigation situation, if you want to call it that, with Canada 

and Mexico. We anticipate and expect some indication of what the 

WTO panel is considering sometime in the June or July time period of this year. 

13

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. One last question. You know, with the new 

farm bill, and a fairly different farm bill, a new safety net, a lot 

of different moving parts, lot of choices, which is a good thing. One 

of the things that concerned me a little bit is, in the President’s 

budget, we are seeing that—proposing closing more FSA offices. 

And I am wondering about, in the time where we need to be educating our producers, new programs, new procedures, does that 

make sense? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, first of all. Congressman, we are not 

anticipating—expecting the closure of any offices in 2014, so the 

current state—and system will stay in place. However, FSA’s budget, in terms of salaries and expenses, has resulted in a 20 percent 

reduction in workforce over the last several years. Technology is 

going to change the way in which work is being done at FSA offices. 

We know that we have roughly 130 to 140 offices that either 

have no full time employee working at them, or have a single full 

time employee working at them. We believe that there is an opportunity for us to take this year and look at where the work is actually being done, and essentially reorganize and restructure the FSA 

system so that the people are where the work is, and create, basically, a three-tiered system, with central offices with supervisory 

personnel and more than three employees, branch offices with 

three employees, but no supervisory personnel, satellite offices 

where people will be able to obtain, by appointment, an opportunity 

to meet face to face. 

With the technology changes, we are hopeful that within the next 

year to 2, many of our producers won’t even actually have to access 

an FSA office, but if they do, they will be able to access all of their 

records in all of the counties where they may have land in a single 

office. So that is going to change significantly the way in which 

FSA offices operate. 

Our view is that there is a new opportunity for FSA offices to be 

a one stop shop for information about not just their own programs, 

but all the other programs that may potentially impact and affect 

a farming operation, and provide additional income opportunities. 

We want them to be a greater guide and greater counselor to producers. So we are taking a look at how we might be able to modernize the system, but for 2014, we don’t anticipate any significant 

change. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. The chair now 

recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina for 5 minutes, Mr. 

McIntyre. 

Mr. MCINTYRE. Thank you, and thank you, Mr. Secretary, for 

your strong work on behalf of agriculture, and your very good work 

for rural economic development. Following up on the last question, 

we too are hearing from farmers about the FSA field offices being 

understaffed with the new regulations in place, and you were just 

talking about a three-tiered system, and the concern of about a 20 

percent reduction in workforce. What kind of timetable for this 

year, with the change in the—obviously with the farm bill are you 

looking at in being able to have adequate staffing to be able to 

meet these needs as farmers come in with questions? 

14

Secretary VILSACK. Well, the farm bill provided $100 million of 

additional resources, and we are using those resources now to 

begin the process of ramping up temporary help at many of these 

offices. I emphasize temporary because we clearly don’t have the 

permanent budget capacity to support additional permanent help. 

I would point out that, when and if there is consolidation of offices 

in 2015, it is not about saving money. It is really about redirecting 

those resources to strengthen the remaining offices that will be in 

existence. 

We have over 2,100 offices today, and so there shouldn’t be any 

change this year. We are ramping up temporary help to provide assistance and help as we implement the farm bill. So I don’t think 

there needs to be as much concern as there might be, if one understands precisely what we are doing, relative to the FSA offices. No 

impact on 2014, temporary help in 2014. 

Mr. MCINTYRE. Thank you. And you mentioned about the next 

year or 2, you were just saying a moment ago in your answer to 

my colleague about technology improvements, with regard to updated software so that those FSA temporary employees and permanent employees can do their job, how soon do you expect that updated software so that they will be able to implement what needs 

to be done to help the farmers with the new farm bill? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, we are in a position, we believe, to be 

able to provide producers information that would allow them to 

take a look at their operations sometime late summer, early fall, 

make adjustments to their production history, and then provide additional information over the fall, so that when they have to make 

the election in the latter part of this year, whether it is Agricultural Risk Coverage (ARC) or Price Loss Coverage (PLC), whether 

they opt for supplemental coverage under their crop insurance opportunities or not, that they will have adequate and sufficient information to be able to make that informed decision. 

So we are going to have everything in place during the summer 

and fall so folks can access information, so that conferences can be 

held, so that land-grant universities and extension, the minority 

serving institutions will be able to provide information to folks who 

have questions. And so that is our plan. 

Mr. MCINTYRE. Thank you. And, in addition to talking about by 

this fall in earlier testimony today to the Chairman, you say that 

late fall, early winter you mentioned, is that the ultimate goal for 

full implementation of all aspects of the farm bill? 

Secretary VILSACK. I wouldn’t say that that is a fair statement, 

Representative. I think that there are issues that will bleed into 

2015. What we have attempted to do is to try to establish the highest priority areas, the things that people have the greatest concerns 

about, and the need to get it done this year, and that is what we 

are focused on. We think if we get the dairy program up and going, 

as we are required to do, if we have the Stacked Income Protection 

Plan (STAX), and the supplemental crop insurance option available, if we have the ARC and PLC programs in place, and the disaster assistance and the conservation process in place, that we will 

have gone a long way. 

But there are still issues relative to crop insurance changes that 

may take a little bit longer than that, the conservation compliance 

15

issue, for example. That may bleed into 2015, and the reason that 

is not as high a priority is because, in a sense, we already have 

that responsibility now. If you are participating in a disaster program, or any other safety net program, you have conservation——

Mr. MCINTYRE. Yes. 

Secretary VILSACK.—responsibilities. So it will take a while. I 

would be happy to show you the 450 additional steps that have to 

be taken. It is not—it is a complicated thing. 

Mr. MCINTYRE. Thank you. And in my remaining few seconds, I 

want to thank you for your help with this final year of the tobacco 

buyout to honor the contracts entered into a decade ago. What is 

the timeline for the transfers and successors of producers and 

quota holders to receive their final payment? When can those payments, pending from last year, and those due to a deceased holder, 

expect to be made? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, we have—we paid out over 90 percent 

of the resources to producers in February. We would expect and anticipate the remaining payments to be made sometime late spring. 

Mr. MCINTYRE. Thank you again for your help with that. I know 

how important that has been, and we appreciate your helping us 

to resolve that over the last 10 years, it being a project that has 

now come to fruition. With that, I yield back my time, and thank 

you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back. The chair recognizes 

the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. King, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this hearing, 

and, Mr. Secretary, I appreciate your service in coming here to testify this morning. Let us start with one that is going to be good 

news, and that is, do you have some information on the appreciation of the value of ag lands, say, in the Corn Belt over the period 

of time that you have been Secretary, and perhaps before? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, Congressman, the best way for me to 

put it would be to point out that our debt to asset and debt to equity ratios are the lowest they have been since 1954. So, obviously, 

there has been an appreciation of land. There has also been land 

acquisition, but not as it was in the 1970s and 1980s, based on 

debt, but based on the capacity of people to pay cash for land. So 

that is—I think we are in a very solid position at this point. 

Mr. KING. It is much different than it was going into the 1980s: 

very much higher leverage. Now, I wanted to make that point, because I think we have made a lot of progress in that situation. And 

then in the farm bill that has most recently become law, there were 

three provisions I would have liked to have seen that would have 

treated the livestock producers a lot better, and that is GIPSA language of Mr. Conaway’s, which I won’t go very far into, expecting 

he may. The other is the COOL language, which you have spoken 

to, and mentioned that we are in a current litigation situation regarding WTO agreements. Had that COOL language—just for the 

record, had that COOL language that was in our version of the bill, 

had that been—gone into law, if we had made it either voluntary 

or repealed it, can you tell the Committee where the litigation 

might be now? 

Secretary VILSACK. Obviously, if it had been repealed, it may 

very well have rendered the current issue moot. I am not sure 

16

that—necessarily that a change in the law directing us to label it 

any particular way would have necessarily resolved the concerns of 

the Canadians and Mexicans. I just don’t know. 

Mr. KING. But perhaps moot? 

Secretary VILSACK. Moot if you repeal it, because then it is—then 

there is not an issue here, other than they might contend that they 

have been damaged in some way, and, frankly, we are a bit skeptical of those damage claims. 

Mr. KING. And I think that is—it is my position to repeal it, and 

it is the position of this Committee, and it was one of my disappointments out of the farm bill. Then I would like to go over to 

the RFS, and ask you, have you been asked to consult on the EPA’s 

reconsideration of the Renewable Fuel Standard? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, we have a responsibility to always indicate to EPA our views on the Renewable Fuel Standard, and we 

have done that. What I have attempted to do is to focus on the 

areas that I have specific control over, and that is the ability to potentially look for additional market opportunities overseas. We 

think there is an export opportunity that needs to be explored. 

And, with the blessing of corn growers, and others in the industry, 

we are going to expand our trade mission to China to include representatives from the biofuel industry. We also are continuing to 

look at ways in which we can use the resources that we have, notwithstanding the restrictions that are in the farm bill, on the Renewable Energy for America Program (REAP) to see if there are 

ways in which we might be able to encourage more distribution of 

higher blends. 

Mr. KING. I appreciate those extra opportunities out there. But 

as far as advice to EPA, as you consult with them on the basis of 

the law on the Renewable Fuel Standard, as you look at that language, what is your recommendation to them as they reconsider? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, I would say a couple things, Congressman. I mean, first of all, I am a strong believer in the Renewable 

Fuel Standard. And I know it is controversial even in this Committee, but I believe it is important to have for jobs, for stabilizing 

farm income, for reducing our reliance on foreign oil, and for providing consumers choice, and less expensive gas. 

Mr. KING. With regard to the language in the——

Secretary VILSACK. Right. 

Mr. KING.—Act itself——

Secretary VILSACK. I think we need it. I think that the EPA has 

a very interesting situation, where the basis of that standard was 

established on the belief that we would, as a country, continue to 

use more and more gasoline. With more fuel efficient vehicles, and 

with a difficult economy at times, that has not been the case. But 

since the EPA rendered its initial projections, gasoline use has increased, and we wanted to make sure that EPA was aware of that, 

because we think that could have an impact on what they ultimately decide. 

Mr. KING. Well, let me just borrow a little bit of our time, and 

make my recommendation to the EPA, then, and that is that they 

review the data with current numbers, rather than 2011 numbers, 

and go back and carefully read the law and the directive that Congress delivered on that. And I would like to, then, just stop quickly 

17

at one more piece here, and that is the amendment that I had, 

called the Protect Interstate Commerce Amendment. And you predicted that if it stayed in the bill, that there would be a lot of litigation because the bill is—the amendment is not well drafted. 

I don’t find other lawyers that read that that way, but I would 

ask if you could briefly comment on what you think the impact will 

be on the egg supply, especially in California, if the people who do 

litigate, and have started now, originating in Missouri, are not successful? 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired, but the witness may answer the question. 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, Congressman, you and I obviously have 

a disagreement about the clarity of the provision. I think it would 

have led to a lot of confusion. I think, frankly, we are going to have 

to see what courts ultimately decide on this issue to provide clarity. 

You know, it may have an impact. It could be a positive impact in 

some producing areas. It may have a negative impact in other producing areas. I think the market, ultimately, is going to decide, and 

the market is going to decide how many eggs we consume. 

Let me just, if I could, Mr. Chairman, 30 seconds on the RFS, 

this needs to be perhaps noted in this Committee’s history. Congressman, you and I agree, so mark that down. I think they should 

look at the current gas usage, and they obviously need to read the 

law very, very carefully. 

The CHAIRMAN. And I would note to both of you I am very sensitive about the Renewable Fuel Standard. The gentleman’s time 

has expired. 

Mr. KING. I do acknowledge the Secretary’s statement, Mr. 

Chairman. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. David Scott, is 

recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, Mr. Secretary. Mr. Secretary, given Congress’s 

clear intent to limit the Federal jurisdiction of navigable waters, 

and also given the Supreme Court’s interpretation the same way, 

to limit navigational waters, how do you justify the EPA’s proposed 

rule to extend, not limit, but to extend Federal jurisdiction so much 

beyond navigable waters that flies directly in the face of what Congress intended, and directly in the face of what the Supreme Court 

interpreted? 

Secretary VILSACK. Congressman, this is a law that Congress 

wrote. It is a law that the Supreme Court has interpreted, and it 

is a law that the EPA has responsibility for implementation. My 

role, I believe, is to make sure that EPA is fully aware of the potential impact that it could have on farming and ranching and land 

ownership, as it relates to rural lands, and we have done that. My 

role is to make sure that there is greater clarity in terms of what 

this rule does and does not do. And I think, by virtue of our input, 

we have clarified and reaffirmed that normal traditional agricultural activity is not impacted. We have reaffirmed that agricultural 

storm water discharge is not impacted. We have reaffirmed the 

maintenance of drainage ditches are exempt. 

We have also cleared up that groundwater, tile drains, the regulation of ditches are not going to be expanded. In fact, we have now 

18

clarity in terms of precisely what is involved here. It doesn’t involve waste water treatment systems. It doesn’t involve artificial 

lakes or ponds for rice. And we went one step further in pointing 

out to the EPA that when people do conservation practices, it is 

really about improving water quality, which is why they have identified 56 specific areas that will not require permitting. I think our 

responsibility is to do what we did, which is to provide clarity and 

certainty. 

Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Well, Mr. Secretary, I do hope that 

you will be able to do more, because we need a strong advocate. 

Our farmers are struggling with this issue. They cannot run their 

farms in an efficient way, not knowing from one day or next what 

interpretation is of navigable waters. Sometimes it could be even, 

like, a puddle. I mean, when you have that kind of discrepancy—

our farmers are faced with so many obstacles that I just urge you 

to do that. 

But let me ask you, is it true that farmers only qualify for a 

Clean Water Act Section 404 exemption if the farmer follows the 

NRCS standards? 

Secretary VILSACK. We have worked with the EPA to ensure that 

when folks follow the rules that are established by NRCS——

Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Yes. 

Secretary VILSACK.—in concert with the land owner, as they put 

together the conservation plan, and as they decide what needs to 

be done, that, if they follow through, and it is in one of those 56 

activities, that they don’t have to worry about getting a permit, or 

notifying anyone. 

Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Okay. 

Secretary VILSACK. There is an ongoing conversation that will 

take place as a result of an Memorandum of Understanding 

(MOU), so that, as further information is forthcoming, or issues 

arise that would fall into this bucket, that number may be 58, may 

be 63, may be 75 a year from now. 

Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Okay. Thank you very much, Secretary, and I just urge you to help our farmers as much as you can 

on that. I get a lot of complaints from our farmers in Georgia about 

the navigable waters issue. 

But there are two other points, and my time is running out, that 

I think that are facing—really the greatest challenges facing agriculture and farming now. One of them is the age of our farmers 

is getting higher, and higher, and higher. The average age of our 

farmers now is almost 60. I think that this is a great threat to the 

future of agriculture, and we need to do more to get our younger 

people engaged in farming. Next month I am going to give the commencement address at the University of Georgia’s School of Agriculture, and I want to say something to these students, and give 

them some hope on that. And I would like for you to tell me what 

the USDA is doing to help to bring down the barriers. 

I mean, it is one thing to say to a young person going to business 

selling shoes, you just open up a store, get on the corner, and do 

that. But when you are talking about going into farming, in this 

day’s climate, there is land acquisition, there are a lot of things 

there. One of the things that I want to propose is that we look at 

how we can give students loan forgiveness, scholarships. Perhaps 

19

we can use a combination of 1860s and 1890s to work collaboratively together, change the language and the law so that we can 

give students scholarships, and so that we can maybe give loan forgiveness. 

Whereas, if we don’t do something to get some incentives for our 

young people to get into farming, and bring that age down, we 

are—the future of this nation, and quite honestly the world, is at 

stake. As the world grows, farmers are getting older, we have to 

face this dilemma. Could you——

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired, but the witness may answer the question. 

Secretary VILSACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congressman, 

there are a number of steps that we are taking, and will be taking. 

Increased resources in the Beginning Farmers and Ranchers Development Program, the establishment of the microloan program, 

which this Congress has now increased the limit, new opportunities 

in terms of less expensive crop insurance for beginning farmers, 

which they didn’t have before, the ability to get advance payments 

on conservation for beginning farmers, a more flexible definition of 

beginning farmer, lower credit costs for beginning farmers, and additional premium assistance in terms of crop insurance for beginning farmers. 

And we are also working with a program called AGree to take 

a look at ways in which we could potentially create a Food Corps, 

which would be similar to the Peace Corps, Vista, or AmeriCorps, 

which is akin to your idea. It wasn’t so much a scholarship as it 

would be the capacity to pay for someone to be mentored on a farm. 

That, with the CRP transition program, there may be ways in 

which we can get young people involved. The fact that we have expanded local and regional food system market opportunities allows 

smaller operators and producers access to farming, which is why 

we have seen a slight increase in people farming under the age of 

35. So the trend line, you are correct, we have a challenge, but we 

are beginning to see a little brighter future in that respect. 

Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Thank you. Thank you for the time, 

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. I recognize 

myself for 5 minutes. Mr. Secretary, I thank you for being here. I 

want to thank in advance all those hard working FSA, NRCS folks 

across this country going to be implementing the farm bill, once the 

base decisions are made here in D.C. They have a great team in 

place, so they have—they are challenged, and they have a lot of 

hard work ahead of them to communicate these changes to the 

folks. So please express our appreciation for what they are currently doing, they are about to do, in that regard. 

I want to talk about cotton a little bit, China has, by some reports, a 57 million bale strategic reserve, something on the order 

of four to five times U.S. production. We are not real sure what 

they are going to do with it and why, and it has a big overhang 

on the market that is having some impact. Can you talk to us 

about what you and the USDA have done to communicate, either 

directly to the Chinese or to the WTO, our concerns about what 

they might or might not be doing with respect to their cotton policy, and the high subsidies they are paying? 

20

Secretary VILSACK. Congressman, I appreciate you bringing this 

issue to—bringing it up. You know, our conversations with China 

in the last several years have been focused primarily on their regulatory system and process, and trying to get it better synchronized 

with ours, in terms of regulatory approvals. If I can ask for your 

permission, I would be happy to get you a more detailed conversation on what the communications have been relative to cotton in 

China. 

I can tell you that we have established a China-American business group in China, the purpose of which is to allow us to not only 

inform the Chinese through official circles, but also to engage Chinese officials and Chinese business leaders in these conversations. 

But let me get you more information on cotton. 

[The information referred to is located on p. 63.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I appreciate that. Please include in there—

there is some indication that 2014 they are going to make some 

changes to whatever their policy is, or has been, so fold in their 

prospects of what they are going to do as a part of that conversation. And I appreciate you getting back to us on that. 

Let us talk a little bit about the SNAP program, and the able 

bodied adults of age—under the age of 50 with no dependents. Now 

that unemployment nationwide has come down to 6.7 percent, can 

you talk to us a bit about what your plans are to continue granting 

waivers to states who have asked for those waivers for folks in that 

category to stay on food stamps beyond the normal 3 month category? 

Secretary VILSACK. Mr. Chairman, there is a real opportunity in 

this area, and, for that matter, the entire SNAP population, to do 

a better job of connecting work opportunities with folks on SNAP 

who are interested in working, and who are capable of working. 

That is why we are excited about the portion of the farm bill that 

creates the opportunity for us to have up to ten pilots with states 

to do a better job of connecting. The fact that we have these pilots 

is going to send a strong message about the important work that 

states must do a better job of using the education and training 

money that they have to actually do a better job of getting folks 

better connected. 

We think there is a disconnect between economic development 

and workforce development offices at the state level and human 

services offices. These folks know where the jobs are. These folks 

know who is looking for a job. For whatever reason, they are not 

doing a particularly good job of talking. We provide several hundred million dollars to encourage that kind of conversation. We 

need to do a better job of compelling that conversation. 

We will be happy to take a look at the waiver issue. I think there 

are circumstances, unfortunately, in some states where the unemployment rate overall may be low, but there may be particular 

areas within that state where the unemployment rate is unacceptably high, and so there may be the need for some kind of flexibility 

as it relates to those areas. 

[The information referred to is located on p. 64.] 

The CHAIRMAN. So you are saying that you can target those 

waivers to specific counties, versus the entire state? 

21

Secretary VILSACK. Well, I think that there are opportunities to 

do that, and opportunities, again, to work with states to compel 

them to do a better job. We are seeing a plateauing, and now a 

slight decline, of the number of people in need of SNAP, which reflects the unemployment circumstance, but there is still work to be 

done here. And I am very focused on making sure these pilots actually give us information that will allow us to develop better policies 

in the future. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I hope we can see the—if you will communicate that with us, once you begin to see some results out of those 

pilots, that you will share that with Congress as well as we deal 

with 80 percent of the spending in the farm bill that is related to 

nutrition programs. With that, I yield back. Now recognize Mr. 

Costa——

Mr. COSTA. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN.—for 5 minutes. 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to 

thank the Secretary for his good work, and his staff. Speaking of 

which, I want to acknowledge that one of your staff members who 

is departing used to work for many of us here in the House Agriculture Committee, and that is Ann MacMillan, and we wish her 

the very best in her future endeavors, Mr. Secretary. 

Your opening statement talked about the good, and the bad, and 

the challenges American agriculture faces. On the plus side, you 

noted that record profits, due in large result to trade activity, has 

been occurring throughout American agriculture. Have you done 

any evaluations, the Department, on what the benefits would be if 

the TTIP, the trade negotiations between ourselves, and the Europeans, and the TPA, were to be successfully negotiated? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, we are confident that it would substantially increase trade activities, Congressman. I can get you the specific dollar amounts. 

[The information referred to is located on p. 64.] 

Mr. COSTA. I think that would be helpful. 

Secretary VILSACK. But there is no question—that is why we are 

engaged in these conversations, because we realize that there is 

terrific opportunity for——

Mr. COSTA. And your efforts with the most difficult non-trade 

barriers, non-tariff barriers, which are the phytosanitary standards, obviously would be appreciated as well. 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, I can tell you that we have eliminated 

or knocked down roughly 1,500 of those barriers since I have been 

Secretary. The challenge with both of those negotiations, on the 

TTIP negotiation, it is all about Europe’s willingness to understand 

the importance of biotechnology, and Europe’s willingness to understand that some of these geographic indicators that they are so insistent on have become so generic that it really is unfair. 

Mr. COSTA. Like Parmesan and Burgundy. 

Secretary VILSACK. Right. And it is a challenge, especially for the 

dairy industry, and it is one that we need to be talking more about, 

so that folks understand what is at stake. On Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), it is all about market access, and the ability of the 

Japanese and Canadians to be more realistic about what kind of 

market access they are willing to provide. 

22

Mr. COSTA. Yes. I want to switch over here, because I don’t have 

a lot of time. We also appreciate your visit to California. You mentioned the drought problems facing the West, and particularly California, and many of us represent the part of the San Joaquin Valley which is ground zero for the drought impacts that we are facing. You and the President’s visit was appreciated, but I am concerned about the follow through. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to read for the record, and submit 

it, a letter that Bishop Ochoa provided for many of us, and I will 

read excerpts of it. ‘‘Dear President Obama, the lack of water is impacting everyone, farmers, ranchers, dairymen, their employees, 

faith communities, and the businesses that serve them. The situation is quickly deteriorating into a humanitarian crisis. Businesses 

are shutting their doors, and others are laying off employees. Access for children, families, to clean, drinkable water is uncertain. 

Lines at food banks and human service agencies have doubled due 

to this issue, and, in fact, our Catholic Charities services went from 

87,000 units in 2012 to 137,000 units in 2013, and we believe this 

year the number will double. We are reminded, at this time of 

drought, our dependence on the Creator, but our human dignity relies on access to water.’’ I will submit the rest of that, with unanimous consent. 

The CHAIRMAN. Unanimous consent. 

[The information referred to is located on p. 61.] 

Mr. COSTA. What can a rancher do in my district, Mr. Secretary? 

I know you only have a partial responsibility to save his 1,000 head 

herd, as he doesn’t have feed available now. The livestock disaster 

programs are set to begin enrollments on April 15, but what about 

today? Where are we? There was a commitment to provide additional financial support. I am terribly worried about this. 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, that producer has access to additional 

EQIP money that can be used for improvements to grazing, or crop 

land, or water utilization. That producer can also, if he is an organic producer, as a variance to the organic grazing requirements, 

that producer could take advantage of the conservation innovation 

grants that we are making available to create new and creative 

ways to deal and cope with less water. 

Mr. COSTA. Okay, why don’t we follow up on that? I appreciate 

that, Mr. Secretary. How about the food banks that are going to 

face increased——

Secretary VILSACK. I am sorry——

Mr. COSTA.—demands? 

Secretary VILSACK.—how about what? 

Mr. COSTA. Food banks. 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, the food banks received an additional 

$60 million of assistance, the President announced, and that resource has been available, and it will continue to be available. 

Mr. COSTA. I have a list of other questions, but time doesn’t 

allow me. I will submit them for the record, Mr. Secretary, you can 

get back to me. Quickly, on two other areas, why would the Administration be proposing dramatic cuts in self-help housing, the 502 

direct mortgage programs that have been proven to work, at a 

small cost to the government? 

23

Secretary VILSACK. If you understand the budget of USDA, 50 

percent of our budget is in four areas. It is in fire suppression, it 

is in——

Mr. COSTA. Which we need. 

Secretary VILSACK. It is in rental assistance, and it is in food 

safety. When sequester is established, when additional cuts are put 

on top of sequester, as has been the case for USDA, that 50 percent 

has actually seen increases, it means the other 50 percent get impacted, and so something has to give. And our challenge is, obviously, to make sure that we continue to provide a link to direct 

housing loans, to guaranteed loans, which we are attempting to do 

in record amounts. 

About 800,000 folks have had home ownership since I have been 

Secretary because of the work of USDA, but you have a situation 

here where part of the budget continually gets increased, and the 

other part has to bear its burden, and the other 50 percent’s burden of cuts. 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will submit the rest of my questions to be responded 

to in a timely manner. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. Mr. Secretary, 

would you remind the Committee, I believe you have an obligation 

later this morning that you have to leave, what your departure 

time will be, for our time purposes up here? 

Secretary VILSACK. It is 12:15, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. It is 12:15. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, and I 

know my colleagues will work in an expedited fashion to give everyone an opportunity. With that, I recognize the gentleman from 

Ohio, Mr. Gibbs, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Secretary, for 

coming in today. As you are aware, last week the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers and U.S. EPA put out a rule supposedly to clarify the 

‘‘waters of the United States.’’ And yesterday, in my committee, the 

Water Resources Subcommittee of T&I, we had Secretary Darcy. 

During the hearing I told her that, for a rule that is supposed to 

have been out for more clarification, it was more muddier. 

And if you look back at the 2006 Supreme Court decision, the 

Rapanos decision, eponymous doctrine, that there are limits to the 

Federal role under the Clean Water Act, and they need to pull 

back, and she could not give any examples of where there would 

be some pullback. And I almost have to come to the conclusion that 

they currently view that they have all the authority they need now, 

and so that—I just want to make that message clear to you. 

But I know in your shop, dealing with the NRCS, first question, 

currently, would you agree that, under normal farming practices, 

that agriculture is exempt from 404 permits under the Clean Water 

Act? 

Secretary VILSACK. Yes. 

Mr. GIBBS. Okay. So when they are talking about dredge and fill, 

and all practices, and they are exempt, so this would—in regard to 

Mr. Scott’s questions, this would be—this rule would be an expansion of the Federal Government’s role in the Clean Water Act, because it is currently, as you just agreed, that normal farming pracVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:40 Jun 27, 2014 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 I:\DOCS\113-11\87513.TXT BRIAN
24

tices—agriculture is exempt. It doesn’t matter if they are working 

with NRCS or not, correct? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, I just want to make sure that I am 

clear about this, Congressman. Normal farming activities, plowing, 

seeding, cultivating, drainage, harvesting for production, upland 

soil and water conservation practices, agricultural storm and water 

discharges, return flows from irrigated agriculture, the construction 

and maintenance of farm and stock ponds, maintenance of draining 

ditches, all of that is currently exempt. 

Mr. GIBBS. That is correct. But with your—USDA’s MOU that 

you are developing with the U.S. EPA, the way I read it is that 

they have to be under NRCS standards. 

Secretary VILSACK. No, what——

Mr. GIBBS. Under the rule. 

Secretary VILSACK. No. It is important for everyone to understand, the—normal agricultural activities are exempt, have been 

exempt, and continue to be exempt. In addition, they provide a 

clarity that groundwater, tile drains, regulations of ditches, artificial lakes and ponds, this proposed rule is not designed to touch 

those. But in an effort to be quite clear about this, because the uncertainty was, well, what if I am engaged in certain conservation 

practices, we began the process of identifying specific conservation 

practices so there would be no misunderstanding and no confusion. 

If you are doing one of these 56 conservation practices, working 

with the NRCS, you don’t have to worry about notifying anybody, 

you don’t have to worry about getting a permit. The purpose of this 

is really to provide clarity and certainty for producers. It is not to 

provide——

Mr. GIBBS. So your belief is that the rule—nothing can come 

under section 404 permits for agriculture—for pollution permits for 

weed control activities, fertilizer application and all that would be 

currently exempt? 

Secretary VILSACK. That——

Mr. GIBBS. There would be no——

Secretary VILSACK. If it is within normal farming activities, as I 

understand it, that is exempt. 

Mr. GIBBS. Okay. Because, I mean, I have a lot of concerns, and 

I know the agricultural organizations out there, I spoke to them 

all, are really concerned about the definition, how they are doing 

this. Now, Secretary Darcy said yesterday that significant nexus, 

and case by case scenarios, and so the door is open for them to 

move forward, so we have to be really careful on the USDA’s role, 

and your role, to make sure that normal farming practices, if not 

even—if they are not even partnering with NRCS, will still be exempt from all permits, other than CWA. 

Secretary VILSACK. Right. And that is why we established this 

MOU, to have an ongoing continuing conversation between the 

three of us, the Corps of Engineers, USDA, and EPA, so as issues 

come up in the field, they can be addressed and dealt with. That 

list of conservation practices may be expanded, and we may be able 

to provide greater certainty for the EPA as well. 

Mr. GIBBS. So if the producers out there that are working with 

NRCS, and doing conservation practices, would it be NRCS that 

25

would do the inspection to make sure the practices are being followed, or the EPA? 

Secretary VILSACK. Yes. 

Mr. GIBBS. NRCS——

Secretary VILSACK. Yes. 

Mr. GIBBS.—correct? Because that is a sticking point of concern, 

is that——

Secretary VILSACK. NRCS. 

Mr. GIBBS. Because we want to make sure that we have good 

programs out in the countryside, especially Soil and Water Conservation Service, to work in agriculture, doing the right thing, and 

that is a good partnership. We want to make sure that partnership 

goes on. So, my time has expired, I yield back. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back the balance of his 

time. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. 

Walz, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WALZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, Mr. Secretary, I want 

to thank you and your staff for the work you have done. I also want 

to especially thank you for that visionary and strong shouldered 

support of American clean energy and the RFS. I associate myself 

with my colleague from the Deep South, Mr. King, on his support 

of the RFS, created great jobs out in Middle America. It has made 

us less dependent on foreign oil. It is visionary, we are moving forward, and after basically a decade, we have become so much more 

efficient, so don’t change the goalposts now. Give our entrepreneurs 

the chance to succeed. 

I am also very proud of what we did in the energy title of this 

piece of legislation. As the Ranking Member on that Subcommittee, 

we have $881 million in mandatory funding, key programs like 

REAP, Bio-Finance Assistance Program, BCAP, and Bio-Preferred. 

My question to you, Mr. Secretary, is how are you going to quickly 

translate those funds into real projects that create jobs and energy 

on the ground out there? 

Secretary VILSACK. We would anticipate the ability to expand 

section 9003 funding to chemical processing and manufacturing 

this year. We think that there—it may require a slight tweaking 

of our rules and regulations in order to expand it to polymers, and 

some of the other fabrics and fibers that you all were considering. 

But we expect and anticipate to be able to hit the ground running 

on this immediately. 

Mr. WALZ. Great. Well, we are appreciative of it, and it is some 

exciting stuff happening out there. I also wanted to associate myself with Mr. Scott’s comments that were very pointed, and I appreciate your response on that, this issue of beginning farmers and 

ranchers. Mr. Fortenberry, myself, the Chairman, and the Ranking 

Member put together a good package on that, but Mr. Scott’s hitting on a real key issue of those barriers, of giving them the opportunity. It is not opportunity of outcomes. It is opportunity to get 

in the business, and then let them go. So, again, I stress, anything 

we can do to move those programs forward, and get our young folks 

on the land is critical. 

And one other association Mr. Costa brought up, and, again, my 

friend from Iowa, and my colleague to the West, Mrs. Noem, and 

I, this issue of water is not isolated to California. And I have one 

26

of our largest meat packing plants, in JBS Swift, in Worthington 

can’t expand because we don’t have water, and it is not because we 

don’t have a plan. We have a project. 

The states and the local communities have not only paid for it, 

they have paid ahead. Federal Government has been promising 

them, for the better part of the last decade and a half, that we 

would get our obligation done. We have not done it, so you have 

a half built water project on Lewis and Clark rural water that is 

holding back economic growth. I have citizens in 2014 in the 

United States catching rainwater in cisterns for drinking water, 

and the only reason it is not done, we are not more competitive, 

we are not creating more jobs, is because we are not fulfilling our 

promise. So I know this isn’t directly your wheelhouse, but it is 

your folks, your producers, my friends and neighbors across the 

Midwest. 

This is a smart project that, the longer we wait, just costs more. 

So anything you can do, Mr. Secretary, to add your voice. This is 

wrong, and, in all fairness, it has crossed several Administrations, 

who have been equally bad on it, and it is just not the right thing. 

So this water issue is critical. If you could add your voice, I would 

be grateful. And with that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Tipton, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. TIPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate my colleague, Mr. Walz, bringing up water, absolutely critical for the 

western United States. An issue, Mr. Secretary, that we have had 

an opportunity to be able to visit on before. Noting some of your 

comments when we are talking about some of the new EPA regulations coming forward being able to create certainty for our farm 

and ranch community, we have no certainty in the West for our 

farm and ranch community when it comes to being able to protect 

a private property right, be it for our ski areas, or for our farm and 

ranch communities as well. 

As you are well aware, through your department, they put forward rules that were struck down by the court because the Department did not follow its own rules, but are still now continuing to 

pursue a rule. I would just be curious, how much of your resources 

are you going to be putting in to develop taking a 5th Amendment 

right in the West, when it comes to the private property rights of 

water? 

Secretary VILSACK. Representative Tipton, you certainly are correct, in terms of the litigation, and we understood the court ruling, 

and we basically pulled that rule, and we started a different process, a more collaborative process. And the directive that we are 

working on now is not designed to take private property rights at 

all. It is simply designed to make sure that we continue to have 

adequate resources for the ski areas that are important, and are 

located in and around our National Forests. 

Mr. TIPTON. I appreciate that comment, and—for the ski areas. 

This is a broader issue also for our farm and ranch community. We 

do have BLM grazing permits, water rights that have been developed there as well. That being said, we keep hearing about this 

vague rule that you are mentioning about to be able to create some 

27

certainty. However, the Loon Mountain ski area in New Hampshire, are you familiar with that? 

Secretary VILSACK. I am not familiar with the specific——

Mr. TIPTON. Okay. 

Secretary VILSACK.—ski area, but——

Mr. TIPTON. Through your Department, as a conditional use permit, they are requiring them to a forced transfer of their water 

rights. This is after all of our discussion. So what kind of certainty 

are we really getting in the West, when we are told that a rule is 

being developed, and now we have the Loon Mountain Ski Resort 

in New Hampshire, and it is going to require them to sign over 

their water rights? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, again, I think that there has been a collaborative process. There have been hearings and public input on 

this directive, and I am fairly confident, based on the court ruling, 

and based on what our Forest Service folks understand, that this 

is not going to be about private water rights. It is going to be about 

just maintaining and making sure that we can continue to have the 

snow and the water that we need to make sure those businesses 

do well, and that the forests are properly maintained. 

We have 166 million visitors that come to our National Forests 

every year. We obviously want to make sure that they have adequate——

Mr. TIPTON. Absolutely, and I know you are well aware. Chief 

Tidwell gave us testimony and comments that not once has water 

been sold off by a ski area, not once. So there is no need for a rule, 

but, again, I will remind you, you need to take a look at this Loon 

Mountain. This is contradicting what you are saying you are trying 

to do right now. 

Let us move on to some of the Forest Service issues. Is it more 

expensive to fight a fire than to go in and treat an area? 

Secretary VILSACK. Most of the time I would say that is probably 

accurate, yes. 

Mr. TIPTON. Okay. As you are aware, the Forest Service right 

now, we have made an amendment to the farm bill, which was accepted under Section 8305, for the leasing of air tankers. Can you 

give us an update, now that the farm bill has been law for, what, 

8 weeks, what kind of progress you have made for the leasing of 

those air tankers? 

Secretary VILSACK. We have had some additional planes that 

have been accepted into our forests. We are working through an 

appeal process on one tanker issue, which we have to continue to 

work through. We obviously attempted to do this in a quick and 

speedy way. Concerns were raised about it. We are now in the 

process of deciding what the next steps are. We have, and will 

have, additional aircraft on site this year. We will have additional 

aircraft on site next year because of the transfer of Department of 

Defense and Coast Guard aircraft to the Forest Service. 

Mr. TIPTON. Right. I appreciate that, and I would like to be able 

to touch on these climate hubs. How much are you going to spend 

on the climate hub in Colorado? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, that is already in the budget. It is not 

a question of additional——

Mr. TIPTON. I know. How much is that? 

28

Secretary VILSACK. Well, I don’t know how much it——

Mr. TIPTON. Okay. Just out of curiosity, we have something 

called NOAA. Is this a duplicative process? 

Secretary VILSACK. No, not at all. This is really designed to identify—to work with producers and land owners in each region of the 

country to identify specifically what they are seeing on the ground 

to determine what challenges they are confronting, relative to production, and develop technologies and strategies, and disseminate 

best practice information to them so that they can adapt and mitigate to whatever climate challenges they are facing, whether it is 

drought——

Mr. TIPTON. None of that is done by NOAA? 

Secretary VILSACK. No. Well, NOAA is about forecasting, and 

that obviously is part of it, but NOAA is not in the business of telling farmers that, if you plant cover crops, you are going to be able 

to retain additional water. Or if you plant a certain type of cover 

crop, or if you harvest at a certain time, or if you take certain steps 

relative to livestock, or you use certain forage. They are not in that 

business. We are in that business. 

And so this is designed to basically make sure that we are analyzing and assessing the vulnerabilities of agriculture, as it relates 

to climate, and providing our producers with the very best and latest information on how best to mitigate it that is specific to their 

location, as opposed to some general concept. 

Mr. TIPTON. This is something that we would like to be able to 

review with you a little bit more, because it is duplicative, and our 

farm and ranch community probably has a pretty good idea, in 

terms of cover crops, and being able to deal with it to begin with. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. TIPTON. I yield back. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from 

Ohio, Ms. Fudge, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank 

you, Mr. Secretary, for being here today. Mr. Secretary, the 

Healthy Food Financing Initiative in the farm bill seeks to provide 

a model solution for access to fresh food outlets. It builds upon successful initiatives at HHS and Treasury. I am excited to see this 

program developed at the national scale at USDA through the authorization of a national fund manager. 

In Ohio, we have a very successful community development corporation called Burten, Bell, Carr Development that is leveraging 

an HFFI grant, along with partner contributors, to serve families 

in one of our poorest neighborhoods. BBC has developed a number 

of food access related projects, including Bridgeport Mobile Market, 

which allows residents of our East Side to purchase fresh, wholesome, and nutritious fruits and vegetables from a refrigerated 

truck. Many of these residents lack reliable transportation to grocery stores. 

This project, like other HFFI projects, increases access to 

healthy, affordable foods for families who lack options. At the same 

time, it fosters economic development, and creates full time jobs. 

How is USDA planning to support the Healthy Food Financing Initiative, and how might it complement other programs aimed at providing low income families increased access to healthy food? 

29

Secretary VILSACK. Congresswoman, we have asked, in the 2015 

budget, for resources to be appropriated into the Healthy Food Financing Initiative. As you know, it is authorized, but not—there is 

no appropriated resource, so we have asked for funding. It complements value-added producer grants, farmers’ market promotion 

grants, that business and industry set aside for local and regional 

food systems in a way that provides us opportunities and tools, depending upon the community and the circumstance, whether it is 

a mobile unit would be more appropriate, as is the case with ones 

we financed in Chicago, or would it be better for us to actually 

work on a full scale grocery store, as we are in some rural areas? 

So it provides flexibility. It provides also the ability to partner with 

the Treasury Department, and their new market tax credit system, 

and HHS, and their grant program. 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you. Several of my colleagues have mentioned 

over the last few weeks loopholes in the SNAP program that will 

diminish the effects of the cuts planned by the farm bill. Can you 

please compare for us the savings in the farm bill due to SNAP 

changes versus the proposed reforms and changes to the commodity 

program? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, these savings are all projections. It was projected to be $8 billion in terms of the SNAP reforms, and if 

memory serves me correct, it was somewhere in the neighborhood 

of $13, $14 billion relative to the commodity programs. But the reality is all of those are projections. It may very well be that we 

save a lot less in commodity depending upon commodity prices. It 

may be that we save a lot less in SNAP because if our pilots are 

working and people are getting jobs, and they are getting better 

paying jobs, they don’t need SNAP. So it is a little bit uncertain 

at this point. That is why they are called projections. 

Bottom line, from my perspective, the most important thing we 

can do in SNAP is to make sure that these pilots that you all have 

authorized work, and to make sure that we do a better job of working with our states partners to have them do a better job of connecting the jobs they know they have in their economy with the 

people who are looking for work who are currently receiving SNAP. 

That is, in my view, the best way to reduce the SNAP rolls. 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you. In your testimony you mentioned that 

nearly 85 percent of persistent poverty counties are located in rural 

areas. While I don’t represent a rural district, obviously, I understand the issues at hand because food insecurity and poverty are 

concerns for my constituents as well. 

Rural communities face a number of challenges of which my district can identify, including low wage employment and underemployment, less access to services, such as affordable child care, 

and public transportation, and higher food costs. What can USDA 

do to address the issues of poverty and ease the burden of rural 

hunger in a more targeted fashion? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, a couple things. Number one, our Community Facility program is designed to provide and improve 

schools, hospitals, public facilities, libraries. We have funded over 

6,200 projects. Those are also job creators. I think the most important thing to understand about the rural economy is that, because 

agriculture has become extraordinarily efficient and productive, 

30

using fewer and fewer farmers than we did 10 years ago, 20 years 

ago, 40 years ago, what we did not do, and what we are now trying 

to do is to overlay a complimentary economy that will help create 

other opportunities for folks that are natural resource based. That 

is why local and regional food systems, which are job creators. It 

is why ecosystem markets and conservation is a job creator. It is 

why what you put in the farm bill for bio-processing, manufacturing, is a job creator. 

So if we do a good job of implementing those provisions, we 

should see increased job opportunities, and better paying job opportunities, and the capacity to encourage young people that they 

don’t necessarily have to leave. They can stay in the town that they 

lived in, or a town similar to what they lived in. 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you very much. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady yields back. The chair recognizes 

the gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Crawford, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, thank 

you for being here. Just one quick question about the catfish program. The 2008 Farm Bill contained a requirement for USDA to 

provide mandatory inspection for catfish processing, and it has yet 

to be implemented. There was some clarification of that in the 2014 

bill, I understand that—expecting that to be finalized by December. 

Since the complaint that the definition of a catfish in the 2008 bill 

was too broad, that was all pretty well addressed in the 2014 bill, 

so I am just wondering why it would take so long, why it would 

be December before that is finalized and implemented? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, the first step in the process is to make 

sure that we have a good relationship and understanding about the 

responsibilities of Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and USDA. 

We are completing that MOU that is required. We craft the rule, 

and now that the broader definition has been confirmed by Congress, which was very, very important, because there are varieties 

and species of catfish that may not have been included but for that 

language, it allows us now to finalize and put this thing in a process where people can then comment on what we ultimately come 

up with. It is really the administrative rules process that requires 

time and requires input, notice, response to what we have. I anticipate that we will get this done before December. How soon before 

December depends on how many comments we get, but we are 

working through the process. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Okay. 

Secretary VILSACK. It is going to get done. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Thank you. We have talked a little bit about 

trade. As you know, the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement entirely 

excluded rice, and I am worried that that is—potentially could set 

a bad precedent for TPP and TTIP. How is the Department working with USTR to make sure that we are providing additional access to rice—additional market access to rice, and can you assure 

the Committee that you will continue to press that issue? 

Secretary VILSACK. We are pressing market access very, very 

hard in our discussions in TPP. It is right now focused primarily 

on Japan and Canada, and specific protections that they have in 

their rules. We have the most open market of any country in the 

world. What we want is a high standard agreement, but we also 

31

want a fair agreement. So we are continuing to press this, and we 

have to see increased market access, or there may not be a deal, 

or Japan may not be part of a deal. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Thank you. I obviously have concerns about rice, 

but—one of those issues that continues to pop for the rice industry, 

but also peanuts. I know that there are some trade barriers to accessing China for U.S. peanut producers, peanut butter as well. 

Can you speak to that? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, we continue to work with our Chinese 

friends on a variety of issues in agriculture. We have a very aggressive presence over there, multiple offices. I mentioned earlier the 

China-American ag business forum that is creating opportunities 

for us to have additional conversations through informal channels. 

We have an ag symposium that we have with the Chinese. We had 

the first one in Des Moines 2 years ago. One is scheduled this year 

in China. That is an opportunity for us to talk specifically about 

issues, minister to minister. And I am sure that all of the issues 

that have been raised, and will be raised on China, will be raised 

at that symposium, so there is ongoing conversation. 

They are our number one customer for a wide variety of agricultural products, and they are one of the principal reasons, obviously, 

why we have seen record exports. So it is a delicate balance between making sure that markets continue to be open, but also preserving the opportunities that we currently have. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Thank you. And, finally, H.R. 933, Continuing 

Appropriations Act of 2013, was signed over a year ago. Had some 

language in it, Section 742, that required USDA to rescind sections 

of the original GIPSA rule, having to do with the suspension of delivery of birds, and with making the rule applicable to live poultry. 

The Department was required to rescind those within 60 days, and 

it is my understanding that hasn’t occurred yet. Can you give me 

an idea when that is going to be completed? 

Secretary VILSACK. I will have to get back to you on that, Congressman. I don’t know. 

[The information referred to is located on p. 65.] 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back. The chair recognizes 

the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. McGovern, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MCGOVERN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. 

Secretary, for testifying here today. And as you stated, the state of 

the rural economy for many is still very, very difficult, and there 

is significant hunger in rural America. And, in fact, according to 

USDA data, households in rural areas are more likely to be food 

insecure or hungry than in urban or suburban areas. 

And one of the things that really bothered me about the way we 

considered the farm bill in this Congress was that the voices of 

those who are most desperate, who are most vulnerable, the voices 

of the poor, weren’t heard adequately. In fact, I don’t believe they 

were heard at all during the consideration of the farm bill. The 

gentleman from Texas, Mr. Conaway, raised concerns about state 

waivers. And, correct me if I am wrong, states don’t have to take 

waivers. States request waivers from the Administration, am I 

right on that? 

Secretary VILSACK. That is correct. 

32

Mr. MCGOVERN. And that is because these governors, Democrats 

and Republicans, understand that there are still people struggling 

in their states. And I should also point out that a majority of those 

who are able to work who are on SNAP, work. And the sad reality 

is that they are working at wages that are so low that they still 

qualify for this benefit. We should get serious about increasing the 

minimum wage so that work in this country actually pays. I think 

if you work for a living, you ought not to be stuck in poverty. 

But what really concerns me is what I see is this kind of chip- ping away at the SNAP benefit. In November we saw an $11 billion 

cut to SNAP as a result of the recovery monies not being renewed. 

That resulted in an average decrease of $30 per month for a family 

of three on SNAP dollars. And before that even went into effect, 

talking to food banks, and food pantries, and churches, and synagogues, or mosques all over the country, what has been made clear 

to me is that the benefit even before that cut wasn’t adequate to 

last a family for an entire month, so people were going to these 

charities, and going to these food banks. 

And then we had the farm bill, which added, in my opinion, to 

the misery of some of these people with the cuts in the so-called 

Heat and Eat Program. And that supposedly resulted in a savings 

of $8.5 billion from SNAP. I guess maybe we should be thankful 

that those cuts only targeted a small percentage of poor families. 

But tell that to a family of three that is going to see another $90 

cut from their SNAP benefit each month. That means in the Heat 

and Eat States a family of three could see an average of $120 per 

month cut in their SNAP benefit, which is just unconscionable. 

Now, thankfully, and I want to publicly thank the governors, and 

praise these governors who have taken action for preventing these 

cuts from taking effect. These are Democrats and Republican governors, and this is something that it was clear in the bill that 

states had to come up with at least $20 worth of money in order 

to help increase the SNAP benefit for some of these poor families. 

The states have done that. And, Mr. Chairman, because there has 

been a lot of complaining by some Members of your party about 

this move, including the Speaker of the House, who called it fraud, 

and abuse of the program, this is very much consistent with the 

law. And, in fact, it actually doesn’t impact the so-called savings. 

And I want to put in the record the majority Committee staff 

memo that says the press reports assume that the change of behavior of these states eliminates the savings estimated from the reforms included in Section 4006. This is false, and fails to recognize 

CBO considerations included in the savings estimate. So it doesn’t 

impact the savings, but I want to praise these governors for not 

turning their backs on the most desperate people in their communities. 

[The information referred to is located on p. 61.] 

Mr. MCGOVERN. Which kind of brings me to my question, and 

that is, Congressman Ryan submitted his budget, which includes 

about $120+ billion in SNAP cuts. I think that is immoral, quite 

frankly, what that budget does to this program. I would be interested in your response to Congressman Ryan’s proposed cuts in 

this program, and how it would affect people not only in rural 

America, but all across America. 

33

Secretary VILSACK. Well, it is safe to say, Congressman, that a 

cut of that magnitude would be devastating to the families that 

would be impacted. But it is also safe to say that an increase in 

the minimum wage would potentially move people out of the need 

for SNAP, or out of the need for as much SNAP as they are currently getting. I think there is some indication that it could save 

billions of dollars. But I am going to deal with the world that I live 

in, and the world that I have today, which is really focusing on trying to find more job opportunities for those folks who are genuinely 

interested in working. 

You mentioned the fact that more folks in SNAP are working, 

and that is absolutely correct: 42 percent of households receiving 

SNAP actually have somebody working. I would also point out that 

nearly double the number of families have either no gross income, 

or no net income. We have seen a dramatic increase in the number 

of families that have no income at all that are receiving SNAP. So 

these people obviously need help, and the concern I would have is 

that the Ryan Budget would do great harm to those families. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. I would yield 

myself 10 seconds, at the toleration of my colleagues, simply to 

note that the actions of the governors, and the public discussion, 

no doubt mean that this issue will not go away, and whether it is 

in appropriations this year or next year, or perhaps in 2017, I have 

a feeling we will revisit my friend from Massachusetts’s and 

myself’s favorite subject several more times. With that, the gentleman’s time has expired, and I turn to the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. DesJarlais, and recognize him for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Secretary, for being here today. As you know, on the way in I mentioned that I was going to talk to you about a subject that I think 

you are aware of regarding the black vulture problem that is plaguing the Southeast. I had received a letter from Representative Mike 

Sparks from Rutherford County just a couple of days ago. He was 

getting many calls from his constituents that the vultures were attacking livestock there. I have a letter from the Tennessee Cattlemen’s Association, Charles Hord, who was addressing this issue, as 

well as many other constituents from around my district, and 

around Tennessee, that have had a problem with this. As you said, 

you are aware of it. Let me give you a few details, and then maybe 

what I would like to ask of you in response. 

The black vultures continue to be an issue with the cattle and 

sheep producers in Tennessee, as well as many other states, and 

they actually will attack newborn animals by poking out their eyes 

and then consuming them. They also will attack the backside of 

cows, causing damage, and sometimes death of these. In Tennessee 

last year it was estimated about a $4 million loss, and other states, 

such as Kentucky, Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, Florida, Louisiana, South Carolina, North Carolina all had similar such problems. And right now, to combat this problem, they are required to 

go through the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Wildlife Services to 

get permits for this problem. 

The permits cost $100, they take about 2 to 4 weeks to get, and 

they expire on March 31 of the next year, so oftentimes the calving 

season is over before they are able to get a permit, which allow 

34

them to kill up to 10 to 15 of these birds, who are protected under 

the Migratory Bird Act. And they have tried fireworks, shooting in 

the air. They are a pretty adaptable bird. It scares them away temporarily, but they come back. So what I guess we are asking would 

be your help in finding a better permitting process. 

The Tennessee Cattlemen Association would like to recommend 

that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service begin an online permit 

process that would permit—so that the permit would be good for 

a 3 year period, and that would save producers both time and 

money of applying for the permit each year, and help with the 

issue of producers having to wait before they can take action 

against the black vultures. And the Cattlemen’s Association also 

recommends the Department of Interior begin studying why there 

has been such an increase in black vulture attacks, and consider 

issuing a Depredation Order that would allow for the reduction of 

black vulture populations, similar to those issued for blackbirds 

and Canadian geese. And also there is a suggestion, why should there be a $100 fee 

for this application? Is there anything that you could do to help in 

this issue, or would you be willing to work with us if we reached 

out? 

Secretary VILSACK. Congressman, I will be happy to convey the 

concerns that you have expressed about the Interior Department’s 

Fish and Wildlife Service operation of the permitting. The online 

suggestion is a good one, and that is something I will certainly convey to Secretary Jewell. I will say that our Wildlife Services portion 

of Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services (APHIS) is working with producers to try to give them tips on ways to address this 

predator issue, providing technical assistance to help them control 

the problem, as well as assisting them in the filling out of and accessing these permits. We will obviously continue to do that, but 

we will certainly convey the concerns that you expressed here 

today. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. All right. I appreciate your time. Thanks for listening. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back his time. The chair 

turns to the gentlelady from Washington State for her 5 minutes. 

Ms. DELBENE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. 

Secretary for being here, and all the work from you and your staff 

implementing the farm bill as quickly as possible. We really appreciate it. I also wanted to take a moment to recognize the efforts of 

Forest Service employees in Darrington, Washington. As you may 

know, a massive landslide took place in my district, near Oso, 

Washington, wiping out an entire neighborhood with very heartbreaking and devastating results. As of this morning, at least 30 

people are confirmed dead, and 15 are still missing. 

And immediately after the tragedy, Forest Service employees in 

the area devoted their time and resources as volunteers. They did 

so without pay, and by taking annual leave, and have done everything they can to help. And having spent much of the last week in 

the area myself, their efforts, and the efforts of all first responders 

has been truly inspiring, and they should be commended for their 

work. 

Secretary VILSACK. Thank you. 

35

Ms. DELBENE. We talked a little bit earlier about Farm Service 

Agency offices, and I know you proposed closing 250, and you said 

that none would be closed here in 2014. I wondered if you could 

give us a timeline for when you will make the decision, going forward? We have three offices in my district. They are incredibly important to our counties, which has growing agricultural communities, and wanted to know when you might be releasing a proposal. 

Secretary VILSACK. We are going to—we learned a good lesson 

from the last effort at reducing these offices, that we really did 

need to do a better job of focusing on where the work is actually 

being done, and making sure that we have adequate staff members, 

commensurate with the workload. So we are in the process now of 

doing an evaluation where work is actually being performed, so 

that we can essentially rearrange, if you will, staffing, and then 

making sure that offices are adequately staffed to provide the help 

and assistance that folks need. 

That process, we anticipate, is going to take a good part of 2014, 

calendar year 2014. So I don’t anticipate making decisions relative 

to any potential closures until that is completed, and until we have 

a chance to also look at how it relates to the Congressional directive, vis-a`-vis 20 mile limits. You all basically designated that we 

need to consider how close another office is, and so forth, and there 

is a process by which we provide notification to Congress, and have 

a series of hearings in any county that is impacted by this. 

I think it is absolutely essential to reiterate the fact that our salaries and expense line item for the FSA has been reduced to the 

point where we have 20 percent fewer full-time equivalents (FTEs), 

or full time employees, than we did just several years ago. You cannot absorb all of that reduction without having some impact on the 

staffing. And we think it is important to note that there are offices 

today that literally do not have a single person in them, that they 

are a location, but they are not staffed. And there are those that 

are within a few miles of another office that have a number of employees where there is only one employee. 

So when you take that, when you take into consideration the 

technology changes that are taking place that is going to change 

the way in which people react and interact with FSA offices, we 

think the time is right for us to ask the question, if we were going 

to produce this system today, would we produce it in exactly the 

same way that it is today? And the answer is, no, we wouldn’t. We 

would make some changes, we would modernize it. 

But I want to emphasize it is not about saving money. It is about 

taking those resources that would be saved and reinvesting them 

in modernizing these offices, the remaining offices, and making 

sure that their responsibilities not only are focused on their programs, but having at least a cross-train opportunity on other programs. So we think this is an improvement. And there may be 

fewer offices, but we think they will be much, much better offices. 

Ms. DELBENE. Thank you. We look forward to seeing your proposal. You also mentioned the SNAP Employment and Training 

Program. That was based on a very successful program we have 

had in Washington State. I introduced legislation based on that 

program that has led to the program that is in the farm bill, someVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:40 Jun 27, 2014 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 I:\DOCS\113-11\87513.TXT BRIAN
36

thing I am proud of, and is going to be very, very important going 

forward. Is the timeline on creation of these pilots on target to 

meet the 180 day window on developing the processes for a state 

to apply for these pilots? 

Secretary VILSACK. It is. Under Secretary Concannon has actually traveled to a number of states that have had success, I believe 

he has also been in your state, so it is on track. We have also had 

conversations with sister agencies, Department of Labor, Veterans’ 

Affairs. Seven percent of folks on SNAP are veterans, so we are 

deeply concerned about that. And so there has been a series of conversations that are taking place. I am confident we are going to be 

on track to get this thing to a point where we will see some pilots 

in place, certainly at the beginning of next fiscal year. The way the 

money is allocated, it is $10 million this year, and the balance in 

2015. I think the expectation is that most of the actual work will 

be done in Fiscal Year 2015, but we are on target. 

Ms. DELBENE. Thank you, and I look forward to information as 

that rolls out too. Thank you for your time again, and I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady’s time has expired. The chair now 

recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. Gibson, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GIBSON. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, and I want to begin by 

thanking you and the Ranking Member, really, for your leadership 

throughout the process of the farm bill. I mean, certainly a challenging environment, and the way that you guys worked together 

was exemplary, and something the whole Congress can gain inspiration by. And I also want to thank the staff, the entire staff, for 

all the work that they did in the long couple of years that was the 

farm bill process. 

Secretary, thanks for being here today. I am encouraged by your 

testimony. I appreciate your remarks with regard to many things, 

but with regard to the beginning farmer program. I do think it is 

going to make a difference, and it is going to help in my area. It 

is going to help facilitate a trend that we are already noticing in 

the marketplace, which is an uptick in the number of young folks 

hearing the calling of farming. The program is going to be complementary and helpful. I also noted, with interest, your points on 

exports being up. I think that is also good for us, conservation programs. 

What I would like to do is—I have several areas I would like to 

have you respond to. We will see how far we go, in terms of the 

timing here, but number one has to do with an initiative that myself, Mr. Courtney, Mr. Welch, Mr. Schrader, and other brought 

forward for the bill, had to do with the school lunch program, and 

a pilot that, monies for schools that, instead of going towards 

canned goods, commodities, that they could be used for community 

supported agriculture, CSAs. I think this will be not only helpful 

in terms of nutrition, but also could be beneficial, in terms of inspiring a new generation to come to the farm. I was wondering 

where we are, in terms of thinking through implementation of that. 

And certainly my staff looks forward to working with your team on 

that score. 

Secretary VILSACK. We have had some involvement with that in 

a couple of states, and we are excited about that opportunity as 

37

well. And one of the things that we are attempting to do is utilize 

our Farm to School program to make sure the word gets out about 

those opportunities, as well as just generally the opportunity to buy 

local, and to provide assistance and help to local producers. We currently have 71 projects in 42 states under the Farm to School program as well, impacting hundreds of schools. So we think this is 

an opportunity, and you will see progress on this for the next 

school year. 

Mr. GIBSON. Well, thanks. And we are going to want to be competitive. We will work with your team on that. And I am glad you 

mentioned the next school year, because that is the sort of the horizon that we are working with too, hoping to finalize some of the 

applications by the summer so that, with the coming school year, 

that we could be involved in the program. 

And the second area has to do with broadband. Thanks for your 

work, and for your team’s work on this, and it is very important 

to rural areas. And I was interested in an update, in terms of efficacy in the program, and service for unserved areas. 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, we have 225 projects that were a result 

of the Recovery Act funding. Over 58,000 miles of fiber have been 

laid. Over 1,100 wireless points have been established, and that is 

providing help and assistance to 140,000 new subscribers, which 

includes almost 6,000 businesses, and close to 700 anchor institutions, like universities and school, National Guard armories, and 

things of that nature. Many of these projects are still in the process 

of being completed, so those numbers will increase. In addition, 

there have been roughly 400 distance learning and telemedicine activities and grants that we have put forward. 

And we are working with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) because, at the end of the day, the real issue here is 

not so much what we can do, as, we obviously have an important 

role, but the private sector is the one that obviously has to carry 

the ball, and so that is why we have asked them to take a look at 

their most recent ruling relative to the Universal Service Fee. 

Maybe create a little more flexibility in terms of waivers, a little 

more understanding about the challenges of implementing these 

changes, and so repaying loans that have been taken out in the 

past, based on the old system, to expand service. And maybe look 

at that Connect America Fund, in creating a little bit more of an 

incentive for others to participate. 

Mr. GIBSON. And I agree with all on that score. Last point, and 

you may have to respond for the record, let us see how the time 

goes, has to do with a public health scourge that we have in the 

Northeast, and, actually, it is reaching across the country, tickborne diseases, in particular Lyme Disease. And in the farm bill we 

put some emphasis for research, given changing weather patterns, 

impact in terms of tick-borne diseases. We have some experts in 

the Hudson River Valley who had been competitive, in the past, 

and we reach out to you, and just look forward to working with 

you. We think this is another avenue of attack that we can make 

on this important public health issue. 

Secretary VILSACK. Congressman, I want to make sure the announcement we are making today relative to the disbursement of 

roughly $48 million, which is really focused on better pest and disVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:40 Jun 27, 2014 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 I:\DOCS\113-11\87513.TXT BRIAN
38

ease management, whether that impacted the specific issue you 

raised. I am told it doesn’t, but we, obviously, are very sensitive to 

these issues, and we will be happy to work with you. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. The chair 

would like to note to my colleagues that, based on the Secretary’s 

hard leave time of 12:15, I have enough time for 14 more Members 

to ask questions. I have 22 Members, therefore, any Member has 

the right to object, but I am going to ask by unanimous consent 

that we agree to continue questioning for 4 minutes at a time. Is 

there any objection to going to 4 minute questioning period for the 

remainder of the witness’s testimony? Any objection? 

Seeing none, the gentlelady from California is recognized for 4 

minutes. 

Mrs. NEGRETE MCLEOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, 

Mr. Secretary, for being here. This is a California-specific question. 

There have been several of us from the California delegation who 

have been hearing from the grocery stores in our districts, specifically on the California WIC moratorium for new vendor licenses. Is 

it on track? Is it subject to change? What are the factors involved 

one way or the other? Is the timeline published for the public to 

see? 

Secretary VILSACK. We are working on trying to address this 

issue, Congresswoman. It is a very serious issue in California, and 

we are working with the California folks to get it resolved. I think 

we are close. I am not sure we are totally there yet, but we are 

very close to making sure that we have the controls in place so that 

the WIC program is not abused as it was being abused by a number of stores. 

Mrs. NEGRETE MCLEOD. And we understand that, however, is it 

possible to provide some level of certainty, at least what time the 

publishing date as the start date for the review of the applications 

through a vendor alert? And, given the timeline, would you consider adding additional exemption criteria to it? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, the best thing for me to do is make sure 

that our folks from Food and Nutrition Service get in touch with 

you to give you a more detailed briefing. I just know that we are 

on track. We are working with the state, and we are hopeful in getting this resolved quickly. Honestly, I am not quite sure about all 

the details that you are asking for. So, with your permission, perhaps we can get someone to visit with you and your staff precisely 

about what the circumstances are. 

Mrs. NEGRETE MCLEOD. Okay. As you know, whenever there are 

bad actors, not only do the bad actors get punished, but then everybody else that is in the system——

Secretary VILSACK. Right. 

Mrs. NEGRETE MCLEOD.—also gets punished. 

Secretary VILSACK. Right, but this was a horrendous thing that 

was taking place, so——

Mrs. NEGRETE MCLEOD. We understand. Okay. Your Department 

would contact me, and that way we can move on, and see where 

we are with this issue? Thank you so much. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady is wonderful, and yields back the 

balance of her time. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Fincher, for 4 minutes. 

39

Mr. FINCHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Secretary, for 

being here today. Let me just take just a few minutes to say how 

much I appreciate the Chairman and the Ranking Member working 

on the farm bill for month, after month, after month to get this finished and completed for the country. 

Over the last, I guess, probably 4, 5, 6 weeks, we have done a 

variety of farm bill meetings. My district is the western part of 

Tennessee, so I border Kentucky, Mississippi, and Missouri, and we 

did probably 15 farm bill meetings in my state, and the surrounding states. Probably 2,000 to 3,000 attended all of these meetings. My background is I am a farmer. 

But something that we were running into, Mr. Secretary, is I 

guess our FSA offices are very concerned because they have been 

cut, they are understaffed. RMA is concerned about getting all of 

this information out there to them in a timely fashion. Do you see, 

or do you think we may get into a position in the summer of extending our certification deadlines later in the year because FSA 

will not be ready? Can you give me your thoughts on that? 

Secretary VILSACK. I don’t anticipate that that is going to be the 

case as of today, Congressman. I mean, we are hiring additional 

staff with the money that has been provided on a temporary basis, 

and we are working very quickly to get the educational materials 

and the web-based materials prepared and disseminated. So I don’t 

anticipate and expect that we are going to have an inability to get 

people educated and put in a position that they can make appropriate elections later in the year. 

Mr. FINCHER. Okay. Something else too, in a variety of counties 

in our area, I did one meeting down in Mississippi, and this is the 

Delta, I mean, big row crop farm land, commodity farm land, and 

a lot of these counties do not have directors in the counties. And 

these are areas where there is a lot of work to be done by FSA. 

And I told one of the directors I talked to that I would pass along 

just how important it is allowing us to move our stuff to control 

counties, and letting us put everything in one county, maybe the 

county that we live in, even though we may farm in several different counties. Will help, definitely, but these directors are just 

very concerned. They know the extra money is there, but concerned 

that they will be able to handle the burden of all of this, but it was 

a lot of information. I know it is a new program, but I said I would 

pass that along. 

And just moving along, to not eat up as much time as I can, we 

work with NRCS very often, and I was with some of my local guys 

over the past 2 or 3 weeks, laying some structures out on some of 

our land, and it seems that morale is down in our NRCS offices. 

And these are guys that had been there for years and years, who 

I am friends with, who take pride in their work, pride in what they 

do for not only the agency, but for the farmers. And I am just passing this along, Mr. Secretary. I know you are at the top, but they 

just said that, look, it is like they don’t care. It is like the Administration doesn’t care, we are just a number, it is not important anymore, the job that we do, and what we are trying to do. 

And I said, well, look, we do care. It is a big process, all of the 

changes, and all of the different things that have happened over 

the past 15 or 20 years. It is a very different time. But they just 

40

seem to be very frustrated. And these are guys on the ground, guys 

that we deal with on a day to day basis. So I am passing that 

along. 

And the last thing, to Mr. Scott’s statement a few minutes ago 

about young farmers, and trying to get young farmers into the 

business, I have two sons. They love farming. One is at Mississippi 

State now, getting an Ag Business Degree. We have a deeper problem in the country, and I think we see it in Congress, when we 

have to spend 3 years trying to pass a farm bill that should be bipartisan. 

It was bipartisan, but we must make sure that we continue to 

look at the issues that face our country. And there are many of us 

up here, myself, including other Members on this Committee, that 

came here to do things, not just make political statements. And our 

problem is deeper than just trying to get young farmers in. We 

need, as a body in this city, to do what we can for the farmer all 

over the country. 

So, with that, Mr. Secretary, I appreciate it, and I yield back, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Secretary VILSACK. Mr. Chairman, may I just have 10 seconds? 

Congressman, on the morale issue, that is obviously something we 

take very seriously, and, in fact, we have instituted a process of focusing on the viewpoint survey that is done for all USDA employees. And we have created a process by which we are working with 

our various levels of leadership to do a better job of reaching out 

to people and communicating with people. We are having listening 

sessions across the country, including at NRCS, so it is something 

we take very, very seriously. 

I will tell you that it has been a difficult time to be a Federal 

employee, because oftentimes they are criticized publicly in sort of 

a broad brush approach, which is unfair. We went through a sequester, we went through a shutdown, budgets have been cut. It 

is not an easy time. However, there is just extraordinary work 

being done, and we have expressed, and I have expressed on numerous occasions, my admiration for the folks at NRCS as extraordinary problem solvers. 

Mr. FINCHER. I agree also. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. The chair now 

recognize the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Courtney, for 4 

minutes. 

Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. 

Secretary, for being here. I want to note your opening comments, 

your reference to the need for immigration reform in rural America. As far as I am concerned, that is the elephant in the room. Any 

event that I go to with the producers, we had the New England 

Dairy Council in my district a couple weeks ago, come ready to talk 

about the farm bill. Obviously a historic year, in terms of dairy risk 

insurance. The conversation pivoted to immigration reform within 

minutes. They demanded to know when we are going to move forward in this Congress, in terms of getting it done. 

I want you to know that, for the folks in that room, the fact that 

USDA is going to run the H–2A program and the Blue Card program by itself, even without referencing the details of the wait 

times and record checks, and such, just the fact that USDA is going 

41

to be the vehicle for running the—that alone sold the entire room. 

The trust factor that people have for USDA, despite all the challenges, which my colleague mentioned a moment ago, that is what 

people are really yearning for, and we have to get this done. CBO 

has told us it will cut the deficit, it will grow the economy, but particularly in rural America, it is going to unlock the obstacles for 

having a viable workforce. 

I wanted to also raise another issue from Connecticut, which, 

this past year, the Connecticut Legislature passed, by a margin of 

134 to 3 and 34 to 1, a GMO labeling bill. I know you have been 

in the middle of that debate for some time. I am not here to ask 

about your own thoughts or position on it. I am the eternal optimist. I think transparency is inevitable. That is my own opinion. 

There are probably more tweets that have already gone out just in 

this room in the last 2 hours. We live in a world of transparency. 

What I think is needed, and your department has, I believe, 

begun this process with the AC–21 process, is a need to get a higher level of understanding and engagement of agricultural biology 

and research. At some point, the whole issue will find an equilibrium, in terms of public acceptance, or public rejection, or public 

choice regarding this issue. 

Could you talk about whether or not the Department is going to 

sort of continue a process, being an arbiter for information, as this 

debate is inevitably going to continue? 

Secretary VILSACK. We are. I would say that one of the great opportunities that America has is to embrace diversity. And by diversity I mean diversity in its largest context, diversity of size of operations, diversity of production methods, diversity of operators. This 

is the future of agriculture, and it is a hopeful future. 

There is, obviously, a stress in agriculture, in terms of this conflict between production systems. Honestly, it is unfortunate, because agriculture needs to do a better job of communicating to the 

broader audience of Americans the benefits that we get from agriculture, the extraordinary affordability and accessibility of food, the 

freedom it gives the rest of us to be able to pursue other calls of 

life because we have delegated the responsibility of feeding our 

families to someone else, and they are doing an amazing job. 

We are very committed to this. We are implementing the recommendations of the AC–21 committee. We are engaging the FDA 

in conversations about this issue of labeling. The concern, obviously, is if you label that you are sending, potentially, a message 

of lack of safety about these products, unsafe products. That is not 

the case, in my view. It is not the case of the 600 some science reviews I have seen on this issue. GMO is not a safety issue. There 

is room for everyone, and I think we have to have a more collaborative conversation than a conflicting conversation. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. The chair now 

turns to the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Hudson, for 4 

minutes. 

Mr. HUDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Secretary. First I 

would like to echo the comments of my colleagues to thank you and 

your staff for your hard work implementing the farm bill. I know 

it is a huge undertaking, but I appreciate that very much, and 

42

thank you for being here with us today so we can talk about some 

important issues. 

I would also like to acknowledge a special guest I have here with 

me today, Linda Andrews, from the North Carolina Farm Bureau. 

Linda and her boss, Larry Wooten, are valuable assets to our farmers in North Carolina, work very closely with my office, and appreciate her being here today. 

My question to you, Mr. Secretary, is regarding the Uwharrie 

Forest, which as you, I am sure, are aware is located primarily in 

Montgomery Country, but also extends into Randolph and Davidson Counties in North Carolina, in my district. I understand from 

our folks on the ground that the forest roads had sustained a lot 

of very serious damage due to heavy rains and flooding over the 

last few months. In some cases these roads are completely impassable to our residents, tourists, and first responders. Needless to 

say, this is a very serious concern of mine, and I want to find a 

resolution as quickly as possible. 

I know that quick fixes in Washington sometimes can seem like 

an oxymoron, but I believe we can find ways to prioritize spending 

within the Forest Service to accomplish these type of tasks. We 

simply must fix these roads, Mr. Secretary. It is more than a headache for our residents. It is really a safety issue of having access. 

Mr. Secretary, can you explain to me briefly how the funding 

stream works through the forest regions when it comes to road 

projects like this that may be of an emergency nature? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, we trust the folks on the ground to 

make decisions about prioritization of resources. I can tell you, 

with reference to this particular forest, that gravel is going to be 

applied soon to the roads that you mentioned, and many of the 

areas. Public safety is obviously a primary concern. Access for the 

public, and for our Forest Service personnel to maintain the forests 

is obviously a priority, and that there will likely be grading that 

is going to be done on those roads at some point in time later in 

the spring. So there will be an addressing of that specific issue. 

But, Congressman, honestly, the big challenge for us is that in 

the past 13 percent of the Forest Service budget went to fire suppression. Today it is 40 percent. And the reality is, unless we have 

a different way of funding forest fires as we do tornadoes, floods, 

hurricanes, and other natural disasters, we are going to continue 

to have uncertainty in all other aspects of the maintenance, restoration, and resiliency budgets of the Forest Service. 

That is why we have proposed a different way of funding fires 

that would give us greater certainty in those key restoration, maintenance budgets, so that we can continue to do a better job of maintaining the services that allow 166 million Americans to visit our 

National Forests every single year. 

Mr. HUDSON. Yes, sir, thank you for that, and I am committed 

to working with you on this issue. I know how important it is. My 

staff reached out to Chief Tidwell of the Forest Service. We appreciate his cooperation with this. I appreciate your commitment to 

get that gravel spread out, and get those roads active again. On behalf of my constituents, I thank you. 

And, Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield back. 

43

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. Maloney, for 4 minutes. 

Mr. MALONEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here. I want to thank you and your staff for working so well with my staff. I really appreciate all your folks have 

done, I want to say that. One of the things we worked very hard 

on in the farm bill were the crop insurance provisions, and particularly in my part of the world, which is the Hudson Valley of New 

York, just above New York City, where we have a lot of specialty 

crop farmers. 

One of the things that I worked hard to include was the CROP 

Act, which allows for the better development of specialty crop insurance policies, whole farm insurance, weather-based event insurance. If you can give us an update on that, I would sure appreciate 

it. 

Secretary VILSACK. Sure. One of the things that has occurred in 

the last couple years is more policies being written that are connected and directed to specialty crop production. The whole farm 

policy is one that we are working on. We think that there is an opportunity at some point in time this summer to begin the process 

of putting one of these together, and having the Board take a look 

at it, making sure that it is actuarially sound, and that it will 

work. And so we are expecting and hopeful that we will have that 

available for 2015 crop year, potentially on a pilot basis. See how 

it works, see what we learn from that. 

Second, it is important for us to continue to also improve the 

non-insured crop assistance program. We are in the process of proposing changes and improvements to that as well. 

Mr. MALONEY. And are you also interested in having RMA do 

more of its own development of these policies, which it can do now 

under the new legislation? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, I think we will continue to use that opportunity. I think these are very sophisticated and complicated actuarial decisions that have to be made. You have to have adequate 

data to be able to make decisions. So I have trust and faith that 

they will make the decision as to when they feel competent, and 

when they need outside assistance and help. 

Mr. MALONEY. I appreciate that. If you could commit to briefing 

my staff on that, I would appreciate it, because we worked hard to 

get these policies in action in time to do some good. You know, the 

folks in my region are still struggling to recover from Hurricane 

Irene, which had a terrible effect on Central Orange County, and 

their losses simply weren’t covered by the kinds of insurance they 

had, so this is an urgent matter so we don’t get another storm. I 

know you know that, sir. 

Can I also draw your attention to the special provisions on muck 

soil? Now, I know it is coming up on reunion time at Hamilton College, and you are probably planning a visit to Central New York, 

and I would just point out to you, sir, that on your way you will 

find some of the best agricultural soil anywhere, what we call the 

muck soil region of New York. If I could get you up there, it would 

be great. 

There is a provision in the farm bill that encourages you very 

strongly to work specifically with muck soil farmers on the special 

44

issues they have. It would be great to show you the region and get 

your commitment to giving some life to that provision so that we 

can really give these guys the assistance they need. 

Secretary VILSACK. I traveled 120 miles to and from law school 

every day on Route 20, so I am pretty familiar with the landscape 

of Upstate New York, but I always am willing to learn, Congressman. 

Mr. MALONEY. That is right, and your distinguished record of 

public service certainly befits someone with a New York education, 

sir. And the final provision I would like to draw your attention to 

is, or at least the issue I would like to draw your attention to, and 

I will bring this in on time, I promise—we really benefit from the 

Hudson Valley Research Lab—which is facing extraordinary cuts 

from all sorts of sources. And if your Department can continue to 

work to find the funding necessary for the kind of research that 

goes on there? I don’t need to tell you how important it is to the 

farmers in my region, especially crop farmers, who really depend 

on it. 

Secretary VILSACK. We have taken a look at our entire internal 

inspection system, our ARS system. We have prioritized the labs 

that are doing the highest priority work, and the labs that are in 

the best physical shape. We have identified labs that are in difficult shape, but doing primary—in other words, we have a capital 

improvement plan. The challenge for us, obviously, is to find the 

resources. 

We are suggesting that perhaps Congress would consider the 

possibility of allowing us to retain some of the unspent money from 

year to year to put into a capital account that help us modernize 

those Agricultural Research Service (ARS) facilities. Eight hundred 

different projects right now in the last 5 years, 218 patents, have 

been approved. This is an innovative center, that we obviously 

want to continue to——

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. MALONEY. Thank you, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida, 

Mr. Yoho, for 4 minutes. 

Mr. YOHO. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, and Mr. Chairman. I want 

to just also reiterate a heartfelt thank you for the work you guys 

have done, not only with the Department of Agriculture, but with 

the Committee here. It has just been a great feeling to be a part 

of that, to get this bill passed. And I also want to thank you, as 

somebody else did, about the tobacco farmers of Florida, in honoring the buyout program. We thank you for that, because we had 

gotten a lot of calls about that. 

And I want to talk to you about the citrus industry, and you 

know well that Florida is number one in citrus, and you know our 

plight down there with the greening. You know, the citrus industry 

accounts for about $1.4 billion in sales, approximately $8.9 billion 

economic impact, and with the citrus greening going on, 80 to 90 

percent of the citrus trees are affected. And, of course, Florida 

without citrus is like peanut without butter. They kind of go hand 

in hand, we need that together. And so I was real happy, and I 

know the citrus producers are real happy in our area, to see the 

money that was put into that. 

45

And I commend the Committee, and you, and I hope that gets 

allocated as quickly as we can, so that we can bring this under control. And if there is anything that we can do to help you with that, 

please let us know. We are looking for a speedy resolution of that. 

Secretary VILSACK. Congressman, we put together a multi-agency 

approach to this, which is involving local, state, and Federal folks, 

to have a coordinated response to this. We funded it initially with 

a million dollars, and the $20 million this year, and then $125 that 

you have put into the farm bill will be allocated. We think there 

are opportunities for us to deal with the vector issue, with this tiny 

wasp. There is an opportunity for us to look at the pH content of 

the land surrounding——

Mr. YOHO. Right. 

Secretary VILSACK.—trees. That might be an opportunity. And 

thermal, using heat on the top of these trees may work. We are 

going to continue to fund those projects, look at additional suggestions, and then make sure we fund the ones that are working the 

best——

Mr. YOHO. Right. 

Secretary VILSACK.—and ramping them up. 

Mr. YOHO. I appreciate that, and I know they do too. And I want 

to talk to you about the peanut program, by the way. The crop insurance industry has introduced the revenue crop insurance program, but yet it hasn’t been, I guess, approved for the peanut program, and we are hoping that we can get that implemented just 

as quick as we can. Are you familiar with that? 

Secretary VILSACK. I am familiar with it. I believe that it is——

Mr. YOHO. It is the—crop insurance——

Secretary VILSACK. Rights. It is a policy that would require 

Board approval. And if the Board approves it, we will, obviously, 

move forward with it. 

Mr. YOHO. And you brought up that China was a big importer 

of our peanuts. Is that because the South American market took 

a hit on peanut production, and so, for the last 2 years, they have 

been buying more of our peanuts? And if so, do you see that continuing? 

Secretary VILSACK. I would like to say it is because we have a 

better product at a better——

Mr. YOHO. I would like——

Secretary VILSACK.—price. 

Mr. YOHO.—to think that too. My concern is, due to the incentives, and some of the language, especially with the reference price 

of $5.35, that we are seeing an increase in peanut production already nationwide by 29 percent: 53 percent in Georgia, 35 percent 

in Mississippi, and seven percent in Florida. With this large increase in production, I can’t help but think it is going to drive the 

price of the peanut down, and it could affect a lot of things that 

we talked about here today, one of them being the young farmers. 

These guys have just gone into the business in the last 5 to 10 

years. These are the very people that we are trying to help. And 

if there is an oversupply of the product, and the price drops, it 

could be devastating to that whole market, the very market that 

we are trying to preserve. Do you have any thoughts on that? 

46

Secretary VILSACK. Well, that is obviously a challenge. I think 

some of the changes in the farm bill relative to eliminating the 

term limit on guaranteed loans might provide some assistance. If 

somebody has been finding it difficult, they have to refinance their 

loan at a time when they are term limited coming back to FSA, 

now they won’t have to worry about that. That may be of some benefit. And we are obviously going to work with producers with forbearance, trying to make sure that we give them every opportunity 

to succeed. 

Mr. YOHO. My time has expired. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. I turn to the 

gentleman from Minnesota next for 4 minutes. 

Ms. KUSTER. Thank you very much, and I apologize for coming 

in late, but thank you, Secretary Vilsack, for your testimony here 

today. Who was next? 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady may continue. 

Ms. KUSTER. No. 

The CHAIRMAN. One of my dear friends needs to use the 4 minutes. 

Mr. NOLAN. And Secretary Vilsack, welcome. I had the good fortune to be in Mount Pleasant the day you announced your candidacy for the Presidency of the United States, and, having been 

in politics for the better part of 50 years, it was the purest, best, 

most wholesome outpouring of community support for one of their 

favorite sons that I have ever witnessed in politics. The——

Secretary VILSACK. It was also short-lived. 

Mr. NOLAN.—are still vivid in my memory. I trust they are yours 

as well. I have a couple of quick questions here, and if they have 

been asked—I had to step out for another meeting. Did anybody 

ask about the sugar program, and the lawsuits that have been recently brought? And they have been hurting badly, and I know a 

number of us, myself included, were heard, hoping that you would 

be supportive of the American sugar producers in the suit that they 

brought to the International Trade Commission. 

Secretary VILSACK. I have to be candid with you, Representative, 

from my perspective, it is a bit ill timed. I am not suggesting there 

isn’t an issue. There is, and the Mexicans have identified willingness to work on this by redirecting 700,000 tons of sugar that they 

would have put into the United States into an export opportunity 

elsewhere. 

We are at a very delicate circumstance and situation with Mexico 

on a variety of issues, and I am sure that they don’t see this as 

a particularly friendly gesture. So, in a perfect world, I would have 

liked to have seen this perhaps not occur, or not occur at this time. 

But I recognize——

Mr. NOLAN. Well, thank you for your thoughts on that, and they 

would like not to have had this occur at this time, but the circumstances were such they felt that they didn’t have any alternative. So please continue to take a good hard look at that. They 

need our help. 

The Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program, we had that attached to the farm bill. Did anybody ask about that at all? 

Secretary VILSACK. No, sir. 

47

Mr. NOLAN. Okay. Could you share with us your thoughts on 

that? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, we are obviously going to follow the direction of Congress. I think the challenge for us is to come up with 

a long term strategy to work with state and local folks to make 

sure that, over time, if Congress makes a decision not to continue 

to re-up this on an annual basis, or provide long term certainty 

that there is a replacement economy—it is one of the reasons why 

we have been working really hard to try to address new wood opportunities. 

We recently had a conference at the USDA where we created a 

prize to look at using wood not just as a framing opportunity in 

construction, but as structural members in construction. Europeans 

are now doing this. There are now multi-story buildings being built 

out of a new cross-laminated timber. We think it is a new opportunity. Wood to energy, a new opportunity. So we are trying to figure out ways in which we can stimulate—we are treating more 

wood, as we promised we would, but we need to do more. And I 

think that is——

Mr. NOLAN. Is that part of your biofuels——

Secretary VILSACK. Part of it is biofuels, but it is also new products, bio-products. You can take wood nanotechnology, you can take 

wood fibers, and you can make optical materials that can be used 

in computers, and other sensitive technology. You can use it to create new armor for police and fire. There is a whole new opportunity 

here to use bio-based products, which is what this farm bill that 

you all worked so hard on and passed, it is going to provide us that 

opportunity to bring those kinds of industries to small towns, 

which may, over time, allow you to navigate away from the payment in lieu of taxes and secure rural schools issues. 

Mr. NOLAN. Good. Well, thank you, Mr. Secretary. I mean, it was 

so apparent that the people who knew you best in Mount Pleasant 

had great faith and trust in you, and you raised a lot of important 

issues in that campaign. I want you to know that there are a lot 

of people here in Washington, all over the country, that have an 

equal amount of faith and trust in you, and we thank you for the 

great job that you are doing there. Keep up the good work. 

The CHAIRMAN. With that, the gentleman’s time has expired. I 

turn to the gentleman from Georgia, Austin Scott, for 4 minutes. 

Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I 

will try to be brief. Secretary Vilsack, the timeframe for the 

USDA’s review of biotech products improved, still beyond 180 days. 

What do you attribute these delays to, and what can we do, as 

Members of Congress, to help remove these impediments? Does it 

take legislation, and would you support that legislation? 

Secretary VILSACK. Congressman, we have cut quite a bit of time 

off the regulatory process, and I think there is more. Part of the 

challenge is that we are using a new system, but we are still having to work with some of the holdover that we had from the previous Administration, working through that——

Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Yes. 

Secretary VILSACK.—under the old system. But as this new system is fully embraced, you are going to see significant time reducVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:40 Jun 27, 2014 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 I:\DOCS\113-11\87513.TXT BRIAN
48

tions, again, above what has already been done. We have knocked 

off at least a year. 

Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Sure. 

Secretary VILSACK. But you can’t prevent people from questioning whether or not we have done the right assessment, whether 

we have done the right environmental review, and that is oftentimes what slows the process down. We are trying to short circuit 

this without sacrificing the quality of the inspection, and making 

sure we are doing our job to assess whether there is a risk or not. 

Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Okay. And I agree that it has 

moved in the right direction significantly, but you don’t believe that 

it needs additional legislation to help? 

Secretary VILSACK. I am not sure how you would craft it. I would 

be open to any suggestions that you have, but you would find it difficult to craft it in a way that would get a majority of the House 

and Senate. 

Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Well——

Secretary VILSACK. Of course, that may be——

Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia.—might be just as difficult these 

days. 

Secretary VILSACK. That is true. 

Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Reducing those delays just helps 

the rural community so much, and agriculture is the foundation of 

our economy, and these new products are extremely important to 

us. They are extremely important to the nation, and the world, 

with regard to food supplies. So thank you for your service, and 

with that, Mr. Chairman, I would yield the remainder of my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back, and I am proud of 

him. And continuing down the list, I turn to the very patient gentleman from Texas for his 4 minutes. 

Mr. GALLEGO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, when I 

took office in January of last year, one of the first things that I 

heard about was an issue with the cattle crossing in Presidio, 

which at one time was the number one port. 

I have worked with your office, I have had several conversations 

with your Under Secretary, Mr. Avalos. I have had conversations 

with the Administration, Mr. Shea of APHIS, and all I have asked 

is tell me why you have closed that inspection station over on the 

Mexican side, Ojinaga, which is the city on the Mexican side, 

doesn’t have any travel advisories. And I have worked with the 

State Department, who told me that it is all clear. Having been a 

former prosecutor out there, I went with the law enforcement community, both Federal and state, who tells me that there is not a 

problem. 

And yet, when I deal with the USDA—and I am told we are having a meeting, and we will call you next week, and we are having 

a meeting, and we will call you next week, and I never get a return 

phone call. With all due respect, I am getting the impression that 

there is some national security—and I am happy to reserve a secure room so that we can have a conversation about what is going 

on over at USDA, because I am, in all honesty, pretty frustrated 

that I can’t even get an answer. If it is unsafe, I want to know that. 

I would like to know why. It would seem that the State DepartVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:40 Jun 27, 2014 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 I:\DOCS\113-11\87513.TXT BRIAN
49

ment, and all your sister agencies, would disagree with your assessment of the situation on the ground. 

Secretary VILSACK. Congressman, first of all, to the extent that 

you are not getting return phone calls, I sincerely apologize. That 

is not the way we should be doing business with you, or any other 

Member of Congress, and we will make sure that that doesn’t happen, and I apologize for that. 

Second, you are entitled, and should have an answer directly to 

the question that you are raising. It is my understanding that our 

folks do have a disagreement with the State Department as it relates to the ability of our folks to travel through a section of town 

to get to that facility that they believe, our folks believe, raises a 

serious security threat to our personnel, which is why we established, on the other side of the border, an inspection process. And 

I think that is the fundamental issue. 

And I have asked our team to sit down with the State Department and see whether or not they are right, and we are wrong, or 

we are right, and they are wrong, so that there is a consistent message provided to you. I can understand that it is frustrating, especially when one Department says one thing, another Department 

says something differently. All I can do is trust, in terms of what 

I do, I am obviously, first and foremost, concerned about the public 

safety of my employees. If they have concerns, then I have to take 

them seriously. But they have to be justified, and they have to be 

reasonable. 

Mr. GALLEGO. And I will tell you that I certainly don’t disagree 

with that. My frustration is that you would think that you would 

be able to get an answer within—again, I mean, I am more halfway 

through—this is, like, nearly 18 months into my term, and it was 

one of the first conversations that I had with your agency. And it 

would seem that 18 months would be more than sufficient time to 

meet with your sister agencies and have an answer. 

Because when you open temporary facilities, it is not unusual to 

have a temporary facility at some of the points of entry, but in Laredo, for example, or in different places, Eagle Pass, they are 

closed, and they are opened a couple of months later. This situation 

has been this way for over 2 years, and there doesn’t seem to be 

any incentive on the part of the agency to move it off center. 

Frankly, I would like to invite you to come to Presidio, and I 

would like to invite you to help me move this issue off of dead center. And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back the balance of his 

time, and the Secretary’s word is good, and he will get you an answer, I am confident. 

With that, the chair turns to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, 

Mr. Thompson, for 4 minutes. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, to you and your staff for your work and collaboration putting this farm bill together. I look forward to working with you as 

we serve our oversight function, as you work for implementation. 

Just a couple of things to touch on. Obviously, the bill contained 

language to ensure the bio-based market programs includes forest 

products, and just wanted to check on the status of that, and how 

50

will we be promoting those changes so that there is broad inclusion 

of forest products. 

Secretary VILSACK. We are moving forward on those changes, 

and excited about the opportunity. And we have the lead responsibility, as you know, Congressman, so we are going to make sure 

our sister agencies are fully aware. The first step in the process for 

us is to change the regulation, which we are in the process of 

doing, then notifying our sister agencies. 

And then we have established recently some kind of reporting 

system where we can actually look at contracts that are being 

issued by Federal agencies to make sure that they have the biobased, bio-preferred language in the contract. Then, from that 

point, once we get everyone pretty disciplined to do that, then it 

is basically, how much are you actually purchasing that is biobased of all types? And we have, as you know, thousands of products that are in that category, and in that program. So we are moving on that issue. We know it is important to you. 

Mr. THOMPSON. And I appreciate it. I think it is important to our 

healthy forests too, as you know. And you were very encouraging 

during our hearings when we talked about this in the past, and I 

appreciate your support for what we did. I think we have probably 

one of the strongest forestry titles, maybe ever, with the farm bill. 

I wanted to touch some bases, and I always do, whether it is 

with you, or the Forest Supervisor at the Allegheny National Forest, so my first question is always timber harvesting, as timber 

harvesting makes sure that we have healthy forests, but also 

healthy rural communities. We did make some changes in the farm 

bill, but I wanted to see, any estimates on how many board feet 

we anticipate producing from the National Forests this year, in 

terms of which ways it is going, and what can we do to increase 

that level of harvest? Which, again, I think you would agree, when 

we are at a sustainable rate of harvest, we have healthy forests, 

and we have healthy rural communities. 

Secretary VILSACK. We would anticipate somewhere in the—I 

want to make sure I answer your question correctly. I think our 

goal this year, in this fiscal year, is 2.8 billion board feet, which 

would be more than last year, and more than the year before that. 

Our goal for Fiscal Year 2015 is 3.1 billion board feet. And I get 

reports on this every month, so I can tell you that it is obviously 

early in the process, but we have already treated 300+ million 

board feet, and we are on our way to making sure we meet those 

goals. 

I would also say that I think this wood conference that we recently had may spur additional opportunities for us. This crosslaminated timber is a tremendous opportunity for us, and I hope 

folks take advantage of the challenge we have put forward on that 

issue. 

Mr. THOMPSON. I think that is very exciting, actually. That increases the market, so, obviously, that is a big part of it, not the 

only part. And I appreciate what you are doing, pushing out to architects and engineers to educate them on the opportunities. 

We seem like we are behind. I have some schools and others who 

have National Forests too who haven’t really received their Secure 

51

Rural Schools payments yet. For whatever reason, we are a bit behind. Didn’t know if you had any kind of update on the——

Secretary VILSACK. Those——

Mr. THOMPSON.—status of that? 

Secretary VILSACK. I am pretty sure the Title I and III payments 

went out, Congressman, earlier in March, and I believe the Title 

II payments are going out tomorrow. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Okay. Tomorrow, that is a pretty quick turnaround then, thank you. We will take credit from the hearing when 

I talk——

Secretary VILSACK. All right. I expect the press release——

Mr. THOMPSON. I appreciate——

Secretary VILSACK.—to say nothing less. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Yes. I appreciate it. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back. The chair enthusiastically turns to the good lady from New Hampshire for her 4 

minutes. 

Ms. KUSTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I just 

want to commend my colleague across the aisle for the incredibly 

swift results that he was able to get out of that last question, very 

impressive. 

Thank you, Secretary Vilsack, for your leadership. Just to join 

my colleague, Mr. Nolan, in his effusive praise, I met you the first 

time when you came to New Hampshire for the First of the Nation 

Presidential primary, so my main goal is to invite you to come 

back. 

And I just wanted to say, it has been a tremendous honor for me 

to be a part of this Committee, the first Member in 70 years from 

New Hampshire. But I have some great news to report to you, and 

to share with my colleagues. Under USDA’s most recent Census of 

Agriculture, New Hampshire has grown by about five percent over 

the past 5 years, with regard to the number of young farmers and 

new farmers joining our community. So our agricultural sector may 

not be the size of the Midwest, but we certainly are making up for 

it in terms of enthusiasm. Robust local food networks, an emphasis 

on a healthy connection between fresh food and our lifestyle, as 

well as Farmers’ Markets, and organics, and growing in every way. 

I also had an excellent meeting this morning with a group of foresters, and I want to join my colleague in terms of encouraging the 

use of our National Forest lands. One of the issues that came up 

this morning had to do with—and this may be a local preference, 

but the foresters are not allowed to forest on Saturdays and holidays. 

And we are coming up in New Hampshire on a very special fifth 

season that we have that is called mud season, when the frost goes 

out, and our foresters are not able to work for about 6 weeks, so 

every day during the winter is actually very precious, and during 

the summer, when the roads dry out, it is very precious. So I would 

just ask you to take that back on advisement, and we will follow 

up with the staff. 

But we would love to get you to New Hampshire, and tourism 

and agriculture are our top two industries, and so our working 

landscape is extremely important, and thank you for your leadership. I don’t know if you had any comment on that. 

52

Secretary VILSACK. Well, I look forward to going back to New 

Hampshire. It is a great state. It is a beautiful state. 

Ms. KUSTER. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, 

for your patience. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady yields back. The chair recognizes 

the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Davis, for 4 minutes. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, thank you. 

I just want to point out I sent a letter to your office on March 6, 

inviting you to come into my district in central and southwestern 

Illinois to discuss the issue I am going to bring up today, which has 

to do with the school nutrition programs. I would love for you to 

come out and visit some of our school professionals and hear directly from them about the impacts of the implementation of the 

2010 Healthy Hunger Free Kids Act. 

I think we all share a common goal. We want kids to eat 

healthier. We want to address childhood obesity. But the good intentions have led to some challenges in our school districts. And I 

have heard from many of our local school districts about how they 

have once taken profitable parts of their school district portfolio, 

and, because of the new rules and regulations, and the lack of participation, school districts, like in Monticello, Illinois, have now lost 

$100,000 a year, and recently decided to pull out of the school nutrition program, which I don’t think is a goal of any of ours. 

The School Nutrition Association actually said that there are 1.2 

million fewer kids that participate in the school nutrition program 

since the enactment of the 2010 Healthy Hunger Free Kids Act, 

and we are seeing up to 70 percent of the fruits and vegetables 

that are being served being thrown away, which is costing school 

districts hundreds of thousands of dollars. 

And I just read an article, I thought it was an April Fool’s Day 

article, because it was April 1, but it was from the Los Angeles 

Times, talking about the second largest school district in the na- tion, in Los Angeles, that is losing upward of $18 million a year 

because of food waste. And that is only at a ten percent estimate. 

And if you add the 60 percent to that, that is $28.8, almost $29 

million a year that it is costing that one school district. 

This is why I have written to ask for some flexibility, and I just 

want to make sure that you saw the language in the Omnibus 

spending bill, and it directs the USDA to come up with some waivers for schools that are having a hard time complying with the new 

rules and regulations. Los Angeles being one, but Monticello, and 

my school district, Hillsboro, Illinois, Calhoun County, Illinois. 

And I want to give you some credit too, when we identified some 

problems with the protein and grain requirements, your agency did 

offer some flexibility. Thank you for that, and thank you to my colleague, Kristi Noem, for making that issue a priority also. But I 

want to know, have you developed any procedures——

Secretary VILSACK. Yes. 

Mr. DAVIS.—for the Omnibus language for the school districts 

that ask for flexibility? 

Secretary VILSACK. Congressman, my staff, Todd Batta, handed 

me a copy of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act, 

which talks about our authority, and I will be happy to give this 

to you. It is fairly clear from this that we don’t have the authority 

53

that you would like us to exercise. Statutorily, we simply do not 

have the capacity to waive. And I will read from it, ‘‘The Secretary 

may not grant a waiver under this subsection that increases Federal costs, or that relates to—(A) the nutritional content of meals 

served,’’ or, ‘‘(J) the sale of competitive foods.’’ So if you are looking 

at waiver authority, this is something that you may want to take 

a look at. 

Mr. DAVIS. So basically, beyond the spending language that we 

put forth, you can’t offer those waivers? 

Secretary VILSACK. That is correct. 

Mr. DAVIS. Okay. I have a problem—who, then, is going to be 

able to offer the waivers that we have asked to be——

Secretary VILSACK. Well, you would have to change the law to 

give me the permission and the capacity to do this. I don’t have the 

power to do it. 

Mr. DAVIS. Well, we did change the law in the Omnibus spending 

bill, and——

Secretary VILSACK. No, you directed us to grant waivers. You 

didn’t give us the authority to do so. 

Mr. DAVIS. I would like to point out that this Administration 

doesn’t have a problem changing and offering—on other legislation, 

but that is another——

Secretary VILSACK. That is——

Mr. DAVIS.—that is a different subject. 

Secretary VILSACK. Yes. 

Mr. DAVIS. I just would ask you to come visit so that we can get 

your support, and the support of this Administration, to offer some 

flexibility to these school districts that they obviously need. 

Secretary VILSACK. Congressman, may I—Mr. Chairman——

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may respond. 

Secretary VILSACK. Very quickly, first of all, 92 percent of school 

districts in this country have either already been certified, or are 

in the process of receiving certification under these new standards, 

so there has been acceptance. I am not sure that the School Nutrition Association is absolutely correct, as it relates to the people 

that aren’t participating, because we have seen a dramatic increase 

in the school breakfast program, so I wonder about those numbers. 

And on the issue of food waste, we have to be very careful about 

this issue, and here is why: 30 percent of all food that is produced 

in the United States of America is wasted, 30 percent. It happens 

in restaurants, it happens in homes, it happens in schools, it happens everywhere. And that is an unfortunate circumstance, and it 

is something, frankly, I would be happy to work with you on, trying 

to figure out how to reduce food waste, because it is not only a terrible waste of production, but it also is the single largest part of 

solid waste in our landfills, and it is a methane producer. So there 

are many reasons to get focused on that issue. 

Mr. DAVIS. I would love to work with you on that issue. I would 

love to work with you on addressing some of the concerns I brought 

up, but I don’t want you to confuse the 85 to 90 percent compliance 

rate with satisfaction from the school district. And I would appreciate your ability to work with me on addressing some of those concerns too, sir. Thank you. 

54

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. The chair now 

recognizes the gentlelady from New Mexico for 4 minutes. 

Ms. LUJAN GRISHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary 

Vilsack, you recently visited my home state, New Mexico, and my 

district, and I really appreciate that, and thank you for your efforts 

to be present, and on the ground. And I would like to follow up on 

an issue that we briefly spoke about, because we have such a high 

proportion of minority farmers and ranchers in New Mexico. 

In June of last year the Forest Service conducted a civil rights 

compliance review that included Region 3 in New Mexico, and 

found that they were non-compliant with several civil rights requirements. Now, the report detailing these findings, and suggested corrective actions to be taken, directs the Forest Service to 

develop a detailed corrective action report, within 60 days of the receipt of the report. It states that the plan must also include any 

progress made in these areas since the review. Can you provide me 

with any updated information related to both the corrective action 

plan, and progress to date on implementing, and going through 

those review processes? 

Secretary VILSACK. Congresswoman, I would be happy to have 

our team and our staff provide you with details. So, if you don’t 

mind, I am going to answer your question a bit more generically 

and generally. 

[The information referred to is located on p. 65.] 

I receive a monthly report relating to Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaints and program complaints for each department of the USDA. I can tell you that both are at record lows, 

which is good, in terms of the overall department. When we see 

high numbers of program complaints, or Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) complaints, we ask our civil rights folks 

to look into it, and to create a collaborative effort with the mission 

area to work out difficulties. I know that Joe Leonard in our civil 

rights office has been working very closely with the Forest Service. 

I know Region 5 has been an area that he has spent a lot of time 

on, but, honestly, at this point in time, I will have to check on Region 3, in terms of precisely what has happened there. 

Ms. LUJAN GRISHAM. Right. 

Secretary VILSACK. But I would be surprised if we aren’t on top 

of this. 

Ms. LUJAN GRISHAM. And, Mr. Chairman, if I might, and just to 

respond to that with the Secretary, you were responsive to me 

when you were in the district. You offered staff to come back on 

the ground. That has not yet come to fruition, and so continuing 

your efforts on our behalf, I would be very grateful, make sure that 

we do have the Department engaged to the highest degree possible, 

and do appreciate that you spend time on corrective action plans, 

and reviewing how the Department is doing in a variety of levels. 

I think that that is an encouraging effort that many more departments in the Administration should be doing. 

So I look forward to having you back in the district, and we are 

ready to work with you. We are more than ready to work with you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady yields back the balance of her 

time. We have the gentleman from Louisiana, the gentleman from 

55

California, and the gentlelady from South Dakota remaining, and 

there is time. The gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. McAllister, is 

recognized for 4 minutes. 

Mr. MCALLISTER. Thank you, sir. It is tough being the low man 

on the totem pole, waiting until the end. First I just want to tell 

you thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Secretary. I appreciate the bipartisan support. You know, I represent one of the largest row crop districts in the state, so when this farm bill came 

about—now, obviously I am the new kid on the block, and I ain’t 

never had no public office, so I went to the people, and I asked 

them about the farm bill. And over 253 different constituents, from 

every part of the industry that I asked, not a single one of them 

said no. They all said, please make sure this farm bill passes, 

please get it in. 

The CHAIRMAN. I like your constituents, sir. 

Mr. MCALLISTER. So I just want to commend you, Mr. Chairman, 

and you, Secretary, for that. And, heck, I would definitely appreciate it if you want to come down to my district and check out these 

guys. And, remember, crawfish goes out about May, so if you want 

to come, now is the time to come, if you want to eat good, and enjoy 

some corn, potatoes, and crawfish. 

But one concern I have, and I was just in the district this past 

week, and, look, I know we have to live in the reality of the world 

that we live in, and I know there are some certain things that need 

to be changed out, but the FSA program is one of them. That is 

a serious concern to me, with the rural farmers and all that we 

have in the rural communities. 

And my main concern is most of these farmers—we live in a 

technologically challenged area for us, one, with the Internet capabilities, and even some of these older farmers—and I heard the 

other gentleman talking earlier about trying to get younger farmers into the program, which absolutely we need to, but that one on 

one, and filling out those applications, and what the FSA program 

does for my district is very vital. 

So the only thing I just—and it is really not a question, per se,

to put you on point or ask, it is just, please be mindful when it 

comes to how we do. Try to regroup and restructure this, that we 

make sure that Mr. Bud down the road, that don’t turn on the computer, and only thing he has is to set that appointment and go 

meet with his FSA officer, and still being represented, and still 

gets programs, and get them done. 

And I am all about efficiency, and whatever we can do to help, 

being one of the largest row crop districts in the country, I do sincerely wish that, if you get the opportunity to come down and visit, 

and we will get all the farmers together, and we will send you back 

with loads of peaches, and sweet potatoes, and everything else we 

are growing. It would mean a lot to them to know that—they feel 

like they are kind of being disenfranchised with this FSA. 

Because, I mean, all they hear is the media, and the hype, and 

people want to point the finger at you, say that you are cutting because you are doing other things in the budget. But it is the world 

we live in, and how we have to be more efficient about what we 

do, and how we do it. At the end of the day, we are all on the same 

page, that we want to support the farmer, and make sure that we 

56

are still producing enough crops to feed this country, and export as 

much as we can to be sustainable. 

So I just—whatever your comments might be on that, but I definitely appreciate your time coming here today and visiting with us. 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, Representative, the reason why we 

learned from the previous experience of taking a look at where the 

work is required, we will take into consideration those areas that 

are technologically isolated, so that it makes it more difficult for 

folks to take advantage of whatever technology advances are being 

made in service. So that is something we definitely should take 

into consideration, and we will take into consideration. 

This is not about denying people the help they need. This is 

about ensuring that we give them not just the help they need, but 

even working to maybe give them some ideas that they never even 

thought about to be able to connect farmers to rural development 

programs, to conservation programs more effectively, and to deal 

with the budget realities that we face. So we will be sensitive to 

the concerns you have expressed here. 

Mr. MCALLISTER. Well, I appreciate it, and I look forward to 

working with you. I yield back my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back the balance of his 

time. The chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. 

LaMalfa, for 4 minutes. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 4 minutes, I will hurry. I appreciate the earlier commentary. California, I am from there, big drought. Anything you 

can do to help expedite the disaster assistance, especially as it affects the Livestock Indemnity Program, we stand to help you assist 

with that as well. 

We have issues going on also with—we were talking about the 

section 404 permits and such, and we have people running into 

problems with the EPA, and those folks, and doing crop changes, 

and that somehow it involved some kind of Clean Water Act problem, when they are merely changing crops, and getting in trouble 

with the Federal Government and that. So we might come to you, 

seeking some assistance on getting through that, because we think 

that is a wrong interpretation, as was commented earlier. 

Thank you, again—Ms. Negrete McLeod mentioned the WIC program in California. We need to see how we can lift that moratorium get more vendors out there being able to compete, provide 

more choices, and hopefully better pricing for people in the WIC 

program. To reiterate, do you know when there might be a start 

date for reviewing the applications for——

Secretary VILSACK. I don’t know the specific date, but I know 

that there has been a real focus on trying to get this done, and getting it resolved quickly. This was a major problem, and we have 

been working with the state for a long time. 

So with the questions that are being asked here, I am more than 

happy to get back to my office and make sure that Kevin 

Concannon and his team get in touch with your office, and some 

of the other folks who have asked this question, to make sure that 

we get you the latest information. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Thank you so much. Jumping to forestry, I mean, 

in California, that old saying, you can’t see the forest through the 

57

trees, got too dang many trees. So we need to get a lot more yield 

out of our forests. One of our units up there in the northeast, they 

had, as an original goal, 32 million board feet. I hear now they are 

only going to come up with 12 million board feet in this year. A 

couple of my colleagues did mention board feet, and yield, and all 

that, and we need a lot more help. We need a lot more help on the 

salvage side of it too, where we have frustrated vendors out there, 

foresters that would like to get after salvage. 

We are getting some movement on the Rim fire, but a lot of others are very frustrated because, as you know, you have a short 

amount of time to get at the salvage timber before it becomes insect infested. And then, instead of a positive to the economy, and 

a positive getting it out of the forest, now it becomes a cost to whoever is going to have to remove it later, or you have a tinder box. 

Some local constituents visited my office this morning and spoke 

with Forest Service folks, and what they are getting is that that 

is kind of a circular argument. Like, they say, well, the local folks 

have the authorization to push forward on salvage, and on the 

amount of board feet. You talk to them, they say, well, it is coming 

from Washington, D.C. So we could really use your help on clarifying who has the authorization to push forward on—is it just salvage, or, in general, getting these permits out. 

The frustration is that the harvest permits are not moving quickly enough, and they actually are part of the solution to funding. 

You know, you hear about funding, there is not enough staff to get 

the harvest plans or other forest activities done. We would have a 

positive income if we are getting those out timely, and getting the 

forests working again. 

So I throw all these things out as—could you help us clarify a 

little bit later too on where the authorization really lies to make 

the decisions on the forest units? Is it in California, in Vallejo, or 

is it in Washington, D.C.? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, I know that in D.C. we basically set a 

goal, and, as I indicated earlier, I track it on a monthly basis. I am 

under the assumption that these decisions are not made in D.C. In 

terms of specifics, they are made at a much more local level, but 

I want to verify that, and make sure that I am giving you correct 

information. 

The information referred to is located on p. 66.] 

Mr. LAMALFA. Thank you, sir. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. The chair recognizes the gentlelady from South Dakota for 4 minutes. 

Mrs. NOEM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr. Secretary, I 

want to thank you for making livestock disaster programs a priority, and getting those implemented. You know what South Dakota has kind of gone through the last couple of years, with the 

drought in 2012, the devastating blizzard we had in October of last 

year, and tens of thousands of cattle that we lost. Western South 

Dakota has gone through another 2 day blizzard here in the middle 

of calving season, and it is hitting eastern South Dakota today. So 

it has been rough, and the fact that you have made it a priority 

means a lot to the producers at home. It means a lot to me. 

I know sign-up starts April 15. How soon do you think some payments might reach the individuals? 

58

Secretary VILSACK. I have been told that our goal is to do it relatively quickly. I don’t want to pin myself down, or our team down, 

to a specific timeline, but I can tell you everybody understands that 

these folks have waited far too long for help——

Mrs. NOEM. Yes. 

Secretary VILSACK.—and everyone understands that every day 

that goes by that they don’t get help, somebody who is on the bubble may get out of the business, so——

Mrs. NOEM. Typically in the past it has taken how long for the 

payments to go out? 

Secretary VILSACK. I don’t anticipate it is going to take very long. 

Mrs. NOEM. Okay. 

Secretary VILSACK. Folks have been assuring me that they are 

prepared to get this money out as quickly as they possibly can. 

That is the hope, and——

Mrs. NOEM. Yes. 

Secretary VILSACK.—that is the goal. 

Mrs. NOEM. I have another problem. And, as far as when it 

comes to FSA closures in the past, what we have seen in South Dakota is that an FSA office will be listed for closure, where the 

NRCS office that is right in the same building, located next to it, 

is not. A lot of the producers recognize the FSA office has a big 

workload, and they are wondering why that is focused on, rather 

than NRCS, when they are co-located. I believe you talked about 

this earlier, before I came in the room, of wanting to have a onestop shop that could meet all the producers’ needs, but I think that 

is priority. 

Two things I would like you to focus on when you look at producing where those potential closures might come is the workload, 

which you have indicated you would. The other one is distance. 

Secretary VILSACK. Yes. 

Mrs. NOEM. Because I believe in law it says that each office cannot be more than 20 miles apart as you drive, on the road miles. 

In South Dakota, some of those that were listed, and have been 

closed, were 50, 60, 70 miles apart. And when we called USDA and 

visited with FSA about it, they were interpreting it as the crow 

flies. I don’t believe the law says that. I believe that law says driving miles, and I hope that that is followed when you look at this 

list, in trying to become more efficient, and better serving the producers. 

Another thing, in northeastern South Dakota, when it comes to 

NRCS, we have some specific issues in some counties where producers who are trying to get wetland determinations done feel like 

they are being treated unfairly. And, honestly, they tell me they 

feel like they are being prosecuted. So I need some help with that. 

I think that when you have land in one county that is adjacent to 

another county, and the land in this county is treated completely 

different, and the wetland determinations are happening in a timely manner, whether it is yes, no, whatever they like, is favorable, 

doesn’t matter, but it is timely, and it happens, and the county 

right next to it takes a year, 2 years, sitting on the wetland determinations, it is extremely frustrating for those producers to make 

decisions. So I don’t think it is a whole South Dakota problem. I 

do think it is a northeastern South Dakota problem. 

59

Secretary VILSACK. And we have attempted to change the method in which these determinations are made to raise it up a 

level——

Mrs. NOEM. Yes. 

Secretary VILSACK.—so that we don’t have quite the disparity 

that you have mentioned. Hopefully that will mitigate that uncertainty. 

Mrs. NOEM. Okay. I might need your help with that. If we can 

focus on northeastern South Dakota, and make sure that that district within NRCS is complying with the direction that you have 

given to them, that would be great. 

The last thing is Section 8204 of the farm bill, that looks at Forest Service land, and some of the new authorities that we have 

given them, and how to deal with Forest Service land in regards 

to invasive species. We have the pine beetles going on in the Black 

Hills, and I know that you would probably agree that this is an important provision. Chief Tidwell has told us that he thinks it is an 

important provision. And it requires the government of a state to 

make a declaration to you to ask to use these authorities so that 

treatment areas can be detected. I know that my governor has done 

that. Have other governors asked for that authority in that provision? 

Secretary VILSACK. They have. We had a meeting with the Western Governors, and they all expressed a desire to participate in 

this, and we encouraged them to get to us their designation so that 

we can——

Mrs. NOEM. Okay. 

Secretary VILSACK.—determine whether or not it is expansive 

enough, or significant enough. You are correct, the Forest Service 

is anxious to use this authority to streamline the process, and 

hopefully to get a better handle on some of the problems that we 

are confronting. 

Mrs. NOEM. Super. Thank you so much. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady yields back. All time for questions 

has expired. The chair now turns to the Ranking Member, before 

we adjourn, to make any closing remarks that he might choose to. 

Mr. PETERSON. Well, Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank the 

Secretary for his patience, and his willingness to answer questions. 

And I guess there are some questions that need to be answered in 

writing, so we look forward to that. I look forward to working with 

the Secretary and his people getting this bill implemented, and getting the information out to the farmers on a timely basis, as timely 

as we can. Thank you for being here. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back. The chair wishes to 

note also the Secretary’s appreciation for the 2 hours and 45 minutes here, and would note that we are about to adjourn in a timely 

fashion. After 21⁄2 years of farm bill, I like doing things in a timely 

fashion indeed. 

Secretary VILSACK. Mr. Chairman, if I could, let me close by—

a number of your colleagues have indicated the extraordinary work 

that you and Congressman Peterson individually did on the passage of the farm bill. I would like to associate myself with those 

remarks as well, to acknowledge the great work that was done by 

60

both of you to get this farm bill through, and certainly appreciate 

the bipartisan nature of the work that this Committee is engaged 

in. It is an example not just for this Committee, but it is an example, hopefully, for the rest of the Congress, and the country. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Under the rules of the 

Committee, the record of today’s hearing will remain open for 10 

calendar days to receive additional material and supplemental 

written responses from the witness to any question posed by a 

Member. This hearing of the Committee on Agriculture is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

61

* Editor’s note: the letter is printed as received. 1 CRS Report R42591, The 2014 Farm Bill: Changing the Treatment of LIHEAP Receipt in the 

Calculation of SNAP Benefits, by Randy Alison Aussenberg and Libby Perl. 2 Congressional Budget Office, Cost Estimate: H.R. 2642: Agricultural Act of 2014, January 28, 

2014, http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/hr2642LucasLtr.pdf.

SUBMITTED LETTER BY HON. JIM COSTA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM

CALIFORNIA

March 31,2014

Dear President Obama,

On this day, marking the birthday of Caesar Chavez, as Bishop of the Catholic 

Diocese of Fresno, I join my brother bishops and other Californians of good will to 

exercise restraint in the use of water as an expression of solidarity with those whose 

livelihood and welfare are a risk due to extreme drought conditions. The lack of 

water is impacting everyone: farmers, ranchers, dairymen, their employees, faith 

communities, and the businesses that serve them. The situation is quickly deteriorating into a humanitarian crisis. 

Businesses are shutting their doors and others are laying off employees. Access 

for children and families to clean, drinkable water is uncertain. Legislators struggle 

to craft an equitable public policy ensuring the state’s present and future water 

needs. Lines at Food Banks and Human Service Agencies have doubled due to the 

issue and in fact our Catholic Charities services went from 87,000 units of service 

in 2012 to 137,000 units in 2013. These numbers will double in the next year if we 

don’t see a change with the water situation. 

We are reminded in this time of drought of our dependence on the Creator. Our 

human dignity relies on access to water. The creation entrusted to us is a common 

heritage and requires us to work together as responsible stewards for the common 

good, especially mindful of the vulnerable. As the economic and health impact of the 

drought grows, those with limited resources will be the first to suffer. 

May I respectfully ask that you read the attached letter * from Senator Feinstein 

and our bipartisan Congressional delegations and take action on those recommendations. 

Sincerely,

Most Reverend ARMANDO X. OCHOA, D.D. 

Bishop, Diocese of Fresno. 

SUBMITTED MEMO BY HON. JAMES P. MCGOVERN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM MASSACHUSETTS

Memo 

To: Republican Members, House Committee on Agriculture 

From: Majority Committee Staff 

Date: March 14, 2014

Re: Farm Bill Nutrition Savings Estimate

Committee staff have received questions regarding Section 4006 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (‘‘the Farm Bill’’) related to the manner in which Low Income 

Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) payments are treated in the calculation of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits. Background 

and explanation on the provision can be found in the attached Congressional Research Service (CRS) report.1

2014 Farm Bill’s Reduction in SNAP Spending 

Section 4006 of the farm bill requires that LIHEAP assistance to a SNAP participant must be greater than $20 per year in order to trigger the standard utility allowance (SUA) deduction for that household. Section 4006 is intended to reduce artificially inflated benefit levels in households receiving nominal LIHEAP checks from 

their respective state. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that this 

change will reduce SNAP spending by approximately $8.6 billion over the 10 year 

budget window of Fiscal Years 2014–2023.2


11311001.eps
62

3 Congressional Budget Office, Preliminary Cost Estimate, October 30, 2013. 4 CRS Report R42591, The 2014 Farm Bill: Changing the Treatment of LIHEAP Receipt in the 

Calculation of SNAP Benefits, by Randy Alison Aussenberg and Libby Perl, p. 9. 

States’ Reaction and Effect on Savings 

Seven of the 17 states that currently send nominal LIHEAP checks have recently announced that they intend to issue minimum $20 LIHEAP checks for this fiscal 

year to a portion of their SNAP population to maintain the artificial benefit levels. 

Various media outlets have reported on the announcements of these states. The 

press reports assume that the change in behavior of these states eliminates the savings estimated from the reforms included in Section 4006. This is false and fails to 

recognize CBO considerations included in the savings estimate. 

Prior to enactment of the Agricultural Act of 2014, the House Committee on Agriculture (‘‘the Committee’’) requested that CBO score a policy that fully severs the 

interaction between LIHEAP and SNAP. With this policy, a state-sent LIHEAP 

check of any amount would no longer trigger the SUA that allowed for increased 

SNAP benefits. Instead, states would only be allowed to provide an SUA to households incurring an actual utility expense. CBO estimated that ending the practice 

of sending households LIHEAP checks of any amount to trigger the SUA would save 

approximately $11.6 billion.3

CBO estimated that the Senate-passed farm bill S. 954 would save $4.1 billion with a minimum LIHEAP payment of $10 a year. CBO arrived at the $8.6 billion 

savings estimate by making certain considerations about how states would respond 

to the $20 minimum LIHEAP payment required under Section 4006. 

Significantly, the CBO estimate accounted for the following considerations:

• Raising the minimum LIHEAP payment deters additional states from 

artificially increasing SNAP benefits.

The 10 year SNAP baseline assumed that additional states would start 

issuing nominal LIHEAP checks. By moving the minimum LIHEAP payment to 

$20, CBO assumed that non-LIHEAP states would maintain the status quo in 

lieu of shifting scarce LIHEAP resources toward the SNAP interaction.

• Some of the 17 states would increase their minimum LIHEAP payment 

to $20 for some or all of their SNAP beneficiaries. Thus, the decision 

of these seven states to increase their LIHEAP payment does not affect 

the CBO estimate.

As of the date of this memo, seven states have reportedly committed to in- creasing their LIHEAP payments to $20 for this fiscal year in order to maintain 

artificially-increased benefits for certain SNAP beneficiaries. While CBO does 

not provide state level data, CBO’s estimate reasons that some states would increase their minimum LIHEAP payment to $20, at least for a portion of their 

beneficiaries. Thus, the decision of these states to increase their LIHEAP payment does not affect the CBO estimate.

• Some states will only continue the increased LIHEAP payment in the 

near term.

LIHEAP states have an incentive to meet the $20 minimum in the first few 

years after passage of the farm bill so that current SNAP recipients will not 

see a reduced benefit. As current beneficiaries move off of the rolls, states have 

a reduced incentive to take scarce LIHEAP funding from its intended purpose 

to increase benefits for a newly certified SNAP participant. Some, or all, 

LIHEAP states may only continue the $20 minimum LIHEAP payment for a 

portion of the 10 year baseline. 

LIHEAP Funds 

States are using Federal LIHEAP funds to trigger the artificial SNAP benefit increase. The CRS reports that ‘‘because of the budgetary constraints associated with 

LIHEAP funds, it seems unlikely that a state would give more than $20 to every 

household that had been receiving less than $20, but it is an option that is open 

to states.’’ CRS also notes that ‘‘unlike SNAP, LIHEAP is not an open-ended entitlement, and funding is not sufficient to assist every household that is eligible for the 

program. In FY 2009, 7.4 million households received heating and/or winter crises 

assistance and 900,000 received cooling assistance. The number of households assisted may now be lower. FY 2009 was a year in which states received a total of 

$5.1 billion for LIHEAP, compared to about $3.4 billion in FY 2014.’’ 4

SNAP beneficiaries with an actual utility expense already qualify for the SUA and 

do not benefit from the LIHEAP SNAP interaction. Thus, states choosing to provide 

63

5 Ibid, pp. 7–8. 

the $20 minimum LIHEAP payment are diverting Federal energy assistance dollars 

away from citizens with legitimate energy needs and the intended use of the program. CRS reports that ‘‘. . . the LIHEAP statute provides that states may use 

LIHEAP funds to provide direct assistance to households in several ways: to help 

meet ‘home energy costs’ (defined as heating or cooling), to assist in energy crisis 

situations, for home weatherization, or for services to reduce the need for energy 

assistance such as needs assessment or counseling on how to reduce energy consumption. CRS is not aware of the way in which states with nominal LIHEAP payments determine whether households have need of LIHEAP for the statutory purposes. Payments to households that are not provided for one of these purposes could 

be inappropriate.’’ 5

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL SUBMITTED BY U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Insert 1

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. The other thing is that recently 

Fish and Wildlife, last week, listed the Prairie Chicken as threatened. I am on 

the record saying that I don’t believe that was necessary. But one of the things 

I do understand is that supposedly Fish and Wildlife did consult with USDA 

about this issue. And what I was wondering is did they ask, or did you furnish 

them any information that would lead them to have information of the economic 

impact of listing this species, and the hardship or burden that it might place 

on producers? 

Secretary VILSACK. Congressman, our primary conversations with Fish and 

Wildlife Service on this particular issue was how we might be able to provide 

the same kind of regulatory certainty for Lesser Prairie Chicken that we have 

provided for Sage Grouse. So we have been able to enter into an arrangement 

with Fish and Wildlife for the benefit of landowners and producers in which we 

lay out specific conservation practices that, if farmers, pursuant to Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), working with NRCS, adopt these conservation practices, then they don’t have to worry about incidental takings, relative to conservation practices, or relative to their operation for a period of 30 

years. So our focus has been primarily on trying to figure out ways in which 

we can mitigate the impact on farming operations. 

I will have to check with my staff as to whether or not economic information 

was provided, but I know that I did direct the staff to look at ways in which 

we could create more regulatory certainty for folks who may be impacted by this 

decision.

NRCS did not provide data or information related to the economic impact of listing of the Lesser Prairie Chicken. The Agency’s effort was invested in working with 

FWS to develop a regulatory certainty framework for producers who take conservation steps to benefit Lesser Prairie Chicken habitat, similar to the approach that 

has been used successfully for Sage Grouse. Under this approach, producers follow 

the suite of conservation practices and then don’t have to worry about incidental 

takings related to conservation or operations for a period of 30 years. 

Insert 2

The CHAIRMAN. . . . 

I want to talk about cotton a little bit, China has, by some reports, a 57 million bale strategic reserve, something on the order of four to five times U.S. production. We are not real sure what they are going to do with it and why, and 

it has a big overhang on the market that is having some impact. Can you talk 

to us about what you and the USDA have done to communicate, either directly 

to the Chinese or to the WTO, our concerns about what they might or might 

not be doing with respect to their cotton policy, and the high subsidies they are 

paying? 

Secretary VILSACK. Congressman, I appreciate you bringing this issue to—

bringing it up. You know, our conversations with China in the last several years 

have been focused primarily on their regulatory system and process, and trying 

to get it better synchronized with ours, in terms of regulatory approvals. If I 

can ask for your permission, I would be happy to get you a more detailed conversation on what the communications have been relative to cotton in China. 

I can tell you that we have established a China-American business group in 

China, the purpose of which is to allow us to not only inform the Chinese 

64

through official circles, but also to engage Chinese officials and Chinese business leaders in these conversations. But let me get you more information on cotton.

Over the past year, USDA and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative 

(USTR) have used the World Trade Organization (WTO) Committee on Agriculture 

(COA) to seek increased transparency on China’s domestic support policy for cotton 

and cotton stocks. In written questions to China, the United States has pushed for 

China to come up-to-date on its required domestic support notifications. China’s last 

notification was for 2008. The United States with the support of other WTO members has also asked for information on subsidy measures associated with China’s 

price support and management of cotton stocks. Most recently, at the WTO COA 

meeting on March 21, 2014, the United States requested that China provide an 

analysis of the economic impact and effects of China’s management of cotton stocks. 

Currently, USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) and USTR are preparing a 

response to China’s submitted analysis provided in late May, which states that 

‘‘China’s cotton reserve has limited impact on the world cotton market.’’ Questions 

posed by the United States and responded to by China are publicly available on the 

WTO COA website, https://agims-qna.wto.org/public/Pages/en/Search.aspx. The 

most recent question and response is identified as ID: 73035. 

Recognizing that China’s official cotton market information collection system lacks 

reliable data, FAS Agricultural Affairs Office in Beijing is following the cotton stock 

situation closely and has reported on changes in policy, starting from the creation 

of the price support program in 2011. Most recently, in April 2014, FAS/Beijing published the Cotton and Products Annual Report for China, reporting that the government’s changes to its cotton production support policy for Marketing Year 14/15 narrows eligibility and is expected to lower farmer payments and financial incentives 

for planting. The report is available at http://gain.fas.usda.gov/

Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Cotton%20and%20Products%20Annual_Beijing_

China%20-%20Peoples%20Republic%20of_4-1-2014.pdf.

Insert 3

The CHAIRMAN. . . . 

Let us talk a little bit about the SNAP program, and the able bodied adults 

of age—under the age of 50 with no dependents. Now that unemployment nationwide has come down to 6.7 percent, can you talk to us a bit about what your 

plans are to continue granting waivers to states who have asked for those waivers for folks in that category to stay on food stamps beyond the normal 3 month 

category? 

Secretary VILSACK. Mr. Chairman, there is a real opportunity in this area, 

and, for that matter, the entire SNAP population, to do a better job of connecting work opportunities with folks on SNAP who are interested in working, 

and who are capable of working. That is why we are excited about the portion 

of the farm bill that creates the opportunity for us to have up to ten pilots with 

states to do a better job of connecting. The fact that we have these pilots is 

going to send a strong message about the important work that states must do 

a better job of using the education and training money that they have to actually do a better job of getting folks better connected. 

We think there is a disconnect between economic development and workforce 

development offices at the state level and human services offices. These folks 

know where the jobs are. These folks know who is looking for a job. For whatever reason, they are not doing a particularly good job of talking. We provide 

several hundred million dollars to encourage that kind of conversation. We need 

to do a better job of compelling that conversation. 

We will be happy to take a look at the waiver issue. . . .

We will communicate with the Committee once we have the results of the pilots 

in 2015. 

Insert 4

Mr. COSTA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the Secretary for his good work, and his staff. Speaking of which, I want to acknowledge that one of your staff members who is departing used to work for many 

of us here in the House Agriculture Committee, and that is Ann MacMillan, and 

we wish her the very best in her future endeavors, Mr. Secretary. 

Your opening statement talked about the good, and the bad, and the challenges American agriculture faces. On the plus side, you noted that record profits, due in large result to trade activity, has been occurring throughout American agriculture. Have you done any evaluations, the Department, on what the 

65

benefits would be if the TTIP, the trade negotiations between ourselves, and the 

Europeans, and the TPA, were to be successfully negotiated? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, we are confident that it would substantially increase 

trade activities, Congressman. I can get you the specific dollar amounts.

A TTIP agreement that delivers meaningful market access would provide a significant boost to U.S. exports and the rural economy. U.S. agricultural exports to 

the European Union are now projected to be $12 billion for FY 2014, a figure that 

can and should be much higher, but is hindered by EU tariffs and non-tariff barriers. 

The EU imported nearly $135 billion of agricultural products from global sources 

in 2013, up more than 150 percent from 2000. Yet, U.S. agricultural exports to the 

EU grew by only 82 percent during this period while our exports to the world grew 

by 181 percent. The EU’s average agricultural tariff is 30 percent, while the average 

U.S. agricultural tariff is only 12 percent. The Administration is seeking in TTIP 

to eliminate tariffs on exports. Through the TTIP we are seeking commitments from 

the EU to eliminate or reduce non-tariff barriers, such as unwarranted sanitary and 

phytosanitary (SPS) restrictions, unjustified technical barriers to trade (TBT), and 

other ‘‘behind-the-border’’ barriers, including the restrictive administration of tariffrate quotas and permit and licensing barriers, which impose unnecessary costs and 

limit competitive opportunities for U.S. exports. The dollar value of the benefits of 

a TTIP agreement will hinge on how rapidly tariffs fall and non-tariff barriers are 

dismantled, clearing the way for increases in U.S. agricultural exports. 

Insert 5

Mr. CRAWFORD. Thank you. And, finally, H.R. 933, Continuing Appropriations 

Act of 2013, was signed over a year ago. Had some language in it, Section 742, 

that required USDA to rescind sections of the original GIPSA rule, having to 

do with the suspension of delivery of birds, and with making the rule applicable 

to live poultry. The Department was required to rescind those within 60 days, 

and it is my understanding that hasn’t occurred yet. Can you give me an idea 

when that is going to be completed? 

Secretary VILSACK. I will have to get back to you on that, Congressman. I 

don’t know.

At the present time, there are no plans to rescind those regulations. 

Insert 6

Ms. LUJAN GRISHAM. . . . In June of last year the Forest Service conducted a civil rights compliance review that included Region 3 in New Mexico, and found that they were non-compliant with several civil rights requirements. Now, the report detailing these 

findings, and suggested corrective actions to be taken, directs the Forest Service 

to develop a detailed corrective action report, within 60 days of the receipt of 

the report. It states that the plan must also include any progress made in these 

areas since the review. Can you provide me with any updated information related to both the corrective action plan, and progress to date on implementing, 

and going through those review processes? 

Secretary VILSACK. Congresswoman, I would be happy to have our team and 

our staff provide you with details. So, if you don’t mind, I am going to answer 

your question a bit more generically and generally.

Civil rights compliance reviews are part of USDA’s ongoing effort to determine 

how well its programs and activities are being conducted and to help ensure that 

they are available to all communities in a fair and even-handed manner pursuant 

to law. We view the compliance review as an opportunity to better serve our constituents. 

The Forest Service has been working in collaboration with in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights within USDA to implement solutions to the areas 

of improvement noted in the review. Importantly, the Forest Service is engaged in 

an extensive, long term effort to update handbooks and manuals regarding grazing 

permits, and is committed to working with the Hispanic ranching community as 

well as other stakeholders during this process. Regional leadership is engaging with 

local stockman’s associations and listening to their concerns. In addition, FS has undertaken several intiatives designed to improve service such as civil rights training 

for FS regional staff, technical training for customers, and the development of a Forest Service plan to address customers with limited English proficiency. FS will continue to work with the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights to ensure 

better program delivery and equal access to FS programs. 

Other accomplishments to date: 

66

Program Delivery (Title VI) Training has been conducted to the following regional 

staff areas:

• Regional Civil Rights Committee, which are FS employees representing the 11 

Forests within the region. (c. May 28, 2014)

• Special Emphasis Program Mangers and Civil Rights Action Group Members, 

Coronado National Forest. (c. March 12, 2014)

• Recreational Staff, Coronado National Forest, Special Uses Permit, 101 Training (c. April 10, 2014)

Region 3 (New Mexico and Arizona Forests) leadership is also working to develop 

strategies and action plans as necessary to address the issues identified in the CR 

compliance review. Plans will include identifying training needs for program managers, field leaders and the public. 

Insert 7

Mr. LAMALFA. Thank you so much. Jumping to forestry, I mean, in California, that old saying, you can’t see the forest through the trees, got too dang 

many trees. So we need to get a lot more yield out of our forests. One of our 

units up there in the northeast, they had, as an original goal, 32 million board 

feet. I hear now they are only going to come up with 12 million board feet in 

this year. A couple of my colleagues did mention board feet, and yield, and all 

that, and we need a lot more help. We need a lot more help on the salvage side 

of it too, where we have frustrated vendors out there, foresters that would like 

to get after salvage. . . . 

So I throw all these things out as—could you help us clarify a little bit later 

too on where the authorization really lies to make the decisions on the forest 

units? Is it in California, in Vallejo, or is it in Washington, D.C.? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, I know that in D.C. we basically set a goal, and, as 

I indicated earlier, I track it on a monthly basis. I am under the assumption 

that these decisions are not made in D.C. In terms of specifics, they are made 

at a much more local level, but I want to verify that, and make sure that I am 

giving you correct information.

The national and regional offices provide policy direction and targets for a variety 

of restoration work activities, including timber volume sold. The environmental 

analysis and the decision memos that lead to individual timber sales and stewardship contracts are typically completed and signed at the National Forest level. 

SUBMITTED QUESTIONS

Response from Hon. Thomas ‘‘Tom’’ J. Vilsack, Secretary, U.S. Department 

of Agriculture 

Submitted Questions by Hon. Frank D. Lucas, a Representative in Congress from 

Oklahoma 

Question 1. Last week the EPA released its ‘‘waters of the U.S.’’ proposed rule. 

Within that rule the EPA has issued an ‘‘interpretive rule’’ to ‘‘clarify’’ that a long 

list of conservation practices are exempt from ‘‘dredge and fill’’ permit requirements 

under the Clean Water Act section 404 exemption for ‘‘normal’’ farming and ranching activities—so long as the practices comply with NRCS standards. So as I understand it, a farmer only qualifies for any one of these exemptions if the farmer follows NRCS standards. Is that correct? 

Answer. The proposed rule preserves all existing agricultural exemptions under 

the Clean Water Act. The interpretive rule clarifies the scope of the existing statutory exemption found in section 404(f)(1)(A) of the Clean Water Act. Under the interpretive rule, 56 conservation practices do not require a Clean Water Act Section 

404 permit when occurring in waters of the U.S., if they are implemented in accordance with NRCS conservation practice standards. The corresponding NRCS conservation practice standards provide guidelines for implementation of those practices, which ensures that these conservation activities meet the intent of protecting 

and enhancing water quality.

Question 1a. Will it be NRCS or the EPA who will inspect each farming operation 

who claims this conservation exemption? 

Answer. The conservation practices identified in the interpretative rule will be 

treated the same as all other long-standing agricultural exemptions under section 

404 of the Clean Water Act; there is no requirement for approval, notification, or 

67

inspection, prior to installing the conservation practice nor is there a requirement 

for verification of the installed practice. 

The EPA and the Army/Corps will not seek out operations that may have performed exempt activities; however, they may respond to notifications or reports of 

potentially unauthorized non-exempt activities.

Question 1b. If a farmer does not follow an NRCS standard, is that farmer violating the law and subject to a $37,500 per day fine? 

Answer. Under the interpretative rule, the identified conservation practices do not 

require a CWA Section 404 permit when they occur in waters of the U.S., if they 

are implemented following NRCS conservation practice standards. Failure to follow 

the requirements of the CWA exemption is a violation of the CWA. The agencies’ 

intent is to work with farmers to help them meet applicable standards and to correct any problems that may develop—not to seek fines.

Question 1c. Will farmers be subject to the citizen suit provision of the Clean 

Water Act for alleged failure to comply with NRCS standards? 

Answer. The interpretative rule does not modify the scope of rights afforded to 

citizens under Section 505 of the Clean Water Act.

Question 2. What role will the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers have in future 

revisions of these standards? 

Answer. The development, review, and revision of conservation practice standards 

are the sole responsibility of USDA/NRCS. NRCS develops these standards to guide 

its work with farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners in conserving natural resources in balance with a productive agriculture. In accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding that guides how the three agencies will cooperate in implementation of the interpretive rule, NRCS will meet with the EPA and the Army/

Corps annually to discuss appropriate adjustments to the list of practice standards 

exempt from CWA section 404 permitting.

Question 3. Is it true that any—or all—of these ‘‘exemptions’’ can be changed, curtailed or even eliminated by NRCS without notice to the public and without public 

input? 

Answer. NRCS reviews its existing conservation practice standards on a rolling 

schedule and the standards are subject to a public process including a public notice 

and comment period through the Federal Register.

Question 3a. How does that compare to current law? Must a farmer currently 

meet NRCS standards to qualify for ‘normal’ activities that are exempt under Sec. 

404? 

Answer. Under current law, normal farming activities, such as plowing, cultivating, minor drainage, and harvesting for the production of food, fiber, and forest 

products, or upland soil and water conservation practices are exempt when they are 

part of an established, on-going farming operation and do not change the use of waters and impair the flow or circulation or reduce the reach of waters.. The interpretive rule clarifies the scope of the normal farming exemption to include conservation 

activities occurring in waters of the U.S.

Question 3b. Could you please tell the Committee—or submit for the record—the 

process by which NRCS establishes these standards, what input farmers have in 

their development, and what happens if farmers disagree with NRCS? 

Answer. The NRCS conservation practice standards are science-based, drawing 

upon agricultural, academic, and practitioner input. NRCS reviews its existing conservation practice standards on a rolling schedule. The standards are subject to a 

public notice and comment process through the Federal Register to ensure opportunity for input. Final standards reflect public comment and the best science—basic 

and applied—at the time. Following these standards is voluntary; farmers may obtain a permit for activities regulated under Section 404 of the CWA if they do not 

want to follow the conservation practice standards.

Question 3c. What role will the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers have in future 

revisions of these standards? 

Answer. EPA and Army Corps may provide input on NRCS conservation practice 

standards through the public process along with other commenters; however, the development, review, and revision of conservation practice standards remain the sole 

responsibility of NRCS.

Question 4. Exemption No. 382 on the list says simply ‘‘fence.’’ Am I correct in 

concluding that a farmer must build a fence on his property according to the way 

NRCS says it must be done, otherwise that farmer no longer qualifies for the conservation exemption and is then subject to penalties under the Clean Water Act? 

Answer. The agencies believe that in the vast majority of circumstances, fencing 

does not require a CWA permit and therefore the 404(f) exemption is unnecessary 

68

and construction of fences is not subject to enforcement. In the unusual case where 

construction of a fence is subject to the statute, no permit is needed if the fence is 

built in accordance with the conservation practice standard.

Question 5. Section 404(f) states in part that ‘‘the discharge of dredged or fill material . . . from normal farming, silviculture, and ranching activities such as plowing, seeding, cultivating, minor drainage, harvesting for the production of food, fiber, 

and forest products . . . is not prohibited by or otherwise subject to regulation 

under this section.’’ Of course, there is also the ‘recapture’ provision which takes 

away those exemptions if there is a change of use. But my question is this: How 

can you read Section 404(f) and arrive at the conclusion that the Clean Water Act 

authorizes EPA to fine farmers $37,500 per day if they do not follow Federal fencebuilding requirements? 

Answer. In the vast majority of circumstances, fencing is not expected to involve 

a discharge of dredge and fill material and does not require a section 404 CWA permit and would not be subject to enforcement. In the unusual case where construction of a fence is subject to the statute, no permit is needed if the fence is built 

in accordance with the conservation practice standard.

Question 6. The agreement you have with EPA on NRCS practices only impacts 

404 permits correct? Producers will still need 402 permits for any spray drift that 

touches any ditch or stock pond because your Administration’s agencies have made 

them Federal waters, isn’t that true? 

Answer. The proposed rule is not expected to alter the scope of waters, including 

ditches and farm/stock ponds, subject to the CWA. As a result, the agencies do not 

expect to see any significant change in waters on agricultural lands subject to the 

402 program.

Question 7. What agency will spot check and enforce the NRCS Standards on 

these ‘‘exemptions’’? Does NRCS have the staffing and budget for this role? 

Answer. This exemption is treated the same as other long-standing agricultural 

exemptions under section 404 of the Clean Water Act. There is no requirement for 

approval, notification, or inspection prior to installing the conservation practice, nor 

is there a requirement for verification of the installed practice. NRCS does not have 

a Clean Water Act enforcement role. The EPA and the Army/Corps will not seek 

out such operations which may have performed exempt activities; however, they 

may respond to notifications or reports of potentially unauthorized non-exempt activities. 

Submitted Questions by Hon. Collin C. Peterson, a Representative in Congress from 

Minnesota 

Question 1. Do you have a timeline for when the education and web tool funds 

provided in title I of the farm bill will be available to extension and land-grant 

economists and specialists? 

Answer. On May 29, USDA announced the University of Illinois (lead for the National Coalition for Producer Education [NCPE]), along with the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI) at the University of Missouri and the Agricultural and Food Policy Center (AFPC) at Texas A&M (co-leads for the National 

Association of Agricultural and Food Policy [NAAFP]), will receive a total of $3 million to develop the new online tools and train state-based extension agents who can 

in turn help educate farmers. 

USDA also announced on May 29 that it will also award $3 million to state cooperative extension services—a nationwide network of experts based at land-grant 

universities—for outreach and education on the new farm bill programs. Funds will 

be used to conduct public education outreach meetings where producers can speak 

with local extension agents and Farm Service Agency (FSA) staff. Outreach meetings will begin late this summer to help farmers and ranchers understand the new 

programs and their options.

Question 2. Do you have a timeframe yet for when you may start the rulemaking 

on updating the actively-engaged rule in regard to management? 

Answer. USDA intends to publish the proposed rule by the end of 2014.

Question 3. FSA computers—With passage of the farm bill and changes to current programs, it will be vital for FSA county offices to be able to handle the workload. With that in mind, could you please give me details on the much needed upgrades to FSA’s computer system, or ‘‘MIDAS’’, and the reception of the improvements in field offices? Have there been any bumps in the road? 

Answer. The two remaining business applications on the 1980s-era AS/400 systems, the Marketing Assistance Loans (MAL) application and the Farm Storage Facility Loans (FSFL), are scheduled to be modernized to the web by 2015, allowing 

for the previous hardware to be decommissioned. 

69

MIDAS seeks to modernize the current system, in which our 2,175 state and county offices and the 9,000+ employees in them utilize multiple systems when dealing 

with producers who come into the county offices and move between systems (e.g.,

on the AS400, the web systems, mainframe systems, GIS systems, etc.) to enroll producers into programs. Prior to MIDAS going live with its first release last year, 

county office employees used hard copies of farm maps to work with the producers 

on acreage volumes/content, as well as perform a great deal of manual processes in 

these activities. Once MIDAS deployed its first release, Farm Records, in April 2013, 

which established foundational data and processes allowing field offices to update 

farm, producer, and Common Land Unit records and prepare for taking acreage reports, it provided county office employees a consolidation visualization of the farm, 

eliminating the reliance on paper maps. The deployment also included farm records 

with GIS integration, producer information, and common commodity data. FSA has 

also completed the consolidation of geospatial data into a centralized database, 

eliminating dependency on outmoded servers and extending the GIS functionality 

for FSA’s service center personnel. Together, GIS modernization and MIDAS enable 

FSA to enhance program delivery and support, allow for timelier implementation of 

programs, and allow for the integration of geospatial data with business operations. 

While it is common for a temporary decrease in operational performance to occur 

with the implementation of most new technologies, concerns experienced by users 

with the Farm Records release have largely been addressed, and by polling the information technology and field office staff, we know they are generally positive 

about the current release and upcoming MIDAS releases. 

Since the deployment of Farm Records last year, we have been reworking our vision for MIDAS. While we are still finalizing this vision, we anticipate future releases will include functionality for acreage and inventory reporting, customer selfservice, streamlined creation and maintenance of producer information and maintenance of historical information and report capabilities. This will provide farmers and 

ranchers with the opportunity to access their records online and to manage their 

farming operation information using the Internet anytime and anywhere. MIDAS 

will also streamline acreage and inventory reporting for both customers and staff, 

and enable data-sharing across programs, agencies, and offices, greatly simplifying 

the administration of these programs. When completed, our vision is that MIDAS 

will provide a ‘single view’ of producer data, bridging system related activities behind the system, so producers’ crop and acreage reports, farm records and ‘maps’, 

or the geospatial views of their farms are combined with their farm information.

Question 4. Office of Civil Rights—I continue to hear concerns about your Office 

of Civil Rights. Please provide a picture of the status of civil rights claims pending 

in that office, including an accounting of claims pending or that have reached the 

statute of limitations under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. 

Answer. In 2009 USDA had an inventory of 1,718 employment discrimination 

complaints. Today, the Office of the Assistant for Civil Rights (OASCR) has reduced 

its inventory to 1,119: 681 of these complaints are in abeyance pending a decision 

by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. USDA has led the Federal government in enforcement through administrative findings in each of the last 4 years 

and brought the ratio of complaints per employee below the Federal average. 

In 2009, USDA faced a backlog of thousands of complaints of discrimination in 

USDA programs. The inventory had not been organized to safeguard complainants’ 

rights to file in court. Many contained claims under the Equal Credit Opportunity 

Act (ECOA), and USDA faced the risk that the ECOA statute of limitations would 

expire before complaints could be resolved on a daily basis. Today, OASCR has resolved all but 356 program civil rights complaints. USDA carefully tracks all open 

complaints against the statute of limitations to ensure that complaints are resolved 

before it expires. The statute of limitations has not expired on any program complaint since 2010. 

OASCR’s inventory includes 112 complaints on which the statute of limitations 

expired. OASCR continues to pursue options to provide a fair and consistent framework for addressing these complaints.

Question 5. FSA offices—There is a lot of concern about the possibility of FSA 

county office closures. I have read that you don’t anticipate any closures this year. 

Do you have any more details you can share on the ‘‘spoke and hub’’ concept that 

we are hearing about? 

Answer. FSA is working to develop a new service delivery concept to restructure 

and modernize how FSA services are provided to farmers and ranchers. The concept 

proposes to classify each of FSA’s county offices as central, branch, or satellite, 

based on service needs and available resources. FSA will be sharing additional details of this concept as they become available.

70

Question 6. When will you be able to share your plans for this effort with Members of Congress? 

Answer. As required by the 2008 Farm Bill, plans will be shared with Members 

of Congress before announcing a new policy.

Question 7. Are you going to work with your State Executive Directors and county 

office and credit employees, along farm and commodity groups in each state on how 

best to ‘‘right size’’ FSA and still provide adequate service in the field? 

Answer. Yes, FSA has created an advisory group of its State Executive Directors, 

and has solicited information from its employee association stakeholders on the 

Model Service Center concept and implementation strategies.

Question 8. USDA field offices—With anticipated office closures, either in FSA 

or in Rural Development offices, what is the 3 year picture at USDA for downsizing 

in both field locations and employee numbers? 

Answer. During the last several fiscal years, reductions in appropriations for salaries and expenses have led to significant reductions in personnel and administrative 

expenditures for both FSA and RD. Through staff attrition, voluntary early retirements and buyout programs since 2010, FSA has eliminated more than 3,000 staff, 

or a 20 percent reduction and RD has decreased their workforce from over 6,000 

in 2008 to less than 4,800 in 2014. The FY 2015 budget proposes closing or consolidating 250 offices. This level assumes continued reductions in appropriations for salaries and expenses, as evidenced in previous years, and a shift in workload activity. 

No office closure plan has been approved at this time, however, and FSA has not 

compiled a list of specific offices to close. 

Given significant decreases in staffing levels over the past few years, RD is also 

in the process of evaluating whether or not to close or consolidate offices. To date 

no approvals have been granted for office closures or consolidations. RD will continue to collaborate with state leadership, employee associations, and stakeholders 

to maintain efficient delivery of our programs while taking into account the need 

to modernize and align staffing levels with, program delivery and available resources.

Question 9. NASS Reporting—Given budget constraints, NASS had to suspend 

some reporting that was critical to the livestock industry. What is the current status 

of that reporting? Is NASS doing anything to refocus their efforts on critical reports? 

Answer. In an effort to meet stakeholder needs, NASS works diligently to identify 

opportunities to provide data to support the agricultural industry. Many programs 

were suspended during fiscal year 2013, including many critical to the livestock industry. Of the seven programs suspended, five have been restored. Specific program 

level updates are included below.

NASS Catfish Processing: After a period of stakeholder input, it was decided 

this report would not be restored. 

Catfish Production: In February 2014, the Annual Catfish Production report 

was issued, and in July 2014, the July Catfish Production will be issued. 

Catfish Feed Deliveries: After a period of stakeholder input, it was decided 

this report would not be restored. 

Trout Production: In March 2014, the Annual Trout Production report was 

issued. 

July Cattle Report: The survey program was restored and July Cattle report 

will be issued in July 2014. 

Mink Program: The survey program was restored and the annual Mink report 

will be issued in July 2014. 

Milk Production: The survey program was restored and full Milk Production 

report was restored in fiscal year 2014.

Question 10. NASS Reporting—NASS releases preliminary data before the final 

month prices are available, given the volatility in the market place, should those 

reports continue? Would NASS efforts be better focused on releasing price information on a timelier basis? 

Answer. In an effort to evaluate the Price Program, NASS embarked on a ‘‘Voice 

of the Customer’’ initiative to listen to data users’ concerns. As part of this initiative, NASS has found that data users do not find preliminary prices useful in projecting full month prices. This is particularly difficult during times of volatile price 

movement. Preliminary prices represent spot market prices collected around the 

15th of the month for some commodities or sales transactions during the first two 

weeks of the month for others. As a result of this initiative, NASS will eliminate 

preliminary prices beginning with the January 2015 monthly Agricultural Prices report. The methodology for producing commodity prices will remain unchanged. The 

indexes will be based solely on full month prices and will lag 1 month. The elimiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:40 Jun 27, 2014 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 I:\DOCS\113-11\87513.TXT BRIAN
71

nation of preliminary prices allows the Agricultural Prices report to be released a 

few days earlier in the month, since significant price data are not available until 

later in the following month. The release of the January report will remain on the 

last business day, as mandated by law.

Question 11. NASS Reporting—Are we facing a situation where private companies may end up having more and better data regarding agricultural production in 

the U.S. than the Federal Government? Is this a concern, and are there discussion 

underway on how to increase the quality of NASS’ data? 

Answer. NASS forecasts and estimates have always been subject to question by 

those that use the data. This happens primarily when the NASS results do not 

match what is expected. These expectations can be based on many factors, however 

each individual entity has their own biases and motives affecting their opinions. 

NASS provides the only unbiased estimates, based on the most comprehensive data 

source available. 

NASS takes these and all concerns very seriously and evaluates all estimating 

programs on an ongoing basis to ensure that all processes and procedures are statistically reliable and utilize the best methods possible. 

NASS continues to provide the most comprehensive, unbiased estimates available 

within the agriculture industry. These estimates, though sometimes scrutinized, remain the ‘‘gold standard’’ against which all other estimates are measured. As new 

technologies emerge and various industries evolve, NASS will continue to adjust and 

adapt as necessary to maintain the best data available in service to U.S. agriculture.

Question 12. Office of Advocacy & Outreach—The Office of Advocacy and Outreach was created to serve a varied but growing—and increasingly important—sector of agriculture. Can you please tell me if you feel it is meeting the needs of small, 

beginning, veteran, and minority producers, especially given the increasing budget 

pressure on USDA? 

Answer. The Office of Advocacy and Outreach (OAO) is committed to accomplishing its mission of meeting, the needs of small, beginning, veteran and minority 

producers (subject groups) in light of current budget challenges. OAO works across 

all USDA agencies in a coordinated approach to provide outreach, training and education to the subject groups. OAO has built relationships with numerous community-based and agricultural organizations to carry out its mission. OAO participates 

in numerous outreach conferences and meetings throughout the country. OAO hosts 

USDA Partners and Outreach Coordinator Meetings encouraging dialogue between 

the subject groups and partners, stakeholders and USDA officials. Below are some 

specific actions OAO takes to further this mission:

• Provides oversight and coordination with the Beginning Farmers and Ranchers 

Advisory Committee, as well as the Minority Farmers Advisory Committee, providing recommendations for the Secretary to improve service to small, beginning, veteran and minority producers.

• Manages the Minority Farm Registry in an effort to improve communications 

with registrants.

• Provides oversight and management of the REGStats system to demonstrate 

transparency on the utilization of farm-related programs by race, ethnicity and 

gender.

• Collaborates with other Federal agencies and non-governmental organizations 

in an effort to provide education and outreach to our constituents through 

Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs).

• Manages USDA’s customer service line.

• Serves as the lead on the Small and Beginning Farmers Working Group.

• Enforces the requirement for completing the USDA Cross Training course to ensure field staff is equipped with knowledge to effectively assist customers in 

USDA Service Centers.

In addition, OAO is working to implement two provisions of the 2014 Farm Bill: 

Receipt for Service, in coordination with FSA, NRCS, and RM, and the Outreach 

and Assistance for Socially Disadvantaged and Veteran Farmers and Ranchers 

Grant Program under section 2501 of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and 

Trade Act of 1990. 

Our fostered partnerships formed with internal and external officials serve as the 

mouthpiece for providing feedback to USDA agencies on issues of concern from these 

groups. This has been an effective means of increasing equitable access to all USDA 

programs and services.

72

Question 13. ‘‘Rural Corps’’—Your FY15 budget talks about a ‘‘Rural Corps’’ to 

put economic development staff in the field to focus on ‘‘high-need’’ areas. Can you 

elaborate on this concept and what you consider to be ‘‘high-need’’ areas? 

Answer. In total, the budget proposes 250 additional staff years for Rural Development in FY15. Of this total, approximately 100 would fill portfolio management and 

other core functions in the national office. The remaining 150 staff would be located 

in the field. Of the 150 placed in the field, a very small number—no more than 50—

would be part of the proposed 21st century workforce pilot called Rural Corps. 

This pilot would test ways of

(1) Serving high-need areas, like the Delta, Appalachia, the Southwest Border, 

and Indian country.

(2) Modernizing Rural Development’ field structure to suit a 21st Century workforce and to reflect the changing dynamics of rural America, new technology, 

and the deep challenges in areas of persistent poverty.

(3) Leveraging federal investments through increased coordination among Federal; state, local, private, and nonprofit partners; and

(4) Building a modern workforce that is mobile, flexible, responsive, outcomeoriented and accountable.

This new staff would deliver technical assistance and coordinate and leverage resources from all Federal agencies. These responsibilities would differ in a few key 

ways from the responsibilities of current Rural Development employees. 

For example, most Rural Development staff who work in State, Area, and Field 

offices are hired for a very specific and relatively narrow set of duties. In many offices more than 50–60% of staff work specifically and exclusively on Rural Housing 

Service loans, loan guarantees, and Multi-Family housing programs. In a state with 

50–60 employees, this means approximately 30 people are doing housing work and 

ten are running Rural Development’s other programs, including community facilities, water/wastewater, business, and energy programs. 

To better serve and meet the needs of rural communities and to do more to respond and support locally-identified to the economic development priorities, staff 

who are part of Rural Corps would be selected for a different and broader skill set. 

For example, Rural Corps staff might be selected for expertise in community planning or economic development, and be cross-trained to understand resources and opportunities across USDA and across the Federal Government, as well as in the state 

and region where they work. 

As you noted, Rural Development is particularly interested in serving areas of 

high need, so in determining locations for this pilot, we would look to areas of low 

income and persistent poverty. 

Persistent poverty counties are those where 20% or more of the county population 

has had poverty level household incomes for the past 30 years. Because counties 

vary so much in size and population, Rural Development is also making use of census tract data to identify areas of high need.

Question 14. Microloans—You have announced that a number of changes that 

were made in the farm bill to FSA credit programs are now effective. On microloans, 

is the $50,000 limit included in the statute in place? If not, when will it become 

effective? 

Answer. The limit for microloans remains in place at this time; the rulemaking 

process is required to increase the limit from $35,000 up to $50,000, a process that 

is expected to be completed in the fall of 2014.

Question 15. Microloans—When will the microloan relending pilot be up and 

running? 

Answer. Evaluation of the feasibility of this project is continuing. Loans made 

under this authority would be the responsibility of the third party lender, who then 

would be subject to the loan eligibility and servicing requirements required by statute. At this time, it is not clear whether, given the complex requirements involved, 

a pilot could be effectively utilized, or whether the Agency should instead focus efforts on alternative approaches through pilot authority to reach urban and other underserved areas and sectors with microloans.

Question 16. CRP sign-up—Are you planning on a general Conservation Reserve 

Program (CRP) sign-up in Fiscal Year 2014? If not, are there plans to do an extension of contracts expiring on September 30th of this year? 

Answer. USDA has announced plans to offer a 1 year extension for expiring contracts in lieu of a general sign up in Fiscal Year 2014.

73

Question 17. CRP early out—The farm bill allows the Secretary to allow for existing contracts that have been in CRP for 5 years to take an early out option in 

FY15. How soon will landowners be able to utilize this option? 

Answer. Section 2006 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 requires the Secretary to 

offer producers the opportunity for early termination of CRP contracts in FY 2015 

if the contracts have been in effect for at least 5 years. The following are excluded 

by statute from the early out provisions: filter strips, windbreaks, and shelterbelts; 

wetlands; land with an erodibility index greater than 15; land devoted to hardwoods 

trees; special habitat acreage; farmable and restored wetlands; land that contains 

diversions and other control structures; land located within designated wellhead 

protection areas; land within an average width of perennial streams or permanent 

water bodies; and, land in CREPs. Producers who exit their contracts may continue 

to keep the land in grass or plant crops, subject to conservation compliance requirements. USDA plans to provide further information on this option later this summer.

Question 18. CRP early out—I realize the statute directs you to allow for the 

early outs in FY15, but with the other additional authority to allow land prep in 

the last year of a CRP contract, I think participants in some northern regions of 

the country are hoping that might allow them to be able to work the land yet this 

year in preparation for planting a 2015 crop. Will this be possible? 

Answer. USDA is aware of this interest among some participants and recently announced that producers will have the opportunity to sign-up this summer for early 

outs in FY 2015. Details on this sign-up are expected this summer to allow producers to prepare for a 2015 crop.

Question 19. Compliance + Sodsaver—When should we expect to see rulemaking further clarifying conservation compliance relinkage with crop insurance as 

well as the changes to the crop insurance program and NAP required under the 

Sodsaver provision in the farm bill? 

Answer. For conservation compliance, USDA plans to amend crop insurance policies effective for the 2015 reinsurance year (July 1, 2014–June 30, 2015) to inform 

every policyholder of the new conservation compliance requirements, and publish a 

rule (7 CFR, part 12) late this summer to provide the details involved with connecting conservation compliance with crop insurance. Under Section 2611 of the Agricultural Act of 2014, the Secretary shall use existing processes and procedures for 

certifying compliance with the conservation compliance provisions for crop insurance 

purposes. Therefore, RMA plans to use the same processes that FSA has used since 

enactment of the 1985 Food Security Act. A Fact Sheet and Frequently Asked Questions will be published to assist in educating producers. 

For program changes and impacts relating to the tilling and production of annual 

crop on native sod acreage, known as ‘‘Sodsaver,’’ regulations are expected to be 

published by June 30 and will be applicable to most crops for the 2015 crop year. 

In addition, program procedures and training will follow shortly thereafter.

Question 20. Cellulosic—There has been a lot of press lately about cellulosic ethanol and how there isn’t enough production to meet even lowered targets. However, 

it is my understanding that there are several projects underway that will start producing cellulosic ethanol this year. Are you aware of the status of the POET and 

DuPont plants in Iowa and the Abengoa plant in Kansas? 

Answer. At this time, USDA is not playing a financing role in any of the plants 

listed.

Question 21. RESPA—The farm bill established separate authority for the Rural 

Utility Service to work with local electric co-ops to use on-bill financing to encourage 

their customers to undertake energy efficiency upgrades. Can you tell us when the 

RESPA authority will be available? Does it need new funding? 

Answer. The 2008 Farm Bill added energy efficiency and conservation as explicit 

purposes for which RUS could make and guarantee loans. RUS issued a Final Rule 

implementing this authority in December 2013. The RESPA provision in the 2014 

Farm Bill is similar in many respects to the Energy Efficiency and Conservation 

Program RUS recently began implementing under that new rule. The key difference 

between the RESPA provision and the RUS Energy Efficiency and Conservation 

Loan Program is the RESPA provision’s zero interest rate loan feature. This major 

feature would require budget authority to implement and none has been appropriated.

Question 22. There has been some criticism of work being done on climate change 

by the Administration. Can you tell the Committee what USDA’s role has been in 

the Administration’s efforts on mitigation? 

Answer. USDA continues to support voluntary, incentive driven approaches to cutting emissions using the tools available in farm bill conservation programs. These 

programs can help farmers and ranchers reduce emissions through actions they are 

74

already taking such as improved nutrient management, on-farm energy efficiency 

and other conservation measures. Specifically, USDA has been involved in the President’s Climate Action Plan in the following ways:

• USDA has invested in more than 6,600 projects from 2009–2012 to help thousands of rural small businesses, farmers, and ranchers improve their bottom 

line by installing renewable energy systems and energy efficiency solutions that 

will generate and save enough energy to power 680,000 homes annually. Recently, Secretary Vilsack announced a new $250 million loan program aimed at 

helping rural utilities finance energy efficiency and renewable generation investments for producers and rural communities.

• USDA has also entered into a unique partnership with the US Center for Dairy 

Innovation to voluntarily reduce the industry’s methane emissions from dairy 

cows and to increase the adoption of methane digesters. To date, USDA investments have supported over 80 anaerobic digesters to help farm operations 

produce electricity from captured methane. While only roughly 200 U.S. farms 

currently operate digesters, according to EPA estimates, there are approximately 8,200 dairy and hog farms nationwide that could successfully operate a 

digester. Under the President’s Climate Action Plan, USDA and the dairy industry are working to develop a Biogas Roadmap to broaden incentives for 

greenhouse gas reductions.

• In an effort to more effectively mitigate climate-related risks, USDA announced 

in February 2014 the establishment of seven regional hubs for risk adaptation 

and mitigation to climate change. These Hubs will deliver science-based knowledge and practical information to farmers, ranchers and forest landowners on 

a regional basis to support decision-making related to climate change. The Hubs 

will develop and communicate voluntary, science-based solutions for our nation’s 

farmers, ranchers, and foresters to utilize in solving drought, pest and other 

problems they are facing on their lands.

• Carbon offsets offer additional opportunities. In 2010, NRCS invested $17 million through farm bill programs to help farmers, ranchers and forest landowners develop and implement carbon sequestration and emissions reduction 

activities. In 2013, NRCS, along with partners Ducks Unlimited, The Climate 

Trust, and the Nature Conservancy, announced a new methodology adopted by 

the American Carbon Registry for carbon credits generated from grassland conservation in the prairie pothole region. The project is expected to begin sales 

of voluntary credits later this year. Other NRCS-sponsored offset projects, ranging from methane reductions in rice production to improved nutrient management, are nearing this point as well.

Question 23. The EPA Administrator was asked at a hearing in another Committee about the work done by USDA with the dairy industry on methane digesters. 

Would like to elaborate on your partnership with the dairy industry? 

Answer. The Department has teamed with the Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy 

for the purpose of reducing bovine related greenhouse gas emissions. In 2009, a goal 

and Roadmap were established to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 25% by the 

year 2020 across the entire dairy value chain. The team is also committed to accelerating and streamlining the process for adopting anaerobic digesters by the United 

States dairy farm operators through various USDA programs including the Rural 

Energy for America Program (REAP). Since 2009, REAP has awarded almost $45 

million in grants and loan guarantees toward 53 anaerobic digester projects.

Question 24. ‘‘Waters of U.S.’’—It sounds as if USDA was involved in the proposed rulemaking that EPA and the Army Corps published last week on trying to 

define ‘‘waters of the United States’’. Can you give us your take on if a farmer or 

rancher continues to use their land for agricultural activities; are they are facing 

any changes in what’s needed of them under the Clean Water Act as a result of this 

proposed rule? 

Answer. It is USDA’s understanding that the proposed rule preserves all existing 

statutory and regulatory agricultural exemptions under the Clean Water Act. As a 

result, farmers, ranchers and foresters can continue to conduct the same normal 

farming, ranching and forestry practices as part of an established ongoing operation 

without the need for a CWA permit.

Question 25. ‘‘Waters of U.S.’’—There are concerns that the proposed rulemaking 

goes beyond the definition of ‘‘navigable waters’’ found in the Clean Water Act. Did 

the agencies struggle with how to reflect the Supreme Court’s decisions via rulemaking? How important do you think it is for Congress to further clarify what constitutes ‘‘navigable waters’’ under the Clean Water Act? 

75

Answer. USDA feels this question would be better posed to EPA and the Army 

Corps because they are the agencies in charge of the proposed rule and the rulemaking process.

Question 26. ‘‘Waters of U.S.’’—There was an MOU signed between USDA and 

the EPA and Army Corps. Can you tell us more about this and the ‘‘interpretive 

rule’’ that was also a part of the proposed rulemaking on defining ‘‘waters of the 

U.S.’’? 

Answer. The interpretive rule addresses the scope of the ‘‘normal farming, 

silviculture, and ranching activities’’ exemption found in section 404(f)(l)(A) of the 

Clean Water Act (CWA). The interpretive rule clarifies that ‘‘normal farming . . .’’ 

activities is not limited to but does include certain conservation practices that may 

occur in waters of the U.S., if the practices are planned/designed/constructed in accordance with NRCS practice standards and are part of an established, on-going 

farming operation. Discharges from these practices are exempt from CWA section 

404 permitting requirements. 

The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between USDA, the EPA and the 

Army Corps describes how the three agencies will work together to implement the 

interpretive rule, to protect and enhance water quality and ensure consistency and 

predictability for the public. The MOU also identifies how the agencies will coordinate to maintain the list of conservation practice standards exempt from section 404 

permitting, including revisions to the list.

Question 27. EPA Science Advisory Board—Has the EPA contacted your office 

regarding the establishment of an Agriculture Committee under the EPA Science 

Advisory Board, Section 12307 of the farm bill? 

Answer. Yes, EPA has contacted USDA about this provision. 

Submitted Questions by Hon. Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in Congress from Virginia 

Question 1. You have noted that USDA will use farm bill programs to promote 

ethanol exports. How does USDA plan do this? 

Answer. To date, USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service allocations of FY 2014 Market Access Program funding to the US Grains Council (USGC) for ethanol market 

research total about $120,000. 

The USGC plans to use the FY 2014 funding to conduct market research of export 

opportunities for U.S ethanol in China, Japan, Europe and Mexico.

Question 2. Are you concerned that such a move could exasperate some of the 

stock-to-use problems we have seen in the past, particularly as we enter a year 

where USDA has warned that there is a decline in about 4 million acres of planted 

corn? What, if anything, will USDA do to consider the corn stocks-to-use ratio and 

the availability of corn for both food and fuel demands when pushing exports of ethanol? 

Answer. USDA is not concerned at this point in time about ethanol promotion 

given the record corn supply projected for the upcoming year. Producers have indicated they would plant 91.7 million acres this spring, down 3.7 million from the previous year. However, in its early look at the 2014 outlook at the Agricultural Outlook Forum in February, USDA projected another record large corn crop of nearly 

14 billion bushels and record supplies for 2014. This was based on planted area of 

92 million acres, and a return to higher trend yields. The updated planting number 

would result in a decline of 50 million bushels in prospective production, but still 

result in record supply. 

Market promotion for ethanol will help alert foreign buyers to market opportunities and help us develop markets. Compared to the 2010–12 period, when prices 

averaged over $6.00 per bushel, USDA projects that corn prices are expected to remain closer to $4.00 over the next few years as growth in domestic demand for ethanol has moderated. Facing these lower corn prices, surplus ethanol has recently 

been moving to foreign markets as U.S ethanol is priced competitively. In contrast, 

if the stocks-to-use ratios fell markedly, the resulting higher corn prices would reduce ethanol plant margins and the incentive to export product.

Question 3. Mr. Secretary you have been quoted in the media expressing the need 

to ‘‘push back harder on food versus fuel’’ and have been quoted as calling the alliance of affected organization that want to see reform of the ethanol mandate as ‘‘unholy.’’ Should we take those comments to mean that you do not think the RFS mandate has negatively affected some industries, particularly those in the agriculture 

community? 

Answer. The RFS mandates have diverted certain quantities of agricultural commodities, namely corn and soybean oil, from the animal feed sector to the biofuel 

sector, and such a diversion has not had some small price effects for those commodVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:40 Jun 27, 2014 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 I:\DOCS\113-11\87513.TXT BRIAN
76

ities. However, it should be noted that the ethanol industry returns a significant 

amount of the corn processed back as high value animal feed. Those distillers grains 

are widely fed and exported as livestock producers have realized their value in 

many livestock rations. 

Recently, the loss of pasture due to persistent drought in the Southern Plains coupled with high feed prices brought primarily on by the 2012 drought further tightened livestock sector margins. Those margins have become more favorable now with 

high meat prices and record corn and soybean harvests in 2013 although lingering 

drought in California and the Southern Plains as well as diseases pressures in the 

hog sector continue to pose challenges. Nevertheless, the effect of the mandates on 

livestock returns is expected to be minimal. Even at the height of the drought, it 

was determined that the mandates were likely affecting commodity prices by only 

$0.07 per bushel as the refining sector desired a large amount of ethanol even in 

the absence of a mandate to blend with gasoline for E10 purposes.

Question 4. During the 2012 RFS waiver request, the EPA’s analysis said that had a waiver been issued it would have provided relief of over $80 million to the 

pork industry in Virginia and North Carolina. I am sure other livestock in those 

states would have felt similar relief, as would all livestock throughout the county. 

Yet during the debate in 2012 you opposed a waiver citing concern of bringing longterm harm to the ethanol industry. Why did you not also balance the needs of all 

of American agriculture in this debate, particularly the livestock sector who was immediately affected? 

Answer. EPA’s 2012 waiver decision was based on the criteria for a waiver established in Section 211(o)(7) of the Clean Air Act-whether implementation of the RFS 

volume requirements would severely harm the economy of a state, a region or the 

United States. EPA determined that it was highly unlikely that waiving the RFS 

volume requirements would have a significant impact on ethanol production or use 

in the relevant time frame for a waiver. Thus, it would have little to no impact on 

corn, food, or fuel prices, with an average impact on corn prices of $0.07 per bushel. 

Waiving the mandates in 2012 was estimated to have minimal effects on the livestock sectors under a short run waiver as it would likely result in little relief from 

high feed prices brought on by the severe drought. Taking into account ethanol and 

crude oil prices at the time of the waiver decision, EPA’s analysis indicated that refiners would be unlikely to reduce ethanol blending over the relevant timeframe for 

a waiver.

Question 5. The farm bill that was recently signed into law, made changes to the 

Rural Energy for America Program (REAP) to prevent the funding of ethanol blender pumps. This change was made to reflect how Congress originally intended the 

program to be administered. You have made recent statements claiming you will use 

other authorities to fund blender pumps. What programs or authorities will you use 

fund ethanol blender pump projects? How do you justify this against the intent of 

Congress to prevent the funding of ethanol blender pumps? 

Answer. We recognize the restriction which Congress imposed on retail infrastructure to deliver higher blends of renewable fuel through the Rural Energy for America Program. This retail infrastructure problem remains as a constriction in the supply-chain and we will explore all options available to help alleviate this problem and 

capture the tremendous opportunity for farmer, foresters and the nation as a whole 

to create economic development from renewable fuel production, as well as the air 

quality improvement and national security benefits that these products deliver.

Question 6. Last week the EPA released its ‘‘waters of the U.S.’’ proposed rule. 

We understand they worked with USDA to develop the rule. Within this rule the 

EPA issued an ‘‘interpretive rule’’ to ‘‘clarify’’ that a long list of conservation practices are exempt from ‘‘dredge and fill’’ permit requirements under the Clean Water 

Act’s section 404 exemption for ‘‘normal’’ farming and ranching activities—so long 

as the practices comply with NRCS standards. So as I understand it, a farmer only 

qualifies for any one of these exemptions if the farmer follows NRCS standards. Is 

that correct? 

Answer. The proposed rule preserves all existing agricultural exemptions under 

the Clean Water Act. The interpretive rule clarifies the scope of the existing statutory exemption found in section 404(f)(1)(A) of the Clean Water Act. Under the interpretative rule, 56 conservation practices do not require a 404 permit when occurring in waters of the U.S., if they are implemented following NRCS conservation 

practice standards. The corresponding NRCS conservation practice standards provide guidelines for implementation of those practices, which ensures that these conservation activities meet the intent of protecting and enhancing water quality.

Question 7. Could you clarify, will it be NRCS or the EPA who will inspect each 

farming operation that claims this conservation exemption? 

77

Answer. The conservation practices identified in the interpretative rule will be 

treated the same as all other long-standing agricultural exemptions under section 

404 of the Clean Water Act; there is no requirement for approval, notification, or 

inspection, prior to installing the conservation practice nor is there a requirement 

for verification of the installed practice. The EPA and the Army/Corps will not seek 

out operations that may have performed exempt activities; however, they may respond to notifications or reports of potentially unauthorized non-exempt activities.

Question 8. Under this rule, if a farmer does not follow an NRCS standard, or 

does not fully implement a NRCS standard is that farmer violating the Clean Water 

Act and subject to a $37,500 per day fine? 

Answer. Under the interpretative rule, the identified conservation practices do not 

require a CWA Section 404 permit when they occur in waters of the U.S., if they 

are implemented following NRCS conservation practice standards. Failure to follow 

the requirements of the CWA exemption is a violation of the CWA. The agencies’ 

intent is to work with farmers to help them meet applicable standards and to correct any problems that may develop—not to seek fines.

Question 9. Will farmers be subject to the citizen suit provision of the Clean 

Water Act for alleged failure to comply with NRCS standards? 

Answer. The interpretative rule does not modify the scope of rights afforded to 

citizens under Section 505 of the Clean Water Act.

Question 10. My district contains the George Washington National Forest which 

is currently under a management plan from 1993. In 2007, the Forest Service began 

the process of public meetings to begin a new Forest plan. I understand that there 

have been many issues outside of the Forest Service’s hand that has delayed the 

completion of this plan. However, at this point the delays seem to be political in 

nature. When can we expect to see the GW forest plan completed? 

Answer. USDA expects to release the environmental impact statement and record 

of decision for the GW plan revision within the coming weeks. We will notify your 

office once the plan is complete.

Question 11. When you testified before the House Appropriations Agriculture Subcommittee, you mentioned that the best way to decrease the number of individuals 

enrolled in SNAP is to link the number of able bodied individuals to jobs that we 

know are out there. The farm bill is a good opportunity to do that. Does USDA have 

a timeline for rolling out the state work pilots? 

Answer. The farm bill provision for employment and training (E&T) pilots requires USDA to publish the request for applications by August 2014 (180 days from 

enactment) and to give states 90 days to respond. USDA must announce pilots by 

February 2015 and the first report to Congress on the status of pilot projects is due 

by December 31, 2015. USDA is gathering information from interested stakeholders 

including other Federal agencies, state agencies, and organizations that provide 

work services as we move forward to meet this required timeline.

Question 12. Some states are concerned that this Administration will not look favorably on state applications that implement state-wide mandatory work requirements. What are you doing to ensure that a wide array of projects are selected, include state-wide mandatory requirements 

Answer. The farm bill requires that the pilot projects be designed to increase the 

number of work registrants who obtain unsubsidized employment, increase their 

earned income, and reduce their reliance on public assistance. The farm bill also requires that USDA select pilots that test a range of strategies, including strategies 

that target certain populations such as those with low skills, be in both urban and 

rural areas, emphasize rapid attachment to employment, and test both mandatory 

and voluntary E&T participation. USDA will further clarify the criteria for selecting 

projects through the request for applications as a part of the process in awarding 

these competitive grants. 

Submitted Question by Hon. Vicky Hartzler, a Representative in Congress from Missouri 

Question. In respect to the implementation of the livestock disaster programs, I 

wanted to highlight some concerns I am hearing from Missouri Extension agents in 

regards to standard stocking rates for intensive grazing dairy farmers in Missouri. 

With stocking rates on these intensive grazing operations upwards for 1 to 1.6 cows 

per acre, the traditional FSA guidelines for livestock disaster programs have lead 

to a lengthy and more rigorous reporting requirements for these types of farmers. 

While I commend the USDA for their commitment to fraud protection, have the 

guidelines for the disaster programs been updated to compensate for these newer, 

more intensive grazing operations? 

78

Answer. With respect to each type of grazing land or pastureland in a county, normal carrying capacity is the capacity that would be expected from the grazing land 

or pastureland for livestock during the normal grazing period in the county, in the 

absence of a drought or fire that diminishes the production of the grazing land or 

pastureland. Livestock producers that are using intensive grazing methods should 

work with their local Extension Service and Natural Resources Conservation Service 

to provide grazing management data to their local FSA County Office. FSA county 

offices will provide this documentation to their FSA State Office for review to support a differing carrying capacity based on intensive grazing from an already approved carrying capacity for the specific type of grazing land or pastureland. 

Submitted Questions by Hon. Jeff Denham, a Representative in Congress from California 

Question 1. Many of my constituents, from farmers to anyone who shops at the 

local grocery store, are all preoccupied with the drought in California, the worst in 

recent history. I am convinced that the drought will change the agricultural landscape of California, the number one ag state in the nation. What is USDA doing, 

and what means are available through the farm bill, to keep our farms, crops, and 

livestock thriving in the midst of the drought? 

Answer. The Department is committed to assisting the State of California as well 

as other drought-impacted States through the use its available authorities. As cochair of the National Drought Resilience Partnership along with the Department of 

Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), USDA is 

working in tandem with the White House, other Federal partners, and state agencies to address the health and human safety implications of the drought, including 

mitigating the severe economic impacts, as well as assisting with preparing communities and regions for future severe weather events. To date, the Department has 

designated 57 of California’s 58 counties as natural disaster areas due to damages 

and losses caused by extreme drought. Agricultural operators in all counties designated as natural disaster areas, as well as those counties contiguous to such designated counties, may qualify for low interest emergency loans from USDA’s Farm 

Service Agency (FSA) up to a maximum of $500,000. Farmers and ranchers have 

8 months from the date of the declaration to apply to help cover part of their actual 

losses. Also, upon enactment of the 2014 Farm Bill on February 7, 2014, I directed 

the Department to have our four major disaster assistance programs available starting April 15, 2014. Eligible farmers and ranchers now may apply to receive payments under the Livestock Forage Disaster Program, and the Livestock Indemnity 

Program for grazing losses and livestock deaths due to drought. In addition, the 

Emergency Assistance for Livestock, Honeybees, and Farm-Raised Fish Program 

provides emergency assistance to eligible producers of livestock (including emergency transportation of water for livestock), honeybees and farm-raised fish that 

have suffered losses because of severe weather, disease, or wildfires, and the Tree 

Assistance Program, which provides financial assistance to qualifying orchardists 

and nursery tree growers to replant or rehabilitate trees, bushes and vines damaged 

by natural disasters. California alone could potentially receive up to $100 million 

for 2014 losses and up to $50 million for previous years. Applications have been received and payments have already been issued to many farmers and ranchers in the 

state. 

On February 7, FSA announced a signup for its Emergency Conservation Program 

to provide emergency funding and technical assistance to livestock producers with 

emergency water needs. The FSA Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program is 

available for producers who have enrolled in this annual protection program prior 

to the deadline earlier this year. On April 29, the Department’s Natural Resources 

Conservation Service launched a $1.5 million chipping initiative through the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) to help orchard and winegrape growers manage fallowed trees and vines. Sixty million dollars has been made available 

to food banks in California through the Department’s Emergency Food Assistance 

Program to help families that may be economically impacted by the drought, as well 

as an additional $6 million in bonus food purchases, and the Department is working 

with the California Department of Education to establish approximately 600 summer meal sites throughout the drought-stricken region. USDA’s Rural Development 

has made $11 million in Emergency Water Assistance Grants available to help rural 

communities experiencing a significant decline in the quality or quantity of drinking 

water due to drought. 

The Department has participated in informational drought meetings throughout 

California that are sponsored by the California Department of Food and Agriculture 

and drought forums assembled by the National Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS) Program. We are diligently addressing questions from growers, insurVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:40 Jun 27, 2014 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 I:\DOCS\113-11\87513.TXT BRIAN
79

ance companies, industry groups, the Farm Bureau, and other interested parties on 

the impact of water availability. We have provided explanations of crop insurance 

policy coverage and prevented planting provisions. As a result of significant concern 

over saving perennial crops, the Department has provided information that allows 

producers to consider options to mitigate the impacts of drought without jeopardizing their insurance coverage. In February, USDA announced that $25 million has been made available through 

EQIP to help California farmers and ranchers implement conservation practices including irrigation efficiency, cover crops, orchard pruning, and the protection of 

grazing lands, and $5 million in Emergency Watershed Protection funds to help protect vulnerable soils, stabilize stream banks and replant upland sites stripped of 

vegetation. Also in February, the Forest Service and the Natural Resources Conservation Service launched a landscape restoration partnership to improve the 

health of forest ecosystems, including the Mid-Klamath and San Bernardino-Riverside areas, to mitigate wildfire threats, and the Department’s National Institute for 

Food and Agriculture announced it will make $6 million in grants available this 

year, and up to $30 million total over the next 5 years, to provide solutions to agricultural water challenges.

Question 2. I appreciate the funding the Administration has set aside to mitigate 

drought disaster. I would like to know, and my constituents would like to know—

where did the money come from and what impact will that have on other programs? 

Also, when will this funding actually produce real water? 

Answer. The primary funding to address the drought disaster came from the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and the Emergency Watershed Protection Program (EWP). This funding should have little impact on other NRCS programs. The funding will enable producers to better manage water resources and 

mitigate the impacts of severe drought.

Question 3. Are you engaged with FDA in crafting their Produce Safety rule under 

the Food Safety Modernization Act? My constituents are concerned with the final 

result, since time is getting short before FDA has to publish their rule. How is 

USDA helping prepare farmers for the uncertainty and changes coming down the 

road in implementation of a Produce Safety Rule. 

Answer. Yes. USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has an ongoing partnership agreement with FDA, including a Memorandum of Understanding that has 

enabled our staff to work closely with FDA on the FSMA rulemaking process, including our participation in listening tours around the nation and several webinars, 

which has provided forums for the agencies to share information with hundreds of 

participants and receive input from interested persons. AMS bridges the gap between its stakeholders and FDA to address questions about the proposed produce 

safety regulation and other FSMA-related activities. 

When the produce safety regulation is final, AMS will modify its Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) and Good Handling Practices (GHP) program to reflect 

metrics embedded within the rule. AMS also is developing a Group GAP certification program that will allow groups of producers to work collaboratively and pool 

resources to achieve conformance with both the requirements of the Produce Safety 

Rule and the USDA GAP & GHP Program. 

Furthermore, AMS is an active partner in a cooperative agreement with Cornell 

University, funded by AMS and FDA, which has established the Produce Safety Alliance (PSA). The PSA broadly engages with other land-grant universities and the Cooperative Extension Service offices across the nation to develop standardized training curriculum for farmers, growers, packers and shippers of fresh produce in GAP. 

PSA currently is developing a curriculum that will educate growers on the requirements of the FSMA’s Produce Safety Rule. The PSA will certify extension personnel 

and others to deliver the PSA curriculum to growers in training sessions across the 

country. 

Submitted Joint Questions by Hon. Gloria Negrete McLeod, Hon. Doug LaMalfa, 

Hon. Juan Vargas, Hon. Jeff Denham, and Hon. Jim Costa, Representatives in 

Congress from California 

Question 1. As you know, the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) program moratorium is going on its third year. Small businesses in our districts are closing due 

their inability to secure WIC vendor permits and families are traveling significant 

distances to reach stores that will accept their WIC vouchers. We hear the uncertainty that this moratorium creates to entrepreneurs that want to bring business 

to our districts. What is your view of the current timeline for lifting of the California 

WIC moratorium for new vendor licenses? Is it on track? Is it subject to change? 

What factors may be involved one way or the other? Is this timeline published for 

the public view? 

80

Answer. FNS continues to work closely with the California Department of Health 

in meetings and conference calls to discuss and resolve issues related to the ongoing 

effort to correct and improve California’s vendor management policies and procedures in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC). We are anticipating the release of the California final regulation shortly. More recently, beginning on June 1, 2014, USDA permitted the state to begin 

lifting in phases the Federal moratorium on accepting applications for new vendor 

authorizations. The state may make additions to current master agreements, provided applicants meet all selection criteria including a clean business track record. 

FNS will continue working closely with CDPH to monitor the phased-in lifting of 

the moratorium and will consider an appropriate timeline for subsequent phases 

contingent upon the sState’s success in meeting targets identified in the approved 

Plan for Cost Containment and Program Effectiveness. Subsequent phases will include additions of new full-line grocery stores and new above-50-percent and other 

vendors.

Question 2. Is it possible for USDA to provide some level of certainty to our constituents by publishing the start date for the review of applications through a vendor alert? 

Answer. The California WIC State Agency is responsible for reviewing applications and authorizing vendors to participate in the California WIC program. California WIC will publish the start date for the acceptance of applications through its 

Vendor Alert System, and through other media as necessary, once the moratorium 

is lifted.

Question 3. How can we meet the demand for WIC with new vendor locations in 

the interim while we work out some of the finer points of the new regulation package? 

Answer. On April 10, 2014, the Department issued a policy memorandum that explains implementation of the vendor preauthorization provision of P.L. 113–76, the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014. The legislative provision allows WIC state 

agencies upon the lifting of a federally-mandated vendor moratorium to seek a waiver from the requirement to conduct an on-site visit prior to or at the time of a vendor’s initial authorization. This new provision may offer some relief to a WIC state 

agency (such as California) facing a backlog of vendor applications to be processed 

after a federally-imposed moratorium is lifted, should it request such a waiver. 

Beginning on June 1, 2014, USDA permitted California to begin lifting in phases 

the Federal moratorium on accepting applications for new vendor authorizations. 

The state may make additions to current master agreements, provided applicants 

meet all selection criteria including a clean business track record. FNS will continue 

working closely with CDPH to monitor the phased-in lifting of the moratorium and 

will consider an appropriate timeline for subsequent phases contingent upon the 

state’s success in meeting targets identified in the approved Plan for Cost Containment and Program Effectiveness. Subsequent phases will include additions of new 

full-line grocery stores and new above-50-percent and other vendors.

Question 4. The criteria for exemptions to the moratorium was narrow, there are 

about 200 site locations in California that fall right outside this exemption criteria 

that are still waiting for the moratorium to be lifted and they cannot afford to continue on without certainty. Since USDA has adopted price caps on products which 

address the abuse that caused the moratorium, would USDA consider adding additional exemption criteria? 

Answer. It is anticipated that California WIC will begin accepting new applications this summer. Coupled with the ability to seek a waiver of the pre-authorization visit, the Department does not believe there is a need to expand the exemption 

criteria at this time.

Question 5. These same 200 stores are in limbo because original communication 

from the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) in 2011 gave the green 

light to proceed with a Letter of Intent. A year later, the Department and CDPH 

reneged on the original understanding that the Letter of Intent would grant these 

stores exemption. This move cost our communities new investments. Moving forward, will USDA honor front of the line passes to these stores once the moratorium 

is lifted? 

Answer. California WIC will establish the procedures for processing applications 

upon the lifting of the moratorium. On April 10, 2014, the Department issued a policy memorandum that explains implementation of the vendor preauthorization provision of P.L. 113–76, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014. The legislative 

provision allows WIC state agencies upon the lifting of a federally-mandated vendor 

moratorium to seek a waiver from the requirement to conduct an on-site visit prior 

to or at the time of a vendor’s initial authorization. This new provision may offer 

81

some relief to a WIC state agency (such as California) facing a backlog of vendor 

applications to be processed after a federally-imposed moratorium is lifted, should 

it request such a waiver.

Question 6. We understand the issue of partial reimbursement may create problems among the industry. How do we ensure that ‘‘cost’’ of reimbursement will not 

impede on the timeline and if we ignore this issue and go live by lifting it, how do 

we know we aren’t creating another problem long term? 

Answer. WIC State agencies may submit a request to exclude partially-redeemed 

food instruments from redemption averages to FNS for approval at any time. The 

methodology must be based on empirical data, and a process that is able to identify 

partially redeemed food instruments for exclusion. As such, if a state agency identifies an improved method for identifying partial redemptions it can submit a request 

to change its current system. As more state agencies implement electronic benefit 

transfer the issue of partial reimbursement will be eliminated because reimbursement will be based on prices of individual food items instead of food instruments 

that may combine several food items onto one check.

Question 7. The most concerning question is what WIC participating families do 

without options of stores that accept WIC vouchers. More and more families are 

turning to corner stores to do their family shopping. At corner stores, families purchase WIC and non-WIC items although these stores do not offer the most competitive prices on non-WIC items. Since these corner stores do not have price caps on 

the remaining products costumers’ purchase, some products can be marked up 10 

to 20 percent more. The lack of store access exist for these families, regardless of 

the exemption criteria that seeks to assure that stores are within 5 miles from each 

other. How are we helping the very people this program was designed for by limiting their options? 

Answer. WIC state agencies authorize vendors that have competitive pricing for 

WIC authorized foods, while ensuring adequate access for the WIC participants. Unlike WIC authorized foods, WIC state agencies do not have the authority to set price 

caps for non-WIC items; however, the nutrition education that is provided to participants is intended to help them make wise shopping choices whether shopping with 

WIC benefits or other means. 

Submitted Question by Hon. Eric A. ‘‘Rick’’ Crawford, a Representative in Congress 

from Arkansas 

Question. Can you provide the Committee with a detailed explanation as to why 

the Department missed the required 60 day statutory deadline to publish a final 

rule implementing the catfish inspection program? How far beyond the 60 days do 

you expect it to take for the final rule to be published in the Federal Register?

Answer. USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service has been submitting regular 

status reports to Congress every 30 days on the development of the final rule establishing a catfish inspection program. On April 30, USDA and FDA signed a Memorandum of Understanding intended to improve interagency cooperation on food safety and fraud prevention and to maximize the effectiveness of personnel and resources related to examination and inspection of catfish. By the end of May, USDA 

will be prepared to send a final rule establishing a catfish inspection program to 

the Office of Management and Budget. 

Submitted Questions by Hon. Cheri Bustos, a Representative in Congress from Illinois 

Question 1. Some of our rural areas were the hardest hit and have been the slowest to recover from the economic recession. Given the high unemployment rates in 

rural areas, I believe it’s important to protect existing jobs and work to strengthen 

the rural economy. National Beef Packing announced they would shut the doors of 

their Brawley, CA plant on April 4, 2014 citing diminished herd sizes and new 

COOL regulations as the cause of the closure. Industry leaders continue to highlight 

the negative impact of mCOOL regulations. I have a Tyson plan in Joslin, IL which 

employs roughly 2,200 individuals. I’m curious to know what the agency has done 

to measure the economic impact of mCOOL. Also, what has the agency done to ensure consumers have access to valuable information about the origin of their food 

without causing major disruptions within the industry? 

Answer. As required under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, USDA assessed 

the costs and benefits of regulations to implement mandatory COOL. Numerous 

comments on rulemakings confirmed that certain U.S. consumers value country of 

origin information; however USDA has been unable to quantify these benefits. 

USDA estimated the likely range of industry adjustment costs to the May 2013 

amendments to the mandatory COOL regulations at $53.1 to $137.8 million. In addition, as directed by the Agricultural Act of 2014, USDA is conducting an economic 

82

analysis of the final rule published on May 24, 2013 (78 Fed. Reg. 31367). Since 

mandatory COOL became law as part of the Farm Security and Rural Investment 

Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107–171), USDA has sought and responded to input and comments from industry and consumers to promulgate the least burdensome regulations 

necessary to meet our statutory obligation while ensuring that the United States 

complies with its international trading obligations.

Question 2. This year the USDA has launched exciting new research projects and 

will soon establish the Agricultural Research Foundation. Agricultural research is 

critical to maintaining a safe and affordable food supply and while I commend your 

efforts to promote new research projects, I am concerned by the proposed cuts to 

the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) and in particular the proposed cuts to the 

National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research, commonly referred to as the 

Ag Lab. Under the President’s proposed budget, the Ag Lab will lose ten percent 

of its funding. What impact will this cut have on the innovative work taking place 

at the Ag Lab? What is the rationale for the ten percent cut? What will the USDA 

do to mitigate the effects of this funding shortfall on the ongoing research currently 

underway at the facility? 

Answer. Much of the research at the National Center for Agricultural Utilization 

Research (NCAUR) in Peoria, IL, and at ARS’ three other USDA regional laboratories has focused on utilization of agricultural commodities and development of new 

products, which were high priorities when these laboratories were established and 

during times when U.S. farmers needed new markets to absorb commodity surpluses. Successful growth of the corn ethanol and biodiesel industries are prime examples of how utilization research has benefitted U.S. agriculture and rural communities. 

Due to reductions in ARS budgets over recent years, ARS is challenged to direct 

increasingly limited resources to the nation’s most critical, high-priority needs. 

Today, the most beneficial outcomes from agricultural research in the U.S. and globally are those that can expand the supply of agricultural commodities to meet increasing demands, whereas research intended to increase demand through development of new products for commercialization is a lower priority. Thus, funding for 

utilization is being redirected to solving problems that limit production. 

ARS is working hard to redirect resources at its utilization laboratories, including 

NCAUR in Peoria, towards higher-priority research objectives.

Question 3. As you know, Porcine Epidemic Diarrhea Virus (PEDv) has spread to 

27 states in the U.S. and has had a disastrous effect on the pork industry. Looking 

at the USDA’s quarterly report, the U.S. pig inventory is down five percent from 

3 months earlier which is the smallest number since 2007. Additionally, market analysts are predicting a major increase in consumer prices at the grocery store. While 

industry groups have invested heavily in research and made progress, what can and 

is the USDA doing to assist the pork industry in terms of relief funds, research 

funds or disaster assister? 

Answer. USDA continues to take a number of actions to combat the spread of 

PEDv in the U.S. swine herd. Most recently, on June 5, 2014 we received approval 

from the Office of Management and Budget to spend $26 million to combat PEDv. 

This funding will be used to take actions such as providing some reimbursement to 

producers for cleaning and disinfection, hiring veterinarians to inspect premises, assisting states with program operations, testing samples, and conducting research on 

issues such as pathogenicity and disease transmission. Also, on April 18, 2014, we 

announced that USDA will require reporting of PED virus and porcine 

deltacoronavirus, in addition to monitoring disease on affected farms, monitoring 

movements of pigs, vehicles, and other equipment leaving affected premises, all with 

the aim of slowing the spread of this disease across the United States. USDA is 

working with industry and the states to finalize a plan for implementation and will 

be issuing a Federal Order in the coming weeks enforcing the reporting requirements. USDA also announced that it is transferring $5 million immediately for related activities while USDA works to refine the program and funding needs. These 

actions are intended to help identify gaps in biosecurity, as well as additional steps 

that can be taken to stop the spread of these diseases and assist producers and ultimately consumers. 

Since PEDv was detected in the United States last year, USDA has been working 

closely with the pork industry and our state and Federal partners to learn more 

about the disease, its spread, and how best to assist producers. Together with these 

partners, USDA has established testing protocols, sequenced the virus and investigated how the virus is transmitted, as well as risk factors to minimize its impact 

on producers and industry. 

USDA is also:

83

• Providing assistance to researchers looking into this disease, with the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) working with the National Animal Disease Center 

in Ames, Iowa to make models of the disease transmission and testing 

feedstuffs. This modeling work is contributing to some experimental vaccines to 

treat animals with the disease. ARS also has a representative serving as a 

member of the Swine Health Board. USDA also provides competitive grant 

funding through the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative program and anticipates some applications on PEDv research will be submitted soon. In addition, USDA provides formula funds to states and universities through the Hatch 

Act and the Animal Health and Disease Research Program, Section 1433 of the 

National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 

(NARETPA) for research activities surrounding this disease.

• Working as a key member of a task force with industry stakeholders, including 

the American Association of Swine Veterinarians (AASV), National Pork Producers Council (NPPC), National Pork Board (NPB), veterinary diagnostic laboratories (VDLs), and State Animal Health Officials (SAHOs). The objectives for 

the task force are to investigate the virus, identify and trace risk factors in the 

transmission of the disease, and keep producers informed. The group is voluntarily collecting epidemiological information on PED and deltacoronavirus that 

will help us identify additional cases; determine how the disease got here and 

how it spreads; evaluate strategies for PED control and elimination; and evaluate options for a disease monitoring plan.

• Working with producers through the Farm Loan Programs to provide credit options, including restructuring loans, similar to how the Farm Service Agency 

successfully worked with livestock producers affected by the blizzard in South 

Dakota. In the case of guaranteed loans, USDA is encouraging guaranteed lenders to use all the flexibility available under existing guarantees, and to use new 

guarantees where appropriate to continue financing their regular customers.

Through these collaborative efforts with states and industry, we hope to further 

enhance the biosecurity and health of the U.S. swine herd while maintaining movement of pigs in the United States. 

Submitted Questions by Hon. Steve King, a Representative in Congress from Iowa 

Question 1. The Department released a memo dated March 5, 2014, titled ‘‘Supplement Nutrition Assistance Program—Section 4006, Agricultural Act of 2014—Implementing Memorandum.’’ This memo states, ‘‘FNS encourages states to move forward with implementation of section 4006 in a manner that adheres to the original 

intent and basis for the connection between LIHEAP and SNAP.’’ In the time since 

enactment of the Agricultural Act of 2014, several states have announced their intentions to work around Sec. 4006 by awarding $20 in LIHEAP payments to some 

SNAP beneficiaries in order to increase the maximum SNAP benefit. It is clear that 

practice falls outside the ‘‘original intent and basis’’ of the law. 

Is the Department taking any action to work with the states to reverse this practice? 

What interactions have you had with the Governors of the so called ‘‘LIHEAP 

states’’? 

Does the Department see this as a sustainable way to administer SNAP benefits? 

Is this a proper use of LIHEAP funding? 

In response to this, should Congress choose to completely sever the relationship 

between LIHEAP and SNAP, would it address the concern that the Department 

raised in its memo? 

In response to this, should Congress choose to block grant food stamps to the 

states, and allowed the states to have some interest in the administration of the 

program, would that eliminate the incentive for states to ‘‘game the system?’’

What effect does this practice in the states have on LIHEAP recipients? How 

many potential LIHEAP beneficiaries will not receive any LIHEAP assistance because the states have chosen to administer it in this way? 

Answer. States have the authority to determine how to use their LIHEAP funding, 

in accordance with that program’s requirements. LIHEAP is not administered or 

funded by the USDA. USDA is in the process of collecting information about how 

states are implementing the LIHEAP provision of the farm bill to ensure statutory 

compliance. In communications with states, we have encouraged them to move forward with implementation in a manner that follows the original intent of the law 

and the basis for the connection between LIHEAP and SNAP, as well as recent 

changes made by the Farm Bill. 

SNAP is a critical automatic stabilizer—designed to expand quickly to help meet 

increased need when the economy is weak, and contract as the economy recovers, 

84

ensuring that food gets to people who need it and that SNAP benefits flow to communities that face rising unemployment or poverty. One reason that proposals to 

convert the program to a block grant are so troubling is that, unlike SNAP, block 

grants are simply not designed to be as responsive to economic changes.

Æ