AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD 

AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED 

AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2010 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE A 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND 

DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES 

ROSA L. DELAURO, Connecticut, Chairwoman 

SAM FARR, California 

ALLEN BOYD, Florida 

SANFORD D. BISHOP, JR., Georgia 

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee 

MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

JESSE L. JACKSON, JR., Illinois 

JACK KINGSTON, Georgia 

TOM LATHAM, Iowa 

JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri 

RODNEY ALEXANDER, Louisiana 

NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Obey, as Chairman of the Full Committee, and Mr. Lewis, as Ranking 

Minority Member of the Full Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees. 

MARTHA FOLEY, LESLIE BARRACK, CLIFF ISENBERG, and MATT SMITH, 

Staff Assistants 

PART 3 

Page 

Domestic Nutrition Programs .............................................. 1 

Department of Agriculture .................................................... 135 

Testimony of Members of Congress .................................... 279 

Secretary of Agriculture ........................................................ 321 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
PART 3—AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, 

AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2010 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD 

AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED 

AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2010 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE A 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND 

DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES 

ROSA L. DELAURO, Connecticut, Chairwoman 

SAM FARR, California 

ALLEN BOYD, Florida 

SANFORD D. BISHOP, JR., Georgia 

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee 

MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

JESSE L. JACKSON, JR., Illinois 

JACK KINGSTON, Georgia 

TOM LATHAM, Iowa 

JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri 

RODNEY ALEXANDER, Louisiana 

NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Obey, as Chairman of the Full Committee, and Mr. Lewis, as Ranking 

Minority Member of the Full Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees. 

MARTHA FOLEY, LESLIE BARRACK, CLIFF ISENBERG, and MATT SMITH, 

Staff Assistants 

PART 3 

Page 

Domestic Nutrition Programs .............................................. 1 

Department of Agriculture .................................................... 135 

Testimony of Members of Congress .................................... 279 

Secretary of Agriculture ........................................................ 321 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

53–443 WASHINGTON : 2010 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin, Chairman 

JOHN P. MURTHA, Pennsylvania 

NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington 

ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia 

MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio 

PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana 

NITA M. LOWEY, New York 

JOSE ́ E. SERRANO, New York 

ROSA L. DELAURO, Connecticut 

JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia 

JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts 

ED PASTOR, Arizona 

DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina 

CHET EDWARDS, Texas 

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California 

SAM FARR, California 

JESSE L. JACKSON, JR., Illinois 

CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK, Michigan 

ALLEN BOYD, Florida 

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania 

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey 

SANFORD D. BISHOP, JR., Georgia 

MARION BERRY, Arkansas 

BARBARA LEE, California 

ADAM SCHIFF, California 

MICHAEL HONDA, California 

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota 

STEVE ISRAEL, New York 

TIM RYAN, Ohio 

C.A. ‘‘DUTCH’’ RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland 

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

CIRO RODRIGUEZ, Texas 

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

JERRY LEWIS, California 

C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida 

HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky 

FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia 

JACK KINGSTON, Georgia 

RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New 

Jersey 

TODD TIAHRT, Kansas 

ZACH WAMP, Tennessee 

TOM LATHAM, Iowa 

ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama 

JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri 

KAY GRANGER, Texas 

MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

MARK STEVEN KIRK, Illinois 

ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida 

DENNIS R. REHBERG, Montana 

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas 

RODNEY ALEXANDER, Louisiana 

KEN CALVERT, California 

JO BONNER, Alabama 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

TOM COLE, Oklahoma 

BEVERLY PHETO, Clerk and Staff Director 

(II)


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD 

AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 

2010 

THURSDAY, MARCH 12, 2009. 

DOMESTIC NUTRITION PROGRAMS 

WITNESSES 

THOMAS O’CONNOR, ACTING DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY, FOOD, NUTRITION, AND CONSUMER SERVICES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

KELLY D. BROWNELL, Ph.D., PROFESSOR OF PSYCHOLOGY, EPIDEMIOLOGY AND PUBLIC HEALTH, AND DIRECTOR OF THE RUDD CENTER FOR FOOD POLICY AND OBESITY, YALE UNIVERSITY 

LYNN PARKER, MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON NUTRITION STANDARDS 

FOR FOODS IN SCHOOLS, FOOD AND NUTRITION BOARD, INSTITUTE 

OF MEDICINE, THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES 

OPENING REMARKS

Ms. DELAURO. The committee is called to order. My apologies for 

being late. 

The Budget Committee met today as well, but it was an interesting exchange because the Secretary of Education was there, and 

we had an opportunity to talk about school nutrition in that context, as well as having an opportunity to be here with all of you 

today. 

Let me just say thank you to everyone, and to welcome you this 

afternoon, especially to our witnesses, Mr. O’Connor, Acting Deputy Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services; 

Kelly Brownell from Yale University’s Rudd Center for Food Policy 

and Obesity; and Lynn Parker, representing the Food and Nutrition Board, the Institute of Medicine and the National Academies. 

I truly do; and we are all grateful to you for taking the time to be 

with us today to share your experience, to share your insight on 

what is a critical issue going forward for this Nation. 

If I might just take a second, I would like to welcome the newest 

member of our subcommittee, and that is Congressman Lincoln 

Davis, who is from Tennessee. He not only sits on the Appropriations Committee, he is a former member of the Ag Committee, Financial Services and served on the Science Committee. 

So delighted to have you and your experience in this effort, Mr. 

Davis. So, welcome. 

Mr. DAVIS. It is a pleasure. Thanks. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
2 

Ms. DELAURO. Let me also welcome back all of the subcommittee 

members. We come together today with a comprehensive agenda 

for the year ahead to try to build on all that we tried to achieve 

in the last Congress. And last year we convened the six budget 

hearings or the regular budget proceedings, and through the work 

of the subcommittee we worked hard to increase resources and improve management at the agencies under our jurisdiction in an effort to provide some what we regarded as needed reform. 

We called numerous oversight hearings on drug safety, food safety, rural development and the impact of the speculation on oil and 

food prices, all a part, if you will, of a mission to highlight and to 

pursue critical questions in public health, consumer safety and economic growth. 

I have enjoyed working together with my colleague, the ranking 

member, Mr. Kingston, from Georgia. I look forward to collaborating with you, Jack, and the entire subcommittee in our months 

ahead. 

We will be writing a new appropriations bill and working to preserve and strengthen our rural communities, support local businesses pushed to the brink by the spiraling economy, protect public 

health, address safety and think big about problems like energy 

and other issues that are here today; but we need to think beyond 

that in what is coming up. 

So we begin today with a hearing on public health, the first in 

a series on nutrition where I hope we can look at fighting hunger, 

making nutritious food accessible and exploring the Federal Government’s responsibility. 

For decades, our Nation’s nutrition programs under the Department of Agriculture have been a big part of our social safety net, 

providing children and low-income families with access to quality 

food; and over the last year we have made progress. With the farm 

bill, we took critical steps after years of erosion in food stamp benefits, increasing the standard deduction from $134 to $144, then indexing it to inflation. And we worked out increasing the minimum 

benefit to $14 from $10, where it had been frozen for the last 30 

years, and then indexing that to inflation as well. 

The fact is, one in five Americans is affected by nutrition programs under the Food and Nutrition Service at USDA. We have to 

ask ourselves in terms of where we want to try to go today. Are 

we using the USDA as a positive force for change? Are we doing 

families and children good? Or are we contributing to their poor 

nutrition, their obesity and other health-related problems? Do we 

understand the full consequences of our choices not only from specific programs like WIC or the school lunch or breakfast program, 

but also when it comes to our far-reaching subsidy policies? 

The latest statistics are overwhelming. Two-thirds of adults are 

overweight today. The trend lines are not promising. In the past 

20 years the percentage of adolescents who are overweight has 

more than tripled, and the habits most people take up as children 

and in school stay with them their whole lives. Diabetes and other 

dangerous health problems are on the rise, costing our economy 

millions. 

So with this hearing we are going to look at, or begin to look at, 

and probe the answers to what role can the Congress play in fightVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:29 Jan 26, 2010 Jkt 053443 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A443P2.XXX A443P2

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
3 

ing hunger, combating obesity, improving nutrition. In particular, 

this subcommittee: How can we apply the power of the purse to 

bring change? What is the administration’s current proposal? Will 

it make an impact in charting a new course? Are our policies contributing to poor nutrition and obesity? 

According to the Center for Science in the Public Interest, the 

food industry spends about $10 billion a year marketing food to 

children. Considering their significant influence and control, can 

we succeed in any significant behavioral change? Can we exercise 

controls or influence in this direction in the way that we did with 

cigarette smoking? What place should competitive foods, which are 

not required to meet any significant nutrition standards, have in 

our schools? How can we collaborate with the Department of 

Health and Human Services and the Department of Education? 

I read an article where Alice Waters says that the Department 

of Education should put up funding for the school nutrition piece 

as well as Agriculture. So how do we make the dietary guidelines 

stronger and meet good nutritional values? 

For our witnesses: If you would make any changes, what would 

they be? From WIC to SNAP to the school lunch program there are 

many powerful tools that we have, and we have used them to 

achieve a lot of good over the years; but in fact, I believe we have 

lacked coordination and long-term vision to take full advantage of 

their potential. Our question, going forward, is how to get all these 

programs working together effectively in the same direction. How 

do we harness their reach and their impact and apply it to a larger 

and a more comprehensive campaign to strengthen healthy diets, 

healthy weights and active lifestyles? The Agriculture appropriations bill and the Child Nutrition and WIC reauthorization bill will 

be important next steps. 

I thank our witnesses for participating this afternoon. I look forward to your testimony. 

In dire economic times like these, families and children should 

never be forced to choose between securing healthy food for their 

children and providing health care, shelter and the other basics 

they need just to get by. For many families, the USDA’s nutrition 

programs make the difference. Now is our opportunity to make 

them better. 

And with that, let me ask Ranking Member Mr. Kingston if he 

would like to make an opening statement. 

Mr. KINGSTON. No, I do not, Madam Chair. I don’t know if anybody else does, but I will certainly yield back. 

Ms. DELAURO. What I will ask our witnesses to do now is to 

make their statements. You understand fully that your remarks, in 

toto, will be in the Congressional Record, so if you can summarize 

your remarks, that would be appreciated, and then we can move 

to a dialogue. 

I will say this: This committee likes to have a dialogue, so it is 

not stovepiped here. What we hope to do is to engage you, to engage with one another and us to be able to engage with you on 

these issues. 

Mr. O’Connor. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
4 

OPENING STATEMENT

Mr. O’CONNOR. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and 

members of the Subcommittee, for the opportunity to be here 

today. I am the Acting Deputy Under Secretary for the Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services. 

When I joined FNCS over 30 years ago, I joined a group of dedicated colleagues committed to filling the agency’s primary mission, 

which is the eradication of hunger and malnutrition in America. 

Galvanized by the revelation of the terrible hunger problems that 

existed in the 1960s, Congresses and Administrations ever since, 

working in a bipartisan fashion, have assembled a nutrition safety 

net that has achieved remarkable success combating hunger. 

Hunger remains a significant problem in the United States. It no 

longer is of the magnitude that it was before these programs were 

established. The 15 programs administered by USDA are a safety 

net that responds to changing economic conditions, expanding and 

contracting as needed. We see this at work right now as our programs reach all-time highs in participation to serve those currently 

experiencing economic hardship. 

Hunger is not the only nutrition challenge that the Nation faces. 

Over the past decade, the number of people who are overweight 

and obese has increased significantly. The evidence is clear and 

overwhelming that this problem is reaching epidemic proportions 

and cuts across all populations of our Nation. The latest data from 

the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows that 66 percent of adults are overweight, as you pointed out, and 32 percent 

of those are obese. Even more alarming, almost one in five children 

in adolescence is overweight. 

While there is no evidence that singles out any particular group 

as more prone to this problem than another, the fact that our program served one in five Americans during the course of a year positions us to play a part in addressing this alarming health trend. 

The reasons why people are overweight and obese are straightforward: We eat too much, we exercise too little. But effecting 

changes in those behaviors that need to be made are not easy. 

However, we are committed to doing all that we can to encourage 

people to change behaviors. 

Our Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion created My Pyramid, the most recognized nutrition icon in the world, and through 

MyPyramid.gov, which has had over 7 billion hits—100 million 

each month—and related products, we are continually trying to 

educate the general population about good nutrition and healthy 

lifestyles. 

Within our programs we have expanded nutrition education efforts dramatically, spending more than $750 million in 2008, improved the qualities of foods provided in school meals and the commodity programs, in part by providing more fruits and vegetables, 

and we have updated and improved the nutritional value of the 

WIC food packages. We have initiated public awareness campaigns 

in English and in Spanish to provide a broad reach for our nutrition messages, and we are testing ways to use initiatives at the 

point of purchase to change people’s buying habits. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
5 

There is no magic bullet to solving the epidemic of overweight 

and obesity. There is no one answer, no one agency’s issue to address, nor indeed is it just the government’s role alone. The problem didn’t appear overnight, and it won’t be solved overnight. 

But like the fight against hunger, we can achieve success in the 

fight against obesity. It takes commitment, perseverance, creativity, collaboration and partnership across all levels of government; and with the private sector, USDA is committed to being a 

part of the solution and responding to the challenge as it did and 

continues to do in addressing the challenges of hunger. 

Madam Chairwoman, I appreciate the opportunity to make this 

presentation and would be happy to answer any questions that you 

or your colleagues may have. 

Ms. DELAURO. Thank you very much. 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
6 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 11 here 53443A.001
7 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 12 here 53443A.002
8 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 13 here 53443A.003
9 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 14 here 53443A.004
10 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 15 here 53443A.005
11 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 16 here 53443A.006
12 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 17 here 53443A.007
13 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 18 here 53443A.008
14 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 19 here 53443A.009
15 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 20 here 53443A.010
16 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 21 here 53443A.011
17 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 22 here 53443A.012
18 

Ms. DELAURO. Dr. Brownell. 

Mr. BROWNELL. Thank you for the invitation to address the committee. I appreciate all the leadership on public health issues. My 

name is Kelly Brownell and I am a professor of psychology at Yale 

University, former Chair of the Department of Psychology, Director 

of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity. 

I begin today with several points regarding the role that food 

plays in modern life and how our relationship with food has 

evolved and how important the USDA can be as a force for change. 

I often begin talks before an audience by showing a list of ingredients for common food and having the audience guess what food 

that is. And if you see my written testimony, you will see the list 

of ingredients on this particular food, which is 48 items strong. And 

the fact that food can have 48 different things in it shows how different our relationship with food has become. 

It used to be—there was a time that if we had such a thing as 

food labels there would have been one thing on it. It would have 

the food. It would have been an orange, lettuce, an apple, whatever; and now we have many, many ingredients. 

We don’t really know what most of these things do to us. There 

is interesting research that has come out recently on the possible 

addictive nature of some ingredients of food. But that aside, our relationship with food has become physically distant and psychologically distant; and changing this situation I think could take us 

very far down the road of improving public health. 

Now it so happens that this list of ingredients sums up to be a 

Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough Pop Tart, but those 40 things could 

be mixed in different ways to produce lots of foods that are in the 

food environment. But the fact that we don’t really know what is 

going into the foods that we eat and we are so far from the food 

and who creates it, a number of problems have developed from 

them. 

One could actually ask if some of these things should be called 

‘‘a food’’—Michael Pollan has written about this—and one could legitimately ask whether a product should be called a food, not because we eat them necessarily, but are they found in nature? Do 

they create metabolic havoc once they enter the body? Do they 

interfere with life expectancy or promote it? And these things are 

really very interesting questions, and beyond the scope of what we 

are talking about today, but they do show our changed relationship 

with food. 

When we talk about food and our vision of what is acceptable to 

eat, it is shaped tremendously by the food industry. We have been 

trained as a nation to believe that you can throw vitamins in 

water, sugar water, and that it is a healthy thing to take in. We 

have been trained to believe that something doesn’t have to have 

fruit in it to bear fruit in its name. 

A number of things like this have occurred that talk to the power 

of marketing. And foods marketed, much like alcohol and tobacco, 

become attractive in part because they are associated with being 

cool, fun, athletic, popular, et cetera. And you will see how often, 

if you pay attention to food marketing—how seldom, that is—the 

properties of the food themselves are measured. Very seldom do we 

hear that the food tastes good or that it does something good for 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
19 

us; it is mainly about its associated properties. So change in this 

system won’t be easy. Food policy is affected by factors deeply 

woven in the economics and politics of our country. 

I am very heartened by Secretary Vilsack’s comments about nutrition being at the heart of agriculture policy, which I think represents a significant change and could take us down some very 

good roads. I would like to mention also the possibility of considering guiding philosophy: As we are going ahead with changing nutrition to affect public health is there a way to put all of this together into a central philosophy? 

And I would like to introduce the concept that the economists use 

called ‘‘optimal defaults’’; and the basic idea there is that you can 

create changes in the environment that make healthy behavior the 

default rather than unhealthy behavior the default. And there are 

stunning examples of the success of these approaches. 

I will just use one in the health area unrelated to nutrition. It 

has to do with the percentage of people who agree to be organ donors in different countries. European countries break down about 

60/40 percent into those that use the U.S. model, where you are not 

an organ donor by default, but you can choose to be one versus 

countries where you are an organ donor by default, but you can opt 

out if you wish—the same set of choices under both circumstances, 

just the default differs. 

And the rates are remarkably different of organ donation. In the 

countries that use the U.S. model, where you are not one by default, about 15 percent of people agree to be organ donors; in the 

countries where you are a donor by default, it is 98 percent. 

Now, that is a startling difference; and one could imagine if you 

tried to accomplish that with education, you could do an educational campaign. With unlimited money, you could never get that 

number up to 98 percent or you could just change the default. 

And so the question is, are there nutrition equivalents of this? 

Are there optimal defaults that can be created in the nutrition environment in order to help make healthy behavior the default rather than the opposite? And now, with portion sizes so large, marketing as it is, unhealthy foods priced to be more accessible than 

healthy options, there are a number of factors that bear down on 

people to make poor choices the default. 

Now, we could use food marketing as an example here. If we 

added together all the government programs that deal with nutrition education and see what it summed to—let’s say 100 million, 

let’s say 500 million, whatever it happened to be—the food industry 

spends that in the month of January to basically convince people 

to eat unhealthy foods, with a few exceptions, but mainly that is 

the case—sugared cereals, soft drinks, fast food, candy and the like. 

And much of this advertising is directed to children. So that creates an unhealthy default. 

As long as that marketing is out there, to the extent it is, it is 

hard to imagine the population eating a healthy diet. 

But, of course, there are many other things that can be done as 

well. So the question is, what role can USDA play in this? I would 

like to break down my remaining comments into ways that existing 

programs might be strengthened and then discuss a few new initiatives that my colleagues and I thought about. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
20 

First, in terms of strengthening existing programs, I would like 

to talk first about children and schools. First is the issue of what 

shouldn’t be in schools. The list of competitive foods that exist now 

is much too lax; tightening up the standards would be a big help 

in terms of school nutrition, and the Institute of Medicine has excellent standards that could be used to guide those decisions. 

Next is the issue of what needs to be in schools. The Fruit and 

Vegetable Program administered by the Department of Defense is 

an excellent start and can be strengthened even beyond where it 

is now. Better financing for breakfast and lunch programs would 

give the opportunity for schools to buy healthier foods rather than 

rely on the low-cost, unhealthier options. 

Locking in school wellness policies would also be an excellent 

thing to do. In the 2004 Child Nutrition Reauthorization Act, 

school districts were required to develop school wellness policies; 

and colleagues of mine at the Rudd Center, Drs. Marlene Schwartz 

and Katherine Henderson, have done excellent work to find out 

that the school wellness policies do matter and that the school districts with stronger policies tend to have better nutrition practices, 

as well as other practices related to health. 

Next, I would like to talk about the Child and Adult Care Food 

Program, CACFP. Those programs could be strengthened by having 

higher nutrition standards. Both pertain to what is allowed and 

what is not allowed in the programs. 

Next, on the WIC and food stamp front, of course, a tremendous 

opportunity here to improve things. I would encourage less emphasis on direct education, although education sounds like a good 

thing, and we all believe in it, and it seems like a pretty good idea; 

but there is not a lot of evidence suggesting that education is having the desired impact or that it is worth the money spent on it. 

And so the question is, do we try to educate our way out of 

unhealthy diets or do we do things like changing defaults? And an 

example of this, a real-world example, would be New York City 

where the health commissioner and the Department of Health 

passed a regulation that forbids restaurants to have trans fats in 

the restaurant foods. 

Now, again, you could try to accomplish that with education and 

never get to the goal or you can just change the default: You get 

rid of the trans fats. 

And so, again, I go back to the question, in WIC and food stamps, 

can we create better defaults? And then I will end with the following. 

Is that my cue to stop? 

Ms. DELAURO. No. 

Mr. BROWNELL. Okay. 

Ms. DELAURO. Keep going. 

Mr. BROWNELL. I am almost done anyway. 

And then another thing that could be improved with WIC and 

food stamp programs is, the USDA has pretty strict rules on what 

States can say about specific foods. And States—and we have 

talked to some people in some States who feel hamstrung by not 

being able to produce written materials that say people should eat 

less of anything in particular. So they can’t recommend, for example, that people should drink less sugared beverages or eat less fast 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
21 

food or eat fewer french fries or things like that, because of this 

censoring rule. And if that could be changed, it would provide more 

flexibility for States to be more aggressive with the messages they 

give people. 

Position of and reimbursement for better foods within those programs would be helpful, too. 

In terms of new initiatives, I would recommend several things. 

One is, I would like to see somewhere in government a commission 

established that would simultaneously address hunger, obesity and 

the environmental consequences of modern food practices. These 

are all very pressing issues. Depending on who you talk to, hunger 

is a major problem, obesity is a major problem, the environmental 

degradation produced by modern food practices is a problem. But 

these worlds of people very seldom interact, and sometimes even 

have competing needs. 

An example would be the green revolution which has helped feed 

the environmental world, but at an environmental cost. And so, are 

there ways that these worlds could come together and we could create win-win-win for hunger, obesity and sustainability issues? I believe there can be, but again, these worlds aren’t talking very 

much. 

I would recommend a great deal more emphasis on farm-toschool programs; and this, apropos of Chairwoman DeLauro’s comments about Alice Waters, who has championed this issue. Children, because of the way they are raised in the United States now, 

have very little relationship with food. Fewer and fewer people 

know how to cook these days. You have schools that aren’t doing 

a very good job teaching kids nutrition; and so strengthening those 

programs would be a big help. 

And then I will end with recommendations for two studies I 

would recommend the IOM, the Institute of Medicine, be commissioned to do. One would be a study on the economic and health impact of farm subsidies. There is a lot of debate about farm subsidies 

now. Michael Pollan and others have written about it extensively. 

And as I talk to my economist friend, I get the sense that this a 

far more complex topic than one might see if you just read the 

press. 

And it is not a simple issue of corn farmers get subsidies, and 

therefore, we are helping drive obesity; but it is actually a very 

complicated topic that deserves the sort of thoughtful analysis that 

the Institute of Medicine could provide. So I would like to see that 

with some specific recommendations about how subsidy programs 

might be harnessed in order to improve health. 

And then, second, I would recommend the Institute of Medicine 

be commissioned to do a study on the impact of food prices and access, especially in vulnerable populations, on ultimate diet and 

health and whether we can change food prices and access in a way 

that helps these vulnerable populations maintain their health. 

Thank you very much. 

Ms. DELAURO. Thank you, Dr. Brownell. 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
22 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 33 here 53443A.013
23 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 34 here 53443A.014
24 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 35 here 53443A.015
25 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 36 here 53443A.016
26 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 37 here 53443A.017
27 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 38 here 53443A.018
28 

Ms. DELAURO. Ms. Parker, that was a vote, as you know, so we 

will hear your testimony and then we will sort ourselves out from 

there. 

Ms. PARKER. Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and 

members of the committee. Thanks for the opportunity to be with 

you here today. 

My name is Lynn Parker, and I am a scholar at the Institute of 

Medicine at the National Academies. Prior to coming to the Institute of Medicine, I was a member of the Committee on Nutrition 

Standards for Foods in Schools at the Institute of Medicine, so was 

involved with that committee in writing the report that I am going 

to talk about today—Nutrition Standards for Foods in Schools: 

Leading the Way Toward a Healthier Youth. 

The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 under a charter with the National Academies to provide independent, objective 

and evidence-based advice to policymakers, to health professionals, 

the private sector and to the public. 

In 2005, in the wake of the rising rate of obesity and also the 

increasing availability of high-calorie, low-nutrient foods in schools 

that were being served and offered in competition with the school 

lunch and breakfast programs, Congress directed the Centers for 

Disease Control to undertake a study with the Institute of Medicine to review the evidence and make recommendations about what 

would be the appropriate nutrition standards for foods that are offered in competition with the reimbursable school lunch and breakfast programs. 

The need for such standards is simple, and I think people have 

already sort of talked a little bit about that. While we have federally reimbursed school meals that have to meet nutrition standards, the competitive foods that are offered in competition with 

those meals do not have to conform to very much of a standard at 

all. It is a very limited standard; and some people are surprised to 

hear that these foods only have to meet less than—the only foods 

that are prohibited are those that have less than 5 percent of eight 

key nutrients. 

So we are talking about foods that are very low in nutrients that 

are actually being prohibited from being served in competition with 

school meals. And also, the only control is around the cafeteria and 

during the meal period, so anything that happens before or after 

a meal period or anything that happens nearby the cafeteria is 

okay. 

To begin the process of developing these recommendations we developed a list of guiding principles to guide us in our work. And 

we wanted those guiding principles to lead us to creating a healthful eating environment for children in the United States. And I 

want to—there were several guiding principles, and they are in my 

testimony, but I just wanted to tell you a couple of them so you 

can see sort of where we were coming from. 

We said that schools contribute to the current and lifelong health 

and dietary patterns of children. Children are there all day long, 

5 days a week a significant part of the year; and schools, because 

of that, are uniquely positioned to model and reinforce healthful 

eating behaviors among children. And we also said, in partnership 

with parents, teachers and the broader community. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
29 

Also, we all agree that foods and beverages offered in the school 

campus should contribute to the overall healthy eating environment and to the long-term healthful eating habits of children and 

serve a basis for their habits in the future. And we looked at both 

the dietary guidelines as a guide for what we did and also other 

pertinent scientific information that is available. 

So, drawing on the Dietary Guidelines and the scientific data describing the current dietary intake of school-age children, what we 

found was that children are not—and this won’t surprise you—are 

not eating enough fruits and vegetables, are not eating enough 

whole grains and are not drinking enough or eating enough low fat 

and nonfat dairy foods and beverages. And the Dietary Guidelines 

urge us to promote those four kinds of foods to children and encourage their consumption. 

So ultimately what we—and I am going to put my glasses on 

now—what we recommended was that the foods that are offered in 

competition with the school meals ought to be those foods that represent fruits and vegetables, whole grains and low fat and nonfat 

dairy products. 

We organized our competitive foods list—competitive foods and 

beverages list into two tiers to make a distinction about when certain foods should be allowed to be provided. Tier 1 foods were those 

foods that we felt should be offered during the day, if a school 

chooses to offer competitive foods during the school day; and those 

foods include fruits and vegetables, whole grains, nonfat and low 

fat dairy products. And to give you some examples of the kinds of 

foods we are talking about, they would be things like apples, carrot 

sticks, raisins, some multigrain tortilla chips, granola bars and 

nonfat yogurt with limited added sugars. 

The second tier of foods that we recommended were those that 

meet certain standards, certain nutritional criteria—reduced fat, 

saturated fat, additives and sodium—but don’t necessarily have the 

full servings of fruits, vegetables, whole grains and so forth. And 

we suggested that as an option after school in high schools. 

So those of the guiding principles in those two tiers form the 

basis of our recommended nutrition standards for competitive foods 

and beverages. The standards have two objectives: to encourage 

consumption of healthful foods and beverages and to limit the consumption of dietary components like fat, saturated fat, sodium and 

added sugars that either fall outside the recommendations of the 

Dietary Guidelines or are just not optimal for the diets or health 

of school-age children. 

These standards are intended to ensure that competitive foods, 

snacks and beverages complement the School Lunch Program and 

meals and that they contribute to the development of lifelong eating patterns. In other words, if schools decide that they want to 

serve foods in competition with school lunch and breakfast, those 

foods should complement the School Lunch and Breakfast Programs and their goals, not compete with the School Lunch and 

Breakfast Programs and their goals. Those foods should be moving 

children toward the Dietary Guidelines and meeting the Dietary 

Guidelines rather than moving them away from meeting the Dietary Guidelines. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
30 

One of the major purposes of the School Lunch and Breakfast 

Programs and their nutrition standards is to provide children with 

a diet and with meals at school that meet the Dietary Guidelines. The committee also recommended that the standards apply 

throughout the school campus and throughout the school day so 

that they are consistent throughout the day and that the message 

that children are receiving, the offerings that are available to them 

and what they are learning about what is best to be eating and 

consuming, are consistent throughout the campus and throughout 

the school day. 

So, in conclusion, the committee looked at the traditional school 

nutrition programs like breakfast and lunch as ones that are the 

major source of nutrition for kids and that should be providing access to healthful foods. If a school decides to offer competitive foods, 

then these offerings should encourage greater consumption of fruits 

and vegetables, whole grains and nonfat and low fat dairy products. 

It is our hope that as these recommendations are taken into account and implemented at the local, State and national level; that 

they move our schools toward providing children with a model of 

what good nutrition is; that they serve as a basis for kids understanding what a healthful diet consists of, so that they are available for them to consume and so that, as Kelly Brownell pointed 

out earlier, they are the healthy default, they are the foods that are 

available to kids. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify, and if you 

have any questions about anything that I have said, I would be 

glad to answer your questions. 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
31 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 46 53443A.019
32 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 47 53443A.020
33 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 48 53443A.021
34 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 49 53443A.022
35 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 50 53443A.023
36 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 51 53443A.024
37 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 52 53443A.025
38 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 53 53443A.026
39 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 54 53443A.027
40 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 55 53443A.028
41 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 56 53443A.029
42 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 57 53443A.030
43 

Ms. DELAURO. I think what we are going to do is—there are 

about 4 minutes left in the vote and then there are two 5-minute 

votes after that. I think, with the concurrence of the committee, the 

subcommittee will just recess to go for the votes and then come 

back. Then we will take up the questioning. 

I beg your indulgence, but this is our way of life. Thank you. 

[Recess.] 

NUTRITION EDUCATION

Ms. DELAURO. We are going to get started. I know the other 

members are coming back. Again our apologies, but let’s get started 

with questions. 

Mr. O’Connor, last year’s hearing I asked about funds that FNS is spending on nutrition education. The FNS estimated that $788 

million, Dr. Brownell, it is not 100 million, it is 788, and that 

doesn’t include the State match money, which is somewhere near 

another 300 million or so. 

Over 95 percent of the funding is payment to State agencies, $305 million to food stamp agencies, 445 to WIC. About $19 million, as I understand it, goes to support nutrition education in 

schools. 

I am going to get my couple of questions out here and then give 

you time to answer and to interact. 

We need an overview of FNS programs and what you are currently doing on nutrition education that deals with the obesity 

issue. I am going to get right to the chase here. There is a 50 percent match from State, again which increases the total amount of 

the program. But my question is how do we know that we are getting anywhere with this nutrition education? What feedback do we 

get? What specific types of nutrition education are States implementing? 

I know you did some messaging last December on messages that 

work. Who analyzed it? What does it say? What is getting through? 

What changes should we be making on nutrition education to make 

it more effective? My question is, is $19 million enough for schools? 

So that series of questions, this is the Appropriations Committee. 

We are sending this money this way. What is happening to it? 

Then I have a follow-up question. When you answer this one, I 

also want to get the other two panelists to answer it. Your testimony talks about, and I quote, ‘‘concerns about the role of nutrition 

assistance and causing weight gain. USDA is not aware of any convincing evidence that school meals or other Federal nutrition assistance programs cause obesity or overweight. The evidence that 

does exist is mixed.’’ That is a quote from your testimony. 

So with regard to that, when you address that I am going to ask 

Mr. Brownell and Ms. Parker whether or not they agree with that 

statement. Do they think there is any relationship to our nutrition 

assistance programs or the commodity programs and causing 

weight gain. So let me ask you to address the issues of our nutrition education programs and analysis of those efforts and their effectiveness. 

Mr. O’CONNOR. To the first question, where is the money going 

and what do we know about what we are getting back from it, we 

know that in the SNAP program, for example, where most of the 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
44 

money is going that you were just describing, where there is a 

State match, 52 of the State agencies have nutrition education programs that we are participating in the funding in. This is up over 

the last several years when there were many fewer—— 

Ms. DELAURO. What is the effectiveness of the program? 

Mr. O’CONNOR. The effectiveness is something that we are still 

trying to assess. 

Ms. DELAURO. How? 

Mr. O’CONNOR. We have a new reporting requirement that we 

just put into effect, where we are going to be able to through collecting that information know better what all of the States are 

doing, and we are going to be sponsoring some projects looking at 

effectiveness to make sure that we can share what one State is 

doing that is effective with other States so that we can try to promulgate effective interventions from place to place to place. 

Ms. DELAURO. What is the timing on that? 

Mr. O’CONNOR. I believe we are about 2 years away from the results of that coming back in. So in the meantime—— 

Ms. DELAURO. We are 2 years away? 

Mr. O’CONNOR. Right, in terms of trying to assess the effectiveness of what the State efforts are. In the meantime we have been 

doing some things well. We are trying to get folks to focus around 

certain common messages. We have recently put out some core nutrition messages because we know that one of the ways we can try 

to get behavioral changes that I was talking about is to continually 

have messages resonate from various places. So if we can get folks 

to try to have the same message carried in various ways, then we 

can try to have more effective—— 

Ms. DELAURO. Tell me about the messages that were tested last 

December. I run for office every 2 years. So does my colleague Mr. 

Kingston and Mr. Farr. We deal with messages all the time, what 

we say and what we do. If we waited, if we waited the amount of 

time to figure out what messages work or don’t work, it would be 

a cold day in you know what before we got here. 

What happened in December. 

Mr. O’CONNOR. Those are the messages that we put out to the 

State agencies. They are now using those messages. They have 

been accepted by the States and they are incorporating those into 

the nutrition education programs that they are running for the clientele. 

Ms. DELAURO. We are running on empty. Is it an old Jackson 

Browne? We are running on empty here, and years before we get 

to what we need to do in an age of unbelievable technology and 

ability to follow up. 

The red light is here, but I do want to have Mr. Brownell and 

Ms. Parker comment about that quote from Mr. O’Connor’s testimony about role of nutrition assistance and causing weight gain, 

USDA is not aware of any convincing evidence that school meals 

or other Federal and nutrition assistance programs cause obesity 

and overweight. The evidence that does exist is mixed. I ask for 

your comment on the earlier commentary as well as on this. 

Ms. Parker. 

Ms. PARKER. Let’s see, let me answer in a couple of ways if that 

is okay. One is in terms of nutrition education we don’t really have 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
45 

a recent report at the Institute of Medicine on the effective nutrition education or what works best, but we do have several reports 

on obesity prevention and childhood obesity prevention. And when 

we looked at that issue what we found was that the environment 

in which children are affects whether they become obese or not. 

There are connections between environment and obesity both for 

children and adults. 

And my point is this, that nutrition education by itself is not 

going to take you all the way. You really need to look at and make 

it possible for people to act on what they have learned. You have 

to make it possible for children to act on what they have learned. 

If a child is at a school where competitive foods are being served 

that are high in fat and sodium, you are teaching them one thing 

and in then changing it around. If you tell kids they should be 

physically active and try to encourage them through nutrition education, which physical activity is part of nutrition, but if there is 

no physical education in school, if kids can’t walk to school because 

it is dangerous, if the whole build environment around them, if the 

fast food restaurant is one block away perhaps from their school 

and there is no labeling there, those are all potential situations in 

which it is very difficult for people to act. 

If a mother learns that she should be having low fat meats and 

low fat dairy, but not a store in her neighborhood that provides 

those products because there is no major grocery store, she can’t 

act on it. 

So I guess I want to throw in the idea that along with nutrition 

education we have to be thinking about also changing the environment in which people are so they can act on what they learned. 

And then on the issue of food programs and obesity we haven’t 

done that analysis, but speaking from a personal perspective I have 

looked at the literature and other research that I have done outside 

of my work at the Institute of Medicine, and I would agree with 

the USDA analysis and both at ERS and FNS that the literature 

is mixed but overall there does not seem to be a connection between—right now in the scientific literature it is not clear that 

there is any connection between obesity and the nutrition programs. 

The one thing I would say is that when I was talking about competitive foods, people often don’t realize school lunch is a program 

that has portion size control, that it has to meet certain nutrition 

standards, but there are other things that are being sold and offered to children at the same time. When people walk into a cafeteria, they don’t realize that a lot of the foods that are provided are 

foods that are outside of the lunch program that are sold and there 

is vending machines and student stores and snack bars. So there 

is a lot of, again, in terms of the environment in which kids are, 

and in the environment in which school lunch and breakfast are it 

is a pretty difficult environment to provide kids with a nutritious 

meal. 

Ms. DELAURO. Dr. Brownell. 

Mr. BROWNELL. Three reactions, number one is the question 

about whether these programs are helping drive obesity I believe 

comes in the context of critics of these programs using this as an 

excuse for wanting to cut them back. I do not believe there is suffiVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:29 Jan 26, 2010 Jkt 053443 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A443P2.XXX A443P2

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
46 

cient evidence to justify that point of view. There is plenty of evidence, anecdotal and just common sense, that would suggest that 

the programs could be doing more to help the obesity problem. So 

going forward, that certainly becomes the more important question. 

Second is the issue of nutrition education. There is a long history 

of nutrition education affecting things other than behavior, like 

they affect knowledge and attitudes about food, but you don’t get 

too many nutrition education programs that actually change behavior. And I really support the spirit of what the USDA is doing, but 

unless they are doing something different than everybody else has 

been doing for years and years and years, it will take 2 years to 

find the inevitable, that these things have unsatisfying results. 

Now I hope that is wrong, and God bless them if they can pull it 

off, but it would be different than anything else that has happened 

in the past. That is why I believe that changing the default conditions is more important than education. 

So back to the point Lynn made, if there were zoning ways to get 

mini markets and fast food restaurants and the Dunkin Donuts out 

of the range where kids can walk from a school, that would probably be more helpful than the education going on in school. 

And then, second, the core messages that Mr. O’Connor discussed. I am very much in favor of that in principle and I think 

it is a very good idea. Unfortunately, I think the USDA for years 

and years has existed in a political climate where there has been 

great fear of offending the food industry. I haven’t seen the core 

messages, but my guess is that they are probably not the most assertive in the world. The core messages that one is left with in that 

political environment is focusing on encouraging people to eat more 

of the good things rather than less of the bad things. You just can’t 

get to the goal line by doing that. You can talk about fruits and 

vegetables all day long, but as long as there is soft drinks, fast 

food, sugared cereals, candies, you have big trouble. 

So to the extent that USDA, with the political climate, can 

change and the USDA is empowered to be more assertive with 

those core messages, I think that would be quite beneficial. 

Ms. DELAURO. Thank you very much. I want to yield to my colleague from Georgia. I would love to see if we can get the core messages and take a look at it. I think you made an interesting point, 

both of you, in terms of the amount of the money we are spending 

on education and the outcome. $788 million is not exactly chump 

change. It is not the $10 billion or the money that the industry 

spends, but it is certain maybe we can redirect some of that in 

more effective ways. 

[The information from USDA follows:] 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
47 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 68 here 53443A.031
48 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 69 here 53443A.032
49 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 70 here 53443A.033
50 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 71 here 53443A.034
51 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 72 here 53443A.035
52 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 73 here 53443A.036
53 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 74 here 53443A.037
54 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 75 here 53443A.038
55 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 76 here 53443A.039
56 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 77 here 53443A.040
57 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 78 here 53443A.041
58 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 79 here 53443A.042
59 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 80 here 53443A.043
60 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 81 here 53443A.044
61 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 82 here 53443A.045
62 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 83 here 53443A.046
63 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 84 here 53443A.047
64 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 85 here 53443A.048
65 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 86 here 53443A.049
66 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 87 here 53443A.050
67 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 88 here 53443A.051
68 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 89 here 53443A.052
69 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 90 here 53443A.053
70 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 91 here 53443A.054
71 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 92 here 53443A.055
72 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 93 here 53443A.056
73 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 94 here 53443A.057
74 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 95 here 53443A.058
75 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 96 here 53443A.059
76 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 97 here 53443A.060
77 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 98 here 53443A.061
78 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 99 here 53443A.062
79 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 100 here 53443A.063
80 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 101 here 53443A.064
81 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 102 here 53443A.065
82 

Ms. DELAURO. Mr. Kingston. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Dr. Brownell, just to jump on that last statement 

because I think that moves in the direction I wanted to ask you 

about, in terms of you said you just can’t get there when you are 

offering this stuff, they are maybe going to choose something less 

nutritious. In your testimony you said that maybe you could give 

a bonus for people on SNAP to buy certain foods in the right direction. But why not just eliminate some of this stuff, based on your 

statement which I tend to agree with, why not just say this stuff 

you can’t do? 

Mr. BROWNELL. I am totally in favor of what you just said. 

Mr. KINGSTON. And then, Ms. Parker, why not say to a school 75 

percent of your food has to be Tier I. Right now is there a split between Tier I and Tier II, a quota split? 

Ms. PARKER. No. What is recommended in the standards is that 

during the school day for all levels of schools that the Tier I is 

what is in place, and then after school for high school students Tier 

II can be allowed. The reason is to provide in a school setting the 

best options for kids. That is sort of based on the way the committee approached the task in the beginning as what are the best 

foods we can offer children and what are the foods that will be 

most likely to represent what we want children to be eating. And 

the thinking being from the evidence we know, they are not getting 

enough fruits, vegetables, whole grains, low fat dairy, and so forth. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Well, in terms of the big picture what is the split 

between Tier I and Tier II consumption, in the mega picture? 

Ms. PARKER. First of all, these standards are not in place right 

now. It is recommendations. 

Ms. DELAURO. It is a recommendation. 

Mr. KINGSTON. But we don’t know what the split is. 

Ms. PARKER. If you were to look across the country, nobody has 

done—well, there are some national it analyses, the HHS has 

looked through their school health survey, they have some sense of 

what is out there. And I suspect that what is out there is probably 

the opposite. Kelly, you may have—— 

Mr. BROWNELL. It is highly variable from school district to school 

district and even from State to State. 

OVERPAYMENTS IN SCHOOL MEAL PROGRAMS

Mr. KINGSTON. That may be some data that we need to get. 

Another thing this committee has worked on is trying to merge 

the Department of Education physical ed requirements with the 

USDA nutrition requirements and we put in some report language 

in our bill last year. A lot of that stuff kind of got caught in the 

CR process. I am not sure what survived or what did not, but we 

are aware of that and interested in that. And so any recommendations you may have are certainly welcome. 

But I wanted to ask Mr. O’Connor a question. In terms of last 

year there was an audit that said 8, almost 9 percent of the funds 

were improperly applied. $860 million, I think that is what it was 

for the school year 2005 and 2006. What has the USDA done to address that? 

Mr. O’CONNOR. We will be looking at that in the upcoming 

months. We have child nutrition reauthorization coming of course, 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
83 

and I have to defer to Secretary Vilsack on that in terms of what 

is going to be put forth and whatever. But it is a difficult situation. 

We know that there are tradeoffs that the schools have in terms 

of the burdens that they put on people in order to be applying for 

the school lunches. There are burdens that get put on them in 

terms of policing them. 

Having said that, those are not excuses for those kinds of issues 

and stuff. We are taking it very seriously. We want to take an aggressive stance in terms of trying to deal with the issues, but we 

have to do it in consonance with the realities of what happens in 

the local areas and stuff. 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
84 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 107 here 53443A.066
85 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 108 here 53443A.067
86 

Mr. KINGSTON. There was a Senate hearing about it recently, 

correct? I don’t know if you attended that. 

Mr. O’CONNOR. I did not. 

Mr. KINGSTON. They actually had that study which was done in 

April of 2008 that showed some of the money, the school’s reimbursement rate was higher than their cost. And it might be two different things, because the 860 million was an improper payment. 

And then the other issue was the reimbursement to schools was 

higher, and you have seen that chart. But the mean cost was $2.36 

and the reimbursement rate was $2.51. 

And I am out of time, but I would like, maybe we will get back 

to that today, but if not, for the record. 

[The information from USDA follows:] 

Federal reimbursements are one of several important sources of funding for school 

meals programs. These payments cover the cost of meals provided free to the lowestincome children, and portions of the cost for other meals. Remaining revenues are 

provided by families in the form of cash payments for meals and other foods, and 

through State and local contributions. USDA’s most recent data indicate that Federal reimbursements represented just over half of all food service revenue in school 

year 2005–2006. 

USDA conducts a periodic study of the costs and revenues to schools that participate in school meals programs, to estimate the cost of producing meals and the ability of schools to cover these costs. Data from USDA’s latest study shows that in 

school year 2005–2006: 

• On average, school food service revenue was adequate to cover total reported 

operational costs. School food authorities are required to manage on a non-profit 

basis; most operated at a break-even level. 

• The Federal subsidy ($2.50, including cash and commodities) for a free lunch 

exceeded the average reported cost ($2.28). The reported cost of producing a lunch 

was less than the free subsidy in four out of five school districts; in the rest (typically smaller ones), the cost exceeded the subsidy. 

• Virtually all schools charge families less for a full price meal than the Federal 

government provides for a free meal. Even when factoring in the limited reimbursement that USDA provides for these ‘‘paid’’ meals, schools collect only about 80 percent of the revenue that they get for free meals—about 40 cents less per meal. 

Ms. DELAURO. Mr. Farr. 

CONSOLIDATING SCHOOL NUTRITION PROGRAMS

Mr. FARR. Thank you much, Madam Chair. I want to congratulate you on having this hearing. I hope we will have more because 

I think this issue is too important for our Nation. 

I represent the salad bowl capital of the world, the Salinas Valley, and I have been through a lot of the schools in that district. 

I am just appalled at how little of the discussion here in Washington in hearings like this, which I believe have become just academic discussions, really have anything to do with what is happening on the school grounds. And what I have seen is that it has 

been a dream for Americans to make sure that no child goes hungry and that we have good nutritional programs. But in the process 

of getting there we probably have created the biggest bureaucracy 

in the Federal Government in the child feeding program. 

Many of my schools tell me that 80 percent of the cost of the programs is administration. If we had that in Social Security, we 

would have 4 out of $5 in Social Security just in administrative 

costs alone. It has turned into a nightmare. We don’t even have 

programs, school nutritional programs. There is not such thing. 

What we have in the schools are the School Lunch Program, the 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
87 

School Breakfast Program, the Child and Adult Care Program, the 

Summer Food Service Program, Special Milk Program, After School 

Breakfast Program, Fresh Fruit and Vegetables Snack Program. 

Every one of those programs is administered in a different silo. 

In some cases you can qualify for many of them. But in most 

cases you have to not only qualify to be in the program but each 

program monitors whether each day you come and take that meal 

and if you ate that meal, sort of a point of sale requirement. The 

data and the computers that schools have had to buy just to account for that, rather than just feeding poor kids, it is just appalling. 

And then what we find is that in some of our schools they don’t 

have kitchens, as they used to when we were little kids and they 

made the food right there. They have these centers, or areas called 

pack-out kitchens. And those pack-out kitchens receive commodities. Now schools are not preparing them, so it is no good getting 

a big bag of wheat or big bag of corn. What these schools do is they 

go through these processors to process that and give them products 

they consume which essentially are packaged. And guess what happens in the process? Sugar and salt are added. So many of these 

schools don’t have anything added; they may get an apple on the 

plate but the rest of it is all packaged and comes from commodities, 

excess commodities which we in this program alone spend $638 

million, buying soybeans, wheat corn, rice, the commodities, and 

distributing them to the schools. And most of those pack-out kitchens are in urban schools and in our poorer schools. 

So what I am shocked at is that nobody in all these years has 

come to Congress and said, you have built a can of worms here, 

this is nuts. 

And I want to thank you for your 30 years of service, Mr. O’Connor, but I am just really surprised to hear we are going to go reauthorization, we reauthorized the same old stuff, we are destined for 

just failure. Because if all this money is being spent on people rather than on food and we are not spending it on the poor people, we 

are spending it on just hiring staff and accounting. 

So my question to you is instead of operating six separate feeding 

programs in schools, can’t we just boil that into one program called 

school nutrition program? And then take all your other programs, 

your food stamp program and your other programs you administer 

in that, the special supplemental, the WIC program, commodities 

assistance account, things like that, all those that are under food 

nutrition, and move those into a community nutrition program and 

cut out so much bureaucracy and start direct certification of children. We are doing that in California. We are told that we can’t 

use the Medicare tapes. If we could do that, some of my schools in 

the direct certification, the direct certification is giving them names 

of children who qualify for the program but whose parents have not 

entered into it, many times because they can’t speak English or 

they don’t know how to fill out the forms. 

Why are we trying to pedal this program as being an effective 

program when we have such a nightmarish administration? 

Mr. O’CONNOR. You put me in an awkward position, Mr. Farr. 

I understand. I think the root answer or the answer to what you 

are talking about really comes down to just making some fundaVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:29 Jan 26, 2010 Jkt 053443 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A443P2.XXX A443P2

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
88 

mental policy calls that Secretary Vilsack is going to have to be 

taking a look at. I do know that the issue of having programs that 

overlap and are competing, or whatever, is throughout this area as 

well as some other areas and stuff. 

Mr. FARR. Isn’t it true that all those programs could be in the 

same school on the same day and each one of them has to be accounted for differently? 

Mr. O’CONNOR. I don’t know that they are all in the same school. 

Mr. FARR. They could be. 

Mr. O’CONNOR. Oh, could they be? I think there could be a lot 

more coordination between them, yes, for sure. There would have 

to be changes in legislation. 

Mr. FARR. Who makes those recommendations? Does the Department come forward in the reauthorization and say let’s roll this 

stuff into one and start using the smart data we have? We can 

check every single person that is getting on an airplane in this 

country and we do, every single person. And we know whether that 

person is qualified to get on that airplane based on our background 

check. And if they don’t or are not qualified, then we don’t see 

them and they don’t get on the plane. Now if we can do that for 

every single traveler in this country, we certainly ought to be able 

to pick out the poor children in the country, we have the data on 

it. 

Mr. O’CONNOR. The requirements for participation in some of the 

programs that you are talking about are different from one another. 

Mr. FARR. Why? 

Mr. O’CONNOR. Excuse me? 

Mr. FARR. Why? It is about feeding kids. We don’t check those 

kids when they get on the bus in the morning as to a means test. 

We don’t check those kids when they go into the school library and 

check out a book, but damn it, if you are going into a cafeteria you 

have to be pulled out. I’m sorry, you don’t qualify, you can’t eat this 

meal. Do you know what the teachers do or the administrators do? 

They take the money out of their pocket. It is just nuts. We have 

gotten into a class system in our School Lunch Program. And if you 

wanted to, why haven’t we even implemented the USDA’s and even 

update the Web site to reflect the changes the Congress made in 

the 2008 Farm Bill that will provide $1.2 billion in mandatory 

money over the next year for fruits and vegetables? When is that 

Web site going to be updated? 

Mr. O’CONNOR. I will have to get back to you on that, Mr. Farr. 

I am sorry. 

[The information follows:] 

The Farm Bill Web site within the USDA Web site provides information that 

summarize the fruit and vegetable provisions of the Farm Bill. This information is 

provided at http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/Farmbill2008. 

Mr. FARR. Well, I am really hopeful, Madam Chair, that we can 

begin delving into, because this is the fiscal committee, and when 

you look at it, to have all of these programs called child nutrition, 

most of them in schools, I am sure that the WIC Program, the one 

for Child and Adult Care Food Program might be better in a community service, but we have requirements that—for example, the 

breakfast program has very poor attendance. Why kids don’t get up 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
89 

early, go to a cafeteria before they go to a class. We don’t even do 

that here in Congress. Most of us go right to our hearings. So if 

we just change the policy that you could have that snack in the 

classroom, you would have a lot more consumers of the food than 

having them go through the cafeteria before they go to their classroom. 

I think if we move to this direct certification and required all 

States to implement a program like that, one, we would have a 

much better accountability and we wouldn’t have to get rid of this 

paper trail. And in some cases we have to just assume that if a kid 

is hungry and needs food that they ought to be able to get it. So 

I am really concerned about these good recommendations. 

The commodity programs alone, of which we slough off all this 

excess to the schools and gets into these, in some cases this is all 

the food the kids get. So if you had your test that every child in 

the school nutrition program get access to leafy greens and to fruits 

and vegetables, the answer is no, only some schools do. And so by 

just piling on more here in Washington ain’t going to get it done 

in the street. We have to start tackling this problem by assessing 

the nutritional value school site by school site. Until we do that, 

we are wasting a hell of a lot of money on trying to manage this 

program. 

That is my two cents, and then I have got to go to California to 

get some fresh fruits and vegetables. 

FRUITS AND VEGETABLES IN THE NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS

Ms. DELAURO. Thank you very much, Mr. Farr. And just so that 

our panelists know, this is obviously an issue that Mr. Farr is 

deeply passionate about. There isn’t a hearing in which the whole 

issue of the nutrition programs he doesn’t focus on. We are going 

to take a trip to the Department of Defense and to see those commodities, and see what we have, and see what is going to folks besides the fruits and vegetables which is a good piece, but we also 

want to take a look at what was purchased in the final days last 

year of the final administration, and what kind of product was purchased and what it means in terms of its nutritional value. 

I would just say that Secretary Vilsack will be here next week 

so that we will have an opportunity to talk with him about these 

issues. Do you want a final comment? 

Mr. FARR. If you could have for Secretary Vilsack next week 

within this program, the Child Nutrition Program, of the amount 

of money specifically that just goes for food purchase? 

Mr. O’CONNOR. Sure. We can try to do that, yes. 

Mr. FARR. Not administrative costs, just food purchase. 

[The information from USDA follows:] 

Of the roughly $13.4 billion in mandatory funds available for Child Nutrition Programs in fiscal year 2007, about $13.2 billion was for food purchases and $163 million (1.2 percent) was provided for State Administrative Expenses. The administrative funds are used by State agencies to manage the program, rather than to support operations by schools and other local services providers. Federal support for 

local administrative and other labor costs is provided thorough per meal reimbursements. Program operators’ primary responsibility is to provide nutritious meals in 

a fully accountable manner given the revenues available to them from student fees, 

USDA reimbursements and other sources. Within this mandate, they have considerable flexibility in how Federal funds are used. The latest study of meal costs in the 

school meals programs found that administrative labor—including planning, budgVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:29 Jan 26, 2010 Jkt 053443 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\A443P2.XXX A443P2

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
90 

eting, and management for the foodservice program, and other non-production activities such as maintenance of foodservice equipment—accounted for less than 15 

percent of total reported costs in 9 out of 10 school food authorities, with an average 

of about 8 percent in School Year 2005–06. 

COMPETITIVE FOODS

Ms. DELAURO. Okay. 

Let me pick up on this competitive foods issue if I might, because 

IOM released a report in 2007 and it talked about the competition 

with the breakfast and the lunch program. And so we have a number of schools who don’t regulate the nutrition quality of the foods 

that are offered through these avenues. 

Mr. O’Connor, based on those IOM recommendations, and it is a 

recommendation, what changes has the Department made in response to them? While we can regulate the nutrition standards 

that are required through a federally reimbursable school nutrition 

programs, and, Jack, I will just say to you that we can make a determination of what goes into that basket if you will. What are we 

doing about what should the competitive foods that are offered in 

school; should we make competitive foods the rules mandatory in 

your view or should we leave it to the school districts to decide? 

And I say, Mr. Brownell, your testimony says that USDA uses old 

standards to define permissible competitive foods. What I would 

want to ask you then, what do you mean by this? But should we 

mandate on the competitive foods? 

Mr. O’CONNOR. I hate to sound like a broken record. 

Ms. DELAURO. You are going to tell me that the Secretary has 

to answer that question. 

Mr. O’CONNOR. I feel like I have to have a prepared statement 

and read it each time. Those really are policy questions that I 

think answers will be revealed when you are able to speak with the 

Secretary about that. 

Ms. DELAURO. And I will just say in regard to the Department, 

and this is about 3 decades ago because I think this is important 

to note, the Department tried to ban chips, cookies, and soft drinks 

from schools, but they were thwarted by the courts and by food 

companies. So that speaks volumes to me about what kind of direction that we need to try to go in. 

I spoke to, I told you, to the Department of Education to the Secretary today, he banned those products in the Chicago schools. He 

said he took a lot of heat for it, and he also felt that he was looking 

at revenue that was coming into the schools and shutting it off. But 

the tradeoff he felt was worth it to do that, but he was concerned 

about the revenue that he was leaving behind. Now that is an issue 

for how much we are funding our schools and what we are doing, 

which is not the subject today. 

Dr. Brownell, again there are actually two things. You said 

USDA uses old standards to define permissible competitive foods. 

You also say about the Child and Adult Care Food Program that 

existing standards within the CACFP permits the use of meals of 

poor nutrient quality. And if you could just respond, just comment. 

Mr. BROWNELL. Well, for example, according to the current 

USDA recommendations, there are things not allowed in schools 

that are irrelevant, like cotton candy and breath mints, but things 

that are allowed in schools like candy, french fries, chips, snack 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
91 

cakes, and the like. So that obviously is an aberration and should 

be changed around. The IOM has good standards; it makes sense 

to adopt those. 

So I think there are good standards around, you can use common 

sense to make half of these calls and probably get by just fine. But 

one thing I would like to make a point of is that if we consider 

schools a place that are a safe environment for our children, that 

we then we have to consider nutrition safety, not with tainted food 

as much as just poor nutritional quality food. So we would find 

that the role of government to step in and be aggressive if the air 

in the schools is making kids sick or if they were exposed to lead 

paint and that was making—well, the foods are making them sick. 

And so in the call of the safety of schools, when parents let their 

children go to schools, they turn them over with the assumption 

that they are going to be treated in a safe and hospitable way. 

With the food system that we have now, that is not the case necessarily. It is all the more reason for change. 

Ms. DELAURO. Mr. O’Connor, those recommendations Ms. Parker 

came out in 2007. 

Ms. PARKER. The IOM report came out in April 2007. 

Ms. DELAURO. Was there anything done with those recommendations vis-a-vis the—I mean it is 2009 and I understand we have a 

new Secretary, but they have been around since April of 2007. Was 

there anything done with that material? Any conversations about 

how to take those recommendations and put them to some practice? 

Mr. O’CONNOR. The view that we had of the recommendations is 

that they are sound recommendations and from a good source. 

They need to be taken into consideration as we move into child nutrition reauthorization, and that is where we were at that point. 

I think that one of the things that you point out when you were 

talking with the Secretary of Education is that when he was in 

Chicago he was able to take action in Chicago in order to make 

some of the changes that you are talking about here. And I think 

that very much this can be looked at as a local issue. You know, 

not totally but localities do have the opportunity to be able to put 

things in place at this point in time. That doesn’t mean that there 

isn’t going to be a look taken at the recommendation from the IOM 

as we move forward into the reauthorization process. 

Ms. DELAURO. I would just say in response to that that just 

shifting it over to be a local issue—I think Dr. Brownell made a 

point. If we were to discover that the air filtration systems—or lead 

paint, let’s talk about lead paint. Let’s talk about a whole variety 

of areas in which we have come to conclude that we put the public 

health in serious jeopardy. We are talking about regulating tobacco. We have 400,000 people every year who die from some tobacco-related illness. After all these years we decided we had to do 

something about that. 

I always go back to my example here. We had 3,000 people who 

died on September 11th. They just got up and went to work. It was 

through no fault of their own. We have people being sick and ultimately who are put in great risk in the hundreds and hundreds of 

thousands every year, but we don’t feel we need to go to war on 

those issues. We need to go to war on those issues. My own view 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
92 

is that the Federal Government does have a role and a responsibility in this effort. If we just leave it—and quite frankly, a lot of 

the industry has had great sway in these areas about what is going 

on in terms of the nutritional quality of our foods and what we are 

serving and what our commodities are, et cetera. It is about what 

is in bulk. And what is in bulk may not be what is of the best nutritional value for youngsters, and seniors for that matter at the 

other end of the scale. That is good for their health. And what is 

happening? They are getting sick and we are faced with illnesses 

that are costing millions and millions of dollars and putting people’s lives at risk. 

So you know, I think there is a role for the Federal Government. 

And my hope is that—I am not going to lay this at your doorstep, 

we have a new Secretary. Quite frankly, we couldn’t get to first 

base in the last go round for the last 8 years. I am hopeful and optimistic that there is a new environment and we can get more than 

to first base but that he can we can hit a home run where it comes 

to the nutritional quality of our food in our programs that we have 

jurisdiction over. I am not talking about what they sell in other 

places. We have jurisdiction over these programs, and we have a 

responsibility that goes along with that. 

Mr. Kingston. 

ORGANIC FOODS

Mr. KINGSTON. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Dr. Brownell, I wanted to ask you the cold hard science of organic food, which isn’t always what is in the marketplace, but in 

your group are you guys studying the true advantage of organic or 

disadvantage? It is sexier to have organic fruits and vegetables 

compared to canned or frozen, but is the science sound? 

Mr. BROWNELL. It depends on the aim of using the organic foods. 

If the aim is to decrease the environmental footprint of raising the 

food, then organic foods tend to be better choices than the other 

ones, because there aren’t the fertilizers, the pesticides and things 

like that that you develop with fossil fuels and things. In terms of 

the nutrition, which I think is probably what you are asking about, 

it is not studied well enough to really know how much better, if 

any better, the organic foods are. 

There is some research I have seen recently by a researcher 

named Davis in Texas about declining nutrients in foods. And he 

has published what I find pretty persuasive evidence that—like a 

carrot is no longer a carrot. A carrot has less nutrients in it than 

it used to have. You would have to eat even more of it now than 

you would have before to get the same nutrients. Now there could 

be contrary evidence, this is in horticulture journals and things 

that I don’t follow very well, but that is my understanding that 

that occurred. 

Now, it is possible that the organic foods help compensate for 

some of that and have a higher nutrient profile, but I don’t know 

if there is enough science on that. 

OBESITY AND SCHOOL NUTRITION PROGRAMS

Mr. KINGSTON. Ms. Parker, I wanted to ask you in terms of the 

obesity rate if we look at—and I am trying to get the numbers toVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:29 Jan 26, 2010 Jkt 053443 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A443P2.XXX A443P2

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
93 

gether, but the creation of Federal programs on nutrition and obesity compared to the increase in obesity, they haven’t done a good 

job of reducing obesity if that is their purpose. But a lot of it does 

have to do with after school snacks and uncontrolled variables. Do 

we have any studies at all that can show that nutrition consumed 

at school isn’t the problem, whether it be in the Tier II versus Tier 

I world, which I understand is still just a discussion matter, but 

is the real problem after school on their own, weekends? Do you 

know? 

Ms. PARKER. I don’t think the literature is there to really make 

those kinds of distinctions, but certainly what children eat is not 

just what they eat at school for school lunch and breakfast, it is 

also everything else they eat at school and then everything else 

they eat everywhere else they eat. 

Mr. KINGSTON. It would be nearly impossible to figure out? 

Ms. PARKER. Well, there might be a way of making some estimations, but I don’t think the literature is there or studies have 

been designed yet that I know about to be able to do that. 

But would it be okay for me to comment for a minute on something else you raised earlier? 

Mr. KINGSTON. No. 

SNAP PURCHASES

Ms. PARKER. This I am speaking from a personal perspective 

now, not from an Institute of Medicine because we don’t have a 

study on this one, but I just wanted to raise a caution about prohibiting totally certain foods in the food stamp shopper’s diet and 

what they are able to purchase with food stamps. 

I am basing this more on earlier work I have done through any 

career working with low income families, and these are cautions. 

We really need to look at, first of all, what is available to low income families in their communities because many communities—I 

think until recently Detroit didn’t even have a supermarket if you 

can imagine that. It is kind of stunning to think that that is the 

case. But that leads not only to the issue of availability, but it also 

leads to the issue of cost and how much things cost. 

Also I think looking at families, I have seen how people plan. If 

they have very low incomes, which often food stamp recipients do 

because that is part of their eligibility, they have to plan very carefully. People send their kids to their sister’s house once a week to 

eat, they have gardens and they go to food pantries and food banks. 

So they have lots of sources of food that they sort of have to patch 

together to have enough. And so thinking about that in terms of 

what one does related to the food stamp program, it is important 

to sort of understand the realities of that and how any proposal you 

make could affect that. 

And then finally I am thinking about especially now with people 

losing their jobs and probably more people going on food stamps, 

all of this becomes more important and the embarrassment that 

people feel when they go up to the counter to buy their food and 

some food they can buy and some they can’t. This would be a very 

complicated matter. Now that we have the cash register set up it 

makes it easier in some cases, but for families figuring out what 

you are allowed and not allowed, talk about embarrassment. I can 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
94 

just see people who recently lost their jobs through no fault of their 

own are put in a very embarrassing situation. 

We just got these EBT cards now to make everything work better, to reduce problems with the program, and this may add in 

more problems. So I am just saying in thinking through these 

issues we have to think about the situations and the families and 

try to figure out what works best for the whole situation. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Thank you. 

Ms. DELAURO. If I might just on that note, Jack, because I know 

you would by interested in this, when we were working on the 

Farm Bill and looking at increasing the maximum benefit on food 

stamps, and after 30 years we went from $10 to $14 and then I 

mean $134 to $144. What I found in looking through studies and 

also in clips and so forth that what happens in terms of that planning process is at the beginning of the month families are buying 

milk and eggs and juice and more nutritious foods. When you get 

to the end of the month you are trying to figure out how to feed 

the family. What fills the bellies of kids? Soda, you are looking at 

junk food. It really is, you can see the patterns and trends because 

this is what it is. And fruits and vegetables some of the highest 

cost foods so that they cannot afford that. They are not wanting to 

buy that, but look hey, you are going to the supermarket your kid 

says, I want a bag of potato chips, you may do that, but for a regular diet they have some real constraints around that dollar 

amount, again once at the beginning and at the end, which makes 

it very, very difficult, including what you are saying. 

We have got people now going to food banks who have lost their 

jobs through no fault of their own—I won’t forget this quote. This 

gentleman had a job in manufacturing, he lost his job. He said, I 

felt like a low life, I felt humiliated to go to the food pantry to be 

able to get food, but I had to do it because I have to feed my kids 

because of the stigma that is attached with what we do. 

Mr. KINGSTON. I want to make a motion that you can continue 

without me. 

Ms. DELAURO. Thank you very much, very much, Jack. We need 

usually two members here because I have several more questions. 

The other thing you should know about Mr. Kingston, who talked 

about the whole issue of physical exercise and making sure that 

physical education is a part of our school curriculum, it is very, 

very important and he has fought for those programs, because it 

is not just the food side of it but the physical and activity side as 

well. So he is a big champion of those efforts. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Rode my bike today to work 10 miles. It was 

freezing for a Georgia boy. 

IOM NUTRITION STANDARDS

Ms. DELAURO. Mr. O’Connor, the Institute of Medicine is currently developing recommendations for revising the nutrition 

standards and the meal requirements for School Lunch and Breakfast Programs, and that is based on the 2005 Dietary Guidelines. 

As I understand, the report is due this year, in December? 

Mr. O’CONNOR. I believe it is October. 

Ms. DELAURO. October, okay. Very good. 

Mr. O’CONNOR. I hope I am right. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
95 

Ms. DELAURO. It took almost 2 years from the time that the WIC 

IOM study was published to get an interim rule out of the Department and another 2 years before the States were mandated to implement the changes. How long will it be before we get the revisions to nutrition standards and meal requirements implemented 

in the schools? 

Mr. O’CONNOR. Our best guess is it may take as long as 3 years. 

I would hope that we would be able to get the regulation out based 

on those standards faster than we were able to do that with WIC. 

But there is going to have to be some lead time for the schools to 

be able to implement the changes. 

Having said that, that doesn’t mean that some schools may not 

be able to implement sooner. Some schools may be meeting those 

requirements by the time we get a rule out or whatever. But the 

rule itself, best guess might be about 3 years to total implementation. 

Ms. DELAURO. Why? 

Mr. O’CONNOR. It is a long process. There is going to be a need 

for public comment. You can imagine that the changes that this 

may be putting in place for localities, there will be a lot of folks 

who want to have something to say about that. We are going to 

want to listen to the comments. And then there is time that the 

school is going to need in order to be able to change what it is that 

they finally put in place. 

Ms. DELAURO. Currently guidance to schools and child and adult 

care centers are that they must meet the minimum Federal nutrition standards. What are those currently and how many schools 

are meeting those minimum standards now? 

Mr. O’CONNOR. I don’t know that offhand. We can get that for 

you. 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
96 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 137 here 53443A.068
97 

CHILD NUTRITION REAUTHORIZATION

Ms. DELAURO. Let me ask the panel a question here. We do have 

the child nutrition reauthorization coming out. I think that this is 

really incredible that we have the child nutrition reauthorization 

coming out before the IOM is scheduled to release the study. 

How will we know what the reimbursement rate should be to 

provide a revised nutrition standard and meal requirement recommendations? Does anyone know what a nutritious meal will 

cost? How does that translate into budgetary resources needed to 

enact these changes? The School Nutrition Association says the 

schools need a $0.30 increase just to break even. If the new meal 

requirements would require doubling the reimbursement rates 

needed to provide from, let’s say, $2.57 for a free lunch to around 

$5, what is the amount to implement that change? Is the Administration asking for adequate resources to be able to make these 

changes? 

Mr. O’CONNOR. The same answer as before. I am sorry about 

that. 

Ms. DELAURO. I don’t understand how we can move to restore 

this bill without having the data and the basis on which to have 

good information in order to make the right, in order to make the 

right decisions. Sometimes the public wonders what we do here. I 

am wondering what we are doing here in this regard. Let me ask. 

I don’t know if you had any other comments. 

Mr. O’CONNOR. Not right now. 

Ms. DELAURO. Mr. Brownell, Ms. Parker. 

Mr. BROWNELL. I don’t have any particular insight on that issue. 

Ms. PARKER. No, I don’t. 

Ms. DELAURO. Is there a need to increase the reimbursement 

rate? Do you have a view on that? 

Mr. O’CONNOR. We have done a study on the reimbursement 

rate, and it doesn’t—it is not conclusive that the schools have an 

inadequate reimbursement rate right now. 

Ms. DELAURO. It is not conclusive that they have an inadequate, 

did you say, or an adequate? Say that again. 

Mr. O’CONNOR. Let me see how many negatives I can put into 

a sentence. I confuse even myself. The study shows that the current reimbursement rates look as though they exceed the cost of 

providing meals. It is a very complex situation, though, when you 

are looking at all of the different kinds of meals that are provided 

to different folks, whether they are getting free, reduced, or full 

priced meals or what not in the schools. But I know that there are 

many in the schools community that think that the reimbursement 

rate does need to be raised. That is something that, again, we are 

taking a look at, and we are cognizant of. 

FOOD MARKETING TO CHILDREN

Ms. DELAURO. Let me ask a—I thought about this, just asked 

this or offered it in my opening remarks, which is, given the 

amount of money that the industry spends on advertising to children, can we succeed in behavioral change given that marketing 

and their advertising? I mean, are we on a fool’s errand? 

Dr. Brownell. Ms. Parker. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
98 

Mr. BROWNELL. We are very committed to the topic of food marketing, especially directed at children. And the amount is staggering. And not only is the amount staggering, but the types of 

marketing that gets done are quite different than what used to be 

the case. Parents used to be in a better position to monitor what 

children are being exposed to. But now children will get advertisements on their cell phones. The industry can spend money much 

more effectively these days. Instead of a blunt instrument, like a 

television, now that costs a lot, a cost that goes to people that may 

or may not be interested. You have Internet games that children 

go visit on the Web, where a child, instead of seeing a 15 second 

commercial on television, could be there for 30 minutes pushing 

cookies around the screen or sugared cereals around the screen. 

And so the marketing is becoming much more difficult to even 

measure, much less do something about. But we believe that something has to be done to curtail that or else it is hard to believe that 

almost anything else could have an impact because the industry 

can undo it so quickly. 

Ms. DELAURO. What are your proposals in that area? Have you 

done work on that? 

I don’t know, Dr. Brownell, if you get the advantage of that information. 

Mr. BROWNELL. We have been funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation to do studies on food marketing to document how 

much of it there is. And then our center at Yale was very committed to having three things occur with that information. One is 

to help change public opinion so people realize what the full landscape of marketing is. And we believe they have to get mad about 

it in order to justify action that gets taken. 

The second arena is legislative action that can be taken to curtail 

this. And there is a historic thing with the FTC that comes into 

play here. Restoring their powers to monitor this would probably 

be a good move. 

And then the third thing is the law. The First Amendment, of 

course, protects the ability to use commercial speech. But there are 

some potential ways around that if you can prove that the marketing is unfair and deceptive. And then that gets into consumer 

protection law that gets administered by state. So we do believe 

there are some opportunities to make changes here, but we really 

need to know the landscape first, we will know that soon, and then 

I think we can get some action on it. 

Ms. DELAURO. I would love to be in touch with you about that. 

I think other members of the committee would as well in terms of 

how we can work at this issue. As I say, we had some opportunities 

with tobacco. A number of us did a lot of work on the underaged 

drinking and what we do there. But let’s continue that conversation. 

Ms. Parker. 

Ms. PARKER. Well, the Institute of Medicine, 3 years ago, I think 

it was, did a report on food marketing to children and made recommendations. And I would be glad to get that to you. 

Ms. DELAURO. Please. 

Ms. PARKER. Because I think you would find it very interesting. 

And the one thing I would—and very much that report makes recVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:29 Jan 26, 2010 Jkt 053443 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A443P2.XXX A443P2

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
99 

ommendations about changes in food marketing to children also. 

But I don’t think we should find ourselves in total despair. There 

are many children who are eating well, and there are many programs that are making changes in the way children consume food. 

But certainly this is a major impediment. 

Ms. DELAURO. You are right. Look, in the fruit and vegetable 

program, the Defense Department has that, but an agency is doing 

that. We increased the funding in the Farm Bill for that effort. I 

go to schools all of the time, and you see youngsters, and you ask 

them, what is your favorite fruit? And they say kiwi. I say, well, 

hell, I didn’t know what a kiwi was, you know. Or what is your favorite vegetable? It is an artichoke. Those I knew from my own 

background, my own cultural background with artichokes. But. 

I was talking to a colleague today, Marion Berry, who is from Arkansas, and he was talking about the same program, because we 

were talking about this hearing. And he said to me, the problem 

is, Rosa, he said, when they talk to you about kiwi and pineapple, 

then they can’t get it, in other words, because the store does it or 

it is priced out of the market for them. But they get it in school, 

but they can’t do that. You are right, it is not a question of despairing; it is a question of figuring out where we are and where we 

need to try to go in that. But I think we have to think about what 

kind of controls and enforcement that we need to do. 

My understanding is I do have a couple of colleagues coming 

back, but I will continue to proceed. 

WELLNESS POLICIES

Mr. O’Connor, I guess it may be in the purview of the Department of Education for the development of local wellness policies. 

That is not in your jurisdiction. The local wellness policies in school 

is in your jurisdiction. 

Mr. O’CONNOR. Right. 

Ms. DELAURO. So I have a question there, which is, 2004, in that 

Reauthorization Act, required schools to develop a local wellness 

policy. That is for healthy school nutrition, environments, reducing 

child obesity, preventing diet-related chronic diseases. Some school 

districts have created strong community wellness committees that 

are engaged in promoting nutrition education, physical activity and 

nutrition guidelines. Unfortunately, we have got many that have 

not implemented these are the strong programs. What are you 

doing? What can we do here to strengthen this? Again, is this 

someplace where you think we have to mandate the effort here in 

terms of a wellness program? 

Mr. O’CONNOR. Well, we do have a mandate for wellness programs to be in the schools. But what we don’t have are—— 

Ms. DELAURO. So there is a mandate to the school to have to do 

it. 

Mr. O’CONNOR. Yes. 

Ms. DELAURO. Okay. How many schools have them? 

Mr. O’CONNOR. As far as we know, they should all have them. 

Ms. DELAURO. No, no, no, no, ‘‘should’’ is not ‘‘do.’’ How many 

have them? 

Mr. O’CONNOR. I don’t know the answer to that. What we have 

is the requirement that they have wellness policies. What we don’t 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
100 

have the authority to do is to require what is in those wellness 

policies, in the wellness programs. So that is why you end up with 

somewhat of a mixed bag when you are going to go out to the 

schools. You see some that are strong, some that are less strong. 

Ms. DELAURO. But I would think, in 2004, in a piece of legislation, we mandated that schools have to have a wellness program. 

Now, that is like we do with FDA. You have got to come up with 

a plan to—or USDA to look at what your safety system is, your 

HACCP plan, what is that. And then we have to figure out a way 

of monitoring that plan. So what is the mechanism in place. The 

basic question, Mr. O’Connor, is that is a tabulation, you know. 

Show us your wellness plan, and then we can calculate how many 

we have or we don’t have in terms of the mandate. That is not 

what is in it, that is a separate issue. But is there somewhere— 

there has got to be somewhere in the agency that somebody can 

provide us with an answer of how many schools have a wellness 

program in place. 

Mr. O’CONNOR. I can try to find out. 

Ms. DELAURO. It sounds to me like we don’t have a number. 

Mr. O’CONNOR. I don’t know the answer to that, I am sorry. 

[The information follows:] 

The local school wellness policy requirement was established by the Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004 (Public Law 108–265). The law specified 

that the Secretary of Agriculture provide information and technical assistance to 

local educational agencies, school food authorities, and State educational agencies 

upon request and for guidance purposes only. Wellness policies are developed at the 

district level and implementation occurs at the school level. The Department does 

not have the authority to issue regulations or provide oversight for locally developed 

wellness policies. 

While USDA does not collect data on implementation of the local wellness policy 

requirement, other national non-governmental organizations are gathering information on local wellness policies. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation has supported 

research on this topic, including the Bridging the Gap Project. According to preliminary data (unweighted and cross-sectional) from this nationally representative sample of 579 local education agencies, in School Year 2007–2008, 90.5 percent of local 

education agencies that participated in the National School Lunch Program said 

that they had a wellness policy and 9.5 percent said they did not have a wellness 

policy. 

Ms. DELAURO. Okay. Then we have to deal with the substance 

of it which is what is important. 

Mr. O’CONNOR. Exactly. 

Ms. DELAURO. Which is what is important. What are the methodologies that you have to look at those, to analyze them, to get 

some sense if it is very good, very bad, nada, zero, what is your 

capacity. 

Mr. O’CONNOR. The capacity that we have is small at this point 

in terms of the resources that we have. But what we don’t have, 

again, is the authority to regulate anyway in terms of what the 

content of those wellness programs should be. That is not an excuse to not know what they are and whatever. 

Ms. DELAURO. And I know this is going to be at the purview of 

the Secretary, but I am going to ask the Secretary, and I am sure 

you are all going to go back and talk to the Secretary, which is fine, 

you should; I have a lot of confidence in the Secretary. But should 

we force school districts to take it seriously and to do something 

about mandating and dealing with the content of the program? 

Dr. Brownell. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
101 

Mr. BROWNELL. My understanding of the 2004 requirement is 

that schools have a policy, not a program. And some of those—so 

that means a document basically that says, here is where the 

school wellness policy is. That doesn’t necessarily translate into 

doing anything about it. 

And so there were sample policies going around. Some school districts just cut and pasted the template, and that became their policy, and then it went into a drawer. Other schools took it much 

more seriously. So as I mentioned when I was making my comments funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, our colleagues at the Rudd Center have done a detailed analysis of school 

wellness policies in Connecticut, and we will be happy to share that 

information with you. 

Ms. DELAURO. Please. 

Mr. BROWNELL. And what we found is the schools for the most 

part have complied with a need to have a policy. But whether that 

turns into anything tangible by the way of programs varies tremendously from place to place. 

Ms. DELAURO. How should we address that? Let me ask you 

what you think. 

Mr. BROWNELL. Require programs in addition to policies. My understanding of the way the legislation got crafted is that the people 

who proposed the legislation weren’t able to get programs mandated so the political compromise was to get a policy mandated. 

And that is not a bad first step. In fact, we find that some schools 

actually, because of the process of establishing a policy, do implement programs. So that was a worthwhile enterprise. But to get it 

done more uniformly would require some kind of mandate. 

Ms. DELAURO. Ms. Parker. 

Ms. PARKER. I was just going to suggest that there are some national organizations that have looked at this issue that you may 

want to look. The School Nutrition Association did a national survey on wellness policies, as did the American Dietetic Association. 

So there are some resources out there to sort of get a sense of what 

is happening, which might inform whatever the committee decides 

to do about it. 

Mr. BROWNELL. The other thing that we have developed that 

may be helpful is my colleagues have developed a tool for assessing 

the strength of school wellness policies, a measurement tool that 

has now been validated. So should the USDA decide that they 

would like to do some uniform assessment across the country, that 

tool might be a helpful resource. 

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

Ms. DELAURO. Okay. Let me, on the issue of the environment I 

guess there was something that I read, I guess, in the, it must be 

the food stamp, nutrition and the education. It said that the scope, 

that the environmental issues are beyond the scope of the food 

stamp program in essence. I think that is what I discerned from 

the, if you can find it, Leslie, you know where it is, the guiding 

principles there. I think it is page 4 of the guiding principles that 

I read this on. 

But my point is here, because, Dr. Brownell, you have talked 

about environmental issues. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
102 

Ms. Parker, you have talked about that. How do we connect 

these issues in your view with looking at—it is a difficult issue. 

This is a complex issue. How do we do that within like a Farm Bill 

that we deal with, within the USDA? You have to help us because 

we don’t have—how do we manage that in terms of what we are 

trying to do and to accomplish when there are lots of bigger issues 

around some of these environmental questions? Do you have any 

thoughts about it? 

Mr. O’CONNOR. So by environmental questions, do you mean the 

impact of food production on the environment? 

Ms. DELAURO. I am talking about—what I thought it was is the 

environmental issues that are outside the scope of the program. 

How do we look at those things to make it manageable in terms 

of what we do so that we can be attentive to those environmental 

issues as we are looking at public policy in terms of food nutrition? 

Mr. BROWNELL. Well, one thing that would potentially be helpful 

would be to do an examination of the impact of USDA policies, agriculture policies, on the environment. Now, depending on who you 

talk to, the food production, that is the raising of beef, let’s say, is 

either the first or second greatest contributor to global warming. 

And most people don’t realize this, but the production, the modern 

food production with heavy use of fossil-based fuels for pesticides, 

hormones and the like; the raising of beef, which is a highly inefficient process for a variety of reasons, is having a very bad impact 

on the environment. And again, there are different estimates of 

how bad, but I think most environmental experts would agree it is 

very bad. 

And so some people say that the number one thing you could do 

to improve the environment personally is to have different driving 

habits; drive a different car, et cetera, drive less. But the second 

thing you could do is eat less beef. So when it comes to these sort 

of things, one sees a very tight link between decisions people are 

making about their food, and that is driven a lot by agriculture 

policies and nutrition policies in the country, the cost of food, food 

industry behavior and all these sort of things, it has a big impact 

on people’s health in two ways: One is the nutrition that they are 

getting from it, but the other is the impact on the environment that 

affects their health in a different way. 

And there aren’t many people who are connecting these pieces of 

the puzzle, and I think it is highly important to do so. And that 

is why one of the comments that I suggested was creating a commission that would look simultaneously at hunger, obesity, and the 

impact of food on the environment to find win-win-win possibilities. 

Ms. DELAURO. You talked, Ms. Parker, a lot about some of the 

social marketing and other kind of behavioral things in terms of 

that environment. How would we manage some of those efforts? 

Ms. PARKER. Well, I was just imagining the situation that you 

are describing is that you, perhaps you have a group of women together and you are working with them on nutrition education 

issues and food purchasing and cooking, and then they go out to 

their neighborhood to do what you have suggested that they do. 

And they go to their grocery store. Maybe there is no grocery store 

to go to. Maybe it is just a small corner store that has very little 

food in it. Maybe they go to the grocery store, and there is 30 perVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:29 Jan 26, 2010 Jkt 053443 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A443P2.XXX A443P2

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
103 

cent fat beef, but not—or maybe there is not skim milk or maybe 

not sufficient. Maybe the corner store doesn’t carry skim milk. So 

there has to be some change that occurs in the neighborhood so 

that those mothers can actually do what you have suggested that 

they do. Or in the school setting that you tell the kids to eat certain kinds of foods, but they are not available to eat. Or you tell 

them they should be physically active, but the physical education 

program isn’t there. 

So what it really gets down to is, who has a responsibility to 

change that environment so that people can act on the things they 

learn about what is good for us in terms of nutrition and physical 

activity? And the reality is that lots of people a have responsibility. 

Local government has certain responsibilities and powers. State 

government can make changes. Federal Government can make 

changes. Resources have to be made available. In some cases, policies need to be changed. And in fact, in our two reports about obesity, ‘‘Healthy Balance’’ and ‘‘The Progress in Preventing Obesity,’’ 

which we would be glad to share with you, and we have report 

briefs from those, we really go into detail about what each of those 

levels of government and what each of those stakeholders, what 

roles they can play in changing that environment. Because, for example, in Pennsylvania, the State government has made available 

resources to help bring grocery stores into communities. In other 

States, physical education has been made mandatory so that it is 

available to children in schools. So we need to really be thinking. 

And that is what you were thinking about at your level of course, 

but at every level, what needs to happen to change the environmental conditions in which people are living that make it sometimes impossible to act on the very things we are telling them to 

do. And so there are just a number of ways in which we can proceed in this area. But I think recognizing that it is not just nutrition education; it is not just personal responsibility; but you can’t 

carry out your personal responsibility if the environment hasn’t 

changed. And individuals can help that to change, but they also 

need assistance from local health departments, local government, 

State and Federal Government. And industry, too, has a role to 

play in changing the products that they produce. So all of those 

pieces can make a difference. 

HEALTHY INCENTIVES PILOT

Ms. DELAURO. Let me just—I have a couple more. I think my colleague, Ms. Kaptur, is coming back, but you have been wonderfully 

patient. And I know one of the issues that Ms. Kaptur cares about 

is the purchase of local foods, whether it is through USDA, DOD, 

schools, care providers, going beyond this geographic preference 

thing. So I will mention this. The Administration has proposed previously a pilot obesity initiative that calls for competitive grants to 

develop and test ways of addressing obesity in low-income populations with evaluation of the results. Can you tell us a little bit 

about this initiative? 

Mr. O’CONNOR. We have a—I believe what you are referring to, 

we call it HIP. It is taking a look at what incentives can we put 

in place at the point of sale in order to incentivize people or encourVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:29 Jan 26, 2010 Jkt 053443 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A443P2.XXX A443P2

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
104 

age them to be able to purchase more fruits and vegetables. The 

number of—— 

Ms. DELAURO. Where are you implementing that program? 

Mr. O’CONNOR. We haven’t implemented it yet. We have been 

going through a process of trying to decide what are the interventions that we want to be able to test. And it is quite complicated 

to figure out what is the right incentive and how would you give 

people those incentives, how large should they be, those kinds of 

efforts. We are looking to be able to get that off the ground this 

coming fall. So we are moving quite—there are a lot of factors. 

Ms. DELAURO. Off the ground in deciding what those incentives 

should be and where you are going to go with it, is that right, 

where it is going to be implemented? 

Mr. O’CONNOR. We will be seeking applications this fall to actually put those into place. 

Ms. DELAURO. I see. With the criteria in place. 

Mr. O’CONNOR. Right. 

[The information follows:] 

In October 2008, FNS held a public symposium on the Healthy Incentives Pilot 

(HIP), convening stakeholders, researchers and technical experts from various fields 

related to the HIP initiative. Participants represented the food retail industry, electronic benefit transfer companies, nutrition educators, commercial organizations 

with experience delivering product incentives in retail settings, and researchers 

with experience evaluating healthy eating promotions. While the symposium provided the substantial information, there was no consensus on several key questions 

FNS posed to participants. Areas requiring further examination include the form, 

size and delivery of the incentive; as well as significant features of the evaluation. 

In a response to the wide range of views expressed, FNS followed up with additional 

contacts to key stakeholders, including other USDA and Department of Health and 

Human Services agencies, the National Cancer Institute, and multiple professional 

associations. The goal of these follow-up activities is to identify the trade-offs associated with alternative choices and cost estimates for different options. A Web site 

is being created and will be implemented in mid-April 2009 for interested parties 

to check the status of HIP activities. 

FNS is on track to meet the following timeline for the HIP: 

Fiscal Year 2009—Complete a very thorough planning process to ensure that all 

research and expert input has been fully vetted and considered for the pilot design 

and evaluation scope. During this time, FNS will also develop independent solicitations for the evaluation and pilot projects and advertise for proposals. 

Fiscal Year 2010—Make competitive awards for the pilot sites and evaluation contractor and initiate activities to implement the pilots and the evaluation process. 

Fiscal Year 2011 and beyond—Begin pilot operations and continue evaluation activities. 

SNAP PAYMENT FREQUENCY

Ms. DELAURO. There was a suggestion or recommendation for 

looking at the, again, the nutritional foods that, and we had this 

conversation a little bit ago about the food stamp moneys given out 

on a monthly basis, if you will. But foods purchased through the 

food stamp program, including providing biweekly benefits rather 

than monthly so families are not running out of the benefits by the 

end of the month, what are the impediments or the benefits of implementing biweekly benefits, point-of-sale incentives or these 

other kinds of improvements that we can look at by way of improving the nutritional quality in the program. 

Let me start with you Mr. O’Connor. Then I will yield to Ms. 

Kaptur. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
105 

Mr. O’CONNOR. One impediment is that the Farm Bill prohibited 

it. 

Ms. DELAURO. Prohibited the bimonthly. 

Mr. O’CONNOR. Right. And one of the things that you get into is 

there is an added cost to be able to do that. And so that has to be 

taken into consideration as well. And also I think, from the experience that I have had with the SNAP program, with the food stamp 

program, the benefits are really a supplement to help people be 

able to purchase a nutritional food that they need for the entire 

month. If we split that benefit up, we are splitting the supplement 

up. There is an expectation, except for those people who are getting 

100 percent of the benefit or whatever, there is an expectation that 

they are contributing towards the purchase of food themselves, so 

it could just be deferring how that budgeting happens in the household. So there are a number of factors that come into play on that. 

Ms. DELAURO. Comments? 

Mr. BROWNELL. Yes, quickly. A lot of the questions that you raise 

are easily testable and could be tested in a very short period of 

time if the money were available and there were some mandate for 

this. So if the USDA had a granting process, and perhaps they do 

that I am not aware of, specifically around this concept of how can 

we improve nutrition through these programs by systematically 

manipulating these various pieces of them, then you could have an 

answer pretty quickly about what would most help and what the 

costs would be. That can be done quite readily I would think. The 

question is, what would the update be? How quickly could it be implemented in policy? And I know less about that. But the studies 

wouldn’t be very hard to do. 

Ms. DELAURO. Well, we should talk about that. 

Ms. Parker. 

Ms. PARKER. Again, this is not as an OIM witness, but rather 

from my personal experience. It goes back again to the situation in 

the household. If you have got a limited amount of money and you 

are purchasing, you plan for the month and you buy things in bulk 

that you can buy that aren’t as perishable. And so if your money, 

whatever money you get from food stamps, is split in half, that 

may reduce your ability to take advantage of big sales, bulk purchases. And anybody who has had experience buying with small 

amounts, or living on small amounts of money and trying to plan 

will know what I am talking about. You can’t buy that 10 pound 

bag or that big box at the Costco, whatever it might be, because 

you have only got half the money. 

Ms. DELAURO. Ms. Kaptur. 

Ms. KAPTUR. Thank you, Madam Chair, for your leadership, and 

it is so great to have this hearing today. And we thank you all. You 

must be worn out by now. But we thank you for your service, and 

you have really important responsibilities, and we care about those 

responsibilities. And we are at the receiving end down in our districts. We get to see what happens in these cafeterias and lunch 

rooms. And as hard as we are all working, we have got to do better. 

And the focus of my questioning really will be on local food systems and sustainability at the local level and its relationship to our 

children and their health. And I am going to ask you to provide for 

the record, you may not be able to answer this today, for best pracVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:29 Jan 26, 2010 Jkt 053443 PO 00000 Frm 00105 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A443P2.XXX A443P2

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
106 

tices around the country where those local connections have best 

been made to improve the diet of our children. I am going to tell 

you a little bit about Ohio, and I need your help. 

About 8 months ago Secretary Johner visited our district to look 

at ways of connecting our nutrition programs to local agriculture 

so that we could get more fresh fruits and vegetables; so that we 

could get better meals prepared; so that our local community could 

learn how better to do this. And subsequent to her visit, we passed 

a new Farm Bill. 

And the procurement process and the purchasing agreements for 

school lunch programs with these changes allow local foods to be 

used by local schools. However, within the State of Ohio, that 

doesn’t happen. And food purchasing requirements there dictate 

that only one purchaser is the gatekeeper for all of the nutrition 

programs, and that person exists in the State capital in Columbus. 

And if a producer, a farmer, in our region wants to sell food to a 

school in our district they need to receive permission approval from 

that Columbus consolidated food buyer, and they must pay a royalty to that buyer and fill out very complicated forms in order to 

apply. 

Second Harvest Food Bank statewide director, and I wish to 

place her comments on the record, Lisa Hamler-Fugitt, who studied 

this more than anybody I know, says the following, the issue is 

that local school food service authorities, public entities, Department of Administrative Services, and even the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture have very complicated RFP and bidding processes that 

are far too extensive, complex and highly technical for most local 

producers to navigate and complete. In most situations only large 

companies with highly trained staff can complete these requirements. Many of the farmers, growers, and commodity producers 

that we work with at Second Harvest tell us that they don’t have 

the knowledge, expertise, or resources to compete for those contracts. Many farmers and growers in Ohio report that far too many 

program procurement authorities aren’t interested in working with 

them or with local producers and view their foods as less desirable 

and table-ready compared to packaged, wrapped, and prepared 

foods. 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
107 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 164 here 53443A.069
108 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 165 here 53443A.070
109 

BEST PRACTICES OF LOCAL PURCHASES

So my request really is one of help. Perhaps does USDA have 

best practices around the country that you could share with our 

State officials? We would like to redo that visit with FNS in our 

region. We would like to bring in the State people. Secretary 

Johner said you better have them at the table because they are not 

here. Well, they didn’t want to come. 

And so the interesting thing, and I will tell you the head of our 

financing arm of our largest school system, and I represent about 

19 school systems in our region, came to a meeting in our office 

about a year and a half ago and said to me, well, Congresswoman, 

you are the first person that has ever asked me about the connection between education and nutrition, and he had been the chief 

auditor for the school system for 25 years. So, in Ohio, the money 

for food goes through the Department of Education. They don’t 

think about nutrition, and they don’t think nutrition is their responsibility. So we have got to some how reconnect this at the local 

level. And I really believe USDA has the lead. 

I mean, the money we provide for food for our children, we 

should put restrictions on this, and we should make things happen, 

but we need to know best practices. And so my question to you 

really is, do you have examples in your office of experience around 

the country where this is being done well, where fruits and vegetables and produce are being provided to children? What can we 

learn from that, especially where our local producers, and where 

those exist, I am sure Utah doesn’t have a lot of, maybe they do, 

but in Ohio, we can feed ourselves. If we choose to do that, how 

do we relink the producers to the consumers in these schools? 

Mr. O’CONNOR. We can certainly look for those best practices and 

provide them to you as you have requested. I think what you are 

touching on in this situation that you describe also illuminates the 

difficulties or the complexity really, not so much difficulties, but 

the complexities of the procurement processes and what rules apply 

and whatnot. We can take a look and see what is happening in 

Ohio in terms of what you have just described to us or whatever. 

We also can provide technical assistance, and we will look into 

doing that. 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
110 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 168 here 53443A.071
111 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 169 here 53443A.072
112 

Ms. KAPTUR. I would really love to do that for the Ohio delegation. I can’t take care of the whole country all at once. Other people 

do that. But if we do it right in Ohio we think that our example 

will spread, and we really need the help there, because we have got 

some dysfunctionality, and the yield is children who are not eating 

properly in every one of these schools. I can tell you, just in my 

district, in looking at what money was spent on last year by one 

school system, they spent $650,000 on procurement of pizza, local 

pizza, from one of these standard companies. And I thought, wow. 

It is not even pizza with vegetables on it. So it is just interesting. 

I mean, it is like nobody thinks about it. It is like it all comes down 

these shoots. And in the end, you go into the cafeteria, and you see 

what is eaten, and you see what is thrown away. Something is not 

right here. 

Mr. Brownell. 

Mr. BROWNELL. If I might comment, there is a wonderful example of this working right in Berkeley, California. It got started by 

Alice Waters, a well known chef and author, who convinced one of 

the local middle schools to turn a parking lot into an edible garden 

essentially. They call it the Edible School Yard. And you can 

Google that and find a lot of information they have available. And 

the purpose was to get the kids involved with sustainability and 

growing local foods. Some of the food went into the cafeteria. The 

kids would do poetry readings in the garden. They learned elementary plant biology in the garden, et cetera. It really became a real 

focus in that particular school. 

And based on the success of that, the Berkeley Consolidated 

School District has decided to do that sort of thing district wide. 

And they hired a chef named Ann Cooper to come in and run the 

food service for the whole Berkeley school system. And she has 

worked out a lot of the problems that you mention about how to 

procure food for the whole school district, how to work with local 

farmers, how to get through the paper work and things. It could 

be that the California requirements are different from those in 

Ohio, and I wouldn’t know about that, but they have worked out 

a lot of the problems and done it successfully. 

Ms. KAPTUR. That is a very good example, Mr. Brownell. Does 

your Department have that in a little kit that members could receive or other examples like it? 

Mr. BROWNELL. The people in Berkeley do. If you go right to the 

Web site—— 

Ms. KAPTUR. The Edible School Yard. 

Mr. BROWNELL [continuing]. The Edible School Yard, you will 

find a variety of brochures, pamphlets and things like that, that 

you can download, that they could send you. And if you would like, 

I could get in touch with them and ask them to get you material. 

PURCHASES BY SCHOOL DISTRICTS

Ms. KAPTUR. Yes. We need USDA’s help to sort of put their arms 

around our State and to allow them to cooperate rather than resist. 

And actually, I would appreciate it. 

Here is another thing, Madam Chair, I am really interested in; 

the hardest information to obtain in my district through the State 

of Ohio is, of the Federal dollars that have come down for our 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
113 

breakfast and lunch programs, how much of what has been procured by each school district at what price? Try to get it. So if you 

can’t even know what has been done, how can you possibly improve 

upon it? Do you collect that information? Is there a reporting back 

up the chain of command to USDA from the school districts? 

Mr. O’CONNOR. No, not from the school districts. 

Ms. KAPTUR. How would we get that? That way you would make 

a very clear judgment on how much high fat McNuggets have been 

purchased versus how many apples and green peppers and low-fat 

yogurt. We don’t have a way of measuring anything. Can you help 

me figure this out? How would we do this? 

Mr. O’CONNOR. I think that what we would have to do is a survey and ask for all that information to come in. 

Ms. KAPTUR. All right. 

Mr. O’CONNOR. But that would be a large undertaking. 

Ms. KAPTUR. What if you were just to take, selfishly, the Chairwoman’s congressional district and my congressional district, and 

maybe Mrs. Emerson. Take the women on the committee. Oh, I like 

that idea. How about that? Three districts, would that be hard to 

do? 

Mr. O’CONNOR. My colleague is telling me we are looking at this 

right now at a national level but not to the level that you are talking about. We could do that. It would cost money, obviously. As Mr. 

Brownell was saying, there are ways to study things. 

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair—— 

Ms. DELAURO. We can think that through, Marcy, and figure 

what we can do. 

Ms. KAPTUR. All right. Thank you. 

Ms. DELAURO. Mr. Alexander. 

CONFLICTING PROGRAMS

Mr. ALEXANDER. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

I don’t want to ask a question that might have already been 

asked, so I will just make a little statement talking about school. 

It won’t take me but a couple of minutes to tell you a cute little 

thing that happened in my office. A couple years ago, Madam 

Chairman, before we voted for the CAFTA Free Trade Agreement, 

I don’t remember when that was, a couple of years ago anyway, the 

Governor from Louisiana at that time, a lady, was very much opposed to the CAFTA Free Trade Agreement because she was afraid 

the South American countries may flood the market with sugarcane. And Louisiana is a big producer of sugar that comes from 

sugarcane, so she was opposed to it. And I had made the statement 

that I was for the CAFTA Free Trade Agreement. 

She sent a lobbyist into my office one day and said, we want to 

remind you that the Governor of Louisiana is very much against 

the CAFTA Free Trade Agreement. Louisiana produces, 20 percent 

of the Nation’s sugar that is consumed that is made by sugarcane 

or from sugarcane comes from the State of Louisiana, and I said 

I understand that. And she said, also, you remember the Appropriations Committee, and we have a request in to the Appropriations Committee, and we would like for you to help us make sure 

that it is funded. The Pennington Biomedical Research Center 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
114 

right off the LSU campus in Baton Rouge, the largest obesity research center in the world, and there is a request in for that. 

And I said, that is a government at its finest: Over here, we want 

to protect the sugar industry; and on this hand, we want to do 

what we can to do more obesity research. And that is just, for instance, how lopsided government can be at local, State, Federal levels. 

I made the statement last year, it just seems so strange we will, 

as a committee and as a government, we will subsidize milk producers to help them produce all the milk, and then when they overproduce cheese, well, we will spend a lot of money getting that out 

to food banks or commodity centers. And then somebody will say, 

oh, let us feed it to our school kids. And then 20 years down the 

road, it will stop their veins up, and then we will have to try to 

figure out what to do there. It just seems like there are so many 

times that we shoot ourselves in the foot. 

VENDING MACHINES IN SCHOOLS

Jack, that works behind me here, asked earlier if there is data 

out there to show how many Coke machines or soft drink vending 

machines are in schools. Do we have a comparison on a per-capita 

basis across the Nation? Does anybody know? Do parents ever approach the school boards and say, look, we need to put a stop to 

this? It shouldn’t be up to the government to do a lot of that. 

Mr. BROWNELL. There are data available on the percentage of 

schools that have soft drink machines in them; less on how many 

in each school. But it is a changing number and changing fast in 

the right direction. There are a lot of school districts and States, 

too, that are taking action. 

It so happens Connecticut has the most aggressive school nutrition legislation in the country. So in the State of Connecticut, you 

won’t find those machines. In other places, you will find a lot of 

them. It really depends. So the number is changing quickly. It is 

going in the right direction, but it is still a real presence in some 

school districts. 

And by the way, one of the issues that came up some time back 

in our discussion was a possibility the schools would lose revenue 

if the machines got taken out. That really is a myth for two reasons. One is that there is some research showing that if they put 

healthier things in the machines, kids will buy the healthier 

things, and the revenue stays about the same. 

But the other myth there, it is as if people sort of behave as if 

the soft drink companies are standing there handing money to the 

school district. But it is not the companies that are putting the dollars and the quarters into the machines, it is the kids in the school 

district. And the soft drink companies are taking a cut of it. So if 

the schools are going to have those kinds of machines, they would 

be better doing it on their own and going out to Sam’s Club and 

buying big masses of the stuff and selling it on their own, not having to give part of it to the soft drink companies. But it is a real 

myth to believe that the companies are contributing to the education in a school district. It is more or less a tax because the kids 

are paying for it. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Thank you. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
115 

Ms. DELAURO. Thank you very much. We do have a habit of—— 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Shooting ourselves. 

Ms. DELAURO. In the foot, right. I could think of a number of examples. 

I have organized myself here so that I know what my last two 

or three questions are going to be, and we will let you free, free 

at last. 

WIC FOOD PACKAGE

The WIC, we haven’t talked much about the WIC Program here, 

the food package implementation. We haven’t dealt with the guidelines since about 1974; 4 years since the IOM released a report, 

‘‘WIC Food Package: It is Time For a Change.’’ That was the foundation for nutritional changes of the WIC food packaging. The interim final rule was published in December of 2007. So 4 years for 

the rule. 

Since then, States have been working on implementing the WIC 

food packages. And I understand New York and Delaware are the 

only two States that have already implemented the changes. Where 

are the other States in implementing the changes? What issues are 

States encountering with implementing the new WIC food packages, and how are the changes being received by vendors and WIC 

participants? Are States providing outreach in education to ease 

this transition to the WIC food packages? 

Mr. O’CONNOR. All of the States are on schedule to implement 

the WIC food package changes by October of this year, which is 

good news. Some States will be implementing before that. As you 

noted, New York and Delaware are leading the pack there. There 

will be others coming on board. But it is a difficult transition for 

some States to be able to do that. It involves computer changes. 

Ms. DELAURO. What are the issues with regard—is it technical? 

Mr. O’CONNOR. Yeah. And there are limited dollars available in 

States to be able to make some of those changes. But having said 

all of that, we are on track to have all of the food package changes 

implemented by October of this year, which is, I think, good news 

for everybody involved. 

[The information follows:] 

The attached table indicates the anticipated implementation date for each State. 

Both New York and Delaware implemented the changes in January 2009. All States 

plan to implement by the October 1, 2009 deadline. The implementation timeframes 

were determined by the State agency based on the State’s assessment of changes 

required to its management information system, the training needs of staff, vendors 

and participants, and development of a new State Food list. The Food and Nutrition 

Service is providing technical assistance to WIC State agencies to assist them in implementing the interim rule by the deadline. 

From an electronic benefit standpoint, one major challenge is defining the new 

business rules and technical requirements for an electronic cash value voucher to 

allow for software updates to electronic cash registers and State agency systems. 

The national WIC office has facilitated a workgroup of States and industry to develop these requirements in order to meet the implementation dates required by 

regulation. 

We are also streamlining the WIC management information system approval 

process to enable State agencies to more easily make necessary changes to their 

management information systems to meet the implementation deadline. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
116 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 181 53443A.073
117 

Ms. DELAURO. Have there been any response in terms of the vendors or the participants on the change rather than the technical 

side of it? 

Mr. O’CONNOR. I think we anticipated some push-back from vendors and whatever. But it seems as though everybody is okay at 

this point. 

Ms. DELAURO. Good. And you feel comfortable with the outreach 

that the States are making in the education process to ease the 

transition. 

Mr. O’CONNOR. Yes. 

FRUITS AND VEGETABLE PROGRAM

Ms. DELAURO. The fruits and vegetable program, in your testimony, Mr. O’Connor you said that FNS estimates that the programs together supported nearly $11 billion in 2008 in fruit and 

vegetable consumption, through the distribution program. The 2008 

Farm Bill provided $1.4 billion over the next 10 years to expand 

that program. And obviously, we talked about here today the increase of the consumption of fruits and vegetables in schools. 

In your view, where do we get the biggest nutritional impact on 

providing increased fruit and vegetable consumption? Is it in the 

School Lunch Program or through the Fruit and Vegetable Snack 

Program? 

Mr. O’CONNOR. It has to be looked at, I think, through the School 

Lunch Program, just because given the volume of dollars that are 

available. 

Ms. DELAURO. So we get our biggest bang for the buck through 

the School Lunch Program. 

Mr. BROWNELL. As an aside, one of my colleagues at the Rudd 

Center, Marlene Schwartz, did an interesting study in your congressional district in Gilford, Gilford schools, where she tested just 

changing a simple thing in the school lunch process where, instead 

of kids being asked or being able to pick a fruit, it was actually 

placed on their tray. They were given a choice of a fruit or a juice, 

but it was actually placed on their tray. And that simple change 

greatly increased fruit consumption in those kids. Now, there was 

a little waste. That is, you put it on the tray and some kids 

wouldn’t eat it then, but many did. And so just that little tweak 

in the way that it is done. So that would be an example of a little 

study that got done, didn’t take much time, cost almost nothing, 

but could have a big impact if it resulted in changed policy. 

Ms. DELAURO. Can I get a chance to see that study? 

Mr. BROWNELL. Yes. 

Ms. DELAURO. Great. I have got a couple more questions, Rodney, but let me, Mr. Alexander, let me yield to you. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. I am fine. Thank you. 

NUTRITIONAL QUALITY OF COMMODITY PROGRAMS

Ms. DELAURO. On the USDA, the commodity of foods, Mr. O’Connor, you have talked about an aggressive initiative that improved 

the nutritional quality of the FNS commodity program. 

Dr. Brownell calls on FNS to improve the nutrient quality of 

USDA commodity foods. What is the aggressive initiative FNS is 

pursuing, and what additional steps can the Department impleVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:29 Jan 26, 2010 Jkt 053443 PO 00000 Frm 00117 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A443P2.XXX A443P2

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
118 

ment to improve the nutritional quality of the commodity programs? 

Mr. O’CONNOR. Well, some of the things that we have already 

done is that we have put in place changes to lower the salt content 

of the commodities that we provide. Lowering the sugar content by, 

for example, only offering canned fruits that are packed in light 

syrup or water or natural juices. We are cutting fat in the commodities that we supply. And we are increasing the variety of whole 

grains that we provide to schools as well. 

Ms. DELAURO. What is the total amount spent on purchasing 

commodities and how much can FNS require to meet these nutritional standards. 

Mr. O’CONNOR. Let me see if you have that. It is about $800 million a year. It is all in entitlements and whatever. Closer to $1 billion, sorry. 

Ms. DELAURO. In terms of the purchasing of commodities, it is 

$1 billion. 

Mr. O’CONNOR. For the schools. 

Ms. DELAURO. Can we do something about requiring meeting nutritional standards with regard to the—as I understand it, the 

schools, you give them a list, they select what they want on the 

commodities, is that right? Can we do anything with regard to the 

requirement on nutritional standards on commodities? 

Mr. O’CONNOR. So that we are restricting the kinds of commodities? 

Ms. DELAURO. Yeah. In terms of the nutritional content of the 

commodities, or are we just shipping? 

Mr. O’CONNOR. The schools are choosing the commodities as part 

of their overall presentation or their overall efforts at meeting the 

nutritional standards for the entire meal. So the commodities that 

they are choosing are the whole package. 

Ms. DELAURO. So is that commodity purchase you are telling me, 

then, has to meet some nutrition standard that the school is subject to so that—the school has to take into consideration the nutritional standards when they are dealing with commodities. 

Mr. O’CONNOR. Yes, so the commodities are making up a part of 

the overall meal plan that the school has put together. The meal 

plan has to meet the nutritional standards. 

Ms. DELAURO. Is that working? 

Ms. PARKER. I was just going to add before, in my previous job, 

I wrote a report on the commodity program, which I will be glad 

to share with you. It looks at some of these issues. In fact, we created a term called ‘‘nutrition control,’’ points which was basically 

to point out all the points at which decisions are made along the 

chain that could turn different ways and make a difference in 

terms of what the commodities ultimately end up looking like on 

a child’s plate. So I would be glad to share that with you. 

But it is not—it is, again, a responsibility that has to do with 

Federal level, but with State level and local school district level; for 

example, often school districts don’t have enough knowledge about 

how to make decisions about how their commodities are processed 

in a way that will produce products that will be more in—will allow 

them to stay more in keeping with the Dietary Guidelines. So there 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
119 

are places all along the way in which changes, small changes could 

occur that could make a difference. 

Ms. DELAURO. And in essence, and I am just speaking out loud 

here, it gets back to looking at improving the nutritional quality of 

the commodities that we purchased rather than leaving most of it 

up to what commodity prices we have to support. Is that a fair 

comment? 

Ms. PARKER. Well, the one thing I would say is that, as I understand it, according to what research I did, actually things like beef, 

for example, is the leanest beef on the marketplace. So, in fact, it 

is important to really look at, specifically at, what products are 

there. And in some cases, they could be improved. In other cases, 

they are doing a pretty good job. It is also an issue of how people 

make choices however. If most people use all their money to buy 

meat but don’t spend very much of it on fruits and vegetables, that 

is an interesting thing to look at. 

So I guess what I am saying is, it is a lot more complex than 

meets the eye. And what States offer to local school districts, what 

school districts understand about how to order food from companies 

that process the commodities, all of those things have an impact on 

what is on the child’s plate. 

CHILD NUTRITION INITIATIVES

Ms. DELAURO. I just have a comment and then one last question, 

or one last comment from all of you. 

Dr. Brownell, you have laid out some possible new initiatives. 

You talked about the commission at the Institute of Medicine on 

an economic and health analysis of the impact of subsidies, how we 

can use that subsidy policy to better address the nutritional needs 

and concerns and health concerns that we have, the impact on food 

prices on a Nation with a vulnerable population and food access, 

and really take a look at that and how we go about trying to implement that. 

I know that CRS has done some things. About initiatives, they 

say they are out here at the moment. I will just say this to you, 

Mr. O’Connor, that CRS says Child Nutrition Programs initiatives 

include the following: Providing mandatory funding for a currently 

authorized pilot project raising income limit for free school meals 

to 185 percent of the Federal policy income guidelines; authorizing 

a School Breakfast Program in which all foods are served free without regard to family income in place as a current breakfast program. These are initiatives that are out there, is that accurate, are 

these accurate? These are ideas? These are not initiatives? 

Mr. O’CONNOR. Right. 

Ms. DELAURO. Okay. Authorizing start-up grants for School 

Breakfast Programs; expanding the provision of the Federal child 

nutrition subsidies for dinners served in after-school programs in 

additional States. Let me just tell you that got shot down in the 

Recovery program. I can’t make people understand what is going 

on here, but, you know, we live to fight another day. 

Simplified Summer Food Service Program rules nationally applicable; the competitive foods requirements issue; establishing and 

funding a competitive grant program for schools to create healthy 

school nutrition environments; assessing the effect of these enviVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:29 Jan 26, 2010 Jkt 053443 PO 00000 Frm 00119 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A443P2.XXX A443P2

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
120 

ronments on the health and well being of their students; expanding 

the summer food service program; increasing the number of areas 

in which the meals are offered; start-up grants for a new summer 

program; making nationally applicable rules now used in a pilot 

project in Pennsylvania that ease participation by summer program 

sponsors in rural areas. 

So these are not initiatives, but they are ideas. Are there any 

that jump out to you that are along that we are really taking a 

hard look at? No, you don’t know, or we are not? I am not asking 

you to comment on the policy. I just want to know if there is anything in the pipeline with regard to any of this effort or that we 

have to start from scratch and try to take a look at them. 

Mr. O’CONNOR. Much of that is in the pipeline. 

Ms. DELAURO. Well, if I send you this list, can you then tell me 

what is in the pipeline, what isn’t and where in the pipeline it is? 

Mr. O’CONNOR. I think we will need to defer to the Secretary on 

that. 

CHILD NUTRITION REAUTHORIZATION

Ms. DELAURO. Okay. As I say, he is here next week. 

A final question to all of you. We are going to deal with the reauthorization of the child nutrition WIC reauthorization this year. 

Let me just ask you, what would be your top priority for that reauthorization? 

Mr. O’CONNOR. I am being told our top priority is that it happen 

this year. 

Ms. DELAURO. Okay. Ms. Parker. 

Ms. PARKER. I don’t think the Institute of Medicine takes positions on legislative issues. 

Ms. DELAURO. But I mean, just what would be a good thing? 

Ms. PARKER. Well, let me do this. I will talk from my personal—— 

Ms. DELAURO. Talk from your personal, that is right, because 

you have got a good background in all this stuff. 

Ms. PARKER. Let me say two good things. One good thing would 

be to ask the Secretary of Agriculture to give the Secretary of Agriculture the authority to do some new—require the Secretary of Agriculture to do competitive food regulations and expand it to the 

whole school and the whole State and put that through some kind 

of a regulatory process, so that and perhaps use our IOM standards 

as the basis. 

And the second thing I would say, and this, again, is personal, 

is to do what we can to increase access to Child Nutrition Programs whatever form they take, so that, particularly in the current 

context with poor families, that kids get the nutrition they need, 

enough nutrition. 

Ms. DELAURO. Dr. Brownell. 

Mr. BROWNELL. And I would say, similar to what Lynn recommended, better nutrition standards in schools that would focus 

on two things. One is how to drive up consumption of the things 

we would like to see children eat more of, and how to drive down 

consumption of the things children should eat less of. 

And then second would be to be a little more aggressive with the 

school wellness policies, as we discussed. Whether to try to figure 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
121 

a way that policies can become programs and to provide some guidance from Washington about what an ideal policy and set of programs would look like. 

Ms. DELAURO. We will conclude. It is 4:15. You have been here 

since 1:00. So I much appreciate your time and your patience. I will 

say that we did take an hour out of this to be able to go over and 

vote, but that didn’t—I can’t tell you how much I appreciate your 

being here and your thoughtfulness and your candor about the 

kinds of things that we ought to do. I believe this is a very, very 

big issue. We face this as a Nation. 

I think it is a crisis of proportions in terms of the effects of—and 

I believe the agencies are trying to do a good job, I truly do. This 

is not about gotcha. This is not about just casting aspersions or trying to—but I think we can do better. And we have an obligation 

to do better. The end of the line is public health, and we are failing 

on that public health measure, not because we wanted to, but 

somehow—and we never talked about the link between poverty and 

hunger and obesity and all of this, which are big, big social issues, 

which we have to grapple with. But we have it within the purview 

of this subcommittee. We are not an authorizing committee, but we 

have the purse. We can try to help make some changes through 

what we do. We need, obviously, the cooperation of the agency. And 

from what I have heard from some of the nutrition groups, that 

they are excited about what the Secretary has been talking about 

and where he is coming from on the issue of nutrition. 

And I know that people in the agency are clamoring for this as 

well. And we need the benefit of the expertise of you, Ms. Parker 

and you, Dr. Brownell, to help us to formulate and craft legislative 

initiatives so that we can get to good public policy in this area. So 

thank you very much for spending all this time with us today. I 

appreciate it. And this hearing is concluded. Thank you. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
122 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 193 here 53443A.074
123 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 194 here 53443A.075
124 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 195 here 53443A.076
125 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 196 here 53443A.077
126 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 197 here 53443A.078
127 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 198 here 53443A.079
128 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 199 here 53443A.080
129 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 200 here 53443A.081
130 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 201 here 53443A.082
131 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 202 here 53443A.083
132 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 203 here 53443A.084
133 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 204 here 53443A.085
134 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 205 here 53443A.086
(135) 

TUESDAY, MARCH 31, 2009. 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

WITNESSES 

HON. THOMAS VILSACK, SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE 

W. SCOTT STEELE, BUDGET OFFICER 

MS. DELAURO OPENING STATEMENT

Ms. DELAURO. The committee is called to order. 

Before I make my opening remarks or ask Mr. Kingston to make 

some remarks, I would just like to yield to Mr. Latham, who shares 

the geography with the Secretary. 

Mr. Latham. 

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

I just wanted to, as a fellow Iowan, welcome you and congratulate you on your appointment as Secretary. We are very proud and 

look forward to working with you. 

Thank you. 

Ms. DELAURO. Thank you very much, Mr. Latham. 

In fact, we want to all welcome you here this morning, Secretary 

Vilsack. It is a delight to be with you, and thank you very, very 

much for being here. 

I know that this is your first opportunity to testify before Congress since you have been sworn in, taking the time to be with us 

this morning, even as you continue to settle in and staff up, and 

I know that is a concern. 

Let me just say to you, Mr. Secretary, you bring a lifetime, really, of service and an impressive record on agriculture and nutrition 

issues to the new role that you have. As Governor, you achieved 

a lot for family farmers, livestock producers, rural communities. 

Fighting hunger took center stage during your administration, and 

you made rural development a real priority with the Iowa Values 

Fund. I know that you are committed to protecting public health 

and building a framework for growth in small towns and communities across America. I look forward, too, and I know that the committee does, the subcommittee looks forward to working with you 

and the very many dedicated men and women at the USDA to 

make good on that commitment. 

Of course, we also know that you are coming into a Department—and I will say it is my view—that is desperate for reform. 

In recent years, the Department has struggled to fulfill its own 

mission and to meet the needs of the American people, and today 

we have an opportunity to make the Department a powerful force 

for good. 

I believe we made an important first step by making critical in- vestments with the recovery package: $20.9 billion in nutrition programs; $1.2 billion for essential community facilities in rural areas 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
136 

such as health care, fire, rescue and public safety services; $3 billion for guaranteed loans to rural businesses; and $340 million for 

watershed and flood-prevention activities that are ready to begin 

work this year. 

But we must go farther. We need to build on these resources and 

commit to reforming the Department on every front. 

First, on nutrition, this subcommittee has already held an oversight hearing this year on the reach and the impact of USDA’s nutrition programs, the school lunch program, in particular. And I am 

trying to go back and to find it, and I have asked staff to look at 

it. I understand that in the 1977 Farm Bill that the U.S. Department of Agriculture was designated as the lead agency in nutrition 

in this country. So that is what, in fact, I believe it ought to be. 

And I know that you and the President are committed to confronting childhood obesity as we implement the Farm Bill and 

begin work on childhood nutrition reauthorization. We have an opportunity to make concrete improvement in the health and the 

lives of America’s children. 

I believe that USDA should work to reduce barriers and increase 

resources for more direct connection between the demand and the 

supply on the part of school food services and family farmers, between local schools and food networks. 

More broadly, the Department has also the opportunity to immediately improve resources to rural communities, open markets, to 

local farmers, and to reduce health disparities in the process. 

Second, food safety. Americans should be able to assume that the 

food that they serve their children is safe to eat. Unfortunately, 

from peanuts to ground beef to peppers to imported seafood and, 

just yesterday, pistachios—the word on the pistachios is, don’t eat 

them, but don’t throw them away, because we are not sure yet 

what the situation is. But don’t eat them. It gives you pause. 

We have seen one devastating case of widespread food-borne illness after the next. President Obama has already made it clear 

that this is not acceptable, and I hope that his proposed Food Safety Working Group can begin to bring serious reform that we need 

in this area. 

I have long been concerned about USDA’s dual mission of promoting the products it is supposed to regulate. I believe this inherent conflict of interest at the agency has contributed to some of the 

food safety problems we have encountered over the years. 

We must work to modernize the Food Safety and Inspection 

Service in a way that emphasizes prevention, not just reaction, and 

recognize that as long as the threat from food-borne pathogens are 

constantly evolving, so, too, must our food safety system. 

And to stay ahead, we need to continue to prioritize certain key 

principles. We need to look at the foods that are at greatest risk. 

We need to categorize facilities based on risk. We need to establish 

performance standards for food-borne pathogens. We need to look 

at those risk-based efforts in terms of frequency of inspections and 

the reporting requirements for companies. 

Third area, rural development. For too long the importance of the 

nonagricultural economy in rural communities has not been reflected in USDA priorities. Today, even farmers are not earning 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
137 

their primary living from agriculture. Eighty percent of farm 

household income is derived off the farm. 

The Department needs to rethink its mission and its priorities, 

giving just as much attention to rural development as it does to 

production agriculture. That means working to reach more vulnerable families and workers in rural areas, including small farmers, 

low-resource farmers, and minority farmers and small landowners. 

Also, coordinating with Health and Human Resources, Commerce, Transportation, investing in rural infrastructure, including 

broadband, not only to connect rural areas to the global economy, 

but also to generate growth in rural America. And I know this is 

a priority for you, and I want you to know that I will be there 

fighting for that right by your side. 

We fought very, very hard in the economic recovery package to 

make sure that there were resources that went to the U.S. Department of Agriculture and to RUS for broadband. RUS does have a 

program, quite frankly. Commerce hasn’t started up yet with a program in this area. So we are looking to you for leading the way in 

this area. 

Finally, energy. Secretary Vilsack, I know that you will continue 

to work to ensure that agriculture is an integral part of our push 

to make renewable electricity affordable and accessible. On this 

critical issue we must prioritize research and conservation to find 

the right balance between our need to move energy independence 

and minimizing the impact on the environment, while at the same 

time we need to closely monitor the impact of increased mandates 

for biofuels on the environment and on food prices. Each of these 

issues—nutrition, food safety, rural development, energy—they are 

a priority for this subcommittee; and they are ready for reform 

within the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

Mr. Secretary, I have confidence, real confidence. We have had 

the chance to work together in the past, and I welcome your leadership of this Department and your ability to bring the change that 

it needs. So I am delighted that you are at the helm. I look forward 

to collaborating with you in the months ahead. 

This is our big opportunity. You know, challenges bring opportunity. We know that, and it is our opportunity to get things right 

for the American people, to make the kinds of changes that will affect their health and their safety, their quality of life and their economic livelihood. 

Thank you very much for being here this morning. 

With that, let me ask ranking member, Mr. Kingston, to make 

his opening statement. 

MR. KINGSTON OPENING STATEMENT

Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the Chair for yielding. 

Mr. Secretary, welcome to this committee; and we certainly look 

forward to working with you. I have heard lots of good things about 

you; and despite the fact that many of them came from Mr. 

Latham, I am still inclined to believe them. 

As the loyal opposition here, I want to say something, though, 

that sometimes goes beyond this committee. Certainly it does. I am 

very concerned, as we all are, about the spending level of this administration so far, a deficit over $1 trillion projected. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
138 

You know, frankly, as Republicans, we did not do a very good job 

of controlling spending. We should have done a better job. But it 

now seems like those in the administration are using, well, look 

what the Republicans did, and so we are going to make it a lot 

worse. Your budget, for example, has a 12 percent increase on top 

of what I understand, in 2009, is about a $24 billion budget; fiscal 

year ’10, a $26 billion budget; the stimulus, a $5.7 billion increase. 

You know, I am very concerned that this stuff is just getting out 

of hand and that in each department of this government we need 

to start looking at ways to save. Now, you have rightfully raised 

the issue that there was $49 million paid between 2003 and 2006 

to ineligible participants in farm programs because their income 

was too high. So they certainly should never have gotten that 

money, $49 million, for people who did not qualify for it. We want 

to join you in trying to stop that and trying to focus in on that 

money. 

On the same hand, in 2006, overpayments in food stamps was 

$1.29 billion. So about—almost as high as 5 percent of the food 

stamp budget was paid to people who were not qualified for food 

stamps. I certainly hope that we can join you in pursuing that and 

stopping that. Because anytime that you take money away from— 

that you were ineligible for, you take it away from somebody who 

was eligible for it. 

And in the same way, anytime somebody receives a benefit for 

not working, whether they were able to work or unable to work, 

that benefit was paid for by somebody who worked for it and will 

not get compensated for it. And we need to keep that in mind, too. 

So I am looking forward to working with you. The USDA is near 

and dear to everybody on this committee. 

Most of the issues are nonpartisan, but I think that the philosophy—and I believe with the last administration my questions 

about their spending were the same as my questions will be to you. 

I feel that sometimes just we in this town have an inertia towards 

spending more as a way of quieting down our critics, rather than 

going after some of the tougher decisions and challenging the status quo. 

But I will remain a member of the loyal opposition in that respect, because I think we can work with each other on it. And, 

again, this is consistent with the questions I asked of the person 

previously in your seat. 

So I yield back. 

Ms. DELAURO. Thank you, Mr. Kingston. 

Mr. Secretary, your full testimony will be made a part of the 

record, so we will ask you for your testimony. And if you choose to 

summarize, we are ready to listen; and then we will move to questions. 

Let me welcome Mr. Steele. Thank you so much for being here. 

You are a staple on this dais here, Mr. Steele. So we are delighted 

to have you with us again this morning. Thank you. 

SECRETARY VILSACK OPENING STATEMENT

Secretary VILSACK. Madam Chairman and Representative Kingston and other distinguished members of the Committee, I appreVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:29 Jan 26, 2010 Jkt 053443 PO 00000 Frm 00138 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A443P2.XXX A443P2

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
139 

ciate the opportunity to appear before you to discuss the administration’s priorities for the Department of Agriculture. 

As the Chair indicated, I am joined today by Scott Steele, 

USDA’s Budget Officer. 

President Obama outlined three key goals for the Department of 

Agriculture when I agreed to serve as his Secretary of Agriculture. 

First, he was very concerned about the health and welfare of 

America’s children and wants to make sure our children have access to more nutritious food. Second, he wants to make sure we do 

everything we can to expand the capacity of our farms and ranches 

and produce alternative forms of energy. Third, he wants to make 

sure that we aggressively pursue research necessary to allow agriculture to transition away from its significant dependence on fossil 

fuels. 

In addition to the President’s goals, there are several other factors that will shape the direction and focus of this Department. 

We face the challenges of protecting our food supply. The recent 

food safety emergency, where bad peanut butter products led to 

hundreds of illnesses and cost nine people their lives, provides a 

painful reminder of how tragic the consequences can be of an irresponsible firm. 

It is fairly clear, after my conversations recently with those associated with the peanut industry in Georgia, that they are feeling 

the direct consequences of that one company’s failure to maintain 

a safe and secure product. This illustrates the important role that 

food safety plays in protecting not only consumers but the integrity 

of markets as well, and it will shape the direction and future of 

USDA. 

I was proud to announce in my first weeks here at USDA the 

publication of a final rule banning the use of nonambulatory or 

downer cattle in the food supply. This was an important and longoverdue action that will enhance the safety of the food supply and 

improve consumer confidence in our food supply. 

I intend to work hard at USDA to modernize and improve the 

way we regulate the food supply and to take steps to drive down 

the incidence of food-borne illness. 

USDA ECONOMIC STIMULUS FUNDING

The financial crisis we are all too familiar with has already 

shaped the direction the USDA will be going. With the passage of 

the Recovery Act, we have already begun the process of putting 

America back to work. 

On March 9, I announced the first wave of USDA economic stimulus funding. This funding will have a significant impact not only 

in rural communities but in communities across the country struggling with today’s tough economic times. 

Consistent with the President’s commitment to implement the 

Recovery Act in a manner that is transparent, effective, and efficient, I have established the Department of Agriculture Recovery 

Team to oversee the implementation of the Act. This team is headed up by my office, and it includes representatives from all mission 

areas that receive funding under this Act. 

The projects announced on May 9 are just the first accomplishments for the team. They are continuing to work diligently to idenVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:29 Jan 26, 2010 Jkt 053443 PO 00000 Frm 00139 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A443P2.XXX A443P2

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
140 

tify all actions that need to be taken to expend the money, including the identification of projects that can receive funds and expend 

them quickly, while establishing accountability systems or mitigating potential implementation risks. 

Following the guidance established by the Office of Management 

and Budget, we will be able to demonstrate to the public that their 

dollars are being invested in initiatives and strategies that make 

a difference in their communities and across the country. 

2008 FARM BILL FUNDING

The current drop in commodity prices and difficulties of drought 

and other severe weather faced by large areas of farm country add 

another level of complexity to the work we have before us. To address these challenges, we must implement the 2008 Farm Bill in 

the manner intended by Congress and provide farmers with a robust safety net and protections from market disruptions, weather 

disasters, pests, and disease that threaten the viability of American 

agriculture. 

Today, I would like to use this forum to make three announcements in the area of the farm safety net that should help producers 

struggling with recent downturns in commodity prices. 

First, in the dairy sector, in addition to last week’s announcement of USDA’s utilization of 200 million pounds of nonfat dry 

milk for school feeding programs and the TEFAP program, I would 

also like to announce that this week USDA will be making milkincome-lost contract payments. 

Secondly, I announced today that USDA is making bonus commodity purchases to aid struggling parts of the farm sector through 

USDA’s section 32 authority. These purchases are in the amounts 

of $30 million for walnuts, $25 million for pork, $60 million for turkey, and $2 million for lamb. 

Lastly, in response to concerns I have heard from producers worried about the upcoming June deadline for farm program sign-up, 

I am announcing today that USDA will be extending the sign-up 

deadline to August 14. This action should provide producers with 

sufficient time to learn about the new ACRE Program and to make 

informed decisions about their sign-up options. 

We also have an important role in working hard to expand exports for our agriculture products. It is significant that, while the 

country as a whole has a trade deficit, agriculture has a trade surplus. We need to continue to work hard, both in Washington and 

in our offices overseas, to encourage greater exports of American 

products. 

The agriculture census also reveals some significant trends that 

will guide the Department’s directions over the next several years. 

A significant trend was the decline of middle-sized farms. Some of 

these folks probably migrated into larger-sales category, but many 

went out of business. 

Another rather startling fact is that, of the 2.2 million ranchers 

and farmers in this country today, 900,000 of them, almost half, 

have to work off the farm at least 200 days. That is pretty much 

a full-time job. When you factor in the average age of a farmer is 

increasing, a 30 percent increase in the number of farmers over the 

age of 75 and a 20 percent decrease in the number of farmers 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
141 

under the age of 25, you see that we are at a critical juncture in 

rural America. 

So you take all of that—the President’s instructions, current 

events, the financial challenge in the stimulus package, and the 

trends in agriculture—and what it tells me is that we have a lot 

of work to do. 

But with these challenges come historical opportunities for agriculture in rural America. I look forward to working together with 

this committee and all of our stakeholders to capture these opportunities for long-term benefit for producers and all Americans. 

With the funding in the Recovery Act and the President’s 2010 

budget, we have the capacity to capitalize on these opportunities. 

We intend to approach these issues with much greater transparency and the involvement of the full diversity of stakeholders 

we serve. 

USDA KEY PRIORITIES

I would like to give you an overview of our key priorities. Recent 

economic woes have caused a dramatic increase in the number of 

Americans needing support through nutrition assistance programs 

operated by USDA. Most notably, participation in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program has increased by 4.2 million 

Americans in the last 12 months, for a total of 31.8 million participants monthly. 

The Recovery Act funding for SNAP will be released by April 1. 

Not only will this funding provide critically needed support for millions of Americans having trouble acquiring a nutritious diet, it 

will also have an immediate effect on stimulating the economy. 

Participation in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for 

Women, Infants, and Children has also continued to grow substantially this year, averaging nearly 9 million participants monthly 

through December of 2008. 

Consistent with the President’s commitment to present an honest, transparent budget, we are including sufficient resources in 

our budget request to support estimated participation in all of the 

nutritional assistance programs, including an estimated average 

participation of 9.8 million in the WIC program in 2010. This will 

ensure that all eligible individuals seeking to participate will, in 

fact, be served. 

The health care crisis dictates the need to promote improved nutrition. As reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, research shows that being obese during childhood and adolescence is associated with being overweight during adulthood. 

The Department can play a key role in addressing the dual 

issues of childhood obesity and alleviating hunger by improving 

program access and enhancing the nutritional quality of school 

meals. We have an enormous opportunity this year as we reauthorize the child nutrition and WIC programs. An indication of our 

commitment to this important issue is that the administration is 

proposing an additional $1 billion annually to improve the child nutrition programs. 

As part of reauthorization, I look forward to working with Congress to improve the quality and nutrition of meals served, expanding nutrition research and evaluation, encouraging greater conVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:29 Jan 26, 2010 Jkt 053443 PO 00000 Frm 00141 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A443P2.XXX A443P2

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
142 

sumption of fruits and vegetables, which I consider anytime foods, 

and reducing the consumption of nonnutritious foods commonly 

found in vending machines, particularly in elementary and middle 

schools. Efforts in this area will also offer great opportunities for 

farmers, particularly specialty crop producers, who will benefit 

from greater emphasis on fruits, vegetables, and nuts in the diets 

of American school children. 

Further, we can enhance the success of local food systems. Our 

international food aid program, such as the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition and P.L. 480 Title 

II programs are critical to addressing food insecurity throughout 

the world. 

At the same time, however, we must go beyond providing commodities, and we must also support efforts to increase agricultural 

production and develop agricultural sectors in food insecure regions. Economic development not only helps these countries but 

also helps the United States, because as their economies grow they 

become more active trading partners. 

We also see a number of opportunities for farmers and ranchers 

to capitalize on emerging domestic markets. 

Agriculture has demonstrated a capacity to help meet America’s 

energy needs with clean, renewable fuels, but our success to date 

is only a small part of the potential in this area. The Department 

will expand renewable energy opportunities and the capacity of our 

land, our farms, and our ranches to produce alternative forms of 

energy and fuel; and I look forward to working with the committee 

on these efforts to promote renewable energy technologies. 

We also need to ensure we provide American farmers with a robust safety net, including supporting independent producers and 

local and organic agriculture and enforcing the Packers and Stockyards Act. 

NEW TECHNOLOGIES

We also need to take advantage of new technologies like biotechnology, which will create new opportunities for jobs and increase productivity. And we can develop programs that recognize 

the value of farming in protecting the environment, while assisting 

producers in transitioning from traditional farm programs to market-based environmental service markets. 

USDA is going to support developing markets that reward producers for sequestering carbon and limiting greenhouse gas emissions. Through the authority provided under the Farm Bill of 2008, 

we will address the metrics and certifications associated with environmental services of conservation and certain land management 

activities to facilitate the participation of farmers, ranchers, and 

forest land owners in emerging environmental service markets. 

We will also increase research and analytical capabilities and 

conduct government-wide coordination activities to encourage the 

establishment of markets for these ecosystem services. 

You are going to see a major effort, starting with the implementation of the Recovery Act and continuing through the implementation of the Farm Bill, to rebuild and revitalize rural communities 

in this country. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
143 

Of great importance to me, the budget proposal and Recovery Act 

are consistent with the administration’s efforts to ensure that all 

of rural America will have access to quality broadband service, 

which is essential to keeping pace in a world that relies on rapid 

telecommunications. 

The 2010 budget, combined with funding from the Recovery Act, 

will also provide strong support for homeownership in rural America by making mortgage credit available through direct loans and 

guarantees made by private lenders. This combined level of funding 

will provide over 165,000 homeownership opportunities for rural 

residents. In addition, it contains sufficient funding to assist lowincome tenants of USDA-financed rental housing. 

We are also proposing an innovative new initiative in the 2010 

budget to support rural revitalization through incentives for teachers working in rural areas and enhancing support for rural research and extension programs at land grant and minority-serving 

institutions. These efforts will greatly enhance our ability to 

strengthen the capacity of rural America to participate in new economic opportunities that we are developing, including renewable 

energy and environmental services markets. 

Madam Chair, I am aware of your deep interest in food safety. 

I share that interest. I want to work with you and members of this 

committee to ensure that we have the food safety system that we 

need to protect consumers. This should be a system that eliminates 

hazards before they have an opportunity to make anyone sick, but, 

in the event they do, a system that rapidly identifies and responds 

to the threat. To that end, you are going to see a very significant 

effort on our part to improve the safety and security of our food 

system. 

On March 14, the President kicked off that effort by establishing 

a new Food Safety Working Group, of which I am a member. We 

will advise the President on how we can upgrade our food safety 

laws for the 21st century, foster coordination through government, 

and ensure that we are not just designing laws that will keep the 

American people safe but also enforcing them. 

As I mentioned earlier, I am committed to implementing the 

2008 Farm Bill in a timely and effective manner. This is a tremendous undertaking for the Department, and I know that USDA employees share my commitment. We appreciate the funding included 

in the Recovery Act that will facilitate implementation of the Farm 

Bill. 

I want to thank the committee for providing the $50 million in 

recovery funds for IT stabilization and modernization for Farm 

Service Agency. We will continue to work with this committee to 

ensure that we have the resources necessary for further modifications to these IT systems, which are a critical asset needed to effectively and efficiently implement the Farm Bill and related programs. 

President Obama is very clear that this budget will be transparent to the American people. It will fully account for the cost to 

operate government. As I described earlier, our budget meets that 

test. The President, in his address to Congress, stressed that we 

are reviewing all of our options for wasteful and ineffective spending. Therefore, the 2010 budget reflects the elimination of earVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:29 Jan 26, 2010 Jkt 053443 PO 00000 Frm 00143 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A443P2.XXX A443P2

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
144 

marks and funding for programs that are not as high a priority as 

others I have mentioned or provide services that can be supported 

by other means. 

CIVIL RIGHTS POLICY

Finally, I would like to address one last area where the Department has a disturbing history. For far too long the image of the 

USDA has been marred by discrimination in the delivery of its programs and its employment practices. One of my first actions since 

arriving at the Department was to issue a civil rights policy statement that stated that discrimination will not be tolerated at USDA. 

To achieve this goal, we are dedicating resources necessary to improve the civil rights process within the Department. 

On February 26, 2009, the President released an overview of the 

2010 budget. The details of the budget proposal will be released 

later in the spring. We have begun the process of making tough decisions about where our priorities lie, and we have made some 

tough choices about where to invest our resources. These choices 

reflect the new direction the President wants this country to take 

at a historic time. In my view, the President is on the right track, 

the track that takes this Nation on the path to recovery, provides 

the foundation for diverse opportunities for farmers and ranchers 

to succeed as they play an increasingly important role in the 21st 

century American economy. 

Madam Chair, that concludes my statement, and I will be 

pleased to take questions at this time. 

Ms. DELAURO. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
145 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 229 here 53443A.087
146 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 230 here 53443A.088
147 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 231 here 53443A.089
148 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 232 here 53443A.090
149 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 233 here 53443A.091
150 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 234 here 53443A.092
151 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 235 here 53443A.093
152 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 236 here 53443A.094
153 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 237 here 53443A.095
154 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 238 here 53443A.096
155 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 239 here 53443A.097
156 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 240 here 53443A.098
157 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 241 here 53443A.099
158 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 242 here 53443A.100
159 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 243 here 53443A.101
160 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 244 here 53443A.102
161 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 245 here 53443A.103
162 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 246 here 53443A.104
163 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 247 here 53443A.105
164 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 248 here 53443A.106
165 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 249 here 53443A.107
166 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 250 here 53443A.108
167 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 251 here 53443A.109
168 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 252 here 53443A.110
169 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 253 here 53443A.111
170 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 254 here 53443A.112
171 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 255 here 53443A.113
172 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 256 here 53443A.114
173 

FOOD SAFETY

Ms. DELAURO. Let me just pick up on the food safety issue, if I 

might, and just get some more information from you and how you 

see this effort moving forward. 

It was after the peanut butter debacle you said you favored a single food agency. I don’t think you have given more details yet about 

what you would like to see. Can you expand on the thinking, your 

thinking on this issue? Do we need a single food agency? If so, how 

should it be structured? Where, in your view, should it be located? 

USDA? FDA? An independent agency? 

You mentioned the independent Food Safety Working Group, and 

I understand that two-thirds of the working group has yet to be 

confirmed but would like to get your thoughts on this issue of a 

single food agency. 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, first and foremost, let’s start with the 

statistical basis for our concern. According to recent data, 75 million Americans suffer a food-borne illness at some point in time 

during the year, 325,000 of them are hospitalized, and over 5,000 

die. 

I think most in this committee—all of this committee and all of 

Congress would admit that those numbers are startling and unacceptable and reflect the need for us to reform the system. 

I appreciate the President directing myself and the Secretary of 

Health and Human Services to head up this working group for the 

purpose of determining the appropriate steps to improve our food 

safety system. I anticipate that this working group will work in 

concert with staff, once the confirmations take place, to begin the 

process of asking the critical question, what steps do we have to 

take? 

And I think the first question that has to be asked is, what is 

the controlling philosophy behind the food safety system? Is it one 

of prevention or is it one of mitigation? 

It seems to me that today what we have is a circumstance where 

we may have competing philosophies. With USDA focused primarily on prevention through its inspection regulation system, the 

FDA, because of the quantity of work that it is required to do and 

the fact that it has probably been difficult for them to do all the 

work they have to do with the staffing requirements that they are 

currently meeting, they have been focused on mitigation. 

I think, first and foremost, we have to focus on the right philosophy. I don’t want to prejudge the work of the working group or 

of this committee or of this Congress, but I would suggest that it 

would make sense for us to focus on prevention and focus in a way 

in which we are able to identify, as you indicated in your statement, the most significant risk and focus our time and attention 

and resources on making sure that we address those risks aggressively. 

RISK-BASED ASSESSMENT PILOT PROJECT

We have started that process at USDA with a series of pilot 

projects, where we are working on a risk-based assessment process. 

I will tell you, Madam Chair, we still have much to learn about 

that system. We have a lot to learn about how data is collected, 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
174 

how it is evaluated, and what needs to be done in order to be comfortable that that is the right approach. I think we are on the right 

track, but I think we have a ways to go. 

Once you have the right philosophy, then it seems to me that the 

next step in the process is to make sure that you actually coordinate between the various agencies that are involved. As you well 

know, we have 15 separate agencies in this government that have 

some piece of food safety. 

I have had conversations with Secretary Napolitano about Customs and about APHIS and the role that APHIS can play in increasing training for Customs. We have, obviously, conversations 

that will take place with HHS about the interactions and coordination. 

Once we have that in place, then I think we can get to the structure, the structural questions, the organizational structure questions. And I really think that it would be inappropriate for me, at 

this point in time, to say it should be in one agency or another or 

a separate agency. I think that the process needs to work so that 

it can be as informed a policy decision as we can possibly make. 

But, clearly, we need to work on harmonizing the philosophy on 

making sure that there is better coordination and on making sure 

that the questions related to any risk-based process have been fully 

answered. 

Ms. DELAURO. Mr. Secretary, I appreciate what you are saying. 

What I know about evaluating processes in this institution and in 

agencies, et cetera, we could take a very, very, very long time to 

get where we need to go. I don’t think we have time to get where 

we need to go. We have to be thoughtful in this process. There isn’t 

any question about that. 

But you also have trains leaving the station; and, in the House, 

you have food-safety legislation that is in the process of being put 

together by the Energy and Commerce Committee, which is the authorizing committee. 

You have a number of ideas—and I don’t have to reiterate, you 

know, my own approach on this effort. But my suggestion is that 

this administration is going to have to weigh in on a direction to 

take before we put into place legislation that may not get us where 

we wanted to go in terms of food safety and the kinds of structures 

that get us to be able to get the information that we need. 

It wasn’t too long ago on this subcommittee that we were told 

that FSIS was moving headlong into risk-based inspection. You 

can’t do anything on risk-based unless you have the data on which 

to move. Ultimately, FSIS and the Department viewed that our 

concerns were legitimate. So they held off in that area. And I am 

proud to say that as a subcommittee, both Democrats and Republicans, we held them off in moving in a direction that I believe 

would have not been helpful. 

But my point is that we need to begin and to have an administration begin to take a stand on where we are and where we want 

to go. We have opportunities to put into place the pillars that will 

get us to—and I am not going to put words in your mouth, but just 

to say that if we have 15 agencies today that are dealing with this 

issue and we are unsuccessful at dealing with food safety, given the 

current structure, with no single individual being responsible for 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
175 

food safety in this country—not one person has ultimate responsibility—that leads me toward a single agency. 

It may be that as an interim goal, as we take a look at where 

the bulk of the difficulties have been—and I think we need to review FSIS and the HACCP process. It has been in place—what— 

14 years or so. What does it do? But it was a very formidable response to an emergency with Jack in the Box years ago. 

We are in an emergency situation today. We cannot afford to 

take months and months and months of deliberation before we say 

to the American people, the Federal Government is going to take 

on this responsibility, try to do something about making sure the 

food supply is protected. FDA—and you don’t have jurisdiction over 

FDA, so I am not asking you to comment on the FDA—but it has 

been reaction and not prevention, and prevention needs to be the 

order of the day. 

But if we do not do something other than increasing resources, 

which we have done with the FDA, but restructuring it in a way 

that puts food safety on its own, drug safety on its own, and make 

sure that there is an individual who is responsible for food safety, 

we are not going to get to where we want to go as the oversight 

of this effort, and we are not going to get to go where either FDA 

or you want to go at USDA on where we deal with food safety in 

this country. 

Secretary VILSACK. Madam Chairman, if I could react to that. 

Ms. DELAURO. Sure. 

Secretary VILSACK. First of all, I did not want to leave the impression with my answer that we don’t understand the urgency of 

the circumstance. We certainly do. And the expectation, I think, 

that the President has is that we get to a set of recommendations 

in a very quick order. 

So, first and foremost, we do understand the urgency; and we are 

anxious to get to work. I am a little bit hampered because of the 

fact that two-thirds of the folks who are integral to this process 

have not yet been confirmed, and I have not had an opportunity 

to actually have conversations with them and feel it to be appropriate that in order for that working group to do its work well that 

we have a conversation, number one. 

Number two, there is no question that whatever system is ultimately devised has to be a system that provides for specific accountability. I would agree with you that when you have got 15 

separate agencies in the Federal Government responsible for some 

part—— 

Ms. DELAURO. No one is accountable. 

Secretary VILSACK [continuing]. You have got way too many, and 

it becomes very difficult for you or for a consumer or for a taxpayer 

to know precisely who to hold accountable when there is a problem, 

and we ought to be about accountability. So please understand I 

share that with you. 

And as far as reviewing the processes, we ought to be doing that 

as a matter of business. Every year we ought to be reviewing our 

processes to make sure that we are doing as good a job as we possibly can. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
176 

So we would agree with you on that score as well; and we intend 

to be very aggressive on this, very, very aggressive, because we understand that people’s lives are at stake. 

Ms. DELAURO. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Mr. Kingston. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, also, let me emphasize the frustration—as a committee member, so much of the discussion seems to be superficial. 

FOOD-BORNE ILLNESSES

For example, last week, we had a very good hearing on food safety, but one of the business association witnesses said to us that we 

should double the funding of the FDA. So I asked him, well, what 

was the funding increase last year? He didn’t know, but he thought 

we should double it. Then he said he thought it was about $40 million. So I said, so we should double that to $80 million? He said 

yes. I said, well, are you aware that the actual increase last year, 

plus in the omnibus and in the stimulus, gave an increase of $300 

million to the FDA? And he was not aware of that. And I asked 

him, do you still think we should double it? And he said yes. 

Well, I mean, that is kind of a silly discussion. 

Now, along with him at the table was an IG witness from HHS, 

and he actually had a figure of 300,000 people a year are hospitalized. Interestingly enough, I think the CDC uses 250; you just said 

350. 

But I asked him, of those who were hospitalized, can you tell us 

what type food? Because, surely, there is a trend that meat may 

have more food-borne illnesses than fruit, for example. Maybe 

blended products have something. Maybe perishables will have 

more than nonperishable. Maybe there is an import issue. 

And the composition of the people who got ill, what age are they? 

Did the 5,000 who died, for example, did they have a pre-existing 

illness unrelated yet something that would weaken their immune 

system? 

All these are relevant questions, and yet the IG had no idea of 

the breakdown of the 300,000 number. 

Are you aware of the breakdown of that number? 

Secretary VILSACK. I am not as I sit here today, Representative. 

Mr. KINGSTON. And I understand, because of what you were just 

saying, you don’t have your key people right now in place. 

Secretary VILSACK. That is a fair observation, and it is also fair 

to say that there are many causes for food-borne illness which may 

not be necessarily related to how food is grown or is harvested or 

is processed. But there is still an issue here, and I think the American public is very concerned when they read about something as 

much of a staple as peanut butter is, that they can’t basically trust 

their peanut butter source. I think that is basically a concern for 

folks. 

I mean, I have actually watched people in grocery stores hesitate 

at the aisle before they reach for peanut butter; and I have heard 

representatives from the peanut industry talk about the effect it 

has had on the peanut industry. 

So I understand what you are saying. I think we should make 

informed decisions, and we should have as much data as we posVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:29 Jan 26, 2010 Jkt 053443 PO 00000 Frm 00176 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A443P2.XXX A443P2

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
177 

sibly can to be able to determine what direction, where the resources need to be handled. 

But I do think, first and foremost, you have to have the right 

philosophy. And is the philosophy mitigation where basically a 

problem occurs and you try to contain it? Or is the philosophy we 

are going to try to do whatever we can to make sure that it is prevented by making sure that it is produced right, it is processed 

right, and it is also handled right and that consumers are well educated on precisely how to handle food. 

So this is not an easy issue. It is complicated, and your desire 

for more data is an appropriate one. 

Mr. KINGSTON. I think it is very important that we have good information that if there is a particular type of food that may have 

recurring problems and where is the breakdown, that is where we 

should start in order to be the most effective, to get the most bang 

for the buck initially. 

And the other part of it is the people who got ill, how much of 

that was because of something they did in the kitchen that had absolutely nothing to do with the process? And then we also know 

from CDC witnesses in the past that plays a major part of this discussion. 

Secretary VILSACK. It does, and I think it emphasizes the need 

for government agencies like USDA and FDA to do an increasingly 

vigilant job about educating consumers—and the food industry on 

educating consumers on precisely what they can and cannot, what 

they should and should not do. 

PISTACHIOS

Mr. KINGSTON. Do you know, by the way, how many people have 

gotten sick from pistachios? 

Secretary VILSACK. Today? I mean, in terms of the announcement today? 

Mr. KINGSTON. Yes. 

Secretary VILSACK. I don’t believe any have. There is a concern 

that they may get sick, and so the recall has taken place. 

And, as the chairwoman suggested, it is sort of we are waiting 

to see. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Well, I read an article that said two people had 

actually gotten sick. But the reason why I say that, Madam Chairman—and I know you want to say something here, so—— 

Ms. DELAURO. I am just saying it is an FDA issue. And I know 

we have got USDA here, but I would just tell you, you have read 

something that I haven’t read. 

It said two people—it is a million pounds of pistachio products 

because of salmonella; and it says, so far, no illnesses have been 

tied to the contaminated pistachios, although authorities were investigating at least two consumer complaints. FDA warned consumers not to eat the pistachios until the scope of the contamination was clear. So hold on to the pistachios, but don’t eat them. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Well, one of the things that I think is important 

in terms of the way the FDA has investigated food illnesses is to 

assume all the product is guilty. And, as we know, what happens 

as a result of that, people don’t want to buy anything, and people 

deny themselves eating this product. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
178 

Now, I am sure Mr. Farr knows more about pistachios than I do, 

but Mr. Bishop and I were involved more in the peanut situation, 

and peanuts are good nutritional products that people need to be 

eating for their own health. But when all peanut butter is considered to be taboo, then they don’t eat it. 

And so there is—it is not just a commercial implication that, 

okay, the industry is losing millions of dollars because of FDA shotgunning everything rather than lasering in on where the real problem is, but it denies the consumer the use of that product. 

The summer before it was tomatoes, which, certainly, tomatoes 

are a great part of your diet for daily consumption; and yet no one 

could eat tomatoes for 6 weeks or something. 

And so one of the things I think this committee is frustrated 

about is just the broad blanket that is thrown across a commodity 

when something happens. 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, it is a difficult circumstance, because 

people are really busy, and they are trying to take care of their 

children. And they come home, and they turn on the news, and 

they hear a report about a particular company and a particular 

product, and they may make an assumption about all of the products. 

And, you know, that is a difficult assumption to overcome. With 

time, we do overcome it. With time, markets are restored. But 

there is obviously pain and difficulty during that period of time. 

Again, I think if we create a prevention philosophy and if we 

focus on really identifying, as you suggested, with data where the 

risks are, making sure that we spend the time and resources to 

minimize those risks, we might be in a better situation to more 

specifically pinpoint the exact problem, be able to explain that to 

the consumer and make sure that they understand that it is this 

company as opposed to all companies. 

Mr. KINGSTON. I know I am out of time, but just to conclude, for 

example, the tragic death of the NFL football players off the coast 

of Florida while fishing the other day, represent a coastal area, the 

factors are so important. You had a small-craft advisory. You had 

an anchoring that was a wrong way to anchor the boat. There were 

a lot of mistakes that were made. 

So analyzing a problem is always very, very important; and I feel 

like in the USDA and FDA we are not analyzing this thing as 

much as we are just rattling the issue and, you know, all the good 

and the bad gets mixed in at once. 

So, thank you. 

Ms. DELAURO. Mr. Farr. 

Mr. FARR. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

Governor and Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here. I am very 

excited about your taking on this big responsibility. 

FOOD RECALLS

I just wanted to comment on Mr. Kingston’s point that these 

markets don’t always recover. I represent the spinach growers in 

Salinas Valley, specialty crops; and that product has never recovered from the recall. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
179 

I think what, I think the confusion here that the Chair brought 

out is that, essentially, the warning goes out by FDA, but the impact of the recall is really on USDA. 

And I would hope, from your standpoint of being a Governor and 

doing emergency response, you have got to sit down with FDA and 

have them work on what I call crisis communication. You know, 

don’t alarm the patient. At the same time, try to get the news out. 

Because some of these recalls just have consequences that are economically devastating. You just don’t recover from it. And I think 

the FDA’s, you know, broad brush yells fire. And I would hope that 

you might work on that. 

CHILD NUTRITION PROGRAMS

But I want to take time today, because I have been very interested in going out to schools in my area—there are a lot of poor 

children there—and dealing with the school lunch program, school 

food services. And what I have learned—I mean, one of your departments is Food and Nutrition Service, which is, frankly, one of 

the biggest users of the USDA dollars. It is a $62 billion department. It was created back in 1962. It is now 40 years old. It has 

got a 62—interesting, yes, $62 billion—almost $1 billion a year. 

You have 15 separate nutrition assistance programs. Those are 

divided into five categories: food stamps; child nutrition; special 

supplemental, which is the WIC program; and the Commodity Assistance Program; and what they call nutrition administration, 

which is the Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion. 

One of the big programs is child nutrition. In that, here is where 

you have been talking about wasteful spending. I hope you will 

turn your agency upside down to look at how you can better administer this. You would be amazed. 

This could be the same kid in the same school who qualifies for 

the school breakfast program, then has to qualify separately for a 

school lunch program, and then may also qualify for the child and 

adult-care food program and may qualify, if he is there, in the summer food program—which we have now been able to at least get 

the summer breakfast and the summer food program combined. 

But—guess what—we have a lot of schools that don’t have summers anymore because they have year-round schools. So there is 

confusion there. And then a special milk program. 

All of these are within—and we have to qualify them by 

verifying, one, that the parent is low-income, or, in some cases, you 

have some school breakfasts—I think it is more universal feeding. 

But the bureaucracy at the school level is just unbelievable and 

the cost of having to buy the computers to verify that each day that 

student came and ate the food and the food was nutritious. 

Now what happens is, because you have also got in that the commodity program, which is where we are getting our commodities 

sloughed off on schools. Now, a lot of schools don’t have preparatory kitchens anymore. So they send—they don’t want bags of 

wheat and rice sent to them. So what they do is they say we will 

work with the processors. And guess what the processors do? They 

add salt, and they add sugar, and they add other things. 

So now you have got processed food, and some of the inner-city 

school districts get no fresh. They may get an apple and an orange, 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
180 

but you are not going to have a plate with fresh lettuce or any of 

those other kinds of things that are part of your nutrition advocacy. 

And I think it is terrific. 

But this program, if we just cleaned up the administration, for 

example, there is a pilot request of you to get a grant program to 

try out using the Medicare tapes in California to qualify the children. They have done this without—you know, done it on trial. 

They are finding they have more qualifications under that than 

they do trying to get the parent to verify. 

So I think the two things that you could do that would, one, save 

a lot of wasteful spending and allow you to spend more money on 

fresh fruits and vegetables and getting them into schools is just the 

administrative costs of combining those five programs, all the 

school programs. And one is consolidating them and administratively using technology to qualify the students. 

So the question is about will you do this? Nobody has taken it 

on. And at the school level it is a mess, and I would just like to 

see you committing to taking that on. We are going to reauthorize 

that bill this year, and it needs some leadership from the Department of Agriculture to take on the consolidation and simplification 

of the qualifications. 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, Representative, I think you make an 

excellent point. I think there is a need for greater efficiency within 

this program so that schools are spending less time on paperwork 

and more time on teaching our children and making sure that they 

have access to quality meals and making sure that they have appropriate physical activity to keep them active. 

I think that is important, and I think it is also important for us 

to address the concerns that Representative Kingston alluded to 

earlier, which is to make sure that, as we do these programs, that 

we are conscious of making sure that we do them properly and that 

there aren’t erroneous payments. It is a combination of both of 

those. 

Ms. DELAURO. But that process of erroneous payments, I mean, 

if you use these Medicare tapes and food stamp tapes, they are 

automatically qualified. 

Secretary VILSACK. I am agreeing with you. I am just simply saying that it is important for us to keep both of those concepts in 

mind, and I can assure you that we are working on programs similar to what you have outlined to propose and suggest in the reauthorization. 

Mr. FARR. And will we see these grants awarded soon, I mean, 

the applications for these pilot programs? 

Secretary VILSACK. We have been focusing on trying to get the 

under secretaries in place. We are trying to work expeditiously. We 

are trying to make sure that what we do is all coordinated in terms 

of the reauthorization so that we have a consistent plan. So we are 

working as hard as we possibly can, as quickly as we can, to get 

money in place. 

We are also trying to put money out in terms of equipment. You 

mentioned the issue of school equipment. We appreciate the money 

that was put in the Recovery and Reinvestment Act. We are trying 

to get those grants out as quickly as we can as well so that schools 

aren’t actually in a process to cook them and to process the food, 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
181 

requiring some processor to put sugar and salt in it, as you suggested. 

Mr. FARR. Thank you. 

Ms. DELAURO. Thank you, Mr. Farr. 

I just—to support something that Mr. Farr was talking about, it 

is interesting—last year, FNS testified payment accuracy rates for 

food stamps had improved steadily over 8 years and were at near 

record-high levels. 

I was going to mention this a little later on, which we will talk 

about a little later on. I don’t know how we can say that the same 

about farm payments, but we certainly are down pretty low in 

terms of the food stamp program. 

Mr. Latham. 

FARM PAYMENTS

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And I wanted to 

continue the discussion about food and food safety, but you brought 

up farm payments, so I will do that. 

I am sure you have heard, and I certainly have, a lot of concern 

in farm country about some of the proposals. I would like to know 

the rationale, I guess, for the $500,000 gross sales, doing away 

with direct payments, and the $250,000 payment limitation. I have 

heard not only from constituents out there, but also certainly here 

talking to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, that no one 

wants to open up the farm bill again to make those kind of 

changes. I think the Senate Budget Committee took a vote, and it 

was taken down. How do you respond to the proposals? 

And just as one other issue involved with the payment issue, 

there is a new requirement—I guess it is not required technically— 

to sign a statement that you will release the records from the IRS 

to USDA to be eligible for payment. You don’t have to do it, but 

then you don’t get payments unless you do it. 

Anyone around here, I think, has, over the years—maybe doesn’t 

have total confidence in the integrity of some of the systems as far 

as protecting that very important personal information, but I just 

want to know your response to those things. 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, first of all, let me talk a little bit about 

the budget and try to respond to your question of why we set it up 

the way we did. 

We recognized that the President had some very specific priorities that he wanted to see reflected in his USDA budget. Priority 

number one was an increased resource in child nutrition, to make 

sure that our youngsters had access to fruits and vegetables and 

more nutritious food. He also had as a priority expanding renewable energy opportunities as an economic development tool for 

rural America. 

Recognizing that those were significant increases in the budget, 

we looked for things that we could point to that would allow us to 

also keep in mind the need to be more fiscally responsible over the 

course of time to make sure that we returned to a time when we 

weren’t dealing with trillion-dollar deficits. If there is one distinction between where we are today and where we were when we 

were debating the farm bill, it is that, we are in an economic circumstance and situation where we are faced with very, very subVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:29 Jan 26, 2010 Jkt 053443 PO 00000 Frm 00181 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A443P2.XXX A443P2

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
182 

stantial deficits over time, and we have to control them in some 

way. 

There are many ways to do that, and I am sure that Congress 

is considering many ways, and they will obviously make their 

choices. We decided to focus on the top 3 to 4 percent of producers 

who are in that category of more than $500,000 in sales, representing roughly 90,000 producers of the 2.2 million farmers and 

ranchers. We kept in place all of the other safety net programs, the 

countercyclical program, the ACRE program, the SURE program. 

All those programs were obviously still available to those individuals, and we phased it over a 3-year period. So it involved a very 

small percentage of farmers, but those farmers were receiving 

about, as we calculated, roughly 30 percent of the direct payments. 

The other farmers would still be able to get their direct payments 

and still qualify. 

It is a choice. Obviously, as you all take a look at that notion of 

fiscal responsibility and maintaining some degree of responsibility, 

you are going to have to make choices. Well, that is a choice we 

made, and that is basically the philosophy behind it and the reason 

why we proposed it, as we did with others. 

As it relates to the IRS, it seems to me that we have a responsibility to taxpayers and to Congress to make sure that the programs 

that you all pass are administered as well as they can be administered. And we have to accept accountability and responsibility 

when we administer them in a way where people get payments 

that they are not entitled to receive. 

If the farm bill restrictions that are currently in place referencing direct payment limits, countercyclical payment limits, 

overall limits, if they were in place today, that number of 40–some 

million would actually be closer to $90 million in overpayments. So 

in an effort to try to make sure that we corrected that circumstance, we are simply asking farmers to give us the ability to 

check with the Internal Revenue Service. 

It is not a matter of having tax returns at the local FSA office; 

that is not the way it is going to happen. It is going to be a relatively small—very, very small—percentage of farmers who will be 

checked periodically to make sure that we are doing a better job 

of making sure that payments that are supposed to be received by 

folks are getting to the folks who are supposed to get them. It is 

a matter of accountability. 

Mr. LATHAM. I would reiterate that people are very, very concerned about privacy, and that USDA’s track record as far as information technology and being able to keep anything is mixed, to say 

the least. 

Secretary VILSACK. That is a fair observation. We will take that 

back, and we will try to make sure that we address those concerns. 

But at some point in time you have to make sure that the payments are getting to people who are entitled to them and not to 

people who aren’t. And for the most part, we are not talking about 

farmers getting these payments, we are talking about folks who 

really aren’t on the farm getting payments. 

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. DELAURO. I would just add to that, if I could, Mr. Latham, 

that the GAO report found that because USDA did not have the 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
183 

ability to verify income, the Department paid more than $49 million to ineligible wealthy farmers and landowners. 

Further, assuming that we might have a question in this area 

with regard to the IRS, I checked with the Ways and Means Committee, and it would appear that there are many programs, from 

food stamps on up, that receive information from the IRS. So there 

really is a whole lot of precedent in this area in a whole variety 

of programs that have to supply some of this information. This is 

not a new incarnation and a group of people who would be subject 

to something for the first time. 

Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much. 

CIVIL RIGHTS ACTIONS

Welcome, Mr. Secretary. And let me just take this opportunity to 

congratulate you on your hitting the ground running. And particularly, let me just first comment on the frank and forthright way 

that you have addressed the civil rights issue. I think that speaks 

highly of you, of the tenor of your character in dealing with a problem that has been systemic and has aggravated the image and the 

functioning of the Department for years and years and years. So 

I want to congratulate you on that. 

I also congratulate you on the selection of Dr. Joe Leonard as the 

proposed Assistant Secretary of Civil Rights. I think he has a 

strong background, and I think he will certainly be able to be quite 

helpful in that capacity. 

RURAL AMERICA INITIATIVES

I have got three areas of concern that I want to mention. The 

first has to do with rural America. Through your testimony it is 

very clear that through the stimulus bill, the farm bill, and your 

budget proposals, that this administration is going to place a great 

deal of emphasis on rural America. And we are very, very delightful that you are taking and the administration is taking that focus. 

I represent a congressional district that has 32 mostly rural 

counties, 29 of the 32, and, of course, more than half of the counties 

in my district are classified as persistent poverty counties. Representative Emerson has, I think, a very similar district, and I 

think she has taken a lot of initiatives in rural poverty. 

I want to just elevate the issue. And, of course, in the budget and 

the stimulus and the farm bill, you emphasize broadband and 

working with the Commerce Department; $20 billion in loans, loan 

guarantees, grants; homeownership for rural America, which is 

great; creating jobs, 165,000; and, of course, 280 families that are 

impacted by rental housing. You emphasize infrastructure with 

water treatment, waste disposal, rural research; an extension with 

the minority-serving institutions; and the microentrepreneur assistance programs, with grants to nonprofits for technical assistance, and loans of up to $50,000 for small businesses in rural 

areas. All of that is great. 

Do you think that it would be helpful, particularly given the economic crisis that we are in, to have the administration have some 

White House initiatives on rural America regionally across the 

country so that this can be lifted up and given a higher profile, and 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
184 

rural communities can see that there is, in fact, an outreach, and 

there will be a hand up for rural economic development in these 

communities? Because it cuts across every aspect of life, and it also 

will help to make these rural communities competitive in the global 

marketplace from where they are. And you can respond to that. 

PEANUT AND COTTON LOAN PROGRAMS

My other two questions are more technical. They have to do 

with—of course, you know, I represent a peanut district, I represent cotton, and, of course, your budget reflects some concerns for 

us, particularly with regard to peanuts. 

Let me just say quickly, you mentioned dairy, involving dairy in 

the nutrition programs. Peanuts are suffering tremendously, and so 

I would hope that you would consider utilization of peanuts in the 

nutrition programs also to help in the recovery as a result of the 

unfortunate situation that has happened with our industry. 

But with regard to peanuts and cotton, the market and loan program has presented a serious problem. In the 2008 farm bill, the 

market and loan program was continued for peanuts as well as for 

cotton, but the method by which the loan repayment rate has been 

devised is sort of a mystery. It has been set too high to allow peanuts to be competitive in regard to the world market. And with regard to cotton, the market and loan program has been administered in a way in the past that ensured that cotton would be competitive, but now in your budget you indicate that you are going 

to terminate the storage credits that are included with the market 

and loan for cotton. And, of course, that is going to be very disruptive to marketing and income for farmers. 

Can you explain the impact? Do you understand the impact that 

both of these will have on farm-producing income and on marketing? 

Secretary VILSACK. Representative, in terms of the White House 

initiative, let me just briefly respond to that. I think that there is 

no question that we will continue to do a job of making sure that 

folks in rural America understand and appreciate the wide variety 

of programs that are available. I just this week have talked to a 

group of community economic development folks about the various 

programs that are available. Sometimes people don’t know the 

breadth of what USDA does, and we need to do a better job of educating people about precisely how we can address housing needs, 

multiple-family housing, economic development. We are taking a 

look at how we administer our business and industry loan programs to make sure that we focus on quality jobs and make sure 

that they are jobs that actually improve the overall well-being of 

the communities. The use of the Community Facilities grant money 

is another opportunity for us to send a very strong, positive message. 

So I think you will continue to see leadership from the White 

House addressing the needs of rural Americans specifically, highlighting some of the things that are being done in the Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act specifically as it relates to that. 

With reference to peanuts, we are monitoring the circumstances 

and situation with peanuts, and we are watching it very closely. 

We haven’t seen quite the market disruption that we saw with 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
185 

dairy. Dairy was rather dramatic and rather severe and very significant. But we are monitoring that circumstance, and, as conditions merit, we will certainly take action that is appropriate. 

With reference to the cotton storage issue, peanuts and cotton 

are the only two products that actually get this treatment; peanuts, 

of course, through the Commodity Credit Corporation. Cotton 

would then be the only one through the traditional budget process. 

Our view is that, to a certain extent, it could potentially distort the 

market in terms of providing some incentive for storage when perhaps it would be more appropriate not to store it. 

Again, this is about choices and priorities. The President was 

very clear about what his priorities were, and we obviously have 

a mind towards long-term budget impacts. 

Mr. BISHOP. May I make just one statement, Madam Chair? 

Ms. DELAURO. Yes. 

Mr. BISHOP. We worked so hard in the farm bill to try to get that 

done, and now it seems like we are undoing all of our work that 

was put in the farm bill. And, of course, that was a very sensitive 

issue in the farm bill, and, of course, it is very sensitive now for 

both peanuts and cotton. 

Ms. DELAURO. We will have another round. 

Mrs. Emerson. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Welcome, Mr. Secretary. Thanks so much for 

being here. 

I have so many questions, I really don’t know where to begin, so 

I will just go through your testimony here and start from there. 

RURAL BROADBAND

I am really interested how RUS is going to work with the NTIA 

to deploy all of the stimulus money for purposes of rural 

broadband. For example, I have got small companies who have applied to RUS, who, of course, say that they can’t really make any 

decisions unless you are the one who makes the decision because 

there is not a political appointee yet at RUS. And so we have got 

lots of applications waiting there already. And then I talked to the 

NTIA guys, and I wasn’t really comfortable with the coordination 

that was going to occur between the two agencies. Perhaps you can 

enlighten us a little bit, please. 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, we have made a recommendation for 

our RUS Administrator, Mr. Adelstein, who has actually been serving on the FCC and has some telecommunications background. So 

we hope that that process moves forward and we are in a position 

to get him working as quickly as possible. 

I would say that, first and foremost, our focus is going to be on 

the unserved areas. We appreciate the fact that monies have been 

provided to RUS in the past for this, and that perhaps they have 

gone in places where it was about increasing competition and lowering cost as opposed to expanding access. We are looking at creative ways to make the case in these unserved areas that, with 

these resources, with grants and loans, we can actually expand access, and that is going to be the measure by which we determine 

the success or lack of success of this program. 

But we have had a series of public hearings. We are getting 

input from folks in terms of how they believe it ought to be strucVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:29 Jan 26, 2010 Jkt 053443 PO 00000 Frm 00185 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A443P2.XXX A443P2

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
186 

tured, but our focus primarily is going to be on the unserved areas, 

as defined as population centers of 20,000 or less, and metropolitan 

areas of 50,000 or less, that are currently unserved by this technology. 

This is a very, very important technology. As Governor of Iowa, 

we made a very aggressive effort to try to make sure our rural 

communities were linked to this for a multitude of reasons. One, 

if you are a small business person, it opens up markets beyond 

your local markets. Two, if you are a farmer or a rancher, it allows 

you to get up-to-date information to better inform decisions that 

you have to make about what you are going to plant, when you are 

going to plant it, and so forth, and when you are going to sell your 

crop or your livestock. Those are very important considerations if 

you don’t have access to that information. 

And third, we want to make USDA services as convenient as possible. That is difficult to do for farmers and ranchers who don’t 

have the technology and the farm service agencies who don’t have 

the technology to create better cooperation. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Well, hopefully all the money that you have gotten between the omnibus and the stimulus will allow your computer systems to finally start working, because in my district—and 

as Sanford Bishop so eloquently said, a majority of my district is 

persistent poverty. And we don’t have broadband in an awful lot 

of places, but also, where we do have it, even my farmers and 

ranchers who have to deal with FSA or NRCS, there are certain 

times in the afternoon when they either can or cannot access the 

system. I mean, this is a subject that we have been talking about— 

it was not one of my questions, but I can’t resist at least raising 

it. 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, we will certainly begin the process with 

the resources that this committee fought for and got for us in the 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act. I don’t want this committee to believe that that is all that we need in order to actually modernize 

the system. It will take more time and more resources, but it is 

something we need to focus on. 

One other thing in terms of your question, we are meeting on a 

regular basis with NTIA, and we are also intending to have sort 

of a joint application and a coordinated process. So I think you will 

see coordination with reference to these issues. 

Mrs. EMERSON. That is good. That is going to be very helpful, I 

think. 

DEVELOPING ENERGY MARKETS

Let me ask you another question. I was reading your testimony 

last night, and you talk about developing markets that will reward 

producers for sequestering carbon and limiting greenhouse gas 

emissions. And they will then facilitate the participation of farmers, ranchers and forest landowners in the emerging environmental 

services markets. 

Here is something that is very worrisome to me with regard to 

the whole cap-and-trade, greenhouse gas, climate change debate. 

And it is not that I am not in favor of doing everything that we 

can to sequester carbon and the like, but during the negotiations 

on the Kyoto Protocol, both in Kyoto and in Buenos Aires, ArgenVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:29 Jan 26, 2010 Jkt 053443 PO 00000 Frm 00186 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A443P2.XXX A443P2

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
187 

tina, when the United States tried to get a one-for-one credit, if you 

will, for farmland, as well as for forestry, we were totally rebuffed 

at every step of the way. And this is during the Clinton administration. I was at those negotiations. 

And so, anyway, it worries me that we try to create these markets and make promises, but yet, in the international arena, if you 

will, we aren’t going to be able to get, as a carbon sync or a credit 

for our farmland and/or forests, the appropriate cost factor, and so 

it is going to end up penalizing our farmers. 

I am out of time, so maybe we ought to come back to that, Rosa, 

do you think? 

Ms. DELAURO. Why don’t you respond briefly. 

Secretary VILSACK. I will try to briefly respond to it. I think that 

we—‘‘we’’ meaning the collective ‘‘we,’’ globally—continue to learn 

more and more about how these markets will be set up and structured. I see this as a great transition taking place in this country 

from an economy that was focused on waste and pollution to an 

economy that is focused on clean energy and clean jobs. I think agriculture needs to be part of that, and I think it needs to be an integral part of it. 

We are a relatively small part of the greenhouse gases that are 

being placed into the atmosphere, but I think we can be a huge 

part of the solution. And as we structure and as we create these 

new systems in this transition, I want to make sure agriculture is 

at the table, and I want to make sure that they understand that— 

I believe there will be benefits, there will be offsets, there will be 

ways in which we can reward farmers for doing the right thing 

with their land for themselves and for all of us. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Okay. We will come back to this later. Thanks. 

Ms. DELAURO. Thank you. 

I just want to support Mrs. Emerson in the notion that we 

should not let NTIA slow down the RUS in terms of those applications, Mr. Secretary. We need to move quickly in trying to deal 

with those underserved areas. 

Secretary VILSACK. Our hope is that we have three rounds of 

awards starting this spring. 

Ms. DELAURO. You have got a program; they don’t. 

Mr. Jackson. 

Mr. JACKSON. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I just want to 

make an observation before I ask Secretary Vilsack a couple of 

questions. 

I have noticed that most of the questions from today’s panelists 

and Members have come after the red light has come on. I am assuming that there is great leniency with the gavel—— 

Ms. DELAURO. There is always leniency in this committee because it is about a discussion; but nevertheless, let us try to get 

the questions in before the red light goes on. 

Mr. JACKSON. I appreciate that, Madam Chairman. 

SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM

Mr. Secretary, I represent a congressional district, parts of which 

were formerly represented by State senator Barack Obama, and 

then United States Senator Barack Obama, and obviously President Barack Obama. I want to, first and foremost, be the first 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
188 

member of this committee to invite you to come to my congressional district to have lunch with me, along with Mr. Steele, at a 

couple of high schools very familiar to the President and elementary schools familiar to the President, to have lunch and experience 

what those kids are eating, and then, at the appropriate time, 

make a judgment, hopefully, in your office to determine whether or 

not you think that the meals that they are being fed in the school 

lunch programs are sufficient to provide them the kind of nourishment necessary to survive during the regular academic day. 

So I would appreciate it if you would, one, be willing to accept 

lunch with me in my congressional district. I believe en route to 

Iowa you have got to stop through Chicago—I know it can be very 

challenging. Would you be willing to accept it? 

Secretary VILSACK. Congressman, I would be happy to spend 

time with you at the schools that you have mentioned. I would just 

parenthetically say that my wife taught school for 30 years, and as 

a Governor I went to many, many, many schools and had school 

lunch, so I am a little familiar with what you are talking about. 

Mr. JACKSON. I am sure you are, Mr. Secretary. But as Secretary, and given the President’s experienced as a community organizer and what he has written about ad nauseam, quite frankly, 

the number of times that he has experienced many of the poverty 

central districts that many of the members of this committee represent, the President has suggested that it was these schools, these 

community events that helped draw him to public service in the 

first place. 

You mentioned in our opening remarks that, for you, the President’s budget meets the test of addressing many of these fundamental priorities. And for me, as someone who still represents the 

people that State senator Barack Obama represented and then U.S. 

Senator Barack Obama, the test is met when their lunch programs 

change, when students eat something different than what they are 

eating. 

I appreciate the efforts that you have advanced in the Department with respect to civil rights, and I applaud you in that area, 

but I am also going to make the case for the next couple of years 

that we extend civil rights to students and the school lunch program. And towards that end—and I am not being cavalier with 

this—I think it important that maybe Agriculture Departmentwide, that, given that there is a cafeteria in the Department of Agriculture, that maybe the special on any given day at the Department of Agriculture for lunch, since we believe in leadership by example, ought to be some school lunch that is being served somewhere in the United States, paid for by the Department of Agriculture. 

Let us go one step further, not just a special, with the options 

being you can try and eat what they are eating in School District 

147 in Harvey, Illinois; bypass the special and then eat spaghetti, 

meatballs or salad bar, or whatever else is being offered at the Department of Agriculture. Maybe the special should be what they 

are eating in School District 147 in Harvey, Illinois, and the other 

options be what is being offered in other school districts around the 

country so that the Department itself is sensitive to the idea that 

when the standard of what is being fed to Department members 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
189 

within our own government changes, then the same standard is 

being changed in the school districts around the country who are 

experiencing the exact same quality of food. 

Now, for me, the budget test, which Mr. Steele is obviously here 

to advance before this committee, is whether or not, after we spend 

the stimulus money and after we spend and advance the agricultural appropriations requested by Mr. Steele, whether or not in the 

stomach of some child in some urban area or some rural area there 

is a qualitative and a quantitative difference in the quality of nutrition that they are experiencing. If there isn’t one, then we are 

wasting money. There is no change. 

It appears to me that the only way to truly be able to judge that 

is if the Secretary of Agriculture—obviously no longer Governor, 

but Secretary of Agriculture—is willing to make the statement that 

policy at Agriculture Department-Wide, we are going to lead by example; that whatever it is that students across this country are experiencing in their student lunch programs or in their breakfast 

programs, we, too, will experience it at the Department of Agriculture. 

Is the Secretary and/or members of his staff willing to make that 

adjustment and extend that civil right to students across the country? 

SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Secretary VILSACK. Well, Representative Jackson, thank you very 

much for, obviously, the deep passion that you have for the children of your district and the children of all school districts. 

Let me say that I think we are making some steps along the 

lines that you have outlined. I point to the WIC program and the 

fact that we did an evaluation of that program, looking at the dietary guidelines, and as a result of that evaluation, the packages 

that will go out to women and children under the WIC program 

this fall will be different and will be more nutritious, will have 

more fruits and vegetables. 

We have made an effort to try to expand opportunity for people 

with SNAP to be able to access farmers markets through the electronic benefit transfer card, the EBT being essentially available at 

farmers markets, and we are going to continue to promote access. 

We have a similar evaluation taking place with reference to 

school lunches. The Institute of Medicine is currently doing an 

evaluation. It has been a 2-year study of the quality and nutritional value of those meals. We expect that they will be making 

recommendations at the end of this year. 

One of the reasons why we asked for additional resources in the 

budget was to make sure that we began the process of building on 

what was done in the farm bill, creating more opportunities for 

fruits and vegetables to be in those meals. 

We are, I would say, in a slightly different way leading by example. It was USDA, with the People’s Garden, which was one of the 

first things we did, jackhammering up asphalt and planting an organic garden outside the very office of USDA in honor of President 

Lincoln’s 200th birthday. We are going to have People’s Gardens all 

across the United States and hopefully all across the world at 

USDA locations. This garden in particular is organic. It is going to 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
190 

be tended by people with disabilities and by USDA workers on a 

volunteer basis. The produce from that garden is going to be given 

to local food banks. So we are leading by example. 

Mr. JACKSON. I just want to be clear, I don’t think we need another study, Mr. Secretary, at IOM. I just want to be clear. I am 

not being combative at all. I just want to be clear that I don’t think 

we need another study. Whatever it is that we are eating in the 

cafeteria at the Department of Agriculture ought to be the exact 

same thing that we are serving to students across our country in 

school districts. That is all. 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, the study is designed to make sure that 

the meals are consistent with the dietary guidelines. While we may 

not need another study, the reality is that they have not been consistent with those dietary guidelines, and they need to be. We have 

36 percent of our children today who are faced with the possibility 

of being overweight or being obese, and that is a health care issue 

and a health care crisis that needs to be addressed. And on the 

other side, we have children who don’t get enough food, who are 

hungry. Those need to be addressed. 

And the way we can help address both of those problems is by 

making sure that the meals that we serve, whether it is breakfast, 

whether it is lunch or snacks, are consistent with those dietary 

guidelines so that youngsters get a balanced, nutritious meal. That 

is what our goal is. And that is what we are aiming to do with the 

budget we proposed. That is what the President has instructed me 

to do, and I take that very, very seriously. 

Mr. JACKSON. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Ms. DELAURO. Thank you, Mr. Jackson. 

I will just make a point, and then I want to make an announcement here. 

DIETARY GUIDELINES

On the dietary guidelines, Mr. Secretary, Acting Under Secretary 

O’Connor was here last week. He did say that once the IOM made 

recommendations, it could take an additional 3 years. 

One of the questions I was going to ask—and Mr. Jackson is absolutely right—and others here were at this nutrition hearing 

where we spent a fair amount of time—this is intolerable. We will 

not take another 3 years for a rulemaking process for the implementation of revised nutrition standards and meal requirements 

for school lunch and for school breakfast, because the issue is correct, we cannot wait that long. 

One of my questions to you is going to be how do we cut through 

this and get to a rule as quickly as we can on these guidelines, in 

addition to which is coming out in October, you have got the WIC 

reauthorization coming up in September. We need to have some information in order to move forward on these things here, and we 

have got to move fast. 

Secretary VILSACK. The answer to your question, how do you cut 

through it, is by the Secretary basically saying, ‘‘Cut through it.’’ 

Ms. DELAURO. Thank you. And this is what we anticipate from 

you, Mr. Secretary. 

I am going to say this, and I have to, you know: Physician, heal 

thyself. We have to hold to the 5-minute rule. We really do. I am 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
191 

going to be there, I promise, but the Secretary’s time is limited, 

and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle need to get in their 

questions. And I have three additional Members on our side of the 

aisle for the opening round. 

Mr. Davis, why don’t you move forward. Then Mr. Hinchey, Ms. 

Kaptur. And we are going to hold strict to the 5-minute rule here. 

Mr. DAVIS. Madam Chair, thanks very much. 

SMALL FARM PRODUCERS

I want to identify first the district I represent so you will understand from which the questions come. 

We have 435 congressional districts in this country. That is a 

history lesson you probably don’t need. But my district has the 

fourth largest rural residential congressional of those 435, has the 

third highest number of low blue-collar wage earners. Less than 60 

percent of the people live in a household where they earn less than 

$40,000 a year; 109,000 households earn less than $25,000 a year. 

I visited a school recently where the nutrition director said on 

Monday mornings there are times when children get off the bus 

and don’t say hello to anyone, and they run directly to the kitchen 

where they get their first meal that they have had since they left 

on Friday. 

We do have problems in the district I represent and across this 

Nation that we all need to address collectively. I am excited as I 

read about rural America and how some of the forefathers, some 

of those who worked through the 1920s, I think, with perhaps some 

mistakes, but through the 1930s to build an infrastructure in this 

Nation that rural America would continue to be able to participate 

and keep farmers on the farm or at least agricultural land in production to where the cheapest food supply and the safest in the 

world came from America. 

And I look at the infrastructure, starting with some of the conservation, the Soil Conservation Service, the extension services, the 

old Farmers Home Administration, ASCS, now called Farmer Service Agency, the combining of many of those, the Rural Credit, the 

technical assistance, the encouragement, the farmer-to-market 

roads. And then we got telephone co-ops that connected us with the 

world. And then we actually got power lines first. I can remember 

when they came through the little valley I lived in. 

And so, we have an infrastructure there that perhaps no other 

country in the world has. Most of those are nonprofits; most of 

those are owned by those that are served by the service they provide. And we had an opportunity also, through tax laws, to establish our cooperative system where feed, seed and fertilizer became 

available at a lower price, and we had a place to market our products. 

So we have that unbelievable infrastructure, the farmer-to-market roads, that connects us to the interstate systems that were 

built in the 1950s. And as a result, we have become the most productive, per person, of any other country on the face of this planet. 

Seven billion people today live in this world. More people live today 

than have ever lived. If you combine the totals of everyone, except 

today’s population, we have more people living than have ever lived 

on the face of this Earth. Our farmers need to be sure that we can 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
192 

continue to supply the food not just for America but for the rest 

of the world as well. And through that infrastructure, we can do 

that. 

I have observed, as I have read the history of Henry Wallace— 

not the first, the son, Henry Wallace—as he brought to this Nation 

an agriculture policy that talked about conservation, allotments, 

and acreage. In essence, we were only going to grow basically what 

we needed, and we would keep those farmers in operation. We 

didn’t give the huge subsidies. Now, we have drifted away from 

conservation, and we have drifted away from marginal production 

to where, today, overproduction gets us in trouble with the WTO 

and others as well, when we start subsidizing. 

So I am getting into a philosophy that I don’t have time to discuss with you, but I do believe that we have got to go back and 

take a serious look at our ag policy that dramatically changed in 

the 1990s and continued through 2002, and then again in 2007 as 

we wrote the farm bill. 

502 DIRECT LOANS

There are two areas where I think we may not be funding as 

adequately as we should. The old Farmers Home Administration 

had what they called 502 direct loans. I am all for modular housing, but in the district I represent, the only option that many lowincome individuals who live in those households where all the folks 

working earn less than $25,000 a year, 109,000 households, don’t 

have a source of credit. Are you willing to work on increasing additional funding for individual housing and establishing greater credit for some low-income individuals who have no source to go to 

today? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, there are so many things that I would 

like to be able to say in response to the preface to that question. 

But in terms of the nature of farming today and what is happening 

particularly for small producers, which I think creates an opportunity to do what you would like to see happen—let me say that 

we were pleased with the Recovery and Reinvestment Act because 

it gave us the opportunity, with additional resources, to address a 

rather significant backlog that existed in those 502 loans. In fact, 

we were able and will be able with the recovery resources to basically reduce that backlog by 10,000. 

Mr. DAVIS. And I hate to interrupt you, but 502 had an interest 

credit which reduced interest down to 1 percent. Many folks, as 

their income increased, eventually started paying the full interest 

rate. 

RURAL WATER AND WASTEWATER SYSTEMS

And the second question, I am extremely interested as well in 

looking at the dollars that are made available for our water and 

wastewater systems in rural America, especially rural Fourth Congressional District. I want to work with you some on each of those 

two issues. 

My time is in yellow, so I am going to adhere to the 24 seconds 

I have left to say thank you for coming and for being here to answer questions. I will write you the questions that I have and ask 

you to give an answer. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
193 

Secretary VILSACK. Five hundred and forty million dollars has already been used to fund over 400 projects in 43 States on wastewater, and we expect more to come in the next several months. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, sir. 

Ms. DELAURO. Mr. Kingston. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mr. Steele, I want to put a little focus on you for a second. 

ELIMINATION OF CONGRESSIONAL EARMARKS

In the statement of the Secretary, it says that the budget reflects 

the elimination of earmarks. And I was wondering how much 

money that saved. 

Mr. STEELE. I think it is around $600 million, $600 to $700 million of earmarks, mainly in CSREES. There are some in NRCS, a 

few in a few other agencies, but the bulk of it is in the research 

area. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Were those congressional earmarks or Administration earmarks also? 

Mr. STEELE. No, those are congressional earmarks. 

Mr. KINGSTON. So the third branch of government, the equal 

branch, eliminated congressional earmarks, legislative, but not executive earmarks. I just want to make sure of that. 

Mr. STEELE. It is a choice that the Secretary—— 

Mr. KINGSTON. It is a choice of the Secretary? I wanted to find 

out. It sounds like the legislative branch has the only earmark 

issue. 

Mr. STEELE. It is a traditional action on the part of the Administration normally to eliminate earmarks. It is not a new policy. 

USER FEE PROPOSALS

Mr. KINGSTON. There is another traditional action, which is to increase veterinarian fees and put food-processing fees knowing that 

the legislative branch isn’t going to go along with that, but in order 

to make the budget look better from the executive level. Was that 

practice followed also? 

Mr. STEELE. Yes. There are a few user-fee proposals in the budget. As we have in the past years, we have a small user fee for the 

Food Safety Inspection Service; a reinspection fee of $4 million is 

put in. 

Mr. KINGSTON. How much was that? 

Mr. STEELE. It is $4 million. It is a fairly small fee, but—— 

Mr. KINGSTON. No. How much is the total of the user fee? 

Mr. STEELE. Total user fee is—well, it varies, obviously. Some 

APHIS user fees would be $20 million in 2010. Roughly these 

would be for—— 

Mr. KINGSTON. I will tell you, if you could submit those fees for 

the record. 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
194 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 307 here 53443A.115
195 

Mr. KINGSTON. Are you optimistic that Congress is going to go 

along with those? Never mind. 

ELIMINATION OF LOWER PRIORITY PROGRAMS

In terms of the funding for the elimination of programs that are 

not a high priority, do you have a list of those? 

Mr. STEELE. We do. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Do you know of any them offhand? 

Mr. STEELE. One is the RC&D program, which is eliminated for funding around $50 million in the budget. There have been some 

other reductions in other programs, but those will be more identified when we submit our budget in May. When the full budget is 

submitted to Congress, then those programs will be identified more 

specifically. But the one identified so far is the RC&D program. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Well, I would certainly be interested in working 

with you on that. So if you could send me a copy, your answer, and 

then submit some for the record as well. But I would like to look 

at those to see which ones we can work with you on. 

[The information follows:] 

PROGRAMS PROPOSED FOR TERMINATION IN THE 2010 BUDGET

Information for the 2010 budget is being finalized for a detailed budget release 

later this spring. A list will be provided to Committee staff at that time. 

FNS ERRONEOUS PAYMENTS STUDY

Mr. KINGSTON. Are you familiar with the FNS study on the school lunch program that revealed that $860 million of the funds 

spent in 2005 and 2006 were improperly paid? 

Mr. STEELE. I am familiar with the study, yes. 

Mr. KINGSTON. That was an FNS study. 

Mr. STEELE. I am not sure exactly who the author of the study 

was, whether they had it contracted, or whether they did it themselves. 

Mr. KINGSTON. But it was a legitimate study, not by an outside 

group. 

Mr. STEELE. I would have to check and double check and provide 

the answer for the record. 

[The information follows:] 

The following study on the amounts and rates of erroneous payments in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and the School Breakfast Program (SBP) was 

conducted by Mathematical Policy Research, Inc. for the Food and Nutrition Service. 

The study can be found at http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/menu/Published/CNP/ 

FILES/apecvol1.pdf. 

Mr. KINGSTON. To your knowledge, what has been done to recoup 

the $860 million that was overpaid? 

Mr. STEELE. Well, I think it is part of the error rate problem in 

terms of providing food—are you talking about school lunch or food 

stamps? 

Mr. KINGSTON. School lunch. And if I could, let me ask the Secretary, because you are just getting settled in here, but this was 

an FNS study—an audit, actually—that said that the school lunch 

program overpaid $860 million. We had mentioned the study before, which Mr. Steele just alluded to, that food stamp overpayment 

was $1.29 billion. And then I mentioned before, as did the Chair, 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
196 

about the $49 million overpaid on farm programs because of ineligibility. So those are three sources of huge money, if we can work 

with you on it. 

Will you be formulating a plan to go after that money in all three 

pots? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, first of all, as I outlined with Congressman Latham, I think we are addressing the issue of the overpayments of folks who are not entitled to direct payments. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Except for, he said, the Senate has already eliminated that for this budget. 

Secretary VILSACK. No. I think earlier we had talked about the 

fact that farmers are basically allowing us to check IRS records to 

make sure that they are receiving payments that they are entitled 

to. And if they are not entitled to them, then obviously we will stop 

making those payments. 

Mr. KINGSTON. We want to work with you on that. 

Secretary VILSACK. So that is the first issue. 

The second issue is we have been working, I think, within the 

Department to aggressively address the error rate on the SNAP 

program. And I think if you look at the trend line, the error rate, 

the percentage is going down. There is still work to be done, and 

we are committed to making that effort. 

We have a partner in all of this, which are States, and we are 

working with States to try to reduce the error rate. I know in my 

State of Iowa, we were one of the worst culprits relative to error 

rates, and we really aggressively went after that and reduced it. 

And the third thing, in terms of the school lunch program, there 

are a multitude of reasons for this. One is that there could be a 

cashier error, there could be inaccurate information provided by 

parents, or there could be an error in the administration of the program. We are going to be focusing on technology and on training 

to try to aggressively reduce those errors. And we will have a proposal in the budget that attempts to redirect those resources. 

Ms. DELAURO. Mr. Hinchey. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

Mr. Secretary, thank you very much for the job you are doing 

and the experience that you bring into it. 

FOOD SAFETY AND SECURITY

I very much appreciate everything that you said in the context 

of your statement on the issue of food safety and the way in which 

you responded to the questions on that issue, because it is obviously something that is very important and something that we all 

care about, because it affects, obviously, the people that we represent. Food and agriculture, food and fiber are the two most important things for all of us in our lives, and so the job that you are 

doing is critically important for the safety and security of our country. 

So, with regard to food safety, I very much appreciate the attention that you are obviously giving to it. I know you don’t oversee 

the Food and Drug Administration directly, but I know that you do 

have some interaction with them. That is an aspect of the government which hasn’t really functioned properly for some years. And 

I am sure that you will do everything that you can to upgrade the 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
197 

work that they do and to improve the assurity of the Food and 

Drug Administration as they work to get things done in a proper 

way so that people are getting good quality, safe food. 

AGRICULTURE CONCENTRATION

I wanted to ask you a question about the way in which the agricultural system in our country is changing. Over the course of the 

last few decades, we have seen more and more concentration of agriculture in the hands of fewer and fewer companies. You have 

now, as you said, I think, in your statement, something like 70 percent of the food that is produced by large companies, mostly corporate agricultural companies, and they are responsible for most of 

the trade surplus that we have with regard to agriculture, which 

you pointed out as something that is important. But in a number 

of places around this country, we have a lot of small farmers. 

The agricultural system in New York State, as you probably 

know, is still very significant; a lot of agricultural production comes 

out of the State of New York. And most of that agricultural production is small family farms. So I am interested in what you think 

we should be doing in the context of this committee, in the context 

of the Congress, and what your intention is going to be on the 

issues of small farms, family farms; and maybe specifically in the 

context of the 2010 budget, what might be done to support them, 

and what you might think the general economic circumstances that 

we are confronting now may be having negative effects on those 

small family farms, and what we need to do to ensure their continuation. 

Secretary VILSACK. In a very simplistic way, we have three kinds 

of farms and ranches in this country. We have very, very small operations, which are primarily specialty crop operations with sales 

of a couple thousand dollars or so that are usually funneling 

produce to farmers markets and for locally supported, communitysupported agriculture. We had 108,000 more of those operations in 

the last 5 years than we did 5 years ago. So that is sort of a positive trend. We need to focus on encouraging markets for those producers and allowing them to migrate into midsized operations so 

that we can repopulate the midsized farms. 

We saw 80,000 fewer midsized farms in the last 5 years. Some 

of them migrated to larger operations, but the reality is we have 

a net loss there. I honestly think that in many, many parts of the 

country, opportunities for conversion of farm products into energy 

create a new opportunity for farmers not only to profit from the 

production of their crop, but also potentially the processing of their 

crop. And so you will see continued effort in this budget to promote 

more renewable fuel, more renewable energy opportunities in rural 

America. 

Then there are the large farms that you have alluded to. They, 

indeed, do produce a substantial percentage of what we consume 

and what we export. There, I think, we have to continue to look 

at research and development in terms of biotechnology to make 

sure that they continue to be productive. 

Overarching that, two issues: One, the issue of clean jobs, creating new opportunities with climate change for new income 

sources for farmers of all size; and then, two, understanding the 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
198 

importance of strong, vibrant rural communities that create offfarm income. 

As I indicated in my statement, 900,000 of the 2.2 million farmers and ranchers in this country are required to work 200 days off 

the farm. Now, that is the operator, it is not the spouse. It is the 

operator. So we have to continue to modernize infrastructure in 

rural communities. We have to continue to expand broadband so 

that markets are opened up. We have to focus on quality-of-life 

issues, whether it is community facilities or housing, as alluded to 

earlier, all creating new opportunities. 

And I honestly believe that as we focus on clean jobs, as we focus 

on severing our dependence on foreign oil, that the real opportunity 

in that matrix is in rural America. And USDA is very aggressive 

in its effort to promote opportunities in all three categories of farm 

sizes. I think it is important. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Thank you. 

Ms. DELAURO. Mr. Latham. 

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

FORMULA FUNDING

Mr. Secretary, the subject was raised a few minutes ago in the 

context of earmarks, but one thing that has always been a major 

frustration, I think, for us in this committee—we are kind of at a 

disadvantage because we have not seen details of the budget at 

this point—but there have been proposals in the past to cut formula funding for agricultural research, making competitive grants 

out of it. Obviously it has a huge impact in places like Iowa State 

University and all the land-grant universities. 

The Chairman and myself are probably on the same page on this, 

but can you tell us in the budget proposal what you are doing as 

far as funding for the land-grant universities and the formula funding that has the continuity of research? 

Secretary VILSACK. Representative, I could be corrected on this, 

but I don’t believe that there is any reduction in those resources. 

I will tell you that we will be making an effort to make sure that 

the research is appropriately focused, and to make sure that we do 

a good job of making sure that we are not overlapping with other 

research that is taking place; that we maximize those dollars and 

better coordinate those research opportunities. 

There are some key areas; obviously biofuels, renewable energy, 

that is a key area. The notion of food safety is a key area. The notion of how we make meals attractive to youngsters, a key area. 

There are obviously priority areas where we are going to focus, but 

I don’t believe that there is a reduction. 

Mr. LATHAM. Is there detail, Mr. Steele? 

Mr. STEELE. Well, the detail will be provided when we submit 

our full budget, but we are not anticipating any cuts in the formula. 

Mr. LATHAM. You are not changing the formulas at all? 

Mr. STEELE. Not that I know of at this point. 

Mr. LATHAM. Sounds good. We don’t have that battle maybe this 

year for once. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
199 

RURAL HOUSING APPLICATIONS BACKLOG

It was brought up earlier, in the stimulus package there is $1 

billion for single-family housing and $10.5 billion for single-family 

home guaranteed funds. The concern I have is that the staffing to 

deal with this has, in recent years, dropped about 45 percent. I 

have heard from a lot of USDA employees out in the field that this 

huge influx of dollars going in, there simply is not staff there to 

be able to handle it. Do you have any comments about that? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, we are fortunate, I think, in one respect, that USDA, that the Recovery and Reinvestment resources 

are going through traditional programs and existing programs, unlike many of the other departments of government where they have 

to formulate new programs. And in this particular area, what we 

are dealing with is a significant backlog that was not being addressed because of inadequate funding. So, many of these applications have already been processed, they are already out there, we 

already know who they are. We know what homes are being constructed. We know that 5,000 jobs are likely to be developed as a 

result of these resources, and over 10,000 homeownership opportunities are going to be finalized. So we are addressing a backlog, 

which I think makes it a little bit easier than it would be if we 

were basically having to process new loan applications. 

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Steele. 

Mr. STEELE. Also, in the Rural Development area, Congress did 

provide additional money for administrative costs for rural development. I think it is $120 million or thereabouts. And I have been 

told by the RD agencies that they are going to be utilizing that 

money not only for some IT fixes, but also for hiring some contract 

and part-time people on a temporary basis to help implement this 

backlog, which is mainly a backlog, in most cases, which we should 

be able to get done, I think, without a major problem. 

Secretary VILSACK. And I would also say that those Rural Development folks also have the responsibility of focusing on the Business and Industry Loan Program. And I think that is where the 

concerns that you are raising are perhaps even more on point, because we have a substantial amount of opportunity here far beyond 

what we normally have. And that may be what people are concerned about, making sure that those programs are utilized as they 

should be and utilized as quickly as we need them to be utilized. 

Mr. LATHAM. Okay. To go off to another subject—and I am really 

doing well, three questions—— 

Ms. DELAURO. Keep going, Mr. Latham. 

Mr. LATHAM [continuing]. And the red light is not even on yet. 

Ms. DELAURO. It is yellow, let us go. 

INCREASE IN ETHANOL BLEND RATE

Mr. LATHAM. Just very quickly. With the recommendation that 

you made for increasing the fuel standard to 15 percent or 20 percent for ethanol—I believe to the EPA I wrote a letter to the President supporting your statement—is there any response back? 

Where are we on that? 

Secretary VILSACK. I know that the EPA has recently received a 

request from the industry to take a look at the waiver for E15, and 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
200 

I know that is under consideration. I don’t have anything scientific 

to tell you today as to what the attitude of the EPA is on that. We 

are going to continue to advocate for an increase in the blend rate. 

In large part because of the concern that I have about maintaining the infrastructure that we have already invested in our biofuel 

industry, it is important, as we transition to second- and third-generation feedstocks, that we have in place the infrastructure to take 

advantage of those new developments. If we lose that infrastructure, it will be that much more difficult to get the biofuels industry 

back on track. 

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you very much. 

Ms. DELAURO. Ms. Kaptur. 

Ms. KAPTUR. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Welcome, Mr. Secretary. I was very drawn to your candidacy at 

one point about a year ago. We certainly welcome you and look forward to working with you. 

URBAN FOOD DESERTS

I represent the northern part of Ohio where that State meets 

Lake Erie, the most abundant of the lakes. And the district I represent is both urban—the city of Toledo and Sandusky—and rural. 

It is a most interesting district. 

I can report to you on the Recovery bill, the CSFP program has 

not resulted in additional food, but merely the same amount with 

rising prices. I think it is important for you to know. 

Number two, despite the increases in food stamps, food stamps 

in our area last about 21⁄2 weeks. I want to encourage you on in 

your People’s Gardens efforts. And I was just reading the story in 

the Economist, ‘‘Digging Their Way Out of Recession’’—you are 

prominently mentioned, very good story. I really believe that with 

new technologies, growing technologies, including in the urban environment, many of these food deserts can actually produce their 

own food. And we are about that task in Toledo, Ohio, but we need 

the help of USDA to, first of all, recognize what we are doing. 

I brought with me some photos of vertical-growing systems that 

are eight times more efficient than planting in the dirt. We are 

doing this right now. I would hope that USDA would take a look 

at places, urban areas across this country, from New York City to 

Chicago, to Toledo, that are trying to meet rising food needs, and 

to do this not just for important nutritional reasons, but also for 

cultural and for environmental. The USDA has been very resistant 

to understanding the importance of what new technology can provide us in meeting human needs across this country. I think you 

have the experience and the will to help us. 

So I am wondering if, for the record, you could summarize USDA 

authorities that could assist communities that are urban in nature 

that are trying to meet rising food needs in urban food deserts. 

Would you be willing to work with us? You have done it in your 

own building here in urban Washington. That is a sign to me that 

there is some recognition of the capability of production to happen 

in urban environments. 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, we take very seriously the issue of food 

deserts, and we understand and appreciate that they are obviously 

in places where people are struggling. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
201 

One of the programs that we have some flexibility in to address 

the capital needs is the Business and Industry Program that I alluded to earlier. In talking with Bill Hagy yesterday, at a group 

where I was talking to urban and rural economic development proponents, he indicated and pointed out to me that there is some 

flexibility in that program to provide resources. 

Now, I will tell you that obviously our focus will continue to be, 

as I think it should be, on rural communities, because that is basically the job of USDA, but the issue of food security and food safety 

and nutritious eating—as it was pointed out earlier, two-thirds of 

our budget is allocated in that mission area, and so we have to 

take it seriously wherever there are problems. 

Ms. KAPTUR. Thank you very much. We hope that someday the 

Department of Agriculture will understand that food isn’t only 

grown in very large—on the plains, especially vegetables, and even 

chickens can be raised in urban environments where they are desperately needed, and, through aquaculture, fish. USDA has to 

catch up to the technology—I don’t expect you to do it today, but 

just recognize that it exists—and keep an open mind as we move 

forward here. 

EMERALD ASH BORER

In view of the time, there isn’t a lot of time here in 5 minutes, 

but let me just tick off for you the emerald ash borer issue. We are 

hoping, in working with Secretary Bartuska, that we can get USDA 

to be an important player in the areas where we have serious infestation, such as with the emerald ash bore, to link what you do to 

what the Department of Interior is doing to what we can do 

through the Department of Labor, through the WIA and summer 

employment programs, to the Civilian Conservation Corps, to the 

Public Lands Corps. We need to have a coordinated effort to make 

maximum use of the public dollar. And I just check that off as one 

where we hope to work with you again. And it is extraordinarily 

important in Ohio and in Michigan. 

And finally, let me just mention again this issue of what is urban 

and what is rural. I represent the largest greenhouse industry in 

the Midwest in Lucas County and Lorain County. We have been ignored by USDA for 100 years simply because the greenhouses were 

there first, and then the local cities annexed them. 

And I am wondering if there is anything you can do to help us 

with eligibility for the 9007 program for retrofitting where energy 

is upwards of a third to half of the cost. We need to have USDA 

helping agricultural enterprise wherever they are located. 

Secretary VILSACK. That, the 9007 program, is a program that— 

I may be corrected on this—is primarily focused on retrofitting bioethanol facilities, isn’t it, and other renewable energy sources? I 

would have to take a look at that specific issue that you have 

raised. 

[The information follows:] 

The section 9007 Rural Energy for America Program (REAP) is entirely different 

from the Business and Industry (B&I) guaranteed loan program. REAP is limited, 

by law, to agricultural producers and rural small businesses. Our regulations for 

this program define ‘‘agricultural producer’’ to include nursery stock. However, they 

currently require that the project be located in a rural area. We propose to change 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
202 

the regulations for FY 2010 to allow agricultural producers in non-rural areas to be 

considered for REAP assistance. 

For the Business and Industry (B&I) guaranteed loan program, the 2008 Farm 

Bill included provisions that allow flexibility for areas that would otherwise be considered ‘‘non-rural’’ to be determined to be ‘‘rural in character’’ and, thus, eligible 

for assistance. Communities that wish to be considered for such a determination 

should contact their State Rural Development office. 

Secretary VILSACK. On the Emerald Ash Borer, I would just tell 

you that we have about 185,000 square miles of Federal and State 

land that has been quarantined because of that. It is a very, very 

serious issue and allows me to point out, that invasive species is 

a very serious consequence to the economy and one that we need 

to take seriously. And it gets back to Congressman Latham’s question about research; that is a focus in another area that we obviously have to focus on. 

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Secretary, in closing, let me just say, we warmly invite you to the 9th District of Ohio to view our urban growing 

systems as we meet this terrible recession where unemployment 

rates are now close to 10 percent in some counties and over 17 percent in others. 

Thank you. 

Ms. DELAURO. Thank you, Ms. Kaptur. 

Lots of invitations, Mr. Secretary. I know you are trying to cut 

back on the travel budget. 

Mrs. Emerson. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Come down to Missouri. 

Thanks, Madam Chair. 

FARM PAYMENTS LIMITS

Secretary Vilsack, let me go back to the payment limits issue, 

just because I wanted to follow up something that Tom said earlier. 

But mine has to do with the fact that you all at USDA—there are 

about 19 different, separate and distinct changes made to payment 

limits in the 2008 farm bill, all of which are right here, and I am 

sure you know it. 

And you probably also know that that is probably three times 

more than—or it is more than the last three farm bills, combined, 

did. However, Congress was silent on the definition of ‘‘actively engaged,’’ and I know that you all at the Department have authority 

to define the term. 

But can you share with us, please, the Department’s reasoning, 

why it is necessary to redefine ‘‘actively engaged’’ at least once, but 

potentially twice, over the next year? Because my farmers—and let 

me just follow that up by saying my farmers need certainty. 

You know, everything changes. Every year things change. They 

can’t plan out, and they are small businesses. They can’t plan their 

lives and their businesses out 5 years because of all these changes. 

Secretary VILSACK. You are correct that there were significant 

changes in the farm bill. We are interested, as a new administration, to make sure that we fully appreciate and understand all of 

the changes that went into place in regulation just prior to our taking office, and so we basically called a timeout; and with this particular area, we encourage more comment. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
203 

So we are still in the middle of the comment period. And I would 

like that process, if I might, to allow it to continue and go through 

the process to figure out precisely what people’s attitudes are. 

I think sometimes with these definitions, and I don’t know necessarily with this one, but just as a general proposition, that there 

are oftentimes unintended consequences or circumstances that 

arise during the course of implementation that people think, well, 

we didn’t think about that. We need to fine-tune it. 

I don’t know that that will be the case of ‘‘actively engaged.’’ I 

won’t know until we have had an opportunity to receive the comments and analyze them. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Time period? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, the accounting period expires this 

month, and so we would anticipate and expect taking a look at 

those comments April 6. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Okay. Let me switch to a different subject. 

FARM STORAGE FACILITIES LOANS

Has the stimulus funding—because you all got so much money 

in the stimulus bill, and I am not complaining about where a lot 

of it is going to be allocated at all—but I am curious if the funding 

that you all got for the stimulus has in any way slowed the allocation and disbursement of long overdue fiscal year 2009 monies. 

And here is my example. Farm storage loans, the bill was signed 

into law almost a year ago, and I am just curious why it has taken 

6 months for rules to be prepared for a farm facility, farm storage 

facility loans. Because we are going to miss another crop year and 

because our farmers also continue to suffer from the basis differentials, we need those storage loans sooner rather than later. 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, our focus in terms of rulemaking has 

been threefold: 

One, making sure that we get the ACRE payment program, 

which is part of the overall safety net, in place as quickly as we 

can; 

Two, upgrading the implementation of the energy portion of the 

farm bill, which we think has exciting potentials for rural America. 

As you well know, there were a number of provisions in that energy title that needed to be implemented, and we are in a process 

of trying to get funds out as quickly as we can, perhaps late this 

spring, early summer, on some of those programs; and 

Three, we wanted to make sure that the conservation security 

stewardship program, which is also extremely important in terms 

of planning, that the rulemaking and so forth was finished on a 

timely basis. So that has been where the focus has been. 

I specifically don’t know about that particular rule. We will be 

happy to check and get back to you. 

[The information follows:] 

The rule for implementing the farm bill changes to the farm storage facility loan 

program was delayed for reasons other than the effects of the stimulus bill. Because 

the farm bill expanded the farm storage facility loan program to also include storage 

for hay, renewable biomass and other storable commodities which will likely require 

other types of storage than the traditional grain storage facilities it was determined 

that a Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) would be required before 

the regulations could be published. On March 18, 2009 the Department issued a 

press release announcing two public meetings to be held in April to solicit public 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
204 

input for the PEA regarding the potential impact on the environment. The comments are due May 13 at which time the PEA will be prepared for publication in 

the Federal Register. According to the National Environmental Policy Act at least 

a 30-day comment period must be provided for in the PEA before the regulation implementing the farm bill provisions can be published. Given those requirements the 

rule for the farm storage loans should be ready for publication in mid-July. 

Fortunately the delay has not prevented USDA from making farm storage loans 

under the regulations which were in place before the 2008 farm bill. In addition to 

the expansion of the scope of the program mentioned earlier, the 2008 farm bill increased the maximum loan term from 7 years to 10 years and it increased the maximum loan amount from $100,000 to $500,000. The currently available loans are for 

grains, oilseeds, and peanuts; once the rule is put in place additional crops will be 

eligible as noted above and the loan terms and maximum levels will be increased. 

Mrs. EMERSON. I would appreciate it. 

I have another question, Madam Chairman, but I think I am 

going to let it go because it may require longer, and I will go into 

the red. 

Secretary VILSACK. Just the storage loan is expected to clear in 

July of this year. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Still might be too late, then. 

Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. 

Ms. DELAURO. Thank you, Mrs. Emerson. 

I am just going to rattle off three or four questions, and I am 

going to try to make the questions very short. And I will ask you, 

Mr. Secretary, to make the answers short as well. 

CHILD NUTRITION PROGRAM

You have asked for $1 billion in the proposed 2010 budget blueprint to accomplish the goals on child hunger and childhood obesity. In your view, is that enough? Mr. Spratt, Chair of the Budget 

Committee in the Congress, has proposed $2 billion per year. 

I am going to do for the record what CRS listed as program initiatives for the Child Nutrition Program, and then ask you to comment on them. But I will submit those for the record on how we 

might try to look at nutrition reauthorization and what we should 

do with regard to income levels, start-up grants, simplifying the 

food service rules, et cetera, and what we do about competitive 

foods. 

About competitive foods—and I want to get an answer to this 

question—while we can regulate nutrition standards through federally reimbursable school nutrition programs, what should we do 

about competitive foods offered in schools? Should we make competitive rules mandatory or leave it to the school districts to decide? 

What changes are we going to deal with to implement and what 

authorities are you going to request for child nutrition reauthorization and response to the IOM report? 

Local school wellness programs and policies are supposed to be 

in place. Should we mandate schools to start a local wellness program to force school districts to take these issues seriously? 

Again, with regard to education programs, like the dietary programs on nutrition education, how are we going to—I am told that 

we are looking at 2 years before we will know the effectiveness of 

some of the education messages that are out there with regard to 

what is good, what is nutrition, et cetera. How do we circumvent 

this 2-year process in this area, and can we succeed in making beVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:29 Jan 26, 2010 Jkt 053443 PO 00000 Frm 00204 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A443P2.XXX A443P2

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
205 

havioral change, given the marketing and advertising to kids? Can 

we exercise controls in enforcing the marketing to children similar 

to what we do for cigarettes? 

Secretary VILSACK. How much time do I have? 

Ms. DELAURO. We are still on green. Let’s keep rolling, Mr. Secretary. 

Secretary VILSACK. Your first question about the resources, you 

know, obviously we have proposed a billion dollars, but we also believe there may be opportunities within the existing budget to redirect resources to encourage more nutrition and more quality foods. 

And I would like the opportunity to prove that case. 

As it relates to competitive foods, obviously, I think that the time 

has come for us to have a very serious conversation about precisely 

what foods are in our schools. I am particularly focused, myself, on 

elementary and middle school. I think you have got to get these 

youngsters early and get habits that are good habits. 

Ms. DELAURO. Should we mandate the rules? 

Secretary VILSACK. You know, I think we need strong enforcement opportunities, and I think we need either mandates or incentives, either one. You know, I think incentives work if they are 

structured properly. 

As it relates to the Institute of Medicine study, you know, our 

goal is to try to institute whatever recommendations they propose 

as quickly as we possibly can. We obviously—I obviously don’t 

know what kinds of costs will be associated with their recommendations, but we are going to take them seriously. We didn’t 

ask for the study just to waste people’s time and energy. We are 

looking for serious recommendations. 

Ms. DELAURO. I am looking to you, honestly because, as governor, you supported limits on the competitive foods, and you did 

that during the last child nutrition reauthorization. And as a department, it was three decades ago the Department tried to ban 

chips, cookies, soft drinks from schools, but was thwarted by the 

courts and by food companies. That means standing up to the—you 

know, and I look at us—and standing up to these challenges about 

what is in the best interests of our kids and nutrition. 

Secretary VILSACK. I think it is important to send a consistent 

message that we are serious about this, because there are longterm health consequences and economic consequences if we don’t 

address this aggressively. 

On wellness, the child nutrition programs in 2004 required 

wellness policies. I am not sure how well that worked, and we are 

in the process of encouraging the Healthier U.S. Schools Program. 

I intend to be a little bit more vigilant on this than perhaps we 

have been in the past. 

If you all direct us to do something, it is my responsibility to see 

that it is done. 

Ms. DELAURO. Okay. 

Secretary VILSACK. On the education issue, you know, this is an 

interesting one—— 

Ms. DELAURO. Mr. Secretary, I am going to have to, in order to— 

I am out of time. 

Mr. Farr. 

Secretary VILSACK. I did. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
206 

Ms. DELAURO. You did and you did well. We will talk about the 

other one later. 

Mr. FARR. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

NSLP OVERPAYMENTS

Mr. Secretary, I have two questions, one in relation to the discussion you had with Mr. Kingston on the overpayment or the missed 

payment on the school nutrition program. 

President Obama said he wanted to eliminate childhood hunger 

in the United States. I think the issue goes that these schools 

sometimes feed the kid whose family may have the money to pay 

for the lunch, but didn’t give the kid any money. So we feed him 

because he is hungry. And so I think we have to figure out how 

we streamline this program so maybe we do err on that, on feeding 

a kid who is hungry, regardless of a parent’s income. 

I mean, we don’t check that child for a means test when he got 

on the bus in the morning. And we don’t check that child for a 

means test before he checked out a library book from the library, 

but we means test him before he can get any food in the lunchroom. And if they are hungry, I think we ought to be feeding them. 

I think you can find some savings from this consolidation and 

streamlining, even considering kind of block grants to schools that 

constantly qualify for these moneys. That was a statement. 

FARM BILL PEST AND DISEASE FUNDING

And the question I have is that last year in the farm bill, we incorporated pest and disease language, and I represent the area 

where the breakout of the light brown apple moth—and other pests 

breaking out, but that is the big one of the moment. So we spend 

about $50 million annually in California to control these invasive 

species. 

But so far—and the law specified that the Commodity Credit Corporation shall make available $12 million for fiscal year 2009, 

$45 million for fiscal year 2010. The previous administration abrogated their duty to implement the pest and disease provisions of 

the farm bill and left it up to you, and there are only 6 months left 

in fiscal year 2009. 

OMB has not appropriated the fiscal year 2009 funding yet for 

pest and disease. It must be obligated by the end of the fiscal year, 

use it or lose it. I was wondering if you will work with us to help 

get OMB get this program up and running as soon as possible. 

Secretary VILSACK. I have been advised that the status of funding is focused on the last days of the second quarter of this fiscal 

year, so it looks like we are working on trying to get those resources available. 

Mr. FARR. We will get the full funding for the whole—— 

Secretary VILSACK. $12 million. 

Mr. FARR. $12 million? 

Secretary VILSACK. Yes, sir. 

Mr. FARR. All right. When do you think that will—— 

Secretary VILSACK. It says last days of the second quarter of fiscal year 2009. 

Mr. FARR. Last days of the what—there is a date for that, isn’t 

there? 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
207 

Secretary VILSACK. It would have been better off just telling you 

‘‘soon.’’ 

Mr. FARR. All right. 

Secretary VILSACK. We will get you the specific date. 

[The information follows:] 

Plant pest and disease funding, provided in the 2008 Farm Bill, was made available for obligation to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service as of March 

30, 2009. 

Mr. FARR. Thank you. 

I am under the green light. You can take it away, Madam Chair. 

Ms. DELAURO. Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much. 

FARM AND NON-FARM INCOME TESTS

Mr. Secretary, you recently announced a collaborative effort with 

the IRS, which I understand will allow you to improve the administration of the adjusted gross farm and nonfarm income test. While 

I understand the importance for strong oversight, I am concerned 

about the exchange of the tax information between the IRS and the 

USDA. 

Since the new income tests are based on farm and nonfarm income, not adjusted gross income, which is readily available on the 

income tax returns, what specific data will you ask IRS to review 

in order to provide USDA with the information that USDA can actually utilize? 

And how will the data be communicated between IRS and 

USDA? And how can you ensure that that won’t be any breach of 

privacy? And will that information be subject to a Freedom of Information Act request? 

Secretary VILSACK. It is my understanding that what will happen 

is that on a relatively small number of accounts, USDA will provide the IRS with some kind of taxpayer identification that indicates that this individual has received farm payments. 

The IRS will then—with the authority provided with the document that is signed at the time folks receive payments, will essentially then check to make sure that the income that was reported 

was at or below whatever level it needed to be in order for those 

payments to be authorized. And at that point, they will communicate back to the USDA that farmer X or lawyer B was either entitled to receive the payment or not entitled to receive the payment. 

There won’t be any tax document that goes to Farm Service 

Agency offices. It will just be an exchange of basic information saying this person has qualified for payments or has received a payment or is applying for a payment, check to see whether or not he 

was legitimately entitled to receive the payment. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. That is my question. 

Secretary VILSACK. Might I just add just one other point. If a 

farmer believes that a determination by the IRS is inappropriate, 

they obviously have the appropriate appeal rights. 

I don’t know the answer to your Freedom of Information request, 

but we will get that to you. 

Ms. DELAURO. I just want to make a point on that, and there is 

a little time remaining there. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
208 

I would repeat, there are many programs, food stamps on up, 

that receive information from the IRS. So this is nothing new. People are doing it, and we ought to be able to follow suit where we 

find difficulties. 

I think it is important to note, from 1999 to 2005, USDA paid $1.1 billion in farm payments in the names of 172,801 deceased individuals, either as an individual recipient or as a member of an 

entity. Of the total, 40 percent went to those who had been dead 

for 3 or 4 years; 19 percent went to those dead for 7 or more years. 

I think we need to get this under control. 

Secretary VILSACK. Madam Chair, just to comment, the analysis 

that Dave just provided to me indicates that our analysis is, it is 

not FOIable, not subject to the Freedom of Information Act. 

Mr. BISHOP. Madam Chairman, my concern was making sure 

that the information you got from IRS was checking apples and apples to oranges and oranges, and that the information would be, in 

fact, helpful. 

Secretary VILSACK. And we are in the process of devising specifically how this is going to be done, but the way in which I have outlined with USDA saying this person has received payments, check 

and make sure whether or not they are entitled to it so we don’t 

have a replication of what the Chair just outlined. 

Ms. DELAURO. Mr. Kingston. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

EARMARKS ELIMINATIONS/PROGRAM TERMINATIONS

Mr. Steele, I wanted to go back to that list in terms of the letter 

I want you to send me. 

How much money does eliminating earmarks save? You answered, but I would just like to see it again. 

And then the programs that were eliminated and the contracts, 

because there has been this Stan Johnson issue that has come up 

from Iowa—you are probably familiar with it; there has been some 

press about it, contracts like that—how many of them have been 

eliminated. 

CONTRACTS ELIMINATED IN THE 2010 BUDGET

Detailed budget information is scheduled to be released later this spring. Information on termination of contracts during 2010 will not be known until the completion 

of the fiscal year. 

Mr. KINGSTON. So, and then number two, Mr. Secretary, you may 

have seen this article, it was covered by the AP about a woman in 

Warren County, Ohio, who has qualified for food stamps, but she 

has $80,000 in the bank and paid for a $311,000 house and a Mercedes because of the liberal interpretation of assets won’t be counted against you. 

As you know, we had liberalized the qualifications, saying that 

we want people to have college education accounts and assets that 

are maybe good assets and not have that used against them for eligibility of food stamps. But this appears to be a real abuse of it, 

and I think it is going to be an embarrassment for the USDA if 

we don’t address it. 

Do you want to comment on it now, or are you looking at something? 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
209 

Secretary VILSACK. I have not actually seen that article, and I 

would say that we obviously have some categorical eligibility systems in place, and there may well be circumstances in situations, 

as you have outlined. 

Again, I don’t know the accuracy of that report. 

Mr. KINGSTON. If you will just look at it, I think that this is 

going to be solved outside of this room if we don’t be proactive and 

solve it inside this room, because I think it is the type of thing 

that, you know—this puts a face on the abuses out there. 

[The information follows:] 

Recent articles in the Ohio press have indicated that a woman with an $80,000 

bank account, a luxury car, and a $300,000 home was getting SNAP benefits, and 

questions have been raised whether this is a proper use of program funds. Under 

current law, households in which each member receives benefits from other means 

tested assistance programs, including Temporary Assistance to Needy Families or 

Supplemental Security Income, are automatically eligible for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits. This is called ‘‘categorical eligibility’’ 

Also under current law, States have the flexibility to extend categorical eligibility 

to households that not only receive the traditional cash assistance, but who receive 

or are authorized to receive other services or in-kind benefits. This ‘‘expanded categorical eligibility’’ pertains to households whose incomes are below 200 percent of 

poverty, without regard to assets. 

First, the scenario described in the articles assumes the person is categorically eligible for the program which means the assets of the household are not counted as 

provided in law. This is not true without the substantiation of categorical eligibility 

since the asset test for most households is $2,000 or $3,000 when there is an elderly 

or disabled member in the household. Under the categorical eligibility rules, even 

if a household has substantial savings, it must meet the net income eligibility guidelines in order to qualify for SNAP benefits. In other words, the household’s income 

must net out at 100 percent of the poverty limit to receive benefits, and if not, they 

may be categorically eligible, but the benefit amount would be zero. 

Second, the value of a home has never been considered as a resource in this program. Many working people who lose jobs may be without any income and we hope 

that SNAP can help them through a hard time and they don’t lose their homes. Finally, since 2001, States have had the flexibility to exclude vehicles from the resource test—in the regular program as well as when categorical eligibility has been 

established. Almost every State excludes at least one vehicle per household. Most 

people need a car to get to work. States don’t have to spend time documenting car 

ownership and fair market value. Again, people who lose jobs may have more valuable cars but if they don’t find work soon they won’t be able to keep up with the 

car payments. During these difficult economic times, categorical eligibility enables 

SNAP to meet the household’s immediate food needs and affords States administrative relief in determining eligibility. 

Mr. KINGSTON. I wanted to switch gears with you, though. 

ALTERNATIVE ENERGY INITIATIVES

In terms of the President’s number 2 and 3 goals, which relate 

to energy efficiency, I don’t know if you are familiar with this report by the Research, Education and Extension Service, came out 

last March; and it was by Gale Buchanan, who was the under secretary at the time. 

You probably haven’t seen it, and I don’t think that position has 

been filled, but this was done by the USDA at the urging of this 

committee, members of this committee, individually and collectively. So I think it is a pretty good report and it is totally in line 

with the President’s number 2 and 3 priorities in terms of alternative energy and stuff like that. 

So I will give it to you before you leave the room, but I am sure 

you have lots of people who have actually coauthored that. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
210 

TRADE ISSUES

Then my next point that I wanted to make, within the 5 minutes, 

is on trade. I am interested in trade. I am somebody who had actually voted against NAFTA and voted against GATT and most favored nations with China; but I realize now it is a completely different world and that there are a lot of different opportunities out 

there for our farmers in terms of international trade. 

And yet we get some mixed signals from this administration. 

Sometimes the President seems to talk a good game about global 

trade, but then it seems that things like the Colombia Trade Agreements are not even going to be put on the floor of the House for 

a vote. 

Will the USDA be getting involved in urging Congress to look at 

trade agreements? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, let me just use your question to give 

sort of an overview, and then I will respond to it. 

We expect exports to be down a bit from where they were in 

2008, but that was a record year. The expectation is that exports 

will still be higher than they were in 2007, and that was the second-highest year. So we are still aggressively pursuing exports. 

I will tell you that we have an issue that has to be dealt with. 

The inspector general has suggested that we needed a more coordinated approach and a better marketing strategy for some of our 

crops, particularly biotechnology, and we are going to work on that. 

We are going to work closely with Ron Kirk, the U.S. Trade Representative, to make sure that agriculture and agricultural interests are always at the table and that people understand, as we negotiate and discuss trade agreements, that we, in fact, protect the 

agriculture interests of this country. That is something that I think 

is my responsibility. 

And we intend to be aggressive in an effort to try to encourage 

our trading partners. We have issues relative to beef that need to 

be addressed, I think fairly aggressively, with some of our trading 

partners, which could open up new opportunities. We haven’t quite 

recovered from the BSE circumstance in 2003. We are focused on 

some of the countries that could help us get back up to 2003–andbeyond levels. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Okay, well, thank you. And I am out of time. 

Ms. DELAURO. Mr. Davis. 

VENDING MACHINES IN SCHOOLS

Mr. DAVIS. I heard a story once about a technician who went to 

one of the farms and was trying to advise a farmer what he should 

do conservation-wise. And the farmer said, Young fellow, I know 

you have just graduated from college, but I have owned three farms 

before you came here. I understand how to farm. 

But I went to high school and graduated in 1962; and prior to 

that in the elementary school systems, I never saw in our school 

buildings a dispenser where you could plug in and get a soda pop, 

where you could plug in and get a candy bar, where you could plug 

in and get some, in my opinion, lack of nutritious food. 

My wife teaches. She will retire this year, 30 years. She says one 

of the worst problems we have today, that is bringing about obeVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:29 Jan 26, 2010 Jkt 053443 PO 00000 Frm 00210 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A443P2.XXX A443P2

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
211 

sity, is the convenience of the machines that you plug your money 

in, that your parents send you to school with, and buy that instead 

of the hot-lunch program. 

Are you willing to say that any school that obtains hot-lunch program, that gets dollars to where we can have a nutritious program 

for our children, that we will ban those, in my opinion, that we will 

ban those facilities from those schools? 

Secretary VILSACK. Congressman, I am willing to say that we 

need an aggressive policy on vending machines and on those food 

products. 

Now, I am particularly focused on elementary and middle 

schools, in particular, because I really do believe that you have to 

get those habits early, early. And the chairwoman mentioned earlier advertising, and I think it is important for us, for the food industry, for USDA, for all of us to understand this isn’t just about 

children and education. It is really about health care, it is about 

the future of this country. So this is a very important subject. 

Now, I am willing to work on mandates or incentives, or a combination of both, to make sure that we have as healthy and as well 

an environment as we possibly can for our children. 

Mr. DAVIS. I am not implying that vending machines are all bad; 

if they have fruit in those, or fruit juices, nutritious food that a 

child can obtain, I am okay with that. But some of the high sodium, some of the low nutrients that are our children are getting. 

My wife teaches second grade. She taught first grade for 14 

years. I know these are used from time to time to raise funds to 

buy paper or pencils for children, but there ought to be another 

way to do it. 

I just hope that we can work together in being able to bring 

about at least a change of the dollars that we spend to use that— 

I don’t want to use this as a bully pulpit or a hammer, but we have 

got to start looking at the health conditions our children will bring 

to themselves when they become adults, through obesity and diabetes. 

Secretary VILSACK. I would also suggest that we need to look at 

earlier in life. We need to do—continue to do a job of educating 

young parents about the nutritional needs of their children, and we 

need to do a better job of focusing on child-care facilities and preschool facilities to make sure that the snacks and programs that 

are available, that we send a consistent message. 

We have started a process with public service announcements, 

and basically working with some of the better-known children 

shows, like Sesame Street, to encourage young parents to really 

focus on this. 

Mr. DAVIS. WIC has done, I think, in my opinion, a pretty decent 

job with that, but we do have to do additional education. 

RURAL HOUSING

The second thing I want to talk about—my time is about to run 

out. 1967, when I talked a moment ago about housing in rural 

areas through the direct loan program of 502 individual housing, 

we actually built 47,973 homes. That grew 10 years later towards 

107,000 individual homes that were built in rural America. And it 

had to be in America, in towns that had less than—I think 2,500 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
212 

through 3,000 population at the time was the number. Today—as 

an example, 100,000 then, 30-some years ago—today, through the 

guarantee program, 58,000 and 9,000 direct, roughly 68,000 homes, 

opportunities today for rural Americans who have—in my opinion, 

the others are being left out because they don’t know where to go. 

I hope we take a serious look at the 502 loan program in being 

able to add additional funds through the guarantee program and 

bring back the low-interest creditor interest assistance loans. 

My time is about to run out. Thank you, sir. 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, I think there is also a great opportunity 

for us to make those homes that do exist in rural America far more 

energy efficient. 

Mr. DAVIS. Oh, no question. 

Secretary VILSACK. And that creates new jobs and new companies. 

Mr. DAVIS. That has to happen. That will be part—efficient 

homes will be part of any energy policy we have. I am not as concerned about—as some folks about global warming or climate 

change. It is economic security and it is—national security is why 

we have to have, in my opinion, a new energy policy in this country. 

Ms. DELAURO. Mr. Hinchey. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

LOCAL FARMS

I just want to return briefly to the idea of local farms, small 

farms, family farms. And I was trying to find out what approach 

was being taken in the recommendations of the 2010 budget for 

those issues: small family farms, what was being done to promote 

agriculture at that level. 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, a series of efforts to create local markets, so that it is easier for people to market the products and 

produce that they are producing: the Farmers Market Promotion 

Program; the Senior Farmers Market Nutrition Program; the Special Supplemental Program for WIC; resources in the SNAP program; as well as school nutrition. 

We are trying to create—and using some of the B&I loans to create distribution centers so that folks in the local area can sort of 

consolidate their products and then, in turn, those can be sold to 

institutional purchasers so that you create local markets. There is 

going to be a significant focus on creating more local market opportunities. 

When you have 108,000 new entrepreneurs out there who are 

selling several thousand dollars worth of goods, if you can get them 

more markets, more opportunities to expand, you can move them 

ultimately into mid-sized operations. That helps to repopulate rural 

communities; it helps to create a series of new businesses that are 

offshoots of that effort. It supports the local implement dealer, it 

supports the local hardware store, it supports a wide variety of activities; so a focus on creating markets. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Well, that is very good. I think the markets are 

there, no question about it. And I think that there is a growing interest on the part of a lot of people who live in urban areas, particularly in large cities, who are interested in locally grown 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
213 

produce, things that are grown nearby. And because they are 

grown nearby, they understand that they are fresher and probably 

better, probably more safe and secure. 

Secretary VILSACK. I think there is a growing desire on the part 

of consumers in America to know more about their food, and that 

is a good thing. 

And I hope that young people—in particular, that we do a better 

job of educating young people precisely about where their food 

comes from, which is why these gardens in the urban centers in 

schools and USDA locations around, I think, are important to be 

able to reconnect people with precisely where their food comes 

from. 

It doesn’t come from a grocery store. It comes from a farm or a 

ranch initially. 

URBAN AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr. HINCHEY. Just finally, is there any interest in what seems 

to be in some rural areas kind of rural development, which is going 

on, which is eliminating the ability of agriculture to function on 

those areas? 

In other words, agricultural lands are being turned into community development properties, houses are being built, things of that 

nature, spreading out. And I think that is happening in a lot of 

areas close to urban areas, particularly here in D.C. In places like 

Maryland and Virginia there are a host of agricultural lands that 

are being just taken up as a result of increase in development, particularly housing development. 

CONSERVING AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY

Is there any interest in that, to try to ensure that in the long 

term we are able to sustain the kind of good, substantial agricultural property that we have to produce the food and fiber that our 

country needs? 

Secretary VILSACK. I would say that there are several initiatives. 

One is to make sure that we are investing, not just in new development, but in the rehab of existing facilities. 

Back to Congressman Davis’ point, I think it is important and 

necessary for us to consider looking at reducing sort of the carbon 

footprint of development in the future. One way you do that is by 

taking existing buildings and making them more efficient, modernizing them and creating new opportunities, particularly in central 

business areas that have become somewhat dilapidated or are in 

tough shape. There is real opportunity there for rehabs. 

Secondly, I think it is also important for us to continue to invest 

in conservation techniques so that we preserve the quality of our 

soil and our water. It is very, very important for us to do that, and 

frankly, we need to do more of that. 

The top soil that we are all used to, if we don’t do the right 

things from a conservation standpoint, won’t always be there. And 

we are seeing the effects of that in some of our rivers and streams 

and down in the Gulf. 

So there are multiple strategies there. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Secretary, thank you. 

Ms. DELAURO. Mrs. Emerson. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
214 

Mrs. EMERSON. Thank you. 

Let me mention something interesting to Maurice and also to 

you, Secretary Vilsack. I actually have a few farmers who—in my 

very big rural district, who actually grow hydroponics specifically 

for the school-lunch programs, so that our kids in our schools, who 

normally are eating french fries and burgers, actually are having 

some good things. So—we are doing new things, even in rural areas 

where we would traditionally do row cropping, so just by way of interest. 

MCGOVERN-DOLE FEEDING PROGRAM

I also want to thank you, Secretary Vilsack, for your initiative, 

your recent initiative, to transfer nonfat dry milk from the CCC to 

the Food and Nutrition Service for domestic food programs; and 

also so, so grateful for the 500,000 pounds of nonfat dry milk for 

the McGovern-Dole school feeding program. It will make a huge 

difference. 

Do you have any idea how many of the world’s hungry children 

are going to benefit from this initiative? 

Secretary VILSACK. I don’t have a number. I will tell you that it 

complements what we are trying to do on the budget, which is to 

increase funding for the McGovern-Dole Program. That is funding—as you well know, better than I do, it has been fairly static; 

and this is an opportunity, I think, for us to put a slightly different 

face on America through the use of what we grow and also what 

we know. 

I am hopeful that we do a better job of encouraging developing 

nations to take advantage of the technical assistance and help that 

we can provide. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Well, I hope—I know that your heart is there, 

and I just hope that this will be a sustained effort over time. And 

it will also—it also happens to benefit our dairy farmers as well, 

who are really, really hurting right now. 

Secretary VILSACK. They are indeed. And I do know that in 2009 

we expect the McGovern-Dole bill generally to assist nearly 4 million people. 

[The information follows:] 

The 500,000 pounds of nonfat dry milk from Commodity Credit Corporation inventory will benefit approximately 50,000 children per year for three years through 

Save the Children’s McGovern-Dole school feeding program in Yemen. These children are among the 4 million beneficiaries in FY 2009 of the McGovern-Dole program. The donated milk will be combined with baking powder, corn soy blend, salt, 

vegetable oil and years to be baked into bread and fed directly to children in 64 

schools. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Excellent. 

Well, I certainly appreciate, and all of us here so strongly believe 

in that program that anything that you all will be willing to do to 

rob from Peter to pay Paul to increase that funding would be wonderful. And there is more than just feeding hungry people; we benefit as a country as well. 

MARKET DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES IN CUBA

I have a question. You probably may need to answer it for the 

record, because it is a little long and it is a forward-thinking quesVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:29 Jan 26, 2010 Jkt 053443 PO 00000 Frm 00214 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A443P2.XXX A443P2

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
215 

tion. But it has to do with Cuba. And in our fiscal 2009 omnibus 

bill we actually had a recommitment of sorts to allowing simple 

cash-in-advance sales of agricultural goods to that country. 

Well, the Secretary of Agriculture—excuse me, of the Treasury, 

not you, indicated an unwillingness to follow congressional intent. 

Many of us in Congress are going to continue to try to expand legal 

sales of agricultural products to Cuba. I am happy to report that 

we sold $700 million in 2008, which is the largest year ever. 

Anyway, in that context, it is my understanding that U.S. agricultural industry trade associations, such as the FAS Foreign Market Development cooperators or the Market Access Program participants are allowed to undertake market development activities 

in Cuba, provided they receive a license, but not using Federal 

funds. 

And I need—I would like to know, for the record, unless you 

know, is the prohibition statutory or is it regulatory; and what 

other countries might we limit in this same manner? 

Secretary VILSACK. I don’t know the answer to that question, and 

we will be happy to provide it to you. 

[The information follows:] 

Commodity Credit Corporation funds may not be used for market development or 

export promotion activities in Cuba and certain other countries. Section 908(a)(1) of 

the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 states that ‘‘No 

U.S. Government assistance, including United States foreign assistance, United 

States export assistance, and any United States credit or guarantees shall be available for exports to Cuba or for commercial exports to Iran, Libya, North Korea, or 

Sudan.’’ However, in 2004, former President Bush waived application of this provision to Libya. These prohibitions do not prevent private U.S. entities, including 

USDA cooperators, from undertaking activities in Cuba with their own funding. 

Such private activities by USDA cooperators, however, cannot be counted as contributions to USDA supported programs. 

Mrs. EMERSON. I appreciate that and appreciate anything that 

you can do to help our farmers and producers be better able in the 

future to excel. 

Secretary VILSACK. That is a complex issue, as you well know. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Thanks. 

Ms. DELAURO. I would just want to put an asterisk as to what 

Mrs. Emerson talked about with the McGovern-Dole; and I would 

ask you, Mr. Secretary, many of us fought for McGovern-Dole in 

the last farm bill, and we were—we thought we had made a little 

bit of progress. This committee, this subcommittee is committed to 

McGovern-Dole. 

One of the things we heard over and over again—and I hope that 

we can use your good offices for this, is that McGovern-Dole—what 

is it, what is it about, it is not working, it is not an effective program. It is clearly one of the most effective programs. We had such 

a difficult time explaining to our own colleagues, both sides of the 

aisle, the effectiveness of McGovern-Dole and also how it ties into 

national security issues as well as a feeding program. 

And I couldn’t more endorse Mrs. Emerson’s comments on Cuba. 

With that, Ms. Kaptur. 

Ms. KAPTUR. Thank you, Madam Chair. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
216 

SCHOOL FOOD PURCHASES

Secretary Vilsack, I would like to ask your help in helping me 

unwind the food purchases of the city of Toledo school system and 

the city of Sandusky, Ohio, school system. 

On pages 27(g)–38 and 39 of your submission, there are summaries of what Food and Nutrition Services purchases nationally. 

It is very interesting to look down the list and really see the majority of it is processed food, and even the amount of fresh tomatoes 

is so small, it is actually shocking. 

I am one of those people that believes in go local, grow local, buy 

local. Our city school systems cannot tell me—they say they cannot 

report to me what they buy because they report it to the State, and 

then the State buys, and then they report it to you. 

So I am wondering, could you help me figure out, of the money 

that we vote for up here for our schools, just in two school districts 

in Ohio, can you find me the numbers of what they are buying, how 

much they are buying and what the price they are paying for it is? 

I would like to compare to the list you are submitting here. 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, I think that list was from last year’s 

budget, but we will try to get you updated information. I will tell 

you that we are obviously very interested in increasing, as Congress has instructed us to do, fruits and vegetables in those diets. 

[The information follows:] 

The foods purchased by the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) for school systems 

in Ohio are delivered to four central warehouses located in Cincinnati, Cleveland, 

Dayton, and Columbus and are then delivered to the individual school districts. FNS 

is unable to track the shipments beyond the central warehouses, so we are unable 

to provide data specifically for the Toledo and Sandusky school districts. The attached spreadsheets provide updated purchase information for FY 2008. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
217 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 369 here 53443A.116
218 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 370 here 53443A.117
219 

Ms. KAPTUR. I am glad to hear you say that. It is a perfect leadin. 

We just had some photos delivered to your staff there. I hope 

they shared them with you. One is of a vertical growing system 

that we are using in the city of Toledo right now, in conjunction 

with our hospitals that are desperately worried about the children 

coming into their emergency rooms with rising levels of diabetes 

and so forth. 

And we need your help in raising consciousness even more and 

not just thinking food stamps are the answer for the city. That is 

almost an insult. And I vote for food stamps, but when I look at 

my district, $100 million a year comes into my biggest county for 

food stamps, say, $100 million, that is more money than will come 

in for CDBG, all these other Federal programs. That is the biggest 

investment program we have on an annual basis. 

And it doesn’t create fishermen. All it does is tell people how to 

try to spend that money at some outfit to buy nachos or Cheetos— 

sorry to offend anybody out there by a product by that name—but 

in food deserts, there isn’t good food. So I am on a mission, and 

my mission is to get our children fed properly and to have those 

communities involved in the production of their own food. 

This is not a radical idea. The farm bill of 2008 says your mission at USDA is to assist eligible agricultural producers and rural 

small businesses. It doesn’t say agricultural producers that are located only in the Plains States; it says agricultural producers. And 

if we have youth and others that can produce in those pots that 

are before you in that photo, or in those schoolhouses, 12 months 

out of the year, who are hungry, and they don’t have good nutrition, how can we say ‘‘no’’ to them? We have to turn these programs to the benefit of the American people. 

There is a book out, No Child Left in the Woods, about how 

urban kids are afraid of the outdoors. They love their computer. 

Boy Scouts are declining in membership, Girl Scouts. Why? They 

don’t like the outdoors. 

What kind of society are we producing here? We have got epidemic levels of ADD, ADHD. 

Children have to be comfortable with nature. They have to live 

in nature. We have taken that away from them. Agricultural production is a very important part of life. You know that coming from 

Iowa. So I just wanted to point out the new farm bill, the new authorities that are at USDA. 

The First Lady understands this. Many of us up here have been 

talking about it. The staff at USDA needs to understand this. You 

have to serve your Secretary well. There is a new farm bill. It has 

some new focuses. We need to bring that back to the American people. 

Thank you for letting me make that statement. I look for your 

help in trying to figure out what the city of Toledo school system 

is buying and the Sandusky school system with dollar amounts and 

volumes attached. It shouldn’t be this hard. 

RURAL ENERGY FOR AMERICA

Mr. Secretary, I just wanted to point out also, under section 9007 

on Rural Energy for America, that section does not just concern 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
220 

biofuels. Under the new farm bill, that is for energy audits, and 

those energy audits can happen at agricultural producers. If they 

are greenhouse growers, if they are landscapers, if they were nurserymen, if they are running greenhouses, they should be eligible for 

those programs; they should not be excluded. 

Secretary VILSACK. Those grants are now in the process of being 

awarded. 

May I make just a couple of comments? 

I would ask this committee to do all of us a favor, and I know 

this is going to be hard for you all to do. 

Ms. DELAURO. Try us. 

SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Secretary VILSACK. But we don’t have food stamps. We have a 

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. 

Ms. DELAURO. I am there. 

Secretary VILSACK. The reason I say this, it is an important message issue here that this is really about increasing—it is your 

point, increasing the nutritional value of what our children and our 

families have. 

The concept of food stamps has, I think, a negative connotation 

that doesn’t get to the whole issue of nutrition. And so I have been 

encouraging people in my department to really make the transition 

away from food stamps to SNAP. It is a very important message 

issue. 

There are several guides that we have published recently encouraging schools to Eat Smart, a guide to buying and serving locally 

grown produce in schools. It is on the Web. I will get you the sites 

so that you can link it to your Web site. There is also one, bring 

small farms and local schools together. 

So we are cognizant of the changes in the farm bill and the direction of the farm bill. We take it very seriously, and we are going 

to continue to do so. 

[The information follows:] 

The Small Farms/School Meals Initiative, popularly called the ‘‘farm-to-school’’ 

initiative, is based on the cooperation of Federal, State, and local governments, as 

well as local farm and educational organizations, and encourages small farmers to 

sell fresh fruits and vegetables to schools and schools to buy this wholesome produce 

from small farmers. Both schools and small farmers benefit from their participation 

in the ‘‘farm-to-school’’ initiative. Schools provide children fresh, tasty, nutritious 

produce, while small farmers acquire new markets. Schools are able to provide fresh 

produce quickly and with lower transportation costs by buying it from small farmers 

instead of from distant markets. And children learn from farmers who visit their 

classrooms about how the produce is grown and the role it plays in a healthful diet, 

thereby experiencing first-hand in both the classroom and the cafeteria the value 

and appeal of fresh fruits and vegetables. 

The FNS Web site provides a manual that is a step-by-step guide of activities for 

groups to plan, conduct, and publicize a professional town hall meeting that encourages small farmers and local school food officials to begin a ‘‘farm-to-school’’ project. 

This manual can be found at http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/Lunch/Downloadable/ 

small.pdf. 

The Eat Smart. Play Hard.TM Campaign was launched by USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) to encourage and teach children, parents, and caregivers to eat 

healthy and be physically active every day. Eat Smart. Play Hard.TM offers resources and tools to convey and reinforce healthy eating and lifestyle behaviors that 

are consistent with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans and the MyPyramid Food 

Guidance System. Eat Smart. Play Hard.TM is about making America’s children 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
221 

healthier. Resources are available on the FNS Web site at http:// 

teamnutrition.usda.gov/Resources/eatsmartmaterials.html. 

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I know the time has expired. I thank 

the Secretary. 

Let me just say, the words are great, but at the local level where 

we live, we know it is not rolled out. We know it is not happening. 

It is 1 percent of 100 percent that needs to be done. 

So we are glad for the new farm bill. We are glad for the sensitivity of the Secretary. But just recognize, when we write words in 

Washington, you know they come down in Iowa always, they don’t 

come down in Ohio. 

Secretary VILSACK. That is our job to get them to the people. You 

are right. 

Ms. DELAURO. Thank you, Ms. Kaptur. 

NATIONAL ANIMAL IDENTIFICATION PROGRAM

I want to move to a different issue, which is the National Animal 

Identification Program; $142 million expenditure by Congress and 

the taxpayers, an enormous amount of money through fiscal year 

2009—as I said, $142 million—and we still have no meaningful ID 

system. 

February 2009, APHIS had enrolled about 500,000 livestock 

premises into NAIS. This represents about 135,000 livestock premises in the country. 

Last year about this time we discussed this issue with the prior 

administration; NAIS had enrolled 32 percent of livestock operations. Twelve months later we have increased by 3 percent; this 

is after 5 years of funding. I think USDA may have crossed a line 

from implementing a voluntary system to a dilatory animal ID system. 

Don’t take my word for it. This is what Dr. John Clifford, 

APHIS’s chief veterinarian, said before the House Agriculture Committee not too long ago. This is his opinion, and I quote, ‘‘The system we have has not worked. Unless we can put enough incentives 

in it for livestock producers to voluntarily participate, it needs to 

be mandatory. The system has to be effective, and this is not effective.’’ 

The consensus is, a new approach, 5 years has not worked; tens 

of millions of dollars, not worked. We have to have a better way 

of dealing with this. 

Mr. Secretary, do you support a mandatory animal identification 

system? I am going to ask you that question. 

My colleague, Congressman Peterson, who heads up the authorization committee, has said he will not support another dollar for 

NAIS unless the Obama administration supports a mandatory system. In his view, the current system does not work; and continuing 

the Bush policy is a waste of money after 5 years of the Bush administration’s ineffective voluntary approach, where the livestock 

industry had ample opportunity for input and for comment. 

I want to get an answer to the question on a mandatory ID system. 

Secretary VILSACK. Madam Chair, I am supportive of the effort 

to make sure that we have an identification system that will allow 

us to prevent and/or mitigate problems. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
222 

I would like the opportunity to sit down with those who have 

been opposed to a mandatory system in the very near term, to 

work through whatever difficulties they have from a privacy or a 

confidentiality standpoint, to see, as we structure such a program, 

if we can respond to those concerns. Because my concern is that if 

you have a mandatory system, and you do not address those issues 

in an appropriate way, you can have people spending a lot of time 

and a lot of resources trying to figure out how to get around the 

system. 

What we want is a system that works. We want a system that 

people comply with. 

Ms. DELAURO. I am going to suggest to you, Mr. Secretary, we 

have had a lot of people for the last 5 years trying to figure out 

how to get around the voluntary system. 

Secretary VILSACK. I don’t disagree with you. 

Ms. DELAURO. And why? Why should we continue to appropriate 

money for a failed system? 

Secretary VILSACK. I am not suggesting you should. 

I am just saying that when you set up a system, whatever system you set up, if there are concerns about privacy and confidentiality, we need to address those as we set the system up. I would 

assume that you would agree with that. 

Ms. DELAURO. Well, I would agree with that except that we have 

had ample time in which to do this. This is nothing but a continuation of a dilatory tactic. 

And let me just say, in terms of the livestock industry—I say it 

loud and clear to them—what better would protect the livestock industry, support U.S. exports, protect American consumers, the 

Bush animal ID system or a mandatory identification system? 

I mean, the USDA announced in March 2007 that it was going 

to conduct a cost-benefit analysis for NAIS. Two years later, aside 

from hearing rumors about being completed, we are still waiting to 

learn about the results of this study. Is there an analysis? What 

is the analysis? Is it going to be made available to all of us, or are 

we just going to—you know. 

And we tried to hold back the last time, and we were persuaded 

that we should put, I think, an additional $14 million in this program, which is in the current appropriations bill. 

Why are we throwing good money after bad with an industry 

that doesn’t want to move? 

Secretary VILSACK. Madam Chair, I am not disagreeing with you. 

I am just suggesting that—and I have talked to Chairman Peterson 

about this, and he understands, I think, what I am talking about, 

which is basically giving—you go ahead with the process. 

I would agree with you that we have to spend these monies more 

wisely and we have to have a system that works, right. But what 

I am suggesting is that I think it will work better if I at least have 

the opportunity to get people around the table, have them explain 

what their confidentiality and privacy issues are, and see if there 

is a way in which, as this system is being set up by all of you, that 

we can address those issues in a way that we don’t have problems 

with a mandatory system once it is implemented. 

That is my only concern. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
223 

Ms. DELAURO. I am going to say to you, Mr. Secretary, the clock 

is ticking. I don’t know how long you are going to need to talk to 

these folks. It should be a very short conversation. 

Secretary VILSACK. Weeks. 

Ms. DELAURO. Five years they have had an opportunity to think 

this through, and $142 million; and we have zero to show for it. 

Wisconsin, 100 percent, 100 percent registration. Why? Mandatory. I rest my case and my time is up. 

Mr. Kingston. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mr. Secretary, what did you think of the most recent study of 

powder post beetles in South Carolina? I just wanted to make sure 

you are still with us. That is the only thing, for example, I can 

think of that we haven’t covered so far. 

Ms. DELAURO. Not true, Jack. 

SCHOOL VENDING MACHINES

Mr. KINGSTON. Not true at all. I did want to point out something 

on vending machines, that the American Heart Association, in association with the William J. Clinton Foundation has been studying and working on the vending machine issue, which I think we 

all understand the schools want the revenue and we want the nutrition. 

But because of that, the program has already reduced beverage 

calories in school by 58 percent, and 79 percent of beverage companies are complying with it. So there is some good movement in that 

direction, and I just wanted to underscore that. 

RURAL BROADBAND

I wanted to ask, though, about broadband. You know, you have 

the RUS that has the existing program, and now we have a new 

program. I am glad you are talking, but I do think—this is a bipartisan belief of this committee—that we want RUS to be the lead 

and continue to. 

For one thing, you have an existing definition of ‘‘rural area’’ in 

the farm bill. And would you continue to use that same definition, 

do you know? 

Secretary VILSACK. I think we are working on refining that definition. I think the instruction was that we really needed to be more 

specific about what that definition is. 

But as it relates to broadband, I think it is fairly clear that what 

we are focusing on are rural unserved areas, for the most part. 

Mr. KINGSTON. That is one of our concerns, to make sure that the 

money does actually go to rural areas and not areas that have figured out a way to get qualified. 

Secretary VILSACK. That is a legitimate concern. 

Mr. STEELE. Mr. Kingston, in the stimulus bill it says, at least 

75 percent of the area to be served by the product shall be in a 

rural area. 

Secretary VILSACK. And it defines it as less than 20,000 in population, less than 50,000 in metro area. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Do you think your modifications are going to 

stray from that definition? 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
224 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, I think the definition of ‘‘rural’’ that we 

are working on actually applies to a broader range of programs 

than just the broadband. So I don’t want to commit myself to a specific definition, but I will tell you that we understand and appreciate what you want us to do, which is, you want us to use those 

resources for broadband in rural areas, and you want unserved 

areas to receive preference, if you will; as opposed to areas where 

they currently have the service, and we would just be adding to 

competition. 

That is my understanding of what Congress wanted us to do. 

Now, if that is not correct, you all need to correct me so I can do 

what you want. 

Mr. KINGSTON. I actually wasn’t in the room, so I don’t know one 

way or the other. That is another issue. 

I have some issues on the Animal Medical Drug Use and Clarification Act, which we passed, and I want to submit those to you 

for the record and get your comments on them. And I yield back. 

Ms. DELAURO. Mr. Farr. 

Mr. FARR. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mr. Secretary, I am very excited you are here. This has been a 

long day with this committee, but I think the excitement is that 

you have the ability in this position to take a department, which 

is one of the oldest departments in the Federal Government, and 

probably deals with more different areas all the way from commodity exchanges to school lunch programs and international trade 

and so on, and really use your skills as a governor and administrator to, hopefully, modernize this Department. 

LOCAL SPECIALTY CROPS

And one of the things that strikes me—and Marcy brought it out 

in her book—is that if we want to grow the markets that you know 

are necessary—and I represent a lot of specialty crops—the markets out there are right in our own backyard. One is the farmer’s 

market you mentioned. You can grow that by requiring that States 

issue their SNAP cards, their WIC cards and the other vouchers 

that are given out at those farmer markets. 

We do that now in Santa Cruz County where the social services 

department who manages these things goes and distributes them 

there. And I will tell you, 65 percent of the income made at that 

farmer’s market comes from those vouchers; and, you know, they 

are buying fresh fruits and vegetables and they are buying local 

stuff. 

The other problem is that we don’t—the schools that we distribute food to can’t go out and buy food locally. They have to go 

through this system that Marcy was talking about. And that list 

that I gave her that she quoted from—and this is the list of the 

Department last year—one of the problems, we talk about obesity 

and everybody is talking about it, and we need to do something 

about it. 

I think you need to shake up your Department. You ought to ask 

them, without any other, How can we shift money to have a goal 

to have a salad bar in every school? And you are going to find out 

all the reasons why we can’t do it, but we last year spent $90 million on mozzarella cheese, $9 million on peanut butter—— 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
225 

No offense to Mr. Bishop. 

Ms. DELAURO. Mozzarella cheese, I might take offense. 

Mr. FARR [continuing] And we only spent $51,000 on fresh tomatoes. 

So our priorities are all in these old commodity programs and the 

processed foods and all of that, and we have to change that by radically looking at what we have talked about earlier of consolidating 

all these programs and streamlining them so that you have additional revenue to get the fresh fruits and vegetables in the schools. 

And I hope that you will stick to that. I know that you have done 

it. 

That is just a statement because, Mr. Kingston—is he still here? 

It is too bad, because Mr. Kingston was talking about earmarks; 

and I would be glad—I want you to look at—I represent Monterey 

and Santa Cruz and San Bernardino Counties. We grow 85 crops 

in Monterey County—it is the number one ag county; it doesn’t 

have any subsidies of water or anything like that, no commodity 

crops—85 crops that produce $3 billion in sales for one small ag 

county, and that is the highest in the United States. 

AGRICULTURE RESEARCH STATION

We can’t get that research station, an Ag research station built 

there because we are spending the limited money the ARS has on 

capital outlay, including the $13 million earmark that Mr. Kingston asked for for last year to get the poultry research facility in 

Athens, Georgia. That’s a $270 million project, and it’s sucking all 

the money away from all other projects in the country, including 

getting in Salinas, probably the oldest—and I am all for earmarking that. 

But because you’ve got issues like, you know, cutting-edge 

issues—this is the E. coli breakout, this is the salmonella breakout, 

listeria, this is all the specialty crops, the ones that you don’t have 

a kill-step for in order to make sure that they’re healthy. And we 

are doing incredible things out there, but we really need to invest 

in that research station. 

So I am for earmarks; and Mr. Kingston says he’s not, but he 

certainly has gotten a lot of the money that I would like to get to 

Salinas. 

So those are some observations. And it really is because we count 

on you to look at all these programs and figure out how to make 

the Department be responsive to the demands of modern society, 

and some of these programs are very old and don’t meet the test 

of common sense anymore. 

SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Secretary VILSACK. Just one comment. We are working with a 

number of groups to try to figure out innovative and creative ways 

to get people signed up with SNAP. One way, which has been 

working in southern California, in particular, has farmers markets 

issuing coupons to encourage people to come to the farmers market. 

They get a couple extra dollars off a purchase. And while they’re 

getting their coupon and standing in line, in some cases, for hours, 

to get a $5 coupon, there is someone next to a table which basically 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
226 

says, would you like to learn about SNAP? Would you like to learn 

if you qualify? Are you currently receiving assistance? 

So we’ve seen a rather significant increase in the number of people signed up from that kind of strategy. So we’re trying to figure 

out ways to expand those kinds of opportunities. 

When 67 percent of Americans who qualify are using the program, that means that 33 percent aren’t, and we have a job still 

to do to make sure that we address it. And this is one of the strategies for reducing childhood obesity. We have to get nutritious food 

in them and in the hands of moms and dads for their children. 

Mr. FARR. When the parent qualifies for SNAP, do the children 

also qualify for the school lunch program? I think they do automatically, but it would be on a different take. 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, your point is well taken of the need to 

streamline and consolidate those programs in the eligibility requirements and the processing of it. But that requires modern technology, and we need your help. 

Ms. DELAURO. I have to deal with Mr. Kingston, who is not here. 

But Congressman Kingston, as I am told here, did not say he was 

against earmarks. He said he was against executive branch picking 

a congressional earmark which it asked for it on its own. So in fairness to the absent ranking member, let me place that on the 

record. 

Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much. 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

Along with the technology request, over the past 3 years our subcommittee has provided significant funds and resources to address 

the Department’s technology challenge. My question is, when can 

we expect a return on that investment to get improved service delivery and efficiency? That’s the first question. 

MEXICAN TRUCKING PILOT PROGRAM

The second has to do with—on a different subject—Mexican 

trucks. Since the Mexican Government has proposed a retaliatory 

tax on U.S. agriculture going into Mexico as a result of the ending 

of the Mexican trucking pilot program, tell me what the status of 

the discussions are with the Mexican Government in that regard. 

Those two questions. You have been helping with the technological challenges there. 

Secretary VILSACK. I was trying to figure out precisely how to respond to your question in terms of time. 

We are expecting that there will be a prototype—it was a 3-year 

program, a 3-year plan to develop a prototype that in turn could 

be tested and then determine whether or not it actually provided 

the kind of service that we need it to provide. That is in the works, 

and we should be seeing that prototype relatively shortly. 

Mr. BISHOP. That includes interoperability—or communication, 

rather, between the agencies. 

Secretary VILSACK. Right. And that also sort of dovetails with the 

whole broadband initiative, which it doesn’t do much good if the 

farmer service office has got the technology but the farmer can’t 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
227 

utilize it because he doesn’t have access to the Internet or highspeed Internet. So we are working on both ends of that problem. 

I have not had an opportunity to speak specifically to the Trade 

Representative or to the Secretary of State about discussions relative to the Mexican trucks. My conversations with Mexican officials have been primarily focused on COOL and the implementation of COOL, which I am happy to visit with you about if you 

want. We have offered assistance to DOT and Secretary LaHood. 

We will have to get back to you in terms of what they can tell us, 

the discussions that have taken place. 

[The information follows:] 

The President has assigned the Department of Transportation to work with the 

U.S. Trade Representative and the Department of State, along with leaders in Congress and Mexican officials, to develop proposed legislation creating a new trucking 

project that will meet the legitimate concerns of Congress and our NAFTA commitments. That process is ongoing. The Department of Agriculture will work with the 

Transportation Department and other agencies in the preparation of the proposal. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. 

Ms. DELAURO. Mr. Davis. 

Mr. DAVIS. I want to follow up on a couple of comments that 

have been made. 

ANIMAL IDENTIFICATION

Country of origin labeling. The area I am from, we have some 

support from that. Animal ID becomes a more difficult task for 

some of us in some of the rural areas to absorb and swallow. I 

wasn’t certain your position on that. Are you taking the position 

that animal ID will be a part of this new administration’s efforts? 

Secretary VILSACK. I believe it has to be, and here’s why. One 

cow caused a rather significant problem with the market not so 

long ago. And I am concerned, from a homeland security standpoint, of what could potentially take place if we don’t have a system that would allow us to identify and mitigate consequences of 

terrorism activity or of a disease or some problem with livestock. 

Having said that, I understand and appreciate that there are 

some areas of the country where this is problematic, which is why 

I have suggested to the Chair that I want the opportunity to sit 

down with folks and work through—and I appreciate that you all 

have been talking about this for 5 years, but I think the circumstances are a little different now. And I think there has been 

clear indication from the Chair and from the Chair of the Ag Committee that there is a real interest in this, and that may change 

attitudes about this. 

I want to work with the industry to make this work. Because 

what I don’t want is for a law to pass, for us to have on the books 

a mandatory system, and then have everyone spend a tremendous 

amount of time and effort to try to figure out how to get around 

it because they have concerns about how the information is going 

to be used or where it’s going to be used. I think we can address 

those problems. 

Mr. DAVIS. As a side comment, we’ve had a whole lot more difficulty with peanuts, a whole lot more difficulty with fruits and 

vegetables tainting our fruit supply than we have necessarily from 

animals. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
228 

Secretary VILSACK. I don’t disagree that that’s the past. I am also 

concerned about the possibility of the future. 

When I was Governor, I remember coming to Secretary Ridge 

and asking him to set up an agri-terrorism aspect of Homeland Security because I believed that that was one way that you could create real serious problems for this country is if the food supply was 

compromised. So I am interested in making sure that we protect 

it as best we can, and I think everybody shares that goal. 

Mr. DAVIS. And the second comment was, I really hope that we 

work together. 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY EFFORTS

Ms. DELAURO. Let me just say, Mr. Bishop mentioned the IT effort. You should know, Mr. Secretary, that you have both sides of 

the aisle on this committee that is enormously supportive of just 

the whole reformation of information technology. We have been appalled at how far back we are at the Federal level, not only here 

at USDA but in other areas as well, with information technology 

and how agencies communicate with one another. So that you have 

real support in this committee to move forward with that effort and 

to let us know what is going on. 

I will just say, we have been in the dark about what happens, 

how it happens, what the contracts are. We have spent money here 

where we find out after it’s implemented that one agency still can’t 

talk to another agency after spending millions of dollars to do 

something. So you have real support here in trying to make your 

systems work. Because they work for farmers, they work for ranchers, they work for school systems, they work everywhere in which 

we have jurisdiction here. So you just need to know that. 

Secretary VILSACK. I am remiss in not thanking you for the work 

that you have done, and it is appreciated. 

Ms. DELAURO. That was a vote. And I would love to say that people are going to come back—and you would probably kill us if we 

did that, but, in any case—— 

Secretary VILSACK. I am happy to stay here. 

Ms. DELAURO. I know that. Thank you very much. 

SUPPLEMENTAL REVENUE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

I want to ask a question about the Agriculture Disaster payments and any delays in those payments or potential delays. 

With the Permanent Disaster program in the farm bill, the Supplemental Revenue Assistance Program, in your testimony you said 

you are currently reassessing the regulatory and software development efforts in light of the changes enacted by the Economic Recovery program. Let me tick off the questions: What did you mean by 

the statement? What regulatory and software changes are necessary after the enactment of ARRA? Will the changes delay the 

delivery of the first SURE payments, and will they delay your promulgation of regulations? 

You went on to say, we are on track to issue regulations by November, 2009, well ahead of the date when the data will be available to calculate payments. 

I was a little confused by the statement. My understanding was 

that USDA had hoped to issue the first SURE payments for the 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
229 

2008 crop year sometime this fall. It appears that that has slipped, 

and you may not deal with those payments until this winter, at the 

earliest. When will USDA issue the first SURE payments? Let me 

ask you to comment. 

Secretary VILSACK. The statutory price discovery mechanism and 

the interrelationship with other USDA programs make it difficult 

for us to calculate the SURE payment for crop year 2008, so we 

don’t expect the rules to be available until September of 2009. The 

information I have is that we won’t expect payments until sometime in 2010. 

Ms. DELAURO. So you won’t be making any of those payments 

until 2010. Wow. I mean, I think there are going to be—I think 

that that’s real news to folks, Mr. Secretary. 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, in the Recovery Act you created multiple benefit options for producers, which makes it significantly 

more complicated to calculate. And it’s a software issue. 

Ms. DELAURO. Well, I also understand the administration supported the language, the efforts in the economic recovery package. 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, I can do this, Madam Chair. I can go 

back and see if there is any way in which this process can be accelerated. We understand and appreciate how significant this is, but 

we are somewhat hampered by the software development. I will 

have to find out if there is any way we can find out—— 

Ms. DELAURO. Well, we should really keep in close touch on this 

issue. Because a lot of members of the committee are very interested, and there are a lot of Members who are interested in what’s 

going to happen here, and we want to make sure that we are moving as quickly as we can. 

Secretary VILSACK. We will follow up. 

[The information follows:] 

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 (P.L. 111–5) made 

several changes to the permanent disaster programs, primarily the Supplemental 

Revenue Assistance (SURE) Program. It provides a waiver for the 2008 crop year 

for producers who did not purchase crop insurance or non-insured crop disaster assistance and failed to timely pay waiver fees authorized in the 2008 Farm Bill. It 

increases the minimum coverage level for SURE guarantees for producers who buyin under this extended waiver authority. It allows previously eligible SURE producers to elect to receive benefits under multiple payment options. It establishes a 

new risk management purchase requirement for producers who elect to pay the 

waiver fee authorized in the ARRA. FSA will need to make extensive regulatory and 

software modification to implement these new requirements. 

The changes are not expected to delay the delivery of the first SURE payments; 

however, they will delay our promulgation of regulations. Prior to the enactment of 

the ARRA, we now anticipate publication to be in November 2009. Sign-up for 

SURE is expected to begin in January 2010 and payments are expected to begin in 

June 2010. We are examining options to expedite the payment process; however, 

due to the complexity of the SURE program, its statutory price discovery mechanisms, and inter-relationship with other USDA programs that may not be possible. 

Ms. DELAURO. I don’t know if there are any more questions or 

comments. 

FARM SUBSIDY PAYMENTS TO POLLUTERS

I am going to submit for the record, just so that you know, I have 

questions about farm subsidy payments to those who are polluting. 

There is a raft of evidence that’s out there that talks about subsidy 

payments to polluters and people who are paying enormous 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
230 

amounts in fines; and, at the same time, we are providing them 

with subsidy payments for their land. 

You also had a former administration person who talked about 

these two things ought to be separate. If you pollute the land, that 

shouldn’t preclude you from being able to get a subsidy. But it 

seems to me that if you violate State and Federal environmental 

quality laws, you cost the taxpayers twice in that instance. But we 

will submit that for the record. 

I had questions about what at least seems to me to be mismanagement at USDA on NRCS and programs with regard to 

NRCS. 

But, again, you have been very, very generous with your time. 

Secretary VILSACK. Madam Chair, to that point, there is an audit 

of NRCS; and we are spending resources and time to try to address 

all deficiencies. 

Ms. DELAURO. There are serious problems at the agency, there 

really are. And I, again, want to solicit your views, the steps that 

we’re taking, all of that to move forward, but it requires more time 

to flesh out. 

I also have questions about FAS and some of the issues that are 

attendant to that. But, as I say, I will submit the rest of my questions for the record and ask my colleagues to do the same. 

CLOSING REMARKS

Thank you for your generosity of time. 

I will just say, there are a lot of questions. You’ve been on the 

job a short period of time. We are very, very aware of this. But I 

think it’s important to lay out what some of the questions are. 

One of the other questions, by the way, I am going to ask for the 

record is the names of the countries on press releases about recalls 

of imported products. 

Secretary VILSACK. And we will do that. 

Ms. DELAURO. Okay. Thank you very, very much. 

But you’ve been there a short period of time. But laying out 

questions for so long on both sides of the aisle here, we have been 

stonewalled from the agency on lots of questions that led to this 

committee, again, both sides of the aisle, just saying, you know, 

hey, you’re not going to answer our questions, you’re not going to 

provide us with the information? We’re an Appropriations Committee. Let me tell you what we’re going to do. 

We look at this as a new day, new dawn, new environment. 

Tough questions from both sides but with an interest that are your 

interests in order to address the issues in the everyday lives of 

folks which this subcommittee and your department have an enormous sway over what happens. 

So we look forward to working with you, and thank you again for 

the generosity of your time this morning and your candor and clarity on answers. Thank you very much. 

Secretary VILSACK. Thank you. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
231 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 404 53443A.118
232 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 405 53443A.119
233 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 406 53443A.120
234 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 407 53443A.121
235 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 408 53443A.122
236 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 409 53443A.123
237 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 410 53443A.124
238 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 411 53443A.125
239 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 412 53443A.126
240 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 413 53443A.127
241 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 414 53443A.128
242 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 415 53443A.129
243 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 416 53443A.130
244 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 417 53443A.131
245 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 418 53443A.132
246 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 419 53443A.133
247 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 420 53443A.134
248 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 421 53443A.135
249 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 422 53443A.136
250 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 423 53443A.137
251 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 424 53443A.138
252 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 425 53443A.139
253 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 426 53443A.140
254 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 427 53443A.141
255 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 428 53443A.142
256 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 429 53443A.143
257 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 430 53443A.144
258 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 431 53443A.145
259 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 432 53443A.146
260 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 433 53443A.147
261 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 434 53443A.148
262 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 435 53443A.149
263 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 436 53443A.150
264 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 437 53443A.151
265 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 438 53443A.152
266 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 439 53443A.153
267 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 440 53443A.154
268 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 441 53443A.155
269 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 442 53443A.156
270 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 443 53443A.157
271 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 444 53443A.158
272 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 445 53443A.159
273 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 446 53443A.160
274 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 447 53443A.161
275 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 448 53443A.162
276 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 449 53443A.163
277 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 450/550 53443A.164

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
(279) 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 22, 2009. 

TESTIMONY OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

APPROPRIATIONS FOR LAND GRANT INSTITUTIONS IN 

THE TERRITORIES 

WITNESS 

HON. MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 

FROM THE TERRITORY OF GUAM 

Ms. DELAURO. In the absence of a gavel, I will use my pen, but 

the hearing is called to order. I want to thank you. And let me just 

say welcome, everyone, here this morning, and particularly I want 

to say a welcome to my colleagues. 

Just so that we put it in context here, the hearing is a new future of the Appropriations Committee’s process. And the view is 

that it could provide an excellent opportunity for Members to share 

their priorities with the subcommittee, and the hope is that in an 

effort to deal with transparency, but to increase transparency of 

this process. So I am looking forward to hearing firsthand from you 

about your communities and what are the issues that are of interest. 

Let me ask colleague Tom Latham if he has any comments to 

make. 

Mr. LATHAM. No, I really don’t. I just welcome our colleagues 

here, and thank you. 

Ms. DELAURO. Okay. We have Congresswoman Madeleine 

Bordallo, now in her fourth term representing Guam. She joins us 

from the Armed Services Committee and from the Natural Resources Committee. 

Congressman Gregorio Sablan, who represents the Northern 

Mariana Islands, serves on the House Natural Resources Committee and Education and Labor. And Congressman Sablan is in 

his first term and the first Northern Marianas Representative in 

the U.S. Congress. 

Welcome to both of you. Let me just ask you to move forward 

with your testimony, and we welcome it. And, you know, obviously, 

if there are questions, we will ask some questions. But thank you 

again for being here. 

And let me also welcome Congresswoman Jo Ann Emerson from 

Missouri, who sits on the subcommittee as well. 

Congresswoman Bordallo. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Good morning, Madam Chairwoman DeLauro 

and Ranking Member Mr. Latham. First, I want to thank you for 

allowing us to be the first to appear before you, since we have other 

commitments this morning. 

I came here today to underscore the importance of this subcommittee in providing funding in fiscal year 2010 for the proVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:29 Jan 26, 2010 Jkt 053443 PO 00000 Frm 00279 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A443P2.XXX A443P2

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
280 

grams that are specifically authorized to support the land grant institutions in the territories. And I am joined this morning by my 

colleague, Congressman Sablan. 

We have filed joint requests with Congressman Faleomavaega of 

American Samoa, Congresswoman Christensen of the Virgin Islands, and Congressman Pierluisi of Puerto Rico, who, like us, are 

contending with a markup session in the Committee on Natural 

Resources this morning. So I appreciate your forbearance as I must 

leave at the conclusion of my remarks to attend that markup session. 

This year, Madam Chairwoman, we request that $1.5 million be 

appropriated for the Resident Instruction Insular Grants Program, 

which received $800,000 in last year’s bill; second, that $8 million 

be appropriated for the Facilities and Equipment Insular Grants 

Program; and third, that $5 million be appropriated for the Distance Education Insular Grants Program. 

Now, each of these three programs have been authorized by Congress in recognition of the unique needs of the land grant institutions in the territories and the disproportionately small amount of 

Federal funding that they have historically received. 

This subcommittee has funded the Resident Instruction Grants 

Program, first authorized by the 2002 farm bill, for the past 5 

years. And while the House has traditionally supported this program, without representation of the territories in the other body we 

have not faired so well in the conference process. 

The institutions in the territories were designated as part of the 

land grant system in 1972 by an act of Congress. And these institutions, however, are generally classified and treated by USDA as 

members of the greater 1862 community of land grant colleges and 

universities. That means our institutions have to compete with 

more established, greater resourced, and more competitive flagship 

land grant institutions in the United States mainland for limited 

Federal dollars, and thus, in part, the reason for our request this 

morning. 

The unique needs and the underdeveloped capacity of the institutions in the territories were acknowledged by USDA in a report 

that the Committee on Appropriations requested in 2003. 

The institutions in the territories are working today to strengthen their capacity and ability to train professionals to meet the need 

for food and agricultural scientists and specialists in our island 

communities. Each of our institutions are also making the most use 

of limited and at-risk funding to continue extension initiatives 

aimed at sharing research-based knowledge and education with 

stakeholders in our community that ultimately is improving the 

quality of life and, in particular, public health. 

Our institutions also comprise the Caribbean and Pacific Consortium, or the CariPac. This consortium was established in 2005 during the first year the Resident Instruction Grants Program was 

funded to support collaboration. 

Now, with the Resident Instruction funds that have been appropriated to date, these institutions are preparing students to achieve 

their own personal career goals and increasing the quality of undergraduate instruction. The University of Guam—and, incidentally, Madam Chairman, the university is now headed by my predVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:29 Jan 26, 2010 Jkt 053443 PO 00000 Frm 00280 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A443P2.XXX A443P2

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
281 

ecessor, Dr. Underwood, who is now the president. The University 

of Guam, for example, has built the infrastructure needed to begin 

transmitting both real-time distant education courses and platform-based distant learning and delivery systems. 

High school mentorship programs have also been established, 

and undergraduate and graduate scholarships are also being offered. 

The amount appropriated each year for the Resident Instruction 

Grants Program, however, must be increased if we are to take this 

success to the next level. So attached to my written testimony is 

a chart outlining the education outcomes that each institution 

achieved with the funding provided to date. And I think you all 

have this chart. 

Each of our territories is also contending with declining revenues 

and budget deficits. Providing at least $1.5 million for the Resident 

Instruction Grants Program in this year’s bill will enable our institution to continue attracting and supporting undergraduate and 

graduate students in the agriculture, food and nutrition, and animal sciences. 

Second, I cannot emphasize enough the demonstrated need in the 

area of facilities and equipment improvement for our land grant institutions in the territories. Last year, Congress in the farm bill authorized a new grants program to address these needs. 

Very quickly, I want to highlight the most pressing infrastructure need at the University of Guam. In addition to the program 

request, I have also requested an appropriation in the amount of 

$750,000 within either the Agricultural Research Service or the 

CSREES account to upgrade its shrimp and tilapia hatchery facility. The original hatchery building was constructed over 30 years 

ago, has gone through nearly 25 typhoons, and was recently condemned by structural engineers. 

And, Madam Chairwoman, on one of my recent trips, I did tour 

that facility, and it is in terrible shape. It previously housed shrimp 

and tilapia tanks for shrimp genetic replications and chillers for 

marketing to local, regional, and international stakeholders. And 

without this building at the University of Guam, the research facility, graduate students, and stakeholders are seriously crippled. 

And the pure genetic stocks that have resulted from up to a decade 

of replication will be lost. So the funds I have requested will help 

the University of Guam to rebuild this particular facility. 

Now, finally, I cannot come before the subcommittee without also 

addressing the request I have submitted for an appropriation in 

the amount of $100,000 within the accounts for Natural Resources 

Conservation Service for the next phase of planning for the Northern Guam Irrigation Project. 

The project received $100,000 in a discretionary award in 2006, 

but it awaits further funding. And this project will provide adequate, consistent, and affordable agricultural water to farmers in 

northern Guam, most of whom live at or below the poverty level 

and face inadequate irrigation water supply due to the deteriorated 

pipelines and inadequate source development to keep up with increased farm and domestic demand. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
282 

So, Madam Chairman and Ranking Member, I thank you very 

much, and members of the committee, for your consideration of all 

my requests and for your time. 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
283 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 559 here 53443B.001
284 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 560 here 53443B.002
285 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 561 here 53443B.003
286 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 562 here 53443B.004
287 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 563 here 53443B.005
288 

Ms. DELAURO. I understand the urgency for you to get off to a 

markup. Let me just ask a couple of questions, and I will ask my 

colleagues if they have questions. 

With regard to the grants for the insular areas, give us the onthe-ground sense of what this does in terms of your land grant institutions. How does it strengthen what they do? 

Ms. BORDALLO. Well, it certainly has been a success up to this 

point. But, as we grow, there is a need for additional funding. 

One of the things I want to mention, Madam Chair, is we, like 

any other minority area, along with the CNMI, health is very important to us. And for this reason, we have to increase farming. We 

have farming, you know, that goes on 365 days of the year; we 

don’t have any seasons. And so I feel that it is very important that 

we increase these very important projects. 

Ms. DELAURO. Do all three programs that you mentioned—not the $100,000 and the $750,000, the others—what is their relationship to one another? 

Ms. BORDALLO. Oh, they are partners, yes. And let me mention, 

too, more heavily we rely on Federal funds for some of these funds. 

Without it, locally we just could not continue. 

Ms. DELAURO. And a question on the irrigation project: What is 

the benefit of that project to the communities that you represent? 

Ms. BORDALLO. Well, right now, you know, our water system and 

all is very inadequate. It is antiquated. We just have to—and the 

farmers rely on, you know—they would like irrigation put in. None 

of them have it, so they are doing their own watering and trying 

to work their crops. 

And another thing I want to point out is nearly 80 percent of the 

faculty is funded on the USDA budget, too. So that is another important aspect. 

Ms. DELAURO. Do you know what the funding is going to be specifically used for? And what is the sense of the overall total project 

cost, ultimately, for this? Do we know? 

Ms. BORDALLO. $1.3 million is the total cost. 

Ms. DELAURO. $1.3 million is the total cost. 

Ms. BORDALLO. And I want to mention, too, that, you know, with 

the irrigation system and some of this that the funds would handle, 

right now farmers have no water at all. 

Ms. DELAURO. At all. 

Ms. BORDALLO. No, none whatsoever. And we have been talking 

about this for years. And we do have droughts on Guam, believe 

it or not. We have the rainy season and the dry season. And that 

is when we are really affected. 

Ms. DELAURO. Thank you, Congresswoman Bordello. 

Let me ask my colleague, Mr. Latham. 

Mrs. EMERSON. I have a question. 

Ms. DELAURO. Mrs. Emerson. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Thank you for being here today. 

I have a very quick question. I would like to know, with the 

shifting of the Marine base and the additional people that suddenly 

the thousands and thousands of people that will actually be housed 

on Guam, don’t you think—I mean, that is going to put a lot of 

pressure on already existing systems. So it seems to me that the 

land grant universities and not only doing the research but also enVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:29 Jan 26, 2010 Jkt 053443 PO 00000 Frm 00288 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A443P2.XXX A443P2

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
289 

hancing the water systems and the like should help exacerbate 

some of the challenges you all are going to face with suddenly having all of these thousands of additional bodies on the island. Is that 

correct? 

Ms. BORDALLO. The number we are looking at in the buildup is 

about 30,000. And certainly that is an impact in any community. 

There are 8,300 Marines and their families, which totals 20,000. 

And then we have enhancing the Air Force, the Navy, and the 

Army we are bring in. So, yes, very definitely. 

Now, they are looking at the water system, because one of the 

contentions of some of the people are, are we going to have outside 

help? Is everything going to be inside the fence, or are they going 

to help us outside? And, yes, they are. They are looking at our 

power; they are looking at our water systems. But, again, that 

won’t help the farmers. 

Mrs. EMERSON. No, but I should think that you would have a lot 

of impact on the farmers and the necessity for the farmers to be 

able to further and better develop their techniques and their best 

practices for production purposes. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Absolutely. Absolutely. Right now, we don’t have 

any export in Guam. You know, farmers just—they raise crops, 

fruits and vegetables. There is a law, a local law, that they provide 

the fruits and vegetables for our students in school. But above and 

beyond that, we can’t—now we have the Federal schools, the DOD 

schools, and we don’t have the amount. 

Mrs. EMERSON. So your request would definitely enhance your 

ability to provide fresh fruits and vegetables for those 30,000-plus 

new people. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Absolutely. Absolutely, Congresswoman. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Okay. Thank you. 

Ms. DELAURO. I just have a quick question, because I am interested in the distance learning piece, which I am a strong supporter 

of distance learning, which is a tripartite piece here. 

Just overall, in terms of the insular areas and the need for distance learning, can you just spend a second on talking about that 

need? 

Ms. BORDALLO. Well, probably the most important aspect of it is 

it enables us to partner with mainland universities. 

Ms. DELAURO. Okay. 

Ms. BORDALLO. I think that is—and I don’t know if the Congressman has any further comments on that. 

Mr. SABLAN. Oh, Guam is very lucky, Chairwoman. She only has 

one island; I have 14. 

Ms. DELAURO. You have 14 islands, yes. 

Mr. SABLAN. And this spans the length of California or almost 

the West Coast. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Three inhabited. 

Mr. SABLAN. But we do have that communication problem in between the islands. 

Ms. BORDALLO. And another point, too, on that same question. It 

makes most use of taxpayer funds, and we can tap into national 

successes. So it is very important. We are becoming—even though 

we are 10,000 miles from Washington, D.C., 22 air flight hours, we 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
290 

are becoming closer and closer because of some of these programs 

and so forth. 

Ms. DELAURO. Well, that is the advantage of distance learning 

and its abilities. 

Mr. Latham. 

Mr. LATHAM. I just wondered, with the influx of military, have 

you talked to the Department of Defense appropriation—or Defense 

Appropriations Subcommittee? Are there plans from the military to 

improve facilities over and above this? 

Ms. BORDALLO. Oh, yes. It is a $14 billion move from Okinawa. 

And everything will be new—housing, so forth. They will be 

partnering with the local government on power. The dump sites 

will be used by both; water lines and so forth; and highways, highway money. So we are partnering because the local community is 

very concerned about that. So ‘‘yes’’ to your question. 

Mr. LATHAM. Okay. Thank you. 

Ms. DELAURO. Mr. Alexander, do you have any questions of the 

witness? 

Mr. ALEXANDER. No, no. 

Ms. DELAURO. Thank you very much, Congressman Bordallo. As 

I say, I appreciate your willingness to stay for questions. And if we 

have more, obviously we will be in touch with you and with your 

staff, and I know you will be in touch with us. 

Ms. BORDALLO. I just wish, Madam Chairman, that we would be 

able to have other hours for meetings other than 10:00 and 2:00. 

It seems that we have so many, you know, problems with the timing here. So I would very much like to stay, but I do have—— 

Ms. DELAURO. No, no, no, I understand. And, again, thank you. 

Let me ask Congressman Sablan to present his testimony. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 22, 2009. 

APPROPRIATIONS FOR LAND GRANT INSTITUTIONS IN 

THE TERRITORIES 

WITNESS 

HON. GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS 

Mr. SABLAN. Thank you, Madam Chair and Mr. Latham, Mrs. 

Emerson and Mr. Alexander. Thank you for having us here this 

morning. I ask, if I may, that my statements be inserted in the 

record as if read in full. I want to try and shorten this. 

Ms. DELAURO. Thank you. 

Mr. SABLAN. Thank you for having us. And I join Mrs. Bordallo, 

on behalf of our colleagues, to highlight our joint request for appropriations for resident instruction, facilities and equipment, distance 

education grant programs that authorized by the Food Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 for land grant institutions and territories. 

The insular programs, as they are generally known, are important means through which the Department of Agriculture helps address the unique and growing needs of this set of underserved, underdeveloped, minority-serving institutions. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
291 

I want to bring up three items. Mrs. Bordallo was able to discuss 

the land grant, but I have two other issues that I would like to 

bring: the Kagman Watershed and the Garapan Public Market. 

Kagman has one of the richest soil in the entire Northern Mariana Islands, and they get about an hour of water maybe 4 or 5 

times a week, if they are lucky. And so a lot of it depends on the 

rain. And the watershed, since 1993, 16 years, the Natural Resources Conservation Services have began working on the Kagman 

Watershed Project. And it is authorized, the project is authorized, 

and it just needs funding. We have been having a difficult time 

funding it. 

And the purpose of the project is to reduce flooding of agricultural land and public roads by collecting the runoff from the mountainsides above the peninsula. And the water needs to be collected 

in a reservoir and then distributed to farmers for irrigation. There 

is about 3,750, almost 4,000 acres of Kagman land, and the area 

is intensely farmed for vegetables. 

We import a lot of our vegetables from California. And they are 

great, they are great vegetables. It is just that the time it takes to 

get there and the cost of shipment is very exorbitantly expensive 

to ship from the West Coast to Saipan. And with this we could control some of this erosion and provide more water for the farmers, 

because the farmers are beginning to produce. And they do contribute to school lunch programs; they do contribute to horticulture, 

military right now. And then we will be contributing to the military 

buildup and the commissaries on Guam. 

The second project that I have brought up is the Garapan Public 

Market. Here in Washington, D.C., you have the Eastern Market. 

I am sure in each of your districts you each have markets. And, 

even in Guam, they have their own markets. For the Northern 

Mariana Islands, at the present time, they have canopies. 

They put up, erect tents. And they do it on a Thursday night at 

a certain place, on a Saturday at a certain place, on a Tuesday 

night. These are things they put up for a couple of hours and then 

sell their produce and then take it down. There is no running 

water, there is no sanitation. We would like to establish this, because this is where they sell not just produce but they also sell agriculture. 

I just came from the Northern Mariana Islands. The mayor of 

Tinian started a seaweed and an abalone project, to grow these 

things, so we don’t have to buy them from Asia. Right now we are 

buying them from Asia. And the market will give everybody an opportunity to come together, have sanitized a place where they come 

in and probably have chills and those kind of stuff to store fish so 

that they don’t spoil as often and they are more fresh. And so I am 

asking for that also. 

And, again, I attach myself to Mrs. Bordallo’s testimony on the 

issue of land grants. And I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have. 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
292 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 575 53443B.006
293 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 576 53443B.007
294 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 577 53443B.008
295 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 578 53443B.009
296 

Ms. DELAURO. I just have a quick question. The $2.3 million, will 

that complete the watershed project? 

Mr. SABLAN. No. 

Ms. DELAURO. What is your sense of—what will this get you, in 

terms of this project, in making this area valuable? 

Mr. SABLAN. This will be the waterway phase. There are other things: the reservoir and sediment basin for another $2.8 million, 

and $900,000 for the pump and transfer pipeline. 

One of the advantage, also, we need to do this, is that some of 

the soil is eroding into the ocean, and it is causing problems in the 

corals. 

Ms. DELAURO. Right. It is a viable agricultural production now, 

and so we want to try to increase and enhance its ability to do this, 

rather than dealing with shipping from California. 

Mr. SABLAN. Very much so. It would increase production. 

Ms. DELAURO. What do you grow? What is growing? 

Mr. SABLAN. Everything from tapioca to sweet potato, leafy vegetables. We don’t have very good carrots. Some of our produce are 

local. I mean, and jicama, you know, melons, cucumbers, you know, 

all the good stuff that I don’t really eat as often as I should, but 

the good stuff. And right now they are imported. Bananas are 

grown, but many people have their own bananas, but they are 

grown there. But many people have bananas in their backyard. I 

think I am the only one who doesn’t grow bananas, but I have 

neighbors and relatives I can ask them for it. But, really, all the 

stuff that are needed are sold at the market. 

Mr. Bob Jones just took over this one market on Saipan. He 

opened it last Thursday, and I was invited to it. And almost half 

the store are reserved for fresh produce because Mr. Jones doesn’t 

want to import produce from the States. And he took out several 

farmers. Mr. Tony Pellegrino, who is now getting the farmers together—there is a farmers cooperation, association. He is getting 

them together. He is doing the set-up for when the military comes 

into Guam. He is starting already. But he is going to do it on a 

larger scale, where he is going to collect all this produce and bring 

them to the military, the commissaries on Guam. 

And so we are looking forward to all these things. It not just encourages production, but not just for our own—I prefer that it be 

encouraged for our own food right now so that we don’t need—but 

it also has an opportunity for helping out with the military buildup 

in Guam. 

Ms. DELAURO. Just for my own information, to help my colleagues, there are 14 islands? 

Mr. SABLAN. Yes, there are. There are two active volcanos. The 

other one just erupted last week again. But there are 14 islands 

that stretches about the length of California almost. The last island 

is very close to Iwo Jima. Some of these islands are preserved, so 

no one is allowed on them unless you are a scientist. 

Ms. DELAURO. Is it preserved for marine life? 

Mr. SABLAN. It is preserved for nature, just preserved. 

The islands, there are actually seven islands that are inhabitable, except that it just gets costly, so people move down. There are 

no infrastructures. At one time, there were a lot of people staying 

up there for copper production, but the price of copper came down, 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
297 

so people moved back down to the districts. The schools are there; 

they want their children to finally have education and all these 

things. 

But just imagine, going from Guam—you have an idea where 

Guam is? The islands stretch out, and the furthest north island, 

which is also a preserve and is now part of this national monument 

that the President just declared, is very close to Iwo Jima. And 

great islands, beautiful islands. Some of them have dolphins. I used 

to scuba dive, and have dolphins, some of them. Beautiful, beautiful islands. 

Ms. DELAURO. As Mrs. Bordallo said, there are three that are 

habitable? 

Mr. SABLAN. Three have major populations. The other islands do 

have, but they are not large. And, really, I think all of us should 

go out one of these days. 

Mr. LATHAM. I think we should do a CODEL. 

Ms. DELAURO. I like it. I like it. 

Mr. SABLAN. I knew you guys were my best friends today. 

Ms. DELAURO. I am sorry, as I say, because I will be honest with 

you, I don’t know much. 

Mr. SABLAN. It is really far from Connecticut. 

Ms. DELAURO. How about Iowa? I bet it is different than Iowa 

and Louisiana, as well. 

Mr. LATHAM. It is just like Iowa. 

Mr. SABLAN. But we really have needs. Our government is struggling. We depend on tourism, basically, now. 

Ms. DELAURO. Is that what it is? It is tourism? 

Mr. SABLAN. Yes. And the drop of the won, Korean won, they are 

just not coming. Japan has their own financial difficulties; they are 

just not coming. Tourists from the United States, you know, it is 

so far away. We get a few tourists. We are getting Russians, and 

they are really excellent tourists because they spend a lot of 

money. But that may stop on November—— 

Ms. DELAURO. But is it mostly agriculture? 

Mr. SABLAN. No, it is mostly tourism. There is fishing, but most 

fishing is just subsistence for now. 

Ms. DELAURO. Okay. Thank you. I don’t have any more questions. Thank you very, very much. 

Mr. LATHAM. Why would the tourism stop on November 28th? 

Mr. SABLAN. Well, the Russian tourists, because under the new 

visa waiver program—the federalized immigration system starts on 

November 28th, unless we get Homeland Security to see where we 

are coming from. But we are hopeful. 

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you. 

Ms. DELAURO. Thank you very, very much. Thank you for coming by. Appreciate it. 

Mr. SABLAN. Thank you for having me. 

Ms. DELAURO. I am going to ask Congressman Hall to join us. 

Congressman John Hall is in his second term and represents New 

York’s 19th District, serves on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Veterans’ Affairs, the Select Committee on Independence and Global Warming. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
298 

Welcome to you, Congressman Hall. And obviously your entire 

statement will be in the record, and you can summarize or you can 

as you choose. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 22, 2009. 

NEW YORK PROJECTS 

WITNESS 

HON. JOHN HALL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE 

STATE OF NEW YORK 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Chairwoman DeLauro, Ranking Member 

Latham, Representative Alexander, for inviting me to appear before you today. And I would be happy to arrange a CODEL to Orange County, New York, the home of West Point as well as the 

Black Dirt region, where the soil is so dark and rich that it is darker than the top of this table. 

One of the requests that I have submitted to your committee is 

about the Black Dirt region, which has acres upon acres of this extremely fertile muck soil, used to produce onions, potatoes, and 

other specialty crops. In July of 1997, a severe hailstorm struck 

2,500 acres of onion fields in the Black Dirt region. Scores of onion 

leaves were damaged, allowing water and bacteria to seep deep 

into the heart of the plants. 

Farmers in my district asked the USDA for permission to destroy 

their crops but were told that, under existing crop insurance policies, it would only be considered a sound farming process to care 

for the crop and bring it to harvest. Orange County’s onion growers 

were forced to finance multiple pesticide applications and weeding, 

harvest preparation, grading and packaging for crops that wound 

up to be unmarketable. 

The USDA reversed their policy in late September of 1996 and 

then gave the onion growers permission to destroy the onions in 

the field, which would have allowed them to replant during the 

same season. At that point, however, the vast majority of our farmers had already completed the harvest, spent large amounts of capital caring for rotten crops. And, as a result, growers in the region 

were forced to seek funding through large USDA loans to survive. 

In order to provide assistance to these already financially 

strained farms who seem to undergo either a drought or a flood 

every year or every other year, I am asking the subcommittee to 

include language in the fiscal year 2010 Agriculture Appropriations 

bill to encourage the USDA to forgive the remaining balance of the 

loans issued between September of 1996 and July of 1997 to farmers in the Black Dirt region. 

These farmers should not have to pay for USDA’s mistake, which 

forced them to take out these loans more than a decade ago. By forgiving the loans, the USDA would remedy a previous injustice 

while providing desperately needed financial assistance to growers 

in the region. 

My district is also home to dozens of lakes, many of which are 

in critical condition. I submitted a request for a lake aeration 

project for the Village of Greenwood Lake, which has been classified as a critical water body due to the large amount of phosVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:29 Jan 26, 2010 Jkt 053443 PO 00000 Frm 00298 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A443P2.XXX A443P2

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
299 

phorous entering the lake, creating damaging algae blooms and 

weed growth, leading to toxic gasses and eutrophication of the 

water. 

I have requested $177,000 for the Village of Greenwood Lake to 

use an inversion oxygenation system to remove toxic gasses from 

the water, increase water quality, improve fish growth, reduce 

algae and weeds, and eliminate odors. And I appreciate your consideration of this project, which would be beneficial both to the environment and the residents of the community. 

Lake Oscawana is a natural two-mile lake in Putnam County, 

New York, whose water quality has been declining for the past 40 

years. New York State DEC recently concluded that remedial 

measures need to be taken without delay. And we have submitted 

a request to your subcommittee for a million dollars for the Lake 

Oscawana Management and Restoration Plan, calling for binding 

the existing phosphate in the lake and preventing phosphate from 

entering the lake by constructing storm catch basins and storm 

drains to capture the phosphate from storm runoff. Without this 

funding, the lake will die. 

I have also submitted a request for the Hudson Valley Agricultural Viability Program, which is run by the Hudson Valley Agribusiness Development Corporation. This program fosters economic 

development in the Hudson Valley’s agricultural industry by using 

methods like gap financing, business assistance for agricultural 

start-ups and expansions, and different networking opportunities 

for farmers and other agricultural entrepreneurs in the Hudson 

Valley. I encourage you to provide funding for this valuable program. 

I thank the committee for granting me this time to speak today 

and for your consideration of these important projects in New 

York’s 19th District. And I look forward to working with you in the 

coming months on this legislation. And I would be happy to answer 

any questions. 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
300 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 589 53443B.010
301 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 590 53443B.011
302 

Ms. DELAURO. Thank you very much, Mr. Hall. 

Mr. Latham, do you have questions? 

Mr. LATHAM. I just have one question. The onion farmers, were 

they paid insurance losses? 

Mr. HALL. The onion farmers I don’t believe were paid. I don’t 

think so. I think what they did was they tried to do what they were 

told was the correct procedure with the crop, which would not have 

required insurance because they were harvesting. And then when 

it turned out that it was unmarketable, they were given permission 

to destroy it. But the reason that they had to take out the loans 

was because they had not received disaster aid. 

I can get more information on that. 

Mr. LATHAM. Yes, if you would. I mean, I understand the situation, but if they were paid with—— 

Mr. HALL. I will find out with certainty for you. That is a good 

question. 

Mr. LATHAM. What is the request then, also, on the Hudson Valley Agricultural—is there a number? 

Ms. DELAURO. I think it is $1.5 million. 

Mr. LATHAM. 1.5. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Chairman. 

Mr. LATHAM. Okay. That is all. Thank you. 

Mr. HALL. These are among the small businesses in the Hudson 

Valley that not only provide—usually, when things work out well, 

they provide a healthier environment. Orange County was, before 

the economic downturn we are experiencing, was the fastest growing county in New York State. And, by farming, not only do these 

businesses and these farmers provide us with food that is grown 

close to us, which is fresher when it gets to market and which prevents us from having to eat food that is dependent upon a long 

interstate highway system or rail system and, therefore, could be 

interrupted, the supply could be interrupted for some of these crops 

if we were not able to get produce from the West Coast or from the 

Midwest, but it also prevents overdevelopment. 

And the overdevelopment pressure coming up, population moving 

up from New York, was immense until the real estate downturn. 

And, once the situation turns around, which sooner or later I expect it will, we will once again see farms being cut up and divided 

into small plots with houses on them, making farming actually a 

viable way for people to survive and feed their families in all of our 

interests, as well. 

Ms. DELAURO. Mr. Alexander. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. No, ma’am. 

Ms. DELAURO. Let me just—it was interesting, this morning I 

met with some small farmers from Oklahoma and other parts of 

the country, the Midwest. And they wanted me to be sure that this 

committee would be concerned about commercial farming in the 

Midwest, et cetera, and that folks in Connecticut and New York 

would understand what farmers’ lives were about. And I said, 

‘‘Well, you know, we do, in fact, have farms in Connecticut and in 

New York, with some of the same kinds of difficulties and problems 

that you have, as well, in terms of disasters,’’ et cetera, et cetera. 

So it is just an interesting juxtaposition here for me this morning, 

and the reality about what happens in some of these areas. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
303 

I, too, like my colleague Mr. Latham, we need to find out if there 

was an insurance payment on that. 

Mr. HALL. We will. 

Ms. DELAURO. How many onion growers were affected? 

Mr. HALL. I think it is in the range of a dozen. And, once again, 

I will get the exact number for you. 

But they are a group of small farmers who are always, it seems, 

on the verge of either giving up or being successful or perhaps 

planting just a holding crop, like grass, to keep the erosion, if we 

have a flood. We have had three 50-year floods in the last 6 years. 

You know, it is between the Delaware and the Hudson River Valley. And the Wallkill and the Minisink Rivers run through it, and 

extreme rain events cause them to lose soil. So sometimes they 

plant holding crops onto sides of the irrigation ditches in fallow 

areas. But there are living on the edge. 

Ms. DELAURO. On the edge, sure. 

But, also, if you can, explain to us how come this is occurring 

now? I mean, this happened 1996, 1997. 

Mr. HALL. Because I am here now. I wasn’t, obviously, in Congress when this hail storm occurred. And I have learned from 

meeting with them and talking to them that they are still trying 

to pay off loans from 1996 and 1997. 

Ms. DELAURO. Do you know what the average loan amount was 

for folks through FSA? 

Mr. HALL. No. I will find that out for you. 

Ms. DELAURO. Okay. We can follow up with your office on that. 

So it was a crop insurance policy? Just explain that to me for a 

second, in terms of the crop insurance. They had to be brought to 

harvest. 

Mr. HALL. My understanding is that, in order to collect crop insurance, the crop would have had to have been destroyed and be 

declared unmarketable. And so they went through the season harvesting, treating with pesticides, weeding, preparing, and then 

wound up with a crop which in the final analysis was rotten anyway. So they lost a year and—— 

Ms. DELAURO. They petitioned the USDA, if you will, for permission to destroy the crop, but they were told under the existing crop 

insurance policy that sound farming process would be to care for 

and to try to bring it to harvest, so they got—— 

Mr. HALL. I think they know their crops and their soil better 

than USDA does. 

Ms. DELAURO. Yeah. Okay. Okay. 

Mr. HALL. We will get those details for you. 

Ms. DELAURO. Yes, that would be terrific to do that. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you for your consideration. 

And, of course, many of you know probably from your own districts that water is a big issue, be it drinking water, wastewater, 

et cetera. And I can’t tell you how much I am hearing from my 43 

towns and cities I represent. And these lake issues are critical because of the combination of natural phosphorus coming out of the 

rocks surrounding them, runoff from lawn treatments, sewage 

treatment plants in municipalities, private septic systems at 

homes, which used to be sparse and have gotten to be more and 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
304 

more crammed together. And all of that running into the lakes is 

causing a problem. 

Ms. DELAURO. What are the current uses of the lakes? Is it fishing? Is it recreation? 

Mr. HALL. Well, it is fishing and recreation. That is one of the 

things that keeps the property values around those lakes up and 

provides tourism and so on. 

Ms. DELAURO. In terms of the water quality, what effect has that 

had on the surrounding communities? 

Mr. HALL. It reduces the oxygen content, kills off the fish, causes 

algae and—— 

Ms. DELAURO. Is it commercial fishing that is done there? 

Mr. HALL. It is recreational fishing, but that is obviously a big 

tourism attraction. 

Ms. DELAURO. Sure. Well, as somebody who comes from the area 

of the Long Island Sound, you know, with fishing and recreation, 

that is a combination. 

I have just a couple questions on the Hudson Valley, the Agricultural Viability Program. Are you making the request for funds 

through the rural development programs? ‘‘Yes’’ is the answer to 

that question. 

Mr. HALL. Yes. 

Ms. DELAURO. And if you could just give us a little bit of a handle on how the program would work, to look at economic growth 

and jobs, et cetera, in your view. 

Mr. HALL. Well, it is a combination of trying to educate farmers 

about improved or new practices, other possible crops that could be 

grown, and setting up meetings with them and trying to get marketing opportunities they don’t have. 

It is ironic that we grow some of the best onions in the world. 

In fact, if you haven’t had an Orange County onion, you haven’t 

lived. But you can go to Wal-Marts or Hannafords or Stop & Shop 

or any of the big supermarket chains, and you can’t find them. And 

I am trying to help, we are trying to help, and the State is trying 

to help them get our local crops into our local supermarkets, not 

just into the farmers’ markets. I mean, those of us who know to 

go on a Saturday or Sunday to the farmers’ markets can get real 

tomatoes and really good onions and so on and so forth. But, unfortunately, it is the buyers for the big stores who move a large 

amount of product. 

So those are the kinds of things that we are trying to do and that 

the program would enhance. 

Ms. DELAURO. Thank you very, very much. And, again, we will 

continue to work with you and with your staff on these. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you very much. 

Ms. DELAURO. Thank you. 

I see Congressman Putnam. 

Mr. PUTNAM. I need to get you all some orange juice for the witness table. 

Ms. DELAURO. Thank you. Thanks for coming by. 

And Congressman Putnam is in his fifth term. He represents 

Florida’s 12th District, and he serves on the Financial Services 

Committee. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
305 

And you know the drill, Congressman. You are welcome to summarize your statement. Obviously, the full statement will be read 

into the record. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 22, 2009. 

‘‘CITRUS GREENING’’ DISEASE 

WITNESS 

HON. ADAM PUTNAM, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE 

STATE OF FLORIDA 

Mr. PUTNAM. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And thank you for 

the opportunity to be here. Mr. Latham, Mr. Alexander. Thank you 

for giving all Members the opportunity to come before you. 

Under the rules of the House and rules of your committee, what 

I am here to discuss is technically an earmark, but it is an earmark that impacts Florida, Alabama, Louisiana, Texas, Arizona, 

and California. And at least 27 Members of Congress have signed 

on to the request, but it is a large request. And I think it bears 

public scrutiny and this committee’s attention and review. 

And it is to continue funding—this is not a new request, but it 

is an expansion of an existing program—the Citrus Health Response Plan, CHRP, which is a cooperative arrangement between 

the States that I mentioned, between the State Departments of Agriculture, but primarily funded by the USDA, to deal with what 

has been called by the New York Times and USA Today, as well 

as people who actually know what they are talking about, ‘‘the 

world’s most destructive citrus disease,’’ which is in Asia known as 

Huanglongbing and in the United States known as citrus greening. 

And there is no known cure. And we are a long way toward developing the appropriate treatment, containment, psyllid control and 

other things. 

And there are really two pieces to this problem. One is the disease itself, and the second is the vector of the disease, which is a 

psyllid, a bug. And so, research thus far that you have supported 

and you have funded has determined thus far that the best way to 

control the disease is to control the psyllid. That seems to be the 

easiest thing to get our arms around. And so research continues in 

that vein. 

In California they have the bug; they don’t have the disease. In 

Florida we have both, and it has been devastating. We have seen 

infection rates where a citrus grove may have a 5 percent infection 

rate when they discover the greening presence in that particular 

citrus grove, and within 12 months it is 40 percent. It has an extraordinary spread. The range of the bug is as yet undefined, but 

it is a long range that that bug can fly in any particular day. And 

everywhere that it goes, it feeds on new, young fleshing growth. 

So, in addition to it exacerbating the spread and accelerating the 

spread, even without accounting for human movement of plant material, it also has further curtailed the growth or the sustainment 

of the existing acreage of the industry, because people refuse to 

plant new trees because that essentially baits in the bug that 

spreads the disease. Older, more mature trees that have tougher, 

less tasty leaves are less vulnerable to the disease. So when people 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
306 

pull out the tree, they don’t replant because that is essentially adding back to the problem. So you are seeing a steady decline in acreage, steady decline in trees. Long term, this is a huge problem for 

the citrus industries in all citrus-producing areas of the country. 

So those are the points that I wanted to be sure and get across. 

The other point I want to be sure and get across is grower involvement. In Florida, we fund through a box tax an actual agency 

of the government; there is a Florida Department of Citrus. And 

the growers tax themselves primarily for marketing, so that you 

can see a TV commercial that says, ‘‘Buy Florida orange juice. Paid 

for by the Florida Citrus Growers.’’ They have transferred, on their own, $20 million of grower-funded monies into this research effort. So there is real skin in the 

game, not in-kind donations, not counting growers riding around in 

trucks as labor costs that is a matching account for the Federal 

Government. They have put $20 million in real dollars into an account to do the research. 

And to make sure that it is managed properly, they have asked 

the National Academy of Sciences to identify how to spend that 

money. So it is not just a bunch of growers sitting around a table 

saying, well, I think the answer is this, or I think the answer is 

that. They are bringing in real experts, a blue ribbon panel from 

the National Academy to monitor and regulate and direct this 

grower investment. 

So I believe that it is—when you look at the standards for why 

would I ask someone from Connecticut to pay for this, this is not 

limited to any one congressional district; it is not even limited to 

any one particular State. There is a tremendous economic impact 

to all of the States who are citrus-producing States. It is a $12 billion industry in Florida alone. We certainly want to make sure that 

we contain it and treat it in Florida and prevent its spread into 

Louisiana, Texas, Arizona, and California. 

And so I believe that there is a compelling national interest for 

the United States Department of Agriculture to dramatically expand their commitment to research on new varieties that are more 

resistant to the disease, ways to control or eradicate the disease, 

and ways to control or eradicate the psyllid that transmits the disease. 

So that, in sum, Madam Chairman, is the purpose of our request 

for a significant expansion of your current funding for the CHRP 

program. 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
307 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 603 here 53443B.012
308 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 604 here 53443B.013
309 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 605 here 53443B.014
310 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 606 here 53443B.015
311 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 607 here 53443B.016
312 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 608 here 53443B.017
313 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 609 here 53443B.018
314 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 610 here 53443B.019
315 

Ms. DELAURO. Thank you. 

Mr. Latham. 

Mr. LATHAM. Yeah, is there any particular type of citrus that it 

affects more than another? Or is it just any—I mean, is it lemons 

or oranges more so than—— 

Mr. PUTNAM. As of now, it is pretty indiscriminate. There have 

been other citrus diseases that were—you know, grapefruit was 

more vulnerable than Valencias. This appears to be pretty indiscriminate. 

Mr. LATHAM. When you call it ‘‘greening,’’ what happens to the 

plant? 

Mr. PUTNAM. Well, the telltale sign, when scouting crews are 

moving through the groves looking for it—and the reason why they 

call it ‘‘Huanglongbing’’ is that I believe it translates to ‘‘dragon 

disease’’ or something like that—you will see in the middle of a 

green tree this unusual sprout up through the middle of it that is 

a vivid yellow or white off color that just really sticks out like a 

sore thumb. When you see that, it is already done, you are too late. 

But it causes a rapid decline of the entire tree. 

Previous citrus diseases that you have funded were slow decline; 

you could continue to harvest citrus for several more years after 

that. This is a very rapid decline where you are not only losing the 

fruit, which is 1 year’s income, you are losing the tree, which, when 

replaced, will be 5 years before it is paying its own freight again. 

So that is the real challenge. There is 100 percent mortality, and 

it is very rapid. 

Mr. LATHAM. Are they doing anything in Asia that we could 

learn from, do you know, to treat this? 

Mr. PUTNAM. Interestingly, there is kind of a—you know, the 

largest citrus-producing areas in the world, particularly for juice, 

are Florida and Sao Paulo, Brazil. And then for table fruit you 

would throw in California. The Asian industries are very small, but 

the researchers who have been over there actually have come up 

with an interesting finding, that there is some kind of an oil or an 

essence or compound in guava. You probably don’t have too many 

guavas in Iowa, but we have them in south Florida, and they are 

very popular in Latin American cuisine. 

And they are actually experimenting with intersetting citrus 

with guava as kind of a home remedy approach to repelling the 

psyllid. It doesn’t do anything about the disease, but it keeps the 

disease vector out. And so, since planting guava trees throughout 

the 800,000 acres of citrus in Florida is unworkable, they are looking for exactly what it is in that guava plant that makes the difference, so that you could convert it to an oil or a compound or a 

spray material that could be sprayed on to the trees or added in 

some form of the production strategy and find out what it is that 

is so offensive to the psyllid. 

But they discovered that on a mountainside in Vietnam. 

Mr. LATHAM. Really? 

Mr. PUTNAM. Yeah. 

Mr. LATHAM. Interesting. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Ms. DELAURO. Mr. Alexander. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
316 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. Putnam, it is obvious, from the numbers 

that you threw out telling us how much local producers and farmers had already invested into the prevention of this disease, that 

you were defending your so-called earmark request. And I hate 

that we have to defend a request that is legitimate, regardless of 

where it is or what it is for. 

So the question is, will USDA, in your opinion, they are not going 

to try to address this without your request, to the point that you 

would like it addressed? 

Mr. PUTNAM. Well, I don’t know that I would characterize it necessarily that way. There is funding in the President’s budget request that is more consistent with where this funding has been in 

the past. The reason for the ask for the expansion of the program 

is that all of the other citrus—the money that has gone in the past 

has only gone to Florida, because we are the only ones who have 

it. The other citrus-producing States have suddenly realized they 

need to keep it out. 

And the only way they are going to keep it out is to have a dramatically expanded program that is detection in their own States, 

ramping up the research because I think everybody, frankly, believes that it is inevitable that it will spread to those States and 

they want to be ready for it so that they are not experiencing the 

kind of losses that Florida has had. So you are seeing a really remarkable partnership between typically competitors coming together to jointly fund research and jointly lobby the Congress to 

make this a greater national research priority. 

We are working with USDA and the other States’ departments 

of agriculture to refine the amount that is being requested, so that 

we are asking for exactly the right amount of money as opposed to 

just rounding it off to the nearest million and saying, well, we 

think this is what it is going to be. They are actively involved in 

what the precise ask will be when you reach that point in your 

process. And so that is really the reason why we have ramped it 

up. 

We have always treated this as a Member request because that 

is how it was sort of born, and so we have maintained that posture. 

But USDA has worked with the industry and the State departments of agriculture to fund it. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Thank you. 

Ms. DELAURO. Just, I think, for some clarity, my understanding 

is that—and you can help me with going back to when this started—that it has been $40 million annually through APHIS for this 

program. Does that go back to 2005? So it is about 4 years. So we 

have done $40 million every year since 2005. And the request now 

is for $64 million. Is that—— 

Mr. PUTNAM. It is 100. 

Ms. DELAURO. No, I think it is 64. 

Mr. PUTNAM. Excuse me, excuse me. 

Ms. DELAURO. It is the 40 plus 64, so it is $104 million then for 

this year. 

Mr. PUTNAM. That is correct. 

Ms. DELAURO. So it is the 4 years of the 40 and now 104. Is that 

right? 

Mr. PUTNAM. Yes, ma’am. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
317 

Ms. DELAURO. What are the additional activities? Help me with 

this. Because it seems like we have a worthwhile effort here, but 

we have gone, you know, $160 million and now we want another 

$104 million. Tell me what we are getting for this, to get at this 

difficult issue. 

Mr. PUTNAM. You are adding 4 more States to the mix. What you 

have done in the past was substantially limited to the State of 

Florida. And with California and Texas, in particular, but it is also 

Louisiana, Arizona, and the other minor citrus-producing States 

coming onboard, they recognize that they have to take extraordinary measures in their own States to be prepared for what is unfortunately likely to be an inevitable spread of the disease into 

their citrus-producing region. 

Ms. DELAURO. Is it there yet? And I understand prevention. Is 

it—— 

Mr. PUTNAM. In California, which is, with all due respect to the 

other citrus-producing States, the other 800-pound gorilla in terms 

of citrus, they have the vector, they have the psyllid. They do not 

yet have the disease. 

Ms. DELAURO. Yeah, you said that. Okay. 

Mr. PUTNAM. So one of more expensive components to this, 

which—for example, in the State of Florida to guarantee clean, new 

plant material—in other words, clean bud wood; clean, new, reset 

baby trees that go into the ground when old trees are pulled out— 

the entire citrus nursery industry in the State of Florida has been 

relocated above the citrus belt, above the frost line, to get them out 

of all of the production areas. So we essentially rebuilt an entire 

nursery industry in north Florida well away from commercial citrus as a way of guaranteeing future clean plant material. 

That is one of the major lines in this request for the other States. 

Florida has already bitten the bullet. That is a big expense component. 

The survey and detection in the other States is also one of the 

larger expenditures in the request, as well as the bench work, the 

lab, just the old-fashioned science, to try to find what the right 

compound is, what the right chemical is, what the right natural 

predator is for the psyllid so that we can control this and prevent 

the eradication of the citrus industry in the United States. 

Ms. DELAURO. So the $160 million has been for Florida alone, is 

that correct? The 4 years, the $40 million for 4 years? That has 

been for Florida. We now are thinking about California, Texas—— 

Mr. PUTNAM. Substantially, yes. 

Ms. DELAURO. Substantially, it has been for Florida. And now we 

are talking about an addition of California, Texas, Louisiana, Arizona. 

Mr. PUTNAM. Arizona. And I am also told that, in the early years 

of that CHRP program, it was—— 

Ms. DELAURO. Iowa—he was looking to see if Iowa was included. 

Mr. PUTNAM. Maybe Ames can help us solve this problem. 

But in the early years of CHRP, CHRP was born to fight actually 

citrus canker. 

Ms. DELAURO. Well, this is a question I had, as well. And excuse 

my naivete, because I have sat on this committee long enough. And 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
318 

I think we did for citrus canker in 2009 $1.2 million. I know there 

is another request for $4 million this time around. 

So is the psyllid related to citrus canker, or is this something 

else? 

Mr. PUTNAM. No. Here is just the nasty history: This committee 

was funding the citrus canker eradication effort for a number of 

years—— 

Ms. DELAURO. Yes. And we continue to do it. 

Mr. PUTNAM. And we were even or winning against the disease 

until 2004. And during 2004, Florida experienced four hurricanes 

in about 9 weeks. And that citrus disease is spread by wind-driven 

rain, which we had a fair amount of that particular summer. 

And so, the back-to-back seasons of 2004 and 2005 when we had 

Charley, Ivan, Wilma, Frances, Jeanne, and Katrina all passed 

through the State in those two summers, USDA, along with the industry, came to the conclusion that we had lost the fight against 

citrus canker because it was now endemic, at substantially the 

same time they discovered the presence of the worst citrus disease 

on the planet, which is greening. 

And, frankly, to their credit, instead of acting like a bureaucracy, 

they were pretty agile and shifted the existing teams that had been 

funded for canker, the teams that were trained to go into the 

groves and look for the given disease, they retrained them to look 

for greening. We essentially shifted what had been the cankereradication program into what became the greening program, all 

under this umbrella that is the CHRP, Citrus Health Response 

Plan. 

And so, what was born as the canker program morphed into the 

greening program, and that is what you have been funding. 

Ms. DELAURO. And so the $1.2 million for this year for the 2009, 

which we just got signed, that money will be used for the greening? 

Or is that—— 

Mr. PUTNAM. No, that is additional research on the canker. 

Ms. DELAURO. That is research on the citrus canker. 

Mr. PUTNAM. Correct. 

Ms. DELAURO. But is there still the view on that—and, you 

know, as I say, we have been funding these because we want to 

make sure that we have a healthy industry. But is there still the 

view that this has been lost, in other words, the fight against citrus 

canker has been lost? 

Mr. PUTNAM. The approach that we had been taking on citrus 

canker was the destruction of the tree. And that practice ended, because we were burning the village to save the village. And so we 

ended that approach. 

That is not to say that the disease is not still having a devastating economic impact on the industry. But the previous USDA 

policy of erratic—they essentially ended the goal of eradication, and 

it became a suppression and treatment program. Because the 

eradication program involved determining that canker was present, 

drawing a radius around that infected tree, and destroying everything inside that radius. It was extremely costly to the State of 

Florida and to the Congress, who was funding that program. 

So the eradication program ended after those storms blew the 

disease in so many places. It would not have made sense to conVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:29 Jan 26, 2010 Jkt 053443 PO 00000 Frm 00318 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A443P2.XXX A443P2

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
319 

tinue the eradication program. That is not to say that, as a disease, 

it is not worthy of research into how to have better varieties to deal 

with it and all those other things. But it is certainly—the eradication effort ended, and that was a USDA determination. 

Ms. DELAURO. Okay. But, again, though, as I understand it, and I just want to be clear, the $1.2 million for 2009 is for research. 

Mr. PUTNAM. It is for research. 

Ms. DELAURO. It is for research on citrus canker. And the $4 million is additional research in this area that you are talking about, 

not eradication, but to look at how we try to deal with varieties or 

how we try to deal with it domestically. But it is for both; it is for 

canker and for greening research. 

Mr. PUTNAM. It is for both. 

Ms. DELAURO. You know, just for the clarity of it, in having to 

explain what we are doing. 

Mr. PUTNAM. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. DELAURO. There was a question about the research. In any 

way, are we doing any partnering with Asia, anywhere else that is 

dealing with this, in terms of the resistance to this? 

Mr. PUTNAM. Yes. In fact, the example I gave was where, you 

know, a grad student and a professor from the University of Florida had traveled to Vietnam because they had heard about these 

villages that were living with greening on the side of a mountain 

in the middle of nowhere. So I am actually pretty impressed at the 

cooperation that is out there. And I am very impressed that they 

have brought in an organization with the stature of National Academy to help them direct their research funds. 

And the industry has also hosted two global scientific research 

summits in Florida to compare best practices and the status of research and all those kinds of things. And so there really is a cooperative effort between ARS, the extension research agencies in the 

State of Florida and California, as well as Texas. 

Ms. DELAURO. My next question was going to be about the institution. So it is Florida, Texas, and California—— 

Mr. PUTNAM. Primarily. 

Ms. DELAURO [continuing]. Primarily where the research is being 

done. 

Mr. PUTNAM. Right. 

Ms. DELAURO. Well, thank you very, very much. I don’t have any 

further questions. 

Tom, anything? 

Mr. LATHAM. Are there any other types of trees, ornamental or 

anything, that have seen any signs of this? Or do you know? 

Mr. PUTNAM. Not of the greening, but you raise the ornamental 

aspect. Unfortunately, there are dozens or hundreds—at least dozens of ornamentals that the psyllid loves. So every landscaped 

home in the State of Florida probably has one or two different 

bushes in there that this psyllid loves, which accelerates its spread, 

you know, particularly in areas where you have commercial production up against an urban interface. 

And so the ornamentals piece contributes to the spread of the 

vector, not to the spread of disease. 

Mr. LATHAM. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. PUTNAM. Good luck with all that, Madam Chairman. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
320 

Ms. DELAURO. Thank you very much. 

I have to say this, and I guess maybe you have the same kind 

of frustration that I am experiencing. This is 4 years, I mean, it 

is $160 million, not chump change, you know, I mean, maybe in 

this institution it is, but it is not, in terms of being able to deal 

with the research that can get us to how we try to affect this in 

some way. And it is a little troubling that we are not moving more 

quickly. 

Mr. PUTNAM. Well, you know, we see this in everything we grow 

and raise in the United States. And the rate of new diseases and 

new introductions of pests and diseases is expanding exponentially 

as the world gets smaller. And Americans’ diets are changing. We 

want more produce from Latin America and more spices from Asia. 

And we are just getting a more diverse palate, and food is becoming globalized. 

And APHIS just can’t keep up. Either because of funding or because it is not a priority or whatever, Homeland Security is not 

getting it done. And so, you know, it is not as sexy to seize a pink 

hibiscus mealybug or an African heart-water tick until 21 polo 

ponies die. But it is not as sexy as getting a bale of marijuana or 

a human trafficker or a cache of weapons. And, long term, we have 

to lift the profile of protecting our food supply as food trade becomes more rapid and more broad. 

And, you know, anybody that wants to do trade with the United 

States, the first export they are going to have is food. I mean, agricultural trade is going to be their entry into our market. And so 

this is going to be a problem whether it is, you know, impacting 

wheat or corn or swine, impacting avocados, which I know we have 

a request to you on that; we just decided to bring you the big one. 

I mean, it is endemic. And we don’t have the robust food science 

infrastructure to deal with it. 

Ms. DELAURO. I thank you for that comment. It is an important 

comment. 

Mr. PUTNAM. I will get off my soapbox. 

Ms. DELAURO. No, no. I think this committee has been for a very 

long time, both sides of the aisle, very, very concerned about the 

issue of food safety. And it has not become part of the national discourse. It only becomes part of the national discourse when nine 

people die of contamination and hundreds and thousands, you 

know, through food-borne illness are hospitalized. So it is about 

prevention. 

Thanks very much. Appreciate it. 

Mr. PUTNAM. Thank you. 

Ms. DELAURO. I think we have no more witnesses. The hearing 

is concluded. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
(321) 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 13, 2009. 

SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE 

WITNESSES 

HON. THOMAS VILSACK, SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE 

JOE GLAUBER, CHIEF ECONOMIST 

W. SCOTT STEELE, BUDGET OFFICER 

CHAIRWOMAN DELAURO’S OPENING REMARKS

Ms. DELAURO. Hearing is called to order. My apologies for being 

late. Good afternoon. 

Let me welcome everyone, and particularly Secretary Vilsack 

who comes before this subcommittee today for his second time. I 

want to say thank you to Mr. Glauber for being here and for Mr. 

Steele as well. 

I am pleased to welcome my colleagues and ranking member, Mr. 

Kingston, as we begin the hearings on the fiscal year 2010 agricultural appropriations bill. Let me just say to you, Mr. Secretary, this 

is the second time we have had the opportunity to visit today. I 

want to thank you for the earlier session we had with Secretary 

Sebelius as well and the Food Safety Working Group, really beginning its efforts in the first public session. In any case, I am sure 

you have been working at this. I was pleased to be there, pleased 

to hear your comments and Secretary Sebelius’ on how we should 

move forward on food safety. 

We are glad to have as you a partner on the critical issues that 

face this subcommittee, and I look forward to working with you 

closely in the months ahead. And I know you agree that our work 

is ultimately about people’s everyday lives, consumers who want 

safe food, farmers who rely on fair functioning markets, children 

who need healthy food to meet their full potential, and rural communities that need new opportunities to thrive. 

I have said before that the issues that we confront in this subcommittee and with the Department of Agriculture speak to the 

core responsibilities of the Federal Government. And I am encouraged by the commitment you and the Obama administration have 

expressed in meeting these obligations, from improving our food 

safety system to expanding broadband service to rural areas, from 

conservation to strengthening child nutrition programs. 

With the economic recovery package that we passed this winter, 

we have already begun to make those investments. I am proud of 

the resources that we secured, $28 billion for the USDA, including 

almost $20 billion to increase nutrition assistance. This has meant 

an additional $80 a month for a family of four, real tangible relief 

for families who are in need. Also, $150 million for The Emergency 

Food Assistance Program and funding for floodplain easements, direct farm operating loans, and single family housing loans. In other 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
322 

words, real relief and real jobs on the ground for some of our most 

vulnerable communities. 

We have worked hard to make these funds available, and Mr. 

Secretary, I know that you are working hard to make sure they 

reach those who would benefit the most. 

Now, I believe we have an opportunity to build on that investment and move from recovery to long-term growth, and I applaud 

Mr. Secretary for putting us in a strong place to do just that with 

this year’s fiscal year 2010 budget. 

Total discretionary spending proposed in the budget for USDA would be $20.4 billion, a 10 percent increase above 2009, indeed, 

a significant increase. Of course, this is just a first step. You will 

recall when you came before the committee in March, we discussed 

the need for serious and long-term reform at the Department. The 

recovery package and now this budget represent a powerful down 

payment on that process. We cannot let up at any point along the 

way, and we must remain vigilant and committed to bringing the 

change the department needs. 

With that in the mind, let me raise a few issues that I imagine 

you will discuss in your statement, and I may ask you to elaborate 

on when we get to questions. For example, I want to highlight the 

Department’s proposed funding for FSIS, targeting funding to improve the food safety public health infrastructure to improve the 

agency’s ability to conduct food safety assessments, much of this in 

response to the recommendations in the Inspector General report 

on risk-based inspections. 

I also want to applaud the budget request for Rural Development 

programs. For years, the previous administration made grand 

claims in this area, but failed to put its money where its mouth 

was. The 2009 Bush budget had requested the elimination of many 

direct loan and grant programs in the Rural Development mission 

area. I am glad that this budget request does not carry most of 

those budgetary cuts. I am sure my colleagues on the subcommittee 

feel the same way, and it shows a new commitment to rural development. 

I am also happy about the commitment we have made to conservation through the recovery package, already bringing funds to 

our communities for the rehabilitation of watersheds and flood prevention projects. For example, I must say that, yes, I am concerned 

about some apparent inconsistencies with respect to conservation 

within the budget, and while you highlight USDA’s work through 

the Recovery Act to improve water quality through the watershed 

and flood prevention operations program, you then note later in 

your testimony that you eliminate the very same program in your 

2010 request. 

More troubling is how the budget treats the Farm Bill conservation programs. The budget proposes very heavy cuts, in my view, 

to popular and effective programs, such as the Wetlands Reserve 

Program, Wildlife Habitat and Incentives Program, the Farm and 

Ranch Lands Protection Program, and I hope that we have a 

chance to discuss the reasoning behind those kinds of decisions in 

the budget. 

Also, as you know, this committee has a long history of working 

to expand broadband access to rural communities. It is also about 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
323 

bringing good jobs to rural America so that its residents do not 

have to leave their communities to find work. I look forward to discussing the implementation of the Recovery Act funding that we 

provided. 

I want to thank you again for joining us, Secretary Vilsack. I 

look forward to asking you about these and other efforts within the 

Department. Ultimately, our appropriations reflect our priorities as 

a Nation. We have big goals, and it is the details, it is the budget 

and the basics that we are discussing here today that get us there, 

and we have a responsibility and I know you share that responsibility to get it right. 

And with that, let me recognize our ranking member, Mr. Kingston, for any opening remarks that he may have. 

MR. KINGSTON’S OPENING REMARKS

Mr. KINGSTON. Thank you, Madam Chair, and Mr. Secretary, 

welcome back to the committee. We certainly appreciate your office 

being so accessible. 

I have concerns about this budget, and basically it is about a 20 

percent increase, and during a time when we are asking American 

households to cut back and they have lost so much of their own 

personal savings during this bad economy but we are asking them 

to increase Ag’s funding about 20 percent. 

And yet there are some cuts in there, and I would like to work 

with you on these cuts, but as you know, we have gone this route 

before on so many of these things and never done it successfully. 

Elimination of RC&D. The Chair just mentioned the previous administration’s lack of commitment to rural development. Well, 

RC&D is a pretty big commitment to the rural areas. It is fairly 

important to them. Eliminating that, I am open to it actually, to 

discussion of it, but I don’t see how we get there. It has been talked 

about before and it has never happened. 

The Administration eliminates congressional earmarks, and I can 

understand that the administration would prefer its own earmarks 

to the legislative branch. Members of this committee should know 

that the WIC funding is now about 40 percent of the discretionary 

limit, which the Chair had said is about $20.4 billion, $7.7 is WIC. 

WIC budget just grows every year, and for Members who are concerned about congressional directed spending, we need to be thinking in terms of that. As sensitive as it is to bring anything up 

about WIC, I think it is something we should be talking about. 

The farm limitation amendment, savings from that, the Senate 

has pretty squarely dealt with that right now and rejected that 

concept on a bipartisan basis. 

This House has dealt with crop insurance commission issues before. I am not sure that that is going to last. 

But I guess what I want to when we get into Q&A, what I want 

to hear from you is how committed is the Administration to these 

proposals. Is it real or is it just the kind of the Washington TwoStep that we do every year along with veterinarian fees and inspection fees? 

Then, part of the increase is things, as you know, the stimulus program increased broadband tremendously, I think from $400 million to almost $2.7 billion I think if my numbers are right. Yet, this 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
324 

still has a broadband increase. You know, they just won the lottery. 

They didn’t just get a 10 percent bump in the stimulus. They more 

than quadrupled their budget. I am not sure what the numbers 

are, way past that, and so now we are going to increase them 

again. That would seem to me like a logical place maybe not to increase. 

So there are some issues that I am looking forward to this testimony and have great respect for you and your ability, but I want 

to talk about how do we square this away with realities that are 

out there. 

So thanks for coming back and I yield back. 

Ms. DELAURO. Thank you very much, Mr. Kingston. Mr. Secretary, if you would proceed with testimony, and the full testimony 

will be in the record and we will ask you to summarize. 

STATEMENT OF SECRETARY VILSACK

Secretary VILSACK. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Madam Chair and distinguished members of the subcommittee, 

it is a pleasure to come back before you today to discuss the details 

of the President’s 2010 budget request for the Department of Agriculture. As the Chair indicated, I am joined today by Scott Steele, 

our budget officer, and by Joe Glauber, our chief economist. 

In my testimony before this subcommittee in March, I outlined 

the President’s goals for the Department and the challenges and 

opportunities we face in revitalizing rural America and the economy at this crucial time. 

Over the first 100 days of this administration, USDA has set out 

a new course to promote a safe, sustainable, sufficient, and nutritious food supply, to ensure that America leads the global fight 

against climate change, and revitalize rural communities by expanding economic opportunity. 

We have moved quickly to respond to these difficult economic 

times by creating jobs, increasing food aid to those in need, and revitalizing rural communities. We have also made civil rights a top 

priority, with definitive action to improve the Department’s record 

and move the USDA to a model employer and premier service provider. 

Before I delve into the specifics of the 2010 budget, I would like 

to provide a brief update on our efforts to implement the Recovery 

Act. 

RECOVERY ACT IMPLEMENTATION

The USDA has taken decisive action to implement provisions of 

the Recovery Act. We immediately took measures to make available 

almost $20 billion or approximately 70 percent of the total funding 

received under the Act for increasing the monthly benefits of the 

supplemental nutrition assistance program. We have also allocated 

$125 million for emergency food assistance. 

To assist farmers struggling with tight credit markets, we obligated over 99 percent of the $173 million in the Recovery Act funding for direct farm operating loans, which has provided assistance 

to 2,636 farmers, of which approximately half were beginning farmers, and 23 percent were socially disadvantaged farmers. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
325 

In the area of the environment, in the natural resource conservation, we announced a national sign-up for $145 million in floodplain easements, which will restore and protect an estimated 

60,000 acres of flood-prone land. In addition, $45 million has been 

provided for the rehabilitation of watersheds, and $85 million for 

53 flood prevention projects in 21 States. 

Rural communities are also benefiting from our actions. We have 

made available more than $600 million in funding to provide safe 

drinking water and improve wastewater treatment systems for 

rural towns in 34 States. We have begun the implementation of the 

Act’s broadband provisions in concert with the U.S. Department of 

Commerce and are determining the best targeted utilization of the 

$2.5 billion provided for expanding rural broadband into communities that would otherwise not have access. 

The USDA has also obligated a loan level of $3.4 billion in guaranteed and direct single family housing loans for over 28,800 loans. 

I want to assure this subcommittee that the Subcabinet, the agencies and Department will be held accountable for not just swift implementation but also ensure the funds are being used effectively 

and efficiently. 

PRESIDENT’S 2010 BUDGET

The President’s 2010 budget, released on May 7, 2009, proposes 

over $20.3 billion for discretionary programs under the jurisdiction 

of this subcommittee, an increase of nearly $2 billion over the 2009 

levels provided in the Omnibus Appropriations Act. This increase 

is primarily associated with the Special Supplemental Nutrition 

Program for Women, Infants and Children, international food assistance, rural development, and other priority programs. 

At this time, I would like to briefly point out how this budget 

supports our highest priority programs. 

NUTRITION PROGRAMS

The budget fully supports nutrition assistance programs, including full funding for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program 

for Women, Infants and Children, to serve all of the estimated 

monthly average of 9.8 million participants. In addition, the Administration is proposing an increase of $10 billion over 10 years 

for reauthorization of the Child Nutrition Programs. These increases will be used to improve access to nutritious meals, to encourage children to make healthy food choices and to enhance services for participants by improving program performance and integrity. 

FOOD SAFETY

In support of the President’s commitment to modernize the food 

system, the budget requests over $1 billion for the Food Safety and 

Inspection Service. This is the full amount necessary to meet the 

demand for meat, poultry and egg products inspection, as well as 

providing an increased investment in food safety assessments, and 

technology needed to enhance our ability to identify, respond to and 

reduce food safety risks. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
326 

TRADE

Expanding our access to world markets and developing long-term 

trade relationships continue to be vital components of our strategy 

to improve the vitality of the farm sector and quality of life in rural 

areas. Due to the global credit crisis, we have seen significant increases in demand for export credit guarantees provided through 

the GSM–102 program. To help meet this demand, the budget provides a program level of $5.5 billion, the maximum authorized by 

the 2008 farm bill for CCC export credit guarantees for 2010. 

To encourage further export expansion for our products, we need 

to work hard, both in Washington and in our offices overseas, to 

ensure continued access to overseas markets. I appreciate the subcommittee’s support in providing additional resources in 2009 for 

this activity, and our 2010 budget builds on this foundation with 

a $16.4 million in additional funds to maintain the Foreign Agricultural Service’s overseas presence and upgrade their information 

technology infrastructure. 

INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE

The 2010 budget also supports the administration’s commitment 

to renewing U.S. leadership and promoting global development and 

fostering world food security by doubling the level of discretionary 

funding for the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education 

and Child Nutrition Program. The budget also supports a program 

level of $1.7 billion for P.L. 480 Title II donations which will reduce 

our reliance on the need for future emergency supplemental funding. 

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES MARKETS

The budget reflects a new course the administration has set to 

ensure that America leads the global fight against climate change 

and to revitalize rural communities by expanding economic opportunity. To this end, the budget includes an increase of $15.8 million 

to develop markets that reward producers for sequestering carbon 

and limiting greenhouse gas emissions. 

RENEWABLE ENERGY

The budget promotes America’s rural leadership in developing re- newable energy by supporting over $780 million in investments, a 

net increase of $275 million over 2009. Notably, our discretionary 

request supports $280 million in guaranteed loans and grants for 

the Rural Energy for America Program, or REAP. 

RURAL DEVELOPMENT

For rural development, the 2010 budget includes funding to support over $21 billion for loans, loan guarantees, and grants for ongoing discretionary programs, an increase of $825 million over 

2009. This includes $1.3 billion in loans and grants to increase 

broadband capacity and to improve telecommunication service. 

To spur the development of small business and value-added agriculture in rural America, increased funding is sought to support 

$63 million in loans under the Rural Microentrepreneurial Assistance Program and $8 million for Value-Added Producer Grants. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
327 

The budget also provides funding necessary to finance homeownership opportunities for nearly 59,000 rural residents and fully 

supports the administration’s commitment to protect low-income 

tenants participating in the Rental Assistance Program, many of 

whom are elderly, in about 248,000 multifamily housing units. 

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION

Consistent with President Obama’s desire to invest in the full diversity of agricultural production, the budget requests an additional $6 million for assisting the organic sector, establishing marketing agreements that will involve quality factors affecting food 

safety for leafy greens or other fruits and vegetables, and supporting independent livestock producers. 

RESEARCH

For research, the budget also includes funding to support our 

highest priorities. This includes a $70 million increase for competitive research grants that will enhance rural research and extension 

programs and provide incentives for teachers to pursue professional 

development. 

The budget also requests an additional $10.8 million to develop 

tools and strategies for mitigating and adapting to climate change. 

We are requesting an additional $11 million to conduct research 

on new varieties of bioenergy feedstocks, as well as developing 

technologies that will result in sustainable, efficient and economic 

production practices for biofuels. 

In order to promote the healthier eating habits and lifestyles, the 

budget also includes an increase of $13 million to determine the 

barriers to individuals in following healthy eating and physical activity recommendations and to develop new, healthier foods. 

FARM SAFETY NET

In my last appearance before the subcommittee, we discussed the 

administration’s proposal to improve fiscal responsibility, while 

supporting a robust safety net for producers that provides protection for market disruptions, weather disasters, pests and disease 

that threaten the viability of American agriculture. 

I want to reassure you that the President’s budget does indeed 

maintain the three-legged stool of farm payments, crop insurance, 

and disaster assistance. However, in keeping with the President’s 

pledge to target farm payments to those who need them the most, 

the budget proposes a hard cap on all program payments of 

$250,000 and to reduce crop insurance subsidies to producers and 

companies in the delivery of crop insurance. 

While the budget includes a proposal to phase out direct payments to the largest producers, the Department is prepared to 

work with Congress and stakeholders as these proposals are considered. 

For 2010 the budget requests an increase of $67.3 million to continue the activities necessary to modernize the information technology we rely on to deliver farm program benefits. I certainly appreciate the subcommittee’s interest in this effort and the $50 million provided in the Recovery Act which is allowing us to make 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
328 

progress in this area. Although this combined level of funding will 

allow us to continue to make progress, additional funding will be 

required in subsequent years to complete the stabilization and 

modernization efforts. 

The 2010 budget fully supports partnering with landowners to 

conserve land, protect wetlands, and improve wildlife habitat 

through vital Farm Bill conservation programs. For the 2010 budget, the budget includes nearly $4.7 billion in mandatory funding for 

conservation programs authorized in the 2008 Farm Bill. It also includes $907 million in discretionary funding for ongoing conservation work that provides high quality technical assistance to farmers 

and ranchers and addresses the most serious natural resource concerns. 

CIVIL RIGHTS

Ensuring equitable treatment of all our employees and clients is 

a top priority for me. By holding each USDA employee accountable 

for their actions and through the implementation of my recently 

announced civil rights plan, we are striving to make the Department a model agency for respecting civil rights. In support of these 

efforts, the 2010 budget includes funding to address program and 

employment complaints of discrimination and to increase the participation of small, beginning and socially disadvantaged producers 

in USDA programs. 

Another key initiative is the expansion of outreach to unserved 

and underserved constituents. The 2010 budget includes funding to 

support the establishment of the Office of Advocacy and Outreach 

authorized in the 2008 Farm Bill. It also provides funding necessary to support enhanced government-to-government relations 

and improve tribal consultation activities. 

We are seeking an increase of $45.8 million to ensure that USDA 

can reliably deliver its broad portfolio of programs in a secure IT 

environment. Instituting a department-wide cyber security initiative will eliminate critical vulnerabilities that threaten the integrity of the USDA network and the security and privacy of departmental systems and information. 

We share the President’s vision of a strong economy. Therefore, 

like other agencies, we have begun making difficult but important 

budget decisions which include eliminating wasteful and inefficient 

spending. The 2010 budget reflects the elimination of earmarks 

and funding for programs that are not as high a priority as others 

I have mentioned or to provide services that can be supported by 

other means. This includes billions of dollars in mandatory savings 

and discretionary savings for the termination of the Resource Conservation and Development program, Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations program, EZ/EC grants program, the High Energy 

Cost Grants, and grants for public broadcasting digital conversion. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
329 

We have begun the process of making tough decisions about 

where our priorities lie and have made some tough choices about 

where to spend our resources. These choices reflect a new direction 

we are moving in and provide the foundation and diverse opportunities for farmers and ranchers in rural America to thrive. 

Madam Chair, that concludes my statement. I will be glad to answer questions. 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
330 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 645 here 53443B.020
331 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 646 here 53443B.021
332 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 647 here 53443B.022
333 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 648 here 53443B.023
334 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 649 here 53443B.024
335 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 650 here 53443B.025
336 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 651 here 53443B.026
337 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 652 here 53443B.027
338 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 653 here 53443B.028
339 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 654 here 53443B.029
340 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 655 here 53443B.030
341 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 656 here 53443B.031
342 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 657 here 53443B.032
343 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 658 here 53443B.033
344 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 659 here 53443B.034
345 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 660 here 53443B.035
346 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 661 here 53443B.036
347 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 662 here 53443B.037
348 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 663 here 53443B.038
349 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 664 here 53443B.039
350 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 665 here 53443B.040
351 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 666 here 53443B.041
352 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 667 here 53443B.042
353 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 668 here 53443B.043
354 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 669 here 53443B.044
355 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 670 here 53443B.045
356 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 671 here 53443B.046
357 

Ms. DELAURO. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. It would appear that we have started the process for three votes. So we will 

start to move to questions, and we will strictly adhere to 5 minutes, and that includes myself so we can get this hearing off the 

ground. 

WIC

Let me just address the WIC program. The budget requests $917 million for the WIC program. It is a program as you state, $7.8 billion. $625 million is requested to support an average monthly participation of approximately 9.8 million women, infants and children. 

The question that I have is about what appears to be a lack of 

justification included in the budget for the proposed increase of 

$162 million for WIC reauthorization program improvements. The 

budget says the administration will use these funds to implement 

program improvements which could include expanding types of 

education and counseling services, developing additional State infrastructure, enhancing program efficiency. 

It is a large increase with little justification. Can you give us a 

concrete plan of what program improvements you are proposing 

with this $162 million increase? 

Let me just deal with a follow up on the contingency fund so you can answer both together. There is a request for $100 million for 

WIC contingency. There is already an estimated $650 million in 

the WIC contingency fund for fiscal year 2010 from carryover provided in the Recovery Act. The contingency fund has historically 

been funded at $125 to $150 million each fiscal year. Why do you 

think $750 million is needed in the contingency fund for 2010? 

Secretary VILSACK. Madam Chair, with reference to the additional resources for WIC on program improvements, what we are 

interested in doing is that we expand our efforts to educate expectant moms and young moms on the breastfeeding opportunities and 

other nutritional opportunities that they must know about in order 

to be able to start their children’s lives in a nutritious and effective 

way. So first and foremost, this is about expanding educational opportunities and making sure that nutrition is part of the process 

of making sure that as people sign up for WIC that they are well 

aware of the various programs that are available and the nutritional opportunities that are available. 

I can also suggest to you that we are working with States to 

make sure that we continue to identify those who qualify for the 

program. We are looking at creative and innovative ways to get the 

message out. We are partnering with local farmers markets, for example, to make sure that folks are at the local farmers markets, 

encouraging people to sign up, developing discount opportunities 

and ways in which we can encourage fresh fruits and vegetables to 

be part of the steady diets of women, infants and children. So this 

is education, expanded access, and greater emphasis on nutrition. 

WIC CONTINGENCY FUND

As it relates to the contingeny fund, I think what we are attempting to do is to make sure that we don’t do what we have done 

in the past, which is to come back repeatedly when the economy— 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
358 

we expect and anticipate the economy to improve at some point in 

time, but it is fairly clear that most projections have unemployment rising. If unemployment rises, there is always a significant 

need for a number of services, including this one. We just want to 

simply be in a position where we are not coming back to Congress 

repeatedly asking for more resources when we have underestimated the number of people who are in need of assistance now. 

Ms. DELAURO. Just a quick follow-up on that. The highest contingency level previously needed to keep the WIC program running 

was about $387 million. That was 2008. Do you think the economic 

situation in 2010 is going to be twice as bad as 2008? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, I think there are a number of factors. 

We obviously are hoping that by the end of this year, we see a significant improvement in the economy. Employment may not necessarily completely parallel that growth and that recovery, and so 

there may be continued need in 2010. We also, I think, have to realize that we are changing the makeup of the food packages for 

WIC, and we are changing the combinations of what we are essentially providing. 

There may be impacts and effects that we have not totally calculated or, which is what Joe has given me a note here, food price 

volatility. That is always—so it is a combination of not knowing 

precisely when the recovered economy will reflect in ordinary people’s lives, combined with food costs, that could create problems 

where we are coming back to you repeatedly for assistance and 

help. We are trying to do as best we can estimating what our needs 

are. 

Ms. DELAURO. I would ask you just to keep in touch with us on 

this $162 million increase and what this outreach—this expanded 

access in education is about. So I think the subcommittee would be 

interested in those efforts. 

With that, Mr. Kingston. 

2010 PROPOSED BUDGET CUTS

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Secretary, I wanted to try to find out where 

the administration is on these proposed cuts. I am interested in 

them. Anything to reduce this budget I think is important. But I 

wanted to find out how many of them are real and how many of 

them are just the annual proposals. 

For example, we have mandatory user fees for Food Safety and 

Inspection Service and APHIS and the grain inspection as well, 

and so what I would like you to do is maybe on a scale of one to 

10 tell me what the intensity level is of the administration in terms 

of using political capital and fighting it. 

The reason I say that is the President made a big deal about, 

send me a bill with earmarks, then I am going to reject it, and then 

we sent him an Omnibus Bill that had lots of earmarks and he 

signed it and did something real unusual for this administration; 

they blamed it on George Bush. So not to inject partisan politics 

here. 

But here is my question to you. Okay. Cotton storage, got a lot 

of bipartisan support on that. Like on a scale of one to 10, is this 

a 10 in intensity? 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
359 

Secretary VILSACK. Congressman, here is why this was proposed 

and so that you can tell from our response that this is a serious 

proposal. This has been—the only other product that has this kind 

of support is peanuts, and the peanut support is very contained 

and very limited, and only under limited circumstances is it triggered. 

So this essentially creates the potential for distorting the market 

because you may end up having cotton stored far longer than it 

would otherwise be stored because essentially the government is 

paying for it. So, as we look at this program, it does provide a 

unique benefit to one commodity, and so we felt that it was appropriate and necessary to put this on the table. 

Obviously, we recognize your role in this. We appreciate you are 

not just going to simply pass the President’s budget. You are going 

to examine it. You are going to look at it. You are going put your 

stamp on it. We want to work with you. But there is a reason behind this proposal, and I think it is a legitimate one. 

Mr. KINGSTON. The sugar program, for example, is sort of always 

ignored, and a lot of that comes through Commerce because there 

is a tariff. But Americans pay a higher price per pound for sugar 

because of a USDA program. Even though it doesn’t—there is not 

a tax mechanism directly, it does cost them more, so I want to say 

cotton is the only commodity and one of the few commodities—— 

Secretary VILSACK. I want to make sure I am clear about this. 

I am not suggesting that there aren’t—I am saying for this kind 

of storage situation, cotton and peanuts are unique. 

Mr. KINGSTON. All right. Payment limitation, lot of debate, Senate kind of rejected that. Do you think that is going to survive? 

Secretary VILSACK. We are willing to work with Congress on this. 

I think, again, when we looked at in an effort to try to be cognizant 

of deficits and the concern that you all legitimately have about deficits, we looked at the fact that 3 percent of America’s farmers were 

at the threshold that we proposed. There has been a lot of conversation about whether or not it ought to be adjusted in terms of 

adjusted gross income, as opposed to gross sales. We are certainly 

happy to look at that. We are also certainly happy to look at the 

hard cap the President did campaign on of $250,000 by essentially 

limiting the loan programs to $145,000. That is a per entity cap. 

So that does provide a strong part of the safety net. 

In addition to that, you have got the new disaster programs that 

will be implemented. In addition to that, you have crop insurance, 

which is expanded now to 350 different products and substantial 

subsidies involved with that. 

So we see a strong safety net, and we simply ask the question 

whether or not there are ways in which that safety net can still do 

its job and at the same time be fiscally responsible. 

Mr. KINGSTON. What about RC&D, elimination of that? That actually had been proposed by the Bush administration and did not 

go very far. 

Secretary VILSACK. These are very hardworking folks around the 

country that are providing a service and have been doing that since 

the late 1960s. When it was first established, the idea was that 

this would be a transition program eventually transitioning to local 

and State financing. The principal beneficiaries of this program 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
360 

now are, in fact, local economic development efforts and State economic development efforts. We think there are ways for State and 

local economic development resources to be used to continue this 

important responsibility perhaps truer to the initial intent of the 

program. That is why it has been proposed, and again, I think 

there is a legitimate reason for at least bringing this before you. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Thank you. In my 15 seconds I have left, the earmark elimination, how do you think that is going to fare, just 

handicapping it? And I will say this. I believe that Congress has 

reformed earmarks substantially in the last 2 years. 

Secretary VILSACK. Let me respond this way. We have significant 

research needs in this country, and what I think is needed is perhaps a better dialogue and better level of communication between 

an administration and a Congress, not necessarily this administration and this Congress, but just generally speaking, because when 

each body sets their own separate priorities, it creates conflict. 

And I think what the President’s trying to suggest is a process 

by which we work together and communicate together and establish joint priorities which I think at the end of the day, reduces 

conflict and perhaps provides better utilization of our resources. 

Mr. KINGSTON. I know I am over time. I am looking forward to 

working with you on this. I appreciate it. 

Ms. DELAURO. I am going to call the recess for the committee. 

We have three votes and ask people to get back here as quickly as 

possible. 

[Recess.] 

Ms. DELAURO. The hearing will resume. Thank you. It got a little 

longer than three votes, but thank you very much for your patience. Let me now recognize Mr. Alexander. 

FOOD SAFETY INSPECTIONS

Mr. ALEXANDER. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Mr. Secretary, 

good to see you. My question is a little earlier in your presentation 

you said something about an increased amount of money for food 

inspection. Let’s us talk about that a little bit. I signed a letter 

with others not too long ago relating to the subject of catfish or fish 

imported. What assurances do we have when you say food inspection, catfish or other fish, coming from other countries. How well 

do we inspect those facilities, and do we inspect all of them? 

Secretary VILSACK. I wasn’t sure whether you were finished. We 

are in the process as you know of making a determination as to 

precisely what the definition of catfish will be. For purposes of inspection, that has not yet been finalized and we understand and 

appreciate that there is some interest in that definition how broad 

or narrow it is. I think our responsibility is to ensure American 

consumers that the food that they consume is safe. And so part of 

that means that you have to have adequate people and adequate 

numbers of people to do the job adequately. It also means, as the 

chairwoman discussed briefly earlier, a review which is undertaken 

right now at the direction of the President and a food safety working group where the Department of Health and Human Services 

and USDA are trying to improve food inspections generally in our 

safety system generally. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
361 

We are not pleased, and I suspect you aren’t either with the 

number of people that have food-borne illness incidences each year, 

the number of those who are hospitalized and the number who die. 

So how do we know whether we are doing a good job? I suppose 

one way to measure it would be if we saw an increase or a decrease 

in those numbers that would suggest that we either had more work 

to do or we were on the right track. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Well, when we say ‘‘inspection,’’ do we actually 

send people out to locations where these fish might be raised in the 

fish ponds, so to speak? 

Secretary VILSACK. The law requires inspection not only to cover 

the slaughter and processing of the catfish but also to take into account the conditions under which the catfish are raised and the 

conditions in which they are transported to a processing establishment. So this is a relatively broad authority. It is broader than we 

have for other products that are under our jurisdiction. So we are 

in the process of working through how that is going to be done. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Okay, sir. Thank you, Madam. 

Ms. DELAURO. Thank you, Mr. Alexander. Mrs. Emerson. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I would like to 

just momentarily refer back to the remarks when you and the Secretary were discussing the WIC program and point out to the two 

of you that in one of my counties, Wayne County, Missouri, our 

health department, our public health department that actually 

works with our WIC recipients in that county, has done a cooperative program with the University of Missouri extension to teach all 

of our WIC recipients how to do their own garden, grow their own 

garden, preserve, can, freeze vegetables and other smaller fruits so 

that they are able to supplement their WIC diet. And it has turned 

out to be just a remarkable and a very positive thing. Because not 

only are they learning a new skill, but they are also able to then 

have good wholesome vegetables. And it is just something that I 

think we should talk about promoting beyond that. Out of my 28 

counties it is the only county that does this, but I talk about it everywhere because I just think it is a great idea. 

Ms. DELAURO. It is a great model and we ought to talk some 

more about it. 

Mrs. EMERSON. And there is no taxpayer money involved, which 

is even better. But it is something that is really important. And the 

skills that our extension people bring to this service for WIC recipients is remarkable. So anyway, thanks. I just wanted to mention 

that while it was in my mind. 

NATIONAL ANIMAL IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM

Secretary Vilsack, last year when your predecessor was here we 

asked him some very pointed questions regarding cooperative 

agreements and the animal identification program. And the data 

that was provided by the Department, it was interesting. And just, 

for example, in Missouri, it showed that USDA had spent roughly 

$120 for each premise enrolled in the program, whereas in Montana, it was $1,200 per premise. And the reason I am asking this 

issue, or raising it is while these numbers are troubling, I don’t 

think they should be at all that surprising. And I think you probably heard when you were in my district yesterday there does reVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:29 Jan 26, 2010 Jkt 053443 PO 00000 Frm 00361 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A443P2.XXX A443P2

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
362 

main a significant concern, and even a fear among many livestock 

producers as to what type of animal identification system Washington might produce. 

And obviously, it is hard to blame our producers for their hesitancy in enrolling their premises. I think all of us would probably 

be pretty hesitant to sign up for a government program when we 

don’t know what the government program is going to look like. And 

so—and even when FSA rolls out a new program, or when we are 

implementing the new Farm Bill, we don’t really enroll until we 

have the program. We have the regulations, our county directors 

understand how it works. But we are asking producers with the 

NAIS to sign up kind of on a wing and a prayer if you will. So I 

am thrilled that you are holding listening sessions. And I hope that 

you will take to heart what you are hearing and the fear, and certainly the uncertainty that many producers in Missouri have. But I know that you all have requested $14.6 million for the 

NAIS program this year which is level funding. Will you describe 

to us what this funding will be used for and specifically if it will 

be used to continue providing funds for our state agriculture departments to drive premises enrollment? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, thank you for your question, and it was 

a very enlightening listening session that I had in the State of Colorado this week which was the second of a number of listening sessions that we are going to undertake. And it does indeed point out 

the complexity of this particular program. I think that there is a 

good level of dissatisfaction with the program at very many levels; 

either a lack of understanding as to what the purpose and intent 

is, the fact that there are distinctions between types of livestock in 

terms of a compliance, the distinctions that sometimes can take 

place within certain types of livestock in terms of do you graze on 

public land, do you graze on private land. 

And so there is a need for a detailed understanding of the complexities. What we are proposing here is for the current budget 

year relatively status quo because we are in the process of trying 

to determine what, if any, changes need to take place so that we 

have greater compliance with the system. I will tell you that I don’t 

know the answer to that yet and would not know it because I 

haven’t completed the listening sessions but would say this. My 

concerns are two-fold. First and foremost is animal health. We 

want to make sure that whatever system we set up is focused on 

animal health. And secondly, we want to make sure that we maintain the integrity of the market. 

I think we have seen most recently with a number of products 

and the H1N1 that markets can be devastated and impacted by 

problems. So what I am looking at is making sure that we have got 

a system that preserves as best we can animal health and make 

sure that we preserve the integrity of the market. And how that 

system is going to look, I will know more after I finish the listening 

sessions. But it has been very interesting, I have learned a lot and 

I think we will look for creative and innovative ways to improve 

this program. 

Mrs. EMERSON. I appreciate that because a lot of times people 

undertake listening tours having already made up their mind, and 

I can tell that you haven’t, so I appreciate that very much. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
363 

Ms. DELAURO. Mr. Bishop. 

RESEARCH EARMARKS FUNDING CUTS

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much. And again, welcome, Mr. Secretary. I am delighted that you are back with us. And we do have 

a budget that we can talk about this time. I have a number of concerns and issues with respect to the budget for 2010. Particularly 

relative to the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service funding cuts. I am sort of disappointed in the approach 

and the methodology which has been used in really proposing the 

Draconian reductions in some programs that are really vital to my 

district and to others here on the panel that Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service reduction is about 22 percent for all of the programs. 

The special research grants have been effectively eliminated for 

most of the ongoing research activities as well as the proposed research projects in my area, including projects for cotton insect research, blueberry production enhancement, water use and water 

quality and a national peanut laboratory’s activities with regard to 

water research efficiency. Can you explain why this program has 

taken such a tremendous hit? And the second part of my question 

has to do with funding for the 1890 colleges, universities and 

Tuskegee University which remains flat at $46 million, yet the 

funding for the other higher education programs increases by a 

total of 70 percent to $80 million. 

While the disparity in the two given the disparity in funding that 

already exists and has existed historically between the 1890s and 

the other land grant universities, particularly over the last 8 years. 

Secretary VILSACK. The answer to the question that you posed is 

somewhat akin to what we earlier discussed as it relates to earmarks and the capacity and determination of what priorities are in 

terms of research. The $168 million of reductions in the research 

funding was essentially a reduction of earmarked funding replaced 

by $139 million in increases in what we perceive to be priority research in additional pay. So the bottom line is a $29 million reduction. We are focusing additional resources in other areas of research that would explain why we are limiting this research to be 

able to fund research on renewable fuels, climate change, some 

rural revitalization, some education, some obesity prevention. This 

is a way which we set out priorities. 

Now, I will be the first to admit that we did this budget in a relatively short period of time, as I know you appreciate. And we just 

yesterday, I believe, got the Under Secretary for Research confirmed by the Senate, and I really want to give that individual an 

opportunity to look at all of the programs in a more extensive way, 

which is one of the reasons why we don’t have additional resources 

for buildings and facilities. 

Mr. BISHOP. Who was that individual? 

Secretary VILSACK. Dr. Shah. Dr. Shah comes to us from the 

Gates Foundation, he is a medical doctor, and I think you will find 

him someone that you can work with and someone who understands the importance of research. 

Mr. BISHOP. So the child nutrition and obesity research is increased, ongoing, reduced? It is my understanding that is reduced. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
364 

Secretary VILSACK. It is increased. As it relates to the 1890 colleges and universities, my understanding, and I could be wrong 

about this and would ask Scott, the $70 million that we are proposing as an increase is in a lot of different areas which would include potentially additional resources for minority serving institutions. So that $70 million has yet to be completely allocated. 

Mr. BISHOP. I thought it was 70 percent. Was it $70 million? 

Secretary VILSACK. $70 million. As you know, the Congress established the National Institute of Food and Agriculture that sort 

of rolls all of these programs into a new institute for a new focus. 

And we provided an additional $70 million designed to try to put 

resources into those rural—into a number of different areas, including grants for science educators, additional resources for the 1890 

colleges and universities, as well as—— 

Mr. BISHOP. My time is about up, so on the next round, I am 

going to come back and ask you to talk about the Office of Civil 

Rights and the small and disadvantaged farmer programs. 

Ms. DELAURO. Mr. Latham. 

CONSERVATION PROGRAM CUTS

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And welcome. I always want to call you Governor, but it is Secretary. I guess I am 

a little bit confused. I know there is a lot of talk about legislation 

as far as climate change and environment. And I am very concerned about the effect that things like that will have on agriculture. And I look at the budget proposal. And in conservation 

programs there is some pretty major cuts as well as the Wetlands 

Reserve Program, a cut of $280 million, EQIP program $250 million cut, Ag Management Assistance $5 million, Wildlife Habitat 

Incentives Program $43 million, Healthy Forest Reserves Program 

$5 million, Farmland Protection Program $30 million, Watershed 

Rehabilitation Programs $30 million, there is another $267 million 

out of NRCS as far as direct appropriations. I just don’t understand 

the cuts and programs that are very beneficial as far as soil and 

conservation, how we can justify that, and where the money is 

going, I guess what I would ask? 

Secretary VILSACK. I appreciate that question. And allow me an 

opportunity to respond to your question and the concerns that the 

Chair expressed as well. First of all, I think it is important to point 

out that our budget does propose an increase in the total number 

of acres that will be enrolled in various programs that would fall 

within the rubric of conservation. Whether it is CRP, whether it is 

EQIP, or the other programs that you mentioned. In the past in 

2009, we anticipated 178.5 million acres in EQIP. Our budget 

would propose increasing that to 195.3 million acres. In CRP, as 

you know, we have got a slight decrease. 

In all other conservation programs, we are going to see an increase from 41.3 million acres to 55.4 million acres. And you say 

to yourself, well, how can you increase the acres and reduce the 

money. Well, the reality is the monies that were being appropriated 

were not always expended because of demand. For example, let’s 

take the wetlands program. We are proposing 155,000 acres in that 

program. Well, we haven’t topped 150,000 acres for all of the years, 

even though financing was provided for more than that. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
365 

So essentially, what we are trying to do is we are trying to match 

the budget with reality in the field and trying to match the budget 

with the number of acres that we actually will see enrolled. And 

I think hopefully you will find some solace in the fact that overall, 

the number of acres enrolled will be 280 million acres total, and 

we will spend $4.8 billion in compensation benefits and conservation benefits. 

Mr. LATHAM. What is authorized level of acres in CRP? 

Secretary VILSACK. It is 32 million acres. 

Mr. LATHAM. And how do you get to 55? 

Secretary VILSACK. No, no. The acreage for CRP is, on this chart 

I am looking at, is 30.4. It is actually going to be closer to 32. We 

actually just extended offers. 

Mr. LATHAM. I thought you just said it was 55? 

Secretary VILSACK. No. 55 is all the other programs. You have 

all the other programs, you have got CRP and you have got EQIP. 

A total of those three categories is 280 million acres, which is an 

increase of about 36 million acres, additional acres. 

Mr. LATHAM. And how do you do that again with less money? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, because it isn’t that we have less 

money, it is that we are going to be spending—you have authorized 

money but not all of it was spent because we couldn’t get enough 

interest in some of these programs. So what we are trying to do 

is align the programs with the amount of money that actually will 

be spent and the number of acres that we realistically think will 

be enrolled. So we realistically think for the Wetlands Reserve Program, 155,000 acres would be a good goal since we haven’t topped 

150,000 acres in all but one year in the last 5 years. So that is the 

reason. 

INDIRECT LAND USE

Mr. LATHAM. Okay. Good luck. One question. And I know the authorizing chairman brought up the issue last week I think in a 

hearing with the EPA and charging indirect land use into the count 

for ethanol production as far as carbon credits and all those things. 

What is your position on that? And also I may also ask on ethanol 

if you see the EPA changing their standard? 

Secretary VILSACK. Congressman, again, thank you for that question. I think the most important announcement relative to indirect 

land use was the fact that the EPA also simultaneously indicated 

they were going to have a peer independent review of their formulation and calculation, which I think was very, very important and 

something that we from USDA and others within the administration urged to make sure, because we are plowing new ground here 

as you know, and we want to make sure that as these calculations 

are formulated that we really are doing them correctly and properly and that we don’t do them in a way that will, at the end of 

the day, damage this industry irreparably. So that is a concern. 

So the peer review I think is an appropriate step, and I appreciate EPA willing to do that. We also have advocated and encouraged EPA to take a look at the blend rate. And we are encouraged 

by the action taken recently in asking for comments on raising the 

rate to anywhere from 11 to 15 percent. And we are hopeful that 

in a relatively short period of time, based on Washington standVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:29 Jan 26, 2010 Jkt 053443 PO 00000 Frm 00365 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A443P2.XXX A443P2

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
366 

ards, that we see some positive steps from EPA in respect to that 

blend rate. That is an important consideration. And we also appreciate the President’s commitment in establishing the interagency 

working group, that will allow us to look at ways in which we can 

grow this market and support this market from farmer to gas tank 

and beyond. 

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Ms. DELAURO. Thank you. Mr. Hinchey. 

FOOD SAFETY WORKING GROUP

Mr. HINCHEY. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Secretary, thank 

you very much. I think that—well, I know frankly, that this particular committee, especially under the leadership of this chairman, 

has been focused on a number of things, including food safety. And 

I think that that is something that the President is also focused on, 

I am sure it is something that you are focused on. He established 

the food safety working group initially. And I am wondering if you 

could tell us what kind of progress is being made, what are the intentions, what ways in which that food safety working group is 

going to move forward to try to bring about serious food safety in 

the country? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, first of all, let me thank the Chair and 

this committee for the work that you all have done in continuing 

to press this issue. And I think the fact that there is legislation 

pending on both the House and Senate side and it is bipartisan I 

think is an important first step. And the President acknowledging 

that establishes the working group and before the Secretary of 

Health and Human Services was confirmed, we began a process of 

staff working jointly through USDA and Department of Health and 

Human Services. 

I think it was an important signal that we were going to coordinate our efforts in an effort to try to establish principles. Today we 

had our first listening consultation session with industry leaders, 

congressional leaders, experts in this field asking for their input on 

a number of principles. Let me briefly touch on the principles. I 

think there is a growing belief and understanding that we need to 

focus on prevention as sort of the core of whatever food safety system we establish, which means more research standards both at 

the local level and also international standards that are followed. 

We need to strengthen surveillance and risk analysis. That means 

we have to focus on good data. And that is important in terms of 

collecting data, analyzing it and then utilizing it. 

Quality monitoring as a result of that data and constant and consistent surveillance. And expanded risk-based inspection enforcement procedure that provides for an array of potential enforcement 

mechanisms that are consistently applied and that focuses on 

pathogens. I mean, the reality is that sometimes the science has 

been ahead of us and these pathogens, as the Chair indicated earlier today, are way ahead of us and we need to play some catchup. 

And a rapid response to outbreaks and the facilitation of recovery 

of whatever industry is negatively impacted by an outbreak, which 

means quick ID, rapid response, reviewing for mistakes made, 

making sure that we coordinate our response and that we are consistently and constantly communicating within departments. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
367 

And then finally recognizing that resources are not unlimited we 

want to make sure that those resources are adequate, but also targeted. And so I think what you are going to see is a set of recommendations to the President consistent with the legislation that 

you all are considering that is centered on those principles. 

FOOD SAFETY REGULATIONS

Mr. HINCHEY. Well, thanks very much. The issue of food safety 

is becoming increasingly important across the country because of 

the fact that it is being so destructive. The fact that food safety has 

downslided so much that a great many people are dying as a result. Some of the States now are moving forward on trying to set 

up regulations. Do you think that the USDA will be in a position 

to set up a system of regulations across the States that will satisfy 

States generally? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, I think the first step in that process is 

to make sure that we coordinate our efforts initially at the outset 

with state and local communities. And I think that USDA is in a 

particularly unique opportunity to do that because we are already 

in so many of these communities in all States in a variety of ways 

on the ground. And we actually have a relationship with a number 

of States where we are essentially providing resources for inspection. So I think we have a good relationship. Obviously it can always be improved. And I hope with this new approach and this coordinated approach with Health and Human Services that it will 

improve. 

FACTORY FARMS

Mr. HINCHEY. We hope so too. And it sounds like it will be, and 

that is a major step forward. I just want to ask you in the few seconds I have left, one specific question with regard to that particular 

issue. It has to do with the animals that are raised in these large 

farms, the factory farms of various kinds, how they are jammed up 

close together and in very, very nasty circumstances. And part of 

that is the results that occur with these animals and the huge 

amount of disease that is flowing across that occurs out of that. 

Now, do you think that there is a process now of advocating that 

these factory farms reform the way which they operate, stop allowing these animals to come so close together? 

What they are doing is they are using antibiotics on factory 

farms in order to bring about antimicrobial circumstances for these 

animals. And that in and of itself is causing some substantial 

health problems in many places. Is any focus on this right now? 

Secretary VILSACK. Yes, there is. We are working with the Food 

and Drug Administration to make sure that we focus on a sciencebased system. We are working closely with the FDA on both animal 

and public health. I would say that we are working to make sure 

that sound animal management practices are the standard. And I 

would say, in fairness, I think the vast, vast, vast majority of farmers who are raising livestock are very sensitive to this, and they 

are sensitive for a number of reasons. First and foremost, they are 

concerned about the safety of their consumers. Without consumers, 

they don’t have a market; without a market, they don’t make 

money. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
368 

And so I think that the vast majority of folks are sensitive to 

this. And I think you are beginning to see greater sensitivity. I met 

for example—this is a little bit far afield from your question—but 

I met recently with the egg producers. And they are in the process 

now of voluntarily taking a look at ambient air quality around the 

facilities. They weren’t required to do this, they are doing it on 

their own because they are sensitive to the concerns that you have 

raised. So I think you are seeing an increased sensitivity by the industry and I think the vast majority of people in the industry are 

sensitive to this and are working hard. And I think the government, I think we have a new spirit of cooperation between USDA 

and HHS and FDA, and I think that new spirit of cooperation will 

ensure that we are doing what we need to do to protect folks. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Secretary, thank you very much. 

Ms. DELAURO. Mr. Davis. 

RURAL SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, thank you. The rural America that I 

grew up in doesn’t exist today. The rural America I grew up in was 

void in many cases of rural housing opportunities for folks who 

worked off the farm but still did some farming. The rural America 

I grew up in 60 years ago didn’t have rural waterlines. The rural 

America I grew up in, in many cases, didn’t have the resources or 

research available to them that we have today. I believe that 

USDA and the agriculture and what we spend on agriculture has 

been a blessing to the American consumer; cheap food, good quality 

and generally safe. 

When you look at some of the rural areas where small towns are 

located, generally each of those have a housing authority or agency 

that provide housing for folks who basically live inside town. But 

in many cases, rural families in the last several years have been 

void of an agency called Farmers Home Administration which, in 

many cases, have helped with 502 housing loans through interest 

credit as low as 1 percent, the 515 housing rural rental housing 

loans that are available. 

So one of the first questions I want to ask, and then I want to 

get to food, as I look at this budget, and I don’t see what I believe 

is adequate funding to provide some direct loans to families at say 

just the interest credit, the 1 percent loan. I know now we give subsidies up to 20, 24 percent based upon the income. But I believe 

the program needs to be expanded. Do you see an expansion of the 

502 program which can provide individual housing for families that 

don’t have a source today to be able to obtain funding for a loan? 

Secretary VILSACK. We were certainly appreciative of the additional resources that this committee and the Congress provided in 

the Recovery Act. And we put those resources to work immediately 

because there was a backlog. So to your point, there was a backlog 

obviously because we weren’t adequately funding the program. But 

fortunately because of the resources that were provided we were 

able to put them to work and we created 28,000 homeownership opportunities that might not otherwise have taken place, or certainly 

wouldn’t have taken place as quickly as they are. With the budget 

that we are proposing this year we are looking at $1.1 billion in 

direct assistance and $6.2 billion in guaranteed single family loans. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
369 

This is the same level as was provided in 2009, and will, in our 

view, provide 59,000 housing opportunities within the country. We 

are hopeful that we can work with private lenders and encourage 

them to get back, so to speak, in the market. Having traveled recently to a number of States, I know that there are some real concerns about whether or not those private lenders are going to get 

back in the game. We hope with this level of funding that they will. 

59,000 home ownership opportunities, I think, is fairly significant. 

Mr. DAVIS. The guaranteed program obviously has especially 

been what has been the driving focus for individual housing in 

rural America through local banks. I do believe that we need to sit 

down and have a more serious talk about direct loans for individuals who may not be able to—who just drop below that level where 

they did not obtain housing. I see through my district, as I travel, 

many dilapidated homes that are not adequate living conditions. 

And a lot of those are rental units. I just hope that we can talk 

about that and I would like to engage with you. My time is running 

short. 

INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE

The second thing I want to ask about, as we look throughout the 

world today we see a lot of hunger. And I am extremely pleased 

when I see a cargo plane being unloaded and it says USAID or 

USA. In essence, we are shipping food to places throughout the 

world where folks are hungry. Today, probably in Pakistan, those 

300,000-some-odd refugees will be getting food grown by some 

farmer in America. We have what, a $13 billion surplus, probably 

the only part of America’s economy that has a surplus in trade. 

And so I want to ask you about are we doing enough in our role 

in the international food security such as the McGovern-Dole Food 

For Education program. Otherwise, to be sure that do we need to 

enhance those programs, are we spending adequately? Because I 

think that is an area where the national security can be greater 

for us and whether we become probably more embraced with people 

throughout the world if they see us helping. 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, I appreciate you asking that question. 

And I would, again, compliment this committee in particular for I 

think what is a steadfast support for those kinds of programs. You 

all saw the appropriateness of providing additional money this year 

for McGovern-Dole which we put to good use, and specifically helping out four African nations and children within those African nations, and expanded the program by several hundred thousand children. We are proposing an increase this year of almost $100 million, for a total amount of $200 million for that program which will 

assist 41⁄2 million mothers and children around the world to receive 

assistance over a 3-year period. 

And we are pleased to note that a number of countries which we 

began to assist have seen the wisdom of this program and have 

adopted their own programs and have become self-sufficient 

enough to be able to take over that responsibility; Vietnam, Lebanon, two examples for example. I attended the G–8 ag ministers 

conference on food security, the first time the ag ministers from the 

G–8 had ever met, and the conference was focused on food security. 

And we essentially established—and if I can just have a minute of 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
370 

time—essentially established three components to the U.S. position 

on food security. 

First and foremost, it is about making sure that food is available. 

And there are three basic components to that. One component is 

the capacity of a country to grow their own, which is important. 

The capacity of that country to actually engage in trade, to supplement what they can’t grow. And then emergency aid and assistance 

which is what we are talking about here is the third component. 

But even if you have available food, it may not be enough unless 

you have access to that food. Which means that it is important for 

us to continue work on investing in the infrastructure and the 

economy that will allow people to purchase food or be able to get 

food to where it is needed. 

And even if you have access to food and even if it is available, 

if you don’t know how to utilize it properly, if you don’t have the 

nutritional information on how to prepare food properly and the 

like you can still have food insecurity issues. So the G–8 ministers, 

along with a number of other countries that were at this meeting, 

have suggested that we make a major international effort in those 

three areas. And I am pleased that this administration, the President in particular, have voiced—have given voice to this, and this 

committee has given voice to this. This is extremely, extremely important for national security, not just food security but also national security. 

Ms. DELAURO. Just to let the committee know I wanted to make 

sure that everyone has participated in the first round, so I am 

going to recognize Mr. Farr. I know you haven’t. Mr. Farr, and 

then we will go back and forth. Thank you. 

PLANT PEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

Mr. FARR. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I am sorry, 

I haven’t been here. I have been running across the floor to Veterans where General Shinseki, Secretary Shinseki is. So it is Secretaries Day here today. Thank you for being here. I am really 

pleased that you accepted this responsibility. And I think as a governor you really understand how the rubber meets the road. And 

that is really essential in this job today. One of the things I wanted 

to ask you about is I represent the Salinas Valley, which is, I 

think, Salinas Valley is all inside one county in Monterey County, 

and we do $3.8 billion in sales of 85 different crops. I don’t think 

there is a county in the world that does that many different varieties of crops. Most of them are all row crops and leafy green vegetables. When the E. coli breakout came, it was obviously that we 

needed to create some protocols in the growing practices that would 

ensure that pathogens wouldn’t enter the food chain. 

And the growers, to their credit, came up with a leafy green marketing order which essentially now has a process in which U.S. certified inspectors, auditors, go in and inspect the process. And at the 

end, if you abide to all these protocols, you get a certified California 

Department of Agriculture. What is happening, sort of happened 

before and during this now, is that buyers have started a vicious 

spiral of one-upsmanship using private third-party auditors that 

are not necessarily certified by the—they are trained by the USDA. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
371 

They require even greater levels of assurances by essentially telling folks, well, you have got to build fences around your fields, you 

have got to kill every single animal. The growers are coming back 

and saying, look, our hawk population, our owls, these are our 

predators that have been very beneficial. And beneficial insects as 

well, because a lot of them grow sustainable viticultures and things 

like that by using integrated pest management. So these private 

buyers are essentially changing not based on science, not based on 

any good ag practices, but it is based on sort of a corporate knee 

jerk idea that we are going to make our growers go through tougher standards. And they have to do that or they won’t buy their 

field. 

NATIONAL LEAFY GREEN MARKETING PROGRAM

And I am wondering two things about this: What is the Department doing to help create a national leafy green marketing program and what can we do to get the buyers back into essentially 

following Federal protocols rather than creating their own? Because it is running into conflicts with all of the best management 

practices, habitat management, it is riparian management. What I 

have learned from both the cattlemen and the growers is that you 

make the most money in agriculture when nature can be your partner. We have spent an awful lot of time and years in America trying to fight nature, wipe out everything that is living, make the 

fields clean, sterilize them essentially and start over again. And 

that is too expensive. And what you end up with is soils that are 

not productive and not that sort of beneficial work. 

And so those that work with nature, and that, essentially, is the 

modern agricultural practices, very green style of understanding 

how to work with nature. And now we have these protocols that 

are killing everything that we have tried to establish in modern 

best management practices. And I think it needs real leadership to 

step in and say to the private buyers out there, the big—you know, 

they are buying—I mean, McDonald’s is competing against Taco 

Bell and all these companies are trying to say you buy our stuff 

and we have made sure that our growers grow to some kind of sterile process, it just doesn’t make any sense. 

Secretary VILSACK. This has been an issue that we have been 

grappling with, as you know, for a couple of years. AMS published 

an Advance Notice of Rulemaking in October of 2007 and received 

3,500 comments to it. We began the process of trying to formulate 

a workable plan. We have asked for in this budget an increase of 

$2.3 million to work with the industry to, indeed, complete the 

work in developing and establishing and operating a Federal marketing agreement system that will involve quality factors but will 

also make it within reason. We have been asked to do this by the 

producers and handlers, and we are in the process of working on 

this. And at this point in time, we don’t have a specific agreement, 

but we are committed to working with the industry to get that 

agreement. 

Mr. FARR. How much is a carrot and how much is a stick? The 

industry is trying to get other States to adopt the California method or something similar. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
372 

Secretary VILSACK. You know, that is a question I am going to 

have to ask for additional time to answer because I don’t know the 

answer to that question, but I will follow up, our staff will follow 

up. 

[The information follows:] 

USDA’s AMS is currently reviewing a request for public hearings on a proposed 

national marketing agreement for leafy green vegetables, which is expected to be 

submitted by a coalition of producer and handler representatives of the fresh 

produce industry in June 2009. As proposed, the agreement would authorize the development and implementation of production and handling regulations (‘‘metrics’’) 

designed to support good agricultural, handling, manufacturing, and management 

practices in the fresh leafy green vegetable industry. Metrics would be sciencebased, scalable and regionally applicable in order to accommodate compliance of 

varying size and types of operations. 

Mr. FARR. Thank you. 

Ms. DELAURO. Mr. Kingston. 

BROADBAND PROGRAM BUDGET REQUEST

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Secretary, I want to get back to the question 

on savings. On the broadband increase the stimulus package had, 

I think it was $2.3 billion, and then you are asking for another increase. And I was wondering why when I am sure that the monies 

has not even been spent? 

Secretary VILSACK. There is a significant need for this country to 

accelerate in a very meaningful way its implementation. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Let me—I mean, philosophically we are not arguing we need to—I mean, give me the dollar and cents, the buyer’s 

decision here. 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, we are on track with both the Department of Commerce and the USDA to begin the process of investing 

the resources that you have provided in the Recovery and Reinvestment Act. We hope to have some kind of framework by June and 

resources beginning to hit communities in the fall of this year. So 

we have a very aggressive timetable in terms of making grants and 

loans under the Recovery and Reinvestment Act. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Let me make sure I understand. What you are 

saying is by October we will have spent—no, you are not saying 

that I guess. You are saying that within the next year we will 

spend $4.3 billion which would be stimulus plus what you are asking for? 

Secretary VILSACK. That is correct. 

Mr. KINGSTON. And in addition to that, Commerce will spend 

about $3 billion? 

Secretary VILSACK. And this will come as no surprise to you that 

there will still be a substantial need for additional resources because we are so far behind. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Does this administration see any role for the private sector and have any fear that this corporate welfare or that 

there can be an overlap with corporate welfare? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, I think what we are looking at is actually partnerships. If you look at the way in which we are going to 

structure these grants and loans we will be working in concert with 

the industry. We are trying to figure out ways to work with them, 

not against them. We are trying to figure out ways in which we can 

entice and incent these monies to be leveraged. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
373 

Mr. KINGSTON. I would imagine it would be pretty easy. They 

were paying for themselves, now the Federal Government is going 

to kick in 50 percent or whatever the percentage is. 

Secretary VILSACK. With due respect, I am not quite sure it is 

that simple. You have got a number of unserved areas where it 

may be difficult initially to make the business case, but the need 

is still there. And it is particularly important for rural America. It 

is important for the following reasons. One, because producers need 

access to technology so that they have just in time information to 

be able to make informed decisions. Two, if we are going to focus 

on microenterprise opportunities in small business development in 

rural areas they have got to be connected not just to their market 

locally but to the worldwide market. To do that, you’ve got to have 

access to technology. And three, we are way behind, as you know, 

foreign competitors in terms of implementation of high speed 

broadband, and we cannot afford to be behind in this day and age. 

So I think there is a need, I think we are cognizant of the fact 

that we have not done as good a job as we should have in the past 

in investing these resources and we are certainly hopeful of correcting those mistakes. 

Mr. KINGSTON. How are you keeping from unjustly and rich in 

the—this committee has actually had some discussion about the retired Wall Street broker who is living on a mountaintop and wants 

to pull out his laptop to check his stock portfolios, why should we 

supplement his broadband? 

Secretary VILSACK. Because he is living next to a small entrepreneur who is getting a small business started and needs access 

to a worldwide market. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Well, that is corporate welfare. If he is a small 

entrepreneur, why should we be running to him to go help him 

make money? 

BROADBAND INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS

Secretary VILSACK. It is in the same way that we back in the 

1930s, we provided rural electrification to farm families because it 

is a technology that you will need in order to succeed. And we have 

a long-term return on investment that will be significant and substantial if we do this right. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Do you have—I would be interested in how this 

$9 billion got broken down and why for example it didn’t go to the 

USDA. If we are in a hurry to get it out, why do we create a new 

program in Commerce when the USDA already had the governmental infrastructure to do the grants? 

Secretary VILSACK. I think what you are going to find is that we 

are working in concert with the Commerce Department and you 

are going to see a unified application process, you are going to see 

a streamlined process, you are going to see a process that reflects 

the complexity of this. 

Mr. KINGSTON. But it should be unified and it should be streamlined, in fact, it should be just one agency doing it? 

Secretary VILSACK. The problem is that USDA focuses on rural 

areas. The Commerce Department—there are unmet needs in 

urban centers, in intercity America in the same way that there is 

need in rural America. So I think the reason why you divided the 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
374 

money is so that both areas could be served and both areas could 

have access. 

Mr. BISHOP. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. KINGSTON. Yes, I would be happy to. 

Mr. BISHOP. I don’t know if you remember the debate during the 

stimulus package, but that was a really knockout drag out over 

who was going to control these broadband monies, whether it was 

going to be Commerce or whether it was going to be Agriculture. 

And those of us who represent the rural communities actually we 

threw down and drew the line that there had to be some control 

by USDA through rural development in the Rural Utilities Service. 

Otherwise these underserved communities in rural areas wouldn’t 

get the benefits. And so that is why there was a demarcation so 

that USDA would have it. 

Mr. KINGSTON. I think USDA should have gotten all of it just because it was an unexisting infrastructure. 

Mr. BISHOP. Politics wouldn’t allow it? 

Ms. DELAURO. I think we all agree with the ranking member 

that USDA should have gotten all the money. 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, let me suggest— 

Mr. KINGSTON. Let me yield to Mrs. Emerson one minute. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Here is one thing. I am thrilled. I would rather 

give all the money to RUS too, having 28 very rural counties. However, the thing that is a little troubling and kind of confusing to 

me is, I know RUS is getting a larger piece I guess than the NTIA 

at Commerce, is that correct? Or is it about equal or is it flipped 

the other way? It is flipped the other way. 

BROADBAND MAPS

However, the Federal Communications Commission has actually 

been tasked with providing a plan for broadband deployment, if 

you will, throughout the rest of the country and creating a map for 

the places we need it, but it is not due for a whole year from now. 

And that is why I am confused, because I know that you all are 

going to use this money, and believe me we have a need, and I 

have lots of people who applied for these grants through RUS. But 

I am just confused why the FCC then is layered over on top of both 

NTIA and USDA to create this map when perhaps we should have 

created that map in advance. I know we have one already in Missouri, so I am not sure it is that hard, but still. 

Secretary VILSACK. I think you are going to find that a substantial number of maps exist in States that will make it easier for us 

to identify where the unserved and underserved areas are and easier for the FCC after we do our work and after we do our investments to figure out where we haven’t been able to meet the need 

or the demand. And I would say in fairness, we have a responsibility to do this job better than we have done it in the past. And 

that is the challenge that we have laid out to RUS. And I think 

with the system and the process and the conversations taking place 

between us and Commerce, I think we are going to do a better job. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Secretary, are you, in your heart of hearts, 

convinced that there is no corporate welfare here or do you have 

fear that it could creep into some corporate welfare? 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
375 

Secretary VILSACK. Honestly, I don’t see it that way, I truly 

don’t. What I see is the difficulty with small populated areas where 

the need is significant and great being able to without government 

assistance be able to make the business case today for the infrastructure investment. Once the infrastructure investment is made, 

then the business case is created, I think, to figure out ways in 

which you can market and utilize that service. I just think it is 

very difficult. It is a much easier business decision to make to put 

it someplace where it is less expensive to install and where the 

rates are more competitive and more profitable. 

Mr. KINGSTON. I know I am out of time, but I can’t resist saying, 

so broadband is now an entitlement and a right, is that what I am 

hearing? 

Secretary VILSACK. No, no. I would say with due respect—— 

Mr. KINGSTON. That is the problem with a 5-minute rule, you 

can’t get into the philosophical discussions. 

Secretary VILSACK. To be candid, you have had ten minutes. 

Mr. KINGSTON. I have been yielding generously. 

Secretary VILSACK. They didn’t start your clock right away. 

Ms. DELAURO. No, no, no, you were going to say something. 

Mr. KINGSTON. No, that is good. We will continue the discussion 

later. 

Secretary VILSACK. I will only say that there is a national need. 

It is not an entitlement, it is a national need. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Close to entitlement. 

Secretary VILSACK. Those are your words, not mine. 

Mr. KINGSTON. I don’t mind adopting them. 

RUS (ARRA) BROADBAND PROGRAM

Ms. DELAURO. Mr. Secretary, I will just make one very short 

comment on that. Our concern on this committee, and it is on both 

sides of the aisle, as you can tell, is that we have a lot of faith in 

USDA through RUS delivering these loans and getting to where 

there is the greatest need. And you are not going to have to answer 

this. But I am just saying is that we don’t want this held up. We 

have got a stimulus package that is there that is supposed to be 

moved. We figure that in fighting for that money, that we could get 

that money out much more quickly because of a developed program 

than with going through Commerce. 

So that is why we are watching as carefully as we can, because 

that is what it was about. That was what—just we were in danger 

of losing this money, as you know. I mean, we fought like hell, excuse me, to make sure it was there because we believed that USDA 

had a better mechanism to do this than Commerce. So that is what 

we are just watching, and we are going to go vigilant. And we want 

to make sure that ultimately, the loan money gets out fast and 

quickly. And the stimulus money is out there to do the job it was 

intended to do. 

Secretary VILSACK. And I think your confidence is well placed because I think we have had an impact on the system, and I think 

you are going to see those resources on both the Commerce and the 

USDA out as quickly as appropriate. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
376 

NATIONAL ANIMAL IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM

Ms. DELAURO. Well, obviously you can tell we are going to be 

looking at it and we will be talking to you about it. Let me go back 

to the national animal identification system issue. Dr. John 

Clifford, APHIS’ chief veterinarian, said before a recent House Ag 

Committee at an animal ID oversight hearing, ‘‘The system we 

have has not worked. The system has to be effective, and this is 

not effective.’’ Several questions. Why should we continue, and I 

would beg the indulgence of the other side of the aisle. Why should 

we continue the Bush animal ID system? If you want us to keep 

the system on life support in the 2010 budget, we need to know 

where you are taking the program, when we will have an indication from USDA as to how it will deliver an effective animal ID 

program. 

Let me add to this configuration April 2009 cost benefit analysis 

report. Interesting findings. I am not going to go through them all. 

But the study found that an effective animal ID system would be 

a valuable tool for protecting U.S. market share for beef exports. 

The study concludes that countries that fail to provide an effective 

traceability system will lose export market access. Researchers estimate that a loss of 25 percent of market share loss similar to the 

South Korean market prior to the 2003 BSE. Discovery in the U.S. 

would result in producer revenues dropping by $18.25 per head 

sold. Anyway, the economic benefits that are pointed out in this 

study, we didn’t do the study, they came out of people who know 

this area and who have come to some recommendations and conclusions. There are positive economic benefits from an effective animal 

ID system. You also have public-private partnerships. 

If we have a mandatory system you cut down the costs because 

we are not dealing with marketing everywhere in this place. We 

are also going to get the private sector to pick up some of the costs 

of this effort as well. What are the greatest impediments to delivering such a system? Since the voluntary approach for 5 years has 

failed, doesn’t the study further make a case for a mandatory identification system? 

Secretary VILSACK. There are a number of issues within animal 

identification, and I will just touch on a few of them. You asked 

what are the barriers. There is a serious reservation and concern 

on the part of a number of producers as to precisely how this information will be collected, who will collect it, where it will be stored, 

how secure it will be and what uses beyond animal identification 

could potentially be used and whether or not information that is 

collected is subject to any kind of public disclosure. That is one 

issue. There is the issue of cost. There is a significant difference 

between the cost of an animal identification system for poultry, for 

sheep, for hogs and for cattle. I think it is fair to say, and I could 

be corrected on this, but I think it is fair to say that the cost of 

the cattle industry is significantly higher than it is to the other industries. And the question then becomes who bears that cost and 

who should bear it and what cost is it. 

And I have seen some estimates as high as $5 to $6 a head, 

which is a fairly significant cost to the producers. There are serious 

issues about how detailed the identification must be and whether 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
377 

or not when you talk about traceability whether or not you are 

talking about movements from one field to another or are you talking about movements from where cattle are raised to where they 

are slaughtered. Precisely what are you talking about. So there are 

a number of issues that at least I have learned in the two listening 

sessions that lead me to believe that we need to be more innovative 

and more creative about this process. 

Now, that is not to say that I will, at some point, in time not 

agree with your observation. I am interested in learning as much 

as I can because my goal is to have as much participation as possible. 

NATIONAL ANIMAL ID SYSTEM

Now, you may say, well, a mandatory system will guarantee participation. Maybe yes, maybe no. If you have serious resistance to 

a system, you could potentially get yourself in a situation where 

you don’t have as much participation as you need. And it is fairly 

clear that you need 70 to 80 percent participation or the system is 

not going to work. 

So we are conducting these listening sessions. Madam Chair, we 

don’t expect to drag this out for an extended period of time. That 

is not our desire. We do want to give all parts of the country an 

opportunity to participate and to provide input. We have already, 

in two listening sessions, had 57 presentations. And I think we 

have half a dozen more of these listening sessions scheduled over 

the course of the next couple of months. 

So our expectation is to get something concluded here relatively 

soon. It is important. You have identified the fact that there is 

huge market risk here, if we don’t do it right, huge. And, of course, 

there is an issue of animal disease and the capacity to contain it 

if it happens. 

Ms. DELAURO. I want to make a final comment because I am out 

of time. And this is information that I received yesterday which I 

would like to have further conversations with you. 

The Canadians, 2001, launched the system; fully compliant by 

2002. There are about 10 to 12 companies out there that deal with 

this issue. Wisconsin: 60,000 Wisconsin livestock farms registered 

annually since 2004, $12 per farm to run the program. That comes 

from the—I didn’t make that up—Wisconsin Livestock ID Association. Forty million head of Canadian cattle tracked since 2001, 20 

cents per head to run the program. 

The data is there, and we have to come to some decision here 

and look at what the accuracies are of the costs involved over the 

years. They have been overstated to a fare-thee-well. We are now 

at $142 million, and it is another $14.6 million. And it is hard to 

justify for the outcome. 

And when my colleagues look at outcomes—believe me, if this 

were some social program somewhere and we had this rate of failure, I suggest to you it would be on the list of programs that are 

going to be terminated. And you would have concurrence by 435 

Members of this body, given this age of looking at cost and what 

we are spending here. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
378 

I will just leave it at that. I would like to have more conversations with you privately about data and information, about costs 

that are involved. 

Ms. DELAURO. Mrs. Emerson. 

HUNGER-FREE COMMUNITY GRANTS REQUEST

Mrs. EMERSON. Ditto on the computers, too, yes. 

Okay. Mr. Secretary, last week, a report from Feeding America 

helped lay out a cold fact of life in America: that more than 12 million children in the U.S. are food insecure. And, in Missouri, probably one out of every five children under the age of 5 is food insecure. And while those numbers are from 2005 to 2007, I have to 

believe based on a lot of anecdotes that I have had from folks in 

my district with rising unemployment that that number is rising 

as well. 

And so, given our knowledge of the facts, I really believe strongly 

that now is the time for Congress and the administration to do everything we can to ensure—every effort to maximize resources, leverage funds and ensure that we do not overlook any opportunity 

to reduce the number of hungry. 

This is an area where I believe the $5 million request for hungerfree community grants will be beneficial. And, as you may know, 

these grants would support communities and efforts to organize 

local strategies for hunger prevention, especially among children. 

And I am hoping that these grants will be funded and help find 

their way to organize and leverage other local efforts. 

Mr. Secretary, however, I do believe that we also need to ensure 

that we are doing all we can on a national level, as well. In your 

short time on the job, would you say that you have come across 

anything resembling a comprehensive government-wide strategy to 

combat hunger in America? 

Secretary VILSACK. I think there are elements of a comprehensive strategy. I think the capacity to expand the school nutrition 

programs, the school lunch programs, working with countless numbers of local organizations to fill in the gaps on weekends and during summer vacation. I don’t know that we necessarily have found 

the silver bullet, but I think there are a lot of innovative and creative ideas out there. And we hope to be able foster more of those 

ideas, particularly in those gap areas. 

I will tell you that the recent school closures with the H1N1 have 

given us an opportunity to think about what happens if there is an 

extended period of time when schools are shut down. And we began 

to talk about what our response and what our responsibility would 

be. And I think what I learned from that was that, in that circumstance, if we have an extended school closure, we have work to 

do. 

So I think there are elements of a comprehensive plan, but I 

wouldn’t tell you today that, here is what the plan is. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Well, you know, just like Secretary Clinton is trying to marshal all of the government resources—and, you know, 

you have been definitely part of that on the international hunger 

front. We had that meeting; Rosa was there, and I was there. It 

was a couple of weeks ago, who knows, but somewhere in the last 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
379 

couple of weeks. And I was very excited about that, because I 

thought she had a great handle on it. 

Would it be in your ability to be able to do the same kind of 

multi-pronged strategy and pull everybody together in the room on 

the domestic front? Is that something that you would support or 

that you would be interested in doing? 

NUTRITION ASSISTANCE

Secretary VILSACK. Well, and I think to a certain extent, not that 

I have called this or that I have been personally involved in it, but 

to the extent that there has been a fairly broad group of folks 

working on the reauthorization proposal, I think we have the workings, the beginnings of that process. And I have had a series of 

meetings, individual meetings, with a number of groups on this 

issue of what do you do on weekends and what do you do on summer vacation. I am concerned about that. 

I think we have had a real good-faith effort to try to get food to 

children. We just haven’t figured out how to make sure that all of 

our children are actually, in fact, fed. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Yeah. And the fact that we still have 12 million 

who we know are food insecure is pretty scary, and considering 

how rich our country is, even the poorest among the poor, as compared to, you know, say, other countries in Latin America, Central 

America. But it is just mind-boggling—because, you know, some 

people don’t want to go to the food pantry. And, of course, half of 

the time, our food pantries now just don’t have anything. 

And the school lunch program is great, but not all kids go to 

school. And so, you still have all the little ones who, if they are not 

in Head Start and getting a square meal there, they are left out 

in the cold. 

Secretary VILSACK. That is why WIC is important. That is why 

the day-care programs are important. That is why the school lunch 

and school breakfast programs are important. 

But I would point out that we have another issue that we have 

to deal with, and that is, depending upon how those programs are 

implemented at the local level, it creates the potential for stigma, 

which discourages youngsters from utilizing the program. 

Just today, I had a story of a computer program where you basically put your thumbprint on the computer to verify you are the 

person who is supposed to get the lunch, and then in big, huge, 

bold letters it says ‘‘free and reduced lunch student.’’ So your kids 

are going through the line, you are putting your finger up there, 

and it tags you as a free and reduced lunch kid. And, you know, 

so what happens is youngsters say, ‘‘I don’t want even to be part 

of it. I will just skip lunch.’’ 

Mrs. EMERSON. Right. And that is absolutely critical. 

But it would be wonderful if we could encourage you to try to put 

a more formal organization together so we could collectively work 

on this issue. There are so many resources and so many private organizations, nongovernmental organizations out there working on 

this issue, and I just feel like if we collectively do it and we have 

a national campaign, if you will—— 

Secretary VILSACK. Can I just have an amendment that, if we 

were going to do this, I think we ought to do both sides of the equaVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:29 Jan 26, 2010 Jkt 053443 PO 00000 Frm 00379 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A443P2.XXX A443P2

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
380 

tion here. We have an issue with hunger, but we also have an issue 

with obesity. And it would be helpful, I think, to have a conversation about both. 

Mrs. EMERSON. I think it definitely does fit together, because in 

our more rural areas—as we are sitting here eating Virginia peanuts with how many grams of fat? 

Ms. DELAURO. Only one side of the aisle is eating. Thanks, Jack. 

Mrs. EMERSON. 140 calories—oh, no. 

Thank you so much. But we would like very much, and I would 

personally like very much, to work with you on this issue. 

Ms. DELAURO. Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much. 

OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS

I had said that I wanted to go back and revisit the issue of the 

Office of Civil Rights budget. The proposed 2010 budget for the Office of Civil Rights totals $28 million, an increase of about 7.6 percent, including funding for an additional two full-time employees, 

bringing the total number in that office to 115. 

Given the tremendous backlog and the complaints which have 

yet to be adjudicated, not to mention the cases that are currently 

being filed, in addition to the ramp-up of the second phase of the 

Pigford case and the administrative burdens that that will present, 

I wonder if the Office of Civil Rights needs a significant increase 

in resources above what is being proposed. 

And as an addendum to that, could you share with us how many 

cases or complaints are currently pending? And, of those pending, 

how many are internal complaints and how many are external 

complaints, for example, those submitted by minority farmers or 

producers? 

Secretary VILSACK. Sir, I don’t know that I have a breakdown of 

the specific number of complaints in terms of internal or external. 

I can tell you that we are reviewing the previous 8 or 9 years’ 

worth of complaints. It stands in my memory that there is somewhere in neighborhood of 13,000, but I could be wrong about that 

number. 

And the reason we are reviewing them is that a relatively small, 

and I mean a relatively small, number of those complaints were 

found to be valid complaints or properly filed. So we wanted to 

make sure that whatever decisions were made were made in the 

proper fashion. 

We have or are in the process of securing the services of some 

folks who are going to help us go through that process, who, because of their previous experience, will be able to do a fairly good 

and relatively quick job because they know what to look for in reviewing those files. And I believe we are doing that within the existing budget, this year’s budget. 

We have requested additional money. We have requested additional money for additional employees and for a record management system. We are hopeful that, with this additional money, that 

we can also aggressively pursue our congressional mandate to establish a meaningful Office of Advocacy and Outreach in order to 

prevent future problems. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
381 

So our hope is that we have adequate resources to do the job. 

And if we don’t, then we will have to figure out a way to make do. 

We are very committed to this. And I think we have the people to 

be able to get it done. 

Mr. BISHOP. Let me ask you, the Office of Civil Rights, the director of that office, does he report directly to you, or does he report 

to the Under Secretary for Administration? What is the chain of 

command there? 

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION

Secretary VILSACK. You know, I don’t have the flowchart in my 

mind right now. I will tell you that what we are suggesting is that 

the Assistant Secretary for Administration be elevated to an Under 

Secretary so that he can be on the same level as all the of the other 

Under Secretaries, so when he asks for assistance in promoting 

civil rights in terms of hiring and promotion and activities within 

each agency, he is at the same level as his counterparts. 

Mr. BISHOP. He would also oversee the other sub-agencies with 

regard to administration matters? 

Secretary VILSACK. That is correct. That is correct. 

Mr. BISHOP. Okay. Do you need legislation to elevate that, or will 

you be able to do it administratively? 

Secretary VILSACK. I don’t think I can do that administratively. 

I think that is something that you have the power to do; I don’t. 

I am just suggesting that it is difficult, if you are trying to tell 

an Under Secretary of Natural Resources and Environment to, you 

know, do a better job of minority hiring or to ask questions as to 

why promotions aren’t, you know, equitable, just hypothetically 

speaking, it is difficult to do that when you are here and you are 

talking to someone who is, in a sense, a superior, at a superior 

level. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

I yield back the balance of my time, and I do have some. 

Ms. DELAURO. I appreciate that, Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. Latham. 

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

EFFECTS OF H1N1 ON THE PORK INDUSTRY

Secretary, as you are well aware with the H1N1 outbreak—and, 

unfortunately, it was called the swine flu and had a—I guess, number one, it really highlights the need for the animal surveillance 

program and strong animal disease research, but also just the economic hardship that is placed on our pork producers. And I have 

some people talking about, you know, the bankers saying don’t— 

asking them if they want to sell their land or if they want to sell 

their sows and things like that. 

Is there anything that we can do? I mean, I have had people suggest some kind of a school lunch or government buyout or something to try and help them. Are there any actions we can take? 

Secretary VILSACK. We are in the process of taking a look at 

what our options are. To a certain extent, the flexibilities that this 

Department has had in the past have been—I don’t know what the 

right word is; ‘‘curtailed’’ is the only word I can think of—curtailed 

by specific directions from Congress in terms of the allocation of reVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:29 Jan 26, 2010 Jkt 053443 PO 00000 Frm 00381 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A443P2.XXX A443P2

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
382 

sources that have been, in the past, available. So our options are 

limited, but we are looking at that limited help and assistance. I know that we have received a request to purchase $50 million 

worth of pork. I, candidly, am not sure that we have that kind of 

flexibility left in the budget, but we are looking for opportunities 

to help this industry out. 

And first and foremost is to preserve the market that exists 

today by making sure that people characterize this as a virus that 

is not basically a food-borne virus. 

Mr. LATHAM. As far as trade, it has affected that quite dramatically. Anything that we can do on that front? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, there are several things we have done 

and we are going to continue to do. And some of them have been 

successful, and we still have more work to do. 

Last week, I met with ambassadors from 20 countries, basically 

laying out precisely what our process is, laying out what the nature 

of the virus is, the fact that it was not food-borne, that you can’t 

get it by eating pork, that there is no scientific reason or international trade reason for banning pork or pork products. We have 

been requested to provide letters to these countries, and we are in 

the process of doing that. 

We have seen a good response from Central American countries. 

They have reopened their markets. We have seen a very strong and 

positive statement from some of our trading partners, like Japan. 

We still have work to do with several of our trading partners, including China and Russia. 

Mr. LATHAM. Well, I hope when you met you served ham sandwiches or something. 

Secretary VILSACK. Oh, I have been doing my personal part, I 

can tell you that. 

Mr. FARR. We eat a lot of pork here, too. 

Mr. LATHAM. Thanks, Sam. 

CROP INSURANCE

Just, I guess, about the crop insurance, I know you have a proposal that the government net book quota share, the 20 percent 

versus the current 5 percent. In that proposal, also, as far as your 

explanation of your proposed legislation, decreasing premium subsidies by 5 percent, increasing the book quota, and decreasing the 

premiums on the CAT coverage by 25 percent. 

I mean, do you know which—will the Department do some kind 

of analysis—number one, has this been proposed? Is there any legislative language? Number two, have you done any kind of study 

as to which companies are going to survive if the government takes 

over more and more of the business? You are obviously very aware 

in Iowa of what a huge impact that has. 

Secretary VILSACK. I appreciate the question about this, and I 

think it is important to sort of understand the history. 

When crop insurance was first issued, it was not something that 

was—it was something that had to be marketed. It was something 

that had to be incented. It was something where producers had to 

be encouraged to participate. 

Today, that is not the case. Many banks are now making it a 

condition of loans. Obviously, when you establish the disaster proVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:29 Jan 26, 2010 Jkt 053443 PO 00000 Frm 00382 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A443P2.XXX A443P2

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
383 

grams, you basically provide it as a condition of obtaining disaster 

relief, that you have crop insurance. So there is now more of a 

mandate than just simply having to market. 

Therefore, the companies don’t—they have seen a huge increase 

in their market, but they haven’t actually increased coverage and 

so forth. So they have been making a tremendous amount of 

money, billions of dollars. We just think that this needs to be a fair 

deal to taxpayers. 

Now, do we have legislation that is proposed? Not yet. It has 

been drafted, and we will obviously get that to you. Have we done 

an analysis of how individual companies will be impacted? That 

might be difficult to do without knowing precisely what companies 

are selling what products this year. 

I will tell you that we are anxiously awaiting the GAO report on 

crop insurance to determine whether or not that leads us in a different direction or supports what we are doing. And we expect to 

see that very soon. 

Mr. LATHAM. If I could just indulge just for one kind of followup, I mean, you know, there is great skepticism out there about the 

Federal Government controlling all the banks, controlling the car 

companies. Expanding the role in another area here where the government is actually in competition with the private sector and expanding that, forcing basically a bunch of companies out of business, I think would get a lot of pushback, I would have to say. 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, I don’t want to get into a disagreement 

with you, Congressman. 

Mr. LATHAM. Oh, come on. 

Secretary VILSACK. There is a tremendous amount of profit being 

generated from this line of work. And, essentially, it was created—— 

Mr. LATHAM. There is also a tremendous amount of risk. 

Secretary VILSACK. There is. And the government is willing to 

share in the risk. If it is 20 percent of the gain, it is also 20 percent 

of the loss. So it is a sharing of that risk and a sharing of the gain, 

and we think a fairer sharing of the gain because the gain has dramatically increased. And as time goes on, the capacity to more accurately determine what your losses are going to be gets better, 

and so you increase the profit margin. So this is about recalibrating 

the deal, and I think it is a fair request. 

Mr. LATHAM. I respectfully disagree, but thank you very much. 

Secretary VILSACK. I expect that. 

Ms. DELAURO. Mr. Davis. 

AGRICULTURE AND FOOD RESEARCH INITIATIVE

Mr. DAVIS. In 1862 and 1890, legislation was passed creating 

land grant colleges and, as a result of that, the Agriculture and 

Food Research Initiative, which provides competitive grants for 

some of these universities to do research and maybe to find better 

ways for nutrition, food safety, agricultural production, and even 

conservation problems. 

Do you think it is adequately funded today? And if not, would 

you support increasing funding for AFRI? 

Secretary VILSACK. You know, that is an interesting way of 

phrasing a question. We are here to talk about the budget we have 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
384 

proposed and submitted. I will tell you that I am looking forward 

to the opportunity to spend a full year understanding the intricacies of this budget, because when we do have that full year I think 

we will make perhaps even better decisions than we have made in 

the relatively short period of time. 

I am interested in making sure that the research that is done by 

USDA is, A, coordinated; B, works with our land grant universities; 

C, is competitive as it can possibly be; and D, addresses the critical 

issues confronting agriculture. 

I can’t tell you today, because I frankly have not had the time 

to delve into this, whether or not that is the system we have today. 

We may very well have that system. But I wanted the opportunity 

for the Under Secretary of Research to be able to look at this and 

give recommendations to me in terms of whether we have the best 

system and the most adequately funded system or whether we need 

to put more additional resources in. My suspicion is that he will 

come back and say more resources are needed. 

Mr. DAVIS. Madam Chairman, there is a letter that each of us 

probably have. I would like to ask, if we could, for that to be put 

into the record of today’s hearing, if that is possible, unless it is 

already a part of it. It is signed by 59 vice presidents and 11 presidents of the land grant colleges. With your permission. 

Ms. DELAURO. Without objection. 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
385 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 739 here 53443B.047
386 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 740 here 53443B.048
387 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 741 here 53443B.049
388 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 742 here 53443B.050
389 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 743 here 53443B.051
390 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 744 here 53443B.052
391 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 745 here 53443B.053
392 

Ms. DELAURO. Go ahead. 

RURAL BROADBAND PROGRAMS

Mr. DAVIS. My second comment, as we talk about broadband, I 

envision that rural Tennessee and rural Fourth Congressional District and rural counties across America could use broadband as a 

way to basically have a magnet school for small school systems 

that would be possible for them to be able to educate the best and 

brightest. Maybe a college professor at the University of Tennessee 

or Iowa will be instructing students from the fourth grade all the 

way up through the 12th grade. 

My wife, a teacher, says that for the first 3 years of school we 

teach a child to read and, after that, the child reads to learn. And 

so I think that we are failing in this country in not challenging the 

best and brightest. We did a wonderful job with special education, 

to bring folks into our economy, into the workforce, and from then 

we have actually helped folks be able to be a part of our society. 

But I think broadband is where we can really make a tremendous difference in many areas, education being one of those. When 

the interstate systems were built, they didn’t stop in Nashville, 

Memphis, Chattanooga, Knoxville. They went all across rural 

America. Broadband needs to do the same thing. 

And so my hope is, as you start promulgating the rules, so that 

my communication cooperatives in the district, or wherever it may 

be, can apply for the grants to be able to make available and accessible to the rural public school systems an opportunity to better 

fund education at much less cost. 

So, at what level are we today in being able to have the rules 

ready so that we can start seeing some of the dollars be expended? 

Secretary VILSACK. Representative, first of all, you are absolutely 

correct that there are multiple uses for broadband. You have mentioned one that is very important. The other is health care, the opportunity to link health care clinics with imaging resources, X-rays 

and so forth, to save health care costs and make it easier for people 

in rural communities to get adequate health care. There are many 

uses for it. 

We expect and anticipate by June that we will have the rules 

and a framework in place. We expect, as it relates to the Recovery 

and Reinvestment resources, that we will probably see three separate distributions of resources. Why, you say, not all at one time? 

Because we want to learn from what kind of applications we get 

from the first tranche of resources. And we expect that those resources will first be invested in the fall of this year. So we are— 

and that is both the Commerce Department and the USDA. 

Mr. DAVIS. My home in Pall Mall still has dial-up. So when we 

talk about the need for actually extending telecommunications and 

others to rural areas, that is important. 

I hear folks talk about this being a waste of money. The farmto-market roads go to a State highway. The State highway goes to 

the intrastate system. The intrastate roads go to the interstate and 

connect. And as a result of that, food, labor. America’s future because of rural America, because of looking at rural America and 

helping develop it, has made America’s future better. I think 

broadband can be a part of that. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
393 

Secretary VILSACK. I agree with you. 

Mr. DAVIS. My time is up. 

Ms. DELAURO. Mr. Farr. 

Mr. FARR. Thank you very much. 

MARKET ACCESS PROGRAM

I have one question about the MAP program, and then I want 

to get into nutritional issues. 

The administration’s—OMB’s—justification for reducing funding 

for the MAP program cited a 10-year-old GAO study but did not 

mention a more recent Global Insight study commissioned by the 

Department of Agriculture, a study called, ‘‘A Cost-Benefit Analysis 

of USDA’s International Marketing Development Programs.’’ That 

was a program done in 2006. 

It showed that increased program funding provided by the 2000 

Farm Bill for MAP and for the Foreign Market Development Program, the FMD, successfully increased U.S. Agricultural exports by 

$3.8 billion and helped increase the annual farm net cash income 

by $460 million. 

Why was this study not taken into account by the administration? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, I am not sure that it wasn’t taken into 

account. I think there is obviously support for export assistance; it 

is a question of what kind of export assistance we provide. 

I think what we are suggesting is, the way in which we were providing these resources, essentially we are funding for-profit enterprises for activities and events that would have occurred anyway, 

and, in fact, are occurring. 

So it is not a question of not being supportive of MAP. It is a 

question of whether the resources we were spending were for services that would have been provided anyway, and we believe probably would have been and will be provided anyway. 

Mr. FARR. Okay. I am sure we are going to have quite a struggle 

in Congress, as we always do, on MAP funding. 

SCHOOL NUTRITION PROGRAMS

But let me switch to something that is dear to my heart and I 

think dear to your heart and certainly dear to the President and 

First Lady’s heart, which is the school nutrition. 

I have been pointing out that I think we have a morass of administrative problems in the facts of the feeding program. One is by 

all the different programs we have created, but what is interesting—and we get these reports here from your Department on 

what we spent on buying food. 

And I was just looking at this chart here of the food that was 

purchased. This is the Food and Nutrition Service, Child Nutrition 

Program. There isn’t one—the only fresh thing I could find on here 

were pears. 

You know what we spent the most amount of money on last 

year? The most money? 

Ms. DELAURO. Mozzarella cheese. 

Mr. FARR. You are right, Madam Chair. We spent—and there is 

nothing even that comes close—$148,879,987 on mozzarella cheese. 

That is just mozzarella. We also bought all kinds of cheddar 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
394 

cheeses and other shredded cheeses, reduced cheeses, pasteurized, 

bulk, sliced cheeses, yellow cheeses, whatever. 

So the problem is that, you know, we are telling the world that 

you have to eat healthy in order to stay healthy, and yet what we 

buy and distribute to the school lunch program is all the things 

that we are not supposed to be eating, at least in that kind of 

quantity. So we have to shift what we are providing in the school 

lunches. 

Now, let me get into the programs. In the schools, we have a 

school lunch program, we have a school breakfast program, we 

have a summer food service program, we have a special milk program, we have a snack program. And then we get into—and we 

have commodity procurements, and that was a part of it. 

What I would hope you would do is really start streamlining. We 

ought to have just two feeding programs in America. We ought to 

have a community feeding program with the WIC and food stamps 

and all the things we do outside of the schools, in the broader community. And the other one area we ought to have ought to be the 

school nutrition program. 

And I hope that you will work on consolidating these programs. 

I am working on the reauthorization, which isn’t in this committee. 

It is not even in the ag committees. It is in the Labor and Education Committee, working with George Miller’s staff to show 

them—and they have never really gone back in to look at why all 

these programs were built differently. 

We hear from the school nutritionists that they think that up to 

60 to 70 percent of the programs are consumed in administrative 

costs, because each one of these programs has to be audited and 

so on. And, I mean, I think we ought to be block-granting these to 

the schools. 

We ought to be consolidating the programs into one, kind of, 

multi-school program that the—we ought to be streamlining the 

way we qualify using the data that we use for other Federal programs, such as the food stamp program and the Medicare program. 

They are much more accurate, the computer data, than these forms 

that have to go out to parents to prove that they are poor, and the 

parents don’t even speak the language that is on the forms. 

So I hope that you will seriously tackle this in this year when 

we have to reauthorize it, to essentially rebuild it or refinance it 

to buy things that are nutritious. 

Ms. DELAURO. You may answer, Mr. Secretary, because I want 

to try to get in as many questions as we can to meet your schedule 

and to meet a vote schedule that is coming up. 

Secretary VILSACK. We are proposing additional investments in 

fruits and vegetables, in addition to the $11 billion that we are currently purchasing in those areas. And so we are very cognizant of 

the need to focus on more nutrition. We want to make sure that 

the programs are consistent, more consistent with the dietary 

guidelines. And we want to make sure that those dietary guidelines 

are well-informed and well-structured on a nutritious diet. 

Your issue about consolidation is a good one, and we will certainly give that consideration. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
395 

Mr. FARR. Why don’t we have a salad bar in every school? That 

would be a great question for you to ask. I don’t need an answer 

here, but we would be interested in why we can’t do that. 

Ms. DELAURO. Mr. Kingston. 

USDA PROGRAMS SAVINGS

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Secretary, I may need to leave some of these 

for the record, but one of them is on the broadband grant eligibility. We have heard from some small suppliers that the bigger 

companies are influencing the grant process and to make sure that 

they kind of will get more than their fair share. So we can submit 

a letter to you on that, but that is something that I am sure we 

are all sensitive about and probably on the same page on. 

The other thing is I was interested in your CRP explanation to 

Mr. Latham about the actual usage of it, as compared to the allocation of it. 

Secretary VILSACK. Not CRP. Some of the other programs, the 

wetlands—— 

Mr. KINGSTON. Okay, the wetlands. And I was wondering, do you 

apply that same ruler to SNAP and to WIC? Because it would appear to me that there would be a similar number of enrollments. 

For example, food stamps has, as you know, an automatic trigger 

for enrollees and for food inflation. And it was adjusted in October, 

and yet in the stimulus program there was another $19 billion put 

on it, and now we have another increase. And I am just wondering 

if that same ruler applies. 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, I think it is a slightly different circumstance, because you are seeing an increased utilization of those 

programs as opposed to an underutilization. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Is the increase based on the market trigger that 

is suggested in June, or is it a speculative amount? 

Secretary VILSACK. No, I think the increase is based on recognized demand and a weakening economy. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Let’s take a look at that, and I can send that letter to you with a better explanation. Because it seems to me there 

is a little more speculation, because it was just suggested in October. But we will see. 

The other thing is, I want to encourage you—you had testified 

previously that $49 million was overpaid to ineligible participants 

in farm programs because the recipients’ income was too high. I 

want to encourage you on that as a potential savings. And if you 

may remember, the dialogue that you and I had at that time was 

that there was also, in terms of the Food Stamp Program, overpayments of $1.29 billion. 

So, there is a lot of money there that, if we can do our jobs better, that we can get. And, of course, the point of both of these is 

you want farm payments to go to eligible farmers only and you 

want food stamps to go to the eligible people also. 

Secretary VILSACK. That is true. I think there has been progress 

made on the SNAP program. You know, I don’t use that term, ‘‘food 

stamp,’’ because, you know, I think it is a mischaracterization of 

the program. It is a supplemental nutrition program, and I think 

that is where the focus needs to be. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
396 

Having said that, there has been literally a halving of the error 

rate in that program over the course of the last several years. That 

doesn’t mean that there isn’t more work to be done; there does. 

And there also needs to be more work done on the school lunch and 

school breakfast program, same kind of issue. And we are certainly 

sensitive to that. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Okay, good. Because, you know, at the end of this 

process, which I am looking forward to working with you on savings, getting after overpayments and inefficiencies may be one 

thing that really unites some philosophies in here. 

Secretary VILSACK. I could use your help in helping some of your 

colleagues understand that, because some people are concerned 

about the fact that we are actually teaming up with the Internal 

Revenue Service to make sure that we have a system to check and 

make sure people who are getting farm payments are the ones who 

are entitled to them. And some of the colleagues, particularly on 

your side—— 

Mr. KINGSTON. No, I absolutely agree with you. Money should go 

to those who are eligible. And I might not like all the programs, 

but they still should go to the people who are eligible for them. 

LIBERALIZING TRADE WITH CUBA

The other thing is, will the President sign the bill if it has liberalization of trade with Cuba, if it gets amended in the process? 

Secretary VILSACK. I haven’t talked to the President about that 

issue, so I don’t want to speak for him. 

Mr. KINGSTON. What a smart answer. 

I yield back. 

Mr. FARR. Wouldn’t that be great? 

Mr. KINGSTON. Just wondering. Just wondering. 

Secretary VILSACK. We are fortunate to have the opportunity to 

do agricultural trade with Cuba, and we appreciate—you know, 

that has been a good thing for Cuba, and it is a good thing for the 

farmers. 

Ms. DELAURO. It is a good way to increase, you know, additional 

markets here for our farming communities. This is a committee 

that is supportive of this issue, pretty much so. In any case—is 

that true, Jack? 

Mr. KINGSTON. What was the question? 

Ms. DELAURO. You are for liberalizing trade, aren’t you? 

Mr. KINGSTON. I am so devoted to my loyal opposition position 

that I don’t know that I would go along with the Chair on that particular question. But I would certainly—— 

Ms. DELAURO. Except if we could sell chicken to Cuba. 

Anyway, let’s move on. I will try and get as many—let me just 

rapid-fire stuff. 

UNDER SECRETARY OF FOOD SAFETY

On the Under Secretary for Food Safety, Mr. Secretary, is there 

a candidate currently being vetted to be nominated for this position? 

Secretary VILSACK. Yes. 

Ms. DELAURO. What is our timeline here? 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
397 

Secretary VILSACK. Madam Chair, the complexity has to do with 

the arrangements that are necessary in order to allow this person 

to do the job. And we are in the process of working through that 

process. Short term. 

Ms. DELAURO. I think it is imperative. I think you agree. 

Secretary VILSACK. Don’t disagree. 

FOOD SAFETY RISK ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE

Ms. DELAURO. Food safety assessment schedule, you know, the 

concern here is because we went through this risk-based effort that 

we are not complying with what the IG said with regard to their 

recommendations on risk-based. Why do you propose to do the food 

safety assessments only once every 4 years? 

Secretary VILSACK. You know, I don’t know the answer to that 

question. 

Ms. DELAURO. Okay. So if you can get back, I would just—— 

Secretary VILSACK. Oh. I have been reminded that we are asking 

for an increase in the assessment so that we can increase the number and the frequency. 

Ms. DELAURO. So we can increase the number and frequency. 

Okay. Anyway, we will talk further about that. I may have additional questions on that, because the frequency, I think, is critically 

important. 

AGRICULTURAL CREDIT INSURANCE FUND

Agriculture credit insurance front, let me just make a point on 

this. Supplemental, $71 million for ACIF. This was after $20 million in the Recovery Act. The Congress was never notified that the 

programs were going to run out of the funding mid-year, leaving 

farmers without a source of credit. 

Really, we would love a commitment from you that the Department will keep a better watch over these programs, notify the Congress when the program is seeing unprecedented demand and when 

we are going to run out of funds mid-year. 

Look, you know and I know these are programs that are the only 

source of credit for some people right now who are struggling. So 

let me just ask you, is the 2010 budget request sufficient to cover 

the surge demand that the farm ownership and operating loan programs have been experiencing? 

Secretary VILSACK. We are proposing an increase. Scott reminded 

me that we are forecasting a year in advance. It is the best estimate that we have. 

I will reassure the Chair we are in the process right now of having meetings with a number of our budget folks to make sure that 

they are within budget. We are going to pay close attention to 

this—to all budgets, not just this one. 

FOOD SAFETY ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE

Ms. DELAURO. Okay. I just want to point out that—my last question, with regard to the food safety assessment schedule—a proposal to do the assessments once every 4 years was made by Bush 

FSIS in its response to the OIG report. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
398 

I am looking to a new administration with a stronger commitment to funding public health initiatives. So I want you to look at 

why you are continuing to look at a 4-year proposal. And if it is 

with regard to—I want to really know if it is increased funding 

that gets us stumped, because this is from a time past, in my view. 

CONSERVATION FUNDING

Okay, let me just—on the conservation funding, I have a couple 

of questions here. You spoke to—maybe it was Mr. Latham—and 

you said you were going to try to match the existing funding with 

the increase in the enrollment, et cetera. 

Is there a question here that there is a problem in the field? In 

other words, that we do not have—that the issue becomes the delivery side of USDA and a field force that is able to do the job of 

enrolling and, you know, of utilizing those funds at the rapid rate 

that the Congress has talked about these efforts. 

Secretary VILSACK. I am going to draw on my experience as a 

governor to answer that question. 

We tried to institute buffer strips into the State of Iowa. And 

what I learned from that experience was that oftentimes when government comes to a farmer and says, ‘‘We have a program that is 

great for you, we want you to participate,’’ oftentimes there is a little skepticism and cynicism about it. And so, what we tried to do 

is to get a better marketing effort with farmer talking to farmer. 

So it may very well be field, but it could also be just general skepticism or a lack of appreciation for precisely what the programs 

provide. I don’t know. 

We do have a broad array of options for farmers. And one of the 

things can also be that crop prices, commodity prices increase, and 

you have a bumper year, and all of a sudden you are thinking 

maybe you should take land out of conservation reserve and put it 

into crop production, or maybe you need that additional acreage 

and maybe conservation is not as profitable as growing a crop. It 

could be a wide variety of explanations. 

Ms. DELAURO. Well, I think we—you know, obviously, I think 

that is a big issues for everyone on this committee, is these programs, so we will continue to have that conversation. 

Secretary VILSACK. I think you all have made tremendous 

progress, if you look at the number of acres that are involved. 

Ms. DELAURO. Yeah. There is also an issue for me, but I will put 

it on the record, in the last administration, the issue of what are 

the programs that are most cost-effective, when Mr. Rey was here 

and so forth. We have some of that language. I would like to get 

that to you to get your take on what he thought was most cost-effective, in terms of some of the conservation programs. In any case, 

I will get that to you. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Rosa, will you share that answer? That would be 

very interesting for the committee. 

Ms. DELAURO. Oh, sure, yeah, yeah. I would be happy to do that. 

Mr. Bishop, do you have any further questions? 

Mr. BISHOP. No, I don’t. 

Ms. DELAURO. Okay. Mr. Kingston. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
399 

DIRECT FARM SUBSIDY PAYMENTS TO POLLUTERS

Let me just—because I know you want to do what you need to 

do and we are going to have to vote, as I said, shortly. This has 

to do with the direct payments, which have already been addressed. But this is something I wanted to ask from the last hearing and never got to do it. 

This was about farm subsidy payments to polluters. This was an 

article, November 2008, ‘‘Questionable Subsidy Payments to Polluters.’’ ‘‘The Federal Government has awarded millions of dollars 

in subsidies to Oklahoma animal farms that have been fined for 

violating State and Federal environmental laws.’’ There are about 

56 farms penalized by environmental regulators for excessive pollution, collected more than $2.5 million in subsidies in recent years. 

Some farms have been fined and collected subsidies in the same 

year. Others are repeat offenders, if you will, and they collect subsidies. 

The paper said a dairy was subject of two Oklahoma Department 

of Agriculture fines, 17 now closed U.S. EPA enforcement cases, 

and at least one ongoing EPA case in 2001. For these violations, 

the dairy was fined at least $350,000 for failing to comply with environmental laws. The dairy has received more than $880,000 in 

USDA farm subsidies since the mid-1990s. 

If we have farms that are violating State and Federal environmental quality laws, the taxpayer is being charged twice: illegally 

polluting, and then they receive a farm support payment. 

In a response, again, in a prior time, the notion was, well, these 

are two separate things, you know, the pollution is one issue, the 

farm subsidy payment is another. Fines and farm subsidies fall 

into two distinct programs offered by two distinct agencies. 

Do you agree that fines for polluting and subsidies should not affect one another? Should we be looking at this issue? 

Secretary VILSACK. As you were explaining the circumstance, I 

thought of all the ways in which you could potentially get yourself 

crosswise with environmental laws running an agricultural production facility. And some of them can be relatively innocent. I mean, 

they can be just circumstances; somebody just didn’t do their job 

on a particular day or whatever. And some can be quite intentional 

and quite egregious. 

I think you would have a very slippery slope if you start down 

that track, because I am not quite sure where you stop. So what 

if you haven’t filed a proper tax return, you haven’t reported all of 

your income, does that disqualify you? What if you violate other 

laws, other criminal laws, does that disqualify you? 

I mean, I am not quite sure—I think it is appropriate to keep 

them separate. And if there is a problem with repeat violations, 

then there are ways in which you can substantially charge that operation and you can, in some cases, shut it down. 

Ms. DELAURO. Well, but USDA protects wetlands and highly 

erodible soil by limiting subsidy payments to violators already. 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, there is a direct connection, potentially, 

there, because you are essentially providing resources for conservation and water quality, and you have somebody who is basically 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
400 

contaminating the water there. So I think there is a greater nexus 

in that circumstance. 

I am all for holding people accountable, and I am all for making 

sure that environmental laws are strongly and strictly enforced. I 

am just not sure that that is the right penalty. 

Ms. DELAURO. Well, we are going to look at, and I know there 

is a difference of opinion, but we are looking at direct payments, 

which we are going to try to do something about. And the presumption there—and, look, I have been a supporter in that effort. I am 

also a supporter of dealing with the IRS data in which you can deal 

with this. But there has been no violation in that kind, potentially. 

These are repeat offenders. 

Secretary VILSACK. But just to give you a sense of this, I mean, 

some of these operations have multiple locations, and some of them 

have multiple business arrangements. In other words, there may 

be a partnership here, and there may be a limited liability corporation over here, family farm corporation over here. That is extraordinarily complex, because each one of those entities may be receiving payments, and there may be one person who is common to both 

of them, and that one person has a violation. Do you stop payments 

on both operations or just the operation that was directly responsible for the violation? I mean—— 

Ms. DELAURO. Let me—because I think that this merits a greater discussion and conversation. If we can agree to look at this issue 

of people who are—and this comes out of a newspaper account, if 

you will. And, you know, again, as I say, with repeat offenders, 

somebody can make a mistake and, you know, not one-size-fits-all, 

a cookie cutter. But if you continue to make the same mistake, and, 

you know, the outcome is the same, there is no real, you know, 

penalty. 

What I would like to do is have you try to take a look at this 

issue, if you would, and we will as well, and I will as well, to see 

if there is, you know, something here that makes it clear to people 

that if you are going to violate the law here and do it repeatedly, 

well, then you can’t just come out on the other side of this. 

Secretary VILSACK. I know, in Iowa, when we had habitual violator laws, we basically could shut the operation down. That seems, 

to me, to be the more appropriate—— 

Ms. DELAURO. Well, it may be. And that is why I am saying we 

need to talk about it. But that is not happening. It is not happening. The only thing that is happening is more subsidies are 

going out. That is the result, not shutting it down. 

So what I will do, Mr. Secretary, is I think I have more questions, but I will, you know, just submit them for the record. And 

they have to do with COOL and, you know, some other areas. And 

I know some of these—the GIPSA stuff, just a couple of questions 

on that, but I understand the nature of that, for the stockyards. 

So I think, with that—any of my colleagues, anything else? Okay. 

Thank you very, very much, Mr. Secretary. 

And I want to go back to my original comments. I think this is 

a budget for this effort that we are very excited about. I want to 

stipulate that, and look forward to really working with you on a 

number of these efforts. I think, you know, the budget reinforces 

the priorities of this portfolio in a way that I think we can build 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
401 

on and meet the needs and the challenges of the people who are 

out there. 

So thank you very much. 

Secretary VILSACK. Thank you. 

Ms. DELAURO. The hearing is adjourned. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
402 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 767 53443B.054
403 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 768 53443B.055
404 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 769 53443B.056
405 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 770 53443B.057
406 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 771 53443B.058
407 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 772 53443B.059
408 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 773 53443B.060
409 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 774 53443B.061
410 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 775 53443B.062
411 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 776 53443B.063
412 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 777 53443B.064
413 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 778 53443B.065
414 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 779 53443B.066
415 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 780 53443B.067
416 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 781 53443B.068
417 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 782 53443B.069
418 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 783 53443B.070
419 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 784 53443B.071
420 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 785 53443B.072
421 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 786 53443B.073
422 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 787 53443B.074
423 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 788 53443B.075
424 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 789 53443B.076
425 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 790 53443B.077
426 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 791 53443B.078
427 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 792 53443B.079
428 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 793 53443B.080
429 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 794 53443B.081
430 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 795 53443B.082
431 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 796 53443B.083
432 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 797 53443B.084
433 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 798/851 53443B.085
(i) 

W I T N E S S E S 

Page 

Bordallo, Hon. M. Z ................................................................................................. 279 

Brownell, K. D ......................................................................................................... 1 

Glauber, Joe ............................................................................................................. 321 

Hall, Hon. John ........................................................................................................ 298 

Kilili, Hon. Gregorio ................................................................................................ 290 

O’Connor, Thomas ................................................................................................... 1 

Parker, Lynn ............................................................................................................ 1 

Putnam, Hon. Adam ................................................................................................ 305 

Steele, W. S........................................................................................................... 135, 321

Vilsack, Hon. Thomas .......................................................................................... 135, 321 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
(iii) 

I N D E X 

Domestic Nutrition Programs 

Page 

Best Practices of Local Purchases .......................................................................... 109 

Child Nutrition Initiatives ...................................................................................... 119 

Child Nutrition Reauthorization........................................................................... 97, 120 

Competitive Foods ................................................................................................... 90 

Conflicting Programs ............................................................................................... 113 

Consolidating School Lunch Programs .................................................................. 86 

Environmental Issues .............................................................................................. 101 

Food Marketing to Children ................................................................................... 97 

Fruits and Vegetables in the Nutrition Assistance Programs ............................. 89 

Fruit and Vegetable Program ................................................................................. 117 

Healthy Incentives Pilot .......................................................................................... 103 

IOM Nutrition Standards ....................................................................................... 94 

Nutritional Quality of Commodity Programs ........................................................ 117 

Nutrition Education ................................................................................................. 43 

Obesity and School Nutrition Programs ................................................................ 92 

Opening Remarks, Chairwoman DeLauro ............................................................. 1 

Opening Statement, Witnesses ............................................................................... 2 

Organic Foods .......................................................................................................... 92 

Overpayments in School Meal Programs ............................................................... 82 

Questions for the Record Submitted by Representative Boyd ............................. 134 

Questions for the Record Submitted by Representative Kaptur ......................... 122 

SNAP Payment Frequency ...................................................................................... 104 

SNAP Purchases ...................................................................................................... 93 

Vending Machines in Schools ................................................................................. 114 

Wellness Policies ...................................................................................................... 99 

WIC Food Package ................................................................................................... 115 

Written Statement, Mr. O’Connor .......................................................................... 6 

Written Statement, Dr. Brownell ........................................................................... 22 

Written Statement, Ms. Parker .............................................................................. 31 

Department of Agriculture Hearing (Secretary of Agriculture) 

2008 Farm Bill Funding .......................................................................................... 140 

502 Direct Loans ...................................................................................................... 192 

Alternative Energy Initiatives ................................................................................ 209 

Animal Identification ............................................................................................... 227 

Agricultural Concentration ..................................................................................... 197 

Agriculture Research Station .................................................................................. 225 

Child Nutrition Programs ................................................................................... 179, 204 

Civil Rights Actions ................................................................................................. 183 

Civil Rights Policy ................................................................................................... 144 

Closing Remarks ...................................................................................................... 230 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
Page

iv 

Conserving Agricultural Property .......................................................................... 213 

Dietary Guidelines ................................................................................................... 190 

Developing Energy Markets .................................................................................... 186 

Earmark Elimination/Program Terminations ....................................................... 208 

Elimination of Lower Priority Programs ............................................................... 195 

Elimination of Congressional Earmarks ................................................................ 193 

Emerald Ash Borer .................................................................................................. 201 

Farm Bill Pest and Disease Funding ..................................................................... 206 

Farm and Non-farm Income Tests ......................................................................... 207 

Farm Storage Facility Loans .................................................................................. 203 

Farm Subsidy Payments to Polluters .................................................................... 229 

Farm Payments ........................................................................................................ 181 

Farm Payments Limits ........................................................................................... 202 

FNS Erroneous Payment Study ............................................................................. 195 

Food-Borne Illnesses ................................................................................................ 176 

Food Recalls ............................................................................................................. 178 

Food Safety and Security ........................................................................................ 196 

Formula Funding ..................................................................................................... 198 

Increase in Ethanol Blend Rate ............................................................................. 199 

Information Technology ....................................................................................... 226, 228 

Local Farms .............................................................................................................. 212 

Local Specialty Crops .............................................................................................. 224 

McGovern-Dole Feeding Program .......................................................................... 214 

Market Development Activities in Cuba ................................................................ 214 

Mexican Trucking Pilot Program ........................................................................... 226 

National Animal Identification Program ............................................................... 221 

New Technologies .................................................................................................... 142 

Opening Remarks, Chairwoman DeLauro ............................................................. 135 

Opening Statement, Ranking Member Kingston .................................................. 137 

Opening Statement, Secretary Vilsack .................................................................. 138 

Peanut and Cotton Loan Programs ........................................................................ 184 

Pistachios .................................................................................................................. 177 

Questions for the Record Submitted by Representative Bishop .......................... 255 

Questions for the Record Submitted by Representative Boyd ............................. 252 

Questions for the Record Submitted by Representative Kaptur ......................... 266 

Questions for the Record Submitted by Ranking Member Kingston .................. 241 

Questions for the Record Submitted by Chairwoman DeLauro ........................... 231 

Risk-based Assessment Pilot Project ...................................................................... 173 

Rural America Initiatives ....................................................................................... 183 

Rural Broadband.................................................................................................. 185, 223 

Rural Energy for America ....................................................................................... 219 

Rural Housing Application Backlog ....................................................................... 199 

Rural Housing .......................................................................................................... 211 

Rural Water and Wastewater Systems .................................................................. 192 

School Food Purchases ............................................................................................ 216 

School Lunch Programs ........................................................................................... 187 

School Lunch Program Overpayments ................................................................... 206 

School Vending Machines ....................................................................................... 223 

Small Farm Producers ............................................................................................ 191 

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program............................................ 189, 220, 225 

Supplemental Revenue Assistance Program ......................................................... 228 

Trade Issues ............................................................................................................. 210 

USDA Economic Stimulus Funding ....................................................................... 139 

USDA Key Priorities ............................................................................................... 141 

Urban Food Deserts ................................................................................................. 200 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
Page

v 

Urban and Rural Development ............................................................................... 213 

User Fee Proposal .................................................................................................... 193 

Vending Machines in Schools ................................................................................. 210 

Written Statement, Secretary Vilsack ................................................................... 145 

Testimony of Members of Congress 

Testimony of Representative Bordallo ................................................................... 279 

Testimony of Representative Hall (NY) ................................................................. 298 

Testimony of Representative Putnam .................................................................... 305 

Testimony of Representative Sablan ...................................................................... 290 

Written Statement, Representative Bordallo ........................................................ 283 

Written Statement, Representative Hall (NY) ...................................................... 300 

Written Statement, Representative Putnam ......................................................... 307 

Written Statement, Representative Sablan ........................................................... 292 

Secretary of Agriculture 

2010 Proposed Cuts ................................................................................................. 356 

Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund ...................................................................... 397 

Agricultural Production ........................................................................................... 327 

Agriculture and Food Research Initiative ............................................................. 383 

Assistant Secretary for Administration ................................................................. 381 

Broadband Infrastructure Investments ................................................................. 373 

Broadband Maps ...................................................................................................... 374 

Broadband Program Budget Request ..................................................................... 372 

Civil Rights........................................................................................................... 328, 380

Conservation Funding ............................................................................................. 398 

Conservation Program Cuts .................................................................................... 364 

Crop Insurance ......................................................................................................... 382 

Direct Farm Subsidy Payments to Polluters ......................................................... 399 

Effects of H1N1 on the Pork Industry ................................................................... 381 

Environmental Services Markets ........................................................................... 326 

Factory Farms .......................................................................................................... 367 

Farm Safety Net ...................................................................................................... 327 

Food Safety ............................................................................................................... 325 

Food Safety Assessment Schedule .......................................................................... 397 

Food Safety Inspections ........................................................................................... 360 

Food Safety Working Group .................................................................................... 366 

Food Safety Regulations .......................................................................................... 367 

Hunger-Free Community Grants Request ............................................................. 378 

Indirect Land Use .................................................................................................... 365 

International Food Assistance ............................................................................ 326, 369 

Liberalizing Trade with Cuba ................................................................................. 396 

Market Access Program .......................................................................................... 393 

National Animal Identification System...................................................... 361, 376, 377 

National Leafy Green Marketing Program ............................................................ 371 

Nutrition Assistance ................................................................................................ 379 

Nutrition Programs ................................................................................................. 325 

Opening Statement, Chairwoman DeLauro .......................................................... 321 

Opening Statement, Ranking Member Kingston .................................................. 323 

Opening Statement, Secretary Vilsack .................................................................. 324 

Plant Pest Management Practices ......................................................................... 370 

President’s FY2010 Budget ..................................................................................... 325 

Questions for the Record Submitted by Representative Boyd ............................. 416 

Questions for the Record Submitted by Representative Farr .............................. 402 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
Page

vi 

Questions for the Record Submitted by Representative Kaptur ......................... 419 

Recovery Act Implementation ................................................................................. 324 

Renewable Energy ................................................................................................... 326 

Research ................................................................................................................... 327

Research Earmarks Funding Cuts ......................................................................... 363 

Rural Broadband Programs .................................................................................... 392 

Rural Development .................................................................................................. 326 

Rural Single Family Housing ................................................................................. 368 

RUS (ARRA) Broadband Program .......................................................................... 375 

School Nutrition Programs ..................................................................................... 393 

Trade ......................................................................................................................... 326 

Undersecretary of Food Safety ............................................................................... 396 

USDA Programs Savings ........................................................................................ 395 

WIC ........................................................................................................................... 357 

WIC Contingency Fund ........................................................................................... 357 

Written Statement, Thomas Vilsack ...................................................................... 330 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING