U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

23–594 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018

S. HRG. 114–646 

THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

AND THE CURRENT STATE OF THE FARM 

ECONOMY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, 

NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 21, 2016 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov/ 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY 

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas, Chairman 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

DAVID PERDUE, Georgia 

JONI ERNST, Iowa 

THOM TILLIS, North Carolina 

BEN SASSE, Nebraska 

CHARLES GRASSLEY, Iowa 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

MICHAEL BENNET, Colorado 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

JOE DONNELLY, Indiana 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

ROBERT P. CASEY, JR., Pennsylvania 

JOEL T. LEFTWICH, MAJORITY STAFF DIRECTOR

ANNE C. HAZLETT, MAJORITY CHIEF COUNSEL

JESSICA L. WILLIAMS, CHIEF CLERK

JOSEPH A. SHULTZ, MINORITY STAFF DIRECTOR

(II) 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

HEARING(S): 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Current State of the Farm 

Economy ................................................................................................................ 1 

Wednesday, September 21, 2016 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY SENATORS 

Roberts, Hon. Pat, U.S. Senator from the State of Kansas, Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry ................................................. 1 

Stabenow, Hon. Debbie, U.S. Senator from the State of Michigan ..................... 9 

Witness 

Vilsack, Hon. Tom, Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, 

DC .......................................................................................................................... 4 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Stabenow, Hon. Debbie .................................................................................... 44 

Tillis, Hon. Thom .............................................................................................. 47 

Vilsack, Hon. Tom ............................................................................................ 48 

DOCUMENT(S) SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

Tillis, Hon. Thom: 

Additional comments submitted for the record .............................................. 66 

QUESTION AND ANSWER: 

Vilsack, Hon. Tom: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts .................................. 68 

Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow ......................... 73 

Written response to questions from Hon. Michael Bennet ........................... 86 

Written response to questions from Hon. John Boozman ............................. 79 

Written response to questions from Hon. Sherrod Brown ............................ 85 

Written response to questions from Hon. Robert Casey, Jr. ......................... 90 

Written response to questions from Hon. Kirsten Gillibrand ....................... 87 

Written response to questions from Hon. Heidi Heitkamp ........................... 89 

Written response to questions from Hon. Amy Klobuchar ........................... 86 

Written response to questions from Hon. Ben Sasse ..................................... 81 

Written response to questions from Hon. John Thune .................................. 83 

Written response to questions from Hon. Thom Tillis .................................. 80 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL(S) SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

Vilsack, Hon. Tom: 

Supplemental USDA Letter, National Organic Standards Board, October 

19, 2016, written response ...........................................................................94-118 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER

(1) 

THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

AND THE CURRENT STATE OF THE FARM 

ECONOMY 

Wednesday, September 21, 2016 

UNITED STATES SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY, 

Washington, DC 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m., in room 

328A, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Pat Roberts presiding. 

Present: Senators Roberts, Boozman, Hoeven, Perdue, Ernst, 

Tillis, Sasse, Thune, Stabenow, Leahy, Brown, Klobuchar, Bennet, 

Gillibrand, Donnelly, and Casey. 

STATEMENT OF HON. PAT ROBERTS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE 

STATE OF KANSAS, CHAIRMAN, U.S. COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY 

Chairman ROBERTS. Good morning. I call this meeting of the 

Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry to order. 

I apologize for interrupting all this very important talk. 

Senator BROWN. It is about baseball. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Oh, baseball? 

Senator DONNELLY. —about the Cubs. A Cubs and Indians World 

Series. You heard it from me first. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. Well, if you said the Royals, I might be a little more interested. 

Today is a special day for this Committee. We have the administration’s longest serving cabinet member before us, giving his final 

testimony in this historic room, Secretary Tom Vilsack. Tom, welcome. 

It was January 14, 2009, when you testified before this Committee for the first time. During that hearing, I asked you to be a 

champion, a spokesperson, and an educator for agriculture. Many 

times over the last seven-plus years you have done just that and 

done it well. 

Now I may not agree with all of your decisions, but I do believe 

you work extremely hard to promote rural and small-town America. Thank you for that. 

When you were here in February of last year, we focused on the 

implementation of the 2014 Farm Bill, and producers from across 

the country offered their testimony, and you responded to their 

concerns. Today’s hearing is essentially an extension of that conmw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER

2 

versation and an opportunity for all of us to address the economic 

concerns we hear rising from farm country. 

Eleven days ago, I and Chairman Conaway, attended the Kansas 

State Fair, a great opportunity to hear firsthand what folks had on 

their minds. Plain and simple, farmers and ranchers are worried 

the downturn in the agriculture economy is taking a toll on their 

pocketbooks and the health of many family operations. 

In Kansas and across the Midwest, we have had a bountiful 

wheat harvest. I had a farmer call me from northwest Kansas. He 

had over 100 bushels an acre. Don’t anybody tell anybody that 

biotech is not important. 

Now there are expectations for potentially record-setting corn 

and soybean crops. We have got a lot of wheat on the ground, corn 

incoming. 

Most years, this would be great news. However, these high yields 

come at a time when we are experiencing large inventories worldwide. At the farm gate, the drop in commodity prices—[cell phone 

interruption]. At least I did not have to tell you let it go. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. Somehow this is appropriate. I am not sure 

why, but it is. 

At the farm gate, the drop in commodity prices and farm income 

are felt firsthand, and their magnitude is foremost on everyone’s 

mind around this table. In Kansas, the continued downward trend 

in wheat prices has triggered loan deficiency payments for hard red 

winter wheat for the first time in over a decade. 

With large global inventories for wheat, corn, dairy, and more, 

the prices farmers receive and their income levels may stay relatively low for several years. I hope that is not the case, but that 

is the reasonable prediction. This is not a positive trend for agriculture producers, input suppliers, equipment manufacturers, or 

our rural communities and small towns. 

Farm country has experienced quite the rollercoaster since 2009, 

as noted in the Secretary’s submitted testimony. Our farmers and 

ranchers have seen historic high prices and now historic lows. They 

fought droughts, floods, fires, disease, and whatever Mother Nature 

could throw at them. That is what farmers do. They take on Mother Nature’s worst, and they plow forward. 

They understand this challenge when they sign up, and they also 

understand it is part of the way of their life. But they also understand that they have a fighting chance to survive. 

However, their chances of survival can quickly go from slim to 

none when they are not only battling the weather but also the 

heavy hand of government over-regulation. During these tough economic times, farmers, ranchers, and agribusinesses compete at the 

thinnest of profit margins. Unfortunately, this administration appears to be moving forward with regulations across all sectors that 

will knowingly cut these margins, hurting both producers and consumers. 

For example, the Department’s new organic standards would require intensive capital investments for livestock and poultry producers and ultimately lead to increased disease and death of poultry. 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER

3 

Livestock producers also face uncertainty and dread over proposed GIPSA rules that were originally proposed in 2010. They 

know very little of the USDA’s plans to finalize the rules, and if 

they cannot exercise their right to make comments on regulations, 

that would directly impact their marketing abilities. I hope they 

get that right. 

Let us not forget that this administration has proposed cuts to 

the crop insurance program each and every year. Congress fought 

hard, we fought hard, I fought hard, everybody on this Committee 

fought hard, to beat back a proposal that would have stripped $3 

billion out of the program last year following a $6 billion cut and 

another $6 billion cut—the crop insurance program is not a bank— 

only to have the administration propose more harmful cuts in their 

budget sent to Congress months later. 

Let me say, with regards to those proposed cuts not in this room, 

not on my watch, not on the watch of many of us here on the Committee. 

It is not just the producer who has seen troublesome regulatory 

proposals. For consumers, the new SNAP retailer proposed rule 

could force 100,000 stores to leave the program. I am worried about 

that mother on the SNAP program who would not have access to 

that convenience store to redeem their benefits. How does this help 

those in need? 

These examples are just within the Agriculture Department. 

They are a drop in the bucket compared to the flood of regulations 

we have seen pop up from the EPA, FDA, Department of Labor, 

OSHA, and other regulatory agencies, that would directly hurt the 

well-being of the agriculture sector. 

Whether it is the Waters of the U.S., delayed approvals of innovative biotechnologies, access to critical inputs, or new reporting requirements, these regulations have reasonable business men and 

women truly worried, concerned, angry, giving up about whether 

they can continue as a business, and what might be proposed in 

the last months of this administration. 

My fundamental concern, and the main concern from farm country, is that any administration—any administration, Republican, 

Democrat, Libertarian—would put an agenda ahead of sound 

science, and that voices critical of production agriculture will drive 

government decisions. They fear they are being ruled, not governed. I hope that is not the case. 

So today I find myself asking for what I asked for in 2009—a 

champion, a spokesperson, an educator who will stand up for production agriculture. Mr. Secretary, you have filled that role on 

many occasions over the last seven-plus years. I am asking you to 

finish your term with that same mindset; I know you will. 

I am glad you are here today. Hopefully, this hearing will shed 

additional light on the Department’s plan for the last few months 

and calm our producers’ fears and worries during these trying 

times. 

My dear friend and colleague and the distinguished Ranking 

Member, Senator Stabenow, is in the Finance Committee. She will 

be here very soon. As soon as she gets here, she will be recognized 

to make her opening comments. 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER

4 

I now turn to you, sir, Secretary Vilsack, to make your opening 

statement. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM VILSACK, SECRETARY, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Secretary VILSACK. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. To the 

members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to be 

here this morning. 

I am not going to spend the full five minutes of my time because 

I know that your time is limited. I just simply want to say ‘‘thank 

you’’ to this Committee for providing an incredible example to the 

rest of the Congress and the Senate and the rest of the country. 

During the course of my time as Secretary, which I have been 

honored to have this position, this Committee on the Senate side 

and its companion committee on the House side have worked diligently to pass a solid farm bill, have taken on the difficult task of 

dealing with labeling, and I think have shown the ability and capacity to work across party lines, out of mutual respect, for the 

benefit of rural America and all of America. 

So my comment today, Mr. Chairman, is just simply to say 

‘‘thank you’’ for providing that example. I think this Committee has 

done what the founding fathers of this country expected it to do, 

which was to have vigorous debate but at the end of the day to find 

common ground and common cause. 

I look forward to your questions, and hopefully I can provide 

some insight on some of the issues that you have raised in your 

opening statement. 

[The prepared statement of Secretary Vilsack can be found on 

page 48 in the appendix.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. Mr. Secretary, thank you very much for 

your brief comments. 

We are going to move to questions now in the interest of time, 

and the Secretary, as always, has a severe time schedule. I have 

several questions here, and then we will go down the list of those 

who came, and finish that up, and hope we can have Senator Stabenow as soon as she can. 

My first question is related to biotech disclosure. We reviewed 

the USDA’s request for information to implement the study of the 

potential technology challenges mandated in the recently passed 

biotech disclosure legislation. That is the bill you mentioned. That 

is the bill we have been working on for several years. 

It appears that the USDA is going well beyond the scope directed 

in the law. The USDA’s draft work statement calls for an additional consumer use study which aims to identify the likelihood 

consumers will use electronic or digital disclosures when making 

food purchasing decisions. 

Mr. Secretary, you invested a lot of your time to help us get a 

biotech solution bill across the finish line. I know you understand 

how delicate these negotiations were, how narrow the path to success was. 

So with that level of investment and knowledge, I do not know 

why, with the first shot out of the gate, the Department would go 

well beyond the law with implementation. I have to wonder if the 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER

5 

USDA would simply stick to the scope of the statute, were that the 

case I am not sure you would have to come asking us for money. 

We cannot go beyond the scope of the law and expect to retain 

support for this bipartisan agreement. It was a very hard-fought bipartisan agreement, and we got 63 votes, and the President signed 

it, and you were an integral part of that. 

Would you care to comment? 

Secretary VILSACK. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully perhaps disagree with the characterization of this as beyond the scope. I think 

what we are trying to do is to solicit information and comments to 

make sure that as we begin the process of putting together the implementation that we do so with the full extent of awareness and 

knowledge of various issues that we think are important and are 

part of what you all have directed us to do. 

I think it is a study that requires resources, and we obviously are 

challenged with a budget that is less than it was my first full year 

as Secretary. 

We will continue to focus on ways in which we can do this in the 

right way. We want to lay the foundation. We want to solicit information. We want to take every side and every aspect into consideration as we did during the course of the negotiations. 

The reason for this is, number one, to reduce the litigation risk 

of any implementation. There is always that risk, and we want to 

make sure that we do not cause further delay. Secondly, we also 

have international regulations and responsibilities that we have to 

be cognizant of. 

So by doing this, by proposing this study, by looking at various 

aspects, we will be in a position to be able to respond to any concerns that might arise and lay a strong foundation for a future administration that will obviously, at the end of the day, finalize all 

of this. This is not going to get done in the next couple of months. 

So we think we are working consistently with your direction, and 

we think we are going to solicit the information that is going to 

allow us to put together a solid rule that will be able to be defended in any potential litigation, and hopefully avoid it, and be 

able to respond to any concerns from our international trade partners. 

Chairman ROBERTS. There is a pasture that we are operating in 

with regards to the draft work statement, and it, with regards to 

the legislation, was passed. As in any pasture, we put up some 

fences. We are just going to make sure that we stay between the 

fence posts. 

Median farm income. In your testimony, you highlight that median farm household incomes appear to be strong compared to 

other sectors. But when you look at the USDA’s estimates, excluding off farm income, the median farm income was actually negative 

in 2014 and 2015, and it is forecast to decline even further in 2016. 

While we could argue over which is the better measure, it is 

clear that many producers are struggling to cover their cost of production or make any profits on their farms. For some farm families, 

off farm income is literally a life support system. Their farm revenues may cover their farm expenses, but it may not be enough to 

feed, clothe, or even educate their families. 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER

6 

Mr. Secretary, the farmers and ranchers that I talk to remain in 

distress and worry about whether or not their family farm can stay 

afloat. Besides household incomes, what other measures are you 

using to assess the state of the farm economy? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, let’s talk about markets first and foremost. The good news is that export markets are up and we are projecting a slight increase on export markets. Obviously, this Congress and Senate will make determinations potentially on possible 

trade agreements that could substantially expand opportunity. 

Secondly, I think we are looking at debt-to-equity. The lowest 

debt-to-equity level we have ever experienced was 11.3 percent. 

The debt-to-equity level today is 12.4 percent. In 1985, in the midst 

of the farm crisis that you and I are certainly aware of, it was 22 

percent. So the debt-to-equity ratio still appears to be strong. 

Then we look at the farmers and farm operations that are extremely leveraged or highly leveraged. Those are the people that 

we are most concerned about because those are the folks that are 

on the edge. We calculate that roughly 10 percent of the operations—I think it is 6 percent on the livestock side, 4 percent on 

the crop side—are in those 2 categories, which means that 90 percent of the operations are outside of those 2 categories. 

Now we are going to continue to work hard to try to promote 

trade, continue to try to reduce unscientific barriers that exist to 

trading opportunities. We have had, frankly, the eight best years 

of agricultural exports in the history of the country, and hopefully, 

that is going to continue. 

But we are faced with a bumper crop, as you indicated, and we 

are faced with a global surplus, and we are faced with a world 

economy and global economy that is not as strong as any of us 

would like. The strong dollar in the past has made it a little bit 

more competitive for us. 

So we are facing some challenges, but I think we are up to it. 

I think we are going to continue to look for ways in which we can 

help these folks. 

Record amount of credit. First, only the second time in the history of our agency have we lent out more than $6 billion. We reprogrammed money with your approval to, for the most part, meet the 

debt requirements. 

You mentioned deficiency payments, and we expect and anticipate in October significant ARC and PLC payments far above what 

was experienced last year. So our hope is that provides some level 

of help and assistance. 

I know I am going to get a question from Senator Leahy about 

dairy. We will talk about that in just a second. 

Chairman ROBERTS. That usually comes at the 11th hour and 

59th minute when we are considering the farm bill, with all due 

respect to my distinguished colleague. 

I am going to take the chairman’s prerogative of asking one more 

question; I apologize for this. I have to say this is the first time 

I have ever gone over time with regards to asking questions, and 

I apologize to my colleagues. 

I have served under many chairpersons and chairmen who have 

never even bothered to look at the time. Matter of fact, we used 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER

7 

to bet on what time that would be when I would be sitting there 

where Mr. Perdue would be. 

You mentioned trade. Ag trade is growing both in volume and 

complexity. Building support for a free trade agreement is only 

part of our trade challenges although that is a heck of a challenge. 

Trade agreements are always overcriticized and are always oversold, and it takes a heck of a lot of work. 

In the 2014 Farm Bill, Congress mandated the Department to 

generate a plan and to implement a reorganization incorporating a 

new undersecretary for trade and foreign agricultural affairs. 

The first step that the law required was for the Department to 

report a reorganization plan to Congress within 180 days. I hate 

to tell you that this report is now over 2 years late—957 days since 

signed into law. 

In June of this year, you responded to a letter I sent back in February, stating you anticipate USDA would finalize a report this 

year. I understand you have tasked the Office of the Chief Economist with the task of completing this report, and I have great confidence in their work. 

As you near the end of this administration, can you assure us 

that you will provide your strong forward thinking and recommendation for this reorganization, and provide the report for 

this year? I think this is absolutely essential if we are going to 

have a breakthrough with the Pacific Rim trade deal and, for that 

matter, any trade deal that follows. 

Secretary VILSACK. Mr. Chairman, I apologize for not being able 

to respond in the time that you designated for the report. However, 

Congress requested not one, but two, studies which complicated our 

timeline. I can assure you that we are on track to get these studies 

completed. 

This is a very, very, very complicated issue that you have presented to us. It does not just simply involve setting up an undersecretary of trade. It really does take—requires a look at all the equities within the USDA and outside the USDA relative to trade, and 

there are a multitude of equities. I was surprised at the complexity 

of this in terms of our team talking about this, but we will do what 

we can to make sure that this is teed up for the next administration. 

Chairman ROBERTS. I appreciate that. 

I have one more question, and then we will get to the members. 

Following up on what I mentioned earlier, Ranking Member Stabenow and I, along with 45 other Senators, more than 160 members on the House side, the Congressional Black Caucus, and the 

Small Business Administration, have all expressed serious concerns 

over the proposed rule on SNAP retailer standandards. Under this 

rule, an estimated 100,000 stores could be forced to leave the program. In urban and rural places, these small businesses are vital 

to everyone in the communities that they serve, especially those 

that may need a little assistance in making ends meet. 

What is USDA doing to ensure that the final rule will not push 

retailers off the program, hurting both SNAP recipients and the 

economy in rural communities like western Kansas? 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER

8 

Has anybody considered consumer demand? Has anyone considered that the mother working two jobs cannot get to the grocery 

store, if there is a grocery store? 

You are making, apparently, small businesses under this proposed rule display 168 items. Why not 170 or 142? I mean, I do 

not understand the reasoning behind the number 168. Maybe that 

was done with a great deal of study; I do not know. 

Would you care to comment? I think this is something that we 

just do not need to get into. 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think first of all we 

have to understand the challenge that we face as a country, with 

a third of our children at risk of being obese or in fact obese, the 

health care costs, the loss of productivity associated with obesity, 

chronic diseases that these kids will take into adult life, and the 

reality of adults today in America, and the health care costs associated with obesity. 

Having said that—— 

Chairman ROBERTS. Mr. Secretary, let me just interrupt, and I 

apologize for doing this. I have not done this before, but the obesity 

crisis is real. Everybody agrees about that. But forcing small retailers to display 168 items in the back or the front, maybe that is part 

of the answer, but the best part of the answer is to take away the 

Blackberry or what the distinguished Senator from Vermont is 

looking at, take that away, have mandatory physical education programs that were present when you and I were in high school, get 

people off the couch, and shut off the television. A lot of that takes 

adult leadership, but we can do it within our school systems. I 

think that would go a long way toward solving the obesity problem 

rather than trying to shut down 100,000 retailers here. 

I fully understand where you are coming from with regards to 

the administration’s goal for kids to eat good food. 

I would also point out that we are wasting one-third of the nation’s food. That is why I hope we can get this child nutrition bill 

finally passed. 

With those comments—well, I interrupted you. Why don’t you 

finish your statement? Then I am going to recognize Senator Stabenow. 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, Mr. Chairman, you are absolutely right. 

There is no single one answer to the obesity issue. 

But one answer is that many of the people do live in food deserts, 

and they are serviced by not being served by a full-scale grocery 

store, and the reality is that the selection in many of these convenience stores is very limited. 

I think the intent of what we were attempting to do was appropriate, which is to suggest that there needs to be more of the basic 

food groups represented in these convenience stores, there needs to 

be a bit more variety and a bit more choice. I think it is hard to 

be against those concepts and values. 

I will be the first to admit, and I think our team would be the 

first to admit, that the concerns that have been raised about this 

are legitimate. I would expect and anticipate that we will see some 

changes in terms of what we ultimately, finally propose relative to 

the retailer rule because of the concerns that you have expressed. 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER

9 

So they are legitimate, but I think the concept is also legitimate 

and appropriate. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

I welcome now and recognize the distinguished Ranking Member 

from the clutches of the Finance Committee. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DEBBIE STABENOW, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN 

Senator STABENOW. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

As you know, also being a member of the Finance Committee, an 

important pension markup today and there is a lot of impact on 

people in Michigan. So I apologize for being late, Mr. Secretary, but 

it was important for me to be there for a few moments. 

Mr. Chairman, I would just ask that my opening statement be 

put in the record, and I will go—— 

Chairman ROBERTS. Without objection. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Stabenow can be found on 

page 44 in the appendix.] 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you. 

I will go to questions, but I, first of all, just want to say, Mr. Secretary, what a pleasure it has been to work with you and thank 

you for your incredible service. I am sorry I did not hear your comments, but I am very grateful for the breadth and depth of your 

work. There is not a stronger advocate for rural America and families and businesses and those who earn their living from agriculture and for the food industry, nor a stronger advocate for our 

consumers who count on us to get it right on food access and food 

policy. So thank you very much for all of your terrific work. 

Let me first ask about a different topic, one of concern to me 

internationally as it relates to food security. Since 2013, when a 

Chinese-based company announced their intent to purchase Virginia-based Smithfield Foods, I have strongly supported strengthening the review of foreign purchases of U.S. food and agricultural 

companies through a process we call CFIUS, and I feel strongly 

that the USDA and FDA should have a permanent seat at that 

table. Food security is a national security issue. 

The recent purchase of Syngenta by ChemChina and other foreign purchases of U.S. agricultural technologies companies continues to raise serious concerns. We invest in research. We develop 

technology and innovation. Now we are seeing a very specific strategy by China to rather than invest in their own, to purchase ours. 

Mr. Secretary, I know you are prohibited by law from discussing 

USDA’s role in the CFIUS review process. But, can you discuss 

why food security plays an important role in national security, and 

any of your thoughts as it relates to this issue? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, first of all, Senator, I apologize for saying this, but I want to make sure that you hear the same thing 

that I directed to the Chairman, which is my thanks to you for the 

leadership that you have shown and the example that you have 

provided in working across party lines to get substantive legislation 

through this process. You all have provided a great example to the 

rest of the Congress and the Senate. So thank you. 

I was in Jordan not long ago, talking to the King of Jordan, and 

we were talking about the Syrian situation. His solution, which I 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER

10 

think is correct, is he essentially said to me, Mr. Secretary, is there 

any way in which we could reestablish agriculture in Syria? Because if we did we would have employment opportunities, we would 

have a chance to create an environment and an economy that 

would potentially reduce the anxiety that is leading to the refugee 

crisis, in part. 

If you look at every hot spot in the world today, I think most of 

them, if not all of them, do not have a functioning agricultural 

economy and have a lot of hungry people. 

So if we are serious about protecting our own people, if we are 

serious about making sure the world is a safer and better place for 

our kids and grandkids, then we have to understand the role that 

agriculture in this country and agriculture around the world will 

play in providing that level of security. 

I think, frankly, there is a lack of appreciation at times, not certainly on this Committee but in other parts of this town, on the significant role that agriculture plays and the complexity of agriculture in every country and every aspect of the economy. 

We have a robust, complex, multistaged economy in this country 

in part because we established, first and foremost, an agricultural 

economy. I think in any way in which the agricultural issues can 

be inserted in the conversation and discussion, both as an understanding of the significance and also as part of the solution, I think 

would be helpful. 

I think it is not just what you mentioned. It is also the National 

Security Council, the White House. I think there needs to be an ag 

representative in that concept because I think these issues are 

really important, and I think they are fundamental to making a 

more secure and safe world. 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you very much. I could not agree 

more. 

Let me turn back now around food security here at home. You 

know the farm bill, among many, many, many things, is about providing safety, and that is both for farmers, whether it is livestock 

disaster assistance—and we have seen that was the first program 

triggered after we passed the farm bill—or whether it is what is 

happening now with prices, or whether it is families and food security. There is a reason why we have the safety nets in place. 

While we are seeing the costs on the farmers’ side go up—and 

I hope our programs—we worked hard to put things in place— 

would work. Mr. Chairman, I hope, we are all hoping, that they are 

doing the job for people. Crop insurance certainly has been doing 

that. 

The good news is that we are at the lowest point in terms of poverty rate since 1968, I think, and the costs on the food security side 

for families has gone down as a result of that because the economy 

is doing better. So that is really how it works. 

But I wonder if you might speak to a provision that we had in 

the bill that relates to education and training around the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. 

We know the number of Americans receiving SNAP has been declining for several years as the economy gets better. Families no 

longer need a temporary food assistance. That is good news. 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER

11 

I am also concerned that the three-month time limit on SNAP 

may be reinstated in states that do not offer a job training option. 

We know some individuals experience barriers to employment that 

have little to do with the labor market. To address this, we made 

significant investments in the farm bill to test innovative, new 

ways to help SNAP recipients get and keep good-paying jobs. 

So I wonder if you might tell us about the types of projects and 

support services being offered through the farm bill pilots, and why 

reinstating time limits without offering job training would be less 

effective. 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, I appreciate the question and appreciate the leadership of this Committee in addressing this issue of 

employment opportunities. 

Ten states were selected in this process. It is a three-year process 

with a very significant evaluation component to our efforts. What 

we are seeing are programs designed to reduce the barriers that 

people currently have in terms of employment—it may be a transportation barrier. It may be a childcare barrier—providing resources and flexibility to be able to remove that barrier, so people 

can actually go to work and become gainfully employed. 

In some cases, it is a specific focus on returning veterans. There 

is a program that is addressing returning veterans and trying to 

make sure that they are employed as quickly as possible. 

In some cases, it is understanding that folks living in rural areas 

maybe have employable skills but where the jobs are, are significantly farther away from where they live, and providing appropriate transportation systems to be able to ensure that they can get 

to work. So there is a multitude of programs in that space. 

There has also been an effort to sort of leverage the work that 

you all did by establishing a Center of Excellence in the State of 

Washington that does this particularly well. Nine states are now 

working with the State of Washington in terms of best practices. 

What we have also seen, Senator, as a result of your work and 

this Committee’s work, is that more states are now taking better 

advantage of the 100 percent training money than they did before 

and even some states have begun to be better utilizers of the 50- 

50 money that is available. 

The last thing I would say is that we are working with states on 

this issue of able-bodied worker adults without dependents and the 

waiver that you mentioned, and we are making sure that states 

understand the 15 percent threshold or exemption that provides 

some protection. We want to make sure that people are surveying 

their workforce because there may be folks who do qualify for an 

exemption for one reason or another, maybe a substance abuse, 

mental illness type of issue, or health care issue. 

So we are working to try to minimize the impact of states that 

make the decision to remove the waiver either in whole or in part, 

but there are still a significant number of states that have that in 

place in part of their states. 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Senator Perdue. 

Senator PERDUE. Sorry, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here and for all you do for the 

ag business. 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER

12 

Georgia, agriculture, obviously, is very important. It is over half 

of our GDP. The ag and timber industry employs over half a million. They are our best conservationists in the state. We are the 

number one state for peanuts, broilers, pecans, and blueberries; 

number two in cotton. 

I am concerned about regulation. Everywhere I go and talk to 

our farmers, regulation is the number one topic, and then comes 

labor. 

In your role of coordinating the interest of the ag industry, you 

have done a great job, and I would like to ask you a question today 

regarding traits like dicamba and 2,4–D that the USDA has approved that would alleviate effects of these weeds and so forth, and 

pests, that are damaging. 

We lost a billion dollars over the last decade in our cotton industry alone to pests and weeds, but the EPA has not approved the 

herbicide that works in conjunction with these approved traits. 

Clearly, the process can be improved. 

My question is: With you being the voice of agriculture, how do 

we improve the communication and collaboration with other regulatory bodies to ensure that we are getting producers the tools they 

need as quickly as possible? The farmers want to comply. The problem is right now it is taking so long to get direction out of crossdepartmental regulation. 

Secretary VILSACK. Senator, I agree, and we have been communicating with EPA specifically on that issue, asking them to take 

quicker action so that producers would have some certainty in 

terms of what they will have available to them. It is an interesting 

relationship. Obviously, I frankly do not want the EPA telling me 

how to run my Department, and I suspect the administrator of 

EPA does not want me to tell her how to run her department. 

What we can do, and what we do , and we do it frequently and 

often and forcefully, is to explain what we think the real-life consequences will be of something that they may be considering, or the 

real-life consequences of inaction or a delay in action. We have 

done that on the issues that you have raised. 

Senator PERDUE. The timber industry is obviously very important. We actually have the largest privately owned commercially 

available timberland in the country, and over 55 percent of our 

timberland in Georgia is privately owned. 

Your Department oversees and maintains the world’s most comprehensive national database on forest—the Forest Inventory and 

Analysis Program. Can the FIA Program help us with something? 

Right now, biomass—you have mentioned it in your testimony— 

is very important to the country. It is important to the forestry industry. Yet, we are having trouble getting the regulators to tell us 

what sustainability really means. What is a sustainable practice in 

the forestry industry? You have been very active in that. 

Can the FIA help us in that area, with the utilization of biomass, 

and make it sustainable and make sure that we are all trying to 

achieve the same goal? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, we have provided comments to our 

friends at EPA on this issue to explain to them what we think 

needs to happen and the certainty that needs to happen. 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER

13 

In the meantime, we are also focused on trying to find ways in 

which we can use biomass within USDA programs. We have funded 

230 wood energy programs, over a billion dollars invested in that 

initiative. We have worked with WoodWorks to try to create new 

opportunities for building. We have a green building initiative 

within USDA. We have the BioPreferred Program in which we are 

encouraging Federal agencies to use wood. Then most recently we 

have the Tall Wood Building Contest, looking at ways in which we 

can encourage multistory buildings and construction from crosslaminated timber. All of that is being done and will continue to be 

done. 

I think as we deal with issues involving climate and climate 

change, as we deal with issues involving reduced emissions, I think 

we are going to see a greater need and reliance on biomass, and 

I think that will be a hopeful sign and opportunity for rural areas. 

We obviously need to have some degree of certainty about precisely what it does mean to be sustainable, and we have certainly 

provided what we think is a very common-sense, science-based response to EPA, and hope that they will listen, and hope that they 

act quickly. 

Senator PERDUE. Are you hopeful that we can get a resolution on 

that, though? I mean, we have the data, but there is this open 

question about what that really means. It bothers me that EPA has 

an open card now to determine that on the fly, if you will. 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, I always want to remain hopeful, Senator. I do not want to be hopeless. 

I think we need to continue to press the case, and we will. I give 

you that assurance. 

Secretary PERDUE. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROBERTS. The always distinguished Senator representing the dairy interests in Vermont continually. 

Senator LEAHY. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. One of the reasons we get along so well is we are two of the people who know 

how to comb our hair around here. On days when—— 

Chairman ROBERTS. You did not have to go there. 

[Laughter] 

Senator LEAHY. I just want you to know that even if I leave the 

room, I am watching you from up there. I admire what you and 

Senator Stabenow have done in chairing this Committee because I 

know it is not an easy thing. 

Secretary Vilsack, I appreciate what you have done. We have 

talked many times. You have come to Vermont a number of times. 

From our economic development to our rural towns, our critical 

water quality work on Lake Champlain, to our Vermont children 

are now eating healthier school lunches with more locally produced 

Vermont foods, you have helped us on all of these things. 

But the one thing that worries me right now is the difficult time 

we are having with struggling dairy farmers. As I discussed with 

you yesterday, I hear from them every day. Let me just tell you a 

couple. 

One farmer in Craftsbury Common, a small town. I used to ride 

there on my bicycle, when I was a youngster, from my home town 

in Montpelier. ‘‘Dear Senator Leahy, we need help. We cannot pay 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER

14 

our grain bill. Many area farmers have been shut off from the 

grain companies. This is serious and needs immediate attention.’’ 

Another Vermont farmer. Even the large megafarms are feeling 

the pain. A longtime farmer in Craftsbury said he is losing a thousand dollars per day. 

A young dairy farmer in Addison County my staff met with just 

a couple weeks ago said, ‘‘Quite frankly, I do not know what to tell 

my wife when I go home at night. She asked me about the unpaid 

bills that are piling up.’’ 

A very small farm in Orleans County: ‘‘The hammer hit in January this past year. My income from farming was cut right in half. 

We are losing 10,000 a month. How much longer can we do this?’’ 

I do not know what to tell them. 

We have been through a massive policy shift. We moved to the 

new insurance-like tool with the Margin Protection Program and 

its hefty premiums. 

I appreciate the cheese purchases you made in August, but it is 

not enough. I am talking to the Appropriations Committee about 

the CCC and the Section 32 provision, but we are not going to get 

them into the CR. 

Is there anything you can do to help, and what is the holdup? 

Do OMB and the White House understand the financial crises 

these dairy farmers are facing? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, first of all, Senator, I want you to know 

and I want the Committee to know that we are very, very, very 

cognizant of the challenges that the dairy industry is currently facing. It is one of the reasons why we made the cheese purchase that 

you mentioned. 

We would have had more capacity with section 32 in the CCC 

program, but each year that has been reduced; our capacity has 

been limited by Congress. We have also had the flexibility for direct price support that we once had eliminated despite the fact that 

we would be in a position to notify Congress of any utilization of 

CCC. 

We have, as you mentioned, just recently announced $11 million 

in payments under the Margin Protection Program. What is interesting to note there is if farmers in 2016 had purchased the same 

level of coverage as they purchased in 2015 those payments would 

have been $40 million. But for whatever reason farmers made the 

decision in 2016 to reduce the level of coverage by buying catastrophic coverage and not buying the level of coverage they had 

purchased in 2015. I think that suggests to me that we need to continue to do a better job of educating folks about this shift that has 

taken place from a payment system to an insurance system. 

We are going to continue to look for ways. 

At the end of the fiscal year, we are very, very limited. Everything I can do, Senator, I have done. I have spent every dime of 

credit that the Congress has given me the permission to loan out. 

I have spent every dime of CCC money that I have that Congress 

has provided for section 32 purchases. I have provided as much 

under the Dairy Margin Protection Program as Congress has authorized us to do and as farmers have purchased. 

After the first of the year, assuming that you all do your work 

and give us additional resources after October 1, we will obviously 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER

15 

be in a position to take a look at whether or not there are additional steps we can take, and we will certainly do that. 

But at the end of the day, everything I can do I have done. Every 

penny that I have that I could spend, I have spent. 

Senator LEAHY. Thank you. 

I also think about the great work NRCS is doing in Vermont. I 

know it is a problem across the country, but we need more personnel, we need more engineers. I realize this gets in the weeds, 

but we have Vermont’s TMDL with EPA. Can we just work together on this to make sure there is enough personnel with NRCS 

to get this done right? 

Secretary VILSACK. Senator, we certainly can work together on it. 

This is another circumstance and opportunity to remind this Committee that the budget that I am working under is less than the 

budget it was in fiscal year 2010, which was the first full budget 

that this administration submitted. I do not know if there are other 

departments that are in that same circumstance, but we have had 

a 5 to 10 percent reduction in our budgets. 

At the same time, some of our budgets, within this capped environment that we live in, have had to increase. I do not want to get 

into a touchy subject, but the forest situation and the fire suppression budget, which is eating up a substantial amount of our Forest 

Service budget, has not been fully addressed in my view. So we are 

challenged. 

What we have attempted to do is improve process. We have attempted to use technology to extend the ability of people to be in 

the field and provide more technical assistance. We have looked for 

partnerships through the Regional Conservation Partnership Program and others to engage more outside assistance and help, to try 

to do as much as we possibly can. 

I am proud of the fact that despite all of the challenges we face 

we have a record number of acres enrolled in conservation today 

than at any other time in the history of the country. 

Senator LEAHY. No. I applaud you, what you have done with 

what you have, and I will also try to carry your message to the Appropriations Committee, and that you also had the opportunity to 

serve. We ask a lot, but we have to do our job and pay the bills, 

too. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROBERTS. I would simply make the statement that this 

Committee passed the first forestry bill in 13 years that gets into 

management reform. There are other committees that have jurisdiction, and we do have a funding challenge, but we will address 

that. Every member of this Committee understands the ramifications for our budget. 

Senator Tillis. 

Senator TILLIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I 

would like to submit an opening statement for the record. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Without objection. 

Senator TILLIS. Thank you. In the interest of time. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Tillis can be found on page 

47 in the appendix.] 

Senator TILLIS. I want to follow up on where Senator Perdue was 

headed, but I want to begin, Secretary Vilsack, by thanking you. 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER

16 

Our office has had a number of very productive interactions with 

many of your staff, and we appreciate your willingness to come 

meet with us and collaborate. 

I do have to say I have got some questions today, that maybe I 

am not 100 percent behind some of the things that I see or maybe 

I need more information to feel comfortable. I am going to get to 

those, but I want to start by saying that I travel across the State 

a lot. I spend a lot of time with farmers, whether it is apple growers or tree growers out in western North Carolina or sweet potato 

and tobacco growers in eastern North Carolina. 

The issue of price really has not come up. The issue that comes 

up every single time I meet with these farmers is the uncertainty 

created by regulations, either the burden by existing regulations or 

the threat of additional regulations that could be very harmful to 

an industry. I want to cover two. 

If I do not have enough time, I know that my colleague here, who 

reminds me frequently that North Carolina is the second largest 

pork producer in the United States—but 50 percent of our agriculture output comes from livestock, either hogs or poultry. 

We have got a concern with the GIPSA rule. It looks like—at 

least because we do not have a lot of clarity on it, it looks like it 

is a replay of the 2010 proposed rule. I would like to find out what 

is broken because we seem to have a pretty fast, efficient process 

today. 

I think some of the restrictors that would restrict producers to 

sell, and packers to buy, livestock. 

I am trying to find out if that is actually about to happen, and 

if it is going to happen to what extent have the stakeholders been 

involved, and when can we get more clarity on exactly what this 

proposed rule would look like. 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, Senator, this conversation with GIPSA 

actually began as a result of circumstances in North Carolina, 

where producers, particularly in the poultry industry, were unfairly 

dealt with, with Pilgrim’s Pride’s bankruptcy. These were producers that were asked to invest a substantial amount of money in 

expanded operations only to find that their contracts were pulled 

out from under them without much notice and the ability to try to 

secure additional purchasers of the poultry they were producing. 

So it did start, and continues to start, with the fact that there 

are circumstances where producers are not being dealt with fairly 

in our view and certainly in the view of the producers that came 

to us asking for help. 

Senator TILLIS. Yes, you know, oftentimes around here, regulations exist for a reason, and I understand why you have to have 

some regulations in place, to provide certainty and consistency, but 

a lot of times we may overreact. So I appreciate taking a look at 

the situation with Pilgrim’s Pride, but what I am hearing from reputable operations in my State is this could actually cause problems 

for people who are doing it right. 

So I think it is rightsizing and having an open discussion about 

it. I think one of the concerns is that we are not really sure exactly 

what would be proposed and how quickly it would be proposed. So 

it is that uncertainty that I am trying to communicate on behalf 

of my farmers. 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER

17 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, I understand that, and what I can say 

since we are still in the process of formulating, it is difficult for me 

to respond with any specificity because I do not want to presuppose 

the outcome and I do not want to presuppose a system or process 

that is not consistent with the administrative rules process. 

What I can tell you is this: There is no intent or desire on the 

part of the USDA, under the time as long as I am Secretary, to sort 

of foist something on folks without the opportunity for them to understand what it is and without the opportunity for them to say 

whether we have it right or wrong. 

We will follow the administrative process, and I can assure you 

that we are not going to play a situation where we, at the last 

minute, do something and folks have no recourse. So that I can assure you. 

Senator TILLIS. Well, I hope so. 

I think that I will leave the question about the organic livestock 

rule. I think Senator Ernst has a similar concern. That is an area 

where we think things are moving fairly quickly, either the interaction with OMB or the process. So hopefully Senator Ernst will 

get into that. 

Mr. Chairman, I also would like to submit for the record something that we put together that relates to Smithfield that was 

brought up. I want to mention that the only thing that I have seen 

as a result of the Smithfield acquisition is the creation of 1,000 additional American jobs. So I know there is some concern around the 

sale, but I think it is important, because of their presence in North 

Carolina, for me to bring that up. 

There was also a comment made about Syngenta, which also has 

operations in North Carolina. If we are wondering why some of 

these mergers are happening—I serve on the Judiciary Committee—then all we need to do is put a mirror at the end of this 

dais and point it in our direction. 

A lot of the regulatory and tax burdens that these companies are 

dealing with are the reason why they are having to merge. If we 

want to get serious about preventing it, you cannot have a 

Syngenta whose net income has been negative for the last three 

years. They are just reacting to market situations that are critically important for the future of our agriculture here in this country. I think that we need to—if we want to really solve this problem with mergers, the tsunami of mergers as it was described in 

the committee yesterday, then the earthquake of regulations and 

tax policies here have to stop. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Senator Donnelly. 

Senator DONNELLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, thank you for your service. You have done an extraordinary job for our country, and we are very grateful for it. 

I wanted to ask you about opioids and the USDA recently announced an initiative to use some rural development housing resources to help provide transitional housing for people recovering 

from substance abuse. In my State, as in many states, this is a 

huge, huge issue, and one of the challenges I hear about repeatedly 

is lack of available housing for people in treatment and recovery 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER

18 

programs. I know you have had this initial step. Is there anything 

else that you are looking at in the pipeline? 

Secretary VILSACK. Senator, we used our community facility resources to expand access to mental health services and substance 

use disorder clinics. We have also used our rural utility service resources to expand telemedicine to provide access to specialists. 

On the housing front, this was a result of a conversation we have 

had with folks in drug courts, where they are anxious to redirect 

people out of the criminal justice system into treatment, but the 

challenge is that there is no place to put these folks. So we are 

looking in a handful of states to see how this could operate because 

this would be a new approach. 

Senator DONNELLY. Right. Is that the pilot program that you 

have going? 

Secretary VILSACK. Yes. Yes, in an effort to try to see if we can 

perfect it. Assuming it will work, and I think it will, we will look 

for ways to expand it. 

Senator DONNELLY. I also wanted to ask you as a governor, as 

a Secretary of Agriculture, as someone who is steeped in understanding our rural communities. So much of our opioid and heroin 

problems are in our rural communities as well. If there were a couple of things you were looking at as pushes on this, as things we 

can do, what would you say? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, there is a lack of treatment facilities, 

which requires resources. The President’s budget has proposed additional resources for treatment facilities. 

Here is why it is important in rural areas, to your point, Senator: 

There are, I think, a little over a thousand behavioral service centers located in the United States. These are centers that provide 

assistance to people who are dealing with addiction. I believe only 

25 of them are located in rural areas. Twenty-five. 

The suicide rate among rural men is twice the rate in rural areas 

that it is in urban centers, and the same thing is also true for 

women. 

The substance abuse issue is more difficult and complex in rural 

areas because of a lack of treatment and because, frankly, in those 

small towns sometimes it is hard for people to acknowledge that 

they have got a problem and many times folks do not want people 

to know that they have a problem. There are not the recovery services that are available. 

So, first of foremost, treatment. 

Secondly is an acceleration of an understanding of when and 

under what circumstances, as limited as they need to be, opioids 

are appropriate. I think we have got new CDC guidelines. We have 

new FDA rules. Working with the American Medical Association, 

we are trying to get physicians to understand when and under 

what circumstances to use opioids. We are working with over 100 

medical schools, pharmacy schools, and nursing schools to incorporate a better understanding of pain management and the options 

that are available before opioids are used. So there is aggressive 

work there, but I think we could accelerate the pace of that significantly. 

Senator DONNELLY. I want to ask you about the foot-and-mouth 

disease vaccine. A number of our livestock producers in Indiana 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER

19 

have been talking and telling us that they would prefer to respond 

to a foot-and-mouth disease outbreak through vaccination to control 

a potential spread, but the current vaccine bank is inadequate 

right now to provide the quantity necessary. I was wondering what 

the plans are and what the Department will be doing to improve 

the quantity of vaccine available and expanding the number of 

strains. 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, the challenge with this is that current 

capacity is limited because of where the research is being done, on 

Plum Island. It is being done offshore. There have been concerns 

expressed about transferring that research to a facility within the 

U.S., and there are concerns about the impact that that has because you would be introducing, in essence, FMD into the internal 

workings of the U.S. 

We have been waiting for the industry at large to come to us 

with a consensus opinion about whether or not that is appropriate. 

There is still some division, some uncertainty about that. 

I think when a facility in Kansas is ultimately completed—I like 

to refer to it as the Roberts Facility. 

Senator DONNELLY. That is not what the people on Long Island 

call it. 

Secretary VILSACK. Yes, well. We would then be in a position to 

provide the level of certainty and guarantees of safety that people 

are concerned about. But right now that is the impediment, is 

where the research done, because in Plum Island there is a limited 

capacity to experiment with different variations. If you had a larger 

facility with biocontainment, you would be able to do a lot more research more quickly and you would be able to create more vaccine 

more quickly. 

Senator DONNELLY. Well, I just—on behalf of the people of Indiana, I want to thank you for everything you have done for our 

State and our rural communities for a number of years now. Thank 

you. 

Secretary VILSACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Senator Donnelly, we are going to invite you 

out to ‘‘The Little Apple,’’ Manhattan, Kansas, where NBAF is. 

Senator DONNELLY. I would like that. I hear the bagels are 

amazing there. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. We may whip you down to Dodge City and 

make you an honorary marshal, too. 

Senator DONNELLY. Thank you. 

Chairman ROBERTS. You bet. 

Let’s see. We have Senator Ernst. 

Senator ERNST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Secretary Vilsack, for being with us today. 

There has been a lot of discussion, not only in this Committee 

but as I am traveling around the State back home, about the depressed state of our farm economy and what we can do to really 

help turn that around. 

I am always of the thought that less Federal Government involvement is better for our folks back home, not more. What I am 

hearing mostly from our Iowans, especially the farmers, the ranchers, and our landowners, is that it really feels like the Federal Govmw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER

20 

ernment is out to get them, and I see that a lot with a number of 

the rules and regulations that are coming forward. They feel that 

government actions are really unfairly targeted at them, and what 

I would like to do is just give a few examples of that. 

This past June, the EPA released its 520-page draft Ecological 

Risk Assessment report of the herbicide atrazine, and much like 

their nearly 300-page WOTUS rule, it threatens to increase costs 

for those farmers who really are the backbone—we know this very 

well—the backbone of our affordable and safe food system. This 

EPA risk assessment with the herbicide atrazine, they really see 

that, the farmers and ranchers see that, as taking away a key weed 

management tool that has been proven safe in over 7,000 scientific 

studies. 

This could cost the average corn grower 30 to 60 dollars per acre 

at a time when producers are faced with 3 dollar corn or lower. I 

know in Red Oak at the ‘‘Merc’’, corn has been lower than $3, and 

that is well below the cost of production. 

Additionally, the Department of Labor issued a memo in July of 

2015 that would reclassify the majority of traditional farmer cooperatives in the U.S., making it even more costly for them to supply a basic crop nutrient, nitrogen, in the form of anhydrous ammonia to their farmer-owners, while having a very negligible impact 

on safety. 

So there are a number of issues right there, and while those 

issues are sowing uncertainty for row crop farmers, the USDA is 

planning to move forward with the GIPSA rule, which is something 

that my colleague just mentioned, which could further harm some 

of our livestock producers. 

This Committee in May heard testimony from those stakeholders, and they told us then that the cost of this rule, the GIPSA 

Rule, could be $350 million per year to the pork industry alone. 

Again, all of these rules and regulations are really just overwhelming our farmers and ranchers, and it is a hallmark of the administration failing to take into consideration the input of stakeholders, and it goes well beyond the congressional intent that we 

have set forward and really cherry-picking studies that support a 

political agenda. 

You did mention to my colleague from North Carolina that you 

thought it was important that the stakeholders have a voice in 

this. For the GIPSA rule, will you be taking public comment for 

that particular rule? 

Secretary VILSACK. Senator, we will make sure that we follow 

the administrative process in terms of what we propose. Since we 

have not completed the work, I do not know what the final product 

is going to look like, but I can assure you that we are not going 

to put out something that does not allow people to review it, understand it, and to give us feedback on it. 

Senator ERNST. I appreciate that very much. I will take that as 

a yes because we have seen a number of agencies in the Federal 

Government—EPA is a great example—where they have proposed 

rules and regulations, and they are pushed out in the form of 

memos and other guidelines, where they can circumvent public 

input. 

Secretary VILSACK. That is not going to be the case here. 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER

21 

Senator ERNST. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. We 

have a lot of stakeholders that would like to speak up on this. 

Just a little bit more about the GIPSA rule and a story that was 

shared with me from a young man. He is 22 years old. He and his 

fiancee own and operate a 3,600-head wean-to-finish hog barn in 

southeastern Iowa, not too far from your hometown of Mt. Pleasant. His father was killed in a very tragic accident, but this young 

man was able to return back to the farm, and he secured financing 

for the construction of a $1.2 million facility, which is great for 

him. He entered into a 12-year contract with one of the large pork 

integrators, and he was able to finance 100 percent of the project 

because there was strength behind that contract. 

The proposed GIPSA rule could make it very hard for young 

farmers starting out to be able to take on this size project, and so 

we want to make sure that we are still giving access to credit and 

for these young folks to get into farming. So I just want to make 

sure that you are aware of situations like that and that the GIPSA 

rule does not make it more difficult for our young people to gain 

these types of contracts and to get into farming. 

Secretary VILSACK. Senator, the only thing I can say is that we 

stand ready to provide assistance and help to producers. You know, 

I think there is a bit of fairness, if I can respond back to some of 

the concerns that you raised, and I certainly understand the concerns that you have raised with reference to the EPA. 

But there is another side to government that often does not get 

discussed in the context of this part of our economy. It is the credit 

extension that we do—over $6 billion. Thirty-seven thousand producers have received credit from the government that might not be 

able to have gotten credit from a bank without the government assistance and help. 

There are the trade missions and the incredible work that our 

folks are doing to expand trading opportunities around the world 

to sell more of our products that we are engaged in. 

The investments that this government has made in the bio-based 

economy and extending opportunities for higher blends of ethanol, 

for example. 

You know, those are examples of government that I think oftentimes do not get recognized and balanced against some of the concerns that you have raised. I think it is appropriate for me to make 

sure that everyone understands I see the balance sheet perhaps 

slightly differently than some of the folks in this Committee do. 

Senator ERNST. Certainly. We appreciate the opportunities that 

are extended to those that are entering into renewables and investing in those ventures, as well as those younger farmers and ranchers that are just trying to make ends meet as well, and I appreciate 

that assistance that you provide. We just want to make sure that 

government is not hindering those opportunities. 

So thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Senator Bennet. 

Senator BENNET. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, I also want to thank you for your principled and 

effective leadership and your public service, Mr. Secretary, and the 

long public service before that. I think you are kind to say the 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER

22 

Committee has set an example. I think you have set an example, 

as I have said before, for what principled leadership should look 

like in a time in our political system when there is almost none. 

I should also say ‘‘thank you’’ on behalf of Colorado’s farmers and 

ranchers for your constant presence in our State over the last 

seven years. It has been much appreciated at a time when people 

have nothing good to say about anybody here and wonder whether—and cannot name anybody here. People in Colorado know the 

name Tom Vilsack, and they appreciate the work that you have 

done. So thank you. 

In that spirit and the work that you have done as governor of 

Iowa, now the work as secretary of agriculture the last seven years, 

I wonder as we think about the next farm bill reauthorization process. What do you think this Committee should do, thinking as 

broadly as you can, to help keep farmers on the land and rural 

communities strong in this country, not just at this moment of low 

commodity prices, although that presents enormous challenges, but 

in a normalized economy as well? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, I would make two comments, Senator, 

and thank you for your kind words although I think probably the 

last name Vilsack is probably more a function of my son and 

daughter-in-law than—— 

Senator BENNET. It is probably true. 

Secretary VILSACK. Who are constituents of Senator Bennet. 

I think, first and foremost, starting the conversation about the 

farm bill a little differently than we started the last conversation, 

which is that we—I think this Committee was confronted with a 

challenge placed on it by others to save money. The $23 billion 

number sticks in my mind as sort of the starting point for conversation. How could we save $23 billion? When you start the farm 

bill conversation that way, you essentially begin the process of pitting the interests that are represented in this farm bill, which are 

broad, against one another. 

I think it would be much more helpful and much more profitable 

for us to start the conversation with: What is the need? 

There is no question that dairy, for example, to use that—you 

have got a strong dairy industry in your State. The Margin Protection Program I think, conceptually, is a solid idea. The reality is 

it is a national program that does not appreciate the regional differences that exist within the dairy industry, and so there is a 

tweak there that could be done. 

I know the folks in the South are concerned about the lack of assistance for cotton and the need for perhaps a rethinking of STAX. 

There is obviously a tremendous demand for rural development resources. There is a tremendous opportunity for trade. 

So basically starting the process by saying what is the need out 

there, defining what the need is, figuring out how much that costs 

to meet the need, and then beginning the creative thought process 

to try to figure out how you meet as much of that need as possible 

with current resources, and then make the case. 

The case has to be made, and it is made by members of this 

Committee, but it needs to be made by members outside of this 

Committee, that rural America plays an incredibly important role 

in the future of this country and the security of this country. 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER

23 

Every single person in this room, every single person in this 

room who is not a farmer, had the privilege, the opportunity, the 

luxury of not being a farmer because we have delegated the responsibility of feeding our families to a relatively small number of 

Americans, and they do it in a way that provides us the capacity 

to have a heck of a lot more in our pocketbooks when we leave the 

grocery store than just about anybody else in the world. So we have 

a much more diverse economy and much more flexible economy in 

large part because we have a functioning agricultural economy. 

I think if people really understood that, then it might be easier 

for this Committee to start the conversation with ‘‘What is the 

need’’ as opposed to ‘‘This is how much money you have to save’’ 

because when you start it that way you put all of you in a heck 

of a box. 

I think you did a remarkable job working within that box, but 

you had to work within it, and I think you probably could have 

done a lot more had you not had that be the starting point. 

Senator BENNET. I appreciate the answer to that question. 

I am running out of time, but I wanted to mention an issue that 

you raised, which is the fire borrowing issue and, more broadly, the 

budget at the Forest Service, which is now literally engulfed by 

firefighting rather than doing the forest mitigation that needs to be 

done, and in a senseless way because this is all being done in the 

name of fiscal responsibility. It is terribly irresponsible not to 

spend money on the front end. 

So I would ask you, Mr. Secretary, if at the end of this year we 

can find a way to come together around this, not just on fire borrowing but also restoring the budget, I hope that you and the 

President will make this a priority at the end of the year, to see 

if we cannot finally get this done. 

Secretary VILSACK. It is definitely a priority of the President’s, 

and it is definitely a priority for our Department and for me. 

It is just a simple statistic. In 1996, 16 percent of the Forest 

Service budget was based on fire suppression. Today, it is—last 

year, it was 52. We expect this year it will be 56 and it will be rapidly 66 percent of the budget. So you do not have a Forest Service; 

you have a fire department. 

Senator BENNET. It is a fire department, and we are not maintaining the forest in this country. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Senator Boozman. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here, and also thank you for 

visiting our State on several occasions and all the help that you 

have provided in the past. 

As you know, in August, we went through the same flooding 

process in northeast Arkansas as in Louisiana. The University of 

Arkansas’s Division of Agriculture released a preliminary estimate 

of it costing Arkansas crops 45 to 50 million dollars, again hitting 

right before they were harvested. 

As you know, crop insurance works better in some parts of the 

country than others. Is there anything; do you have any tools; is 

there anything that can be done on you all’s end, to help those that 

is in regard to non-insurance losses? 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER

24 

Secretary VILSACK. Senator, what we do have is a disaster loan 

program, and essentially that is available. It would certainly be 

helpful if the local and state FSA team were to communicate to me 

that there is a need for a disaster declaration. 

We just turned around the Louisiana disaster declaration in 10 

days. It came to our office on September 9th, and I signed it on the 

19th. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Sure. 

Secretary VILSACK. I do not know that Arkansas has done that 

yet, but if they have not, that would be one thing that I would encourage you to encourage them to do and encourage them to take 

a look at the disaster loan program. 

Now I will tell you that the disaster loan program is not as attractive as the normal loan program because the interest rate is a 

little higher because of the budget constraints that we have. So one 

thing you could look long-term is looking at whether or not the interest rate on those disaster loans could be reduced. Now that 

would increase the cost of the program, obviously. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Sure. 

Secretary VILSACK. But it would make it a much more feasible 

alternative than exists today. 

There are also conservation resources that can be helpful in dealing with the aftermath of a flooding, whether it is emergency conservation assistance or just our regular conservation program. So 

that is another avenue that I suggest you take a look at. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Very good. Thank you. 

USDA has taken over the catfish inspection, and I think you had 

a good summer in the sense that several shipments were rejected 

by the USDA that contained dangerous cancer-causing carcinogens 

such as crystal violet and malachite green. One ship from China, 

actually once they found out that the USDA was doing the inspection, actually turned around and went back to where it came from. 

Can you tell us a little bit about your thoughts on the good work 

that the USDA inspectors are doing and how you think the program is working at the time? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, Senator, I think you made a very good 

case. The inspection process that we are undertaking is significantly more thorough than the traditional approach to inspections 

of catfish. 

I think it is interesting. I have heard here today the necessity 

of the government providing certainty, and I just would ask you all 

to provide certainty on this issue because we keep flipping back 

and forth. Just tell us. Do you want us to do the inspection, or 

don’t you? 

Senator BOOZMAN. We want you to do it. 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, I know you do—— 

[Laughter.] 

Secretary VILSACK. —but some of your colleagues do not, and you 

just need to make up your mind. 

Senator BOOZMAN. But I do think the fact that once you started 

doing it—— 

Secretary VILSACK. There is no question. There is no question. 

Senator BOOZMAN. —you have done a great job and for the American consumers’s sake. 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER

25 

Secretary VILSACK. Right. There is no question that it is a more 

thorough inspection. Also, it will, I think, avoid mislabeling because oftentimes people are paying catfish rates for fish that are 

not catfish. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Right. 

Secretary VILSACK. So. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Mr. Secretary, again, I want to thank you for 

your work on the cotton gin cost-share program this year. I know 

we disagree about cotton seed, but I want to thank you for your 

hard on this particular area. It really has been very, very helpful. 

I do want to note the importance of maintaining the infrastructure of cotton gins, cotton warehouses, cotton seed crushers, et 

cetera. If cotton production continues to decline, the infrastructure 

of the cotton industry will be lost as well, and when we lose that 

infrastructure cotton production is likely not to return. 

This all goes back again with your theme, which you so eloquently talked about, in regard to rural America and the importance of these things. In your testimony you really, like I say, very 

eloquently talked about that. More needs to be done. I guess I do 

not really have a question. I just appreciate you looking at that 

area and again trying to address it. It is a difficult question, but 

we do appreciate your hard work in that area. 

Secretary VILSACK. You know, I think the key here is for us to 

continue to look for market opportunities—— 

Senator BOOZMAN. Right. 

Secretary VILSACK. —and continue to look for creative ways to 

use what we grow and what we raise, every aspect of it. That is 

why I am a big proponent of the bio-based economy because I think 

there are lots of ways in which we can utilize our crops in a multitude of ways that we may not even be thinking about today, but 

with research we create new opportunities internally to the U.S. 

Then obviously the export market is important for us to continue 

to push, and that is why I think it is helpful to have trade agreements that will open up new markets, particularly in the Asia 

area. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Secretary VILSACK. Thank you. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Senator Klobuchar. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Looking over all the work you have 

done since you became ag secretary, you have been absolutely phenomenal and, I know my colleagues would agree, available. Your 

leadership on everything from public-private partnerships to 

opioids to biofuels to conservation has really been unparalleled, and 

I want to thank you for that. 

In fact, I do not even know where to start with my questions, but 

I will let you know because of your great leadership on avian flu 

I got to be the keynote speaker at the Worthington King Turkey 

Days right on the border with Senator Thune’s State, which meant 

that I found out an hour before that after giving the keynote I had 

to kiss the Minnesota turkey on the stage. I want to thank you for 

your work on avian flu and that great honor that I had this weekend. 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER

26 

But my first question really is about—— 

Secretary VILSACK. Is there a photo of that, Senator? 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Yes, sadly, there is one. Congressman Walz 

had it. I asked him not to retweet it. 

First of all, the Improving Access to Farm Conservation Act. Senator Boozman and I have introduced that bill that would improve 

access to voluntary farm conservation programs administered 

through NRCS. It tries to reduce some of the paperwork for our 

medium and small producers. I will let you know about that. Do 

not have to have a question. 

But I will say in general on conservation, on the CRP program, 

we have a lot of people with interest as you can imagine. I think 

1,367 offers for CRP, only 149 accepted in Minnesota. How is 

USDA working to make sure that the acres with the highest level 

of environmental benefit are being prioritized during the general 

sign-up? What can we do to improve it? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, Senator, we start with the fact that the 

number of acres to be enrolled in CRP has declined, and that gets 

back to my earlier comments about starting with the conversation 

with need rather than saving money. I think there is obviously— 

given the current state of the ag economy, I think there is the need 

for a conversation about how many acres in CRP is appropriate, 

generally, above and beyond the limit that we are now faced with. 

Because of that limit, the Environmental Benefits Index that we 

used for this round was the highest and toughest and most competitive we have seen. So you can be assured that we are investing 

in the most highly sensitive environmental lands. 

We also obviously have continuous programs that are popular, 

and those will continue to provide assistance. In Minnesota, we are 

looking at more SAFE acres. We are also, I think, on the cusp of 

a new CREP that could be very helpful in terms of the water quality initiative in Minnesota. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Good. Well, thank you. I also just hope that 

is something we can keep working on for the next farm bill. 

Our renewable fuels, you have been helpful on that. Obviously, 

we have got some changes to the standard. We would like to see 

more. 

Given the additional uncertainty as a result of record supplies 

and lower commodity prices, do you anticipate offering additional 

grant funding under the Biofuels Infrastructure Partnership, something that you have been so helpful with? 

Secretary VILSACK. Senator, given the fact that we have only got 

a couple of months left in this administration, our focus has been 

on making sure we implement the BIP program and utilize the resources that we have allocated. We are working with 21 states. 

Many states have been aggressive, Minnesota being one of them, 

to expand the number of pumping systems. I think we have roughly 1,500 that are either in operation or under construction. 

Some of the challenges are some states have been a little bit slow 

to get this process going. So I am spending a lot of my time calling 

governors and writing to governors, saying, hey, let’s pick up the 

pace. We want to be able to get this resource. 

But I am confident. We are seeing a very great interest in this. 

I hope that we invest this money wisely. It has been leveraged 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER

27 

more than $100 additional dollars of support and help from the industry itself. So we are talking about an over $200 million initiative. My hope is that we will continue to see progress and future 

administrations will see the need for an expansion. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Exactly. I will ask you a question about biomass on the record, but one of my colleagues was talking about forestry. I worked on the Good Neighbor Authority that gives the Forest Service additional flexibility to work with willing state and private landowners to implement forest management practices. Now 

that the final agreement has been signed between the Forest Service and the Minnesota DNR, how quickly can the Forest Service 

move to begin implementing the project? 

We just had—we have been much slower than some of the other 

states. We have a new head of the Superior National Forest in 

Minnesota. It has really become a problem for us. 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, we are going to move as expeditiously 

as possible. I would point out that all of these efforts require staff. 

Getting back to the fire suppression issue, we have increased the 

fire budget. We have increased the fire personnel significantly. I 

think it has been like a 100 percent increase in fire personnel. 

We have had to reduce the personnel that do the work consistent 

with the Good Neighbor policy and the stewardship contracting by 

38 percent because of the reductions in resources. So it is a resource issue, but we will do everything we possibly can. We are a 

very strong believer in the Good Neighbor policy and the stewardship contracting. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you. 

Secretary VILSACK. We are actually treating more wood than in 

the previous decade. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Okay. I will ask two other questions on the 

record, Mr. Chairman. One is about the wolves. You are well aware 

of my efforts to delist the wolves, and again, that has been slowed 

down because of litigation, but I would have some questions about 

that. 

Then the second thing is on rural housing. Collin Peterson and 

I were just out in Minnesota and some really big efforts are begin 

made, which we appreciate. I still see it as a drag on our economy 

that we do not have enough housing. I know you are a leader on 

that. I will ask that on the record as well. 

Thank you. 

Secretary VILSACK. Thank you. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Without objection, the questions will be submitted. I am sure the Secretary will respond. 

[The following information can be found on page 86 in the appendix.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. Senator Hoeven. 

Senator HOEVEN. Mr. Secretary, thanks for being here and for 

your work on behalf of agriculture. Our farmers are facing a very 

tough time with low commodity prices and so very important that 

we give them all the help that we can. I know you understand that. 

First thing I want to bring up is the WTO challenge that USTR 

is making to China on wheat, corn, and rice. Very important. I 

trust you support that effort in terms of China’s unfair practices 

and trying to help our exports. 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER

28 

Secretary VILSACK. It was a joint announcement, Senator 

Hoeven. I was right next to Ambassador Froman when we announced it jointly the other day. 

Under the WTO, China basically has some de minimis that they 

could—which gives them flexibility. It is like 8.5 percent. They are 

substantially above the de minimis in terms of their subsidy. We 

think it is about probably $100 billion above, conservatively. So 

this is a real effort to get them to play fair. 

It is also a message, frankly, not just to China but to every one 

of our trading partners, that if we—if you enter into agreements 

then we have to enforce them. These administration has been very 

aggressive in that effort and with some degree of success. We have 

not lost a case yet. 

Senator HOEVEN. Right. I know you support it and appreciate the 

fact that it was a joint announcement. Just wanted you to talk 

about how important it is and your support for it, and I want to 

thank you for that very much. 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, at the end of the day, a $100 billion is 

a significant amount of opportunity that is being lost because of the 

subsidy. 

Senator HOEVEN. Absolutely. With the strong dollar, it is a real 

challenge for our exporters right now. 

Secretary VILSACK. Yes, it is. 

Senator HOEVEN. So we have got to do all we can, and so I thank 

you for that effort, and I strongly support it. 

Also, access to credit. Senator Klobuchar and I are supporting an 

effort to double the FSA loan limits, both the direct loan limits and 

the guarantee, up to 2.5 million. I would like you to comment on 

your thoughts in that regard. 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, I understand the intent. I would just 

point out that when you double the loan limits you potentially 

could limit the number of loans provided. So you want to make 

sure that you do not just double the limit but you also take a look 

at the funding. 

As I indicated earlier, for just the second time in history, we have exceeded $6 billion in credit. We have used every dime that 

you all have provided to us in terms of credit. So, if you are going 

to change the level of loans, then you have got to make sure you 

adequately fund the loan portfolio. 

Senator HOEVEN. Very good point. Both on the ag side—farmers, 

ranchers, our producers—and on the banking side, the finance side, 

both sides support this. So we have got strong support and want 

to work with you and everybody on this Committee to get it put 

into place and appreciate your point about the aggregate. 

Crop insurance, very important that we support crop insurance. 

Right now, obviously, a risk management tool for our producers. 

There has been some talk or some rumor that RMA may be looking 

at changing the 1-in-4 rule under Prevented Plant. Are you aware 

of any effort to change the 1-in-4 rule under Prevented Plant? 

Secretary VILSACK. I know that there has been some discussion 

about Prevented Planting, and I know that the RMA has been 

working with the industry. To be honest, Senator, I do not know 

whether it relates specifically to the 1-in-4 or a more general concern. I would be happy to get back to you on that. But there is conmw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER

29 

versation about that, and there has been conversation within the 

industry, working with them on this issue of Prevented Planting. 

Senator HOEVEN. I want to emphasize the importance of Prevented Plant and the 1-in-4 rule and particularly now with low 

commodity prices. So I would ask for your support for crop insurance and for that 1-in-4. 

Secretary VILSACK. Yes. I think the issue that they are dealing 

with in Prevented Planting has to do with California, I think. So 

it may be something different than what you are talking about. 

Senator HOEVEN. Okay. Flexibility under the farm program, 

making sure it is farmer-friendly, particularly in these challenging 

times. Under the ARC program, we are trying to get more flexibility for the state FSA councils so when you have a county that 

is an anomaly. Maybe they do not have enough NASS data or some 

other issue. 

So like a contiguous county may qualify for an ARC payment. 

The county right next to it does not. Yet, they have the almost 

identical circumstance. Needs to be some flexibility for your state 

FSA councils. So I am advocating giving you more flexibility, more 

authority there. Could you comment on that? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, clearly, you have to have—when the decision was made to make a countywide system as opposed to an individual farm system, which was also driven by the need to save 

money, going back to the issue of what the need is, you have got 

to have a system. You have to have some basis for making that decision. 

So, as you point out, we do the NASS surveys. If farmers choose 

not to provide that information for whatever reason, that makes it 

hard for us to have that as the criteria. Then we look at RMA. If 

we do not have sufficient RMA data, there has to be plan C, and 

so the state committee’s flexibility would be appropriate. 

Senator HOEVEN. That is what I am talking about; that flexibility is vitally important. Imagine you are a farmer in that county 

and you are farming next to John Thune and Thune will not send 

in his NASS data. You should not be penalized for that, right? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, I agree, but I would hope, knowing Senator Thune as I do—— 

Senator HOEVEN. I know you would walk over to the Thune farm 

and you would get—— 

Secretary VILSACK. —I am sure he did fill out his survey. But 

your point is well taken, I mean. 

But my point is also well taken, which is we should encourage 

our producers to provide us the information. 

Senator HOEVEN. Agreed, we are. 

Then the last point, I see my time has run out, Mr. Chairman, 

but I would just like to—on the Brazilian beef imports, same thing 

for our ranchers. You know, they are fighting this. To try to export 

with a strong dollar, they are immediately at a 30 percent disadvantage. But also, just on the public safety in regard to foot-andmouth disease, concerns on the part of our industry about Brazilian 

beef imports, could you touch on that? 

Secretary VILSACK. Sure. We have done an assessment. We understand and appreciate that there is additional work that the Conmw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER

30 

gress has requested us to do. We will do it. FSIS has to also do 

an equivalency determination. That has not yet been done. 

I will say this, however: It is very difficult to go to China or any 

other country that we go to, to try to open up a market, because 

of the BSE incident in 2003. It is now 2016. The market is still 

closed. 

We say: Science needs to rule. Science has to dictate. You have 

to follow the rules. 

It is very hard to do that if on the other hand we are not willing 

to do the same thing for other countries. 

So the question is: Do we do an assessment? Yes, we do. Is it a 

solid assessment? I believe it is. I have confidence and faith in our 

folks at APHIS. We are cognizant of the concerns. It is often limited. There are inspections. 

We cannot be for science on the one hand and not for it on the 

other hand. So just consistency, I think, is important. 

Senator HOEVEN. Right. Again, it is just such a tough export situation for our producers, and not just in ag but any commodity, 

with the strength of our dollar. We start out so far behind. We really have to be tough in working on behalf of our farmers—— 

Secretary VILSACK. We do. 

Senator HOEVEN. —in international markets. 

Secretary VILSACK. Senator, we have got the eight best years of 

ag exports in the history of the country. 

Senator HOEVEN. Again, thanks for your work on behalf of our 

producers. I appreciate it. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Senator Gillibrand. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you, Mr. Gillibrand. 

I just want to associate myself with the questions that were 

asked by Senator Bennet as well as Senator Leahy. We have a lot 

of concerns in upstate New York with small dairies and that the 

Margin Insurance Program really did not work well for them this 

year. There were problems with feed costs going down, with milk 

prices going down. So that margin did not cover the cost of production. So they did not get as much money as they would have 

thought, and so they really found the program to be unhelpful. 

I am grateful that you mentioned to Senator Bennet that you 

would look at regionalizing the cost of feed to make it relative to 

your region because, obviously, in the Northeast we have to ship 

a lot of feed, you have the additional cost of transportation, and so 

it is really more accurate to do it regionally. So I am grateful that 

you will at least study that issue. 

But I do think the program needs to be adjusted because it has 

not worked well. If you do adjust it to work better, do you have 

strategies to do outreach so that our farmers can get that information so that they can appropriately cover their risk? 

Secretary VILSACK. Senator, first of all, we can only implement 

the program based on the instructions and directions that you all 

have provided. So I think as you start the next farm bill conversation the regional differences needs to be a topic of conversation 

within the farm bill. I cannot do that on my own. USDA has to 

have instructions from the Congress to do that, number one. 

Number two, I do not know if you were here earlier. So I am 

going to repeat something, and I apologize if you were. But that is 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER

31 

that if farmers in 2016 had purchased the same coverage as they 

purchased in 2015 there would have been 4 times the payments. 

Four times. Instead of at $11 million, it would have been close to 

$44 million. 

So part of it is basically getting people to understand this is an 

insurance product. We probably have done outreach. We will continue to do outreach, and we will continue to encourage folks not 

just to look at the catastrophic coverage but higher levels of coverage, which they had in 2015 but for some reason chose not to do 

in 2016. 

I do not know if that has happened in upstate New York, but it 

has—— 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Yes. They did not get paid out. So they 

thought it was a waste of money. 

Secretary VILSACK. Well—— 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Because the feed cost problem. So it was 

not representative of their cost of production. 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, that is true, but if they had the coverage that they had the previous year then they would have received resources. 

So it is sort of a couple of things, I think. One is the regional 

differences, and one is also making sure that farmers use the tool 

that we now have that will allow them to make certain calculations 

in terms of what is best for their operation based on what we are 

projecting the dairy costs to be. 

Now the good news is we are seeing a slight uptick. So, hopefully, we are headed in the right direction instead of the wrong direction. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you. 

I would also like to look at the issue of rural poverty. Your commitment to addressing rural poverty, particularly the persistent 

poverty that robs too many children in rural areas of their future, 

has really been important and remarkable. 

Recently, a series of stories ran in one of our local upstate New 

York newspapers in the North Country about intergenerational 

challenges of poverty in that community, and this is an area that 

has undergone economic upheaval with the loss of traditional manufacturing and family farms facing low commodity and dairy prices. 

As Secretary, you have implemented innovative programs, like 

the StrikeForce Initiative and Promise Zones, to bring Federal resources to communities most in need. How are these programs 

working to help communities like the North Country reinvent 

themselves and establish long-term solutions to the economic challenges faced by a lot of our rural communities? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, StrikeForce has been, I think, incredibly successful because it has provided for an integrated response 

on the part of all mission areas at USDA. So FSA works with 

NRCS, works with RD, works with our nutrition programs, to 

make sure that we are holistically dealing with the 970 counties 

that are now in the StrikeForce program. Over 200,000 investments have been made. Roughly $25 billion has been invested in 

those persistently poor areas. 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER

32 

We have also challenged ourselves to make sure that we are allocating and investing a certain percentage of our resources in the 

most persistently poor areas of this country. 

Representative Clyburn talks about his ‘‘10–20–30’’ program. We 

sort of adopted a model of that. We had a ‘‘20 by 20’’ program 

which was 20 percent of our rural development resources in the 

20—in census districts that have had poverty rates in excess of 20 

percent. 

We have exceeded that. We had a goal to do it by 2016. We exceeded it in 2014, and we are building on that. 

So there has been a targeted and integrated approach, and we 

are going to continue to use our rural development resources. We 

have helped over 112,000 businesses. Four hundred and fifty thousand jobs have been supported through this effort. Infrastructure 

investments. I mean, I could go on, but it is significant. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you. 

I have no time remaining, but I am going to submit for the 

record a question about rural broadband. Senator Capito and I 

have a bill that I would like your thoughts on, as well as ideas and 

guidance from you about other ways to amplify rural broadband. 

I have a specific question about the droughts in upstate New 

York and western New York, that I will submit for the record. 

Thank you so much, Mr. Secretary. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Without objection. 

Mr. Secretary, did you ever watch the movie ‘‘High Noon?’’ 

Secretary VILSACK. Yes, sir. Gary Cooper. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Do you notice any resemblance between 

Gary Cooper and Senator Thune? 

[Laughter.] 

Secretary VILSACK. Senator Thune, do you want me to recognize 

that? 

Senator THUNE. Just play along with him. 

Secretary VILSACK. Whatever you say, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROBERTS. His wife looks like Grace Kelly, too. 

Coop, you have been riding fence. You are a little late. What are 

you doing? 

Senator THUNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is almost high 

noon. So we want to wrap this up, but I appreciate the hearing. 

Mr. Secretary, as you know, over the past several years and a 

couple of farm bills, we have had an ongoing conversation about 

conservation programs, in particular the CRP program, which I 

continue to believe is the cornerstone of all USDA-administered 

conservation programs. 

One of the concerns that I hear from constituents in South Dakota about CRP is there is a lack of common sense when it comes 

to guides and policy coming out of Washington. 

As you know, one of the biggest problems in the CRP program 

lies in the mid-contract management policies that for years have 

required CRP participants in South Dakota to dispose of vegetative 

cover by burning or other means but would not allow the vegetative 

residue to be donated to livestock operators who need hay because 

of drought. You agreed to allow this. 

I would like to get your commitment today that this policy of donating vegetative cover from any CRP practice removed under a 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER

33 

mid-contract management can be donated to livestock producers 

who need it, that will continue into the future years as part of FSA 

policy. 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, Senator, first of all, I appreciate your 

bringing this issue up, and I think you are absolutely right. We 

need to have a more common-sense approach, and oftentimes we 

need to make sure that we understand the impact of these approaches in various regions of the country. 

I am happy to commit to you that up to, and including, noon January 20th that the policy that I have articulated is going to continue to be the policy. I cannot promise you that future administrations will see it the same way. I would hope that they would and 

would certainly encourage them to see as a common-sense, appropriate measure. 

We are learning more about farm management. We are learning 

more about land management. I think the more we learn perhaps 

the greater the flexibilities we can find within CRP. 

Senator THUNE. One of the other issues that we have talked 

about, and that has to do with mid-contract management, is also— 

and this is something that I think would benefit not only South Dakota but a lot of other states. In 2012, most of the United States 

suffered from a severe drought, and I personally visited with the 

Wildlife Federation, Ducks Unlimited, Pheasants Forever, who 

agreed in a request that there be emergency haying and grazing allowed on several CRP practices that FSA determined were environmentally sensitive and on which FSA had previously prohibited 

emergency haying and grazing, which you ended up allowing. 

Well, a NEPA analysis was done in 2012 specifically to address 

that issue on these practices, and this is the—I am going to quote 

from their statement: ‘‘A recent NEPA analysis for a one-time approval for emergency haying and grazing on these additional practices during 2012 found that as long as the haying or grazing was 

conducted in accordance with a modified conservation plan and 

under the guidance and approval of the STC and NRCS conservationist, among other stipulations, there would be no lasting significant impacts to wetlands.’’ 

Yet, we had the same situation this year in 2016 in South Dakota, same counties and other states that were approved for emergency haying and grazing, but once again FSA headquarters would 

not allow haying and grazing on these environmentally sensitive, 

continuous CRP contracts that an earlier NEPA analysis provided 

that haying and grazing, would not be harmful. 

So my question is: It was allowed in 2012. How does USDA not 

justify it given the circumstances that we face this year, it was a 

proven success, and particularly given the fact that a lot of these 

vegetation harvested from these acres could help those that need 

it, drought-stricken ranchers? 

Secretary VILSACK. Senator, it is a good question, and I will be 

happy to go back and try to find a more definitive answer if there 

is one or encourage them to rethink the decision they made. 

Senator THUNE. I would appreciate if you would do that. This is 

an issue that we kind of deal with on an ongoing, seems like almost annual basis in certain areas of our State. Given that NEPA 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER

34 

research based on the 2012 experience, it seemed to me at least 

this ought to be something we could fix. 

Finally, I would like to appreciate the fact that there are State 

Acres for Wildlife Enhancement, or SAFE acres, that have been 

targeted for South Dakota in the past, but I would like to call your 

attention to the fact that in the last CRP general sign-up South 

Dakota landowners applied to enroll more than 40,000 acres; yet, 

only 2 contracts totaling 101 acres were accepted. Three states— 

Colorado, Kansas, and Washington—were able to enroll more than 

208,000 acres, more than half of the total accepted. 

As you know, South Dakota depends heavily on CRP and currently has a backlog of more than 20,000 acres requested for East 

and West River SAFE and Duck Nesting Habitat CRP acres. But 

can you tell me if there will be additional acres allocated to South 

Dakota for any of these practices in the near future? 

I point that out because, as I said, out of 400,000 acres that were 

allocated for the general sign-up South Dakota applied for 40,000 

or 10 percent of that total, and only got approved for 101 acres or 

25 10,000ths of the total amount allocated. To me that just seems 

completely unacceptable and unjustified, and I cannot explain to 

any farmer in South Dakota how with 40,000 acres requested, in 

an area of the country where a CRP program is so important, we 

got 101 acres approved. 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, I think the answer is that we—because 

of the limitation that Congress has placed on the number of acres 

in the program, we have a higher threshold for acres to get enrolled in the general sign-up. We did 400,000 acres, or 410,000 

acres I think, in the general sign-up. 

I suspect that there are probably still acres left in terms of the 

SAFE program or upland game programs that we could potentially 

utilize. 

But it is a matter of economics, Senator. If you want more acres, 

then you have got to provide us the resource and the capacity to 

have more acres. You have limited that. You have reduced it from 

32 million down to 24 million. 

Senator THUNE. That is an issue we are going to have to address 

in the next farm bill, for sure. 

Having said that, the question I asked earlier about SAFE acres 

and Duck Nesting Habitat CRP acres, on which we have, as I said, 

a backlog of about 20,000 acres, does USDA have more of those? 

Secretary VILSACK. Here is the challenge with that. I mean, you 

certainly have a justifiable question. The concern I think that our 

folks have is that they rushed determinations in the past and they 

ended up getting adjoined in court from the actions that they took. 

So I think they are trying to be thoughtful of that and trying to 

make sure that they do not have additional injunctions imposed on 

them that would further delay the implementation. 

But I am happy to take a look at that, as I indicated to you. We 

will be happy to take a look at it. 

Senator THUNE. But those programs, SAFE acres and Duck Nesting Habitat, those CRP programs, you have authority and capacity, 

I believe. Our State does have requests in a 20,000-acre backlog, 

and so that is the question. 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER

35 

Secretary VILSACK. We will take a look at that in terms of whether or not there are acres that are being not used in some states 

that could be. We will just take a look. I want to make sure I do 

not over-promise to you, but I will take a look at it. 

Senator THUNE. Well, I would appreciate that. Twenty-five, tenthousandths of the amount in the general sign-up seems like proportionately a real bust. 

Secretary VILSACK. But it is not proportional, though, Senator. 

That is the problem. I mean, it has to be based on the Environmental Benefit Index. I think frankly the higher the index, obviously, the fewer acres are going to meet the threshold. 

Senator THUNE. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Senator Casey. 

Senator CASEY. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I am sorry I am late. 

I was at another hearing trying to get a miners’ protection—or, a 

miners’ pension protection bill done today. So we are late. 

Mr. Secretary, I was with you last night at a dinner where I 

thanked you for your service, and I reiterate that today. I have 

seen not only in Pennsylvania but across the country a lot of great 

public servants—presidents, governors, mayors, all kinds of folks. 

We would be hard pressed to find a better Secretary of Agriculture, 

and we are grateful for that service. 

I do not have a lot of time, but I will try to raise two issues, neither of which will surprise you. The first is dairy, and the second 

is the Chesapeake Bay. I know we are very limited. I will submit 

more for the record. 

First, on dairy, I know you have spent a lot of your not just time 

as Secretary but a lot of your life working on issues like this, and 

we have talked about it a lot. You know of the acute problem we 

have had in Pennsylvania and a lot of states on the loss of dairy 

farms, hundreds a year going back many years, long before you 

were Secretary. 

We know that we made the change to the Margin Protection Program, and I know you talked about this earlier. Enrollment is low 

in Pennsylvania, and that is obviously an issue. 

Our staff tells us they were talking to a farmer the other day 

who is losing 8,000 bucks a month and will likely be losing his 

farm. That is, not just recently but over years, a typical story. 

If you look at 15 years, Pennsylvania dairy production showed a 

negative growth of around minus 3.1 percent over those 15 years. 

We have a particularly difficult challenge because of the cost of 

production. 

So I guess if you could just assess based upon all the work that 

you have done and all the efforts you have put forth, are there 

other options we should be considering, including new authority, 

new legislation, new approaches? I guess the bottom line is: What 

do you think would be most effective to help our dairy farms and 

farmers? 

Secretary VILSACK. Let me offer a couple of suggestions, Senator, 

that will be repetitive. I apologize, but I think it is worth repeating. 

We would have been able to do more in Section 32 potentially if 

we had more capacity within Section 32 in the CCC program, but 

each year that has been reduced; our capacity has been reduced by 

the Congress. So that is one area. 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER

36 

Secondly, we used to have some significant flexibility to sort of 

craft creative solutions in situations like this. That authority has 

been taken away through the appropriations process. So that 

should be restored. 

The Margin Protection Program. As I indicated to Senator Gillibrand, part of the issue I think is that people made the decision 

early in the process not to believe in the program in the sense that 

they did not sign up for the same level of coverage in 2016 that 

they did in 2015. Had they signed up for the same level of coverage, we would have paid out $40 million instead of $11 million. 

So there is that issue. 

There is the regional feed differential issue that I think will need 

to be addressed in the next farm bill, as to whether or not you can 

distinguish between regions of the country where feed costs are up 

or down, and whether or not that could impact and affect the level 

of payment. 

I think also in terms of these small dairies I have been encouraging them to think about not necessarily working in the commodity-based market that they are currently in but creating their 

own individual market. This Committee, in this Farm Bill, I think 

made an historic investment in local and regional food systems, 

and the ability to afford for these small producers to produce their 

own ice cream, to produce a value-added product, to create a market where they sell directly to the local school district instead of 

selling to a major processor, that they work to create their own 

contracts where they can negotiate their own price for their product. 

Oftentimes, at the local level, people are willing to pay a penny 

or two more for something because they know the farmer; they 

know the money is going to stay in the community; they know it 

is helping the general community. 

So those would be suggestions that I would make. 

Frankly, we also have to look at our credit programs. You know, 

we have run out of money on the credit side, and that again is related to budget. The budget we are dealing with is less than it was 

in 2010, and there are consequences to that. 

Senator CASEY. I know that you just announced, and we appreciate this, a purchase of 20 million dollars of cheese to help those 

dairy producers. We are grateful for that. 

Is there any way to assess or measure the impact of that? I guess 

secondarily whether you can—if there are other kind of emergency 

measures that can be taken. 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, we have run out of resources within 

Section 32, which is the first point I made. 

You know, I do not think—it is probably not going to be accurate 

to suggest that the slight increase that we have seen recently in 

prices is directly related to that purchase. I think it sent a signal. 

I do not know that it had a profound impact on the market, but 

it certainly sent a signal that people are paying attention. 

You know, the issue of trade is important. You know, the dairy 

industry in this country has become a major exporter, which was 

not the case a number of years ago, but today it is. To the extent 

that we can continue to look for competitive markets overseas I 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER

37 

think is incredibly important as well and very, very much necessary to be able to maintain stability in the dairy market. 

Senator CASEY. I will submit a question for the record on the 

Chesapeake Bay resources, and I know we have talked about that. 

I will follow up with it. 

Secretary VILSACK. Mr. Chairman, may I say something about 

the Chesapeake Bay? 

Chairman ROBERTS. Sure. 

Secretary VILSACK. There is a phenomenal statistic on the Chesapeake Bay, which I learned recently, which is that 99 percent of 

the cultivated acres in the Chesapeake Bay Area have at least 

some conservation practice being utilized. Ninety-nine percent. 52 

percent of the acres, at some point in time within a 4-year period, 

have had a cover crop. The impact of that conservation and those 

cover crops has resulted in an actual reduction in the hypoxic area 

within the Chesapeake Bay and increased significantly of the underwater grasses that has led to a return of the blue crab, more 

oysters, and more fish. 

So this, I think, sort of underscores the necessity of continued investment in the conservation programs, in the regional conservation partnership program, in all of this. 

We have recently worked with Governor Wolf to redirect some resources into Pennsylvania because you have a real challenge. It is 

hard for your producers to understand the benefits of conservation 

for the Chesapeake Bay when your State does not necessarily get 

the benefits of the bay in terms of the economic opportunity that 

tourism brings. So we are trying to be sensitive and responsive. I 

think Pennsylvania has received almost—I think it is—if it is not 

the number one state in terms of resources in this effort, it is the 

number two state in the watershed. 

Senator CASEY. Mr. Secretary, I know we are out of time. Thank 

you very much, and we are, as always, proud of your Pennsylvania 

roots. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Senator Stabenow. 

Senator STABENOW. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think we 

have had a good discussion this morning. 

Thank you again, Secretary Vilsack. I have got a number of questions that I will submit for the record, but I did want to ask you 

about our Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research. I think 

one of the important things that we did that is a real legacy, as 

we look at the importance of agricultural research, is the Foundation, putting together something that will last longer than all of us 

and a public-private initiative. 

So I wondered, in looking at what the foundation is doing and 

being a strong supporter of it. The Foundation has announced an 

ag research prize at the National Academy of Sciences and is funding a new innovator award for young ag scientists, both of which 

I support, but we have yet to see specific research projects. I wonder if you could talk about what the USDA is doing, you are doing, 

in working with the board and the executive director to both establish research priorities and to begin funding specific research 

projects. 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, the first step obviously was to get the 

board composed. The second step was to have that board do the 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER

38 

due diligence and thoughtful work about what areas needed to be 

focused on. That then puts us in a position where we deal with the 

fourth and final piece of this, which is to find partnerships. 

I know that there were efforts underway on a conservation research project, for example, that the Foundation was committed to, 

but our partner at the end of the day made a decision that he was 

not particularly comfortable with the parameters of the research 

project. He did not necessary want as much engagement with land 

grant universities as we thought was appropriate. So that project, 

which we had spent a lot of time on, unfortunately did not get 

funded. 

But there are priorities set. They are working with land grant 

universities and other research components, and they are looking 

for projects. I would expect and anticipate you will see a much 

more robust suite of projects coming through the process in 2017. 

Senator STABENOW. Thanks very much. 

Mr. Chairman, I will turn it back to you. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Thank you. 

Senator Perdue touched on this, as did most members, and you 

stated yourself that, representing agriculture, you have made every 

effort to work with the folks over at the EPA. Matter of fact, in 

2009, you stated you looked forward to working with Lisa Jackson 

at that time—it would be Gina McCarthy now—and you thought 

that she recognized, ‘‘the important role that EPA plays generally 

in agriculture.’’ You indicated that data and sound science were 

necessary and important for basing decisions, and I thank you for 

that. 

But as we look back on the past eight years, particularly at EPA 

and how the EPA is judged by farmers and ranchers, everybody in 

rural and small-town America, I am very troubled to see efforts, renewed efforts, that I have experienced in my entire public career, 

which spans about three decades. 

Here we go again trying to regulate farm dust—rural, fugitive 

dust; milk spills; every farm pond and ditch—that is WOTUS; 

delays in approval of new seed technologies and agriculture chemicals, aggressive climate change-related cap and tax proposals, priorities placed on environmental lawsuits and endangered species at 

the expense of farmers and ranchers. 

Mother Nature gave us some rain in Kansas, and so the lesser 

prairie chicken is now the greater lesser prairie chicken. We could 

have saved a lot of trouble and time and effort when we just tried 

to say, look, if it rains, the habitat will increase. 

Help me understand. I know that you have worked with the 

EPA, I know that you have defended agriculture, and I know that 

you believe in sound science. But tell me how we can better defend 

our farmers and ranchers from a host of these policies and regulations that are not based on sound science or data, and how can we 

assure our producers and our technology providers that regulators 

will use a scientifically sound and predictable and fair process. 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, one suggestion I would make, Mr. 

Chairman, is to build on the progress that USDA and the Department of Interior have developed with reference to the Endangered 

Species Act. 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER

39 

I think there has been a new way of thinking on sage grouse, 

lesser prairie chicken, a number of other potentially endangered 

species, which is essentially USDA coming to the Department of Interior and saying: Look, producers want to do the right thing. They 

just simply need to know what to do. They need help in terms of 

financing what to do. They want some degree of certainty that once 

they do it that they will not have to redo it or do it again or do 

more. 

So, as a result of that, we were able to enter into an agreement 

with the Department of Interior that if producers would take certain actions we at NRCS would provide resources on cost-share, 

that they would be guaranteed for 30 years that if that animal or 

critter or whatever gets listed they would be deemed in compliance. 

We saw remarkable acceptance of that approach. So I think that 

is the wave of the future of some kind of way in which we could 

create greater certainty or predictability, number one. 

Number two, I cannot speak about the processes within EPA because I do not know them, but what I can tell you is that when 

I was first secretary it took 90 months to get a biotechnology trait 

reviewed by APHIS. Ninety months. Today, it takes 15 months, 

and we are probably close to 13 months on most of them. 

How did we do that? We did not sacrifice any of the quality of 

the review. I asked for a chart of all the people that were involved 

in the 90-month process, and then I asked them to go through a 

process improvement that any corporation or business would go 

through to try to streamline a process without sacrificing the quality. 

It may be that there are certain circumstances and situations 

within agencies where process improvement could potentially 

streamline the process. So that is the second. 

The third—— 

Chairman ROBERTS. Does the EPA have a chart? 

Secretary VILSACK. I do not know. That is why I do not know the 

answer to that question. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Can you substitute your chart for the EPA 

chart even if they do not have one? 

Secretary VILSACK. I cannot tell the EPA what to do because, as 

I said earlier, I do not want them telling me what to do. 

Chairman ROBERTS. I have been trying to tell them what to do 

for some time. 

Secretary VILSACK. Right. But you actually have more capacity 

to do that than I do. 

What I can do is make an effort to make sure that they understand the real-life consequences of inaction or action, and I make 

an effort to make sure that they understand the need to go out and 

talk to farmers and producers. Gina McCarthy, who is the current 

administrator, has done that. 

On the Waters of the U.S., I will tell you the advice I gave the 

EPA, which is part of the challenge is that there are hundreds of 

thousands of farming operations and hundreds of thousands of different circumstances throughout the country. 

It would be helpful if you went out. I think they have done this 

in a couple of states. If you had your technical people go out and 

have farmers come to you with information about their specific opmw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER

40 

eration, with a specific question. Is this in or out? Does this have 

to be? Because oftentimes what you will find is what farmers are 

most concerned about actually is not going to be covered or is not— 

there is no basis for them to be concerned about it. 

There is a fear, a real fear, but it can be dealt with by just simply a communication, and frankly, we do not probably do governmentwide enough of that. We do not define the problem before we 

define the solution, and we do not educate people about what we 

are trying to do before we do it, and so there is a natural reaction. 

So, those would be my suggestions. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Well, thank you for trying. Thank you for 

trying to be the defender of agriculture over at EPA. 

We had 11 Senators with Gina McCarthy on WOTUS, Waters of 

the U.S. Two pages with regards to the legislation, about the third 

draft. 

Normal cropping operations are exempt. Sounds pretty good. 

Eighty-eight pages of regulations. Eighty-eight. The font was 

about 10-point. You had to squint to read it. 

I do not know of any commodity group, any farm organization, 

any lawyer or any CPA, any group that can wade through all that 

and then tell a farmer whether or not the dry creek bed is going 

to be under the Waters of the U.S., or the farm pond where no selfrespecting duck would ever land, et cetera, et cetera. That is the 

problem. I thought we reached a pretty good understanding, but 

that was not the case. 

I think this is a subject area where if it is not the number one 

issue, that is why a lot of folks that I represent feel ruled and not 

governed, and they get really upset. 

I am not trying to pick on you. I am just trying to say that we 

have some serious problems. 

I have several other things I want to mention with regards Department oversight, and then I will close, and we might even 

make—well, no, we are not going to make 12, but we will make 

12:30. 

Your testimony lists what is going right in America, and we appreciate that. I am happy to share in the good news for our farmers 

and ranchers, but it is also the responsibility of this Committee to 

examine serious challenges at the Department, and the inspector 

general has identified some of them. 

For instance, the inspector general found that the CCC’s financial statements were inadequate and could not pass a third-party 

audit. Now that is really important. It is difficult for anybody to 

understand the CCC to begin with, but that is a problem. 

They also identified financial control failures in the NRCS and 

the Rural Energy for America program, the REAP program, where 

100 percent of the REAP program samples had errors. 

The inspector general just released its 2016 list of USDA management challenges, which is significant because it lists the same 

challenges it listed last year in its 2015 report. 

Further, the report notes countless OIG recommendations that 

the Department did not complete or that went unimplemented. Obviously, you do not have enough staff to do everything that the OIG 

wants you to do yesterday. 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER

41 

So considering your recent comments of how legislators may approach funding levels in the next farm bill, can we reach an understanding how the USDA is working to be a better steward of existing funding and meeting the numerous challenges as outlined by 

the OIG? I am not asking you to respond to that. 

Secretary VILSACK. Oh, can I? I would like to respond to it. 

Chairman ROBERTS. All right, fine. 

Secretary VILSACK. Let me talk about the CCC audit. Basically, 

we had a change in auditors, and there was a difference of opinion 

within those auditors about what was acceptable. 

So with a new auditor we said, okay, fine. If you are not willing 

to accept what the previous auditor accepted, fair enough. 

We have brought in specialists, and we are working through this 

process aggressively to satisfy our new auditing firm. 

On NRCS, when I came into office, we have not had a clean 

audit on NRCS. We have been working incredibly hard over the period. It was really, really, really bad. We have worked incredibly 

hard, and we are making significant progress, and knock on wood, 

I think we are going to get to a very good place here in the next 

year or two on that audit that you will have much more confidence. 

On the REAP thing, I think that was a really small sampling 

size that was taken in that particular circumstance. 

I am telling you this, Mr. Chairman, so that I know what you 

just outlined. Because I deal and I meet with the OIG folks on a 

quarterly basis. I am kept to date on a monthly basis on every single OIG audit, every GAO audit of concern, and we take those 

things very seriously. 

On the management challenges, I think that if you read the report you will find that there have been improvements on the management challenges. It is not a situation where it is exactly the 

same letter that we got the year before. There are actually several 

areas where they have actually seen improvements. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Mr. Secretary, we want to thank you for 

coming today. As the agriculture economy continues to trend lower, 

unfortunately, your testimony, insight, and plans are invaluable to 

this Committee. 

Thank you and thank you for your service over these eight years. 

Now your job is not quite finished, but we wish you all the best 

as you finish your work at the USDA and whatever is next. 

As we evaluate Federal policies, let’s keep in the forefront of our 

minds the wants and needs of our business men and women involved in agriculture. 

Throughout the past eight years, there have been plenty of challenges ranging from devastating droughts to floods, from wildfires 

to freezes. Farmers and ranchers are as resilient as their crops and 

livestock when it comes to bouncing back after natural disasters. 

Whether it is a push by EPA to expand their jurisdiction over the 

Waters of the United States or the Dodd-Frank rules restricting access to credit, or especially to our community banks, the biggest 

frustration I hear from producers is the government too often 

stands in their way. I know you have heard that as well. 

The regulatory framework we have today is vast. It is confusing, 

often counterproductive. We must find new ways to inject common 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER

42 

sense into the rulemaking process across the entire Federal Government. 

While there were many questions today regarding the 2014 Farm 

Bill—actually, there were not that many questions on the 2014 

Farm Bill. Interest is already building for the future of the farm 

programs. The next farm bill must provide risk management tools 

that are straightforward, market-oriented, and defendable. 

Now the Ranking Member and I, regardless of what happens 

down the road, will be doing the same thing we did the first time 

when we passed a farm bill in record time. I think we passed this 

farm bill in what? Two and a half hours in this Committee? Even 

talked the leader at that particular time into putting it on the floor 

and passed it. Now it did run into a brick wall in the House, but 

we intend to do the same thing, and we will be asking your help 

and your ideas as well. 

We have to face these realities head-on. Producers in their field 

are being asked to do more with less. We also have to be willing 

to find solutions that stay within our budget caps and trade rules. 

We have right at two years to pass the next farm bill, and yes, 

there will be another farm bill. We will have a full and transparent 

discussion of what is working, what is not, which burdens are hindering our competitiveness. This is after we sit on the wagon 

tongue with all of our producers and listen. 

As I said when I took the gavel last year, this Committee will 

be the voice of the producer. This Committee will not only provide 

them a platform to spread the word of the value of production agriculture but also be the forum for our farmers and ranchers to participate in shaping the next farm bill. At the end of a producer-led 

policymaking process, we will have a farm bill that recognizes modern agriculture, respects our fiscal environment, and provides the 

necessary support for American agriculture to be successful. 

As you have indicated, Mr. Secretary, it might be a good idea to 

focus on the needs, the value of a farm program, and the value of 

what we, ‘‘we’’ meaning all of our producers and who we represent, 

what we do for our country in a troubled and hungry world. If we 

can do that I think, or do our job a lot better than that, I think 

our road might be somewhat easier. 

To my fellow Committee members, I ask that any additional 

questions you may have for the record be submitted to the clerk 5 

business days from today or by 5:00 next Wednesday, September 

28. 

That concludes our hearing. The Committee is adjourned. 

Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Secretary VILSACK. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 12:14 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER

(43) 

A P P E N D I X 

SEPTEMBER 21, 2016 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER

44 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER


23594.001

Ranking Member Stabenow Opening Statement at Hearing with 

U.S. Department of Agriculture on the Current State of the Farm 

Economy 

Thank you Chairman Roberts. I am proud of the bipartisan work we have done 

together this Congress. We reauthorized the Grain Standards Act, mandatory price 

reporting, and the National Forest Foundation, and passed mandatory GMO 

labeling. And hopefully we will see the Child Nutrition Reauthorization signed 

into law by the end of this year. 

Today's hearing is an important reminder that farm and food policy affects all 

Americans. Everyone benefits from safe and affordable food, clean water and air, 

strong rural communities, and the creation of jobs in the emerging bio-based 

economy. The work of this committee and USDA is critical in addressing the 

concerns of America's farmers, families, ag-businesses and rural communities. 

Of course, nobody knows this better than Secretary Vilsack. Under his leadership 

over the past 8 years, USDA has made historic progress on issues from 

conservation and climate change, to healthy eating and helping farmers feed the 

world. He has been the longest serving Agriculture Secretary in nearly 50 years 

and among the very best our country has ever had. 

Thank you Mr. Secretary for joining us this morning and for your leadership. I 

know that your legacy will live on long past your tenure. 

With half the life of the 2014 Farm Bill behind us, we must begin to examine 

what's working and how to improve these policies in the upcoming Farm Bill. 

As we know, there has been a dramatic slowdown in the farm economy since the 

passage of the Farm Bill. Farm income has dropped by over 50 percent-the 

steepest drop in farm income since the Great Depression. Our farm safety net 

keeps producers in business when disaster strikes. The 2014 Farm Bill made 

historic reforms by shifting away from direct payments to a focus on the risk 
45 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER


23594.002

management tools farmers requested to support producers during the bad years like 

we are seeing today. 

New and beginning farmers are especially vulnerable to financial stress during 

these times, making access to credit an especially important tool. I applaud USDA 

for taking action earlier this month to provide additional funding for farm loans. I 

am hopeful Congress can provide additional flexibility for USDA to extend credit 

to all farmers in need. 

Just as the safety net for farmers is critical in times of! ow prices, I also want to 

acknowledge the critical role SNAP plays as a safety net for families. Much as 

farm support grows and shrinks as prices fluctuate, the Supplemental Nutrition 

Assistance Program responds to the needs of families. The good news is that 4 

million fewer families are in need of the nutrition safety net than when we were 

writing the last Farm Bill in 2012. 

The latest hunger report from USDA shows that the number of families who are 

food insecure is at the lowest point on record. The safety net is working. We have 

also begun to see positive results from key Farm Bill programs like the Food 

Insecurity Nutrition Incentive program (FINI), which is boosting farm sales of 

healthy foods across the country and helping SNAP families afford healthy foods. 

And the employment and training pilots are proving that the best way to help 

transition SNAP participants to work is to provide the training and support services 

they need to get a stable full-time job, not to deny families access to food. 

Another goal in the last Farm Bill was to support the diversity of American 

agriculture. We have seen this pay off with positive growth in organic agriculture 

and local/regional food systems -markets that were virtually nonexistent a decade 

ago. Today, we have the opportunity to expose consumers to agriculture through 

these markets and new ones like urban agriculture. 

The 2014 Farm Bill made historic investments in sustainability and conservation, 

particularly through new partnership programs designed to address concerns with 
46 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER


23594.003

the help oflocal partners and farmers. We must continue to look at how 

conservation and forestry programs can address issues like water quality, drought, 

and wildlife habitat protection while also providing adequate support for fanners 

and foresters seeking to mitigate the effects of climate change on their operations. 

As farmers continue to face regulatory challenges over issues like water quality, 

voluntary conservation programs can be an important solution for farmers. But 

farmers can't do it alone. Partnerships between government, conservation groups, 

and agriculture will be critical to the success of voluntary conservation measures. 

The same is true for expanding agriculture research and prioritizing the most 

critical and relevant research. I am optimistic that the new Foundation for Food 

and Agriculture established in the Farm Bill will take strides this year to begin 

funding research projects, together with diverse partners, to keep American 

agriculture competitive and ensure we can continue to feed the world. 

We only have an economy in America if we make things and we grow things. This 

Committee, working with the USDA, has a critical role in making sure that 

happens. 

Thank you Mr. Secretary for joining us today, I look forward to hearing your 

testimony. 
47 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER


23594.004

Sen. Thoro Tillis' Opening Statement for the Hearing with Tom Vilsaek, Secretary of the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Wednesday, September 21,2016-10:00 am 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here today. It has been a tough year for our 

agriculture industry and though some disagree on your authority to designate cottonseed as an 

oilseed, your work to finalize the Cotton Ginning Cost-Share program was a help to my cotton 

growers, and I appreciate your attention to the difficulties they are facing. 

I said this in a hearing earlier this year and unfortunately, it still applies: as I travel 

through North Carolina and speak with our farmers, it is never prices that are first mentioned. 

Over and over again, North Carolina farmers want to talk to me about a specific regulation at 

EPA or USDA or FDA that is hampering their ability to maximize opportunities. 

lam dismayed at the additional layers of regulations proposed by USDA and the Obama 

Administration at a time the federal goverurnent should be doing everything to help farmers 

survive a bad economy. The North Carolina agriculture industry has a lot to be proud of, but as 

long as the federal government continues its relentless pursuit of overregulation, it will remain 

hard for farmers to survive this downturn. 
48 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER


23594.005

Statement by Thomas Vilsack 

Secretary of Agriculture 

Before the Senate Committee on Agriculture 

September 21,2016 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, lam pleased to have this opportunity to 

discuss the state of agriculture and the rural economy in the United States. For more than seven 

years, I have had the honor and privilege of serving as Secretary of Agriculture. I've traveled to 

all 50 states and heard rural Americans- from local businesses, community leaders, farmers, 

ranchers and Americans far and wide, from all walks of life talk about the impact that USDA's 

staff, programs and services have on their lives. I could not be more proud of the work the men 

and women of USDA do each and every day. 

Agriculture has been a bright spot in our economy. As the economy entered a historic 

recession in 2008, this Administration and Congress did not stand still. When I became 

Secretary of Agriculture, I recognized that a spark was needed to build a more resilient rural 

economy where businesses-farm and non-farm alike--are able to innovate, grow, and create 

more good paying jobs. We worked, in part through the Farm Bill, to increase trade, strengthen 

the bioeconomy, expand local and regional markets, invest in conservation, and strengthen the 

safety net to create new opportunities for those living in rural America and create a more 

resilient rural economy. Our efforts not only supported the most productive agricultural sector 

in the world, but also helped rural communities become places where all businesses, farm and 

non-farm alike, prosper and create jobs. This more robust and diversified rural economy helps 

rural communities become more resilient when facing a weakening of commodity prices and 

lower farm incomes. 

These efforts to build a more diverse and resilient agricultural economy paired with 

strong commodity prices contributed to the early strength of the farm economy during this 

Administration. Even as President Obama was pursuing policies after the collapse of the US 

economy in the Great Recession that have helped the U.S. economy recover jobs and strength 

over the past 7 years- U.S. GDP is rising, the National unemployment rate continues to decline 

and the real median household income for middle-class Americans grew by a record 5.2 percent 

in 2015 -the agricultural economy was still very strong and making significant contributions to 

our economy domestically and through trade. We added more agricultural-related jobs under 
49 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER


23594.006

this Administration, with one in twelve U.S. jobs currently supported by our agriculture sector; 

agricultural exports reached record high levels; and our nutrition program programs have both 

helped children and families get the food assistance they need to be healthy and provided 

important employment and training opportunities to help adults move toward self-sufficiency. 

Trade agreements offer opportunities 

Ninety-five percent of the world's consumers live outside of our borders. That means 

our trade agreements open a world of opportunities for American businesses. In Fiscal Year 

(FY) 2015, American agricultural producers achieved $139.7 billion in exports, the third 

highest year on record and up 45 percent from FY 2009. Agricultural exports totaled 

over $911 billion for the period FY 2009 through FY 2015, the best seven year stretch in 

history. The volume and value of agricultural exports support more than 1 million American 

jobs both on and off the farm each year, a significant part of the estimated 11.5 million jobs 

supported by exports all across the country. Agricultural exports support farm income, which 

translates into more economic activity in rural areas. Each dollar of agricultural exports is 

estimated to stimulate another $1.27 in business activity. 

USDA efforts knocked down trade barriers to U.S. exports in more than 18 countries, 

reopening markets to U.S. agricultural exports. In 2015 alone, USDA resolved foreign access 

market issues involving U.S. agricultural exports valued at $3.6 billion. In 2016, Saudi 

Arabian and Peruvian markets reopened for U.S. beef, the South Korean market reopened for 

U.S. poultry, and the South African market reopened for U.S. poultry, pork and beef. 

When necessary, we will use all the instruments available to us to ensure our 

agricultural products get fair treatment in foreign markets. Just last week, the Administration 

requested formal WTO consultations with China on its measures affecting our grain exports. 

Further, trade agreements, like those with Panama, Colombia and South Korea, have 

created additional opportunities for trade growth. U.S. agricultural exports to these three 

countries grew by nearly 28 percent, from $7.6 billion in FY 2012, when the trade agreements 

first went into effect, to $9.7 billion in FY 2015, supporting approximately 73,000 American 

jobs. Following years of USDA-led technical exchange, the United States and China signed an 

agreement in 2015 to expand market access for U.S. apples from just two varieties to all U.S.-

grown varieties. The Chinese apple market could be worth nearly $100 million per year to U.S. 
50 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER


23594.007

producers. U.S. agricultural exports to all U.S. Free Trade Agreement partners grew from 

$15.5 billion in 1994 to $57 billion in 2015, a nearly four-fold increase in 20 years. 

Closer to home in Cuba, USDA has established an in-country presence in Cuba to 

cultivate key relationships, gain firsthand knowledge of the country's agricultural challenges 

and opportunities, and begin to explore fruitful information exchanges and research 

collaboration. U.S. agricultural exports have grown significantly since trade with Cuba was 

authorized in 2000. Since the implementation of the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export 

Enhancement Act (TRSA) in 2000, the United States has exported nearly $5 billion in 

agricultural and food products to Cuba. To strengthen our bond, between the United States and 

Cuba, USDA will allow the 22 industry funded Research and Promotion Programs and 18 

Marketing Order organizations to conduct authorized research and information exchange 

activities in Cuba. Cuba's geographical proximity and demand for U.S. products makes it a 

natural market for US producers. In fact, from 2003 to 2012, the United States was the leading 

agricultural exporter to Cuba. A more open and normalized trade relationship with Cuba will 

benefit both countries and help address the competitive disadvantages that U.S. agricultural 

products currently face in this market. 

But we can and should do more to expand markets. U.S. farmers are facing 

unprecedented competition amid a slowing global economy and appreciating dollar. That's 

why it is important for Congress to approve the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). When 

implemented, the TPP agreement, with ll Pacific Rim countries representing nearly 40 percent 

of global GDP, will provide improved market access for America's farmers and ranchers by 

lowering tariffs and eliminating other barriers. The American Farm Bureau Federation predicts 

that ratifying the TPP agreement will boost annual net farm income in the United States by $4.4 

billion, compared to not approving the pact, according to their economic analysis. A recent 

study by the U.S. International Trade Commission showed that with the TPP in place, U.S. beef 

exports will increase by $876.1 million annually by 2032; U.S. poultry exports by $173.9 

million; U.S. fruit, vegetable and nut exports by $574.9 million; and U.S. dairy exports by a 

whopping $1.845 billion. In the same time period, overall U.S. real income will increase by 

$57.3 billion. Sixty-six percent ofGDP growth from TPP would go to American workers 

through increased wages and job opportunities. American agriculture needs the good deal laid 

out in the TPP agreement to bolster its position in the world economy. We arc committed to 
51 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER


23594.008

working closely with Congress to obtain support for this historic deal so that our businesses can 

sell more rural-grown and rural-made goods around the world, and more American workers can 

compete and win. 

Rural America needs a strong biobased economy 

We have also taken significant steps to grow the emerging bioeconomy. A study of the 

bioeconomy released last year found that the biobased products industry generated $369 billion 

and 4 million jobs each year for our economy. Biobased products industries directly employ 

approximately 1.5 million people, while an additional 2.5 million jobs are supported by the 

bioeconomy in other sectors. Shifting just 20 percent of the current plastics produced into 

bioplastics could create l 04,000 jobs. Environmentally, the increased use of biobased products 

currently displaces about 300 million gallons of petroleum per year- equivalent to taking 

200,000 cars off the road. 

As part of this effort, USDA continues to lead the way for renewable energy by 

supporting the infrastructure needed to grow the new energy economy. Since 2009, Rural 

Development has supported almost 400 biofuel producers with the production of advanced 

biofuels through the Bioenergy for Advanced Biofuel Program. Further, the Department has 

helped roughly 15,000 rural small businesses, farmers and ranchers improve their bottom 

lines by installing renewable energy systems and energy efficiency solutions. With the 

Biorefinery, Renewable Chemicals, and Biobased Manufacturing Assistance Program we are 

expanding the number of commercial biorefineries in operation that produce advanced biofuels 

from non- food sources. This focus on renewable energy has resulted in support for the 

construction of 6 advanced biofuels production facilities, over 4,000 wind and solar 

renewable electricity generation facilities, and more than 100 anaerobic digesters to help 

farm operations capture methane to produce electricity. 

We have also made available $100 million in grants under the Biofuel Infrastructure 

Partnership (BIP), estimated to nearly double the number of fueling pumps nationwide that 

supply renewable fuels, such as E 15 and E85, to American motorists. Twenty- one states are 

participating in the BIP, with matching funds from state and private partners, providing $210 

million to build nearly 5,000 pumps at over 1,400 fueling stations to strengthen the rural 

economy and increase the demand for agricultural commodities used in the production of 
52 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER


23594.009

biofuels. We are also proud of our effort to partner with the Department of Energy (DOE) and 

the Department of the Navy to create advanced drop-in biofuels that will power both the 

Department of Defense and private sector transportation throughout America- which to date 

has led to the procurement of77.7 million gallons of blended drop in biofuel- and with the 

Federal Aviation Administration, DOE, and the commercial aviation sector to sustainably 

increase the production and use of alternative jet fuel. 

We have taken new steps to support biobased product manufacturing that promises to 

create new jobs across rural America. Under this Administration, we have added 70 new 

categories of qualified biobased products for Federal procurement, which includes over 

14,000 products. Currently, more than 2,700 products have received certification to 

display the USDA Certified Biobascd Product label, creating and increasing consumer and 

commercial awareness about a material's biobased (new carbon) content as one measure of its 

environmental footprint. We awarded funds through the Forest Service's Wood Innovations 

Grants Program and the U.S. Tall Wood Building Prize Competition to support pioneering 

demonstration projects, business planning and research that can advance new markets for mass 

timber construction that can support the health and resilience of our forests and our forested 

communities alike. 

And earlier this year, the Biomass Research and Development Board released the 

Federal Activities Report on the Bioeconomy (FARB) that documents federal activities aimed 

at helping to develop and support the bioeconomy -an emerging part of the overall U.S. 

economy. The FARB identified a Billion Ton Bioeconomy vision and some of the next steps to 

sustainably reach the full potential of biomass-derived products as a way of expanding our 

nation's economy. 

Local and regional food systems create opportunities for agricultur.e and communities 

This administration has taken action to open the doors of USDA to new stakeholders 

and to adapt to changing consumer demands that impact agriculture. One of those changes has 

been the growing consumer interest in buying locally produced products, which has created 

major new market opportunities for American Farmers, ranchers and food-related businesses. 

The value of local food sales has grown from $5 billion in 2008, and some industry sources 

estimate that sales could hit $20 billion by 2019. Under this Administration, USDA has made 
53 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER


23594.010

changes at the policy and programmatic level that are strengthening local and regional food 

systems, helping to revitalize rural economies, and supporting efforts around the country to 

provide fresh, healthy food to all Americans, Demand for local and organic food is also 

attracting more young people back to the land and creating value-added opportunities for 

farmers to boost their incomes. 

At USDA, we recognize that this consumer interest is an opportunity for agriculture, and 

that strong local and regional food systems can help meet many goals. They harness the 

entrepreneurial innovation of small and medium-sized family farms and help them succeed in 

rural America; they drive the creation of new food businesses that in turn create jobs; and they 

are a strategy to connect low-income consumers with healthy food options in areas that are 

currently underserved. Between 2009 and 2015, USDA invested over $1 billion in more 

than 40,000 local and regional food businesses and infrastructure projects. Today, more 

than 160,000 farmers and ranchers nationwide are tapping into growing consumer 

demand by selling their products locally. USDA investments in local and regional food 

systems are keeping more of the food dollar in farmers' pockets and improving consumer 

access to fresh and local food. Research from UC Davis shows that direct-market sales 

through farmers markets and Community Supported Agriculture enterprises have about twice 

the impact of wholesale market sales. We also know that food hubs, which play an essential 

role in food systems by aggregating products from small and midsize farms and distributing 

them to large-volume buyers, such as grocery stores, are economic drivers. According to a 

comprehensive survey by Michigan State University, on average, each food hub supports 20 

jobs and generates nearly $4 million in annual sales. 

USDA support has helped to nearly double the number of food hubs since 2009; 

and there are now over 8,500 farmers markets nationwide, an increase of almost 98 

percent since 2006. USDA resources to strengthen local and regional food systems extend 

throughout the supply chain, starting with producers, including new insurance offerings to help 

diversified operations better manage risk, right-sized loans for farms of all sizes, financial 

support for season-extending tools like high tunnels, and innovative programs to make food 

safety verification more affordable. 

USDA programs also support small businesses and local communities that are using 

local and regional food systems to drive economic growth. Our investments in farmers markets 
54 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER


23594.011

and other direct-to-consumer local food marketing activities through the Farmers Market 

Promotion Program (FMPP), have provided $60 million in assistance for over 900 

projects nationwide since 2009. In the Farm Bill, Congress expanded FMPP to include the 

Local Food Promotion Program (LFPP), which supports more complex local food supply chains 

including aggregation, distribution, and storage and processing of local food. LFPP has funded 

over 350 projects totaling nearly $25 million since it launched. USDA is also helping 

producers tap into the market for local and regional foods in schools, which are now serving 

healthier breakfasts, lunches and snacks. Since 2013, USDA has provided over $19 million for 

295 Farm to School projects to increase the amount of healthy, local food in schools, which 

represent a tremendous market opportunity. In the 2013-14 school year alone, school districts 

spent nearly $800 million on locally and regionally-sourced food. 

In addition, USDA has made expanding SNAP recipients' access to fresh fruits and 

vegetables through farmers markets a priority in recent years. Between 2008 and 2015, the 

number of farmers markets and direct marketing farmers that accepted SNAP rose from 

about 750 to almost 6,500 .. Over $19 million in SNAP dollars was spent at farmers 

markets in 2015, up from less than $3 million in 2008. This is a win-win for both farmers and 

SNAP participants, and it shows how our investments are simultaneously improving the health 

of low-income shoppers and bolstering the incomes of local farmers. 

A healthy and prosperous America relies on the health of our natural resources 

Another way that USDA is strengthening the rural economy and improving resiliency is 

by increasing efforts to responsibly utilize our resources and expand conservation. America's 

farmers, ranchers and landowners have led the way in recent years to conserve and protect our 

soil, water and wildlife habitat, as well as protect pollinators. With the help of Farm Bill 

programs, USDA partnered with a record number of producers since 2009 to create a cleaner, 

safer environment. During this Administration, we have enrolled a record number of private 

working lands in conservation programs and implemented strategies - such as landscape- scale 

efforts -to restore our forests and clean our water supply. These efforts have also created 

significant economic opportunities in the forms of recreation and improved resilience to 

withstand major weather events. 

A new model for conservation investment established by the 2014 Farm Bill for the 
55 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER


23594.012

Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) has allowed USDA to leverage $800 

million to support 115 high-impact conservation projects across the nation that will improve 

the nation's water quality, support wildlife habitat and enhance the environment. As an 

example, in each of the first two rounds of RCPP funding, USDA funded projects that 

specifically focused on nitrogen stewardship in the Midwest. In the first round, more than $5 

million was awarded to the Illinois Corn Growers Association and its partners to integrate 

conservation into the foundational farm management of commodity crop operations. In the 

second round, $9.5 million was provided to the Midwest Agriculture Water Quality Partnership 

to advance a science-based, non-regulatory approach to reducing nutrient loss and improving 

water quality, soil health, and habitat for at-risk species. In addition to RCPP, NRCS addresses 

water quality conservation concerns through other landscape-scale water quality conservation 

initiatives, such as the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI). From 2009-2015, over $22 

million in GLRI funds were used to install conservation practices on I 03,000 acres in the 

Western Lake Erie Basin. 

USDA is experiencing record demand from producers interested in participating in the 

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), which improves water quality, prevents soil erosion and 

strengthens wildlife habitat. Under CRP, farmers and ranchers across the country are creating at 

least 15 million acres of healthy forage and habitat for pollinators. The recent general and CRP 

Grassland sign-ups were the most selective enrollment periods in CRP's 30-year history with a 

record high Environmental Benefits Index cut-off, ensuring that conservation benefits are being 

maximized. USDA accepted l 0 I ,000 acres in the first-ever CRP Grasslands enrollment, 

providing participants with financial assistance for establishing approved grasses, trees and 

shrubs on pasture and rangeland that can continue to be grazed. More than 70 percent of these 

acres are diverse native grasslands under threat of conversion, and more than 97 percent of the 

acres have a new, military veteran, or underserved farmer or rancher as a primary producer. 

This fiscal year, CRP's continuous sign-up enrollment is on track to be the largest since 

continuous sign-up began in 1997. 

USDA is also helping rural America respond to a changing climate. While U.S. 

agriculture and resource management have long histories of successful adaptation to climate 

variability, the accelerating pace and intensity of Climate change presents new challenges. To 

address this challenge, USDA's Regional Climate Hubs are developing and delivering science-
56 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER


23594.013

based, region-specific infonnation and technologies to agricultural and natural resource 

managers across the U.S. The Hubs are also providing technical support, regional assessments 

and forecasts, and outreach and training to enable climate-infonned decision-making. By 

partnering with fanners, ranchers, rural land owners, and other stakeholders we can improve the 

resilience of fann and forestry systems to the challenges posed by climate change, such as 

changes in weather patterns, extreme weather events, and spreading invasive species and 

foreign diseases. 

Using the authorities provided in the 2014 Fann Bill, we have developed "The Building 

Blocks for Climate Smart Agriculture and Forestry" strategy to reduce net emissions and 

enhance carbon sequestration by over 120 million metric tons of C02 equivalent (MMTC02e) 

per year by 2025, while also boosting productivity and resilience in the face of a changing 

climate. Through this initiative, we will encourage voluntary actions that promote soil health, 

improve nutrient management, and conserve and enhance forest resources on private and public 

lands. Conservation programs on private working lands have reduced net greenhouse gas 

emissions by over 360 million metric tons since 2009 and through this initiative we will give 

producers the tools and resources to continue their global leadership in meeting our climate and 

food security challenges moving forward. Since the announcement of these building blocks, 

USDA and its partners have taken actions to reduce GHG emissions and increase carbon 

sequestration from agriculture, forests, and rural areas. 

Finally, any discussion of conservation and adapting to a changing climate would be 

incomplete without USDA expressing the need to fix fire budget funding. The frequency and 

intensity of wildfire is increasing while the cost of controlling the spread of wildfire is rising, and 

the way we pay for fire suppression constrains the agency's capacity to realize additional gains 

through efficiencies and partnerships alone. Planned wildland firefighting (suppression) activities 

are currently funded entirely within the U.S. Forest Service budget based on a I 0-year rolling 

average. Today the agency spends over half of its budget on fire management activities and has 

seen a corresponding 39 percent decline in non-fire staffing since 1998. Left unchecked, two out 

of every three dollars appropriated to the Forest Service will be spent on fire programs in the 

next 10 years. In addition to the rising costs of fire, when appropriated resources fall short, as 

they did in 2015 by $700 million dollars, the Forest Service is forced to transfer funds from nonfire programs to cover the costs of suppression. These mid to late season transfers stop projects, 
57 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER


23594.014

cause uncertainty and instability in planning, and impact the agency's ability to implement 

projects. Congress must act now and provide a comprehensive fix that will address both the 

grov.1h of fire programs as a percent of the agency's budget and the compounding problem of fire 

transfers. 

Investments in infrastructure and research 

To create a strong resilient farm economy built around trade, the bioeconomy, local and 

regional food systems, and conservation it was clear that we must have basic investments to set 

the stage for growth. To accomplish this, we have made historic investments in rural 

communities, making them more attractive to non-farm businesses and talented hard-working 

individuals looking to get ahead. USDA has sought to revitalize rural areas and diversify our 

nation's agriculture by making significant investments in rural infrastructure. Since 2009, we 

invested a total of $13.3 billion in new or improved infrastructure in rural areas through 

10,623 water projects. These improvements helped nearly 18 million rural residents gain 

access to clean drinking water and better waste water disposal. 

USDA also delivered modernized electric service to more than 5.5 million 

subscribers and over 185,000 miles of electric lines were funded. We helped nearly 120,000 

rural businesses since 2009 with an investment of over $13 billion, creating or saving an 

estimated 450,000 jobs. Through it Rural Business Investment Program, USDA has been able 

to certify three venture capital companies focused with investment in rural businesses. These 

three Rural Business Investment Companies have pledged over $380 million investment in rural 

businesses. Since 2009, USDA also assisted more than 1.1 million rural families to buy or 

refinance a home; in FY 20 I 5 alone, we helped 141,000 rural Americans become homeowners. 

New and beginning farmers and ranchers are a fundamental part of the agricultural 

marketplace and are needed to carry on America's strong legacy of agriculture productivity. 

However, according to the 2012 Census of Agriculture, their numbers are continuing a 30 year 

downward trend. To reverse this trend, we need to equip the next generation of farmers and 

ranchers with the tools they need to succeed. USDA has increased access to our programs by 

collaborating with partners and improving customer service to increase opportunities for all 

sizes, segments, and types of farmers and ranchers to break down the barriers they face during 

the first ten years of operation. We developed an innovative web tool and conducted other 
58 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER


23594.015

outreach activities, to help support key groups, like veterans, women, the socially 

disadvantaged, as well as facilitate intergenerational transfer of farms and ranches. Through the 

Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program, USDA has also provided more than 

$130 million in grants for workshops, educational teams, training, and technical assistance to 

new and beginning farmers. As a result, the Department and its partner organizations have been 

able to increase program participation by many underserved communities. Farm Service 

Agency (FSA) has also engaged in cooperative agreements with 55 partners to educate farmers 

and other producers that have been underserved by USDA programs historically about FSA 

programs that provide financial, disaster or technical support. Nearly $2.5 million is going to 

nonprofits, associations, universities, and foundations that will provide training and information 

on agricultural best practices, local networking opportunities and more. 

We must also continue to innovate to keep U.S. agriculture competitive. Long-term 

agricultural productivity growth relies on innovation through research funded by both public 

and private sectors. Innovations in animal/crop genetics, chemicals, equipment, and farm 

organization all result in American farmers producing more with less. In recent years, USDA 

scientists and university partners have developed new ways to deal with the influenza virus in 

pigs; increased milk production with fewer resources; created innovative and effective ways to 

manage pests and promote pollinator health; supported innovations in irrigation technologies 

resulting in water savings and improved nitrogen use efficiency; developed tools to identify and 

combat antimicrobial resistant bacteria that threaten human and animal health; and increased 

profitability offarmers and livestock producers despite droughts and increasing temperatures. 

Studies have shown that every dollar invested in agricultural research has returned between $10 

and $20 in economic benefits to the nation. I am proud that during my service as Secretary, we 

have increased investments in peer-reviewed competitive grants through the Agriculture 

and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) from $201.5 million in FY 2009 to $350 million in FY 

2016, while still achieving growth in formula funding to our partner institutions of higher 

education. Also, with the help of Congress, we have begun to make needed investments in our 

research infrastructure. 

Farm safety net is working 

However, over the past two years, the combination of a strengthening dollar and 
59 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER


23594.016

relatively high global production leading to lower prices for commodities has resulted in large 

drop in 2015 and 2016 net farm income, relative to the 2011 through 2014 period. USDA 

expects real net farm income this year to be the lowest since 2009. There has been a slowdown 

in the rise of land values in most agricultural regions, with some seeing values come down 

slightly from recent record highs. Demand for farm loans has been increasing, driven in part by 

the need to cover operating expenses as commodity prices have fallen more quickly than costs. 

As a result, the debt to a~set ratio for U.S. producers has increased over the past two years, but in 

aggregate is still near historic lows. While the data suggests that net farm income remains 

relatively high by historical standards- for example, the 5-year average of net farm income 

since 2014 has ranged between $85 billion (for 2012- 2016) to $96 billion (for 2010- 2014), 

the highest levels since the mid-1970's and that most farms have a strong balance sheet and 

delinquency rates remain lower than the 2005 to 2014 average- it is clear financial stress is 

increasing and that some producers are more exposed to financial risk. In general, those 

producers with high costs of production, rent a significant portion of their land base, or have 

increased borrowing to cover operating costs will be most exposed to financial risk as returns 

decline with commodity prices. 

The current conditions are leading to increased uncertainty and concern in rural America, 

but even as falling global commodity prices continue to depress farm income, the current farm 

safety net that was created during the last Farm Bill is providing support for producers. In 2015, 

government farm program payments totaled about $10.8 billion and are expected to 

increase to nearly $13.8 billion in 2016. In addition the crop insurance program offset 

more than $6 billion in farm losses in 2015 and is expected to cover more than $9 billion in 

2016. 

Last year, USDA enrolled 1. 76 million farmers in the new Agriculture Risk Coverage 

(ARC) and Price Loss Coverage (PLC) programs by conducting an unprecedented education 

campaign. ARC and PLC are a part of the farm-safety net, providing assistance only when there 

are year-to-year crop revenue or commodity price downturns. To date, ARC and PLC have 

provided $5.3 billion in financial assistance for crop year 2014, to more than 1 million farms. In 

addition, more than half of all dairy farms in the U.S.- over 23,000- have enrolled in the 

Margin Protection Program for Dairy (MPP-Dairy). This voluntary program provides financial 
60 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER


23594.017

assistance to participating farmers when the margin -the difference between the price of milk 

and feed costs- falls below the coverage level selected by the producer. Recently, over 

$11 million in payments were made to over 4,600 dairy operations for the May/June payment 

period. The largest payment for any two-month period since MPP-Dairy was enacted in 2014. 

Also, USDA recently amended regulations to allow producers that add adult children, 

grandchildren or spouses to their operation to increase the established milk production history 

eligible for coverage under MPP-Diary. 

The 2014 Farm Bill indefinitely extended the Farm Service Agency's livestock disaster 

programs and the Tree Assistance Program. Since the passage of the Farm Bill, these programs 

have paid producers over $6 billion dollars to recover from natural disasters, including drought 

and wildfires. 

USDA has continued to strengthen crop insurance to ensure the program works for all 

farmers and ranchers. The Risk Management Agency (RMA) has expanded access to crop 

insurance options for organic and specialty crop producers through new and innovative 

programs, including the Whole-Farm Revenue Protection policy, and coverage options that 

allow organic farmers to protect their products at the market value. In fact, the number of 

crops eligible for organic premium pricing went from four in 2011 to 57 for the 2016 crop 

year. The number of acres insured by organic producers grew from 576,700 in 2009 to 

1.1 million in 2016. The new Whole-Farm Revenue plan is being offered in all counties in the 

United States in 2016. In addition, RMA has worked to ensure that new crop insurance 

programs from the 2014 Farm Bill are available for as many crops as possible. The 

Supplemental Coverage Option (SCO) is now available for 58 crops and the Actual Production 

History Yield Exclusion is available for 50 crops. The Stacked Income Protection Plan for 

Producers of Upland Cotton (ST AX) is currently available for every county that has a crop 

insurance policy for cotton. Peanut Revenue Protection is available in every county with 

peanut coverage, and Margin Protection Insurance is available for wheat, corn, rice, and 

soybeans in select counties. Finally, the new and beginning farmers and ranchers incentives 

authorized in the 2014 Farm Bill make crop insurance more affordable for beginning farmers 

and ranchers by providing a I 0 percent premium discount, on top of the premium subsidy all 

producers receive, as well as a waiver of the catastrophic and additional coverage 

administrative fees. Over 13,500 producers have taken advantage of these incentives and 
61 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER


23594.018

saved around $14.5 million annually in premiums and administrative fees because of the 

incentives. 

USDA worked with crop insurance companies to educate farmers and ranchers about 

the new conservation compliance requirements in the 2014 Farm Bill and as a result, over 98 

percent of Federal crop insurance participants provided the documentation necessary to 

comply with those requirements and maintain their benefits. 

The Non insurance Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP) to include buy-up 

protection, similar to buy-up provisions offered under crop insurance, and instituted a fee 

waiver and 50 percent reduction in premium for beginning and underserved producers as well 

as direct market, organic, and quality provisions. The Farm Storage Facility Loan Program 

(FSFL) has also been revitalized and covers storage for more commodities and the micro loans 

option. 

Access to credit remains a critical issue for producers, in particular for small and 

beginning farmers and ranchers. Since 2009, USDA has provided approximately 276,000 loans 

totaling over $39.5 billion to farmers and ranchers. In 2016 alone, FSA has made over 28,000 

direct loans and nearly 10,000 guaranteed loans for a record loan volume of nearly $6.2 

billion. We are working with the Small Business Administration to leverage existing SBA loan 

guarantees and SBA emergency credit for rural small businesses. Demand for credit continues 

to be strong, particularly for farm operating loans, as farmers cope with lower commodity 

prices. The recent demand has led to full utilization of the current program level for farm 

operating loans. 

While the Farm Bill has resulted in a strong safety net for producers, the Department has 

also utilized other existing authorities to provide assistance to producers when possible. 

Cotton producers are experiencing lower market prices and have indicated that the 

current safety-net is not providing adequate protection for cotton. We have used the Commodity 

Credit Corporation's (CCC's) statutory authority to implement the Cotton Ginning Cost-Share 

(CGCS) program, which is providing needed assistance to financially stressed cotton producers. 

Through the CGCS program, eligible producers receive a one-time cost share payment to 

expand and maintain the domestic marketing of cotton. To date, the program has provided 

about $325 million to assist cotton producers. 

We have approved more than $320 million in section 32 purchases that have the 
62 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER


23594.019

dual benefits of helping producers and providing nutritious foods to those in need, 

including $20 million cheese buy to assist the dairy industry. 

And while we have been able to use certain authorities to provide assistance during this 

downturn, existing Congressional restrictions on previously available disaster assistance 

authorities have the potential to limit our ability to react quickly and provide additional 

assistance if current market conditions persist or worsen. While I sincerely hope they are not 

needed, Congress should consider lifting these restrictions so that the next Secretary of 

Agriculture will be able to react as necessary to future needs. 

Reducing hunger and improving the health and nutrition of our nation's children 

Because our safety net does not stop with producers, this Administration continues its 

strong support for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). SNAP kept at least 

4.7 million people, including nearly 2.1 million children, out of poverty in 2014. In addition, 

every five dollars of SNAP benefits generates nine dollars in economic activity. SNAP has 

been shown to have long-term benefits as well. Recent research indicates that for low-income 

individuals, access to SNAP in early childhood led to a 16 percentage point decline in the 

likelihood of obesity as an adult and an 18 percentage point increase in the likelihood of 

completing high school. 

We also look forward to working with Congress to reauthorize the Child Nutrition 

Programs in a way that preserves the achievements we have made under the Healthy, HungerFree Kids Act. Schools around the country have made tremendous progress in improving the 

nutritional quality of school meals. During the 2014-2015 school year, over 97 percent of 

schools successfully met the nutrition standards by serving meals with more whole grains, 

fruits, vegetables, lean protein and low-fat dairy, and less sodium and fat. In the first year 

of nationwide implementation of the Community Eligibility Provision (CEP), we have also seen 

progress in reducing the administrative burden on schools and improving program integrity 

while increasing the number of low-income children certified for school meals. About 60 

percent of eligible schools in nearly 3,000 school districts are participating in CEP, reaching 

more than 8.5 million students. 

Though summer vacations may have ended, we remain concerned about expanding the 

options available to vulnerable children while school is out of session. Over 22 million students 
63 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER


23594.020

participate in free and reduced price meals during the school year, but only a fraction are 

participating in summer meals. Because hunger does not take a vacation during the summer 

months when school meals are unavailable, we have expanded the Summer EBT for Children 

demonstration pilots over the last 2 years. Rigorous evaluations of Summer EBT pilots 

demonstrate the program effectively reduces food insecurity and improves nutrition. In tandem, 

we have expanded summer food programs- serving nearly 4 million children in the 

summer of 2015. In total, summer meals sites have served over 1.2 billion meals to lowincome children since 2009. 

Conclusion 

Even as commodity prices have weakened and farm incomes have decreased, the rural 

economy remains strong. Our work to increase trade, grow the bioeconomy, strengthen local 

and regional food systems, and expand conservation have resulted in a more resilient rural 

economy. Rural and urban areas continue to recover from the Great Recession. Median income 

for farm households remains near the historic high of 2014- 35 percent higher than median US 

household income in 2015. Nationally, the real median household income for middle-class 

Americans saw a record 5.2 percent increase in 2015. While the nonmetro rates of 

unemployment still lag the metro areas, nonmetro rates have been recovering at about the same 

pace and we know that both are approaching pre-recessional levels of around 5 percent, 

providing increasing opportunities for farm families. While there the population of rural areas 

has been flat or declining lately, we also see that the proportion of adults living in rural areas 

with some college training now exceeds metro areas. Those bode well for rural America and we 

have seen poverty fall in non metro areas falling in 2015 to its lowest point since 2008. 

Further, the farm safety net- while not perfect- is providing assistance when it is 

needed. And earlier this month an ERS report found the lowest figures on record for food 

insecurity among children- a major achievement in our country's efforts to ensure every child 

has a safer, healthier future filled with unlimited opportunity. In 2015, household food insecurity 

fell 1.3 percentage points from 2014 and 2.2 points from 2011 -the peak of the recession. At the 

same time, very low food security has dropped to 5 percent from a peak of5.7 percent. Since 

when the President took office, 7.9 million fewer people are struggling to provide adequate food 

for themselves or household members. For these reason, I am confident in the future of the rural 
64 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER


23594.021

economy and see opportunities for us to continue to strengthen this outlook and create 

opportunities for Rural America in the future. 

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

speak briefly about the work of the United States Department of Agriculture. It has been my 

great pleasure to serve with you as the Secretary of Agriculture and would like to take the 

opportunity at what is likely my final time testifying as the Secretary to recognize your 

tremendous work in support of rural America and to recognize the great work of the men and 

women at the Department who work diligently to carry out our mission and implement the 

policies passed out of this committee. The dedication of this team- both in D.C. and 

throughout the country- has allowed this Department to reach a record number of people, and 

with fewer resources. They believe in our mission and I am confident that they will continue to 

do so well after my tenure at the Department comes. to an end. 
(65) 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

SEPTEMBER 21, 2016 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER

66 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER


23594.022

Sen. Thorn Tillis' Comment for the Record for the Hearing with Tom Vilsaek, Secretary of 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Wednesday, September 21, 2016- 10:00 am 

Mr. Chairman, 

Though this committee hearing is to have a discussion with the Secretary of the 

Department of Agriculture and update him on issues impacting producers and rural comminutes 

in our home states, the Smithfield!WH Group transaction has been brought up. 

North Carolina has a major Smithfield presence and is home to the largest pork 

processing plant in the world and responsible for thousands of jobs in a rural area of my state. 

would like it on the record that the WH Group, Smithfield's parent company, is a Hong Kongbased publicly traded corporation. Anyone, anywhere in the world can purchase shares of the 

WH Group. In fact, the WH Group's shareholder list includes large institutional investors such 

as U.S. pension funds and hedge funds. 

Smithfield continues to report its results to the United States Securities and Exchange 

Commission and the WH Group publishes its results tvvice annually and these documents are 

available to the public. A June 29, 2016 article from Bloomberg highlighted that the U.S. 

workforce under the WH Group has expanded by more than 1,000 people to almost 39,000; and 

rather than cutting back investment, capital spending has climbed 24 percent last year to $313 

million. 
(67) 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

SEPTEMBER 21, 2016 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER

68 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER


23594.023

Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, & Forestry 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Current State of Farm Economy 

Wednesday, September 21, 2016 

Questions for the Record 

Secretary Tom Vilsack 

Chairman Pat Roberts 

1. The scope ofthe biotechnology disclosure program is limited to disclosures regarding only 

the presence of bioengineering. No new authority was given to the Department within the 

disclosure program for non-bioengineered or "non-gmo" labels. The Agricultural Marketing 

Service (AMS) policy memorandum raises a couple initial concerns. Under what authority is 

AMS making the policy statement that "no certified organic products will require disclosure 

as bioengineered?" Why is AMS soliciting comments on "further definitions of 

bioengineered foods requiring mandatory disclosure" when the definition for 

bioengineering is clearly set in statute and the scope of rulemaking is directed at a standard 

for disclosure? 

2. In reviewing USDA's September 1, 2016 request for information (RFI) to implement the 

study of potential technology challenges mandated in the recently passed biotechnology 

disclosure legislation, it appears that USDA is going well beyond the scope directed in the 

law. USDA's draft work statement calls for an additional "consumer use study," which aims 

to identify the likelihood consumers will use electronic or digital disclosures when making 

food purchasing decisions. Where in the direction to "conduct a study to identify potential 

technological challenges that may impact whether consumers would have access to the 

bioengineering disclosure through electronic or digital disclosure methods" does USDA 

identify the authority to conduct a "consumer use study?" 

3. A recent GAO report on "Improper Payments" discusses the repeated failure of USDA to 

bring some of its assistance programs into compliance with the Improper Payments 

Elimination and Recovery Act (IPERA}. The GAO notes USDA's recurring failure to comply 

with the criteria set forth in IPERA, and properly address improper payment issues. Further, 

the report notes erroneous payments have plagued various USDA producer support 

programs, disaster programs, and nutrition programs. These are vital programs for the 

underprivileged and vulnerable populations, and the administration of these programs 

needs to function efficiently. GAO's report recommends USDA submit a letter to Congress 

outlining proposals of changes to be made in light of the three years of noncompliance in 

the School Breakfast Program, Child and Adult Care Food Program, National School Lunch 

program, and Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Woman, Infants, and Children 

(WIC). What is the status of the letter, and where is USDA in its efforts to strengthen the 

integrity of these programs? Will the letter be issued prior to the new administration taking 

office? 
69 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER


23594.024

4. USDA puts a great deal of importance on advancing "local" agriculture- the term "local" is 

used close to 30 times in a recent USDA AMS blog as USDA pledges ongoing support for 

local farmers markets, and has made considerable financial investment, to the tune of 

approximately $1 billion. USDA maintains a definition for local as it pertains to a couple of 

its loan and grant programs, linking the term to anything grown within 400 miles, or within 

the same state of where it is sold. However, unlike the rules surrounding USDA's organic 

program, there is no labeling standard for locally produced foods or enforcement effort. 

Thus, what is USDA doing to educate people as to what local means? Are there any 

thoughts about incorporating the parameters of "local" into USDA's outreach efforts in 

anyway, or does it remain something to be "watched"? A natural by-product of a $1 billion 

investment is that the integrity of the outreach efforts, program(s), etc., and the terms 

used, like "local," become elevated and valued. 400 miles stretches between Washington, 

D.C. and Columbus, Ohio, and while vegetables grown in Ohio may be great, it would truly 

be a stretch to consider them "local" to D.C. So, will USDA make any effort to instill a "truth 

in advertising" philosophy in its outreach so that consumers can understand the origins of 

their food? 

5. A bipartisan letter on the proposed rule, "National Organic Program; Organic livestock and 

Poultry Practices," was sent to USDA on July 26, 2016. We have not yet received a replydo you have a timeline of when we should expect one? One of the many concerns raised in 

that letter relates to the direct conflict between the proposed rule and APHIS and FDA 

guidance and regulations on animal health and food safety. As USDA works to finalize the 

rule, what are you doing to thoroughly ensure that the regulation will not put farmers in a 

position where the government is telling them to do two or three contradictory things? 

6. As USDA undertakes the pilot program that was announced on September 15, 2016, for 

online and mobile usage of SNAP benefits, we are interested in how you will ensure the 

safety of the benefit. Under the statute, the Congress has directed the Secretary to use 

"measures to maximize the security of a system using the most recent technology available 

that the State agency considers appropriate and cost effective and which may include 

personal identification numbers, photographic identification on electronic benefit transfer 

cards, and other measures to protect against fraud and abuse." We understand that there 

are some of those "recent technologies" that are currently in use by online retailers that 

provide greater security than even PIN technologies. Did USDA undertake any type of 

review of recent technologies before requesting a PIN requirement in authentication of 

SNAP benefits? And would you be willing to include any newer technologies under the 

pilot? 

7. In an effort to contribute to deficit reduction, the conservation title (Title II) of the 2014 

Farm Bill contributed $6 billion in savings across its programs. CRP alone contributed over 

$3 billion in savings through limiting the total amount of acres allowed to be enrolled in the 

program to 24 million acres by 2018. In my view, I think it would be an accurate 

characterization that many commodity, conservation, and wildlife stakeholders are now 

regrettably feeling the unintended consequences of this policy decision. Given a variety of 

unforeseen circumstances today, how do you foresee the administration of CRP and do 

statutory acreage caps of the program unilaterally hinder the efficacy of CRP? 
70 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER


23594.025

8. The 2014 Farm Bill significantly overhauled USDA's suite of conservation programs available 

to producers. Congress directed that Title II programs be consolidated and streamlinedreducing 23 conservation programs to 13- all with the intention to maintain core program 

purposes, leverage Federal resources during a limited budgetary environment, and improve 

program delivery. As a result of this consolidation effort, Congress created a new program 

with the primary goal of utilizing partnerships to deliver conservation practices on a 

regional or watershed scale through the Regional Conservation Partnership Program. While 

many remain optimistic about the promise of RCPP, we continue to hear a variety of 

frustrations with regard to the delivery and administration of this program. Should the 

model of RCPP be the future of conservation programs moving forward, what challenges 

has NRCS encountered while implementing this new program? In an effort to improve the 

administration of the program, what changes should Congress consider for RCPP in the 

context of the next Farm bill? 

9. Credit conditions for our nation's producers are dire. Low commodity prices, steady input 

prices, and declining land values are hindering opportunities for farmers to secure 

affordable financing. Earlier this month, FSA reprogrammed $185 million to fund about 30 

percent of the current shortfall in both direct and guaranteed operating loans. How much 

more additional funding could USDA reprogram to help out struggling farmers looking for 

loans? 

10. In April, USDA made a decision to change the definition of minimum broadband service 

when determining area eligibility for USDA's Broadband Loan Program. Despite this 

increase, USDA's baseline falls below what the Federal Communication Commission defines 

as broadband, or "high speed internet." What factors does USDA take into consideration 

when determining the appropriate balance between ensuring all Americans, regardless of 

where they live, have access to high speed internet while also making sure we are being 

good stewards of taxpayer dollars? Does USDA have plans to change the current definition 

of minimum broadband service as it pertains to the Community Connect Grant Program? 

11. In the Administration's 2017 budget proposal, RUS indicated plans to pursue 

recommendations produced by the Broadband Opportunity Council to expand eligibility of 

the Telecommunications Infrastructure Loan Program, traditionally only available in areas 

with populations of 5,000 or less, to applicants who qualify for the Broadband Loan 

Program. First, are the current eligibility requirements attached to Telecommunications 

Infrastructure Loan Program causing it to be undersubscribed? Second, what is the status of 

this proposed rule and what authority does USDA have to make these changes? 

12. Section 6209 of the 2014 Farm Bill requires the Secretary to "collect data regarding 

economic activities created through grants and loans .... , and measure the short and longterm viability of award recipients and any entities to who those recipients provide 

assistance using award funds." It is imperative we have quantitative data to determine 

whether programs we authorize under this Committee are providing tangible, long-term 

results in a fiscally responsible manner. What is the status of this analysis? 
71 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER


23594.026

13. In the 2014 Farm Bill, Congress mandated the Department of Agriculture to generate a plan 

for, and implement, a reorganization incorporating a new Under Secretary for Trade and 

Foreign Agricultural Affairs. The first step that the law required was for the department to 

report a reorganization plan to Congress within 180 days. In June of this year I received a 

response to a letter I sent in February anticipating that USDA would finalize a report this 

year. When can Congress expect to receive this congressionally mandated farm bill report? 

Will you provide a singular clear and forward thinking recommendation that will provide the 

next administration with a strong blueprint for this critical reorganization? 

14. During grain harvest in August 2014, a breakdown of inspection activities at the Port of 

Vancouver export elevators threatened our customers' confidence in the reliability of the 

U.S. as a grain supplier. In 2015, the Port of Long Beach suffered disruptions resulting in the 

delay of shipment of perishable commodities including meat and fresh produce. Buyers 

sought other suppliers and shippers experienced a slow recovery. What timely actions did 

the Department take to ensure that existing trade relationships and export markets were 

protected? How has the Administration through USDA prioritized our existing trade 

throughout the entire agricultural value chain? And, how have you worked to ensure that 

these types of breakdowns do not disrupt our valuable agriculture and food value chains in 

the future? 

15. In Kansas and across the Midwest, there was a bountiful wheat harvest and there are 

expectations for potentially record-setting corn and soybean crops. In Kansas, the continued 

downward trend in wheat prices has triggered loan deficiency payments (LOPs) for hard red 

winter wheat for the first time in over a decade. What is the breakdown of LOPs for hard 

red winter wheat and other commodities that have triggered in the 2016 crop year to date? 

Please include number of LOPs, the quantity, and dollar amounts nationwide as well as by 

state. 

16. The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016 authorized the Commodity Credit Corporation 

(CCC) to issue commodity certificates to agricultural producers that can be exchanged for 

marketing assistance loan (MAL) collateral beginning with the 2015 crop year. Please 

provide a breakdown by commodity and states of all commodity certificates that have been 

issued for the 2015 and 2016 Crop Years to date. 

17. Secretary Vii sack, I know you appreciate the importance of predictability and sound science 

in the regulation of crop protection tools used on the farm. long term investments in 

technology and delivery systems are more important than ever if U.S. famers-and the 

companies who develop and supply those technologies-are going to provide the food and 

fiber for millions more people while being mindful of the environment. Farmers are 

increasingly troubled by the growing number of regulatory actions being based on 

theoretical models and other assumptions, even when real world or scientifically superior 

data is available. Farmers are faced with the reality of losing access to, or seeing major 

restrictions on, the use of several important products used to fight pests and disease. 

Thank you for the work that USDA, particularly the Office of Pest Management Policy and 

the Office of the Chief Economist, does to support sound science and reinforce the need for 

a predictable, fair regulatory process. What is your view of how well EPA is doing at 
72 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER


23594.027

ensuring that the federal review and registration of pesticides is scientifically sound, and 

procedurally fair and predictable? 

18. EPA recently released a paper indicating scientific research on glyphosate supports a finding 

of "not likely to be carcinogenic to humans' at doses relevant to human health risk 

assessment." The paper and related information will be under review by the EPA Scientific 

Advisory Panel (SAP) review next month. As you are aware, this EPA finding raises questions 

about the findings of the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on 

Cancer (IARC) which was issued in March 2015, classifying the herbicide as a "probable 

carcinogen." The EPA review of glyphosate began in 2009, and despite the EPA's Cancer 

Assessment Review Committee (CAR C) paper leaked in April 2016 stating that glyphosate is 

not likely a carcinogen, there seems to be no end in sight for this process. Unfortunately, 

this arduous progression has been a constant and never-ending headache for our nations' 

farmers who need certainty as they rely on such herbicides to produce the world's safest 

and most abundant food supply. Thus, what is USDA doing to ensure that the EPA is not 

overreaching, or unnecessarily influencing, important rulings on chemicals that are vital to 

our nation's farmers? 

19. Secretary Vilsack, on September 2, 2011 the Department of Labor proposed rules on child 

labor in agriculture that would directly impact farm families and businesses in rural 

America. While I am pleased that the proposed rule was final withdrawn in April 2012, I am 

interested in the role played by USDA in its initial development. How did your Department 

ensure that the Labor Department considered farmers' and ranchers' needs on their family 

operations, specifically with regard to the definition of "parental exemption" and to 

expanded prohibitions in the rule such as the proposal broadly forbidding the operation of 

power-driven equipment? We have seen other problematic regulations proposed by OSHA 

that demonstrate limited understanding of the real world and production agriculture. What 

role have you and others at USDA played in engaging with your colleagues from the 

Department of Labor and other federal agencies that have engaged in rulemaking activities 

that make the operating climate more challenging in rural America? 

20. Stakeholder groups have expressed the need for the Department to update their economic 

analysis of the GIPSA rule, given the drop in farm income in the last year and the significant 

events that have taken place in the livestock and poultry sectors. That's coupled with 

industry feeling that the 2010 proposal was grossly inadequate, after a third party study 

found the rule to have costs that were well over a billion dollars, or more than ten times 

greater than the USDA estimate. Has the Department conducted an updated economic 

analysis of the GIPSA rule's costs and benefits to the stakeholder community? 
73 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER


23594.028

Senator Debbie Stabenow 

NUTRITION 

1. SNAP FIN I: There have been numerous studies that suggest that families participating in 

SNAP struggle to cover the cost of healthy foods- particularly fruits and vegetables. Many 

families find themselves choosing less nutritious options because these options allow them 

to stretch their SNAP dollars further. On average, low-income families report that to 

adequately meet their food needs, they would need to spend an additional $4-$9 per 

person each week. That is one reason why we created the Food Insecurity Nutrition 

Incentive Program in the Farm Bill. In my home state of Michigan, this program is helping 

SNAP participants double their purchasing power for healthy fruits and vegetables through 

the "Double Up Food Bucks" initiative. What more can we do to make sure the SNAP 

participants everywhere are able to adequately purchase healthy foods- particularly fruits 

and vegetables? 

2. Please provide an update on the implementation of the Food Insecurity Nutrition Incentives 

Program. How many projects provide interoperability between retail locations? How many 

projects that include a grocery component also have a focus on local food? Initial awards for 

single year projects have now been completed and multiyear projects have entered their 

second year. Can you identify any consistencies between projects that have been 

successful? 

3. Over the last several years, consumer purchasing behaviors have evolved. Farmers' markets 

and other direct-to-consumer farm sales, grocery delivery, mobile markets and other access 

points are becoming have become an increasingly prominent part of the food retail picture. 

Accordingly, more participants in SNAP and other federal nutrition programs are using 

accessing or requesting access to their benefits through these venues. Unfortunately, SNAP 

technology seems to lag behind significantly in adapting to these changes. What steps is 

USDA taking to address evolving consumer purchasing habits? Market managers continue 

to express frustration with both the hardware and software available that allows integration 

of SNAP, WIC and incentive programs at point of sale. What is USDA doing to ensure that 

available EBT technology- both hardware and software- is keeping pace and allowing 

federal nutrition benefits to be redeemed in a way that is effective for nutrition program 

participants, farmers, and farmers' market managers? What barriers to further 

technological innovation in SNAP has USDA identified? Are statutory or regulatory changes 

required to address these barriers? 

4. In the 2014 Farm Bill, Congress gave the Secretary the authority to exempt farmers' markets 

and direct-marketing farmers from the requirement that SNAP-authorized retailers cover 

the costs of EBT equipment and services. While several states require their EBT contractors 

to provide farmers and farmers' markets with wireless equipment and services at no cost, 

many states do not. Has USDA taken any action to encourage states to adopt wireless, no 

cost EBT equipment and services for farmers and farmers' markets? 
74 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER


23594.029

5. Access to nutrition is critical to the health and development of children. School meals have 

played a critical role in providing nutrition to school aged children, but we know that nearly 

17% of households with children under 6 lack consistent access to healthy foods. We also 

know that WIC participation declines precipitously after age 1. What actions has USDA 

taken to improve WIC participation rates among eligible toddlers? What states have been 

most effective in reaching eligible children over age 1? Are there best practices that these 

states employ that could be replicated at a national level? 

6. Direct certification is a critical mechanism for ensuring accurate enrollment of eligible 

children in school meals programs. Please provide an update on USDA's efforts to expand 

Medicaid direct certification in school meals. 

7. The 2014 Farm bill directed USDA to establish a Healthy Food Financing Initiative. When 

does USDA plan to appoint a fund manager for HFFI? 

CONSERVATION 

8. RCPP: The Regional Conservation Partnership Program was created in the 2014 Farm Bill to 

leverage public funding with private sector investments to drive more locally-led ag 

conservation efforts- like cleaning up algae blooms in lake Erie. Now that USDA has 

several years of projects on the ground, what is your current assessment of this program 

and how can we increase efforts from the private sector, specifically food companies, to 

better collaborate and partner with farmers and NGOs to achieve meaningful conservation 

results? 

9. RCPP: How does NRCS work with partners to ensure that good projects are being developed 

and selected from ail ofthe Critical Conservation Areas, particularly in those CCAs with the 

biggest water quality challenges? In particular, what feedback does NRCS provide between 

the pre-application period and the final application deadline to make sure good ideas are 

fully developed so that they can be funded? 

10. How does USDA measure the effectiveness of conservation programs in addressing natural 

resource concerns like water quality, water quantity, wildlife habitat, carbon sequestration, 

and soil erosion? According to these metrics, have the voluntary conservation programs 

been successful in helping farmers address these concerns? Are there other metrics that 

USDA can use to help taxpayers understand the benefits of federal investment in voluntary 

conservation? 

11. Has NRCS studied the barriers to farmer participation in conservation programs? If so, what 

are the biggest barriers to higher participation rates and what can be done to increase 

participation? 

12. The Conservation Reserve Program was originally created to help take marginal land out of 

production. How effective has CRP been at permanently keeping these marginal lands out 

of ag production over time (i.e. how well has CRP been used to target the most 

environmentally vulnerable acres)? How many acres of CRP are marginal land vs. entire 
75 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER


23594.030

farm tracts that may include a mix of marginal and prime farmland? How many acres of 

farmland that were once enrolled in CRP are no longer enrolled in the program? What 

impact would adding more acreage to CRP have on commodity prices? 

13. Can you provide an update on implementation of the new conservation compliance 

requirements from the 2014 farm bill and share the most recent data on how many 

producers are subject to compliance for the first time and how many of those producers 

have been found to have HEL or wetland violations, broken down by state? 

14. When do you plan to release the Agriculture Conservation Easement Program final rule? 

How will this final rule address many of the concerns raised by land trusts and other 

conservation groups to make sure easements continue to be viable and useful options for 

producers? 

15. What is the current ratio of funding between ALE and WRE and what is the current backlog 

for each program? 

16. Section 11014 of the 2014 Farm Bill governs the administration of crop production on native 

sod, also referred to as "sodsaver." To date, how many native sod acres have been subject 

to the sodsaver subsidy penalty pursuant to Sec. 11014 after being broken out for crop 

agriculture production? 

17. Please provide data from the year 2008-2016 that lists total acreage, by state, that has been 

broken for the first time for agriculture purposes. 

18. Do RMA's current cover crop rules ensure that cover crops are treated the same as other 

agronomic practices when determining insurance coverage eligibility? Are you aware of any 

barriers to farmers who participate in crop insurance to using cover crops and if so, how can 

RMA help address those barriers? 

19. Do RMA's current cover crop rules ensure that cover crops are treated the same as other 

agronomic practices when determining insurance coverage eligibility? Are AlPs 

implementing the cover crop rules uniformly and if not, what is RMA doing to ensure that 

the rules are applied consistently across companies so that all farmers who wish to use 

cover crops are treated fairly? Are you aware of any barriers to farmers who participate in 

crop insurance to using cover crops and if so, how can RMA help address those barriers? 

20. The reprogrammed funding to help address the backlog in farm loans earlier this month has 

benefited many farmers and is much appreciated, however it is my understanding that FSA 

is still going into FY2017 with a backlog of more than $200 million in operating loans. This 

seems to be a perennial problem, and we know that the demand for credit is only going to 

go up in the next few years. What steps are you taking to ensure that FSA can meet the 

demand for farm loans in FY2017, and what resources are needed to meet this demand? 
76 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER


23594.031

Does this shortfall in funding have a disproportionate impact on new and beginning 

farmers? 

COMMODITIES/CROP INSURANCE 

21. The 2014 Farm Bill made significant progress in leveling the playing field for fruit and 

vegetable producers by expanding crop insurance options for underserved specialty crop 

producers. RMA recently finalized the Crop Insurance Private Submission Rule, and I am 

concerned that this rule may discourage the development of new crop insurance policies for 

specialty crop producers by requiring additional participation from private crop insurance 

companies. Do you anticipate this rule will discourage underserved producers from 

submitting policies or increase the cost of developing new policies for fruit and vegetable 

and other underserved producers? What actions will RMA take to ensure that underserved 

producers continue to have access to new crop insurance options? 

22. The 2014 Farm Bill expanded and improved upon the Whole Farm Revenue Protection 

(WFRP) crop insurance policy. Please provide a breakdown by year of where policies were 

sold since the implementation of the program. Where have the policies been the most 

successful? What feedback has the Department received from producers who purchased 

these policies, and do you have any suggestions of how this policy could be improved to 

increase uptake? Is further outreach and education for producers needed? 

23. More commodity programs and crop insurance policies are becoming dependent on 

accurate and reliable yield and price data. Does the Department prioritize the collection of 

data that is utilized in commodity programs (such as ARC) or crop insurance policies? What 

are some of the challenges the Department faces in collecting accurate yield and pricing 

data, both through NASS and AMS Market News? 

24. Specifically on NASS data collection, what steps does the Department take to ensure that 

lists of producers surveyed are fully up to date? How has NASS worked to improve survey 

response rates and outreach to producers? Does NASS partner with any producer 

organizations to help improve outreach and response rate? 

25. Please provide a comprehensive breakdown in the change in peanut acreage planted since 

the enactment of the 2014 Farm Bill, including how many generic base acres were planted 

to peanuts compared to other covered commodities, and compared to historic planted 

acreage broken down by state. Please include any new peanut acreage that was not 

previously planted to peanuts. 

26. Since the implementation of the Dairy Margin Protection Program (MPP), the deadline for 

producers to sign up has been extended multiple times. Has extending the deadline for 

enrollment contributed to any increase in the program enrollment? 
77 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER


23594.032

27. MPP represented a major shift in dairy policy, and the Department has made several 

changes to the program since its implementation. You also mentioned during the hearing 

last week, that four times as many payments would have gone out to producers under MPP 

this year if producers had purchased the same level of coverage as last year. What efforts 

has USDA undertaken to ensure that producers fully understand how the program works, 

and to educate producers about any program changes? Are there any additional changes to 

MPP that the Department is currently considering? 

28. One of the big successes from the last Farm Bill not strictly related to food or farming was 

the mandatory funding this Committee provided for USDA renewable energy programs. 

We'd like to build on that success in the next Farm Bill and one of the concerns I hear is that 

some programs need more funding while others may need to be retooled a bit. What 

programs are oversubscribed and could use more resources? Finally, can USDA please 

provide the committee with a comprehensive breakdown of all agency expenditures under 

all Energy title programs since over the last 8 years, including program expenses, resources 

spent on salaries, and other expenditures? Have any funds been transferred or 

reprogrammed from one energy title program to another program in the title, or elsewhere 

in USDA, over that time? 

BIOBASED 

29. Thank you for your leadership on promoting a biobased economy. Now that it has been two 

and a half years since the Farm Bill bill passed, can you provide an update on these 

changes? Are there areas that can be improved in the BioPreferred program? Can any 

further work be done to build on the President's executive order on biobased procurement? 

FORESTRY 

30. Earlier this month, this Committee marked up forestry legislation and one of the main 

themes discussed was the Forest Service's budget. You've told this Committee in the past 

how vital it is that we address that issue and you highlighted that last year, for the first time 

ever, the Forest Service spent over half its budget on wildfire -leaving fewer resources for 

trail maintenance and timber sales, among other things. Can you give us an update on the 

repercussions offire borrowing and the steady erosion of the Forest Service budget? 

31. In the 2014 Farm Bill, this Committee provided the Forest Service with three major new 

authorities to help increase the pace and scale of restoration on our National Forests- a 

new categorical exclusion to tackle insect and disease outbreaks, a nationwide expansion of 

the Good Neighbor forestry initiative, and a permanent reauthorization of stewardship 

contracting authority. Can you please provide us with an update on how well these new 

Farm Bill authorities working and how many acres you've been able to restore so far under 

these authorities? 
78 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER


23594.033

CLIMATE CHANGE 

32. On September 12, the Washington Post had a story outlining how wheat- which they 

characterized as "the most significant single crop in terms of human consumption"- is 

being threatened by climate change. What are some of the risks that farmers and ranchers 

face under a warming climate? How are USDA's Building Blocks for Climate Smart 

Agriculture helping producers be a part of the solution? 

RURAL DEVELOPMENT 

33. USDA recently made changes to the Community Facilities direct loan program, how is USDA 

allocating resources to ensure current projects in the pipeline are receiving funds? What is 

USDA doing to ensure the changes in the program won't make the loan program more 

expensive for the community that applied for a loan? How much of the FY2017 funds does 

USDA expect to put into the new relending program? What is the purpose of the changes to 

the direct loan program? 

34. Has USDA seen an increase in rural water project requests as result of aging infrastructure 

and concerns about lead pipes? If so, how many new projects has USDA received and what 

are the costs associated with these upgrades if all project requests were funded? Rural 

communities have expressed interest in creating new regional rural water systems. What 

has USDA done to support development of regional systems and what are the existing 

challenges to financing regional rural water projects? 

35. How has the Rural Opportunity Investment Fund changed USDA's delivery of rural loan 

programs? What are the potential risks involved with the new program changes? How is 

USDA going to leverage funds through the Rural Opportunity Investment Fund to expand 

rural investment? 

36. What additional challenges remain to full broadband coverage across the U.S.? 

FOOD SAFETY 

37. Many farmers continue to raise concerns about the number of third party audits required 

by companies in their supply chain. What is USDA doing to ensure existing food safety 

marketing tools, Good Agriculture Practices (GAP) and Good Handling Practices (GHP), are 

complementary to FDA's new Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) regulations and do not 

creating duplication? What kind of training, technical assistance, and outreach is USDA 

doing to help small, socially disadvantaged, and beginning farmers comply with new food 

safety standard? 

URBANAG 

38. Over the past several years we have seen significant interest in urban agriculture in cities 

and towns across the country, providing new economic opportunities and greater access to 

food and nutrition education. Urban agriculture strengthens communities by encouraging 
79 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER


23594.034

more people to start farming, providing basic job training skills, improving neighborhoods 

and contributing to overall environmental benefits. As agriculture production continues to 

evolve and change, what is the Department doing to support these new urban farmers and 

encourage innovation in production? 

LOCAL FOOD 

39. USDA administers a number of competitive grant programs that can support projects to 

improve access to healthy foods. Though some of these programs prioritize projects in 

areas of concentrated poverty with limited access to supermarkets, communities with the 

greatest need often lack the capacity and experience to put forward successful applications. 

What tools are available through USDA to support applicants in these communities so that 

they are able to submit competitive project proposals and gain access these resources? Is 

technical assistance ever provided to an unsuccessful applicant to improve the quality of 

future applications? 

FOOD AID 

40. Chairman Roberts and I authored an amendment to the African Growth and Opportunity 

Act (AGOA) that expands USDA's role in trade capacity building, specifically highlighting the 

role of women smallholder farmers. Since the adoption of this amendment, authority under 

AGOA has been delegated to the Administrator of USAID, in collaboration with the 

Secretary of Agriculture. Can you discuss the collaboration between USDA and USAID, the 

progress you have made in implementation, and the specific role that USDA is playing under 

this expanded authority? 

41. The permanent authorization of the Local and Regional Procurement Program was one of 

several food aid policy reforms in the 2014 Farm Bill that was intended to allow USDA to 

deliver assistance more quickly and economically. USDA released a final rule for the LRP 

Program in July. Can you comment on the progress and results of the LRP program thus far 

and tell us what long-term goals you have for the program? 

Senator John Boozman 

1. Recently, the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee reported out H.R. 2647, 

the Resilient Federal Forests Act, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. This bill 

included several important provisions designed to promote active forest management. We 

all understand that the wildfire debate encompasses finding a wildfire budgeting solution, 

but equally as important in this broader debate is providing the necessary tools to land 

managers to promote active forest management. Over the August recess, I spent time 

visiting with some of the many Arkansans that work in the forestry and forest products 

industry and these are people that want to ensure that we continue to have healthy forests 

in Arkansas and around the country. Simply put, what forest management reforms can the 

Administration support? 
80 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER


23594.035

2. It is my understanding that several timber sales from the Ouachita National Forest have 

gone "no bid," at least initially, during Fiscal Year 2016. Can you explain what factors you 

see as contributing to this? Traditionally, Arkansas has had very competitive wood markets, 

and we have quite a number of wood consuming facilities near the Ouachita. Are there 

issues with sale design or product type that have come to your attention? 

3. My understanding is that the USDA's Risk Management Agency recently changed their 

replant policy regarding crop insurance. Traditionally, it has been up to the adjustor to make 

a judgment call and decide whether it makes sense to require a damaged or lost crop to be 

replanted. Under the RMA's proposed rule, a cookie cutter date will be applied across all 

crops in a particular region. This could force farmers to spend time and money replanting a 

crop that they know will not be successful. This policy doesn't make sense for many of our 

diverse Southern crops. I'd appreciate it if the Department and RMA would work with 

Southern producer groups and my staff to avoid the circumstances I've just laid out. 

Senator Thorn Tillis 

1. I am worried about the new animal welfare standards for the National Organic Program 

that, if enacted, would be the first time such prohibitions will be put into regulation under 

the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) and would present serious challenges to livestock 

producers. USDA's silence to our letter dated July 26, 2016, which was signed by the 

Chairman, Ranking Member, and 11 other Senators, makes me concerned that 

stakeholders-who could provide the department with expertise-are also being shut out. 

Can you please provide the department's responses immediately? If not, please provide the 

date this committee will be receiving the department's responses. 

I know industry stakeholders have informed your department of the number of problems 

with the proposed new standards. From what I understand, this proposed rule is rapidly 

being pushed through to become final by the end of the Administration. This rule will have 

a devastating impact on a large number of producers and suppliers and I am concerned that 

the true impact is not being properly considered. 

Both the House and Senate Agriculture Committee asked for a 90 day extension of the 

comment period, and the Department provided 30 days. This rule was reviewed by OMB in 

record setting time- 30 days. OMB has up to 90 days, and usually takes much longer. From 

what I understand, stakeholders scheduled a meeting with OMB, and they reported the rule 

out before even meeting with them. 

What is USDA doing to ensure stakeholder concerns are being adequately addressed in the 

final rule? 

2. I am very pleased to know that work is already underway at USDA on GMO disclosure 

regulations. Your desire to make as much progress as possible and lay a good foundation for 

the next Administration is very much appreciated. As you may be aware, the food and 

beverage sector is faced with multiple new regulations from the Federal government that 

impact what goes on food and beverage labels. 
81 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER


23594.036

For example, FDA issued their final rulemaking updating the Nutrition Facts Panel in May. 

Industry will also have to comply with a new FDA regulation on front-of-pack label calorie 

disclosures for products sold in vending machines. The Department also recently sent its 

regulation updating the Nutrition Facts Panel for meat and poultry products to OMS, 

suggesting we could see a proposed rule soon. 

These goals are not happening on the same timeline and that creates a potential problem 

for industry and potential confusion for consumers. Food and beverage companies would 

like to make these labeling changes once instead of multiple different times, which will be 

quite costly. 

I realize that some of these regulations are not within your Department, but I would hope 

that USDA would coordinate with other Federal agencies and help lead the effort within the 

Administration to ensure that the transition to these new food labels, whether it's 

nutritional information or GMOs, is as seamless as possible for consumers and done in a 

cost effective way for the industry. 

As your rulemaking process moves forward, please comment on what is being done within 

the Federal government to make sure that USDA and FDA are coordinating with one 

another to help harmonize these regulatory changes? 

Senator Ben Sasse 

1. I have had numerous Nebraska farmers and ranchers contact me regarding an invasion of 

the Eastern Redcedar. Some conservation experts have described this invasion as one of the 

greatest threats to Nebraska's natural resources. 

Since 2005, the Nebraska Forest Service has documented the transition of over 300,000 

acres of grassland to Redcedar forest. This growth taxes our water resources, threatens 

grassland-dependent nesting birds, and reduces grazing capacity for livestock. According to 

researchers at the University of Nebraska, a 75% reduction in livestock potential will occur 

throughout the Great Plains once grassland is fully converted to juniper woodland. 

While I greatly appreciate the work of USDA and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service in assisting 

with the control of Redcedar, I am wondering whether USDA has discussed plans to use 

EQIP funding for cedar eradication, or discussed alternatives for landowners who are 

battling this invasion? 

2. As you are probably aware, many Nebraska beef and pork producers are greatly concerned 

with the proposed Grain Inspection, Packers & Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) marketing 

rule. 

Has USDA conducted a cost-benefit analysis on how the proposed GIPSA rule would affect 

our GDP, retail prices, livestock producers' current contracts, and consumer demand in this 

economic climate? What data will USDA evaluate when making drafting the proposed rule? 

Can you expand on the USDA rulemaking process for drafting this regulation, whether you 

will allow input from stakeholders, and when you expect the proposed rule to be available 

for public comment? 
82 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER


23594.037

3. Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) is one of livestock's most devastating diseases. It would 

have a profound economic impact on the pork, beef, dairy and sheep industries as well as 

the national economy. Are you prepared to handle an outbreak of FMD? Could you describe 

the actions your agency has taken to prevent any potential outbreak? What is your plan to 

address any shortcomings? 

4. Recently, USDA announced the purchase of $11.4 million worth of shell eggs and egg 

products for federal feeding programs. In the United States, egg white dehydrating 

companies are experiencing historically low prices. In 2015, USDA approved the 

Netherlands as an exporter of egg white powder to the United States. This was at a time 

when the United States was facing Avian Flu which substantially affected supplies. Through 

May 2016, the Netherlands exported 3.5 million pounds of dehydrated egg whites into the 

United States. 

How did the USDA make the decision to allow egg white power to be imported? What 

factors did USDA consider when allowing for imports of this product? Does USDA anticipate 

continuing granting export license to the Netherlands for egg whites? 

5. According to the USDA, farm income has declined more than 40% since 2013 and farm jobs 

have decreased by 15% from 2001 to 2013. Most farmers are experiencing serious losses in 

all the major commodities. Corn is below $3.00, cattle futures look dim, yet you penned an 

op-ed titled "Rural America Has Already Begun to Rebound." I can assure you that farmers 

and ranchers in Nebraska are not sharing your economic view of "rebound." There has been 

a 106% increase in the number of farmer distress calls into the farm aid hotline with most 

concerns due what is happening in the farm economy. Could you reconcile your views that 

you expressed in the op-ed and the numbers that your agency has reported? 

6. As you know Congress passed a bill requiring USDA to establish a national mandatory 

bioengineering food disclosure standard for any bioengineered food and any food that may 

be bioengineered. I believe that creating this mandate is inconsistent with science, including 

the science from your own agency. 

Can you provide members of this Committee an understanding why AMS in the Request for 

Information is proposing a study on a "consumer perception study evaluating the likelihood 

of accessing electronic or digital disclosures"? 

7. Many Nebraska farmers have expressed concern with the EPA's proposed limits on atrazine 

use. Concerns have also been raised on the data and science EPA used in making their 

determination. Atrazine has been proven safe by thousands of scientific studies, even by an 

EPA scientific advisory panel. 

Can you share with the Committee how USDA is coordinating with EPA on this proposed 

rule, what data points, and scientific studies USDA is sharing with EPA to assure that 

atrazine is a safe and important product for the production of corn and other commodities? 

8. A trade enforcement action has been launched against the People's Republic of China at the 

World Trade Organization concerning the excessive government support provides for 

Chinese production of rice, wheat, and corn. China also has been slow in biotech approvals 
83 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER


23594.038

even with the establishment of the Strategic Agriculture Innovation Dialogue. I understand 

we are living, producing and competing in a global world. How do we navigate through this 

competition and respect our trading partners while also not putting American producers at 

a competitive disadvantage? What assurances can you provide the committee that USDA 

and USTR are committed to enforcement of trade agreements? 

9. The USDA has determined that Brazil's food safety system met the United States Food 

Safety and Inspection standards. There is a very delicate balance between supporting the 

science and standards, accessing additional markets around the world and protecting 

against foreign animal disease. What assurance can you give beef producers in Nebraska 

that products coming from Brazil are not coming from the zones not cleared of bovine 

spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and foot and mouth disease (FMD). In addition, can you 

assure Nebraskans that Brazil beef be held to the same testing standards on antibiotics that 

U.S. cattle producers are required to meet? 

Senator John Thune 

1. Mr. Secretary, over the past several years and two farm bills I have written you, visited with 

you, and questioned you in hearings such as this about many issues, including CRP- the 

Conservation Reserve Program -a program critical to South Dakota, and which I still 

consider the cornerstone of all USDA-administered conservation programs. 

Most of my concerns about CRP have been regarding what the farmers in my state tell me is 

the lack of common sense CRP guidance and policy coming out of Washington. 

Mr. Secretary, one of the biggest problems with CRP lies with the mid-contract 

management policies that for years required the CRP participants in South Dakota to 

dispose of vegetative cover by burning and other means, but would not allow that 

vegetative residue to be donated to livestock operators needing hay due to drought. You 

finally agreed to allow this, and I'd like to get your commitment today that this policy of 

donating vegetative cover from any CRP practice removed under mid-contract management 

can be donated to livestock producers who need it will continue into future years as a part 

of FSA policy? 

2. In 2012, most of the United States suffered from severe drought. After visiting personally 

with the leadership of National Wildlife Federation, Ducks Unlimited and Pheasants Forever, 

I asked you to allow emergency haying and grazing on several CRP practices that FSA 

determined were environmentally sensitive and on which FSA had previously prohibited 

emergency haying and grazing- which you later allowed. A NEPA analysis was done in 2012 

specifically to address the haying and grazing on these CRP practices that FSA had 

prohibited, and I quote from a 2014 Environmental Impact Statement, 

"A recent NEPA analysis for a one-time approval for emergency haying and grazing on these 

additional practices during 2012 found that as long as the haying or grazing was 

conducted in accordance with the modified Conservation Plan and under the guidance 
84 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER


23594.039

and approval of the STC and NRCS Conservationist, among other stipulations, there 

would be no lasting significant impacts to wetlands." 

Yet, Mr. Secretary in 2016 when several of the same counties in South Dakota and other 

states were approved for emergency haying and grazing- once again FSA Headquarters 

would not allow haying or grazing on these environmentally sensitive continuous CRP 

contracts that an earlier NEPA analysis provided that haying and grazing would not be 

harmful. 

Mr. Secretary how can USDA justify this policy when haying and grazing these continuous 

CRP acres has already been a proven success- and when the vegetation harvested from 

these acres could help drought stricken ranchers? 

3. Mr. Secretary, I appreciate the State Acres for Wildlife Enhancement (SAFE) acres that have 

been targeted for South Dakota in the past, but I would like to call your attention to the fact 

that in the last CRP general sign up, South Dakota landowners applied to enroll more than 

40,000 acres, yet only two contracts totaling 101 acres were accepted. Three states, 

Colorado, Kansas, and Washington were able to enroll more than 208,000 acres more 

than half of the total accepted. 

On September 30, 2016, more than 58,000 acres will expire from CRP enrollment. Because 

South Dakota depends so heavily on CRP and currently has a backlog of more than 20,000 

acres requested for East and West River SAFE and Duck Nesting Habitat CRP acres- can you 

tell me if there will be additional acres allocated to South Dakota for any of these practices 

in the near future? 

4. Mr. Secretary, a common sense approach to CRP mid-contract management for all CRP 

practices would be to allow the residue removed to be utilized by the landowner or third 

party and a payment reduction of 25 percent applied to the CRP rental payment (as it is for 

emergency haying and grazing). This would save taxpayers millions of dollars each yearyet FSA Headquarters refuses to adopt this simple practice as policy. Can you tell me why? 

5. Implementation of the Agricultural Risk Coverage (ARC) Program: 

Mr. Secretary, I first want to acknowledge the challenges presented by the numerous 

reforms in the 2014 Farm Bill and appreciate all the work to implement the changes in as 

timely fashion as possible. 

As I see it, the new Agriculture Risk Coverage program is delivering much needed assistance 

to growers impacted by steep declines in their crop revenues. Over $4.1 billion for the 

2014 crop was delivered to row crop producers last fall to be followed by an estimated $6 

billion for the 2015 crop year. No doubt this is a considerable sum. Yet, when you consider 

three consecutive years of substantial declines in farm income, the payments from ARC, 

price loss coverage and other programs will account for only estimated 3% of the projected 

gross cash farm income in 2016. For the growers who have benefited from this assistance, 

the support relieves some of the financial stress. 

In fact, I have been advised that farmers in my state received around $225 million last fall 

for the 2015 crop year. Despite this good news, I have heard from growers who have 

questioned the quality of yield data from NASS surveys to determine the ARC revenue 

guarantees. The issue, though, that I want to raise here is the handling of situations by FSA 
85 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER


23594.040

to determine a county yield when NASS does not publish a yield. Given the broad authority 

granted, can you tell us why the Agency has refused to establish a more flexible approach 

such as calculating an average of surrounding county yields rather than automatically 

defaulting to crop insurance yields? Clearly there is a problem when you mix these 

different data sources. 

Senator Sherrod Brown 

1. Thank you for mentioning the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative and the Western Lake Erie 

Basin- USDA and NRCS programs are playing an important role in preventing harmful algal 

blooms there and elsewhere. What variables are the biggest factor in farmers joining 

voluntary conservation efforts? What can this committee do to increase involvement in 

these programs? 

2. According to some researchers in Ohio, a small percentage of the acreage in the Western 

Lake Erie Basin contributes to nearly 40% of the soil loss. What can we do to best target 

conservation dollars and other best practices to these farms? 

3. We have seen a growing demand for local foods for many years now. As this committee 

moves into consideration of the next Farm Bill, can you reflect on what opportunities there 

are for increased USDA programming on urban farming? 

4. Thank you for your advocacy for the child nutrition reauthorization. You mentioned the role 

of Summer EBT pilot programs. Can you expand on why non-congregate feeding optionslike Summer EBT -are so important in rural areas? 

5. Many are concerned that the threat of consolidation in the agribusiness could harm farmers 

in the long-run. How might these proposed mergers negatively affect farmers, particularly 

those operating smaller farms? On balance, do these sorts of mergers have a significant 

impact on the industry's research capabilities? 

6. As USDA's Strikeforce program has matured over the past several years, what can the 

Committee learn from the successes of the program as we continue to work to eliminate 

rural poverty? 

7. In your testimony, you mentioned that the dairy industry shift from a "payment model" to an 

"insurance model" will take time, and that assistance provided by USDA is constrained by its 

budget. As this committee moves into consideration of the next Farm Bill, what changes do 

you recommend for the Margin Protection Program and the Dairy Product Donation 

Program? How can we make these programs more successful? 

8. Food insecurity drives political instability around the world, and food security is increasingly 

viewed as a national security issue. As the executive branch implements the recently-passed 

Global Food Security Act, how will USDA work to facilitate strong coordination and 
86 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER


23594.041

communication with regard to food assistance programs? How do programs like Feed the 

Future work to establish greater resiliency in regional farm economies? 

Senator Amy Klobuchar 

1. The USDA has an important role in supporting the creation and maintenance of rural 

housing. According to the Housing Assistance Council, more than 17 million people in rural 

areas live in rental housing. Many of the affordable rental units are at risk as the loans 

supporting this housing expire. Please describe what steps you are taking and what steps 

that you could take to help the Rural Housing Service preserve this housing. Specifically, are 

there any updates or improvements that you would recommend to the Section S15 

program? 

2. As a member of the Broadband Caucus and the Senate Commerce Committee, I have 

focused on policies that ensure rural Americans have access to high-speed, affordable 

broadband. Connecting rural areas allows businesses and families increased access to 

education, health care, and business opportunities. However, ongoing barriers to 

deployment have left many communities in rural parts of my state without high-speed 

internet, or in some cases, no internet at all. The Rural Utilities Service (RUS) has done 

important work bringing internet access to these parts of the country, but RUS programs 

generally have slower minimum broadband speed requirements than other government 

programs. Are you concerned that broadband projects built to lower speed requirements 

under RUS rules will put rural areas at a disadvantage? 

3. In both 2014 and 2015, USDA reached an agreement with the Minnesota Department of 

Natural Resources (DNR) to split the cost of providing wolf depredation services. I believe 

these funds have been instrumental in investigating wolf attacks, preventing future 

conflicts, and compensating producers who have sustained losses in the short-term while a 

longer-term solution is pursued. Now that wolf management is again a federal 

responsibility, can USDA continue funding Wildlife Services' wolf management activities? Is 

this a sustainable solution? 

Senator Michael Bennet 

1. We continue to hear from producers across Colorado about the need to fix our immigration 

system. Just last week, I talked to a farmer who isn't growing cabbage this year simply 

because he can't get enough help to tend the fields. Congress's failure to act has real 

consequences. Now that it's been 27 months since the Senate passed a bipartisan 

immigration bill what's your message to members of Congress who are hearing from their 

rural constituents about labor shortages? 
87 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER


23594.042

2. As you know, the West is suffering from a persistent drought, which affects Colorado 

farmers, ranchers, outdoor recreation professionals, manufacturers, and communities. 

Water conservation is a critical issue for us. Colorado water leaders helped this committee 

include a focus on water quantity in the Regional Conservation Partnership Program that we 

created during the 2014 Farm Bill. As you know, earlier this year I wrote to you and 

Secretary Jewell asking you to coordinate your drought efforts. In June, you responded by 

expanding the EQIP-WaterSMART partnership to invest an additional $47 million in 11 

western states. In particular, the agencies sought to identify existing WaterSMART off-farm 

water conservation projects that could be matched with EQIP on-farm funding. How can we 

better identify and target agency resources to critical watersheds in the Colorado River 

Basin? I'm particularly interested to learn how your very successful Sage Grouse Initiative 

model might be adapted to the challenges we face in the Colorado River Basin. What can 

we do to make sure that more innovative on-farm and off-farm projects are successful in 

the West? 

3. Colorado is surrounded by states whose lakes and reservoirs are infected by invasive zebra 

and quagga mussels, but because of our strong inspection program, Colorado remains clear 

of these invasive species. Unfortunately, the funding for this program is now in jeopardy. 

We've been working with Colorado Parks and Wildlife, water utilities, the State, Bureau of 

Reclamation, and the Forest Service to develop long-term funding solutions. The cost of 

preventing these species from taking hold in the first place is a tiny fraction of what it costs 

to deal with an active infestation. We need your support, and that of other federal 

agencies, to make sure that these invasive species do not make it into the headwaters of 

the Colorado River. Can you commit to working with the other involved parties to find a 

long-term solution to these issues? 

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand 

1. Farm incomes and farm wealth have decreased significantly during the previous two year 

and many farmers are facing a negative operating environment. While much of the rural 

economy has begun to show signs of modest improvement, dairy farmers in New York and 

throughout the Northeast continue to experience hardship due to low Dairy Margin 

Protection Program payouts, a surplus of product, and continued low milk prices. Section 37 

of the Statement of the Managers Report that accompanies the 2014 Farm Bill encourages 

the Secretary to use a pre-hearing process to consider alternative pricing formulas for class 

Ill and IV milk. What assistance does the USDA need to begin a conversation with American 

dairy farmers on how to establish a more transparent and rational milk price formula? 

2. As dairy prices have fallen, many family dairy farms across the country have been forced to 

take on additional debt or cease operation. Our farmers are in need of financial assistance 
88 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER


23594.043

that unfortunately has not been realized through the Dairy Margin Protection Program. 

While, I am pleased that USDA used Section 32 funds to purchase $20 million of dairy 

products in August, there may be additional opportunities for USDA to stabilize and support 

farm income and prices. Would lifting the prohibition on the use of funds from Section 32 of 

the Agricultural Adjustment Act and Section S of the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter 

Act enable USDA to further assist dairy farmers during this crisis? What actions would USDA 

consider to ensure that farmers and producers have a market for their current surplus of 

dairy products? 

Rural Poverty 

1. The commitment of the Administration, and Secretary Vilsack in particular, to address rural 

poverty is to be commended. The StrikeForce Initiative and the rural and tribal communities 

designated as Promise Zones under the Department of Housing and Urban Development, 

have been instrumental in providing federal resources to combat poverty to those rural 

communities most in need. To date however, there are neither StrikeForce Initiative 

investments, nor Promise Zones located in a rural community in a Northeastern state. 

Northeastern rural poverty represents a set of unique challenges that would greatly benefit 

from the resources offered through these programs. Like many other rural communities in 

the Northeast, the North Country region of New York is faced with economic upheaval due 

to the loss of traditional manufacturing and the protracted financial stress faced by family 

farms. What plans does USDA have to expand the reach of these existing programs, or to 

create new programs, aimed at helping Northeastern rural communities, like the North 

Country, reinvent themselves and establish long-term solutions to the economic challenges 

they face? 

1. As you are aware, much of New York is suffering from a protracted and devastating 

drought. Many of our farmers are reporting total crop failures and some dairy farms are 

running short on feed which will only increase the pressure they face. 

I appreciate the USDA response to the drought and for the Secretarial Disaster Declaration 

in 29 New York counties. The Emergency Conservation Program and access to credit will 

help many of our farmers but there are some in nearby counties that need help but are not 

eligible. 

Jefferson County officials tell me that stream gauge data from the Black River and Sandy 

Creek, which flow through the county from the east where rains were better, are not 

reflective of conditions on the ground. The National Drought Mitigation Center uses this 

data when it determines the severity of drought in a specific county. 

What measures can USDA undertake to ensure accurate, local assessments of conditions 

are included in the US Drought Monitor calculations so that the conditions experienced by 
89 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER


23594.044

farmers are reflected in the Drought Map and that every farmer negatively affected by 

drought is eligible for assistance? 

Senator Heidi Heitkamp 

1. When we wrote the 2014 Farm Bill, we made it so that payments for ARC and PLC would go 

out after October 1 each year. We did this to help with budgeting and set a regular 

schedule, but I've heard from a lot of farmers asking if they could be paid sooner to help 

with expenses during this tough time. Given that a number of crops' marketing years end 

before October 1 so you have full year yield and price data, does USDA have authority to 

make advance ARC and PLC payments? 

2. We've all talked a lot over the past year or more about how USDA determines current year 

yields for calculating ARC County payments, specifically about how NASS yields can't be 

used if enough farmers don't return their surveys. How often does NASS update their 

mailing lists to make sure it's going to the current operator and not a retired farmer? Do the 

surveys go to the landowner or the renter/operator? Is NASS taking steps to make sure the 

maximum number of producers receive the surveys? 

3. I've heard concerns from our farmers about the ARC-CO yield "cascade" system, as we've 

discussed at length. One relatively new issue, however, is that even when NASS does 

receive the required amount of surveys to be considered statistically sound, they still don't 

publish the yields for the public, but consider them "confided" counties. We had several 

such counties in North Dakota. Please explain why NASS doesn't publish these yields for our 

producers to see. Are these counties which are confided but not published including only 

data from that county, or are they also including district or neighboring county data? 

4. Also on ARC-CO, I've heard complaints from producers that USDA doesn't say what data 

source FSA is using for yield calculations-whether it was NASS, RMA, NASS District, etc. 

Why is this? Could USDA start disclosing that so producers and their associations are able to 

easily access the information? 

5. We've discussed at length how FSA determines yields, both in person and at a staff level, 

and we appreciate all the work you've done to help clarify policies and procedures. One 

issue that I would like more clarity on is how and why certain crops receive yield 

calculations the way they do. For example, in North Dakota we grow three different classes 

of wheat-hard red winter, hard red spring, and durum-as well as different types of 

sunflowers-for confection or oil. Each of these classes has different yields, but they are 

combined for one "all wheat" or "sunflower" yield. Does USDA weight a county's wheat 

yield based on percentage of each class of wheat grown? If not, would it be possible to do 

this to provide a more accurate representation ofthe wheat yields in a given county? 
90 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER


23594.045

6. My office has received a lot of calls concerned about the possible importation of Brazilian or 

Argentinian beef. They aren't concerned about the competition, but potential disease risks. 

Would you please outline the procedure USDA undertook in these decisions, and assure our 

ranchers that we aren't lowering our standards to accommodate these imports? 

7. I want to associate myself with the comments from Senator Hoeven during the hearing, and 

also reiterate the comments I made in my September 25, 2015, letter to Administrator 

Willis asking RMA to take a measured approach to changes in prevent plant payment 

factors. North Dakota has a diverse agricultural sector, and the suggestions made by the 

Inspector General would have varying impacts on our state's farmers. Given the tough 

economic situation our producers face, we hope RMA will not negatively affect our 

producers in any final rules. 

Senator Robert Casey 

1. We have seen prices paid to dairy farmers fall quite a bit over the last couple of years. 

Enrollment in the Margin Protection Program, or MPP, is pretty dismal in Pennsylvania, and 

it has not especially assisted those who are enrolled. One Pennsylvania dairy farmer told my 

staff he is losing $8,000 a month and will likely be losing his farm. Pennsylvania dairy 

production showed negative growth around -3.1 percent over the last 15 years. There is talk 

of a rebound in prices but producers are losing a fair amount of money. It is worse in 

Pennsylvania where the cost of production is higher than other areas of the country. We 

still need a local supply of milk and we cannot lose more dairy farms. 

a. If you have any and all options on the table for dairy producers to try to stay afloat in 

this difficult environment, including additional authority to USDA, what do you think 

would be the most effective assistance? 

b. USDA announced a purchase of $20 million of cheese to help dairy producers struggling 

this year. Can you share what impact this has had? Do you believe that USDA might 

make additional purchases? What other emergency assistance has USDA provided to 

the dairy industry since the 2014 Farm Bill? What assistance has USDA provided to other 

commodities with low prices, such as cotton? What else can USDA do for dairy farmers 

until Congress can make changes to the Farm Bill? 

c. Dairy MPP is a new direction for dairy policy, different than what farmers were used to 

with MILC or other programs. I am concerned that USDA needs to do more to educate 

not only producers about MPP, but also USDA staff on the ground in my state about 

how MPP works and how it can provide protection for producers as margins continue to 

suffer. What does USDA have planned for the future on how to educate producers and 

USDA staff about this program? 

d. One of the changes that Congress made to MPP from when it was originally proposed 

was to adjust the feed calculation that determines Dairy MPP margins. We have heard 
91 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER


23594.046

from producers that restoring the initial feed calculation would dramatically impact the 

margins under the program. One such calculation from the National Milk Producers 

Federation suggests that, for instance, the 2016 May-June margin of $5.76 would 

actually have been a full dollar lower under the original formula and, thus, more farmers 

would have received payments. Do you believe that revisiting the formula calculation to 

ensure it fully reflects producer costs would increase participation in the program? 

2. There is a lot of concern that the Chesapeake Bay watershed generally, and Pennsylvania 

specifically, has been severely shortchanged by the funding allocations under the Regional 

Conservation Partnership Program, RCPP. I understand that this is a competitive process. 

However, there is a tremendous need at the present time to get additional conservation 

resources to high priority agricultural areas, such as Lancaster County. These concerns have 

been raised not only by many in Pennsylvania, but also by others, including EPA, who 

recognize the importance of working in the Commonwealth. I recently wrote a letter to CEQ 

and OMB requesting resources for the Susquehanna River Watershed, which is part of the 

Chesapeake Bay watershed. How is USDA planning on using additional resources to target 

these critical areas? 

3. With the recently confirmed High Path Avian Influenza (HPAI) virus in a duck in Alaska, what 

is the status of HPAI planning? What is the status of the virus spread? What advice is USDA 

currently giving to U.S. poultry producers? 

4. There have been incredible advances in the past eight years for the local and regional food 

sector of American agriculture. A great deal of credit for the increase in farmers markets, 

food hubs, value-added products, and regional food distribution goes to the farmers and 

food entrepreneurs on the cutting edge of this rapidly growing sector. I think it is also quite 

clear that the work of this Administration, particularly the "Know Your Farmer, Know Your 

Food" initiative, has been critical, as has the choices Congress made to increase funding and 

authorities for local and regional food in the last few farm bills. Despite all the progress, 

there are still parts of the emerging regional food economy that need more attention. The 

Department's local food report indicates for instance that the small processing plants that 

produce local and regional meat supplies has dropped by 12 percent since the start of this 

century, despite growing consumer demand. As you look back on your efforts in your years 

as Secretary, what are you most happy about in what you have been able to do to boost 

local food? What parts of the food supply chain would you highlight for your successor as 

Secretary as pieces that need more focus and attention moving forward? 

5. More and more, I am hearing about the concerns of young farmers trying to get started in 

agriculture. Challenges that are unique to agriculture- especially access to land and creditare only intensifying and have certainly discouraged some aspiring farmers from even 

considering a career in agriculture. We made a lot of gains in the last Farm Bill that we 

hoped would help open the doors for more new farmers. But now, two and half years since 

these policy changes were signed into law, I do not get the sense that we have quite solved 

the beginning farmer dilemma. I still hear from farmers who are not able to find affordable 

land or cannot make their operations cash-positive, especially in those first few years. There 
92 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER


23594.047

are larger structural problems that stack the cards against the next generation of farmers 

that have yet to be addressed. Despite the gravity of the new farmer crisis, the last Farm Bill 

invested less than one percent of total mandatory spending into new farmer policies, and 

yet, the entire future of American agriculture is at stake. As we look towards the next farm 

bill, should we be doing more for new farmers? What more do you think needs to be done 

to fundamentally shift the playing field to increase farming opportunities and give the next 

generation of farmers a good chance to succeed? 

6. I understand sugar growers have petitioned the Department of Commerce regarding 

Suspension Agreements with Mexico. Many food companies in Pennsylvania use sugar to 

make their food products, and several companies use liquid sugar. I have heard that the 

Department of Commerce has proposed allowing sugar to be imported only by crystalized 

sugar refiners, leaving out sugar refiners that produce liquid sugar without first granulating 

it. Could this possibly be true? I am surprised that our government would effectively deny 

access to U.S. refiners that use a liquefying refining process instead of crystalizing, including 

such a refinery in Pennsylvania. I understand that USDA has been present at the 

negotiating sessions. What is USDA's position on this? 

7. An issue of importance in Pennsylvania is balancing farmland preservation with 

infrastructure development. Communities throughout Pennsylvania have invested hundreds 

of millions of dollars to protect productive agricultural lands and sustain the agricultural 

economy. With energy infrastructure such as natural gas pipelines being installed in 

Pennsylvania, how is USDA ensuring that lands protected with federal conservation dollars 

stay protected? How does USDA balance the need for land preservation in farm 

communities with the need for energy infrastructure? 

8. Thank you for reprogramming funds to cover part of the growing backlog of FSA's direct and 

guaranteed operating loans. What are your thoughts on making sure FSA has enough 

money to fund the rest of the backlog plus all the new loans for the 2017 planting season? I 

hope that the increased demand does not have the effect of forcing FSA to do less lending 

to beginning farmers- who by law are supposed to get at least half of FSA loans -and if 

you have any thoughts on balancing the demands that face the Department in that regard? 
(93) 

ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

SEPTEMBER 21, 2016 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER

94 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER


23594.048

October 19, :2016 

The Honorable Pat Roberts 

l 'niteJ States S.:natc 

109 !JJrt Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

D<.':1r Senator Roberts: 

USDA 

.,-==;= 

United States Department of Agriculture 

Office of the Secretary 

Washington. D.C 20250 

Thank you for y,>ur letter of July 26,2016. requesting information related to the Agricultural 

\1arkcting Service's (AMS) proposed rule on Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices. I apologize 

f(Jr the delay in responding. 

The proposed rule, which was published in the FNkral Register on April 13, 2016. is based on a 

series of recommendations made over sev(Ta] years from the Nationul Organic Standards Board 

(NOSB), a Federal advisory committee established by the Organic Foods Production Al·t of 1990. 

The NOSH's 15 members represent the breadth of the organic sector and are responsible for 

ccmsidcring and making recommendations on a wide range of issues involving the production. 

handling. and processing of organic products. The NOSI3 gcn.:rally meets twice per year at a public 

mcding to discuss issues on the work agenda, vote on proposals, and make recommendations to the 

Secretary. A\1S and the NOSH value transparency and invite public input in adYancc of and during 

puhlic mcdings. [fa ;\OSB proposal receives a deci~ive Board vote of two-thirds majority in 

llnor. then the proposal becomes a recommendation to USDA and is provided to th.: Secretary 

thwugh the ;\\lS National Organic Program (NOP). 

1ktwcen 1994 and 2011, the t\OSl:l submitted to the Secretary 9 recommendations on livestock 

health and welfare in organic production. This propos.:d rule seeks to address hcalthcare practices. 

transport, slaughter. and living conditions for organic livestock. In addition, this rule includes 

pro,·isions on outdoor access f(,r poultry that have a significant history of AMS actions based on 

'\:OSB recommendations. The NOSB deliberations on these n:commendations revealed 

cc,nsiderablc support within the organic ,;ommuni ty l(>r the recommendations and inJicated that 

consumers have specific expectations for organic livestock care. including outdoor access for 

poultry. These recommendations also build on Congressional direction in the Organic Foods 

Production Act and on regulatory language in the linal rule that created the NO!' in 2000. Further. a 

2010 audit by thl' USDA Office of the Inspector Ocncral identified inconsistencies in ho\l. 

accredited certifying agents consider porches under outdoor access while implementing certitication 

of organic poultry operations. This rulcmaking is nt:ccssary to reduce the variation in outdoor 

access practit.:es. 

One purpose c>f the Organic Foods Production Act is to as~urc consumers that organically produced 

product:, meet a consistent and uniform standard. By facilitating improved compliance and 

entorccment of the l :sDA organic regulations. this ruk will better satisfy consumer expectations 

that organic livestock and poultry meet a unif()rm and wri1iablc animal welfare standard. 

An Equal Opportunity Employer 
95 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER


23594.049

The Honorable f':ll Rohcrb 

Pagt! 2 

During the pu!>lic comment period l;n the pwpuscd ruk, \\hich dosed on Jul} 13, 2016, /\\IS 

recci\'Cd scYcralthousand comments expressing a broad range of\ icws. AMS is current!.' 

rc\icwing tho"' comments and will con;.idcr concerns raised by comrncnters, including concerns 

raised in yl•ur lctt-:r, as the agency dc,clops a final rule, ;\;>.IS also is considering scientific data 

uml other supporting information related to this issue and is consulting with numerous LSDA 

prngr<mJS and l>th.::r Government agencies to ensure coordinah:d policies. In particular, A\1S has 

\\orked closely with the Animal and Plant I kalth Inspection SeT\ icc to proYide a robust reYiew of 

t>i,Jsccurity-relatd comments. AMS' !act sheet Bio>ccurity in l~SDA Organic Poultry Operations, 

proYides an overview of biosecurity practices and other inl(>rmation on how organk poultry 

orerations can protect their flocks from Jisease. 1 

Please be assured A :VIS also continues t<' 'ery seriously consider the p1>tential economic impacts of 

the proposaL and. as part of the final rulcmaking, is Ct)ordinating with the Otlicc of the Chief 

l.conomist to conduct an updated and thorough economic analysis that will complement the 

('Xtcn>i\'<' cwnomic analysis conducted in prt·paration of the proposed rule. Tho: initial economic 

analysis of the rule estimated the costs to be $9.5 - $24.1 million per year (annualized over 13 

years), and the paperwork burden costs were estimated to be $3.6 million annually. The 

4uantitativc bcnelits were estimated to be S 14.7- $62.2 million per year (annualized over 13 years). 

The proposed rnodillcatiens to organic livestock and poultry production will allow for the continued 

expansion of the organic livestock and poultry industry. while increasing organic integrity and 

mct:ting consumer expct'tations. 

In \:or:du;:ting this rulemaking, A:'\IS must adhere to the requirements of the Administratiw 

Procedure Act, which sets forth procedure'S for public notice and comment. and Executive Order 

12866, \\hich re4uirc.< Executiw branch agencies to prepare· and submit to the White House Office 

of .\lanagement and Budget ( OMB) fi:>r rcYiew a comprehensive assessment of the costs and 

bendits of any significant regulatory actic>n. This assessment is to be made available to fbc public 

a tier the regulatory action has b~~n published in the federal Register. Because AMS is still 

\\Cighing options t(lf a final rule and assessing associated regulatory costs and bcnclits, we arc 

unable to address your specific 4uestions at this time. 

We appreciate you taking the time to ,h,m: your views on this important work, and we look l{lrward 

to ,baring our updated ;malysis "ith )'('u later this year. once the tina! rule is published. If you have 

quc,,tions about this response or would likt.: to arrange a briefing on this topic. please have your staff 

c,Jntact me at (201) 720-7095. A similar letter is being sent to your colleagues. 

Sincerely, 

lodd Ratta 

Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations 
96 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER


23594.050

Octo her 19. 2016 

lhc Honorable Debbie Stahcnm' 

l'nited States Senat.: 

7.' 1 !!art Senate Offic.: Huilding 

Washington. D.C. 20510 ' 

Dear Senator Stabenow: 

USDA 

=-

United States Department of Agriculture 

Office of the Secretary 

Washmgton, D.C 20250 

thank you for your lcttcr of July 26. 2016, requesting int(mnation related to the Agricultural 

Marketing Servke"s (AMS) proposed mlc on Organic l.iYcstock ami Poultry ·Practices. I apologize 

l(n the delay in rc·sponding. 

The proposed rule. which was published in the Federal Register on April 13, 20 IIi, is based on a 

scric> of recommendations made over several years from the National Organic Standards Hoard 

(:\OSB ). a federal advisory committee established hy the Organic Foods Production Act of !990. 

The '.:OSB"s 15 members represent the breadth of the organic sector and arc responsible for 

consitkring and making recommendations on a wide range of issues invoh·ing the production. 

handling. and processing of organic products. The NOSB generally meets twice per year at a public 

meeting to discuss issues on the work agenda. vote on proposals, and make recommendations to the 

Secretary. AMS and the 't'<OSB value transparency and invite public input in advance of and during 

pub! it: meetings. If a NOSB proposal rccdves a decisive Floard vote of twu-thirds mai<•rity in 

til\ or. then the pwposal becomes a recommendatitlll to USDA and is provided to the Secretary 

through the A\1S 'iational Organic Program (!\OP). 

Between !99.; and 20 II. the NOSE submitted to the Secretary 9 recommendati<•ns on livestock 

health and weiGJrc in organic production. This proposed rule s~cks to address healthcare practic.:s. 

transport. slaughter. and living conditions for organic livestock. In addition. this rule includes 

pro\·isions on outdoor access ll1r poultry that have a significant history of A\lS actions hascd on 

\:OSB rcwmmendati,1ns. Thc NOSI3 deliberations on these recommendations revealed 

consiJcrablc support \\ithin the organic community t< .. r the recommendations and indicated that 

consumers have specific expectations ti1r organic livestock care. induding outdoor a('Ccss for 

poultry. These recommendations also huild on Congressional direction in the Organic Foods 

Production Act and on regulatory language in the tina! rule that created the NOP in :woo. Further, a 

2010 audit hy the L:SDA Office of the Inspector Gt:neral i<.lentificd inconsistencil's in hc•w 

~cered it~<.! certifying agents consider pllt-chcs under outdoor access while implementing certiiication 

of organic JX>ultry operations. This rulcmaking is necessary to reduce the variation in outdoor 

access practices. 

One purpose of the Organic Foods Production Act is to assure consumers that organically produced 

products meet a consistent and unil(lrnt standard. Hy facilitating improved complianc<: and 

enl(•rccmcnt of the l 'SDA organic regulations. this rule will better satisfy consumer expectations 

that org:mic livestock and poultry ml.'et a unifi>rm and verifiable animal welfarl' standard. 

An Equal Opportunity Employer 
97 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER


23594.051

The Honorable Debbie Stabcno\\ 

Page 2 

During the public comment period on the propos<.:d rule. \\hich dosed on July 13.2016. AMS 

received ;,cvcralthousand comments expressing a broad range of views. A~S is currcntlv 

rcvicwint? those comments and will consider concerns raised hy cornmcnters, including concerns 

raised in your letter. as the agency dev·dops a final rule. A\1S also is considerin;; scientific data 

and other supporting infonnation related to this issue and is consulting with numerous l 'SDA 

programs and mher Government agencies 1(1 ensure coordinated policies. In particular. A\1S has 

worked closely with the Animal ond Plant llcalth Inspection Service to prO\·ide a robust review of 

hiosecurity-related comments. AMS' fact sheet, Binsccurity in {ISDA Organic Poultry Operations. 

provides an m-ervic" of biosecurity practices and other inti1rmation on ho" organic poultry 

operations can protect their ilocks from discase. 1 

Please be assured A\1S also continues to very seriously consider the potential economic impacts of 

the proposal, and, as part of the final mkmaking. is coordinating with the Oftlce of the Chid 

Economist to conduct an updah:d and th1>rough c•·onomic analysis that will complement the 

exten;.i\C economic analysis conducted in preparation of the proposed rule. The initial economic 

analysis of the rule estimated the costs to be $9.5 - $24.1 million per year (annuali7cd over 13 

years I. and the papemork burden costs were estimated to be S3.6 million annually. The 

quantit~tive benefits were estimated to he $14.7- $62.2 million per year (annualized over 13 years). 

The proposed modifications to or,(anic livestock and poultry production will allow for the continued 

expansion r,fthe organic li\·cstock and poultry industrv, while increasing organic integrity and 

meeting consumer expectations. 

In conducting this rulcmaking, A\1S must adht're to the requirements of the Administrative 

PfClredure Act. which sets forth procedures for public notice and comment, and Executive Order 

12866, which requires Executive branch agencies to prepare and submit to the White House Onlce 

of\ fanagemcnt and Budget (OMB) for re• iew a comprehensive assessment of the costs and 

bcndits Clf any significant regulatory action. This assessment is to be made available to the put-lie 

of1cr the regulatory action has heen published in the Federal Register. Because A\1S is still 

weighing options for a final rule and assessing associated regulatory costs and benefits, we are 

unable to address your specific questions at this time. 

We appreciate you taking the time to share your views on this important work, and we look forward 

to sharing our updated analysis with you later this year. once the fino] rule is published. If you have 

quc·stions about this response or would like to arrange a briefing on this topic. please haYc your staff 

Ct>ntact me at (202) 720-7095. A similar letter is being sent to your colleagues. 

Todd 

/~~ Balta 

Assist3nt Secretary for Congressional Rebtions 
98 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER


23594.052

USDA 

=;;;;;; 

United States Department of Agriculture 

Octo her 19. 2016 

The Honorable Thad Cochran 

L nited States Senate 

113 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washingl0n. D.C. 20510 

lk::tr Senator Codtran: 

Office ofthe Secretary 

Washington. 0 C 20250 

Thank :;.ou for your letter oflul; 26, 2016. requesting infonnation related to the Agricultural 

\larkding Sen ice's (AMS) proposed role .111 Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices. I apologize 

for the del a:;. in responding. 

The proposed rule. which was published in the Federal Register on April 13, 2016. is based on a 

series of recommendations made over several years !rom the "iational Organic Standards Board 

(NOSB). a Federal advisory committee established by the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990. 

The \IOS!3 · s 15 members represent the nreadth of the organic sector and are rt?sponsibh: for 

consickring and making recommendations on a wide range of issues involving the produc'tion. 

handling. and processing of organic products. The '\iOSB generally meets twice per year at a public 

meeting to discuss issues on the work agenda. vote on proposals. and make recommendations to the 

Sccrdary. Af-.lS and the NOSB mluc transparcnc; and invite public input in ad,ance of and during 

puhlic meetings. !fa 1\:0SB proposal receives a decisive Board vote of two-thirds majority in 

favor, then the proposal becomes a recommendation to l.'SDA and is provided to the Sccrctar;· 

through the AMS 1\:ational Organic Program (NOP). 

Between 1994 and 2011. the '\iOSll submit1ed to the Secretary 9 recommendations on livestock 

health and welfare in organic production. This proposed rule seeks to address hca!thcnrc practices. 

transport, slaughter. and living conditions for organic livestock. In addition. this rule indudcs 

pnwisions on outdoor access for poultry that have a significant history of AMS actions nased on 

~OSB n:commenJations. The NOSH deliberations on these recommendations revealed 

considerable support within the organic community li.>r the recommendmions and indicated that 

consumers have specific expectations :iJr organic livestock care, including outdoor access for 

poultry. These recommendations also huild on Congressional direction in the Organic Foods 

Production Act and on regulatory language in the tina! rule that created the NOP in 2000. Further. a 

~OJ 0 audit by the USDA Ollice of the lnspcdor General identitied inconsistencies in how 

ticcrcditcd certifying agents consider porches under outdoor access while implementing ccrtitication 

of or£anic poultry op~rations. This rulemaking is necessary to reduce the variation in outdoor 

access pra\:tices. 

One purpose of the Organic Foods Production Act is to assure consumers that organically produced 

products meet a consistent and uniHmn standard. By facilitating improved compliance and 

enl(Jrcernent of the llSD/\ organic regulations, this rule will better satisfy consumer expectations 

that organic livestock and poultry meet a unifom1 and veri liable animal welfare standard. 

A.n Equal Opportunity Employer 
99 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER


23594.053

The Honoral:>le rhad Cochran 

Page 2 

During the public wmmcnt period em the proposed rule, 1vhich closed on July 13,2016. Nv!S 

rcceiwd several thousand comments l'Xpr.cssing a broad range of \'lC\\S. A 'viS is currently 

rnicwing th"c comments and will con,ider concerns raised hy commcnlers. including concerns 

raised in your ktter. as the agency den:lops a final rule. A\1S also i,; .:onsidcring scicntilic data 

anJ other supporting infonnation related to this issue and is consultir'g with numerous \'SDA 

programs and other Government agendcs to ensure cnurdir.ated policies. In particular. AMS has 

11orkcd closely with the Animal and Plant I lcalth lnspcdion Sct>ice to provide a robust review of 

biosecurity-rclat<•d comment>. AMS' fact sheet. Biosecurity in LSDA Organic Poultry Ope1ations. 

pr<'l ides an overview of hiosccurity practices and other information on ht)W organic poultry 

nperatit>ns can protect their 11Pcks from dis.:asc. 1 

Please be assured AMS also continues to very seriously consider the potential economic impacts of 

the prtlposal. and. as part of the final rulcmaking. is coordinating with the Onice nfthe Chid 

Lconomist to conduct an updated and thorough economic analysis thm will complement the 

extensive ~:conornic analysis conducted in preparation of the proposed rule. The initial economic 

analysis of the rule cstimatctl the costs to he $9.5- $24.1 million per year (annualized O\'Cf 13 

years). and the paperwork burden cost:; were estimated to he $~.6 million annually. The 

quantitative henetit;; \\ere estimated to he 5.14.7- $62.2 million per year (annualized owr 13 years). 

rhc proposed modifications tn organic livestock 'md ptmltry production will allow for the continued 

expansion of the organic livestock and poultry industry. \\hik increasing organic' integrity and 

meeting consun1('f expectation~. 

In conducting this rulcmaking. A!'vlS must adhere to the requirements of the :\dministrativ~: 

Procedure .'\ct. which sets forth procedures for public notice and comment. and l:xccutive Order 

12866. which requires Executive hranch agencies 1c1 prt·parc and submit to the White I louse Oftice 

of\bnagemcnt and Budget (OMB} for re\iew a cornprchensiw assessment of the costs and 

benelits of any signiticant regulatory action. This assessment is to he made a\'ailahlc to the public 

a!ier the regulatory action has been published in the !·cdcml l<.cgistcr. Because A~S is still 

weighing options l(lf a tina! rule and assessing associated regulatory costs and hcnctit;;. we are 

unabk to address your specillc questions at this time. 

W c appreciate you taking the time Ill share your views on this important work, and we look forward 

to sharing our updated analysis "ith you later this :car. on~c the tina! rule is published. If you have 

quc·stions about this rcspons.: or would like to arrange a briefing on this topic. please have your statf 

contact me at (202l 720-7095. A similar Idler is being sent to your wlkagucs. 

~incerely. 

TodJ 

~~ Batta 

As:;ist,mt Secretary lor Congressional !{elations 
100 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER


23594.054

USDA 

..,.~;;;;;; 

United States Department of Agriculture 

October 19. 2016 

The Honorable \1itch McConnell 

l :nitcd States Senate 

317 Russell Senate 011icc Ruilding 

Washington, D.C. 205 I 0 

Dc:H s~nator McConnell: 

Off1ce of the Secretary 

Washington. D.C. 20250 

1 hank you for your letter of July 26,2016, re4uesting inl(mnation related to the Agricultural 

tvlarkcting Service's (AMS) proposed rule on Organic LiYestock and Poultry Pmctices. l apologize 

ft,r the de by in rcsp(lnding. 

The proposed rule, which was published in the Fetkral Register on April 13.2016, is based on a 

series of recommendations mJde over several years from the National Organic Standards Bnard 

C\jOSB). a Federal advisory committee established by the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990. 

The 1\0SB' s 15 members represent the !>n::adth of the organic sector and are rcsponsihlc for 

considering and making r~commcndations on a wide range of issues involving the production. 

handling, and processing of organic products. The NOSB generally meets twice per year at a public 

meeting to discuss issues on tbc work agenda, vote on proposals. and make rccommcndatiuns to the 

Secrc·tary. :\\1S and the NOSB value transparency and invite public input in ad,·ancc of anu during 

public meetings. If a 1\0S!l proposal receives a decisive Board vote of two-thirds majority in 

fmor. then the proposal becomes a recommt•ndation to CSDA and is prO\·idcd to the Secretary 

through the A\1S National Organic Program (!\OP). 

Bcmccn !994 and 2011. the NOSB submitted to the Secretary 9 recommendations on livestoL·k 

health and welfare in organic production. This proposed rule seeks to address healthcare practices, 

transport. slaughter, and living conditions ft'r organic livestock. In addition, this rule indudcs 

prO\·isions on outdoor access for poultr; that have a significant history of ATv1S actions based on 

)';OSB recornmen<btions. The NOSB dclibermions on these recommendations revealed 

considerable support within the organic community for tht• recommendations and indicated that 

consumers have sp~:cific expectations tor organic livestock care, including outdoor access for 

pnultry. These recommendations also build on Congressional direction in the Organic Foods 

Production Act and on rcgulatnry language in the final rule that creatt·d the NOP in 2000. Further. a 

2010 audit by the CSDA Office of the Inspector (icneral identified incnnsistencies in how 

ucncditd certifying agents consider porches under outdoor ac.:ess while implementing certification 

of organic poultry operations. This rulemaking is necessary to reduce' the variation in outdoor 

access practices. 

One purpose of the Organic roods Production Act is to assure consumers that organically produced 

pwducts meet a consistent and unifom1 standard. By I(Kilitating improwd compliance and 

cnh>rccmcnt oft he t :sDA organic regulations. this ruk will better satisfy consumer expectations 

that organic livestock and poultry meet a unifom1 and veri liable animal welfare standard. 

A.n Equal Opportunity Employer 
101 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER


23594.055

The H'"morable Mitch McC.mndl 

Pa,:e 2 

During the public comment period on the proposed rule. \\hich dosed on July 13, 2016. AMS 

rccei,ed se\.:r:Jl thousand comments expressing" broad range of views. A\lS is cum:mly 

reviewing thos.: comments and will consider eonccms raised by commcntcrs, including conccms 

raisd in your letter, as the agency develops a tina! rule. A!vlS also is considering scientific data 

and other supporting inttmnation related to this issue and is consulting with numerous USDA 

programs and other Government agencies to ensure c-oordinat<:d policies. In pa!1icular. /\'vlS has 

\\tlrked closely wit], the Animal and Plant llcalth JnspectiGn Service to provide a robust review of 

biosccurity-related comments. AMS. fact sheet. Biose~urity in L:SDA Organic Poultry Operations, 

pro\ ides an overview of bioo,ccurity practices and other infmmation on how organic poultry 

operations can protect their llocks from disease.' 

Please be assured .·\MS also cnntinues to wry seriously consider the potential economic impacts of 

the proposal. and, as pal1 of the tina] rulemaking. is coordinating with the Oftice of the Chief 

Ec,momist to conduct an updated and thomugh economic analysis that will complement the 

cxtensi\c ewnomic analysis conducted in preparation of the proposed rule. The initial economic 

analysis of the rule estimated the costs to be S9.5 - $24.1 million per )Tnr (annualized oYer 13 

years). and the paperwork burden costs were estimated to be $).6 million annuully. The 

quantitative benefits were estimated to be $14.7-$62.2 million p~r year (annualized over !3 years). 

The proposed modilications to organic livestock and poultry production will allpw fpr the continued 

cx;->ansion of the organic livestock and poultry inJuo;try. while incrca'iing organic integrity and 

rn~cting ctmsumcr expectations. 

In conducting this rulcmaking, AMS must adhere to the requirements of the Administrati1·e 

Procedure Act. which sets f(mh procedures k>r puhlic notice and comment. and Executive Order 

12866. which requires Executive hr~m:h agencies to prepare and suhmit to the White House Otlice 

of ~1anagcmcnt and Budget tOMB) tor rev-iew a comprehensive assessment oftbc costs and 

bcndits c>f any signilicant regulatory action. This assessment is to be made available to the public 

after the regulator) action has been puhlishcd in the Federal Register. Because A'v1S is still 

weighing options li.>r a final rule and assessing associated regulatory costs and benefits. we are 

unable to address your specific questions at this time. 

We appreciate you taking the time to share )l>ur views on this imponant work, and we look forward 

to sharing our updated analysis with you later this year. once the tina! rule is published. If you have 

questions about this response l>r would like w arrange a briefing on this topic. please have your staff 

contact me at (202) 720-7095. A similar letter is being sent to your colleagues. 

Sinccrdy. 

Todd ~~ Batta 

Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations 
102 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER


23594.056

USDA 

=;;;;;; 

United States Department of Agriculture 

October 19, 2016 

The Honorable John McCain 

LniteJ States Senak 

218 Rus;;cll Senate Otlicc !3uilding 

Washington. D.C. 2051 () 

Dear Senator McCain: 

Office of the Secretary 

Washington, DC 20250 

Thank ) nu f\1r your letter of July 26, 2016. requesting information related to the Agricultural 

\larkcting Service's (AI\lS) proposed rule on Organic liYestock and Poultry Practices. I apologize 

for the delay in responding. 

The proposed rule, which was published in the Federal Register on April 13, 2016. is based on a 

serie:- of recommendations made oYer sen:ral years J!·om the ~ational Organic Standards Board 

(~OSH). a Federal advisory wmmittce established by the Orgrmic Foods Production Act of 1990. 

The NOSB's 15 members represent the breadth of the organic sector and are responsible for 

considering and making recommendations on a wide rang~ of issu~s involving the production, 

handling. and processing of organic products. The NOSH generally meets twice per year at a public 

meeting to discuss issues on the work agenda. vole on propo~als, and make recommendations to the 

Secretary. AI\1S and the NOSB value transparency and invite public input in adYance of and during 

public meetings. If a ~OSB proposal n:cciH:s a Jccisiv c Board vote of two-thirds majority in 

tavor. then the proposal becomes a recommendation to USDA and is provided to the Secretary 

through the A\lS National Organic Program C'-./0!'). 

Between 1994 and 20 I L the NOSB submitted to the Secretary 9 recommendations on livestock 

health and wcllare in organic production. This proposed rule seeks to address healthcare practices, 

transport. slaughter. and living conditions l(lr organic livestock. In addition. this rule includes 

prn,·isit>ns on outdoor access f(,r poultry that haq;, a signilicant history of AMS actions based on 

!\OSB recommendations. The NOSH ddihcrations on these recommendations revealed 

considerable support within the organic community for the recommendations and indicated that 

consumers have specific expectations for organic livestock care. including outdoor access for 

poultry. These recommendations also huild on Congressional direction in the Organic Foods 

Production Act and on rt·gulatory language in the final rule that created the NOP in :2000. Further. a 

20 I 0 audit hy the USDA Office of the Inspector General identifieJ inconsistencies in how 

accredited certifying agents consider porches under outdoor access while implementing certilication 

t<f organic poultry operations. This rulcmaking is necessary to reduce the variation in outdoor 

ac.:ess practices. 

One purpose of the Organic foods Production Act is to assure consumers that organi~ally produced 

products meet a consistent nnd uniform standard. By facilitating improved compliance and 

cni(Jrccment of the USDA organic regulations, this rule will better satisfy consumer expectations 

that organic livestock and poultry meet a uniform and \erifiabk animal welfare standard. 

An Equal Opportunity Employer 
103 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER


23594.057

rhe Honorable John McCain 

Page 2 

During the puhlic comment period on the proposed ruk. which closed on Jul~ 13,2016. AMS 

rccci1 cd several thousand comments expressing a hroaJ range of views. AMS is currently 

rc,·icwing those comments and will consider concems raisd by commenters. including concerns 

raised in your lcncr, as the agency dewlc>ps a final rule. A\lS also is considering scientific data 

and uther supporting inlorn1ation relatt'd to this issue and is consulting with numerous l;SDA 

programs dnd other Government agencies to ensure coordinated polick•s. [n particular. AMS has 

worked closely with the .-\nimal and !'!ant I kalth Inspection Service to provide a robust re1·icw of 

hios~curity-related comments. AMS' fact sheet. Hiosecurity in l!SDA Organic Poultry Operations. 

proYidcs an 01 crview of biosecuritv practices and 01h.:r information on how organic poultry 

operations c;m protect their flocks !rom discasc. 1 

Please be assurc:d A\1S also continues to very seriously consider the potential economic impacts of 

the _;:JroposaL and. as part of the linal rulcmaking. is coordinating with the Office of the Chief 

Economist to conduct an updal<:d and thorough economic analysis that will complement the 

extensive economic analysis wndueted in preparation of the proposed rule. The initial economic 

analysis of the rule estimated the costs to he S9.5- $24.1 million per y.:ar (annualized over 13 

years). and the p<:perwork burden costs were estimated to he $3.6 million annually. The 

quantitatiw benefits were estimated to be $14.7- $61.1 million per year (annualized over !3 years). 

The proposed modiiications to organic livestock and poultry production will allow tor the continued 

expansion of the organic livestock and poultry industry. whik increasing organic integrity and 

meeting consumer expectations. 

In conducting this mlemaking. AMS must adhere to the requirements of the Administrative 

Procedure Act. which sets forth procedures for public notice and comment. and Executive Order 

12R66. \\ hich requires Executive branch agencies to prepare and submit to the White House OHicc 

of Management and Budget (O!v1B) for re1iew a l·omprehensivc assessment of the costs and 

benciits of any significant regulatory action. This assessment is to be made availahlc to the public 

aiier the regulatory action has been published in the Federal Register. Because AMS is still 

weighing options for a final rule and assessing associated regulatory costs and hcnellts. we arc 

unahlc to address your >pecilic questions at this time. 

\Ve appreciak you taking the time to share your views on this important work, and we look forward 

to sharing our updated analysis with you later this year. once the final rule is puhlisbed. If you ha1·c 

questions about this respomc or would like to arrange a briefing on this topic. please have your staff 

contact me at (202) 720-7095. A similar letter is being sent to your colleagues. 

Sincerely. 

Todd 

;;?#~ Balta 

A"istant Secretary for Congressional Relations 
104 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER


23594.058

USDA 

=== United States Department of Agriculture 

October 19,2016 

The I !onorable Richard Burr 

United States Senate 

21 7 Russell Senate OHicc Building 

Washington, D.C 20510 

Dear Senator Burr: 

Office of the Secretary 

Washington. D.C 20250 

Thank you for your letter of July 26, 2016, requesting information related to the Agricultural 

Marketing Service's (AMS) proposed rule on Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices. I apologize 

for the delay in responding. 

The proposed rule. which was published in the Federal Register on April 13, 2016, is based on a 

series of recommendations made over several years from lhe National Organic Standards Board 

(NOSB). a Federal advisory committee established by the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990. 

The NOSB 's 15 members represent lhe breadth of the organic sector and are responsible for 

considering and making recommendations on a wide range of issues involving lhe production, 

handling, and processing of organic products. The :KOSB generally meets twice per year at a public 

meeting to discuss issues on the work agenda, vote on proposals, and make recommendations to the 

Secretary. AMS and the NOSB value transparency and invite public input in advance of and during 

public meetings. If a NOSB proposal receives a decisive Board vote of two-thirds majority in 

favor, then the proposal becomes a recommendation to USDA and is provided to the Secretary 

through the AMS National Organic Program fNOP). 

Between !994 and 2011, the NOSB submitted to lhe Secretary 9 recommendations on livestock 

health and welfare in organic production. This proposed rule seeks to address healthcare practices. 

transport, slaughter, and living conditions for organic livestock. In addition, this rule includes 

provisions on outdoor access for poultry that have a significant history of AMS actions based on 

:KOSFI recommendations. The NOSB deliberations on these recommendations revealed 

considerable support within the organic community for lhe recommendations and indicated that 

consumers have specit1c expectations tor organic livestock care, including outdoor access for 

poultry. These recommendations also build on Congressional direction in the Organic Foods 

Production Act and on regulatory lan~,ruage in the final rule that created the NOP in 2000. Further, a 

2010 audit by the USDA Office oflhe Inspector Gent>ral identified inconsistencies in how 

accredited certifying agents consider porches under outdoor access while implementing certification 

of organic poultry operations. This rulemaking is necessary to reduce the variation in outdoor 

access practices. 

One purpose of the Organic Foods Production Act is to assure consumers that organically produced 

products meet a consistent and unitom1 standard. By facilitating improved compliance and 

enforcement of the USDA organic regulations, this rule will better satisfy consumer expectations 

that organic livestock and poultry meet a uniform and verifiable animal welfare standard. 

An Equal Opportunity Employer 
105 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER


23594.059

The Honorable Richard Hurr 

Page 2 

During: the pub:ic comment period on the propos~:d rule. which chJscd on Jul:. 13, 2016. A\lS 

rccci,cd several thousand comments expressing a broad range of views. A\ IS is currently 

rc,·icwing thos~: comments and will consider conc.:rns raised by commentcrs. including concerns 

raised in ~our letter. as the agency develops a !ina! rule. :\MS also is considering scientific data 

and uthcr supporting information rdat<:d to this issue and is consulting with numerous USDA 

programs and other Government agencies to ensure coordinated policies. In particular. /\MS has 

worked closely with the Animal and Plant Ikalth !n:;pection Service to provide a robust review of 

biosecurity-rclated comments. Al\ IS· fact sheet, Biosecurity in USDA Organic Poultry Operations, 

provides an overview ofhiosecurity practices and other int(mnation on how organic poultry 

L'pcrations can protect their flocks from disease. 1 

PleDs<C be assured AMS also continues to wry seriously consider the potential economic impacts of 

the propo:-al. and. as part of the linal rulcmaking. is coordinating with the Office of the Chief 

b:onomist to conduct an updated and thorough economic analysis that will complement the 

extensive economic analysis conducted in preparation of the proposed rule. The initial economic 

analysis of the rule estimated the costs to be S9.5 - $2-'\.1 million per year (annualiz.:d over 13 

year;;). and the paperwork burden costs were estimated to be $3.6 million annually. The 

quantitative bcnetits were estimated to be S!4.7- S62.2 million per year (annualized over 13 years). 

fhc proposed moditications to organic liv~stock and poultry production will allo" for the continued 

expansion of the organic livestock and poult!)· industry. while increasing organic integrity and 

meeting consumer expectations. 

In conducting thi,; rulemaking. AMS must adhere to the requirements of the Administrative 

Procedure Act. which sets forth procedures for public notice and comment and Executive Order 

l 2866. which requires Executive branch agencies to prepare and submit to the White House Office 

of.\1anagement and Budget (OMB) for review a comprehensive assessment of the costs and 

bend1ts of any signiticant regulatory action. This assessment is to be made available to the public 

after the regulatory action has been published in the Federal Register. Because ,\\.1S is still 

w~ighing options !(lr a !ina] n•lc and assessing associated regulatory costs and bcndits. we are 

unable to address your spccilic questions at this time. 

We apprt.>ciute you taking the time to sharc your views on this important work. and we look forward 

to sharing our updated analysis with you later this )"l'ar. once the final rule is published. If you have 

questions about this response or would like to arrange a bricling on this topic, please hm e your staff 

contact me at (202) 7:'0-7095. A similar letter is being sent to your colleagues. 

Sincere]\·, 

Todd Batta 

Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations 
106 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER


23594.060

USDA ,___...,-;;;;;;;;; 

United States ~partment of Agriculture 

October 19, 2016 

The Honorable Robert Casey, Jr. 

United States Senate 

393 Russell St:nate Otlice Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senator Casey: 

Office of the Secretary 

Washington. D.C. 20250 

Thank you for your letter of July 26. 2016, requesting information related to the Agricultural 

Marketing Service's (AMS) proposed rule on Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices. I apologize 

for the delay in responding. 

The proposed mle, which was published in the Federal Register on April 13, 2016, is based on a 

series of recommendations made over several years from the :-lational Organic Standards Board 

{ NOSB). a Federal advisory committee established by the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990. 

The NOSB's 15 members represent the breadth of the organic sector and are responsible for 

considering and making recommendations on a wide range of issues involving the production. 

handling, and processing of organi~ products. The KOSB generally meets twice per year at a public 

meeting to discuss issues on the work agenda, vote on proposals, and make recommendations to the 

Secretary. AMS and the NOSB value transparency and invite public input in advance of and during 

public meetings. If a NOSB proposal receives a decisive Board vote of two-thirds majority in 

favor, then the proposal becomes a recommendation to USDA and is provided to the Secretary 

tbrough the AMS National Organic Program (NOP). 

Between 1994 and 2011, the NOSB submitted to the Secretary 9 recommendations on livestock 

health and welfare in organic production. This proposed rule seeks to address healthcare practices, 

transport, slaughter, and living conditions for organic livestock. In addition, this rule includes 

provisions on outdoor access for poultry that have a significant history of AMS actions based on 

NOSB recommendations. The NOSB deliberations on these recommendations revealed 

considerable support within the organic community for the recommendations and indicated that 

consumers have specific expectations for organic livestock care, including outdoor access for 

poultry. These recommendations also build on Congressional direction in the Organic Foods 

Production Act and on regulatory language in the final rule that created the NOP in 2000. Further, a 

2010 audit by the USDA Office of the Inspector General identitled inconsistencies in how 

accredited certifying agents consider porches under outdoor access while implementing certification 

of organic poultry operations. This rulemaking is necessary to reduce the variation in outdoor 

access practices. 

One purpose of the Organic Foods Production Act is to assure consumers that organically produced 

produc.ts meet a consistent and unitorm standard. By facilitating improved compliance and 

enforcement oft he LSDA organic H'gulations, this rule will better satisfy consumer expectations 

that organic livestock and poultry meet a uniform and verifiable animal welfare standard. 

An Equal Opportunity Emp~oyer 
107 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER


23594.061

The llonorable Robert Casey. Jr. 

P~1ge 2 

During the puhlic comment period on the proposed rule. which closet! on July 13. 2016. A\ IS 

receiH'd se,·eral thousand comments expressing a hroad range ofviev.s. A\1S is currently 

re\ iewing those comments and will consider concerns raised by commcntcrs, mclutling concerns 

rctisct! in your lencr. as the agency deYCiops a final ruk A 'viS also is considering scientific data 

anJ other suppor1ing infimnation rdatcd to this issue and is consulting \\ith numerous L'SDA 

pwgmms and other Government agencies to ensure coordinated policies. In particular. AMS has 

worked close!) with the Animal and Plmullealth Inspection Service to provide a robust n:viev. of 

hiosecurity-n:lated comments. Al\1S · !net sheet. Bit>sccurity in 1 'SDA Organic Poultry Operations, 

provides an O\ervie" of biose~urity practices and other inf(lrmation on how organic poultry 

op<:cations can protect their !locks from disease. 1 

Please he assured AMS also continues to very scriou'sly consider the potential economic impacts of 

the proposaL and, as part of the final rulcmaking, is coordinating with the Ollicc of the Chief 

Economist to conduct an updated and thorough economic analysis that will complement the 

extensiw economic analysis conducted in pr.:paration of the proposed rule. The initial economic 

analysis of the rule estimated the costs to be $9.5 - $24. l million per year (annualized over 13 

years), and the paperwork burden costs were estimated to he $3.6 million annually. The 

quantitative benefits were c>timatcd to he $14.7- $6::!.2 milliun per year (annualiz~d over 13 }Cars). 

The proposc·d modifications to organic liwstock and poultry production will allow for the continued 

expansion ofrhe organic liwstock and poultry industry. \\bile increasing organic integrity and 

meeting con>umcr expectations. 

In conducting this rulcmaking, AMS mm,t adhere to the requirements of the Administrative 

Procedure Act, which sets forth procedures f(>r publk notice anJ comment. and Lxecutil e Order 

l:'l\66, which requires Executive branch agencies to prepare and submit to the White !louse Ofticc 

of 'Vlanagement and Budget (0\113) for review a cornprchcnsi\c assessment of the costs and 

benefits of any 'igni1icant rq;ulatory action. This assessment is to he made available to the public 

atkr the regulator) action has been puhlished in the Federal Register. Because AMS is still 

weighing options l(lr a final rule and assessing associated regulatory costs and benefits, we arc 

~nahh: lo address your srecific questions at this time. 

\\"<,: appreciate you taking the time to share your 'iews on this important work, and we look forward 

to sharing our updatet! anal~ sis with you later this year, once the final rule is published, If you ha\e 

questions about this response or woult! like to arrange a brieilng on this topi<:. please have your staff 

contact me at (202) 720-7095. A similar ktter is being sent to your colleagues. 

Sincerely, 

Todd Batta 

Asc>istanl Secretary for Congressional Relatil'TlS 
108 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER


23594.062

USDA 

.,-,.,...,-

United States Department of Agriculture 

October 19,2016 

The Honorable Jerry Moran 

United States Senate 

521 !Jirksen Senate otl!ce Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senaror Moran: 

Office of the Secretary 

Washington, D.C 20250 

Thank you for your letter of July 26, 2016, requesting information related to the Agricultural 

Marketing Scrvic.e's (AMS) proposed mle on Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices. I apologize 

t(Jr the delay in responding. 

The proposed rule. which was published in the Federal Register on April 13, 2016. is ba-;ed on a 

series of recommendations made over several years from the National Organic Standards Board 

().IOSB). a Federal advisory committee established by the Organic Foods Production Act of !990. 

The J-.;OSB's 15 members represent the breadth of the organic sector and are responsible for 

considering and making recommendations on a wide range of issues involving the production, 

handling, and processing of organic products. The :-.<OSB generally meets twice per year at a public 

meeting to discuss issues on the work agenda, vote on proposals, and make recommendations to the 

Secretary. AMS and the NOSB value transparency and invite public input in advance of and during 

public meetings. If a NOSB proposal receives a decisive Board vote of two-thirds majority in 

favor, then the proposal becomes a recommendation to L'SDA and is provided to the Secretary 

through the AMS National Organic Program (NOP). 

Between 1994 and 2011. the NOSB submitted to the Secretary 9 recommendations on livestock 

health and welfare in organic production. This proposed rule seeks to address healthcare practices. 

transport, slaughter, and living conditions for organic livestock. In addition, this mle includes 

provisions on outdoor access tor poultry that have a significant history of AMS actions based on 

J-.;OSB reconmtcndations. The NOSB deliberations on these recommendations revealed 

considerable support within the organic community for the recommendations and indicated that 

consumers have specitic expectations for organic livestock care, including outdoor access for 

poultry. These recommendations also build on Congressional direction in the Organic Foods 

Production Act and on regulatory language in the fmal rule that created the NOP in 2000. Further, a 

2010 audit by the USDA Office of the Inspector General identified inconsistencies in how 

accredited certifying agents consider porches under outdoor access while implementing certific~tion 

of organic poultry operations. This rolemaking is necessary to reduce the variation in outdoor 

access practices. 

One purpose of the Organic Foods Production Act is to assure consumers that organically produced 

products meet a consistent and uniform standard. By facilitating improved compliance and 

enforcement of the USDA organic regulations, this rule will better satisfy consumer expectations 

that organic livestock and poultry meet a unifi)ml and verifiable animal welfare standard. 

An Equal Opportunity Employer 
109 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER


23594.063

lhe Honorab'c Jerry \1oran 

Page 2 

During the public CL'mment period on the proposed rule. which closed on July 13,2016, ..\MS 

received sev era! thousand comments expressing a broad range of views .. \:'vlS is currently 

reviewing tbOS<' comments and will consider concerns raised by commentcrs. inducting concerns 

raised in your letter, us the agency develops a final rule. AMS also is considering scientific data 

and other supporting information related to this issue and is consulting with numerous l!SDA 

programs and other Government agencies to ensure cc1ordinatc·d policies. In particular. AI\ IS has 

\\orkcd dose!~ with the Animal and Plant llcalth Inspection Service to providc a robust rev-iew of 

hiosecurity-related comments. A\1S' fact sheet, Biosccuritv in l:SDA Organic Poultry Operations. 

prm ides an on.:n iew of biosecurity practices and other inl(lrmation on how org:mic poultry 

operations can protect their flocks from discasc. 1 

Please he assured A.\1S also continues to very seriously consider the potential economic impacts of 

the pnlpos~L and. as part of the final mlcmaking. is coordinating with the Ollice of the Chief 

Economist to conduct an updated and thorough economic analysis that will complement the 

extensive ccom,mic analysis conducted in preparation of the proposed rule. The initial economic 

analysis of the rule estimated the costs to he S.9.5 - S24.l million per )ear (annualized over l3 

years), and the paperwork burden costs were cstimatt:d to be S3.6 million annually. The 

quantitative hcndits were e'tirnate,Jto he Sl4.7- $(>2.2 million per year (annualized over 13 years). 

The pnlposcd rnoditications to organic livestock and poultry production will allow for the continued 

expansion of the organic livestock and poultry industry. \\hik increasing organic integrity and 

meeting consumer expt'ctation:--. 

In conducting this rulemaking. AMS must adhere to the requirements of the Administrative 

Procedure Act \\ hich sets forth procedures l\1r public notice and comment, and Executive Order 

12866. whit:h requires Executive branch 8gcncics to prepare and submit to the V.ihitc House Ol1ice 

,,f\1anagement and Budget (0MBl for rev-iew a comprehensive assessment of the costs and 

benclits of any significant rcgulntory action. This asscssmcnt is to he made available to the public 

after the regulator) action has been publishcJ in the Federal Regi,ter. Because AMS is still 

\\Ci)fhing options f(·,r a final rule and ass.:ssing associated regulatory costs and henc!its. we are 

unJblc to address your specific questions at this time. 

We appreciate you taking the time to share your views on this important work. and we look fomard 

to sharing our updated analysis with you later this year, once the final rule is puhlisheJ. If vou have 

questions about this response or would like to arrange a hrieting on this topic. pleas~ have your 'tall 

contact me at (202) 720-7095. A similar letter is being sent to ynur colleagues. 

Sincerely. 

TodJ !latta 

Assistant Secretary lor Congrcs;ional Relations 
110 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER


23594.064

October 19,2016 

The Honorable John Boozman 

United States Senate 

320 Hart Senate Ofiicc Building 

Washington. D.C. 20510 

Dear Senator Boozman: 

USDA 

..,.---::;;S 

United States Department of Agriculture 

Office of the Secretary 

Washington. D.C. 20250 

Thank you for your letter ofJuly 26,2016, requesting information related to the Agricultural 

Marketing Service's (AMS) proposed rule on Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices. I apologize 

for the delay in responding. 

The proposed rule, which was published in the Federal Register on April 13, 2016, is based on a 

series of recommendations made over several years from theN a tiona! Organic Standards Board 

C-IOSB), a Federal advisory committee established by the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990. 

The 1\0SB 's J 5 members represent the breadth of the organic sector and are responsible for 

considering and making recommendations on a wide range of issues involving the production, 

handling, and processing of organic products. The "JOSB generally meets twice per year at a publi~ 

meeting to discuss issues on the work agenda, vote on proposals, and make recommendations to the 

Secretary. AMS and the NOSB value transparency and invite public input in advance of and during 

public meetings. If a NOSB proposal receives a decisive Board vote of two-thirds majority in 

fuvor, then the proposal becomes a recommendation to USDA and is provided to the Secretary 

through the AMS National Organic Program (NOP). 

Between 1994 and 2011, the NOSB submitted to the Secretary 9 recommendations on livestock 

health and welfare in organic production. This proposed rule seeks to address healthcare practices. 

transport, slaughter, and living conditions for organic livesto<:k. In addition. this rule includes 

provisions on outdoor access for poultry that have a signitlcant history of AMS actions based on 

NOSB recommendations. The NOSB deliberations on these recommendations revealed 

considerable support within the organic community for the recommendations and indicated that 

consumers have specific expectations for organic livestock care, including outdoor access for 

poultry. These recommendations also build on Congressional direction in the Organic Foods 

Production Act and on regulatory language in the final rule that created the NOP in 2000. Further. a 

2010 audit by the USDA Oflice of the Inspector General identified inconsistencies in how 

accredited certifying agents consider porches under outdoor access while implementing certification 

of organic poultry operations. This rulemaking is necessary to reduce the variation in outdoor 

access practices. 

One purpose of the Organic foods Production Act is to assure consumers that organically produced 

products meet a consistent and uniform standard. By facilitating improved compliance and 

enforcement of the USDA organic regulations, this rule will better satisfy consumer expectations 

tbat organic livestock and poultry meet a uniform and verifiable animal welfare standard. 

An Equal Opportunity Employer 
111 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER


23594.065

The 1 fonorablc John Boozman 

Page::?_ 

During the public comment period on the proposed rule, whi.:h dL>scd on July 13. 2016. AMS 

rccchcd several thousand commenb c'\prcssing a broad rnngc of,icws. ·\\IS is currently 

rc,icwing those commcnts and will consider concerns raised by cnmmenters. including concern;, 

rai,ed in your fetter. as the agency develops a final rule. A\1S also is considering ,cicntific data 

and othc·r suppor1ing inf{>rmation rcbted to this issue and is consulting with numerous L"SDA 

programs and othn Go\crnment agencies to ensure coLlrdinated policies. In particular. AMS bas 

\\Orked dos..:ly with the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Sen ice to provide a robust n:vicw of 

biosc·curity-rclatcd comm~nts . ..\MS. lact sheet. Biosccurit) in l'SDA Organic Poultry Opcratinns. 

pro' ide> an o'-cn·iew uf biosecurity practices and other in!(Jrmation on hLlW organic poultry 

op;;ratio;Js can protect their !locks from disease. 1 

Plcusc he assured AMS also continues to very seriously consider the potential cconl>mic impacts of 

the pruc>osal, and, as part of the final rulemaking. is coordinating with the Office of the Chief 

Ecunumist to wndud an updated and thorough economic analysis dmt will complement the 

extensive economic analysis conducted in preparation of the proposed rule. The initial economic 

analysis of the rule estimated the costs to he $9.5 - 524.1 million per year (annualized over 13 

years). and the papen\ork burden costs were estimated to be S~.6 million annually. The 

4uantitatin: bene tits \\tr~ c'stimatcd to be $14.7- $62.2 million per year (annualized over 13 years). 

The proposed modifications to organic livestock and poultry production will allow Jor the continued 

expunsitl!1 of the organic livestock ~nd ;--oultry industry. while increasing organic integrity and 

meeting consumer expcctati<HlS. 

In conducting this rulcmaking. AMS must adhere to the n:4uiremcms of the Administrative 

Procedure .-\cr, \\hich sets f(>rth procedures f(lr public notice and comment. and L'\ccutive Order 

12X66, which requires Fxecutive branch agencies to prepare and submit to the \\"hite !louse Ofticc 

of \lanagcmcnt and Budget (0\1B 1 ti.>r review a comprehensive assessment of the costs and 

henctits of any significant regulatory action. This assessment is to be made available to the public 

after the regulatory action has been published in the Federal Register. Because AMS is still 

weighing options f(Jr a final rule <md assessing associated regulatory costs and hcndits, we arc 

un,tble to address )OUr sp..:-:itic questions ut this time. 

We appreciate you taking the time to ;,hare your vie\'5 on this important work, and we look t<1rward 

to sharing our updated analysis with you lmer this year. once the final rule is published. If you have 

<jucstions about this response t>r would like to arrange a brieling on this topic. please hm-c your staff 

contact me at (:~02) 720-7095. A similar letter is being sent to y0ur colleagtll:s. 

Sincerely, 

Todd Batta 

Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations 
112 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER


23594.066

USDA 

------ ;;;;; 

United States Department ot Agriculture 

October 19,2016 

The Honorable John lloeven 

United States Senate 

338 Russell Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senator Hoeven: 

Office of the Secretary 

Washington, D.C. 20250 

Thank you for your letter of July 26,2016, requesting information related to the Agricultural 

Marketing Service's (A\1S) proposed rule on Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices. l apologi7c 

fcJr the delay in responding. 

The proposed rule, which was published in the Federal Register on April 13, 2016, is based on a 

series of recommendations made over several years from the National Organic Standards Board 

("OSB ), a Federal advisory cornrni!!ee established by the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990. 

The NOSB's 15 members represent the breadth of the organic sector and are responsible tor 

considering and making recommendations on a wide range of issues involving the production, 

handling, and processing of organic products. The NOSB generally meets twice per year at a public 

meeting to discuss issues on the work agenda, vote on proposals, and make recommendations to the 

Secretary. A~S and the NOSB value transparency and invite public input in advance of and during 

public meetings. If a NOSB proposal receives a decisive Board vote of two-thirds majority in 

favor, then the proposal becomes a recommendation to USDA and is provided to the Secretary 

through the AMS National Organic Program (NOP). 

Between 1994 and 2011, the NOSB submitted to the Secretary 9 recommendations on livestock 

health and welfare in organic production. This proposed rule seeks to address healthcare practices. 

transport, slaughter, and living conditions for organic livestock. In addition, this rule includes 

provisions on outdoor m:cess for poultry that have a significant history of AMS actions based on 

NOSB recommendations. The NOSB deliberations on these recommendations revealed 

considerable support within the organic community for the recommendations and indicated that 

consumers have specific expectations for organic livestock care, including outdoor access lor 

poultry. These recommendations also build on Congressional direction in the Organic Foods 

Production Act and on regulatory language in the fmal rule that created the NOP in 2000. Further. a 

2010 audit by the liSDA Office of the Inspector General identified inconsistencies in how 

accredited certifying agents consider porches under outdoor access while implementing certification 

of organic poultry operations. Tllis rulemaking is necessary to reduce the variation in outdoor 

access practices. 

One purpose of the Organic Foods Production Act is to assure consumers that organically produced 

products meet a consistent and uniform standard. By facilitating improved compliance and 

enforcement of the USDA organic regulations. this rule will better satisfy consumer expectations 

that organic livestock and poultry meet a uniform and verifiable animal welfare standard. 

An Equal Opportunity Employer 
113 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER


23594.067

rhc llonorablc Jolm Hoe\ en 

Page 2 

During the public comment periPd on the proposed rule. which closed on Julv 13. 2016. A \IS 

recci,cd scvcraltlwus;md cnnnnents e:~.pressing a broad rang<: otvic\\S. A\!S is currently 

rc' iewing tho:<e comments and will c,msidtr com:ems raised by commenwrs. including concerns 

rais.:d in your Jetter. as the agem·v develops a tlna1 rule. A\1S also is considering scientific data 

and other supporting information related to this issue and is consulting with numerom l :sDA 

pw!'rams anJ tither Go\ernment agencies to ensure coorJinated poliri.:s. In particular. A\1S has 

wurkcd closelv "ith the Animal and Plant llcalth lnspoxtion Servicc to prm ide a robust rc\ icw of 

hiosccurity-reiat~d comments. Nv!S' fact sheet. Iliosccurily in USDA Ort!anic Poultry Operations. 

pro,·idcs an oven icw of biosecurity practices and other inlormation on how organic poultry 

<•pcrntions can protect their Jlocb from Ji,casc. 1 

Pkasc be assured A\ IS also continues to n:ry seriously consider the potential economic impacts of 

the proposaL and. as part of the tina] rulemaking. is c<wrdinating with the Otlice of the Chief 

l,_conomist to conduct an updated and thomugh economic analysis that will complement the 

cxt<'nsi' e eco~mmi<: analysis conduct<:d in preparation of the proposeJ ruk, The initial economic 

analysis oft he rule cstimatt·d the costs to be $9.5- $24.1 million per year (annualized over 13 

y,·ars). and the paperwork burden costs "ere estimated 10 be $3.6 million annually, The 

quantitative benefits were estimated to be S 14.7- S62.2 million p~r ycur (annualized m·cr 13 years). 

The proposed modifications to organic live,tock anJ poultry prouuction will allow f(,r the continued 

expansion of the organic livestock and poultry industry. while increasing organic integrity and 

rncding consuml.!'r C:'\pectation~. 

In cc1nducting this rulemaking. AMS must aJhcre to the n:quircmcnts of the AJministrative 

ProceJure A~t. \\ hich sets JcJrth procedures for public notice and comment. anJ Exccutin: Order 

12866. which requires ExecutiYe branch agcncic;; to prepare and submit to the \Vhite !louse Orticc 

of 'vlanagemcnt and Budget ( 0.\1B) ftlr n:view a comprehensive assessment of the costs and 

benefits of an~ significant regulator: actillll, This assessment is to be made <Wailable to the public 

after the regulator) action has been puhlishcd in the Federal Register_ Because :\\IS is still 

weighing options l(lr a final rule :mJ assessing <l>'<'ciatcd regulatory costs and bencJits. we arc 

unahlc to address vnur spcciftc questions at this time, 

We appreciate you taking the time to share :our views on this important work, and we look forward 

to sharing our updated analysis with you later this year. once the final rule is published. If you haw 

questions ahoul this response or would like to arrange a hrie!ing on this topic. please have your staff 

contact me :ll (202) 720-7095. A similar letter is being sent to y<>ur cnlleagucs. 

Sinccrdy, 

!odd Balta 

A"istant Secretary for Congressional Relations 
114 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER


23594.068

October 19,2016 

The Honorable Gary Peters 

United States Senate 

724 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senator Peters: 

USDA 

,.-=;;;= 

United States Department of Agriculture 

Office of the Secretary 

Washington, D.C. 20250 

Thank you for your letter of July 26, 2016, requesting information related to the Agricultural 

Marketing Service's (AMS) proposed rule on Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices. I apologi7e 

for the delay in responding. 

The proposed rule, which was published in the Federal Register on April 13, 2016, is based on a 

series ofrecommendations made over several years from the National Organic Standards Board 

(NOSB), a Federal advisory committee established by the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990. 

The NOSB's 15 members represent the breadth of the organic sector and are responsible for 

considering and making recommendations on a wide range of issues involving the production, 

handling, and processing of organic products. The NOSB generally meets twice per year at a public 

meeting to discuss issues on the work agenda, vote on proposals. and make recommendations to the 

Secretary. AMS and the NOSB value transparency and invite public input in advance of and during 

public meetings. If a NOSB proposal receives a decisive Board vote of two-thirds majority in 

favor. then the proposal becomes a recommendation to USDA and is provided to the Secretary 

through the Al\1S National Organic Progran1 (NOP). 

Between 1994 and 2011, the NOSB submitted to the Secretary 9 recommendations on livestock 

health and welfare in organic production. This proposed rule seeks to address healthcare practices. 

transport, slaughter, and living conditions for organic livestock. In addition, this rule includes 

provisions on outdoor access for poultry that have a significant history of AMS actions based on 

NOSB recommendations. The NOSB deliberations on these recommendations revealed 

considerable support within the organic community for the recommendations and indicated that 

consumers have specific expectations for organic livestock care, including outdoor access for 

poultry. These recommendations also build on Congressional direction in the Organic Foods 

Production Act and on regulatory language in the final rule that created the NOP in 2000. Further. a 

2010 audit by the ·usDA Office of the Inspector General identified inconsistencies in how 

accredited certifying agents consider porches under outdoor access while implementing certification 

of organic poultry operations, This rulemaking is necessary to reduce the variation in outdoor 

access practices. 

One purpose of the Organic Foods Production Act is to assure consumers that organically produced 

products meet a consistent and uniform standard. By facilitating improved compliance and 

enforcement of the USDA organic regulations, this rule will better satisfy consumer expectations 

that organic livestock and poultry meet a uniform and verifiable animal welfare standard. 

An Equal Opportunity Employer 
115 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER


23594.069

The llonorahle Gary Peters 

Pagt: 2 

During the public comment period on the propos.:d rule. which closed on July 13, ~016. AI\1S 

recei\ ed several thousand comments e:\pressing a bmad range of views. AMS is current!} 

n.:viewint' those comments and wi II consider concerns raised by commcntcrs, including concerns 

raised in your letter. as the agency develops a final rule. Ai\·1S also is considering scicntillc data 

and other supporting information rdated to this issue and is consulting with numerous t:SDA 

programs and other Government agencies to ensure coordinated policies. In particular, AMS has 

worked closely with the Animal and Plant l kalth Inspection Service to provide a robust review of 

biosccurity-related comments. AMS' fact sheet Binsecurity in LSDA Organic Poultry Operations. 

prm ides an overvic\\ of biosecurity practices and other infi.mnation on how organic poultry 

operations can protect their Hocks from disease. 1 

Pit~ase be assun:d AMS also continues to very seriously consider tht' potential economic impacts of 

the proposal. and, as part of the Jinal rulernaking, is coordinating with the Oftlcc of the Chief 

Lcc,nomist to ccmduct an updated and thorough economic analysis that will wmplement the 

extensive economic analysis conducted in preparation ofthc proposed rule. The initial economic 

analy.<i:; of the rule estimated the costs to be $9.5 - $24.1 million per year (annualized o\er 13 

years\. and the paperwork burden costs were estimated to be $3.6 million annually. The 

quantitative benefits were cstimall'd to be $14.7-$62.2 milli(m per year (annualized over l3 years). 

The proposed modifications to organic livestock and poultr) production will allow fi>r the cc>ntinucd 

expansion oft he organic livestock and poultry industry. \\hile increasing organic integrity and 

meeting consutner expectations. 

ln conducting this rulcmaking. A\1S must adhere to the n:quirements of the Administrative 

Procedure Act, which sets f(mh procedures f(H punlic notice and comment. and Executive Order 

11866. which requires Executive branch agencies to prepare and submit to the White !louse Of!ice 

of Management and ])udget (OMBl for review a comprch{·nsivc assessment of the costs and 

bend its of any signiticant regulatory action. This assessment is to be made available to the public 

aiier the regulatory action has be-on publisl:ed in the Federal Register. Because A'v!S is still 

"eighing options for a final rule and assessing associated regulatory costs and bene!its. we are 

unable to address your spcci!ic questions at this time. 

We appreciate you taking the tim~ to shan: your views on this important work. and we look forward 

to sharing our updated analysi.< with )'<lU Inter this year. once the final rule is published. If you have 

questions about this response or would like to arrange a briefing on this topic, please have your staff 

contact me at (102) 720-7095. A similar Jetter is being sent to your colleagues. 

SincGely. 

TodJ 

~~ Batta 

Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations 
116 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER


23594.070

October 19, 2016 

The Honorable David Perdue 

United States Senate 

383 Russell Office Building 

Washington, D.C 20510 

Dear Senator Perdue: 

USDA 

.,.,.-.......- ;;;;;; 

United States Department of Agriculture 

Office of the Secretary 

Washington, D.C. 20250 

Thank you for your letter of July 26,2016, requesting information related to the Agricultural 

Marketing Service's (AMS) proposed rule on Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices. I apologize 

for the delay in responding. 

The proposed rule, which was published in the Federal Register on April 13,2016, is based on a 

series of recommendations made over several years trom the National Organic Standards Board 

(NOSB), a Federal advisory committee established by the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990. 

The NOSB's IS members represent the breadth ofthe organic sector and are responsible for 

considering and making recommendations on a wide range of issues involving the production, 

handling, and processing of organic products. The NOSB generally meets twice per year at a public 

meeting to discuss issues on the work agenda, vote on proposals, and make recommendations to the 

Secretary. AMS and the NOSB value transparency and invite public input in advance of and during 

public meetings. If a NOSB proposal receives a decisive Board vote of two-thirds majority in 

favor, then the proposal becomes a recommendation to USDA and is provided to the Secretary 

through the A.MS National Organic Program (NOP). 

Between 1994 and 2011, the NOSB submitted to the Secretary 9 recommendations on livestock 

health and welfare in organic production. This proposed rule seeks to address healthcare practices, 

transport, slaughter, and living conditions for organic livestock. In addition, this rule includes 

provisions on outdoor access for poultry that have a signiticant history of AMS actions based on 

:.IOSB recommendations. The NOSB deliberations on these recommendations revealed 

considerable support within the organic community for the recommendations and indicated that 

consumers have specific expectations for organic livestock care, including outdoor access for 

poultry. These recommendations also build on Congressional direction in the Organic Foods 

Production Act and on regulatory language in the final rule that created the NOP in 2000. Further. a 

2010 audit by the USDA Office of the Inspector General identified inconsistencies in how 

accredited certifying agents consider porches under outdoor access while implementing certification 

of organic poultry operations. This rulemaking is necessary to reduce the variation in outdoor 

access practices. 

One purpose of the Organic Foods Production Act is to assure consumers that organically produced 

products meet a consistent and uniform standard. By facilitating improved compliance and 

enforcement of the CSDA organic regulations, this rule will better satisfy consumer expectations 

that organic livestock and poultry meet a uniform and verifiable animal welfare standard. 

An Equal Opportunity Employer 
117 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER


23594.071

The llonorable David Perdue 

f'Jge 2 

During the pul>lic comment period on the proposed rule. "hich dosed on July 13, 201 b. AMS 

received se,eralthousand comments expressing. a broad range of \·iews. AMS is currently 

reviewing those comments and will consider conccms raised l>y comrncntcrs. including concerns 

raised in your letter. as the agency develops a tina! rule. X\ IS also is considering scientific data 

anJ other supporting information relateJ to thi;; issue anJ is consulting with numerous l:S[)A 

programs and other Government agencies to ensure coordinated policies. In particular. A\!S has 

worked closely with the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Servict to provide a robust revie\\ of 

hiosccurity-rcluted comments. AMS' fact sheet. Biosecurity in t:SDA Organic Poultry Operations. 

rroviJes an l>n:rview of biosecurity practices and other inti.mnation on how organic poultry 

opecations can prot<:ct their !locks from disease. 1 

Pkase be assured AMS also continues to verv seriously consider the potential economic impacts of 

the proposal. and, as part of the final ru!emaking.. is coordinating. with the Ofticc of the Chief 

[conomist to conJuct an updated nnJ thorough economic analysis that will complement the 

extcnsiw econtlmic analysis conducted in preparation of the proposed rule. The initial economic 

analysis of the rule estimated the costs to be $9.5 · S24.1 million per year (annualized 0\Cr l 3 

years). and the paperwork burden costs were estimated to be $3.6 million annually. The 

quantitativ~ benefits were estimali:d to be $14.7 • $62.2 million per year (annualized over 13 years). 

The proposed modilications to organic livestock and p<'tlltry production will allow for the continued 

expansion of the organic livestock and poultry indu,rry. while increasing organic integrity and 

1:1eeting consun1~r expectations. 

In conducting this rulemaking, AMS must adherc to the requirements of the Administrative 

Procedure ,\ct. 11 hich sets forth procedures for public notice and comment, and Executiv-e Order 

12866. "hich requires Executi1·e branch agencies to prepare and submit to the White House Oftice 

of\!anagement and Budget (Ol\1I3) fix review a comprehensive assessment of the costs and 

bene tits of any significant regulatory action. This assessment is to be made available to the public 

after the regulatory action has been published in the Federal Register. Because ,\MS is still 

weighing options !i.1r a final rule and assessing associated regulatory costs and benefits. we are 

unahlc to address your specific questions at this time. 

We appn:ciatc you taking the time to slum~ your views on this important work. and we look forward 

to o.haring our updated nn:1lysis with you later this year. once the iinal rule is published. If you have 

questions about this rcspono.c or \\OUid like to arrange a briefing on this topic. please have your staff 

contact me at (202) 720-7095. A similar letter is being sent to your colkagucs. 

Sincerely. 

lt1dd !3atta 

Assi,;tant Secretary for Congressional Rdatinns 
118 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER


23594.072

USDA 

=-

United States Department of Agriculture 

Octoher 19,2016 

The Honorable Thorn Tillis 

United States Senate 

I 85 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senator Tillis: 

Office of lhe Secretary 

Washington. D.C. 20250 

Thank you for your letter of July 26, 2016, requesting information related to the Agricultural 

Marketing Service's (AMS) proposed rule on Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices. I apologize 

for the delay in responding. 

The proposed rule, which was published in the Federal Register on April 13,2016, is based on a 

series of recommendations made over several years from the National Organic Standards Board 

(NOSB), a Federal advisory committee established by the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990. 

The NOSB's I 5 members represent the breadth of the organic sector and are responsible for 

considering and making recommendations on a wide range of issues involving the production, 

handling, and processing of organic products. The NOSB generally meets twice per year at a public 

meeting to discuss issues on the work agenda, vote on proposals, and make recommendations to the 

Secretary. AMS and the NOSB value transparency and invite public input in advance of and during 

public meetings. If a NOSB proposal receives a decisive Board vote of two-thirds majority in 

favor, then the proposal becomes a recommendation to USDA and is provided to the Secretary 

through the AMS National Organic Program fNOP). 

Between 1994 and 20 II, the NOSB submitted to the Secretary 9 recommendations on livestock 

health and welfare in organic production. This proposed rule seeks to address healthcare practices. 

transport, slaughter, and living conditions tor organic livestock. In addition, this rule includes 

provisions on outdoor access for poultry that have a significant history of AMS actions based on 

~OSB recommendations. The NOSB deliberations on these recommendations revealed 

considerable support within the organic community for the recommendations and indicated that 

consumers have specific expectations for organic livestock care, including outdoor access for 

poultry. These recommendations also huild on Congressional direction in the Organic Foods 

Production Act and on regulatory language in the final rule that created the NOP in 2000. Further. a 

20 I 0 audit by the USDA Office of the Inspector General identified inconsistencies in how 

accredited certifying agents consider porches under outdoor access while implementing certillcation 

of organic poultry operations. This rulernaking is necessary to reduce the variation in outdoor 

access practices. 

One purpose of the Organic Foods Production Act is to assure consumers that organically produced 

products meet a consistent and uniform standard. By facilitating improved compliance and 

enforcement of the USDA organic regulations, this rule will better satisfy consumer expectations 

that organic livestock and poultry meet a uniform and verifiable animal welfare standard. 

An Equal Opportunity Employer 
119 

mw42035 on AGRINON012 with DISTILLER


23594.073

rhc llonorahle Thorn Iiliis 

Page 2 

During the pnblic CL1Intnent period on the proposed rule, which closed on July 13,2016, AMS 

received several thousand comments expre~sing o broad range of views. A \1S is .:um:ntly 

r.;v icwing those comments and will consider concerns raised by commcntcr ,, mduding concerns 

raised in your letter, as the agcm:y dcH:lops a final rule. AMS also is wnsidcring scientific data 

and other supporting infom1atiun related tu this issue and is consulting with numerous LSDA 

programs and other Government agencies to ensure coordinated policies. In particular. AMS has 

worked closely with the Animal and Plant llcalth Inspection Service to pro,·idc a robust review of 

biosecurity-rdated comments. ,\1\lS' fact shed, 13io;;ecuri1y in USDA Organic Poultry Operations. 

provides an overview of bi(>s.:curity practices and <>thcr int(>rmation on how organic poultry 

Ppcrations can protect their fl(Kks from dist:ase. 1 

Pkasc be assured 1\1\{S also c,>ntinucs to very seriously consider the potential economic impacts of 

tb<: proposiil, and. as part <)f the tina] rulemaking. is coordinating with the ()fllce of the Chief 

Economist to wnduct an updated and thorough economic analysis that will complement the 

extcnsiv.: economic analysis conducted in preparation of the proposed rule. The initial economic 

ana!;. sis of the rule estimated the costs to he $9.5 $2-1.1 million per year (annualized over 13 

years). and the paperwork hurden costs \\We estimated to be $3.6million annually. The 

quantitative benefits were estimated to be $1-1.7- S62.2 million per year (annuali7l~d o\cr 13 years). 

The propose-d moditic<JtiPns to organic li<c'stn;;k and poultry production will allow for the continued 

e:--pansion of the organic liv~stod, and poultry industry, while increasing organic integrity and 

mt;cting consumer expectations. 

In conducting this rulemaking. AMS must adhere to the requirements of the Administrative 

Procedure Act, which sets forth procedures for puhlic notice and comment. and Executive Order 

J 2866. which requires. Excwti\·c branch agencies to prepare and submit to the White I louse Office 

of \1anagement and Budget (OMB) fi>r review a (;()mprchensivc assessment oft he costs and 

hcndits of any signilicant regulatory action. This assessment is to be made a'ailablc to the public 

afkr the regulatory action has been published in the Federal R~gistcr. Because /\MS is still 

weighing options lor a final rule and assessing associated regulatory costs and benefits. we are 

unable t(l address your specific 4w:;;tion;; at this time. 

We appreciate you taking tbc time to share your vic\\s on this important work, and we look l(>rward 

to sharing our updated analysi:; with you later this year. once the final rule is published. If you have 

questions ahnut this response or would like to arrange a bridlng on this topic, please have your staff 

con tad me at (202) 720-7095. A similar letter is be in!!. sent to your colleagues. 

Sincc·rcly, 

Todd !latta 

Assistant S..:cretary for Congres;;ional Relations 

0