(1) 

AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD 

AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 

FISCAL YEAR 2017 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 9, 2016 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met at 2:05 p.m., in room SD–124, Dirksen 

Senate Office Building, Hon. Jerry Moran (chairman) presiding. 

Present: Senators Moran, Blunt, Cochran, Hoeven, Daines, 

Merkley, Tester, Udall, and Baldwin. 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS VILSACK, SECRETARY 

ACCOMPANIED BY: 

DR. ROBERT JOHANSSON, CHIEF ECONOMIST 

MICHAEL YOUNG, BUDGET OFFICER 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JERRY MORAN

Senator MORAN. I call this Committee hearing together, and we 

appreciate the Secretary joining us once again. 

As you would expect, the purpose of our hearing is to examine 

the Administration’s fiscal year 2017 budget request. 

In addition to Secretary Vilsack, we welcome Dr. Johansson. 

Thank you very much for joining us last week in a discussion about 

agricultural economics. 

Mr. Young, thank you very much for your presence today. 

Agriculture supports 16 million jobs nationwide. It is certainly 

the backbone of my State, my community and States and communities across the country. We also know, unfortunately, as Dr. 

Johansson indicated to us last week, farmers are facing a dramatic 

reduction in commodity prices and falling revenues. We know the 

facts indicate that from 2013 through 2015, net farm income fell 

54 percent. 

In these times, it is critical that our Nation’s safety net for farmers and ranchers perform well and allow them to continue to grow 

and raise the safest, most affordable and abundant food supply in 

the world. 

As I indicated in our conversation with the agriculture (ag) 

economists, in the absence of doing that, they will not be around 
2 

in good times. Therefore, I would express my disappointment that, 

once again, the President’s budget proposes significant cuts to crop 

insurance, even though we had a grassroots effort that successfully 

reversed a reduction. That reduction pales in comparison to what 

this year’s proposal in the budget requests. 

As this Subcommittee works to craft this year’s appropriations 

bill, my priorities will be to focus on supporting agricultural producers and the rural communities in which they live, and keeping 

a strong safety net will be at the forefront of that effort. 

I look forward to discussing these issues and others at today’s 

hearing. When Senator Merkley arrives, we will give him the opportunity to make any statements that he would like to make, then 

we will turn to Secretary Vilsack. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR JERRY MORAN

This hearing will come to order. Good afternoon. The purpose of today’s hearing 

is to discuss the Department of Agriculture’s fiscal year 2017 budget request. 

Secretary Vilsack, Dr. Johansson, and Mr. Young—thank you for being here 

today. 

Agriculture supports more than 16 million jobs nationwide and forms the backbone of our rural communities. However, as you well know, our nation’s farmers and 

ranchers have faced a drastic downturn in commodity prices and falling revenues. 

From 2013 to 2015, net farm income fell by a staggering 54 percent. 

In times like these, it is critical that our nation’s safety net for farmers and 

ranchers performs well and allows them to continue to grow and raise the safest, 

most affordable, and abundant food supply in the world. 

I’m disappointed that once again the president’s budget proposes massive cuts to 

the crop insurance program—even after the grassroots effort by so many last fall 

successfully reversed a reduction that pales in comparison to the proposals in this 

year’s budget request. 

As the subcommittee works to craft this year’s appropriations bill, my priorities 

will focus toward supporting agriculture producers and rural communities. Keeping 

a strong safety net intact will be one of those priorities. 

I look forward to discussing these issues and others at today’s hearing. I would 

now like to turn to our Ranking Member, Senator Merkley, for his opening statement. 

Senator MORAN. Secretary Vilsack, we are going to begin with 

your testimony. Thank you very much. Welcome. 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS VILSACK

Secretary VILSACK. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. To Senator Merkley and other members of the committee, thank you for 

the opportunity to be here today. 

I thought I would take this opportunity to point out that budgets 

are oftentimes a lot about numbers. But behind each of these numbers, there are individuals and people that we care deeply about. 

So I thought I would take a little bit of my time today to discuss 

the people who will be benefited from the agricultural budget. 

The budget we submitted to the Senate and to the House will 

support 43,000 farm loans. We already, over the last 7 years, provided 239,000 farmers with the credit that they need to be able to 

operate and own their farm operation, 80 percent of those resources 

going to those beginning in the farming business and socially disadvantaged producers. 

This budget will continue to support our export assistance efforts. Every dollar we invest in export assistance generates $35 of 

activity. We are excited about the possibility during the last 7 
3 

years of reaching nearly $1 trillion of ag exports, which is a record, 

a 45-percent increase over the previous 7-year period. This budget 

does provide adequate coverage for the $92 billion crop that will be 

grown and raised this year through crop insurance and provides 

what we estimate to be an 18-percent return on investment for the 

company’s crop insurance. 

It will provide enough resources to add 44 million acres to an already record number of enrolled acres in our conservation program. 

We are particularly pleased with the reaction and response to the 

Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP), which is now 

leveraging nearly $2 for every $1 that we are investing in conservation. 

In addition to providing opportunities for credit, we also will, as 

the Chairman indicated, continue to administer the farm bill safety 

net programs. Last year, we provided 900,000 farms agriculture 

risk coverage (ARC) or price loss coverage (PLC) payments, totaling 

$5.2 billion. Our expectation is that that amount will increase this 

year to provide the necessary bridge to better times. 

At the same time, we are also going to make sure that we create 

more innovation and opportunity in rural America. The budget we 

propose will support 55,000 new jobs added to the 450,000 jobs that 

we have saved or created as a result of investments in over 100,000 

businesses in the last 7 years through rural development. 

This budget will finance 167,000 home loans, which will allow us 

to exceed 1 million home loans in the last 7 years. 

We finance nearly 1,000 community facilities, provide safer and 

better water for 1.7 million rural Americans, which will reach nearly 20 million rural Americans who have benefited from over 5,000 

water and wastewater projects that have been financed by the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (USDA) since I have been Secretary. 

Our budget proposes a threefold increase in broadband grants. 

There are a multitude of reasons for business, for farmers as well 

as potential expansion of distance-learning and telemedicine, which 

will become critically important in rural America if we are to make 

sure that our youngsters are well-prepared for a very competitive 

future, and if we are able to deal with the opioid issue, which I 

know is an issue that many of you are very, very concerned about, 

as I am. 

This budget will also fully fund our research initiative, our competitive research initiative, meeting the goal that was set when the 

National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) was first established of $700 million of assistance for research. There has never 

been a more important time in agriculture for additional research, 

whether it is pollinators, antimicrobial resistance, pests and diseases that we are dealing with as a result of a changing climate. 

We have already netted 429 patents, 953 inventions, and 714 

new plant varieties just in the time that I have been Secretary, 

through our research initiative. 

We will also continue to support and provide additional resources 

for the important role of the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) 

within USDA. 

On the nutrition side, this budget will support 8.1 million WIC 

(Women, Infants and Children Program) participants with continued expanded access to our school lunch and school breakfast pro-
4 

gram. I am particularly interested and hopeful that we are able to 

see an expansion of our summer program. The President has proposed an approach that will allow 1 million youngsters the opportunity to access food during the summer months. 

This also will provide an opportunity for us to focus on senior 

citizens and their access to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 

Program (SNAP). Only 41 percent of eligible senior citizens are currently receiving the benefits of SNAP. We would like to see the percentage increase. 

This is a budget, Mr. Chairman, that also will allow for an expansion of local and regional food systems in the bio-based economy. 

I would say that even though this is not the purview of this particular Subcommittee, I would hope that this is the year that we 

finally fix the fire budget, because that has implications and impacts on every other aspect of USDA’s budget. 

Candidly, I am at the point now where folks have raised concerns 

about trails and a variety of other facets of the Forest Service that 

we are not going to do what we have done in the past, which is 

transfer money for fire suppression. Hopefully, this is the year that 

Congress get serious about fire suppression. 

This is also a budget, I might add, that is $1.8 billion less than 

the budget that was submitted in the first full year of this Administration. So we have been dealing with constrained budgets, but 

we have done this through the administrative services process, 

which has saved $1.4 billion, and through a process improvement 

program, which has saved over 300,000 hours of time and which 

also saved $65 million to constituents and customers that we serve, 

all in an effort to try to continue to do better and more with less. 

I look forward to questions from the Subcommittee, and I appreciate the opportunity to be here. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS J. VILSACK

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of this Subcommittee, I appreciate the 

opportunity to appear before you to discuss the Administration’s priorities for the 

Department of Agriculture (USDA) and provide you an overview of the President’s 

2017 budget proposals for the Department. Joining me today are Robert Johansson, 

USDA’s Chief Economist, and Michael Young, USDA’s Budget Officer. 

For more than 7 years, I have had the honor and privilege of serving as Secretary 

of Agriculture. I have traveled to all 50 states and heard from farmers, ranchers 

and Americans far and wide, from all walks of life 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. 

Seven years ago I first appeared before this Subcommittee to present this Administration’s first budget request for USDA. I made a commitment to make sure that 

USDA’s programs provide a high level of service to advance rural economic opportunity, improve family farm profitability, ensure the safety of our food, expand export opportunities, strengthen local food systems, protect our natural resources, address civil rights and combat hunger and malnutrition. 

Seven years later, I can say that the men and women of USDA have made significant advancement in achieving our goals and they have done it with essentially the 

same discretionary funding level in fiscal year (FY) 2015 as in fiscal year 2009, and 

with 9,354 fewer total staff years in 2015 than in 2009. Critical to our success was 

the Blueprint for Stronger Service that allowed us to reduce spending, streamline 

operations and cut costs. Through the Blueprint for Stronger Services we completed 

a thorough review of the Department’s administrative functions so that we could 

build a more efficient and effective workplace. Our savings and cost avoidance results for the American taxpayer have totaled over $1.4 billion since 2010. Through 
5 

these results and the institutional changes resulting from the Department’s focus 

on process improvement, shared services, and strategic sourcing, the impacts of the 

Blueprint will continue to grow into the future. 

Before getting to our fiscal year 2017 budget request, I want to highlight some 

of the great work that we have done to expand opportunities in rural America since 

fiscal year 2009. In fiscal year 2015, American agricultural producers achieved 

$139.7 billion in exports, the third highest year on record. Agricultural exports 

climbed more than 45 percent in value, totaling over $911 billion, between 2009 and 

2015, the best seven year stretch in history. In addition, agricultural exports have 

increased in volume, demonstrating an increasing global appetite for Americangrown products. Between 2009 and 2015, U.S. companies participating in USDA-endorsed trade shows reported total on-site sales of more than $1.7 billion and more 

than $8.7 billion in 12-month projected sales. An independent study found that U.S. 

agricultural exports increase $35 for every market development dollar expended by 

government and industry. 

USDA has worked to open new markets worldwide for farm and ranch products. 

Trade agreements, like those with Panama, Colombia and South Korea, create opportunities for trade growth. U.S. agricultural exports to these three countries grew 

by nearly 28 percent, from $7.6 billion in fiscal year 2012, when the trade agreements were first going into effect, to $9.7 billion in fiscal year 2015, supporting approximately 73,000 American jobs in 2015. USDA assisted with the recently concluded negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). When implemented, the 

TPP agreement, with 11 Pacific Rim countries representing nearly 40 percent of 

global GDP, will provide new market access for America’s farmers and ranchers by 

lowering tariffs and eliminating other barriers. Rural America needs the good deal 

laid out in the TPP agreement. We are committed to working closely with Congress 

to obtain support for this historic deal so that our businesses can sell more ruralgrown and rural-made goods around the world, and we can help more American 

workers compete and win. Rural exports support farm income, which translates into 

more economic activity in rural areas. It is estimated that for each dollar of agricultural exports another $1.27 in business activity is stimulated. 

Access to credit is critical to the sustainability of small and beginning farmers. 

To make agriculture a reality for new and beginning farmers and ranchers, we have 

provided about 237,000 direct and guaranteed farm ownership and operating loans 

totaling $33.3 billion, 80 percent of which have been made to beginning farmers and 

ranchers and socially disadvantaged producers. 

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. 

Under the leadership of Deputy Secretary Krysta Harden, 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 10 years of business. For example, USDA initiated a microloan program that has provided more than 16,800 lowinterest operating loans, totaling over $373 million to producers across the country, 

and has recently expanded this to include farm ownership loans. We have also developed an innovative web tool and conducted other outreach activities, to help support key groups like veterans, women, and the socially disadvantaged, as well as 

facilitate intergenerational transfer of farms and ranches. To ensure the success and 

sustainability of beginning farmers and ranchers, USDA has created an agency priority goal that will publically share USDA performance goals and progress in support of new and beginning farmers. 

We recognized that a spark was needed to transform rural America from a primarily agri-based economy to one that makes, creates and innovates. That is why 

we focused our efforts on taking advantage of the emerging bioeconomy, including 

biomanufacturing and advanced biofuels, local and regional food systems, 

broadband, and telemedicine. Our efforts not only supported the most productive agricultural sector in the world, but also assisted rural communities to be places 

where all businesses, farm and non-farm alike, have prospered and created jobs. We 

also saw the need to provide increased opportunities to allow everyone to share in 

the prosperity of the growing economy. So we targeted our efforts to the poorest 

communities, invested in new and beginning farmers, and supported our veterans, 

which have increased opportunities for hard working Americans. Our efforts are 

bearing fruit. Over the last 5 years unemployment rates in rural areas have fallen 

considerably and fairly consistently in rural areas, with unemployment rates falling 

by a full percentage point or more in each of the last 2 calendar years. These efforts 
6 

have contributed to the employment gains in rural America that have happened 

since 2009 and have led to increased economic activities in high poverty communities. 

We have also recognized rural opportunities beyond agriculture by making 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. Modernized electric service 

was delivered to more than 5.5 million subscribers and over 180,000 miles of electric 

lines were funded. We helped nearly 103,000 rural small businesses grow, creating 

or saving nearly 450,000 jobs between fiscal year’s 2009 and 2015. Since 2009, 

USDA assisted more than 1.1 million rural families to buy or refinance a home, 

helping 141,000 rural Americans become homeowners in fiscal year 2015 alone. 

USDA continues to lead the way for renewable energy by supporting the infrastructure needed to grow the new energy economy. Since 2009, RD has supported 

over 15,000 renewable energy projects to help producers and rural businesses save 

energy and increase their profitability and increase the production of renewable 

fuels. The Department has helped thousands of rural small businesses, farmers and 

ranchers improve their bottom lines by installing renewable energy systems and energy efficiency solutions, which will generate and save more than 9.4 billion kWh, 

enough energy to power 820,000 American homes annually. Under expanded authority provided by the 2014 Farm Bill, we are working to expand the number of commercial biorefineries in operation that produce advanced biofuels from non-food 

sources through the Biorefinery Assistance Program. This focus on renewable energy has resulted in support for the construction of 6 advanced biofuels production 

facilities, over 2,200 wind and solar renewable electricity generation facilities, and 

93 anaerobic digesters to help farm operations capture methane to produce electricity. 

In addition, we made available $100 million in grants under Biofuel Infrastructure Partnership (BIP) to nearly double the number of fueling pumps nationwide 

that supply renewable fuels to American motorists, such as E15 and E85. Twenty 

one states are participating in the BIP, with matching funds from state and private 

partners, providing $210 million to strengthen the rural economy by increasing the 

demand for advanced biofuels and expanding marketing opportunities for farmers. 

We also took new steps to support biobased product manufacturing that promises 

to create new jobs across rural America, including adding new categories of qualified 

biobased products for Federal procurement and establishing reporting by Federal 

contractors of biobased product purchases. We released a study of the bioeconomy 

last year and found the biobased products industry generates $369 billion and 4 million jobs each year for our economy. The expanding bioeconomy means more choices 

for customers and new jobs for rural America. Shifting just 20 percent of the current 

plastics produced into bioplastics could create an increase of 104,000 jobs. 

USDA’s place-based efforts are making sure that the programs that help alleviate 

the impact of poverty are available and accessible even in the poorest and persistently poor areas. In 2016, we expanded the StrikeForce Initiative to four additional 

states to include a total of 970 counties, parishes, boroughs, and census areas in 25 

states and Puerto Rico. We know that place-based efforts work and we have seen 

StrikeForce bring economic opportunity directly to rural Americans where they live 

and help rural communities leverage their assets. In 2015, in StrikeForce target 

areas, USDA partnered with more than 1,000 organizations to support 56,600 investments that directed more than $7.5 billion to create jobs, build homes, feed kids, 

assist farmers and conserve natural resources in some of the nation’s most economically challenged areas. Since the initiative was launched in 2010, USDA has invested more than $23 billion in high-poverty areas, providing a pathway to success 

and expanding the middle class. 

Between 2009 and 2014, USDA invested more than $800 million in more than 

29,100 local and regional food businesses and infrastructure projects. In fiscal year 

2015, USDA directly supported nearly 10,000 farms and ranches, food entrepreneurs 

and communities through local food-related projects, which reflects the implementation of FSA microloans. As a result, the market for local food has grown to at least 

$12 billion in 2014 from $5 billion in 2008. Given the current growth of local foods, 

some industry sources estimate that the market’s value could hit $20 billion by 

2019. In addition, USDA has made expanding SNAP recipients’ access to fresh fruits 

and vegetables through farmers markets a priority in recent years. In 2008, about 
7 

750 farmers markets and direct marketing farmers accepted SNAP. In 2015, almost 

6,500 of these markets and farmers accepted SNAP. 

Research provides the foundation for developing innovative practices needed to 

feed the growing global population, while protecting and conserving our natural resources. USDA’s in-house research and our work with land-grant universities have 

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

and forest landowners to support decisionmaking, innovation and economic opportunity. Between fiscal year 2009 through fiscal year 2015, USDA filed 883 patent 

applications with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and was issued 429 patents. In fiscal year 2015, USDA held 421 income-bearing licenses. It also had 301 

cooperative research and development agreements, of which 106 involved small 

businesses. 

USDA has facilitated the adoption of new technologies by streamlining the process 

for making determinations on petitions involving biotechnology. These improvements provided more rapid and predictable availability of biotechnology products to 

farmers, ultimately providing technologies to growers sooner and more choices to 

consumers. In fiscal year 2015 alone, USDA reviews found safe genetically enhanced 

varieties of potato, corn, soybean, cotton, and alfalfa. USDA estimates that the cumulative number of actions taken to deregulate biotechnology products based on a 

scientific determination that they do not pose a plant pest risk will increase from 

a cumulative total of 82 actions in fiscal year 2009 to an estimated cumulative total 

of 126 actions in 2017. 

Since 2009, USDA has worked to safeguard America’s food supply, prevent 

foodborne illnesses and improve consumers’ knowledge about the food they eat. For 

example, USDA adopted a zero tolerance policy for raw beef products containing six 

strains of shiga-toxin producing E. coli, giving products that test positive for any of 

these strains the same illegal and unsafe status USDA has long given products testing positive for E. coli O157:H7. Additionally, USDA set tougher standards for Salmonella and new standards for Campylobacter on poultry carcasses, and developed 

the first ever Salmonella and Campylobacter standards for chicken parts, which are 

more commonly purchased than whole carcasses. Together, USDA estimates these 

new standards will reduce illnesses by about 75,000 annually, and help the agency 

meet Healthy People 2020 goals. The total number of illnesses attributed to USDAregulated products fell nearly 11 percent from 2009 to 2015, which equates to more 

than 46,000 avoided illnesses on an annual basis. 

The Administration continues its strong support for the Supplemental Nutrition 

Assistance Program (SNAP), the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for 

Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), and other critical programs that reduce hunger and help families meet their nutritional needs. SNAP kept at least 4.7 million 

people, including nearly 2.1 million children, out of poverty in 2014. 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, in tandem with the Summer Food Service Program. Summer meal 

participation has increased by almost 16 percent since 2009. In total, summer meals 

sites have served over 1.2 billion meals to low-income children since 2009. During 

the school year, over 97 percent of schools are successfully meeting nutrition standards by serving meals with more whole grains, fruits, vegetables, lean protein and 

low-fat dairy, and less sodium and fat. I am pleased the Senate Agriculture Committee passed a bill that ensures progress will continue improving our children’s 

diets and urge Congress to reauthorize these programs for our young people without 

delay. 

America’s farmers, ranchers and landowners have led the way in recent years to 

conserve and protect our soil, water and wildlife habitat. With the help of Farm Bill 

programs, USDA partnered with a record number of producers since 2009 to create 

not only a cleaner, safer environment, but to create new economic opportunities. 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. In fiscal year 2015, one such landscape-scale effort provided a noteworthy achievement in that 90 percent of the greater sage-grouse’s 

breeding habitat in the western United States is protected as a result of our Working Land for Wildlife efforts and the work of our many partners. Due to this 

achievement, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has determined this species does 

not warrant protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). In addition to 

wildlife benefits, conservation practices have reduced the amount of nitrogen leaving 

fields by about 26 percent, phosphorus by 46 percent, and the estimated amount of 

eroded soil by 60 percent over the past 7 years. Through the Regional Conservation 

Partnership Program (RCPP), we leveraged $800 million to support 115 high-impact 

conservation projects across the nation that will improve the nation’s water quality, 
8 

support wildlife habitat and enhance the environment. We have also offered producers multiple new opportunities to utilize the Conservation Reserve Program to 

retire marginal agricultural lands, restore grasslands and forests, and protect valuable wildlife habitat. But just as important as protecting our natural resources, we 

have increased economic opportunities for rural America by boosting outdoor recreation, which adds more than $640 billion in consumer spending each year. 

To build on these accomplishments, we need to do more to transform rural America and increase opportunities for families. To do this, the 2017 Budget will continue 

to expand opportunity for America’s agricultural producers, rural communities, and 

the most vulnerable populations. Critical investments are made to strengthen rural 

communities, expand agricultural trade, provide more opportunities for hard working American families, modernize key infrastructure, and build resilience in the face 

of a changing climate. USDA’s total budget for 2017 we are proposing before this Subcommittee is $146.8 billion, of which approximately $127 billion is mandatory funding. The majority of 

these funds support crop insurance, nutrition assistance programs, farm commodity 

and trade programs and a number of conservation programs. The budget includes 

mandatory funds to fully support estimated participation levels for SNAP and Child 

Nutrition Programs. For discretionary programs of interest to this Subcommittee, 

our budget proposes $19.7 billion, approximately $309 million below the 2016 enacted level. That level fully funds expected participation in WIC. It includes the 

funding needed to meet our responsibility for providing inspection services to the 

Nation’s meat and poultry establishments. The budget also includes $1.4 billion to renew approximately 271,000 rental assistance agreements. This funding is critical to ensure housing stability for elderly 

and disabled tenants without the means to otherwise obtain safe, affordable housing. I appreciate the Subcommittee’s assistance in ensuring we have the resources 

and flexibility in fiscal year 2016 needed to address challenges facing the Rental Assistance Program. The budget also funds single family housing at the 2016 enacted 

level, providing over 166,000 homeownership opportunities. 

The 2017 budget provides a strong farm safety net and makes investments to 

meet challenges of a competitive global market, changing climate, and making agriculture a reality for new and beginning farmers. The budget proposes a loan level 

of approximately $6.4 billion for direct and guaranteed farm ownership and operating loans, about 80 percent of the loans will be made to beginning farmers and 

ranchers and socially disadvantaged producers. The Farm Service Agency will offer 

mentorship opportunities, support landowners who wish to sell or rent their land 

to beginning farmers and ranchers, increase local outreach and educational efforts, 

support agricultural youth organizations, provide loan fee waivers for veterans, and 

target additional farm loan funding to veteran farmers and ranchers. The budget 

doubles the funding for the Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers and Veteran Farmers and Ranchers Grant Program for a total of $20 million. Funding will 

be used to assist these groups in owning and operating farms and ranches, while 

increasing their participation in agricultural programs and services provided by 

USDA. The 2017 budget also includes a $5 million increase for the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program to help beginning farmers and ranchers 

adopt sustainable agricultural practices. 

The rural economy will be even stronger because of the investments in rural infrastructure made by USDA. We will make over $1 billion in investments in rural businesses estimated to provide over 55,000 jobs in rural areas. We will facilitate the 

growth of the bioeconomy with a $25 million increase in competitive research funding to support development of biobased energy sources. In addition, the budget includes $91 million in discretionary funding and $359 million in mandatory funding 

for a total of $450 million for REAP to assist agricultural producers and rural small 

businesses to take advantage of renewable energy. We also propose $6.5 billion in 

loans to rural electric cooperatives and utilities that will support the transition to 

clean-energy generation and increased energy efficiency. Funding for broadband 

grants is more than tripled to assist in bringing critically needed broadband service 

to more rural communities. In addition, the budget includes a total of $35 million 

for Distance Learning and Telemedicine grants to support improved education and 

medical services in rural areas which may help partially address the particular challenges tied to rural America’s opioid abuse epidemic. Over $2.2 billion is targeted 

to community facilities, which will expand educational opportunities for students, 

facilitate delivery of affordable healthcare, and ensure the availability of reliable 

emergency services. Through a pilot called Rural Corps, USDA will work in partnership with local organizations to deploy highly trained staff and increase the likelihood that investments in infrastructure and economic development are strategic, 

creating jobs and long-term economic benefits. 
9 

Additional resources are proposed to address the acute and long-term needs of so- cially disadvantaged populations, including $20 million for a new competitive grant 

Home Visits for Remote Areas Program that will provide support for high-need maternal, child, and family health in remote rural areas and Indian country. It should 

be noted that such populations are more likely to experience poverty in rural areas 

where over 18 percent of the total population and over 25 percent of children live 

in poverty. We are also proposing $25 million to support a Rural Child Poverty demonstration project to implement multi-generational strategies to addressing rural 

child poverty, which includes $5 million to support alignment of data and eligibility 

determination systems across programs. The budget also includes increased support 

to build the capacity of 1890 Institutions to meet the growing need for agriculture 

assistance in high poverty areas. Further, we propose an increase of about $7 million to enhance research, education, and extension efforts in tribal areas through 

long-term capacity building at 1994 Institutions and expansion of the federally Recognized Tribes Extension Program (FRTEP). This will lead to increased professional 

training opportunities, a 25 percent increase in the number of Indian students working on summer internships, and a doubling of the number of FRTEP staff engaged 

in 4–H activities to 72. 

Access to nutritious food is essential to the well-being and productivity of all 

Americans. The budget makes substantial investments in address child hunger in 

the summer. It provides an increase of $3 million in discretionary funding to continue the successful Summer Electronic Benefit Transfer for Children (SEBTC) demonstration pilots. Beyond the expansion of the pilots, the 2017 budget proposes to 

invest $12.2 billion over 10 years to make the program permanent and begin 

phased-in nationwide implementation. Rigorous evaluations of SEBTC pilots have 

proven effective in reducing very low food security in children for about one-third 

of the children who would have otherwise experienced it and in improving children’s 

nutrition. The proposal would reach almost one million low-income children beginning in the summer of 2017, increasing to nearly 20 million children after 10 years. 

Given the harm that hunger imposes on children, this is a smart, evidence-based 

investment. 

The budget includes an increase of $30 million to strengthen animal disease preparedness and response capabilities funding needed to stem the impacts of significant pests and diseases. Minimizing such impacts allows for an abundant food supply as well as provides trade opportunities for our producers. Over the last few 

years, USDA has addressed some of the worst animal disease outbreaks in recent 

history with the emergence of novel swine enteric coronavirus disease in the swine 

industry and the highly pathogenic avian influenza outbreak last year that infected 

232 flocks and resulted in the depopulation of approximately 50 million birds. 

Food for Progress and the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and 

Child Nutrition Program will continue to provide benefits to millions of people overseas. These programs have helped to engage recipient countries not only by delivering food assistance, but also by fostering stronger internal production capacity and 

infrastructure, generating employment, boosting revenue, and developing new markets and productive economic partnerships. The budget provides $20 million, $5 million through the McGovern-Dole program, to support the local and regional procurement of food aid commodities for distribution overseas to complement existing food 

aid programs and to fill in nutritional gaps for targeted populations or food availability gaps caused by unexpected emergencies. Also, the budget proposes the authority to use up to 25 percent of Title II resources for these types of flexible emergency interventions that have proven to be so critical to effective responses in complex and logistically difficult emergencies. 

The budget recognizes that there is a direct correlation between the capacity of 

this country to continue to sustainably meet a growing demand for food, feed and 

fiber and the amount of resources that we put into agricultural research. Long-term 

agricultural productivity growth relies on innovation through research funded by 

both public and private sectors. Analysis by the Economic Research Service shows 

that long-term agricultural productivity is fueled by innovations in animal/crop genetics, chemicals, equipment, and farm organization that result from public and private research and development. The 2017 budget includes $700 million for competitive grants through the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative, including $325 

million in mandatory funding that would bring the program up to its authorized 

level. This significant investment is needed to ensure tools are in place to adapt to 

challenges faced by agricultural producers, while still feeding a growing population. 

A portion of this funding will support the President’s clean energy efforts through 

the development of commercial-scale advanced biofuels and biobased products that 

are compatible with existing infrastructure. Also, the budget more than doubles the 

funding available to address antimicrobial resistance in pathogens of humans and 
10 

livestock, and to seek answers to key questions about the relationships among microbes and livestock, the environment, and human health. Further, the budget includes $36 million for research to address the decline of pollinator health by understanding, preventing, and recovering from pollinator losses. 

We appreciate the Subcommittee’s action to fund critical research infrastructure 

in 2016. To continue the process of laboratory improvement, the budget proposes additional investments in research infrastructure to further reduce the backlog of 

USDA’s laboratory construction and renovation needs. These investments include 

$30.2 million for the Agricultural Research Technology Center in Salinas, CA, where 

research is done on alternatives to methyl bromide and development of scientifically 

based organic crop production practices for weed, insect, and disease control, as well 

as $64.3 million for the Foreign Disease-Weed Science Research Laboratory in Ft. 

Detrick, MD. 

The 2017 budget fully funds the EQIP and CSP programs at the Farm Bill authorized levels. The unprecedented level of funding provided for EQIP will support 

conservation practices on an additional 11.5 million acres, which will help farmers 

and ranchers make their operations more resilient to climate change, increase access to greenhouse gas markets, and protect wildlife habitat, among other benefits. 

The funding for CSP will allow 10 million more acres to be enrolled. The budget 

also provides an increase of $11 million to support conservation planning, which will 

result in over 8,000 additional conservation plans. This translates into 2.9 million 

additional acres of planned conservation. The strong support for conservation planning as well as robust funding for the mandatory conservation programs follows 

through with the principles laid out in USDA’s Building Blocks for Climate Smart 

Agriculture and Forestry. 

Science and data are the primary tools that the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) uses to prevent foodborne illness and protect public health. As part of this 

effort, the budget includes $8.5 million to further modernize FSIS’ science-based decisionmaking process by developing and deploying new tools to reduce the prevalence of foodborne illnesses. 

To enhance nutrition education and the provision of healthy meals, the budget in- cludes a $4 million increase to promote healthful behaviors that can reduce incidence of chronic disease and obesity, and lower healthcare costs. Included in this 

is an initiative to research and implement cutting-edge initiatives to help Americans 

put healthy eating behaviors, based on the Dietary Guidelines for Americans and 

MyPlate, into practice. We will also develop the first-ever dietary guidelines for the 

birth to age two group and pregnant women. In 2013, The Pew Charitable Trusts 

and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation released a report that found 88 percent 

of schools need at least one additional piece of kitchen equipment to serve healthier 

meals that meet science-based nutrition standards. The budget also requests an increase of $5 million, for a total of $35 million, for grants to help schools purchase 

needed equipment to prepare and serve healthier meals. 

The budget requests funding to establish an in-country presence in Cuba to cultivate key relationships, gain firsthand knowledge of the country’s agricultural challenges and opportunities, and develop programs for the mutual benefit of both countries. U.S. agricultural exports have grown significantly since trade with Cuba was 

authorized in 2000. In fiscal year 2014, Cuba imported over $2 billion in agricultural products including $300 million from the U.S., and an in-country presence will 

capitalize on opportunities this nearby market provides for U.S. agricultural exporters. 

We have identified additional opportunities to modernize and strengthen the Department. The budget includes resources to pursue these efforts, including $20 million to continue the modernization of the Headquarters complex that when finalized 

could yield annual savings of over $45 million through a reduction in rent and security costs. The budget also provides an increase of $18 million to fund a relocation 

or renovation of FNS headquarters in 2017. In addition, the Department is 

proactively addressing the cyber security threats posed against the network and systems of USDA. Through an investment of an additional $10 million in 2017, the Department will enhance its ability to monitor and prevent breaches of the systems 

used to house data of importance to our employees and customers. 

The 2014 Farm Bill included several reforms to the Federal crop insurance program; however, there remain further opportunities for improvements and efficiencies. The President’s 2017 budget includes two proposals to reform crop insurance, which are expected to save $18 billion over 10 years. This includes reducing 

subsidies for revenue insurance that insure the price at the time of harvest by 10 

percentage points and reforming prevented planting coverage. These reforms will 

make the program less costly to the taxpayer while still maintaining a quality safety net for farmers. 
11 

We have accomplished much over the last 7 years. The budget presented to you 

will continue our progress. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have 

about our budget proposals. 

SNAP CONVENIENCE STORE RULE

Senator MORAN. Mr. Secretary, we appreciate your presence 

here, and I appreciate the number of times you have reached out 

to me and provided me with information and meeting in the office 

and the phone calls, and I am grateful for the working relationship 

that we have. 

Let me just ask a couple questions and then we will move to my 

colleagues quickly, and I will have an opportunity to ask more 

again later. 

But let me start with the SNAP issue. February 17, the Food and 

Nutrition Service (FNS) published proposed rules in regard to 

SNAP. As you will recall, this was a significant, contentious issue 

in the farm bill. 

My question to you is, my understanding is that those proposed 

rules have a significant consequence on potentially the convenience 

store setting, perhaps small grocery store setting. And I have a 

particular interest in that because in many rural communities, 

there is no grocery store. A convenience store is one of the sole providers of food in many communities across rural America. 

I would be interested in hearing your thoughts, but my specific 

question is, would you entertain positively the idea of a longer comment period than the 60 days that you are currently proposing? 

Secretary VILSACK. Mr. Chairman, obviously, we will respect 

your request and certainly take a look at what extension would 

make sense. We obviously want to take a look at the comments and 

find out what people think and feel about this. But we obviously 

want to give people appropriate time to comment on this. 

This is an important issue. It is an important issue from the 

standpoint of the convenience store. It is also an important issue 

in terms of access to good, wholesome food, as we deal with this 

obesity crisis and the health care costs that are associated with 

obesity and the diseases that result from obesity. 

Part of the challenge is that folks who do live in rural, remote 

areas do not have access to the wide array and diversity of food 

that others are fortunate to have, and we believe it is not asking 

too much for convenience store owners and operators to be able to 

provide a broader array of resources and choices for people who are 

SNAP beneficiaries. 

So that is the purpose of the rule. I think there is also the belief 

that we can partner with these convenience stores in an effort to 

increase and enhance the nutritional value of what is being sold at 

the convenience stores. 

GIPSA PROPOSED RULES

Senator MORAN. I appreciate what I took as a positive comment, 

that you will take a look at potentially extending the comment period. I appreciate that, Mr. Secretary. 

Let me ask about another rule. On Monday, you indicated in conversations in front of an organization here, I think in Washington, 

DC, that you anticipated that there would be revised Grain Inspec-
12 

tion, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) rules, and 

you expected them to be finalized before you leave office. 

Given the overwhelming congressional opposition to the previously proposed rules, what changes to GIPSA rules do you plan 

to make? And what discussions and outreach have you had with 

stakeholders in this regard? 

Secretary VILSACK. Mr. Chairman, that process is still ongoing, 

and no commitments, specifically, have been made in terms of what 

those rules will look like. 

We realize that Congress lifted the restriction on our ability to 

work on these issues. I have asked the team to take a look at what 

modifications or changes would be appropriate, given the concerns 

that have been expressed in the past, and also to determine whether or not what we were considering a couple years ago, whether or 

not that still makes sense in today’s market. 

They are putting together that work plan, and I will be more 

than happy when that process is completed to obviously provide 

you additional information on precisely what we are thinking. 

But the key here is to make sure that the playing field is level 

between those who are owners and those who are producers, to 

make sure that there is not an unfair advantage in that relationship and to make sure, especially in difficult times, that those who 

invested a lot of hard-earned resources and time are treated fairly 

if a contract is terminated or for some reason a contract is modified. 

We have had examples where folks have been dealt a very serious and difficult blow in tight circumstances. The avian influenza 

situation was sort of a reminder to us about the importance of that 

relationship, particularly as we did indemnification payments for 

those who lost birds. We found that not all those indemnification 

payments were going to the producers who were economically suffering as well. 

So we want to make sure it is a fair and equitable relationship, 

and that is the purpose of our review of those rules. 

Senator MORAN. Mr. Secretary, what do you expect the timeframe to be? What schedule are you on? 

Secretary VILSACK. I would say that I suspect that some of these 

rules may very well be finalized and some of these rules may be 

proposed, given the nature of the concerns that were expressed in 

the past. 

I would hope that we would be able to get work plans completed 

and we would get something over to the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) relatively soon. I would hope that we would be able 

to get that done sometime in early spring. And then there is the 

review by OMB, which can take sometimes up to 90 days or longer. 

Then hopefully that process is expedited so that sometime in late 

summer, early fall, we are in a position to provide information specifically to the public for their comment and review. At that point, 

any adjustments that need to be made can be made. And hopefully 

by the time of year end, we will know what the rules will be or 

what they are at least proposed to be. 
13 

AVIAN INFLUENZA

Senator MORAN. Mr. Secretary, you mentioned avian flu. This is 

a topic of conversation that you and I have had one-on-one, but certainly in the hearing that we had a year ago on your budget, this 

was a significant issue and concern. 

Is there something that USDA has learned that we would now 

be in a better position, should this kind of occurrence reappear? 

And then if you would bring us up-to-date on what has transpired 

in other countries in regard to our exports in regard to avian flu? 

Secretary VILSACK. We have learned a great deal, Mr. Chairman. 

First of all, we have learned the necessity of making earlier determinations and quicker determinations, so we have beefed up our 

laboratory capacity. We would like to be able to make determinations within a 24-to-48-hour time period when something arises on 

a farm. We then would like to be able to work with that producer 

to be able to depopulate within 24 hours. And we have learned that 

there are a multitude of ways in which that can potentially be done 

under each particular circumstance. 

We have learned the need to pre-position assets, or at least have 

an awareness and understanding of how disposal will be handled 

in advance as opposed to after the fact, which can delay disposal, 

which can in turn create potential greater risk. 

We have learned our indemnification systems needed to be altered a bit to reflect a more appropriate balance between the producer, the taxpayer, and USDA. We were cleaning up situations in 

some of these poultry facilities that had not been cleaned up for a 

decade, as opposed to cleaning up the specific cause or problem 

with avian influenza. So there was a better balanced approach 

there. 

The difference between providing the owner of the birds all of the 

indemnification and now some kind of equitable ratio, if you will, 

between owner and producer in terms of indemnification so we can 

keep producers in business. 

We have learned the necessity of constantly researching this, because it is constantly mutating and evolving. 

And we have also learned the necessity of at least having prepositioned vaccine, not that we would necessarily use it, but there 

may be a circumstance or situation where it is appropriate. And we 

have basically wargamed what that would look like and what we 

would have to do in order to utilize vaccine. 

In terms of the trade issue, we are seeing many of those who initially banned all poultry sales beginning to understand, from an 

international rules standpoint, the need to look at this regionally. 

We have actually seen some that have become even State-specific 

and some bans that have even become very specific to the county 

or counties. 

So we have seen an expansion of opportunity. About 77 percent 

of the poultry exports are currently in the right place. We are still 

working with some of our friends in China, for example. 

But for the most part, I think people have taken the right approach to regionalization or Statewide bans as opposed to countrywide bans. 
14 

Senator MORAN. Mr. Secretary, it seems as if you have learned 

a lot, which I assume means the USDA, the Federal Government, 

are better prepared for another occurrence, should it arise. 

Are there any legislative changes that are required to help you 

accomplish a better response? 

Secretary VILSACK. I would only say, Mr. Chairman, I think the 

research aspect of USDA needs to continue to be beefed up, because we are constantly dealing with things like this. But I do not 

know that we necessarily need a legislative change. But if there 

are, we will be happy to get some information to you. I do not know 

of anything, off the top my head. 

[The information follows:] 

We do not foresee needing any legislative changes to enhance our response to 

HPAI. 

Senator MORAN. Thank you very much. 

Senator Merkley. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JEFF MERKLEY

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

Thank you, Mr. Secretary. We are well along in the journey now, 

an 8-year journey serving President Obama, and I believe you are 

the only member of the Cabinet who has been there from the starting line and is still with us, and I assume is planning to go across 

the finish line. I want to thank you for these 8 years of service. 

Secretary VILSACK. Thank you. 

RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Senator MERKLEY. As you indicated to the Chairman, I know you 

have learned a lot in the post over these many years on so many 

different issues. Certainly, in your introduction you mentioned 

food, water, and shelter, that is everything from SNAP to water purification programs to housing programs. It really reflects on the 

essential functions that your Department has for millions, millions 

of Americans. 

I just wanted to note your March 7 speech where you called upon 

Congress to pass mandatory genetically modified organism (GMO) 

labeling. I know you and I have very different definitions of what 

that would look like, but I stand with you shoulder-to-shoulder in 

the cause of mandatory labeling. 

I wanted to turn to the housing component. One of the issues we 

had last year is that, under rental assistance, the project-based 

rent subsidy program, we had a situation where, essentially, we 

ran out of money to pay the share of the rent that we were responsible for as the Federal Government. 

That appears to be fully addressed in the budget for fiscal year 

2017, but I just wanted to raise it and ask if people across the 

country who were involved in providing project-based housing can 

rest assured that we have it covered this time? 

Secretary VILSACK. Senator, I think we do. That is what I have 

been told. We certainly appreciate the work of yourself and Members of this Subcommittee to resolve that aspect of our Rental Assistance Program. 
15 

We have, as you know, the other issue of maturing mortgages 

and loan payoffs, which will result potentially, unless we deal with 

those, in a lot of these units coming out of the program, in which 

case you are going to have a lot of families that are going to be 

looking for housing and not be able to afford it. 

Senator MERKLEY. You turned immediately to my second topic. 

We have recently been able to get some data from the Department 

on maturing mortgages in Oregon, but it is important that across 

the Nation we know when mortgages are maturing so nonprofits 

can attempt to buy them in places where they would go to much 

higher market rates. 

I know your team has been working on this issue, but I just 

wanted to emphasize how hard it is to recover this housing if we 

lose it out of the affordable portfolio. 

Years ago, I worked on a program called LIHPRHA, Low-Income 

Housing Preservation. It was a very similar situation, only in 

urban settings. Now we have this in rural settings. So anything I 

can do, and I am sure many members would say the same, to assist 

the Department in trying to make sure we identify the expiring 

projects and do everything possible to preserve them certainly 

would like to see happen. 

Secretary VILSACK. Senator, 75 percent of these loans potentially 

will become due and paid off in the next 10 years, so that is 75 percent of the units. 

One thing that you may want to think about is the ability of 

vouchering for those folks who are in a position where their unit 

ultimately gets out of the program. Another way that we are looking at it is being able to extend these mortgages and refinancing, 

so that improvements can be made to the property with the savings 

that results from extension and refinancing. 

So there are some creative solutions here, but we need to get focused on this in the very near future. 

RURAL ENERGY SAVING PROGRAM

Senator MERKLEY. I look forward to exploring with the Subcommittee the possibilities, because this will be very important to 

the housing stock in America. 

I wanted to turn to the Rural Energy Savings Program. The 

Rural Energy Savings Program, the concept was that we could create a lot of jobs in rural America if people could take loans on their 

electric bill and be able to replace their windows or add installation. It put a lot of people to work, and often the energy savings 

would pay for the improvements themselves, plus virtually all 

these products are made in America, so we get more bang for the 

buck because we get the local construction contractor employed but 

it also creates jobs in American manufacturing. 

We had the initial program funded last year. I was wondering if 

you have any information whether we have been able to get it 

stood up on its feet and have it running? 

Secretary VILSACK. Senator, as you know, we worked with a program that was similar to what you proposed with an interest rate 

that was higher. We were in the process of implementing that and 

learning from that, recognizing that there were some serious learn-
16 

ing curves for the research and extension centers (RECs) that we 

were dealing with. 

We recently announced a statewide initiative in Vermont, where 

we learned quite a bit and created sort of a template. 

The proposal that you were the leader on last year, we expect 

and anticipate to stand up sometime this spring. We would anticipate and expect that there will be quite an interest in a interestfree or zero-interest loan program. But now that we know how to 

set it up, I think we will see more of these projects, because I think 

it is popular, and I think there is a great deal of potential there. 

Senator MERKLEY. I can tell you, in Oregon, the employment rate 

has not rebounded at all in rural areas the way it has in urban 

areas. I know you know this to be the case across the country, so 

it is a win-win program on several levels. 

Secretary VILSACK. Help us fix the fire budget, and that situation 

in rural Oregon will change. 

Senator MORAN. Senator Blunt. 

Senator BLUNT. Thank you, Chairman. 

STREAMING FARM PROGRAM

Secretary Vilsack, I want to join Senator Merkley and Senator 

Moran in appreciating your service, appreciating really how much 

you bring to this job, I think every year more than the year before. 

It is amazing how much there is still to learn, and I am impressed 

by how you dedicated yourself to learning how important this is. 

The future challenges and opportunities for agriculture are great, 

if not greater than they have ever been. Hopefully, we can figure 

out how to make the most of that. 

Just two or three pretty quick questions here. One is, I continue 

to hear from our friends in agriculture the desire for more streamlining in the reporting process. 

My good friend Blake Hurst, who is the president of the Missouri 

Farm Bureau, was telling me the other day he has to go into the 

Farm Service Agency (FSA) office and file his report on crop insurance, and then he has to go to his crop insurance agent, and then 

the crop insurance agent has to refile the same information with 

Risk Management. 

Are we making any progress in trying to streamline that time 

cost, both to Federal employees and to the people that they work 

for? 

Secretary VILSACK. We are, Senator. Last year we launched and 

this year we implemented FSA Plus, which is allowing folks to access their records at home. This year we started with a pilot project 

in Iowa and Illinois, to try to test market how we would be able 

to have better coordination between the Risk Management Agency 

(RMA) and FSA and the reporting. We then extended that to a 

number of other States. Now we are prepared this year to go Nationwide. 

So the concerns that he has expressed, I think by the end of this 

year, he will be much happier than he has been, and he will also 

be able to access all of his records, all of his maps, all of his information from his home computer with FSA Plus. 

Senator BLUNT. I know that is a project that has been out there 

all the time you have been running the Department. 
17 

Secretary VILSACK. It has. 

NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM

Senator BLUNT. It is frustrating and challenging for all of us. I 

look forward to seeing it come to a conclusion. 

Now, you will remember my mom and dad were dairy farmers, 

so I come to this next topic with my own personal point of view, 

which is pretty strongly held. 

But I believe that there are significant parts of the country now 

where packaged bottled water is being offered as a substitute for 

milk in school cafeterias. Historically, USDA has recommended 

school children consume 2.5 to 3 servings of milk or other dairy 

products every day because of the potassium, vitamin D, and calcium. 

I guess my two questions are, because I believe the facts are that 

is an accurate statement about water as an alternative to milk, is 

packaged bottled water a reimbursable item in the National School 

Lunch Program? 

Secretary VILSACK. I believe it is, but I do not for a fact know 

that. We can check. 

I do know that we are encouraging more dairy products. It does 

not necessarily have to be milk. Greek yogurt is now a protein substitute, so there is a lot of interest—and, frankly, we are trying to 

be responsive to what school districts are asking us to provide 

them with and for. 

But I will check on the reimbursement issue. 

Senator BLUNT. I am not a big advocate for us buying water as 

one of the alternatives at lunch. There are other ways to get water, 

I would think. 

USDA funds being used, do you think that is through the National School Lunch Program then? Or it might be and you are 

going to check and get back to us on that? 

Secretary VILSACK. I will check on that. 

[The information follows:] 

Water is not a food component or food item that is required for the reimbursable 

meal under the National School Lunch Program. As required by the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, potable water must be made available to students during 

meal service at no cost to students. However, school districts may not promote or 

offer water or other beverages as an alternative selection to the required fluid milk 

component on the meal service line. Most schools meet the potable water requirement by providing a water fountain or a cooler filled with tap water in the cafeteria. 

For the majority of operators, USDA expects compliance with the potable water requirement to incur minimal or no costs. However, USDA does not prohibit use of 

the nonprofit school foodservice account to purchase non-program food such as 

water. USDA is working with State agencies and local school districts during the 

Administrative Review process to provide technical assistance and corrective action 

when necessary to eliminate the occurrence of choices between milk and water or 

other beverages during meal service. 

BROADBAND PROGRAM

Senator BLUNT. So Senator McCaskill and I wrote a letter recently to Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman 

Tom Wheeler. Our concern is that the remaining funds available 

under phase II of the Connect America Fund, it is critically important that rural constituents all over—our letter was specifically focused on Missouri—have the same access to fiber optics and other 
18 

advanced broadband networks as their urban counterparts at a 

comparable price. 

Secretary VILSACK. I certainly agree. We have conveyed those 

same sentiments to the Chairman. Our hope is that as they look 

at the Connect America and some of the other programs that we 

will continue to see an expansion of broadband. 

Also, we believe it is going to be important for us to continue to 

stay in that game from a grant and loan perspective. That is why 

our budget reflects a significant increase in the broadband projects. 

DRUG USE IN RURAL AMERICA

Senator BLUNT. I think social access, economic opportunity, all 

those things matter. It may be that social access may lead to my 

last question, which is one—you and I talked right after the President asked you to play a leadership role in this effort to curb heroin and opioid use. 

On the floor of the Senate this morning, as we were trying to 

move through this bill, I made the point that actually more people 

die of drug overdoses now in rural America than urban America. 

More people die outside a metropolitan statistical area, even if that 

area may be quite far from the hub of that. 

Do you want to talk a little bit about the challenge to rural 

America of this epidemic of opioid and heroin use and overdose? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, it is a complicated problem. It is one 

that requires a series of steps. We have to have more prescribers 

trained in the appropriate prescription of pain medication. I think 

we have to have, frankly, reasonable expectations on the part of patients as well, in terms of precisely what doctors can and cannot 

do in terms of pain relief. 

I think it is going to be important for us, particularly in rural 

areas, for our first responders to have access to the overdose reversal drugs that are available, that are now in a nasal spray, now 

more readily available. In fact, we might want to consider a general prescription that would allow family members to have access 

to that reversal drug, just in case, knowing that if a loved one is 

in trouble, being able to respond quickly. 

It is going to be necessary for us to look at ways in which we 

can encourage States, and specifically the State of Missouri, to 

have a better monitoring program, so we can prevent doctor shopping, and that we have interoperability between States. We have 

many States with these programs, but they do not necessarily communicate, so if you are on a border community, you can potentially 

game the system. 

I think it is going to be important for us to look at ways in which 

we can increase support for medication-assisted treatment, and 

perhaps not just limit it to physicians but perhaps physician assistants or some other medical professional, particularly in rural areas, 

to be able to be involved in the basic prescribing of those things 

in terms of trying to meet the needs. 

You mentioned broadband, telemedicine, and access to services. 

That may be a way of providing services without necessarily brickand-mortar investment. 

We need to make sure people understand that mental health 

services and substance abuse services are now covered by insur-
19 

ance. There is, I think, a lack of understanding about that. We 

frankly need to engage the entire community, particularly the 

faith-based community, in making recovery support efforts more 

readily available. 

I know in my own personal situation, my mother struggled. She 

would have never been able to recover but for Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) and some of the support that she had from people similarly situated. There are not places today in many rural communities where those meetings can take the place. Faith-based organizations I think have a particularly interesting role and opportunity 

there. 

So it takes a broad approach. I think the Administration looks 

forward to working with you and others to try to make sure we put 

the resources behind all of these solutions, because it is a horrendous problem and tens of thousands of people are dying, and hundreds of thousands of families are being impacted and affected by 

this. 

Senator BLUNT. Thank you for your leadership there and in other 

areas, Mr. Secretary. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the time. 

Senator MORAN. Thank you, Senator Blunt. 

Senator Tester. 

Senator TESTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to 

speak and giving me these glasses so I can read. 

NORTHERN PLAINS AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH LABORATORY

It is good to have you here, Secretary Vilsack. I am going to start 

out a little parochial right now with an ARS station in Sidney. 

I do not know all the information about it because it was just 

pointed out to me today by a producer from eastern Montana, that 

it is being repurposed or potentially may be taking a step toward 

closure. So I just want to get some input from you on what is going 

on. If you do not know, you can certainly get back to me. 

But these guys do incredible research. It is an incredible facility, 

as I am sure they all are. It does research on saw fly and other 

kinds of pests. You now the issue with barley scab showing up in 

Montana. So these research facilities are really, really important. 

Can you give me an idea what the plans are for that? 

Secretary VILSACK. The budget that we proposed requested an 

increase in the ARS budget. Part of that increase would be targeted 

actually toward the facility that you mentioned. 

It currently supports 41 scientists. I do not know of any plan to 

reduce that number, or reduce the support for those 41 folks. 

Obviously, research projects come in. Some get concluded and 

new ones begin. So I am not sure that is necessarily repurposing, 

but perhaps there is a different focus given a particular disease or 

pest. But I do not know of any desire to close or reduce the importance of that. 

RESEARCH BUDGET

Senator TESTER. That is what I wanted to hear. You answered 

that very, very well. 

The research for Smith-Lever dollars and Hatch are flat at about 

$302 million and $44 million, respectively. These are also very, 
20 

very important. Could you shed some light? Has the use of those 

also flattened out? Or does demand far exceed? Tell me what is 

going on. 

Secretary VILSACK. Yes, it is a combination of having an overall 

number for our budget, and the challenge in our budget where fire 

suppression, WIC, rental assistance, and food safety eat up to 50 

percent of the budget. Oftentimes, when those items have to be increased, it impacts and affects the other 50 percent. 

It is also a fact that we are trying to look at our competitive 

grant programs as a way of encouraging more collaboration between universities. Many universities are receiving resources from 

that that ultimately help to support the university and support the 

capacity university, so it is a balance. 

Senator TESTER. I got you. I think that you have done some positive things for research in here. But you know, you know how important research is. For farmers to do trial and error is a good way 

to go broke. 

So moving forward, you are in office for another 10 months. 

Secretary VILSACK. I am in office for another day, for sure. I 

serve at the pleasure of one guy. 

Senator TESTER. One never knows what might happen to you. I 

stand corrected. 

But moving forward, are you confident that this budget that you 

are putting forward, those priorities on research particularly, will 

be heading in the right direction, moving into the next administration, whoever that might be? 

Secretary VILSACK. I am confident, because I think we have addressed both short-term and long-term, traditional and nontraditional, challenges that agriculture is going to face. 

This is an incredibly complex and changing world that our farmers are living in. I think we have figured out a way in which we 

can provide them assistance and help, if our research budget is 

adequately funded. 

WATER AND WASTE DISPOAL PROGRAMS

Senator TESTER. Okay. I want to talk about rural development 

and water infrastructure, critically important in rural America, as 

you well know. $244 million for loans and grants to rural businesses, tripling of funding of broadband grants, which is really important. 

There is a reduction though in grants and loans for water and 

waste disposal programs. If you look around this country, and I 

know I am preaching to the choir here, these systems are for the 

most part wore out. So why the reduction? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, because in the past several years, we 

reduced the business and industry loan programs, and we have reduced and not adequately funded some, so it is about balance, 

number one. 

Number two, we are looking for leveraged opportunities. We are 

trying to get the private sector more engaged in investing in these 

water projects. We are finding that there is interest in this. Pension plans, some of the private investment that we have been cultivating at USDA to leverage our scarce resources are now seeing 3- 

percent or 4-percent payment on a 30-year loan quite attractive. 
21 

We are actually working to try to look at our own portfolio to see 

whether or not we can maximize the value of that portfolio and create an incentive for the private sector to invest hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars. 

So it does not necessarily mean that less work is going to be 

done, Senator. It just means that we have to be creative about 

where the financing is going to come from. We are being very creative at USDA. 

RURAL COMMUNITY POPULATIONS

Senator TESTER. We appreciate that creativity. I just want to 

talk about something. We had a roundtable that the Chairman and 

Ranking Member put on. Dr. Johansson was at it here a couple 

weeks ago. 

One of the things that is going on in rural America that I also 

know you know about is depopulation in a big, big way. We are 

seeking rural communities dry up, I think at a faster rate than I 

have ever seen in my lifetime. 

In the last 40 years since I graduated from high school, the little 

town I am from, if you go by enrollment in high school, is twothirds smaller than it was when I went to school there, more than 

two-thirds. 

I know there is big equipment out, and I know it is more efficient, and we do have more technology that makes things move. 

But I mean, where I live, and it is different in every area, but you 

know, 1,000 acres was an average farm. I have folks around me 

that farm 20,000 acres and north of that even. 

So is this just something that is going to continue? Are there 

things that we can do to encourage smaller farms maybe? Or encourage more people to move into rural America? 

Because you have schools that are closing down. You have cities 

that have to build schools. They are just all sorts of social problems 

that all cost money. 

Secretary VILSACK. Senator, in my lifetime, American agriculture 

has increased its productivity 170 percent, with 22 million fewer 

farmers—— 

Senator TESTER. Yes. 

Secretary VILSACK [continuing]. On 26 percent less land. 

Here is the problem. In the past, we did not create a companion 

economy to the extraction economy that was part and parcel of 

rural America. 

We now have a companion economy. It involves local and regional food assistance. We supported nearly 1,000 infrastructure 

investments in local and regional food systems supporting 162,000 

producers. We are beginning to see that prosper. 

We are seeing conservation. Howard Buffett came to our Outlook 

Forum and talked about the need for people to understand that 

conservation can actually be profitable. He is proving it in his operation. 

And the bio-based economy, the ability to transfer and produce 

a multitude of materials and chemicals and fabrics and fibers and 

fuels from bio-based systems. 

So we are headed in the right direction on two data points. One, 

the unemployment rate is coming down, which is good. And two, 
22 

the poverty rate in rural America in the last 2 years has come 

down faster than in any preceding 25 years. 

So we are beginning slowly to turn around. Now, we are not 

going to get out of the fix that you mentioned overnight because 

we did not get into it overnight. But I think we are headed in the 

right direction. 

And I am hopeful that this companion economy that you all have 

helped to support with farm bills and budgets continues. 

Senator TESTER. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator MORAN. The Senator from Montana, Senator Daines. 

Senator DAINES. Montana and Montana, Jon. All good. 

Senator TESTER. Back to back. 

BRUCELLOSIS

Senator DAINES. Secretary Vilsack, thanks for being here today. Agriculture is Montana’s number one industry. It is a $5 billion 

a year economy for us. 

Last year, I was pleased to be able to work with the Montana 

Grain Growers and other stakeholders to reform and reauthorize 

the Grain Standards Act to ensure that Montana farmers are protected from disruptions in federally mandated grain inspections, 

like what happened at the Port of Vancouver. 

I remember having literally farmers jumping off of a combine in 

the middle of the harvest running to Great Falls to meet with you 

and talk about the crisis we had. I was glad to see we got it resolved, and I look forward to ensuring this new law is implemented 

effectively moving forward, so we can prevent the crisis from happening again. Thank you for your help on that. 

I want to shift gears and talk about brucellosis. I live about an 

hour north of the Yellowstone National Park. I went from kindergarten through college there in Bozeman. 

As you know, there is significant bison herd within Yellowstone 

National Park and the greater Yellowstone ecosystem. 

My question is, how is your Department and the Animal and 

Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), in particular, coordinating and cooperating with State agencies in Montana like the 

Fish, Wildlife and Parks in Montana and the Department of Livestock on disease management efforts, particularly regarding brucellosis in the greater Yellowstone area? 

Secretary VILSACK. A number of years ago, we entered into an 

arrangement with the folks at Yellowstone, the State officials and 

others, to address this. I can get you more information, Senator, on 

the success of that, but I think we were able to isolate and provide 

a much better environment relative to the bison and other animals. 

So I would be happy to get you more detail about that, but I 

know that we have been working collaboratively with folks on this. 

[The information follows:] 

The Greater Yellowstone Area (GYA) wild elk and bison populations have persistent levels of brucellosis and the potential for continued exposure to livestock. To 

address this unique challenge, we assist with the Interagency Bison Management 

Plan (IBMP) operations in the GYA in cooperation with our fellow IBMP partners. 

These partners include the National Park Service; the U.S. Forest Service; the Montana Department of Livestock; the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and 

Parks; the Intertribal Buffalo Council, the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, 
23 

and the Nez Perce Tribe. We also facilitate and participate in studies to develop 

brucellosis risk mitigation measures. 

The ultimate goal of the IBMP activities is to reduce the risk of brucellosis transmission from wild bison and elk in the GYA, while maintaining a viable wild bison 

population. In addition to the cooperative effort, each IBMP agency is actively conducting activities that are in line with their own agency’s mission. Recently, we 

sponsored a review of brucellosis control in the GYA by a National Academy of 

Sciences panel, and we are waiting on the report’s release later this year. This report will describe the likely effectiveness and trade-offs of options that could be used 

to address brucellosis in the GYA. It will also describe and prioritize further research needed to reduce uncertainties and advance the knowledge base on brucellosis vaccines, vaccine delivery mechanisms, and diagnostics. APHIS will use the 

findings from this report to help guide the development of a unified strategy to deal 

with brucellosis in the GYA. 

Specific to Montana, APHIS provides cooperative agreement funds to support brucellosis mitigation activities. APHIS personnel also work with the State on every aspect of the brucellosis program, such as sample collection and testing for surveillance, responding to detections, and conducting epidemiological investigations. In 

collaboration with the Agricultural Research Service and the States of Montana and 

Wyoming, APHIS has developed and continues to develop non-lethal techniques to 

detect and eliminate the disease from bison and elk populations. 

Senator DAINES. Speaking of collaboration, I am going to throw 

something out there, something to consider. In prior years, there 

was extensive collaborative effort. I think actually we had better 

communication. There are a lot of moving parts here between State 

agencies, Federal agencies, and private groups. 

It was called the Greater Yellowstone Interagency Brucellosis 

Committee. It brought together a diverse group of stakeholders, including representatives from Montana, Idaho, Wyoming—obviously, 

this crosses borders—as well as USDA and the Interior. The working group improved communication and furthered efforts to provide 

sound science surrounding wildlife disease management throughout 

the Greater Yellowstone area. 

Unfortunately, this effort lapsed in 2006, 10 years ago, and no 

similar working group has filled that void. I have heard concerns 

in talking to farmers, ranchers, and stakeholders that the result 

has been a deterioration in communication between agencies, Federal, State, as well as private groups, regarding disease management in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. 

So my question is, would the USDA be supportive of reestablishing that Greater Yellowstone Interagency Brucellosis Committee, or perhaps something similar? 

Secretary VILSACK. Senator, I appreciate you bringing this up. 

My understanding was that we were in the process of a focused, 

collaborative effort. But if that is not the case, I will certainly go 

back and ask our team to figure out a way in which we can be 

more collaborative as a working group or whatever it is. 

We have been trying to stress collaboration with the local folks 

at every level. So if that is not happening, we need to make it happen. 

GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS

Senator DAINES. I appreciate that, if that would be an outcome 

from this hearing. We could certainly have that communication and 

bring that concern and try to bring those groups together again. 

The word from back home is that it really was valuable. 

I want to shift gears now and talk a bit about what is going on 

in the area of GMOs and biotech. Last weekend, you were quoted 
24 

at a commodities conference, referring to GMOs, stating, ‘‘I am 

here to say unequivocally they are safe to consumers.’’ 

With that in mind and notwithstanding marketing efforts or the 

hurdles of getting legislation through Congress, which is a topic of 

discussion here as we sit here today, are there any safety concerns 

or any sound scientific research that would warrant the mandatory 

labeling of GMOs? 

Secretary VILSACK. No, but that is not obviously the issue. The 

issue is that folks in States have made decisions based on referendums and State legislators to create labeling systems that are applicable within State borders. 

That creates a circumstance and situation, as you know, where 

we are going to have a hodgepodge and chaotic circumstance were 

individual States and/or individual companies are going to make 

their own decision about what they are going to put on the package. It is going to create confusion. It is going to create additional 

expense. It may limit access to food, or it may increase the cost of 

food. It does not have to be. 

There is a way, in my view, where you can respect a consumer’s 

right to know, if they have interest in knowing the production process by which their food has been produced, but doing it in a way 

that does not convey the wrong impression about the safety of the 

food. 

Senator DAINES. So I guess getting to this issue of mandatory 

versus voluntary, I mean I think to be clear, a decision to implement mandatory labeling would then not be based on safety concerns or sound science, but on other factors? 

Secretary VILSACK. It would be based on balancing the desire on 

the part of a growing amount of consumers who want to know, and 

companies are in the business of selling to consumers—obviously, 

the customer is always right kind of thing—with doing it in a way 

that does not send the wrong message about the safety. 

In the past, we have labeled, we have put something on the package, either to talk about caloric content or nutrition or a known 

risk. That is not what this is about, which is why I have suggested 

the establishment of the smart label process, which would essentially give consumers who are interested information that they are 

interested in, but not in a way that conveys a false impression 

about the safety of the product. 

Senator DAINES. I think we agree it is critical we address this 

issue in a timely manner, given what is going on in Vermont. 

Secretary VILSACK. Absolutely. 

Senator DAINES. And I have no issue with the voluntary programs that meet market demands or consumer preferences. 

That being said, I do believe the USDA’s priority should be with 

making determinations based on sound science regarding the safety 

of biotech products within its jurisdiction, not on marketing or 

mandatory labeling efforts that really have no bearing on food safety or plant pest risk. 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, I am trying to avoid a chaotic circumstance, Senator. I am certainly hopeful that there are at least 

60 of you who feel the same way I do. 

Senator DAINES. All right. Thank you. 
25 

Senator MORAN. We are pleased to have the Chairman of the 

Full Committee with this. 

Senator Cochran, you are recognized. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN

Senator COCHRAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Thank you to the panel for being here and helping us sort 

through the requests we have for funding of various activities administered by the Department of Agriculture. 

One of the bright spots in what appeared to be some questions 

that all seemed to be having trouble being administered or costing 

too much or contributing to the deficit and all kinds of bad things, 

what we found out is that the Department of Agriculture has won 

a big victory in the labeling of domestically produced farm fish 

grown and sold in the United States. 

They were having to compete with fish from overseas that were 

mislabeled or suggested that they were superior in some ways to 

domestically produced fish. 

So thank you for the good, strong support and effort in defining 

the new limits and the new requirements that help to give customers and consumers an opportunity to choose. They are finding 

out that they are choosing to buy American, and that is encouraging in this day of real tough international competition in so 

many areas of agriculture and food production and marketing. 

The end of my speech. 

Senator MORAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you for joining us. 

We now recognize the Senator from New Mexico. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you very much, Chairman Moran. 

And thank you, Senator Vilsack, for your service. 

Secretary VILSACK. I am a Secretary. I am not a Senator. 

Senator UDALL. Secretary. I understand. I understand, and you 

were a Governor before that. And you like to get things done, I 

know. 

Senator MORAN. Would you like those words stricken from the 

record? 

[Laughter.] 

STRIKE FORCE INITIATIVE

Senator UDALL. Secretary Vilsack, thank you very much for your 

service and thank you for being here. Just a couple things I wanted 

to ask your support on. 

The New Mexico delegation recently sent you a letter in support 

of the Navajo Promise Zone applications submitted by the Navajo 

Technical University and also submitted by the Navajo Nation for 

what is called a Tribal Promise Zone. 

It is an extremely high priority for me. Let me tell you why here. 

The Navajo Nation faces significant challenges, high poverty, 

lack of basic infrastructure, lack of housing, public safety deficiencies, among other things. The unemployment rate there is totally unacceptable. It is near 50 percent. And an equally large percentage of the population is below the poverty level. 

They have made steady progress on economic development in recent years, but they really needed a boost. I think this Promise 

Zone would really make a difference. 
26 

As part of the President’s efforts, this Promise Zone will help the 

Navajo Nation help tackle the issues outlined in their application, 

which I have talked a little bit about here. 

I simply urge you to give consideration to their request. I know 

there are many communities in need, but few face the extremely 

difficult conditions we see on the Navajo Nation. 

Secretary VILSACK. That is one of the reasons why we have already included that area in our StrikeForce Initiative at the USDA. 

But you are right, the Promise Zone would extend that kind of approach to all Federal agencies. 

I appreciate the comment, Senator, and I will take that back to 

the team. 

Senator UDALL. Secretary Vilsack, could you tell me a little bit 

about the StrikeForce effort there? 

Secretary VILSACK. Sure. StrikeForce was designed to focus on 

the areas of persistent poverty in this country. The reality is 85 

percent of persistently poor areas in this country are, in fact, in 

rural areas. 

What we found early in the Administration was that we were not 

doing enough work in those areas to get folks to understand how 

to basically apply for programs where they could get help. 

So we instructed our team, our FSA team, our nutrition team, 

our rural development teams, and our NRCS team, to go to communities across the country where there is persistent poverty and basically work with a community-building organization to identify 

projects and needs that we could address through USDA programs. 

It is now operating in 920 counties, 21 States, and several tribal 

areas. The result is that we have invested $26.3 billion in over 

190,000 investments that have been made in the StrikeForce areas. 

I would imagine a significant percentage of those would never 

have been made but for the attention and intense work relationship that we have created. 

We are now working with over 1,500 community-building organizations and partners. It has been I think a successful endeavor. 

And I think that has led us to take a look at the Promise Zone 

and some place-based initiatives as well throughout the entire Federal Government. 

COLONIAS

Senator UDALL. Thank you very much for that initiative, because 

I have many communities in my State that I think need that kind 

of initiative and kind of push that you are making there. 

This next issue is an issue that I raised last year, and it is yet 

to be resolved. Two communities in New Mexico, Chaparral and 

Sunland Park, our designated colonias. I think you are probably familiar with that term. It is on your USDA rural Web site. But it 

means neighborhoods or communities within 150 miles of the 

United States-Mexico border that are economically distressed. 

They both have been designated colonias, and they are ineligible 

for some USDA rural development funds because of the USDA’s 

formula for determining a rural community based on proximity to 

a municipality. 

In this case, because of their proximity to El Paso, Texas, even 

though they are in New Mexico, even though they do not benefit 
27 

from any support or municipal services from a city or county like 

El Paso, which they are close to, and because they are not in the 

same State, these communities have high poverty rates, limited 

public sector funding, separated by over 40 miles from Las Cruces, 

the nearest city. 

These communities need rural development funds for critical 

housing projects, economic development funding, infrastructure improvements. The area is seeing increasing traffic at the nearby 

Santa Teresa Port of Entry, which is positive, but really underscores the need for infrastructure. 

So waivers have been used for similar situations in the past, but 

we are experiencing difficulty with waivers in these cases. Would 

you work with me and within your authority to ensure that these 

two communities do not fall through the cracks and are made eligible for rural development assistance? 

Secretary VILSACK. Senator, as you were outlining your request, 

I turned to my staff to ask whether or not waivers were available, 

and we will certainly work with you and your team to figure out, 

if they are, how to use them, and if they are not, what else we 

could potentially do to provide—because colonias is part of our 

StrikeForce Initiative. So we obviously are cognizant of the challenges of that particular area, so we will be happy to try to find 

a creative solution to the problem they are facing there. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you very much. I could not think of a better person to be Secretary of Agriculture because you served as 

Governor from a rural State. You know rural communities and how 

they are struggling. I sure appreciate this effort in terms of the 

StrikeForce and look forward to working with you. Thank you very 

much. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator MORAN. You had no time to yield back, but thank you 

for the effort. 

The Senator from North Dakota. 

FARM PROGRAMS SURVEY DATA

Senator HOEVEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Good to see you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you for your work on behalf of our farmers and ranchers. As you know, we want to make 

the farm bill as farmer-friendly as possible. 

That is particularly important right now with low commodity 

prices. We are seeing real stress out there in the ag world on the 

part of our farmers and ranchers with these low commodity prices. 

One area that we can help in terms of making sure that the farm 

bill is farmer-friendly is with the National Agricultural Statistics 

Service (NASS) data. I think that you are already working on this 

with your FSA Administrator Val Dolcini. 

But in some cases, that NASS data, because there are not 

enough survey forms sent in for some counties, we are getting a 

bad result. 

It is not unique to North Dakota. It is occurring in other States 

as well. I believe in Iowa, and I do not know about Kansas, but a 

number of States. We have counties, and there are not enough of 

the survey forms that come back and so the NASS information is 
28 

not used. Instead, we are using Risk Management Agency (RMA) 

information. And we are getting a bad result. 

What I mean by that is if you take counties, for example, in 

North Dakota, Logan and Lamoure, and you compare them to similar counties in terms of the average for corn, for example, for the 

year. If we do not have enough NASS data, we use the RMA data, 

and we are getting a result that does not correlate with like counties. So other counties that typically have about the same yield, 

those farmers get an ARC payment. But because the RMA data is 

so high, it is disqualifying farmers in Logan and Lamoure counties, 

for example, from getting in an ARC payment on corn. 

That is one example. There are other examples around the country. 

So we have asked Val Dolcini at FSA to allow us to work with 

the FSA Director in the respective State and use comparable counties that have adequate NASS data, so we do not get a skewed result. It is very important to farmers, particularly with low commodity prices. 

So what can you tell me in terms of your willingness to provide 

this flexibility? I know you are doing an interagency analysis or 

study, I think is the term for it. But what can you do to help here, 

Secretary, so we can get this fixed? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, as you know, Congress made the decision to do a county program as opposed to an individual program. 

I think they probably did that because of the cost of the individual 

program and the need to generate savings in the overall program. 

So we obviously have to deal with the county program, and we 

have to have some kind of process by which we can try to treat as 

many of the several thousand counties that we are dealing with as 

fairly and equitably as we can. 

So we have come up with a proposal, the outline that you have 

addressed, which we have looked at NASS data first. If there are 

inadequate numbers of surveys, we ought to focus on making sure 

we get farmers to respond to those surveys, so we have adequate 

information. 

If we do not, we go to RMA information. If we are not satisfied 

that that is appropriate or correct, we have empowered our State 

Committees to basically take a look and provide some direction. 

So we think we have some degree of predictability and consistency without necessarily creating a circumstance where we cannot 

address the anomaly or the inaccuracy of information. 

I am more than happy to go back to our team and basically make 

sure that we are in a position to be able to explain why we are 

making the decisions we are making. If we cannot, then we obviously need to do something different. 

Senator HOEVEN. My understanding is it is currently in this 

interagency review. I do not know what the results of that are. 

If, in fact, the State Committee is empowered to make a decision, 

I think that is where we need to go. Again, it is making sure you 

are giving discretion out there in the field to your directors to make 

a good decision. 

Secretary VILSACK. That is the key, a good decision. We do not 

necessarily want to create a circumstance where everybody is not 

happy with whatever it is they ultimately get, because then you 
29 

create a very confusing circumstance and you end up getting an individual program when you really, by statute, are directed to have 

a county program. 

So I think there is a balance here. I am more than happy to try 

to be flexible, but I think we do have to have some system. 

Senator HOEVEN. I hear you. Of course, we want the NASS survey forms to come in, so you have adequate data and you have good 

data. But where that has not occurred, just so that that State Committee or FSA Director, however you decide you want to do it, is 

empowered to say, okay, this is a nonsensical result. We will make 

an adjustment. 

My question is, I do not think we have gotten that response back 

from FSA. They are still doing this interagency review. This has 

been going on since November. I am asking for your help to get an 

answer. 

Secretary VILSACK. You deserve an answer, Senator. We will try 

to get you one quickly. 

Senator HOEVEN. All right, thank you very much, Secretary. 

CROP INSURANCE PROGRAM

The other thing I will just mention, if you have any reaction, 

that is great. I am very concerned about any reductions to the support for crop insurance. That is the number one risk-management 

tool for our farmers. You are probably not surprised to hear me say 

that because you and I have had this discussion before. 

But I am very concerned about that and I am going to make sure 

we do everything we can to support crop insurance. In fact, we included language in the farm bill to make sure that did happen. 

On the positive side, though, I appreciate the support that you 

have provided for Agricultural Research Service, ARS, and for 

NIFA, National Institute of Food and Agriculture. I think that research area is incredibly important, incredibly impactful for our 

farmers and ranchers. So if you have some thoughts there, I would 

welcome them. 

Secretary VILSACK. Just briefly on the crop insurance, there are 

two areas. One is on the prevented planning. Our Inspector General, and I think the Government Accountability Office, have been 

critical of the way in which that program operates. So I think it 

is appropriate for us to be responsive to those criticisms. What we 

have proposed in the budget is our effort at being responsive. 

On the price harvest loss option, where we are proposing a 

slightly different arrangement between the producer, the government, and the insurance company, where we are currently financing 62 percent of the premium, we think it is probably fair to taxpayers that it be more of a 50/50 partnership. Those are the two 

proposals. 

Senator HOEVEN. I would point out that since 2008, $12 billion 

has been taken out of crop insurance support. And you want a robust number of companies out there providing crop insurance to 

have a competitive market, and we have to be careful or you are 

not going to have enough competition out there to have a robust 

market. 

Secretary VILSACK. That is true. Our projections I think for return on investment with this budget is 18 percent. 
30 

Senator HOEVEN. For which they have to cover all of their costs. 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, not all their costs, because there is also 

an additional resource for administrative and operating costs. 

Senator HOEVEN. Right. But again, at the end of the day, if they 

cannot make enough money to continue to stay in that business 

and to cover costs, you are going to have fewer and fewer agencies. 

You are not going to have a robust insurance group out there providing crop coverage. 

Secretary VILSACK. I am not sure either one of these two proposals necessarily impacts the issue that you have raised, but I am 

certainly sensitive to the fact. That is why we are continuing look 

at the return on investment. We had a couple of years where it was 

difficult, but we are beginning to see more profitability in that part 

of the operation. I think it was 15 percent or 13 percent last year, 

18 percent projected for this year. 

Senator HOEVEN. Again, I appreciate that. I understand your 

point of view, though I do not agree with it. 

I do want to again emphasize that crop insurance support has been reduced by $12 billion since 2008. I think there are a lot of 

programs across the Federal Government that have not contributed 

as much in terms of help with finding savings as crop insurance. 

Secretary VILSACK. You do not have to tell me about reductions, 

Senator. My overall operating budget is less than it was in 2010. 

Senator HOEVEN. Secretary, again, thanks for what you do. 

Thanks for your willingness to take a look at the NASS data. I appreciate it. 

Senator MORAN. Senator Merkley. 

RURAL BROADBAND PROGRAM

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I thought I would turn to a piece of the picture that I hear about 

a lot that has not been mentioned yet, and that is rural broadband. 

Everywhere I go in Oregon, folks note the importance of it to the 

success of their rural communities. 

So I wanted to explore this a little bit, because, as I understand 

it, USDA recently rewrote the broadband loan program regulations 

to reflect the changes in the 2014 Farm Bill. It really has just kind 

of gotten going, but I believe you are now proposing eliminating 

this. 

Meanwhile, the grant program, which has increased, is a distinctly different program. The grant program serves a small number of poor, unconnected communities. The number of communities 

it focused on in fiscal year 2015 was five communities. 

So I think there is concern that there is going to be a sacrifice 

of a program that serves large expanses for assisting a small number of communities, and whether or not that really reflects the demand for rural broadband. There is probably a lot more thinking 

behind it. I thought I would just give you a chance to explain it. 

Secretary VILSACK. Senator, I appreciate the question. What we 

have found is that it is not impossible for companies to secure 

loans. But to the extent that they can get grant funds that either 

reduce the amount they have to borrow or to reduce the interest 

rate on the loan, that makes it much more likely that they are in 

a position to do significant improvements and expansions. 
31 

So listening to what we believe the industry is telling us is necessary to get more broadband in more places, combining that with 

hopefully with what the FCC is attempting to do and hoping it 

works properly to create more incentive and more resource for expansion of broadband, the combination of those two. 

So that is why we are proposing an increase in the grant program, because we think that will generate more activity than simply a loan program. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you for that explanation. I look forward to tracking that because it is of so much importance. 

My colleague from Wisconsin has arrived, and I am going to turn 

this over to her. Just in closing out my comments, thank you again 

for your service over 7-plus years and counting. There are many 

more questions I have that I will be submitting to you for the 

record, but I do not need to address them at this point. Thank you. 

Senator MORAN. The Senator from Wisconsin. 

My intention is to have the Senator from Wisconsin ask her 

questions. I have a few follow-up questions, and then we would anticipate concluding the hearing. 

WATER AND WASTE WATER TREATMENT PROGRAM

Senator BALDWIN. I thank the Chair. 

Mr. Secretary, in Wisconsin, water issues are on everyone’s 

mind, as our rural communities are facing many challenges to protect their water quality. 

In particular, Kewaunee and Door Counties in Wisconsin’s northeastern region have nitrate and bacteria contamination in their 

groundwater. Testing is showing that more and more private wells 

are contaminated. 

Local stakeholder groups are working with the State Department 

of Natural Resources (DNR) to talk about long-term solutions. But 

as those deliberations continue, rural families remain without immediate solutions to these very pressing concerns and the obvious 

need for safe drinking water. 

Mr. Secretary, I believe your Department can help, but it is going 

to take some really, really hard work. So I would ask you how you 

see the USDA playing a role in these communities in Wisconsin, 

and would you commit to working with me and the local communities to offer both immediate and long-term solutions that help 

watersheds in this vital region of our State and our country? 

Secretary VILSACK. Senator, do you know offhand what the population is of those two communities? Is it greater than 10,000 or less 

than 10,000? 

Senator BALDWIN. Both counties I believe would be greater, but 

they might be close. They are sparsely populated. 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, the first line of response to your question is, to the extent that the infrastructure that treats water can 

be modernized, obviously, the USDA has our water and wastewater 

treatment programs that are available. 

We also have a partnership with CoBank and other farm credit 

agencies that are providing infrastructure loans that USDA cannot 

do or will not do or does not have enough resources to do. It is 

leveraging our resources. 
32 

We have had a series of partnerships with the farm credit system 

where we will fund half a project and the CoBank will fund the 

other half. They made a $10 billion commitment to infrastructure 

in rural areas across the United States. 

The third alternative, on this side of the equation, is to work 

with us to identify potentially private sector investors who might 

be willing to provide the financing to improve the systems. 

So those are three basic avenues of financing infrastructure. We 

will be more than happy to work with you and have our rural development people work with those two counties in those two areas. 

You asked for a short- and long-term solution. Obviously, longterm is to try to work with conservation programs to try to prevent 

the problem from getting worse and ultimately reversing it. 

Actually, Wisconsin has a number of communities like Green Bay 

that are working with the Fox River that are trying to create ecosystem markets where essentially regulated industries would be 

able to pay farmers for conservation that would allow them to satisfy a particular ecosystem regulation, or there may be a corporate 

entity that is looking from a social responsibility perspective. 

We just did an event with Chevrolet on carbon credits, for example, in North Dakota, a working ranch in North Dakota. 

So we are trying to create more ecosystem market opportunities 

in Wisconsin. That requires us to be able to measure and verify 

and quantify the conservation results. If you can do that, and I 

would encourage those folks to consider a Conservation Innovation 

Grant, a CIG grant, which we have used in the past to help create 

a measurement and certification and qualification system. 

Let me just give one other piece of this. There is also the regular 

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) programs and the 

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). There is a continuous program that potentially could be used to develop bioreactors in those 

conservation programs that would allow for better filtering of contaminants, nitrates and so forth. 

So there is a body of steps that can be taken short term and long 

term to try to address this. 

Senator BALDWIN. I appreciate that, and there has been, as I was 

mentioning, a good local collaboration not only with our State DNR 

but I know a real interest in these collaborations on long-term solutions at the Federal level. 

I will just restate that many of the residents impacted have private wells. They, therefore, have an immediate need for clean 

drinking water. So I hope we can follow up this exchange with 

ways in which the USDA can help meet those very important and 

immediate needs. 

Secretary VILSACK. What we were able to do in a slightly different situation in California where it was drought and they had 

private wells, but they just did not have any water in the well, we 

were able to take a look at whether they were adjoining an area 

of municipal systems that could potentially be extended to those 

private homes that were serviced by a private well. 

So I do not know if that is possible at all in what you are talking 

about, but that is something. 
33 

CLASSICAL BREEDING RESEARCH

Senator BALDWIN. I appreciate your commitment to work with 

me and local communities, and we will certainly follow up. 

I did have one other question that I wanted to address to you, 

Mr. Secretary. In addition to being America’s dairyland, Wisconsin 

also produces a lot of specialty crops, and we have a very vibrant 

and rapidly growing organic sector, second only to the State of 

California in the number of organic farms within our State. 

The specialty crops and organic farmers have a great need for 

new varieties and breeds that are adapted regionally and respond 

to market demands that can help them grow their markets, socalled seeds and breeds. 

In response to this Subcommittee’s work last year and direction 

in the fiscal year 2016 spending bill, I know that the USDA is producing a report on classical breeding investments, but this committee also directed the agency to create a specific competition for 

classical breeding so that proposals for this specific type of research 

compete against each other and not against other different research fields. 

So we have yet to see progress on that particular front. For Wisconsin farmers, it is not about the academic competition. It is about 

having the varieties that they need right on the farm to help them 

make it through tough years. 

So I hope that you will commit to resolving this issue this year, 

and pushing forward with that specific competition for classical 

breeding research. 

Secretary VILSACK. I will certainly take a look at that. I will tell 

you that there is an intent and interest in this area. We are investing a bit more time and energy in it. 

We are also making sure that our own seed banks are available, 

in the event there is a situation where we do not have seed in the 

past. So it is a combination of preserving the past and also preparing for new varieties. 

I said earlier that our research has already created, over the 

time I have been Secretary, 714 different plant varieties, so we are 

involved and engaged in this. I think there is a good balance between where we have genomic information, using that, where we 

do not, using the classical breeding. So it is a combination and balance. 

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH

Senator BALDWIN. I thank the Chairman and Ranking Member 

for their leniency in watching the clock. 

Senator MORAN. Thank you, Senator Baldwin, for joining us 

today, and thank you for your questions of the Secretary. 

Mr. Secretary, let me editorialize just for a moment. 

In regard to agriculture research, our fiscal year 2016 agriculture 

appropriation bill provided $350 million for the Agriculture and 

Food Research Initiative (AFRI), a $25 million increase. That is the 

highest funding level this program has received since its inception. 

We worked hard under the allocation that we had to provide additional support for agriculture research. You mentioned its importance, as have a number of my colleagues. 
34 

My editorial comment is that we cannot compete with the Administration’s budget when they use mandatory spending as the solution to funding this and many other programs, not just in your 

budget but across the Federal Government, Federal Governmentwide. 

Again, this is a budgetary issue beyond your scope, but it is important that the Administration recognize that when they make a 

budget request to us as appropriators, we do not have the ability 

to provide funding with mandatory spending. I think they know 

that. It sets a bar. Perhaps it is just posturing to suggest that the 

Administration, your Department is more interested in agricultural 

funding than we are. But when we come to the amount of money 

that we have within our jurisdiction to provide support for agriculture research, in my view, we have been there. 

CUBA OFFICE

You have been kind enough to attempt to include me in a visit 

to Cuba. I appreciate that invitation. I have been a longtime advocate for lifting the embargo, particularly as it relates to food, medicine, and agriculture commodities to Cuba. I had some success in 

that regard when I was a member of the House of Representatives. 

Your budget includes some funding for changes that may occur 

in our relationship or is occurring in our relationship with Cuba. 

What is the circumstance by which you ask for dollars for agricultural representation in Cuba? 

And secondly, knowing that the appropriations process in which 

you are asking for this money to be included, that may be a controversial request, I am not certain. But even if it is not, this process takes a long time. So what is USDA doing in Cuba today to 

help assist in the export, sale of agriculture commodities. 

Secretary VILSACK. Senator, the embargo statute basically prohibits the Department of Agriculture from using any of its market 

assistance programming money, so we cannot directly help promote, as we do in other countries. That is one of the reasons why 

we need to get rid of the embargo. 

But even if we get rid of the embargo tomorrow, we would not 

necessarily be prepared to do everything we are potentially able to 

do in Cuba, in terms of regaining market share that we have lost 

over the years because we do not have the relationships and people 

on the ground to basically know the people that we need to know 

on the Cuban side to be able to effectuate more trade. That is the 

reason why we have asked for personnel to be down in Cuba, to 

be permanently located down there, so they can create the relationships so that when the embargo is in fact lifted and we can use 

promotion resources, that we are in a position to move expeditiously to take full advantage. 

Senator MORAN. I do not know off the top my head the amount 

of dollars you have requested. 

Secretary VILSACK. I think it is $1.5 million for five or six people. 

Senator MORAN. I think that is right. So the point you are making is that is not to assist directly in support subsidization of any 

sale to Cuba or to any marketing program. 

Secretary VILSACK. Correct. 
35 

Senator MORAN. It is directly related to the ability to have USDA 

personnel in Cuba, developing relationships with potential customers. 

Secretary VILSACK. And also to do an evaluation of the pests and 

diseases that we may potentially confront when our relationship 

becomes more bilateral. 

The second piece of this is that there are commodity groups that 

are quite interested in doing business down there, because they realize that we have a competitive advantage that we have not taken 

full advantage of. They are asking us to explore ways in which they 

themselves, apart from what we cannot do, can they be more aggressive in their promotion efforts. 

We are looking for ways we can find—a way for them to be more 

aggressive, so that without necessarily direct support from USDA, 

commodity groups, State ag commissioners, State ag secretaries, 

individual farm groups will be able to promote product. 

Senator MORAN. Mr. Secretary, in that regard, my understanding 

of the current state of the law in regard to Cuba is that we can 

sell agriculture commodities, food, and medicine to Cuba for cash. 

Secretary VILSACK. It is harder, but we can. 

Senator MORAN. So commodity groups could promote those sales 

today. Is that true? 

Secretary VILSACK. Yes. The question is whether or not any of 

the resources, the check off dollars, for example, could potentially 

be used by those commodity groups. We are in the process of trying 

to figure out the answer to that question. We do not want to unnecessarily create a circumstance where we are violating the law. We 

want to make sure we understand the law. 

But this is a tremendous opportunity for us. It is just nuts that 

we do not have more of a market share than we do down there. 

Senator MORAN. Dr. Johansson, in his commentary to us, in his 

conversation with us last week, indicated significant opportunities 

and compared it to the Dominican Republic, as I recall. 

Secretary VILSACK. Eighty percent of Cuban food is imported, 80 

percent. And I think we do 10 percent, 15 percent of their needs 

today. We should be doing 50 percent. 

BROADBAND OPPORTUNITIES

Senator MORAN. We have seen significant improvements in the 

opportunity to sell. I think it was 2010, maybe 2011, the law was 

changed to allow the sales. And regulations were altered about that 

point in time, money had to be received upfront, whether it was 

when the ship left the United States or when it arrived in Havana. 

Then the third-party financing issues. 

But those are regulatory issues that perhaps will be addressed. 

But this issue of Cuba will be one of broad interest in Congress. 

It has its opponents, which I discovered in my time working on this 

issue. 

Let me return to a topic that we visited about last year in this 

same setting. I encouraged you, and you indicated that you do and 

would, continue your conversations with the Federal Communications Commission. I have expressed an ongoing concern about the 

ability for particularly rural telephone companies to be able to 
36 

repay loans they owe the Rural Utilities Services (RUS) based upon 

decisions that the FCC has and is continuing to make. 

I would again highlight this issue for you in the sense that it is 

important I assume to you that we allow those companies to expand broadband opportunities in rural America, but also you may 

have a default rate of significant magnitude if the FCC makes decisions, particularly as it relates to the Universal Service Fund that 

would have consequences to a telephone company, a broadband 

provider, let me be broader than that, a broadband provider’s ability to repay RUS. 

Secretary VILSACK. We are cognizant of that. I can assure you 

that we indicate to FCC concern in that space. So we are keeping 

an eye on it. We have advised them of your concerns and of our 

concern. 

Senator MORAN. On the same topic of broadband, I am an advocate, obviously, for expansion of those opportunities in places that 

are unserved. I have worried from time to time that various programs, perhaps more related to the Stimulus package than the programs under your Department, have provided loans and subsidization for companies to compete in already existing territory in which 

broadband services exist. 

Could you tell me the current state of at least your programs, 

those that you are responsible for, and their ability to obtain support from your Department to compete with existing broadband 

providers? 

Secretary VILSACK. Yes. We do not have unlimited resources, so 

we have to make sure that they do the job. We are mostly focused 

on unserved and underserved areas. I do not believe we are creating circumstances where we are encouraging competition here. 

We are trying to meet an unmet need. 

Senator MORAN. You used a few words there that cause me to 

ask you to confirm that to me. 

Secretary VILSACK. Sure. I am not trying to be evasive here. I am 

reasonably certain that our focus is on unserved and underserved 

areas. It is not based on places where there is already service. 

Now, I would say that we may be in a situation where we are 

trying to upgrade the service that is being provided, so that 

download speeds and upload speeds are increased. I do not think 

that falls within the scope of your question, because it is not competition. It is about working with an existing operation to improve 

their service. 

Senator MORAN. I know of circumstances in which loans or 

grants were made to provide service to areas that had no service. 

But in order to make that financially possible, the territory in 

which the loan could be used included areas that already had service. So areas that already had service got competition. They were 

larger communities, and I assume the theory was that revenue 

generated in that larger area makes it economically more viable for 

service to be provided in places that are much smaller that have 

no service. 

But my view is that the government program is the subsidy, not 

creating additional service in places that are already served, and 

taking the revenue that is generated there to support areas that 

do not have service. 
37 

Secretary VILSACK. You deserve a more detailed answer. We will 

make sure you get it. 

[The information follows:] 

The Farm Bill Broadband Loan Program funds broadband facilities in rural service territories with at least 15 percent unserved households,as per statute in Title 

VI of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (Public Law 113–79, Section 6104 2(B)i). A household is considered unserved if it is not receiving broadband service as defined in the 

latest Notice of Funding Available (NOFA). The program offers incentives for loan 

applicants to go into areas with at least 50 percent unserved households. Areas with 

three existing broadband service providers are not eligible for funding. Applications 

that are proposing to provide service at the Broadband Lending Speed as defined 

in the NOFA will receive priority consideration for funding. 

MCGOVERN DOLE PROGRAM

Senator MORAN. I appreciate that. I am almost done, Mr. Secretary. 

Food aid, and particularly the McGovern-Dole—in Kansas, we 

would say the Dole-McGovern program. You are proposing reductions in the spending in that area. 

If we agree with your position, your budget request, how would 

USDA absorb those cuts? Are there ongoing programs that would 

be affected? Do you have countries that you would specifically exclude from the program? So if there is less money, how would you 

spend the money that you would have remaining? 

Secretary VILSACK. As you well know, the Dole-McGovern, 

McGovern-Dole program is designed not to be a permanent level of 

support for countries, but it is designed to show the wisdom of basically linking education and food with the hope that the host country would eventually take over that responsibility. So there very 

well may be countries where we have been active and involved in 

providing assistance for an extended period of time, but which we 

think it is time for them to basically pick up the mantle, if you will. 

That may be a consequence. 

So it may be that there is not a circumstance where we are necessarily going to cut off or cut out people who are currently receiving service or assistance without some substitute from the host 

country. 

The other possibility is that we are proposing to use a small portion of McGovern-Dole for local purchases, which may potentially 

leverage those dollars more effectively as well. 

So I would be more than happy to give you a more detailed response to that question, but it does point out the challenge. Whenever we have conversations about budgets, we always focus on individual programs. But the reality is your circumstance and our circumstance in putting a budget together, it is all about choices. 

If we did not have a finite number that we had to deal with, if 

we could fix the fire budget, it creates more flexibility in our budget. 

FOREST FIRE BORROWING

Senator MORAN. Is there another opportunity you would like to 

say that, Mr. Secretary? 

Secretary VILSACK. Yes. To be very, very candid, Mr. Chairman, 

this is one area that has frustrated me more than any since I have 
38 

been Secretary, because everybody—everybody—knows this is a 

problem. 

The reason I feel so strongly about this is last year during our 

award ceremony, I had to give out seven American flags to family 

members who lost loved ones in forest fires. The reason why some 

of them were lost was because we have not been able to do the job 

that we need to do in restoring and making our forests more resilient because every year we borrow money from those very accounts 

to put fires out. 

To me, a fire is no doggone different than a flood or tornado or 

hurricane, where we fund not out of an operating budget, but out 

of an emergency budget. 

If we could just create a circumstance where those large, uncontrolled, very expensive fires could be dealt with, it would create 

more flexibility within this budget, and many of the concerns that 

you all have addressed here, which we share, could potentially be 

more adequately addressed. 

NATIONAL BIO AND AGRO-DEFENSE FACILITY

Senator MORAN. Thank you for your passion and for your compassion. 

Mr. Secretary, I appreciate you being in Manhattan, Kansas, 

when we cut a ribbon on the National Bio and Agro science facility. 

Thank you very much, soon to be a Department of Agriculture operation. 

I just would highlight, as transition occurs from Plum Island to 

the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF), my impression 

is that there may be USDA employees who do not relocate. We 

want to work with you to make certain that the training and recruitment, retention opportunities exist at USDA to make certain 

that when the day comes that you are fully staffed with the highly 

capable and significant expertise in this important issue of protecting our homeland. 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, that is certainly an appropriate request, 

Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

NEW, BEGINNING, AND VETERAN FARMERS AND RANCHERS

Senator MORAN. Finally, your budget proposes a $5 million increase in the Office of the Secretary. This sounds like a difficult 

question, but it is for something that I find very appealing, for new, 

beginning, women, and Veteran farmers. I am not certain how you 

intend to utilize those dollars, but I would highlight for you that 

our Subcommittee intends to have a hearing in the next several 

weeks on this topic of how to bring veterans into agriculture. 

Secretary VILSACK. We have finally, after a good deal of effort, 

secured commitments from the Department of Defense to begin the 

process of going on base. As service men and women are leaving 

the service, they receive a series of briefings on opportunities. In 

the past, agriculture has not been part of that process. Now we are 

getting permission to be part of that process. 

We want to be able to provide those veterans with the opportunity to know how they might be able to access a chance to be a 

farmer. 
39 

If you go on our Web site, probably the most popular aspect of 

our Web site in the last 6 months has been are Beginning Farmer 

Web site that we revamped. You can actually go in now and you 

can plug in your wish list of what kind of farmer you would like 

to be, what you would like to grow, how big you would like to be. 

It will give you essentially a personalized plan for the programs 

within USDA that can provide help and assistance, whether it is 

a microloan, conservation, help with crop insurance, whatever it 

might be. 

We think the combination of more education of those returning 

veterans about opportunities that do, in fact, exist within agriculture, the greater the interest will be. 

So to the extent that we can sort of spread our tentacles in a 

much wider base than we have in the past, I think that will be 

helpful. 

We also know that 70 percent of the world’s farmers are women, 

and there is an increasingly greater interest among women in this 

country to participate. Again, it requires outreach. It requires a little time. It requires access to information and providing an easy 

way for people to get information. 

So that is the purpose of this. The Deputy, Secretary Krysta 

Harden, who is no longer with the agency, was a great proponent 

of this. I think her work has been very successful. 

If you look at the recent census, you are going to see an increase 

in women farmers. You are going to see an increase in farmers of 

color. And you are also going to see an increased interest in working with other veterans’ groups to see bring veterans into the farming business. 

Senator MORAN. Mr. Secretary, I applaud those efforts. We have 

seen a number of just individuals—Gary LaGrange, who is retired 

military in my hometown, has created opportunities for veterans 

returning with traumatic injuries to enter farming, in this case, 

beekeeping, in a very successful way. 

Incidentally, legislation that I have introduced has passed the 

Small Business Committee to create an opportunity for veterans to 

use their G.I. Bill. I welcome my colleagues who are still here to 

join us in this effort, to use their G.I. Bill to get education, training 

vocationally to become farmers, or other business men and women 

to become entrepreneurs, which farming is. 

So we look forward to working with the Department to accomplish that. 

I would be less than polite if I did not give my colleagues a 

chance—I hope they say no—but does anybody have anything to 

follow up before I conclude the hearing? 

Senator Merkley. 

FOREST FIRE BORROWING

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Since you offered, I just wanted to address the fire borrowing. 

Senator Wyden and I have been working with Senator Murkowski 

and have been chief advocates of ending fire borrowing. We worked 

very hard to persuade the Administration to back this plan. The 

Administration backed it. Thank you. 
40 

It is not in this Subcommittee’s jurisdiction, but it is absolutely 

important. I hope every meeting you go into, you will be talking 

about it. 

We did make a significant change last year. That is that the firefighting was funded at 100 percent of the previous 10-year average, 

plus a $600 million buffer. Given the impact of the Pacific blob and 

its change in precipitation in the forests of the Northwest, there is 

a chance that there will be no fire borrowing this year. We will 

wait and see. We will see what the summer looks like. 

But you are absolutely right. I will just put a huge exclamation 

point. The mega-fires, the large fires, should be treated as the natural disasters they are. We have constantly robbed fire health and 

hazardous fuel buildup on the floor of the forests, we have constantly robbed that to pay for fighting fires. People say, why do you 

always go to the backend when it is at the point of disaster, rather 

than treat the forest right on the front end? 

So thank you for your advocacy on it. Please continue in every 

possible setting. All of us from the Northwest who suffer these terrible fires are grateful. 

Secretary VILSACK. Senator, I appreciate those comments. I just 

want to underscore, I am not going to authorize transfers. 

Senator MERKLEY. Oh, yes, not from this committee to another. 

But that is not the point. Yes, I understand. You are saying you 

are going to block—— 

Secretary VILSACK. I am not going to authorize it because basically that takes everybody off the hook. 

Senator MERKLEY. Well, I think that should focus a lot of minds 

here on Capitol Hill. 

Secretary VILSACK. I hope so. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you. 

Senator MORAN. Senator Baldwin. 

Senator BALDWIN. Thank you. At the risk of not saying no to 

your offer, I want to also add my words of agreement with tackling 

the fire borrowing issue. 

Certainly, Wisconsin is not a State where we have many forest 

fires, but we have a significant part of our Northwoods with a very 

active timber industry and small businesses dependent upon sustainable management of our forests. I feel like we absolutely must 

tackle this. 

I just want to say, not only to the Secretary, but to the Chair 

and Ranking Member, how pleased I am to be on the Subcommittee, and how much I look forward to working on a number 

of issues with you over this appropriations season. I wanted to just 

call attention to two that I did not have a chance to refer to during 

my question period, which is promoting agricultural innovation 

through the Value-Added Producer Grant program, and everything 

we can do to help new producers get their start with the Beginning 

Farmer programs, in addition to the ones the chairman and the 

Secretary just discussed. I am a big fan and look forward to working with all of you on that. 
41 

CLOSING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JERRY MORAN

Senator MORAN. Senator Baldwin, we appreciate your participation and presence on the Subcommittee. We look forward to working with you on that and other issues. 

Senator Merkley, thank you very much for your kindness and the 

working relationship that we have. 

Mr. Secretary, you have been complimented by members of this 

Subcommittee on both sides of the aisle. I would add my compliments to you. This is the only the second year that I have 

chaired this Subcommittee, so while I have been on it, this is the 

time I have had the most opportunity to get acquainted with you, 

mostly in this setting. 

What I would say is that I am impressed, pleased, about the 

level of your knowledge, the amount of detail that you know. There 

is something perhaps to what Senator Blunt said about experience, 

7 years. I guess I should not assume this is your last opportunity 

to appear in a budget hearing before this Subcommittee. Perhaps 

it is. But I would like to thank you for being a Secretary who apparently, seemingly, knows what is going on to a large extent at 

the Department that you head. That is pleasing to me. 

We are going to try to do everything that I can do to become comparable in level of knowledge as a member of this Appropriations 

Committee, so that I can have a full and complete understanding 

as best as possible on the details of what goes on at USDA, and, 

in our case, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). I want to 

be knowledgeable as well and look forward to developing greater 

expertise as you have developed over the last 7 years. I thank you 

for your public service. 

Secretary VILSACK. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. It has 

been an honor to appear before this Subcommittee. 

I really feel blessed that I get to work with incredibly dedicated 

people at USDA. We all work for just an amazing group of people 

who live, work, and raise their families in rural areas who do so 

much for this country and oftentimes what they do is underappreciated or not appreciated at all. So I appreciate this privilege that 

I have, and I consider it a deep honor. Thank you. 

Senator MORAN. Mr. Secretary, thank you very much. 

I will not diminish what you just said by sounding very formal 

now, but I have magic words I must say. 

For Members of the Subcommittee, any question that you would 

like to submit for the hearing record should be turned into Subcommittee staff within 1 week, which is Wednesday, March 16. We 

would appreciate it if you would have responses back from USDA 

within 4 weeks of that time. 

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator MORAN. I thank the gentlemen who accompanied you 

today, and I believe that concludes our hearing. 

Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 3:45 p.m., Wednesday, March 9, the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the 

chair.]