Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration Appropriations for 2022: House Hearing
Summary
Part 2 of the 2022 appropriations hearings of the House Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies, Sanford D. Bishop, Jr., Chairman, printed by the U.S. Government Publishing Office in 2022. Its contents run from the USDA Office of the Inspector General and the Food and Drug Administration foreign drug inspections program to the rural economy and Members' Day. The first hearing, on Thursday, February 25, 2021, is an oversight hearing of the USDA Office of Inspector General with Inspector General Phyllis Fong. Ms. Fong testifies that the office issued 44 audit reports, obtained 345 criminal convictions and reported over $360 million in dollar results last year, and that USDA received over $61 billion for pandemic response activities.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Cite this document
“Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration Appropriations for 2022: House Hearing.”
Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/agriculture-rural-development-food-and-drug-administration-and-related-5309c2b5c6/
, SHA-256 1109e707fa4e3e24849d77fdba3492d8cc234a9e0ba597d00bcaf41759a5bb4e.Full text
[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD
AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED
AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2022
_______________________________________________________________________
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
___________________________________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG
ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES
SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia, Chairman
CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
MARK POCAN, Wisconsin ROBERT B. ADHERHOLT, Alabama
LAUREN UNDERWOOD, Illinois ANDY HARRIS, Maryland
BARBARA LEE, California DAVID G. VALADAO, California
BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan
DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
GRACE MENG, New York
NOTE: Under committee rules, Ms. DeLauro, as chair of the full
committee, and Ms. Granger, as ranking minority member of the full
committee, are authorized to sit as members of all subcommittees.
Martha Foley, Perry Yates, Justin Masucci,
Diem-Linh Jones, Joseph Layman, and Randy Staples
Subcommittee Staff
___________________________________
PART 2
Page
USDA Office of the Inspector General..
1
Food and Drug Administration_Foreign
Drug Inspections Program................
97
The Rural Economy.....................
167
U.S. Department of Agriculture--The
Year Ahead..............................
207
Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services
291
USDA Rural Development Mission Area...
333
USDA Research, Education and Economics
Mission Area............................
385
Members' Day..........................
429
___________________________________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
46-857 WASHINGTON : 2022
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
----------
ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut, Chair
MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio KAY GRANGER, Texas
DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky
LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho
BARBARA LEE, California JOHN R. CARTER, Texas
BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota KEN CALVERT, California
TIM RYAN, Ohio TOM COLE, Oklahoma
C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas
HENRY CUELLAR, Texas JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine CHUCK FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee
MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington
DEREK KILMER, Washington DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio
MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania ANDY HARRIS, Maryland
GRACE MENG, New York MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada
MARK POCAN, Wisconsin CHRIS STEWART, Utah
KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi
PETE AGUILAR, California DAVID G. VALADAO, California
LOIS FRANKEL, Florida DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan
BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey JOHN H. RUTHERFORD, Florida
BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan BEN CLINE, Virginia
NORMA J. TORRES, California GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida MIKE GARCIA, California
ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona ASHLEY HINSON, Iowa
ED CASE, Hawaii TONY GONZALES, Texas
ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York
JOSH HARDER, California
JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia
DAVID J. TRONE, Maryland
LAUREN UNDERWOOD, Illinois
SUSIE LEE, Nevada
Robin Juliano, Clerk and Staff Director
(ii)
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2022
----------
Thursday, February 25, 2021.
OVERSIGHT HEARING: OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE
WITNESSES
PHYLLIS FONG, INSPECTOR GENERAL, USDA OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
ANN COFFEY, DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL, USDA, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR
GENERAL
GIL HARDEN, ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR AUDIT, USDA, OFFICE OF THE
INSPECTOR GENERAL
JENNY RONE, ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR ANALYTICS AND INNOVATION,
USDA, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
Mr. Bishop. Good morning. This hearing of the Agriculture,
Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration Subcommittee on
Appropriations will come to order.
As this hearing is fully virtual, we must address a few
housekeeping matters first. For today's hearing, the chair or
staff designated by the chair may mute participants'
microphones when they are not under recognition for the
purposes of eliminating inadvertent background noise. Members
are responsible for muting and unmuting themselves. If I notice
that you have not unmuted yourself, I will ask you if you would
like the staff to unmute you. If you indicate approval by
nodding, staff will unmute your microphone.
I remind all members and witnesses that the 5-minute clock
still applies. If there is a technology issue, we will move to
the next member in order until the issue is resolved, and you
will retain the balance of your time.
You will notice a clock on your screen that will show how
much time is remaining. At 1 minute remaining, the clock will
turn yellow. At 30 seconds remaining, I will gently tap the
gavel to remind members that their time has almost expired.
When your time has expired, the clock will turn red, and I will
begin to recognize the next member.
In terms of speaking order, we will begin with the chairman
and ranking member, then alternating between majority and
minority with members present at the time the hearing starts in
the order of seniority. After that, members not present at the
time the hearing starts are to be recognized in the order that
they join the meeting.
Finally, House rules require me to remind you that we have
set up an email address to which members can send anything they
wish to submit in writing at any of our hearings or markups.
That email address has been provided in advance to your staff.
Last reminder, please ensure that your video is turned on at
this time.
Well, I would like to welcome everyone to today's hearing,
which is our first in the 117th Congress. And before we get
underway, I would like to welcome our returning members,
including our ranking member, Jeff Fortenberry. Mr. Fortenberry
and I have worked together very collaboratively and
cooperatively and collegially. And I expect that that will
continue during the 117th Congress.
We like to welcome our new members, Representative Lauren
Underwood, Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and
Representative Grace Meng. On the Republican side,
Representative David Valadao is joining the subcommittee, and
Representative Dan Newhouse is joining us for the first time.
Each bring a unique experience to the subcommittee, and we are
very happy to have you on board.
Lastly, I would like to welcome our witnesses, Ms. Fong,
Ms. Coffey, Mr. Harden and Ms. Rone, from the USDA's Office of
Inspector General. Thank you so kindly for appearing before us
today.
As is typical with a new administration, the budget will be
delayed for another month or so. Therefore, this hearing is not
about the fiscal year 2022 budget but about Office of Inspector
General's oversight of a wide-ranging department that touches
the lives of every American. I have always been a big supporter
of your office and your mission to promote economy, efficiency,
and integrity in USDA programs and operations. Your work,
through audits, investigations, and reviews, helps protect the
taxpayers' interests while improving the Department's
effectiveness and efficiency.
Also, I want to express my appreciation for Ms. Fong's
service as USDA's inspector general for over 18 years. Your
tenure spans multiple administrations, including Secretary
Vilsack's first term at the Department. So, today, I would like
to hear more about your plans to conduct adequate oversight of
USDA programs and the challenges you face in ensuring agreed-
upon recommendations are implemented and complaints are
appropriately addressed. I look forward to discussing that with
you as well as other important issues. And I want to say again
that we appreciate you and all of the OIG staff for all that
you do.
Now, let me ask our distinguished ranking member, my friend
and colleague, Mr. Fortenberry, if he has any opening remarks.
And I would like to recognize him at this time, if he does,
which I assume that he will.
Mr. Fortenberry. Well, you know me, Mr. Chairman. Yes, I
have some opening remarks.
First of all, I want to thank you for your leadership, sir.
I do appreciate our friendship and our ability to think
critically together and to collaborate and, when we have
difficulties, to try to find a constructive outcome. Thank you
so much again for your leadership and for calling this
important committee hearing.
Good morning, Ms. Fong. It is nice to sort of see you
again, even though we can't gather in a normal hearing room. I
would like to thank you, as the chairman did, for your work and
being with us today. We admire--we do admire the critical work
that your agency is performing. Conducting audits and studies
and investigations is a challenge in a normal year, but your
efforts during the pandemic have presented you with even more
challenges. But, despite this, your testimony does indicate
that you have been quite busy, and, for that, we are grateful.
The deft, efficient delivery of USDA programs is critical
to America's health, livelihood, food security, not only here
but for hundreds of millions of people around the world,
feeding programs as well for the elderly and children, safe
meat and poultry products at our dinner tables, and
conservation of farm lands and forests, as well as the
important support of programs, stabilization programs for our
farmers and ranchers. We depend upon your agency to provide us
with that scorecard every year as to whether USDA is
effectively implementing the various programs as designed by
law.
So, today, I would like to hear from you about whether we
are making real progress in reducing the size and scope of any
incidents of monetary abuse. Second, I would like to explore
the process by which you review and audit the 29 agencies and
their respective programs. I will ask you to step back and take
a look at how USDA leadership is responding to your findings,
both good and bad.
I also want to discuss a number of other issues, some of
which were raised in your testimony, one in particular your
recent scientific research and integrity review evaluation
stating that USDA does not currently have a comprehensive
inventory of its research studies and findings. This is a very
important issue to the chairman and I, as we have both agreed
on a new blue ribbon commission that USDA will shepherd to take
a look at land-grant institutions and historically Black
colleges as to how we can better collaborate on the funds that
are out there.
So I will stop there for now, Mr. Chairman, and use the
rest of my time during questions. Thank you.
Voice. Mr. Chairman, you need to unmute, please.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I don't believe that the chair of
the full committee, Ms. DeLauro is on the line. If she is, I
would recognize her at this time for any comments that she
would like to make.
I don't believe she is in attendance, and I would offer the
same to the full committee ranking member, Ms. Granger, if she
is on the line.
Apparently, they are both very, very busy at the moment. We
will allow them to have remarks, should they come into the
meeting a little later.
Now, Ms. Fong, without objection, your entire written
testimony will be included in the record. I will recognize you
now for your statement, and then we will proceed with
questions. We ask that you summarize your statement or you may
give the entire statement. It is completely up to you. Of
course, a summary would allow for more time for questions from
members.
At this time, I am delighted to welcome Ms. Fong. And I
will allow you to introduce your cohorts from the IG's office.
Ms. Fong, the floor is yours.
Ms. Fong. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
Member Fortenberry and all of the members of this subcommittee.
We really appreciate the very warm welcome that you are giving
us today and a chance to talk about our activities and our
oversight of USDA.
With me today is Ann Coffey, our deputy inspector general,
who is also going to be the go-to witness for any investigative
questions you might have. We have Gil Harden, our assistant IG
for audit. He is a very familiar witness before this committee
and is an expert on audit and inspection activities in our
office. And, of course, we have Jenny Rone, who is the newest
member of our mission team. She is the assistant IG for
analytics and oversight. And in that role, she is responsible
for coming up with and innovating new ways for us to use data,
data analytics, and data science in our work to target the most
high-risk areas for oversight. So I think you will enjoy their
testimony.
So I want to just start out by thanking the subcommittee
for your ongoing interest in our work and your support through
the funding you have given us in the appropriations process, as
well as for pandemic oversight. We really appreciate the
dialogue that we have with your committee.
As you mentioned, this past year has been a challenging one
for all with the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic. This is our
first virtual hearing as well. So there is a lot of new
initiatives and techniques that we have had to master to get
our work done over the past year. We have spent a lot of
thought keeping our staff safe and healthy in this environment
while still carrying out our mission in a maximum telework
environment, and that has I think really been successful. I am
extremely proud of all of the OIG staff who have exhibited high
professionalism, dedication, and morale and, as you mentioned,
have produced outstanding work over the last year. We issued 44
audit reports, obtained 345 criminal convictions, and reported
over $360 million in dollar results last year alone. So kudos
to everyone involved in that.
The pandemic has also brought challenges to our office
beyond finding new ways to accomplish our mission. As you know,
USDA has received over $61 billion for pandemic response
activities to address urgent needs for nutrition, farm
programs, rural development, and other matters. And with those
new funds for programs comes the need for oversight to ensure
that those programs are serving those for whom they are
intended and that fraud is addressed quickly.
So one of our priorities moving into fiscal year 2020,
moving to fiscal year 2021, has been to quickly analyze these
new initiatives, develop our oversight approach, engage USDA
managers to focus on internal controls in their programs,
address the hotline complaints we are receiving in these areas,
and initiate our own audits and inspections of various program
activities.
My written statement highlights a number of products that
we have already issued, as well as the COVID Procurement
Dashboard that our staff has developed for public use, as well
as any stakeholder, which will give people an insight into the
COVID procurements that USDA has executed.
In addition, we have a number of ongoing reviews in such
programs, such pandemic programs as the Farmers to Families
Food Box Program, the Coronavirus Food Assistance Program, the
Food Safety and Inspection Service's pandemic response at
slaughter and processing establishments, the Emergency Food
Assistance Program, the SNAP online purchasing program, and
RD's Business and Industry Guaranteed Loan Program. As you can
see, we have a full portfolio of work in this area.
We have also initiated, of interest I think to all of us,
the pulse survey of FSIS inspectors to obtain information on
their perceptions about safety conditions in their work
environment. We released the survey this week to the FSIS
workforce, and responses are starting to come in. In all of
these areas, we anticipate completing these projects in
calendar year 2021. So we have a full menu of work ahead of us.
Of course, in addition to pandemic response, we continue to
perform oversight of our full portfolio of USDA programs and
activities, as detailed in my written statement. I do want to
just mention that we also do our annual mandatory work of
USDA's financial statements, information technology security,
and improper payments. And in these areas, while we are seeing
some improvement, progress is slow. We believe that additional
management attention is needed to move USDA into an effective
compliance position in these essential areas. We look forward
to working with newly confirmed Secretary Vilsack and his team
on these issues and all of the other issues facing the
Department.
So, in closing, I want to thank you and the subcommittee
and ask for your continuing support as we move through the
appropriation process in fiscal year 2022. And we look forward
to addressing your questions and engaging in dialogue with you
today about the issues on your mind. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Ms. Fong.
We will now proceed with questions. As I mentioned earlier,
we will begin with the chair and ranking member, then
alternating majority and minority with members present at the
time of the hearing start, in order of seniority. Following
that, I will recognize members who were not present at the time
the hearing was called to order. Each member will have 5
minutes in each round. So please be mindful of your time.
I now recognize myself for questions. Ms. Fong, as I
mentioned in my opening statement, you have been USDA's
inspector general for almost two decades. Your time there spans
over five Secretaries, including Secretary Tom Vilsack from
2009 to 2017. A lot has changed since then, some due to
progress and some due to new challenges.
In 2009, your office identified 10 management challenges
for USDA which are vulnerabilities that can affect USDA's
ability to achieve its mission. By 2017, three of those
challenges remained on the list and four new ones were added.
From your 2020 report, it does not look like a lot of progress
has been made over the last 4 years. Why were those areas not
resolved by the previous administration?
Ms. Fong. That is an excellent question. By their nature,
the management challenges that we have identified facing USDA
are very broad challenges. And by their nature, they require
concentrated attention to address and resolve. And as you
probably know, some challenges that have been on our list have
dropped off, and then sometimes they reappear again because
situations change. I think, you know, as we were discussing
earlier today that what I would suggest is that in the areas
particularly of financial management, improper payments, and IT
security that, while there has been progress and every
administration has moved the ball forward, there are always new
challenges that crop up. And it really requires continued work
and attention to get USDA into an effective posture. And that
is something that we are deeply committed to working with the
Department on every year.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Last year, we talked about USDA's
need to improve outreach efforts to assure that programs
reached the intended participants, recipients from low-income
children receiving school meals to local farmers participating
in national grant programs, as well as to socially
disadvantaged farmers and ranchers. This has been a top
management challenge identified by your office going back to
2013. It is also a major concern of mine. Can you give us a
status update on how USDA is doing to meet this challenge, how
much progress the Department has made, and what would it take
for this issue to get off your annual management challenge
report?
Ms. Fong. You have identified exactly one of those
challenges that over time has been on our list, has dropped off
our list, and has come back again. And this is a very sensitive
area, a very challenging area for people to address. We have
done audit and investigative work over the years since the
1990s looking at various aspects of it. We continue to do work
in that area. I think one thing that is essential is for tone
at the top to be established where the Department takes a
strong position on what its expectations are and then to
implement that tone at the top throughout the program areas in
the Department.
As you know, we have seen different aspects of this issue
in our work in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil
Rights, in our reviews of farm programs, assistance to Black,
Hispanic, women farmers and ranchers in the section 2501
program for outreach and assistance. There are numerous areas
in the Department where this clear policy direction would I
think be the first step and then, of course, to roll out the
programs appropriately and with the right internal controls to
make sure that they really are being delivered to the
recipients that they are intended for.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Ms. Fong. I think my time is just
about up.
So I will at this time yield to Mr. Fortenberry for his
first round of questions.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Again, good morning, Ms. Fong.
As your testimony notes, you recently completed an
assessment as to whether the Trump administration's changes in
policy and/or processes impacted the publication of scientific
reports. There were claims that USDA was suppressing climate
change research. It is important to note that your office, the
OIG, did not identify any instances where the previous
administration's policies or processes impacted the publication
of USDA research during fiscal years 2017 through 2019.
However, as I alluded to in my opening statement, you did
make some interesting discoveries about scientific
publications. And this is where I would like to lead you to a
question. It seems as if the research mission area cannot
account for all of its research. As I have mentioned, the
chairman and I are very eager to see USDA implement this new
blue ribbon panel to look at the future of land-grant
institutions and how there can be better collaboration and
cooperation. I think this question of what current research is
being conducted, as well as findings, is central to that
mission.
They were not apparently able to tell how many USDA-
supported publications have been produced over the last couple
of years. So what is your assessment of the coordination of ag
research across USDA and land-grant universities?
Ms. Fong. That is an excellent question. I think when we
did that review, we made that finding and----
Mr. Fortenberry. It seemed like you stumbled into the
finding. That wasn't the initial charge of the research. Is
that right?
Ms. Fong. That wasn't the initial scope, you know. And I
may ask Gil to comment. But to get to the crux of your
question, you are exactly right. Unless and until the USDA has
a way to really have accurate data on what it is producing in
this area, it is difficult to measure how effective the program
is, how effectively we are carrying out research, and what
exactly we are looking at and how we can coordinate it. That is
a very basic step that needs to be taken. So I think the crux
of your question is right on.
Mr. Fortenberry. So do you have any policy recommendations
in that regard? Now, this happens every year during this
hearing, that we identify the problem and then we turn to you
for certain policy prescriptions, which isn't fully your job
but partly your jobs. Do you have recommendations?
Ms. Fong. I may defer to Mr. Harden here, who may have some
insight on that on our recommendations.
Mr. Harden. Yes. Thanks, Phyllis.
Good morning, Ranking Member Fortenberry.
As we stumbled into this part of the question, because that
was not part of the original congressional request of
questions, we found that agencies use different mechanisms in
terms of recording it. So we had some information but not all
of the information. Some agencies were using internal systems;
others were relying on things like Google Scholar to know what
was published. So that led us to make a recommendation that the
Department did agree with in terms of identifying and
implementing a standard mechanism by which to track these
publications. They fully agreed with the recommendation and are
working to implement that as we speak.
Mr. Fortenberry. Well, that is good news. Where will that
be embedded? Who will have responsibility for that?
Mr. Harden. We made that recommendation to the research
area, and I will go back and make sure that I know--I can come
back to you if it is a specific agency or not.
Mr. Fortenberry. Yes. And a timeline for the implementation
of the change.
Mr. Harden. I will get that. They included that in the
response. I just don't have it in front of me.
Mr. Fortenberry. Before the hearing is over, could you
obtain that? Because this is a central question to some of our
initiatives? Is that a possibility?
Mr. Harden. Yes. I can do it now.
Mr. Fortenberry. Okay.
Mr. Chairman, with that, it would be tough to go into depth
into more questions because I only have about 30 seconds. So I
will just yield back for now.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Fortenberry.
At this time, I would be delighted to recognize the
gentlelady from Maine, Ms. Pingree.
Ms. Pingree. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And thank you to the presenters and Ms. Fong for being
here. It is always a pleasure to hear from you on the diligent
hard work you do for us every year.
I appreciate the question by Representative Fortenberry,
the ranking member. I am kind of going down that same pathway,
so it shows these questions are extremely bipartisan. On that
report, one of the concerns that I had in looking into the
scientific integrity is that the OIG was only able to interview
a nonstatistical sample of 21 researchers at 2 of the 4
research agencies. So I understand this is a very sensitive
investigation for those researchers involved, but why did you
choose to use the nonstatistical sample? How were the
researchers selected? And I will just throw a couple of other
things in. Were the names anonymous? And how did you protect
them?
Ms. Fong. I think Mr. Harden may have some detail on that.
And so I am going to defer to him.
Mr. Harden. Yeah. I know we limited it to agencies where
they had--and I will also--can also look this up to provide a
fuller answer. But those--we chose researchers in ARS and ERS
because those were the ones that had things that they were
actually publishing. When you--I am sorry if I am speaking in
acronyms, but we chose the Ag Research Service and the Economic
Research Service because of what they published. The National
Institute of Food and Agriculture and the National Ag Statistic
Service really didn't have research that they published in that
manner. So that is why we stuck with those two agencies. And it
does come down basically to a judgment call of doing it
nonstatistically in the time that we were trying to get it
done.
Ms. Pingree. Got it. And I am assuming that the question on
the names of the employees being anonymous and they were
protected?
Mr. Harden. Yes. If they requested to do so, most
definitely.
Ms. Pingree. Great. Well, in relation to the first
question, or Mr. Fortenberry's question, it seems like we need
a better way to evaluate this. And I think you already brought
that up previously.
I will bring of a different topic. So the safety of workers
in meat-packing plants is certainly something I and many others
have been concerned about during the pandemic. In particular,
we have seen such large outbreaks in those facilities. Reports
have shown that hundreds of workers in these plants and several
FSIS inspectors have sadly lost their lives due to COVID-19.
Can you tell me more about the pulse survey you are planning on
FSIS inspectors and their safety during the pandemic? And I
guess I would also ask you, are you looking more broadly at the
USDA's actions to keep FSIS personnel, other workers safe?
Ms. Fong. Let me just offer a couple of comments and then
Jenny Rone might give more detail on the survey. We have two
projects going on with respect to FSIS processing plants during
COVID. We have an inspection which is going to look at how FSIS
is spending its funds under the CARES Act to ensure the health
and safety of the inspectors and to ensure inspections are
happening appropriately and ensure COVID tests and reliable PPE
and all of those issues.
In addition, while we were doing this--initiating this
work, we decided it would be useful to get the perspectives of
the inspectors themselves as to whether they felt protected,
whether they had what they needed. So we developed a pulse
survey. I am going to turn it over to Jenny now to go into a
little more detail on what it says.
Ms. Rone. Good morning. Thank you, Phyllis.
And thank you for the question. The Office of Analytics and
Innovation, as of Monday, released the survey to the frontline
inspectors across the Food, Safety, and Inspection Service. And
we are calling it a pulse survey for a reason, because it is
truly to check the pulse of those frontline workers in terms of
their, as Phyllis said, perception of safety in their work
environment, the institution of safety protocols, and processes
established, all related to COVID-19.
So we released that survey on Monday. It is going to run
for 2 weeks, and then we will be analyzing that data and
working on developing a report which reflects that pulse of
those frontline workers and their responses.
Ms. Pingree. Great. Well, we are certainly very concerned
about those issues so we look forward to hearing what results
you get and the information you retrieve.
So thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Ms. Pingree.
At this time, I am happy to recognize Mr. Valadao for any
questions that he may have.
Mr. Valadao. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity.
And, our guests, I thank you all for being here today.
My question is: Well, it is important for disadvantaged
Americans to have access to food. The Department's Farmers to
Families Food Box Program addresses this important issue.
In your testimony, you mentioned that one of your ongoing
projects is an inspection of the Farmers to Families Food Box
Program administration. I am personally glad you are looking
into this and how the program has been administered because I
have heard from some of my constituents that not all food items
for boxes, like butter, have had a fair chance to be included.
But I want to specifically focus on the bidding process.
I have heard from some of our--because obviously I
represent a large ag district and a lot of production ag. But I
have also heard that, on the bidding side, companies actually
bid for projects who had no ability to actually deliver a
product. And so they won these bids by undercutting legitimate
businesses and were never able to deliver those. Obviously this
is a concern because making sure that food is getting to those
who need it most, making sure that there is transparency in the
purchase process, and making sure that people aren't taking
advantage of the system. Is there any sort of repercussions for
those who played, I guess, games with the USDA? And where does
that go?
Ms. Fong. Well, thank you for that question. We know, as
probably all of you do, that there have been many media reports
about concerns with the delivery of this program, which is why
one of the reasons why we initiated our work into it, and we
are in the middle of the work right now, the field work. And we
are looking very carefully at the procurement process, the
awarding of contracts, to make sure that the Department
followed the requirements of the Federal acquisition
regulations to make sure that they awarded contracts
appropriately.
I think you have brought some interesting information to
light about the dairy industry, which we appreciate. And I am
going to offer a chance to Gil here to comment in a little more
depth, if he wishes.
Mr. Harden. Yeah. We are looking at the solicitation
process for the Food Box Program, but also we will be getting
into how they allocated funding to the different contractors,
as well as did they meet the mission of what they set out to
do. So those are all questions that we are looking into.
Mr. Valadao. Well, the issue that we ran across in this
specific situation was it is my understanding, obviously I am
not part of those phone calls because I am not in that
business, but that one person went out and actually got prices
from some of the competitors, undercut them all, was awarded
the contract with no ability to actually deliver on the
contract. And so the legitimate businesses, I mean probably
once the product wasn't delivered from the guy who won the
contract wasn't able to deliver, they went to the next people
in line, which is legitimate. But there was a holdup in
delivering food to needy families. And to me that is a huge
concern. Is there any punishment for those who go in and try to
undercut everyone without any ability to actually deliver a
product? I mean, it is bad for everyone. USDA looks bad. The
farmers aren't able to deliver a product, and obviously those
who need it most are not able to receive a product. So it is
something I would like to bring to your attention, and I would
like to be looked into.
Mr. Harden. That is right. The team actually can take that
question up as part of what we are doing to under--to make sure
we fully understand the solicitation process and why they
picked who they picked.
Mr. Valadao. Okay. And then I am going to change it up a
little bit. Obviously, technology security is a big issue. And
I know that you have been looking into it. And, obviously,
there are countless cyber attacks on an ongoing basis. USDA has
access to a lot of information. Farmers who sign up for
programs put lots of personal information in those documents,
and everything is available and accessible. Have the
cybersecurity issues been addressed? Are the different USDA
branches actually doing their job in making sure that farmers'
personal information is secure?
Ms. Fong. That is an excellent question. This is a
longstanding management challenge that we have pointed out to
the Department and the Department is aware of. I think we all
share a commitment to protecting sensitive data. We understand
the concerns, the Department, as well as our office.
As you know, we do a review of the Department's IT security
posture annually. And, thus far, the Department's posture is
less than effective. There has been slow progress, but it needs
to continue to make progress here.
Now, on the bright side, we do have a very good working
relationship with the Office of the Chief Information Officer.
So, when there are situations that arise, incidents that can
happen that require our oversight either audit or
investigative, there is very good communication and sharing of
information as appropriate.
Mr. Valadao. Okay. If there is something else that Members
of Congress can do, obviously, we need to step in because this
is a huge issue for people across the country.
I know my time is up so I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Valadao.
Mr. Pocan.
Mr. Pocan. Great. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate it.
And thanks to the Office of Inspector General for being
with us today.
Let me start with, last year, we discussed the audit of the
swine slaughter modernization rule. And, unfortunately, we have
learned a lot more about how dangerous that rule is. The
Washington Post recently reported that the Trump administration
actually hid data showing that the pork plants piloting the so-
called self-inspection system had nearly twice as much fecal
and digestive matter on meat than other plants. This
contamination is obviously dangerous to consumers' health, and
it is a direct result of the ever increasing line speeds that
harm meat-processing plant workers.
Further, the report said that beyond the five plants in the
test program, the USDA estimates 35 additional pork plants are
expected to use this system. That would represent 90 percent of
the pork consumed in the United States. I just want to know,
are you going to be doing any further audits on the food safety
analysis that the agency did leading up to the approval of its
rules, given this new information and this data?
Ms. Fong. That is an excellent question. As you know, we
have done two reviews in this area already and pointed out some
of the issues with the safety data. And I know that this issue
has been in litigation. It is a very complex issue. We will, I
think, look at in this our next planning cycle. And we are
getting ready to think about that, to see if there is anything
that we can add here.
And I will turn it over to Gil to see if you have any
additional thoughts. You may be aware of something that I am
not aware of, Gil.
Mr. Harden. No, we definitely will consider this in our
next planning cycle, but I would also mention that there is the
new poultry inspection system, which also deals with line
speeds in poultry plants. We have done the national office
oversight of that a couple years back and have plans to do work
in the field on that as soon as we can get in the field related
to COVID concerns.
Mr. Pocan. I just think, if you could look at both, if you
are going to do that because, clearly, if 90 percent of the
Nation's pork are going to be under this system. I think it is
in the best interests of consumers.
I would add to that, there also was a great report last
weekend on Last Week Tonight with John Oliver. It is kind of
sad that a comedy show does better news analysis than any of
our cable networks, but they did a very good report. And in
addition to talking about this, what I just talked about, they
also brought up COVID in the meat-packing facilities. And I
know that, for fiscal year 2021, your work plan notes that you
will evaluate the Food Safety and Inspection Service's response
to COVID at these plants. As we know, over 57,000 workers have
gotten COVID; 280 people have died from these facilities. We
also know that managers in some of these facilities bet on how
many people would get this. Given this repugnant behavior by
the industry, can you talk more about the scope of that
investigation and when we can expect it?
Ms. Fong. Yes. That is one of our priority projects for
this fiscal year. We are in the middle of field work on that
right now, the inspection piece of it, which is going to look
at a wide range of aspects of how FSIS is using its COVID funds
to protect its workers and to make sure that everything is
operating as smoothly as it can during the pandemic. And we
have some very specific objectives, which we can share with
you.
We also, as we have discussed, we initiated a pulse survey
of FSIS inspectors this week to find out their thoughts and
their perceptions on how safety and COVID response activities
are going in the plants. And I think that that would also be a
very useful report when it comes out. That will come out I
think in the next few months.
Mr. Pocan. Great. Glad to hear that. And in the remaining
minute, if I can real quickly, the Animal Welfare Act with
respect to dog breeders, I have been alarmed by the drastic
drop in USDA citation on inspection reports and enforcement
actions taken against noncompliant licensees over the last 4
years. I am looking forward to reading a very thorough report
on this. Can you please share more information about that scope
and when we can get those final results?
Ms. Fong. Mr. Harden I think has the details.
Mr. Harden. Yes. I will attempt to address that.
We are in the process of putting that draft report together
so we are planning to release that later this spring, or by
early summer. And doing the work, you know, as a preview and in
light of COVID, we weren't able to do all the work we planned
in terms of going to the different breeding facilities as part
of the work, but we did do work at the headquarters level and
what the oversight was. We will have future work to look at
things on the ground.
Mr. Pocan. Great. I thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I yield
back.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Pocan.
I would like to recognize Mr. Moolenaar.
Mr. Moolenaar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Ms. Fong, thank you for being here with us today, and
it is nice to see you again.
I wanted to ask you, in your testimony, you stated that the
OIG continues to receive complaints and referrals related to
allegations associated with COVID-19 pandemic relief from the
public. I am wondering if you could comment on which programs
you have received the most complaints.
Ms. Fong. All right. We have a hotline, as you know, that
takes in complaints from the public and others. And we received
a number of complaints, some very worthy of further action. By
and large, you know, as you would expect, we were receiving
complaints about the Food Box Program, pandemic EBT fraud,
personal protective equipment, but the largest group thus far
has been related to the CFAP program, and that is, you know, we
are focused on those issues right now on our investigation
side.
Mr. Moolenaar. I was going to ask, could you identify any
of the schemes that have been used that have been frauding,
defrauding people?
Ms. Fong. I am going to ask Ann if she would like to
comment on that.
Ms. Coffey. Thank you. So I think what we have been seeing
from most of the schemes that have come in the majority of them
involve false statements or false certifications, individuals
who are providing false information in order to obtain the
benefits, and they would not normally be able to obtain them if
they had completed them. We have also seen some level of
redirecting individuals who, I don't want to say identity
theft, but individuals who are applying for benefits who don't
have any farming production or any interest in the agricultural
sector would apply for the benefits. Those are the most common
schemes we have seen thus far with respect to the Coronavirus
Food Assistance Program, and that is what we are focusing on
from the investigation side.
Mr. Moolenaar. Okay. Thank you.
And then I wondered, in your work, we have done a lot in
Congress to promote rural broadband. And I think the pandemic
has really illustrated how challenging this is for rural
communities where kids are trying to do their homework and
don't have access to the internet or healthcare providers want
to do telemedicine, and if we don't have access, it is very
difficult for that. I appreciate Chairman Bishop's interest and
focus on this as well.
I wonder if you could comment on your Department and just
see if there are areas that you have identified that we could
be doing more to advance rural broadband across the country?
Ms. Fong. That is an excellent question. Rural broadband is
an area that we have looked at over the years a number of times
because, as you point out, the need to be able to connect rural
America with the rest of America and to provide services to
people at the end of the line. We have not done work in that
program recently. But I am watching the funding streams as they
come out for COVID, and I recognize that there is some
additional money for that program. So I think we would want to
consider your request as we design our work for the future to
see if there is anything of value that we could add here.
Mr. Moolenaar. That would be of great interest to me in our
district, and I know probably other members on the panel. It is
something that, you know, as you mentioned, there are four
rural broadband connectivity programs within the USDA Rural
Utilities Service. And, you know, I would--it is one of those
areas where we are trying to really move the ball forward. It
is difficult to get, you know, real good information on how we
are doing in that, and certainly in our districts that, you
know, it is at the top of my priorities so I would be very
grateful for that.
Ms. Fong. Thank you.
Mr. Moolenaar. Thank you.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Moolenaar.
At this time, I would like to recognize the gentlelady from
Illinois, Ms. Underwood.
Ms. Underwood. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you to our witnesses for being here and for all
the important work that you do.
Like so many across the country, farmers in northern
Illinois have faced some incredibly difficult years recently.
They have had to cope with tough weather conditions, as well as
the disruptions caused by the coronavirus pandemic. And through
no fault of their own, they were forced to bear the brunt of
the previous President's misguided trade war with China. I am
heartened to see that times appear to be looking up, but this
doesn't erase the hardships that farmers have faced. And it is
critical that we learn from recent experiences so we can do
better, both in Congress and at USDA.
I am concerned by evidence that payments made through the
Market Facilitation Program were not distributed fairly across
regions and crops, and that large farms benefited at the
expense of smaller farms, like those in my district. Recent
analyses, including a September report by the Government
Accountability Office, suggests that corn, soybean, and dairy
farmers in districts like mine, received disproportionately low
MFP payments compared to those in other regions or producing
other commodities, even though they represent some of the
producers hardest hit by the trade war.
Other analysis published just yesterday by the
Environmental Working Group found that nearly a quarter of all
MFP payments in 2019 and 2020 went to the top 1 percent of the
recipients. I am aware that the OIG has released two reports on
the Market Facilitation Program. However, these reports did not
include analysis or recommendations as to the effectiveness of
the program in carrying out its core mission: to aid farmers
directly impacted by retaliatory tariffs.
So, Ms. Fong, I understand that your office's review of MFP
is ongoing. Are you considering these concerns over the design
and distribution of the MFP payments as part of this review?
And if so, when can we expect to see that report?
Ms. Fong, you are muted.
Ms. Fong. Okay. Here we go. Let me offer a few introductory
comments, and then I think Gil will have some additional
detail.
You are exactly right in terms of some of the issues that
have come up in this whole area of the trade mitigation
portfolio. We had a number of ongoing reviews, including the
review of the Market Facilitation Program. Our initial work
that you referred to we were looking at the USDA's overall
authority to do these programs. And we found that, overall,
USDA has authority to do them. And so we are now looking at the
specific programs to see how they were delivered, how they are
designed, whether they are accomplishing what they are supposed
to accomplish.
As you mentioned, GAO is doing work as well. We work very
closely with GAO to make sure we are not duplicating efforts.
And so they have their area of focus, as you know.
We are looking at the administration of the program. We are
looking at producer eligibility, accuracy of payments, and
distribution of payments across demographics and geographical
areas so that we don't overlap with GAO. You may have heard
about our work on the demographics issue as well, which we
think is very interesting.
So let me just offer Gil a chance to comment on where we
are in this work and what we can expect.
Mr. Harden. Yes, ma'am. We are in the midst of field work
on this assignment where we are actually looking at a sample of
producer case files, having that information sent in to us. We
are getting a stat sample so there are about 100 case files
that we are going to be looking at and seeing what we can say
programwide related to that on payment accuracy and
eligibility. We are expecting to have that report later this
summer.
Ms. Underwood. Great. Thank you.
Your May 2020 report on MFP found that USDA's methodology
is reasonable and was applied consistently, but it doesn't mean
that it is effective or equitable. And so, even if MFP is
ended, it is important that we can apply the lessons learned to
any new programs. And I want to do everything that I can to
make sure that farmers in my district get a fair shake. I
really encourage your office to do this necessary analysis in
upcoming reviews and to make recommendations that USDA can
apply to future programs.
And, with that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Ms. Underwood, for those
very insightful questions.
At this time, I am happy to yield to the gentlelady from
California, the co-chair of the Steering and Policy Committee,
and the chair of the Foreign Ops Subcommittee of the
Appropriations Committee, Ms. Lee, of California.
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you very much to our witnesses.
Hello, Ms. Fong. It is nice seeing you again.
A couple of questions I have. First of all, I have three
really. In 2019, the OIG published a 5-year strategic mission
and diversity and inclusion plan that outlines specific goals
and strategies and performance measures that you have
established. So I wanted to find out in terms of your
assessment of USDA's diversity and inclusion goals, are there
challenges that you have identified? And just how are we doing
in meeting the goals of that assessment, those recommendations?
Secondly, let me just ask, you know, I come from
California, which of course is an agricultural State, and we
are always looking for new markets for our farmers. And I
wanted to ask you about Cuba and the status of exports to Cuba.
In light of the last 4 years, we know that there have been
policy changes. But I am wondering, in your assessment, now,
are we looking more at opening up new markets, including Cuba?
And, thirdly, your assessment as it is relates to hemp and
cannabis, where are we in terms of the research and the actual
results and recommendations on the use of hemp and cannabis and
the outcomes that you all are seeing in terms of your
assessment, given the fact that so many States now moved
forward with medicinal and recreational use?
Ms. Fong. Let me comment on your initial question first,
and then I will ask Mr. Harden to offer some insights on the
Cuba export question and then the hemp and cannabis question.
With respect to diversity, equity, and inclusion, this is an
issue that we at OIG feel is an important issue; it is in our
management challenges for the Department and that we recognize
that this needs concentrated attention.
Thank you for mentioning our strategic plan, our strategic
diversity and inclusion plan. Within OIG, this is what guides
the work of my office because we recognize the need to have a
strong approach here and a strong workforce and inclusive
culture that values the contributions of every individual. And
we think that that is critical to accomplishing our mission.
I don't think we have any comments to offer because the
Department may not have taken the same approach to date, but as
you know, we are doing a lot of work within the Department
about its efforts. On outreach and diversity, we have a number
of reviews going on right now looking at how the Department is
delivering its programs for social and disadvantaged farmers
and ranchers, how the Department handles complaints under title
VI and title VII of the Civil Rights Act and numerous other
areas. So we anticipate this will be a continuing area of focus
for us.
And, with that, let me just quickly turn to Mr. Harden so
that we don't run out of time here.
Mr. Harden. Oh, yes. Thanks, Phyllis.
With respect to your question, Congresswoman Lee, on
exports to Cuba, I don't have anything specific to add. But I
note your question, and it is something I would want to talk to
the new administration about in terms of where they are going.
I didn't have any reviews of that in the last administration.
With regard to hemp, we did recognize that last year in our
planning that this is a new program for the Department and a
new area that they are going to be going into. And I actually
have an assignment that will be starting a little later this
year into that program. And so I would be happy to work with
your office if there are specific questions you have.
Ms. Lee. Well, hemp and cannabis, what about cannabis? Are
you including that also?
Mr. Harden. My familiarity--I will go back and check and
see if it includes cannabis as well--it is more of a hemp role,
but I will check.
Ms. Lee. Okay. Great.
And, finally, then, I have a few more seconds, just in
terms of the fact that so many more people have fallen into
poverty during this pandemic and so many more now are food
insecure--I believe that there was one report that showed
between 26 million to 29 million people in the United States at
some point didn't have enough to eat during the first few
months of the pandemic. What are you doing in terms of
empowering USDA to look at the inequities in terms of food
security as it relates to poverty rates? And how can USDA be a
positive force in helping to eliminate poverty?
Ms. Fong. Let me just offer some general comments.
We spend a lot of time looking at the Food and Nutrition
Service and how it can deliver its programs, and our main focus
is to offer suggestions to FNS on how we can deliver those
funds as effectively as possible and how it can improve its
outreach.
For example, in our recent report on summer food, one of
the things we pointed out to the Food and Nutrition Service was
that it could serve even more eligible people--students, kids--
if there was more of a focus on effective outreach to the
populations for which that assistance is intended. And I think
these kinds of issues can be very helpful to the agencies as we
find them.
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Ms. Lee.
At this time, I am delighted to recognize Ms. McCollum of
Minnesota, the chair of the Defense Subcommittee of
Appropriations.
Ms. McCollum.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. Good morning,
and this is a great way to start off our hearing season.
I have a question that I am going to submit for the record,
Ms. Fong. Ms. Pingree, who is also on the committee, and I both
serve on Interior, and we were working on wildland fires and
COVID and the type of response in that that we had to do. And
you had a memorandum in August of 2020 providing comments on
wildland fire response plans that you were developing on, and
so I am going to submit a question. We would like to--I would
like to learn a little more, and I am sure Ms. Pingree was
involved in this as well, too, what we can do to be helpful and
what we might need to do in that realm.
Another area which I would like some more information on
has to do with food distribution on Indian reservations. As we
know, COVID-19 has increased food insecurity across the
country. Indian Country has been no exception. Native American
communities across this country suffer from high rates of food
insecurity. And one of the tools that is available is the food
distribution program on Indian reservations, and this program
is critical to the safety net where SNAP benefits is limited,
and it helps to promote Tribal sovereignty. And some of the
foods that are focused and relied upon help meet cultural and
Tribal needs.
Unfortunately, this program does not have a contingency
plan for shutdowns, as we saw during the previous
administration, and it severely impacted the ability of Tribal
organizations to access food. In fact, sometimes there was food
available on a reservation, but it was literally locked up.
So I am going to have my office reach out to yours to see
if we need to do something administratively, if we need to do
something legislatively, or if there is rulemaking that can be
done to prevent this in the future.
With my time remaining, I was a little confused with some
of your testimony on page 8 and 9, and it had to do with the
Farm Service Agency counting employees, where you were
collecting race, ethnicity, and gender data on producers that
were part of the Market Facilitation Program.
So it appears that you are not supposed to be collecting
this information on the 530 producers, yet you were collecting
the information, but you were doing it visually. And I am not
against collecting information like we are doing to help
underserved and racial disparity communities affected by COVID,
but I don't understand what you are doing with the information,
and that you were collecting visual information is very
alarming to me.
So could you maybe tell us a little bit about what you were
doing and if you need to do it to make sure we are reaching
diverse populations about programming opportunities, work with
the chair and this committee to make it happen? I know this is
something Ms. Lee works on a lot. What is going on?
Ms. Fong. Yes. That is a very interesting issue, and you
are exactly right that, in order to really be able to measure
how effective these programs are, you have got to have the
right data across demographics to know if the assistance is
going as it should be going and equitably.
What we were seeing in FSA was that the Department had a
policy that, when you collect this demographic data, it should
be done in a way that asks the individual to self-identify as
to which demographic groups an individual belongs to. It is not
to be collected through the visual observation of a USDA
employee.
In other words, if I am a USDA employee, I shouldn't be
looking at a program participant and saying: This--you fit into
certain categories. That is not the appropriate way to go about
this.
Unfortunately, we found in that program that FSA was not
following Department guidance, and so the data that was being
collected was not data provided by the individual themselves,
which therefore throws into question the validity of that data.
And so what we were pointing out was that FSA really needs to
bring that practice in line with departmental guidance so that
we can have accurate data to measure the effectiveness of these
programs.
I hope that makes more sense.
Ms. McCollum. Well, I would like to get to the bottom of
what is really going on.
And the other thing I found alarming--and it is on page 9,
Mr. Chair--is that this information which was inappropriately
collected and not accurately collected was possibly shared with
third parties. So I am going to follow up on that and
understand it better.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Ms. McCollum.
At this time, I am delighted to recognize Mr. Cuellar, the
gentleman from Texas.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member.
Thank you for holding this hearing today. And I also want to
thank the USDA inspector general, the folks who are present
here.
I want to follow up on the--Ms. Fong, the Farmers to
Families Food Box Program, because we had a little issue in my
area in San Antonio. The--as you know, in San Antonio, you had
a San Antonio event and wedding--a wedding planner with no
experience in food distribution that got awarded a $39.1
million contract. And, as you know, their performance wasn't
the best, and I can say that.
My question is, how do we prevent this from happening in
the future?
We also have a--with all due respect to my Californians
also, but we had a California company, Gold Star Foods, that
was covering all of Texas, and I am sure it was probably done
a--quote, on a cost--probably the most cost-effective one. I
assume they are going to say that. But we still had some issues
in Texas.
For example, in my southern part of the district, they
would deliver boxes with a letter from President Trump implying
that President Trump was providing this food.
So I want to ask you also: Is there anything in the law
that prevents any President--any President--I don't care if it
is a Democrat or Republican--from giving the impression that he
was providing this food to the folks there when it was the
taxpayers that was doing this?
So that is my question. How do we make sure that this
Farmers to Families Food Box Program becomes a little bit more
effective?
And then my second question has to do with improper
payments. We still have a lot of problems with improper
payments, and I am looking at your testimony. And, without
going into details, I would ask you--because I know you have
provided a lot of recommendations, and if you all could provide
to the committee and to my office recommendations that we can
follow up to help you enforce this improper payments that are
definitely more than 10 percent on different programs.
So, with that, I want to say thank you for the work that
you have been doing for many years and to your folks who are
present here today.
Ms. Fong. Okay. Let me comment on both of those issues, and
then Mr. Harden and Ms. Coffey may have some additional
comments.
The Farmers to Families Food Box Program, yes, we are very
aware of the media reports when they first started to appear
about that situation in Texas. We, as you know, have ongoing
work in our audits--on our audit side to look at that whole
program to see how those contracts are being awarded, to make
sure that they are following the Federal acquisition rules and
regulations. And we anticipate having some results by the end
of the year on that.
To the extent that we might receive allegations of fraud in
programs, as you know, our investigation staff would evaluate
those allegations and, where appropriate, would take, you know,
action to get to the bottom of it. We don't talk about anything
ongoing publicly. But that would be our normal process if we
received allegations of wrongdoing.
With respect to any activity by a Federal employee or
official that might be considered political, what we would do
is look at it under the Hatch Act, which has certain very
strong provisions. And, where appropriate, if we received any
allegation like that, we would be working with the Office of
Special Counsel that has jurisdiction. Let me just offer, on
improper payments, that we are watching these very carefully.
The Department's overall improper payment rate has gone up over
the last 2 years, which is a matter of concern for everyone, I
think. And we certainly would like to see more progress in that
area by the Department.
So let me just offer Gil Harden a chance to comment on any
of those areas.
Mr. Harden. All right. Thanks, Phyllis.
And I will stick with the improper payments in response to
your question, Congressman. We will definitely work with your
office to get information on the recommendations and different
things that we have made and have implemented and what is still
outstanding for those programs.
Other thoughts on improper payments that we see, not only
in our compliance issues, but as we do samples in looking at
calculations and eligibility, we are seeing improper payments
to--in various programs as well.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you so much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Fortenberry. Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Meng. I think I read his lips. Was that me?
Mr. Fortenberry. I am sorry. This is Jeff Fortenberry. I am
just trying to get the chairman's attention for just one moment
if you will indulge me.
Mr. Bishop. I am sorry. Go ahead, Mr. Fortenberry.
Mr. Fortenberry. Yeah. I am sorry to break up the flow of
the hearing. This is delicate, because we are doing this by
Zoom, but I am getting some concerns expressed by members on my
side of the aisle about order here. Perhaps you could review
the order to see if we can clarify how we are proceeding. Given
that there has been a number of Democrats in a row, I know you
are trying to balance out with who came in at the gavel, but
there might be some difficulty with the Zoom.
Mr. Bishop. Okay. I am sorry. Can we verify that? I am
getting instructions from staff, and we are supposed to be
going by seniority of staff [inaudible] Because I certainly
would not want to do that intentionally.
Mr. Fortenberry. Yeah. I am sorry, Mr. Chair. The video or
the sound blanked out for a moment. Did you have a
clarification on order?
Mr. Bishop. Can I get clarification from the staff as to
who should be next?
Well, is Mr. Aderholt on the call? Mr. Harris. Dr. Harris.
Mr. Aderholt. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Yes.
Mr. Aderholt. It is Robert Aderholt.
Mr. Bishop. Okay.
Mr. Aderholt. I actually--I am on the call, but I don't
have anything. So I will pass and give my time to someone else.
Mr. Bishop. All right.
Then Mr. Newhouse.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that
very much.
Mr. Bishop. I apologize for the oversight. I was under the
assumption that there were no other Republican members on the
line, and I did not check it. I was relying on staff, so I
apologize, and I assume full responsibility.
Mr. Newhouse. Apology accepted. And I am juggling two
committee hearings online at the same time. So we are trying to
make that work.
Mr. Bishop. And I see Mr.--I see Dr. Harris is also on the
line, so, following Mr. Newhouse, I will be delighted to
recognize Dr. Harris.
Mr. Newhouse. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman
Bishop, Ranking Member Fortenberry. I want to thank you for
welcoming me to the subcommittee. It has been my long-term goal
since joining the Appropriations Committee to be a member of
the Ag Subcommittee since I am one of the few farmers in
Congress, and I am also the former State director of
agriculture for Washington.
So I look forward to working with all of you to ensure that
we can help our producers, our farmers to feed the world.
I want to thank General Fong and your team today for
joining us. Thank you for your work at USDA to help ensure that
Federal taxpayer dollars are going to support the mission of
USDA and what President Lincoln called the people's department.
And I think that that--that label is just as true today as it
was in the 1860s.
While farmers and ranchers only make up about 2 percent of
our Nation's population, they have a big job to ensure that all
Americans and the world receive the safest and highest quality
food supply.
One issue raised in your testimony this morning is the
Coronavirus Food Assistance Program, or the CFAP, the review
and the administration by FSA. Your office is currently looking
into the timeliness and accurate assistance for growers, so my
questions are these.
Number one, is your CFAP review part of the Biden
administration's overall review of the program, or is it your
review and separate from those efforts?
Secondly, can you share with the committee any challenges
for producers completing their application and receiving their
appropriate payment? We want to make sure that the program is
running efficiently and serves the intended purpose of keeping
growers growing. One of the larger issues we want to look at is
the integrity of our safe and secure food supply, and COVID-19
has showed many gaps that we need to address.
And then, thirdly, can you tell me who would--would your
review also consider--had there not been CFAP available to our
producers, would there have been a detriment to our food supply
system? We all saw and witnessed in the early days of the
pandemic the closures, and our supply chains were severely
distressed.
I believe that we should ensure that our growers, just like
with small businesses around the country, needed and continue
to need supplemental assistance to ensure growers can continue
with their job of supplying the world food and fiber.
So I look forward to your responses, and thank you for
being here with us this morning.
Ms. Fong. I am sorry. Was I muted there?
Mr. Newhouse. There you are.
Ms. Fong. Okay. Let me try again.
Thank you. Let me offer a few comments, and I think Mr.
Harden may have some additional ones.
Just to note that, on our CFAP review, you asked whether
this is separate from the Biden administration's review. We
initiated our work during the last administration, and so it
was designed--our objectives were set prior to the new
administration taking office. And we are continuing to work the
objectives that we set.
It is helpful to know what changes may be coming because
then we can assess whether we need to change course or do
anything different. But we are continuing with our original
design of that project.
I understand what you are saying. I don't know what the
policy alternatives would have been if there were not a CFAP
program. I think the trade mitigation programs that USDA has
provided would be interesting to think about in that context,
and we certainly are taking a look at those right now as well.
So let me go ahead and offer the mike to Mr. Harden for
some additional thoughts.
Mr. Harden. Thank you, Phyllis.
Yes, in terms of--I just wanted to offer that we did start
the review last year before the change of administration, as
she said, and we have recently selected the sample of producers
that we will look at. So, at this current time, I can't offer
specific challenges or concerns, but that is something that we
are looking at in terms of, you know, did they have
difficulties there?
And, with respect to the question on if it wasn't
available, what would happen--and I am oversimplifying there--
it is one that I would like to go back to the team and see if
there is a way that we can ask that of FSA, in addition to
thinking about the trade mitigation programs in terms of what
would have happened because I am--I feel certain there was some
of that thought that went into the design of [inaudible].
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Mr. Bishop. The reason that Mr. Aderholt, Mr. Newhouse, and
Mr. Harris are in the latter group, I am told by staff, is
because they entered the meeting after the gavel, and everyone
who was recognized earlier was present before the gavel, and we
went in the order of seniority.
So I apologize for any misunderstanding in that regard.
And, at this time, I would like to recognize Ms. Meng.
Ms. Meng. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our
inspector general and your whole team for being here today and
for the work that you do.
I know that we have talked a little bit about the Farmers
to Families Food Box Program. I am glad to hear that your
office is investigating. This has been a program, especially
during the pandemic, that has really benefited people in my
district. But its erratic implementation has also caused a lot
of chaos and uncertainty.
Lines at food banks and pantries are longer than I have
ever seen in my life. They wrap around, you know, five, six
city blocks at a time.
And so not only have there been allegations of vendor fraud
across the country, but unclear rule changes in each round,
lack of communication, vendor changes, and then lack of
accountability, which have prevented hungry people in Queens,
New York, from being able to access food they so desperately
need.
A few of the issues I wanted to ask about. One, there seems
to be different rules each round with no real communication to
the nonprofits or pantries. And what has happened and what we
have literally seen and heard from pantries is they will find
out, like, on a Friday afternoon that the food that they are
supposed to get and distribute on Monday will not be arriving.
Second, after the first round, only accepting contracts
from vendors that could provide mixed boxes--meat, dairy,
produce--this meant that the culture pantries, who also serve
many of my halal-observant constituents, could no longer
participate in the program.
And, lastly, during certain rounds, vendors with extra
supplies were barred from sending boxes to other boroughs or
counties whose vendors came up short. So, like, a vendor was
only allowed to supply--in the county of Manhattan, Brooklyn,
and Staten Island, told us that they had enough for Queens and
the Bronx, but that they weren't allowed to send it to us.
So, if you could tell me a little bit about the scope of
your investigation of this program. Will it only include fraud
accusations, or will it provide a larger, more detailed
accounting?
Ms. Fong. Okay. Let me just offer a few comments, and I
think Mr. Harden might have some additional detail. Thank you
for all the information you have provided. I think that is very
helpful to fleshing out our understanding.
We are--in our review of the program, we are focused on how
it is being designed and delivered and how the funding is
allocated to contractors and whether the contractors are
actually carrying out their responsibilities under their
contracts.
I think that is an interesting question about the unclear
rule changes and communication. Let me ask Gil if he has any
thoughts on that and whether we need to follow up on that.
Mr. Harden. I will do some follow up on it, and I
appreciate the questions. But just one point of clarification
just for informational purposes.
In looking at the Family to Food Box Program, GAO,
Government Accountability Office, has a strong interest in
looking at this program as well as we do. So, as we have said
in response to other questions, we try to not duplicate
efforts.
So, when we started our work, we--it was very early in the
program, so we focused--our focus was round one. As we moved
through the program, we know GAO is looking at other rounds so
that we are not looking at the same thing, but we can talk to
them about--and, you know, I have heard about the different
changes between rounds. Some are characterized to make it
better. Others, maybe not. Maybe we can ask some questions to
get some clarity around that.
Ms. Meng. Just in general, so if we can, you know, get a
clear picture whether it is you or we have to work with GAO.
You know, who received these boxes, how was the communication
managed, and were they distributed equally according to
population and need, or, like, what were the metrics used? All
of that would be really helpful.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Ms. Meng.
Is Mr. Aderholt still on? Would you like to ask any
questions at this time, Mr. Aderholt?
Mr. Aderholt. Oh, Mr. Chairman, I am fine. Like I said, I
am on the call, but I will defer my time to others.
Mr. Bishop. All right. If you are deferring your time, I
would like to recognize Dr. Harris.
Mr. Harris. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Fong, as you know, you know, broadband has been brought
up already. I have a very specific question about that before I
go into my second question.
Obviously some--well, some companies in my district have
raised concerns regarding capacity representations that have
been made by some of the companies applying for funding. Their
concern is that these capacity representations couldn't be met,
and that will result in an unnecessary delay of getting this
broadband coverage into our rural areas, something that we
know, obviously, during COVID is such a vital issue.
So, specifically, I have to ask you: What role would the
USDA OIG, your office have in ensuring that entities fulfill
the representations they have made in applying for the funds?
And, of course, we have a whole lot more funds now because of
COVID. Is that something that your office would be looking into
because you implied that you are going to be taking a fresh
look at the broadband initiatives and how they are being rolled
out.
Ms. Fong. Yes. That is an interesting question. As you
know, we--broadly speaking, we do audits and inspections, and
we do investigations. If there is a situation where someone has
a concern that there may be a false statement or fraud or
something rising to that level, we have intake for those kinds
of concerns, and we would evaluate it and look at it from an
investigative perspective.
If people are concerned about how the program itself is
structured, whether there is adequate due diligence being given
to the awards of the contracts, whether the program office is
doing the appropriate steps before awarding contracts, we could
consider doing an audit or an inspection of that aspect.
And so, depending on the situation, if people want to come
forward with concerns, we--that is how we would analyze them.
Mr. Harris. Thank you very much, and I may bring some to
your attention.
And, just briefly, because you have been doing this a
while, the SNAP program--you know, I usually ask you about it
every year because it is a huge program, and even a small
percent of fraud in a huge program is a lot of dollars.
So I would like your kind of historic perspective on where
it is--what has been happening to fraud in the program over the
last few years? Is it getting better? Is it getting worse? And
where do you see the largest fraud occurring right now, and are
there other things we can do to make the program--you know, to
decrease the amount of fraud because fraud, on two levels, is
bad. It decreases the amount of moneys that should be going
where they are, and it also decreases confidence--public
confidence in the program.
So if you could give us a perspective on that.
Ms. Fong. Yes. You are right. SNAP is probably the biggest
program, or one of the biggest in USDA's portfolio, and we
devote quite a bit of effort every year to investigations in
that area as well as to audit oversight. To give you just an
overview, last year, we spent about a third of our
investigative resources on that area running cases and dealing
with allegations. There were some in the district of Maryland
in the last few years that were fairly significant, if I
recall.
We don't keep a running sense of whether the fraud is going
up or down because we have much more than our workers can
handle in terms of allegations and handling those things. So we
know that, you know, where there is money, there are people who
take advantage of that.
Let me just let Ann comment a little bit on fraud in the
program, some insights.
Ms. Coffey. Thank you, Phyllis.
So, as Phyllis said, yes. We do spend a good portion of our
resources assessing where there could be potential fraud. The
one thing I will say is that the use of data analytics has
helped us to kind of identify specifically where we can
allocate our resources.
Usually the fraud that we have seen where it is sort of in
the highest percentage is actually on the eastern seaboard. We
have a little bit in each State, but, for some reason, in more
of the urban areas, we do tend to see higher rates of fraud in
those cases.
But, again, we have worked very closely with our Office of
Analytics and Innovation as well as the USDA's Food Nutrition
Service to try to identify and really focus in on where we can
make the most bang for our buck, where we can effectively put
our resources in going after sort of the most significant fraud
cases. We do get a number of cases that don't--necessarily, we
can't possibly handle all of them, so we really do try to focus
on the larger ones.
So it is a little bit difficult for us to be able to say
exactly how the fraud rate rises or falls in a particular year
other than to say we know the amount of resources that we are
expending.
Mr. Harris. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much.
At this time, I am delighted to yield to the chair of the
Military Construction, Veterans Affairs Subcommittee, the
gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am very
much looking forward to serving on this subcommittee and to
working with you and our colleagues.
Ms. Fong, I appreciate your service and your vigilance. I
do want to ask you about the Florida citrus program. In your
office's fiscal year 2021 plan, you stated that your office
will continue to examine the Florida citrus block grant
program. Can you give us a brief outline of the issues your
office is looking at here?
Ms. Fong. Yes. We are near the end of that review, I
believe, and I know Gil will want to offer some comments on
that. We are looking to see how the program payments were made,
whether they were made in accordance with guidelines and were
made to eligible producers. And I think we will have results
shortly, but let me ask Gil to offer some specifics.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
Mr. Harden. Yes, Phyllis, that does cover the type of work
that we are doing. And because we haven't issued the report, I
can't talk specifics about the findings. I am sorry about that,
but I am happy to talk about them when we can.
We are close to issuing the draft report to the agency for
comment. I would expect the report to be out in final by summer
at the latest.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. By summer? Okay. All right. And so
there is no--there is no specifics you can even talk about in
terms of an outline of the issues that you are looking at?
Mr. Harden. Not at this time.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. I want to switch to the topic
of animal welfare. Congress included a specific $500,000
increase to USDA OIG in the fiscal year 2021 appropriations
package for the purpose of addressing illegal animal fighting.
And I know you addressed this--and I appreciate it--in your
opening statement because animal fighting is not only cruel and
unethical, but it can also spread disease.
Can you provide the committee with any details of what your
office is doing with the increase that Congress provided?
And, also, can you speak to how often your office or USDA
encounters other potential criminal activity in your pursuit of
animal fighting cases, and how related animal criminal activity
might interfere with the investigation?
Ms. Fong. Yes. These are significant cases in our
portfolio. I will offer some comments, and then Ann might have
some additional ones.
We have 59 open cases involving animal fighting currently
in 27 States. So it is a widespread issue and a significant
issue for us. We anticipate that we will make good use of the
$500,000 earmarked for those cases.
To give you an idea, last year, in fiscal year 2020, we
spent over a million dollars in salaries alone for our
investigators who run these cases. And they are dangerous cases
because they can involve other issues, such as the presence of
firearms, narcotics, people who have been convicted of other
felonies. There are some very significant concerns that we run
into when we do these cases, so we have to make sure we
approach them correctly.
So let me just ask Ann if she wants to add something here.
Ms. Coffey. Thank you, Phyllis. So we do, as Phyllis
mentioned, have a significant number of animal fighting cases
throughout the country. These tend to be labor intensive for
our investigators. They have worked very hard. And, during the
COVID pandemic, they have continued to be out there doing these
investigations because these require them to be present. You
can't just do these sort of looking at records.
And Phyllis is correct. We often work these cases jointly
with other law enforcement, Federal law enforcement agencies,
such as Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives or the Drug
Enforcement Agency. So they are significant cases. When we go,
we typically see other criminal activity that is occurring at
them, and obviously that is of concern.
We usually are able to work out the differing aspects--the
different criminal allegations so they don't necessarily impede
our investigation, but we are always mindful in working with
our partner agencies when we are doing these investigations and
they do impact other criminal statutes that are in play.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
yield back.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much.
I believe that we have completed our first round of
questions, and I would like to inquire if members would like to
pursue a second round. It is not necessary.
Mr. Fortenberry, I see your hand. Would you----
Mr. Fortenberry. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Would you like to have a second round?
Mr. Fortenberry. Yeah. I would like a second round.
Mr. Bishop. Very good. Then I will allow you to go ahead
with your second round of questions, and I will follow you.
Mr. Fortenberry. Okay. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate it.
Let me return to the earlier question. Mr. Harden, were you
able to secure the information that I asked during the
intervening time?
Mr. Harden. Yes, sir, I was.
Mr. Fortenberry. Okay. What is your answer?
Mr. Harden. So, yes. In their response--and we did make the
recommendation to the mission area at the Department. They
indicated a multiyear approach to solving this problem.
In the current fiscal year, 2021, they are planning on to
coordinate among the agencies and do some strategic planning in
terms of what type of mechanism would work best for getting the
information together.
In 2022, they plan on looking at how to develop that
mechanism, and they do believe that there may be budgetary
resources for this, so they would implement that once they got
that in fiscal year 2024.
Mr. Fortenberry. Okay. Mr. Harden, it is not your problem.
You are just the messenger here, but guess what? That is way
too late, and we need this data much faster, so I will pursue
that conversation with the chairman, and--but I would like to
hear what your recommendations were.
Mr. Harden. That was the one recommendation for this
report.
Mr. Fortenberry. So you recommended that timeline, or that
was the information they gave back to you?
Mr. Harden. No, no, no, no. We recommended that they
implement a mechanism for collecting this information so they
would have the information available. This is their response--
--
Mr. Fortenberry. Do you perceive that as peculiar that it
would take 3 years to get this done?
Mr. Harden. You know, I can't say that I am an expert in
what they would need, and----
Mr. Fortenberry. Well, I am not either, but that seems like
a long time----
Mr. Harden. In the----
Mr. Fortenberry. We are going to need this data sooner
based upon the dictates of the previous law that is being
implemented now. So why don't you gently convey that message,
if you would, please.
Mr. Harden. Yes, sir. I would be glad to.
Mr. Fortenberry. Okay. Secondly, back to Ms. Fong, it is a
question about your budget.
In 2019 or--I am sorry--in 2020--might want to pencil out.
There is a couple of numbers here. In the Recovery Act of 2009,
$28 billion was allocated. Your office, the OIG, received $22.5
million for oversight responsibilities of that money.
As your testimony pointed out, the first three COVID bills
this last year, you--we provided $61 billion. However, Congress
only provided you with $750,000 as a part of that for
oversight.
In the next COVID bill under consideration, it would bring
the total of $76 billion of new spending to USDA, and you are
allocated to receive $3.3 million for oversight.
So the proportion of dollars has gone up significantly
compared to the proportion of dollars to your agency for
oversight. Is that a problem?
Ms. Fong. Well, I think you have put your finger on a
question for us. We can only do as much oversight as we have
resources to do. We felt that we had a good amount of funds for
The Recovery Act, which they were no-year funds at the time, or
at least they covered a number of years.
Mr. Fortenberry. So I didn't offer you--I didn't do the
quick math with the percent. So would you say the Recovery Act
allocation to you as a percent would be a fair representation
of empowering your agency to do its necessary work, and how
does that percent compare with the latest expenditures?
Ms. Fong. Yeah. I am not good at math on the run either.
Mr. Fortenberry. No, I am. I just didn't do it.
Ms. Fong. I think it is fair to say that resources have
changed and ebbed and flowed, and I am happy to hear 3.3
million is in the current bill. That is higher than we had
initially thought. I think any funds that are given to us, we
would put to very good use. As you know, we have a number of
projects in play already.
Mr. Fortenberry. Well, I am sorry to interrupt you, Ms.
Fong. I have only got a minute left, but obviously I have
raised an issue. If that is a level of concern, given the
important breadth and perspective on the committee--I mean, you
are being asked to do a lot--I think it is important that you
communicate that back to us, please----
Ms. Fong. Yes.
Mr. Fortenberry [continuing]. If funds are insufficient.
Let me ask you a question about broadband as well. Dr.
Harris had touched upon this. So we have given you over--we
have allocated over $2 billion in the last several years for
this. What are the metrics for success?
Ms. Fong. On the part of the program?
Mr. Fortenberry. Correct.
Ms. Fong. That is a very good question.
We would want to go back and look at RD's metrics to see if
they have any and if they make sense. We have not looked at
this program, I think, in several years, at a minimum.
Mr. Fortenberry. So let me interject. Again, I am running
out of time, but, during last year, the Secretary came. And I
intend to pursue this with the current secretary. Listen, the
reality is we can't measure this just in terms of expenditures
and wire laid. We need to measure the impacts of this
assistance.
And we have made a digital leap, but is it promoting
telehealth and distance learning, telework, e-commerce,
precision agriculture, all the things that are essential to
creating an ecosystem of livability in rural communities? That
is the fundamental purpose of rural development.
We have got a huge, huge tool in our hands here. I want to
make sure, though, that our metrics for success are allied with
the expenditures. That is my consideration.
Ms. Fong. I think that is an excellent question.
Mr. Fortenberry. We may need to follow up with you on that
given--I doubt there is a third round. That may be in the form
of a letter, but I have verbally communicated, so I would like
some ongoing dialogue about that, please.
Ms. Fong. Okay.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Fortenberry.
Let me turn back to a couple of other items that I had not
covered.
One of them has to do with the Rural Housing Service. A
report issued last year identified instances where inaccuracies
were found in determining tenant eligibility and rent
assistance amounts to tenants in the USDA Multifamily and
Rental Assistance Program. These inaccuracies resulted in
underpayments as well as overpayments, are keeping limited
resources from reaching tenants who critically need assistance.
It is well documented that only one in four eligible for
assistance receive it, effectively determining eligibility is
paramount to program integrity and facilitating maximum
assistance to those who need it.
So you identified the millions in rent miscalculations in
the report. USDA said it would complete corrective actions by
December 31st, 2020. Do you know if the previous administration
did so before they left office?
Ms. Fong. I think Mr. Harden might have some insight on
that.
Mr. Bishop. You need to unmute, Mr. Harden.
Mr. Harden. Sorry. I thought I had pushed the button
correctly.
I appreciate the question. We will need to check in with
the Chief Financial Officer's Office to see if they implemented
those by the end of December.
Mr. Bishop. Another question. In your testimony, you say
that you are pursuing the identification of various fraud
schemes associated with the Coronavirus Food Assistance
Program, which provides assistance to certain agricultural
producers whose operations were directly impacted by the
pandemic. This is troubling. Can you give us some idea of the
scale of the fraud in terms of number of cases or the dollar
value involved?
Ms. Fong. That is an excellent question. And I think, at
this stage of the game, we are pursuing these analytics
approaches because we want to get an idea of the potential
scale. So let me ask Jenny to comment on the work she is doing
with investigations--our analytics and investigations offices
on this.
Ms. Rone. Thank you, Phyllis, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We are working very closely with the Office of
Investigations in developing an analytics tool that utilizes
tripwires, these understanding of the schemes of the known
knowns on these cases, in order to better investigate the
entire universe and look at all of the payments and how they
relate to those tripwires.
So that is an ongoing process, and we are seeing good
success with being able to work with investigations on
establishing those analytics from a proactive perspective.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I see I have a minute and 40
seconds.
Last September, you issued an audit report on the Animal
and Plant Health Inspection Service's oversight of the National
Veterinary Stockpile. This NVS is the animal version of the
Strategic National Stockpile and is intended to allow an
immediate response in the case of serious animal disease
outbreaks.
You found weaknesses that seem to mirror those of FNS that
came to light during the current pandemic. You said, for
example, that APHIS hasn't conducted a complete physical
inventory of the NVS supplies and equipment since January of
2017, and you made eight recommendations, and the agency
concurred with all of the findings and recommendations.
And, in light of the issues involving that, what are the
key lessons from your review of the National Vet Stockpile that
you would recommend to agencies for the COVID vaccination
efforts?
Ms. Fong. That is a really interesting question. As you
know, we started that work before the pandemic, the COVID
pandemic, struck the country, and we, and as we issued the
report, we think that there may be an opportunity here for
APHIS to take a look at the recommendations we made to see if
they apply to rollout of pandemic vaccines.
And the reason we say that is because we understand that
USDA, especially APHIS, is part of the initiative in a number
of areas around the country to deliver COVID vaccines to
people, which is a different role than normal.
And we think that there may be some--some of our findings
and recommendations may be applicable to this situation. APHIS
might want to consider whether our recommendations on storage
of vaccines, on the need for complete inventory of equipment
and supplies, on the need for regular inspections of the
inventory, and oversight of contractors, and dealing with
emergency procedures would possibly, you know, apply to the
rollout of the COVID vaccine process.
So I think that is a really interesting question to ask.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Ms. Fong.
Mr. Fortenberry, you, I believe, have additional followup?
Mr. Fortenberry. Mr. Chairman, I think I have given enough
recommendations to the OIG for today.
You seem relieved, Ms. Fong.
Ms. Fong. Enjoying the dialogue.
Mr. Fortenberry. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have an
offline conversation with you about some of the things that are
raised, given our mutual interest in some of these questions,
if you would be so kind.
Mr. Bishop. I would be delighted, Mr. Fortenberry.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you. I yield back. Thank you, sir,
for the hearing.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. And let me thank Ms. Fong, Ms.
Coffey, Mr. Harden, and Ms. Rone for your testimony, and for
spending the morning with us.
Along with what we have discussed, we will forward
additional questions to you for the record, homework, and we
appreciate your diligence in getting your responses back to us
in a timely manner.
Thank you for what you do. Thank you for what you mean to
the efficiency of the Department of Agriculture.
And, with that, Mr. Fortenberry, do you have any closing
remarks?
Mr. Fortenberry. No, sir, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
today's hearing.
Mr. Bishop. Well, thank you, Mr. Fortenberry.
And I want to thank all of the members who were in
attendance, and thank you to our staff who worked hard to put
this hearing together.
And, with that, this subcommittee hearing is adjourned.
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Tuesday, March 9, 2021.
FDA'S FOREIGN DRUG INSPECTIONS PROGRAM
WITNESS
MARY DENIGAN-MACAULEY, PH.D., DIRECTOR, HEALTH CARE, PUBLIC HEALTH &
PRIVATE MARKETS, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Good morning.
This hearing will now come to order of the Agriculture,
Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related
Agencies Subcommittee.
As this hearing is fully virtual, we have to address a few
housekeeping matters. For today's hearing, the chair or staff
designated by the chair may mute participants' microphones when
they are not under recognition for purposes of eliminating
inadvertent background noise. Members are responsible for
muting and unmuting themselves. If I notice that you have not
unmuted yourself, I will ask you if you would like the staff to
unmute you. If you indicate approval by nodding, then the staff
will unmute your microphone.
I remind all members and witnesses that the 5-minute clock
still applies. If there is a technology issue, we will move to
the next issue in order until the issue is resolved, and you
will retain the balance of your time. You will notice a clock
on your screen that will show how much time is remaining.
At 1 minute remaining, the clock will turn yellow. At 30
seconds remaining, I will gently tap the gavel to remind
members that their time is almost expired. When your time has
expired, the clock will turn red, and I will begin to recognize
the next member.
In terms of speaking order, we will begin with the chair
and ranking member, then alternating between majority and
minority, with members present at the time the hearing starts
in order of seniority. After that, members not present at the
time the hearing starts will be recognized in the order that
they join.
Finally, House rules require me to remind you that we have
set up an email address to which members can send anything they
wish to submit in writing at any of our hearings or markups.
That email address has been provided in advance to your staff.
Last reminder, please ensure that your video is turned on at
this time.
Well, I would like to welcome everyone to today's hearing
on this very, very important topic. Our witness today is Dr.
Mary Denigan-Macauley, and she has been at the Government
Accountability Office since 2001, has a wealth of knowledge on
the issues that we will be discussing today. We look forward to
hearing from you and we thank you for your close attention and
your hard work to highlight this issue.
Today three quarters of the supply of active pharmaceutical
ingredients, and about half of the supply of finished doses in
the U.S. market are produced overseas. In the past, the FDA
focused on hitting inspection targets to ensure certain
facilities were being inspected on a predictable schedule. The
rapid and continued growth in foreign facilities has made it
impossible to continue this approach.
FDA now employs a risk-based model for selecting and
prioritizing its inspections. The past 30 years have brought
tremendous growth in the global pharmaceutical market. The GAO
has been studying the FDA's foreign drug inspections program
for nearly that entire period. And since 2009, GAO has placed
FDA's ability to oversee the global pharmaceutical supply
chain, which includes the foreign drug inspections program, on
its high-risk list. This is unacceptable.
The highest priority of the FDA is to ensure the safety and
efficacy of medical products. The countless Americans who
depend on life-saving drugs each day should not have to worry
about whether that drug was produced in a dangerous or unsafe
facility. I have been very troubled by recent news reports
about the dangers of tainted drugs and unacceptable
manufacturing practices coming from overseas. Instances of
contaminants making their way into blood pressure medications,
reports from inspectors who have observed paper shredding
campaigns, and descriptions of inspectors playing a cat-and-
mouse game with foreign manufacturers intent on hiding
problems, paints a very frightening picture of the global
health of our drug supply. Inspections are some of our most
valuable tools in the fight against fraud, and it sounds like
we have got to do a better job.
Now, GAO has really studied this issue since 1998 and
weaknesses in the FDA oversight of foreign drug manufacturers
has become even more concerning, because FDA now estimates that
74 percent of our active pharmaceutical ingredients, which are
the primary ingredients in our drugs, and over 54 percent of
the finished doses, which are the tablets, the capsules, and
the pills that contain the active pharmaceutical ingredients
that are taken by patients, that those are manufactured
overseas.
Forty percent of all foreign plants exporting drugs to the
U.S. are in India and China, while most foreign inspections in
those countries, FDA found that those plants received
significantly lower scores for quality on average than the EU
or U.S. plants. According to analysis conducted by the GAO, 60
percent of foreign inspections are classified as voluntary
action indicator. I note that, although the corrective actions
are voluntary, it means that there is still issues in those
plants.
There are really--really serious issues are in our
inspections of foreign plants. While the domestic inspections
are almost always conducted on an unannounced basis, the
majority of foreign plants receive notice of the inspection as
much as 12 weeks in advance. In addition, the foreign
inspections typically involve weeks of on-site work. This
raises questions about whether that is parity between foreign
and domestic inspections and what sorts of issues FDA may not
be catching when it comes to foreign facilities.
FDA relies on the manufacturers, the companies for
translation services in many instances, and that raises
questions about the validity of the translations. There have
been allegations as far back as 1993 that the FDA management
frequently downgrades the inspectors' recommended actions.
In 1996, GAO found that two-thirds of the inspectors'
recommended actions were downgraded. Downgrading for findings
is a recurring claim by recent whistleblowers. In May 2019, The
New York Times published an article that calls into question
the quality, the safety, and the reliability of brand and
generic drugs that were made overseas, and it chronicles a
former FDA consumer safety officer who found, while he was
inspecting foreign manufacturing plants in both China and India
between 2012 and 2018, during the course of his years, he
discovered fraud and deception in 67 of the 86 drug
manufacturing plants that he inspected.
He routinely uncovered hidden laboratories, fake quality
control, defective sterilization machines, toxic impurities,
and the article also outlines how, from 2013 to 2018, the FDA
downgraded the regulatory sanctions against more than 100
Indian plants, changing the designation from official action
indicated to voluntary action indicated.
NBC, in May of 2019, highlighted a different FDA inspector
who had also spent time in China and India inspecting
manufacturing facilities. One plant in Linhai, China had
numerous incidences, including anomalies in testing, unknown
impurities. And the inspector recommended a warning letter to
the facility which would bar it from gaining approvals to
produce new drugs at the facility.
The FDA reportedly overruled his recommendation. In
December of 2016, GAO reported that a number of foreign drug
facilities--that there were a number that had never been
inspected. And that about one in three, 1,000 of the
approximately 3,000 foreign manufacturing facilities had not
been likely inspected.
It identified 189 of the 572 facilities in India, 243 of
the 535 facilities in China, that may never have been
inspected.
It is very, very frustrating. And according to the reports
in 2013, the FDA created a pilot program in India to reduce the
reliance on preannounced inspections, and to perform more
short-notice, or unannounced inspections.
According to the reports of that 2013 experiment, it
exposed widespread malfeasance that had otherwise been hidden
because of the advanced warning notice system. Among the
findings, the inspections found bird infestations, missing
samples, fake laboratories, all of which negatively impact drug
quality and safety.
Under the pilot program, the FDA issued a 60 percent
increase in official action indicated findings. That program
was eliminated in 2015, and FDA has never really explained why.
So, in order to address some of these issues, our fiscal year
2021 bill included $3.5 million for the FDA to increase efforts
to perform the unannounced inspections in India and China.
So, today, we are here to discuss how the FDA conducts
these foreign inspections, compared to our domestic ones, how
the FDA's inspection efforts have been impacted by COVID-19,
and how the FDA can improve its foreign drug inspections
program moving forward. To put it simply, we will use what we
learn today to keep FDA accountable, and most importantly, to
make them do their job.
Importance of this task cannot be overstated, considering
that nearly all foreign inspections have been on pause since
the outbreak of COVID-19. Whether this requires more resources
to enhance our domestic manufacturing capabilities, or whether
this requires larger investments to deploy more inspectors
abroad or both, I am committed to ensuring that the FDA has the
right tools, and that it carries out the right policies to
address this crisis.
The health, safety, and welfare of the American people are
at great peril. We have got to strengthen the inspection
programs, particularly in China and India, and reduce the
practice of providing months' notice. I hope it will become an
important tool to help address the inspections issues that have
arisen and that are with COVID-19 and beyond.
So Dr. Denigan-Macauley, I want to, again, express my
appreciation for your participation today. I look forward to
hearing from you about what challenges remain, how we can help
improve the foreign drug inspections program moving forward.
And at this time, let me ask our distinguished ranking
member, my partner, Mr. Fortenberry, if he would like to
provide any opening remarks, and if so--and I presume he
would--I would like to recognize him at this time.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Before I
begin my own remarks, let me commend you for that passionate,
excellent summary of why we are here today. I so appreciate
your leadership on this question and so many others.
This hearing today is about one thing, one thing only: Are
our drugs safe? And the COVID pandemic has shown us that we
have a much-overlooked problem. In the name of global
profiteering, we have enabled the outsourcing of pharmaceutical
production to foreign countries, a significant portion of it to
the very place of origin of the coronavirus in China.
Approximately 75 percent, as was mentioned of active drug
ingredients, and 50 percent of finished drugs on the American
market from ibuprofen to antibiotics, are produced outside of
America. Even if we vigilantly inspect the domestic
manufacturing process, we cannot possibly get a handle on drug
safety when our drugs are sourced from over 150 countries.
There is an inherent and unfair duality, however, in how FDA's
foreign and domestic inspections are carried out. It is my
understanding that FDA inspectors normally conduct surprise
inspections in the United States to ensure that drug companies
are producing medicine in a safe, clean, and responsible
manner.
But as we just heard from our chairman, when it comes to
foreign inspections, the FDA customarily gives companies
advanced notice, often as much as 12 weeks, enabling drug
suppliers plenty of time to clean up their act.
This is counterproductive, and it is wrong. And it creates
an unlevel playing field for companies trying to manufacture
drugs in the United States. Compounding these problems, FDA
inspectors also face obstruction, coercion, and sometimes,
deception in other places.
At the Health and Human Services Inspector General hearing
last year, I asked why so much drug production has moved
overseas. I already knew the primary answer, of course: to
capitalize on low wages and lax environmental safety and labor
standards in other countries.
My fuller intention was to probe whether or not U.S. law
and regulatory structure may perversely encourage offshoring.
These troubling dynamics take on a special urgency, given what
we have gone through this past year with this pandemic. Solving
these issues became easier, it will become easier when we fully
identify and inspect foreign sources of drugs and drug
ingredients. But with the bulk of our foreign drug supply
originating from, again, a country that suppressed news about
the origin, severity, and timing of COVID-19, I am not very
optimistic.
Last year, it needs to be pointed out, that Chairman Bishop
and I worked on a change in the appropriation bill to ensure
that FDA has the power to refuse drugs at our border when the
agency is not granted sufficient access to information about
how medicines are produced in foreign-based facilities. I am
just going to repeat that sentence, Mr. Chairman, because I
think it is very important to highlight.
Chairman Bishop and I worked on a change in last year's
bill, law, to ensure that FDA has the power to refuse drugs at
the border when the agency is not granted sufficient access to
information about how medicines are produced in foreign-based
facilities. It is a powerful tool, and I hope it is utilized
well.
Mr. Chairman, if the pandemic has taught us anything, it is
that ``made in America'' must apply to more than just our
military. America is becoming inordinately dependent on other
countries for the manufacture of many of our pharmaceutical
ingredients and final drug products. I would like to see ``made
in America'' on the prescription bottle. I would certainly feel
better.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to today's hearing.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Fortenberry.
At this time I am pleased to recognize the chairwoman of
the Full Committee of Appropriations, the gentlelady from
Connecticut, Chair Rosa DeLauro.
The Chair. Thank you very, very much, Mr. Chair, and let me
thank you and Ranking Member Fortenberry for holding this very,
very important hearing this morning, and I think it does bear
repeating: I want to thank you both for your leadership in this
area and what you have done to really to give FDA the
authority, if you will, to deny drugs at the border without the
transparency that is required. So thank you for being vigorous
about this oversight. Let me also say a thank you to Dr. Mary
Denigan-Macauley for testifying this morning.
Now, when most Americans take a pill out of a medicine
cabinet, they may not think twice about where the ingredients
in it came from, but as foreign manufacturing of drugs has
grown considerably in recent years, it is now estimated that
around 80 percent of all drug ingredients come from foreign
countries.
Unfortunately, the Food and Drug Administration's foreign
drug inspections program has failed to keep up. As our witness
will testify today, GAO has studied FDA's oversight of the
global pharmaceutical supply chain since 1998, and the results
are not good. GAO has included the FDA on its high-risk series
since 2009. One of the main problems is that FDA gives foreign
drug manufacturers, as has been stated, but not American ones,
advanced notice of inspections, 12 weeks of advanced notice and
that has allowed foreign manufacturers to fabricate or shred
data, use hidden laboratories, or secretly repeat tests before
the FDA inspectors arrived.
By contrast, in unannounced inspections, investigators have
found issues the plants were unable to hide: important
manufacturing records tossed in a trash bin, bird and insect
infestations, even human urine puddled on the floor. Clearly,
that is not a safe or sterile manufacturing area. These shoddy
practices result in drugs with unapproved ingredients, toxic
impurities, and dangerous particulates making their way into
American medicine cabinets.
In 2007, 2008, hundreds, hundreds of Americans died from
contaminated Heparin, an anticoagulant drug manufactured
overseas. In 2018 and 2019, dozens of blood pressure and anti-
ulcer drugs were recalled because they contained more than 200
times the acceptable limit of a known carcinogen. But now,
because of the pandemic, the FDA has stopped nearly all
overseas inspections and, unfortunately, this means the FDA's
work to prevent potentially tainted drugs from entering the
U.S. is even more difficult.
The GAO report was stunning, and that even so, that the FDA
uses alternative inspection tools to maintain some oversight of
drug manufacturing quality, while inspections are paused, and
the tools rely on inspections conducted by foreign regulators.
And requesting and reviewing records and other information and
sampling and testing drugs, FDA has determined that inspections
conducted by certain European regulators are equivalent to and
can be substituted for an FDA inspection.
That is wrong, because other tools provide useful
information, but are not equivalent to what rate of inspection
that we deal with at the FDA. And we also know that the GAO
reported, from fiscal year 2016 to 2018, both foreign and
domestic inspections decreased. Today, we are taking a look;
and, again, I compliment the chair and the ranking member, a
closer look at how FDA's inspections have been impacted by this
pandemic; critically, how we can ensure the FDA has the
resources that it needs to restart and approve its foreign drug
inspections program.
Americans trust and rely on these medicines to take care of
themselves and their families. Many are sick and vulnerable,
and many more are elderly. They should not have to fear whether
the drugs they take could make their symptoms worse or even
kill them. They should be able to trust that unsafe drugs will
never get into their medicine cabinets in the first place.
And with that, I thank Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member
Fortenberry.
And I yield back.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Chairwoman DeLauro. I
normally recognize the full committee Ranking Member, Ms.
Granger, but I don't believe she has joined us as of yet. If
she should join us, we will allow her to give remarks upon her
arrival.
Dr. Denigan-Macauley, welcome. And without objection, your
entire written testimony will be included in the record. I
recognize you now for your statement, which I hope you will
summarize, and then we will proceed with questions. You can
summarize or you can give the entire statement, it is up to
you, but the more time that you leave for questions, I think,
the better. The committee will be able to delve into the issues
surrounding this very, very serious crisis.
So, at this time, I am delighted to recognize Dr. Denigan-
Macauley for your testimony, please, ma'am. And welcome.
Ms. Denigan-Macauley. Thank you, and good morning, Chairman
Bishop, Ranking Member Fortenberry, Chairwoman DeLauro, and
members of the subcommittee. And I am happy to do a summary
rather than read the entire statement.
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss our work on FDA's
foreign drug inspection program. FDA is responsible for
overseeing the safety and effectiveness of drugs marketed in
the United States, regardless of where they are produced.
Today, the majority of drugs destined for the United States are
manufactured overseas. A critical element in FDA's oversight of
these drugs is inspections.
However, since 1998, as you have pointed out, we have
raised concerns about the effectiveness of FDA's oversight of
this increasingly global supply chain, including how few
inspections FDA had conducted overseas, not knowing how many
foreign drug establishments were actually subject to
inspection, and persistent vacancies among investigators who
conducted the inspections.
We also identified unique challenges that influence the
manner in which FDA conducted these inspections overseas,
raising questions about their equivalency to those in the
United States. For example, as you also mentioned, FDA provided
foreign establishments significant notice that an investigator
was coming, compared to no notice in the U.S.
And FDA relied on these establishments for translation
services, raising questions about the accuracy of the
information. In 2009, we added FDA's oversight of medical
products to our high-risk series, citing the agency's inability
to ensure the quality of drugs manufactured overseas. I am
pleased to report that FDA has made some progress over the two
decades.
For example, FDA is gaining a better understanding of which
drug establishments are subject to inspection. The agency has
also increased the number of overseas inspections, and in
fiscal year 2015, for the first time, the number of foreign
inspections surpassed domestic, with 40 percent in India and
China better reflecting where manufacturing is occurring.
While we applaud the progress, challenges remain. For
example, as we learn from investigators, and on our site visits
to India and China just prior to the pandemic, FDA continues to
rely on the establishments for translations, and still provides
up to 3 months advanced notice for most of these, giving
manufacturers the chance to fix problems before an investigator
even arrives.
In addition, investigators have little flexibility to
extend their time at a facility, to follow leads due to back-
to-back inspections, and they are often alone inspecting
massive manufacturing campuses. Further, since its peak in
2016, the number of inspections have generally declined, which
FDA attributed, in part, to inspector vacancies.
Moreover, since March of 2020, citing concerns for the
safety of its employees during the pandemic, FDA has now
largely paused foreign and domestic inspections only conducting
a handful of what the agency deemed mission critical. FDA has
used alternative inspection tools to maintain some oversight of
drug manufacturing quality during this pause. These tools
include relying on inspections conducted by foreign regulators,
reviewing establishment records, and testing drugs at the
border.
While these tools can provide useful information, most do
not substitute for an inspection, and FDA will face a backlog
as it was unable to complete more than 1,000 of its planned
inspections for fiscal year 2020. In January, we recommended
that FDA make plans to address this backlog and assess how
alternative tools can be used to augment or replace
inspections. FDA concurred with both.
The globalization of drug manufacturing presented FDA with
new challenges, many of which have been exacerbated by the
pandemic. While the agency has taken steps to adapt, further
action will be needed to ensure it can continue to fulfill its
oversight responsibilities in the future.
Thank you, Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Fortenberry, and
members of the subcommittee, for holding this important
hearing. This concludes my prepared remarks. I am happy to
respond to any questions you may have.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Bishop [inaudible]. After that, I will recognize
members who were not present at the time the hearing was called
to order. Each member will have 5 minutes in each round, so
please be mindful of your time. At this time, I will yield to
myself for the first round of questions--I will tell you what,
I will defer my questions to the chair of the full committee,
Ms. DeLauro, and I will follow Mr. Fortenberry, who will follow
Ms. DeLauro.
The Chair. Thank you very, very much, Mr. Chairman. And
thank you for your testimony. My understanding, and I think it
is something that the chairman asked about, that the FDA's
process for conducting surveillance inspections rely on risk-
based models. I will just say that I have long been a skeptic
of risk-based models for oversight and inspection, dating back
to my time as chair of this subcommittee, when I opposed the
plans to implement that practice at the Department of
Agriculture.
The central problem to risk-based inspection models is that
the overall model is only as good as the data used to create
that model. And I would note that Congress and the American
public have limited information on FDA's risk-based inspection
model for foreign drug facilities.
A lack of transparency is very concerning to me. We don't
know the proportion of inspections that take place relative to
the overall number of registered foreign facilities. This makes
it difficult to evaluate FDA's overall work in inspecting
foreign drug facilities.
Dr. Denigan-Macauley, what steps would you have the FDA
take in order to increase transparency, not only of how they
determine the basis to conduct risk-based inspection, but also,
to shed more light on foreign inspections overall?
Ms. Denigan-Macauley. Thank you for the question. And you
are absolutely right. The inputs that go into any model,
whether it is a risk-based or one for surveillance on COVID-19,
those inputs are absolutely vital, and the model is only as
good as those inputs. And so, as I had mentioned, FDA does not
have a good understanding of the denominator. They need to know
how many plants need to be inspected.
So without knowing what those manufacturing establishments
are, that is absolutely critical. And in fairness to FDA, it is
a challenge, because a lot of the manufacturing establishments
want to register, even if they don't ship to the United States,
because it looks an appearance of being approved by FDA. So
they do have some challenges ahead of them related to that.
But you are right. There is no reason that they cannot--
they can't share about how they go ahead and select those
models.
The Chair. What can we do, though, as to really an
examination of this risk-based model, what can we do as a
subcommittee, as a Congress, to really deal with turning this
around so that we can get an accurate picture? What is
necessary?
Ms. Denigan-Macauley. Well, as I mentioned, they need to
make sure that they can get the bottom line. We need to know
how many are subject to inspection. Then, they need to actually
be able to go out and get those inspections done and fill those
vacancies so those inspections can be completed. Also, we have,
right now with this backlog, FDA has put the onus on itself to
deem what is mandatory to do, and that mandatory means that
they will go to those plants that have never been inspected or
those plants that haven't been inspected in the last 5 years.
And given the backlog, they may want to go back and
reassess that, and that is part of our recommendation is how
you are going to clear the backlog so that you can hit the
riskiest plants.
The Chair. Thank you. You said that they made some
progress, but as I read the report, it would appear that nine
times out of 10, and maybe that is, you know, a slight
exaggeration, but they don't adhere to the recommendations. So,
given that it appears it falls on deaf ears, so what should we,
again, as the Congress, do to rectify this situation, ensure
that oversight and safety of products--the safety of those
products the public depends on? What kind of regulations? What
kind of oversight? What should we be doing as the Congress and
this subcommittee, to address that issue of not following the
recommendations?
Ms. Denigan-Macauley. I think that sustained attention,
like holding the hearing that you are doing, asking GAO to
continue to do the work to see the progress that they have
made, seeing what steps they are taking to get off the high
risk to address the problems that we found, are all very
critical. And, importantly, as you mentioned, doing unannounced
inspections overseas.
The Chair. High risk, do we need to challenge the FDA on
this continuous, being on a high-risk list since 2009? What
does that say is our responsibility to--go after the FDA? How
can you be on a high-risk list since 2009 on drugs and drug
inspections that are there to save the lives of the American
people?
Ms. Denigan-Macauley. FDA could be more transparent on the
amount of appropriations that they need for the inspections, if
necessary.
The Chair. Well, my time has run out, so I will yield back,
but it seems like we have serious, serious issues with the
oversight and bringing the FDA to task on these issues.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the
ranking member.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
At this time let me recognize Mr. Fortenberry for his
questions in the first round.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman, for
calling this very important hearing, and I appreciated the
comments of our Chair DeLauro as well.
Dr. Denigan-Macauley, thank you for your appearance today.
Let's start out with the simple question that I offered in my
opening statements. Are our drugs safe?
Ms. Denigan-Macauley. So the FDA is well-regarded around
the world, so I think Americans can take comfort in the fact
that we do have one of the best systems in the world.
Mr. Fortenberry. Would you give FDA's performance a grade?
Ms. Denigan-Macauley. It is challenging because our work is
ongoing because it has improved, it is certainly not the
failing grade that we would have given it two decades ago.
Mr. Fortenberry. Let me lean into that a little heavier.
What grade do they get: A, B, C, D, or F? Obviously not F, what
grade would you give them?
Ms. Denigan-Macauley. The fact that inspections are going
down and they have continued oversight problems overseas, I
think, at best, we could say they are at a C, where they are
maintaining their ability to have information overseas, but
significant challenges remain.
Mr. Fortenberry. Okay. So fair enough. I know you are
probably low to categorize things that simply, but I think this
kind of construct helps us understand where we are in order to
get us to where we ought to be.
Our Chair DeLauro leaned into this a little heavily, but I
want to go back to it. What are the three things that the FDA
needs to do to get an A grade? And let me follow up, or you may
want to integrate into your answer, what you referred to
earlier as alternative tools to augment inspections?
Ms. Denigan-Macauley. So, most importantly, they have got
to figure out how to fill their vacancies. Even if you poured
more money at them, I don't think that would solve the problem
because they are having a challenge getting investigators to
even do the work, number one. Also, as we have recommended,
they need to look at these alternative tools and determine how
they can either augment inspections or replace inspections, and
if they need additional authorities, they need to let you know.
Mr. Fortenberry. What are those additional tools? Define
that, please?
Ms. Denigan-Macauley. So, for example, they can do testing
at the border. They have also done document requests. They have
relied on mutual recognition agreements, but they don't know
the extent to all of these tools their ability to actually
substitute for an inspection and if additional authorities are
needed to----
Mr. Fortenberry. Are we doing testing at the border----
Ms. Denigan-Macauley. We are.
Mr. Fortenberry [continuing]. Currently?
Ms. Denigan-Macauley. We are.
Mr. Fortenberry. And now, as I had mentioned in our
statement, Chairman Bishop initiated, and I was fully
supportive of stopping drugs at the border, should we be
concerned about the lack of inspections overseas. I want to
simply highlight that.
Ms. Denigan-Macauley. So they are doing inspections at the
border. Typically, though, because of the huge volume that is
coming in, it is not very many. They simply don't have the
capacity to test everything, and that really only tells you the
quality of the drugs, but it gives you some information.
Mr. Fortenberry. Has the FDA ever considered giving a grade
to companies?
Ms. Denigan-Macauley. It is interesting you raise that
because, of course, on the slaughterhouse's side, they have
discussed being able to do that and posting the bad actors. And
I don't know the extent to which FDA has considered giving a
grade to the bad actors on the drug side.
Mr. Fortenberry. Would you recommend that?
Ms. Denigan-Macauley. Well, it certainly helps enforce
compliance. We haven't done work, but we see that in the
restaurant business. I mean it is right there when you walk in
a restaurant, you can see. It is in daycares, whether they pass
or fail.
Mr. Fortenberry. What do you think about country-of-origin
labeling?
Ms. Denigan-Macauley. So I have not done any recent work on
country-of-origin labeling, so I really can't comment on that.
Mr. Fortenberry. Okay. So let's go back to the previous
question. If companies were given a grade, obviously, the
public would have to have some access to that. How could you
see that unfolding?
Ms. Denigan-Macauley. I am sorry. Could you repeat the
question, again?
Mr. Fortenberry. Yeah. Again, the point of what you were
saying, we post inspection notices at daycare and restaurants,
the same thing applying to companies who--the point of the
question is, obviously, to force companies to be much more
vigilant in their--basically, they are attracting, or
invitation, openness to the FDA inspections so that it is
consistent with their assurance that they need to give the
public and, therefore, their market that they are safe and
efficacious. So how could those grades basically be posted?
Ms. Denigan-Macauley. Well, I mean, it is certainly a very
valuable tool for the consumer. So, imagine if the consumer
could look and see where all of their ingredients on their drug
have come from. The problem is, even if you know where that
finished drug came from, we don't have enough information
knowing where all the different individual ingredients are
coming from.
So country-of-origin labeling for a drug would be extremely
challenging to do, but, of course, if you have the ability and
you have the political ability to do it, it would give the
consumer better information.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I yield back.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much. I yield to myself for 5
minutes.
Dr. Denigan, let me ask you: Obviously, the FDA is vastly
understaffed and under-resourced when it comes to foreign
inspections versus domestic inspections. And while FDA
publishes annual data on drug and device inspections, the
report is limited, doesn't contain detail breakdowns assuring
the number of inspections by centers, or by domestic versus
foreign.
Do you have any data on the number of foreign drug
inspectors compared to domestic drug inspectors and the
relative budgets of the two activities? And your previous GAO
reports have noted the challenges that FDA has continued to
have filling vacancies, and hiring additional staff to conduct
that foreign inspection. The FDA released a strategic workforce
development plan in 2016 to help recruit and train foreign
office staff, but high vacancies haven't improved very much
since 2016.
Additionally, in June 2020, FDA testified that it intended
to fill all investigative vacancies in 2020, but as of December
2020, investigative vacancies remained. I recognize that
foreign inspections present unique bureaucratic and procedural
challenges, but it seems that hiring, training, and developing
new investigators may not really be a priority at FDA.
Do you believe that FDA is accurately assessing and
prioritizing its foreign inspection needs?
Ms. Denigan-Macauley. So that is the basis of our ongoing
work. We agree it is absolutely critical that they pay
attention and have sustained attention and make it a priority.
We will say that on our high-risk list, leadership commitment
has been a priority. They have reorganized to better address
the threat in how they can do the inspections overseas better.
They have also developed strategic plans in the workforce
planning, but something isn't quite working and that is what we
are still trying to figure out, because there are still
vacancies year after year. And they are not a foreign-service
department. We want to find out what they are doing to help
overcome these very challenging things that they are doing.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. In your testimony, you discuss some
troubling reports, and we have seen news reports that FDA
investigators have expressed concerns that FDA has downgraded
some of the inspection reports from the most serious
assessments being official action indicated to the less serious
classification of voluntary action indicated.
Is there any hard data on this, or any way to identify the
instances where this has occurred, and how widespread is this
feeling among investigators? I know we have heard from some
whistleblowers, but do you have any hard data on this?
Ms. Denigan-Macauley. Yeah. So that is also part of our
ongoing work. We definitely heard some of the concerns related
to downgrades when we were in China and in India, and from
other investigators. So we continue to look in this. We did
report in 1998 that we found the FDA management frequently
downgraded, and FDA themselves testified in June of last year
that they have better aligned CETA and ORA reviews, the FDA
process for reviewing the downgrades to help better align.
So before they had a--I think that they are now, they said,
at 73 percent agreement on the classification versus before it
was only 50 percent agreement. So they are working on it and we
are continuing to see how much of a problem it continues to be.
Mr. Bishop. Okay. We provided, in the last bill, $3.5
million, to increase short notice, unannounced inspections in
China and India. What specific activities do you recommend that
FDA focus on when implementing these funding, and will it
require hiring more staff?
Ms. Denigan-Macauley. Yeah. So first of all, they have to
fill the vacancies that they have, as we have mentioned, and it
could require hiring more staff. Right now, all inspections,
because of the pandemic, whether domestic or overseas, are
doing full announcements, meaning that they give them the
advanced notice.
So, number one, we need to resume doing unannounced
inspections here in the United States. We need to, if we are
going to do it overseas, determine how that is going to be
implemented, and FDA says that they need metrics as well to be
able to do that. But, importantly, they also need to provide
translators. Even if you have an unannounced inspection, and
you are relying on that establishment for the translations,
that is not acceptable.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much. My time has now expired.
I am pleased to recognize Mr. Valadao for any questions
that he might have at this time.
Mr. Valadao. Thank you, Chair. Thank you for testifying
today in front of the committee. Glad you were able to
[inaudible]. The reason for this testimony, I thought it was
concerning the FDA would supply foreign manufacturers with
those heads-up before inspections. Notifications to
manufacturers seem to defeat the purpose of the exercise which
is to inspect the facility as is. To take a snapshot from the
facility in a moment in time. The report finding [inaudible]
For the safety of its staff and the manufacturer. One of the
purposes of the preannouncement would be [inaudible] How the
advance notification is related to the pandemic and how this
action will help [inaudible] Proper inspections.
Ms. Denigan-Macauley. So--apologies. I had a little trouble
hearing you. If you could repeat the question, again, just the
question. I got the gist of what you were talking about.
Mr. Valadao [audio malfunction]. I assume there's got to be
a better reason for this [inaudible] Twelve weeks
preannouncement of an inspection?
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Valadao, we are having great difficulty
with your audio. I will ask the staff to consult with you and
your staff from the technology, and we will reserve your time
and come back to you when we can repair your audio. It is very
difficult for all of us to hear, and we would love to hear your
questions, because I know that they are very insightful.
Mr. Pocan.
Mr. Pocan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate it. And
thanks for this hearing, and thank you very much, Dr. Denigan-
Macauley, for being here. Let me try to follow up on something
our chairman had asked. He started talking about domestic
versus foreign inspections, and do you have a better idea of
numbers on that?
Because, I was just looking at a stat, if I have got this
right, 58 percent of the inspections were foreign facilities,
but it sounds like there is a greater percent of facilities
overseas than in the U.S. So does that mean that we are
actually inspecting our domestic companies more than the
foreign companies, which I think most people would want to make
sure that they are also being inspected more aggressively?
Ms. Denigan-Macauley. Apologies. Trouble with the unmute
button. So I don't have the data in front of me to know exactly
how many of the manufacturing establishments are here versus
overseas. We have about 4,200 total that we think, and, if I
recall correctly--yeah. I don't want to go there. I don't know.
But I will get that for you.
But, importantly, before we were really only conducting the
inspections here in the United States, and that is because the
law required that they go to the U.S. manufacturers every 2
years, and with the limited resources, it basically meant there
were none left over to be able to go overseas.
And so now, at least they are changing the way that they do
their inspections and the model says, regardless of your
foreign, or regardless of your domestic, if you have never been
inspected or you haven't been inspected in the last 5 years,
you are our top priority because we don't know what risks. You
could be a no-risk. We just don't know. And then from there,
they take that same pool, domestic or foreign, and they say,
okay, now with whatever resources are left over, we will go
ahead and inspect those. So the proportion of how they are
doing it is much better today.
Mr. Pocan. Got you. I really like Mr. Fortenberry's
suggestion of the grading, quite honestly, because, I think,
people would like to know that. I also am pretty amenable to a
country of origin as well. I think that would help people,
because, I think, often people are concerned, especially
because of the last year, it has really been a spotlight on
this. The New York Times article today, I think, was pretty
damning, based on your report, and we appreciate the work that
you have done on that.
I don't understand the 12 weeks of advanced notice either.
That doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. It sounds like you
said they are going to be bringing back surprise inspections,
but, you know, the 12 weeks seems to give people an enormous
amount of time to fix errors rather than really get the input
that we need.
Ms. Denigan-Macauley. When we asked FDA about why they had
to give the 12 weeks, and they said that logistically it is so
challenging to travel overseas and we certainly understand
those logistics, if any of you have tried to go to remote areas
of India, it is very challenging, but we also would contend
that you can use the State Department to help set that up so
that you don't flag it for the actual company.
Mr. Pocan. Especially since there is certain countries
where a lot of this is done, you would think you would almost
have an easy footprint already in place in order to inspect, so
you would already have that system set up, especially as many
years as the FDA should have been able to do this.
In the article, one of the things that really stood out
was, they said, that because of this backlog inspections, there
could be surges of medicines. I know they explicitly talked
about a drug, and I apologize I am not looking at the screen. I
am trying to find it, a cancer treatment drug, what did you
find along those lines?
Ms. Denigan-Macauley. So for our overseas inspections, we
haven't looked specifically at what shortages they may have
caused, but that is a concern. If they can't preapprove some of
the drugs--for example, I think that is what The New York Times
article was talking about or manufacturers have critical drugs
such as the cancer-related chemotherapy drugs, then they are
not going to be able to bring them to market in a timely
matter. So shortages are a concern that we will continue to
keep our eyes on.
Mr. Pocan. Thank you. Well, I think, Mr. Chairman, coming
out of this, it is interesting, it seems to be some good
bipartisan suggestions on what we can do to improve this. It
sounds like for years they haven't been maybe having the best
practices that have been kind of unexplainable, and I think,
you know, perhaps if there is some efforts we can do in this
year's appropriation process, I would be encouraged to work
with others on both sides of the aisle. Again, I think the
grading idea is one that, I think, is especially strong.
So I yield back.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Pocan.
At this time, I would like to return to Mr. Valadao, if we
can, to let him resume, if we have his technical issues
resolved. Mr. Valadao, you are recognized----
Mr. Valadao. Is it better now?
Mr. Bishop [continuing]. For 4 minutes.
Mr. Valadao. Can you hear me better now, or no?
Mr. Bishop. Yes, we can.
Mr. Valadao. Perfect. So the question was basically on the
12-week preannouncement for inspections. Obviously, these
facilities are manufacturing drugs that we desperately need,
and the fact that we are giving a lot of these manufacturers a
12-week preannouncement, I think allows them the opportunity to
maybe hide some things that we probably should know about their
manufacturing process.
Ms. Denigan-Macauley. Yeah. And what I would add to that is
that FDA would say that they want to make sure that the
establishment is going to be open, and that people are going to
be there and that the documents are ready. But, again, that is
not what we do here in the United States and so we would want
that equivalency.
Mr. Valadao. All right. And then in FDA's fiscal year 2021
appropriation amount of $3.5 million was intended to be used
for foreign, unannounced drug inspection pilots. As you
reference in your testimony just last month, FDA officials
informed you that they would be pronouncing all domestic and
foreign inspections. Can you confirm whether or not FDA is
using funds meant for unannounced inspections instead of
preannounced inspections?
Those sound like two very different things to me, and I am
concerned about how they are using or potentially misusing
these funds.
Ms. Denigan-Macauley. So that is part of our ongoing work.
So I don't have a direct answer, other than to say that right
now, they are not doing any--everything is preannounced because
of the concern for the safety and they have not decided yet
when they are going to go back. So I would anticipate that none
of the funds are being used at this time.
Mr. Valadao. All right. I am going to yield back the rest
of my time right now, Mr. Chairman.
I am yielding back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. The staff advised me who is next in
the queue. I believe it is on the Democrat side. Okay. Mr.
Newhouse.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Can you hear me
okay? I appreciate that, and I am juggling another meeting, so
I apologize for being distracted.
Thank you, Director Denigan-Macauley. Appreciate your
testimony today in joining us about this very important
subject. Just--could you help those of us and people that may
be listening understand how critical this issue is? For
instance, not that I did, but say I had taken an ibuprofen this
morning just to help with some of those aches and pains in the
morning. Tell me where those pills likely came from, and have
they been inspected? Do I have confidence that they are what
they should be?
Ms. Denigan-Macauley. So I think--I am a consumer as well,
and when I go and take a pill, I don't look to see where it is
manufactured; I just assume it is going to be safe. Whether it
is a generic or a brand name drug, I make the assumption that
it is going to be safe. And so the FDA has very, very important
responsibility to ensure the safety of those. I think that
drugs, like food, most people would be surprised to know that
very few can actually be inspected just because of the huge
volume and in the increase of the globalization.
So FDA really has taken on a risk-based approach to ensure
that they are safe and thankfully, since Heparin, we haven't
had a major where a plant hasn't been inspected, and then a
drug got to the United States and killed people.
Mr. Newhouse. Many of those over-the-counter medications do
come from out of the country, right?
Ms. Denigan-Macauley. Yes.
Mr. Newhouse. Okay. Good. So you talked about the process,
and in your position from the GAO, making sure things are
happening. One of the challenges, or several challenges,
including travel, language, vacancies, are you seeing problems
with recruitment for new inspectors?
Ms. Denigan-Macauley. Yes. So the FDA has been challenged,
and has had vacancies really since the beginning they have done
with the foreign offices, but what is important is that the
pool of investigators come from the domestic base, and they
have to have experience before they can then go overseas. And
so even if they were to fill all of the vacancies today, it is
going to be a couple of years before they are even ready to
begin to consider doing the overseas inspections.
Mr. Newhouse. So that leads me to another question then, is
there any way to speed up that timeline, shorten that 2- to 3-
year, I guess, it is a training period, or whatever it is that
they are doing? Are there recommendations that you can bring to
FDA to not compromise or lessen the quality of the inspections,
but to help speed up that process?
Ms. Denigan-Macauley. Yeah. So that is part of what our
ongoing review is about. So, for example, just hypothetically,
I mean, could you take someone who is newer but could speak
Mandarin, for example, to go over to China and have virtual
inspections--have someone else participate virtually from home
so that that individualis, number one, not alone, and then has
the microbiologist, or whatever the expertise is that they need
there. So those are the kinds of things that we are looking at
to see how creatively are they thinking.
Mr. Newhouse. Okay. Okay. Well, again, I appreciate very
much your input here and it is an important topic. And we will
continue to pay attention and listen to the results that you
come up with. And, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for
holding this hearing.
And I will yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Newhouse.
At this time, I am delighted to recognize the gentlelady
from Illinois, Ms. Underwood.
Ms. Underwood, you are recognized for your questions.
Ms. Underwood. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you
to Dr. Denigan-Macauley for being here. As of May 2020, nearly
three quarters of facilities producing active pharmaceutical
ingredients for the U.S. market were located outside of the
United States. That means that every day, American lives depend
on the ability of the FDA to carry out rigorous foreign drug
inspections. Like so many Federal agencies, the FDA has been
forced to alter its standard operating procedures over the
course of the past year. For the foreign drug inspection
program, this means almost all facility inspections have been
suspended.
In place of inspections of foreign manufacturers, FDA is
using its other tools to inspect the safety of the U.S. drug
supplies. Specifically, in a June 2020 testimony, FDA officials
described tools such as denying entry of unsafe products into
the U.S., physical examinations, or product sampling at our
borders, reviewing a firm's previous compliance history using
information sharing from foreign governments with whom FDA has
existing agreements and requesting records in advance, or in
lieu of on-site drug inspections.
Dr. Denigan-Macauley, in your June 2020 testimony before
the Senate Finance Committee, you stated that, quote, ``The
lack of foreign inspections removes a critical source of
information about the quality of drugs manufactured for U.S.
market,'' end quote. Can you describe the elements of foreign
inspections that are critical to ensuring the safety of our
Nation's drug supply, but cannot be fulfilled through
alternative tools, like the ones FDA officials describe in
their testimony?
Ms. Denigan-Macauley. Yes. So part of the work that we have
done, we have not only read all of the laws and regulations,
but we have actually gone over and shadowed and talked to the
FDA investigators to see what exactly it is they do.
And it is a daunting job, and it is not something that can
just be deemed from a document review. They walk in, for
example, and you look at just the overall manufacturing plant.
Do the employees wash their hands, for example, when they use
the lavatory? Do they actually don the proper PPE? Are there--I
remember looking specifically, if you see a mouse bait or a
rattrap inside a manufacturing establishment, you are going to
be worried. Why is that? Why is it if you can see, for example,
bird poop and anything like that. Whether it is a food
establishment, a drug establishment, they are supposed to be
manufacturing, particularly for drugs, under good manufacturing
quality.
So they are there to check all of those things and not just
look at the data, the temperature of the documents.
Ms. Underwood. Yes, showing up and being there is
important.
The COVID-19 pandemic has unquestionably created new and
anticipated challenges for the FDA's Foreign Drug Inspections
Program, but many of the most serious challenges that Dr.
Denigan-Macauley identified in her testimony predated the
pandemic. For example, as of December 2019, the Food and Drug
Administration had 190 investigators in the U.S. who conduct
the majority of foreign inspections, but an additional 58
positions were vacant.
Dr. Denigan-Macauley testified that the FDA was in the
process of filling 26 of those vacancies but also noted that it
could take, quote, ``2 to 3 years before new staff are
experienced enough to conduct foreign inspections,'' end quote.
Of course, with postponed foreign and domestic surveillance
facility inspections over the past year, new staff might have
missed opportunities to gain necessary experience.
Dr. Denigan-Macauley, can you provide an update on staffing
shortages within the FDA's Foreign Drug Inspections program,
including a description of how the COVID-19 pandemic might have
exacerbated existing workforce challenges?
Ms. Denigan-Macauley. Yeah. And again, that is something
that we continue to work on. We do have serious concerns that
the pandemic will exacerbate any kind of fulfilling of those
vacancies, particularly for those working in the foreign
offices because at lot of individuals are now fearful of
traveling and being stationed in India and China.
So that is something that we are looking at. We do know
that the vacancies continue, and we will certainly be reporting
out on where they stand on that.
Ms. Underwood. Well, I certainly look forward to continuing
the critical work of our subcommittee to ensure that the
Foreign Drug Inspections Program is delivering the results that
the American people depend on.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to our witness.
And I yield back.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Ms. Underwood.
At this time I am delighted to yield to the former chair of
this subcommittee, the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Robert
Aderholt.
Mr. Aderholt.
Mr. Aderholt. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is good to
be with the committee today virtually.
And I just wanted to follow up on some--we had talked a
little bit about the postponed inspections and the impact, and
I want to focus a little bit more on the impact. In your
testimony, as it has been mentioned, you state that FDA was
unable to complete more than a thousand of its planned fiscal
year 2020 inspections, a 60 percent increase in foreign
inspections and will likely face a backlog for inspections in
future years.
My question is, could you generally tell us, regarding
these postponed inspections, what that means for the real
world, for companies with potential products when FDA isn't
able to inspect their facilities?
Ms. Denigan-Macauley. Yeah. So it could have an impact on
the pre-approvals for new drugs. Antimicrobial resistance is a
concern. Being able to ensure that we have new drugs entering
the market is absolutely critical. We have new drugs that are
entering the market also for COVID and longer term down the
road, so that would be important, as well as it has an impact
on ensuring that the drugs already out there are safe, and we
want to ensure they continue to be safe. So getting rid of the
backlog is very critical.
Mr. Aderholt. And could you talk a little bit more about
what your understanding of FDA's plan is to address the
backlog?
Ms. Denigan-Macauley. So they haven't given us--they agreed
with our recommendation that they need to assess--in July they
are going to assess how they are going to do the next round,
next year's inspections. And so they agree that they would take
a look at it, understand if any the alternative tools can be
further expanded to help address that backlog, and also if they
can increase their hiring, then that will also help to reduce
the backlog as well. But as it stands right now, we remain very
concerned that they are not going to have additional resources
to be able to reduce that backlog. So perhaps they have to come
up with a different way of looking at what they consider the
most important ones to get done first to ensure the safety of
our supply.
Mr. Aderholt. And your testimony states that as of November
2020, FDA officials told us that the agency had not experienced
any significant affect on approval decisions due to the COVID-
19 inspection polls. Did GAO speak with industry
representatives about the impact of FDA's inspection polls on
these approval decisions?
Ms. Denigan-Macauley. So we did. We spoke with associations
representing these manufacturers, and they said that while it
is true that the impact may not be felt immediately because the
inspections for pre-approvals are done several months prior, as
the pandemic goes on, it is going to have more and more of an
impact as we go forward.
Mr. Aderholt. Did the industry representatives that GAO
spoke with have the same view as the FDA did?
Ms. Denigan-Macauley. They had the same view that GAO did,
that there will be an impact as the pandemic goes along, if I
am understanding correctly.
Mr. Aderholt. Okay. And then the committee approved a $5
million increase in fiscal year 2016 and then another $2.5
million in fiscal year 2017 for high-risk inspections. Part of
this increase went toward a process to discover the real
inventory of companies manufacturing drugs and other products
overseas, in particular in China and India. Firms are supposed
to register with the FDA, but many are not, were not, and were
not registering at all.
Can you tell us about the FDA's current inventory of these
companies and the basis of their surveillance and their
inspection program? And has that improved at all?
Ms. Denigan-Macauley. Yes. So, fortunately, we have seen an
improvement in what they call their baseline catalog of
understanding which establishments, you know, should be
registered and need to be inspected. They have used through a
contracting process, they have been able to identify which
companies are real. I mean, literally you need someone to
either go knock on the door, so some of the foreign drug
inspectors over in the foreign offices, for example, in China,
they have been helping to validate whether or not a company is
real or they can do it through a contracting company that has
other technical, electronic ways of verifying the whereabouts.
So it has gotten better.
Mr. Aderholt. In your opinion, does additional funding need
to be--should there be additional funding and, you know, just
what are your thoughts, input on that would be?
Ms. Denigan-Macauley. I don't have further information at
this time. It is something that we continue to look at on the
catalog denominator and knowing if they have a sufficient----
Mr. Aderholt. All right. I think my time is up, so thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Aderholt.
At this time I am happy to recognize the co-chair of the
Steering and Policy Committee and the chair of the Foreign Ops
Subcommittee of our Appropriation Committee, the gentlelady
from California, Ms. Barbara Lee.
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
this hearing, very important hearing to get this information
out to the public; so many layers to unpeel with this.
Dr. Denigan-Macauley, thank you so much for your testimony
and for being here. I want to ask you about the impact of the
backlogs on people living with HIV. You know, although the
United States is expected to see an increase in the number of
generic antiretroviral drugs, they continue to come off patent,
and there are barriers right now in terms of access and their
availability on the market. Only a small percentage of people
living with are vulnerable to HIV are dependent on generic ARV
drug products manufactured internationally. And so now with the
growing robust generic competition, the percentage of generic
ARV drug products manufactured internationally, that is really
expected to grow in the coming months, but potentially not if
the inspection bottlenecks delay the entry of these generic
drugs.
Biomedical interventions, including generic ARVs, are
providing consumers with more options and really spurring
competition in this overall process which may ultimately lead,
may ultimately lead to the reducing of new HIV diagnoses in the
U.S.
So I just wanted to ask you about the potential impact of
the inspection backlog on emerging generic drug markets for
diseases that have historically required the use of high-
branded prescription drugs, including specifically the HIV
treatment and prevention drugs.
Ms. Denigan-Macauley. Yes. While I don't have information
specific to HIV, what I can tell you is that the backlog would
include for pre-approvals, for any kind of a new drug, whether
it is a brand name drug or a generic, so the concern is very
real. However, the one good news about pre-approvals is that
for some circumstances, for example, FDA could determine that
without an inspection that they would be able to approve that
drug if, for example, there is a need, if they have had a good
inspection history, another regulator has recently been there
that FDA has a mutual recognition agreement with. So there are
some cases, but for the vast majority, they would be in the
same boat and would be part of the backlog.
Ms. Lee. Let me just ask you on virtual inspections. This
is very intriguing to me. How do we make sure that the virtual
inspections are quality? And what processes are you
establishing so that these virtual inspections don't really
compromise the safety and efficacy of the drugs?
Ms. Denigan-Macauley. Yes. Well, it is a good question
because I think the first thing the FDA needs to do is to find
what a virtual inspection is. At the moment there is not even
an agreement. A virtual inspection right now could be defined
as, well, I am reviewing records. And another company may say,
well--another regulator may say a virtual inspection is
actually using a camera and going in.
So I would hope, and as our work continues, looking as FDA
does their assessment on the other tools, you know, what are
other regulators doing. They are not the only regulators in the
world, and they can even think outside the box and not just
look at drugs. You know, you have regulators regulating a lot
of different things and how are they continuing to do their
work in light of the pandemic with virtual inspections.
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much.
Thank you so much more this hearing, Mr. Chairman. It is so
important.
Thank you, Dr. Denigan-Macauley, for your responses.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Ms. Lee.
At this time I am happy to recognize Dr. Andy Harris of
Maryland.
Mr. Harris. Thank you very much, and thank you for an
important topic.
Let me talk a little bit about China because China is one
of the largest manufacturers of pharmaceuticals. And is it my
impression, do you know, are most of the large pharmaceutical
companies in China State-owned enterprises?
Ms. Denigan-Macauley. I don't know that.
Mr. Harris. Okay. Well, I know Sinopharm is and I know a
couple of others are, and that gives me a great deal of concern
because, obviously, at least a couple of times in the past,
there have been issues about the Chinese government issuing
travel visas to our inspectors who want to go to China. And,
obviously, a State-owned enterprise where the State controls
travel visas, you know, makes this an obvious conflict of
interest.
Could you comment, what is the state right now? Because I
have talked to an FDA inspector who is very concerned about our
access in general to Chinese facilities. And, of course, it
would start with the visa process. Is that an issue now about
Chinese travel visas?
Ms. Denigan-Macauley. Yes. So we did look at this
extensively when we were in China a few years ago on the food
side. There was a lot of concern. First of all, all of the
investigators used to have various offices throughout China,
and not only were they unable to get the visas, but then they
made all of the investigators move up to Beijing so they are
centrally located.
So there have been some concerns in China. I know that
actually the President had to step in and help with that visa
issue over in China. I believe that the situation has been
resolved, but I have not taken a deeper dive to know where we
stand on that today. But visas, I mean, it certainly is a way
of controlling who is in and who is out.
Mr. Harris. Now, beyond visas, my understanding is that we
give more advance notice for foreign inspections than we do
domestic inspections in general, and I understand sometimes it
is getting people to the country, but that creates--to me that
creates kind of a double standard. And as we try to move
pharmaceutical production back into the United States, you
know, that would seem to make it much easier to do production
overseas. What is your impression? I mean, first of all, is
that true in general, that the foreign inspections are
announced further in advance? And if that is, how do we level
the playing field as we go to bring some of that manufacturing
back to the United States?
Ms. Denigan-Macauley. So absent pre-pandemic and now all of
the inspections are preannounced, both at U.S. and overseas,
for the safety. But pre-pandemic and hopefully going forward,
the idea is to go back to more of a normal state and not
preannounce in the United States.
We have had long-standing concerns about the
preannouncement. Giving 3 months' notice is just not
acceptable, and it does exactly what you are saying. It makes
them non-equivalent. So why would you want to move your
manufacturing to the United States where it is more expensive,
you have more environmental regulations, you have more
scrutiny, more oversight here in the U.S. than you do overseas.
Mr. Harris. So what is the potential solution to that? I
mean, I don't know how we get around that. Or do we just admit
that, well, you know, this is not going to be a level playing
field and maybe the safety of drugs being imported from a
country like China are just not going to be as safe?
Ms. Denigan-Macauley. Well, we can't control what the
worker is paid overseas. That is for one. But what we can do is
FDA is looking at what they call advance manufacturing, to be
smarter about the way we manufacture, to have a shorter
manufacturing process, which clearly would then reduce the
total cost. It would reduce the environmental footprint, which
would bring down EPA regulations.
And so there are some things that FDA is looking at that we
also have ongoing work, how can we stabilize our medical supply
chain and how can part of that be bringing some of that
manufacturing home.
Mr. Harris. So you mentioned that during COVID that in some
foreign countries we kind of depend on the local regulators in
some areas. So my particular question in China is, did we
depend upon Chinese regulators to provide some of the
inspection? And, again, since these Chinese regulators are
State regulators and these Chinese companies are State-owned
enterprises, is that an issue when we look to deeming local
regulation equivalent to an FDA regulation?
Ms. Denigan-Macauley. So the only regulators that can be
deemed equivalent to the United States are 28 regulators in the
European Union, and the only expansion that they have done of
that is to allow them to not just do inspections in Europe, but
then other countries. So if they happen to do an inspection in
China that is approved European, during the pandemic, they are
allowing that under certain circumstances.
Mr. Harris. Okay. So we do not allow the Chinese State
inspectors to substitute, great.
Okay. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Dr. Harris.
At this time I am happy to recognize the gentlelady from
Minnesota, the chair of the Defense Subcommittee of
Appropriations, Ms. Betty McCollum.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
There has been a lot of talk about 12-week review, 1-week
review notice before an inspection. Having worked in the
private sector at a large company, Sears Roebuck, we would have
people come in, quote/unquote, from the tower from Chicago. I
tell you, the more advance notice, the more we did to get
ready.
And so when anybody came in from the tower, or even our
region, to look at the work that we were doing in the store,
whether it was the restroom, the stockroom or the floor, it
looked radically different than it did day to day. So any
advance notice really changes the character of what goes on in
any facility in one day. It included us dusting the top of
refrigerators, something we never did unless we knew we had
company coming.
We have talked a lot about drugs and foreign inspections,
but I want to ask you some other questions because you have
been also asked about food. Cosmetic products made overseas are
supposed to have the same regulatory standards of those made in
the United States, and we could get into even how those are
inspected here at home and the standards that we have.
But the FDA has very limited resources in doing any of the
cosmetic inspections. In fact, a letter from 2017 from the FDA
to the Energy and Commerce Chair, Frank Pallone, states that
2.9 million cosmetic products imported in fiscal year 2016, the
most recent year we have data for, was under 1 percent. Under 1
percent were physically inspected. Of those products that were
physically inspected, 15 percent had adverse findings; so 1
percent of the product, 15 percent had adverse findings.
The FDA, as an organization, has released consumer warnings
in the past, including for the dangers of mercury and skin-
lightening products, an issue that is of intense discussion
right now in my district, especially for young women of color
who have taken leadership on this issue. But many of those have
purchased even over the internet. So ensuring that products
come to the U.S. are made in State facilities and they are safe
is becoming more difficult.
And I just want to, for the committee, remind--we sometimes
forget that the skin is the largest organ in our body, and
everything that we put on our skin is absorbed into our system,
and it can affect our health, not only from skin irritation,
but from liver, from all kinds of neurological--I won't get
into all of the problems it could cause because I will run out
of time to get an answer; but it is really important that we
address this.
So as we are looking at inspections and more and more
products now coming from China, can you enlighten us with any
information you might have as to how cosmetics become involved,
especially some of the skin-lightning creams and others that we
know have had recalls and have had tremendous effects on
people's health?
Thank you.
Ms. Denigan-Macauley. Unfortunately, I don't have any
recent work the GAO has done on cosmetics, but I do know that
FDA, as you had mentioned, has an inspection program of the
cosmetic manufacturers; but it is far fewer than we do for
drugs, and they are mostly domestic. They are not looking at
overseas. And cosmetics, I assume, would be increasingly
global, just like the drug supply. So, for example, in 2019,
they only conducted 73 domestic and two foreign.
Ms. McCollum. Wow. Well, we will leave it at that.
Mr. Chair, I know Ms. Meng and I have talked about this
before, and I am sure there are others on the committee on both
sides of the aisle who would like to work with us on this.
But, Mr. Chair, with your leadership I would like to
spotlight this and figure out how we can work together to make
sure that products that we put on our largest organ, our skin,
is safe for consumption, especially for the young women who are
being marketed to.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. And we certainly look forward to
working with you collaboratively on that.
At this time, still in our first round, I recognize the
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Cuellar.
Mr. Cuellar. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much, and to the
ranking member, both of you all, thank you so much for holding
this meeting, and thank you again to our witness for being
here.
I want to follow up on whether we have enough people at the
border to do the testing by FDA. I will give you one example of
my hometown of Laredo. We handle 16,000 trailers a day, every
single day. We also have about 20-something trains a day that
come in, and we want to make sure that we have enough
inspectors at the border and to make sure we have the right
policy.
Let me give you one example, hand sanitizers. And we know
there has been a problem with hand sanitizers. The problem has
been that FDA, as those hand sanitizers come in, the custom
brokers--those are the people that handle the paperwork for the
shipper and for the person that wants to buy it--they get down
to the border, for example, and then they are told by FDA, ah,
can't bring them in. So then the shipper doesn't want to deal
with them. The person that was going to buy them doesn't want
to deal with them. So the broker who is in the middle ends up
with this product.
And then you have local landfills that don't want to accept
this flammable product for destruction, and then they have to
send this, at the cost of a custom broker who had nothing to do
with this, except he is the one who deals with the paperwork,
that then has to go through, you know, sometimes, you know,
millions of dollars for the destruction.
So what these folks are asking is why can't FDA not allow
the importers to just return the products back to the country
it was manufactured so they can be destroyed there, instead of
you letting the middle person, the custom broker, handle this
cost because nobody wants it at that time.
So we are trying to find processes to, one, make sure we
have enough FDA inspectors and then, if there is an issue, that
you don't burden the American business with the cost when it
should be on them.
So I don't know, Ms. Macauley, that is too much of a very
specific question, but it happens in a place like Laredo where
we are handling 16,000 trailers a day.
Ms. Denigan-Macauley. Yes. The border issue is very
complex, and GAO would be happy to work with you if you would
like for us to do work in that particular area. I have visited
your Laredo border, and, you know, hats off to the inspectors
and working with CBP to be able to do what they do. It is quite
challenging. So we would be happy to work with you.
Mr. Cuellar. Yes, thank you, if we can do that.
And the other thing, if you could also work with me, is
somebody brought up the question about, I think it was
Chairwoman Lee that talked about virtual inspections, because
we know that there is an issue with language, and there are
times where we have to depend on the company to translate. They
will get some English-speaking person to translate, and then if
you have to translate--interpret it. Then if you have to
translate documents, that makes it more interesting when you
are depending on the establishment to do that interpretation
and translation.
So what I am asking on the virtual, you know, there is
telemedicine where doctors actually can look at x-rays and look
at a lot of things to treat a patient. There has got to be
technology out there on the virtual. And if you all can start
looking at some things that we can use--I would rather have
inspectors there. I would rather not have any problems with any
visas. I would rather have the right translator there; but if
doctors can do telemedicine, I am sure we can do some
inspections, to an extent, on that.
So I would like to follow up with you at a later time, and
I appreciate it, especially the issue at the border because
16,000 trailers a day is something we have got to handle pretty
quickly on that.
So appreciate it if we can follow up on that, and we really
appreciate the good work that you all do and the men and women
at the border that deal with this every single day.
Ms. Denigan-Macauley. Sure. Happy to.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you so much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Cuellar.
For our last member in the first round, I would like to
recognize the gentlelady from New York, Ms. Meng.
Ms. Meng, you are now recognized.
Ms. Meng. Thank you, Chairman Bishop, and thank you to Dr.
Denigan-Macauley for being here today and for your important
work.
Two things: One, I did want to follow up and support the
questions and concerns of Ms. McCollum on the importance of
more and transparent cosmetic inspections and wanted to add to
that products such as feminine hygiene products and food
additives, chemicals, colorants in foods produced for the
United States. We had report language last year asking the FDA
to help establish good manufacturing practices for cosmetics,
for example. So just wanted to reiterate what Ms. McCollum has
discussed already.
And then my other comment, question is also about
recruiting. I wanted to know what efforts and how the FDA
recruits its multilingual inspectors. I know we discussed
already translation, translators and interpreters that are used
oftentimes and provided for by the facility. But just in
general, how is recruitment done? What are the top languages
that are needed?
And if there are maybe potential ways that we can work
further with other agencies, you know, you mentioned the State
Department in relation to travel for inspections, but are there
any types of collaborations that we can make with other
agencies even? And, you know, how can we just improve that
recruiting process specifically for multilingual inspectors.
Ms. Denigan-Macauley. Yes. So the recruitment process is
challenging for FDA because, in the pecking order basically,
the State Department is going to have a precedence. And so
there are language classes that they can take, but they are not
going to have the first priority. There is security training
that they need to take, but they don't get the first priority.
And so I don't know the exact number of investigators that they
would hire with the language ability.
To be honest, we are looking at that. I am not sure that
that would even be a requirement. That is not their priority.
Their priority is ensuring that they have the ability to do the
inspections that are necessary so they have to have those
microbiology skill sets, for example.
The other issue is that they can rely, for the few
inspectors that are stationed at the China office, for example,
and over in India, they do have local staff that can help them
with some interpretation and language skills so that they are
not having to rely on a translation app.
I mean, we heard inspectors saying that, you know, the
translator that the company brought wasn't very good, and I
resorted to using my app on my phone. That is just
unacceptable. It really is.
The other thing is that FDA, if they don't have the
resources or the ability to hire those with the language
skills, there are other models that are out there. For example,
the European regulators in China come up with a list and they
say, okay, here is our list of inspectors--excuse me,
translators that we approve. Company A, you can pick from this
list and you pay for it.
So there are models that we are going to look at to see how
FDA is trying to think outside the box on this very critical
issue.
Ms. Meng. Thank you.
Has the GAO ever conducted a study or will they on the
FDA's workforce recruitment and retention?
Ms. Denigan-Macauley. Yep. That is our ongoing work,
absolutely. We have been looking at it basically this whole
time, and they do have a workforce plan. But as I mentioned
before, something is not working. They have a plan, they are
trying to implement it, but they still have serious vacancies.
Ms. Meng. Thank you.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Ms. Meng.
At this time we will start our second round, and I am happy
to yield to my ranking member, my partner, Mr. Fortenberry.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, again, thank you, Dr. Denigan-Macauley. This has been
very insightful and informative. I do want to be brief because
we are nearing the close of the hearing, but I want to just
highlight a few takeaways thus far. You said that our
inspection regime is the best in the world and, therefore, our
consumers, the public, has a high level of confidence in
American drug supply, and I think that is very important to
point out. It is getting better, the FDA inspections, but there
are significant deficiencies that give the inspection regime a
C grade.
We talked about implementing new ways to augment the
inspection regime, such as virtual inspections. Well, then the
question becomes, are drugs virtually safe? So I think we need
to be very careful about such matters.
We also have highlighted--and I think Dr. Harris did a very
good job with this--that we have an uncompetitive playing
field. When State-owned enterprises enter into partnership with
American companies or other companies, that is a State-owned
enterprise subsidized by the government. And, again, we have
had lacks in environmental and labor standards around the world
that have resulted in incentives for American and other
foreign-based companies to enter into places in the world that
is hard to inspect, and this is the reality of where we are.
So, again, I want to highlight the importance of the
possibility of a grade for companies and give one other
comment. A long time ago I used to be on the city council where
I lived, and we had a very good individual who was in charge of
doing spot inspections on businesses for safety standards. And
we spoke about rather than having a gotcha mentality, a
collaborative mentality.
The same applies to companies, though. Rather than those of
us in government solely trying to ensure, as it is important,
that companies are conducting safe and clean operations for the
benefit of the public, which we must do, why wouldn't a company
be so disposed, particularly if they were given a grade, to
say, FDA, please come see us. We would like to voluntarily have
you come in on a regularized basis or spot inspections whenever
you like. And, in other words, shift the dynamic where that
company gives consumers, gives the public, an added level of
confidence that they are a cooperative player with inspection
regime.
Are you finding anything like that in the private sector?
Ms. Denigan-Macauley. I don't--it certainly makes sense to
be able to have incentive, a carrot rather than a stick. I
don't have----
Mr. Fortenberry. Or both, or both, or both, as I said,
both.
Ms. Denigan-Macauley. Yes, or both, absolutely. I mean,
there is no reason that you can't have both, but I don't have
specific examples for you.
Mr. Fortenberry. Well, I just wanted to raise this because
if I am a CEO or a foreign entity watching this hearing, why
wouldn't you have the disposition that I am going to guarantee,
with the highest standard that is available, working with the
United States Government, that my drugs are safe and effective,
thereby giving me a competitive advantage? And this also
implies a certain country of origin labeling or at least the
grading concept that we discussed earlier.
Ms. Denigan-Macauley. Well, and based on past work that we
have done, I mean, it is clear that there are a few bad actors
that can ruin it for everybody. And so there are some companies
who are, like, please, come, I am not one of those bad actors.
So I think it would be worth the discussion.
Mr. Fortenberry. Mr. Chairman, in the interests of time, I
yield back. Thank you very much.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Fortenberry.
I just have a couple of other questions.
The COVID-19 has created a number of challenges for the FDA
Foreign Inspections Program, and the backlog of physical
inspections is something that we have got to deal with for many
years to catch up.
The latest report from January recommends--and, of course,
you indicate--one way for the FDA to supplement the regular
inspection activities is to utilize alternative inspection
tools. Can you walk us through FDA's reliance on those
alternative tools, how they have utilized them in the past,
what recommendations you make, along with regular, more
frequent physical inspections, to incorporate them for the
future work to eliminate the background.
About 10 years ago Dr. Jerry Avorn, who was a professor at
Harvard Medical School, suggested an alternative approach to
ensuring the safety of imported drugs. According to an article
in ``nature,'' he said that the agency should exert its
authority over the companies importing pharmaceutical
ingredients rather than on the various manufacturers. This
would put the onus of inspections on importers, thereby
decreasing the FDA's financial and administrative burden.
While I have some doubts, it is an intriguing suggestion.
Can you share your thoughts on that with us?
Ms. Denigan-Macauley. It is an interesting suggestion, and
we know on the food side that the FDA does have experience with
putting the onus on the importer. So, for example, on the food
side, with the Food Safety Modernization Act, they put third-
party certifications to help ensure the safety of it.
The FDA now has the authority also to establish a Voluntary
Qualified Importer Program which helps to ensure the safety of
the food coming in. And like we have with drugs, FDA can refuse
any imported food if it is denied at a facility.
So putting that onus on the importer is certainly something
that FDA has experience with, and it is an interesting question
that you pose and something that FDA could certainly consider.
Mr. Bishop. Not that I am suggesting it, but I was just
wondering, this was something that was proposed 10 years ago,
and I don't know whether or not it would be effective or not
effective, but it is an alternative. Of course, the most
obvious challenge would be for us to be able to do the physical
inspections.
With that, I am going to yield back.
And I will recognize Mr. Valadao, who should be the final
member in the queue.
Mr. Valadao.
Mr. Valadao. I have got no more questions. I was just
watching the rest of the hearing.
Mr. Bishop. Is there any member who would like to ask any
additional questions before we wrap up?
If not, Dr. Denigan-Macauley, that you so much for your
testimony and for spending time with us today. Along with what
we have discussed, we will also forward additional questions
for the record, and we appreciate your diligence in getting
your responses to us as soon as you can possibly do so.
Any more comments from you, Mr. Fortenberry?
Mr. Fortenberry. Only, Mr. Chairman, to thank you for your
probing and thoughtful questions here and for running this
hearing so smoothly and to thank Dr. Denigan-Macauley. I think
it was a very productive discussion.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you for your participation. And thank you
to all of the members who attended, and we understand that
there were a couple of members that couldn't attend. We know
that they had some serious conflicts.
But also let me take this opportunity to thank our staff
who worked so hard to put this hearing together and I think did
an outstanding job.
With that, this subcommittee hearing is adjourned.
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Wednesday, March 24, 2021.
THE RURAL ECONOMY
WITNESSES
JEFFERY S. HALL, CHAIRMAN, FARM CREDIT SYSTEM INSURANCE CORPORATION
GLEN R. SMITH, CHAIRMAN AND CEO, FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Bishop. This hearing is now called to order. As this
hearing is fully virtual, we must address a few housekeeping
matters.
For today's meeting, the chair or staff designated by the
chair may mute participants' microphones when they are not
under recognition, for purposes of eliminating inadvertent
background noise.
Members are responsible for muting and unmuting yourselves.
If I notice that you have not unmuted yourself, I will ask you
if you would like the staff to unmute you. If you indicate
approval by nodding, the staff will unmute your microphone.
I remind all members and witnesses that the 5-minute clock
still applies. If there is a technology issue, we will move to
the next member until the issue is resolved, and you will
retain the balance of your time.
You will notice a clock on your screen that will show how
much time is remaining. At 1 minute remaining, the clock will
turn yellow. At 30 seconds remaining, I will gently tap the
gavel to remind members that their time is almost expired. When
your time has expired, the clock will turn red, and I will
begin to recognize the next member.
In terms of the speaking order, we will follow the order
set forth in the House rules, beginning with the chair and
ranking member, then alternating between majority and minority
members present at the time the hearing was called to order
will be recognized in the order of seniority, and finally
members not present at the time the hearing is called to order.
Finally, House rules require me to remind you that we have
set up an email address to which members can send anything they
wish to submit in writing at any of our hearings or markups.
That email address has been provided in advance to your staff.
Last reminder, please ensure that your video is turned on at
this time.
Good afternoon and welcome to today's hearing. Today we are
examining the state of the rural and farm economies through the
lens of Farm Credit, to help us understand the challenges and
opportunities our farmers in rural communities face.
We are joined by Glen Smith, board chairman and CEO of the
Farm Credit Administration; and Jeff Hall, chairman of the Farm
Credit System Insurance Corporation.
We are glad to have you back with us once again. I know we
juggled the schedule a bit to have this hearing, and I
appreciate your flexibility.
Last year we held a budget hearing with the Farm Credit
Administration before the entire landscape changed, due to
COVID-19. Just weeks after that hearing, there were reports of
farmers dumping thousands of gallons of milk and plowing under
acres of produce. But even before the pandemic, the farm sector
was facing many challenges, including trade uncertainties,
large commodity supplies, weak prices, extreme weather, and
high levels of debt and bankruptcy.
In fact, in your testimony last year, you noted that
Federal farm subsidy payments, crop insurance, and particularly
market facilitation payments were the difference between a net
operating loss and breaking even for many farm operators. That
was, indeed, true last year.
And, indeed, in addition to the MFP payments, which aided
farmers directly impacted by retaliatory tariffs, USDA also
provided assistance through the Coronavirus Food Assistance
Program for agricultural producers that were affected by the
coronavirus pandemic.
According to the Economic Research Service, direct
government farm payments totaled $46 billion in 2020. Looking
forward to this year, there will likely be a large drop in
direct government payments, but you note that you expect gross
farm income to remain the same and net farm income to decline
only slightly.
Finally, in all of this, I don't want to lose sight of
young, beginning, and small farmers. 2019, the number of loans
as well as the dollar volume of those loans going to these
three groups increased. While this is hopeful, we know that the
beginning farm households have less wealth, have more debt
relative to their assets than established farms. Ensuring that
our beginning and small farmers have access to resources is
vital to the strength and the future of the farm and rural
economies.
Our farmers, ranchers, and producers are resilient, but the
last several years have been quite challenging, and I am
cautiously optimistic that this year will bring more stability.
I want to thank our witnesses for being with us today, and I
look forward to today's discussion.
Now let me ask my distinguished ranking member and my
partner as we collaborate the work of this committee, Mr.
Fortenberry, if he would like to make any opening remarks.
Mr. Fortenberry, you are recognized.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Yes, I would like to make a few remarks.
First of all, let me thank you that you have called this
important hearing on the state of the rural economy, which is,
of course, a unique and vital and, frankly, often overlooked
part of our Nation's overall economy and certainly well-being.
I would like to also say good afternoon to Chairman Smith
and Chairman Hall, welcome back.
Mr. Chairman, you have heard me say this before, but in
Nebraska our farmers and ranchers help feed the world. And we
are pioneering the farm of the future, through wedding high-
tech with high-touch, connecting the farmer to the family, the
rural to the urban, and the farm to the table.
And I am pleased to join with ag producers in Nebraska and
all across the country this week in celebrating National
Agriculture Week.
Our No. 1 industry here at home is agriculture, and we are
ranked third overall as an ag State, generating $21 billion a
year in ag-related revenue. And then that is more dollars and
cents per capita from ag commodities than any other State.
So farmer and rancher and agribusiness access to dependable
credit is vital to my State and our Nation's committed
agricultural success, especially after the recent supply
chain's disruptions, such as the 2019 bomb cyclone event that
we experienced here, and then, of course, this year the global
pandemic which has caused so much suffering.
Our regional banks extended critical financial resources to
aid our farmers and ranchers during this last year. I heard
from a number of sectors in my district just how important this
credit was. The Farm Credit System allowed many farmers and
communities to get back on their feet, and for that I am
thankful. And as a result, net farming come last year was the
highest that it has been since 2013.
Mr. Chairman, if you would allow me just a few more
moments, I would like to touch upon three major areas with our
witnesses.
First, I am eager to receive an update on the current state
of the farm economy as well as any risk to the Farm Credit
System. And as banking regulators, one of your fundamental
duties is to determine if the System portfolio is diversified
enough to avoid shocks that could ripple across other sectors.
I see a common thread in the peaks and troughs of the past
10 years. Export sales to China. Especially for fundamental
crops such as soybeans and corn, China is our major export
market and our fiercest competitor and our greatest adversary.
I would like to know how big of a risk to our banking system
and our rural communities is this one nation of China.
Second, the average age of a farmer in America is 58 years
old now. Our chairman, Chairman Bishop mentioned this, the
Young, Beginning and Small Farmer and Rancher Program. Your
testimony today will note Farm Credit's work with the USDA Farm
Agency for young and beginning lenders to use better USDA
resources.
I appreciate these efforts to grow the ag family to include
younger and more diverse participants, but I am hopeful that we
can see even greater progress. What can your System do to
ensure that we have a more sustainable Farm System, if you
will, to ensure that we have the best ag economy in the world?
And lastly, I need to point out that I am encouraged by the
report of a major new investment in the rural broadband
portfolio from nearly $2 billion to nearly $10 billion in 1
year. You wisely note in your written testimony that broadband
has become essential to the survival of rural communities.
Here is a consideration, though. The chairman and I have
thought aggressively about this. Wires laid do not
automatically translate into a more vibrant, economically
robust, and culturally connected rural community.
We need to dig deeper to determine other important yields
from these investments as they lend themselves to what I call
creating an ecosystem of liveability: Telehealth, telework,
precision agriculture, distance learning and a number of other
metrics by which we would like to see outcomes.
We also need to look at the fundamental definition of what
rural means. Chairman Bishop and I were able to expand the
ReConnect rural program to include communities that are rural
in character, and I think this was important, so that slightly
larger rural communities are not deprived of necessary capital.
Finally, the Farm Credit System should continue to play a
key role in ensuring that America has among the lowest per
capita grocery prices in the world, again, another statistic
that we tend to forget. And without farmers and ranchers'
dependable access to abundant and affordable credit, we all
will have less reliable access to abundant, affordable food. A
healthy Farm Credit System is essential to a healthy America.
Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Fortenberry.
Mr. Smith, without objection, your entire written testimony
will be included in the record, and I will now recognize you
for a brief summary statement, and then we will proceed with
questions from the members of the committee.
Mr. Smith, welcome, and welcome also to your counterpart.
We are delighted to have you with us once again. I now
recognize Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
subcommittee. I am Glen Smith, board chairman and CEO of the
Farm Credit Administration. And with me virtually is my fellow
board member, Jeffery Hall, who is chairman of the Farm Credit
System Insurance Corporation.
We will be reporting to you today on the rural and farm
economies, the condition and performance of the Farm Credit
System and the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, and I have a
written statement to submit to the committee.
FCA regulates the Farm Credit System, which provides
approximately 45 percent of the Nation's agricultural credit
needs. FCA also regulates Farmer Mac, which was created in 1988
to provide a secondary market and liquidity to rural banks,
insurance companies, and rural cooperatives.
Now if we look back a year ago, we found ourselves facing a
challenge, the pandemic. In my previous testimony before this
committee in February, I warned to beware of black swan events.
Little did I know we would be immersed in one of those events
within months.
From the time I became chairman in 2019, this board has
strongly encouraged the System to be conservative in holding
strong capital and adequate liquidity for unexpected events.
This proved to be important during the early stages of the
pandemic.
And we are happy to report that the System institutions
continued to meet the needs of agriculture and rural America.
The System reported solid financial results for 2020, including
strong loan growth, higher earnings, and generally sound loan
quality.
But I do believe FCA must remain fully engaged, alert, and
ready to act. Credit stress is likely to continue in certain
agricultural sectors in geographical areas. Effective changes
in interest rates, trade, financial markets and general
economic conditions are areas of concern.
Fortunately, as I said before, the farm economy is in
better shape today than it was a year ago, thanks to robust
U.S. exports and strong crop prices since last fall and
continuing low interest rates.
And right now I would like to thank and acknowledge this
committee and Congress for helping to sustain farmers this past
year, particularly challenges earlier on in the year. Farm
program payments and additional support from USDA helped those
who encountered serious market disruptions.
The farmers are now gearing up for spring planting season
with a degree of optimism they haven't felt for years. Back in
Iowa, my son will be planting our 39th crop of corn and
soybeans. As a lifelong farmer, I truly know how quickly those
markets can reverse.
When the national emergency was declared almost a year ago,
our first concern here at FCA was to keep our employees safe
while continuing to fulfill our public mission. Thanks to
earlier investment in communication technology and the talent
of our IT staff, we were able to do just that.
We also relied heavily on data analytics with our newly
formed Data Analytics and Economic Office to make fact-based
decisions impacted by COVID. And one of the first actions in
response to the pandemic was to issue a message to the
institutions we regulate, urging them to work with borrowers
affected by the pandemic and notify them that we can provide
some temporary regulatory relief.
Since then, we have issued numerous guidance documents,
including guidance on providing PPP loans to System borrowers.
And I am very proud of how our agency did respond quickly. We
will continue to focus on our mission and our critical
projects, including improving credit availability for young,
beginning, and small farmers.
So, in conclusion, I believe that FCA fulfilled its role in
2020 and the System performed well. The markets and investors
continue to have confidence in System debt obligations, which
ultimately benefit System borrowers by providing access to
competitive financing.
As a farmer, I am an optimist. I always try to find a
silver lining and learn from past challenges. One thing COVID-
19 demonstrated to the American people and to us all is that
agriculture and the food supply must not be taken for granted.
It must be protected.
FCA will do its part in helping ensure safe and sound
credit for agriculture and rural America.
Thank you. And now Jeff and I will be happy to answer your
questions.
[The statements of Mr. Smith and Mr. Hall follow:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Smith. I appreciate your
testimony very much. And we will now proceed with questions.
As I mentioned earlier, we will begin with the chair and
ranking member, then alternating majority and minority with
members present at the time the hearing started in order of
seniority. After that, I will recognize members not present at
the time the hearing was called to order. Each member will have
5 minutes in each round, so please be mindful of your time.
I will now yield to myself for my first round of questions.
Mr. Smith, let me just ask you, as we have already noted,
COVID-19 exacerbated the challenges facing the farmers. And
despite these challenges, overall, farmers had a profitable
year, largely due to Federal aid.
According to ERS, direct government payments accounted for
38 percent of the net income for farmers in 2020 and, of
course, obviously, that level of assistance cannot be sustained
forever.
What are the major economic trends that you are watching or
looking for in 2021 that you feel will impact the farm economy,
and are there any warning signs that you are looking for?
Mr. Smith. I think from the start, Mr. Chairman, the
Market Facilitation payments and CFAP payments was meant to be
temporary, to get our farmers and ranchers through the
difficult times presented by both trade challenges and then
later the pandemic. And that resulted in getting farmers, as I
said before, before the first half of 2020 in getting by.
The groundwork for improved trade was laid, put in place
about a year ago, and we are now reaping the benefits of many
of those trade agreements, and our exports are up
exponentially, a tremendous increase. For instance, the price
of corn futures today a year ago was $3. Right now, we are
hovering around $5.50. The price of soybeans a year ago was
around 8 and a quarter. Today, it is about $4 higher than that,
$6 higher than that.
So we have seen some tremendous changes where the market
has stepped in and replaced those government payments, which
from the start was only intended to be temporary.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Let me ask you some questions about
the payment modification and loan deferrals that we had last
year--this year, I should say.
You mentioned that most System institutions have the
payment modification and loan deferrals that was specific to
the pandemic. Can you characterize those actions, in terms of
how many were granted and what length of the deferral, what
length of time the deferral was for? Should borrowers be
worried about an unexpected or an abrupt end to their
deferrals?
Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, when we initially announced that
we would offer, or it was suggested to System institutions to
offer forbearance and offer terms to get our farmers and
ranchers through these difficult times, the loan deferrals was
one mechanism that was offered.
Quite frankly, we thought we would see a lot higher
participation in that. The numbers, actually, come back at this
point only 4 percent of our total loans--this was $315.5
billion last year--only 4 percent went to loan deferrals.
Most of those were a year in duration, so we are just now
finding out what difficulties there might be in continuing to
service those loans.
But with the markets continuing at the pace they are at
right now, with interest rates continuing low, we have every
reason to believe that most of those deferral rates will
continue as successful loans.
Mr. Bishop. Good. Tell me, you just created the Office of
Data Analytics and Economics. The idea was to move to a more
objective, data-driven approach to policymaking. Can you please
speak to the progress and early accomplishments of the office.
Mr. Smith. Well, thank you. And that stems from the 2018
legislation, based on Federal agencies making evidence-based
decisions. Early on, I guess about midsummer in 2019, we named
a chief data officer. We created a data advisory board and also
a data user group.
And that office within our agency has become critical in
making decisions, ranging from Young, Beginning and Small
Farmer Programs, and improving the accuracy of reporting on
those programs, to monitoring the closings and monitoring the
pandemic in the areas of the country, in all areas of the
country that we operate.
So it has had wide-reaching benefits throughout the agency.
We had a pretty active group prior to creating that office. I
guess it was more or less legitimizing it. But by creating a
separate Office of Data Analytics, we realized the importance
of relying on data for making good fact-based decisions.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Smith. My time has expired. I
will come back to that in a later round.
We will now go to Mr. Fortenberry for his first round of
questions.
Mr. Fortenberry, you are recognized.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. Again, I
appreciate the testimony today.
Let me ask my initial first question simply: Is the
agricultural sector too dependent upon China?
Mr. Smith. Any time you are dependent on a single country
like we are with China, we are at risk. And I go back to the
late seventies, when we relied on the Soviet Union for some
huge grain exports, wheat exports primarily, and that was
abruptly ended because of global tensions.
The short answer to your question is yes, we are at risk.
Mr. Fortenberry. So you used the word ``black swan event''
last year. Could you foresee this as a possible black swan
event again? In other words, what would be the size of
disruption in a scenario if there was some type of political
fallout or economic disruption in this type of trade with
China?
Mr. Smith. Well, I mentioned corn price a year ago was $3
a bushel and is hovering around $5.50 today. And a lot of that
in the corn market, because transportation came to almost a
virtual halt due to the pandemic, it affected ethanol plants
accordingly. And we have had some pretty impressive exports of
corn to China just in the last week.
But probably the soybean markets would be most profoundly
affected. And, as I said, a year ago, 8 and a quarter on beans
versus today about $6 higher, a pretty dramatic change. And we
are at a vulnerable time right now, because South America is
about 60 percent finished with their harvest, and we are
starting to see that pipeline shift to South America.
So we are very vulnerable when it comes to exports to
China, and if that should be interrupted with some type of
geopolitical tensions, a return to the bottom of that market is
not out of question.
Mr. Fortenberry. Let me try to get a few other questions
in. Thank you for that, I appreciate it.
I mentioned in my testimony the average age of the farmer
is 58. We talked about beginning farmers last year quite
extensively. What progress, what achievements have you made
over the past year to help young and beginning farmers?
Mr. Smith. Well, since I came on the board, and Jeff Hall
and I have been very adamant about advancing the young,
beginning, and small farmers within the Farm Credit System. We
feel that, as the regulatory agency, we can promote and
encourage institutions to go just beyond the reporting, but to
see the program expand.
I have done that, we have done that in three different
ways, three different phases. The first phase was to get the
data right, and I alluded earlier, talked about our data
analytics group. We are on our second year of getting the data
back on just who exactly falls into those young, beginning, and
small farmer tranches, so we know where our baseline is. You
have to start somewhere, and getting accurate data is part of
that.
The second phase is sharing of best practices, and you
recall a year ago we talked about coming out to Nebraska,
University of Nebraska Extension Service to their young and
beginning farmers, of doing a conference with them.
The pandemic put a big hold on that best practice sharing
phase of our YBS program, our YBS initiative. The last session
I was involved in was down in North Carolina. Farm Credit of
the Carolinas had an excellent program, and I was part
presenter on that program or keynote speaker to young,
beginning, and small farmers. And they treat their farmers,
young, beginning farmers very well down there. But that is an
example of what we expected to do throughout the year.
But there is one thing I am very proud of, and that was we
reached out to USDA and, together with them and commercial and
community bankers, we did organize a virtual conference last
September to talk about how financial institutions like FCA and
commercial banks could better collaborate with FSA on the
guaranteed loan program.
The first 2 years on the board, I think I had been in about
20 different States. I saw a number of YBS operations. And
there is one thing I noticed was that every one of them had a
pretty close relationship with FSA, and I was interested in
seeing that continue and leverage that further. It was a very
successful conference. We are looking at----
Mr. Fortenberry. If I could interrupt you. I am sorry, my
time is expired, so I better yield back to the chairman.
We might want to come back to that question, because,
obviously, we have socialized this both in law as well as in
these hearings, and we need a trajectory, understanding the
dynamic of the pandemic this year.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Smith. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Fortenberry and Mr. Smith.
We have been joined by the chair of the Appropriations
Committee, Ms. DeLauro. I now recognize her for any remarks or
for questions, at her pleasure.
The Chair. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
Member. If I can, I would just like to ask a couple of
questions and I appreciate the time.
This is one that has to do with climate change, because the
climate scientists are saying that the length of the summer
weather could increase to half of the calendar year by the end
of the century if we don't take measures to combat global
climate change. You know, hot summers are good, but may be
devastating to America's farmers and ranchers.
And then the Fourth National Climate Assessment--this is
searching of Federal agencies--found out, with the current
climate trajectory, agricultural productivity throughout the
Midwest is likely to fall to the levels not seen since the
1980s.
The first question is, what is your assessment on the
threats posed to American agriculture by accelerated climate
change, and to what extent are Farm Credit banks incorporating
climate risks into managing your loan portfolios?
Mr. Smith. Well, thank you for that question. I can tell
you that, as a lifelong farmer and for many farmers out there,
our concern for the environment, concern for the climate didn't
just start here in the past year.
I truly believe farmers are the original stewards of the
land, and I believe they have an important role to play in the
climate change conversation, particularly in the area of carbon
sequestration. I believe that it does need to be voluntary. I
believe that there needs to be incentives there, but I do
believe that agriculture has a large role to play. I am----
The Chair. How is this going to translate into risk,
managing your loan portfolio, though? Because I don't want to
run out of time for this important question. To what extent are
the banks incorporating these risks?
Mr. Smith. Well, I can tell you, Congresswoman, there
isn't a year go by that we don't have some type of weather-
related calamity in some area of the country. And I am not a
scientist. I can't, you know, tie that back to any changes
except that I know that weather events put stress on the
System.
And our salvation there is that we are very diversified
around the country, and in most cases we would be able to
withstand that.
The Chair. But this is something that you would be
thinking about dealing with, given the scale of the new reports
in this area? Just whether or not you are going to take a look
into this area in terms of--and I understand the
diversification, which is great, but I think understanding
these new reports should have some impact on how you look at
managing your loan portfolio. So----
Mr. Smith. Yes. Oh, I absolutely agree that it does have
an impact on our portfolio. And the other thing we need to look
at--and we have had some preliminary conversations--we are very
cognizant of the reputation we have with our investors in our
bonds and our securities that finance the American farmer and
rancher.
And, you know, as a general rule, the investment community
likes things that are climate-friendly. And so we are at the
early stages of talking about that and what type of incentives,
but I do think ag credit has a role, as agriculture should have
a major role.
The Chair. Thank you. And my last question is, this is
related to infrastructure, which is not your purview and, you
know, coming forward with an infrastructure program, but
infrastructure as it relates to American agriculture, from your
perspective, how critical is upgrading our Nation's
infrastructure to America's farmers and rural economies?
Mr. Smith. Rural areas are starved for capital, and
whatever we can do to encourage investment in rural America and
whatever the Farm Credit System can do to support rural
America, this board definitely supports FCA supports. And we
are actively involved in investment in rural America.
CoBank, who has Title III lending to rural cooperatives, in
telecommunications has a $9.7 billion presence. They also have
a big presence in renewable fuels and renewable energy.
So, through our similar entity lending, through our Title
III lending to our cooperatives, to our rural cooperatives, we
do have a vital role that we can play to rural America.
The Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time is expired.
And my hope is that what we do with regard to the
infrastructure package will bring relief with regard to
transportation to farmers, to ranchers, et cetera, about
getting products to a market.
So thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your time and my
questions for the record. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much Ms. DeLauro.
At this time, I would be delighted to recognize Mr.
Moolenaar from Michigan. Mr. Moolenaar, you are now recognized.
Mr. Moolenaar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate
the testimony today of this hearing.
And I just wanted to thank--the Farm Credit System has
really been a great resource for agriculture in rural America
over this past year, especially with respect to the reliable
delivery of the Paycheck Protection Program.
I know everybody was on the front lines, and I just can't
thank the Farm Credit folks enough for the work they did to
help eligible businesses and the marketplace as they were
facing unprecedented shifts in demand, disruptions, and just
the general uncertainty.
And every American is grateful to the agricultural workers,
from farmers and field laborers to truck drivers and food
manufacturers, who worked so hard to bring food to market, and,
as you noted in your testimony, the processors and
manufacturers who worked through spot shortages and continued
to make the food supply chain more resilient.
I wondered if you could comment and elaborate on the role
the Farm Credit System has in making the food supply chain more
resilient. And also, as food systems evolve in the marketplace,
do you believe existing regulations may be an impediment to the
Farm Credit System serving the food and fiber marketplace?
Mr. Smith. Thank you for the recognition for our role in
agriculture and particularly the PPP program, which probably a
far majority of our institutions did participate in.
I think part of the role that the Farm Credit System can
play in the whole food processing chain is being able to lend
to ag business and to be able to lend to rural co-ops. Many of
those processes are cooperatives. And, of course, the Farm
Credit System in itself is a cooperative.
And the ability to lend to those links in that supply chain
I think is a great help to facilitate the security of that food
supply chain. You know, the irony, you know, back at the
beginning months of the pandemic, I was here in D.C., and you
would look at the meat shelves at the grocery store were empty.
And yet, I had friends that feed hogs and cattle back in Iowa
that had animals that was 10, 15 percent over their usual
processing weight and couldn't get the cattle to market because
of the shutdown of the plants.
So certainly, from the standpoint of our role I think is to
be able to have financing available to ag businesses in that
supply chain, to make sure we have the adequate capacity to get
it to the points of delivery, like those grocery store shelves
that I saw in D.C.
Mr. Moolenaar. Thank you. I also noted in your testimony
that one of the tools you mentioned that could benefit all of
our rural communities is high-quality broadband services. And I
couldn't agree more.
And I was pleased to see that the System is an important
source of credit for communication providers serving rural
America. And you mentioned the $9.7 billion, an increase of $2
billion from the end of 2019.
I also just wanted to bring to your attention as well as to
our committee members' attention--and Chairman Bishop has been
a strong leader on this--there is some recent legislation, the
BOOST Act, H.R. 1362, which is an approach that would offer a
tax credit for individuals who could get a signal booster or a
mobile hotspot. It is something that would kind of open access
to people where fiber is still being laid and isn't quite there
yet.
And it is something that I am excited to be part of, and I
think it is very complementary to the work that you are doing
to expand access to rural broadband. So I want to thank you for
that. And any further comments you have on that I would
welcome.
Mr. Smith. Okay. Yeah. One thing that I guess we are
interested in, some areas, isolated rural areas, broadband is
difficult to justify economically, due to the high cost of
distribution relative to the very sparse population.
So any work that can be done with USDA guaranteed loans or
grants would greatly facilitate our ability to service that
area.
Mr. Moolenaar. Great. Thank you very much. And, Mr.
Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Moolenaar.
At this time, I am delighted to yield to the gentlelady
from Illinois. Ms. Lauren Underwood, you are recognized.
Ms. Underwood. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you to our witnesses.
In my district in northern Illinois, there are many
communities that exist at the intersection of rural and
suburban. And this can present challenges for farmers, but also
great opportunities to participate in and strengthen our local
food system. And while the coronavirus pandemic has strained
many of these systems, as we rebuild our communities we have an
opportunity to make investments in our local food system that
will both improve the health of our communities and support
small businesses, particularly our young, beginning, and small
farmers.
There are farmers and community leaders in my district
actively working in this space who could benefit from hearing
more from FCA's perspective on this issue.
Mr. Smith, in your testimony last year, you noted that an
important feature of good young, beginning, and small farmer
programs was a high level of coordination between Farm Credit
System institutions and local FSA officers. Can you give us a
preview of your recommended best practices regarding
coordination between FCS branches and FSA to support young,
beginning, and small farmers?
Mr. Smith. Well, it seems like, in the coordination of FSA
loan officers and commercial banks, community banks, as well as
Farm Credit, we need to be able to leverage the resources of
those FSA loan officers, often, inundated in a given county
with requests and applications.
And to be able to streamline that process would help
greatly. And that is something that we talked about last
September at our conference with USDA is how to streamline that
guaranteed loan process.
You mentioned small farmers, and you mentioned farm to
market enterprises, for instance. And I would like to--a best
practice, a specific best practice that is done in Farm Credit
East, is called FarmStart program. And at our board meeting in
March, we just expanded, doubled the funding for that program.
But they are able to offer funds and a revolving fund to--
they are able to relax the standards and credit writing
standards that they may even have for ordinarily YBS borrowers.
Go to the extra mile, extra counselling for the young and
beginning farmers, and take a risk.
And we have challenged the institutions, if you are going
to take a risk in investment, why not take a risk in your
younger generations, in that young generation of YBS farmers?
So that would be a specific example.
Ms. Underwood. Thank you. And I appreciate that. I also
think that it needs to include coordination with local
officials and community groups. Can you tell us more about that
type of coordination and why it is so important to the FCS'
mission to serve young, beginning, and small farmers?
Mr. Smith. Oh, I think there is a lot of YBS programs out
there. In fact, the 2018 farm bill created a nationwide network
among USDA, State directors and national director, and I think
they work closely with State. For instance, Congressman
Fortenberry mentioned the young and beginning program in
Nebraska through the Extension Service through the university
of Nebraska.
Absolutely. Community and State resources can be
coordinated. And in the travels that I have done, the
institutions that do a successful job of outreach to those
young, beginning, and small farmers look at a whole plethora of
sources for outreach to young farmers.
So certainly, it needs to be a concerted effort there.
Ms. Underwood. Yes and thank you. And in your written
testimony, you stated that the farm economy is in better shape
today than it was a year ago, particularly for corn and
soybeans.
However, we know that this has been a time of significant
volatility in the farm economy for the past few years, caused,
in part, by extreme weather, trade disruptions, and the
pandemic. And, like most Americans, Illinois farmers are facing
high healthcare costs and.
In our final moment, I know that you are a Midwestern corn
and soybean farmer. I represent a lot of corn and soybean
farmers in my district, and I am interested in your perspective
on the current market outlook for these products. And so could
you share any upcoming challenges or opportunities that farmers
in my district should be watching for?
Mr. Smith. Well, as I said, we have had a good outlook the
last 6, 7 months, but that is following about 6 to 7 years of
pretty mediocre outlook. So to say that we are in good times
would be definitely an overstatement right now.
Ms. Underwood. But we are going to be all right? We are
going to make it, working together, right, to deliver? I don't
want to just leave it there.
Mr. Smith. Just leave it at that.
Ms. Underwood. Thank you so much for your testimony.
And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Ms. Underwood.
At this time, I would like to yield to the gentleman from
California, Mr. Valadao.
Mr. Valadao. Thank you, Chairman. First off, thank you for
hosting this hearing. This is an important topic that we are
having today.
One comment here. I hear from a lot of young and local
farmers about an issue, that they have been trying to establish
their farms. And I know Congresswoman Underwood and I think
Fortenberry before I came on also brought this up. But the YBS
program is important for young farmers who are trying to get
started. And obviously, they don't have the money to purchase
the land they are interested in or the ability to set up an
office for all the tedious and burdensome administrative work
required of them.
And FCA's 2019 annual report notes that you are working
with the USDA Farm Service Agency to find specific ways for
agricultural lenders to better leverage USDA resources to YBS
producers.
This interests me, because it is crucial that we set future
generation farmers up for success so that they may continue
these important traditions and keep the industry going. We
shouldn't be deterring these young people from wanting to
pursue having their own farms because of too much bureaucratic
red tape and lack of access to resources.
Would you please expand upon what progress has been made
since your meeting with USDA on this subject last fall?
Mr. Smith. Our meeting was in September, and at that time
it was virtual. And our intention was to resume annual meetings
around the country. And our hopes were getting high in October
to do that and, unfortunately, that didn't work out, right?
But I can tell you right now we are in conversations. In
fact, I met with staff here last week, and we are planning a
major YBS event here within, hopefully, by the end of the year-
first of next, and as well as outreach to institutions around
the country.
But virtual environment is we are getting by, but it is not
100 percent effective, especially when you are trying to
advance or introduce a new program.
So I think we probably did the best we can, but am I happy
or satisfied with where we are at? No, I am not. And we have
got some catchup to do on it.
Mr. Valadao. So the issue that we struggle with here is in
agriculture in general, consolidation is what happens across
the board. Farmers continue to expand and grow, and smaller
farms have a tougher and tougher time getting in.
And some of the things I have heard from some of the local
farmers--I even talked to three of them this morning before
this hearing, to ask them how the process was. And they said
they were just too small for the bank's time, and this was
within Farm Credit System.
And the regulations, the red tape, the amount of paperwork
that was required, they said, look, we could barely afford to
start farming, much less hire a full-time office personnel to
be able to handle the paperwork required. It was just too much
to ask of them. And luckily, they had a relative that was able
to cosign for them, and they went and did business with another
type of bank.
But, I mean, that is not what this program is for. It is
not for us to just walk past and look for other opportunities.
Our goal is to try to help young farmers get into the business
and have the opportunity to be part of a business they
obviously love and want to be a part of. So, hopefully, we can
continue this dialogue.
The second line of questioning, talking to a few Farm
Credit West folks, a question I got from them: With the growth
in assets over the past year placing pressure on System
institutions' capital ratios, how much more can System entities
do without breaching your expected faith capital levels?
Mr. Smith. Well, right now, I believe our capital asset
ratio is 16.4 percent, which is well above our minimums.
For a little history, I would invite my fellow board
member, Jeff Hall, to maybe comment on that, because he has
been on the board for 6 years and he may be able to comment a
little bit further on the trend. Jeff.
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Capital is an issue
that we have dealt with pretty often. And as chairman of the
Insurance Corporation, it is vital that the System maintain
adequate levels of capital to make sure that, you know, we are
prepared for situations like we have just gone through.
Most System institutions are well above the minimum
required capital levels. And their boards can set their own
capital levels and determine how much they want to lend.
So I would say it has not been a problem, and we would want
to make sure that we are adequately capitalized to make sure
the System is safe and sound.
Mr. Valadao. So just to follow up on that, so does the
System have access to all the capital held at the various
entities that make up the System?
Mr. Hall. Well, I think what the reference is is there is
a capital level held at the bank and also at the association
level. And we feel that is important going forward that there
is adequate capital at both levels, at the bank and at the
association.
Mr. Valadao. Do you feel like you have access to all the
capital that is held or not?
Mr. Hall. We do, and we think it is necessary, yes.
Mr. Valadao. All right. Perfect. Thank you. And I yield
back.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Valadao.
At this time, I am delighted to recognize the chairlady of
the appropriations subcommittee of defense, the gentlelady from
Minnesota, Ms. McCollum.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Over the past year, COVID has impacted all of our
communities, urban, rural, suburban, but today we are going to
focus on what is happening in our rural communities.
This pandemic has exposed many long outlying challenges and
inequities that our rural communities face. One of those
inequities is the lack of access to rural Americans to good
healthcare. Families have been forced to drive for hours to
doctors appointments, which is unacceptable.
I know firsthand, hearing from families and family members
that live in rural areas, of seniors needing to go for dialysis
in severe weather conditions in the Northern Plain States and
in the Midwest, literally driving hours one way and back. And
that was without fighting the global pandemic. Now we have that
on top of it.
In my State of Minnesota, we have come up with different
ways since Statehood in 1858 of neighbors helping neighbors.
And one of the things that we are very proud of in Minnesota is
our public-private partnerships.
And I am going to give an example here. Compeer Financial
Farm Credit has sharing with local banks, credit unions, and
the USDA in a public-private partnership to help finance
critical-access hospitals and senior living facilities. These
partnerships were happening prior to the pandemic.
Given COVID's lasting impacts--and it will have lasting
impacts all across the State of Minnesota, but it is going to
have a different kind of lasting impact, especially in the
rural parts of my State.
I think we need to see more of these innovative
partnerships that can not only strengthen the rural healthcare
systems, but also help with long overdue infrastructure needs,
like childcare, elder care, fire stations, libraries, food
pantries and other essential community facilities.
So currently, the FCTA's board of directors must provide
specific individual approval for each community facility
investment made by institutions like the one I just mentioned,
Compeer Financial. It is expensive, it is lengthy, and it has
the potential to slow down a process.
With the post-pandemic recovery needed to happen as soon as
possible for rural communities across our country, what can you
do to enhance and expand the Farm Credit System's ability to
increase these partnerships?
So I heard you talk about, you know, loans to farmers and
other things, but I also want to know what is going on with
these types of partnerships and investments in rural America,
where we have public and private coming together, sometimes
with nonprofits helping as well.
Mr. Smith. Well, I couldn't agree with you more,
Congresswoman, about the need for good healthcare facilities in
rural areas. In fact, my wife worked almost her entire life in
healthcare at her local hospital. And early on, as young,
beginning, small farmers, that allowed us to pay our phone
bill, okay? So it hits home, the importance of hospitals and
not to lose our local hospitals and healthcare facilities.
In your State I have visited some facilities that Farm
Credit, the Farm Credit institution has partnered with not only
USDA but also local banks in buying bonds in our mission-
related investment authority in hospitals. I visited a hospital
in the State of Minnesota.
I visited healthcare facilities and senior living
facilities, all of which we have granted limited shelf approval
to try to expedite the process with that particular
institution, but there are other enterprises within the System
that we approve on a case-by-case basis.
So certainly we are doing it. We are looking at expanding
on it. And I share your concern for the need for healthcare
facilities.
Ms. McCollum. Is there anything congressionally that we
have put in that maybe the chair needs to look at with the
authorizing committee to see how we tweak or fix something if
something is a hindrance to making this move during the
pandemic, especially with some of the help that towns and
townships in our rural communities are going to have with the
COVID package, where this might be a great opportunity for them
to partner with others to do something?
Is there something that we need to do? And you can get back
to the chair with that, but we would certainly take a look at
it. We want transparency, we want oversight, but we also want
effectiveness.
Mr. Smith. Well, absolutely, because at times we bump up
against our authority, and if that could be expanded on by
Congress, we would be all for it.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Smith. You are very welcome.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Ms. McCollum.
I would normally call on Mr. Newhouse at this time, but I
understand he has stepped away, and so I am delighted to
recognize Ms. Lee from California, the chair of the Foreign Ops
Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee.
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much.
Mr. Bishop. Ms. Lee, you are now recognized.
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to all of our
witnesses and individuals who are here today to talk about
this.
And I come from, of course, an urban area--I got on late,
so I apologize if these questions are redundant, but there is
such a connection through the Farm Credit--excuse me. FarmStart
is so effective in terms of making sure that we are building
relationships between farmers and urban equitable food systems.
And I am just wondering, in places, for example, in
California--and I will hone in on my district in Oakland--is
FCA tracking our young, beginning, small, and socially
disadvantaged farmers and ranchers from, for instance, the
central valley from Mr. Valadao's district, to urban areas to
ensure there is accurate understanding of the lending trends
for these groups? Because it is such an effective program and
we have such huge needs in urban areas for equitable food
systems.
And then, secondly, with regard to the GAO report on credit
and outreach to socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers, I
think the rest of it is called agricultural needs and barriers
to lending on tribal lands, well, it was determined and
reported from this GAO study that socially disadvantaged
farmers and ranchers receive a disproportionately small share
of farm loans. And so wondering about some of these barriers
that have caused this lack of access to resources and how you
are beginning to address this based on the GAO recommendations.
Mr. Smith. I will let my fellow board member answer the
question on the Tribal question while I answer the question
regarding diversity and reaching out to those socially
disadvantaged groups.
The Farm Credit System is in business to lend to all
creditworthy borrowers, large or small, and oftentimes those
urban startup enterprises are small enterprises.
In 2014, FCA put out a directive to System institutions to
develop and analyze a plan on the demographics of the area,
including socially disadvantaged groups, how engaged they are
in lending activities, and come up with a plan for outreach to
those groups.
This plan is regularly examined by our FCA examiners, and I
believe really our emphasis on young, beginning, and small
farmers, again, is kind of in part an answer to reach out to
those socially disadvantaged groups as well, as I say, I
mentioned FarmStart as an example; but the educational
programs, the higher level of counseling, all of which are
pertinent.
And, Jeff, I will let you speak to the Tribal group
particularly.
Ms. Lee. Well, let me just ask you. Is FarmStart, where are
you--what regions of the country are you engaged in? Are you
engaged in the western region and in developing these
partnerships with, in many respects, urban food deserts?
Mr. Smith. No, ma'am. I mentioned FarmStart as an example
of a program in some eastern seaboard States under Farm Credit
East institution; but, no, it is not a universal program
throughout the country. But I mention it as I say, in the YBS
program, part of it is to share best practices. One institution
may be doing something that another institution across the
country says, That is a great idea, we should duplicate that.
For heaven's sake, we are a cooperative, and cooperatives work
together and share good practices and ideas, and I guess that
is what we are trying to promulgate.
Ms. Lee. Yeah, good. So let's duplicate it with the western
region of mine.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Smith. Okay.
Ms. Lee. The rest of my question, Mr. Hall.
Mr. Hall. I will address Tribal lands specifically. There
is lending going on in tribal lands, mostly for operating
loans. There are some limitations when it comes to the ability
to lend on property because of holding a clear title. Those
things, I think, are going to be addressed by USDA and maybe
looking at the possibility of setting up other types of
organizations that would avoid that problem.
And I will just in the last 10 seconds address the urban
market issue. A lot of times we just focus on lending in those
small operations, but the Farm Credit System does a great job
in supporting local markets with grants and programs that help
support urban markets.
Ms. Lee. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And we will followup with you.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Ms. Lee. And thank you, Mr. Smith
and Mr. Hall.
We have completed our first round of questions, and I am
going to begin a second round.
As you indicated earlier, as my other subcommittee members
have indicated, there is a lot of talk about the need to tackle
the aging infrastructure, and I want to build off the excellent
questions that Mr. Moolenaar and Mr. Aderholt asked at last
year's hearing on this subject and that Chair DeLauro asked in
her questions today.
Under almost any definition, the need in rural America is
enormous for infrastructure improvement. With the pandemic,
attention has been focused very much on healthcare facilities,
the broadband needs in rural America. And you talk about what
the FCA and the System have been able to do in these two spaces
since last year. Are there any constraints on your ability to
help with these kinds of projects?
Mr. Smith. Well, Chairman, as I mentioned before, we are
actively involved in infrastructure projects, primarily
telecommunications, rural communications, which includes
broadband, also electric energy co-ops, transmission,
distribution of electricity, and electric co-ops and waste
water facilities would be an example.
But, yes, we do have some limitations in our authority on
that. And, again, if Congress in their wisdom felt that we need
to expand in other areas, we would.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
Let me shift gears for a moment.
As you know, farmers of color have faced historical
discrimination and other barriers in accessing farm credit
through commercial banks, USDA direct loan programs, and across
the farm Fed System. But the extent of the issue is hard to
really discern because regulations generally prohibit lenders
from collecting data on the personal characteristics of
applicants' loans.
Section 1071 of Dodd-Frank requires financial institutions
to compile, maintain, and submit to the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau certain data on applications for credit for
women-owned, minority-owned, and small businesses to facilitate
enforcement of fair lending laws and to identify business and
community development needs and opportunities for these groups.
After significant delay, CFPB is working on a rulemaking to
implement section 1071 as considerably size-based and/or
activity-based exemptions. Is it your understanding that when
section 1071 finally goes into effect that some of this
demographic data would be collected for agricultural loans? And
can you give us an idea of what types of loans across the Farm
Credit System might be affected?
Mr. Smith. I am vaguely familiar with 1071. I know right
now we don't collect data specific to those groups, but if
subsequent legislation required us to do so, we would.
Jeff, do you have any comments on that?
Mr. Bishop. You need to unmute, Mr. Hall.
Mr. Hall. Sorry, thought I did.
I said we are waiting on CFPB's ruling, and then we would
have our general counsel take a look at the application for
Farm Credit System institutions. So we are definitely open to
the idea, sir.
Mr. Bishop. All right.
Can you just tell me what you see Farm Credit's role is in
helping producers adapt to the changing environment and making
advances in conservation, sustainability, and other climate-
friendly practices? And could you tell us how much the System
has in outstanding loans in renewable energy projects,
including wind and solar?
Mr. Smith. Yes. As I commented before, we do have a
significant presence, in fact, CoBank, one of our largest
lenders, is one of the largest participants in the renewable
energy arena with $4.2 billion committed to this area and about
$3 billion of that committed to wind and solar. About a half of
1 percent of System lending is to ethanol plants.
Back at the onset of the ethanol industry, that market
share was considerably higher. A lot of these plants are being
paid off or have been paid off; but I think you will see a
System's role in updating the efficiency of these plants as we
develop new technology and as ethanol production becomes
higher.
So certainly continued participation in that arena is
important for the climate change conversations that are going
on today.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Smith.
My time has just about expired, so I am delighted to yield
for a second round to my colleague, my partner, Mr.
Fortenberry.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Underwood had a smile when she ended her testimony when
she said, ``Is everything going to be all right?'' There was a
Congressman from northeast Nebraska in the thirties in the
midst of the Depression, right before World War II, who used to
go on the radio every week, and he would start out by saying,
``I am here to tell you everything is going to be all right.''
Is that right, Chairman Smith?
Mr. Smith. Well, sure.
Mr. Fortenberry. Fair answer.
I want to ask about a couple of things. You heard a lot of
today's hearing focused on young and beginning and small
farmers. So I think it would be a good idea, all things
considered with the pandemic this year and the disruptions that
occurred, to lay down specific plans, the trajectory for next
year that would pick up on, again, socializing this
conceptually, informing the broader community as to what credit
and grant possibilities are available, similarly to what you
were planning in terms of the workshop in D.C.
Secondly, let's do it in the middle of the country. Let's
do it right here. You are my neighbor. Come across the river.
We will get you a visa and you are welcome.
So, again, I am going to be presumptuous and extend the
courtesy of an invitation from the University of Nebraska, but
we have the entrepreneurial center here who works aggressively
with young farmers and small businesses, small ag businesses
doing incredible things. So I would like to try to--let's be
real specific and start planning that because I do think, as
you heard the sentiment of the committee, digging deeper into
this and moving quicker as to how we expand the ag family,
consistent with the law and the additional funding we have
provided in the law year after year for about the last decade
or so, I think is very, very important. So if we could do that,
that would be great.
Secondly, let me turn to the broadband question. Again, in
the pandemic we have seen this digital leap. Now, you have made
approximately $10 billion of loans, a 25 percent increase in
just this year, for rural broadband; but let's talk about what
that means.
Is that just based upon the soundness of the loan,
obviously, the financial flow back from that capital
investment, or do you consider other impacts, the broader
social impacts, which, obviously, justify the public
expenditure here, of the aggressive pursuit of broadband in
rural communities?
And I talked about those earlier; advancements in
telehealth, distance education, telework, precision
agriculture, e-commerce, and small business.
Mr. Smith. Well, Congressman, our mission is safety and
soundness. And, obviously, it has got to be financially
feasible for us to consider a loan, and that is why I suggested
any collaboration with USDA in the way of guarantees or grants
would help consideration of those loans; but we can't be making
loans that aren't financially feasible due to our mission. That
would jeopardize our ability to serve the American farmers for
the typical needs that Farm Credit does as far as operating
funds for your operation and farmer or State loans.
So I hope I am answering your question, can we invest in
something that is risky due to the social underpinnings and
social direction? Probably not, but we are going to need some
reassurance and help from other agencies to do so.
Mr. Fortenberry. Yeah well, we have got a lot of public
expenditures going in this direction anyway, about $2 billion
worth. And it was a bit surprising to the chairman and I in our
last hearing, we asked the Inspector General, ``What are the
metrics for success of that public expenditure?'' and she
didn't know. So that is one area of public policy that we can
improve on.
But, again, because you are an indirect support by a public
benefit, these are important metrics. And, of course, you are
correct, your first consideration obviously is financial
viability of the market, the loan.
But there are broader social impact metrics here that
actually I think would be completely consistent with long-term
financial viability, given the fact that we have reached a
tipping point in the aggressive, pervasive use of broadband now
for these broader purposes is here. I mean, this represents a
big market opportunity.
So I recognize what you are saying, but recognize what I am
saying as well, that these are essential metrics that I think
are, frankly, going to be good for business, and we are
spending lots of public money already in this space.
Mr. Smith. Yes. No, I couldn't agree more, Congressman.
Mr. Fortenberry. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
yield back.
Mr. Smith. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Fortenberry.
At this time I am delighted to yield a second round to Mrs.
McCollum.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
I wanted to address the climate change issue that Ms.
DeLauro brought up earlier. From the reading that I have done
and some of the outlooks, if we don't get our climate under
control pretty quick with the heat levels rising, we will see
agriculture facing some real dire consequences.
So I understood your answer to Ms. DeLauro that you look at
a case-by-case, year-by-year of what you think the weather
forecast is going to be, but insurance companies are doing the
same thing and raising rates. So what are you going to do to
help farmers either work with the USDA about, you know,
shifting crops over to things that need less water, rot-
resistant, different types of irrigation that they might want
to put in that is more effective or more efficient? What are
you doing?
Because we are seeing this with the timber in northern
Minnesota. We have our farms too. But, you know, if you look at
the climate signs, they are pretty clear about what is going to
happen to farming all across the world, including here in the
United States.
So what are you doing to not only prepare yourself for that
but to help farmers prepare for that so that we don't lose our
agriculture base, which is so important in Minnesota and other
parts of the United States? We not only feed ourselves, but we
feed the world.
Mr. Smith. Well, I think we--number one, I think--as a
farmer and speaking for farmers as a group, I think we are
doing a lot of stewardship, conservation practices that are
beneficial to the environment and offer a possible solution to
climate change.
Historically, farmers have been involved in conservation
issues due to water quality; but the carbon sequestration--and
Secretary Vilsack has been talking about this on a very regular
basis. Carbon sequestration we believe scientifically will
prove as a way that farmers can mitigate climate change, but
they have to be incentivized to be able to do it.
So the incentives, what we can do as lenders, we are at the
very early stages. The whole discussion is at the early stages,
and I don't know quite what our role is, Congresswoman, except
that I know that I have been discussing it within staff. We
will continue the discussion to see what our role is. But as
far as any directive from Farm Credit Administration or
financial incentives, I think probably you are looking to USDA
for that.
Ms. McCollum. Well, Mr. Chair, thank you for that because I
know it is a difficult question to answer, but it can't just
all fall on the farmers. The decisions that we make to
incentivize or disincentivize different kinds of energy use,
building codes, things that we do in Congress all the time, can
have the effect of choosing winners or losers with climate
change and not doing it intentionally, not understanding what
is going on. And I really think that we need to have the
agriculture sector at the table talking about what this will
mean to them, their businesses, their economies, their
livelihoods, their communities, and this needs to be a whole-
of-government approach. I am working on it in the Defense
Committee right now.
And so this doesn't need to--I am not--I don't want to
state that it should fall on your shoulders. I know Land
O'Lakes is having these discussions. General Mills is having
these discussions. And it is not just about what we do in the
ag sector. It needs to be what we do whole of government.
So I appreciate your answer, and it doesn't surprise me
that you are thinking about what farmers can do because they
are good stewards of the land.
Thank you.
Mr. Hall. Ms. McCollum, could I add a point to that?
Ms. McCollum. That is up to the chair.
Mr. Bishop. Go right ahead, Mr. Hall.
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think it ties back to the conversation we have been
having. It is technology, infrastructure. Improved technology
and the ability to increase broadband is going to give us not
only answers but solutions to climate change issues.
So I think those two are very well tied closely together.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am going to
excuse myself.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you Ms. McCollum. And thank you Mr. Hall.
At this time I am delighted to recognize Mr. Newhouse.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your
flexibility. I had to jump off for a quick meeting and came
right back.
Mr. Smith, thank you for joining us. As a fellow farmer, I
am appreciative of seeing you in your position. You understand
the challenges in ag country, and that gives me a lot of
confidence moving forward. So thank you for all the work you
are doing. And welcome to you, Mr. Hall, as well.
I don't have to tell you, but just want to mention, you
know, that certainly last year we had a lot of ups and downs in
agriculture, certainly growers in the State of Washington, as
throughout the country, experienced. We saw bottlenecks with
our food supply chains that truly created kind of a domino
effect through the supply chains causing real uncertainty
throughout the growing season and impacting the 2020 harvest.
Fortunately, Congress, as well as the administration
through Secretary Perdue, created the CFAP Program, the Farmers
to Families, I think it was called, Food Box Program and many
other things to help those who truly needed help and also to
allow our growers to continue producing that high quality food
and fiber that we all depend on.
Growers in the State of Washington faced one of the really
most uncertain growing and marketing seasons, certainly more
than any in my lifetime that I can remember.
One concern, though, through 2020 was the availability of
capital, obviously. Around this time most growers had completed
their operating budgets. They got, you know, paperwork
submitted to their lenders and all that stuff, and then with
new protocols in place, many growers found some adjustments
were needed to protect their workforce, particularly,
especially crop growers that had to figure out how to cover
PPE, handwashing, retrofitting for processing, all of those
kinds of things.
And then on top of that, additional things had to be done
for H-2A housing, if you needed larger crews and how do you
fit--you just had to have additional places to put people,
especially if somebody got sick.
And I truly hope that is not what we have to face this
year, but with that possibility, a potential for surges with
the pandemic, flexibilities and loan adjustments will be very
helpful for people.
I just wanted to know if FCA is remaining cognizant of some
of these dynamics with COVID and will you have flexibilities
built in as we hopefully move towards emerging from the
pandemic?
And then, I just wanted to underscore as well, broadband
has been mentioned by several members, and I appreciate the
focus on that. I just wanted to chime in there as well. That is
a huge, huge part of bringing the rural communities up to par
with our urban cousins. And I appreciate your thoughts, but if
you have anything else that you would like to add to some of
the things that you have planned on, I, obviously, would be
interested in that as well.
So with those two questions, I would let you respond. And
thank you very much for being here.
Mr. Smith. Yes. Well, thank you, Congressman, and I have
visited your fine State, and the one thing that I was very
impressed on is the diversification, huge diversification. I
said I came from corn, soybean, hog, and cattle country and
didn't know a lot about vineyards or almonds or apples or all
of the enterprises that is represented in your State. And I
mentioned in my opening comment, and meant it, is that we do
have to be vigilant to areas of need throughout the country.
Some of those niche smaller enterprises that don't get the
attention that maybe the areas like dairy and corn and soybeans
is still a vital part of agriculture, and certainly in your
State we need to be cognizant all of those measures that we
take for producers and growers under stress, encourage our
local institutions and encourage our local associations to work
with those borrowers under stress.
And I know your State is very reliant on exports,
particularly to the Asian market and----
Mr. Newhouse. Right. Yes.
Mr. Smith [continuing]. So that could be very vulnerable
right now. We happened to visit a couple of vineyards in
Washington. I was amazed at the amount of vineyards in the
State of Washington, but I know that industry right now is
impacted by a large supply, some inability to move product
overseas and some climate issues as well.
So, absolutely, we have to be cognizant of those local,
regional problems; but, again, I will come back, that is the
strength of the Farm Credit System, is we are able to average
that with everything that is going on around the country. While
one region might be doing well, another region of the country
may not be doing as well.
So that is something--although we are a single industry
entity, and that single industry being agriculture, the
tremendous geographic and enterprise diversification adds to
our strength. And certainly there is no more diversification
than in the State of Washington.
Mr. Newhouse. I appreciate that. Most everything we raise
is considered a minor crop and doesn't fall under the category
of the corn and soybeans. So I thank you for recognizing that.
And let me just say too--I know my time is up, Mr.
Chairman, but I wanted to underscore what you said. It is
something very similar to what I have been saying for years is
that farmers truly are the original stewards of the land. We
depend on clean water, our land quality, the air as well, for
our livelihoods. And so I always say we are the original
conservationists, but stewards is a good name as well. It means
the same thing.
So thank you for that, and I appreciate your hard work, and
thank you for being with us today.
And, Mr. Bishop, with that, I yield back. Thank you very
much.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Newhouse.
Mr. Valadao, you are recognized for a second round.
Mr. Valadao. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Sorry, I was logging out of my other one, my other
committee right now.
Mr. Smith, I understand commodities and trade are among
some of the economic conditions that affect the Farm Credit
System. As you are likely aware, there is an alarming issue
going on in the international trade space. Shipping carriers
are traveling back to Southeast Asia from the United States
with completely empty shipping containers, leaving our
agriculture exports behind, abandoning standing agreements with
our producers.
How do dangerous situations like this impact the Farm
Credit System and what kind of ripple effect could this have on
the agriculture industry and economy?
Mr. Smith. Well, if our producers can't get our products
to market, obviously, it is a huge detriment to that borrower
and to that particular region. I confess, I haven't read too
much and have not heard too much of the magnitude of that
problem.
Board Member Hall, does that ring a bell with you at all?
Mr. Valadao. The real purpose of me asking the question
isn't specific to get an answer from you because I understand
that probably is not exactly where your strengths should be.
But you had mentioned in some of your comments earlier and
even during some of the earlier questions that corn prices were
up $5.50 a bushel and just previously had been at $3 a bushel.
There is many of the members on this committee where that
sounds like a great thing; but, obviously, that is a huge
impact on the cost of some of the guys in my district. And some
of the areas where we have to make up that difference is export
markets and other types of markets and making sure that the
bank is in a position to help in these types of situations, at
least to understand why farmers are struggling at a certain
time.
I would appreciate if the System would take these things
into account as the industry moves forward and understanding
the impacts of one on the other. I mean, agriculture all has to
work together.
I am, obviously, very close to the dairy industry. We use a
ton of byproducts from other industries around me. My district
grows somewhere in the neighborhood of 3 to 400 different types
of commodities. And even just spending some time yesterday with
a farmer on the west side of the valley here, I was describing
a crop that I had driven by and I didn't know what it was and
he didn't know what it was, and it is a pretty amazing
situation where we grow that many different types.
But understanding we are in a position where we have got to
be good advocates for our farmers and making sure that the
banking industry, especially the Federal Farm Credit System, is
there during these tough times. And I expect there to be some
tough times this upcoming year. I think that issue that has
gone on with the ports leaving is going to create a backlog
that is going to have a long-term impact on our markets and
also the prices of some of the commodities going up in certain
parts are going to have a detrimental impact on others.
It wasn't really a question, more of a statement, but hope
that you take those things into account as we move forward and
as these markets play out.
Mr. Smith. Well, that is a very good point, Congressman,
that one area that might be doing well, for instance, corn
prices is not necessarily good for the livestock feeding
industry, for cattle producers, or dairy, and right now margins
are narrowing in those industries around the country. So, yeah,
not everybody is cheering.
Mr. Valadao. Yeah. Well, we want our neighbors and our
fellow ag folks to do well. We just want to make sure we can
survive to continue to be part of the community as well.
Mr. Smith. Yes, very much so.
Mr. Valadao. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Valadao.
I have exhausted all of my questions.
I would like to ask if any member has another round. Mr.
Newhouse, I know you had to step off, and if you would like to
have a second round, I will yield to you. If not, I will
prepare to close out.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, but I have no
further questions.
Mr. Bishop. Very well. I am glad you were able to rejoin
us.
Mr. Smith and Mr. Hall, thank you both for being here
today. 2020 was a very unprecedented year for our farming
community, and many challenges will continue to linger. I
appreciate your testimony and your assessment of the year
ahead, and I look forward to working with you to meet these
challenges, particularly the ones discussed today.
Along with what we have discussed, we also will forward to
you some additional questions for the record, and we would
appreciate your diligence in getting your responses to us as
quickly as you can.
Mr. Fortenberry, would you like to make any closing
remarks?
Mr. Fortenberry. No, Mr. Chairman. I am finished; just to
thank Chairman Smith and Chairman Hall for their testimony
today, and I think we have got a start to a good plan next
year, particularly for young farmers and ranchers and small
farmers as well.
So thank you for holding the hearing, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Fortenberry. And thank you to
all of the members in attendance. Thank you again to Mr. Smith
and to Mr. Hall and to our staff who worked so hard to put this
hearing together and helped it to run what I think was very
smoothly.
With that, the subcommittee is now adjourned.
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Wednesday, April 14, 2021.
THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE--THE YEAR AHEAD
WITNESSES
HON. THOMAS J. VILSACK, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bishop. This hearing is now called to order.
As this hearing is fully virtual, we must address a few
housekeeping matters.
For today's meeting, the chair or staff designated by the
chair may mute participants' microphones when they are not
under recognition for purposes of eliminating inadvertent
background noise.
Members are responsible for muting and unmuting themselves.
If I notice that you have not unmuted yourself, I will ask you
if you would like the staff to unmute you. If you indicate
approval by nodding, then the staff will unmute your
microphone.
I remind all members and witnesses that the 5-minute clock
still applies. If there is a technology issue, we will move to
the next member until the issue is resolved and you will retain
the balance of your time.
You will notice a clock on your screen that will show how
much time is remaining. At 1 minute remaining, the clock will
turn yellow. At 30 seconds remaining, I will gently tap the
gavel to remind members that their time is almost expired. When
your time has expired, the clock will turn red and I will begin
to recognize the next member.
In terms of speaking order, we will follow the order set
forth in the House rules, beginning with the chair and ranking
member, then alternating between majority and minority members
that are present at the time the hearing is called to order.
Members will be recognized in order of seniority. And finally,
members not present at the time the hearing is called to order
will then be recognized.
Finally, the House rules require me to remind you that we
have set up an email address to which members can send anything
they wish to submit in writing at any of our hearings or
markups. That email address has been provided in advance to
your staffs.
Last reminder, please ensure that your video is turned on
at this time.
Well, good morning, and welcome to today's hearing. This
morning we are honored to have Secretary Tom Vilsack to discuss
his vision for USDA during his second tour at the Department.
Thank you for answering President Biden's call to return to
service after having been the longest-serving member of
President Obama's Cabinet.
You are the first Cabinet Secretary to testify before the
House Appropriations Committee this year, and we really
appreciate your taking time to be with us today, even while you
are still settling in and working on your long to-do list. We
look forward to hearing your thoughts on key priorities over
the year ahead.
Let me also take this opportunity to say thank you for
moving quickly to resume assistance payments to farmers and to
implement the American Rescue Plan. Swift actions are
desperately needed to lift rural America out of the pandemic,
especially our small farms and food insecure populations.
The pandemic and climate change present new major
challenges, while obstacles related to access to nutritious
food, a stable farm economy, racial justice, and developing
communities in rural America still persist.
Addressing these issues while continuing to effectively
deliver the services of the Department is certainly going to
require a lot of hard work and our best efforts, and we pledge
to work with you collaboratively.
While we only have the bare outlines of the fiscal 2022
budget, we will talk about it. In addition, I am particularly
interested in understanding how the American Rescue Plan will
feed into ongoing and future efforts at the Department.
I look forward to working with you to build upon the
investments that were made in the Rescue Act related to rural
healthcare, assisting socially disadvantaged farmers and
ranchers, and carrying forward the technical assistance,
outreach, research, and education programs to benefit the many
groups that your Department serves.
I look forward to working closely with you to advocate for
our farmers, our ranchers, and our rural communities.
Let me add, Mr. Secretary, that I want to personally thank
you for your early and responsive conversations regarding
staffing at the Department with competent and diverse staffers,
a team that can carry out the very important mission of USDA.
I look forward to your testimony.
And now let me ask our distinguished ranking member, my
partner, Mr. Fortenberry, if he has any opening remarks. And if
so--and I presume so--I would like to recognize him at this
time.
Mr. Fortenberry.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, I am so
grateful for your leadership, your willingness to host this
first hearing with the Secretary of the new administration.
And, Secretary Vilsack, welcome. It is good to see you
again. I have a simple question for you. How is the new job?
Or, should I say, how is the old job regenerated? Something
like that.
I would like to hear your perspective and your vision and,
frankly, that is what I want to talk to you about today, just a
couple of big ideas, the primary one being what I call the farm
of the future.
As I see it, it is the wedding of high tech and high touch,
connecting the rural to the urban, the farmer to the family,
the farm to the table. It is about a recreation of food culture
and the use of technology to advance precision agriculture, to
increase yields and revenue to the farmer, as well as advancing
environmental science and security as we feed ourselves and
feed the world.
Mr. Secretary, as you know, America has such extraordinary
natural resources if we understand the value of stewardship of
our land and also the history of technology transfer from our
university systems that has created the space of American
greatness through agriculture. We are so successful that we
often forget.
And last year, I should point this out, Secretary Vilsack,
Secretary Perdue did visit my district, and I would like to
extend the same invitation to you as soon as it is possible.
And what I would like to point out is that we had everyone at
the table, from traditional livestock producers, row crop
producers, even a pair of twin young men who are part of a
fifth-generation farm who have used entrepreneurial skills to
buy the local bar on Main Street and started growing crops,
hops for specialty Whiskey production and other value add
products, an amazing reality TV type of story.
In addition to that, we had a young, first-generation
American from Africa who started a niche livestock business,
specialty vegetable producers, even one gentleman who has
transformed a city block in Lincoln where I live into an urban
farm.
The point of all of this is that we have a very large
agricultural family and it is an exciting space to consider how
we align the Department's expertise with this reality and new
vision for agriculture.
Let me discuss, Mr. Secretary, a couple of particular
seize-the-moment options.
First, it is rural broadband. And as much as I dream about
megabytes and megapixels, I really think we should try to move
beyond the term ``rural broadband'' to what I call an ecosystem
of livability. In fact, I have said this term, ``ecosystem of
livability,'' so much that Chairman Bishop is even starting to
like it, I think. I may have convinced him.
Anyway, the point being, this pandemic has given rise to a
digital leap and it is about telehealth and distance learning
and telework and precision agriculture and e-commerce for our
small businesses in our rural communities. This truly is a
transformative moment if we can properly seize it.
And here is the concern. When the inspector general came to
visit us recently, I asked her the question: What is the
outcome metrics for success in these programs? And she said: I
don't know.
That is a place where we have to work together to ensure
that the funds that we are expending can actually meet the
holistic needs of rural communities.
Second, Mr. Secretary, I want to raise the issue of the
Blue Ribbon Commission for Higher Education. You were kind
enough to discuss this with me in an earlier phone call, and
Chairman Bishop and I have discussed this as well, regarding
the possibilities of new emerging consortium between 1862 and
1890 institutions, the modernization of ag research to fit the
farm of the future, the values propositions for students as we
wed traditional ag sciences, like agronomy and animal
husbandry, with new emerging sciences, such as environmental
studies, conservation, and international development.
And I would like to request that you press NIFA, now that
this is a law, to ensure that this work gets underway quickly.
We would appreciate that.
Third big idea, Mr. Secretary, conservation. Our world is
screaming for meaning, and I don't believe that any person or
any thing should be thrown away. And it is this deeper value of
conservation, of being a good steward of the gifts of our
natural resources, properly using them for our own well-being,
but also regenerating them for our well-being is a 21st century
ethos that I believe has deep meaning.
The question becomes then, how can we use our conservation
programs for a couple of outcomes: enhanced environmental gains
combined with healthy harvesting and enhanced revenue to the
farmer to meet the real possibility of sustainability, which is
both regenerative and valuable at the same time.
Sustainability is those two things, regeneration and
return. And as we all know and celebrate, our farmers and
ranchers are the first stewards of the land.
So, Mr. Secretary, I know this is a bit of a more of a
light-hearted opening, but I think, frankly, people are
fatigued by all of the government infighting. Let's get some
good things done together. I look forward to working with you.
Thanks so much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Fortenberry. As usual, you are
very eloquent as well as elegant.
Let me take this opportunity to welcome the chairwoman of
the full Appropriations Committee who is with us this morning.
And I am certain that she would like to have some opening
remarks as we greet and welcome Secretary Vilsack.
So at this time, I am pleased to recognize Chair Rosa
DeLauro, the gentlelady from Connecticut, chair of the
Appropriations Committee.
Ms. DeLauro, you are now recognized.
The Chair. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I want to say a
thank you to you and to Ranking Member Fortenberry for the
opportunity to speak here this morning.
Secretary Vilsack, welcome back to the Appropriations
Committee. I look forward to your testimony on the
administration's 2022 discretionary budget request and your
vision, your vision for the Department in the year ahead. It
was a pleasure to work with you during your first term as
Secretary, and I admire your deep dedication to American
agriculture and rural America.
Please know that the invitation is always open for you to
come to visit Connecticut, to see firsthand the State's
diversity--our family farm dairies, nursery and greenhouse
operations, our specialty crop growers. And farmers in my
district and across Connecticut are models of regenerative
agriculture and sustainable food production.
And my city of New Haven is one of the few cities in the
country with a full-time Food Policy Director dedicated to
reforming the food system and promoting urban agriculture.
The COVID-19 pandemic created the largest public health and
economic crisis in a generation, and our food system was not
spared. Early on, farmers faced severe supply chain disruptions
that shut down their markets and threatens their livelihoods.
I appreciated your assistance and the insight that you
provided to me and to my staff last summer as we were trying to
address this issue. Some of the problems have been addressed
while other challenges remain.
The pandemic has also pulled back the curtain on the food
and nutrition crisis that continues to plague our Nation.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau's Household Pulse Survey,
hunger remains nearly three times higher than the pre-pandemic
level. And households with children are more likely to report
not getting enough to eat, with as many as 11 million children
living in a household facing hunger, according to the Center on
Budget and Policy Priorities.
That is unconscionable. I believe that you believe it is
unconscionable. And it was Senator Robert Kennedy that said,
and I quote: ``I believe that, as long as there is plenty,
poverty is evil.''
The skyrocketing hunger adds to the longstanding inequities
of our food system, including issues like food deserts, which
restrict access to food, but, importantly, fresh and healthy
foods which we are so concerned about, and disproportionately
the impact on low-income people and families of color. It is
especially concerning because we know that diet-related chronic
diseases, like obesity, hypertension, worsen COVID-19 outcomes.
So in the context of building back better, Mr. Secretary, I
would say you are going to be very busy. I want to thank you
for your swift action in implementing the American Rescue Plan,
which extended the 15 percent food stamp increase in the
Pandemic-EBT program.
I look forward to collaborating and partnering with you on
our shared priorities, which is why I am pleased by the
initiatives outlined in the Discretionary Request released last
week. The request expands investments in rural economies aimed
at increasing quality of life and reducing persistent poverty
in rural areas, which I know is an important focus for our
subcommittee chairman, Mr. Bishop.
Additionally, the request addresses racial equity in
agriculture by increasing funding for the Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights and establishes an Equity
Commission to review the distribution of farm programs. These
efforts would build on the $5 billion in debt relief to Black,
Brown, and Native farmers in the American Rescue Plan. I
appreciate the commitment to this issue of systemic
discrimination.
I am pleased with the increased funding for USDA science
and research agencies, which had to endure 4 years of repeated
attacks. Agencies like the Economic Research Service, the
National Institute of Food and Agriculture were targeted,
hollowed out, and moved from Washington, D.C. And your task is
to rebuild and refocus these agencies, which have long been
trusted for their unbiased research and expertise.
And agricultural research is as important now as it has
ever been. I believe that research holds the key to making
agriculture a solution to the climate crisis. We ought to
advance regenerative agriculture practices that capture carbon
by building soil organic matter.
And we should pursue parity and research funding for
alternative proteins. The United States can continue to be a
global leader on alternative protein science, and these
technologies can play an important role in combating climate
change and adding resiliency to our food system.
I also welcome the $74 million increase to the Food Safety
and Inspection Service to bolster small and regional meat
processing. FSIS' resources disproportionately go to the big
corporate meatpackers.
That is a problem because, according to the Department's
own data, while consolidation in meatpacking has increased
since 2000, consumer prices for beef, pork, poultry skyrocketed
by 82 percent, 44 percent, and 33 percent, respectively.
It is time we rethink current policies that have allowed
monopolies to flourish at the expense of farmers and consumers.
And speaking of FSIS, I want to personally let you know how
disheartened I am by the agency's actions over the last year.
During the pandemic, workers in meat plants have been treated
as expendable and exploited. A recent Freedom of Information
Act request obtained emails with industry representatives and
showed that FSIS leadership, many of whom are still at the
agency, spent more time worrying about the public image of the
industry over the lives of workers and Federal inspection
personnel.
Secretary Vilsack, that agency needs reform.
Speaking of reform, I believe the Department needs to
rethink its role in international trade. And whether it is
tainted Brazilian beef imported by meatpackers who sell it here
with a ``Product of USA'' label or other food imports from
countries with production systems that degrade natural
resources, the United States should never pursue trade deals at
the expense of American farmers, food safety, and jobs.
And lastly, I look forward to hearing more about your
plans--exciting plans--to fight hunger, strengthen nutrition
security. These must be our priority, and I agree with your
previous statements--we should fund our priorities.
I believe there are areas to act within the discretionary
budget, as well as the forthcoming mandatory request, but I
also want to underscore the urgency of a comprehensive and
coordinated response, especially as Congress considers a future
recovery package focused on rebuilding our Nation's physical
and social infrastructure.
I thank you very, very much for your being here. I look
forward to your testimony.
And I yield back.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Ms. DeLauro.
We are also delighted to have our full committee ranking
member with us this morning. She has worked collaboratively,
cooperatively, offering leadership with the committee, and
recognizing, of course, that we will have differences of
opinion on policy. But she has led the committee and worked
where possible for us to be able to find bipartisan consensus.
So I would like to now yield to the gentlewoman from Texas,
Ms. Granger, the ranking member of the full Appropriations
Committee.
Ms. Granger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
inviting me. And thank you for those kind words and for holding
this hearing today so that we can hear Secretary Vilsack's
plans for the Department of Agriculture.
The events of the past year have affected virtually every
sector of our economy. This is especially true for our farmers
and ranchers.
Thanks to the staff at USDA, programs were quickly
implemented to help those affected by the pandemic. In addition
to providing direct support to our farmers and ranchers, USDA
provided temporary assistance to families who had their incomes
reduced.
I am especially thankful for the efforts of the Department
and our local communities to ensure children were fed when they
were not in school. Not only were our schools closed as a
result of the pandemic, of course we know, but in-person doctor
visits were limited and it was a challenge to conduct normal
business transactions. So the urgency to close the digital
divide in rural America has never been more clear.
Thirty million Americans, including 35 percent of rural
Americans, live in areas without any access to the internet.
Many small rural communities across Texas and the entire United
States need high-speed internet in order to learn, access
patient care, and conduct day-to-day business.
I am proud of the investments we have made in broadband in
a bipartisan way, and I look forward to continuing to work with
this administration to secure additional resources.
While I support these types of critical investments in our
rural and agricultural communities, we need to find ways to
reduce spending elsewhere. After providing trillions of dollars
to address the pandemic, we are now faced with the stark
reality of the highest level of debt our country has ever seen.
I hope we can work together on an appropriations bill to
adequately meet the needs of our farmers and ranchers in rural
communities and the hungry, while also keeping in mind the
impact that record levels of spending will have on generations
to come.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Ms. Granger.
And at this time Secretary Vilsack. Without objection, your
entire written testimony will be included in the record, and I
will recognize you now for your statement. And then we will
proceed with questions. You may summarize or you may give the
entire statement, it is completely up to you. But we are
certainly happy to welcome you and look forward to your
comments.
Secretary Vilsack, you are now recognized.
Secretary Vilsack. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And to
you and to Ranking Member Fortenberry and to Representative
DeLauro and Representative Granger, thank you very much for the
opportunity to appear before the committee today.
Normally, I would read a statement, but I would ask the
indulgence of the chair to allow me to speak a bit from the
heart. Normally, I would talk to you all about numbers and the
budget. But these are not normal times and this is certainly
not a normal budget hearing.
I think it is important to put this discretionary budget in
the context of all of the other actions that are currently
taking place and have taken place in relationship to the
American Rescue Plan, in relationship to the American Jobs Plan
that is pending, the mandatory budget that is forthcoming, and
I believe the American Families Plan that is also forthcoming.
It is often said that paradigm shifts start with big ideas,
and I think that there are four big ideas encapsulated in all
of these budgets and plans. And I would like to explain them
briefly to you today and put them in the context of this
budget.
The first big idea is the notion that climate change, while
it may be an existential threat, it also represents an
extraordinary opportunity to bring profitability back to
farming and to rural communities, to create jobs, and we need
to take full advantage of that opportunity.
You began that process, I think, and will begin that
process by focusing as well on the American Jobs Plan that has
resources for climate-smart agriculture, bio-based
manufacturing, clean energy conversion.
This budget also contains resources consistent with that
vision of taking full opportunity of climate--an increase in
the climate hubs, opportunities for rural utilities to convert
to clean energy, a Civilian Climate Corps, increased research
in climate, as well as aspects of this budget that are not the
committee's responsibility, but clearly important to all
Members of Congress, and that is additional resources to manage
our forests properly.
A second big idea incorporated in this budget and the plans
that you all have discussed and will discuss is the notion that
we are moving beyond the notion of compensating individuals who
have individually suffered discrimination. When I was last
Secretary, we focused on the settlement of the Pigford cases
and other class actions for discrimination.
We are moving beyond that now to look at how we might be
able to root out systemic barriers that exist in our programs
today that have created a significant gap between those who
have had full access to our programs and those who have not.
And this is certainly an opportunity for us to also
recognize the cumulative long-term effect and impact of past
discrimination and the need for us to close the gap and to
recognize that cumulative impact.
You all have done that, in part, through the Rescue Plan
with the Debt Relief Act that we are now in the process of
implementing at USDA. You have also created opportunities for
new market access and land access for socially disadvantaged
farmers to help us close the gap.
This budget also reflects a desire to do so for communities
that have been dealing with persistent poverty for far too
long. We propose the re-establishment of a StrikeForce designed
to specifically focus on areas where poverty has been so
persistent and so deep, a specialized, very focused effort on
trying to eradicate the root causes of poverty in those
communities.
It also reflects, as Representative Fortenberry suggested,
the important role that minority-serving institutions can play
of higher education and better coordination with all
institutions of higher learning. That is one of the reasons why
you will see increases in resources to the HBCUs and other
minority-serving institutions in this budget.
The third big idea is the notion that, as important as
productivity is in agriculture, so is profitability and
resiliency. We have learned from the pandemic the need for us
to have greater resilience in our system.
That is why the Rescue Plan created a supply chain
investment, and that is why this budget involves and increases
resources to help small processing facilities create more
competition, more open markets, more opportunities for farmers
to profit.
I know my time is about to expire, Mr. Chair, so let me
just briefly comment on the last and fourth big idea--that it
is not just about food insecurity in this country, as important
as that is, it is also about nutrition insecurity. The fact is
we have 18.5 percent of our children who are obese. We have 70
percent of our adults who are overweight or obese. It is
causing terrific pressures on our healthcare system.
It is important and necessary for us to jointly and focus
not just on food insecurity, but also nutrition insecurity.
Your Rescue Plan does that by providing bonus resources for
WIC, by increasing the SNAP benefit. This budget also continues
that commitment by fully funding WIC, by focusing on summer EBT
opportunities, by creating equipment grants, so that schools
and others can produce nutritious, quality food for our
children.
Mr. Chair, I look forward to the questions of the committee
and look forward to working with all of you to carry out these
four big ideas that will result in significant paradigm shifts,
greater equity, and greater opportunity in rural places.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
We will now proceed with questions. As I mentioned earlier,
we will begin with the chair and ranking member, then
alternating majority and minority with members present at the
time the hearing starts in the order of seniority. After that I
will recognize members not present at the time the hearing was
called to order.
Each member will have 5 minutes in each round, so please be
mindful of your time.
I will begin.
Mr. Secretary, I understand that you are limited in what
you can say about the so-called skinny budget that was released
last week, but I am going to try anyway. Two questions.
First is the Civilian Climate Corps, which the budget says
would create a new pathway to good-paying jobs in rural
America. Can you talk about the concept? And is there any
possibility that that would be under your jurisdiction, under
the jurisdiction of USDA?
And, of course, you mentioned earlier the StrikeForce
Initiative, which you created in 2010 and for which you are
requesting $32 million. StrikeForce aims to target assistance
to rural areas with chronic poverty. Briefly talk about that
and why you so strongly support that.
And the second question I would like to include after you
address those briefly is regarding rural healthcare under the
American Rescue Plan. It included my proposal to provide $500
million for healthcare facilities and vaccine distribution.
We wrote it broadly, and while it was developed in the
middle of the pandemic, we intended to address also the
systemic impacts that are stemming from the pandemic. For
example, the bill allows reimbursement for revenue lost during
the COVID-19 pandemic, including revenue losses incurred prior
to the awarding of the grant.
A recent study found that in 22 States, 25 percent or more
of rural hospitals were at immediate risk of closure. The
pandemic only intensified the financial crisis at rural
hospitals.
Though the bill was only signed about 5 weeks ago, can you
share your thoughts on how you see this program unfolding.
Thank you for your answers, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Vilsack. Mr. Chairman, the Civilian Climate Corps
is patterned, I think, after the Civilian Conservation Corps,
which we currently have in the Forest Service, where there are
over 10,000 members who are basically volunteer and/or retained
to provide assistance and help and to expand the opportunities
for the Forest Service to do a better job of maintaining and
managing our forests.
We certainly at USDA will have a role with reference to the
Civilian Climate Corps. I think the fact that we established
the Conservation Corps gives us an opportunity to replicate
this in terms of climate.
What this is, is really encouraging people to participate
in an effort to improve opportunities to sequester carbon, to
better maintain and utilize and embrace climate-smart
agricultural practices, regenerative practices, focus on urban
agriculture, community opportunities as well.
It is very expansive, and I suspect it is going to be an
interagency, multiagency effort, and USDA will play an
important and critical role.
On StrikeForce, it really is designed, Mr. Chair, to
understand in those persistently poor areas they simply do not
know how to play this game. They don't know how to apply for
the financial resources that may be available.
StrikeForce basically creates a team of people that will go
into these communities, work with a community-building
organization that is trusted, be able to identify the problems
that the community has to address, and then be able to work
through the system to ensure that they receive benefits.
In the previous administration, in the Obama
administration, we invested $23.8 billion in StrikeForce areas.
We want to focus on the 380-some counties where poverty has
been persistent for over 30 years, persistent and consistent
with Representative Clyburn's ideas.
On your healthcare program, essentially what we are doing
is providing resources to each State rural development office
for distribution and application, whether it is a small $25,000
grant that will allow a community health center to stay open or
whether it is potentially a million-dollar project that would
potentially provide opportunities for telehealth to be expanded
into remote rural areas.
We want to provide as much discretion and as much
opportunity, to provide as much help and assistance as
possible. A portion of those resources will likely be retained
in the national office so as States use up their State
allocation, we will be in a position to be able to fund those
projects that perhaps will move the dial significantly and
provide help and assistance. And then our expectation is to get
these resources out as quickly as possible.
I have also been calling governors of States to advise them
of the existence of this proposal specifically. I talked to
your Governor, Governor in Georgia recently. And I will
continue to do so, to reach out to governors to make sure they
are aware of this program so that they can take full advantage
of it as well.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Although I have 54 seconds left, I will at this time yield
to the Ranking Member, Mr. Fortenberry, for his questions.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, again, welcome, Mr. Secretary. Nice to see you again.
Let me return to something that I referenced in my opening
remarks. Rural broadband is more than wires laid and money
spent. It is about the meaning of that process. Are we
promoting an ecosystem of livability by enhancing telework and
telemedicine, distance learning and precision agricultural, and
all the other potential benefits that can come forth through,
again, the digital leap that we have undertaken, particularly
during the pandemic?
We are spending a lot of money here. It is not clear to me,
though, we have the proper metrics in place.
So with that said, in regard to the next round of ReConnect
internet grants, how can we do a better job of measuring the
success of these high-speed internet investments across rural
America--metrics beyond just physical infrastructure and money
spent?
Secretary Vilsack. Representative, I think one way is to
make sure that the level of broadband assistance and help that
is being provided in remote areas is actually adequate to do
the job that you envision as part of that ecosystem you talked
about.
The reality is, you can have broadband, but if the
downloads and upload speeds are not significant or are not
sufficient, you can check the box, but you actually haven't
improved the quality.
One of the things we are going to be focusing on is making
sure that there is a minimum level of uptick and download
speeds that will make it significant and create those
opportunities for telehealth, for distance learning, for being
able to operate your business out of your home. We have learned
this during the pandemic, of the importance of this.
Secondly, I think it is important for us to understand
there is an emotional involvement here. For those of us who
have been isolated during COVID, the ability to have FaceTime
and Skype and the ability to see our children and our
grandchildren, incredibly important. That is part of that
ecosystem you talked about. If you don't have the proper speeds
and if you don't have the understanding of how these
technologies can be used, you may not fully take advantage of
them.
So I think, in addition to installing the wire or having
the 5G or whatever it is, you also have to have some
opportunities for community colleges or others to basically
help train individuals to fully utilize the technology as well.
Young people certainly understand it. People my age maybe not
so much. But we ought to all be able to use this resource.
Mr. Fortenberry. It is also a question of cost, when you
have a mother writing to me that she is sitting in the school
parking lot trying to access the free WiFi so her child can do
the homework that is assigned in a community that is a little
bit larger than our traditional definition of rural, but it is
rural in character. There is another level of difficulty there,
a cost issue.
Secretary Vilsack. I think it requires coordination between
USDA and the other agencies that have impact and effect on
this. There is a substantial amount of money in the Rescue Plan
and an even greater amount of money in the Jobs Plan. Depending
upon what you all decide to do, there is going to be
significant resources.
And that is important. You have to fund this. There is no
question about it. But you also have to make sure that it is
used properly and understood the power of it. And I think there
is a responsibility that we have to make sure that those
resources are well spent.
Mr. Fortenberry. Well, let's all keep thinking critically
on the question, because, again, I think we are in a
transformative moment in this regard. These technologies have
existed, but they never existed in such a penetration as we
have seen and created the necessity. And if there can be a
bright spot emerging from the pandemic, this could be one in
terms of enhanced productivity and well-being.
Let me turn to another topic right quick.
Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft, recently said that the
world's wealthiest nation, America, need to go to 100 percent
synthetic beef because of concerns about climate change.
Well, Mr. Secretary, you know how that would go over where
you and I come from. What I call ``fake meat'' as it impacts
the possibility of reducing climate change, which is minuscule
in comparison to other problems that we have, would be so
disruptive in terms of nutritional value of beef and the proper
leveraging and stewardship of our extraordinary advantages of
the resources that we have, particularly where we come from.
Do you agree with Bill Gates?
Secretary Vilsack. What I do agree with is the fact that
our farmers are, in fact, great stewards, and I think that they
are embracing the notion of sustainability. And I think we need
to invest in that notion. I think there is an opportunity for
farmers to embrace climate-smart agricultural practices, to
embrace animal welfare and stewardship, and be able to allow us
to message the ability and importance of animal protein
production.
I don't think we necessarily can create a circumstance
where we bar certain technologies. I think we need to compete,
and I think we can compete with the right resources and the
right vision.
I think we have the right vision. I think the vision that
climate change creates opportunity, creates new profit centers
for farmers can be embraced. And with the right policies and
the right incentives, I think we will see wide adoption of
climate-smart agriculture, of methane capture and reuse, of
bio-based manufacturing.
That is the transformative idea within climate. That is the
opportunity to completely change the economy in rural America.
And I will tell you, Congressman, I am very, very interested in
making sure that my time at USDA is spent advancing that
vision.
Mr. Fortenberry. Well, I agree with the vision as well. And
I think we need to tell the story loudly and clearly, as you
are doing and as I am trying to do and the chairman is doing,
about the power and greatness of American agriculture.
Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Fortenberry.
At this time, I would like to recognize the full
Appropriations Committee chair, Ms. DeLauro, for any questions
that she might have.
Ms. DeLauro, you are now recognized.
The Chair. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
And, Mr. Secretary, I am impressed by your focus on hunger
and nutrition security. And I know we had the opportunity to
work to enact the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids legislation. And a
new study this week said that school meals are now the
healthiest source of food consumed in the United States. So
quite an achievement.
But I wondered if you could share your nutrition security
plans. What ways can we work together and build on the previous
success? What are the things that you have in mind with regard
to the nutrition security?
Secretary Vilsack. Madam Chair, every single child in this
country, in a childcare facility, in a school, wherever they
might find themselves to be, every single child, I think, has
to have the opportunity to have access to nutritious, good,
healthy food.
That means additional resources for our child and adult
care program. It needs a focus on making sure that we have
sufficient resources going into our schools to allow them to
expand school breakfast and to make it nutritious, to allow us
to have a school lunch program that is available to all and is
nutritiously available to all.
It is an opportunity for us to essentially inform and
provide consumers with the kind of information that will allow
them as adults to make individual choices that are in the best
interest of themselves and their family.
It is a real concerted effort to understand that at the end
of the day nutrition is so important.
Let me give you this one example. Your job is going to fund
Medicare and Medicaid. $160 billion of that budget is going to
be spent on diabetes treatment--$160 billion. That is more than
my budget, my entire budget.
What if you cut it in half? What if you cut it 75 percent?
The reality is, that is diet related. If you have better
nutrition, those diabetes numbers go down. As they go down,
your resources available for whatever goes up.
So it is cost-effective for us to invest, particularly in
our children, because we want them to have great habits as they
go through life. We want them to be well-educated. To be well-
educated they have to be well fed, and well fed means healthy,
nutritious food.
The Chair. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Let me move to a different topic. I have been an outspoken
critic during the previous administration when what I view as
the corrupt Brazilian meatpacker JBS, they received more than
$100 million as part of the Department's so-called trade aid
package.
JBS is eligible, has received additional procurement
contracts through the USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service.
That concerns me because the Batista brothers, who own the
parent company, have pled guilty to violating the Foreign
Corrupt Practices Act in relation to their illegal entry to and
consolidation of the U.S. meatpacking sector.
The question is simple. Why are we using the Federal
procurement process at USDA to subsidize a foreign corrupt
owned meatpacker? And would you agree that this procurement
process could be reformed, better utilized to support local
farmers, regional food systems, instead of this corporate
monopoly?
And this is even more troubling if the USDA plans to end
the Farmers to Families Food Box.
Can you comment, Mr. Secretary?
Secretary Vilsack. Madam Chair, I agree with you. I think
we have to take a look at the procurement power of the Federal
Government in making sure that we are incenting and awarding
proper behavior, if you will, good employers, folks who support
the value system that I think is inherent in the U.S. of taking
care of people.
I was as concerned as you were about recent issues in our
meatpacking facilities in terms of the treatment of workers.
That is unacceptable. And clearly we are going to take--we are
going to ensure that that doesn't happen again.
I think there is a process, an opportunity for us to look
at our procurement programs. I think it is not just our
procurement programs; I think it is a lot more. I think it is
our regulatory structure and system in terms of the Packers and
Stockyards Act to make sure that that is being appropriately
enforced and is strengthened. I think it is about creating
additional processing capacity in this country.
I think there are resources that you have provided that
will give us some creative opportunities to help that local and
regional food system, that value-added food system prosper, to
create competition, to create greater resiliency in the food
supply system.
So I think there is a number of different avenues in
addition to procurement that we need to explore and need to
look at within the Department so that we have the strongest,
most resilient food supply system, a system that is fair and
equitable, that treats people well, and rewards good behavior.
The Chair. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. I would just
say, I hope you can take a look at what has been going on with
JBS. I think you have, all of my colleagues on this committee
have farmers, regional food systems, that really do need the
assistance and the help rather than someone who is in violation
of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
But thank you so much. I appreciate your responses. Thank
you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Chairwoman DeLauro.
I am now happy to yield for questions to the gentlelady
from Texas, our ranking member of the full committee, Ms. Kay
Granger.
Ms. Granger. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Over the past several months we have seen commodity prices
rise to near record levels. This is in part due to large
purchases from China. When China stopped buying, our farm
economy suffered.
In a recent hearing before this subcommittee, Ranking
Member Fortenberry asked the CEO of the Farm Credit
Administration if our agricultural economy was too dependent on
China. The CEO was clear that any time we are dependent on a
single country we are at risk.
What can your Department do to help promote U.S.
agricultural products so that China cannot put our farmers and
ranchers at such risk?
Secretary Vilsack. Representative, I worked for 4 years in
the dairy industry as president of the Dairy Export Council,
and what I learned from that experience was the necessity of
having deeper presence in alternative market opportunities. I
think you are absolutely right. You can't be overreliant on a
single market because that can cause great disruption.
Southeast Asia is certainly ripe for that opportunity.
There is opportunities in the Middle East as well. I think a
longer-term strategy has to include Africa because one-half of
the increased population in this world over the next 15 years
is going to be in that continent. I think there are closer
relationships we can develop as well in our own hemisphere.
But deeper presence means three things.
It means people on the ground who are essentially
understanding and appreciating the market so that we have
market insights so we can tailor our programs and our policies
and our products to meet that market demand.
It is about partnerships and the ability for U.S. commodity
groups to be partnering with and our university systems to be
partnering with universities and innovators in those markets to
create new products that can use U.S. ingredients to produce
what customers want in those markets.
And it is about promotion. It is about continued promotion,
continually telling the American story of agriculture in terms
of the safety and stability of our supply and our capacity to
be innovative.
I think if you deepen presence in those additional markets
you are going to see less reliance on China over time and a
more diverse and more balanced and more resilient system.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
A second question. As I mentioned in my opening statement,
over a third of rural America lacks adequate broadband. You
have a successful program at USDA that has bipartisan support
and the subcommittee has provided you with more than $2 billion
over the past 4 years to fund it. Yet you have not released the
funding for fiscal years 2020 and 2021.
Can you provide us an update on your plan for our
requesting proposals so the internet providers can deliver this
critical need in rural America?
Secretary Vilsack. The guidance we were providing to the
industry was a bit confusing. We have simplified that guidance,
which will allow more communities potentially to access those
resources. And I expect and anticipate you are going to see the
distribution of those resources in the very near future now
that we have, sort of, simplified and clarified the rules under
which the program is going to operate.
I will say, as I responded to Representative Fortenberry,
we are going to be very sensitive to making sure that as things
are expanded, they are expanded in a meaningful way, which
means that you have got upload and download speeds that
actually make sense in today's world. But I think you are going
to see much more progress on that over the course of the next
several months.
Ms. Granger. I certainly hope so.
I have got a little time left. I have heard from farmers
and ranchers in Texas that they have seen a delay in services
from the Farm Service Agency because of the Biden's
administration's limiting offices to 25 percent worker
capacity.
I understand the concern for the safety of your field
staff, but have you provided flexibility to increase worker
capacity at these county offices, especially during planting
season, which is vital? Also, when do you expect to allow these
offices to return to full capacity?
Secretary Vilsack. I want to reassure you that we are
tracking the activities and workload to make sure that we are
on track. And I can assure you that, based on that evaluation,
we are basically at the same level of service in terms of sign-
ups, et cetera, as we were pre-pandemic, which I think is a
testimony to the incredible work of our Farm Service folks.
We have provided flexibility. We received flexibility on
the 25 percent rule. So those folks who want to get in and can
get in and socially distance in a safe way, we are allowing
that to happen. Those who have concerns about this are still
allowed to continue to work at home.
We have a work safety plan. We are going to obviously be
guided by that to make sure that when we reopen fully and
completely we do so where the workforce feels comfortable and
confident that----
Ms. Granger. Let's go back to the delay in services from
the Farm Service Agency. Are you saying there hasn't been--that
hasn't been a problem?
Secretary Vilsack. It has not been. We tracked it. I am
happy to provide you the charts to show you the level of sign-
ups for the last several years, and we are right on track to
where we were pre-pandemic.
Ms. Granger. Please do that.
Secretary Vilsack. There may be an individual circumstance,
but I will tell you, system-wide, we are doing exactly what we
have always done.
Ms. Granger. Okay. Send me those and I will appreciate it
very much.
Thank you.
Secretary Vilsack. Very well.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Ms. Granger.
And, Mr. Secretary, at this time I am pleased to yield to
the subcommittee chair of Interior, Ms. Chellie Pingree, the
gentlelady from Maine.
You may now be recognized to ask your questions.
Ms. Pingree. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. Thank you for
holding this hearing.
And, Mr. Secretary, really appreciate your time with us
today. And thank you so much for your opening remarks really
focusing on the important big ideas that are a critical part of
your agenda and this administration's agenda.
And I want to say I really appreciate your deep level of
understanding of engaging farmers and the importance of being
our partners in climate change, in the opportunities that are
there for increased revenues for farmers, as well as the
important role that they can play using agriculture as a really
important tool to sequester carbon and do so many of the other
things we need to do around renewable energy and new products,
as well as making sure we finally deal with racial injustice
issues and food insecurity and understanding that food
insecurity is much more about nutrition and the quality of the
food, not just calories.
So I didn't mean to repeat your speech, but I just
appreciate so much the direction you are taking us in here.
So I want to go from the big picture down to kind of like
the minutia a little bit. I am really interested in the climate
hubs. It is an important part of the funding in my bill, the
Agriculture Resilience Act. And I know you are talking about
increasing that funding by 40 million next year. I think they
are a little-understood part of what has already been set up at
the USDA, how the Forest Service plays a role in this.
But just the benefit that that could be if we really
enhanced their capacity and increased their funding. Can you
just talk a little bit about that and how you see them being
used?
Secretary Vilsack. It is a coordinated effort between the
Forest Service, NRCS, and our research efforts at USDA. And it
is designed to provide a quality assessment of the risk
associated with climate and, most importantly, creating
opportunities to work with farmers, ranchers, and producers on
mitigation and adaptation strategies and embracing climate-
smart agricultural practices so that we reduce the risk and we
don't suffer a decline in production, we are capable of
continuing to produce the abundance and to do it in a
sustainable way.
Tremendous partnership, well used, but not as well-known.
And this is an opportunity, I think, for us to really ramp up
our capacity to provide the knowledge and the information
necessary for farmers.
I think farmers are really, really ready for this. I think
they are hungry for this. They need the information, they need
the knowledge, they need the expertise.
And so as a result, we need those climate hubs to ramp up.
We need those climate hubs to be more active. To do that they
are going to need a few more folks. They are going to need a
little bit of additional resource. That is why we put it in the
budget.
Ms. Pingree. Great. Well, again, I just want to thank you
for doing that. I think it is really important to have that
assist.
I just want to say that our land grant university has let
us know that they particularly benefit from them. That is one
of the regions where there actually has been at least some
amount of funding.
And coming from the most forested State in the Nation where
we care deeply about climate change, but also about
opportunities for forest innovation, forest practices, the role
of the forest in sequestering carbon, I think it has
particularly been important to us. But they are definitely
underresourced, and I am glad to see you doing that.
And I also think they play an important role in this
ability to translate the abstract goals that we have down to
how do we really actually provide assistance to farmers in
making these transitions and, as you said, reducing the risk.
My second point is about the organic livestock and poultry
practices rule. I feel like I am always the one on the
committee that asks you to go back to origin of livestock or
this one.
So can you give us a little sense of where we are with
that? What is the timeline for restoring it? It seems like, you
know, it has been so hopelessly delayed. Well, you know all the
details. But when can we look for that?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, I think the reality is that
concerns were raised about the economic analysis, concerns have
been raised about the way in which both the Obama
administration and the Trump administration have been handling
these rules.
So we are essentially going to start from scratch to make
sure we do it right. And on the livestock rule, we are going to
basically--we are going to provide additional opportunity for
input on a couple of tweaks and changes that we have made, so
that once we get that input that part should be advanced fairly
soon.
The origin issue may be a little bit more complicated--or,
I mean, the poultry issue may be a little bit more complicated
because I think we need to start from scratch, we need a proper
analysis, we need to make sure we have the strongest possible
legal basis for whatever it is we decide to do. So that may
take a little bit longer.
Ms. Pingree. Great. Well, can you commit that you will make
this a top priority? I just think it is important to resolve
this for once and for all.
Secretary Vilsack. I agree. And it is and it will be.
Ms. Pingree. Thank you. I am out of time. Thank you so much
for your answers.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Ms. Pingree.
And at this time I am happy to recognize the gentleman from
Maryland, Dr. Harris.
You are now recognized for your questions, sir.
Mr. Harris. Thank you very much.
And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for, you know, appearing
before the committee.
I have a couple of--my main concern for the Maryland Farm
Bureau is the issue of whether or not the estate taxes will be
changed, you know, under a Biden tax plan.
And if you could just briefly mention--as you know, you
know, the step-up basis plus decreasing the exclusion would, I
think, be very harmful for a lot of farmers, especially
multigenerational farmers. Are these issues that you are aware
of?
Secretary Vilsack. I am aware of the issues,
Representative. I think it is important to point out that, the
way these can be structured, there are very, very few--at the
end of the day, very, very few farms that can be impacted and
affected by this.
I mean, for example, the special-use valuation allows a
recalculation of value for most farms to get them well under
whatever the threshold might be for the establishment of an
estate tax. So that is an important consideration. There is
also a fairly significant long-term capacity, if there is
estate tax, to be able to pay at a very low interest rate.
So I don't think the issue here--I don't think, at the end
of the day, it is going to result in, you know, a destruction
of the ability to pass on farms. I think there are tools in
that Tax Code that will allow most farms to be transferred
without difficulty.
I don't know the particulars that are being discussed, if
any, but I will tell you that I do know from my own personal
experience doing tax returns and estates for farmers for many,
many years that there are a number of ways that farmers can
use, and do use, to avoid estate and inheritance tax.
Mr. Harris. All right. Well, I will transmit that back to
the Farm Bureau, but I expect that, you know, they know what
the situation is in Maryland, and I suspect that a one-size-
fits-all approach could be harmful to my local farmers.
One other issue where the USDA got caught up in is the blue
catfish inspection issue. I know I talked about it extensively
with the previous Secretary. Because the blue catfish, as you
may or may not know, is an invasive species in the Chesapeake.
It is decimating our rockfish and crab population.
And because the U.S.--this is the only fish that the USDA
inspects the processing of, instead of FDA. It has created a
tremendous burden on our fishermen. They don't catch it
commercially. They could, but they don't, because there are no
processing facilities, basically, for it. And although I think
we have a million dollars in last year's budget to help pay for
some of the inspections, this is of great concern. Because if
we don't carve out the Chesapeake Bay from this inspection
regime, then the ecosystem is at risk.
And do you know, is there a reason why the Chesapeake Bay
shouldn't be carved out from this inspection system and get it
back over to the FDA, which will allow commercialization of the
catching of the blue catfish and control an invasive species?
Secretary Vilsack. Representative, will you give me some
time to find out the response to your question? It is not
something I--frankly, I can't answer it today. I don't know.
Mr. Harris. Okay. Thank you. And I appreciate that.
Secretary Vilsack. I am happy to----
Mr. Harris. Again, it is a very specific issue to the
Chesapeake Bay. And the USDA normally doesn't do fish
processing inspections. So the politics are interesting.
One quick issue is the price of edible oils that, for a
variety of reasons, has gone up, I am told, about 300 percent.
And this could be, in fact, made even worse over the next few
months.
And is the USDA aware of the supply trend issues with
edible oils and the potential impact on the food industry?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, certainly we are aware of
significant disruptions in the supply chain. Transportation is
a serious issue. Congestion at the ports, difficulties with
containers, we are focused on that.
We have expressed to the Maritime Commission the importance
of doing what they need to do to make sure that we can get
goods and services in and out of this country more quickly. I
think it would be helpful if we could see investments in our
infrastructure that would allow that to take place in a more
efficient way.
So we are aware of supply-chain disruption, and we are
doing everything we can to make sure that those who have power
and control and jurisdiction over those issues are aware and
need to take action.
Mr. Harris. Okay.
And just two comments.
You know, I agree with you on the problem of obesity in the
country. I would suggest that some of the physicians have felt
that one way we could help with it through the USDA is to align
the food restrictions on the SNAP program with the food
restrictions on the WIC program, which basically means that it
would have to be nutritious foods.
Because, you know, as we expand the SNAP program, as you
are aware, we expand the availability of a lot of non-
nutritious food, as well, that a lot of people now believe in
the medical field contribute--these foods contribute to the
obesity crisis we have.
So it is something, if you would think about, it would be
great to have the support to in fact begin to look at
encouraging not only food security but nutritious food security
for Americans.
And then, just finally, I have met with a lot of farmers in
my district who are very disappointed. You know, the USDA is an
agency that they thought just put farming as its priority, but
I will tell you, this farm loan assistance for socially
disadvantaged farmers has got a lot of them upset, because an
agency that they thought was color-blind is now color-
preferenced. And they worry that this means that the USDA,
which typically doesn't engage in politics, is now part of a
``woke'' agenda. And I will just leave it at that.
They are very disappointed, because your agency has a great
reputation within the Federal Government for being a
nonpolitical agency, and it looks like it has become very
political.
And I will yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Bishop. Well, thank you, Dr. Harris. Your time has
expired.
At this time, I am delighted to recognize the gentleman
from Wisconsin, Mr. Mark Pocan.
Mr. Pocan, you are now recognized for your questions.
Mr. Pocan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here. And it was
heartening to hear your priorities for the Department, so thank
you for sharing that.
Just so you know, I have a largely agricultural district,
outside of the Madison metropolitan area, and a lot of dairy,
soy, corn. I, myself, live in a rural town of 850 people. I can
walk 5 minutes from the end of my driveway to walking by cows
pasturing. So, very much a part of my district. We also are the
home to UW-Madison, one of the main ag research universities,
land-grant universities in the country.
I would like to extend an invitation to you, as well, to
the district sometime. I have so many areas I could cover, I am
not going to do it in 5 minutes. But Secretary Perdue did come
during his tenure, and we really appreciated when he came by
and visited one of the billings I am going to bring up.
If it is all right, I am going to bring up four areas, Mr.
Secretary, and then let you comment, because I want to make
sure I get these in.
The first one is, recently we have had an issue with our
State not having an emergency order in place around COVID that
could have cost us $70 million of SNAP benefits every single
month.
We reached out to your office a while ago. I believe as of
last night our Governor has worked out a deal with the USDA
that we will still be able to get it, with an executive order
signed by Secretary Karen Timberlake. But I just wanted to
confirm that, because, obviously, it is very important. Our
Republican legislature, either ineptly or insufficiently,
didn't deal with this, and it was going to cost us money, and
we want to make sure what we have in place works.
Second, as I mentioned, UW-Madison is one of our premier
agricultural research universities. On campus, the Agricultural
Research Service has a building that Secretary Perdue visited
when he was in Wisconsin in my district, and my only regret is
they swept the cockroaches out before they had him come by. It
is World War II-era building. It is the number-one priority for
the University of Wisconsin-Madison. We co-locate with the USDA
there on a program around the vegetable crop research unit, and
would love to make sure that that can get prioritized. We do
need some assistance in funding for that. And, again, would
love to have you see the facility.
Three, third issue around hemp. I know there are some new
rules on the THC. Some of my younger farmers, especially, have
been trying to grow hemp, and they have been concerned because
the limits were so low that there was a huge financial risk if
they had to destroy their own crops. I would love to hear a
little bit about what you see with that so I can give some good
information to them.
And then the final area is around consolidation. I was very
heartened to see that the President's budget included resources
for stepped-up antitrust enforcement in the agricultural
sector. But, as you know, many areas, including places like
Wisconsin that have a lot of family farms--I think we were
number one in the Nation for dairy farm bankruptcies in the
last year or two--it has been really tough. Consolidations have
hit us hard. I would love to hear a little more about what your
plan is around antitrust enforcement within the USDA.
So I know I gave you a lot there, Mr. Secretary, but I
figured that was the best way to do it and let you go at it
with the remaining time.
Secretary Vilsack. Representative, I think if there is an
emergency declaration at the State, your State would be
entitled to participate with the allotment. And I think if what
you said is accurate, obviously, we would move to a better
place than we were after the Supreme Court decision in
Wisconsin.
ARS has a lot of needs in terms of infrastructure. I
certainly will take back your concerns and make sure that they
are aware of it and make sure that it gets on the list. And I
will let you know essentially where it is on the list. It is a
fairly long list because for many, many, many years we weren't
investing as we needed to. We have caught up during the Obama
administration, and I think it was continued during Trump's
administration, but I think there is still quite a bit to do.
On hemp, we did raise the--we did finalize the rule. It is
0.3. I think it does create some certainty for the producer.
The problem now is making sure that we coordinate with our
Department of Justice friends so that we don't create a problem
with our processing community. That is a tough issue, a
difficult issue, but we are going to work through it.
In terms of consolidation--I have 38 seconds--you know,
strengthening the rules that exist, providing and investing in
additional processing capacity that prevents competition, and
working with the Department of Justice on a variety of issues,
whether it is enforcement and making sure that, when there is
antitrust issue, that the remedy actually addresses the
challenge, and, whatever investigations they have, working
collaboratively with USDA on making sure that we are focused in
the right areas.
I am down to 7 seconds, and----
Mr. Pocan. Thanks.
Secretary Vilsack [continuing]. There are other things I
could say to you, but----
Mr. Pocan. No, in the final 3 seconds, I just want to
reiterate my invite to the district. Would love to have you
come by sometime. Plus, it gets you closer to home.
Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Pocan.
At this time, I am happy to recognize the gentleman from
California, Mr. Valadao.
Mr. Valadao. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Secretary Vilsack. Welcome back to the
subcommittee. Thank you for joining us today to testify. A lot
has changed since you were last in front of this subcommittee,
but I look forward to working with you again in this
administration.
As you can imagine, I have a quite a few questions ready
for you. And I plan to submit what we can't get to to the
record for you to have the opportunity to respond to those that
way. But the most important, pressing issue is that we are
struggling today in the Central Valley.
I want to thank you first for designating the 50 California
counties, including my entire district, on March 5 as a primary
natural disaster area due to the ongoing drought. Just last
Thursday, you and the Secretary of the Interior, Deb Haaland,
released a statement acknowledging the critical drought in the
West.
Though I thank you for this acknowledgment, more needs to
be done to help our farmers and our water users in California.
Agriculture production is a large part of our economy, but
having a safe and reliable food supply is a serious national
security issue for our country as well.
Would you please tell me how the USDA plans to assist the
Central Valley of California as we deal with this horrible
historic drought?
Secretary Vilsack. A couple things, Representative.
Obviously, we are going to take a look at reconstituting
the drought task force and resiliency task force that we had
during the Obama administration when we dealt the last time
with the drought in California to make sure that we are taking
a look at the full range and suite of assistance that we can
provide to producers and to make sure that we do this in an
interagency process to make sure that it is not just the USDA
but we make sure that other departments that potentially have
equities here are brought into the process.
Secondly, I think it is important for us to continue doing
research. The better we are at utilizing the scarce amount of
resources we have, obviously, it will allow us to deal with
drought more effectively and more efficiently. And I think the
ARS is very much--our Agricultural Research Service is very
much involved in this, as is NIFA.
And, obviously, we will continue to take a look at the full
range of resources that we have under the various programs to
provide help and assistance to farmers as they struggle through
a very difficult time.
So we fully appreciate the challenges they have. We are
aware of it, and we will do everything we can to help.
Mr. Valadao. I appreciate that. And I appreciate you
bringing up that you have worked with other agencies. I think
that is important, that we have as broad an approach to this
obviously very complicated and important topic addressed as
quickly as possible.
And another one. And I know I have a couple minutes here.
The USDA took bold action in 2020 to utilize moneys made
available by Congress to purchase billions of dollars' worth of
U.S. farm products for distribution to families in need through
the Farmers to Families Food Box Program.
While the program was a success in many ways, it also
created unintended volatility in the U.S. dairy industry, as
cheese was a mandated product under the program while other
products, like butter, were largely left out of the boxes. This
created huge imbalances between dairy farmers driven only by
whether their farm was applying to a favored cheese
manufacturing sector.
USDA recently held an all-day listening session and comment
period on the issue, which exposed some of these imbalances.
Then, today, I was surprised to read in the news that USDA is
canceling this important program altogether. This action seems
directly to contradict your testimony that highlights the need
to address the Nation's nutrition insecurity.
Why are we learning about this in the news? And although it
wasn't a perfect program, this program provided families with
healthy, nutritious food options grown here in the U.S. What do
you plan to do to provide healthy food like what was included
in the food boxes to families in need?
Secretary Vilsack. We are going to continue to provide
healthy food, but we are going to do it through the most
efficient system that we have.
The reality is, the Food Box Program was set up to respond
to COVID. It was a response to COVID. A lot of problems with
it, Representative. A lot of problems. There was a significant
difference of administrative costs. In some cases, people were
charged a tremendous amount just to fill the boxes. There was
an inadequate accounting of where the boxes were actually
delivered. There was a lot of food waste and loss that we
uncovered as a result of these listening sessions.
So our theory is that we create opportunities through the
TEFAP program, through what exists with our food banks and our
food pantry system, which is incredibly efficient and
incredibly effective at getting resources out to folks.
So there is going to be a continuation. We just announced a
produce box that will be funneled through that system. We have
the Dairy Donation Program that we are going to set up, as
well, to help the dairy industry.
So we are going to try to take what we have learned at the
best of that program and incorporate it into our traditional
regular programs, which are very efficient in terms of food
distribution. So, that way, I think you get the best of both
worlds. You get product being used, product being available to
people, nutritious product being available, but you get it
through a very efficient and effective delivery mechanism that
is accountable.
Mr. Valadao. Well, I appreciate that. Making sure that we
are actually getting American products to those who desperately
need it is a priority. So I appreciate the answers.
And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Valadao.
At this time, I am happy to yield to the gentlelady from
Illinois, one of our new members, Ms. Lauren Underwood.
Ms. Underwood. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. You are now recognized for your questions.
Ms. Underwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you to Secretary Vilsack for joining us today.
Two weeks ago, I had the honor of visiting the Northern
Illinois Food Bank in Geneva, Illinois, and I was able to see
up close the truly incredible work that their staff and
volunteers are doing to keep the communities in my district
fed, despite huge challenges and heightened demand due to the
pandemic.
During my visit, the Northern Illinois Food Bank stressed
to me how the Farmers to Families Food Box Program has been
invaluable for distributing fresh, nutritious, ready-to-load
food to our neighbors. Between March of 2020 and February of
2021, nearly a quarter of the over 1 million meals they
distributed were supplied through the Food Box Program.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous consent to
enter into the record a comment from the Northern Illinois Food
Bank submitted to USDA supporting the Farmers to Families Food
Box Program and suggesting improvements.
Mr. Bishop. So ordered.
Ms. Underwood. My understanding based on news reports from
this morning is that USDA is ending the Farmers to Families
Food Box Program next month. But I was really pleased to see
that USDA announced a new fresh produce box program under the
Emergency Food Assistance Program, TEFAP.
Now, we know that the Farmers to Families Food Box Program
was not without its flaws, but the food it provided has been a
lifeline for families in my community. The Northern Illinois
Food Bank has valued the variety of food it provided through
the program, including the dairy and meat products. They also
appreciated the program's flexibility, which has allowed them
to distribute food boxes through many more of their agencies
that typically can't distribute the TEFAP food.
So, Mr. Secretary, do you anticipate the new TEFAP produce
box program will be able to fill the current need? And are you
considering flexibility, ease of distribution, and food variety
in the TEFAP produce box program or other food box programs?
Secretary Vilsack. The answer is that we are obviously
trying to take the best of the Food Box Program and institute
it into and implement it into our traditional distribution
system.
So I think you are going to continue to see the variety,
you are going to continue to see the wholesomeness and the
nutritious food being made available to folks. I think you are
just going to see it in a slightly different delivery mechanism
that is much more efficient and less costly, which means that
we are going to have more resources for more food for more
people, number one.
Number two, we continue to have enormous capacity to
purchase these other products and to incorporate them in what
is being made available to food banks and the food pantries.
And so I don't think you are going to see a decline or a
reduction in the diversity of what is going to be made
available to food banks. I think you are going to continue to
see us being engaged in this. In fact, this budget asked for
additional resources in the TEFAP program to be able to do more
of what you want us to do.
And I think, you know, we have also heard from a number of
other food banks that had serious concerns and issues with the
program. So what we are trying to do is trying to take the best
of what we have heard and eliminate the things that didn't work
particularly well, put it into a system that is well-known and
well-functioning, to make sure that we continue to get access
to as many people as possible with nutritious options and
flexibility.
Ms. Underwood. Well, I am certainly really pleased to hear
that. The produce boxes are a great step. And there is
obviously a deep level of need that likely requires greater
support, so please do let us know about those additional
resources that are needed.
Now I would like to turn to another critical nutrition
program. I am pleased to see that in your written testimony you
called out the importance of WIC in addressing the disparities
in maternal and child health outcomes, particularly the racial
disparities.
And I am the co-founder and co-chair of the Black Maternal
Health Caucus, and so expanding WIC is a big priority for me.
My Black Maternal Health Momnibus Act includes provisions that
would extend WIC eligibility in the postpartum and
breastfeeding periods to ensure that new moms have access to
nutrition programs that are proven to save lives and improve
maternal and child health outcomes.
In the skinny budget, the administration is requesting a
billion-dollar increase for nutrition programs, including WIC.
Can you provide some detail on how you anticipate USDA would
use that increased funding to expand WIC and improve maternal
health, including if there are any statutory changes that you
think may be necessary?
Secretary Vilsack. Representative, I think the first order
of business with reference to WIC is to make sure the 50
percent of participants who aren't participating do. And that
is why we were pleased with the Rescue Plan that provided
additional resources for us to reach out to States to figure
out ways in which we can be innovative in creating better
understanding of WIC and better participation in WIC.
We want to close that 50-percent gap. That is the first
order of business. The additional bonus that is in WIC because
of the Rescue Plan, the additional resources we are asking for
will allow us to continue to provide a decent benefit, but it
doesn't help if people aren't taking advantage of it.
We are looking for partnerships, we are looking for ways in
which we can get the word out about WIC and make sure that
folks fully participate. And I have reached out to Governors. I
mentioned that I am calling Governors. I am calling Governors
all across the country, encouraging them to work with us and
their human services department to get the information out
about WIC.
You know, I was at a food bank recently where they put
information in the box that they provide to families about
SNAP. Well, why can't they also put something in there about
WIC?
I think we need to look for creative ways, and certainly
would appreciate any idea you have that would expand outreach
that would enable us to close that 50-percent gap. It is very
concerning.
Ms. Underwood. Yes, sir. Well, I certainly look forward
to----
Mr. Bishop. Thank you----
Ms. Underwood [continuing]. Working with you on that.
I yield back.
Mr. Bishop [continuing]. Ms. Underwood. Your time has
expired. Hopefully you can get back to a second round.
I would like to recognize Mr. Moolenaar at this time, the
gentleman from Michigan.
The floor is yours, Mr. Moolenaar.
Mr. Moolenaar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And welcome back, Mr. Secretary. It is good to see you
again.
You may or may not be aware that we had a major flooding
event in mid-Michigan in May of 2020. And last year's
catastrophic flood was the result of a historic rain event and
a failure of two dams in my congressional district. And it cost
about $200 million worth of damage, and the rebuilding and
recovery efforts continue as we speak.
A major disaster declaration was issued by the President
last July. And I am pleased to tell you that the USDA was one
of the first Federal agencies to respond, and I am very
grateful for that.
The former USDA Deputy Under Secretary for Rural
Development, Bette Brand, came to my congressional district
with a pledge to support our recovery process, and the Natural
Resources Conservation Service has been and continues to be an
invaluable partner in providing Federal, critically needed, on-
the-ground response. And I am extremely grateful to your
department.
But we also continue to need assistance as we continue to
rebuild. Last year's flooding was not an isolated incident. My
hometown of Midland has experienced significant flood events
several times over the last 25 years.
In working closely with Federal stakeholders like USDA, as
well as FEMA, NOAA, EPA, and the Army Corps of Engineers, my
State and local officials and community stakeholders are
seeking your department's support for innovative, nature-based
flood-mitigation measures to slow the flow of water during
flood events and to protect the lives and livelihoods of those
communities I represent.
The creation of wetlands, conservation easements, and
natural flood plains are examples of steps that can be taken to
provide flood protection while also enhancing recreational,
environmental, and conservation benefits.
I would like to ask you today and the Department for your
continued support and to work with me and the bipartisan
Michigan delegation in Congress as we work together to develop
and implement a coordinated Federal approach to mitigating the
threat of future floods in the Great Lakes Bay region.
And I would also like to personally invite you to come to
mid-Michigan to see firsthand the efforts of USDA to date and
the work that still needs to be done as we recover and rebuild
from last year's historic flood event.
Thank you for your consideration, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Vilsack. Representative, I know that our team at
USDA continues to be in close contact with the Four Lakes Task
Force in the work that they are doing in helping to rebuild
those communities. We are looking at ways in which the
Community Facilities Program could potentially be of assistance
and help. And, certainly, I know that the folks at NRCS stand
ready to be as helpful as they possibly can with some of the
projects that you just mentioned.
I am happy to commit to you that we will continue to be
cooperative and continue to look for ways in which we can be of
assistance and be part of the team that rebuilds the area.
Mr. Moolenaar. Wonderful. Well, I am very grateful for
that. And, again, I would just like to personally invite you to
come out and see firsthand the work that has been done and
still needs to be done. And I am just grateful for that.
If I could switch gears a minute, first of all, I want to
be very supportive of your work in rural broadband and your
support for that. I think the pandemic as well as the flooding
have really demonstrated the importance of that.
I also want to just talk a moment about dairy. And dairy
farmers--and I know you know this well--make up a large portion
of the agriculture industry in Michigan and in my district, and
all face uncertainties about the future, especially with COVID.
The dairy industry has been caught in the middle of ever-
changing meal patterns, particularly dairy suppliers of low-fat
flavored milk. And I am wanting to ask what your willingness is
to continue allowing schools to serve 1-percent flavored milk,
particularly given that the 20 to 25 dietary guidelines for
Americans know that 90 percent of the U.S. population does not
meet dairy recommendations and also did identify low-fat milk
as a recommended nutrient-dense beverage.
Secretary Vilsack. You know, this is an interesting
question, Congressman, because if you go with the no-fat milk,
then kids don't drink it, and you lose the nutritional value
and nutritional benefit of the vitamins and the nutrients that
are in milk, the nine essential vitamins and nutrients and
minerals.
And so, to the extent that that alternative provides the
opportunity for us to see more milk consumption, that is
something I think we should absolutely take a look at. I mean,
at the end of the day, we want kids drinking milk, because it
is good for them.
And so I am encouraging our team to basically take a look
at that issue of, does it make sense to have a standard which
essentially cuts off milk consumption, or is it better to have
a standard that encourages milk consumption and where you get
the benefits?
And I think school districts obviously have, you know, a
lot of issues that they need to take into consideration, but I
think our team should be helpful in that respect.
Mr. Moolenaar. Wonderful. I appreciate your thoughtful
approach.
And, Mr. Chairman, I see my time has expired, and I yield
back.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Moolenaar.
At this time, I am delighted to recognize the gentlelady
from Minnesota, the chair of our Subcommittee on Defense, Ms.
Betty McCollum, for any questions that she might have for
Secretary Vilsack.
Ms. McCollum.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I am so happy to have you back at the USDA, Mr. Vilsack.
Your leadership and expertise will be critical in combating
climate change, stabilizing our food and agriculture systems,
and helping our Nation recover from COVID. So your experience
will help us in all those areas.
The pandemic, as has been pointed out by many, has
increased food and nutrition insecurity, but I wanted to focus
on some reports that have come back to light. Military members
and their families are no different in their reliance on food
banks, and we are seeing it dramatically increase.
Hunger among military families is not new. The 2016 GAO
report--and you might not have had a chance to look at this
yet, sir, but someone in your staff can look at it for you--
points out that roughly 23,000 military families use SNAP. They
spend more than $21 million in SNAP benefits on military bases
alone.
Many of us thought we had addressed this program years ago,
only to find out that we are still having food insecurity with
our military. A 2020 survey by Blue Star Families found that 14
percent of active-duty families are reporting food insecurity.
So the GAO report goes into all the reasons why this happens.
It is a great report.
And as our chair of the Agriculture Committee pointed out,
I chair the Defense Subcommittee on Appropriations, and I would
like to work with Chairman Bishop on this, as well with you,
how we can better understand this problem. So if you could get
to Chairman Bishop and I which staff person we should be
working directly with, that would be greatly appreciated, sir.
Secretary Vilsack. We will get that to you today.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
At the end of your tenure as Secretary of Agriculture, the
U.S. Forest Service took action to protect the Boundary Waters
Canoe Area, our Nation's most visited wilderness area. And it
is a priceless reserve of water, so clean you can drink it
directly from its lakes and rivers.
In December of 2016, our previous Forest Service Chief,
Chief Tidwell, denied consent for renewal of two expired mining
leases in the BWCA watershed, concluding--and I quote from
him--that sulfide copper ore mining could cause, quote,
``serious and irreparable harm to this unique, iconic,
irreplaceable wilderness area,'' end of quote.
In January 2017, the Forest Service applied for a mineral
withdrawal from Federal lands within the Rainy River watershed,
but the Trump administration canceled the mineral withdrawal
study, renewed the leases without any scientific evidence to
justify its actions, to show whether or not that water, in
fact, could be protected.
Now, I understand the Department of Agriculture, under your
leadership, is reviewing those actions. If you are able to,
would you share what steps the USDA will be taking under your
leadership to address this issue and the threat of sulfide ore
copper mining in the watershed?
And, in general, could you comment on the importance of
surface land managers, like the Forest Service, in retaining
the right to review and deny consent for mineral leases on
public lands, especially when it could impact our public
waters, which are the future generations' drinking water?
Secretary Vilsack. Representative, very much aware of the
challenge and the interest and the sensitivity of this
particular issue that you have raised. Certainly aware of it in
2015, 2016; aware of it in 2021.
I had the opportunity to go to Minnesota at the request of
former Vice President Walter Mondale, who has a very keen
interest in this issue, and spoke to a group that obviously is
very concerned about the Boundary Waters generally.
What I can tell you is that we are indeed reviewing the
Trump administration action, and we are also working with our
sister agency, the Department of the Interior, to take a look
at a variety of economic analyses that have been done and need
to be done in connection with this particular area as we make
decisions about what next steps are.
I don't want to prejudge what those next steps are until we
have had those conversations and completed that analysis, but
very, very, very well-aware of the sensitivities, and we will
do what we can.
And understand and appreciate the uniqueness of that
particular location. It is something that I am personally
familiar with, because our younger son spent a lot of time up
there in the Boundary Waters at Camp Widjiwagan when he was
growing up. So it is an area that was important to our family.
Ms. McCollum. Well, thank you.
Secretary Vilsack. I can assure you, we are going to take
it very seriously.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We don't place a value on water. But we hear about all the
value in minerals. And life does not exist without water.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Vilsack.
Mr. Bishop. I recognize Mr. Newhouse from Washington.
You now recognized.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Vilsack, it is great to see you again. I have to
say that, during my time as secretary of agriculture for my
State and then also as serving as a Member of Congress in your
last term, your office has always been very responsive and
great to work with. So congratulations to you on your second
confirmation. And I hope you are settling into your new old
office at USDA.
Just a quick question to get us started. You may or may not
know, earlier this year, I had the honor of being elected the
chairman of the Congressional Western Caucus, which is a group
of about 70 Members of Congress located throughout the country.
Some of our main priorities have to do with agriculture and
conservation and forestry, all of those things that are
important to our membership.
And I just wanted to follow up on a written invitation that
I sent to you and extend a personal invitation to come and meet
with this group of Members at your earliest convenience. And I
would hope that we could make that happen. Could we do that,
sir?
Secretary Vilsack. Yes. Happy to visit with those folks.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Secondly, as many other Members have done, I would also
like to invite you to come to my State. As you know, central
Washington, where I represent, is a very diverse agricultural
region. Gosh, we grow everything, I always say, from A to Z.
You have heard of Washington apples; certainly our cattle and
dairy industry is very significant; wine grapes; many, many
other kinds of fruit, cherries certainly; wheat is a big deal.
And I know from your previous work at USDA as well as in
the private sector, you understand--and I have heard you say--
farmers and ranchers are truly the original conservationists
and are stewards of the land that they work.
So I would appreciate your time, if you could, to meet with
central Washington farmers, ranchers, to understand how growers
continue to innovate on smart climate practices and see
firsthand how a one-size-fits-all solution in the name of
climate does not work for all of agriculture.
It would be good, as you make further announcements along
these lines, to please--and I know you will, but--solicit input
from growers in program crops as well as specialty crops.
But I want to touch on a couple things in my time. First of
all, on trade. And thank you for your comments so far, your
positive comments. You understand the importance of trade to
our industry. And I appreciate your urging the Congress to
begin working to reauthorize the TPA, the Trade Promotion
Authority. Free, fair, and open export markets certainly are
critical to the State of Washington's agricultural industry.
I have to tell you, though, sir, many agricultural
stakeholders are concerned at the tone President Biden has been
taking on trade negotiations. Implying that domestic matters
are more important than trade agreements has not previously
been beneficial to U.S. workers.
And I would just like to note that nearly 40 percent--40
percent--of the jobs in my State, the State of Washington, are
directly tied to trade.
So my question is, what do you plan to do to move the White
House forward on trade on behalf of U.S. agricultural
stakeholders?
Secretary Vilsack. Our job at USDA is to make sure that the
U.S. Trade Representative's Office is fully aware and
appreciates the importance of agriculture in those negotiations
and in the implementation of agreements.
I have already had conversations with the U.S. Trade
Representative Ambassador, Ambassador Tai, on implementation of
USMCA, on approaches to China, on issues relating to Japan and
beef access. So we have had those conversations.
I have also had opportunities to reach out to the State
Department to make sure that they are fully aware of
agriculture's interests in a variety of areas around the world
as issues unfold and can have an impact on trade relationships.
And, finally, I have spent a good deal of time in the first
several months of my tenure here reaching out to ag ministers
from all over the world, trying to develop a coalition of ag
ministers committed to climate change and a coalition of ag
ministers committed to a science-based and rules-based system,
and have had positive conversations recently with folks,
particularly in our hemisphere.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you. Thank you very much.
I see my time has expired, but I do hope to have another
opportunity. But I appreciate very much your meeting with us
this morning, Mr. Secretary, and look forward to a continued
productive working relationship.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will yield back.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Newhouse.
At this time, I am delighted to yield to the chair of the
MILCON-VA Subcommittee of our Appropriations Committee, Ms.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz. And I would like to just take the
opportunity on behalf of the subcommittee to extend our deepest
condolences on her recent loss of her mother.
We are delighted that you are with us today. And, at this
time, I am happy to yield to Ms. Wasserman Schultz for your
questions.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. And
thank you for your condolences and the condolences of so many
of my colleagues.
Mr. Secretary, welcome, and welcome back. We are thrilled
to have you in the leadership role that you are in once again.
I want to touch on a couple of things: first on food
insecurity among Florida's Hispanic community, and then also on
the invasive species problem we have, particularly in Florida,
as well as Florida citrus.
COVID has continued to exacerbate an already serious food
insecurity problem nationwide but especially among the Hispanic
and immigrant families who live in Florida. According to
UnidosUS, Hispanic children in Florida are more likely to have
experienced food insecurity during the pandemic. And by mid-
October, nearly 20 percent of Hispanic households with children
reported that their household sometimes or often did not have
enough food to eat in the past 7 days, compared to 11.6 percent
of non-Hispanic White households that didn't have enough food.
Federal nutrition programs like SNAP and P-EBT are critical
to addressing food insecurity during COVID. But Hispanic
children and families face multiple systemic and structural
barriers to participation in food assistance programs,
particularly limited language access services and inadequate
community outreach about the program.
So I would like to ask you, how can the USDA better target
investments in Spanish-language and culturally relevant
information as well as trusted, culturally competent, and
community-based organizations in order to help reduce those
longstanding disparities in food access among Hispanic and
immigrant households?
Secretary Vilsack. Representative, I think I would just
incorporate my answer into your question the way you have posed
it. I mean, the reality is, we need to do a better job of
working to communicate with folks in a way that they understand
and in a way that they trust. We certainly did that when I was
Secretary before. We got participation rates in SNAP to record
levels.
Sometimes we also have to work and make sure that the
States are doing their job, because, at the end of the day,
States administer this program. And so I think it is going to
be important for us to take a look at where Florida is relative
to their outreach and the works and efforts that they are, in
terms of the resources we are providing to the State for
outreach, for education, et cetera.
So I think it is partly reaching out to the States, partly
making sure that we are doing our job of making information
available. And, frankly, part of it is also taking a look at
the level of the benefit. Folks can be hungry even if they do
get SNAP, because the benefit level, I think, needs to be
examined. Certainly, we are appreciative of the fact that
Congress has increased it. And we have put that into play, and
that should be of some help to the families that are
participating in the program today.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I think it is so important that USDA
make this a priority. It is so critical.
And, thankfully, the Biden administration has reversed the
public charge rule. So how is USDA ensuring that all eligible
immigrant children and families who need access to food
assistance are able to receive it?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, we reached out to Department of
Homeland Security, encouraging that action and certainly
applauding it, and making sure that our counterparts in the
States are fully aware and appreciative of the fact that that
change has taken place. Again, it is States that administer
this program. We want to make sure that they have the right
information and that they are applying the right set of rules
and right set of lenses, if you will, to applications.
You know, part of this is also, I think, taking a look at
the application system itself and making sure that we are doing
it in a way that is as easy as it can be, to make sure that
people participate in the program. Sometimes our application
processes can be confusing and difficult and sometimes
cumbersome, which can oftentimes discourage people from
participating.
That is particularly true of seniors. And I am not sure in
Hispanic communities whether seniors are participating at the
rate they should, but oftentimes it is because of the
complicated application process.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. And the public charge rule, you
know, obviously eliminated so many Hispanic and immigrant
families. And so making sure that they know that they are once
again eligible is really critical.
I want to turn, in my final just more than a minute, to the
Agricultural Quarantine Inspection Program, because that is
vital for inspecting imported commodities that come in through
Florida's ports so we can protect against invasive plant and
animal pests.
It is a user-fee-based, as you know, program, so the
decline in international travel has affected the program's
bottom line. The ``Coronabus''' provided more funding to
address the user-fee shortfall. But as we put together the
fiscal year 2022 appropriations bill, it is really vital for
AQI to have the funds necessary to continue this critical work
so we can keep invasive pests from devastating our agriculture
industry. That is the number-two, you know, economic driver in
the State of Florida. Citrus greening has been really, you
know, intensifying as a result of that invasive species
problem.
So can you speak to the importance of the program and
whether AQI has the funds necessary to continue operating
effectively?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, it was certainly appreciated, the
fact that Congress did provide the resources--I think it was
over $600 million--to basically get that budget back in order.
You are absolutely right; that is the first line of
defense. And invasive species can be absolutely devastating.
You have mentioned citrus greening. Certainly don't have to
tell anybody from Florida or Texas or California or Arizona the
concerns they have about the citrus industry generally. We have
invested a lot of resources in that particular area. Over 110
projects have been invested in on citrus greening alone--
millions and millions of dollars.
So very high priority, very important, has to be adequately
funded. And I think it is adequately funded so long as the fees
are coming in. If the fees aren't coming in, then you need to
supplement or provide additional resources.
Hopefully, with trade getting back when we get to the other
side of COVID internationally and we get some of the snags in
trade taken care of, we should see those resources begin to
fill back up again, and we shouldn't have as much of a threat
or concern as we had during COVID.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you so much.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. My time has expired.
Mr. Bishop. Your time has expired.
At this time, I would like to recognize Mr. Cuellar of
Texas, a member of the Defense Subcommittee, for any questions
that you might have, sir.
You are now recognized, Mr. Cuellar.
Mr. Cuellar. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much for your
leadership in this subcommittee.
Mr. Secretary, it is a pleasure seeing you again. I am so
happy that you are back as the Ag Secretary.
I have two questions for the record on quality loss in the
WIC Plus program and school meal standards that I am going to
go ahead and submit for the record. So if you can get back to
me on that.
Mr. Cuellar. But what I want to talk about is, how do we
help kids from third-world conditions, literally millions of
them--and I am not talking about Salvador or Guatemala, but I
am talking about kids in the border, U.S. border, called
colonias. They have many times no water, no sewage, no
electricity, no streets. The educational system needs a lot. So
I am talking about helping U.S. kids that are on our side in
colonias.
Your agency has a definition for colonias, as you know. And
I certainly want to see if we can talk about--if you can
designate somebody I could work with. Because the colonias, we
are talking almost 2.5 million individuals that live in third-
world conditions. A hundred and forty-five colonias are in New
Mexico; 114 colonias are in Arizona; 34 colonias are in
California. And Texas, especially south Texas, where a lot of
kids are coming in from Central America, we have 2,166 colonias
in the State of Texas.
I know that your StrikeForce 2.0 is something I want to
work with. I want to also work with you on the 10-20-30, which
is something that Clyburn and the committee have been working
on.
So I just want to see if you can assign somebody I can work
with and the committee can work with, because I do intend to
add fundings with the help of the Appropriations Committee
members to address third-world conditions called colonias.
Secretary Vilsack. The last time I was Secretary, we had a
focus on the colonias as part of our StrikeForce 1.0. Certainly
no reason not to continue that.
Right now, our focus is on making sure there is safe and
adequate water, drinking water, and waste disposal systems. A
significant amount of money has been invested already by Rural
Development in the colonias for wastewater--about a billion
dollars for those projects and for hospitals and clinics and
energy systems to childcare centers. Our budget does propose a
specific increase in water infrastructure, which we think will
help clean water in communities like the colonias.
So, very much committed to this, Representative. And we
will make sure that you have someone in the staff that is aware
of what we are doing in the colonias so that you can work with
them to assure yourself and your constituents that that is an
area of concern and interest.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you so much, Mr. Secretary. I am sorry,
I am running off to the floor right now, but I do want to say
thank you. And I look forward to working with whoever you
assign so we can talk about colonias. Thank you so much.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Cuellar.
At this time, I would like to yield to the gentlelady from
New York, Ms. Grace Meng.
Ms. Meng, you are now recognized for your questions.
Ms. Meng. Thank you, Chairman Bishop.
And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here. It is great
to meet you again. I am so thrilled that you will be leading
this agency and look forward to working with you in my first
year on this subcommittee to advocate for hunger programs like
SNAP and WIC, which help many Americans, including my
vulnerable constituents in Queens.
As you know, food insecurity has really skyrocketed during
this pandemic. The lines are longer than I have ever seen in my
lifetime, and many people are relying on food assistance. There
has never been a more important time to try to make SNAP more
flexible.
And I am concerned, in particular, about the longstanding
hot food exclusion of hot foods from SNAP. This policy, I
believe, creates unnecessary obstacles for many who are
experiencing homelessness, senior citizens, single parents,
essential workers--which we saw a lot of this issue in New York
during the early days of the pandemic. They were working
overtime and didn't have time to go to a grocery store. And
sometimes, at least in New York, there is not a grocery store
nearby.
I believe that this policy can't be justified from a
nutrition standard, when an untoasted sandwich is eligible for
purchase but a toasted sandwich is not.
Many of my constituents are struggling to put food on the
table and would really benefit from repealing this exclusion.
For example, a single mom could benefit from buying a
rotisserie chicken to use across several meals. A college
student on SNAP who works to pay for school might benefit from
a cup of soup from the local grocery store or deli. Those who
are unhoused or are living in transitional housing might not
even have access to a kitchen at all.
I wanted to ask what your opinion and thoughts are on
potential repeal of this hot food exclusion and of more
expansive SNAP policies. And would you be supportive of
Congress wholly eliminating the hot food exclusion?
Secretary Vilsack. Congresswoman, I think it would be best
for me to respond to give you, sort of, the principles that I
am operating under with reference to the SNAP program.
First and foremost, I want that benefit to be meaningful.
And that is one of the reasons why we instituted a review of
the Thrifty Food Plan, which is the foundation upon which that
benefit is calculated, to determine whether or not it makes
sense in today's world.
Secondly, I want the ability of the SNAP program to be
utilized by as many people as possible, which means taking a
look at our application systems and making sure that we are not
creating barriers to participation that are unnecessary.
Third, I think we do need to learn from the recent
experience in COVID as to how we might be able to make the SNAP
program and availability of benefits modernized and more
convenient. Now, that may very well address the issues that you
are raising here. It may go into a variety of other directions
relative to how we might incorporate restaurants into the
system more fully than they are today. But I think it is worthy
of us challenging ourselves to ask ourselves whether this
program needs to be modernized in terms of how benefits are
accessible.
And, finally, of course, we want to make sure the program
is operated with integrity.
And those are the four principles that I am operating
under. Those are the four directives that I have given to our
team to work on. And I would hope that over the course of the
time that I am Secretary that we will see progress in all four
areas.
Ms. Meng. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
I know I don't have a lot of time left, but as a member of
Mr. Clyburn's Rural Broadband Task Force, rural accessible
broadband access has been something that we have prioritized
and we have especially seen the importance of during this
pandemic.
I wanted to ask about your plans to expand broadband access
in general but, also, how you might suggest--or any ideas you
might have in relation to how Members could use potential
community-funded projects or the infrastructure bill to help
make this access more accessible and affordable.
Secretary Vilsack. There are a number of issues relative to
broadband, I think, but, first and foremost, at our department,
USDA needs to work in better coordination with the FCC, with
NTIA, with Commerce and other agencies that are engaged and
involved in expanded broadband or the regulation of broadband
to ensure that we are using every single dollar as effectively
as possible to get as many people served as possible.
We recently clarified and simplified the rules with
reference to our ReConnect Program, which will, I think, go in
effect next week. And we expect and anticipate that is going to
expand significantly the number of communities that are
available to apply for those resources. So the more resources
we have in that program, as we have asked in this budget for
additional resources, the more folks we can help.
But we want to make sure the help we provide makes sense,
so that means upload and download speeds that are adequate and
sufficient to actually do the job that needs to be done. As I
discussed with Representative Fortenberry, you know, this is
about making sure that this broadband is actually usable. It is
not enough to say you have broadband; it has to be higher-speed
broadband.
So those are some of the things we are doing relative to
broadband expansion.
It is about money. And the Jobs Plan that the President has
put forward provides significant resources for this. I would
strongly encourage Congress to take a very close look at that
bill and that section of the bill.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Ms. Meng. I believe your time has
expired.
And let me thank the committee. I believe we have finished
our first round. And we are about to begin a second round, Mr.
Secretary, and I think that comes back to me.
As you may be aware, Georgia is the number-one peanut-
producing State in the country, and my congressional district
is the number-one congressional district that produces peanuts,
and I am known as the peanut Congressman.
The peanut industry brought back concerns about the EU non-
tariff trade barriers for peanuts to USDA's attention back in
2018. Since that time, the peanut industry has had numerous
USDA meetings, Zoom calls, and exchanged technical information
with the EU through the AMS/FAS with no success. Since 2018,
peanuts have lost $160 million in the EU market.
The industry leadership believes that until the EU
representatives and the U.S. peanut leaders meet, there is
little hope of addressing this important issue for the peanut
industry. Can you check with your staff on how we can move this
issue forward for the peanut industry and possibly include a
meeting with EU representatives and the U.S. peanut industry?
And let me just ask, go on to my second question, so that
you can answer that when you finish that. It has to do with ERS
and NIFA.
The previous administration devastated USDA's research
capacity at ERS and the National Institute of Food and
Agriculture by proposing to move large numbers of staff from
the national capital region to Kansas City, Missouri. Many of
those researchers did not want to relocate, and, according to
an OIG review from 2017 to 2020, ERS and NIFA experienced
agency-wide staffing losses in excess of 40 percent.
What are your plans to restore these agencies' research
capacity? And can you speak to where the administration is in
nominating someone for the position of Under Secretary for
Research, Education, and Economics?
Secretary Vilsack. Mr. Chairman, we will do everything we
possibly can to communicate with our EU friends the concerns of
the peanut industry and we will obviously facilitate any
conversation or meeting that is necessary.
But I would say that it is very, very important for not
just the USDA to weigh in on this issue, but for USTR to also
weigh in on this issue. They are the ones that, at the end of
the day, are negotiating with our friends in the EU.
It is a difficult circumstance. We have a very difficult
relationship with the EU. I have had conversations with the EU
Commissioner recently and expressed concerns about that
relationship. We will continue to knock on that door. But I
think it is important for us to also have USTR also knocking on
that door.
In terms of NIFA, about 221 positions have been filled at
NIFA. There are probably roughly a hundred positions or so that
need to be filled. There is an aggressive effort to fill those
positions and to do so in a way that expands significantly the
diversity within those folks who are working at NIFA. We are
going to keep an eye on it as the President has instructed us
to do so. And certainly it is in our best interest to make sure
we have as diverse and inclusive a workforce as possible.
And I am confident that we are going to get many of those
positions filled. Some of them will be filled in Kansas City
and some of them will be filled in the Washington, D.C., area.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Part of the advantage of returning to your old job is being
able to hit the ground running, but you need staff to help
manage the vast and the wide-ranging portfolio at USDA. We have
seen nominations announced for the Deputy Secretary and General
Counsel positions. I am particularly interested in the Under
Secretary for Rural Development and Assistant Secretary for
Civil Rights positions.
When will the administration announce nominations for your
subcabinet? And have you recommended any names to the White
House?
Secretary Vilsack. We are working--and I should have
responded to your request about our Under Secretary as well--we
are working with the Presidential Personnel Office to identify
candidates and to essentially create a list of potential
nominees and then work through the process of ensuring that
those folks are properly vetted before we propose their names.
I would anticipate and expect in the very near future you
will begin to see a series of nominations for the Under
Secretary positions and some of the other key positions that
are not yet filled. Trust me, Mr. Chairman, I am just as
anxious as you are to have more help and more staff. It is not
easy to operate this rather vast department without all hands
on deck.
So we are working as expeditiously as possible to get those
positions filled. And hopefully the Senate will establish a
hearing date in the near future for the General Counsel and
hopefully we have a Senate vote on the Deputy in the very near
future.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
My time has expired, and I am happy to yield back to Mr.
Fortenberry for an additional round of questions.
Mr. Fortenberry, the floor is yours.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. I think it
has been a thoughtful and thorough hearing thus far.
Mr. Secretary, I want to return to the earlier question I
raised about synthetic beef. I think we have enough time to
flush it out, so to speak, thoroughly.
I really think it is important that we work hard to dispel
the myth that American livestock production is a significant
contributor to climate change.
When we look at the emissions charts, America's livestock
producers in comparison to the world are at the bottom. And
that is because we excel in animal husbandry and innovation
techniques.
Years ago there was a gentleman hog farmer in my district--
and I know, Mr. Secretary, that you have probably been caught
behind a hog truck and there is a lot of power and energy
there. Anyway, one of my hog farmers decided to try to take
that energy and make it useful in a creative way, and created
one of the early methane digestion systems.
So, again, American livestock producers are in the front
end of both animal husbandry as well as innovation, and I would
hate to see us penalized as we try to appropriately address the
issue of methane in the atmosphere, which is a pass-through gas
and, therefore, less impactful on climate change. But also, in
comparison to the rest of the world, how much better we do
because, again, of the value of stewardship as well as
innovation.
I have been in meetings with Bill Gates. He made that
comment. I respect Bill Gates' attempt to compel the world's
wealthiest to be more socially responsible. But in this one,
again, discounting the nutritional aspects, the limitation--
limited impacts this would have on our environmental security,
as well as the disruptions of an important economic resource
for not only ourselves in America, I think it is important to
help dispel that myth.
Secondly, let me return also to the what I raised earlier
regarding the blue ribbon panel. The OIG recently discovered
that the Department does not have a single repository of all of
its research.
So as we engage in the blue ribbon panel thinking about,
again, a 21st century architecture of higher education that
modernizes research, makes it relevant for both regeneration
and return to the farmer, as well as value adds for the
students, I think having an understanding of what the research
is going on at the Department is a first stop, just basic card
catalog.
So that is one question I would like to raise for you.
And then finally, the third question would be, can you give
an update on USDA's role regarding new technologies for
genetically engineered farm animals? Has the USDA studied the
ethical and moral questions surrounding the genetic
modification of animals, obviously a place where we have to
tread very cautiously?
Secretary Vilsack. Representative, on the last question, I
think there are three components of this.
First, I think you are right, we have to make sure we lift
up the messaging in terms of American agriculture and the
protein production processes that are in place here.
American agriculture is responsible for about 9 percent or
so of emissions totally in this country. Worldwide agriculture
is responsible for 14, 15 percent. So clearly we are doing a
better job across the board.
I think there are technologies that will help us reduce
methane. There are feed additives that could potentially reduce
it.
I would say that what we have to do is have a regulatory
system that allows those feed additives to get into our feed
quicker. Basically, what we have today is a situation where it
is treated as if it was a pharmaceutical product, which creates
a tremendous lag time in getting that technology into the
field.
Our competitors are not waiting. Europe and New Zealand and
others are utilizing these feed additives to reduce their
methane. We need to be on top of that.
And then I think there is technology for the conversion of
methane and the utilization of technology to convert manure,
all of which I think can significantly accelerate our efforts
and need to be.
On the depository, this is surprising to me because when I
left USDA we were trying to create a way in which we could have
public access to all the research that we had publicly funded
over a period of time to accelerate the utilization of that
research in new developments. So I am not sure what has
happened between the time I left and now, but I am certainly
going to look into it. I would agree with you it makes sense to
have a repository.
On genetically engineering farm animals, frankly, I will
need to do some checking on that. It is clear we should be
asking those questions if we haven't. I want to make sure if we
have asked them, we have asked them in the right way. I want to
find out what information we have. I don't know the answer to
that question today as I sit, but I appreciate you bringing it
up.
Mr. Fortenberry. Great. Thank you so much again.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Fortenberry.
At this time, I would like to recognize the chair of our
full committee, Ms. Rosa DeLauro, for any additional questions
she may have.
Chair, the floor is now yours.
The Chair. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
And I want to just ask two questions. One is about
foodborne illness from meat and poultry, Mr. Secretary, and the
USDA has failed to make any progress on reducing illnesses from
Salmonella and Campylobacter. It is about three million
illnesses every year because of the resistance to one or more
of the antibiotics.
Despite the Department's work on performance standards for
the bacteria in the poultry slaughterhouses, the rate of
laboratory diagnosed infections among people was actually
higher at the close of the decade than it had been at the
start.
So the agency has been criticized by both consumer groups
and industry for having outdated performance standards that are
not based on risks posed by the bacteria. And consumer groups
and victims of foodborne illness have submitted two petitions
to the agency asking for enforceable standards.
So the first question is, what do you intend to do to
respond to the petitions, create updated enforceable standards,
to ensure food safety and to protect consumers?
And the last question is about waivers for school meals.
And I applaud your dedication to child nutrition. And last
month the Department extended several nationwide waivers that
will ensure children receive healthy meals through the summer
when schools are out of session. We have heard the Department
is considering the extension of certain waivers for school
meals for the fall.
School districts across the country need to prepare for the
fall, providing them with this continuity, if you will. Can you
explain the Department's current thinking and when you plan to
announce a decision?
Secretary Vilsack. On the petitions, Madam Chair, I would
ask that you give me an opportunity to be better versed on the
nature of those petitions. But I would say as a general
proposition, we should do everything we can to ensure the
safety of the food that we are providing to Americans. And if
there are concerns, if there are issues where we are taking a
step back instead of a step forward, we need to take a step
forward.
And certainly when I was Secretary before we made an effort
to try to take a step forward. If that wasn't sufficient,
wasn't adequate, then I think we need to obviously revisit what
can be done and should be done to ensure the safety of food
that is being provided to Americans. That is a sacred
responsibility we have and we need to take it seriously.
On the waivers, I would expect and anticipate that we are
going to have information on that in the very, very near
future. We certainly understand that schools are waiting to
know precisely how the system is going to work during the next
school year and we want to give them plenty of time to make
sure that they have things in order.
I would say that there are two issues here. One is the
issue of, you know, are we going to continue to have universal
free meals. My feeling is I want to make sure that we feed as
many kids as possible and we want to feed them nutritious food.
That is my attitude. And that hopefully can be expressed in
policies that we adopt.
Secondly, there is the issue of the nutrition standards.
And I think it is important for us to work collaboratively with
school districts in a way that allows them the resources. What
I said earlier about funding your priorities. If nutrition is a
priority, then we need to provide the resources for school
districts to provide healthy, nutritious meals.
It ought to be a priority. And, frankly, I think it is
cost-effective if we do this because over time we are going to
spend a heck of a lot less on diabetes, for example.
The Chair. Just a quick comment on the standards. Look, I
look forward to working with you on this. We need final product
standards for the most dangerous types of bacteria and
requiring the large poultry operations to minimize foodborne
risks in their production practices. But, again, we will have
further conversations about that.
On the issue of agriculture research and climate change, if
I might. What ways do you think that USDA, the agencies and
resources be utilized to identify agricultural practices that
are needed to mitigate climate change, but incentivize their
use and adoption among farmers?
Secretary Vilsack. A couple things.
First, we need to make sure we have proper measurement and
certification programs so that we can create market
opportunities for investment in those practices.
Secondly, we need to make sure we are targeting and
focusing the conservation resources that you all provide us in
a way that advances those climate-smart agricultural practices.
We have 45 different practices that we know will have a
positive impact on soil health, have a positive impact on water
quality, will have a positive impact on carbon sequestration.
We ought to be helping to fund those 45 practices. Farmers are
anxious to do it.
But this is really important, this is maybe the most
important thing I am going to say today: 89.6 percent of farms
in this country today, 89.6 percent of the farms in this
country today, the majority of income for the farm families
operating those farms does not come from the farm.
So when we basically say, ``Hey, farmer, you need to do X,
Y, and Z,'' they are not making enough money, most of them, to
do that.
So that is why it is important for us as a Department to
focus on new markets and more markets and better markets so
that we create greater profitability.
So if we are anxious for climate, then let's invest in
those practices, make it easy for farmers to do so. Let's
create markets that reward them for doing this and pay them for
doing this and create, in essence, a new revenue stream for
them so that we don't have 89.6 percent of our farms not
producing enough money so that the majority of what is earned
comes from that farm as opposed to off-farm income.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Ms. DeLauro.
The Chair. My time is expired, and I look forward to
working with you, Mr. Secretary.
Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. I believe Dr. Harris is next if he is ready.
Dr. Harris, you are recognized for any additional questions
that you may have.
Not hearing from Dr. Harris, let me recognize Mr. Valadao
for any additional questions.
Mr. Valadao. Appreciate the time, Mr. Chairman, again.
And, Mr. Secretary, as you know, agriculture exports from
the West Coast--before I continue on, I was in the middle of
another call as well, so hopefully this wasn't addressed, but
this is an important topic. And I know that the export issue
was brought up a little bit.
But as you know, agriculture exports from the West,
especially from California, are facing unfair treatment due to
the lack of export containers and lack of willingness for
shipping carriers to move our goods, but China is paying a
higher fee to have the containers returned to China completely
empty, leaving U.S. exports behind. The Federal Maritime
Commission currently has an investigation underway on this
serious issue.
These exporters need all the help they can get right now.
Coupled with excessive shipping costs, attention to merge fees
(ph), exporters are struggling to meet contract deadlines in
our critical Asian markets, jeopardizing important trade
relationships.
Will you commit to working with me, this committee, the
White House, Department of Transportation, and the Federal
Maritime Commission to find both an immediate solution to free
up port congestion and a long-term fix to ensure that these
delays and exorbitant costs are avoided in the future?
Secretary Vilsack. Congressman, we are already working
collaboratively and certainly have encouraged the Maritime
Commission to take action immediately, which they have the
jurisdiction and capacity to do to begin to alleviate this very
serious problem. So we are very concerned about it, as you are.
Happy to work with you on it.
Mr. Valadao. I appreciate that.
And then, Secretary Vilsack, you have been a leader on
speaking out about USMCA enforcement, however, we have yet to
hear from the Biden administration on enforcement of Canadian
commitments on dairy, as well as Mexico's numerous roadblocks
directed against our agriculture exports. There has been
proliferation of Mexican regulations and product standards that
serve little purpose other than to impede trade.
Will you commit to work with interagency partners and the
White House to ramp up engagement with Mexico to work out these
differences so we can continue to trade our vital products?
Secretary Vilsack. Have visited with the Mexican Ag
Minister about these specific issues. It was the second call
that I made. The first call was to the Canadian Minister to
raise issues on USMCA. And certainly have indicated a desire
and opportunity to work with USTR to make sure that the
provisions of the USMCA that provide for enforcement, provide
for collaboration and for consultation are utilized when and if
it turns out that our trading partners aren't living up to the
letter or spirit of the agreement.
Mr. Valadao. I appreciate that.
Mr. Chairman, I am going to put the rest of my questions in
for the record, and I appreciate the time.
Mr. Secretary, thank you again for testifying.
I am done. So I yield back the rest of my time.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Valadao.
Ms. Pingree, you are now recognized for an additional
round.
Ms. Pingree. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Secretary, I want to follow up on some report language
I secured last year encouraging NRCS to establish a composting
conservation practice in CSP and EQIP, something that has been
a focus of mine for a while. And I know that NRCS is also
moving forward this year with an interim conservation practice
on soil carbon amendments, including compost and biochar.
Can you give me an update on the efforts at NRCS to include
the use of compost in conservation programs?
Secretary Vilsack. Congresswoman, if you will allow me to
ask my staff to get back to you on that issue. I don't know the
specifics of it. I would be surprised that we are not utilizing
every opportunity to create ways in which we can provide help
and assistance to farmers and that may be one of them.
But I don't know the answer to your question and I wouldn't
even want to try to fake it, so----
Ms. Pingree. That is okay. You have put in 2 long hours
with us and I didn't expect you to be on top of everything,
although compost is an important topic.
So let's go to a tough one, PFAS. Unfortunately, my State
of Maine has been a little bit ahead of the curve when it comes
to identifying and responding to the emerging threat of PFAS
contamination. Over the past few years, a small number of dairy
farms in Maine have identified PFAS contamination in the milk.
Unfortunately, this difficult situation is even more
challenging because of a lack of resources available to help
affected producers. The Dairy Indemnity Payment Program gives a
little bit of short-term relief, but is not sufficient to
address the full scope of the problem.
Maine might be ahead of the curve, but I know we are not
the only State where this is an issue or will be an issue. So
can you tell me how you are approaching the issue of PFAS
contamination across the Department from research to farm
support to food safety? And what further assistance can the
USDA offer in terms of longer-term programmatic and financial
support for farms that are affected by PFAS contamination?
Secretary Vilsack. We are taking a look at the Dairy
Indemnification Program to see whether or not it actually is
structured in a way that is meaningful.
I think what we think, it probably makes sense to provide
compensation over a short period of time for milk that is
impacted and affected. But perhaps if there is a long-term,
more permanent situation that you are dealing with, it may be
better for the farmer to provide assistance in terms of
reimbursing for the stock, the dairy cows that may be impacted
by this.
So we are looking at ways in which we can better support
our dairy farmers who are confronted with this.
Secondly, you mentioned across the country, and certainly
this is a big issue in New Mexico, and it has something to do
with the Defense Department. So we are obviously reaching out
to the Defense Department to encourage them to also understand
the responsibilities that they may have in this space as well.
I don't know what research we are doing on this, but I will
be happy to ask our team if there are research projects and
certainly let you know about them. And if there are not,
whether or not they would consider the possibility of such a
project in Maine.
Ms. Pingree. Well, thank you for that. I know I am
fortunate enough to sit on the MilCon Committee, and Chair
Wasserman Schultz recently held a hearing on PFAS where we got
to hear from the Defense Department. And my understanding is
that there has not been sufficient analysis of where the
contamination is.
So I do think, like the New Mexico situation, there is
probably a great deal of contamination near military bases and
airstrips. And I do hope that USDA can work closely with the
Department of Defense to push them to take responsibility for
that and the cleanup.
And I will just also reinforce that I appreciate the
support and the compensation for milk, but I think your second
suggestion, that for many farmers this level of contamination--
PFAS is a forever chemical. It is often in the land for a
variety of reasons. Can't really be effectively remediated or
removed or at least we don't know how to now. And for some
farmers it is complete loss of their stock and all of their
livelihood.
So I will look forward to staying in touch with the
Department on that and how we are going to deal with that
really tragic situation many farmers find themselves in--or
some farmers find themselves in and possibly more will in the
future. And there is really no way to get back your livelihood
in some situations.
So I yield back the rest of my time. But thank you for
being willing to look into that. Thanks so much.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Ms. Pingree.
Mr. Newhouse, you are now recognized.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for the
second round.
Mr. Secretary, my State, particularly in central
Washington, we are a significant producer of organic
agriculture. And I just wanted to kind of add on to the thought
process of Ms. Pingree and her questioning with the organic
rulemaking and standard.
USDA has missed statutory deadlines to finalize the origin
of livestock rule, a rule that is actually a legacy item under
your previous tenure. And this is part of a troubling pattern.
Over the last 12 years, over 20 recommendations to update
the organic standards have passed the National Organic
Standards Board and USDA has not implemented a single one of
those.
Congress has increased the National Organic Program's
budget by at least 50 percent in the last 5 years and they now
have more than 65 full-time staff.
And so my question is, do you have any information on why
these standards continue to remain unresolved?
Secretary Vilsack. I think one of the things we have to do,
Representative, is to lift up the Organic Program within USDA.
We began that process in the Obama administration and I am
committed to doing that in this administration. It is a value-
added opportunity. It is one of those more, better, and new
markets opportunities. I think there are a number of ways in
which we can provide help and assistance.
You know, on the livestock rule, obviously, as time goes by
things change. We changed several aspects of that rule and want
to make sure that we have additional comment to make sure we
are on the strongest legal basis and ground. But I think what
you are going to see, some of those rules coming out in the not
too distance future. Others we may have to start from scratch,
as I indicated earlier. I don't know specifically.
To be honest with you, your question kind of surprised me,
because we did put a lot of emphasis on organic when I was
Secretary before, so I am surprised that we didn't improve any
of those standards.
I would like to go back and ask the question why that is
so, because I would have thought it was given the amount of
attention and effort that we had in expanding crop insurance
protection for organic and trying to protect the organic brand
and all the other things that we did.
So I am not sure why we haven't followed through on those
standards. We should have.
Mr. Newhouse. I know you have been a strong supporter of
the organics program overall. And so, yeah, would love to
continue that conversation if you have a chance to look at
that.
But, again, appreciate you being with us today, and look
forward to continuing a strong working relationship.
And I will yield back my time, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Newhouse.
I would like to now recognize Mr. Pocan from Wisconsin.
You are now recognized for an additional round.
Mr. Pocan. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, sorry to do that speed round last time. I
didn't know we were going to have a second round. That was the
most impressive I have seen any secretary talk concisively on
the answers, I just thought I would let you know, from eight
and a half years here.
Let me just make a couple comments. Broadband. I helped
form a bipartisan Rural Broadband Caucus. Anything we can do to
help work with you on this, we would be interested.
Just 3 years ago I got broadband. We have been out there
for 7, you know, up to that point. I got the deal, the half
price sale at $300 a month for 40 measured gigs and an hour on
Netflix is 2.5 gigs. So often I would call my husband at the
end of the month and tell him to quit watching TV when I was
out here. At $15 a gig beyond that, it gets a little pricey. So
certainly understand and we want to work with you on that.
I completely agree with the full chair of the committee
around the line speeds and the safety for the workers in the
meatpacking industry. Not just what we saw happen in the last
administration, but also with COVID, really illustrates that
problem.
Completely agree on the SNAP benefits. You know, my
freshman term we had a challenge, some of us, for a week lived
on the 31.50 that we got. My office said I was an ornery SOB. A
bag of oranges was 6 bucks, right, I mean, and you couldn't eat
very healthy. I had ramen noodles and things like that to
supplement it out.
The fact that we are basically flat leveled in real dollars
means we have got to decrease the level of what people can
spend money on. Completely agree if we could get that benefit
up for people, best program to keep kids out of poverty. Would
love to see that. I want to get that out just because, again, I
really appreciated your answers.
My question, this is going to involve some of your other
expertise too, is around dairy farms. You know, we lost in
2019, 818 family dairy farms in Wisconsin. Last year it was
only one per day, over 350 farms in Wisconsin. This is tough.
And I am just wondering, what is your kind of vision for
the future, specifically the dairy industry? And what can we be
doing on this side for the family farmers? Because, you know,
these people, many of them have had farms for generations. They
are Democrats; they are Republicans, most of them are likely
Independents, as I talk to them. This is a big concern.
Secretary Vilsack. Let me start with the traditional answer
that you would get from a Secretary of Agriculture, the
importance of exports. Obviously, it is important and necessary
for us to continue to expand the sale of dairy products
worldwide so that we can stabilize the price and make sure that
farmers can stay in business.
I think it is also important that we create opportunities
for those dairy farmers to have local and regional markets, the
ability to negotiate their own price, if you will, in terms of
sales to schools, sales to universities, sales to any
institutional purchaser.
And so supporting local and regional food systems. We just
announced over $300 million of support and help to local and
regional food systems just yesterday as part of our outreach
effort to try to create that alternative market.
And we can provide the ability of those dairy farmers to
also add value to their products. Maybe it is a small cheese
shop. Maybe it is an ice cream parlor. There are ways in which
they can become processors as well as producers.
And then I will tell you climate has a tremendous
opportunity for dairy. If you are essentially basically paying
dairy for reducing methane or capturing methane and converting
it into electricity and fuel, that is a new product.
If you are creating opportunities for that manure that is
being produced on a dairy operation to become an ingredient
instead of going to the landfill or being overapplied on land
and causing some issues, if it can be an ingredient in a new
material, a new chemical, a new fabric, a new fiber, a new fuel
source, we need to be doing much more of that. It creates
another revenue stream for farmers.
And then, frankly, you know, there is a lot of competition
out there for consumption. And the dairy industry, I think,
recognizes that and they are now looking for ways in which the
ingredients within dairy can be segregated and utilized in a
very high value way.
Whey protein, huge protein source. Can we convert more of
that into more nutritious sport drinks and snacks and things of
that nature that creates additional market opportunities for
the dairy products?
So it is a combination of all of those things in order to
provide the most effective way of keeping as many people on the
farm as possible.
Mr. Pocan. We are also seeing some of the younger farmers
go into organic and that has been successful for some. And also
they are getting together and working through a single
processor to make different types of cheese and, again, trying
to address some of what you are talking about.
Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Pocan.
I think I would normally recognize Dr. Harris, but it is my
understanding that Dr. Harris has no more questions. And if
that is correct, I will then yield to Ms. Underwood for an
additional round of questions.
Ms. Underwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, I wanted to follow up on WIC. Are you
considering other actions beyond outreach to improve WIC,
particularly with a specific focus on improving maternal health
and addressing the Black maternal mortality crisis?
Secretary Vilsack. We are going to look. The resources that
have been provided in the Rescue Plan, I think, create
opportunities for us to take a look at ways in which we can
expand the impact of WIC.
Let me give you an example of one kind of partnership that
might be available that we need to be thinking about.
There is an organization called Count the Kicks. It is an
organization that basically encourages moms to count the kicks
periodically, and if the kicks get below a certain number then
it may indicate that there are some problems. And in minority
populations, there are higher rates of stillborn babies than in
White population.
And so this is an opportunity potentially for a
collaboration between an organization like that and WIC to
basically co-promote each other so that you are counting the
kicks and having healthier babies being born and also providing
those moms and those babies and children with more nutritious
food at the beginning of life.
So I think there are ways in which we can look for those
kinds of partnerships with organizations that have a mutual
interest, if you will.
And I am certainly interested in your thoughts about how
best to do that, ideas that you have from your congressional
district that could be incorporated in that effort to try to
find creative ways to make WIC more attractive, to make WIC
more effective, to make WIC participation at higher rates.
Ms. Underwood. Yes, sir. I appreciate that.
I do just want to note that the stillborn and infant
mortality and infant health issues are incredibly important,
but so is what is happening to our moms and the fact that
mothers continue to die at three to four times--Black mothers
continue to die at the rate of three to four times than the
White moms in our country in terms of maternal mortality.
And I think that the WIC program is a unique tool that we
have, particularly to extend WIC coverage in the breast feeding
and postpartum period.
And so we will certainly be following up with you on that.
We do have legislation to that end, the Social Determinants for
Moms Act. And I think that this is certainly part of an equity
agenda that the Biden-Harris administration would support. And
it is Black Maternal Health Week, so I had to make sure to
cover that.
Now, I want to change, shift a little bit and bring your
attention to a bipartisan bill that I introduced with
Congressman Gallagher this week, the Farmers Fighting Climate
Change Act. And this bill would support producers on the front
lines of the climate crisis by establishing climate change
mitigation bundles within the Conservation Stewardship Program.
I believe my bill fits in well with your ambitious climate
change agenda at USDA, and I look forward to working with you
to advance solutions that are fair to our farmers and have real
impact on the climate crisis.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Mr. Secretary.
And I yield back.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Ms. Underwood.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz, you are now recognized for an
additional round.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, I wanted to revisit Florida citrus and ask
you about the Citrus Health Response Program, or CHRP, and the
HLB MAC program, which are two critical programs in the fight
to protect the U.S. citrus crop from disease.
Can you give us a status update on the work of these two
important programs? And is there anything more you need from
Congress for these programs to be successful?
We talked about citrus screening disease and other diseases
that are continuing to ravage citrus crops in Florida and
beyond, and I really want to see how we can continue to ramp up
our efforts.
Secretary Vilsack. We have obviously worked collaboratively
with State governments and local governments and other Federal
agencies on the issue of citrus greening, in particular. As I
said earlier, we have had over a hundred projects that have
been funded through the MAC, and obviously some of them were
beginning to see some indication of success. We have had an
attract-and-kill device that has been particularly effective in
trying to reduce the risk of the psyllid that causes citrus
greening.
We obviously have to continue that effort and provide
resources for that effort until we finally figure out how to
end this scourge on the citrus crop.
I think we also have to take a look at--we have additional
funding in the specialty crop pest and appropriated line item,
and obviously additional resources will make a difference in
terms of detection and in terms of management and therapeutics.
All of that, I think. And I think there is a continued research
effort that is also underway.
So a variety of things that we are trying to do in an
effort to try to respond to this issue. But it is a tough one.
Part of what is interesting about coming back to the job
that I had before is the expectation you are going to come back
to new problems. But the reality is you come back to a lot of
the old problems, and this is one of them, tragically.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Yeah. Feels a little like Groundhog
Day on this issue.
I also want to touch on the Animal Welfare Act and how the
USDA implemented it and enforces it through the animal care
program in the last administration.
In 2017, I think you know, the USDA abruptly pulled all of
its animal welfare inspection reports and enforcement records
from its searchable public website. Those records were only
restored after we included language in the fiscal year 2020
approps bill to direct the agency to restore public access.
But there are still ongoing problems with the animal care
program. For example, the agency completely stopped conducting
inspections at licensed facilities in 2020, but they continued
to provide licenses to new businesses without ever having
visited the facilities. And they also appeared to substitute
virtual inspections without providing any detail to Congress
and to the public about how they be conducted.
Can you tell us how you and the USDA are going to examine
what is happening in the animal care program so we can ensure
that this part of the agency operates transparently and
effectively?
And really, I want to just underscore that the agency needs
to be able to carry out its role of ensuring animal welfare
standards are met. And since the last administration [audio
malfunction] Capacity to do that, double down and make sure
that we can enforce that law.
Secretary Vilsack. Congresswoman, we had a glitch in
technology. I think I got the gist of your question and I will
try to respond to it.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay.
Secretary Vilsack. First and foremost, I want to take a
look at--you mentioned virtual inspections. I want to take a
look at how many of the 5,620 inspections that took place in
the last fiscal year were actually virtual and why, to make
sure that those are, indeed, inspections as opposed to just
simply a number.
And I think there is a Supreme Court decision that has
complicated the efforts at the Department in terms of
enforcement and assessing penalties. I want to make sure I
understand fully and completely the impact of that Supreme
Court decision and how we are going to respond to it to make
sure that once we do an inspection, once we find a problem,
that we can actually do something about it, and how we can do
it in a way that is not subject to question.
This is an important area and it is one that--sometimes
people take a look at the large programs at USDA. In the scheme
of things, in terms of projects, it is a smaller program, but
it has profound impact. And we will take animal welfare very
seriously in this administration.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
Let me just say to the Secretary, we so gratefully
appreciate your being so generous with your time. I think we
are getting toward the end, but I do have one additional
question I would like to pose to you. It is regarding the
Equity Commission.
Last month you said that you were in the process of
establishing an Equity Commission at USDA. We are all familiar
with USDA's troubled history with minority farmers, especially
Black farmers.
Can you tell us a little more about the Equity Commission
and what you hope it will accomplish? And what can you do in
the short-term and over the next few years to address this very
longstanding problem?
You mentioned in an interview how foreign subsidies are
partly to blame for the disparities. Do you plan on looking
broadly at programs and their impacts on equity in advance of
the next farm bill?
And, of course, the recently passed American Rescue Plan
included $5 billion to assist socially disadvantaged farmers
and ranchers.
Can you give us an update on where you are in the
implementation, who will get it, when they will get it, how
will you go about allocating the funding? And will you allow
for any input and collaboration in the establishment of the
commission?
Secretary Vilsack. I appreciate the question. And we have
been incredibly busy with limited staff trying to address as
quickly as possible the provisions of the American Rescue Plan
that relate to socially disadvantaged producers and Black
farmers.
As you know, we have for the first time ever in the
Department a senior equity advisor, Dr. Dewayne Goldmon. He and
the team at the Farm Service Agency are working diligently on
the debt relief effort.
There are two classifications of debtors. There are those
who have direct loans with the USDA. There are those who have
guaranteed loans.
On the guaranteed side, one of the first things we did was
to advise the banks not to take any action, adverse actions
against producers who might have been delinquent or who might
have been subject to foreclosure and indicated that if they
were to take such action, USDA would enforce its capacity to
take the loan back. And that would prevent any additional
foreclosures, any additional evictions, if you will.
We are now in the process of accumulating from those
guaranteed lenders information concerning the amount of
prepayment penalties and other costs that might be associated
so that we can accurately calculate the actual debt that is to
be forgiven, which will have an impact on the 20 percent, as
you know, Mr. Chairman, that goes to farmers to help assist
them with the tax issues.
We want to make sure that we do everything we can to do two
things. One, to make sure that nobody falls through the cracks.
We have, I think, a fairly good list and a fairly good idea of
how many people have direct loans and guaranteed loans, but
that doesn't mean that it is infallible or that it is going to
be perfect.
So we are going to align ourselves with community-building
organizations in an effort to make sure that they are helping
us identify anyone who might be eligible for this effort, for
this relief, to make sure that when we provide the relief that
it is as comprehensive as possible.
Secondly, when we provide the relief, there are tax
consequences. There are Federal tax consequences, there may be
State tax consequences. That is why the 20 percent was added.
And I might add that it is important for us to make sure
that people are aware of that and that they receive the kind of
technical advice necessary, especially if they are farmers, to
be able to avoid paying any more tax than they absolutely have
to.
There is a 3-year averaging program that is available to
farmers that allows you to average your income over a 3-year
period. So if you have a large sum of money in one year but not
much income in the other 2 years, you can spread that large
amount of money over that 3-year period, lowering your tax
burden and hopefully falling within or close to the 20 percent
that is being provided.
So we want to make sure that those who receive this help
and assistance are aware of that, aware of the tax challenge
that they may face and strategies for dealing with it. So we
are trying to align ourselves and will align ourselves with
organizations that provide information to folks who participate
in this program.
So I can assure you that we are moving expeditiously on
this. Our goal is to try to get these debts relieved as quickly
as possible. Again, we have a pretty good handle on how many
there are. We are now in the process of beginning to figure out
where we do the outreach to community-building organizations,
how we send out information to those who will participate in
this program so that they fully understand how it is going to
work. That is all going to happen in a very, very short period
of time.
The Equity Commission is a commission that we think has to
be formed under FACA. So we will be going through that process,
which will allow you and others to have input on nominations
for that commission.
We see this as an external, expert-led review of various
programs at USDA starting with those that are customer facing,
where we have had the most significant issues with reference to
program complaints. We expect that commission to do an external
review to identify systemic barriers and to make
recommendations for how we might be able to improve our
programs.
While that is going on, the President has also signed an
executive order requiring us to also do an internal review of
our efforts, and that is also underway. Working groups have
been established in every single area of USDA. Leads have been
identified. Work is beginning on doing the internal equity
review to make sure that we are also doing whatever we can do
immediately to create a fair and more equitable USDA.
And I might comment on the subsidy issue, Mr. Chairman. I
think it is important for people to understand what this is
really all about.
This is about the cumulative effect of discrimination. If
you were a Black farmer 20 years ago and you went into the FSA
office, maybe you didn't get a loan or maybe you got the loan
late, later than your White counterpart, or maybe you got a
loan at an interest rate or charges that were higher. You
couldn't plant your crop in a timely way. Your crop didn't
produce as much as it might have produced for a White farmer
who planted in a timely way because they got the full access of
USDA programs.
Over a period of time, those disparities allowed farmers
who got the full advantage to expand their operation, to get
the latest technology. The Black farmer didn't have that
advantage.
Now we have a situation where we have programs that
essentially compensate farmers in times of need based on
production. If your production is lower than your neighbors,
you are going to get less.
We saw this in COVID relief. It is important to note this.
There are several studies that indicated that of the COVID
relief that has already been paid out, anywhere from 95 to 99
percent of it went to White farmers and somewhere between 1 and
5 percent went to socially disadvantaged farmers.
Of those who have identified, who have self-identified, we
know that there is roughly 25 percent of farmers who self-
identified as either White or Black. Of that number, farmers,
Black farmers, received $20 million of assistance; White
farmers $5.5 billion of assistance.
The gap grows wider. And so what we are trying to do with
debt relief, what we are trying to do with the Equity
Commission, what we are trying to do with the additional
resources for market development and land access is to
establish the opportunity for more farmers to stay on the land,
for more farmers to get in the farming business so that we have
great diversity within our farming population.
I apologize for taking too long with that answer, Mr.
Chairman, but it is a very important set of questions you have
asked.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Dr. Harris did not get to ask a second round, and I suspect
that he may have an interest on that question. So I will yield
to Dr. Harris for any additional questions that he might have.
Mr. Harris. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Know that I listened
intently to that.
My questions. One follow-up question on the estate tax
issue is you didn't deal with the stepped-up basis, that that
was one of the things that President Biden said that he planned
to change in changing the estate tax. Obviously, stepped-up
basis is very important for multigenerational farms.
And the other thing is just to make certain that when the
USDA does broadband initiatives that they are qualifying the
contractors appropriately, because we need to get this work
done as soon as possible and the last thing we need to do is to
deal with contractors who may not be able to--who give you a
good bid, but they are not able to deliver. I mean, we need to
have a deliverable on that.
So if you could address those two issues, stepped-up basis
and the contracting for broadband.
Secretary Vilsack. I will certainly make sure that--and I
am sure the Treasury folks fully understand this issue of
stepped-up basis, but we will make sure that they understand it
in the context of the farming community.
As a practical matter, the stepped-up basis matters
intently if you have to sell the farm. Right? In other words,
if I--my wife and I own a farm. The value has appreciated
significantly over the period of time we have owned it. When we
die, our sons basically get the farm. Under the current rules,
they get a stepped-up basis. If they sold the farm the next
day, they wouldn't pay any tax. But if they keep the farm, the
stepped-up basis is not an issue. It only becomes an issue when
and if you want to sell the farm.
And so there is an issue there. And I think there are some
creative--there are creative thoughts that we can put into play
as they mix and mingle and think about all of these issues.
Happy to make sure that you know that we are reaching out and
making sure folks understand and appreciate the potential
impact on those farmers who decide to sell their land.
Those farmers who decide to keep the land and keep farming
it, this is really, in a sense, the stepped-up basis doesn't
have the impact because they are not going to pay any tax
because they are going to keep the farm, they are going to keep
farming the farm. So it is a specific subset of people within
agriculture that could potentially be impacted and affected by
this.
Mr. Bishop. May I interject, Mr. Secretary, and if the
gentleman, Dr. Harris, would yield.
This is an issue of very intense interest, particularly the
American Farm Bureau has it at the top of their priority list.
As we look at possible additional revenues for affording the
infrastructure package, the estate tax is one that they are
really, really afraid of and they have been pushing as a part
of their agenda for years to try to reduce it or eliminate it.
And, of course, Dr. Harris raises a great question.
So I just hope that you will continue to consider the
impact that it will have on family farms, as well as other
small businesses, family-owned businesses I should say, because
it could have a tremendous impact on keeping those entities in
business.
Secretary Vilsack. Mr. Chairman, I think there will always
be a debate and conversation about this, and it obviously
depends on the level of exemptions that may or may not be
available. Today I think it is roughly, what, $11 million per
couple, and there are not just that many farming operations
that are above that number.
Of those that are, you also have special use valuation that
allows you to reduce the value of your land. And of those who
even after they reduce the value are still subject potentially
to estate tax, there are ways in which that tax can be paid
over a period of time where, frankly, the farm doesn't have to
be sold and doesn't have to be lost.
So I think people have to understand it is a complicated
issue. There are lots of different subissues involved with this
that oftentimes don't get discussed because people think if
there is an estate tax, then virtually every farm is going to
be subject to it. That may or may not be the case depending
upon the level of the exemption and depending upon what is done
with special use valuation and what is done with the payment
structure and time period that you have to pay any estate tax
that is owed.
So I understand it is a difficult issue. I understand the
Farm Bureau is very interested in this. I understand why these
questions are being asked. But I think it is important for us,
as we deal with this issue, that we understand the full range
of what we are talking about and how few farms ultimately will
be potentially impacted depending upon the level of, in a small
business, depending upon the level of the exemptions.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Dr. Harris, I usurped some of your time, and if you have
additional questions, you may reclaim it.
Mr. Harris. No. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Secretary, the concern is you don't always sell the
whole farm. If the exemption is lowered enough, then the
families would have to sell some of the farm, all of it, of
course, subject to--or not subject to stepped-up basis.
So that is the issue there. It is not just black and white,
you have to sell the whole farm or none. In the case of owing
estate taxes, you might choose to sell some. So it is important
even if you don't sell the whole farm.
But if you could just quickly address the broadband and
what the Department is doing to make certain that we are
getting this deliverable as quickly as possible.
Secretary Vilsack. Well, we took a look at the ReConnect
program, understood the way it was structured. Very few
communities would actually have benefited from the program, and
those that would wouldn't necessarily have the upload and
download speeds necessary to make it meaningful.
So we made adjustments to the program to make more
communities eligible and to make sure that the service they get
is meaningful.
Your point is well taken. In the interest of time, to get
things done, you can't sacrifice quality. And so it will be
necessary for us to make sure that as bids are being awarded,
as grants are being awarded, that they are being awarded to
folks that show the capacity and the capability of actually
doing what they say they are going to do and a track record of
being able to prove that they can do it.
Otherwise, we could subject ourselves to a lot of money
being spent and a poor performance, resulting in no broadband
and money spent, which is certainly not what we want.
Mr. Harris. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
I yield back.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
I understand that Mr. Fortenberry has no additional
questions, and I think we have come to the end of our hearing.
And so I want to just thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your
testimony, for spending almost 3 hours with us today. But I do
say to you that perhaps this was not as much time as you spent
the last time that you were on the Hill to testify with our
authorizing committee.
But we are glad that you are back, bringing with you your
deep knowledge of the Department and your invaluable experience
to help lift up rural America and our farmers and ranchers.
I wish you the best of luck. And we look forward to working
with you as we continue the fiscal year 2022 appropriations
process.
Along with what we have discussed, we will also forward
additional questions for the record and will appreciate your
diligence in getting your responses to us and the staff in a
timely manner.
At this time, I recognize Mr. Fortenberry for any closing
remarks that he may have.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.
And, Mr. Secretary, we are just really grateful for your
impressive and thoughtful command of the full range of
agricultural issues. It is a very complicated business, but it
does show in its complications how this touches so much of
America and how important it is. So thank you for being our
messenger.
I do have two quick comments, Mr. Chairman. I won't make
them questions so as to not violate what you imposed upon me a
moment ago.
But just to point out to the Secretary, Mr. Secretary, it
is my understanding that the NRCS doesn't allow animal and crop
programs together. And obviously regenerative agriculture, some
of the leading-edge regenerative agricultural dynamics require
this. I want to put that on your radar screen. Maybe we can
talk about that another time.
One other thing, Mr. Chairman, if you can indulge me, and
the Secretary brought this up indirectly.
Look, we are living in the space of some contradiction here
with our nutrition programs. Obviously food is nutrition, but
food has to be health. Food is also medicine. So we are feeding
more kids than ever, but we have a thousand-fold increase in
childhood diabetes. Things that we all need to work hard to
address.
So, again, Mr. Secretary, thank you so much for your
willingness to spend all this time with us.
Mr. Chairman, I really appreciate the opportunity to
dialogue in, again, this thorough way with you and with the
entire committee. Thank you for your leadership.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Fortenberry.
And thank you to all the members for your attendance and
your participation. I think it has been very, very helpful and
enlightening. And let me also thank the staff who worked so
hard to put this hearing together and for it to work out as
smoothly as it has.
With that, again thank you, Mr. Secretary.
And this hearing is now adjourned.
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Tuesday, April 20, 2021.
FOOD, NUTRITION, AND CONSUMER SERVICES, USDA
WITNESS
STACY DEAN, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY, FOOD, NUTRITION, AND CONSUMER
SERVICES, FNS, USDA
Mr. Bishop. As this hearing is fully virtual, I now call it
to order.
Let me first begin by addressing a few housekeeping
matters. For today's hearing, the chair or staff designated by
the chair may mute participants' microphones when they are not
under recognition for purposes of eliminating inadvertent
background noise. Members are responsible for muting and
unmuting themselves. If I notice that you have not unmuted
yourself, I will ask if you would like the staff to unmute you.
If you indicate approval by nodding, staff will unmute your
microphone. I remind all members and witnesses that the 5-
minute clock still applies.
If there is a technology issue, we will move to the next
member until the issue is resolved, and you will retain the
balance of your time. You will notice a clock on your screen
that will show how much time is remaining. At 1 minute
remaining, the clock will turn yellow. At 30 seconds remaining,
I will gently tap the gavel to remind members that their time
is almost expired. When your time has expired, the clock will
turn red, and I will begin to recognize the next member.
In terms of the speaking order, we will follow the order
set forth in the House rules beginning with the chair and
ranking member, then alternating between majority and minority.
Members present at the time the hearing is called to order will
be recognized in order of seniority, between majority and
minority. Members not present at the time of the hearing will
be recognized according to their appearance.
Finally, the House rules require me to remind you that we
have set up an email address to which members can send anything
they wish to submit in writing at any of our hearings and
markups. That email address has been previously provided to
your staff. Last reminder, please ensure that your video is
turned on at this time.
Well, let me just say good morning and welcome to today's
hearing on USDA's Domestic Nutrition Assistance Programs.
Testifying before the committee today is Stacy Dean, the Deputy
Under Secretary of Food Nutrition and Consumer Services. Ms.
Dean, although, you have only been on the job since January 21,
you have a profound understanding of USDA's Domestic Nutrition
Programs, stemming from your work at the Office of Management
and Budget and later at the Center on Budget and Policy
Priorities.
Your work directing CPPP's food assistance team, which
publishes frequent reports on which we in Congress rely very
heavily, telling us how Federal nutrition programs with their
families and your having work to develop policies to improve
the delivery of health and human services programs at the State
and local level has not gone unnoticed. You have certainly hit
the ground running, and I thank you for being here to discuss
the latest developments and opportunities and challenges ahead.
FNS is responsible for overseeing 15 domestic nutrition
assistance programs that comprise the Nation's nutrition safety
net. Each year members--millions of our most vulnerable
population rely on these programs to feed their children, put a
good, healthy meal on the table. The past year, with millions
out of work, school, we saw just how vital these programs are.
COVID-19 and the resulting economic fallout disrupted life
for everyone. And for tens of millions of people, it greatly
exacerbated hunger and food insecurities. In many cases,
programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
SNAP, or the Emergency Food Assistance Program, TFAP was a
difference between having food or missing a meal. For some, it
was their first time needing assistance. To me, it underscores
the absolute necessity of continuing to invest and improve
these programs.
It is worth taking a moment to look at SNAP and TFAP to
understand the magnitude of the crisis. Before the pandemic
hit, there were around 38 million monthly SNAP participants. In
September 2020, there were nearly 43 million SNAP participants.
And to date, the pandemic EBT has helped 16.8 million children.
For fiscal year 2021, we provided an additional $80 million for
the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, a program that
supplements the diets of low-income seniors. And from several
COVID-19 supplements, Congress has appropriated more than $1.2
billion for TFAP.
I am sure we all remember seeing pictures and news reports
of people waiting in miles-long food lines or food banks. While
these images are jarring, and it is essential to remember that
behind these pictures are real families that are trying to
figure out just how they are going to make it through the day,
tomorrow, and the week ahead.
To its credit, FNS has issued more than 4,000 program
waivers and flexibilities to adjust to local needs and maximize
access to all eligible families. This includes the nationwide
extension of several waivers that allow all children to
continue to receive nutritious meals this summer when schools
are out of session through September 30, 2021.
I was also glad to see that USDA recently increased
emergency SNAP benefits for 25 million people. In my home State
of Georgia, that makes an additional $38.8 million in monthly
benefits, which would make a measurable difference in people's
lives.
I am also looking forward to hearing your thoughts on WIC,
pandemic EBT, the SNAP Online Purchasing Program, and nutrition
assistance in the Territories, also, the Farmers to Families
Food Box Program. I would like to hear your explanation of the
Secretary's decision to end it as well as your thoughts on the
Food Purchase and Distribution Program that has assisted
American farmers and ranchers who are negatively impacted by
trade policies.
As you can tell, there is a lot to discuss today, and I
again want to thank you, Deputy Under Secretary Dean, for being
with us, and I look forward to our discussion.
Now, let me ask my distinguished ranking member, my partner
in this endeavor, Mr. Fortenberry, if he will give any opening
remarks that he cares to give. And for that purpose, I will
recognize you, Mr. Fortenberry, at this time.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, not only
for your friendship but your important leadership.
Particularly, in topics like this. This is the largest, by far,
part of the USDA budget. And we cannot overlook this as we are
dealing with all the structural issues facing our country.
Mr. Chairman, I am happy you invoked the image of food
banks as you were giving your opening remarks. One of the more
jarring images for me during the height of the pandemic,
actually, in early stages when it was beginning to surge was
the visit I paid to one of my local food banks. They had
actually moved it outside, and there were a line of cars a
quarter mile long. Some of the people that were there I was
told they used to serve food, now they are asking for our help.
And so, again, I appreciate, Mr. Chairman, us working
vigorously last year with the Department to basically establish
the programs in which we provided the food--the supplemental
food boxes as well as other initiatives so that we weren't
wasting food at that time.
Ms. Dean, good morning, congratulations on your new
position. I will move right into several key topics that I
would like you to address. This hearing today really evokes a
paradox because it is one that faces our wealthy Nation. Our
extraordinary natural resources, our ingenuity, our
technological prowess, all of these things have allowed us to
provide among the most abundant, low-cost nutritious and
extraordinarily diverse array of foods in the entire world.
The average American spends less than 10 percent of their
income on food. Our farmers are so productive that we can even
afford to export billions of dollars in food aid every year.
All good things. And yet, we also know that some Americans
still face hunger. The core question is how is that possible?
Second, I think we should examine the metric for success at
USDA's 15 or more nutritional programs. USDA manages feeding
programs for every stage of life, from prenatal children to
senior citizens. We spend over $120 billion in the SNAP
program. But as I said to--I asked Secretary Vilsack last week,
food is nutrition, food is also health, food is also medicine.
The question then becomes we feed people, but do we feed people
well, especially when we experience a thousand-fold increase in
childhood diabetes, for instance. What is wrong? We have spent
and spent. Hunger has been reduced, thankfully, but yet at the
expense of health.
Finally, let us look at the subset of our programs that
from my perspective, I believe, is a part of a transformation
or way of thinking to meet the multiple objectives of both food
and nutrition, support for farmers and local economies, and
inspiration for the next generation of agricultural producers.
It is called the Farm to School Program. I am proud to have
regularly advanced this initiative in Congress and helped to
refine it as we continue to promote it.
Last year, I visited one of my local elementary schools--
actually, it was before the pandemic--and participated in what
is called a crunch-off. So the people who are managing this
program, filtering it all the way down to the elementary school
level are very dedicated and enthusiastic to introduce to
children healthy, fresh, locally grown foods.
The crunch-off in this case was taking apples from the
local region and biting into them on a countdown. One little
child held up the apple and said, ``Is this apple real?''
So it shows how we have got a huge opportunity to continue
to educate kids, grow local economies, connect the farmer
through the family through our school system, and this is an
important program. More than 23 million students at 47,000 of
America's schools have participated in the Farm to School
Program.
So it is an important priority and, again, I think one of
those small programs that has the potential to be scale to grow
the outcomes that we need to see of completely holistically
integrating both food as nutrition and even possibly food as
medicine.
Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Dean, I look forward
to your comments.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Fortenberry. It is my
understanding that our chair, Ms. DeLauro, nor our ranking
member of the full committee, Ms. Granger, neither is going to
be in attendance. They have got some other responsibilities
with some other subcommittees this morning.
So at this point, I think it is appropriate for us to
introduce and to call on our witness, Ms. Dean. And I would
appreciate very much if you would move forward with your
testimony. And I now yield the floor to you, Ms. Dean.
Ms. Dean. Thank you, Chairman Bishop, and Ranking Member
Fortenberry. I am Stacy Dean, Deputy Under Secretary for the
Food Nutrition and Consumer Services at USDA. And I really
appreciate the opportunity to speak with you all today about
FNS' COVID response.
The COVID-19 public health and economic crisis has caused
unprecedented hardship, as the chairman noted, making it
difficult for many to afford food and keep a roof over their
head. Today, an estimated 25 million adults and 6 to 10 million
children are struggling to get enough to eat, with communities
of color hit particularly hard.
The Biden administration has taken a whole of government
approach to addressing such hardship. Upon taking office,
President Biden directed every Federal agency to help Americans
in the pandemic script. Congress had already enhanced FNS'
ability to adapt our programs and response to the pandemic, and
we are grateful for that, but more needed to be done. So let me
share three examples of our administrative efforts.
First, as you noted, we strengthened pandemic EBT to help
low-income families make up for missed schools when schools are
closed, increasing benefits by about a dollar a day per child,
and our new guidance simplified to EBT implementation. Today,
35 States and Territories have approved the EBT plan to serve
more than 20 million children. We are working hard to help
other States and Territories launch their own programs. We
addressed a major gap in SNAP emergency allotment policy that
resulted in little or no help to some 25 million program
participants who are the least able to absorb COVID's economic
shocks. Starting this month, all SNAP households will receive
at least an extra $95 a month in help.
And this morning, we announced needed flexibilities for
child nutrition programs for the next school year, so that we
can ensure that we are supporting a strong school reopening and
feeding kids safely with healthy nutritious meals.
In addition to these administrative actions, President
Biden proposed, and Congress just passed, the American Rescue
Plan, providing significant new nutrition assistance. Just 5
weeks after enactment, the rescue plan is already helping
families. In shelters that participate in the Child and Adult
Care Food Program, the USDA now reimburses meals to homeless
youth between the ages of 18 and 24.
States are increasing WIC's cash value vouchers, more than
tripling fruit and vegetable buying power for women and
children. And States will receive over a billion dollars in
administrative funds to help them meet increased demand for
SNAP and to increase sufficiency and access in the program.
Territories are building their plans to utilize the additional
$1 billion Congress provided to help them serve hard-hit
families.
Now, looking ahead, the rescue plan will also extend
pandemic EBTs through the summer and the duration of the public
health emergency, and it extended the 15 percent boost in SNAP
benefits that were slated to end in June through September. And
that is about $100 a month for a family of four. It helps
families purchase the food that they need, and it also supports
farmers and producers who receive 15 cents out of every SNAP
dollar.
So USDA--and here I really want to highlight the amazing
staff. My team at FNS have worked tirelessly to respond to the
nutrition crisis. But we know that doing the work--just doing
the work isn't evidence of a successful response. That is why
we are building assessment into all of implementation efforts.
We want to integrate lessons learned going forward, including
the need to communicate early and often, offer broad
flexibilities instead of individual and thousands of waivers,
and address the way emergencies exacerbate longstanding
inequities and service delivery in excess. Early signs suggest
that our efforts are working. The latest census data suggests a
drop in food hardship. It is a hopeful indicator that we will
monitor closely.
And while our focus has been the immediate COVID response,
we are also looking ahead. As the President says, we must act
boldly now to build a better tomorrow. And here are just three
quick examples of our plans. First, we are working to ensure
SNAP benefits can support healthy eating. For years, experts
have argued that SNAP benefits do not reflect the realistic
cost of a basic healthy diet, undermining participants' ability
to buy and prepare healthy food.
As the farm bill directed us, we are reevaluating the
Thrifty Food Plan to ensure it meets that standard. Second, we
will work to improve maternal and child health outcomes across
racial and ethnic lines and administration priority through
WIC.
WIC is a proven intervention, and yet the share of eligible
families receiving its benefits have declined over the past
decade to only just more than half. We are going to invest
rescue plan resources in better connecting WIC to healthcare
and program improvements for best outreach and innovation and
service delivery, all with the goal of improving equity and
reducing health disparities.
And third, we will prioritize nutrition security in each
program. And I know the Secretary spoke to you about that. That
includes incorporating the latest dietary guidelines where
appropriate and strengthening nutrition education efforts.
I am very eager to work with the subcommittee as we
strengthen the programs to respond to COVID and for the future.
Thank you, and I very much look forward to your questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Ms. Dean. We will now
proceed with questions. As I mentioned earlier, we will begin
with the chair and ranking member, then alternating majority
and minority with members present at the time the hearing
starts in order of seniority. After that, I will recognize
members who are not present at the time the hearing is called
to order. And I will do my best to accommodate Ms. Lee's
request in the early parts of the round, following the chair
and ranking member.
Ms. Dean, as I have mentioned, you have had to hit the
ground running. Recent announcements by the USDA such as
providing an additional $1 billion per month of SNAP benefits
to an estimated 25 million people, and officially ending the
previous administration's attempt to restrict the ability of
States to provide SNAP to able-bodied adults without dependents
will have an immeasurable impact on people's lives.
The last year, we have been reacting to the current crisis,
but looking long-term, what kinds of changes do you think we
need to make to ensure people have enough nutritious food,
especially during emergencies? Tell us if USDA is working on a
legislative proposal for the fiscal year 2022 budget, for the
Child Nutrition Reauthorization bill, for the next farm bill,
or all of the above.
And if you would do that quickly. I would like to get to a
second question having to do with nutrition assistance to the
Territories. Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth
of the Northern Mariana Islands that are not part of the
regular SNAP program, but they are dependent on Congress in the
event of an emergency. In 2017, Hurricane Maria, Congress made
available 1.9 billion for Puerto Rico, responded to the typhoon
in the Mariana Islands in 2018, and provided relief for
Territories and a number of other bills.
Can you discuss the path forward as you see it
transitioning these Territories to SNAP? I raise these
questions and with reference to my memories of Congressman Jose
Serrano. So tell us what the Territories need to do and what we
need to do to help them.
Ms. Dean. Okay. Let me take those in order. So, first, we
very much look forward to working with Congress on what you
talked about in terms of are there lessons learned, and in
particular what can we do to help the programs flex in an
emergency moving forward?
So I would say I do think that thrifty adjustment is going
to be one of the most important things that we do to make sure
that the program offers a benefit that will be sufficient for a
basic healthy diet. But, as we look ahead to opportunities like
child nutrition reauthorization, I would say a great example of
what we could be doing there is building an emergency disaster
authority into child nutrition and WIC, so that we are not
dependent upon Congress offering us the kinds of wonderful
flexibilities that you did through Families First and CARES,
but that we have got it ready to go. So that would just be two
quick examples, Mr. Chairman.
With respect to the Territories, first, let me--I hope what
reiterates what you already know which is President Biden is
fully committed to the Territories having access to the Federal
nutrition programs consistent with States. So that will take an
act of Congress. But we are already leaning in on that.
We--my regional leads and I have met with--the regional
leads have met with the leadership teams at--in--sorry, CNMI,
the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana, Puerto Rico, and American
Samoa to talk to them about what their interest is, and how we
can work together in building a plan on what transitioning from
the block grants to SNAP would mean.
And second, I have met with Congresswoman Gonzalez-Colon
already as well as Congressman Sablan about their interest on
this. We take this very seriously, and we look forward to
working with you and the authorizers on the plan.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Now, Ms. Dean, can you share your
thoughts about the need to consider racial justice in our
domestic food programs. Secretary Vilsack has cast the efforts
to improve America's access to nutritious food as a part of the
racial justice effort. Can you discuss that, please?
Ms. Dean. Yes. Well, this sort of intercepts with all
aspects of what we do. As I talk to my team, I think we want to
understand how and why people are coming to need food
assistance. And longstanding racial inequality and systemic
racism, particularly, for example, in the labor market are a
part of what brings people to needing our food assistance. And
knowing and appreciating that, I think, is very important.
As we look to meet people's needs, we want to know why they
are coming to us and how and when--and then second, what are
the food programs doing to push against those disparities? And,
certainly, at a minimum, we don't want to make anything worse.
You mentioned the 3-month time limit in SNAP and our efforts to
soften the prior administration's efforts to make that worse.
I think that is an example of a policy that probably really
exacerbates racial inequality just because the labor market is
not an equal opportunity place. And asking individuals to work
part to full-time just won't play out the same across racial
and ethnic lines.
And, of course, then there is the issue healthy and
nutritious food. We see in our school meals program that we
have been able to increase the quality of what children eat,
and that cuts across racial and ethnic lines which is so
important because the way that health disparities play out. Oh,
sorry.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Ms. Dean. My time has expired. I
will be happy to come back to you.
But at this time, I would like to yield to our
distinguished Ranking Member, Fortenberry for questions. You
are now recognized, Mr. Fortenberry.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Dean, if you
were to grade the Federal Government's performance in educating
and influencing the America's public on eating well, on eating
choices, what grade would you give?
Ms. Dean. I would say the American public's grade isn't
very--isn't a good one in a sense of we know Americans aren't
eating with respect to health and eating--healthy eating index.
Sorry. I think we can do more. I am not sure how to grade us,
but I know--I know we are not at an A, and we have a lot to do
to get there.
Mr. Fortenberry. Well, I can give you the litany of
statistics. One of which I cited in my opening remarks about a
thousand-fold increase in childhood diabetes. And then, of
course, we have increasing obesity rates, and in correlation to
that problem, the health outcome. So it lands squarely on the
plate, if you will, as a beginning component of how we not only
feed people, but we feed people well, both in terms of public
programs, but also the projection of nutrition education and
information.
So how are we going to fix that?
Ms. Dean. Well, Mr. Fortenberry, you couldn't have a more
passionate chairman on this issue than the Secretary, and I
hope he conveyed that very clearly last week. Some of the
things----
Mr. Fortenberry. He did.
Ms. Dean [continuing]. Some of the things we will be doing
is making sure that we update all of the nutrition standards in
our programs to reflect the most recent set of dietary
guidelines. Those revisions offer us an opportunity to take a
look at how we are doing with respect to promoting and
supporting healthy nutritious food. I also think the adjustment
to SNAP's Thrifty Food Plan will put healthy food in reach for
many very, very poor families for whom it just may not have
been an option for them.
Mr. Fortenberry. Well, look, you use the term ``nutritional
security,'' I like that term. We talk in terms of food
security, and let's be frank, we have done a very good job of
increasing caloric intake and substantially reducing, let's
call it, systemic hunger across this country. But the issue,
that isn't fully the issue, as we are seeing. Food is health.
And to make those two things inextricably intertwined has to be
the objective if we are providing a holistic public policy for
well-being.
Let me turn then to the Farm to School Program quickly. How
can we scale that program? I assume you like it. I do. I think
it is an important program, again, meeting multiple objections
in educating kids about nutrition, but also generating local
economies for our farmers.
Ms. Dean. Well, we love the Farm to School Program. I loved
your story of crunch off. I just have to flag that. So, look,
part of the issue is the resources that we have for the grants.
So that will be something that we will have on work with
Congress on. I think we have a number of ideas about--and I
appreciated the bill you had potentially looking at the scale
of grants so that we can bring in more larger-scale efforts.
And I think we also want to take a look at some of the core
learning of farm to school. And I want to make sure we are
talking with or partners at AMS and rural development about how
we make sure that we are working our costs, our different leans
at USDA to bring local producers and connect them with the
schools and our purchasing power. So I hope we build bigger.
Mr. Fortenberry. Okay. Well, obviously, we have a decided
emphasis on this program because of all the reasons that I
said, and I think it is exciting.
And the question--the other question, though, is there a
nexus with the extension service. You know, a long time ago,
extension being fully integrated, or in particular in rural
areas, substantially integrated into public school systems with
basic classes on nutrition and other dynamics like that is less
common now. Is there a nexus between farm to school and
extension?
Ms. Dean. Well, I think you make an excellent point there.
Actually, we were planning to bring folks together from across
USDA to talk about how to build out farm to school. So I will
make sure extension is there. I appreciate that suggestion.
Mr. Fortenberry. I think this is very important, because
again the tradition of this was already in place. And for
whatever reason, that began to drift because of social dynamics
in the country. But I do think they have the foundational
expertise to perhaps be a substantive participant in that
internal discussion.
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Dean.
Ms. Dean. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Fortenberry.
At this time, I am happy to recognize Ms. Lee, the chair of
our Foreign Ops Subcommittee for your questions. Ms. Lee, you
are now recognized.
Ms. Lee of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank
you, Mr. Fortenberry, for giving me a chance to go early since
I have another subcommittee that I am participating in. I
really appreciate your help. And thank you for your leadership.
And thank you, Ms. Dean, for being here with us. I have a
couple of questions I just wanted to ask very quickly.
Now, in your testimony, of course, you reference the
disastrous conditions and consequences, excuse me, of the
COVID-19 epidemic. And I will really applaud your
administration--our administration for continuing to suspend
the 3-month time limit on SNAP benefits for unemployed adults
without dependents.
Now, given what we know about just hunger in America in
general, given what we know about the fact that so many more
people are unemployed, and the longer that you are unemployed
the more difficult it is for you to reenter the workforce, I am
wondering and given the racial impact, disparate impact on
communities with people of color, I want to make sure how do we
permanently rescind the time limits with regard to the equity
in our food assistance programs, and really make it permanent?
Because these time limits just aren't going to work. We had
a problem, a hunger problem in America before COVID. We have a
hunger problem now. And so we don't need to go back to where we
were by imposing time limits on SNAP benefits.
Ms. Dean. Thank you, Congresswoman Lee. I completely agree.
This is an incredibly harsh rule that punishes individuals for
being not being able to work 20 hours a week consistently in a
labor market, certainly, today, but very often that just
doesn't offer that opportunity for very low-skilled and very
poor individuals. This includes homeless individuals, veterans.
It is a rule that really expects, I think, what is not feasible
for many.
So the rule, however, is in the law. So changing it would
require an act of Congress and something that perhaps could be
taken up in the next farm bill.
Ms. Lee of California. And we are working on that, as we
speak, in terms of legislation. But I guess until we can get
leg--you know, how this goes. It could take months years, who
knows. And so many people are just barely hanging on now. And
what we all know the food banks, the food lines, people who
have been middle-income in the past have found themselves and
find themselves in the food banks and begging their government
just to help feed them.
And so we have got to figure out how we can sustain this
and keep people from--keep more people from going hungry
through this period. Now, does that require just executive
order after executive order after executive order to hold on
until we get it passed in legislation? It is an emergency, and
so I am trying to figure out----
Ms. Dean. Gotcha.
Ms. Lee of California [continuing]. What the administration
is going to do until we get the legislation passed.
Ms. Dean. Yes, sorry. Let me--Congress actually wisely
suspended the time limit for the duration of the public health
emergency. So for at least some time, we will have--the time
limit will not be in effect. After that, States will have to
seek waivers for areas of high unemployment within their State.
And we will work very--we will be a very--what is the right
word to say--good partner with States in making sure that they
can apply that where possible. And I am happy to report back to
your staff on some of the specific details if that is helpful.
Ms. Lee of California. That will be helpful. Okay so what
you are saying now is States can request a waiver, and then you
would----
Ms. Dean. For areas of high--excuse me, I am sorry,
Congresswoman. For areas of high unemployment. It goes back to
the old rules that were in place prior to the Trump
administration's proposal to change them.
I am happy to go through the details with your team, but I
think the time limit very likely, just under the law, will be
coming back at some point in the near future. Very
unfortunately.
Ms. Lee of California. Yeah, I think one of the issues,
there may be areas of low unemployment. But with people of
color, you have high unemployment. Like you may have low
unemployment at 5, 4 percent. Yet, you will have African
Americans, LatinX, API individuals, indigenous people, with 10
percent, 15 percent unemployment.
So some States may not be able to meet that threshold, yet
you will have groups of people who are hungry still and can't
deal with these, you know, in the time limits would prevent
them from accessing the benefits.
Ms. Dean. Absolutely. That is exactly the challenge that we
face.
Ms. Lee of California. Okay. Well, I would like to work
with you on that because we can't come to the end of this and
have so many more people of color falling into the--not even
into the ranks of the poor but into the ranks of those who are
hungry because it has been a heck of a struggle even before the
pandemic.
Ms. Dean. I will welcome that.
Ms. Lee of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Ms. Lee. You are now free to pursue
your other responsibilities.
And at this time, I am delighted to recognize the gentleman
from Alabama, the former chair of this subcommittee, Mr.
Aderholt. Mr. Aderholt, you are now recognized for your
questions.
Mr. Aderholt. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is good to
be with the subcommittee today. And I welcome Ms. Dean and
being here with us today, virtually.
And I want to ask about the American Rescue Plan Act funds.
And I understand that it provided improvements to the SNAP
online purchasing. Its electronic benefit and modernization was
included, as well as mobile payment technologies, as well as
technical assistance for retailers and farmers markets to adopt
new technologies.
And this subcommittee has over the years has recognized the
challenges of rural communities that face insecure broadband
connectivity. Can you talk a little bit about how the needs of
rural SNAP participants could be prioritized.
Ms. Dean. Well, I think the perfect example of a group that
we want to make sure--I am sorry. This could very greatly
benefit from the ability to do online shopping. And so those
individuals as well as smaller retailers are both the
participants and the type of enterprises that we are trying to
put front and center and prioritize through our grant-making to
make sure that we are making this a more viable option for as
many people as possible, particularly, those as you mentioned
who may not have access to a store nearby and where online
shopping would make a big difference.
Mr. Aderholt. Yeah, but, you know, one thing that we are
seeing is the broadband connectivity----
Ms. Dean. Yeah.
Mr. Aderholt [continuing]. Issue, and that is something
that I think, you know, we can't forget about because there is
many places that are rural in the Nation that still does not
have that connectivity. And even though the new technologies
are available, they are not able to use them. So----
Ms. Dean. Well, Congressman, you make a good point. And as
we work on how to deploy these funds, we should be talking to
our colleagues at World Development to look at how USDA is
rolling out more rural broadband to make sure that we are
leveraging, making sure that the participants have the tools
that they need. So we will--I will take that back.
Mr. Aderholt. Yeah, and I think--and I would love to work
with you on that, because that has been an issue I that I
worked on, and many on this subcommittee have worked on over
the years.
Let me ask about the SNAP quality control system. During
the pandemic, there was, of course, understandably an increased
participation in the nutrition assistance programs that was
administered by your area of FNS. How has the increased volume
and the changes to the program impacted the SNAP quality
control review?
Ms. Dean. So thank you very much for that question. And, of
course, program integrity is a very--is a top priority for us.
Congress actually suspended quality control reviews in some of
the prior--the prior legislation basically deciding to
prioritize access in meeting this emergency in terms of the
tremendous food need.
Quality--we still encourage States to continue to do the
reviews. It is just that our official Federal measurement
system has taken a pause. That comes back on line later this
summer. And as I said, we have been encouraging States to
continue to do reviews for themselves. We are still working
with them on ensuring that programs are spent accurately. But
it will be, we probably will not have an official Federal Error
Rate for the pandemic period.
Mr. Aderholt. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Aderholt. And I might just take
note of the fact that as we are meeting and as we speak, the
Authorizing Committee is holding a hearing with World
Development On Rural Broadband. And, of course, it is a very,
very important issue. And I think it goes to the issues that
you raised, Mr. Aderholt. So if it is any consolation, the
Authorizing Committee is holding hearings right now on that
very subject.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. At this time, I am delighted to recognize the
gentlelady from Illinois, Ms. Lauren Underwood. Ms. Underwood,
you were now recognized for your questions.
Ms. Underwood. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
to Ms. Dean for joining us today. So in last week's hearing of
Secretary Vilsack, I asked home questions about the
Department's plan to improve the WIC program. And I am really
glad to have this opportunity with you today to get some more
information on the Food and Nutrition Services efforts in this
space.
Ms. Dean, in your written testimony, you say connecting
more eligible women and children to WIC services is one of the
most powerful interventions available to reduce racial
disparities and maternal and child health outcomes. I am
pleased to see that participation among eligible Black and
LatinX families is higher than average, and that the agency is
accelerating outreach to increase WIC enrollment. But the Black
maternal mortality crisis is worsening, and we must do more.
The President's Fiscal Year 2022 Discretionary Funding
Request includes an overall increase of more than $1 billion
for critical nutrition programs, including WIC. Specifically,
Ms. Dean, how will your agency use this increase in WIC funding
to address the maternal mortality crisis for Black mothers and
other women and birthing people of color?
Ms. Dean. Thank you, Congresswoman Underwood. I think,
first, we are going to start with the new resources that were
provided by Congress through the American Rescue Plan we are
calling it our WIC Outreach Innovation and Modernization Fund.
We want to actually--your bill, as some of our inspiration on
the kinds of--the areas where we want to be making investments.
So, absolutely, our national outreach plan, we want to be
providing grant-making to better connect WIC to the local
healthcare and maternal and childcare healthcare system so that
there is information sharing and cross referrals there.
We want to make sure that WIC is--WIC could use, in some
cases, some streamlining in modernization on the services that
it is providing so that it remains inviting--an inviting
service for moms and children. So we start there. Those funds
aren't all we want to do though. Those funds are a tool for us
to shift our approach on strengthening the program.
So let me stop there. I think that budget request is a
little difficult for me to get into. But the bottom line goal
is we are seeking full funding for WIC, and we are going to do
everything we can to bring more eligible mothers, infants, and
children to this program because we know it works in improving
their basic nutrition and health.
Ms. Underwood. Thank you so much. That is wonderful to
hear. My Black Maternal Health Momnibus Act would extend the
WIC eligibility period for postpartum and breast feeding
individuals to 24 months. According to the National WIC
Association, extending eligibility to provide ongoing nutrition
support for postpartum mothers is a critical step to setting up
future pregnancy success, ensuring mothers continue to receive
nutritious food and tailored counseling to mitigate or prevent
chronic diet-related conditions like diabetes and obesity.
Ms. Dean, can you just speak to how extending WIC's
postpartum and breast feeding eligibility periods could expand
the program's positive impacts on the health of mothers and
babies?
Ms. Dean. Well, I think Congresswoman, you just did that
for me the idea of keeping them connected to WIC's terrific
services would mean that they are--just gotten, have more
ongoing connection to health, nutrition counseling, and, of
course, the broad set of referal services.
Do you think it is--I think, I am very interested in this,
and I want us to take a close look at this. But it is also very
important in WIC because Congress and administrations crossed
party lines for decades have made a strong commitment to full
funding in WIC. We want to make sure that the cost of this can
be born out permanently. And that the appropriators would be
fully committed to that.
So I look forward to learning more from you and talking
more with you and your staff about this idea.
Ms. Underwood. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. In the 2020 to 2025
dietary guidelines for Americans released in late 2020, it
contains key evidence-based recommendations for healthy diets,
including new recommendations for pregnant and lactating women,
infants, and young children. What kind of funding and support
will be required for USDA to implement a successful consumer
education campaign to ensure that the public has culturally
relevant and acceptable tools to support healthy eating?
Ms. Dean. I am thrilled to hear your interest in that. And
I think you will find the details on our budget request will
give you the information that you need there on how FNS can do
more for public----
Ms. Underwood. Yeah.
Ms. Dean [continuing]. Public efforts. So I look forward to
more conversation.
Ms. Underwood. Well, thanks so much for your testimony
today. And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Ms. Underwood. I believe Mr. Harris
has stepped away. Dr. Harris has stepped away. So at this time
I am delighted to represent--to recognize the gentleman from
California Mr. Valadao.
Mr. Valadao, you are now recognized.
Mr. Valadao. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. And thank you Ms.
Dean, Deputy Under Secretary for your time today.
Ms. Dean, throughout your testimony you referenced the
issue of food insecurity. I am glad you are bringing this up
because it is a very important subject. Just last week, USDA
Secretary Vilsack testified in front of this subcommittee and
discussed the importance of the food insecurity issue. The
morning of the Secretary's hearing, we read in the news about
the USDA's abrupt decision to cancel the Farmers to Families
Food Box Program. This action seems to directly contradict your
testimony that highlights the need to address food insecurity.
Yesterday, my colleagues and I sent a letter to Secretary
Vilsack expressing concern for the USDA's elimination of the
program without replacing it with any real alternative to feed
communities in need. Elimination will create further unrest in
these communities who have already been negatively impacted by
COVID-19 pandemic.
We also urge the Secretary reverse this decision and
continue the food box program. At the very least before ending
the program, USDA should review the program in its most recent
form, utilized nearly 1 billion left, and authorized but
unspent funds for the program, and employ other authorities to
continue the program before canceling it without substantial,
substantive alternatives.
On the subject just a few weeks ago, USDA hosted an all-day
listening session on the food box program and received input
from numerous stakeholders, many of them even in my district.
Did you have any knowledge before the listening session that
USDA was planning to cancel the program? And if so, why would
you hold such a lengthy event just to turn around and almost
immediately cancel the program?
Ms. Dean. Congressman Valadao, thank you for your question.
I think as the Secretary pointed out last week, the program was
set up during a crisis to be a temporary response, and the
funding to support it has also been temporary. So it was stood
up in emergency when we faced an incredibly uncertain time,
deep significant spike in hunger, as you noted, and of course
the problem of severe food loss and throughout the food system.
So we are both assessing the program as well as assessing
the current context in what is needed. And the Secretary will
determine a plan for the new CFAC funds that leverages, I hope,
that--sorry, I don't mean to say ``I hope,'' that leverages,
that builds in all of the learning as well as looks to take
advantage of the extraordinary and incredibly efficient
emergency food bank system. We know that we can do more there
to help strengthen them, and we feel that that is probably the
right way to transition forward.
So the details of his plan aren't yet available, but we
will absolutely be briefing Members of Congress when they are
ready.
Mr. Valadao. I appreciate that. And the reason why I ask
that question is to go through the process of having a
listening session to bring in stakeholders for a program that
was going to be eliminated almost immediately after listening
session, it would have been a prime opportunity to get input
from folks on how to fix the program or how to create a program
that is more efficient.
I mean, I understand there were problems with it, but that
was a good opportunity to help resolve some of the problems
with these programs. And I think that should have been the
focus on it, especially since almost immediately it was
canceled, and that listening session was pretty much a waste
for a lot of folks.
Ms. Dean. Well, if I may, some of the learning that we have
gotten from the listening sessions are things that we want to
employ. We have heard about the need for more flexibility, for
example, in the TFAP program. We heard about the tremendous
value of having a prepackaged box during this kind of
emergency. So we are looking to offer something like that in
TFAP where we are offering something like that in TFAP right
now.
So I don't think it--I really don't want the folks to think
that we didn't listen, and that we aren't seeking to build a
way forward with some of the incredible lessons that we heard
in those sessions. We took it very seriously and still do.
Mr. Valadao. And so moving forward, if--I mean, obviously,
I haven't had a chance to put in your comments during that
listening session. But now that the known program is
eliminated, will producers have the opportunity to provide
input for the future regarding expansion of existing nutrition
assistance programs or creation of a new food distribution
program? Or will there be an opportunity for producers to have
that input on that as well?
Ms. Dean. Well, I think USDA is always a ready listener to
our producer partners. I am not sure we will be creating a new
program, but, again, trying to incorporate a lot of the
learning that we got and the input from producers across many
sectors. There were some sector-focused listening sessions. I
think we are here and ready to meet if folks have thoughts for
us.
Mr. Valadao. All right. Well, I appreciate the time. I am
out of time, so I will yield back the rest.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Valadao.
At this time, I am delighted to yield to the chair lady of
the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs Subcommittee, the
gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Ms.
Schultz, you are now recognized.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. And
thank for your leadership on this important issue.
Welcome, Secretary. I just want to go over, last week
during our hearing with Secretary Vilsack, the Secretary
mentioned that the USDA is ending the Farm to Food Box Program,
which was established by the Trump administration. Flaws in the
program's implementation became evident almost immediately.
Trump's USDA chose inexperienced distributors, including a
catering company and financial services provider now under
investigation to launch the box program. Food pantries soon
began complaining that deliveries weren't arriving, that
produce was arriving in poor condition, and the boxes
themselves were falling apart.
Feeding South Florida, the largest local food bank in my
region told me firsthand how the program led to what they call
a commodity clip, in which they were no longer receiving the
necessary food each week despite an uptick in need.
I know that USDA recently announced that it plans to create
a new program which will purchase fresh food produce for a
produce box program to run through food banks, and that you
also are in the process of designing a dairy donation program.
Can you provide us any more information on what these new
programs will look like and how they differ from the
inefficiencies of the previous Trump administration program?
Ms. Dean. Sure. Let me take a crack at that. So, first, I
think the experience of the Farmers to Families was uneven. And
it sounds like in Florida it was less positive than in other
places. Looking ahead, we aren't--with respect to the Emergency
Food Assistance Program or TFAP, we are including a new
program. We have created a new offering so that food banks
through our State TFAP agencies can order prepackaged produce
box. We are trying that as an alternative to the--when we offer
just a produce, or something they can offer, sorry, order in
bulk. So this is an example of where we are integrating the
learning from the past year into our existing programs.
So if that works, and it is successful, and the food banks
like it, they like the convenience of the prepackaged box, we
will see if we can continue to do that with available funds.
I think the other lesson learned was some of the
flexibilities that our food banks enjoyed, not just through
Farmers to Families, but also through some of the trade
mitigation programs, flexibilities and procurement. And also a
focus on the local procurement. These are all things we are
trying to integrate into our underlying programs rather than
creating something new.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I want to just follow up and say
that many argue that boosting SNAP benefits or providing other
forms of direct cash assistance for people in need of food
might have been far more efficient than the box deliveries. Can
you discuss how an increase in SNAP benefits has been helpful
to those who might otherwise attend the food distribution site
and how the different types of assistance work together?
Ms. Dean. Yeah, thanks so much for that. That is right. One
of the key differences today versus say a year ago is we are
deploying a much greater--to a much greater extent, shoring up
household food purchasing power, using SNAP and the pandemic
EBT program by putting resources directly into the hands of
households so that they can go the grocery store and buy the
food that they need for their families.
That we hope, based on the latest census data is indicating
a little bit of a drop in food hardship, and that is a data
point, not a trend. But we are--and that has really been the
whole point of shoring up robust household food assistance is
to meet the scale of this crisis with a scaled robust response.
So with that, we hope that the demand at emergency food
banks decline. So I am sure it will take some time. And we can
see an easing off there.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Great, and just as my time is
winding down, I want to just mention the USDA expanded the
child nutrition program flexibilities through this summer. But
we know that 13 million children live in food insecurity
households across the country, and almost 30 million children
are enrolled in prereduced priced meals in school. That is
probably going to increase as children return to brick and
mortar schools.
Can you give us the assurance that school districts will be
given notice enough notice when child nutrition program
flexibilities expire or temporary programs ends? And will
stopgap programs be put in place if needed?
Ms. Dean. Sure, Congresswoman, this morning we announced a
new set of waivers that would be available for the next school
year. Twelve waivers that I think taken together will meet what
schools and childcare programs need in order to have a
successful strong reopening and be responsive to public health
and provide them with the resources they need.
We are planning to go back to a normal--so as I hope all of
are in our broader lives go back to normal operations the
following school year. But we will be working with them
throughout the coming 18 months for both what they need today
and to get ready for that shift back.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you so much. My time has
expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
Dr. Harris is back at this time. I am delighted to
recognize Dr. Harris the gentleman from Maryland for such
questions as you may have. You are now recognized Dr. Harris.
Mr. Harris. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Dean, let me just follow up on one question about the
so-called work requirements. Because my understanding is that
it is not only work, it could be training, job training, or it
could even be volunteer work. Is that right?
Ms. Dean. It is. Although, we don't fund for those programs
to meet the demand for them.
Mr. Harris. Right, but volunteer programs, you wouldn't
have to fund the volunteer program, right? I mean, it is a
volunteer?
Ms. Dean. That is true. Although, many organizations don't
want to do it because of the insurance and costs associated for
them. But, yes, you are correct. You can volunteer.
Mr. Harris. Okay. Could you get me information about
restrictions, my office information about restrictions on
volunteers, so, in fact, there are volunteer opportunities?
Because in my communities, I would like to know if volunteer
opportunities are there.
And, of course, the workforce is in another committee I sit
on, the Labor, Health, and Human Services and Education
Committee. So you know we will deal with that in that
committee. But just to correct it, you know, we call it work
requirement. But it is not really a work requirement. It is
work, volunteer, or training requirement.
Now, let me follow up with you a little bit about this. You
said nutrition security is very important. So let me talk a
little bit about fresh vegetables versus frozen foods, because
the nutrition of them are virtually the same. Frozen foods are
more cost-effective, less prone to waste than fresh foods. But
I have noticed that many nutrition assistance programs seem to
have a preference for fresh fruits and vegetables over frozen.
Again, even though nutritionally, there is very little
difference. So is there a preference at your agency for fresh
fruits and vegetables over frozen?
Ms. Dean. No, sir, the dietary--we go along with the
dietary guidelines and the--for example, in the WIC cash value
voucher program can be spent both on fresh and frozen.
Mr. Harris. Okay. So, and that is good to know. It brings
up another question about nutrition. So as a physician, look, I
know we have problems with obesity, we have problems with
diabetes, we have a problem with things that we think are diet-
related. And yet the SNAP program restricts very few foods. The
eligibility to buy--there are very few restrictions on what you
can buy in very strict contradistinction to the WIC program,
which we have already discussed in some light, which actually
targets only spending on nutritional foods.
Why is the Department--or I should say, is there any
movement within the Department to try to stay, yeah, maybe we
should--maybe we should take those who are receiving SNAP
benefits and actually--and the fresh vegetable program--
obviously, fresh fruits and vegetables goes toward that, but
there is more than that. Are there any indications that
restricting some of what you can access with SNAP benefits
might actually have nutrition security value?
Ms. Dean. Well, I think what we are prioritizing right now
is what I spoke about earlier, and that is ensuring that the
program's basic benefit is sufficient to purchase a healthy
diet. Many experts, including physicians say that it is not.
And I hesitate to say this to a Doctor, well, what we hear is
the right medicine but the wrong dose.
And so we--I think our first, most important step is to
make sure that we have a realistic estimate of what the cost of
a basic healthy diet is. And that is what we are using, and
that is the power of what we are giving to participants. And
so, I guess I would just say----
Mr. Harris. Yeah, let me just, because I only have about a
minute left, but let me concentrate on that because there are
virtually no restrictions on what you can buy with the SNAP
benefit except for prepared foods. I mean, I understand that.
But you can buy things that are very high in starch content,
very high in high fructose corn syrup, very high in salt, very
high in sugar. You can buy sodas, snack foods, things like
that. And I don't know of any physician who says that is the
right medicine. Because I think you not only have the wrong
dosage, I think you actually have the wrong medicine, because
you enable to do that.
And years ago I joined with Dr. Rowe. We filed a bill to
actually just parallel the WIC requirement with the SNAP
requirement in terms of what food may be available. I think we
might be on the verge of a bipartisan bill, filing a bill that
would actually ask the department to put those kind of
restrictions on. Would they be beneficial nutritionally?
Ms. Dean. I think adjusting the benefits to the correct
level is the best first step. And I think that all of the
evidence suggests SNAP participants are buying very much in
line with what other Americans are purchasing, and that is
concerns that you have for diet needs to be addressed for the
whole country, and not just low-income households.
Mr. Harris. That is the whole problem----
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Harris.
Mr. Harris [continuing]. Defining exactly what Americans
are buying.
Mr. Bishop. Your time has expired.
Mr. Harris. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. At this time, I am delighted to
recognize the gentlelady from New York, Ms. Meng.
Ms. Meng, you are now recognized for your questions.
Ms. Meng. Thank you, Mr. Bishop. And Deputy Under Secretary
Dean, thank you for being here today. The programs administered
by FNS have been real lifesaving for my constituents both
before COVID and especially over this last year. My district in
Queens, New York, was one of the first impacted by COVID. The
impact of this disruption will be felt around dinner tables for
long after we are all vaccinated.
And I do want to mention that when Secretary Vilsack was
here last week, I urged him to support expanding flexibility
around SNAP and, particularly, to support the elimination of
the hot foods exclusion which are neither automatically more or
less healthy than cold food. And the inability to purchase them
with SNAP dollars creates unnecessary complications for
seniors, homeless, people with disabilities, single parents,
college students, and more.
Today, I wanted to ask about online SNAP pilots, which I
strongly advocated for, including in a letter from 94 New York
elected officials from all levels of government last year,
which called in part for the expansion of this program.
Many of us across the country benefitted significantly from
online grocery ordering over the past year. It helped to keep
elderly and immuno-compromised out of crowded grocery stores.
They are not just beneficial from a public health standpoint,
but to also help essential workers, seniors, busy parents, and
these services have shown to be particularly beneficial to
those who participate in the SNAP program.
I wanted to ask how FNS is continuing to expand the SNAP
program, online purchasing pilot program, and what some of the
challenges have been?
Ms. Dean. Thanks very much for that question. And right
now, more than 97 percent of SNAP households have access to
online purchasing across 47 States and D.C. But we clearly need
to do more because we want to expand the number of stores that
make this option available.
And, thankfully, Congress has provided us with three
separate pots of funds that we are going to be pulling together
in a coordinated plan in order to do more with respect to
online purchasing, connecting farmers' markets to online
purchasing, and then some broader oversight integrity work we
need to do within the space on electronic benefits.
So as I mentioned earlier in one of the other Qs and As
that we really want to look to target bringing in small
retailers who may not yet have this online purchasing platform
for their nonstop business. We want to figure out how to bring
them in. And we also will be looking to lift up and try to
connect farmers' market to this option.
So we are pulling together a plan now. And I am very
delighted to come back to the committee when we are a little
bit further along in the details to share it with you all.
Ms. Meng. Thanks. And are there any updates on the
implementation of the ARP provisions and when you can expect
small farmers, food businesses, farmer markets to have access
to online portals and associated technical assistance so they
can begin to access SNAP EBT online?
Ms. Dean. So technical assistance is available now. As
farmers' markets or retailers approach us, we are ready for
that conversation. So I want to make that clear. It will take
us--because the funds will probably be going out through grants
and contracts, that takes us a little bit of time as a
government entity. So that could be a while before folks are
appreciating the benefits of the funds. But there is no reason
for someone not to step forward now and express interest and
get our help.
Ms. Meng. Right. And just to--I wanted to ask about the
effects of the previous administration's public charge rule.
And I know President Biden has rescinded the rule, but wanting
to know what FNS is doing to regain the trust of immigrant
families so they can continue to benefit. And is there any
working done with nonprofits or translating materials into
other languages to families who might not be aware of these
changes?
Ms. Dean. Congresswoman, I think that that notion of broken
trust is very well put. We have a long way to go in terms
restoring trust with immigrant communities on seeking out the
benefits that they are eligible for. Let me take off a couple
of quick things. We are meeting very regularly with other
agencies, the White House, and the Department of Homeland
Security to make sure we have got coordinated messaging ready
to go. And I have already met with the heads of fracture,
strength, Center on Budget, and Feeding America, sorry, on this
very topic. It is of deep concern to all of us.
And we won't just meet with them but many others. The idea
is how do we get out good, clear, consistent messaging that
immigrant and immigrant communities can count on, understand,
and then start doing the work of inviting them back to use the
programs that are there for them when they need them. So I----
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Ms. Dean. And thank you, Ms. Meng.
At this time, I need to recognize Mr. Moolenaar, the
gentleman from Michigan. You are now recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Moolenaar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate
the testimony today.
And, Ms. Dean, I wanted to talk with you a little bit. In
your written statement, you talked about as schools across the
country prepare for children to return this fall, we know that
school meal operators need flexibilities to allow them to focus
on serving high-quality nutritious meals without being
overwhelmed by administrative challenges. And I talked about
USDA making an announcement soon on flexibilities.
I guess my question is I had a chance to talk with the
Secretary about flavored 1 percent milk. And I come from a
State that is strong in dairy, a district that is strong in
dairy. And one of our goals is to have children, you know,
using more dairy products. And flavored milk has been something
that has been popular. You know, I would argue that it is
nutritious. But I wanted to hear from you and get a sense for
where you see this going. Because I think it is really
important for our dairy producers to hear directly from you on
that.
Ms. Dean. Well, thank you. And as a U of M grad, glad to
get your question from your area. So the school lunch meal
standards are based on the dietary guidelines and which
recommends nutrient-dense foods and beverages. And that is
where our dairy standards come from.
I previously mentioned--we did announce a whole slew of
waivers for the coming school year. So just so you know about
that. But as I mentioned, we are going to be going through the
process of updating all of the standards in the school meals
program to reflect the dietary guidelines. So that will be an
opportunity for us to take a look at it and review dairy, and
we certainly welcome your input.
Mr. Moolenaar. Well, and I appreciate that because last
week you know, the Secretary said, you know, if you go with the
no fat milk, then kids don't drink it, and you lose the
nutritional value than the nutrients that are in milk, the nine
essential vitamins and nutrients and minerals. And he said he
was going to encourage his team to take a look at the issue.
And it doesn't make sense to have a standard that cuts off milk
consumption.
And he was looking for a standard that encouraged milk
consumption, and so that we can get the benefits of that. And I
am hoping that, you know, there will be--it seems that the
waivers that were issued today appear today to be somewhat
contrary to the Secretary's comments about, you know, in
support of the nutritional value of that milk.
And so I am hoping there can be some clarity. And I would
ask, you know, for your input on it and your leadership on it.
And I think just a clear message would be very important on
this.
Ms. Dean. Thank you, Congressman. We will be doing our best
to communicate out what the waivers mean in the coming days.
And I hope you will find it more responsive than perhaps the
initial we suggest.
Mr. Moolenaar. Okay. Thanks very much. Great to see you.
And Go Blue.
Ms. Dean. Thank you. Go Blue.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Mr. Moolenaar. At this
time, I will be delighted to represent our frequent speaker pro
temp, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Cuellar.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure
being with you. I want to ask Madam Deputy Under Secretary
about colonias. Colonias are on the U.S.-Mexico border. There
are hundreds of them. They are rural, unincorporated. And, in
fact, if you look at some of the numbers, there is about a 145
colonias communities in New Mexico, 114 colonia communities in
Arizona, 34 colonia communities in California, and then there
is 2,166 colonia communities in the State of Texas.
Mainly in the southern part of Texas where we are seeing a
lot of people coming in from Central America. Those areas, you
know, they basically don't have water sewage, but they have
persistent poverty levels which is limited job opportunities
and high unemployment, and poor education.
But my--and I asked Secretary Vilsack a couple of days ago
to see if we can get somebody to get back to me, and I am
asking you the same thing to see what we could do to address
those areas, because it covers about approximately 2.5 million
individuals on it.
And so I am trying to figure out how the USDA and this
committee can help 2.5 million individuals. A lot of it, of
course, has to do also with food, whether they get that type of
assistance. So I know that Jim Clyburn and other folks had
pushed the, what we call the 10-20-30 efforts to make sure that
we address the high poverty areas.
When I asked my USDA folks down there and the folks down
there, they were not even familiar with the 10-20-30 program.
So my question is can you help us come up with a strategy to
address within your field the 2.5 million individuals in the
colonias?
Ms. Dean. Yes, of course, we would be happy to discuss that
with you. You know, I am familiar, not nearly as much as you
with the colonias around Brownsville the opportunity to visit
some of them, specifically, with how the WIC program was doing
outreach directly to those communities. So it sounds like there
is more, much more we can do and delighted to follow up with
you and work with you.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you so much. And thank you for that.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Cuellar. At this time, I am
delighted to represent the gentleman from Washington, Mr.
Newhouse.
Mr. Newhouse, you are now recognized.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that
very much. And thank you Under Secretary Dean for being with us
today. I appreciate your testimony. This is an understatement,
but we could say that last year was a huge challenge for many
of us, and we all learned some lessons from the pandemic.
Certainly, it is fair to say that our Federal and State, as
well as local partners all came together to ensure that
families in need during these uncertain times received much
needed supplemental nutrition support with additional
flexibilities in funding USDA, in my opinion, went above and
beyond in order to get resources out the door as fast as
possible, including, as we have talked about school-aged
children, many of whom are still facing closed schools due to
the pandemic.
Food and nutrition service, obviously, was a critical
component during this time. But I am sure for you there are
still lots of challenges and issues ahead.
Secretary Dean, the administration announced the end of the
Farmers to Families Food Box Program, and certainly there are
concerns with the program. But like I said, I think we should
also give USDA a lot of credit for standing up a National Food
Program in such a short amount of time and being so responsive.
So one question certainly would be overall given the
circumstances, would you say the program was successful? As I
said, my understanding is USDA's currently, and you have
mentioned working on a replacement program. Secretary Vilsack
mentioned that last week in his testimony.
But from what I have heard, a concern is raised that the
replacement program will rely on the TFAP or the Emergency Food
Assistance Program. And I know several States including my own
at Washington, TFAP entitlement funds are usually about fully
allocated, even in non-pandemic years, which could pose a
funding problem for both TFAP and the new food box program.
So we will have competing programs. And so if you could
respond to that issue. But also TFAP regulations disqualify
many nonprofit organizations, that previously received and
distributed Farmers to Families food boxes.
Another concern is that TFAP regulations limit the
commodities eligible for purchase, for instance, dairy and meat
products which were previously eligible for the boxes, may or
may not be eligible for the new TFAP boxes.
So, and to be fair, I was one of the critics of the
program. We had to fight very hard to make sure many of the
different specially-cropped products were included in these
boxes to really represent diversity in our American
agricultural industry.
So, if you could just respond to some of those things. And,
again, thank you very much for being with us.
Ms. Dean. Well, thank you very much for having me here and
your question. You know, look, I want to--I actually want to--
there were a lot of, what is the right word to say? There was a
mixed experience with the food box program, but it is very
important to acknowledge that my colleagues at AMS brought up a
program during the middle of an extraordinary crisis in trying
to meet the moment that it was in. And I really do salute them
for that.
And also for the thousands of nonprofit and charitable
groups around the country who helped--who stood up to the
moment and again helped distribute food to people who needed
it. That was just really amazing. That and many other lessons
along the way are the kinds of things we want to incorporate
into what comes next. And what comes next can both be how we
strengthen and improve what we already are doing, as well as
deploying some of the remaining resources.
So just briefly on the TFAP question, I think it is
important to--I don't think about it just as TFAP but working
with our partners in the emergency food bank network system.
Like TFAP is a funding source. We actually do bonus
commodities. There is a dairy donation. There was trade
mitigation resources. There is a lot of--USDA really tries to
find ways to support that system as a whole, TFAP just being
one of our tools to do that.
So as we look ahead, what can we do to offer some more
flexibility as you are suggesting in the TFAP space, as well as
bring other USDA resources to this incredibly efficient
tremendous partner in the emergency food bank network. That is
where--that is what we think is the next best step with respect
to this kind of food distribution.
So I appreciate your thoughts and would welcome your
suggestions as we move forward.
Mr. Newhouse. Okay. Okay. Well, we will certainly be paying
attention and also would welcome that continued back and forth
so that we can make it as efficient and as representative of
agriculture in this country as possible and get the most help
to people that they actually need. So thank you.
Ms. Dean. Those are shared goals. Thank you.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Ms. Dean. I
think we have completed the first round, and I will begin a
second round.
Ms. Dean, The New York Times recently ran a story about the
impact of the SNAP increase on families. And the story when a
mother of two in Indianapolis got her 15 percent SNAP increase,
she thought it was a mistake, and she was afraid she would get
in trouble if she spent it. Instead, she skipped meals and used
the food bank to get by. It was only when the reporter informed
her that she was entitled to the increase that she used the
money. This is, of course, very unfortunate, but too common.
Can you speak to how the benefit changes are communicated to
the recipients and how we can avoid problems like this going
forward?
Ms. Dean. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That was a very
heartbreaking story of someone struggling so much and afraid to
use the help that was offered to her, not trusting in it. So
clearly we need to do more.
The frontline communicators on a change like that are our
State partners when they make a change, what we call mass
change to benefits. We count on them to communicate to clients
what is happening and why.
I mean, to be fair, there have been a lot of changes. And I
think it could be tough for participants just to keep up with
what is going on. But clearly, we need to do better. We want
families to use the resources that we are making available to
them.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
Let me ask you about the Senior Farmers Market Nutrition
Program. That program like the WIC Farmers Market Program was
popular with pretty much everybody, including Members of
Congress. The committee asked for a report on the backlog on
the seniors program, and we received a lot of useful
information from USDA.
The report said just in 2019 the backlog was $27 million
against a program funding level of $20.9 million. The
appropriation has not been increased since 2008. And with
sequestration, because as a manager of program, even that low-
funding level got cut year after year. States in most cases cut
the maximum benefit, and USDA has not been enable to increase
the funding for individual States based on the performance or
to add new participants such as the Virgin Islands.
So can I get your views on that program, please, ma'am?
Ms. Dean. Well, as you pointed out, it is very popular, and
for good reason. Connecting participants to farmers' markets is
powerful both for them and also for producers. So we want to do
what we can to strengthen it.
I am going to have to follow up with you on the particular
details of that problem. And I am happy to do that with you or
your staff. I am just not well-versed in what is causing that
particular dilemma or problem.
Mr. Bishop. Well, thank you. I have been very pleased to
see the growth of the USDA online purchasing program. It is
operating in 47 States and the District of Columbia. And, of
course, we hear that it may become permanent in the next farm
bill.
But it is particularly important in rural areas, including
my district where we have seen an exodus of grocery stores in
the development of food deserts. What are the barriers to
participation by smaller grocery stores? And what can we do
incentivize that involvement? Because at this point it is
dominated by large chains. Amazon, Walmart, in particular, and
I am interested in getting small and medium-sized grocery
stores into the program.
Ms. Dean. As are we. And there are going to be who we
target with the new funds provided to us through the American
Rescue Plan. I think one of the biggest issues is whether they
are already offering online shopping to the non-SNAP
participants. So do they have that platform available to them?
And then the second issue is, and I am sure you understand
this, we have very rigorous security standards for how our
benefits are used. And some small businesses may not--it may be
a little extra step for them to stand up the kinds of
requirements that we need.
But we are available, we are providing technical
assistance, and we want to see if we can offer different
solutions to small business.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much.
My time is almost expired. So at this point, I will yield
to Mr. Fortenberry, our ranking member.
Mr. Fortenberry, you are now recognized.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A little bit of
cleanup here. Ms. Dean, at several points in our hearing today,
the issue of the food box has arisen. My own experience of
reviewing it was again a program set up very rapidly to meet
emergency food needs that stopped the waste of food and was
very much appreciated because it was efficient and effective.
I do think you owe an explanation, though, about what Mr.
Valadao was pointing out as to the peculiarity as to why a
public hearing for input on the effectiveness of the food bank
box program was being held at the same time a parallel effort
inside the Department to kill the program.
Ms. Dean. Mr. Fortenberry, I am not sure I agree with your
characterization. But I just do want to be clear, the listening
sessions have been incredibly helpful to us as we try to glean
what was most impactful, important, what dimensions of that
program, and some of the flexibilities that USDA deployed
there, what would work as we move forward to something new or
different while it is a regular underlying program.
Mr. Fortenberry. How would you characterize the initiative
inside the Department to stop the program while public hearings
were going on for feedback as to the effectiveness of the
program? You can characterize it the way you want if you don't
like mine.
Ms. Dean. I think the listening sessions for--to help give
us good information about what worked and what didn't both for
the purposes of where we go next, and that is not just limited
to the food box, the existence or nonexistence of the food box
program. We at FNS gleaned incredibly useful lessons from those
listening sessions that are relevant to any number of our
programs.
Mr. Fortenberry. I am pointing out the problem of costs
that one soliciting input and feedback on the effectiveness of
the program and clearly some other initiative, maybe it is
outside your domain going on that would stop the program.
Number two, we have all agreed that the rapid expansion of
SNAP during the duress of the emergency of the pandemic was
necessary. At its core, though, SNAP is a transitional program.
Do we still accept that premise? I think this is very important
because accepting persons with limited capacity or other
inabilities to find meaningful employment. The traditional
amount of time that a person has remained on SNAP has been 9
months.
Now again, that is pre-COVID and an older statistic. Are we
still accepting the premise that this is a transitional program
to meet nutritional needs in the midst of an emergency so that
we can assist a person as they transition to meaningful work?
Ms. Dean. I think for some participants that--and in fact
the majority of the program is a temporary program. They use it
when they lose their job, or their hours do down. And then when
their wages go back and rebound, they don't need it anymore and
don't use it. But there are some participants, low-income
elderly, for example, their Social Security benefit that they
start receiving, say, at 65 will--if it qualifies them for
SNAP, we don't expect that their income will change for the
rest of their life. And so they may be very long-term
participants or individuals with disabilities.
Mr. Fortenberry. Yeah, that is why I pointed that out
earlier, accepting persons in those circumstances.
The other problem that we have to wrestle with is, frankly,
there are a lot of people who are working and trying to string
together enough means to stay afloat while who are also
eligible for SNAP. God bless them. The idea of trying to again
raise wages and raise opportunities in society is a significant
one.
But, again, our programatic intentionality is the premise
of it, at least in the beginning was, except for those who have
some capacity limitations, was either age or sickness, or again
other types of incapacities be able to seek meaningful
employment is that this is a transition.
So as we look at expanding opportunities or changing the
nature of the program, I think we have to hold in balance that
initial idea. Because, ultimately, what is for a person's well-
being, it would provide for themselves and be a participant in
the community through again finding that type of opportunity
that is consistent with their needs and talents.
Third is, can you give me the top three corporate retailers
who redeem SNAP benefits?
Ms. Dean. I can easily get back to you on that. I don't
want to get them wrong, so why don't I just follow up.
Mr. Fortenberry. Well, I think this is important. Because
as we are seeing more and more conglomerate corporate control
of our economy, there is an incumbent responsibility on these
major retailers that actually participate with us in pursuing
the types of nutritional outcomes, the selection, if you will,
so that that supply is actually there.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Fortenberry.
At this time, I would like to recognize Dr. Harris if you
have an additional question.
Mr. Harris. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And let me
just again, you know, following up on what Mr. Fortenberry has,
you know, brought up. You know, I am a little concerned that
the SNAP program is not also being utilized to do the
nutritional, education, and provide nutritional foods. And I
get it, there are a lot of big corporate interests that wanted
to include sodas and snack foods, and things like that. But,
you know, the purpose of that program should be--it should
focus on nutrition.
But let me talk just very briefly and ask about the
electronic data matching for SNAP eligibility. Because I am
told the improper payment rate is somewhere between 6 and 7
percent. Clearly, when you are dealing with tens of billions of
dollars, that is real money. And I know in fiscal year 2020, we
have provided the food and nutrition service funding to begin
evaluating the verification process of earned income for SNAP
applicants using electronic data matching.
First of all, can you speak to the value of using
electronic data matching, both in terms of ensuring eligibility
as well as reducing administrative costs and perhaps a status
updates on the progress of the agency's evaluation and whether
or not the pilot program has begun?
Ms. Dean. Yes. Thank you very much for that question. So
the more that we can use electronic verification of income or
other core pieces of information to determine eligibility, the
more accurate we can be, and, of course, the easier it is for
clients. They don't have to go and find all these disparate
pieces of information and turn them in.
So that is really important. I fully support it. And I
believe the grants project that you are mentioning we announced
in March the availability of the grants. And so we will be
waiting for those applications and are like you eagerly looking
forward to what States come forward so that we can learn and
continue to improve.
Mr. Harris. Do you believe that this electronic matching
might be able to lower the improper payment rates?
Ms. Dean. Yes. Yes. That is the goal.
Mr. Harris. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I
will yield back.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Dr. Harris.
Mr. Valadao, you are now recognized for additional
questions you might have.
Mr. Valadao. Thank you, Mr. Chair. In light of the sudden
cancellation of the Families to Farmers to Food Program, I am
heavily concerned that not only the U.S. producers who are
providing nutritious food options for the boxes, but also the
people in need for receiving food boxes that is critical that
people who are facing food insecurity have adequate access to
healthy food options.
My understanding is there is a chance USDA does not
reinstate food box program. There are still many individuals
across the U.S. who are lacking successful healthy food
options.
In your testimony, you mentioned you are working to
reevaluate Thrifty Food Plan to ensure or reflect the true cost
of a basic healthy diet. Please expand on what specific actions
you are taking as you reevaluate the Thrifty Food Plan?
Ms. Dean. Sure. I would be happy to do that. So the 2018
Farm Bill actually directs us to do that and sets forth several
criteria. So one is to make sure that they reflect the most
recent dietary guidelines; that to also take--sorry, we are
supposed to reevaluate with respect to the dietary guidelines
current consumer prices, prices for food, and I think consumer
purchasing patterns. So we will be doing all of that.
And we were also we are holding several stakeholder
meetings. We are talking with experts to see what other
dimensions and factors we should look at, and hoping to publish
a reevaluation in the time so for everyone to take a look. I
hope that was--I hope that was clear. Sorry.
Mr. Valadao. Well, I appreciate that. And this is obviously
a very important topic to me. I represent a particularly rural
and low-income district. I just hope that you will focus--well
I would like to commit to us here that you will keep us
apprised as you move forward in the evaluation process.
Ms. Dean. Very happy to do that.
Mr. Valadao. Thank you. And then to change topics a little
bit, Ms. Dean. This morning, the Food and Nutrition Service,
FNS, had made an announcement regarding the school meal
flexibilities. Will the USDA follow through on the Secretary's
comments and enacted, the enacted December 2020 provision to
allow low-fat flavored milk in schools, particularly, during
the school year 2021, 2022 procurement period, as well as more
generally work with schools and their suppliers and the more
reasonable approach to the sodium reduction targets?
Ms. Dean. So with respect to the waivers that were offered
today on dairy, the States have the ability to offer waivers to
districts if the districts can demonstrate a need for a
relaxation of the dairy standard that you mentioned related to
the circumstances. So that will be available to them.
And, then, I did mention earlier that we are going to be
taking a look at the nutrition standards with respect to the
most recent dietary guidelines. So that is an opportunity for
us to update the standards, but also assess the timelines under
the current regulations that schools are expected to hit those
standards. We have had some disruption in rolling out the
standards because of legislative and litigation holds, I guess,
on the rollout. So it is a good moment for us to assess the
timeline.
Mr. Valadao. So you mentioned the school districts have the
ability to apply based on a need. They have apply with the
State? And who do they justify that need to? Does the State
have to justify it to the Federal Government, or does the
school have to do it with the States?
Ms. Dean. I believe the way the waivers will work is the
States elect to take the waiver, and then they work with the
districts in their State.
Mr. Valadao. So the Federal Government plays no role in
deciding if there is a need for a waiver?
Ms. Dean. Well, we set the terms and conditions. We are
actually going to be doing that for congressional staff if they
have a briefing this afternoon. So maybe that is a good
opportunity for us to get into the details.
Mr. Valadao. I appreciate that. Can we count on you to
ensure the USDA follows through on allowing low-fat flavored
milk in schools? I know it has been brought up earlier, but it
is an important topic for a lot of us, particularly, during the
school year 2021, 2022 procurement period, as well as more
generally work with schools and their suppliers on a more
reasonable approach to sodium production targets? Hopefully, we
can address that a little bit as well but.
Ms. Dean. Well, as I said, our waivers will be available on
the dairy for the coming school year if they are needed by a
district if they are not able to meet the standards. And beyond
that, we will be taking a look at the standards to reflect the
new guidelines and the timeline.
So, again, I am happy to talk with you more about that.
Mr. Valadao. Right. And I do appreciate the fact that the
release was sent to us this time versus a news article that we
read on the morning of the hearing. I mean, still the
announcement being on the day of the hearing doesn't give us
the proper amount of time to prepare for these types of
questions. But, I at least appreciate the fact that you guys
reached out to us versus the press first. So thank you for
that.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Valadao. I believe we have come
to the end of round two. I have one additional question, and I,
of course, will yield to Mr. Fortenberry for any that he might
have when I conclude.
My question is regarding the Pandemic Electronic Benefit
Transfer Program. As you know the 2021 school year, the USDA
approved more than 14.1 billion in pandemic EBT benefits to
16.8 million children in 34 States and Territories, which
leaves a lot of States, including my State of Georgia that were
not participating.
Two weeks ago, there was an alarming article in Politico
about the issues that are plaguing that program. PBT is a great
program because it can reach families that may not qualify for
SNAP benefits, and it can ensure that children are eating meals
that they would have otherwise eaten at school. We need to make
sure this program is working.
One of the biggest bureaucratic hurdles that are slowing
the disbursement of the money. What is USDA doing to help
States overcome these hurdles? The Politico article noted that
Secretary Vilsack has been calling Governors in States that
haven't submitted the PDET plans to USDA. And can you tell us
what you are hearing from the States? And do you think that the
remaining States and Territories will, in fact, submit
distribution plans? And if so, when are they expected? And will
some States not be approved for the 2021 school year, which is
fast dissipating.
Ms. Dean. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. So, today, we are at 35
States are approved for over 20 million children. But that is
not enough. We need all States and Territories and with an
improved plan. Because as you point out, this is an absolutely
critical benefit to put resources into the hands of parents to
help feed their children.
You know, you asked me about the bureaucratic role, I would
say, really the issue here is that the law appropriately
requires that PEBT be targeted to children who are not
attending school, because of the school closure. And so when we
work with States, we say to them, you need to develop a
Statewide list or some mechanism to match children who are
eligible for free and reduced-priced meals to a school and to
that school schedule.
And the reality is that many States just simply don't have
or collect that information. They just don't know school
schedules at a Statewide level. So it has been a real challenge
for them, but we have to ask them to meet the requirements of
the law.
We are doing everything we can to offer technical
assistance, to provide flexibility, to allow them to make
simplifying assumptions, but we do need them to hit the
standard of the law. And we are leaning in. And just last week
had a conversation with Georgia. Our goal is to make this
happen in all States and Territories.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Ms. Dean. Let me now yield
to Mr. Fortenberry, if you have any additional questions.
Mr. Fortenberry. Only this one as regarding my last
question. Ms. Dean, if you could get back to us regarding the
top three retailers in the country for SNAP redemptions. I
think that would be very helpful. Because what I am projecting
here again is the idea of corporate responsibility.
We are living in an era where there is more and more
concentration in this type of retail, as well as in many other
places. So to call upon those corporate giants who are greatly
benefitting from government expenditures to maybe play some
constructive role in terms of supply of the nutritious food as
we begin to integrate these important shifts in our own public
policy I think will be very important and beneficial. I would
like your response to that, please.
Ms. Dean. Yes, I am happy to follow up with you with that
list.
Mr. Fortenberry. Oh, but about the idea that I am
projecting.
Ms. Dean. Oh, I am sorry. Yes, I didn't realize there was a
bigger question. Yes, of course. I think our--and I will say
our retail partners are critical in the work that we do with
the program. They are interacting with our participants each
and every day and have a lot to say about shopping patterns,
the needs and interests of participants.
And so if we were to pursue a conversation about how best
to address their nutritional needs through their stories, I
think they would very much welcome the opportunity to have
that----
Mr. Fortenberry. Okay. Great. Thank you very much. I yield
back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Mr. Fortenberry. And let
me take this opportunity, Ms. Dean, Deputy Under Secretary Dean
to thank you for your testimony today. We all understand how
incredibly busy you are, and we thank you for your time and
your patience this morning.
The Food Nutrition and Consumer Services has an enormous
responsibility that is made even greater by the pandemic
administering the Nation's Nutritional Assistance Programs. It
is vital that these programs are working efficiently and that
they are reaching all eligible persons and households that are
in need.
I appreciate your hard work and the work of your entire
staff to ensure that the most vulnerable among us do have
access to food and a healthy nutritious diet.
Along with what we have discussed, we will also forward
additional questions for the record, and we will appreciate the
diligence in getting your responses to us in a timely manner.
Mr. Fortenberry, would you like to have any closing
remarks?
Mr. Fortenberry. No, other than again to thank you, Mr.
Chairman, for your leadership. I think it has been a productive
hearing to unpack this significant portion of America's public
policy of both expenditures but also impact.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Fortenberry.
And let me thank all of the members in attendance and for
the staff who put this hearing together.
With that, this subcommittee meeting is now adjourned.
Thursday, May 6, 2021.
USDA RURAL DEVELOPMENT MISSION AREA
WITNESSES
JUSTIN MAXSON, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
KARAMA NEAL, ADMINISTRATOR, RURAL BUSINESS-COOPERATIVE SERVICE, ON
BEHALF OF U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
CHAD PARKER, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, RURAL HOUSING SERVICE, ON BEHALF OF
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
CHRISTOPHER McLEAN, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, RURAL UTILITIES SERVICE, ON
BEHALF OF U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bishop. This hearing of the Agriculture, Rural
Development, Related Agencies Subcommittee of the
Appropriations Committee is now called to order.
As this hearing is fully virtual, we must address a few
housekeeping matters.
For today's meeting, the chair and staff designated by the
chair may mute participants' microphones when they are not
under recognition for purposes of eliminating inadvertent
background noise.
Members are responsible for muting and unmuting themselves.
If I notice that you have not unmuted yourself, I will ask if
you would like the staff to unmute you. If you indicate
approval by nodding, the staff will unmute your microphone.
I remind all members and witnesses that the 5-minute clock
still applies.
If there is a technology issue, we will move to the next
member until the issue is resolved, and you will retain the
balance of your time.
You will notice a clock on your screen that will show how
much time is remaining. At 1 minute remaining, the clock will
turn yellow. At 30 seconds remaining, I will gently tap the
gavel to remind members that their time is almost expired.
When your time has expired, the clock will turn red, and I
will begin to recognize the next member.
In terms of speaking order, we will follow the order set
forth in the House rules, beginning with the chair and ranking
member; then alternating between majority and minority members
present at the time the hearing is called to order and will be
recognized then in the order of seniority; and then, finally,
members who are not present at the time the hearing is called
to order will be called in the order of their appearance.
Finally, House rules require me to remind you that we have
set up an email address to which members can send anything they
wish to submit in writing at any of our hearings or our
markups. That email address has been provided in advance to
your staff.
Last reminder. Please ensure that your video is turned on
at this time.
Good afternoon, and welcome to today's hearing on USDA's
Rural Development Mission Area. Testifying before the
subcommittee today is the Honorable Justin Maxson, the Deputy
Under Secretary for Rural Development at USDA. Congratulations
on your new role as Deputy Under Secretary.
Mr. Maxson comes from the Mary Reynolds Babcock Foundation
and has spent almost all of his career working in rural America
addressing issues of poverty and of economic and racial equity
and injustice.
Under Secretary Maxson, you have a long history that
demonstrates your passion and commitment for empowering rural
communities and bringing equity, opportunity, prosperity, and
enhanced quality of life for these areas, so many of which have
been underresourced and neglected, thereby placing them at a
distinct disadvantage as compared with many urban and suburban
areas.
It is evident throughout your career that you and I share
the belief that no child or family in America should ever have
the opportunity to realize their full potential limited or
shunted because of the ZIP Code they happen to live in.
Unfortunately, that is the case all across rural America,
and the pandemic has made that plain. So I welcome you to our
subcommittee today along with the current leaders of your Rural
Development agencies, Dr. Karama Neal, Administrator of Rural
Business Cooperative Service; Mr. B; and Mr. Christopher
McLean, Acting Administrator of Rural Utilities Service.
Under Secretary Maxson, you point out in your written
testimony that Secretary Vilsack recently laid out for the
subcommittee the Department's overarching priorities:
containing the pandemic, promoting racial justice and equity,
addressing the mounting hunger and nutrition crisis, rebuilding
the rural economy, strengthening and building markets for
farmers and producers, and addressing the impacts of climate
change while building back better in rural America.
But, Mr. Maxson, you really teed up the real importance of
this hearing today and of the mission of the Rural Development
Agency in the next paragraph of your testimony, which struck
such a powerful and vibrant chord that I wanted to jump up and
shout just like they do in the south Georgia Baptist church.
I quote: When appropriately modernized and resourced, Rural
Development's unique mission and incredible set of economic and
community development tools play a critical role in advancing
outcomes-based inclusive prosperity across rural America. We
create jobs and help rural places build and maintain wealth
within their communities. Rural Development helps to finance
the building of critical community facilities, like schools,
libraries, hospitals, and public safety buildings. We provide
distance learning and telemedicine equipment, connecting
underserved communities with educational opportunities and
health professionals. Rural Development funds water and
wastewater facilities, giving rural places clean and safe
drinking water. We help to modernize and expand electricity and
broadband connectivity to bring rural communities into the 21st
century. We fund clean, renewable energy, and we are poised to
help rural America lead the Nation in a biobased manufacturing
revolution powered by the amazing productivity of American
farmers and producers. We are well positioned to be a driving
force for racial and spatial equity, reaching underserved
communities and ensuring that rural communities have the same
tools and resources and access as urban communities.
Let the church say ``amen.'' Praise the lord. If only that
were true. If only that were real. But, Under Secretary Maxson,
Dr. Neal, Mr. Parker, Mr. McLean, we look forward today to your
telling us how to make that real and to tell us how this
subcommittee and the Congress can help you to do it.
At this time, I am delighted to yield to my ranking member,
my friend and my partner in this endeavor, the gentleman from
Nebraska, Mr. Fortenberry.
Mr. Fortenberry, you are recognized now for your opening
statement.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
First, let me deviate from my prepared remarks.
I am so grateful as well for your partnership and
leadership and the passion that you just showed. I wrote one
thing down that you referenced: outcome-based inclusive
opportunity in rural America. That is beautifully said.
I am going to say it a little differently, but I think you
know that we are all pulling in the same direction to achieve
that very end. So, again, thank you for your passion and your
excellent means of communicating this in the most human terms.
I am really grateful, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Maxson, Dr. Neal, and Mr. Parker, and my fellow
Nebraskan, Mr. McLean, good afternoon. Thank you for joining
us.
Let me say this from the outset. Our chairman, Chairman
Bishop, has heard me say this many times. I think we need to
update the term ``rural development.''
And, Mr. Chairman, I should confess to you that I gave our
crack Appropriations staff an assignment. I wanted to look back
in the history books and find out when the term ``rural
development'' began.
The earliest reference that we can find to it was in 1902,
but then it has been commonly used since the 1940s. And,
clearly, it was a useful term in its heyday, but I do believe,
in this era, when many people must leave the farm to seek
better income or just to get health insurance, when two-thirds
of rural communities--two-thirds of rural counties, I should
say, have lost population just in this last decade, and, also,
when new emerging opportunities for a regeneration of rural
life are right around the corner, I feel that ``rural
development'' is an inadequate term for the task at hand.
So, instead of ``rural development,'' I am going to, once
again, propose the idea that we use the phrase ``ecosystem of
rural livability,'' and here is why. Life in rural America is
not just an economic proposition. It is a values proposition.
We are embracing meaningful work, sacrificing, risking now for
a future return, and connecting to the land and to one's
neighbor are the defining characteristics of so much of
America. And it is this land and all the land that embodies--
that is the heart of the rural values proposition.
Our farmers and ranchers are its chief and most exemplary
representatives, transferring their land to the next generation
of family farmers and starting to fully participate in this
exciting new world of telework and telehealth and precision
agriculture, distance learning, and global e-commerce, as well
as nurturing beginning farmers. And that is the way.
Mr. Chairman, I like the story--the Brugger brothers came
back to the family farm in Nebraska after they had spent time
at the university here in Lincoln and graduated. These young
men could be a reality TV show. I hope you meet them one day,
Mr. Chairman.
They had noticed that their local bar in town had closed.
So they started growing their own hops and using excess feed
for whiskey. They even purchased the local bar. Remember, they
have a traditional production rural crop farm. They purchased
the local bar so that their friends and families didn't have to
drive so far for some good entertainment. They brought local
life back to their rural community because they understood it
is an ecosystem of livability.
They added value, and they profited from it. So it is the
vertical integration of this kind that puts value in the value
chain, where it belongs: in the farmers' pocket and toward
community flourishing.
So, gentlemen, as your agencies help us rebuild rural
America, I believe they need a rebuild of their own. The
Federal Government runs 90 programs administered by 16
different Federal agencies targeted at rural economic
development, and you have the official lead. To my knowledge,
there is no overarching framework to guide rural policy at the
Federal level.
So, finally, let's speak about the possibility of enhanced
rural broadband. We throw a lot of money at it, but do we
really know what we are getting? When the inspector general, at
our chairman's request, appeared before the subcommittee
earlier this year, I asked, how do we measure broadband
success?
She said, ``I don't know.''
I think we need to change that equation.
Again, Mr. Chairman, distinguished panelists, creating this
system of--ecosystem of rural livability means not only
focusing on wires laid or loans given or housing subsidized but
on how measuring real-world human impacts of these essential
investments in rural America are faring. So let's make--let's
work hard together to make those determinations.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Fortenberry.
Mr. Maxson, without objection, your entire written
testimony will be included in the record, and I will now
recognize you for your statement, and then we will proceed with
questions.
You are now recognized, Mr. Maxson, for your opening
remarks.
Mr. Maxson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate both the comments of Mr. Fortenberry and
members of this committee. It is an honor to be here today.
Let me start out by telling you a little bit about myself.
Before I came to the USDA, I spent 6 years running a
foundation advancing economic opportunity and racial equity in
the American South. And, 15 years before that, I did community
economic development in Appalachian Kentucky. And Rural
Development was a key partner in that work.
I am so glad to be--excuse me--at Rural Development. I
share a deep commitment to helping people and communities
realize their economic vision and a high quality of life.
When Secretary Vilsack was here a few weeks ago, he shared
a set of key priorities that cut across our work. They include
but aren't limited to containing the pandemic and promoting
racial equity, addressing the impacts of climate change,
tackling the mounting hunger crisis, and rebuilding the rural
economy.
We believe that Rural Development has the programmatic
tools and mission to make major contributions around those
priorities. The budget in front of us builds on our key
programs and expands them, acknowledges there are things that
RD can and should do better, and it helps us make real progress
on our mission to promote economic prosperity for all.
At RD, we recognize that rural America is not monolithic.
It has impressive economic and racial and cultural and
geographic diversity. When thinking about the rural economy
alone, only 20 percent of rural counties are farming dependent,
and manufacturing, government, recreation, and mining
dependence each separately claim 10 to 15 percent of those--
excuse me--of those counties. And the final third of rural
counties are not reliant on any one industry.
So, obviously, rural America has got diverse needs, and its
communities and people reflect a diverse vision of what they
want, and we are working hard to be flexible and meet
communities where they are.
I think Rural Development has got some unique strengths. We
have an impressive history of innovation, sharing the right
things at the right time. I think the Reconnect Program for
broadband has the potential to do for people and communities
what the Rural Electrification Program did, spread a life-
changing innovation at a critical time.
We are also extremely locally focused with a network of 450
offices with boots on the ground across the country. And we
bring, of course, as you all know, a broad array of programs
that meet communities where they are, from the small business
support to housing, from water and sewer to broadband, and
reliable and affordable electricity infrastructure.
The budget also recognizes that RD can do more, that we can
be better. We have a great staff, but we need more of that
staff, and soon. Our portfolio is more than twice as large as
it was only 10 years ago with a staff that is 30 percent
smaller. And, in 3 years' time, one-third of that staff is
eligible for retirement.
Some of our local partners and our communities report our
programs can be difficult to access and are narrow, sometimes
out of date, and too many times it is the better-resourced
communities that are the most successful at accessing our
support, and that is just not good enough. We want to help
everyone in rural America thrive, particularly the communities
in the most need.
This budget aims to advance the priorities of the
administration and deepen our ability to carry out RD's
important work. It provides us with additional resources to
expand access to broadband, increases our ability to deliver
water and sewer infrastructure, allows us to better support our
rural electric co-op partners and providing clean and
affordable electricity, and it enables us to expand and better
coordinate our USDA boots on the ground and partner with other
Federal development agencies and provide deeper support to the
communities in the most need.
My short time at RD, I have been incredibly impressed by
the quality of our staff, the breadth of our programs, and the
scale of our investment. In 2020 alone, RD invested more than
$40 billion across the country. Thank you for making that
possible.
I know that when RD's programs are implemented in the
communities in the most need, impactful change is evident and
unforgettable. I look forward to working with the subcommittee
and answering any and all questions that you might have.
Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Maxson.
We will now proceed with questions. As I mentioned earlier,
we will begin with the chair and ranking member; then
alternating majority and minority with members present at the
time the hearing starts in the order of seniority; after that,
I will recognize members not present at the time of the
hearing--at the beginning of the hearing. And each member will
have 5 minutes in each round, so please be mindful of your
time.
I will now recognize myself for the first round of
questions.
Mr. Maxson, you stated in your testimony that the Rural
Development portfolio is 10 times larger than it was a decade
ago and that your staff is not as great as is needed to achieve
the mission.
You know what the problem is in terms of staffing. Do you
have a specific plan, and is it included in the budget a
specific plan to address these staffing shortages?
And I will follow that with a capacity-building question
regarding our rural communities because it is often difficult
for the underserved rural communities to apply for government
grants and loans due to capacity constraints. They simply don't
have the staff or the resources to manage this process. I have
seen this in my own congressional districts, and I have heard
it from other Members.
So, through the delivery of technical assistance, we can
really build that capacity through training and support on
specific issues unique to their circumstances.
Do you agree with that? Do we, both Congress and the
administration, need to do more in this space, and what do you
think we can do to help create that capacity in our rural
communities so that they can access the resources that Rural
Development has and that USDA has for them?
Mr. Maxson. Sir, I appreciate that. In fact, I appreciate
the two questions, as I actually think they are--at least in my
mind, they are related.
On the staffing front, obviously our field structure is, I
think, a real important aspect of what makes RD a unique player
in this space. We obviously see that more staff on the ground
are one of the ways that we can actually help provide capacity,
that we can lean into the provision of assistance.
We have got key partnerships in a number of our programs
where some of those partners are on the ground and help provide
technical assistance to communities.
I think we believe additional staff are one of the ways
that we can help go even farther and serve communities that
aren't easily able to access our programs. Obviously, I think
we see our salary and expense levels as one key way the
committee can support staff as that obviously pays for the
boots on the ground.
There are also some program design concerns, like in the
Reconnect Program. That is designed in such a way that we can
use some of those funds to support administrative costs and
other implementation expenses, including our staff, including
that sort of important technical assistance that helps build
capacity on the ground.
So those are a couple of ideas. I think we are looking
carefully at ways that we can expand our staff. The StrikeForce
Initiative described in the budget itself is an opportunity to
both support staff at RD and other development agencies that
are working in the rural space and make us think more
thoroughly about how we collaborate together.
And just the last thing I will say, we share your
commitment to capacity building, that figuring out ways that
our staff and others can help build the capacity of local
organizations, of small towns is just critical to our ability
to meet the needs that those communities have. And we are--we
recognize programs like the Rural Partnership Program and the
American Jobs Plan is a critical tool to help communities
access the sort of resources that they need to have the
sophistication and the skill necessary to access some of our
other programs.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Maxson.
And, at this time, although my time has not yet expired, it
has about expired; I will be happy to yield to my ranking
member, Mr. Fortenberry, for any questions that he might have
at this time.
Mr. Fortenberry, you are now recognized.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Maxson, you didn't respond to my proposal about the
ecosystem of livability. I would like to hear your opinion on
that.
But let me go ahead with a little more direct question
first for you.
What is the USDA doing to coordinate--to work with other
parts of the Federal Government, I should say, to coordinate
rural broadband efforts?
Mr. Maxson. Thank you for that question, sir.
I am fascinated by your proposal. I think ``rural
livability'' is a really interesting phrase, and I think it
reflects the actual complication of attempting to do this work.
So I would love to follow up with you and have a longer
conversation. I think economic concerns are key but not
sufficient to meet the challenges that the rural communities
experience.
Mr. Fortenberry. Well, if I could interject right quick,
the reason--we tend to default to economic terms because we can
measure it. The harder, more subjective aspects of livability
and well-being are harder to put a number on, but then we
translate language that really is inhuman, and what we are
talking about here is the most human of things: well-being,
opportunity, solidarity, being able to enjoy the pastoral
quality of life, which really is the hallmark of America. So
this is why I proposed it. So I am happy that you responded
generously. Thank you. But the next--go ahead.
Mr. Maxson. Thank you. I think I would like to ask Acting
Administrator McLean to address the way we collaborate around
broadband.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you.
Mr. McLean. Well, yes. Thank you very much. The RUS has
been working with the Federal Communications Commission and the
National Telecommunications Information Administration. We have
regular meetings with each other. We have an initiative that is
called the American Broadband Initiative. You know, we share
information. We share data. We share our mapping information
with each other and coordinate our programming to make sure
that we don't overlap, and we sequence our work together.
Mr. Fortenberry. Great. What is the outcome of that
coordination? Right now, I think it is fair to say that we have
fragmentation, and the outcome obviously we are striving for is
enhanced accessibility and affordability. Those are the key
metrics. So speak to the outcome of the deliberations, not just
the process, and as it lends itself toward enhanced
accessibility and affordability, please.
Mr. McLean. Sure, absolutely.
And, of course, the core vision of our program is to be
able to use our affordable financing, and with the great
support of this committee, the Reconnect Program, which, for
the last several years has committed meaningful grant dollars
to the RUS program to be able to bring broadband to where it
hasn't been before.
And so an example of that coordination is RUS loan programs
frequently leverage the universal service support mechanisms of
the Federal Communications Commission. We take into account the
RDOF, the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund, funding opportunities
that the FCC has made in terms of how we structure our
programs, and we do work together to make sure we don't
overlap.
Mr. Fortenberry. Let me interject. I am sorry. My time is
going to run out shortly.
So give us a metric of progress. Can you give us a metric
of progress? Remember, in my opening statement, I asked
inspector general how are we measuring the effectiveness of
this, and she couldn't answer it. This is not a judgment or an
indictment of her. It is just simply that we have to work
harder on the metrics of success.
Mr. McLean. Sure. Well, I think one of the most fundamental
metrics of success is the delivery of broadband services to
where it wasn't before. And that is where you have to start.
You have to deliver the infrastructure so that communities can
take advantage of that infrastructure.
And we see that right away. We see that in the job
creation. We see that in healthcare opportunities. We see that
in educational opportunities.
The pandemic has given us an incredible research
opportunity but also comparable examples of what happens when
you don't have broadband.
Mr. Fortenberry. That is right. I am going to interrupt
you--I am sorry--because I only have 15 seconds left. That is
exactly the point. I think we have made a digital leap in the
pandemic, but it also, in addition to creating huge
opportunities for us, it helps us identify the weak spots. I
think we need----
Mr. McLean. Yes, sir.
Mr. Fortenberry [continuing]. To come back--I think we need
to come back to this question, so I will yield back to the
chairman now. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Fortenberry.
At this time, I am happy to yield to the gentlelady from
Maine, Ms. Chellie Pingree.
Ms. Pingree.
Ms. Pingree. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. Thank you for
holding this hearing.
And congratulations, Mr. Maxson. I am very excited to see
you in this role, and I know that the great depth of experience
that you have had working in rural communities will serve Rural
Development very well. So thank you for being there with us
today--being here with us today.
I think, because we are all talking about broadband, you
will quickly note that it is a very bipartisan interest on this
committee. It, you know, sort of stretches to all geographies,
and, frankly, each of us claims that our district is the worst
served by broadband, but mine is. Mine is. Mine is 49th in the
country in access and 49th in the country for speed. And we
occasionally move up the list, so--but we are always close to
the bottom.
So I want to dig in on a few of the details since we are
really talking about it, and one of my concerns is, in our
State, about the smaller communities that are so anxious to get
access to broadband. And you used a phrase that I really
appreciated. That was better resourced communities shouldn't be
the only ones who have access to rural development programs.
Very few communities in Maine have a town planner on their
staff. We have lots and lots of small communities. And so they
don't really have the capacity to be able to apply for some of
the grants or jump through some of the hoops that are
necessary. And they are often served by small ISPs who are
trying very hard to get the connection to rural parts of their
State.
So I have a couple of parts to this. I am interested to
know how you conceive that Rural Development could work,
particularly through the Reconnect Program, to support smaller
grantees and if it would ever be possible, for instance, to
have projects under $5 million have a little bit less of a
challenge?
And I just want to use an example that I recently learned.
So there are three communities in our State that were awarded
funding through Reconnect in January of 2019. They have been
following the guidelines, but two of those three are not
expected to connect a single resident until spring of 2023.
So--but that is a long, slow build.
We compared it to some of the projects that were funded
through our State using the CARES Act funds, and they are going
to be completing in 8 to 12 months. So I am not completely sure
what the big differences are, but I think it is a good example
that gives us a chance to try to understand how do we make this
workable and not only available to larger communities with, you
know, big staffs and resources to jump through the hoops.
Mr. Maxson. Thank you for that.
So two quick facts, and then I would like to ask, again,
Chris McLean--after 103 days, I don't have that much detail,
and that was a very detail responsive----
Ms. Pingree. I understand.
Mr. Maxson. A hundred percent, we believe that we are
committed to doing everything we can to spread truly high-speed
broadband to 100 percent of the country, and I think that
American Jobs Plan identifies the scale of resources necessary
to make that happen.
And I will ask Acting Administrator McLean to pick up from
there.
Mr. McLean. Yeah, well, thank you. Yeah, thank you very
much, and thank you for that question because one of the--one
of the great benefits of the Reconnect funding formula that
this committee and the Congress has provided is the 7-percent
solution, which the Acting Under Secretary has referenced. In
other words, that you gave us 7 percent of our funding to be
able to put to outreach and technical assistance and
administrative support.
One of the things we are doing with that--those resources
is trying to build an application system that is customer
friendly so that you can apply for Reconnect funds and minimize
the levels of mistakes or errors so that you could stay in the
game.
Another thing that we have done this year is we did a
second chance on our second round of funding so that we could
take a deeper look at those projects that were really close but
needed a little bit more effort to be able to get it across the
finish line.
And then one of the guiding principles we have--and, again,
thank you from the bottom of our heart for providing meaningful
grant support to this mission because then we can use grant
dollars and target them to the communities that need it the
most, and that is really the key to be able to help
underresourced communities because when our portfolio was only
a small grant program in Community Connect and loan dollars,
that missed a large number of communities that needed more
help.
So that ability to be able to take grants to the most needy
areas, loan-grant combos to those in the middle, and loan only
to those that can afford it seems to be a good--a good pathway
for us forward, but I agree absolutely with you and the Acting
Under Secretary that we do need to be able to focus both
technical assistance and outreach to those communities, those
small communities. They are absolutely right.
Ms. Pingree. Thank you so much. I am out of time, but I
appreciate your thoughts on that, and we might follow up with a
couple more of the specifics just so we can better understand
where the challenges are, but thank you. I appreciate it, and I
yield back.
Mr. McLean. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Ms. Pingree.
At this time, I recognize the gentleman from Maryland, Dr.
Harris.
Mr. Harris. Thank you very much, and welcome, Mr. Maxson.
A couple of issues. First, the Community Facilities Loan
and Grant Program, very important in my district, as many rural
districts, because important facilities, such as hospitals and
fire departments, use this. In my district, East New Market
Volunteer Fire Department, for instance, has one of these
loans.
But they are frustrated because interest rates are now at
generational lows, but they are having a problem refinancing
this because they don't--they are uncertain, first of all,
whether USDA can refinance them through the USDA, or whether or
not they can go through a private refinance, or do they need
the permission of USDA to refinance and take advantage of these
low rates?
As you know, these volunteer fire departments are
financially hurting because of COVID, their inability to raise
money, and this would substantially help them financially.
Mr. Maxson. Thank you for that question. I am going to ask
Acting Administrator Parker, who is a specialist in the CF
program.
Mr. Parker. Thank you, Congressman, for that question, and
I appreciate the committee support of the Community Facilities
Direct Loan Guarantee and Loan Grant Program.
There is a priority to refinance projects under our
Community Facilities Guaranteed Loan Program where a private-
sector lender would come in and make a loan and USDA would put
a Community Facilities guarantee on that loan. Typically those
rates are not as low as our Community Facilities Direct Loan
interest rates.
We do not have the authority presently available in order
to offer refinancing under the Community Facilities Direct Loan
Program unless it is less--the refinancing is less than 50
percent of the total project cost. So, if they were doing some
other construction or an expansion, we could go in and
refinance a portion of that loan.
They don't need USDA permission to come in and refinance
with a private-sector lender. They would just present us with a
payoff at that time.
Thank you for the question, sir.
Mr. Harris. Okay. No. Thank you very much.
And because broadband is obviously--it is a broad--widely
bipartisan interest in that, we do have providers in the
Broadband Initiative Program who have taken advantage of--who
have applied and have actually gotten awards, but they have
expressed their--some of them expressed their frustration with
the administrative burden that accompanies receiving the funds.
Their complaints to my office include outdated contract
language, overly prescriptive auditing and cost justification
requirements, as well as the process just generally being slow
to the point of discouraging some of the providers from
participating in the program.
While I do appreciate clearly, you know, thoughtful and
diligent stewardship of taxpayer dollars is always important, I
am sensitive to some of their complaints. So are you aware of
that type--those types of issues with some of the providers
who, in fact, have these contracts to provide broadband
service?
Mr. Maxson. Yes, sir, absolutely. We take seriously the
concerns of our partners who are recipients of our--of these
resources and are doing everything we can to make the
application and their reporting process as smooth as possible.
Let me ask Administrator McLean. He may have a couple more
specifics that he can share there.
Mr. McLean. Yeah. Thank you very much, Congressman. Your
point is very well taken.
We are vigilant, I will say, with our supervision of the
funds. We take great pride in the fact that we can pretty much
check every penny that is expended. And not every Federal
program can do that, even every Federal broadband program can
do that, because we are infrastructure-oriented. And so, yes, I
understand, and we took special care during COVID to be careful
about that burden we are putting on our borrowers and our
awardees.
But, yes, we do understand, and we are trying to make that
as customer-friendly as possible.
And, in terms of the pace of approval, these programs are
very, very popular, and they are very competitive, and we have
oversubscription, so we have to carefully weigh the projects,
display them against each other, and be able to work to make
sure that they are successful. And we do want to minimize the
administrative burden. But, at the same time, we don't want to
let down our guard on vigilance with taxpayer dollars because
these are serious undertakings.
And, again, thanks to the help of this committee, these are
substantial awards.
Mr. Harris. All right. Thank you very much.
I yield back.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much.
At this time, I am delighted to yield to the gentleman from
Wisconsin, Mr. Mark Pocan.
Mr. Pocan, you are now recognized.
Mr. Pocan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I appreciate it.
And thanks to our witnesses.
I guess, in this committee, or probably maybe in Congress,
if it is a day ending in Y, it is broadband day, because we all
want to talk about broadband.
So, as one of the founders of the Rural Broadband Caucus--
bipartisan caucus, by the way--you know, I live in a rural town
of 800-some people, just got broadband 3 years ago. We had a
satellite prior to that where I was paying an ungodly amount to
ensure I would be connected.
One of the issues with trying to get this investment that
we are trying to put into broadband that the President is
proposing and through Reconnect is that many local communities
and States have barriers that make it harder to get the dollars
out. They don't allow municipalities to do their own broadband.
Can you talk for a second about the difficulty it is in
getting Reconnect out when some of the utilities in local
communities have these local barriers and what we might be able
to do to get around those?
Mr. Maxson. If you would, Chris?
Mr. McLean. Sure. I would be delighted to.
One of the things that we have encouraged in the Reconnect
structure is a level of consultation at the State and local
level, and we want to encourage States to be able to remove
those barriers. Of course, as a Federal agency, you know, we
are a lender, a funder. We don't have preemption authority over
State rules regarding what municipalities can and cannot invest
in.
But we have seen across the country that, you know,
municipal utilities are an incredibly powerful force to bring
infrastructure to rural America. In fact, our entire water
program is based on municipal investment.
And so it is a model that works. We support it. We invest
in cooperative nonprofit entities and for-profit entities, as
well as municipal and Tribal communities and welcome that, and
we welcome States opening up their authority so that--so that
we can find the right partner to solve this--solve the riddle
of broadband deployment.
Mr. Pocan. Well, thank you for that.
And, you know, let me do a followup from Mr. Harris'
question also on the Reconnect funds. So we have heard that,
you know, sometimes that application process can be slow. We
had one applicant who waited well over a year before finding
out they were receiving a Reconnect award, getting the first
construction permit approved.
Just wondering if there is things that we can do to make
that application process a little more maybe user friendly and
get those dollars out faster?
Mr. McLean. Yeah. Well, thank you. I will echo what the
Acting Under Secretary said. Investment in technology and
investment in staffing will help speed the processing along.
What we have done with that 7-percent solution I told you
about earlier in the Reconnect award is--and that is by the
design from Congress in how they are able to use those funds,
and we appreciate that--we are building the most modern of our
input--intake systems using those Reconnect funds to try to
make it easier to apply.
Now, in Reconnect, we make the award first, and then we go
into the environmental review. Usually, it has been opposite,
where we do the environmental review, then you go to the
underwriting. But, in order to speed the obligation process and
so that applicants can be assured that they were getting the
funding they needed in order to go through that environmental
review, we made the award subject to the approval.
And COVID, frankly, has slowed that down a little bit as we
had to get, you know, more time to have consultations with
State historic preservation offices and Tribal historic
preservation offices. And, as the end of COVID is in sight, we
are hoping that that will be able to speed up as well as adding
to the capacity of our ability to process.
Mr. Pocan. Great. Thank you.
And 45 seconds left. Mr. Maxson, I am going to ask you a
big question, but, as you know, there is a lot of consolidation
going on in agriculture. You know, 85 percent of the U.S. beef
market is four companies. Wondering what rural development
could do to combat that increasing power those giant
agribusinesses are having on my rural constituents.
Mr. Maxson. Thank you for that question.
We think small businesses are critical. There are a range
of tools that can support them with the sort of flexible
capital that small businesses need to get ahead, from grants
through the value-added producer grant to loans through the IRP
program to other things.
USDA, as a whole, is taking on this question with real
appreciation and a range of tools aimed at helping local food
systems accelerate.
Mr. Pocan. Great. Thank you.
And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
At this time, I recognize Mr. Valadao of California.
Mr. Valadao, you are now recognized for your questions.
Mr. Valadao. Thank you, Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity.
I want to make sure that I don't distract too much away
from the broadband issue because that is a huge issue for all
of us, and I think that is--and I appreciate all my colleagues
bringing that up, but I do need to bring something up that is
just a little bit different.
I have been meeting with folks all over my district over
the past few weeks, and because of this ongoing pandemic, many
constituents are not able to pay their utility bills, and this
is creating a huge burden, especially on my community service
districts.
Some of these small communities, I met with one just
yesterday--very small community, and their normal delinquent
rate is--dollar amount is about $2,000, and they are up to
$20,000. Some that were normally around $200,000 are up to
$600,000. And so obviously for these community districts to be
able to service the communities, provide water, sewage, it is
already difficult enough. You add in the fact that these guys
are seeing double, triple, and sometimes even 10 times the
amount of delinquency. Then, when we get into the process of
applying for grants or other types of resources, this big of a
hole in their budget makes it more difficult for them to come
up with matching funds.
Do you have any plans to be able to help these community
service districts, cities, counties, and others who are
struggling with this, and how do you plan to address it?
Mr. Maxson. Thank you. It is a great question.
We have spent significant time trying to understand the
conditions in which these districts find themselves. It is
painful and important that we figure out the right tools.
Again, I am going to ask Acting Administrator McLean to
share his thoughts on this as he has been closest to these
conversations.
Mr. McLean. Yes. Thank you very much.
And, as a lender, of course, we are equally concerned about
that issue of delinquent accounts. And we expect that to return
to a more normal level post-pandemic, so we see this as a
transitory problem at the moment.
For individual consumers, it is a very serious issue, and
in the Rescue Act, there were several resources that were made
available for consumers: enhanced funding for Low-Income Home
Energy Assistance programs. The Department of Treasury has a
homeowners' assistance program that has among its authorities
the ability to be able to help pay utility bills.
And we work with our borrowers, and many of them have
programs that they have adopted themselves to be able to help
consumers through that crisis.
Where we have a utility that is affected by a liquidity
crunch, as you say, we do have some tools available to be able
to help them get over this hump of the pandemic. We do still
believe that they are fundamentally strong and will be able to
endure this.
And I don't have any--in the Utilities Program, we don't
have any specific programs that are directed towards
individuals, but to the extent we can work with our utility
borrowers to extend grace to those troubled consumers, we are
absolutely all in and helping them.
Mr. Valadao. All right. I look forward to that. That is
something I will have my staff reach out to yours to make sure
that, whatever is available, we are able to help provide
because, in so many situations, the folks that are
administering the community service districts were telling me
that there are programs out there, but a lot of times it
requires the constituent to actually fill out the documentation
and do some of the work, and they are not even willing to do
that, and so it puts these community service districts in a
really bad spot. And so they look for grant opportunities. Any
capital that they might possibly have has been eaten up by
this, and it just puts them in a terrible bind.
Mr. McLean. Yeah, absolutely. And we get those
heartbreaking messages from individual consumers that can't pay
their bills. First, we refer them to the utility who may have
programs available, and then to the State agencies that are
administering programs like LIHEAP. And LIHEAP also has some
availability to help on water utilities as well.
Mr. Valadao. So LIHEAP does have the opportunity to help
with some of the water utilities when it comes to----
Mr. McLean. Yes, I believe so.
Mr. Valadao. All right. Perfect. Thank you.
I have got more questions, but I will wait until the next
round since I only have 30 seconds. So, Mr. Chairman, I will
yield back. Thank you very much.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Valadao.
And, at this time, I am delighted to yield to the
gentlelady from Illinois, Ms. Lauren Underwood.
Ms. Underwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. You have 5 minutes, Ms. Underwood.
Ms. Underwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to
our witnesses for joining us today.
One of the counties in my district, much of which is rural,
has no inpatient hospital within the county lines, which means
that, during this pandemic, the county's ICU capacity has been
zero.
Even before the coronavirus pandemic, these communities
faced critical healthcare shortages, including a lack of mental
and behavioral health services, facilities, and professionals.
These access gaps have been especially concerning as our
communities grapple with the opioid epidemic and other
substance-use disorders.
Mr. Maxson, can you describe the barriers rural communities
face when attempting to finance healthcare facilities and
infrastructure and what the rural development agencies are
doing to address these barriers both independently and in
coordination with agencies like the Department of Health and
Human Services or other Federal partners?
Mr. Maxson. Thank you for your question.
There are so many reasons that rural healthcare is
critical, as you obviously know. The health of local residents
as economic engines that create jobs and help provide a high
quality of life, we have taken seriously, particularly over the
last several years their health, economic health. The Community
Facilities Program grant, loan, and guarantee has been
particularly focused on health facilities.
If I could ask Acting Administrator Parker, he has
specialized in healthcare facilities.
Mr. Parker. Thank you for that question, Congresswoman
Underwood. Very much appreciate the committee's support of our
rural healthcare facilities.
We often hear from them about workforce shortages inside
the rural areas, lack of training and capacity, bypassing the
rural healthcare facility to go to a more urban facility----
Ms. Underwood. Right.
Mr. Parker [continuing]. Causing a lack of patients there--
--
Ms. Underwood. If we could just talk about the solutions,
sir. I am sorry. We have limited time. What are you all doing
to address this?
Mr. Parker. Yes, ma'am.
So we have both our Community Facilities Direct Loan and
Grant Program--48 percent of our portfolio is invested in rural
healthcare facilities. We also appreciate what the committee
has recently given us, the emergency Rural Healthcare Grant
funding that provided $500 million in funding to address
health-related facility--testing and vaccine facilities, also,
related to the pandemic.
So we are working very quickly to be able to get out a
funding notice and make those funds available to rural
communities that are in need of healthcare solutions.
Ms. Underwood. And outside of the COVID environment, have
you all been working with HHS on this issue?
Mr. Parker. Yes, we partner with HHS, especially the Health
Resources and Services Administration. We have a number of
stakeholders--the National Health Association, the National
Health Clinic Association--that we work closely with.
Ms. Underwood. Okay. If there are any actions that we can
take in Congress to support USDA's actions in that area, we
will go ahead and submit a QFR for that, and if you all could
respond in writing, that would be great.
I look forward to continuing the dialogue on how we can
support the rural healthcare needs. It is so important not only
for the health of our rural communities but for the economy and
the job market in those areas, as you mentioned.
Now, during his confirmation hearing, Secretary Vilsack
stated that biofuels should be part of the effort to reduce
carbon emissions on our path to net-zero by 2050, and I know
that many corn growers in my district were heartened by those
statements. The biofuel market is absolutely critical for
farmers in my district and the economy of Illinois.
In recent years, we have seen that it has been especially
tough, given the Trump administration's abuse of small refinery
waivers and the disruptions caused by the pandemic.
So this is for Mr. Maxson or Dr. Neal. The White House's
skinny budget and the American Jobs Plan don't currently have a
lot of details on biofuels infrastructure. Can you elaborate on
your role, at least within the agency, around biofuel programs
and USDA's and the administration's climate strategy?
Mr. Maxson. Yes. Thank you for that.
I will just really quickly say, in the American Jobs Plan
there is $15 billion, a large chunk of which is aimed at the
biobased product loan guarantee program, 9003, which aims to
support the commercialization of biobased products.
I am not privy to how much of that $15 billion will be
aimed at 9003, but I believe the Secretary is very serious when
he says biofuels and biobased products have got to be part of
our long-term set of climate solutions.
Ms. Underwood. Okay. So is that something that your office
is involved with, or no?
Mr. Maxson. Yes, ma'am. Very much so.
Ms. Underwood. Okay. Thanks.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Ms. Underwood.
At this time, I recognize Mr. Moolenaar, the gentleman from
Michigan.
You are now recognized, Mr. Moolenaar.
Mr. Moolenaar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you to our witnesses today, and appreciate the work
you are doing and the importance of rural development.
I wanted to mention--and you may or may not be aware of the
flooding event that occurred in mid-Michigan in May of 2020.
Last year's catastrophic flood was the result of a historic
rain event that led to the failure of two dams in my district.
And the devastating events of that day essentially wiped out a
100-year-old ecosystem created by the lakes and dams and caused
about $200 million in damage, with millions more lost to the
economic impact and the hardship it has had around the small
communities surrounding.
And a major disaster declaration was issued by the
President last July, and the USDA was one of the first Federal
agencies to respond, and I was very grateful for that. Former
USDA Deputy Under Secretary for Rural Development Bette Brand
came to our district with a pledge to support our recovery
process. That has been happening, and the rebuilding and
recovery efforts continue as we speak.
And I just want to personally say, on behalf of thousands
of mid-Michigan residents whose lives or businesses have been
affected by this disaster, especially the 10,000 residents that
were forced to evacuate, I thank you for the work you have been
doing, and I want to ask for your strong support in the
recovery process as we go forward.
Along those lines, I would also like to invite you to come
and visit mid-Michigan to see firsthand the work that Rural
Development is doing to support the recovery and rebuilding
efforts from last year's historic flood as well as the work
that still needs to be done.
Broadband is key, connecting our underserved and unserved
residents. And I want to just also highlight that as well.
I wondered if you might comment on if you are familiar with
the situation, and, if so, or if not, is that something we
could follow up and have a discussion to kind of look at the
progress that has been made as well as things that still need
to be worked on?
Mr. Maxson. Yes, sir, I am broadly familiar with it, but I
would love to have an opportunity to speak with you and hear
about it from your standpoint. And I would love to do that
face-to-face when that is possible to do.
Mr. Moolenaar. Wonderful. And I will follow up with you on
that, and I am grateful.
And, Mr. Chairman, I know we have other questions, but I
want to yield back.
And thank you for your work on rural broadband. That is
huge in my district as well.
Mr. Maxson. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Moolenaar.
At this time, I am delighted to yield to the gentlelady
from Minnesota, the chair of the Defense Subcommittee of
Appropriations.
Ms. McCollum, you are now recognized.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Good afternoon. And I want to thank you, Mr. Under
Secretary, as well as your whole team here and everybody at
USDA for all the work that they have done during COVID and
going through a transition that didn't go very smoothly and now
working on getting the budget done. So I know you folks are
working really hard for us.
And, Mr. Maxson, I appreciate in your written testimony--
and I really mean this--about the impact of broadband that it
had on some of our Tribal communities and the role Rural
Development can play in continuing to help to bridge this
digital divide.
The pandemic intensified the digital divide. And as my
fellow Members of Congress know, Native Americans
disproportionately suffered, more than any other group, during
this pandemic. And we know that most of them are isolated, very
isolated, in rural America.
So this new sense of urgency to address these inadequacies
is upon us, and we want to do something about it.
But Tribal communities, to be clear, like other rural
communities, maybe even more so, have struggled with access to
have reliable, affordable broadband for years. And they are
some of the most underserved populations across the country.
The lack of broadband inhibits Tribal communities to support
things like economic development, healthcare, and public
safety.
And the biggest impact for them has truly been on education
in their rural and remote areas. The Bureau of Indian Schools
is chronically underfunded. They are operating with aging
technologies, computer equipment if they have it, laptops or
even tablets if they have them. Sixty--excuse me, I want to get
the number right--thirty-six percent of Native students have no
access to the internet in their home.
Tribal colleges and universities are faced with the same
chronic underfunding problems as they go into the pandemic. And
they have some of the slowest internet speeds at the highest
cost. Many of the institutions of higher education in this
country are really lacking reliable internet connectivity for
their students when they go home.
So these disparities put Native Americans at a distinct
disadvantage to their peers across the country. Their ability
to compete in the 21st-century economy is dependent upon the
internet. It has the potential to worsen with generational
poverty if we don't do something about this.
So I would, you know, like to hear more about--because you
understand these unique challenges to my rural brothers and
sisters. And I have family who live in the rural parts of the
United States too. I get rural.
Could you maybe tell us a little more about what you are
going to do to help Tribal schools and at the same time you are
helping Tribal healthcare?
Mr. Maxson. Thank you for that. It is an incredibly
important set of concerns. If the pandemic has underlined
nothing else, it has clearly made obvious that broadband is a
necessity, not an amenity. And Tribal communities, in
particular, have so many deep infrastructure concerns.
Under Secretary Vilsack's leadership, there has been a real
intention to lean into Tribal consultations and have an open
ear and engage directly to really understand both the
challenges and opportunities.
There are a range of carve-outs across our infrastructure
programs aimed to specifically provide grant resources to
Tribal communities to ensure those with the most need have
access to the dollars that are the most helpful.
And I will just end by saying the StrikeForce initiatives
in the budget I think will be really important in the colonias,
in Native communities, in Appalachia, where boots on the ground
and technical assistance resources aimed at bringing a whole-
of-government approach to these long-term challenges will be a
critical effort.
Thank you.
Ms. McCollum. Well, I want to thank you for your effort.
And Ms. Pingree, who chairs the Interior and Related Agencies,
which includes the Bureau of Indian Education and Health
Resources--and I am on that committee as well, too--look
forward to working with you to make sure that broadband is
strong all over the rural parts of this country.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Ms. McCollum.
At this time, I am delighted to yield to my friend and
fellow Blue Dog, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Henry Cuellar.
Mr. Cuellar, you are now recognized.
Mr. Cuellar. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much for your
leadership, and also to the ranking member. Again, I want to
thank both of you. Mr. Chairman, thank you for putting this
hearing together.
And I certainly want to thank Under Secretary Maxson, Dr.
Neal, Mr. Parker, Mr. McLean. Thank you so much. I look forward
to working with all of you.
Under Secretary Maxson, I want to say thank you. I saw your
written statement; you mentioned ``colonias.'' And I just heard
you use the word ``colonias'' again. And I am so happy because
I think you and I are going to be on the same page. So, first
of all, thank you for that.
I have three questions, but two of those questions will be
submitted in writing.
Mr. Cuellar. One of them has to do with, you know, we are
concerned about the status of several electric cooperatives
through the State of Texas that have incurred significant debt
by keeping the power on during that difficult time. Again, in
my opinion, I think it was a problem with Ercot, but still now
we have those electric cooperatives who are suffering. So we
will send you a detailed question on that.
Also, you know, my parents were farmworkers, so anything we
can do to help farmworkers, I appreciate it. I will also send
you a question to see whether Rural Development can partner up
with different organizations who are serving farmworkers in the
delivery of services and programs to them. So I will send you a
question.
But what I want to focus on today is colonias. I represent
a border area. Four of those counties--Hidalgo, Starr, Zapata,
Webb--even La Salle, are what we call StrikeForce counties,
home to border colonias. There are about 2.5 million residents
living in colonias, communities that suffer from high rates of
poverty, along the southern border of Texas, New Mexico,
Arizona, and California.
As you know, those colonias are characterized by
substandard housing, dirt roads, lack of access to potable
drinking water, inadequate sewage disposal and drainage
systems. On top of that, you have the problems, sometimes, of
poor education, health services, limited job opportunities,
high unemployment rates. And, of course, whether it is water or
waste disposal infrastructure or broadband, as my other
colleagues have talked about, I say that border colonias are
considered a forgotten America.
I have been dealing with colonias since I was in the State
legislature, 1989, and they are still there. Thousands of them
are there.
So I would like to follow up--I have about 2\1/2\ minutes
or so--see if I can get your thoughts. But I would love to
follow up with you, Mr. Under Secretary, and Dr. Neal and
Parker and McLean also, because we need to have some sort of
colonia initiative coordinator. In the past, we used to look at
EPA, but EPA only does one little part.
I really feel--and I will be on for another 20 minutes,
because I have a USDA announcement with Rural Development here
in Atascosa County, and thank you so much.
And I just have to say that if there is any agency that can
build from underground to top, all the way, it is USDA. And you
probably are the fastest agencies that we work with in
Appropriations, at least my personal opinion.
So I want to get your thoughts on that and ask you if I can
follow up, Mr. Under Secretary.
Mr. Maxson. Yes, sir. It is such an important issue.
I have a deep--it resonates with me, as an Appalachian
person, where I am from, what generational poverty means and
the challenges that it creates. And I am hopeful the new
StrikeForce 2.0 has a real potential to be the sort of focused
effort that brings all of USDA and strategic connections to
other agencies in really deep ways to provide the range of
assistance that communities need, from infrastructure to human
capital, to technical assistance.
And I think USDA is unique in the breadth of tools that we
have, but building local relationships and connections to
actually understand the challenges in the places, in my sense,
is the critical thing. We can't define the solutions. We need
to be close enough to the ground, in communication, to
understand the challenges and the possibilities. And
StrikeForce 2.0, under the Secretary's leadership, I think will
be that.
So I really look forward to the opportunity to have
additional conversations with you about how we proceed on that.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Cuellar. I believe your time has
expired.
At this time, I am delighted to recognize the gentlelady
from New York, Ms. Meng.
Ms. Meng, you are now recognized for your questions.
Ms. Meng. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr.
Ranking Member.
And thank you, Mr. Under Secretary and your whole team, for
the work that you do and for being here today.
I wanted to ask about rural water infrastructure. As you
know, this pandemic has really highlighted the importance of
having noncontaminated water for drinking, handwashing, and
hygiene. Reports estimate that 60,000 community water systems
in America--of the 60,000, 93 percent of them serve populations
of fewer than 10,000 people.
Old water supply systems pose a huge risk to public health,
as corroding pipes can leach lead and copper directly into the
drinking water supply. This problem also disproportionately
affects communities of color in rural America, with Black and
Latino neighborhoods in upstate New York, for example, being 12
times more likely to get lead poisoning than children in White
neighborhoods.
It is clear that fixing this problem will take a cross-
agency, whole-of-government effort. I was grateful to see that
President Biden's top-line budget supports increasing the Rural
Water and Wastewater Grant and Loan Program. And I was
wondering how USDA intends to use this proposed increased
funding to the grant and loan program.
Mr. Maxson. Thank you for that. I will ask Acting
Administrator McLean to take that one on.
Mr. McLean. Thank you very much. And thank you for raising
an extraordinarily important problem.
And we were all so encouraged to hear the President
mention, you know, water, broadband, electric grid, RUS. We
were cheering when the President addressed the Joint Session of
Congress--and specifically mentioning this question about lead.
So we take that as a mandate to get the lead out and work hard
on this problem.
And what is nice about the RUS water program is it has
probably the largest panoply of opportunities, everything from
our Circuit Rider Program where we can put technical assistance
on the ground to help individual communities, and we have
technical assistance grants that can help with those pre-
application. We have the SEARCH grants on pre-application. And
then we have the loan, loan grant, and loan-grant combination
opportunities to be able to build the infrastructure.
So it is very, very important. And the quality of water,
again, is essential to the quality of life. And we have at this
moment about $3 billion of applications in our queue ready to
go, and we have a lot of funding, but we have more applications
than we do have funding. And we are, again, grateful to the
committee for its strong support of the Water Program, and we
are going to do everything we can to put that to its most
effective use.
Ms. Meng. Thank you.
I have one more quick question about the LAMP program,
Local Agriculture Market Program. And the Value Added Producer
Grant Program within LAMP has been really helpful to past
efforts in developing more resilient local and regional food
systems. I believe that LAMP is a key vehicle for those efforts
to rebuilding back better as our country seeks to recover from
this pandemic.
But I was surprised to see that the administration was only
requesting $15 million in traditional discretionary funding for
the program, which is less than what our subcommittee had
appropriated in the past. So just wondering what you might be
able to tell us about your plans for LAMP and VAPG, and does
this funding request include the Value Added Producer Grant
Program?
Mr. Maxson. Dr. Neal.
Ms. Neal. Thank you so much for that question and for your
interest in these really important programs. We obviously are
looking very closely at the budget and wanting to make sure
that we can have resources for these programs. They have had an
impact, and they have been popular.
We are also interested in thinking about, to your sort of
larger question, around food systems, you know, what are the
other kinds of resources that we can inject into the food
systems pathway. So we think about the Healthy Food Financing
Initiative, other kinds of programs as well.
And so, really, what we are wanting to do is address those
issues. We know that the Value Added Producers Grant and LAMP
and other programs can do that, and we want to make sure that
we have a cohesive method of doing that. And we will work with
the budget to make sure that that happens as best we can.
Ms. Meng. Okay. Thank you. I look forward to working with
you on that.
I yield back.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Ms. Meng.
That concludes the first round of questions.
I guess I will go back to Dr. Neal, regarding food deserts.
Of course, you just touched on food and nutrition, but more
than 40 million Americans still lack reasonable access to
nutritious and affordable food, including 4.6 million in rural,
low-income communities. As we have seen in the COVID-19
pandemic, having access to the healthy, affordable food is
essential, and our system was too easily disrupted in the
crisis.
We are pleased that USDA administers the program through
community development finance institutions that can raise
private capital, provide financial and technical assistance,
support local partnerships, and directly fund projects that
improve food access in all communities, with a special focus in
rural communities. We have got too many rural food deserts.
Given your past experience, how can USDA build on the
successful model? And how can the American Rescue Plan be used
to further support equitable food systems? And how can we put
grocery stores in rural communities, where now they can't be
afforded because it is just not commercially sound for the
communities to support them? Can you give us some tips and a
plan, perhaps, of how we can eliminate these food deserts with
grocery stores?
Ms. Neal. Thank you so much, Representative, for these
really important questions. As a former lead of a CDFI loan
fund, I am certainly attentive to these issues and thoughtful
about them.
One of the things that we want to do is to think through
how we can make sure that more CDFI entities, whether they are
loan funds, community development banks, community development
credit unions, or venture funds, that they have access to our
programs, know how to access them, know how to engage with
them, so that they can provide access to capital for the
communities and the projects that mean the most--many of those
projects which, as you know, are very much in line with the
priorities of this administration.
So I think there is really an opportunity there to engage,
further engage more through development financial institutions
in this work.
As mentioned when we talked about responding to
Representative Meng's question as well, I mean, I think there
are a number of programs that we have that can help address
food deserts and those kinds of things, from, one, thinking
about the food itself, so things like the Value Added Producer
Grants and those kinds of things, but also thinking about the
businesses that are going to serve as the entities through
which that food is delivered. So, you know, these may be the
IRP program, intermediary loan program, that might help finance
the business, or the RMAP, the Rural Microentrepreneur
Assistance Program, which might, again, help finance these
kinds of entities.
And I think, you know, we want to be sensitive to the fact
that there are a variety of business models that can help
address these issues, from traditional businesses to
cooperatives and others. And we stand ready to assist and to
work intentionally around that effort to help close those gaps.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
Let me shift gears a moment. Based on the information that
we get from USDA every week, it looks like Rural Development
has fully obligated the CARES funding for distance learning and
telemedicine grants, and ReConnect Grants has put a lot of
business industry funding out there.
The Rural Development 2021 supplemental funds and the
American Rescue Plan funds have not yet been obligated. Of
those funds, I am particularly interested in the $100 million
for Rural Rental Assistance and the $39 million for relief of
direct single-family borrowers and for borrowers for Home
Repair funds.
Now, these are among the poorest populations that you
serve. Can you speak to any holdups or problems that you have
in getting this assistance out and when it will be available?
Mr. Maxson. Mr. Parker.
Mr. Parker. Thank you for that question, Congressman.
The $39 million that was made available for single-family
housing is going to be used to refinance borrowers who have
been under forbearance due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Those funds have been moved into our IT systems and are
available now for agencies to utilize. We expect to put out
directions later in May regarding how those funds will be
utilized, advising our field staff and the rural constituency
on the use of those funds. And we plan to begin accepting
applications for those dollars late May to early June.
The funding, the $39 million in budget authority should
allow us to make approximately $650 million in 502 Direct Loan
funds and $18.8 million in the 504 Repair Loan.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Parker.
Mr. Fortenberry.
Mr. Fortenberry. I want to return to the broadband
discussion, and let's just call it ``the gap.'' So we have to
define the gap and close the gap. How are we defining the gap?
How are we closing the gap?
Mr. Maxson. I am sorry, I just lost internet. I am actually
in the Whitten Building, and it just came back on, so----
Mr. Fortenberry. That is exactly what I am talking about,
the need for more broadband, right?
Mr. Maxson. I apologize, Representative Fortenberry, but I
need the question again.
Mr. Fortenberry. That was perfectly on cue, perfectly
timed. Thank you to the wonderful staff for teeing that up.
Well done.
Rural broadband, back to the discussion, I am calling it
``the gap.'' How do we define the gap? How do we close the gap?
So we have a mapping strategy, which appears to be
fragmented--I would like to discuss that--closing the gap.
Because, I would say, there is a whole spectrum of things
that we can spend so much time on, and we have done a lot of
them today, but since broadband is such a bipartisan issue,
there are so many funds flowing that way, it represents a huge,
huge set of opportunities. Are we thinking critically about how
to identify the gap and close the gap?
Mr. Maxson. Chris McLean, would you like that one?
Mr. McLean. Yes, sir. I am delighted to.
Yeah, I think that is a very good point. You have got me
reflecting back to the days when I was a young Senate staffer
working on the Telecommunications Act of 1996. That gap is a
shifting thing. It is a thing that moves through time. The
goalposts do change, as technology improves.
And I think one of the ways to answer your questions is to
look at how we define our program availability. In the
ReConnect Program, in round one and round two, we set out to
learn, where is the worst gap? It was communities that had less
than 10/1 service. And, then, where do we want to go as a
minimum level? And we defined that in the funding opportunity
as to build at least to 25/3.
Now, what did we get? What were our results? Our results
were far beyond that 25/3, because we created incentives to go
beyond the minimum.
And, as we put together the round three funding level, we
are looking at that gap, as to where to direct funding and then
where to----
Mr. Fortenberry. Okay, I think I am following you. You are
trying to use your resources in the most targeted way----
Mr. McLean. Yes, sir.
Mr. Fortenberry [continuing]. Where you have the biggest
gap.
Mr. McLean. Yes, sir.
Mr. Fortenberry. Let's try to move to the conversation
about the overall gap. Just give me the aggregate. Obviously,
we have a mapping process in the Federal Government.
Mr. McLean. Yes.
Mr. Fortenberry. Speak to that, where that is----
Mr. McLean. Sure.
Mr. Fortenberry [continuing]. How that would be updated,
how quickly that will be. And then the innovative ways in which
we are going to define the possibility of new delivery systems
and how rapidly to close the gap.
Mr. McLean. Okay. Yes. Very good.
Mapping first. Every RDApply application and, really, all
of our telecom applications start with a map. So we map what we
invest in. We have the FCC's map, and the NTIA has a new map.
Mapping for us is informative----
Mr. Fortenberry. What does it say? What does it say for the
country?
Mr. McLean. It is a mix. In rural areas, you have a lack of
service, particularly outside of highways. The further away you
get from the Interstate Highway System, the less service you
have. Communities that we have been talking about this
afternoon--Tribal communities have some of the poorest amount
of service----
Mr. Fortenberry. Yeah. So I think we need a simple set of
statistics that is really definable around--forget the
complexities. It is not just access; it is also affordability.
Mr. McLean. Yes.
Mr. Fortenberry. Most urban communities have ready access,
but the affordability is an issue. Many rural communities may
have some providers, but, again, the expense doesn't allow for
this to happen.
I have a very interesting situation where a mother in a
25,000-person community here, which is rural in character, sits
in the parking lot with her child to try to get WiFi so they
can do their homework.
Mr. McLean. Yes.
Mr. Fortenberry. So we want to move past that quickly.
So you know the nature of the question.
Perhaps if somebody wants to pick this up, as well. I am
going to divert for a few moments, in the few seconds that I
have. The chairman and I worked on a Rural Placemaking
Innovation Challenge Grant for technical assistance and
planning to create places where people want to live and work. I
need an update status on the implementation of that from
someone, if we have a moment.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Fortenberry.
And, at this time, I am happy to recognize Ms. Pingree, the
gentlelady from Maine.
You are now recognized.
Ms. Pingree. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And thank you to everybody on the team here for persisting
in answering all of our questions. We really appreciate the
work that you are doing.
I want to talk a little bit about REAP, which is one of my
favorite programs, if you can have a favorite. And I have a
bill, the Agriculture Resilience Act, which looks at some
policy changes, basically making sure that, to the extent
possible, that the energy that is being used has the greatest
possible impact on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. So giving
those a priority or set-aside funding for those that would be
underutilized technologies or with a particular focus on being
effective demonstration projects.
So I guess I am just curious, and I know you can't decide
in a minute here, but--it is not just because it is my bill,
but I think it is because the administration is really focusing
on climate change, and on-farm renewable energy is a great cost
saving to the farmer, as we know, and also a good place in
rural America to demonstrate some of the opportunities of using
renewable energy.
So are there administrative changes in how you score or
just any ways you could go about doing it without legislation?
Mr. Maxson. Dr. Neal.
Ms. Neal. Thank you again for this question,
Representative. This is a really exciting opportunity.
So we are excited about REAP as well. I have been on the
job now for 1 month and 1 day, and it is one of the things I
have heard a lot about and read a lot about. So I am pleased
that you asked the question.
REAP is--we continue to manage that program. It has been
very popular. We continue to use it. One of the things that we
are pleased about is the funding that you mentioned for the
renewable energy pilot, where we are able to have a source of
funding that we can use to pull from the best things that have
worked in programs that we have had. And REAP is certainly one
of those where we might be in a position to pull out the things
that worked best from that and use that in portions of the
renewable energy pilot, but then also think about, what are
some new and innovative things that we might be able to do?
We have gotten some excellent feedback from the community,
from across the country, from folks who are interested in
underserved areas and underserved technologies and making sure
that these kinds of technologies are available in equitable
format across the country in a variety of ways.
And so we are, as particularly with this renewable energy
pilot, looking forward to developing that program. A panel is
convening, a multiagency panel is convening to really look at
that work and help us figure out how we can develop a program
that will begin to meet--or continue, really, to meet the needs
that you have outlined.
Ms. Pingree. Great. Well, thank you. I will look forward to
seeing, you know, what kind of opportunities you develop and
working with you on that going into the future.
The other question I just wanted to ask a little bit about
is related to PFAS, which I know is an overwhelming and
complicated issue that impacts so many agencies but, you know,
will impact the USDA in a variety of ways.
And our State has had some issue with PFAS contamination in
rural areas. And in some places, it has made wells that people
use for drinking water, which are particularly important in
rural communities--some of them, they can no longer use them
because of the contamination.
So I am just interested in ways that Rural Development
might be able to support those households where the private
well is too contaminated, in terms of remediation or other ways
that they could facilitate where those challenges are and where
I am sure we will continue to have more challenges.
Mr. Maxson. Administrator McLean, could you take a crack at
that?
Mr. McLean. I would be delighted to.
And, Congresswoman Pingree, your question could not be more
timely. In a very short period of time, you should be seeing a
new announcement from USDA Rural Development about distributed
water resources. And it is a revolving fund where we work with
organizations who can then re-lend those funds to individual
homeowners who are having problems with their wells.
And so that is one of the opportunities. Plus, again, the
current programs that we have. Our Circuit Riders are available
to be able to help communities plan out maybe a distributed
water system, you know, to hook up people who have had
contaminated wells to water system water if that is feasible.
But the timing of your question could not be better. We are
just moving along that documentation to make that announcement
in the very near future, that the program for individual wells,
a re-lending program, is about to be announced soon.
Ms. Pingree. Great. Well, thank you for both of those
answers.
And I do appreciate the revolving loan fund. I think one
small challenge will be making sure people are aware of it and
can access it. Because, often, if you are the one person with
the bad well in a rural area, you don't necessarily know there
is a revolving loan fund.
But, again, thank you. I will look forward to the
announcement. If it is a really great program, I will take full
credit for, you know, asking you about it in this committee,
and our committee will take full credit for it as well.
But thank you so much.
And thank you, again, to everybody for your answers.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Ms. Pingree.
At this time, I am delighted to recognize for a second
round Dr. Harris.
You are recognized.
Mr. Harris. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
And just to follow up on the gentlelady from Maine, yeah,
that wastewater and drinking water, those revolving loans and
grants, they are very, very important to our rural communities,
as you can imagine.
I am just going to ask a couple of aspects of the
broadband. One is that, under the ReConnect Program, I am just
curious, why does it have to be fixed terrestrial broadband?
Why is satellite not allowed under it?
I specifically ask because there actually is one part of my
district where you can't run physical cable and it is not line
of sight, so satellite would make a lot of sense there.
Can you just give me the background on why satellite is
excluded?
Mr. McLean. Well, in the early round, we were able to fund
the ground stations. Of course, we certainly didn't have any
money to be able to fund launching of satellites, of course.
But it was a question of trying to direct the funding to where
it could do the most value.
And that is what we are trying to grapple with right now in
constructing the round-three funding notice. We just closed our
comment period on our ReConnect regulation, and it is a very
robust record, and we will be evaluating that. And we will be
looking at questions exactly like that, of what kind of
technologies we want to include in and out of this funding
round. And so this is definitely a timely question, as we
figure out how round three will look.
Mr. Harris. But you would not need statutory authority, I
mean, you would have the authority to include satellite if you
decided to do it?
Mr. McLean. Again, to the extent that we could afford it,
yes.
Mr. Harris. Yes. Okay. Thank you.
And, now, I also have electric cooperatives--a lot of rural
areas do--electric cooperatives. Choptank is one of the big
ones in my district, and it actually has applied to do some of
the rural broadband. It makes sense. They have a lot of
backbone, they have infrastructure. The State legislature had
to change a few things to allow them to do it.
But, on a national basis, how important are the electric
cooperatives as some of the roots for getting broadband out to
their customers?
Mr. McLean. If I may take that question, I am delighted
with that question. I am the Acting Administrator of the RUS
but my day job is to be the head of the RUS Electric Program.
And so the answer to your question is: Absolutely essential.
We are very, very proud of the work that rural electric
cooperatives are doing to be able to be a catalyst for
broadband deployment. Because your electric grid of the 21st
century is as much about moving information as it is about
moving electrons. And so smart technologies are needed
desperately by the electric utility service providers. And that
provides a synergy and a catalyst for broadband deployment.
And we are seeing rural electric cooperatives apply for the
ReConnect Program. We are seeing rural electric cooperatives
deploy the fiber-based smart grid.
A little factoid here that is fascinating to me: In fiscal
year 2020, I financed slightly more fiber for rural electric
service providers than I did power lines, because of this great
push on smart grid and all of the possibilities that that opens
up for network reliability, grid security, and improved service
and to be able to preempt outages and add to the efficiency of
the grid.
So that synergy between rural electric cooperatives and
broadband is a natural. We love it when we see rural
cooperatives work together with local telco companies to be
able to team up and provide services. So it is an important
trend.
You also saw in the reverse auction at the FCC that rural
electric cooperatives did very well in winning a number of
those territories, and they are bringing out--they are, again,
combining their electric service needs with their communities'
demand for broadband.
So thank you for that great question, and we do agree that
co-ops are very important.
Mr. Harris. Well, thank you very much.
And I yield back, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Dr. Harris.
And I would like to yield at this time to Mr. Valadao of
California.
You are now recognized.
Mr. Valadao. Thank you, Chairman.
Section 514 and 516, Farmer Housing Direct Loans and Grants
Program is important for my constituents. I represent a major
agricultural region in the United States that produces more
than 400 agriculture crops. I know firsthand how critical our
farmworkers are to our Nation's economy and getting food on the
table of millions of Americans.
Section 514 and 516 are the only Federal programs that
provide affordable loans and grants to purchase, construct, or
repair housing for America's farm laborers. Farmworkers have
the worst housing needs of all people living in rural
communities.
President Biden's initial skinny budget for fiscal year
2022 is silent on rural housing. Do you have any plans to
improve upon Section 514 and 516 housing programs? If so, which
I hope you do, would you please detail these plans for the
committee?
I think you are muted there.
Mr. Maxson. I am sorry.
Mr. Parker, do you have thoughts on that?
Mr. Parker. Yes, I do.
Thank you for the question, Congressman.
For our Farm Labor Housing Program, 514, 516, for this
fiscal year, we have issued that notice on February 2, putting
out a notice of applications for $36 million.
What we did to get out that notice is we worked with a lot
of the farmworker stakeholder community, also talking to
organizations to ensure that we were bringing in the right
aspects to that notice--things where we have raised the maximum
loan amount up to $5 million, permitting applications to be
submitted along with a cycle that works with the low-income
housing tax credit and other local funding award cycles.
And, also, putting up, for transparency's sake, our
applications, making those available at the end of the funding
period so that people can see the applications that were there
and the ones that were approved and the scoring around that, so
people that had not received funding in the past would be able
to work towards a better application in the future.
We certainly plan on continuing to work with those
organizations. And we have had a lot of strong positive
feedback on this year's notice, but we plan to continue to work
with those farm housing stakeholder organizations to bring in
their advice and input to improve in future years.
Mr. Valadao. And do you have any additional insight you can
share with the committee related to Rural Development's other--
I mean, obviously, outside of the ag guest worker or ag worker
housing, but other equally important housing assistance
programs? I mean, it obviously plays a vital role, and housing
prices seem to continue to rise, especially here in California.
Mr. Parker. Yes, sir. Rental assistance, our 515 Multi-
Family Housing Direct Loan Program, generally are always in
need of funding. We are going to fully utilize our guaranteed
multifamily housing utilization--full utilization of rental
assistance this year, full utilization of the Rural Housing
Service voucher funding, as well as the funding that is
provided through the American Rescue Plan for the COVID-19
pandemic.
We will fully utilize those funds, starting at the end of
May, early June, to cover overburdened tenants inside our 515
households. So I appreciate all of your assistance from the
committee in making those funds available.
Mr. Valadao. All right. Appreciate it.
And then I will change course a little bit. It is no secret
that the western United States is in the midst of a severe
drought that does not appear to have an end in sight. This
disaster will, without a doubt, have a rippling effect on rural
communities in the West, like those in my district.
A few weeks ago, the Biden administration established an
Interagency Drought Relief Working Group, of which USDA
Secretary Vilsack is part. And while it is encouraging to hear
the Biden administration is acknowledging the emergency in the
West, it is not clear what the working group plans to do to
combat this issue.
There is no time to waste. Please describe how you plan to
work with the Secretary and the working group to combat
consequences of this critical drought. And I have only got a
little bit of time left, but I appreciate a quick----
Mr. Maxson. Just super-quickly, I would say that we take
seriously that disaster and recognize, fortunately, that RD has
a range of tools, from the small-business side to some of the
infrastructure tools. I think probably the most important thing
is our boots on the ground, that our staff in those States are
aware of the challenges, are in conversations with lots of
stakeholders. And we will aim to filter that information up to
the Secretary, up to the task force, to ensure that they have
accurate and grounded information based on the strength of that
staff.
Mr. Valadao. All right. Well, I am out of time. I
appreciate that, and I look forward to working with you as we
move forward on the drought issue.
Mr. Maxson. Yes, sir. For sure, it is a disaster.
Mr. Valadao. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Valadao.
That will complete round two. We have a few members still
in the meeting, and I would like to start a round three.
I just have one question. It has to do with rural housing
preservation. I just wanted to take a minute to ask about the
rural housing programs that are operated by RD. I have a
question on both the multifamily and the single-family housing.
Housing instability, of course, can lead to adverse health
effects, and it can compromise the development of children.
As you likely know, there is a significant threat to the
USDA's multifamily housing portfolio, with an impending wave of
maturing mortgages over the next several years. A 2016 report
indicated that the 20-year cost to preserve and maintain the
portfolio totals $5.6 billion.
Can you please explain what the Department plans to do to
preserve the affordable housing stock and increase the number
of units or construct new units so that families can have
greater access to affordable homes?
And then let me go to the second question, and that is: I
wish to touch on the subsidy recapture--as some of my
constituents have called it, surprise billing--when they sell
or transfer their property that has been financed with a
Section 502 loan.
I wanted to ask, should we be revisiting the practice of
implementing subsidy recapture, which really catches many of
these borrowers unaware? And it can have a substantial impact
on their finances, when they think that they are able to sell
what has been an asset that they have fully paid for.
Mr. Maxson. Chad, a quick response?
Mr. Bishop. Yes.
Mr. Parker. Thank you for the question, Congressman.
I think the biggest pieces around rural housing
preservation for our Multi-Family Housing Program would be
clearing the backlog of the 515 properties that we have
awaiting for preservation. We have 171 projects that are right
now awaiting funding to undergo rehabilitation and
preservation. Those projects are shovel-ready. We would be able
to move on those within 30 to 60 days upon receipt of the
appropriation.
And we have a lot of energy aspects that would be a part of
those rehabilitations. So it would help those multifamily
housing providers to be able to control their operating
expenses, as well, as part of that.
Also, as far as that preservation piece, addressing our
underfunding of the Multi-Family Housing Preservation Program
in the long run would be important, and then looking at
potential funding of rental assistance for unassisted tenants
inside the Section 515 portfolio, allowing a funding stream for
those borrowers, multifamily housing providers, to be able to
reinvest in their facilities.
As far as the subsidy recapture piece, the subsidy
recapture piece is under our Single-Family Housing Direct 502
Program. Whenever we provide a payment subsidy around the
interest rate, it builds up a subsidy over time.
Statute requires us, USDA, to recapture that funding if the
owner of the property leaves the property, no longer resides in
the property, or sells the property. It was not always a
requirement. Back in 1979 was when subsidy recapture was
instituted. So there was a timeframe when subsidy recapture
didn't take place.
I think USDA would welcome the opportunity for there to be
a change in that statute to allow us to reconsider that
provision, sir.
Mr. Bishop. So that would require some legislation on our
part, on the part of Congress, to eliminate that recapture
requirement.
Mr. Parker. That is correct, sir. It would require
legislation.
It would also impact--because the recapture of those funds
is calculated into our subsidy rate for the Single-Family
Housing Direct Loan Program. So there would be a loss of that
recapture funding, so it would increase the subsidy rate for
our program, sir.
Mr. Bishop. Okay. Well, we would like to talk a little bit
more about that, because it seems to be a hardship, and it
really takes away from the ultimate wealth building of the
people that you are actually serving who are in those rural
communities. And we are really trying to really enhance that
wealth, to build capacity and wealth, and of course this is
something that, at the last minute, is a surprise cost that
takes away. So we will want to revisit that.
Mr. Fortenberry, I would like to yield to you at this time
for any additional questions that you may have.
Mr. Fortenberry. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have just got to return back to the broadband question,
given the timeliness of it and the seriousness of it. And, in
our 10-minute dialogue, we just don't seem to be connecting on
the intention of my question, so let me try it this way: Give
our rural broadband deployment a grade. Give rural broadband
deployment a grade. Where are we? A, B, C, D, or F?
Mr. Maxson. I am going to take a crack at it.
With your acknowledgement, 105 days, it may not be fully
satisfactory. And I would just say, what feels important to me
right now is a recognition that rural broadband deployment is
becoming a national priority. And while there have been
investments----
Mr. Fortenberry. Correct.
Mr. Maxson [continuing]. Up to this point, it feels like,
today, through the AJP and the work of this committee around
ReConnect, we are reimagining what is possible with a depth of
investment, a scale of investment, and a level of collaboration
and coordination that will allow what is, in my sense, a real
possible goal of 100 percent with significant speed.
I think the American Jobs Plan, similar to your earlier
statement, provides the resources not only to count the
expansion of broadband but the tools and the opportunities that
broadband creates toward livability, in that the----
Mr. Fortenberry. Yeah, we need rural broadband, and that is
very important.
So it is actually three things: defining the gap, closing
the gap, understanding the meaning of what this delivery is and
measuring it that way as well.
So, look, okay, now we are aligned in terms of
intentionality. Now I think we have to put the tools in place.
You used the word ``reimagining.'' This is an emerging
priority, bipartisan priority. There is a lot of money out
there on this and probably is going to be coming, and we have
to do it right. Because it is here. I mean, let's leverage it.
Mr. Maxson. Yes, sir. The Secretary is clear that there is
an opportunity to lean in to rural broadband, a moonshot, not
because broadband, in itself, is important; it is what it
allows communities to do--to, you know, participate in the
broader economy, to see their loved ones, you know, when they
are separated, to do precision agriculture, to lean in to the
uses in a way that transform what is possible in rural
communities.
In fact, the vision I think the American Jobs Plan is
anchored on is all about livability and the role that broadband
can play in that transition.
Mr. Fortenberry. Okay. So we are going to have to work on
definitions. We are going to have to work on metrics that don't
default just to the things that are measurable, and some
sensitive measures, if you will, toward these broader concepts
that aren't just abstractions, they are realities. They are
just harder to measure.
So, with that said, let me move to the other question, and
maybe you can answer this one as well.
So thank you. That is a great answer. I appreciate it.
Rural Placemaking Innovation Challenge Grants that we put
in the last bill, where are we?
Mr. Maxson. Um----
Mr. Fortenberry. Because it goes to the heart of the
question, what we are trying to answer here. And that is why we
did it. That is why the chairman and I worked on this.
Mr. Maxson. Yes, sir. It is an important program. I think
we agree with you that part of why it should be spotlighted is
it helps communities imagine the sort of community they want to
live in--high-speed broadband, access to quality education,
access to healthcare, an economy with good-paying jobs. Some
communities need help in accessing the planning and other
skills necessary to make----
Mr. Fortenberry. You know, I think Representative Pingree
actually had a tangential reference to the same sentiments
earlier in her question.
So, before I run out of time, though, where are we on the
implementation of this?
Mr. Maxson. Yes, sir. Right now, there is a notice of funds
available going through clearance, and my expectation is that
it will be available quite soon. And I will follow up with you
about that clearance process to give you the specifics of that.
But the notice of funds available is developed. I know the
funds are set aside, because I have been part of multiple
conversations about that. And we expect the notice to be
available soon.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you very much.
Mr. Maxson. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. Deputy Under Secretary Maxson, Dr. Neal, Mr.
Parker, Mr. McLean, thank you so very much for your testimony
and for spending the afternoon with us. We understand how
incredibly busy you are these days, and so we are really
grateful for your time and your courtesies in being with us.
The Rural Development mission area provides services and
programs to rural America that promote economic development by
assisting our rural areas with access to capital through loans
and grants to build critical infrastructure, including our
water systems, broadband networks, and housing.
And many, many people don't realize the enormous role that
your agency has in developing and assisting rural America. And
so I appreciate your hard work, this subcommittee appreciates
the hard work and the hard work of your staffs to provide rural
Americans the opportunities to overcome geographic inequities
that have limited the growth and the development of rural
America. And we hope that you will be able to provide brighter
opportunities for a better future.
Along with what we have discussed, we will perhaps forward
some additional questions for the record, and we would
appreciate your diligence in getting responses to us in as
quick and as timely a manner as you can.
But thank you again for being here. Thank you for indulging
us and for the information that you were able to share.
Mr. Fortenberry, do you have any closing remarks?
Mr. Fortenberry. No, other than to say thank you, Mr.
Chairman. I think it has been a very important discussion about
a wide-ranging breadth of things, programs that are all pointed
toward a more vibrant, again, ecosystem of livability.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Fortenberry.
And thank you to all of the members in attendance.
And thank you to the staff who put this hearing together
and who helped us run it very smoothly. So thank you for your
work.
With that, the subcommittee is now adjourned.
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Wednesday, May 12, 2021.
USDA RESEARCH, EDUCATION AND ECONOMICS MISSION AREA
WITNESSES
CARRIE CASTILLE, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
HUBERT HAMER, ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS SERVICE,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
CHAVONDA JACOBS-YOUNG, ACTING UNDER SECRETARY FOR RESEARCH, EDUCATION,
AND ECONOMICS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
SIMON Y. LIU, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
SPIRO STEFANOU, ADMINISTRATOR, ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bishop. This hearing of the Subcommittee on Agriculture
of the House Committee on Appropriations will now come to
order.
As this hearing is fully virtual, we must address a few
housekeeping matters. For today's meeting, the chair or staff,
designated by the chair, may mute participants' microphones
when they are not under recognition for purposes of eliminating
inadvertent background noise. Members are responsible for
muting and unmuting themselves. If I notice that you have not
unmuted yourself, I will ask you if you would like the staff to
unmute you. If you indicate approval by nodding, staff will
unmute your microphone.
I remind all members and witnesses that the 5-minute clock
still applies. If there is a technology issue, we will move to
the next member until the issue is resolved and you will retain
the balance of your time.
You will notice a clock on your screen that will show how
much time is remaining. At 1 minute remaining, the clock will
turn yellow. At 30 seconds remaining, I will gently tap the
gavel to remind members of their time is almost expired. When
your time has expired, the clock will turn red and I will begin
to recognize the next member.
In terms of the speaking order, we will follow the order
set forth in the House rules beginning with the chair and
ranking member, then alternating between majority and minority
present at the time the hearing is called to order will be
recognized in order of seniority. And, finally, members not
present at the time of the hearing is called to order will be
recognized in time of their--in the order of their appearance.
Finally, House rules require me to remind you that we have
set up an email address to which members can send anything they
wish to submit in writing at any of our hearings or markups.
That email address has been provided in advance to your staff.
Last reminder, please ensure that your video is turned on at
this time.
Good morning, and welcome to today's hearing on USDA's
Research, Education and Economics programs. As you know, the
best decisions are those based in sound science, so I am
delighted to have our agricultural experts here with us today.
Testifying before the subcommittee today is Dr. Chavonda
Jacobs-Young, Acting Under Secretary for Research, Education,
and Economics. Thank you for being here today.
With Dr. Jacobs-Young today are current leaders of
Research, Education, and Economics agencies: Dr. Simon Liu,
Acting Administrator for the Agriculture Research Service, Dr.
Spiro Stefanou, Administrator of Economic Research Service, Mr.
Hubert Hamer, Administrator of the National Agriculture
Statistic Service, and Dr. Carrie Castille director of the
National Institute of Food and Agriculture. Thank you for
spending the morning with us.
Dr. Jacobs-Young, thank you for your distinguished service
in support of agriculture research for USDA and our country.
Your work has certainly not gone unnoticed. Thank you for
reminding us of the Secretary's top priorities set forth in his
testimony before the subcommittee on April 14 containing the
pandemic, preventing--promoting rather, racial justice and
equity, addressing mounting hunger and nutrition insecurity
crisis, rebuilding the rural economy, strengthening and
building markets for farmers and producers, addressing the
impacts of climate change, and rebuilding expertise and morale
within the Department.
Collectively, the agencies under your purview account for
$3.4 billion in discretionary appropriations. The science-based
solutions, groundbreaking research, and useful data that you
provide are invaluable for farmers to accelerate productivity
and sustainability of crops, for ranchers to efficiently manage
livestock, and for consumers to make informed choices about
these products that are so essential to our daily lives.
Further, it is the Economic Research Service, ERS, issuing
reports on the state of the world economy, the National
Agricultural Statistics Service, NASS, publishing the latest
acreage report, the National Institute of Food and Agriculture,
NIFA, supporting research at the Nation's land grant
institutions, or the Agricultural Research Service, ARS,
publishing research to enhance the production of pecans. Your
agency has truly touched the lives of every American.
COVID-19 has placed great strain on the ability of your
agencies to conduct business as usual. So the importance of
your work has never been more apparent, as the products of your
efforts support so many other USDA programs. I look forward to
discussing the work that your agencies do and how you have
adapted to meet the crisis at hand.
The coronavirus pandemic has not only--challenge has been
placed in your way, but it is worth mentioning that the
staffing issues that have resulted from the move of ERS and
NIFA are an ongoing concern for our subcommittee. I am
interested in understanding how you plan to build these
agencies back from the brink and how to further strengthen the
work each of you conducts.
The recently released budget request reads, the preview,
includes a total increase of $647 million for your agencies.
That is nearly a 20 percent increase. As I am sure each of you
is aware, the benefits from increases to research programs may
take years to fully realize. I wish that we could snap our
fingers and get rid of the WiFi problem in Georgia, but I
recognize that tackling the issue is not just about funding, it
is about coordinating responses among multiple partners,
targeting shared research goals that take a while to agree on,
and implementing and sharing results to ensure that the folks
on the ground have the right tools to solve their most pressing
challenges.
These strategic and coordinated efforts are not unique for
the pest management issues we face in Georgia. They are
repeated every day through the various research programs, data
collection efforts, and economic analyses that your agencies
perform. Our Nation relies on your data to make better
decisions for our food and fiber systems.
I am really inspired and delighted that you are committed
to have our Nation maintain its leadership role in agricultural
innovation and productivity. And I am happy that you recognize
the obligation to support research, education, and extension
activities.
It is as you indicate in your testimony, Dr. Jacobs-Young,
it is too easy for us to take for granted the healthy,
nutritious, and safe foods that are available to us, or the
clean air that we breathe, the bio-based goods that we use
every day, the fresh water we drink, and even the clothes that
we wear. These are benefits rooted in discoveries made by
Federal investments and agricultural science and partnerships
with our land grant universities and our minority-serving
institutions.
And I am glad that together we can look forward to building
on these discoveries and starting a new chapter in American
innovation, which supports our rural economies, spurs job
growth, and expands our scientific horizons.
I look forward to hearing your thoughts on the challenges
that your agencies face, the successes that you have had in
these very trying times, and the plans to best position your
agencies to be successful in the future. I want to thank each
of you for being with us today, and I look forward to our
discussion.
At this time, I would like to ask my partner and my
distinguished Ranking Member Mr. Fortenberry if he would like
to give my opening remarks with his time.
I assume that he will, and so at this time I am delighted
to recognize, Mr. Fortenberry, the ranking member, the
distinguished gentleman from Nebraska.
Mr. Fortenberry, you are now recognized.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And as we have
worked together for so long, you know me well, yes, sir, I do
have a few opening comments, but, first of all, let me commend
you for your leadership and your opening remarks as well, they
are excellent. And much of what I have to say, I think, aligns
very well with your opening remarks.
I want to thank you for holding today's hearing, but also
thank our distinguished panelists. Dr. Jacobs-Young, I was
reviewing your bio. You are quite busy wearing a number of hats
right now, and I look forward to hearing from you. Dr. Liu, Dr.
Stefanou, Mr. Hamer, and Dr. Castille, all to you, welcome, and
good morning.
Mr. Chairman, as you have well stated, America leads the
world in food production. We also have one of the lowest per
capita grocery prices in the world. Our ag efficiency is so
impressive we can afford billions of dollars in support every
year to those facing food insecurity both here and abroad. And
we often take it for granted, as you pointed out, Mr. Chairman.
Our Nation's prestigious and unparalleled ag success does
not happen by accident. We lead the world in ag output in part
because we lead the world in ag research. If we were to
continue to lead in today's hyper-competitive global ag
economy, we need our research to also be nimble.
This work should begin with the creation of a comprehensive
repository of current ag research and the alignment of it with
our overarching research goals. And once we have a coordinated
and good grasp of current research and gaps, we can better
integrate scientific discovery into our food systems. Our
continued success is ensured only if we challenge ourselves as
well with new ideas.
One ambitious new paradigm is what I call the farm of the
future. This means building upon our ag production--our
production ag tradition to include research on tools like
precision agriculture, to enhance sustainability, regenerative
capacity, and revenue to the farmer. It means a real-world test
bed of the farm to the future--of the future concept using big
data and better connectivity to increase yields with less
inputs.
It means expanding our definition of agricultural
education, wedding tradition ag sciences like agronomy, animal
husbandry, and plant sciences with emerging sciences like
environmental studies, conservation, and international
development.
From traditional row crop and livestock producers to
specialty growers and even urban gardeners, it means connecting
the farmer to the family, the urban to the rural, and the farm
to the table as the way forward to seize emerging opportunity.
Mr. Chairman, by its very breadth and scope, this new
paradigm requires innovative facilities and programs that
address critical science gaps, develop and deploy climate-smart
regenerative practices, and create decision support tools that
are aligned with the USDA's science blueprint.
Now, here is the dilemma. Fragmentation can stifle
innovation. For instance, the Agricultural Research Service has
800 research projects in 90 locations. Greater coordination
with this new vision could mean greater results. And I
appreciate the chairman alluding to this in his opening remarks
as well.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I believe to effectively implement
this bold new vision, we need a high level of understanding of
how it helps our diverse array of agricultural producers. That
is why I continue to advance our Blue Ribbon Panel for Higher
Education, ag education, that was funded in the last year's
appropriations bill to re-envision the mission of public land
grant universities and align it with USDA leadership, to
elevate an effective architecture for regenerative farming that
respects tradition while inviting next-generalization farmers
to an innovative future.
To modernize ag research, to make research more useful in
the field, and to dramatically improve coordination between
USDA and land grant universities, including stronger
consortiums between larger land grants and Historically Black
Colleges. The product of this panel could improve research
collaboration transparency, and ultimately as Ag Secretary
Vilsack has informed us, shake policy in the next farm bill as
well as deliver important new value-added opportunity for
students.
Mr. Chairman, as the world recovers from the pandemic and
increases its demand for premium ag products from America, we
have an extraordinary opportunity to re-envision the future of
ag research and education and remain forefront, remain at the
forefront of agricultural sciences and leading the world in
agricultural outcomes.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Mr. Fortenberry. We are
very fortunate to have--to be joined this morning by the chair
of the Appropriations Committee, Ms. DeLauro. She has exhibited
tremendous leadership of the committee, and, of course, she has
great experience having been a leader on this subcommittee for
many years.
And so at this time I am delighted to recognize, for any
comments and remarks that she would like to make, the chairman
of the full Appropriations Subcommittee, the gentlelady from
Connecticut, Ms. DeLauro.
Ms. DeLauro, you are now recognized.
The Chair. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you for your kind words. I am appreciative of you
and Ranking Member Fortenberry. For both of you, for your
continued leadership of the subcommittee, and especially with
this hearing on scientific research at the U.S. Department of
Agriculture.
To you, Dr. Jacobs-Young, welcome to the Appropriations
Committee. We look forward to your testimony on the
administration's discretionary budget request for the
Department's Research, Education, and Economics Mission Area. I
appreciate you and the colleagues who are with all of us today,
Dr. Liu, Dr. Stefanou, Mr. Hamer, and Dr. Castille, thank you
all very, very much.
You know, the investments we will be making within this
mission area as part of the 2022 appropriations bill, this
comes at a very critical time. Let me be frank, in my view, the
Department of Science and Research agencies have had to endure
4 years of assault, agencies like the Economic Research
Service, and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture
were targeted, hollowed out, and moved from Washington, DC. Our
task now is to rebuild and refocus these agencies which have
long been seen as unbiased and trusted for research and
expertise.
And we now have an administration that believes in the role
of science. Dr. Jacobs-Young, as you have pointed out in your
written testimony, science is so critical to American
agriculture and to addressing the challenges that we face
throughout the food system.
That is why I have long been concerned by the declining
levels of public funding for agriculture research, and
development in the United States, especially during a time when
our global competitors have done just the opposite.
For example, spending by the Chinese government on
agriculture R&D surpassed that of the U.S. in 2008 and more
than doubled by 2013. And despite this, agriculture science and
research is as important now as it has ever been.
The problems we face, ensuring enough food for a growing
population, addressing the existential threat of global climate
change, transforming our food system from being reliant on
extractive and exploitive practices to being regenerative and
restorative. These all have a common denominator. Scientific
breakthroughs hold the solution.
And I look forward to seeing these premier scientific
agencies play a significant role in tackling these issues.
I also want to say a thank you for your agencies for the
work that they have done over the last year and for the work
they are continuing to do.
The COVID-19 pandemic created the greatest public health
and economic crisis in a generation. But USDA scientists did
not miss a beat. Their insight and expertise were critical in
understanding the true impact of the pandemic on families
facing hunger, on America's family farmers and ranchers, and
our local food systems and supply chains.
So I am eager to hear more today about the administration's
request for the REE Mission Area and how these investments
might sustain and improve the farmers and families in my
districts and districts across our country.
And with that, I again thank you, Chairman Bishop and
Ranking Member Fortenberry, and I yield back.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Chair DeLauro.
Dr. Jacobs-Young, without objection, your entire written
testimony will be included in the record, and I recognize you
now for your statement, and then we will proceed with
questions.
Dr. Jacobs-Young, you are now recognized.
Ms. Jacobs-Young. Thank you.
Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Fortenberry, and Chairwoman
DeLauro, and members of the subcommittee, my name is Chavonda
Jacobs-Young, and I am the acting under secretary for research,
education, and economics at USDA. I am pleased to appear before
you with my colleagues to testify on the President's fiscal
year 2022 budget for the REE Mission Area.
In his testimony before the subcommittee on April 14,
Secretary Vilsack outlined USDA's top priority: Containing the
COVID-19 pandemic, promoting racial justice inequities,
addressing the hunger and nutrition insecurity crisis,
rebuilding the rural economy, strengthening and building
markets for farmers and producers, and addressing the impacts
of climate change. He also emphasize the need to rebuild
expertise and morale within the Department.
When appropriately resourced, I believe the Research,
Education, and Economics Mission Area is well positioned to
advance these priorities. I am pleased that the President and
Secretary are strongly committed to investments in research and
development that will define U.S. innovation for decades to
come.
REE will support research on climate mitigation,
adaptation, and resilience to inform our farmers as they work
to feed the world. We will expand our partnerships with
Historically Black Colleges and Universities at minority-
serving institutions to leverage our capacities and build on
the invaluable connection they have with underserved
communities. And we will provide sound science that responds to
the COVID-19 pandemic and future global public health threats.
Our scientists are vital contributors in the fight against
COVID-19.
REE deploys decades of research to examine how the virus
affects food systems, food security, and agriculture. NIFA
refocused over $23 million to support COVID-19-related
research, extension in education through land grant
universities and small businesses.
ARS has raised critical questions about the ability of
domestic animals to carry and transmit the virus. ERS launched
the COVID-19 working paper series to provide analyses on the
pandemic and collaborated with 11 universities to investigate
how COVID impacts agriculture supply chains.
We are grateful for the more than $140 million provided to
REE in the December Coronavirus Response and Relief
Supplemental Appropriations Act to shore up hunger relief
programming and support farmers. These funds deepen our
investment in research to improve resiliency in the future and
strengthen local and regional food systems.
REE continues to support President Biden's unwavering
commitment to tackling the climate crisis by investing in
continuous, consistent observational records, a cornerstone of
global climate science and resilience research.
REE leverages technology to advance climate-smart land use
conservation, precision agriculture, and carbon sequestration
through its regional climate hubs which provide practical tools
to American producers and customers and a touch point for
applying relevant science and technical information from USDA
researchers.
To reposition the United States as a leader in climate
change mitigation, we must engage our farmers, ranchers, and
private landowners, and private forest owners to build new
markets, develop renewable energy, and create new streams of
income for producers and land owners. The REE Mission Area
stands ready to meet these challenges and advance the
administration's climate goals.
Meeting the immense challenges facing agriculture in human
and animal health, natural resources, and conservation requires
a well-resourced agency and a well-supported workforce. REE
faced significant staff losses over the past 5 years, and
rebuilding that capacity will improve our ability to support
the Nation's farmers, producers, and consumers from farm to
fort.
If the United States is to maintain its global leadership
in science and technology, our workforce must look like
America. USDA investments in inclusion, diversity, and training
future generations through formal and informal learning will
ensure equity across its agencies. The President's fiscal year
2022 discretionary request for USDA's REE Mission Area provides
$4 billion to support research, education, and extension
activities.
Chairman Bishop said this, and I believe it bears
repeating, nutritious and safe food, the clean air we breathe,
the bio-based goods we use, the fresh water we drink, and even
the clothes we wear are benefits rooted in discoveries made by
Federal investments in agricultural science in partnership with
your land grant universities and minority-serving institutions.
We look forward to building on these discoveries and
starting a new chapter in American agricultural innovation. Mr.
Chairman and Ranking Member Fortenberry, I look forward to
working with you and the members of this subcommittee.
I will be pleased to answer any questions that you may
have. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Dr. Jacobs-Young. We will now
proceed with questions. As I mentioned earlier, we will begin
with the chair and ranking member, then alternating majority
and minority with members present at the time the hearing
starts in order of seniority.
After that, I will recognize members not present at the
time the hearing is called to order. Each member will have 5
minutes in each round, so please be mindful of your time.
At this time, I will recognize myself to begin the
questions. Dr. Jacobs-Young, you just recently mentioned the
staffing needs for ERS and NIFA and your mission area. Those
problems, particularly, at ERS and NIFA are well-known, are
resulting from the relocation last year.
I want to be clear that I recognize that the relocation was
not your decision, but we are where we are, and I am focused on
how these agencies can, to borrow a phrase from the
administration, build back better.
Secretary Vilsack was recently asked about the plan for ERS
and NIFA, and he stated his goal was trying to limit the level
of disruption to the agencies while increasing staffing. I
share that goal, but I also believe that the most important
thing for ERS and NIFA is to hire many people who can hit the
ground running and get us back on track.
Your work is cut out for you, as about a third of all of
the positions at ERS and NIFA are still vacant 18 months after
the move. What is your plan to quickly and appropriately fill
the staffing vacancies at each of the agencies?
Ms. Jacobs-Young. Thank you for your question. And I am
absolutely--ERS and NIFA are our highest priority in rebuilding
the workforce. I will insert here that each of the agencies
suffered extreme losses and had many vacancies. And so we have
a hiring effort under way that we began about a year and a half
ago where we are hiring at an extremely fast pace, not avoiding
quality in those hirings, but making sure that it is our
highest priority.
In the beginning, as you mentioned, ERS and NIFA lost
almost 75 percent of the employees impacted by the relocation.
So they simply declined to accept the relocation and left the
agencies. Right now our highest priority is to not, you know,
further disrupt the employees but to continue to hire at a pace
that is going to help us meet our goal.
I will share with you that since October 2019, NIFA has
brought on 179 positions, ERS has brought on 96 positions. And
before the end of the fiscal year, we plan to bring on a total
of another 100 positions, about 50 in each agency. And that
will--each agency is about at 220 people at this time. So we
are on our way.
The pandemic was a disruption in our lives. One of the
highlights during the pandemic is that we were able to do a lot
of hiring, and so we really did capitalize on that time. And so
we will be working to look across America to identify the right
people for the right positions.
And as I said earlier, we wanted to make sure that those
people also resemble America. So we have put hiring in place,
we have contractors in place, we have been using them over the
last year and a half and 2 years, and they have supported us
tremendously.
I will also add that ARS announced 1,500 positions in
fiscal year 2020 and we were able to bring on 1,200 permanent
and temp employees during that time. And so hiring is one of
our highest priorities.
And so we will stand behind NIFA and ERS to continue to
meet the needs around hiring.
Mr. Bishop. Okay. Quickly, let's look at the big picture
for USDA research and where each of your agencies is headed in
next 5 years. And we may have to come back to this later.
But NASS and ERS--can I get each of you--well, I will come
back to this in the next round. My time is about expired.
So at this time let me just yield to my Ranking Member Mr.
Fortenberry for any questions that he may have at this time.
Mr. Fortenberry, you are now recognized.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, again, Dr.
Jacobs-Young, welcome to the committee. Thank you for your
testimony. And as I noted when I reviewed your biography, you
are quite busy with a number of assignments at the moment.
I have a single question to start out our dialogue. What is
the highest research priority at USDA?
Ms. Jacobs-Young. That is a complicated question because,
you know, as you know our researchers are responsible for
supporting every aspect of agriculture. And right now, one of
the biggest cross-cutting priorities is climate change. Because
what we find is that, you know, the impacts of climate change
impact many different areas of agriculture, including
nutrition. You know, we are taking a look at the impacts of
climate change on the impact of nutritional values of crops.
So I would say our highest priority right now is responding
to and be resilient in the face of climate change.
Mr. Fortenberry. Okay. Thank you. I want to just unpack
this a little further because I am going to use the word
``sustainability,'' not that I have a ready-made answer to you.
But sustainability has two sides of the coin. Obviously,
environmental consideration, combined with revenue to farmer.
Ability of the farmer to actually produce and make a living
from the extraordinary resources of the land.
So as--the reason I am pointing this out is and in my
testimony trying to push conceptually, at least, the idea of
the farm of the future, which enhances precision agriculture,
which builds upon our strong ag tradition in terms of low crop
and livestock production, and then invites others as well to
expand the ag family into specialty crop production, and again
creating regional economies--local and regional economies to
reconnect the urban and the rural. I think are all the exciting
and leading-edge things.
In which if we can have more singular focus on this
conceptually, I think we go a long way toward answering a lot
of the various, as you rightly point out, complexities of
agricultural research.
So that is just my little speech, but I wanted to get that
in front of you for you to know how I am thinking about this as
well.
Secondly, what is the most important research discovery
recently made?
Ms. Jacobs-Young. So it is, you know, as administrator of
ARS in my day job, it is kind of hard to pick the best of my
babies. But I will share with you some of the outcomes, some of
the impacts that we have recently--I think about our
development of the African Swine Fever vaccine and being able
to disseminate that technology to commercial entities to begin
to support the production of an African Swine Fever vaccine.
To think about our work in COVID state, right away ARS
researchers were able to pivot and conduct research to let us
know due to the common poultry, to cattle, to swine can they,
are they susceptible to the virus, and can they then transmit
the virus to producers and others? The work on their part of
them getting those $23 million worth of grants out the door in
a very big way and very fast, which typically is not the case.
Sorry, I am getting a lot of feedback. And I can't hear myself.
So, yeah, so I think about those things, and then I think
about the Asian giant hornet. You know, and so when we talk
about, you know, being able to be--one of the beauties of
infrastructure in intramural research agencies is we have the
capacity in places to quickly pivot to respond to emerging
threats.
The Asian giant hornet reared its head in the State of
Washington. We were able to go back to our colleagues to get
our research and quickly develop a lure that captured the Asian
hornet, trapped it back to its nest, and dealt with the issue.
So----
Mr. Fortenberry. If I could just stop you there. Thank you
very much. I think what we are doing is we are both probing the
idea here that we have got two missions at once. One is to
respond to emerging needs, as you are rightly pointing out in
terms of the possibility of plagues or problems that are
emerging in food delivery.
And as I am trying to state, tether ourselves consistently
to overarching framework so we advance this greater cause of
revenue requirement the sustainability of food production as it
has all types of consequences for the environment as well.
One quick question before my time runs out. You had
referenced this in your testimony as well. And we are looking
at better coordination between land grant institutions and
minority serving institutions. What are your initial ideas in
this regard?
Ms. Jacobs-Young. Initially, we want to be able to develop
things like we are doing right now, creating centers of
excellence, creating initiatives that bring, proactively bring
different segments of our ag enterprise together. And I think
those are going to be successful in helping us to bridge those
coordination pieces.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you very much.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Fortenberry. And at this time, I
am delighted to recognize the chair of the full committee, Ms.
Rosa DeLauro, the gentlelady from Connecticut.
You are now recognized.
The Chair. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Jacobs, for too long, we relied on extractive,
exploitive form of corporate agriculture. Lots of negative
consequences. We have seen the rise of large livestock
confinement operations, some of which housed millions of
animals, small pieces of land, or inside of a building. And
whether or not we are looking at hogs, poultry, cattle, the
operations are known to make our food less safe, increase
antibiotic resistance, and contribute to climate change.
We also learned this week that this corporate agriculture
has directly been taking people's lives. There was a study
published in the proceedings of the National Academy of the
Sciences found that hazardous air pollution from livestock
confinements resulted in 17,900 deaths each year in the United
States. That is unacceptable.
I don't believe livestock should be raised in confinement.
I don't believe the science can justify it. We have got to find
ways to incentivize and support regenerative and pasture-based
operations instead of continuing to subsidize this confinement
model.
At the same time, we should pursue poverty in research
funding for alternative proteins, a compelling option for
addressing agricultural emissions. How can the REE Mission Area
and its scientific agencies support these initiatives and
facilitate a more sustainable regenerative food system?
Ms. Jacobs-Young. Thank you for your question. I did read
The Washington Post article. I, unfortunately, have not had an
opportunity to read the full study. I have had a lot of
questions after reading the Post article, and I hope they will
be answered after I see the entire study. So at this point, I
am not in a position to make an informed opinion on this study.
And in the area of regenerative agriculture, I really would
like to bring in the heads of our Agricultural Research Service
and our National Institute of Food and Agriculture, and we can
talk a little bit about the work under way.
Dr. Castille with NIFA.
Mr. Bishop. Dr. Castille, if you would please unmute.
Ms. Castille. I am sorry about that. I was having
difficulty getting off of mute. So thank you so much for your
question.
We are doing a lot of work in this space within AFRI, our
flagship competitive program. So we have six funding categories
that measure quite closely with the farm bill priorities. And
we work closely with our land grant universities.
We are looking at sustainability as well as regenerative
agriculture. But there is really four priorities that we are
looking at. One is on the productivity side, two is on the
stewardship side, three is on the profitability side, and four
is really quality of life.
And so, again, I think you will see all of that research
and our partnerships with our land grant universities is going
to pay off in dividends in these areas. So thank you so much
for your question.
The Chair. Thank you. I have--I don't know if anyone else
is going to speak, but I have a question on nutrition that I
wanted to pose to Dr. Jacobs.
Ms. Jacobs-Young. Fantastic. We can move on to nutrition.
Thank you.
The Chair. Okay. Thank you. A recent study, school meals
are now the healthiest source of food consumed in the U.S. It
is an achievement that was made possible by USDA implementing
the nutrition standards that resulted from the Healthy Hunger-
Free Kids Act which the Congress passed.
Despite the improvement, we are still facing a nutrition
crisis exploited by the COVID pandemic. And you know that there
is a study again from Tufts that found that two-thirds of
hospitalized COVID-19 patients had diet-related diseases,
including heart disease, diabetes, obesity.
So what work has been done within REE on improving
nutrition and diet quality of Americans? What have the findings
told us about the sort of policies we should look at? I would
be interested in hearing more about your coordination and
collaboration with your Federal partners when it comes to
nutrition research. Not very much time left, but so, tell me
what----
Ms. Jacobs-Young. I will move very quickly just to share
with you. You know, with our six nutrition center, one of them
being the Tufts Nutrition Center, we provide a lot of data to
our partner agencies, the Food and Nutrition Service, Food and
Drug Administration.
One of the things that is our expertise in USDA is really
using decades of data to determine, you know, what are the
guidelines and the guidance for helping people to eat healthy
to avoid chronic disease, to avoid being vulnerable.
And so we are working with FDA, with the Food and Nutrition
Service, and with our other colleagues to provide the data from
the fundamental data from those nutrition centers.
The Chair. Okay. Thank you. I have run out of time. I thank
you very, very much. And I will provide some questions for the
record.
Thank you, and thank you to all of your colleagues here
this morning. You do wonderful, wonderful work. And we can't
move forward without you.
Thank you very much.
Ms. Jacobs-Young. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
The Chair. Thank you to the Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Madam Chair. And at this time I am
delighted to recognize the former chair of this subcommittee,
the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Aderholt.
Mr. Aderholt, you are now recognized.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is good to be
with you today and have our guests here before our
subcommittee.
And, Dr. Jacobs-Young, I will address this to you, but also
if any of the others, administrator, director wants to answer
this or feel like they might have a better insight on this, you
know, I will certainly welcome that.
Employment in the timber industry is an important economic
engine, not only in the district I represent, but also in the
State of Alabama and really across the Nation. And I am sure
that you are aware and most people have become aware now that
the demand for lumber has increased dramatically just over the
last year.
With housing startups, there has been a lot of home
renovations that have taken place over the last year, just do-
it-yourself improvement, all of that especially during the
pandemic has really caused this to skyrocket.
Lumber mills, such as I have one of the ones in my
district, Jasper lumber, had been producing lumber as fast as
possible, but the demand seems to continue to increase. It is
my understanding that increasing lumber availability in the
marketplace has been limited by factors including workforce and
trucking shortages, limited ability of building materials, and
high demand for manufacturing equipment. Has ERS done any
research into the limiting factors that are driving these
prices increases in the ag--in this ag commodity and the
corresponding effects that is having on our rural communities?
Ms. Jacobs-Young. So let me first say as a graduate of a
college of forced resources, it excites me that there is this
high demand for forest products. Lumber is a wonderful way to
store carbon. So this is--it has some positives to this.
I am going to ask Administrator Stefanou to give us some
insight on to if there are any studies out of ERS.
Mr. Stefanou. Thank you for your question. At present, we
don't have any studies that we can release on timber and
timber-related employment. But this is a classic case of demand
out stripping supply at the moment, and how the catch-up will
happen is something to be investigated. But we will be happy to
get back to you with what we have to offer.
Thank you.
Mr. Aderholt. Well, are there plans to conduct research or
to collaborate with other agencies, like you said, just ITA
that have been communicated with the stakeholders on this
issue?
Ms. Jacobs-Young. So I think that, you know, we have our
close friend, Dr. Alex Friend who is head of research for the
Forest Service. And this will fall right in their bailiwick and
so what we can do is reach out to Alex and determine what we
can find and get back to you on it.
Mr. Aderholt. Yeah, I think that is very important. I am
hearing this just almost constantly that the supply there is
not--and we need to fix this issue because it is really causing
a lot of hardship on a lot of people and construction moving
forward.
So I appreciate if you all will look into this and can get
back with us on the subcommittee as of how we can do this.
Mr. Aderholt. Next, Dr. Jacobs-Young, we have heard that
some in the USDA have expressed interest in creating a carbon
bank that would seek to encourage the adoption of certain
agricultural practices, result in additional, measurable, and
verifiable carbon reduction density sequestration.
As the chief scientist there at USDA, can you describe the
challenges with measuring carbon reductions and sequestration
across agricultural industries?
Ms. Jacobs-Young. We have opportunities in USDA to really
focus on a number of the aspects of the climate, you know,
equation, including looking at precision agriculture, smart
climate ag practices. And we have been able to do that with our
long-term Agroecosystem Research Network.
And so we have had opportunities to test some of the
practices and some of the techniques that we will be sharing
and bring it to bear. As a science agency, it is our job to
really help, regardless of what the concept, the task is to be
able to help them find the data and information to support the
decisionmaking. So that is pretty much our role in the mission
area.
Mr. Aderholt. Is there any challenges that come to mind as
you move forward on this?
Ms. Jacobs-Young. Well, we are look always looking amount
technologies, sensor development, and our long-term
Agroecosystem Research Network, the ability to do these common
experiments across the country, and having the right technology
is important. You know, using artificial intelligence, big
data, data storage. There is a lot of, a lot of issues that we
have overcome and some that we are still facing.
Mr. Aderholt. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Aderholt.
At this time. I am delighted to yield to the gentlelady
from Maine, the chairwoman of the Interior Subcommittee, Ms.
Pingree.
Ms. Pingree. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. And thank you
for holding this hearing today. I appreciate all that we have
been able to learn.
And thank you, Dr. Jacobs-Young, it is a great to hear your
testimony, and I want to ask you a little bit about climate
change data tools.
The President's budget included $161 million funding
increase to support multiagency initiative to integrate
science-based tools into conservation planning, to better
measure, monitor, report, and verify carbon sequestration and
greenhouse grass emissions and other environmental services on
farms.
I am particularly interested in this, and I would like to
know more about the USDA's research agencies, the role that
they would play in the multiagency initiative, and a little
more specifically how are the USDA researchers currently
tackling the knowledge gaps that we have and how we measure and
verify soil carbon sequestration?
Ms. Jacobs-Young. Absolutely. We have--you know, USDA, I
will just first say has been a leader in the climate science
space for decades. And so we are just happy to be positioned to
be able to provide a lot of this data and information to the
topic at hand.
I will turn to administrator, Acting Administrator Simon
Liu to talk a little about our long-term Agroecosystem Research
Network, where we are doing some of this work.
Mr. Liu. Thank you very much, Dr. Jacobs-Young.
Thank you very much, Representative, for your questions.
Yes indeed, at ERS we do have extensive experience in
measuring and tracking the greenhouse gas emissions from the
crops, on the livestock, or pasture, or rates in our production
system. So we do have ten USDA climate hubs, and also 18
locations in the long-term Agroeco Research Network.
So those are the key players in the effort across the
country and work with our local producers and the stakeholders
to study the carbon emissions and also greenhouse gas emissions
and to develop the management adaptation circling the regional
productions. So we are very excited about it, and are looking
forward to work with you and your staff on this very, very
important topic. Thank you.
Ms. Jacobs-Young. And we will have more information as the
detail budget is available. We would be happy to come back and
meet with you about the overarching initiatives that will be
included in the budget.
Ms. Pingree. Great. So would you say--I guess, I am
interested in this sort of critical question about how we are
able to measure the carbon in the soil. And would you say that
that is an area where the USDA needs further research or that
you have got some systems that you are currently using that you
feel good about how we are tracking it. I don't need to get too
many specifics. If you want to get back to me on it.
Ms. Jacobs-Young. Yes. And it is an area of research. And I
talked a little bit about sensors. And so we are trying to
automate a lot of this, and so it is an exciting area of
research. I would be happy to talk more about it with you.
Ms. Pingree. Great. Let me just ask you a second question.
It is a little bit about the coordination. During the last
administration, the Office of Inspector General actually was
trying to assess whether policy changes resulted in the
suppression of any climate change research. One of things that
we heard was that they weren't able to draw a solid conclusion
because the REE Mission Area can't identify and track
scientific publication to issues on any particular subject
area.
So given that, you know, this is the real focus of your
agency on climate change, I am concerned about the lack of
coordination between the USDA's research agencies.
So how do you plan to improve coordination of climate
change research within the REE Mission Area across the USDA and
then across the Federal Government.
Ms. Jacobs-Young. So some 4 or 5 years ago, we developed a
mechanism, a model after the MH Pub Med. It is called Pub Ag.
So all of the ARS Federally funded research papers are housed
and available online from the ARS scientists.
We also are working very closely with NIFA. As you can
imagine, it is easier for us to collect the information from
our scientists. We have assigned ORC IDs. They have digital
identifiers. We harvest that work into our pub ag. And we have
ag data comments where we store our data sets.
We are working with NIFA right now since January, since I
have been in this seat, and we are pulling them into and to pub
ags. And as you can imagine, it is much more difficult with
scientists all over the country at institutions all over the
country.
So this is a little more complicated, but luckily we have
had some practice. And so stay tuned. We expect to be able to
show all of those publications from NIFA, ERS, and NASS as
appropriate in our systems.
Ms. Pingree. Great. Well, I am happy to hear that. And
thank you again for your work and your answers.
And I yield back, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Ms. Pingree.
At this time, I am delighted to yield to Dr. Harris of
Maryland.
Dr. Harris, you are now recognized.
Mr. Harris. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me ask
about a couple of areas of research that are ongoing.
One is of concern is that ag ARDA, you know, the Advanced
Research Development Authority was established in the 2018 Farm
Bill, but has not yet--we are still awaiting the report, the
strategic plan from the Department.
It was supposed to be 180 days after that farm bill was--it
was supposed to have a strategic plan now after the 2021
Omnibus Bill, do you know when the strategic plan is
forthcoming? Because I think one thing the pandemic showed us
is that we do need to have an aggressive research position,
government-funded research that might not be funded by the
private sector in anticipation of threats to our agriculture
system or agriculture-based diseases.
Ms. Jacobs-Young. Absolutely. We are very excited about the
concept and the vision for a guard of this opportunity to look
at big, audacious challenges, ones that we haven't been able to
get our arms around before in the past, that won't typically be
picked up by other segments of the industry, and it is very
much in the bailiwick of the government agencies.
The Secretary, by the way, is fully behind this vision, and
so we are very excited about it. We have been working with the
stakeholders and working with some of the committee staff and
the member staff to talk about what should be sort of the
direction for this plan.
And we are in the process of developing it and would be
happy to come back and have a conversation with you. We do
believe that when this project or when this effort is
appropriately resourced, we will be able to have tremendous
impact on transforming agriculture.
Mr. Harris. Can I ask was any funding included in the
President's budget?
Ms. Jacobs-Young. Five million dollars was included in
President's budget.
Mr. Harris. Okay. 5 million, but the authorization is up to
50. So hopefully we can get moving on some of that.
One other issue that is of interest is that the ARS alone
will spend over $100 million on nutrition research this fiscal
year. But we are still using a pretty nonscientific, 200-year
old Body Mass Index, the BMI to determine obesity and use that
as a proxy, to some degree, for overall health.
In fact, some States are even using it as a measure for
vaccine priority. But as you probably realize, BMI is a very
crude estimate that, for instance, people who have a lot of
muscle mass will be determined to be either overweight and
occasionally even obese based on muscle mass because of the way
BMI is determined.
Has USDA conducted any research on this health measure? And
if so, will the Department view the development of a better
tool as a priority as we go forward in analyzing nutrition and
nutrition research?
Ms. Jacobs-Young. Absolutely. As I mentioned before, we
have these six nutrition centers that cover nutrition needs
from cradle to those of us well over 50.
And so ARS is collaborating with the U.S. Health and Human
Services on a more personalized or precision nutrition aspect
of this conversation.
Really, we are looking at--and I think COVID-19 was a great
example of pointing out some of the connection between obesity
and chronic conditions and how we need to be able to better use
precision nutrition to provide the guidance.
The BMI was one that works, but precision nutrition is a
better way to go. My precision nutrition is going to be
different than your precision nutrition. And so we are
definitely working on ways to be more, I would say,
personalized in our approach to nutrition for each individual.
Mr. Harris. Well, good. Because I think the BMI is just
outdated now. We should have much better ways to determine who,
in fact, is overweight and obese.
You know, finally, I have a big problem that is growing
into Maryland, the Chronic Wasting Disease. So CWD, which is
affecting, of course, deer. It is beginning to affect deer in
the State of Maryland. But it is unclear whether or not this
is, ultimately, a threat to humans or a threat to livestock.
Can you tell me what is the Department doing to further
investigate Chronic Wasting Disease and to determine, first of
all, whether we can develop a test to rapidly test, or is there
a concern that it will cross over into humans and livestock?
A concern that again that the COVID kind of brought into
light that these diseases can occasionally jump between species
and in fact into humans.
Ms. Jacobs-Young. We do have work under way on Chronic
Wasting Disease, and we will be happy to follow up with you
after the hearing to talk about the work we have under way.
Mr. Harris. Okay. Thank you very much.
I yield back, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Dr. Harris.
At this time, I am delighted to yield to the gentleman from
Wisconsin, Mr. Pocan. Mr. Pocan, you are now recognized.
Mr. Pocan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Let me start with, I was very glad to see the President's
budget request include a robust investment in agriculture
research. I am very proud of the groundbreaking agriculture
research that is done at UW-Madison, and ARS has been a great
partner in that.
One challenge, though, is that the facilities at University
of Wisconsin that the ARS researchers work in are in terrible
condition. It is a World War II building. We had Secretary
Purdue come out in the last administration and visited. My only
regret is they swept the cockroaches out before they showed it
to him. I am hoping that we can work together to update these
facilities.
I was hoping you could describe the state of our ARS
facilities, and what do you need from Congress to make sure
that we are on par with the excellent research that is being
conducted by the ARS?
Ms. Jacobs-Young. Absolutely. And thank you for the
opportunity to address this issue.
ARS has over 3,000 buildings, some $5 billion worth of
buildings and facilities with an average age of 48--47, 48
years old. And so they are the result of a boom in
construction. I think back in the 1960s or something like that.
And some of these buildings have never been replaced.
And so when I became administrator of ARS in 2014, we began
to really focus our attentions on securing resources for those
buildings. And I want to thank you all for us currently having
over a billion dollars to invest in buildings and facilities.
And if I gave Dr. Liu an opportunity to talk, he would say
we are only scratching the surface because there are so many
facilities that we are yet to address.
So we do a great job attracting the best and the brightest.
We need to be able to retain them, to give them the opportunity
to work in modernized facilities with modernized equipment and
IT systems, and, quite frankly, we have been very challenged in
that in the way that we have been approaching it.
But so, yes, I hear you, and I have had the report back on
that facility, and others, and we are working very, very hard
to really look at our facilities that are in the lowest
condition where we are conducting our highest priority
research, and we are trying to assess our strategy on how we
address those facilities.
Mr. Pocan. Well, we appreciate that, and if you ever would
like to even have a virtual tour of that facility, we would
love to show it to you. We wish we were only 48 years old. We
are another generation older than that, and we are doing some
really great seed research and other research in the building.
We cohabitate with the USDA. But it is a building that, you
know, is truly substandard in pretty much every definition and
would love to, love to work with you on that if you ever would
like a virtual tour or in-person tour. More than likely, we
will give you some damn good cheese, too, while you are in
town.
So, second on hemp research. You know, hemp provides a
great economic opportunity for a lot of our Wisconsin farmers
and growers across the country. However, more research is
needed to help farmers address some of the challenges in hemp
production, like disease and limiting the levels of THC, which
we really experienced a lot in my district because really they
are responsible for destroying the crops if it was too high.
When is the USDA planning to support hemp research at land
grant universities? How are we doing that? And is there a plan
to make sure that research supports farmers in this new
industry?
Ms. Jacobs-Young. First, let me say we are definitely
excited to be a part of the equation on helping to generate
this opportunity. ARS received funding to establish a germplasm
collection, which is going to be important to collecting the
best germplasm. As you can imagine, this is a new area for us,
and so we have had to apply for a DEA license and receive a
license.
And as you talked about, to be able to control the level of
THC. Can it be .3? Can it be higher than .3? So there are a lot
of questions that have had to be answered.
We also have research under way in hemp cropping systems,
looking--how do you use hemp in maybe crop rotation, hemp
processing, and marketing systems.
So we have number of efforts under way, and I know that Dr.
Castille can talk a little bit more about our hemp research
with the land grant universities.
Dr. Castille. Sure. Sure. And I know I have limited time,
but thank you again for your interests.
We do have a few programs that I might mention. One is our
Supplemental and Alternative Crops Program as well as through
AFRI, our flagship program. Small businesses and Innovation
Research Program as well as our Capacity and Multistate
Programs.
We also have two 1994 projects as well. One is in Bay de
Noc Community College in Wisconsin. And then also, again, some
hatch multistate projects in which we are coordinating efforts
from a regional perspective. But I can provide you more
information if you would like.
Mr. Pocan. No, I appreciate that. Please do. Thank you.
And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thanks for the time.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
That was fantastic, Dr. Castille. You gave a lot of
information in just a few seconds.
Thank you, Mr. Pocan.
At this time, I am delighted to recognize the gentleman
from California, Mr. Valadao.
Mr. Valadao, you are now recognized.
Mr. Valadao. All right. Perfect. Something happened with my
settings there.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Dr. Jacobs-Young,
for attending, and the rest of our guests.
I want to talk a little bit about drought. Dr. Jacobs-
Young, in your testimony, you mentioned extreme weather and how
it is threatening farmers' and ranchers' operations and bottom
lines. I agree that consequences of extreme weather events,
including severe droughts, are a major problem.
We are seeing the effects of the drought in my district and
across the American West in real time. I have highlighted for
your colleagues at USDA, who have testified in front of this
subcommittee previously in this Congress, that the ongoing
drought my constituents are suffering, though, is a disaster
that will, without a doubt, have a rippling effect on our rural
communities in the West, like those in my district.
We all need to work together to alleviate consequences of
this disaster. Earlier this week, California Governor Gavin
Newsom, with the urging of myself and my colleagues in the
State delegation, finally declared additional counties in
California under the state of emergency, including my entire
district.
Several weeks ago, the Biden administration established an
Interagency Drought Relief Working Group, of which USDA
Secretary Vilsack is part. It is encouraging to hear the Biden
administration is acknowledging this emergency in the West, but
it is not clear what the working group plans to do to combat
this issue, and there is no time to waste.
Please describe how you plan to work with Secretary Vilsack
and working group to combat consequences of the critical
drought.
Ms. Jacobs-Young. Yes. And, you know, Congressman, you
know, I think it might have been 4 or 5 years ago, we were in
the same position, talking about drought in California, and I
had an opportunity to testify about some of the proactive
measures that we are taking to assist.
We have established a climate hub in California, and that
is a regional approach to being able to address some of the
very targeted issues, and one of them is drought for
California.
In our science, for USDA science, we are working to develop
plant varieties that can be tolerant to drought, that can grow
and prosper in a place of drought, that can grow in high-
salinity environments because the water supply in California is
highly--has a lot of saline in it.
We are also developing tools to help predict water
availability, so if we can give farmers and producers even just
a heads-up in an effort to be prepared. We work with NASA to
develop a tool called iSnowball, and it forecasts your water
availability based on the amount of snow that is available and
the melt that we expect. And so we are using those types of
tools.
We also have a tool that we have developed called the
Evaporative Stress Index, and it helps us look at
evapotranspiration in plants to improve drought monitoring.
So we are doing things that we hope can be able to provide
decision tools for producers that can give them a heads-up, you
know, and hopefully we can provide the data we have, the
solutions we have around irrigation techniques to the effort
that is going to be happening at the national level.
Mr. Valadao. I appreciate that. Obviously, research in
drought-tolerant crops is something that is very useful, and
lot of the irrigation techniques is something that is being
implemented and continues to be implemented across more.
I am going to try to change things up a little bit. Trade.
Your testimony highlights research efforts between universities
and Economic Research Service to investigate how COVID has
impacted agriculture supply chains. There have been major
delays across the United States of producers having an
extremely difficult time moving their goods to where they need
to go outside of the U.S. Empty container ships are leaving the
U.S. ports and heading back to southeast Asia, without moving
any cargo from the U.S. that is supposed to be exported.
Coupled with excessive shipping costs and detention and
demurrage fees, exporters are struggling to meet contract
deadlines in our critical Asian markets, jeopardizing important
trade relationships. I have been hearing from constituents of
mine, particularly those involved in the agriculture industry,
that this is a major issue.
It is encouraging to hear that the Economic Research
Service is working to improve agriculture supply chains, but it
is important to work with other stakeholders so the information
is shared with those who can learn from it.
After ERS and universities complete their investigative
work, what happens to the findings? Are recommendations
provided to the supply chain stakeholders who can learn from
the investigations?
Ms. Jacobs-Young. This is great. So I am going to turn to
Administrator Stefanou to talk a little bit about their work in
this area.
Mr. Stefanou. Thank you, Representative, for your question.
Trade is essential--is an essential mechanism for U.S.
agriculture. Today, actually, we released a Chart of Note that
shows that we had $142 billion of ag exports in 2019, which
also generated another $160 billion in revenue to U.S.--
farmers, service industries, food processors, and others.
The blip, the disruption in the COVID, you know, is a
situational issue, and we are engaged with these co-op
agreements, and we will distribute research reports broadly to
all comers once our work is completed.
Mr. Valadao. I appreciate it. And my time is pretty much
up, but just one follow-up comment is, a lot of my farmers, as
commodities start to come out of the--are harvested, there is
going to be a huge impact on our farmers. Right now, our citrus
guys are getting hammered pretty hard, and we see our grapes
and others are pretty nervous about the future. And so as
groups continue to work on this, any research or any
opportunity that you can play a role in being helpful would be
greatly appreciated.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for indulging my extra time there,
and I yield back the rest of my time.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Valadao.
At this time, I am delighted to yield to one of our very,
very impressive new members, the gentlelady from Illinois, Ms.
Underwood. You are now recognized for your questions.
Ms. Underwood. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you
to our witnesses for joining us today.
Farmers in my northern Illinois community are on the front
lines of climate change, and in recent years, they faced
unprecedented flooding and some very, very difficult planting
seasons.
We know that farmers are key to improving the
sustainability and the resilience of our region, and many are
already delivering solutions with real impact in our efforts to
address climate change.
Effective climate change mitigation and adaptation
practices in agriculture are in so many ways built upon the
scientific and technical output of USDA's research, education,
and economics agencies.
I am pleased to see the emphasis on climate change in your
written testimony, and I would like to ask some questions on
the agency's efforts in this space.
First, I want to follow up on a question asked earlier by
Representative Pingree regarding the recommendation from the
USDA Inspector General that USDA establish a central mechanism
that actively tracks USDA-funded research and scientific
publications.
In the agency's response to the inspector general, it
agreed to this recommendation and provided a timeline of fiscal
year 2024 for implementation. I would like to learn more about
why this timeline is so drawn out.
Dr. Jacobs-Young, can you provide an update on the agency's
efforts to implement the inspector general's recommendation,
including if you intend to accelerate the timeline the agency
originally provided to the inspector general? And if not, can
you elaborate for us why the fiscal year 2024 timeline is
appropriate?
Ms. Jacobs-Young. So that is--yeah. So as I shared earlier,
we are going to work very diligently to integrate the NIFA-
funded projects into the platforms that have been developed for
open access and transparency.
We have been very busy in the last 6, 7 years, really,
digitizing all of our collections, collecting all of our peer-
reviewed publications, our data sets, and our new platforms
called PubAg and Ag Data Commons. We think that is a great
platform for NIFA work.
While I am sitting in the seat as Acting Under Secretary,
we are going to work very hard to get them integrated into
those platforms. We already have a proof of concept, we have
already been doing it very well, and we think that that is an
opportunity.
And so if that accelerates the timeline, I think that is
going to be good news for all of us.
Ms. Underwood. Fantastic. Thank you.
So the system will become even more necessary as USDA ramps
up its climate change research efforts. It will allow more
coordinated research effort, and farmers, scientists, Congress,
and other stakeholders can stay better informed of USDA-funded
research.
Next, I would like to learn more about USDA's plans for the
Regional Climate Hubs. Since their founding, the Climate Hubs
have provided an array of practical tools and information to
farmers, despite limited funding and staff. President Biden's
skinny budget requested $40 million for these Climate Hubs.
Can you provide some detail on the plans to expand the
Climate Hubs program, particularly your plans to improve
outreach to farmers and increase their awareness of these new
resources?
Ms. Jacobs-Young. Yeah. So we will get a lot more details
from the President's detailed budget when it is released. I
will share with you some long-term plans we have for the
Climate Hubs, and that is to look at places where there are
still gaps, where we might be able to establish new hubs.
There is a need to really--the Climate Hubs have been so
successful in training the future generation of our
agricultural and climate scientists, and so we really want to
expand the program of bringing in grad students and post-docs
to be able to train them to be a part of our team going
forward.
And we want to expand the scope of the Climate Hubs. You
know, one of the things we talked about--so PubAg is wonderful.
PubAg--ARS produces alone some 4,000 or 5,000--4,000 peer-
reviewed publications and a couple of thousand in climate
science alone.
Producers can't go to that PubAg and know what to do, and
so the Climate Hubs are so important, because they take all of
that peer-reviewed publications, all of that information and
they translate it into tools that the producers can use. And so
bringing the producers in and the stakeholders and consumers to
be a part of the conversation and delivering to them
information they can use so that they can be a part of the
solution.
And so that is why we need all of it. We need the
repository for the material, we need the people who can
translate it, and then the Extension and the Climate Hub folks
to take it out there to the people who actually need it.
So there are a lot of efforts underway. We are so well-
positioned to help the administration in their goals for
climate, and we are just excited to have an opportunity to do
so.
Ms. Underwood. Well, thank you so much for your
extraordinary work and your leadership. I am so pleased that
your tenure as the Acting Under Secretary is going so well, and
thanks for appearing before our committee today.
I yield back.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Ms. Underwood.
And at this time, I would like to yield to the gentlelady
from California, the chair of the Foreign Ops Subcommittee, Ms.
Barbara Lee.
Ms. Lee, you are now recognized.
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our ranking
member. And especially thank you to Dr. Jacobs-Young for your
leadership and your testimony and for being here today. It is
really exciting to be with you.
A couple of questions I have. First of all, urban farming
production methods make fresh local produce available to
communities across the Nation, especially in minority
communities that are often classified by USDA as food deserts.
Vertical farming, particularly, has the potential to change how
we get fresh food to local communities while using a fraction
of the land and water needed to grow the same food
traditionally.
I am fortunate enough to see the economic benefits and
health benefits that this type of access to fresh food provides
right in my own district in Oakland and Berkeley, California,
where one local vertical farm provides healthy food year round.
So, Dr. Young, how is USDA engaging with new urban and
innovative farming industries like vertical farming? And is the
USDA supporting research to advance sustainable agricultural
practices like vertical farming as land use and water use
becomes increasingly more restrictive?
Ms. Jacobs-Young. Absolutely. At USDA, we have worked in
both ARS and NIFA in the area of urban agriculture, and we are
looking at germplasm. You know, a lot of people think you can
just take a plant that grows outside and bring it inside and it
is going to be the same outcome. That is not necessarily true.
And so we are developing varieties that are productive and can
be more successful inside a soilless or a hydroponic situation.
We are developing new management practices. You know, we have
to deal with pests and diseases. Even if they are grown
indoors, they have to have pest and disease management
strategies.
One of the big issues around indoor growth was energy and
heat use. And so we have developed some models to help be able
to simulate and help growers be able to mitigate some of the
costs, some of the needs for energy and heat. And we have
developed new management practice, new soilless practices, new
hydroponic practices, and so we are very much on board.
I would like to be able to ask Dr. Castille if she wants to
talk a little bit about what NIFA is doing with the land grant
university system.
Ms. Castille. Sure. Thank you so much.
So we do have a few programs that you might be interested
in. First is our SARE program, our Sustainable Agriculture
Research and Education program. It is farmer lab research on
farm, and it has been tremendously popular. We have heard a lot
of feedback, and we have a lot of support from organizations
like our National Sustainable Ag Coalition, and we work very,
very closely with them.
We also are looking at things like vertical farming through
AFRI, our flagship program, as well as our capacity programs.
And then we do have an urban agricultural program as well. And
I see we have limited time, but I would be happy to provide you
with some more information.
I do also want to emphasize, though, through our 4-H and
positive youth development programs, we are actually
introducing concepts and really looking at and listening to see
what we can do to be able to support our youth, especially in
urban agricultural settings.
So thank you so much.
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much. And let me just--I have just
a minute left.
Dr. Jacobs-Young, given the toll of the pandemic, which you
have clearly laid out on families and increased levels of food
insecurity, how is USDA increasing outreach and enrollment in
these nutrition education programs? And what are we doing to
empower USDA to really look at the inequities in terms of food
insecurity and nutrition as it relates to poverty rates
throughout the country, rural and in urban communities?
Ms. Jacobs-Young. Absolutely. We have some outreach efforts
through NIFA with the Extension service. We have some efforts
through Economic Research Service where they have actually
taken a scientific look at the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic
on food insecurity, on the food--how much food is being
purchased outside of the home, inside the home.
Carrie, could you quickly talk about the program with
Extension?
Ms. Castille. Sure, sure. So--and I love talking about
Extension. So I came from Louisiana Cooperative Extension.
EFNEP, our Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program is a
very, very popular program. It provides resources and
educational information to our underserved populations, for us
to be able to help to make better choices and healthy choices
in our diets. It is a very, very popular program, we are very
excited about it, and I can share more information with you
should you need.
Ms. Lee. Okay. Thank you very much, both of you.
And I have 12 seconds left, Mr. Chairman, so I will yield
those 8 seconds back to you now. Thank you again. Good seeing
everyone.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Ms. Lee.
And at this time, I am delighted to yield to the chairlady
of the Defense Subcommittee of Appropriations, Ms. McCollum,
the gentlelady from Minnesota.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Thank you so
much.
I am not going to get into Mr. Pocan's offer of cheese, but
we have a lot of great dairy products in Minnesota too, the
home of Land O'Lakes.
I would like to kind of switch gears a little bit and talk
about two items. The Research, Education, and Economics mission
is very key to what you do in USDA. It is, you know, helping
rural communities rebuild and combatting climate change. And we
have a lot of that work going on at the University of
Minnesota. So I would like to take a minute to talk about the
Forever Green Initiative.
And what is exciting about that is it is a multisector
partnership. It is hosted by the University of Minnesota.
Brings together groups like Friends of the Mississippi River,
Minnesota Farmers Union, Minnesota Department of Agriculture,
the Intertribal Agriculture Council, and so much more. And part
of what they are working on is the continuous living cover on
farmland.
And the Midwest crop production, by and large, is rural
crops--corn and soybeans. And as people know, these are
harvested in the fall. And what that means is that now we have
bare soil, you know, following the year's planting, and it can
lead to all kinds of challenges that I know the USDA is working
on--soil health, erosion, pollution runoff.
You know, something else that we work on a lot with Ag and
the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources is wildlife
habitat. You know, it can lead to nitrates in groundwater and a
whole lot of things.
So Forever Green is working on developing the perennial and
winter-tolerant crops. And I heard you talking about hemp just
a few minutes ago, maybe in the offseason, not only to help
with climate change but, you know, helping our soils be more
resilient.
So I would like you to tell us a little more about, from
the Research, Education, and Economics mission, what are you
doing to support partnerships like Forever Green?
My second issue is a followup on a great hearing that the
chair had last week on rural development, and we were talking
about, you know, what we need to do to keep rural America
strong. And I would like to know a little more about, you know,
how broadband ties into this issue in particular, and that is
Tribal colleges and universities, and probably for HBCUs and
other higher education learning institutions, which I have
supported funding for in the past. But I would like to
understand more about your research and education extensions,
especially at Tribal colleges and universities.
They were only given land grant status in 1984, and at that
time--excuse me--1994--1994--and at that time, there were only
26 of them. Now there is 35 TCUs, have been given this
designation. The funding for these research grants has not been
meaningly increased, and it has not been adjusted for
inflation, and so it puts Indian Country behind some of our
other minority serving institutions.
So maybe kind of give me a taste for what might be in the
budget or follow up with the committee on what you are doing on
these two projects.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Jacobs-Young. Okay, great. You know, we recently had a
2-day Tribal consultation with--hosted by USDA, and we had a
wonderful opportunity to hear from the Tribal community about
the things that are important to them from a research-education
perspective.
We heard the need for, you know, additional support. You
know, they asked for that. We heard the desire to grow their
own experts. And so what has happened is that the students come
out and they may stay--and they go out to the university
outside of the community and they stay outside of the community
for the most part. And what they want to do is have the
capacity internal to the Native community, is to train and grow
their own experts so that they have a pipeline of people that
stay and help grow their expertise.
In USDA, ARS, NIFA, ERS, and NASS, we heard from them a
number of things that we can do to be better partners for the
Native American community. Talked about germplasm--I talked
about germplasm a little bit earlier--working with the Native
American community to preserve germplasm that is important to
their culture.
You know, we are looking at the American buffalo and some
of the other germplasm that is unique but that can also teach
us some things about how to respond to drought, how to respond
to floods, you know, because they have been doing it for a
long, long time.
And so we have a lot to learn from how they have done
production management practices. And so we are going to be
working with them, and we would love to follow up with you on
what we plan, what our new plan is going to be.
Ms. McCollum. Great.
Mr. Chair, they can get back to me on the Forever Green.
Thank you for the time, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the testimony.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Ms. McCollum.
At this time, I would like to recognize the gentleman from
Texas, my good friend, Mr. Cuellar.
Mr. Cuellar, you are now recognized.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to you and
the ranking member and to the members of the committee.
Thank you for being here, to the witnesses, and I would
like to ask you some questions dealing with the border area.
In the Lower Rio Grande Valley, we got a couple threats to
the citrus. One is the ongoing threat of the Mexican fruit fly,
number one. And then the other one has to do with the citrus
greening disease that, as you know, throughout the United
States, a $3.3 billion U.S. citrus industry, that is a threat.
So I would like to see what you all are doing on that
particular aspect.
And then the other thing dealing with south Texas is the
cattle fever ticks, which is something that the committee--and
I think we started this in the farm bill in, I think, 2008,
where we added money to have you all fight the fever ticks. As
you know, that quarantined area in south Texas has been growing
instead of shrinking, even though the chairman's help and other
members, we have added millions of dollars to the fever tick
situation.
I don't think we can dip ourselves out of that problem.
That is, you dip every cow, because you got to deal with
wildlife in other areas. So I would like to see what you all
are doing dealing with the cattle industry, the fever ticks,
and, of course, the citrus interests industry with those two
areas.
Ms. Jacobs-Young. Okay, great. So I will start with the
Mexican fruit fly. We have been working very diligently to
bring on new experts. We have hired--we are hiring two new
experts in one of our facilities, I think in Hawaii and another
one there closer to Texas.
We are improving an innovation that has been around for
many, many years, actually developed by Dr. Ed Knipling, and it
is called the sterile insect technique. We are using that. You
know, we create sterile male flies that mate and then the
population dies off. So we are improving that technology to be
used here.
We are also partnering with APHIS, our Animal, Plant, and
Health Inspection Service, to develop and test traps and lures,
and then we will be able to also improve our detection of the
presence of the Mexican fruit fly. We can have an opportunity
to know more about the range and scope, and we can evaluate
biocontrol methods that we can bring in perhaps a wasp or some
other native enemy to the Mexican fruit fly.
So we also want to be able to help develop quarantine
treatment so that, you know, there is not--we can mitigate the
economic losses to producers in the presence of Mexican fruit
flies.
And so I know there is a lot more work underway. In the
essence of time, I wanted to share that with you.
And then I can talk a little bit about the citrus greening.
As you said, you know, the citrus greening, the industry has
lost 60 percent of acreage and about 80 percent closure of
juice plants and packing houses. So this is a very significant
issue.
The disease is now widespread across commercial citrus
orchards in Texas and is spreading among California's
residential citrus trees. So we are not just talking about
Florida anymore; we are talking about Texas and California
included.
ARS has developed 12 new root stocks and seven sweet orange
scions. I learned a lot about the root stocks and the scions,
and if it is tolerant to citrus greening and nobody wants to
eat it, it doesn't matter. We have to actually also work with
the science. So we have developed the sweet orange scions, and
they have shown tolerance to citrus greening. And we have
publicly released all of those to be tested.
We are currently in a huge test in Florida, and they have
been disseminated. We are storing the germplasm. We are backing
up our California germplasm in Colorado, because now citrus
greening is in California. So we are taking some proactive
steps.
And one of the most exciting pieces of that, and it is a
lot of work we are doing with genome sequencing, is that we
have trained dogs to sniff out the citrus greening. And they
can sniff it out, and they can determine if a tree has been
infected early. Because what we know now is that a tree is
infected, but it doesn't show signs for some 10 to 20 years,
and by that time, it is too late. And so if we can learn early
if the tree is infected, we can remove it. And so that is one
of our exciting opportunities.
And we have a lot of work underway on cattle fever ticks. I
know we don't have enough time, but I would love to have a
followup with you to share all the work we have on all three of
those areas.
Mr. Cuellar. Right. My time is up, but follow up on that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you so much. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Cuellar.
At this time, I am delighted to recognize the chairwoman of
the Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs,
Ms. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the gentlelady from Florida.
You are now recognized.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate the opportunity to hold this hearing.
I am proud that American public land-grant universities
like the University of Florida--go Gators--has been leading the
world in the arena of agricultural research and education. For
years, UF has been an excellent partner with the National
Institute of Food and Agriculture, or NIFA.
Federal investment in these academic research partnerships
is so important because every dollar invested in agricultural
research and development returns $20 in benefits from increased
agricultural productivity.
I would like to hear how you think NIFA's partnerships and
grant programs with universities like UF help further USDA
research and goals in areas like plant and animal protection,
climate change mitigation, water conservation, and nutrition. I
think that is really for Dr. Jacobs-Young.
Ms. Jacobs-Young. Oh, absolutely. One of the things that--
the beauty of the way Abraham Lincoln established the USDA and
the land-grant university system around the same time, we have
been partners for a long time, and so we are so connected. And
so when we all do--when one of us does well, we all do well.
And so NIFA has many, many programs across the spectrum in
terms of plant and animal production, working with our
intramural agency, ARS, you know, our colleagues at NASS, who
collect all the important data around the impacts of our work.
And so--it looks like we might have lost Dr. Castille. I
see her name, but I think she might not be here right now,
but--there you are. So if you want to just share a little bit
more about what NIFA has underway in the partnerships with the
land-grant universities.
Ms. Castille. I am sorry. I must have hit my button.
So, Representative, I had an opportunity to spend some time
in your great State this weekend. My daughter is actually at
the University of Florida. In a passthrough, I saw the ARS
facilities and had an opportunity to talk to her a little bit.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz [inaudible].
Ms. Castille. Absolutely. And it was great to see her. But
as I drove through the campus and really had a chance to look
at the buildings and the research that is going on, I was proud
to see that NIFA has a role in a lot of what is going on in
your State, as well as the University of Florida.
So we talked a little bit about AFRI.You have heard me
mention that in a couple of my comments, but it is really
poised to be able to look at plant health, animal health,
renewable energy, sustainability, all of the different things
that you feel, and you have mentioned earlier, is important in
connecting with our land-grant universities.
I do also want to emphasize our capacity program. It
provides the opportunities to really be nimble and to be able
to focus efforts, research, education, working through our
cooperative extension, as well as our experiment station, to be
able to meet the needs of the State. Gives you the ability,
again, to be nimble, and so I think there are some
opportunities.
I would be happy to provide you with some more details as
to what we are doing with the University of Florida. We have a
tremendous amount of efforts there.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Wonderful. Thank you.
The other question I wanted to ask really focuses on
artificial intelligence in agriculture. Again, my alma mater,
University of Florida, has dedicated significant amounts of its
own resources, as well as utilized Federal resources to advance
artificial intelligence and supercomputing research.
For example, the University of Florida's HiPerGator and AI
supercomputer is a State and national asset that is helping to
develop AI abilities across disciplines. And I know that UF is
also working on cutting-edge research to apply AI to ag
production, which is an area where it really hasn't yet been
significantly incorporated.
But one of the main challenges here is a lack of data. AI
seemingly could help farmers increase crop productivity, save
water, and maybe even manage pests. Is there an area where REE
agency has done any work? And does USDA see potential in
applying AI to ag production? How far away are we from scaling
that up?
Ms. Jacobs-Young. Oh, yeah, we are already doing it. We are
already doing it, and we routinely leverage innovative
technologies such as AI and machine learning to advance our
precision agricultural research and speed up precision
agriculture technology development.
We have formed some important public-private partnerships.
ARS brings to the table decades of data, for watersheds, for
crop and animal management. And when we partner that with
companies who have expertise in GIS, for example, in software
platforms, so bringing--leveraging the best of what each of us
has to bring to the table, we have been able to build some very
productive partnerships.
And the goal of all of this is to deliver tools to the
producers and consumers that help them make informed decisions.
And so we would love to have an opportunity to talk to you
about some of the centers of excellence we have stood up. And
so I know our time is up, but we would love to come and talk to
you. I know Dr. Liu, especially, could talk to you until the
cows come home about artificial intelligence, and he would love
an opportunity to sit down with you.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Is that a little ag joke?
Ms. Jacobs-Young. He is our AI guy.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield
back the balance of the time I do not have.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
At this time, I am delighted to yield to the very patient
gentlelady from New York, Ms. Grace Meng.
Ms. Meng, the floor is now yours. You are now recognized.
Ms. Meng. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, and
to our Under Secretary Jacobs-Young, and all of you, for being
here and for your great work.
I also wanted to ask a bit about the NIFA program,
specifically after the 2018 farm bill provided more support for
urban agriculture.
Urban agriculture in New York City, production agriculture
is really booming. In addition to more than 600 community
gardens, the number of commercial, the number of for-profit
production agricultural enterprises in the city grows every
year.
And recognizing that urban farms face different challenges
than traditional rural farms, as you know, the farm bill
provided $10 million in mandatory funding for the urban ag
program in the first year and then authorized up to $10 million
in annual discretionary funding through 2023. Though we have
never fully funded the program, Congress appropriated $5
million in 2020 and $7 million in 2021 for the Urban
Agriculture Office.
So last year, the Farm Service Agency funded an Urban
Agriculture and Innovative Production Program, and the Natural
Resources Conservation Service funded co-op agreements for
compost and food waste reduction. But all NIFA did was solicit
input from stakeholders on how the agency should develop the
request for applications.
How come NIFA has not funded the urban agriculture research
and extension programs? And does NIFA have plans for this
fiscal year to fund and further develop this program?
Ms. Jacobs-Young. Dr. Castille.
Ms. Castille. Thanks.
And thanks, Representative, for your question. I am as
eager as you to be able to get this program kicked off. I know
how important it is in urban agriculture. We are awaiting the
placement of the Federal advisory committee for urban
agriculture, and I can commit to you we are going to be working
very, very closely, and this is a top priority for me.
I do want to mention a couple of other programs in this
area around urban agriculture that I think you might be
interested in. Our Master Gardener program is extremely
popular. It is something that I had the opportunity to be able
to participate in and to be able to see in Louisiana and know
that the impact that the Master Gardener program can have in
really, again, identifying and being able to look at what
agriculture looks like in those specific areas. So the Master
Gardener program.
Let me also emphasize again the 4-H and positive youth
development efforts, to be able to identify, again, what
agriculture looks like. It is not a one-size-fits-all approach,
but there is tremendous opportunities to be able to work with
our youth and be able to, I guess, help inform and create that
pipeline of urban agriculturalists.
So thank you for your question. I am going to continue, if
you don't mind, to keep you posted as to where we are with that
program.
Ms. Meng. Awesome. That would be great.
And just to switch gears, I know I have a little time left.
It is a question for Dr. Stefanou, or whoever else would like
to answer, about child nutrition programs that the Economic
Research Service researches and monitors, which have been life-
savers for my district, especially throughout the last year,
here in Queens, New York, which was the first epicenter of
COVID-19 across the country, meaning that our kids were among
the first to scramble to fill the gaps in meals that they had
been receiving at home when they transitioned to full remote
learning.
So I just wanted to know some of the challenges that the
Department faces in transitioning from in-school meals to
innovative programs like the extended Summer Food Service
Program or P-EBT.
I don't know if maybe Dr. Stefanou or----
Ms. Jacobs-Young. Dr. Stefanou.
Mr. Stefanou. Sure. Thank you. Yes, thank you,
Representative, for your question. Well, ERS is monitoring
reports on the prevalence of severe food insecurity among the
U.S. households, and we look at various--variations, I should
say, across race and ethnic groups in geographic areas.
We just actually put some--a Chart of Note out recently on
food insufficiency. And actually, we are finding that it has
gone down in the last month or so for all ethnic groups except
for the Asian, non-Hispanic group.
So we have been tracking this through the COVID era the
past year using the Household Pulse Survey. And the Household
Pulse Survey is a collaboration with the U.S. Bureau of Census
and several other Federal agencies, where we are tracking, you
know, real-time data here on food consumption, food purchases,
and trying to keep track of what the progress is.
And so we don't have programs to promote food security. We
are tracking it for us--for the Nation. Thank you for your
question.
Ms. Meng. Thank you. I will yield back.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Ms. Meng. That completes our first
round of questions. I will now begin the second round.
Mr. Hamer, in January, the Farm Bureau released a number of
recommendations to strengthen NASS. Increasing transparency
with farmers in order to increase participation in NASS surveys
was the first recommendation. We could have the best data
analytical tools, but their value diminishes if the survey
responses and the data collection rates are not as robust as
possible.
What is the agency's plan to increase transparency, improve
communication, and accelerate technological improvements? And
how will you tie any changes back to the overarching goal of
increasing survey response rates and improving data collection?
And how can we help you in that endeavor?
Mr. Hamer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your question. We
appreciate that. We not only receive feedback from the American
Farm Bureau but from other data user communities as well, and
we always take that into consideration when we are looking at
our programs.
Our response rates have been fairly strong over the years,
including during the pandemic year. Actually, a number of the
Farm Bureau recommendations were in line with our published
strategic plan that lays out a way that we would move the
agency forward, adapting new technology. We have a number of
legacy systems that we are replacing as part of that process.
In addition to that, we have had our State directors and
regional directors reach out to all of their--all of the local
Farm Bureau leadership at the State level, to receive some
additional feedback and talk to them about opportunities to
network and work with NASS to provide additional information.
In addition to that, we are working with their public affairs
team to also include information about upcoming surveys that we
have.
So we have a very strong partnership. And again, some of
the recommendations as far as the being more transparent, those
recommendations we are taking very seriously and are working to
direct them to some additional information that is part--that
is already on our website. So I appreciate the----
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Thank you.
As the agriculture industry moves to a greater, greater
consolidation, small, beginning, and disadvantaged farmers have
a tougher and tougher time competing in the marketplace, or
they may lack adequate broadband, or they may hold an off-farm
job to make ends meet. Keeping up with the research can be very
difficult for them.
So can you discuss how, Dr. Jacobs-Young, you try to
address the problems facing the little guys in your research
and how you ensure that they are aware of the resources that
will help them become more competitive, especially through the
Extension systems; as well as, how can the USDA use the
perspective and the Extension Center to better collaborate with
the 1862s, the 1890s, and 1994s, so that the shared audiences
can be better targeted and the foods can be better leveraged
between institutions and youth capabilities of all of those
institutions?
Ms. Jacobs-Young. Absolutely, sir. Real quickly just share
with you that we are very excited about some new efforts around
just some rejuvenation for our Beginning Farmers and Ranchers
Development Program. We have some new efforts in energy around
our Farm Stress Program because, you know, our producers need
that type of support.
And I will just quickly turn it over to Dr. Castille to
talk about some of the new activities around the Beginning
Farmers and Ranchers Development Program.
Ms. Castille. Thanks, Dr. Jacobs-Young.
And thanks, Representative, for your question. So we do
have the Beginning Farmers and Ranchers Development Program,
and I know there were additional resources provided to be able
to help support our small farmers in this area.
It is a great opportunity to be able to provide training.
In fact, on the way over here, in the Uber, I was asked about
how a beginning farmer can purchase land and get training. So
it is a great segue.
But it is an exciting program. We are working closely with
Extension, both our 1890s institutions, our 1994s, as well as
our 1862s. We also have our Small and Mid-Sized Farmer program.
So I do understand and really appreciate the conversation
around supporting our small farmers. So I am happy to provide
some more details. I see I am running out of time, but we do
have a lot of excitement around this program, and I am happy to
provide you with some of the results.
Ms. Jacobs-Young. And those programs also have some
emphasis on veterans, including veterans in the conversation. I
think about some of the specialty crop research we have
underway looking at those plants and animals that are
specifically value-added for small producers. And so we have
a--we would love to follow up with you afterwards, if you would
like more information.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, and we will follow up on
that.
My time has expired, but I would like to yield to my
ranking member, Mr. Fortenberry, for any additional questions
that you may have, Mr. Fortenberry. You are now recognized.
Mr. Fortenberry. Yes. Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman. I am
going to take a point of personal privilege for a moment and
retell a story that Chairman Bishop has heard me say. It might
be particularly relevant to you, Dr. Castille.
When I was young, my father died, and my grandfather looked
at me one day and said, Jeffrey, what do you want to do in
life, and I said, Papa, I want to be a farmer.
And my grandfather had served as a county agent in St.
James Parish in Louisiana. And I don't know exactly where you
are from, but judging by an accent, perhaps that is proximate
to where you came from.
But it is part of the reason, frankly, that I love the
space that we are all in, that we have dedicated our public
service to. This is about food, food security, helping those in
need, and sustaining one of the most productive aspects of
American life, and both in terms of what we produce but also
that quality of life.
And, Dr. Castille, you made a good comment where you
basically outlined the guiding principles of NIFA as
productivity, stewardship, profitability, as well as quality of
life. And I think that somewhat answers the earlier question
that I had posed about the key priority of research.
I do want to turn back to the question that has come up
over and over again in this call, because it is a bipartisan
concern and it has been addressed, but let's make sure that I
understand it as well as what the trajectory is.
Regarding the repository of agricultural research, a couple
of months ago during a hearing with the inspector general, I
asked the question, because they discovered that there was not
a robust central repository of all the research coordinated by
USDA. Then I asked how long would it take to get there, and
they said 3 years.
Now, Dr. Jacobs-Young, you have suggested that this
coordination is already underway through PubAg, I think it is
called, and that this is readily available. However, there
might be a gap or there is a gap with our land-grant
institutions. Do I understand that correctly? That is number
one.
And number two is, how quickly can we close that gap? I
will turn to number three after you answer that question
because it is a related question.
Ms. Jacobs-Young. So, yes, PubAg is a repository for the
work resulting from our federally funded research, peer-
reviewed publications. We have new dashboards that show
patents, and it has been a challenge. I am new to this
conversation at this level, being in this position since
January.
In ARS, we have been able to get our arms around it. I
understand how complicated it is with [inaudible] I will share
with you that we are working--that we are working extremely
quickly to be able to identify opportunities to bring the
existing data in and to talk about possible changes we can make
to the award tracking process that might automate and help us
be able to do this easy.
The data is still coming in. We are still getting an
assessment of what the situation is, and so I will be happy to
follow up with you, but we do have PubAg and we have Ag Data
Commons.
Mr. Fortenberry. Okay. So I think you have heard in the
hearing today a premium, an emphasis, a decided emphasis on the
need to understand clearly what we are doing across multiple
platforms at USDA in order so that we can answer these deeper
questions about the research trajectory, being nimble, making
sure, again from my perspective, that we are looking toward the
farm of the future and all that that entails.
So a quick timeline on all of this--and we discussed this
with the Secretary as well during the hearing with him--is
really necessary for a whole range of good public policy
outcomes. So I think you are hearing us.
Ms. Jacobs-Young. Yeah, I am. And I know you guys
understand the complexity of once you send out a billion
dollars a year to researchers all over the country, you know,
we have to put some systems in place to help us to harvest that
information. And so we are willing to do that, and we are
working on it.
Mr. Fortenberry. Okay. When you go back and consolidate the
fullness of understanding of this, give us a trajectory too of
when this will be complete or at least substantially complete.
That would be helpful.
Second point--the third point. Blue ribbon panel on the
future of higher education. I was thinking about this for a
long time. Chairman Bishop was gracious enough to work with me.
We got it in last year's bill. Again, Secretary Vilsack has
readily latched on to the idea. What is the timeline for
implementation of this?
Ms. Jacobs-Young. So definitely I will give Dr. Castille an
opportunity to talk about where we are, to updating the
process. Ultimately, I will be in a great position to help
moving forward, and I know that Dr. Castille and her team are
working hard to put the right pieces in place.
Ms. Castille. And thanks, Representative. And I know we
only have a few seconds left, but let me say we are making
great progress on the blue ribbon panel. So where we are, we
have two letters of intent from two very qualified
organizations. That really lays out kind of the scope and
incorporates your vision as well.
We have worked very, very closely with you and your staff,
and we are going to continue to work closely with them. As I
would say in St. Martin Parish, where we are not [inaudible]
Little bit. So we are going to continue to keep you posted on
that, but we are making a lot of progress, Representative, a
lot of progress.
Mr. Fortenberry. ``Parle Francais. Tres bien.''
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Fortenberry.
I see we have Dr. Harris who has rejoined us. So at this
time, I will recognize Dr. Harris for a second round of
questions.
Dr. Harris, you are now recognized.
Mr. Harris. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Just to ask about shellfish aquaculture, obviously very
important in the Chesapeake Bay. As we know, the oysters have
been overfished, overharvested, really for centuries, but key
to improvement of the bay. But we have problems with MSX and
dermo, two oyster diseases. It is possible, I think, that with
research we can either keep the East Coast oyster or perhaps
even go to a, you know, to a non-native species if we can prove
that they are safe. This has worked on the West Coast in some
places.
Can you just, anyone, fill me in on what the Department is
doing in terms of oyster research and especially regarding
aquaculture?
Ms. Jacobs-Young. Absolutely. Dr. Liu, I am going to turn
it to you because I know ARS has a lot of work underway in this
area.
Mr. Liu. Yes. Thank you very much, Dr. Jacobs-Young. Thank
you very much, Representative, for your questions. ARS, we do
conduct research on the genetic improvement of East Coast
shellfish, especially we collaborate with University of Rhode
Island.
As you know that oyster populations are locally adapted. As
a result, it is really necessary to breed the population that
are suitable for a specific environment, such as Chesapeake
Bay. So ARS scientists, but we have collaborated very well with
the Aquaculture Genetic and Breeding Center of Virginia
Institute of Marine Science. Our collaboration focused more on
the [inaudible] Through suppliers on the East Coast. So our
primary stakeholders group, the East Coast Shellfish Grower
Association.
So, Representative, we are working on it, and we are
looking forward to working with you in the future on this very,
very important area.
Mr. Harris. Thank you very, very much. I would appreciate
that, because rebuilding the oyster stocks is clearly very
important to the future of the Chesapeake Bay.
One other issue that has come up and the USDA is involved,
I am just going to ask if any of the research services are, is
the issue of the invasive species, the blue catfish.
What is interesting is that the blue catfish has invaded
the Chesapeake Bay. As you may or may not know, all seafood,
fish processing traditionally has been done by FDA, but USDA
has the responsibility of doing inspection of catfish
processing. And there are politics that go on in that that I
won't get into. I just want to get into the science, because
the reason, ostensibly, was because of the increased risk of
salmonella from catfish processing.
Now that the USDA has been overseeing catfish processing
for several years, is the USDA looking into any--researching
whether or not this is true, whether or not we really do need
to have a different processing regimen run by the USDA for
catfish as opposed to any other fish?
And one of the reasons is that because it is a more
stringent inspection process, it makes it--it is not
commercially viable for fishermen to actually fish this
invasive species. So if we could prove that, in fact, it is not
a more harmful fish, it could go back to--theoretically, go
back to FDA inspections and make commercial fishing one of the
ways to control this invasive species.
Are the research services at USDA looking into that at all?
Ms. Jacobs-Young. We are. So we have a very large catfish
research project in Stoneville, Mississippi, where we are doing
a lot of catfish research and we are providing a lot of
important data to decision-makers. I think I have met a blue
channel catfish. I think that is the one that grows to be a
huge--I know I met one in Mississippi, because they are looking
at the genes from that catfish that make it so resistant to so
many things, and how we can use those genes in our catfish
project, so with some of our domestic breeding.
So what we can do is we can go back to our researchers
there in Stoneville, Mississippi, and ask what research they
have underway. And then our partners in the other agencies--
FSIS is responsible for catfish inspection--we would have to
really go back and consult with them and come back to you with
a comprehensive answer.
Mr. Harris. I would appreciate that. If you could
collaborate with FSIS and perhaps look into whether this
salmonella contamination really is an issue or whether, as you
observe, this is a, you know--again, there is some politics
involved with the catfish growers in the South.
I personally think we should exempt the invasive species in
the Chesapeake Bay from this additional inspection protocol,
but key to that would be to prove that it is not more dangerous
to inspect it with the FDA versus the USDA. So I would
appreciate that.
I yield back, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Dr. Harris.
I don't think I have any more questions. I would like to
yield to Mr. Fortenberry in case he does.
Mr. Fortenberry. No, Mr. Chairman, I am finished with
questions. Thank you again for holding the hearing. I thought
it was a very thorough, good discussion.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Mr. Fortenberry.
Dr. Jacobs-Young and your colleagues, thank you for your
testimony today. We understand how incredibly busy you are
these days, and so we thank you for taking the time. And we
have had a pretty, I think, robust hearing.
I think sometimes it can be easy to forget how integral
your work is to other agencies at the Department of Agriculture
and how much we all benefit on a daily basis from the work that
you all support.
The scientific process of researching and publishing a
whole genome sequence of an apple may be a mystery to most of
us, but the value in having cheap, nutritious, high-quality
apples available year round is something that every American
can understand.
We value the work of your agencies, and we support your
efforts to improve agricultural practices in our Nation.
Along with what we have discussed, we will also forward
additional questions for the record, and we appreciate your
diligence in getting your responses back to us in a timely
manner.
Mr. Fortenberry, do you have any additional closing
remarks?
Mr. Fortenberry. No, sir. I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Fortenberry.
And thank you for all of the members in attendance, and
thank you to our staff who work so hard to put this hearing
together.
And with that, this subcommittee hearing is now adjourned.
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Tuesday, May 18, 2021.
MEMBERS' DAY
Mr. Bishop. This hearing of the Agriculture Subcommittee of
the Appropriations Committee will now come to order.
As this hearing is fully virtual, we must address a few
housekeeping matters.
For today's meeting, the chair or staff designated by the
chair may mute participants' microphones when they are not
under recognition for the purposes of eliminating inadvertent
background noise. Members are responsible for muting and
unmuting themselves. If I notice that you have not unmuted
yourself, I will ask you if you would like the staff to unmute
you. If you indicate approval by nodding, staff will unmute
your microphone.
I remind all members that the 5-minute clock still applies.
If there is a technology issue, we will move to the next member
until the issue is resolved, and you will retain the balance of
your time.
You will notice a clock on your screen that will show how
much time is remaining. At 1 minute remaining, the clock will
turn yellow. At 30 seconds remaining, I will gently tap the
gavel to remind members that their time is almost expired. When
your time has expired, the clock will turn red, and I will
begin to recognize the next member.
In terms of speaking order, we will follow the
predetermined order that has been provided to your offices,
beginning with the chair and ranking member's brief opening
remarks. We will then begin with the first member on the
schedule and move forward from there.
Finally, House rules require me to remind you that we have
set up an email address to which members can send anything they
wish to submit in writing at our hearings or markups. That
email address has been provided in advance to your staff.
Last reminder, please ensure that your video is turned on
at this time.
Well, good morning. Today, we will hear testimony from our
colleagues on both sides of the aisle regarding the agencies
under our subcommittee's jurisdiction. As I have often noted,
these agencies conduct vital work that touches the lives of all
Americans. And today's hearing represents a great opportunity
to listen to a diverse group of members from across the
country, share your views on a wide range of issues related to
our bill.
We look forward to hearing your thoughts on the
appropriations process and learning more about the programs and
issues that affect your districts and your constituents. Your
input is invaluable as we draft funding legislation for the
upcoming fiscal year for the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
the Food and Drug Administration, the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission, and the Farm Credit Administration.
Before we begin, I would like to remind everyone that we
have several members testifying today, so we will need to
strictly adhere to the 5-minute rule to remain on schedule. I
want to thank every member who has taken time out of your busy
schedules to speak with us today, and we appreciate your
interest in the work of this subcommittee.
Now, I would like to recognize our distinguished ranking
member, my partner in this endeavor, Mr. Fortenberry, and I
would like to recognize him for any opening remarks that he
might have.
Mr. Fortenberry, the floor is yours.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Just a
few brief opening remarks, if you will.
As you noted, appropriately, Mr. Chairman, we are here
today to listen to a bipartisan group of members from distinct
parts of the country and a wide spectrum of constituency. I
also, like you, Mr. Chairman, want to thank every member for
their willingness to participate, and please know how much we
value your input. We do look forward to hearing more about the
programs that affect your district and the communities that you
serve.
Your input will be critical as Chairman Bishop and I work
to responsibly fund the USDA, the Food and Drug Administration,
as well as the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, and the
Farm Credit Administration.
Mr. Chairman is well aware of this, but I should point out
to everyone listening, members have submitted nearly 9,000 bill
and report requests to the Agricultural Subcommittee. I think
that is very valuable to learn.
As the chairman and I regularly remind members and the
public, this bill, through the foods that we grow and eat, the
ecosystem of rural livability we create, and the medicines we
develop, touches the lives of every single American and
millions and millions of people around the globe. Significant
member interests showcased here illustrates how important these
programs are.
Chairman Bishop, I so do appreciate your bipartisan
approach to building this bill, and I yield back.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Mr. Fortenberry.
At this time, I am delighted to welcome Mr. Jim Hagedorn
from Minnesota.
Mr. Hagedorn, the floor is yours.
----------
Tuesday, May 18, 2021.
HON. JIM HAGEDORN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
MINNESOTA
Mr. Hagedorn. Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member
Fortenberry, thank you very much for the opportunity. And I
appreciate the work that you have done and all the work that
you are doing in partnering with committees like the one that I
serve on, Agriculture, to make sure that we sustain farming and
our rural way of life.
The district that I represent is in southern Minnesota, the
First District, 21 counties, mostly rural, goes all the way
from Wisconsin to South Dakota and then Iowa up about 80 miles.
I think we are top ten in the country for agricultural-
producing district and number two for hogs.
To put that in some perspective, we have 13 total ethanol
and biodiesel plants in the district. So very heavy on ag, and
the work that you perform is very important to us.
You know, we saw a lot of what happened in the last year,
where it was very difficult for our farmers to get through the
coronavirus from one side to the other. I think the previous
administration and Congress together, in a bipartisan fashion,
did a good job of helping out.
But, you know, to illustrate how tough it was, for
instance, with our hog farmers, when the restaurants closed and
the demand for the finer cuts of meat went right through the
floor, so did the price for hogs. And we have devastating
consequences, where we had too many hogs trying to go to
market, and they literally had to cull their herd in many
instances. It was a tough time.
So we want to avoid things like that, of course, moving
into the future, and one way to do that is to try to protect
the United States and protect our farmers from things like the
African swine fever.
Long before anybody had ever heard of the coronavirus and
COVID-19, I had been talking about African swine fever and how
we didn't want it to happen in China and Vietnam and other
places, we didn't want that to happen in the United States.
So I introduced legislation in the last Congress to augment
the number of order inspectors that we would have, to make sure
that we can try and protect the country that way, upgrade our
beagle brigades that can literally go out and sniff out that
pork and try to protect our farmers. And I would hope that you
would continue to fund those operations and augment them, if
possible. Because if we get African swine fever into the United
States, it won't affect just our pork farmers; it will be
everybody up and down the chain. It is going to be obviously
the meat packers, and it is going to be the grain farmers, and
it is going to be the truckers and the grocers and, ultimately,
the American consumer.
So I would appreciate your consideration for continued
funding there and to make sure we can do all we can to protect
our farmers from African swine fever, and other infectious
diseases, I might add.
Also, I would like you to pay attention a little bit to the
infrastructure issue. And I know you know this better than I,
but right now, ethanol is something that is a very good
alternative. Blending it with gasoline, it helps keep the price
down, and it helps to keep a cleaner environment. And we have
lots of producers in our district, and they could use your
continued support.
One of the areas that I think that we need to invest in is
the expansion of E15. And it is not that the gas stations and
others don't want to provide that option to consumers, but
sometimes it can be very, very costly to convert the pumps and
to make the types of changes that are needed.
So if you can look into anything you can do with the Higher
Blends Infrastructure Incentives Program and try to keep
funding in that area, that would be very beneficial.
Lastly, I think the whole coronavirus situation has really
brought to everyone's attention, once and for all, the fact
that we have a need in the rural areas for broadband. And this,
to me, is just a quality-of-life issue. It is a basic
infrastructure issue. We want to make sure that all Americans
have the same opportunity to thrive and do well.
And so I think if we can focus more money on the rural
connect program on ag, which seems to be going good things,
whatever we can do and help the American people, particularly
in rural areas, to have that opportunity and that we are all on
the same level.
We had kids literally in the district that would have to
drive to McDonald's, you all have seen these stories, you have
heard about it yourself, you have seen it in person. And we
just can't have that in the United States anymore. So very
happy to work with you on these and other issues.
As a member of the Ag Committee, again, I think it is great
that we have this partnership, and really appreciate the work
this subcommittee have done; so many good things for farmers
and agribusinesses and our rural citizens.
And with that, I yield back. Thanks for your time.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Mr. Hagedorn. Your
testimony brings up the importance of ensuring that our imports
are protected from disease, continued investments in biofuels,
and bridging the digital divide. We understand these
challenges, and we look forward to working with you and your
staff moving forward to address them. Thanks for coming today.
And without objection, your entire written testimony will be
included in the record.
Mr. Fortenberry.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Yes, Representative Hagedorn, thank you so much for your
excellent testimony. Let me just pick up on one note that the
chairman mentioned. We have decidedly focused on the broadband
issue. The story you told is repeated across the country.
Modernizing and creating the metrics for understanding of
what the outcome of this money that we are spending on this,
because there is a lot of money there, are going to be
essential to actually helping us take the next digital leap and
all the opportunities that is going to afford which were
painfully cast upon us during COVID.
But thank you very much for highlighting it. It is a real
opportunity that we all have.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Fortenberry.
And at this time, I am delighted to recognize the
gentlelady from Washington, Dr. Kim Schrier. You are now
recognized.
----------
Tuesday, May 18, 2021.
HON. KIM SCHRIER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
WASHINGTON
Ms. Schrier. Well, thank you, Chairman Bishop and Ranking
Member Fortenberry. I am here today to discuss a few issues of
great importance to me, specifically, USDA energy programs that
allow farmers, my constituents in rural areas, to install solar
panels, Federal nutrition assistance, agricultural research,
and school kitchen equipment grants. I am going to hit some
highlights today and submit the remainder for the record.
So first, energy programs. On a recent visit to DeGoede
Farms in my district, I saw a solar installation that was
funded by two USDA programs: Renewable Energy Development
Assistance, or REDA, and Renewable Energy for America Program,
or REAP. These two programs provide essential technical
assistance and funding to farmers and rural businesses as we
install renewable energy systems like solar panels.
You know, both programs are popular in my district and in
Washington State, but demand for these programs far outstrips
funding.
Pierce County Conservation District recently told me that
over the past 3 years, they have seen dramatic increases in the
number of rural businesses and farmers interested in
participating in these programs, so much so that conservation
partners in the State don't have enough resources, technically
or fiscally, to support the demand.
Additionally, statewide funding caps means that fewer than
half the farmers who want to participate in this program are
actually able to do so. Now, if the caps were increased, we
would see a lot more farms and rural businesses installing
solar.
As we work with the Biden administration to tackle the
climate crisis this Congress, we should be taking every
possible opportunity to promote renewable energy systems.
Increasing funding for REAP and REDA is directly in line with
that priority, and I urge the highest possible funding levels.
Research. The Specialty Crop Research Initiative funds
research that supports hundreds of specialty crops in
Washington State. Past funding for projects in Washington has
supported efforts to combat fungicide resistance in wine
grapes, precision irrigation for fruit growers, and pest
prevention in onions in the past 2 years.
I have worked very hard to make sure specialty crop
researchers have access to the resources they need and was so
pleased that my fix to allow waiver authority for SCRI was
included in fiscal year 2020 and 2021 appropriations bills. But
until a permanent fix is enacted, the fiscal year 2020 language
in restoring the waiver authority must be included in annual
appropriations bills. So I urge the committee to provide full
funding for the Specialty Crop Research Initiative in fiscal
year 2022.
Agricultural research. I also want to urge the committee to
provide necessary funding to support Federal ag research
infrastructure. Modern ag research and education facilities
serve as the backbone of our Nation's cutting-edge ag and food
research enterprise.
But according to a 2021 report by the Association of Public
and Land-Grant Universities, 69 percent of research facilities
at U.S. colleges are at the end of their useful life. The cost
of upgrading deferred maintenance on these buildings is
estimated at $11.5 billion, and that is why I support
increasing investments in our Federal ag research
infrastructure.
This multiyear investment will reposition the U.S. for
long-term success and competitiveness in the world. And
estimates suggest that strategic Federal investment in these
facilities at land-grant and non-land-grant universities and
schools of agriculture would create 200,000 new jobs
nationwide. New facilities would generate new solutions, a
diverse group of scientists, innovators, and agricultural food
managers, and each dollar invested returns 20 to the economy.
Over the last three decades, Federal support for ag
research, education, and extension has been flat, but
investments by global competitors are increasing. So I urge you
to join me in the effort to reposition the U.S. for success and
competitiveness worldwide.
Nutrition. I also want to take a minute to address the
importance of Federal nutrition programs. The number of
children not getting enough to eat is now 10 times higher than
it was before the pandemic. And as a pediatrician, I cannot
overstate the importance of ensuring that our children not only
have access to food, clearly first priority, but also
nutrition. And so pleased that Pandemic EBT will be extended.
So I ask the committee to provide funding to ensure kids have
access to WIC, SNAP, TEFAP, and Pandemic EBT.
Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Dr. Schrier. This is the second year
in a row that your testimony has touched on such a wide variety
of topics, so I appreciate your dedication and your passion for
the programs in our bill. From supporting our rural communities
and ag research facilities to ensuring our domestic nutrition
programs are fully funded, I couldn't agree with you more in
terms of your priorities, and we look forward to working with
you to address these very serious issues. Thank you for
appearing today. And without objection, your entire written
testimony will be included in the record.
Ms. Schrier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. At this time, I am delighted to recognize the
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Fallon.
Mr. Fallon, you are now recognized.
----------
Tuesday, May 18, 2021.
HON. PAT FALLON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. Fallon. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate it.
Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Fortenberry, and members of
the subcommittee, appreciate the opportunity to testify to
discuss our pressing needs for our farmers, ranchers, and rural
Americans.
The Fourth Congressional District is overwhelmingly rural,
and I ask the committee to consider the following: the Circuit
Rider Technical Assistance Program. As we all know, access to
clean and safe water is a necessity. However, providing clean
and safe water requires individuals who are able to train
others in how to correctly assess clean--and access clean and
safe water.
Texas-04 is home to 92 member water utilities which
directly serves over 370,000 constituents in our district. That
is approximately half the district. Circuit Riders provide
hands-on training to nonprofit water supply corporations, water
districts, and small cities on all aspects of clean water
issues. They also assist utilities with evaluating alternate
technical solutions and recommend operational improvements.
I am requesting the Appropriations Subcommittee on
Agriculture provide funding increase for the USDA's Circuit
Rider Program at 3 percent more than the $20,157,000
appropriated in fiscal year 2021.
Providing this funding will maintain the 132 full-time
Circuit Rider employees and will cover increased travel
benefits and, of course, inflationary costs.
And rural broadband couldn't be more important for rural
America. The COVID-19 pandemic brought heightened awareness to
our need and dependence upon the internet. With schools and
businesses closed, Americans became more dependent on the
internet to educate our children, for virtual medical office
visits, and to carry out banking activities, just to name a
few.
We quickly realized that large swaths of America, and
indeed in Texas-04 as well, lacked access to the internet. Many
communities continue to lack internet service and meeting the
FCC's minimum speed standards for broadband, 25 megabits per
second for downloads and 3 megabits per second for uploads.
In Texas-04, which includes Hunt, Camp, Fannin, Delta, and
Rains counties, that has been a really big issue. It is
estimated that 22 percent of Americans' rural areas lack access
to these fixed speeds compared to only 1.5 percent of Americans
in urban areas.
I am requesting, respectfully, that the Appropriations
Subcommittee on Agriculture provide robust funding for the
USDA's ReConnect Program, building off the $635 million
appropriated in fiscal year 2021.
Additionally, I am requesting, respectfully, $350 million
for the Rural Broadband Loan and Grant Program authorized by
the Ag Improvement Act of 2018, the 2018 farm bill. Investing
in these programs will provide a direction that will expand
eligibility to areas that still lack basic broadband service
while providing meaningful down payment in our rural
communities and their economies at a time when it is most
needed.
In America, it is about fairness, and our rural folks
really need to--in the 21st century economy, they can't really
compete or grow without rural broadband access.
Additionally, I respectfully request the committee include
language urging rural utility services to expand reconnect
eligibility to provide funding to areas without access to
internet speeds that meet or exceed the 25/3 standard
consistent with the 2018 farm bill.
These programs must promote broad participation in
technical neutrality and transparency, et cetera.
I also would like to talk to you very quickly about the
``Grassroots'' Source Water Protection Program. The ability to
protect our groundwater and surface water from pollution is
extremely important in providing America with clean and safe
water.
There are 243 ground and surface water systems in the Texas
Fourth District. Without source water protection specialists,
we are not able to protect these ground and surface waters
adequately. Investing in source water protection allows us to
be proactive in prevention by reducing point and nonpoint
source pollutants before they pollute our water.
These efforts are not only important in protecting the
integrity of our water, but also extremely beneficial to our
economy. The USDA, they estimate that soil erosion costs
between $2 billion and $8 billion a year, and the EPA estimates
that the public water system spent an additional $200 million
per year just to remove excess pollutants.
Therefore, I am requesting the Appropriations Subcommittee
on Ag provide funding for the Farm Services Agency's Source
Water Protection Program at the same levels appropriated in
fiscal year 2021. Ensuring this funding and this program allows
us to prevent source water pollution.
And then lastly, Rural Utilities Service's electric loans.
Our country can't operate without electricity, as we know.
Consumers-owned, not-for-profit electric cooperatives generate
less than 5 percent of our Nation's electrical power but
maintain 42 percent of the Nation's electric distribution lines
and cover 56 percent of the overall mass.
These electric cooperatives use Rural Utilities Services to
finance their operations, to provide services to 42 million
folks. The electric loans have a stellar repayment record, and
the loans made in fiscal year 2019 netted $219 million to the
U.S. Treasury.
I am requesting that the subcommittee fund the RUS program
at the levels appropriated in 2021.
Mr. Chairman and committee, thank you so much for your time
and consideration in these requests.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Fortenberry.
Mr. Fortenberry. Only, Mr. Chairman, thank you. Thank you,
Representative Fallon, for your thoughtful comments.
Let me pick up on two things. Look, clean and safe drinking
water, as well as wastewater treatment, are critical parts of
rural development. If someone turns the faucet on and it is
running brown or causes a health problem, this is essential to
community well-being.
So thank you so much for highlighting the importance of
these particular programs and how essential they are to our
rural communities. I appreciate it.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Fallon. And without objection, your entire
written testimony will be included in the record. The
subcommittee couldn't agree more about the topics that you
discussed, so we look forward to working with you.
Mr. Fallon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. At this time, I am delighted to represent--to
recognize, rather, the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Escobar.
You are now recognized, Ms. Escobar, for 5 minutes.
----------
Tuesday, May 18, 2021.
HON. VERONICA ESCOBAR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
TEXAS
Ms. Escobar. Thank you so much, Chairman Bishop and Ranking
Member Fortenberry, for this chance to discuss priorities I
have before the Agriculture Subcommittee.
This year's Community Project Funding process was such a
wonderful opportunity to engage with El Pasoans, people who are
on the ground and know the needs of our region best. I am so
proud to have submitted one of these projects to your
subcommittee for consideration.
As you are all aware, the pandemic has shown us just how
important broadband access is, especially for remote learning.
However, there are communities across the country that simply
lack the resources and funding needed to expand their broadband
capabilities. The pandemic exacerbated the digital divide. It
has harmed our students, especially the most vulnerable and
marginalized communities, and now we must do what we can to
ensure that these very communities have the broadband access
they need to prosper for the duration of the pandemic, as well
as after it is long over.
That is why I have submitted the Cotton Valley Connect
project for consideration under the ReConnect Grant account.
This project would assist the students and families of the
Fabens and Tornillo Independent School Districts by providing
them with public broadband access via a wireless mesh service.
These two school districts serve some of the most
economically disadvantaged communities and census tracts in El
Paso County and in Texas, and expanding broadband access in
these areas would positively impact the lives of over 3,000
students.
Giving these students the ability to access learning
resources from their own homes will have several practical
effects, like allowing them to conduct research for homework or
prepare for a class presentation. There will also be a broader
effect of developing these students so they can graduate high
school and contribute to the economic success of our region.
While the location of this project is just outside my
district, these students and their families are linked to the
Paso del Norte region, and providing them with the means to
thrive will ultimately help all of El Paso County.
Finally, I would like to emphasize with this subcommittee,
as I have with other Appropriations subcommittees that I have
testified in front of, that it is essential that you include
mechanisms within your bill to guarantee that Federal funding
will make it to its designated recipient. This is especially
important for items like Community Project Funds, which are
designated for local governments and other entities.
As you may know, for months, my governor, Texas Governor
Greg Abbott, held critical COVID-relief funds hostage. This
means entities like schools were unable to properly spend
relief funds on COVID safety measures or were unable to
reimburse themselves. While Governor Abbott recently released
some of these funds, he is also holding up Federal funds to
help local governments with migrants arriving at our Nation's
front door. I urge the subcommittee to take this into
consideration while you are drafting your final bill.
Thank you so much for the opportunity to testify before you
today, and I look forward to collaborating with the
subcommittee as you continue to draft the final appropriations
bill.
I yield back.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Ms. Escobar. I understand
all too well the challenges that communities without adequate
broadband face, and our staff is diligently working to vet all
of the requests. And it is our hope to fund as many Community
Project Funding requests as we can possibly do it.
Mr. Fortenberry, any comments?
Mr. Fortenberry. Yes, just briefly, Mr. Chairman. Thank
you.
Representative Escobar, thank you for your comments. We
appreciate your insights. And as you have probably listened to
the hearing, you have noted most other Members have also
highlighted the broadband issue.
We have got a huge opportunity to embrace this digital leap
and to make sure that the funds available are pointed and meet
their intended recipients' goals. And this is what I call an
ecosystem of livability. It is just not about wires laid. It is
about the meaning of the broadband and the digital leap so that
we have the opportunities for telework and distance learning
and telehealth, as well as precision agriculture and small
business e-commerce all readily available to rural communities.
I know you are recognizing that as well as many other
Members. So thank you very much for your comments.
Ms. Escobar. Thank you both.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Ms. Escobar, for coming. And without
objection, your entire written testimony will be included in
the record.
At this time, I am delighted to recognize the gentleman
from New Jersey, Mr. Van Drew.
Mr. Van Drew, you are now recognized.
----------
Tuesday, May 18, 2021.
HON. JEFFERSON VAN DREW, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
NEW JERSEY
Mr. Van Drew. Hello, Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member
Fortenberry. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify
before the Appropriations Agricultural Subcommittee today. I am
here to request $3.75 million in the Community Project Funding
towards Salem County Courthouse located in Salem City, New
Jersey.
This project is eligible and deserving of Community Project
Funding through the USDA Community Facilities account. It has
received a letter of eligibility from the New Jersey USDA
Office of Rural Development and Community Facilities, as well
as letters of support from many local officials. Further, the
guidance issued by this subcommittee explicitly references
courthouse as an eligible category.
Salem County is the seat--and the county seat of Salem
City, in which the county courthouse is located, is a low-
income, low-population, rural, and majority minority community.
The county has found itself in an increasingly difficult
financial situation over the past decade. Between 2010 and
2015, Salem County lost $530 million in rateables, which is a
lot of money in south Jersey. In 2016, it lost another $126
million in rateables.
Salem County and Salem City have suffered population loss,
divestment, and natural disasters that have significantly
impacted the community's finances. As the county commissioner
director states in his letter, Salem City is our poorest city
in New Jersey's poorest county.
The current courthouse infrastructure is insufficient to
meet the demands that have expanded threefold over recent
decades. The planned improvements expand their facility by
nearly 100,000 square feet, and address issues including
failure to comply with handicapped accessibility, lack of
ballistic glass in windows, lack of sufficient camera coverage
on the premises, lack of duress alarms, lack of proper
screening areas, lack of secure and separate parking areas for
our judges.
The current state of the courthouse presents a public
safety issue for the entire community. The State of New Jersey
has mandated that Salem County is required to modernize the
courthouse and is responsible for the capital costs incurred in
constructing, expanding, and renovating the courthouse
facilities.
Salem County not only supports the Community Project
Funding submission, the community needs to survive this
obligation being forced upon the county.
The Salem County Courthouse project which is, in sum, will
amount to an obligation of $38 million, is yet another
liability against the county's finances.
The county has already obligated $30 million through debt
financing, which is a tremendous burden for an underprivileged
county such as this. The money will serve as a match against
the requested Community Project Funding relief.
It is crucial that the committee provide the requested
Community Facility Funding for this project so the most
disadvantaged county in New Jersey receives a lifeline that it
so desperately needs.
This project is eligible and deserving of Community Project
Funding of the requested $3.75 million. The USDA Community
Facilities program exists to support projects exactly like this
one. South Jersey needs this. South Jersey needs it very much,
and Salem County needs this and needs it very much. And Salem
City needs this funding which will keep our communities safer
and the scales of justice moving as they were intended to, with
safety.
I urge you to include this funding in this year's
appropriation. And just remind you to please remember what the
commissioner director said: Salem City is the poorest city in
New Jersey's poorest county.
Thank you for your time, Ranking Member Fortenberry and
Chairman Bishop. And I yield back.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Mr. Van Drew. Courthouses
are an important symbol for the communities that they serve,
and I look forward to working with you. Our staff is diligently
working to vet all of the requests, and it is our hope to fund
as many Community Project Funding requests as we possibly can.
Mr. Fortenberry, any comments from you?
Mr. Fortenberry. Only to thank you, Mr. Van Drew. The
Community Facilities Program is very important.
Mr. Chairman, if you could indulge me for just a moment,
maybe I could give Mr. Van Drew just 15 more seconds to
describe the circumstances in which the county courthouse
exists; in other words, the environment there that creates the
larger justification for the request.
Mr. Van Drew. Thank you. Thank you, Ranking Member.
First of all, this is an area in total, in general, as I
had mentioned, is quite poor, the surrounding area. It is an
area where there has been certainly significant increases in
some areas in crime.
The courthouse itself--I mean, imagine in today's time
lacking handicapped accessibility. Imagine not having ballistic
glass in the windows, not having the proper amount of camera
coverage, the lack of duress alarms, the lack of proper
screening areas, the lack of even a secure area, you know, is
unbelievable.
And more than anything else, remember that there only used
to be one judge there. Now there are three judges. So we have
insufficient circumstances, insufficient surroundings, and even
more stress on the area. I think we really owe to--as I am
going to repeat for hopefully the last time, but, you know, the
poorest county has the poorest town in the State of New Jersey,
and that is saying something. They really truly need--if we are
going to base this on need, certainly it is a worthy project.
Mr. Fortenberry. Great. Thank you, Representative Van Drew.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Mr. Van Drew. Without
objection, your entire written testimony will be included in
the record.
At this time, I am delighted to recognize the gentlelady
from Texas, Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee.
Ms. Lee, you are now recognized.
----------
Tuesday, May 18, 2021.
HON. SHEILA JACKSON LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
TEXAS
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, thank you so very much, for
allowing me to be here this morning. And, Mr. Fortenberry,
thank you so very much for your leadership.
I am going to quickly go through some of the important
elements of your Appropriations Committee, which is very
important because it reinforces the breadbasket status of
America.
And as evidenced during the pandemic, I can assure you that
in my district, besides, in the early days, a test to determine
whether you were COVID-19 positive, I can assure you that it
was the food, the food distribution, over and over and over
again, in food deserts, in nonfood deserts, where people were
both demanding and desperate for food.
So I understand that my entire statement will be made part
of the record, so I will keep my remarks succinct by just
calling out the names of the programs that I support. My
statement will be in the record.
SNAP program helping 47 million Americans. I support
funding at the highest level for Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program. During Hurricane Harvey, we were able to
get the Supplemental Nutrition Program under the disaster
extension and--when it was cut off, and it was represented by
local officials that people didn't need it. And over, I think,
a 1- or 2-day period, when we got the extension, we served
32,000 people.
People need food, and they need it particularly when we are
in the midst of a disaster.
I support full funding for Special Supplemental Nutrition
Program, which is the WIC Program, which offers both nutrition
education, referral services. I support $330 million for the
Emergency Food Assistance Program. I support the $65 million
for the USDA Summer Electronic Benefits Transfer for Children.
I support the $39 million for grants under section 105 of
the Healthy and Hunger-Free Kids. I think it is clear that many
children only get good healthy food at school. This will help
schools reduce hunger among low-income students and boost
education health outcomes.
I have schools in my district that the only food that these
children receive is what they receive at school, which is why
the pandemic was so devastating and why the summer school
program is so desperately needed.
I support $22 million for the Senior Farmers' Market
Nutrition Program. We are establishing farmers markets
throughout my district.
I support $240 million for Commodities Supplemental Food
Program. I support $100 million for the TEFAP storage and
distribution, which will help food banks and emergency feeding
agencies.
Our food bank is one the largest in the Nation, the Houston
Food Bank, and it has served millions of people. It provides
the anchor for food throughout the State of Texas.
I support $38 million for the Pollinator Focuses Research.
The significant decline in pollinated populations, most notably
that of commercial honey bees, is a national concern.
Pollinators are vital to our Nation's economy and ecosystem,
contributing nearly $15 billion to the economy.
I support $62 million for the Evans-Allen program; support
$30 million for the Healthy Food Financing; and in protection,
I support $6.5 million for the National Veterinary Medical
Services.
Everybody might have seen India the tiger. Well, we know
there is more work to be done. She is now safe. I support
robust funding for horse protection. $30 million for the Animal
Welfare Act.
And I am very, very strong, as I conclude, on rural
development. My district is sort of a rural-urban, urban-rural.
And we have been able to help some small cities in my community
actually get an ambulance--get commodity--get cameras for their
police officers. So it is very important.
I support $335 million for Commodity Futures Trading, $55
million for Hispanic-serving agricultural colleges. I support
$17.9 million for the USDA Circuit Rider.
And if I might, I probably, as I see the time, just
quickly, it is in my statement, but I would like to have report
language, because the committee is cognizant of the
vulnerabilities in safety and security of persons, property,
and interests working and located in the U.S. Capitol and its
environment.
And so I would like to ensure that there is report language
regarding the Secretary should take--including undertaking
immediate review of a clearance--security clearance holders
reported to have engaged in violent acts against individuals,
property, or public spaces based on the security clearance
holder's association, or sympathy with persons or organizations
that advocate, threaten, or use force or violence or any other
illegal or unconstitutional means in an effort to prevent
others from exercising their rights under the Constitution or
laws of the United States or any State based on the factors,
including, at a minimum, race, religion, national origin, or
disability.
Thank you so very much for allowing me to be here. And the
conclusion or the totality of my statement will be included in
the record. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for your
indulgence, your patience. Thank you so very much.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Ms. Jackson Lee. We appreciate your
strong interest and support for a wide variety of programs
under our committee's jurisdiction, from nutrition programs to
animal protection and welfare, to expanding our rural
development. We look forward to working with you to continue
the conversation and to ensure that these programs have the
resources that they need to succeed.
Mr. Fortenberry, any questions or comments from you?
Mr. Fortenberry. Yes. Only to thank our colleague, Ms.
Jackson Lee, for her ongoing passion around, to use your words,
good, healthy food. I really appreciate that.
I also want to highlight one thing that you mentioned, and
it surprised me a little bit, pollinator research. My wife has
kept bees, and we all know that this hidden benefit of this
small insect is invaluable to our Nation's environmental well-
being, as well as crop production. So thank you very much for
highlighting that.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank you.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, again, Ms. Lee, for coming. And
without objection, your entire written testimony will be
included in the record.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, if I might, as I close, we
would love the Agriculture Committee to give us instructions on
how to deal with this 17-year invasion that is coming that most
of us don't understand. I am sure you are aware of this beetle
bug that is coming, I understand, out soon. So we hope we get
some relief from that.
Mr. Bishop. We look forward to discussing that with you,
and we certainly will be on top of it.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you. Take care.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
At this time, I am delighted to recognize the gentlelady
from New York, Ms. Tenney.
Ms. Tenney, you are now recognized.
----------
Tuesday, May 18, 2021.
HON. CLAUDIA TENNEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW
YORK
Ms. Tenney. Thank you.
I want to thank the chairman and Ranking Member Fortenberry
and the distinguished members of the subcommittee for giving
Members the opportunity to share their priorities with you
today. This is a really important issue that I am going to
bring up.
I am also honored to represent New York's 22nd
Congressional District, which is largely rural, stretching from
Lake Ontario in the north, all the way to the Pennsylvania
border in the south.
Over the past decade, as our economy has rapidly gone
digital, communities like mine have been left behind. One of
the largest issues my constituents face is the lack of
reliable, affordable access to the internet.
In today's world, your internet connection can determine
your destiny. It shapes your access to education, healthcare,
employment, and employment opportunities. The COVID-19 pandemic
has only driven this point home. Education, work, and
healthcare is all online. Those who lack the bandwidth lack the
access.
To make matters even worse, upstate New York is subject to
a broadband monopoly. Sadly, New York State political officials
agreed to a cable consolidation plan under an agreement with
Spectrum Communications, which they claimed would expand and
improve service. However, the State and the New York Public
Service Commission have absolutely failed to enforce this
agreement to expand into rural communities like mine. This has
left too many rural customers in my district with nonexistent
broadband service or service that is far too expensive or far
too weak to have effective communication.
This is the reason I support a community funded project
that was presented to me by the Village of Sherburne in New
York. This project would greatly expand high-quality internet
to residents, providing larger bandwidths to a local school and
a healthcare facility in the district, as well as allowing
businesses and residents to access significantly faster
service. This is going to open my community to greater
opportunity.
In addition, the new network will allow customers to access
multiple internet service providers, giving them greater
options at lower costs, and our seniors are very excited about
this.
As you move forward with the USDA's ReConnect Program, it
is essential that we continue our support for these types of
projects while also making reforms to ensure the program is
meeting with the changing needs of communities.
To this extent, I encourage this subcommittee to review the
definition of minimum internet service and determine if the
definition still meets current needs. In the last decade,
technology has transformed and current scheduled increase of
the minimum download speed to 25 megabits per second simply is
not high enough to meet the demands of many communities. In
fact, most of my community is at less than 10 megabits per
second.
Higher standards for schools, healthcare facilities, and
libraries are also essential. Imagine your child not being able
to stream an educational video, or your doctor not having
enough internet service or accessibility to adequately research
a condition or to provide telehealth services to so many of our
seniors.
It is also important that new expansions are able to host
multiple internet service providers so rural customers are
given real choice to participate in a robust market and not
locked into an expensive monopoly, like many of the residents
in my district.
Transparency and accountability were two critical factors
that drove my support of this project. I am committed to
ensuring my Federal funding brought back to our region is spent
transparently and responsibly. As with any Federal program,
Community Project Funds must adhere to the highest standards,
and I will hold my community beneficiaries accountable.
This project I am supporting today was rigorously reviewed,
included extensive consultations with a variety of
stakeholders. It has strong buy-in from my community, as well
as clearly demonstrated benefit to my district.
As many of you likely know, New York State taxpayers pay
more to the Federal Treasury than the State receives in return.
I will always advocate on behalf of my community and fight to
return tax dollars to New York.
Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman and the subcommittee ranker,
for giving us this opportunity to present our requests. Thank
you, and I will take any questions if any. I yield back.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Ms. Tenney. Thank you for
your testimony. We understand the challenges that communities
without adequate broadband face. Our staff is diligently
working to vet all of the requests, and it is our hope to be
able to fund as many Community Project Funding requests as we
possibly can.
Mr. Fortenberry.
Mr. Fortenberry. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Tenney, I want to pick up on what you said about, I
think the town is called Sherburne, New York. Working with
Chairman Bishop, we created a new program over the last 2 years
called the Rural Placemaking Innovation Challenge. And I would
like to point you and that community in that direction.
I commend you for bringing up this idea of what we call
placemaking or this ecosystem of livability, ensuring that
broadband is actually--and broadband expansion is actually
meeting its intended purpose of expanding, again, access to
telehealth, livability, e-commerce, small business, as well as
distance learning and the opportunity to engage in telework,
including a variety of other factors that make a place, again,
a great place to live and work and raise a family.
So, again, it is called the Rural Placemaking Innovation
Challenge. I appreciate your comments. And this might be
another place in which you want to investigate to see if it
fits your community, and we would be happy to work with you on
that if you would like.
Ms. Tenney. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. We have
many communities who need this, and so we appreciate it.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Ms. Tenney. And without objection,
your entire written testimony will be included in the record.
At this time, I am happy to recognize the gentleman from
Tennessee, Mr. Rose.
Mr. Rose, you are now recognized.
----------
Tuesday, May 18, 2021.
HON. JOHN W. ROSE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
TENNESSEE
Mr. Rose. Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Fortenberry, and
members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
speak on matters of great importance to the agricultural
community. It is an honor to be with you and be here this
morning.
I come before you today to request level funding for the
Non-Land-Grant Colleges of Agriculture Program through the
National Institute of Food and Agriculture, or NIFA, so that
our non-land-grant institutions of higher learning may continue
to educate and train future leaders of the agricultural
industry.
Since the 2008 farm bill authorized its creation, NIFA has
collaborated with leading scientists, policymakers, experts,
and educators in organizations throughout the world to find
innovative solutions to the most pressing local and global
problems. I can think of no better way that NIFA accomplishes
this mission than through their support of their capacity-
building grants for non-land-grant colleges of agriculture.
These grants focus on improving research, outreach, and
post-secondary level educational activities related to food,
agriculture, natural and renewable resources, human sciences,
and other similar disciplines.
The NLGCA program has been a critical asset to preparing
32,000 graduates annually for a successful career in the
agricultural industry. This program offers a hands-on approach
to learning for undergraduate research, balanced by a
curriculum focused on business principles, critical thinking,
problem-solving, decisionmaking, creativity, communication, and
teamwork.
By graduation, students are well prepared to return to
their family's farm, begin a career in public service, pursue
further learning, or find other ways to contribute to our
Nation's agricultural community.
Of the 58 NLGCAs across the United States, awarding 25
percent of all baccalaureate degrees in agriculture, food, and
natural resources-related majors, the need is stronger than
ever to support this vital learning program.
Additionally, I urge the committee to support my Community
Funding request for $5 million to be directed to Tennessee
Technological University for the development of a 10-acre
greenhouse complex to enhance the availability of hands-on
educational opportunities for students at the TTU School of
Agriculture.
Part of what makes STEM education so unique is the
necessity for students to not only have access to outstanding
teachers, textbooks, and classrooms, but equally as important
are the opportunities for experiential learning. For students
in STEM majors, it is critical that, as part of their
education, they have the chance to experiment with the lessons,
methods, and theories they learned in their lectures. This
greenhouse complex would make that possible.
If built, this greenhouse will provide TTU students and
farmers from across the Upper Cumberland Region the opportunity
to grow produce using state-of-the-art technology that is
affordable on a small scale and is also scaleable to larger
operations. The complex would also provide employment
opportunities for students to assist with educational expenses,
while providing local food banks with fresh produce in the
area.
Finally, it is worth noting that the students who would
make the greatest use of these facilities are predominantly
women. Therefore, this project would bolster diversity in the
agricultural industry and provide greater opportunities for
young women who choose to pursue careers in agriculture.
The benefits of this request would be felt throughout the
community, both for students and farmers alike.
Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Fortenberry, thank you
again for allowing me to appear before this subcommittee today,
and I look forward to working with you and the rest of the
subcommittee as we pursue ways to better American agriculture.
Thank you. I yield back.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Mr. Rose. We must continue
to invest in the education and training for the future leaders
of agriculture, and we will continue to do this through NIFA.
Your commitment to education and training is also reflected in
your Community Project Funding request, and our staff is
diligently working to vet all of the requests, and it is our
hope to fund as many of these projects as possible.
Mr. Fortenberry.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Representative Rose, for your thoughtful
comments, the importance of agricultural education across a
variety of institutions. Dr. Castille, who runs NIFA, was
before our committee last week. If I can make a personal
recommendation, I think some dialogue directly with her might
be of benefit to you.
Part of the guiding principles that she pointed out are
stewardship and profitability as they inform the intentionality
of their organization. And I thought that was very thoughtful
and insightful because, again, this idea of sustainability is
stewardship of the resources that we have and making sure that
it provides revenue back to the farmers.
So just, again, a personal note, maybe a recommendation,
you might want to take up to have direct dialogue with her, but
I really appreciate your thoughtful comments.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Fortenberry.
And, Mr. Rose, the subcommittee appreciates your testimony
very much. And without objection, your entire written testimony
will be included in the record.
Mr. Rose. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. At this time, I am delighted to recognize the
gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Baird.
Mr. Baird, you are now recognized.
----------
Tuesday, May 18, 2021.
HON. JAMES R. BAIRD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
INDIANA
Mr. Baird. Thank you, Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member
Fortenberry, for this opportunity to join you today and share
initiatives I feel are priorities for the agricultural
industry.
For those of you who don't know me well, I represent
Indiana's Fourth Congressional District, the largest ag
district in an already ag-heavy State. I am a Ph.D. Animal
scientist and a farmer myself. So needless to say, I have a
great passion for serving our Nation's farmers and ranchers and
providing the tools needed to keep America's food system
healthy, affordable, and stable.
The first item I would like to call your attention to is
increased funding and direction for FDA's Center for Veterinary
Medicine, for evaluation and approval of animal food
ingredients. Animal food manufacturers are researching and
bringing to market innovative feed ingredients that can improve
animal nutrition, animal health, production, make the food
safer, and reduce the industry's environmental footprint. They
are able to do this because regulatory schemes elsewhere in the
world have kept pace with the evolving science of animal
nutrition.
Unfortunately, our farmers and ranchers in the United
States are missing out on these opportunities, some of these
ingredients, due to the Food and Drug Administration's outdated
way of regulating these products, and reductions and
restrictions on how they are marketed.
I ask this committee to urge the FDA to modernize its
policies to allow feed ingredients with production animal well-
being, food safety, and the environmental claims to be
regulated as foods rather than drugs. To address this much
needed modernization, I ask the committee to provide an
increase of $5 million to improve animal food ingredient
reviews to enable innovation to continue in this industry.
Another important area for scientific innovation is our
understanding of genetics through the National Institute of
Food and Agriculture's Genome to Phenome Initiative. This
initiative is an important program for providing plant
researchers with the tools to measure and to analyze plant
characteristics to grow better crops, regardless of the
environment, advancing the efficiency and sustainability for
producers. And to expand access to these tools and continue
this important research, I ask the committee to increase the
funding to the program to $10 million for fiscal year 2022.
As American science and agriculture continue to develop and
implement innovative new technologies, it is critical that
legislators not add additional burdens to the process of
bringing these technologies to market and bringing it into
production. In no case is this truer than that of the
bioengineered salmon. AquaBounty, an aquaculture company in my
State, has developed a product that has repeatedly been proven
safe and can sustainably increase domestic production of high-
quality protein. Unfortunately, past Senate appropriations
language has stymied the commercialization of this innovative
technology by placing additional requirements on the product.
I ask that this year's House appropriations package include
language to allow the sale of this product labeled as
bioengineered, in line with the disclosure standard. I have
provided suggested bill language for the record as well as
through the appropriations request portal.
Another area, oat production and oat consumption in the
U.S. has increased over the year. Oat production has steadily
decreased resulting in U.S. mills importing over 90 percent of
their oats from Canada. In order to bring oat production back
to the U.S., I ask the committee to continue to support ARS'
genetic oat research program by providing an increase of $2.25
million so that our Nation can become self-sufficient.
In addition to the previously described programs, whose
funding I feel is critical and of critical importance to the
success of modern agricultural industry, moving forward, I
would like to express the importance of and my broad support
for, as already been mentioned, the Rural Development
Cooperative Grant Program, full funding for critically
important National Animal Health Laboratory Network, full
funding for the Agriculture Advanced Research and Development
Authority, broad support for funding the increase to the
adoption and consumer access to biofuels like ethanol, and
broad support for USDA programs that help provide access to
broadband connectivity for those in rural America who currently
lack that access.
I feel strongly that the programs I have highlighted for
you this morning are critical to the continued success of
agriculture and the agricultural industry and will play a
critical role in providing a healthier, more affordable, and
more sustainable food system, situated to help solve some of
the Nation's most pressing issues.
I hope that you will share my passion for this effort and
support these requests. I look forward to working with you on
these and other issues moving forward. And thank you for your
time today.
With that, Mr. Chair, unless you have any questions, I
yield back.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Dr. Baird. You have mentioned a
couple of topics that we had not yet heard today, and I thank
you for bringing those issues to our attention. And as a member
of the Agriculture Committee, you know how vital agriculture
research is to our country, and I will continue to ensure that
research initiatives are sufficiently funded across the board.
Mr. Fortenberry.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Dr. Baird. I should mention this, you noted that
you are a farmer, and clearly with your Ph.D. Work, you have a
substantive background in nutrition and outcomes for our food
processing system. Something that many Members I don't think
are aware of is that you are a Vietnam veteran as well. I just
wanted to highlight that, Dr. Baird. And, again, thank you for
your service. And thank you for your testimony today.
Mr. Baird. Thank you. I appreciate it.
Mr. Bishop. We appreciate your testimony. And without
objection, your entire written testimony will be included in
the record.
At this time, I am delighted to recognize Mr. Raja
Krishnamoorthi of Illinois.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi, you are now recognized.
----------
Tuesday, May 18, 2021.
HON. RAJA KRISHNAMOORTHI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE
OF ILLINOIS
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Thank you so much, Chairman Bishop,
Ranking Member Fortenberry, and members of the subcommittee.
And I have to compliment you, everything is running on time, so
congratulations.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify here this morning.
I am coming to you not only as a fellow Member of Congress, but
as a father of three. I wanted to sound the alarm on something
that we only learned about recently through an investigation on
the House Oversight Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer
Policy, which is that a lot of our baby food contains dangerous
neurotoxins. This recent investigation revealed that,
unfortunately, there are high levels of lead, arsenic, cadmium,
and mercury contained in very popular baby food brands,
including Gerber, Happy Baby, Hain, and Beech-Nut.
Now, as a father of three, my wife and I have been a profit
center for baby foods in the past. We have purchased a lot of
baby food. And unfortunately, this was a shocking discovery
that we came across.
Just to give you an example, the FDA will not allow more
than 10 parts per billion of lead in an adult quantity of
bottled water. But what we found is that baby foods routinely
have 641 parts per billion of lead, 345 parts per billion of
cadmium, and 180 parts per billion of arsenic. And as us know,
all of those are dangerous for human life.
The consequences of consuming these toxic heavy metals in
infancy and early childhood are significant and lifelong. They
cause deficits in IQ, they cause behavioral problems such as
attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder, and they cause
central nervous damage as well. And so this is deeply, deeply
troubling and disturbing.
The public reacted to our investigation with outrage and
confusion. They said, how could these brands, some of them
generations-old American icons, allow their foods to harm
babies? As a parent myself, I can assure you there is nothing
more gut-wrenching than the knowledge that you may have caused
your children harm, even unwittingly. Therefore, parents
demanded action.
The FDA responded to our investigation by launching the
Closer to Zero program, which is aimed at reducing the content
of lead, arsenic, cadmium, and mercury in baby food over the
coming years. This long overdue step is welcome, but it
currently lacks the urgency needed to meet the needs of
protecting babies' brains.
While the FDA promised Closer to Zero would lead to a draft
lead standard within 1 year and a draft arsenic standard within
3 years, its timeline for creating draft cadmium and mercury
standards is delayed until, quote/unquote, 2024 to beyond.
Furthermore, the FDA has not yet demonstrated a commitment to
reducing toxic heavy metals to truly protect a child's
neurodevelopment.
It is for this reason that I respectfully, yet urgently,
ask you to include report language in the fiscal year 2022
appropriations bill providing $10 million for the FDA's Closer
to Zero program. It is imperative, gentlemen and gentleladies,
it is imperative that the FDA prioritize this particular
program and work as expeditiously as possible to remove toxic
heavy metals from baby food.
Ten thousand American babies start on solid foods every
day, 10,000. Therefore, there is absolutely no time to waste.
We must ensure baby foods are truly safe to feed our kids, not
just for the sake of our own children and grandchildren, but
for the health of each future generation of Americans.
Thank you for hearing my testimony this morning. I
encourage you to please reach out to me or my staff if you need
any additional information on this topic, which we will gladly
provide. I greatly look forward to passing an annual
appropriations bill under your leadership that will further
ensure the health and well-being of our children. Nothing could
be more important.
Thank you so much. And I yield back.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6857A.185
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Mr. Krishnamoorthi. We
absolutely must do all that we can to protect our babies and
young children from exposure to toxic heavy metals. We will
work very closely with FDA to ensure the Closer to Zero plan is
effectively implemented.
Mr. Fortenberry, you are recognized.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you as
well, Representative Krishnamoorthi, for the insightful
testimony.
Let me ask you one question, in what oversight hearing was
this a focus? I know it was last year, but where did this
occur?
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. This was in the Oversight Subcommittee
on Economic and Consumer Policy.
Mr. Fortenberry. Well, this is very, very helpful
information. So thankful for your passion around this, as well
as your thoughtful diligence in following through to hopefully
what will be some successful end in solving this problem. Thank
you very much.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Thank you so much.
Mr. Bishop. Again, thank you, Mr. Krishnamoorthi. The
subcommittee very much appreciates your testimony. And without
objection, your entire written testimony will be included in
the record.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. At this time, I am delighted to recognize the
gentleman from Hawaii, Mr. Case.
Mr. Case, you are now recognized.
----------
Tuesday, May 18, 2021.
HON. ED CASE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF HAWAII
Mr. Case. Mr. Chair, Ranking Member, and members of the
subcommittee, mahalo for the opportunity to testify before you
today on critical needs for Hawaii agriculture.
My Hawaii has been blessed with some of the most productive
and diverse agriculture in the world throughout our history.
From ancient taro, through a century and a half of sugar and
pineapple, and into today's high value macadamia nut, coffee,
and tropical fruit and flower crops, as well as ranching,
Hawaii agriculture has remained vibrant, a primary economic
driver, and the foundation of our rural communities.
Yet Hawaii agriculture has its own challenges which require
Federal attention. For starters, invasive species, a major
issue throughout our country, are especially acute in Hawaii
where, because of our isolation and unique ecosystems, they
have especially devastating effects requiring extraordinary
prevention and mitigation actions, and the pace of new
introductions and damage is accelerating. It is estimated that
in just the past 15 years, 195 new invasive species have been
introduced to Hawaii.
This subcommittee and Congress have supported a range of
Federal invasive species programs that have materially helped
address invasives in Hawaii, like fruit flies, coffee berry
borer, macadamia felted coccid, avocado lace bug, little red
fire ant, and two-lined spittlebug.
Furthermore, increased funding for the Agricultural
Quarantine Program has provided a critical first line of
defense that prevents these additional invasives from reaching
the Continental United States. I ask the subcommittee to
continue to enhance these programs.
However, there is a vital need for new funding for a new
particularly threatening invasive, coffee leaf rust. In October
of 2020, coffee leaf rust was just discovered on coffee plants
on Maui Island, and has since spread to most of the Hawaiian
islands. Farms can experience yield loss as greater than 70
percent and lead to tree mortality throughout. This has the
potential to wipe out the Hawaii coffee industry, which is one
of our State's most significant agricultural exports, valued at
more than $148 million when converted to roasted products.
While USDA's efforts to control the spread of coffee leaf
rust in Hawaii have been a necessary Band-Aid, longer term
Agricultural Research Service funding for research into
resistant varieties and management tools is critical for the
viability of this iconic Hawaii industry.
In addition, I ask for the subcommittee's continued support
of Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian serving institutions,
whose funding has generally remained stagnant. In addition, the
4-H and Future Farmers of America grant programs for Alaska
Native and Native Hawaiian serving institutions help schools,
like the University of Hawaii, train the next generation of
agricultural leaders from our indigenous communities. This is
desperately needed in Hawaii where the average age of a farmer
is 60 years old.
I lastly want to urge the subcommittee's continued support
for specialty crops, especially tropical and subtropical crops.
The tropical regions of the world are estimated to contain half
of the species on Earth and have numerous opportunities for
expansion. The tropical crops that we all love, like cacao,
guava, mango, and taro, are being produced domestically in
greater quantities but can't receive research funding like
other crops. They are hampered by limited local resources and
limited access to national resources and by a continued bias in
our national policy and support towards the larger traditional
crops.
Tropical and subtropical research have been listed as a
high priority research and extension area, but it appears that
the National Institute of Food and Agriculture has lacked
targeted funding to implement a tropical and subtropical
research program as it has for other high-priority areas. Given
more exacerbated threats from climate change and increased
risks from invasive species in these climates, tropical and
subtropical research is more needed than ever. Targeted
research funding in this space would help the small and
minority farmers that drive this industry.
The COVID-19 pandemic, and especially its effect on the
tourism and hospitality industry, have affected most industries
in Hawaii, including our farmers, who market extensively to
both residents and visitors. While COVID-19 assistance from the
USDA and SBA has been a vital lifeline for our farmers, we must
continue to invest in domestic agriculture to help our
agricultural producers bounce back and thrive.
Thank you so much again for the opportunity to testify
before you today and for your careful consideration of the
needs of Hawaii agriculture. Mahalo.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Case. Your highlight of the
unique challenges that are facing the agriculture industry in
Hawaii is an important example of how many producers around the
country depend on strong USDA programs. We look forward to
continuing to work with you to make sure that USDA has the
resources that it needs in order to succeed.
Mr. Fortenberry.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Case. I was very engaged by your testimony.
I come from a big agricultural country where we have
traditional crop production and livestock production, but we
always consider agriculture to be a big family. And I think
your particular emphasis on specialty crop production, as well
as tropical and subtropical crop production, is very insightful
and a wanted opportunity to augment what we are doing in order
to enhance opportunities, not only where you live, but for the
well-being of the entire Nation.
Unfortunately, I have never been able to see the problems
that you noted up close. Perhaps Chairman Bishop has visited
your district, but I have never been able to. That would be a
wonderful opportunity, should that ever arise as well.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Case. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair and Ranking Member.
And, Ranking Member, we certainly invite you to come and take a
look at a different side of the United States' agriculture
industry and community. We all need the support all of
agriculture throughout our country. My part just happens to be
a little bit different than what people are used to, but it
nonetheless needs a lot of attention.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Case. We certainly would like to
have the subcommittee come out and look firsthand at the
wonderful things that you guys are doing out in Hawaii in
agriculture.
We appreciate your testimony very much. And without
objection, your entire written testimony will be included in
the record.
Mr. Case. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. Let me take this opportunity to thank all of
the Members again for testifying before our subcommittee today.
We appreciate your coming out and taking the time to talk to us
about projects and programs that are important to your
constituents. Your input will be vital as we move forward with
the 2022 appropriations process.
At this time, I would like to recognize my friend and my
partner, Mr. Fortenberry, for any comments that he would like
to make before we close.
Mr. Fortenberry. Only briefly, Mr. Chairman. Thank you so
much for your leadership. I thought this was a great and
insightful discussion today across the broad range of
agricultural considerations and rural development
considerations that are affecting America. I really appreciate
your willingness to hold this.
Again, agriculture in so many ways can transcend so many of
the divides across the Nation, and I think we heard that today.
We are all singularly focused on a safe and healthy and vibrant
food system as well as vibrant world communities.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Fortenberry.
And thank you again to all of the Members in attendance.
And a special thanks to our staff, who so efficiently put this
hearing together and kept us on time.
For Members who were not able to attend the hearing to
testify in person, if you wish to submit written testimony,
please do so by the end of the day. Your entire testimony will
be included in the record.
With that, this subcommittee is now adjourned.
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
W I T N E S S E S
----------
Page
Baird, Hon. James R.............................................. 476
Case, Hon. Ed.................................................... 484
Dean, Stacy...................................................... 294
Denigan-Macauley, Mary........................................... 103
Escobar, Hon. Veronica........................................... 447
Fallon, Hon. Pat................................................. 440
Fong, Phyllis.................................................... 4
Hagedorn, Hon. Jim............................................... 430
Jackson Lee, Hon. Sheila......................................... 456
Krishnamoorthi, Hon. Raja........................................ 481
Maxson, Justin................................................... 336
Rose, Hon. John W................................................ 471
Schrier, Hon. Kim................................................ 435
Smith, Glen R.................................................... 170
Tenney, Hon. Claudia............................................. 465
Thompson, Hon. Glenn............................................. 494
Van Drew, Hon. Jefferson......................................... 452
Vilsack, Hon. Thomas J........................................... 213
[all]
File and source
- File
- CHRG_chrg-117hhrg46857_chrg-117hhrg46857.htm
- Size
- 838,407 bytes
- SHA-256
- 1109e707fa4e3e24849d77fdba3492d8cc234a9e0ba597d00bcaf41759a5bb4e
- Original
- No public link identified.