Budget Hearing – U.S. Department of Agriculture

Now that we've turned the lights down, we can get started. The subcommittee will come to order. Good morning. I want to thank all of you for being here today for this hearing to review the budget and programs at the US Department of Agriculture. We're pleased to be joined by the Secretary of Agriculture, Brooke Rollins. Secretary Rollins, we welcome you to the subcommittee. I look forward to hearing about your priorities and the work that's been underway at USDA during the first 100 days of the Trump administration.

As you know, we have the most productive and efficient agricultural producers in the world. It's critical that they maintain access to important crop protection tools and technology so that they can continue to feed our nation and the world. They also need access to land, which is why I'm concerned about solar panels being placed on prime farmland, not only in my district, but across the country. My producers are very concerned by this, and I look forward to working with the administration to end tax subsidies and disincentivize such technologies so that we can keep fertile farmland in production.

Madam Secretary, I want to commend you for your leadership in quickly implementing the emergency commodity assistance program. In December, Congress enacted $31 billion in disaster and economic relief for farmers and ranchers. Producers are applying for the $10 billion set aside for economic assistance, and payments are already being made. The speed at which USDA worked to make these funds available to farmers highlights this administration's emphasis that our government work in a better and more efficient manner for the American people. It also highlights your commitment on to the backs of farmers and ranchers following several years of a poor agricultural economy.

At the same time, USDA cannot take its foot off the gas in implementing the remaining $21 billion in disaster funds. Producers around the country face devastating natural disasters in 2023 and 2024. From floods in California, persistent drought in many of the Great Plains states, and hurricanes across Florida and the southeastern United States. The subcommittee held a roundt with USDA officials at the end of March to discuss implementing these disaster funds, and we're anxious to hear any updates on the next steps and timelines for delivering those funds to farmers.

I also appreciate your prioritizing USDA's response to the avian influenza outbreak which began in 2022. This disaster has decimated poultry flocks across the country, including broiler flocks in my district in Maryland, and has spread to dairy cattle nationwide. You've directed additional funding towards combating the disease, and I look forward to an update on this evolving situation. As you know, poultry production is important in my district, and I appreciate you have already made great progress in reducing unnecessary burdens on the poultry industry by finally addressing line speeds at processing facilities. But the Biden administration also pushed harmful packers and stockyards regulations that dictate how poultry and livestock producers raise and market their animals, and I hope those rules will be addressed by the Trump administration.

My district also includes the Chesapeake Bay, which has been devastated by invasive blue catfish. Congress has provided funding to increase processing capacity to develop a self-sustaining market for these invasive catfish. Processors in the bay are lining up and eager to apply for this funding. So, USD, the USDA must move forward with the application process as quickly as possible. At the same time, processors have worked with the agricultural marketing service to purchase more wild-caught catfish at the U for the USDA nutrition programs. I'd ask specifically that you ensure that wild-caught catfish are included in all the AMS solicitations equally with other seafood products.

Another issue you and I have discussed, Madam Secretary, is that the federal government should not continue to subsidize unhealthy food in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Over the past 20 years, cities and states have asked USDA for the ability to restrict SNAP purchases of sugary drinks and unhealthy food. But each time, surprisingly, those requests have been denied. We must return SNAP, the largest food assistance and nutrition program in America, back to its original purpose of providing nutritious foods for participants. I'm glad to see the proactive steps you've taken to work with states on this, and I look forward to working with you to move the program in this direction.

Finally, on Friday, we received a high-level overview of the FY26 President's budget request. Several programs are marked for elimination or significant reductions, and I hope we'll receive a more detailed budget request as soon as possible. We need to understand the potential savings and efficiencies that have been identified as U at USDA as we move through our appropriations process. When this country is running a chronic $2 trillion deficit, we have a responsibility to spend every taxpayer dollar wisely. Again, I appreciate you being with us for today's discussion. Madam Secretary, Ranking Member Bishop, I'll now yield to you for any opening remarks you'd like to make.

Thank you very much, uh, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Secretary Rollins, it is good to have you here with us today. I recognize that you have been very busy and have had some very urgent work to do, uh, such as rolling out the congressional directives, including the much-awaited economic assistance for farmers and dealing with the Texas water issue. Uh, I want to thank you for coming before the committee today because I'm concerned, uh, that the administration, uh, appears to be operating outside the rule of law. Uh, pursuant to its Article I constitutional authority, Congress has passed laws establishing a process to repurpose funding and a process to conduct a legal reduction of force. Yet the administration has refused to follow the law and is in the process of dismembering the federal government in every single department without authority to do so. We see what's happening with the Department of Education, with FEMA, with HHS, and today we're talking about agriculture. No Fortune 500 CEO worth his or her salt would put the cart before the horse and fire huge swaths of their employees and then try to figure out if there were enough people left to meet the company's needs and serve its customers. Yet, that's what USDA and other federal agencies have done or seem to be doing.

Um, did the administration thoughtlessly fire people working on bird flu? Oops. Recklessly fire those who protect our nuclear stockpile? Oops. Um, my colleague, Chairman Harris, and I both believe that good congressional oversight means fighting fraud, waste, and abuse. Yet, uh, the President fired the person at USDA responsible for going after fraud, waste, and abuse, the USDA Inspector General, with no justification, and had her unceremoniously escorted from her office. Uh, as you know, in March, Congress passed a continuing resolution, and in it, House and Senate Republicans required USDA to provide this committee with a detailed plan showing how the department will spend taxpayer dollars. The two-page document we received last week, later, I might add, did not show any level of detail, and it fails to meet that legal obligation. That is essentially a slap in the face to the Republican majorities in the House and Senate who included that requirement in the CR. Uh, your decision to violate this requirement demonstrates that, uh, there's a lack of accountability to the committee, but more importantly shows a lack of responsibility to the American taxpayers that we represent for how you're spending their money. The lack of detail, quite honestly, makes me wonder what's being hidden. That's why we need hearings like this today to set the record straight.

For example, in reading your testimony for the hearing today, it insinuates that the National Agriculture Statistics Service, under the Biden administration, frivolously canceled the July cattle and county estimate survey last year. The fact is that the cancellation was due to an insufficient funding level in the FY24 bill done at the direction of Republicans on this committee, uh, something to which my staff and I repeatedly objected. House Republicans did not enact a final appropriation until halfway through the fiscal year, a result of Speaker Johnson's reluctance to negotiate on a topline. This is what happens when Congress underfunds or withholds funds from USDA. Critical functions get canceled. When our constituents have questions, we must get answers from you. And I would imagine my Republican colleagues, as good representatives in this co-equal branch of government, uh, feel the same. My constituents say that USDA is understaffed. My constituents, including entire school districts, our healthcare system, and many farmers, also say that they are hurting from the cancellation of the local food agreements and from frozen funding. Local food purchasing agreements awarded over $900 million in all 50 states, D.C., four territories, and 84 tribes. The Local Food for Schools program awarded $200 million in funds to 42 states and the District of Columbia. Georgia has the fifth largest school nutrition program in America. The cancellation of the Local Food for Schools program and USDA's decision not to fund the Farm to School grant program this year has hurt over 40 Georgia school districts. Their ability to feed school kids has been severely stunted, and our farmers have lost a valuable market. My constituents say that the President is causing uncertainty. Uncertainty as farmers wait for promised funding. I hear that farmers and small businesses are still waiting for their EQUIP grants and their REAP grants. Funds for rural broadband, funds for agricultural research, and funds for other programs are still frozen, and people are still waiting. Uncertainty as USDA's priorities change. Uncertainty compounded by the lack of a farm bill. Uncertainty as tariff announcements yo-yo back and forth. That uncertainty feeds fear, which is pitting farmers against families. This does not have to be a zero-sum game.

Secretary Rollins, you have a very impressive background, act policy development in undergraduate, uh, foundation in the law with your jurist doctor, and clear leadership as you founded the America First Foundation. I'm hopeful that putting America First in your job as Secretary of Agriculture will mean that you will do all that is necessary to assure that American agriculture will be sufficiently funded with research, personnel, and all of the tools so that American producers can continue to produce the highest quality, the safest, the most abundant, and the most affordable food and fiber anywhere in the world. But please know that that won't happen if we try to fund agriculture for the 21st century with 20th century levels. We must be innovative. I look forward to working with you, uh, and your team at USDA, and with Chairman Harris, and with this committee, uh, in behalf of the American people so that all of the stakeholders of the USDA and the American people will get all that we deserve and that we need, uh, from that agency. Thank you very much. Look forward to your testimony and the questions to follow.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Bishop. I'd like now like to recognize now the distinguished Ranking Member of the Appropriations Committee, Ms. DeLauro, for her opening statement.

Thank you very much, uh, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the Ranking Member for holding what is an important budget committee. And I want to welcome our witness, Secretary Rollins, for appearing, uh, here this morning and look forward to your testimony and, uh, and the opportunity to have a, uh, an exchange. Um, we are in the middle of a cost of living crisis today. It's directly hurting farmers. And the Trump administration has unlawfully frozen and impounded congressionally appropriated funds for agencies, programs, and services that assist American farmers. Understand that the power of the purse resides in the U.S. Congress. It's in the Constitution. And while we want to play fast and loose with the Constitution, we have to abide by what it says. That is who we are as a as a nation. Let me just talk, just, just let me just tick off for a second here. The, uh, uh, programs that have been frozen or canceled or cut in some way: National Institute of Food and Agriculture frozen. Local Food Purchase Assistance Cooperative Agreement canceled, terminated. Local Food for Schools Cooperative Agreement Program canceled, terminated. EQUIP Environmental Quality Incentives frozen, uh, uh, program frozen. Conservation Stewardship Program frozen. Agriculture Conservation Easement Program frozen. Regional Conservation Partnership frozen. Conservation Technical Assistance frozen. Technical Assistance for Underserved Farmers, Ranchers, Foresters frozen. Watershed Programs frozen. Reconnect Broadband Loan and Grant Program frozen. The Emergency Food Assistance Program, TFAP, canceled or terminated. And I might add, the administration has indiscriminately fired thousands of civil servants who help administer these programs and ensure funding goes where it is intended. The President is not laser-focused on the cost of living crisis. He is actually making it worse. He promised to fight for the working class and for farmers, but instead put Elon Musk and billionaires in charge of the government. The administration is attacking farmers to pay for tax cuts for billionaires. The White House has halted over $600 million in funding promised to rural businesses and farmers through the Rural Energy for America Program and other vital programs. They stole from the farmers and rural businesses who took the deal that the government offered them to invest in renewable energy, raising their energy, uh, costs, increasing economic stress, and in turn, they raise the costs on the American people in the middle of a cost of living crisis. Likewise, when the administration froze the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, they left farmers and producers who invested in conservation projects, they left them out to dry. They canceled over $1 billion in funding for programs that help schools, food banks purchase food directly from local farms, threatening the livelihood of farmers and the nourishment of children and families reliant on this assistance. By cutting these funds, the administration prioritized corporate interests over the hardworking farmers who need these supports to continue operating. I've always been focused on the needs of small and medium-sized farmers because they are the backbone of our country and, and quite frankly, the backbone of my state of Connecticut. And I would like to recognize, uh, one in the room today who traveled from Connecticut 79 hours. Willie DeLauro. Willie, a small specialty crop farmer from my district, experienced a severe storm last December. He did everything right, everything right, and had insurance coverage, but was still left with over $200,000 in losses. In response, with his help, we created and passed the Farm Recovery and Support Block Grant, a program that's tailored to the needs of small and medium-sized farmers, which removed the barrier of crop insurance requirements, allowed flexibility for states in response to extreme weather events. New England farmers depend on this grant, and I will work with you to make sure that this support gets out as Congress intended. To date, Willie DeLauro has not received one dime. And also here is another Connecticut farmer in attendance, Robert Chong, who is was talking about the need for this $220 million. There's Robert right back there. So, and the gentleman sitting next to Willie was here in the '70s when the farmers came down with tractors and made their case. And we say thank you for that. And if we have to have the tractors back here again, we'll do it, and we'll be with you on that. Even though we received Trump's con concepts of a budget plan on Friday, we are now into May without a real budget from the White House. Though I am eager to learn about why you have chosen to eliminate funding for the Food for Peace program, the McGovern-Dole programs, and gut funding for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program. Not only will this take food from the mouths of millions at home and abroad, including seniors who face hunger and starvation, it will harm American farmers who will no longer see proceeds from producing this urgently needed food. Thanks to the administration's lawless funding freeze and the dismantling of agencies without congressional involvement, hundreds of thousands of pounds of food grown by American farmers has sat in warehouses or gone to waste. Local Food for Schools and Local Food Purchase Assistance were ended by USDA earlier this year, meaning not only did the administration determine that feeding our children was not a priority, they decided the farmers who produce the food for these children were not a priority either. Connecticut is expected to lose nearly $4 million in funding from these two programs alone. $4 million in support that goes directly to purchasing locally grown fresh fruits and vegetables. I understand the administration's eager to pass tax breaks for billionaires, but doing so by stealing from hungry people and farmers is indefensible. Next, Congress, Republicans in Congress and the White House will target our safety net programs for hungry people, including children, WIC, and SNAP, or food stamps to pay for their billionaire tax break. Madam Secretary, this administration's abandonment of farmers is not creating efficiency, and you know that it is not helping farmers nor consumers save money. In fact, the President's trade war, which he has admitted puts farmers on the front lines, will cost taxpayers billions of dollars in bailouts to shield farmers from the consequences of this President's agenda. Farmers and the American people need immediate answers as to how you plan to fix the mess that this administration is creating for them. Thank you for being here. Look forward to your testimony. I yield back.

Thank you very much. And I'll recognize the the Chairman of the whole committee when he arrives for his, uh, remarks. But until then, thank you, Ms. DeLauro. Secretary Rollins, without objecting, without objection, your entire written testimony will be included in the record. And after your statement, we'll proceed with questions. As, as the first reminder, because I'll remind members again before we start questioning, uh, we have a, you know, hard break at noon for the Secretary. So, we'll have to abide by the five-minute rule for questions. Secretary Rollins, you're now recognized for your statement.

Thank you, sir. Chairman Harris, Ranking Member DeLauro, Ranking Member Bishop, and obviously when Chair Cole gets here as well, and distinguished members of this subcommittee, I am so grateful for the opportunity to be here before you and to share what we've been doing at the USDA, uh, over the last 83 days since I, uh, I walked in that front door, and also President Trump's vision over the last 100 plus days. I look forward to answering your questions. Many of them have already been outlined, uh, as we move over the next few hours, and welcome the opportunity to do so. When farmers prosper, rural America prospers, and I want to thank all of you for your shared commitment to ensuring our farmers, ranchers, and our rural communities thrive. During my confirmation testimony, I quoted Thomas Jefferson. We talk a lot about Thomas Jefferson at the USDA, one of the original American farmers. Uh, his 1787 letter to another original American farmer, George Washington, in which, uh, President Jefferson said, "Agriculture is our wisest pursuit because it will in the end contribute most to real wealth, to good morals, and to happiness." I have had the distinct privilege of serving American farmers and ranchers for the last 83 days. And I can tell you that our farmers, and all of you know this as well, you're on this committee, continue to embody the ideals and the passion for America and our land, just as Thomas Jefferson described over two centuries ago. And serving as their champion today continues to be my highest and greatest honor. As the 33rd Secretary of Agriculture, I have made it my mission to reconstitute, to rebuild, and to revivify the United States Department of Agriculture. And that includes a budget that reflects the priorities as mandated by the American people in November of last year. The President's fiscal year 2026 discretionary budget identifies the priorities of our administration and for the Department of Agriculture. That means prioritizing food safety, rooting out wasteful spending, restoring federalism by empowering the states to best serve their communities, and above all, putting farmers and ranchers first in America. Notably, of USDA's $215 billion annual budget, today we are talking about the discretionary part of that budget, which is $30 billion. Uh, 14% of the annual budget at USDA is discretionary. Of that 14% of our annual budget, uh, the discussion today surrounding around some increase but mostly decreases in that 14% of the discretionary budget. Um, our cuts suggest about 21% cuts of the 14% of the $230 billion budget. So, uh, let's just be clear on the numbers.

We at the Department of Agriculture have wasted no time in implementing President Trump's bold policy agenda. Uh, I want to touch on a few highlights here, and, and I appreciate, Chairman Harris, but also Chairman, um, Bishop Sanford and others mentioning this already. Upon taking office, I was asked with, uh, by President Trump to address the avian bird flu and to lower the cost of eggs in the short term. In February, at the direction of President Trump, I announced a fi, a significant five-point plan. I think I was on the job about 10 days at that point to meet this challenge head-on. I am proud to report that since the plan was introduced, the wholesale price of eggs has decreased 56%, with retail following. In taking on this position, I fully understood that American agriculture is facing one of the most economically challenging times in our history. For generations, American producers and consumers enjoyed the fruits of an agricultural trade surplus. But under the four years, the last four years of the Biden administration, our farmers and producers were in, uh, forced to endure a trade deficit that again, when leaving the last White House, which I was a part of with President Trump. When we walked out, there was a Z trade deficit. Today, we are reaching more than $50 billion in trade deficit. We'll talk about how to fix that today if questioned. President Trump and I know this problem will not solve itself. He is taking bold action to address our imbalanced trade commitments, and I am working to promote American agriculture products around the world. In April, we launched, uh, USDA trade promotion programs for fiscal year 2026, and we are currently accepting applications for significant, in fact, more than four export market development programs. As part of this effort, I will be traveling to seven countries in the next few months, leaving Sunday for the UK. I'll be there next week, and soon after, all over the world, India, East Asia, etc., where I will ensure that our trading partners around this world know that American agriculture is the crown jewel of all American production.

We are also streamlining unnecessary regulations and cutting red tape for agricultural producers and industries so they can continue the work they do every day to feed, to fuel, and to clothe the nation and the world. To that end, our team has sought to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse in all USDA programs, including SNAP, food stamps, improper payments, fraud, and programs that fail to fulfill USDA's basic mission of putting farmers first. Our team is meeting daily with our partners at the Department of Government Efficiency to ensure we are doing right by the American taxpayer while also protecting critical USDA programs. Also of paramount importance, uh, Chairman Harris, is the, uh, department's mission to make America healthy again in partnership across the federal government and with our partners in the states. We've been taking major steps to fulfill this mandate by accepting SNAP waivers and encouraging healthier behaviors and working with governors, both Republican and Democrat, across this great state. I'd love to get into that if anyone wants to talk about it. The Maja movement at USDA has also supported major voluntary changes, including our friends at the International Dairy Foods Association's most recent announcement related to dyes in school lunch dairy products. Finally, I was proud to last week stand with Charles and Heather Ma, a South Dakota family with a small cattle and hog operation, fifth generation, who endured a senseless, senselessly, senseless, politically motivated prosecution by the last administration over 25 acres of forest land and a fence that had been in place since 1910. The criminal charges against the family are now dropped. And to prevent further injustices against American farmers and ranchers, we have launched a significant effort, including a portal at USDA, where we have asked similarly situated farmers and ranchers to report, uh, similar injustices. To date, we've received over a hundred stories since first announcing last week. Uh, to be clear, the Ma family was charged criminally. SWAT team appeared at their door. They were told their children would need to find someone else to raise them, and that they were going to lose everything. During my first 83 days as Secretary of Agriculture, I have visited 15 states. If I haven't been to your state yet, I'm coming soon. I've attended over a hundred events, given dozens of keynote speeches all across the country talking about the vision and putting farmers and ranchers first, and I've met with nearly 1,000 agricultural stakeholders, again, farmers and ranchers and producers, as we continue to reorient the Department of Agriculture. American agriculture does not rest, and I can assure you that under my tenure at USDA, that neither will we. I'm proud to be at the helm of the People's Department, as Abraham Lincoln so aptly launched and named it in 1862, at the table with President Trump and fighting for the most American of all Americans, our farmers, ranchers, and our agriculture communities. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much, Secretary Rollins. And, uh, again, we're going to start the questions. And just a reminder, simple math is that if all 17 people ask a question, we're going to, we're going to come in right on time at noon. So, I'm going to be, uh, I'm going to use the gavel when necessary for that timing. Uh, I'll start off. Uh, I will, uh, tell you that congratulations on the job with eggs because I went to, went shopping last week, and they finally went under $4 a dozen with the limit removed. Yes. Which was, which was a nice, which was nice. U, and thanks for doing a job with that. Uh, I will talk a little bit about the nutrition programs. I want to thank you for, uh, doing what we, what we thought the Secretary always had the authority to do, which is to grant those waivers. I have no idea why previous Secretaries did not think they had the authority. Uh, it made sense, and I'm, I'm going to congratulate you on that. You do mention the trade deficit, which is important, uh, is overcoming that trade deficit. As you just remind people again, during the first Trump administration, there was no trade deficit. Now there's a $50 billion trade deficit, a lot of it in products that have had been made in the, had been grown in the United States but are no longer grown because of trade policies and other things. So I will suggest, and I want to thank you for again for the nutrition, and this committee's heard plenty from me on on why we have to get the SNAP program back to nutrition, but I want to talk about one other thing we can do that can help that trade deficit, help our farmers, and that is a Buy American requirement in SNAP. The bottom line is that there is nothing that we can't grow, and maybe bananas, okay, but besides that, there is nothing that we can't grow in this country if we provide the incentive and the order of magnitude with regards to because we heard criticisms of these, of these programs, you know, $100 million, $200 million to help farmers do this and that. The order of magnitude if you just look at, uh, transferring, uh, sugary beverages, I won't even talk about other things, sugary beverages where the American farmer gains very little. The amount of farm product in a soda can is minuscule. That's about $12 billion a year. I don't know how much we buy overseas products in the SNAP program, but my estimate is that if you're buying seafood on it, the statistic is that the overwhelming majority of our seafoods overseas. Doesn't need to be, could be here. We could substitute with American proteins, whether you know, livestock, whatever. Let's say it's another $5 billion. That's $17 billion a year that would be going to the pockets of American farmers. It doesn't go into pockets of American. This dwarfs any of the farm subsidy programs that we have, and it's, I think it's a great start. So I, uh, I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to say, look, it's about time for, for not only healthy, nutritious pro products, but American products, uh, when we look at a program that spends $120, uh, billion dollars. Uh, with regards to trade barriers, uh, it's always bothered me that that our trading partners, you know, we go to, uh, countries like Europe, and they'll say, "Well, we have no real trade barriers." And you ask them, "Well, what about GMO products? Do you like buy our GMO, uh, commodity crops to feed to your children because we feed it to our children here?" Um, are we going to be able to make progress on, on those, breaking some of those trade barriers that will help our farmers immensely?

Well, yes, sir. I believe so. Very quickly on SNAP, um, it is remarkable to me that the number one purchaser with taxpayer dollars in the supplemental nutrition program is sugary drinks. It's almost to your point, $12 billion of a $113 or $115 billion program. Uh, it has been really encouraging. We've been within an hour of walking in the doors at USDA on February 13th, a letter went out to every single governor in the country saying, "Send us your waiver." Sarah Sanders in Arkansas, um, sent a waiver in. Kim Reynolds in Iowa. Jared Polis of Colorado, some others I'm working with almost daily directly, not our staffs, but directly to push this forward. And Sarah's point, she, uh, Governor Sanders, she obviously, uh, moved the sugary junk food out, but rotisserie chicken wasn't even covered under SNAP. So, so those are the sorts of things we're doing on the trade deficit and the trade realignment that's happening. Uh, I have never been more encouraged at what is, is going to happen. The deals will begin to be announced very soon. Uh, I, well, it may be private, but we've got several of our cabinet secretaries heading out across the world, not just myself at the UK. The President's heading to the Middle East. Uh, our Secretary of Treasury is headed out. Our Secretary of Commerce is headed out, and, uh, we are very, very close to significant trade agreement announcements to your question. And no one will benefit more than our farmers and our ranchers, as not only we're renegotiating with partners that have treated our products so poorly for decades, but we're also opening up markets. So, stay tuned for that, and, and I think everyone on both sides of the aisle will be very pleased with what's coming.

No, thank you very much, Madam Secretary. And the tariff policy has been brilliant so far. That's all I can say is we're, we're bringing trillions of dollars of investment, and some of that investment will be in American farms because of our tariff policy. Uh, in the last few remaining seconds, I, I do, I have spoken to you about solar panels on, uh, Class I, Class II soils. We should figure out every, there should be no Class I or Class II soil in this United States that has a solar panel on top of it. That's the bottom line. We have to just, uh, break our, uh, dependence on that. We talked about catfish processing. We'll talk more with you, uh, with, with you and your staff individually. And finally, on foreign ownership of a lands. This is probably one of the number one things that when I talk to farmers, and I did, they are just incensed that the Chinese can come in and buy our farmland, and 350,000 acres. We have, we have to deal with it, and this committee has been leadership, and I want to commend Mr. Newhouse for for taking leadership on that, and we will work with you to make sure that you get on CPHAS, you know, a role in CPHA so that we can stop that. Anyway, with that, let me recognize Mr. Bishop.

Yes, sir. Thank you, sir. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Secretary Rollins, with respect to the trade deficit, uh, question, um, I remember very, very, very vividly the first Trump administration when the tariffs on China, uh, were imposed, and of course, our cotton farmers, uh, in America suffered a great loss in their market. In fact, now that market has, has not come back. Brazil is now selling the cotton to, to China. The same thing happened with our pecan farmers. We worked for, uh, six years trying to get, uh, China to lower the tariffs and to accept American pecans. And when they finally did, uh, and started shipping them over there, we had the, the tariff policy from President Trump that put them, uh, they lost a tremendous market there, and of course, they haven't recovered that market, and we're, of course, hoping to get India's market. But let me ask you about the, uh, may I respond to that? It'll take five, five words. The reason China Phase 1 did not meet the marks, the metrics, maybe 15 words, is because the Biden administration did not continue to enforce it, sir. That went into effect at the end of term one, and the Biden administration, USDA did not enforce it. I'd love to continue that conversation, but that's a really important point.

The, um, the farmers were bailed out, uh, thanks to, uh, Secretary Purdue, by taking money from the CCC, uh, which ultimately drained the CCC, and we had to replenish it in the next appropriation cycle, uh, to make up for the revenues that they lost when they lost that China market, both pecans and, and, uh, and cotton. But let me change the subject. Uh, the, uh, I want to talk about the FSA county offices and staffing. I want to ask you about, uh, the staffing and closures at FSA county offices. I recently heard from a constituent that following the first round of deferred resignations, nearly a quarter of the over 2,000 producer-facing FSA officers had two or fewer staff as of March 23rd of this year, including over 100 offices that had no staff at all. They also told me that there are offices where FSA employees work where leases are being terminated, but because the lease is held by NRCS or another agency that collocates with FSA, it appears that it's the agency's offices closing and not FSA's. They also said that GSA was shuttering these offices without notifying the agencies at USDA. How can you assure us that FSA can continue to serve farmers when there are offices with literally zero staff and the offices are closing without the department's knowledge?

Sir, thank you for that. Um, the FSA office can remains one of the top prior, FSA offices remain the top priority at USDA. That interfacing with the farmers is really important along with APHIS and, uh, and a couple of the other programs. We, it is our understanding that, uh, if, in fact, some of these offices have closed, I need to get the list of that because we are working office by office, office 4,500. So if you'll let us know where that is and the offices that are, um, you're being told understaffed, again, this is a high priority under our deferred. By the way, no one was fired. It was all through deferred resignation. Um, I realize, sir, maybe from you that's a distinction without much of a difference, but from us, no one was ever fired from USDA. It was always deferred resignation, but in the last round, we did not accept any DRPS from anyone in FSA offices or APHIS offices or state veterinarians, um, the key critical components, but I would love to work with your office. We can work together to address that. Thank you for that. Uh, at the Commodity Classic on March 3rd, uh, you said that today I'm happy to share we have completed our review and release funds for the Environmental Quality Incentive Program, EQUIP, the Conservation Stewardship Program, and the Agriculture Conservation Easement Program. Uh, since the delay in releasing the funds was a huge national issue, we expected to start hearing from offices that the farmers had received the money. Uh, but we didn't hear anything. So we asked USDA about this, and the department told us in late April, quote, "No new EQUIP IRA financial assistance is being obligated currently. NRCS is awaiting guidance from the Secretary on new obligations. New obligations of our, our FSA are still paused. No new obligation of RATA technical assistance cooperative agreements is moving forward." So can you explain how this is consistent with your announcement in March that the funds have been released?

We have, uh, about $20 billion in funds that were frozen. All but $5 billion have been line by line and unfrozen. I, it could be that part of the $5 billion. We're, we're frantically working to get through it. But again, if you will send us directly and send it to me, um, who it is you're speaking with. Of course, we, we reoriented some of those programs to make them more farmer, less climate and DEI. But having said all of that, for the most part, most of that has been addressed. But again, please send us me directly anyone that has not, so that I can address. Thank you. My time has expired.

Thank you, sir. Thank you very much. I want to recognize the, uh, gentleman from California, one of the farmers on our committee.

Thank you. Thank you, Secretary Rollins, for making some time for us today. Appreciate you being here. Um, I'll talk a little bit about tariffs quickly. Since the reciprocal tariff announcement last month, there have been several officials that have stressed the need to how these tariffs are going to play out. Um, we have heard that it could take weeks or months, uh, to understand the impact moving forward, and many farmers and exporters in my district have already lost some business or contracts due to trade uncertainty. Um, and as we harvest this summer, there is some more concern, as you, I'm sure, are well aware. Yes. Has the department had any conversations about standing up, uh, any trade assistance program for the impacted farmers as this plays out?

We have, and the conversations are continuing. Our goal is that it won't be necessary, that these trade deals are moving so quickly, and not one trade deal with China, but dozens and dozens. Uh, when the President says we're in conversations with more than a hundred countries, that's actually true. And, uh, and a really important point in all this. But having said that, if it is necessary, we will ensure the President has made very clear that he's got the farmers and ranchers' backs, and we will step up, stand up a program again, uh, if necessary. Before my time in office, um, as a farmer, I used to come here quite a bit and knock on a lot of members of Congress's doors, and I would complain about the unfair trade practices that we used to deal with on a regular basis. So, it is nice that is being addressed. Thank you.

So, thank you. I also want to briefly touch on disaster assistance for context. My Central Valley dairy farmers suffered major losses in 2023 from flooding that displaced families and their cows. Uh, I made sure in last year's disaster relief package to include $2 billion for livestock and made dairy and livestock producers eligible for support from for the flood losses. I'm aware that yesterday you told Secretary Hovind and the Senate committee that you expect disaster assistance will be going out by the end of the month. Uh, what steps is the department taking to ensure livestock producers are reimbursed fairly from this pot of money, specifically those who suffered losses from those floods?

Thank you. And, and if I could, I will quickly address something that was said, um, by, by, um, I think it was Mr. Bishop, but we have moved so quickly on EQUIP. It went out in three months, and, uh, in the last, the Vilsack administration, the average implementation time was over one year to move those funds out. So, I just, I want to give my team credit for working around the clock, seven days a week to get that out ahead of the statutory deadline and within three days, as the applications moved in, we were moving money out. We now, obviously, in the last few months have turned to the disaster relief to your point, specifically livestock is your question. And I think it's important to note that that's a lot more complicated because they're block grants and they have to be moved and agreed to by the states. But we are very close, and in fact, later today at a press conference, I'll preview it, uh, since you asked, but we'll be announcing the exact dates that the portals open, that the agreements are reached, that the money will begin to move, but basically by the end of this month, money will begin moving out. I know in New England, for the Connecticut, Maine, etc., farmers, this is a really important question too. Um, I had a great conversation with this amazing patriot over my left shoulder yesterday, and, uh, and we are doing everything we can, I think hopefully as quickly as humanly possible to do it right, do it intentionally, but to get it to these poor people who need it right now, or last week, or last year. Yeah. And I appreciate you taking over this issue that we've been dealing with from the previous administration where they were pretty slow getting to us, and the previous Secretary was not as helpful. Yeah. Thank you.

So, I appreciate that. Uh, I'm very supportive with the administration's efforts to secure the southern border. Ensuring Americans are safe and removing violent criminals from our communities is a top priority. I'm also glad that President Trump has been vocal in finding a solution for our workforce and providing undocumented farm workers with an opportunity to continue contributing to our nation's agriculture sector. It's estimated that 70% of the farm workers are immigrants, with 40% being undocumented, and we need to work together to ensure our agriculture economy continues to thrive. What involvement has the USDA had with the administration to craft immigration policies that keep these facts in mind?

Uh, if you missed it, I believe it was a very important moment. Uh, in not our last cabinet meeting, but the one before, uh, we've had five cabinet meetings, which is sort of stunning if you think about it in just a couple of months, but the one before, the President himself brought up this issue. And, uh, he and I have talked about it at length from the first administration to this one, and, uh, and he is very, very resolute that we have to fix the labor issue, and obviously, we needed to secure the border first, that has been done. But in that cabinet meeting, he himself laid out how we could do it and how we could do it quickly. I'm working very closely with Lori Chavez-DeRemer, our Secretary of Labor, not only to reform the H2A program, which I think is of vital importance, I'm from Texas, I understand very deeply, um, how important that is, but also the larger effort to reform our immigration system to better serve our farmers and our ranchers is a priority.

Well, I appreciate that. My time's almost expired, so just wanted to, um, follow up on the USDA FSA offices. We've got some issues as well. I'd love to communicate with your office on that. So, thank you for that. And then, uh, will Regional Conservation Partnership Program contracts that have been approved to support dairy environmental stewardship get their allocated funding? Are you familiar with that one?

I'm not, but let me look into it today, and we'll circle back right away. Thank you, and I yield back.

Thank you, sir. Thank you very much, Ms. DeLauro. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Just a couple points before I get to my question. Of the proposals, I understand in reconciliation is a $200 billion cut to the food stamp program. So, it remains to be seen, uh, how we're going to really maintain that effort to feed hungry people in this country. Attacks on sugary beverages. Uh, I've introduced that legislation, the Sweet Act, many, many years ago. It's one way in which we can address the issue of, of, of nutrition and food. Let, let's talk to those who are, uh, profiting, um, and talk about putting that tax that can be used for health purposes. Um, I, with hope in the nature of nutrition, that you would look at, uh, which is taken out before the cash value voucher for fruit and vegetables. It's by hope that you can support that effort with regard to the price of eggs, which has one-if of the market on, uh, egg production, $500 million in profits, three times what they made last year. If you're going to address egg prices, you got to talk about price gouging. And I don't know what the administration is doing, uh, about that. Let me just talk about the safety net, uh, which leaves New England and specialty crop farmers with few resources to recoup losses, forcing them to make very difficult decisions that put their livelihoods in danger and community food systems at risk. One of the primary reasons that Connecticut has lost 460 farms over the last five years. The reason I created the new $220 million block grant, the Farm Support and Recovery Block Grant, specifically tailored to the needs of small and medium-sized farmers in last year's disaster supplemental. Um, I know our, our commissioner is going to be here a little bit later. Um, and I know how excited, uh, that we are about this program and about farmers excited about this program. Specialty crop farms have a hard time receiving crop insurance because of the lack of availability of coverage for diverse and specialty crops. One of those farmers who you just, uh, mentioned is in the room today, and that's Will DeLauro. Now let me just ask a series of of questions which are really a yes or no answers. Would you agree that we have a lot more work to do to improve our federal farm safety net to better support small and medium-sized farmers? It's very important. Okay. Will you commit to getting disaster aid in farmers' pockets as soon as possible? Yes.

Ma'am. We're working 24 hours a day on that. Will you ensure that this $220 million grant covers the losses it intended to cover, including crop and livestock losses?

We'll do everything we can. It's my understanding that may not be enough, that in fact the losses are bigger than the $220 million. What I want to know is because I, I, I mentioned all kinds of programs that have been funds frozen, terminated. Well, you're talking about the $220 million from Congress. So, are we talking about that, or are we talking about bigger things?

No, we're, I'm talking about specifically today. I, I understand more, but we have $220 million right there now that farmers can get access to it. And Will Delicra cannot get the funds that he needs. Ma'am, it was three months ago. The last administration took more than eight years. It's extremely complicated. I just said that I do not have your commitment. We have the end of the month, the money will begin to move, which is $220 million. Block the $220 million. So by the end of the month, that money is going to flow, and you know this, that we have to have agreements with every state. It's not that USDA by ourselves sends a check. I know this, the states. So we are working diligently with the states. Your Ag Commissioner is coming in today to talk about it. So, exactly. I think I've given a lot of confidence that we're working really hard on that energy. It's not about hard work, Madam Secretary. It is about the commitment to what was passed in the Disaster Relief Act of $220 million that is going to farmers. And when will that money flow? You just said it's the end of the month. For the 10th time since I started 40 minutes ago, it will begin to flow by the end of the month. That we will, we, we will hold you to that effort.

Let me then ask about this because your concern about nutrition. Uh, the, the real concern about nutrition, which we all have concerns about. Um, uh, on a bipartisan basis, for 25 years, administrations and members of Congress have provided enough funding to WIC to serve all eligible families who seek assistance and provide them with full food benefits. I appreciate your commitment to WIC uh yesterday on the Senate side, and we anticipate that that, that will continue. But will you also commit to funding the cash value voucher for fruits and vegetables at the current level?

Well, we'll take a look at that. I'm not going to commit to it today. In the grand total of, of the vision here, we're doing everything we can, but what's so important is we spend $400 million a day on the 16 nutrition programs across USDA. $45 million a day. So, there's plenty of money in the system. The voucher, we had to reinstate it because it was eliminated the last go-round. We cannot afford to do that because if we're concerned about nutrition, fruits and vegetables and the cash value voucher are central to that effort.

Well, I'd like to keep talking to you about it. Thank you. Y back. Thank you very much, Mr. Mullenar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And with your permission, I'd like to yield to uh Dan New House. He has another committee meeting. Mr. New House.

Yeah. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Molinar, appreciate your deference. Uh, ranking member, thanks for uh, holding this hearing today. Madam Secretary, pleasure to have you here. Thank you, sir. If I could just real quickly, I'll also give a shout out to the farmers that are in the room today. As a farmer, I appreciate, appreciate your attendance and and attention. It's critically important to us. Also, sir, you were here back in the '70s with the tractors made their rounds. I was here, too. I was just taking pictures. I wasn't driving my tractor. It's too far to take from Washington State. But uh, good for you. U Madam Secretary, just wanted to start off by thanking you for uh working so hard to get the marketing assistance for specialty crops out the door as quickly as possible, comparatively lightning speed. So appreciate your dedication to getting all of that done. As you know, they're critically important, especially crop producers, particularly in my district. And it just, I can't express enough how important that is.

I wanted to go back to something that the chairman brought up, and that's the issue of purchases of domestic farmland by foreign countries, particularly China. Um, I, I should thank you for your staunch support of American farmers in that sentence, but uh, farmland purchases by the CCP, as as you've noted, has increased substantially over the past decade. And I guess my question summarized would just, um, if you have any updates, kind of fill us in on some of the conversations that you're having and directions that you're taking in order to stop this really concerning trend that we're seeing in our.

That's right. I think it's, it's clearly bipartisan. It's not one side or the other. Uh, in the, the great pause, which I call the time between Trump one and Trump two, I actually worked very, very, uh, a lot of time on this China purchasing of farmland and working with the states. And then Governor Christine Gnome of South Dakota, Governor Sarah Sanders of Arkansas, Governor Glenn Youngkin of Virginia, and currently working with other governors around the country because they can address it at the state level too. So while we are building out the federal solution, and sir, to your question, we are building out the federal solution. And I'll be making an announcement on that in the next couple of weeks of what that looks like and would love your help uh and any others that are interested in that issue specifically. We do need to have an all-of-government approach to this. It is a national security issue of the greatest priority from my perspective. And so working with the states, ensuring they're getting what they need to pass the legislation, and again, three states already have, but having a federally driven effort is of key importance and a priority for us.

As a member of the Select Committee on China and sitting right next to the Chairman of the Select Committee on China, that, that's really good to hear that come. So thank you. Um, switching a little feedback here, switching to agricultural research. You know, in the state of Washington, we grow over 300 different kinds of specialty crops. We're number one producer of apples. Maybe you've heard of Washington apples, hops, blueberries, sweet cherries. A diverse range of crops that uh are so important to our agricultural economy. Innovation is what truly supports our nation's farmers there. And, and so I just wanted to bring up the issue of the cutting-edge research that we're, we're very fortunate to have through Washington State University, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Bioproducts Science and Engineering Laboratory. So I just wanted to, I guess, Secretary Rollins, ask you about USDA's continued support for programs that provide critical research for a well, and a shout out to Washington State.

Uh, I would love to come visit. That is a really premier institution. I'm You got, you got an invitation. I'm a product of a land grant, Texas A&M. So, I, I uh, I really realize their importance. Just very quickly on ARS, hopefully to provide some confidence, we remain very committed to the cutting-edge research at USDA. Of the $160 million that is being cut, but I want to put it in context for you. Uh, the current budget is $2.1 billion. We're taking that down to $1.9 billion. That's just a 7% decrease, and it is specifically focused on underutilized and out-of-date a handful of facilities around the country. So that is not an across-the-board cut. We'll continue to focus with everything we have on important research.

Cool. In the 30 seconds I have left, I just wanted to underscore Mr. Valido brought up the issue of labor. I think this is an opportune time, but like you mentioned, the President's comments are very positive. I think we've got a commitment on both sides of the aisle to move forward with that reforms that are needed, H2A visa program. So love to have your commitment there. And then also just learning about some of the issues with the, the, the potential infestation of the screw-worm that's coming up from down south and look forward to working with you on, on whatever we can do to stop, stop that pest from entering the United States.

As you know, I've been very, very clear with the country of Mexico on the importance of their partnership. We maybe weren't getting as much as we needed. And just yesterday, the Secretary of Agriculture of Mexico flew to Washington, and we had a very productive conversation on that specific issue. I've already visited uh in South Texas and other areas where it's, it's really, it would be devastating, absolutely, for our livestock. So, we're on it, and and hopefully are able to solve for it.

Great. Again, thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. And Mr. Recognize the gentle lady from Maine, who probably has a different opinion on blueberries from Washington than the gentleman from Washington. Uh, thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you for repres, uh, understanding the supremacy of Maine blueberries, uh, which I've proven to the committee many times. Uh, if you're around, I bring in blueberry pies every year to the appropriate committee so that they can taste the qualitative difference in our blueberries.

Blueberries. I love it. I love it. Secretary Rollins, thank you so much for being with us here today. I appreciate your time. I had a chance to watch the Senate hearing yesterday online and uh, was very pleased to hear your exchange with Senator Collins about the PAS issue. I hope you will bring your mother to visit us. I'm excited to hear she's a PAS legis, uh, Texas legislator who came because of PAS. Yes. So, uh, I know we'll be talking about that much more, but thank you for that. Thank you also during that committee for hearing your uh commitment to staying in touch with us. You have to understand that one of the big challenges for us in this unconventional, um, cutting phase of this administration is cuts have been made through the doge, not through the USDA. We normally would have recisions or RIFs. So we would have far more information to deal with. That's why many of the questions are before you today. So I hope you will keep up that commitment to stay in touch with the House as well as the Senate. Those are very important conversations that we have with us, with you.

I also noticed that many of my colleagues uh talked about the LFPA program, and I just want to clear up a few of my concerns. I'm really devastated to see this program be cut. That was such an important way to get more healthy fruits and vegetables into our school lunch and, um, and to our feeding programs for people in our food banks. Um, my understanding, one of the arguments that you made is it's a co-era program. I was there when we put together this program. Well, that was because we had empty shelves and problems with our supply chain. It really, the co taught us you can't depend on international and national travel, that you need to buy more locally. So, this was an important program to turn to our local farmers, um, and how we would change some of the ways to support small to medium-sized farmers, which I've heard you commit to. Um, the fact is, in our state, we don't have a lot of money sitting around. Of the $2.6 million, we only have $164,000. So, saying that this money is sitting around, I don't know what's wrong with the other states. Um, for some of them, I think it's the reimbursement process. It takes many months to get the invoices out there. Also, it takes wells to develop these relationships with farmers, but now that they have them, we're going to lose them when you cut down this program. It's CCC funding. I know that's often controversial, but I am worried that you're taking back the CCC money because there's only less than $5 billion in there, and last time Trump had to pay out $29 billion, President Trump did, um, on the tariffs. So, those tariffs are costly, and I don't want to see this money just going to pay off bad tariffs. I'm excited to hear you've got some good information coming on that. But I want to clear up any uh misconceptions there. Farmers are mad that their contracts were cut. We had our first tractor rally um in the state capital in Maine, and tra farmers were showing up because they weren't getting their RC, their rep grants, they weren't getting their EQIP grants, but they were mad about those broken contracts, and our state is worried about losing those relationships. So, just want to clear that up.

Also with the RCPP program. Uh, I know you're working to get that money out, and I heard you say to Gene Shaheen yesterday you're going to check on one of her programs. I got $15.5 million dollars out to our wild blueberry growers for, um, the impacts of climate change. We could pretend it's not real, but we have extreme drought in our state, and that money is going 75% to farmers, 25% to engineers. So if you could check on that. Um, what's the name of it again? Uh, it's the RCPP grant for Maine wild blueberries, $15.5 million. And happy to send a pie so you know how delicious those blueberries are.

Staffing cuts. I'm sorry I'm talking so fast, but I have so much to say. Um, we are very worried about our local offices. Um, I know that people, you say staffing cuts were voluntary. Well, we got rid of all the probationary employees. Then we were told there was going to be administrative review. Some of them would come back, some of them didn't. Let's face it, a lot of people were out of work. They weren't sure what was going to happen, and they took that administr, they took the deferred resignation, and we lost, I think, four engineers in that process because we paid no attention to what their job was in the first round of those layoffs, and many of those people um didn't come back. So now we have severe staffing um losses at those offices, and it's, it's critically important. Uh, I am going to run out of time, but I just want to say most of this has been about the challenges we're already facing. Normally, this would be a hearing about the budget, about the skinny budget, which isn't enough. Um, but what the problems are that we see going on in the future. And I just want to say one of the real concerns for me is that you've eliminated so much um in rural development on housing, single-family direct housing loans, self-help housing grants, rural housing vouchers, um, rural business programs, which aren't housing, but could have a ripple effect. I, I'm just saying th, those are severe cuts. Now you say they're duplicative, too small, you know, but I think those are going to have a huge impact, especially if this administration cuts HUD.

I also just want to quickly say you have committed to saying that you believe in buying from local farmers, that enhancing our local economy, healthy fruits and vegetables is a big part of MA. So if you go ahead with these MA boxes, which are also in um the plan, I want you to, I want to know if you'll commit to making sure that we buy locally, that we put fresh and healthy food in there. Um, you said our food banks don't give people healthy food. That's in the justification of that. But the fact is, you're taking away the program that allowed them to give fresh, healthy food. I am so excited about the MAJA box opportunity. And, and without being the person packing the box, it's, it's hard to say exactly what to commit to, but believe me, I will ensure and do everything I can to make sure those boxes are sourced locally, that they're nutrient-dense foods, and that we're doing everything that we can to help those with the least among us. Frankly, great. If you commit to that, we'll be anxious to work with you. I'm sorry for going over, Mr. Chair. I tried to talk as fastly. Thank you. And I have so many answers, but I, I can't answer them, but I would love to continue the conversation, and that's true for everybody. Um, anytime. We would appreciate following. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Mullen.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Madam Secretary. It's great to have you with us and uh, really appreciate the work you're doing and and the commitments you're uh, working on as well. Um, I appreciated your statement about when farmers prosper, rural America prospers. I see that in spades in Michigan. And, uh, as, as I'm sure you're aware, Michigan's one of the most agriculturally diverse states. Um, I represent a, uh, very active agriculture district in Michigan. Uh, my constituents represent a broad range of the issue from row crops to blueberries to cherries, apples, dairy, livestock. Um, each of these sectors has their own unique challenges, as you know. Uh, but one thing I've heard from all farmers across all types of agriculture is the hurt that the previous administration inflicted on them through extreme increases in the adverse effect wage rate. In fact, I uh, asked your predecessor from the Biden administration about that when he was sitting in that very chair and and talked with him about fifth and sixth generation uh farmers going out of business. And I was very disappointed with his response. It was basically, well, farms have always gone out of business. Um, in Michigan, we're now paying more than $18 an hour for H2A labor. And that, and not to mention housing, transportation, application costs. And this is unsustainable for our family-owned farms, and it's in urgent need of correction. And I want to compliment you because you've already been talking with Secretary of Labor and working on this. And I also want to thank your staff because I participated in a phone call with them and Department of Labor staff to discuss this issue. Uh, I've introduced legislation. Many of uh, our folks here on this committee have co-sponsored it, that would pause the increase in the adverse effect wage rate and freeze it at the 2023 levels, just to give some breathing room, because uh, it's in dire, uh, situation. Uh, but we do need a longer-term fix, and I believe it needs all hands on deck, team approach, and I believe you're the ideal person to help lead that. And so I guess what I'm asking for, uh, is your commitment to work with us on this, and you've already started that process, and we would very much like to be uh, at the table and helping advocate for our farmers. And I also want to personally invite you to Michigan. I, I will be there. I'm coming.

Listen, this is, this is of utmost priority. Uh, coming from the state of Texas and hearing that our citrus farmers down in South Texas spend on average $23 an hour under exactly the outline that you committed, including housing and some other things. And then right across a mile across the border, um, the country of Mexico for the exact same labor is spending $2 an hour, maybe at the most. Um, our, our a farmers can't survive that. There's no possible way. And so I don't agree, obviously, with my predecessor, Secretary Vilsac. We've got to fight for every single farmer, every single small farmer. We've got to open up access to get new people into farming. We lose our country if we can't support these smaller farmers. And that is again, top of the list for me. Later today, I have a roundtable with about 20 small farmers from around the country. We're going to be rolling out a policy portfolio just focused on the small farmer. I've got four Amish farmers coming from Pennsylvania. Uh, farmers coming from Utah. I think I've got a couple from your state. And so this is a very, very important piece of of solving for that very significant problem. Thank you very much. And uh, want to switch gears and talk a little bit about MAHA. Thank you for your uh, sharing your insights on that. Um, the role that milk and dairy products play in a healthy diet is to me indisputable. Um, but in the prior administration, when they finalized a food package with Women, Infants, and Children program, it reduced the eligible dairy allotment that could be purchased by a family each month. And it was even more troubling that they finalized this change because considering that in the fiscal year 2024 spending agreement, we included a bipartisan directive for them not to do so. Um, knowing that dairy remains underconsumed, and yet is a source of three key nutrients of public health concern, are you open to exploring whether this change can be reversed administratively, or if it can't, will you work with us to fix the problem legislatively?

Yes, sir, 100%. And I think an important part of this is dietary guidelines. Our uh, Secretary Kennedy and I are working on that together as we speak. Uh, we got a four and I think 53-page uh, new set of dietary guidelines from the last administration. I won't say that we're starting from scratch because I think a lot of well-intentioned people did a lot of good work on that. But you'll see by the end of this year, hopefully early fall, the new set of dietary guidelines coming out from our two agencies, and uh, and I think you will be very, very pleased. It will be very simple. Um, it will speak directly to the American family. It will support our local farmers and producers, and uh, it will ensure that the incredible, um, product of milk is is right up there at the top.

Wonderful. Thank you. And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much, Miss Underwood. Oh god. Hi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, Trump tariffs have been a hot topic this year, and the family farmers I represent, well, they're just terrified that their farms and their bank accounts won't survive the Trump presidency. The farmers I represent in Decal, LaSalle, Mendota, and across Northern Illinois are hardworking and resilient. They grow pumpkins and horseradish and asparagus and all kinds of fresh produce. And I know that farming is hard work, and they take its challenges in stride. However, each year, small family farms are shut down while the big corporate farms get even bigger. Listen, the family farmers I'm worried about aren't the ones who have lobbyists roaming the halls here in DC. And right now, Donald Trump is hurting these small family farms. To be very clear, this isn't the same trade war that we saw in his first term where soybean growers were hit the hardest. This one is bigger, it's costlier, it's more chaotic. Secretary Rollins, I know that you don't set tariff policy, but you are responsible for helping farmers respond to it. So, what is USDA doing to support all farmers, not just the biggest and most well-connected, through these challenges?

Well, I, I hear you and I agree with you, and I think that's why today we are going to, we're launching the effort to start focusing more on the smaller farms moving forward. So, I would love to work with you on that if, if you're willing to do that. Uh, at the end of the day, I have taken a different approach perhaps than prior agriculture secretaries. I think both Republican and Democrat. In the past, it was more of a, I don't want to say defensive mode, but more of a wait and see what happens and then be there to sort of pick up the pieces and figure out how to solve for some of the potential, at least short-term damages and long-term. My approach has been different. My approach is to be in constant daily contact with Secretary Lutnik, Secretary Bessent, Jameson Greer, our USR, and the President and the Vice President. Right. But this is about the small family farmer who doesn't have that straight line to any of those cabinets or administration. But that's my point. On behalf of those small family farms, ensuring that that is understood, the potential implications, and that agriculture is in the room with every decision that is being made. And as I mentioned earlier, the announcements that are coming are extremely positive, and all of the farmers, but especially the smaller family farmers, will be really, really happy.

Well, we're not happy yet because Illinois leads the nation in pumpkin production, ma'am. And unlike big corporate farms, our pumpkin growers do not have the resources for high-powered lobbyists or trade groups. And we're not seeing the support. We're not, the, the growers are not seeing the support. The farmers disagree. Ma'am, I didn't, that wasn't a question.

Well, no, it is a question. We've got a poll from yesterday that says 70% of farmers approve and support the President's tariff.

Mr. Chairman, thank you. It is not just the rising cost of fertilizer, farm equipment, and land that's hurting family farmers. It's the uncertainty. Farmers are the backbone of our rural economy. They need stability for their business and for their future. And right now, they're being crushed by a tariff whiplash, a financial system that holds them back, and USDA that often puts big corporations ahead of family farms. When the tariff policy swings widely, farmers struggle to secure the loans that they need to plant their crops and keep their farms running. Banks then refuse to lend. They jack up interest rates and they demand more collateral and leave family farmers drowning in debt while the biggest a giants take in record profits. Farmers can't invest and grow their operations because they don't know if they'll survive the next year, let alone turn a profit. And they can't trust that the system works for them. But it's not just this harmful terror policy that's crushing our family farmers. It's also the USDA policies under your watch. The USDA's decision to slash $1 billion dollars from programs like the Local Food Purchase Assistance Program is a direct assault on family farmers. This program supports small farmers. It strengthens local economies and feeds families in need. Everything that we should be championing. Cutting this program doesn't make America healthy. Period. It doesn't support farmers. It doesn't save taxpayers money. It doesn't make the government more efficient. What it does do, what it does do is it pushes more small farmers out of business. And for what? To help pay for tax cuts that benefit Trump and Musk and the biggest corporate farms for sure. While the hardworking farmers in Decal and Menota and LaSalle, Illinois are left behind. Doesn't matter how much USDA spends a day on nutrition if those dollars are stripped from the programs that support local farms. We send billions of dollars to the agriculture industry every year. But where those billions of dollars go tells a different story. And right now, I'm concerned that this administration's priorities are not with the small family farms in my district. They're with the big guys, the ones who already have the system rigged in their favor. And it's time for that to change. I yield back.

Thank you very much, the gentle lady from Louisiana, Miss Latlo. I'm sorry I couldn't answer all those questions, but I would really like the opportunity to have a later discussion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and uh, thank you, Madam Secretary, for being here today. It is encouraging to see someone with your background sitting in that chair and your leadership. And I would just like to give you uh, some kudos because you recently just named as FSA Director for Louisiana Craig McCain. Yes, it took you three months to do that. The last administration, we didn't have an FSA Director for over a year and a half. Wow. Thank you. I'll let the team know. Thank you for that, Congressman. It means a lot to our farmers. And I'd like to also give you kudos for ECAP to get that funding to our small farmers. I had a small farmer call me last night and say because that money came in so quickly that it saved his farm. He was able to get the funding that he needed and the credit that he needed to be able to plant again. He was a small farmer. It saved his farm because of your leadership. Thank you. Also, um, I want to thank you for uh, continuing to spread your message across the country. And I know you haven't made it to Louisiana yet. We are so excited to have you there to deliver your keynote speech and your vision for what uh agriculture will look like through USDA and how we will partner together in Congress and work together to deliver for our farmers. So my first question is an absolute softball question to you, but if in the meantime I can share with those concerned farmers who had to endure the great pause as you call it and have had a really rough last four years, what can you share with them right now that I can go back and also tell them until you make it to Louisiana to deliver those keynote addresses?

Well, thank you for that and thank you for the shout out to the team. I, I give too much credit. I, I think they have been working, a lot of them sitting behind me have just been extraordinary. So I, I so appreciate that. It has been a 7-day a week, 18-20 hour a day effort for a couple of months. Uh, what I would say is this, that the American agriculture economy is suffering perhaps like never before with a $50 billion trade deficit just over the last four years, likely to reach $63 billion based on numbers from last year very quickly. Number two, the cost of inputs increased 30% during the great pause under the last administration, 30%. So, while our farmers and our ranchers are facing margins of profitability, um, of almost zero, many of them like never before, while being hit with trade deficits, while being hit with the cost of inputs, while being hit with, frankly, an administration that didn't fight for them, not just the, the big farmers, but the small family farms, too. And that's such a big priority of mine. But help has arrived as we look at cutting taxes and deregulating and opening up markets and realigning the trade regime around the world to not just allow American products to participate, but for American products to win. I believe that American agriculture is moving into an era of prosperity unlike they've seen in our lifetimes. That is my fervent hope, prayer, and work every day toward.

Thank you. You can feel it. I will share that with them for sure. Uh, I have one last follow-up question. You know, during the last administration, I repeatedly raised concerns both in hearings and in discussions with the USDF USDA officials about how existing disaster programs like the 22 emergency relief program and other RMA products have failed to adequately capture quality losses for my farmers. Despite Congress clearly stating that quality losses of crops should be covered, many producers in my district saw little to no relief under past assistance for programs. Under the first Trump administration, the USDA worked with our farmers to create the Quality Loss Adjustment Program, and it delivered meaningful assistance where ERP fell short. Uh, Madam Secretary, is the USDA currently considering rebooting the Quality Loss Adjustment Program under the upcoming round of assistance? And if not, what alternative methodologies are you considering to ensure that quality losses are accurately captured in this next phase of assistance?

Yes, we are looking at that very closely and would love your help. And specifically, and this is true for everybody, any farmers or ranchers in your district, I say send us their stories of of too much paperwork, of too much regulation, of too much slow, whatever it is. We can't make change without fully understanding the challenges, but we would love to work with you and and your team on that.

Absolutely. I'll send you a story of soybeans the last couple of years. It was pretty rough, but I look forward to working with you. Thank you so much for being here. Thank you, Congresswoman. Thank you. Thank you very much. Uh, Miss Glen Camp Perez.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Secretary, for being here. Um, so I represent Southwest Washington. We're big, um, shellfish, timber. Um, and we have a lot of small f and very small farms. Average size is about 60 acres. Um, filberts, blueberries, um, some dairy still. And it's um, it is in many ways like we have persisted in in these smaller farms not being consolidated. Um, people really working to try to get food to their communities. And, and um, I guess one of the things that I've heard from some of my shellfish growers, you know, they've suffered terribly under a a regulatory burden, you know, doing anything in water, right? It's, it's been difficult for them. Um, but during these reductions in force, during the Doge, what they told me was that look, they fired the guy that does our water quality testing, but they still have somebody tweeting. They still have a comms director. Like, could you talk to me about how you're, you know, who is this B? Like, where are we going? Right.

No, I would be happy to. And, and in fact, I'm happy, so excited to use my my chart. I wasn't sure I was going to get to use that, but I think it's important, my handy-dandy chart here, uh, when we left, uh, before the last administration came in, USDA was staffed at about 97,000 employees. In the last four years, when we came back, we were closer to 113,000 employees. So the staffing up in the last administration using mostly IRA and IJA funding, the infrastructure and the um, inflation reduction act money that was supposed to be spent over 10 years was actually under Secretary Vilsac, uh, infused in a massive amount as the staffing up happened and happened and happened, and you can see it was a absolutely unsustainable. We don't and can't keep up the money. To answer your question, though, to be fair on the FSA side and the specific offices, we are going office by office. So if you, and if your farmers are in a position where you've got a comms person but you don't have anyone that's interacting with those farmers, would you please let us know and let us work to solve for that? I think that as we move forward, the intentionality of what we are doing becomes more hyper-focused on those priority areas, as I mentioned at the beginning of the hearing, and and that's important. It, it does feel to a lot of us like it is not addressing this balance of work boots to clipboards, of spreadsheets to work boots. It does.

Well, that's why we need your partnership. And, you know, people say, well, I don't know why these loggers can't trust the, you know, trust the science. Well, because in living memory, we were told to, you know, bring a bulldozer to the stream beds, take all the woody debris out, and now they're, you know, now they're helicoptering in root wads when we don't have air conditioning in our schools, when we haven't had SRS reauthorized. Yeah. They're firing all the PAR educators. They're still tweeting like.

Well, no one's been fired, but I, but I hear you. And these are the sort of stories that we need um to hear, and that would be really, really helpful. And I know we've worked on timber a lot, which hopefully you, your smaller timber guys can can feel some positivity from that, but would love to continue that conversation. You know, it's, it's we have fought hard, and, and I, one of the most haunting memories I have from being, you know, I used to run an auto repair shop. This is new to me, and, and the, the most haunting memory was a, I was a farmer. He's like a grown man, like crying, starting to cry, like, I don't know if I can get this farm to the fifth generation, and like the, the, the suicide rate, like I think there's a lot of useless metrics, and I think one metric I would really ask you to focus on is, is the suicide rate going to health? It's three and a half times higher than any other population. What the, are we doing other than our veterans and our farmers? I, it, it is, um, it's profound. And I think what I hear is that why is it so difficult for me to just sell school food to the school? My smaller schools, they can't go through the regulatory, uh, burden of of getting in those programs. Um, what my farmers want is guaranteed market access. They want to be able to know that they can grow real food and and bring it to our schools. And a lot of these programs, we're starting to crack that door open. And as you're rebuilding, like the bigger question has to be, like, can people just do the thing that's right? Do we, are we, are we empowering our farmers to stand up to the consolidation, to stand up to the foreign land ownership, and just be able to sell food to their schools?

I agree. I, I agree with that. Really quickly though, on the, the local food, because I think it's important that when that money was pulled back, your state of Washington has $7 million of $11 million left in that fund. And so part of the reason that that was really became a conversation piece and and a part of the decision-making is because many of the states, not Maine, but many of the states had so much money left, they couldn't spend it quickly enough. And so while we're looking at the $45 million a day we're spending in nutrition just from USDA, there's got to be a better way to balance the taxpayer interest with the interest that you just outlined. So I look forward to working on that. Hopefully expanding the markets worldwide will help. But understanding with your local farmers, these programs, and and continuing to build those partnerships with local and state help is really important. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Uh, the gentle lady from Iowa, where agriculture, I hear, is a little important. We, we grow and raise a few things in Iowa. Thank you so much, Madam Secretary, for coming today. And I want to start off by thanking you for coming to Iowa. We were one of the first states that you came to visit. You visited a hog farm in our state. I feel a little like I'm having to pick my favorite child of my four. I've got four teenagers. I feel like I'm having to, who is your favorite? But I had an awesome brag because you came to Iowa. So, thank you so much. Um, really appreciate the conversations that you had on the ground. Um, and you've really, you did really hit the ground running. Um, you know, I have two teenage boys, so I am particularly thankful for what you've done on egg prices because we were like having to go to market rate. We were like, you know, you can only have one today. Very, very rationalized. Um, you're protecting conservation, the assistance programs. I mean, you've really done all this while still respecting taxpayers in this process, which I really appreciate. Um, but I want to hit on Prop 12. As you probably know, based upon your conversations in Iowa with our hog farmers, you know, this policy out of California, Massachusetts had Question 3. Um, they've really created significant challenges for our producers, and I, I really appreciate your commitment to examining laws like this, but can you talk about some of the consequences for our farmers and producers if policies like this that you know are really state-by-state really start to flow down and impact, um, interstate commerce issues?

I think it's really important, and no one is a bigger believer in federalism and the 10th Amendment and allowing the blue states and the red states and the purple states to be the laboratories of democracy. I think that's one of the geniuses of our founding father's vision when they wrote the Constitution. But when a state like California or other states passes laws that have significant impact outside of their state borders, then that is not sustainable. And specific to Prop 12, we have understood that. We see it. I think it's pretty bipartisan. Uh, maybe not 100%, but very bipartisan across both sides of the aisle that that is not, um, it's just not sustainable. So having a a federal approach to that, ensuring that we're protecting our pork producers, especially some of our other livestock producers underneath the regime of Prop 12 is is important. So we'll keep working on that together, and I really look forward to it.

Yeah. Well, and certainly I appreciate your commitment to federalism because we believe in that too, right? We want California to be able to regulate its own producers, but we don't want them to be able to tell Iowa farmers, uh, how to raise our animals and do their jobs. And, uh, we have heard a lot about that high cost associated with that, about $4,000 per SA. So then you think about, um, other state laws kind of coming into the mix and that creep that can happen, um, is something we certainly have to to fix. Um, do you believe that that kind of, uh, patchwork policy, whether it's Prop 12 or other, you know, other policies that could come down the pipeline, could put small family farms out of business if that's allowed to continue?

I do, and I think again, speaking across the party line, across the aisle, that we're all focused on small family farms, regardless of what the lady said. I, I think that we all understand and agree that is the backbone of America, and there's no America if, if they continue to go out of business and not be able to hand off their farms to their children and their grandchildren. And when we put so much burden on them, um, now we're talking about regulation specifically, but other burdens along the way, it becomes an unsustainable way of life, and that's what we have to really target. We've already begun the deregulation effort, not just across the government, but specific to USDA with line speeds and some other decisions that we've made, and you'll see a much bigger package coming out soon to get the government off the back of our farmers.

Loved hearing that. I know our farmers love hearing that red tape is being cut every single day. So, thank you for your work and leading on that. And, uh, in the time I have remaining, I want to touch on an issue critical for national security. We already talked about China and the land ownership issues, but I want to talk about our a supply chain for food because you look at, I was just recently on the ground at a, at a, um, a mill in Iowa, and some of the food their feed, right? They're trying to put together animal feed, and many of the bags had, you know, Chinese characters. They're coming from China, right? All these additives. Um, China does control, um, the majority of the world's amino acids and vitamins. So what risks would, uh, our producers continue to face if we continue to have that reliance on foreign adversaries? You know, hopefully we get these trade deals done and things normalize, but, um, realistically, we could be in some tumultuous times ahead.

We could be. And I think that's why President's Trump, President Trump's vision is so important that if we continue down the trajectory of relying on other countries and other countries coming into America and buying our farmland, this is no longer just about protecting those who feed, clothe, and fuel the nation and the world, like some of the guys sitting behind me. It now becomes about national security. America will no longer be able to protect ourselves, be the world's economic superpower, if we can't stop relying on international and other countries to help feed and clothe us, and, and that can be, can becomes extremely important, and I think one of the most important visions of President Trump that we have to effectuate if we want an America to give to our future children and grandchildren.

Well, look forward to working with you on how we can bring that supply chain home as much as possible to protect those who, as you said, feed, fuel, and clothe the world. So, thank you, Madam Secretary. Thank you, Congressoman. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. The gentle lady from Florida is recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary, it's good to see you. Um, I, I appreciate the opportunity to talk with you. I, I want to raise the deep concerns that u many of us have about the over $5 billion in USDA program funding that remains frozen under this administration. That is funding that farmers, food producers, and rural communities were told that they could count on. And in many cases, these are not speculative awards or pending applications. These are signed agreements, binding contracts between the federal government and farmers where the terms were agreed to, budgets were made, and in some cases, planning or construction even has already begun. Farmers in Florida and across the country invested real money and made huge business decisions based on these commitments. That includes producers participating in USDA's conservation programs, REAP energy projects, and food purchase agreements with schools and food banks. And now they're only getting silence or worse, cancellation notices. And that this funding freeze is not just a bureaucratic delay. You can't tell me, well, this is just all under review. It's been reviewed by Congress. It's law. These are programs and funding that these farmers have counted on, uh, purchase agreements with schools and food banks, and it's a breach of trust. I've heard from Florida citrus growers, specialty crop farmers, and small agricultural businesses who feel abandoned. They don't know if they'll be reimbursed for expenses they sunk into these projects or if they'll need layoff workers, and they're left with one simple, devastating question: Can I still trust the federal government to honor its word? So, can you explain why these agreements remain

frozen? What authority does the department have to delay these payments, and how does USDA plan to repair the damage to your credibility among farmers? We have courts that are ordering this administration to unfreeze these funds, and you're not doing so, choosing to violate the law. Um, are you going to abide by the law, or are you going to listen to Elon Musk?

Well, oh, there's so much there. So, thank you, um, for the opportunity to talk about this. Uh, first of all, at the very top, what I would ask is, are there any specific contracts that you are getting feedback from your constituents or others on? Would you send those to us and just make sure? There are a lot. That would be great. The second thing I'll say is the $20 billion that was frozen uh has all been reviewed and released down to the final $5 billion. I understand $5 billion is still a lot of money, but we have made progress. The rest of that will be finished. It's, it's happening daily, but by the end of the month, a lot of it we have reconstituted.

Um, obviously, the last administration had very different priorities than we do at USDA. There was a lot of effort put on diversity, equity, and inclusion, on climate programs.

Madam Secretary, if I can interrupt you for a moment.

Yes, please.

Um, I understand that you might have different priorities between administrations. That doesn't change the fact that these are programs that are law, that it is funding that was appropriated by Congress and that was in process for delivery. And just because the new administration has different priorities doesn't mean that you can freeze those funds and block access to them or cancel those programs.

Well, I, I disagree. Well, the premise is correct, but the facts, the facts are wrong with the administration. Well, we have, we have abided by every court order. There is not one court order we have not abided by. So, please let, please let us know if you know differently, if your staff sees differently, but the court we can take off the table. Every time the court has told us to do something, we have, of course, followed.

But to your point, Congress did not tell the last USDA to spend $600,000 studying the menstrual cycle of transgender mice. That was not a congressionally directed—

I mean, that's a preposterous example.

No, but it is actually an example. The, the supporting food justice for queer farmers in San—that did not come from Congress.

Reclaiming my time.

I understand. But I think that's what you're saying is when I say that I'm reclaiming my time, it means that I need to ask you something else. So—

Okay.

Well, if what you're saying isn't factual, then I have to pause for a moment so I can do that, 'cause the time is mine.

M, if you would give me some of that time back, I would appreciate it. You have $2 million, $2 billion in food aid that was frozen. You have the US Agency for Global Media that was frozen, $250 million. You have the, you have Americanore state and national grant programs that were frozen. You have agricultural conservation easement program, $500 million that was frozen. Watershed programs, $800 million that was frozen. And you're going to tell me all of that money has been distributed now and the reviews are done and the grants have been, the grant funding has been released?

No. No. No. No. No. Of course not. All of it has been reviewed and realigned with this administration's goals, while complying with the law and court orders.

Let's talk about food aid. So, you're going to—I'm sure you're talking about the, uh, oh, goodness gracious, the name escapes me, but, but the big one, Food for Aid, maybe that is a very, very big program. Hundred, $240 million. I believe only $37 million of that was actually farm-related. The layers of abuse and waste and bureaucracy.

Reclaiming my time, Madam Secretary.

That's what we have to realign for the taxpaying—

My time. It doesn't change the fact that it's still law. It was still appropriated funds directed by Congress in many cases with specificity on what—

No, I, I had about a minute and a half that the secretary would not give me my time back. So, I, I would like to answer the questions back, and I would like to make sure that you answer my question, but I don't have time to answer them on the specificity of the programs that were appropriated by Congress within those funds. And the department froze them and did not release the funds. And you are not allowed by law to decide that because your priorities don't line up with the way Congress appropriated those funds specifically to just decide not to spend them.

We will have—very much the gentle lady was recognized for an extra minute. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Klein, is recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to give you the opportunity to respond because I do believe that you do have the authority if you find there to be, uh, wasteful, uh, spending in some of these programs, fraudulent spending in some of these programs, administration of these programs. If you find fraud, if you find abuse of taxpayer dollars, it's not only your ability, that you're right. It's your responsibility to the taxpayers to pause those funds to make sure that they're being administered properly. So, I commend you for what you're doing. Uh, you're looking after the farmers of this country. You're looking after the taxpayers of this country. So, I'll give you the chance to respond before I ask you some questions about bird flu.

Well, thank you, sir. I will just echo what you said. Every decision that we are making is in the interest of the taxpayer, the farmer, and the rancher, and the agriculture producer. We are not violating any law. And if, in fact, we see law that has been violated, I would ask the gentle lady has now left. But I would ask her or her staff to let us know. That's extremely important. There was a mandate in November of 2024 to realign the entire government around putting Americans first and not putting bureaucrats and and massive government programs first. And that's what we're doing every day. And the people support us, and the inflation's coming down, jobs are going up. I mean, this is a, this is making America and American agriculture great again. So, thank you for allowing me to say that.

Madam Secretary, you're doing a great job. And I want to highlight one area where you are prioritizing taxpayer dollars, and that is to combat avian influenza. The turkey industry, which is in my district in the Shenandoah Valley, I know you know it well. You're welcome anytime. It's been greatly impacted by, uh, avian flu. And, uh, in addition to that, blackhead is another disease that has impacted poultry in my district. Uh, the subcommittee has supported research being conducted at USDA a research service to better understand how blackhead colonies and turkeys and work is underway to identify potential pathways for control of the disease. So, I would urge you to, uh, continue to prioritize this research and staff associated with the research, uh, in their positions.

We will definitely do that. And I have visited a lot of our poultry producers in the last 83 days. Uh, it has been devastating, devastating and losing entire flocks. We, we just have to do better. Um, the avian bird flu reared its ugly head after 10 years of nothing two years ago. Uh, the last administration worked to mitigate and manage it, but, but didn't really have a bold plan to fix it. And that's what we're working to do. Uh, thank you. And I want to shift gears a little bit. Your predecessor was, uh, um, had quite a track record, and it's not a pretty one. Um, I questioned him last year about the Biden-Harris's USDA's $1 million ongoing collaboration with Wuhan, the Wuhan labs parent organization, the Chinese Academy of Sciences in the project. The USDA's research service and the Communist Party-controlled CAS were conducting dangerous experiments to manipulate bird flu viruses using gain-of-function research techniques to see if they could create new strains that might infect humans. On top of that, the CAS researcher leading China's side of the project has listed the Wuhan Institute of Urology as one of his affiliations. It may not surprise you that Secretary Vilsac defended and distorted this risky project. He denied collaboration even though that word is literally in the project title. He also said that, quote, there's not data sharing. All of this is basically walled off so everything we're doing stays with us. It doesn't necessarily go to the UK or to China, end quote. However, FOIA records state USDA will spend tax dollars to visit the lab in China regularly to quote share results on site. It's remarkable. Would you commit to discontinuing funding for this project and other research with Chinese labs while we continue to fight this, this epidemic, this avian flu?

Yes, it is my understanding that those have been discontinued just in the last few months, but we will double-check that today. If they haven't, then 100% yes. And I'm sure you saw that the president has also made this a priority, uh, and is, is willing to take whatever measures necessary to ensure we're, we're protecting our people and our producers in this country.

Outstanding. With that, um, I will yield back to the chairman if he wants the remaining minute of my time.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Uh, want to recognize the gentle lady from Ohio who—

Mr. M— Madam Secretary, if, if you're intrigued by the idea of Buy American for SNAP, we might have a willing partner.

I love it. I love it.

Lady is recognized.

Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, Madam Secretary. We've not had a chance to meet unfortunately this morning, and, uh, we've got three committees all so important meeting simultaneously, and all of us are running around. This is not the way Congress should operate. I am willing to work late into the evening in order to allow, and I'm not blaming this committee, but the process that's been set up is very unfair to witnesses and very unfair to members, and I don't like it at all. So I will exit immediately after questions because I have to run to two other committees. It's not an intelligent way to operate the country.

Well, I am always available. So if we don't get to it, feel free to call me personally anytime.

Thank you. My first question is an easy one. Does the Department of Agriculture still permit the Virginia and Maryland farmers to sell at the USDA Farmers Market to set a good example for the country to support local agriculture?

I believe the answer is yes. But let me, let me, that's one question I have not had in all these days. So I will double-check and get back to your office today.

That's an important one because that's the answer is 100% yes from the smart people sitting by. I want to help that even though I'm in competition with the chairman of this committee, uh, because he grows in his district too. But we, the millions of people that go down that mall. That is our advertisement for local agriculture. I love it. And any, and there's a truck they used to take around. I don't know if they still do that, but do whatever you— They had it hidden behind some bushes the last time I was over there. And I really think we need to showcase agriculture, and you are in a perfect place to do it to the millions of people that visit this city. And I don't live here. Uh, but, but anyway, but that gets me to my point. I have fought for many years for the, um, senior farmers market and WIC farmers market program. We used to call it the coupon program because senior citizens know what coupons are. Are the younger generation's all, you know, electronic, but seniors know what coupons are. It was a measly amount of money, $50 for those that qualified. And our Area Office on Aging, uh, conducted this program. We used to have 22,000 seniors, and this program is only a $20 million program. It's an embarrassment, but it's in the books. Okay. So, we had 22,000 seniors who got $50 a summer. And I could tell you so many compelling stories of what those $50 meant, and they had to buy it from local producers, and what it means to those producers. I am so worried we will not have a follow-on generation of farmers in this country. And there's a reason for it because of conglomerate agriculture that has squeezed out these local producers, local innovation. And it's wrong. It's wrong. These people work so hard, and they have so many ideas that are fresh into the organic producers that are coming along and so forth. So this program, just in my little area, I have eight counties, seven of them are rural, okay? 150 farmers registered. We actually had a registry of local farmers. When these seniors would get these coupons, they could go to those 150 places. It was great. We had up to 150 farmers. You show me any other district in the country that's done that. And we had 22,000 seniors, and I don't know how many WIC recipients we had, but it was a lot. They'd go to the downtown farmers market. Anyway, what USDA did, and I don't know why, and I don't know who, but they decided to send, make it an electronic program. Do you know how many seniors can't use those devices? Yes. When they're sitting alone in their home. Um, and, uh, they, for the farmers, I went out to one of our biggest, uh, produce stands, and I said, "Mr. Bergman, where's the?" He goes, "I don't do that anymore." Farmer Bergman, why? "I don't want to get into that electronic stuff. I don't have time for it." Ma'am, this has killed the program. Uh, 22,000 people, that doesn't count the WIC recipient. Just 22,000 seniors in my area, 135 farmers. This year, we've only had 32 farmers register for the program. So, I am hell-bent on this because if we don't do this, we're not going to have farmers. And they can farm in the city. Now, we've got examples of where we're doing that all the way from Manhattan all the way to Columbus, Ohio, and Cleveland, Chicago. Some of our new farmers are in the cities. They're, I met a guy yesterday from Battle Creek, Michigan. Phenomenal. He was here with the Farmers Union. Um, so I'm just saying I need help to help my people and to help whether they're the farmers or whether they're the consumers. Something is really wrong in Denmark. Yeah. And we need your help.

This is the first I've heard of it, but we will look into it. And why don't you and I jump on the phone in the next day or two, and let's have a longer conversation.

Thank you. That's my only question. Thank you very much.

Thank you so much, ma'am. Thank you. The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Franklin.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Secretary, for being here. I apologize. We've all been bouncing back and forth. I've got to get my head out of energy now and back into get to agriculture. Yes. Appreciate your time. And, uh, is so critical, uh, to my state. Most people assume if you live in Florida, you either live at Disney World or at the beach. And I have to tell them, you know, hey, we've got, we've got so much agriculture. I've got one of the largest agriculture districts east of the Mississippi, and I've got more cows than registered voters. But, uh, thank you very much for your time here. I know you spoke earlier, and I apologize if, if I've missed it, if you've expanded further, but, uh, you talked about block grants. It's an important thing to the state of Florida. We're not as much about commodities as we are the specialty crops, and, and I know our, what we grow and do doesn't fit as neatly into some of the other programs. It is vitally important to you, uh, to us. But, uh, to to add a little more, I'm very excited that we got some more information forthcoming hopefully today and, and money rolling out soon. Since I came to Congress four years ago, for hurricane seasons ago, we've had six named hurricanes in Florida. Um, I, alongside our entire 28-member delegation, this is something that we agree on, uh, wholeheartedly, uh, supported H.R. 662 in the 118th Congress, would have allowed USDA to implement block grants for the money approved for the 2022 year, uh, losses. Passed the House, didn't get through the Senate. We didn't get the 60 votes that we needed there, so it died. Following hurricanes Milton and Helen last fall, I led a, a letter to Secretary Vilsac requesting that the block grants be utilized in disaster aid for '23 and '24. Again, we got the entire, uh, delegation on it, including, uh, now Secretary of State Rubio and Senator Scott, and again, crickets from USDA. We didn't, didn't get anything back from them. Um, it's, it's vitally important to us. Um, we've submitted a request for $2.5 billion in block grant authority on April 3rd. And, um, uh, I, along with Representative Kamak and Senators Scott and Moody, have sent you a letter. So, and I know you've been on the Hill testifying this week. You haven't probably haven't seen that yet, but again, just underscoring how important it is to us. Um, I know you said specific amounts are forthcoming, but, but can you comment at all about maybe how these block grants are going to be administered? Will they, will it be, would the state have unilateral authority to divvy up that money? Will they be allocated to specific, uh, crop participants or or users? Anything you could give my folks, I know at home are desperate to get right.

Um, it is my understanding. If I'm wrong about this, I will follow up with the entire committee because this affects every single person. But we have for the last 8 to 12 weeks been negotiating. Negotiating is probably a strong word. Collaborating with your, uh, secretary and with some of your leadership, uh, in your state. Every state will look a little bit differently, which is why this is so complicated. This isn't like ECAP where there's one formula, you enter the portal, in three days you get paid. Um, this is different, but I think a tremendous amount of work has been done. We will triple-check on Florida and let you know exactly where that is in the process. Uh, but as later today at a press conference, I'll be talking a little bit more about this, but the most important thing is that money will begin to move by the end of this month. And, uh, and we believe everything will be paid out, uh, within a month or two after that. So by this summer, and that, uh, we are, again, it's very, very complicated, but our team is working around the clock. Would love any feedback you have on that, but again, we will follow up directly with you and anyone else on the committee that's working to, uh, to, for their constituents on this. We know there are hurting farmers that can't pay their bills because of this money. And so if I have to go in myself and, and, you know, I will do it. You know, unfortunately now it's such a cash flow issue that only those, I mean, folks are spending their own money down to nothing, and a lot of them are, are literally selling the farm because they just can't hold out any longer.

Uh, that's right. Also want to thank you. Big shout out for helping us fill our state FSA director. We've had a lot of challenges. I know other states have, but in Florida, we particularly have, and with the nature of the hurricanes and, people needing more support. We've got a great team, but they've been overworked and, and, uh, undermanned. So thank you very much for that. Uh, Florida, uh, ranks as, uh, 16th in the U.S. for agricultural cash receipts. I know I think you'd mentioned in your Senate testimony that you've visited 15 states so far. Yes. Uh, so does that mean we may, uh, Florida may be your 16th?

Yeah. Well, Nebraska is Monday, but Florida is soon after. I promise. I promise.

Okay. You don't have to win a Super Bowl ring to come on down to—

I know. Fair. That's fair. All right. Thank you.

Yeah, we're coming. Well, my goal, I head to England on Sunday as we begin the international travel to take our agriculture products to the world as we're negotiating and renegotiating these trade agreements. I have, I mentioned, I don't know that you were in here, but it's important to underscore the president's vision on realigning, um, the world economy around American products. We are making so much progress, and it is all hands on deck. So, in the coming couple of months, I'll be in England, I'll be in Asia, I'll be in South America, taking again our products to the world and to the government. And I had Mexico in yesterday. So, uh, we are aggressive, and we are working around the clock to to fix all that. One quick thing, and hopefully of interest, Mr. Chairman, if you don't mind, um, to the letters. Um, I've had a lot of feedback from many of people about unanswered letters. So, we are working very hard. We've had 142 hit my desk in since I started 83 days ago. Uh, to date, we've answered, I think, almost 80 of those 142, being very understaffed. I still don't love that number, but it's, it's hopefully we're making progress. My goal is to turn letters around within four to five days upon receiving them. And hopefully, we'll be able to hit that mark very, very quickly. If you can't get us, and if it's an important issue, and this is for everybody, not just the friends on my side, um, just call us. Just call us and let's have a conversation on how we can fix some of this.

Great. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Chairman, I yield back.

Thank you. Thank you very much. And, well, if we're all getting in the queue for the visits, Maryland, Eastern Shore, pretty close, and it's so much easier. I can just drive.

Yes, sir. I'll be there.

With that, I do want to, uh, recognize the chairman of, of the full committee. And in typical style for the chairman, you know, he, we do have several meetings at the same time. He came in late and told me he wants to make sure all the members from both sides of the aisle speak and ask questions first before he gets his turn. But, Mr. Chairman, it's your turn.

Thank you very much. I know you've got a hard stop, so I'll try and be, uh, uh, as accommodating to you as I can. First, just one piece of unsolicited political advice. Make Maryland your favorite state. Okay. Uh, you know, word to the wise.

That's fair. You did just get our basketball coach from Texas A&M. So, yeah, I've become much more interested, but yes.

Well, we're, yeah, I won't even get into basketball after what the Thunder did the night before last, but, uh, we're, we'll move on.

Yeah. Night before. Anyway, uh, couple quick things. Number one, I'm not going to read an opening statement, Mr. Chairman. If I may, I'll just submit it for the record. You don't need to hear that. Uh, there's a couple of questions I, I do have, but, uh, before I do, I want to commend you for what you are doing in reviewing grants and money out the door. Look, every administration, I'm not even saying this to be partisan, at the end is shoving out every dime they can. And we've had numerous examples in the billions of dollars. I think one to a nonprofit formed last year for $2 billion that your colleague Lee Zeldon and our former colleague pointed out was clearly political, clearly ill-advised. So you are well within your rights. I agree very much with what the gentle lady from Iowa had to say about this. And so thank you for doing it. I know you catch a lot of flack for it. Uh, and I know sometimes, you know, folks that should have gotten money, it, it takes a little longer, and that is a problem. Yeah. Uh, but, uh, you're doing the right thing, and you know, I know you'll, you'll make sure the worthy recipients get it. But you can save the taxpayer some money. That's a good thing, not a bad thing.

Two questions I have. One's, uh, pretty easy. The, uh, well, I hope it's easy. Uh, you know, states like Oklahoma voluntarily established state inspection programs to better serve our meat processors, and we're eligible for up to 50% cost share. In the last administration, we didn't get the full 50% match. That's really put us in a difficult spot, uh, in terms of meeting all the needs of our, our local, and particularly our smaller producers. So, if you've had a chance to think about this, will the USDA be providing the 50% cost share this fiscal year for state inspection programs?

Uh, do you know if you're—I don't know off the top of my head, but we will get back to you today on that. And I would believe that if this was, you know, it's obviously very important to my neighbor to the north, Oklahoma, and our cattle producers, that that, um, seems—

Yeah, we'd appreciate if you look at it. And look, we, we also get, and I actually direct this to the members as well. There's a lot of legitimate complaints about how many hearings we're having and how quickly. That's because you're a new administration. It took a while to get everybody in place. We, we don't have a full budget yet, which I would urge. I know you're working with OMB. We're glad we got the skinny budget, but that's not a full budget. We need the full budget. And I, I will tell this, and we'll talk about it in full committee to my fellow committee members. We are going to get every one of these damn bills out of here by the August break. So, it's going to be a hectic schedule. Period. Uh, because we have no chance of getting things done by the end of the fiscal year if this committee is not able to expedite its work. So, I'm going to push the members and the staff awfully hard. Uh, the things got here, but again, this is a new administration. Every administration in its first year goes through this because they don't have time to get the budget done. Takes a while to get their people through, and so just kind of the nature of the beast.

Second question. Last year, under the last administration, was very unusual. We had a tremendous problem with tribal food distribution programs. So much so that we actually had a bipartisan hearing, and it was a hearing between both the Appropriations and Agg. And honestly, we had genuine bipartisan concern over this issue. Partly because all of us that represent tribal, uh, communities had begun hearing about this a lot. I mean, you know, these promised deliveries of food weren't showing up. Uh, and, uh, we began hearing the complaints in April. You usually don't get people, uh, talking in the same voice and going after an administration. I want to commend my Democratic colleagues on this a few weeks before an election on something like this, but it was so bad that people were doing it. So, you have a lot, there's a lot of, you know, hey, First Americans were the first farmers, too. They're pretty good at what they do. Uh, and we certainly have a lot of tribal farmers in, in Oklahoma. Uh, we have a lot of tribal needs in terms of trust and treaty commitments the federal government's made over the years. So, I'd be curious as to, uh, if you've had a time to even look at those programs and if you could get back to us about how are we doing now? Because literally last time, when we went through this, while we were hearing the complaints in April, and while we know the, uh, department was hearing the complaints in April, the secretary, actually, your predecessor, uh, testified that he didn't know anything about it till August. I mean, how in the world, it doesn't get from, you know, the front door to the secretary's desk when we're talking about food distribution to needy senior Indians for months, you know, tells me that something was very wrong with the bureaucracy and the flow of information, uh, in the, uh, department last time.

Yeah. Well, I am familiar with it. Let me get a full update for you, and I'll call you later today if that's okay. Uh, T.W. Shannon, a great Oklahoman, uh, is on work for me. Well, he's on our senior staff, uh, focusing on rural prosperity and, uh, and certainly he is of these communities as well. So I'll loop him in and make sure he's at least an everyday, every minute conduit for you, but you can always call me as well, but we'll put him on.

Yeah. Thank you, sir, very much. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Thank you.

Thank you. We're going to just have a, a brief comment by myself and one question from the ranking member, and then get you out of here on time, hopefully. Just to follow up on what the chairman talked about, one of the issues with those, those grants for the small processing, small processors for meat brought to my attention that one problem is, because we need to do that to get our small producers, mechanism for them to get things processed, is that for some reason we require it, the slaughtering and fabrication to occur in the same facility if it's subject for the grant. But in some of these cases, the slaughtering, it makes much more sense to have slaughtering and fabrication different facilities, and to allow for a fabrication facility or a slaughtering facility to apply. So this just bring to your attention. The last one on that tribal food bank program, that's what I call a FDPIR. You ought to look into it for, for MA's sake, because their, uh, the food they stock is all nutritious food. Like they only stock low-sodium canned vegetables. They only stock good proteins, no snack foods, no sugary sodas. So, a program already exists that I kind of think is a MA program. And, uh, it, it's actually a tribal nation program for the tribal nation. So, anyway, with that, uh, Mr. Bishop, you have a quick question.

Thank you, Dr. I have actually two questions, but the, the answers will probably be short. Okay. So, perfect. First, first has to, and I can go, sir, I can go a little longer if anyone else has questions. Uh, the first has to do with SNAP waivers. Uh, and I've heard your interest, uh, and of course, I'm very well aware of the, the chairman's interest in, uh, SNAP waivers to, to for states, uh, with regard to banning certain foods from SNAP. Uh, but the subcommittee had a hearing on this last year, and some of the most compelling testimony came from a grocer from Georgia. He made two key points. Uh, one, that the government would need to establish codes for the thousands of products carried in grocery stores to determine what's eligible for SNAP. That they need to completely overhaul their IT systems to enforce the rules are within there, and as he put it, one to 2% net profits, if the waivers, uh, are granted, uh, and some seems like there's interest in doing that. Um, can I get your commitment that, uh, you would consider exempting small grocers from any waivers so they can have a chance to stay in business without having to comply with all of that?

I would love to learn more about that, and 100% that's my commitment. I mean, bringing rural prosperity back to every corner of America has to include supporting our smaller businesses. So, it's not just small farmers, it's our small grocers, it's our small, I mean, just small everything. So, so yeah, let me look into that, but, and I would love to to work with y'all on that, and in fact, even maybe talk to your grocer to give us his, uh, his story.

Thank you. Thank you very much for that. The, the second thing has to do with, uh, and I know you referenced, uh, it in, in answer to one of the questions, the, uh, study on menstrual cycles of transis transgender men, mice, whatever. Uh, and you took great satisfaction in canceling a grant to a university for the study of menstrual cycles in transgender men, which really doesn't sound like a, a USDA study, and it wasn't. Um, but that study was actually was to research, process, and utilize three alternative natural fibers, regenerative cotton, regenerative wool, and industrial hemp in the development of sustainable, reusable, and disposable feminine hygiene products, including pads, liners, and underwear for women and girls that could be grown in Louisiana, which basically was to promote, uh, uh, the growth of, uh, agricultural products, the patents, etcetera, in Louisiana. Apparently, whoever read the grant, your staff obviously, uh, uh, misread it, and of course, they resulted in a fraudulent, sensational, and misrepresentation of what that grant was about. So, once it's read, will you reinstate that grant? It was a small grant to one of the 1890s in Louisiana for $600,000.

Uh, I will, my commitment is to go take a look at that. I mean, it is, uh, it has been, um, an interesting and fascinating effort as we've gone through hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of these contracts, thousands. Many of them are just sort of stunning. But yes, sir, of course, I will go back and take a look at that.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much, Secretary Rollins. Thank you for being here today. I think our discussion touched on many important issues that resonate with our nation's producers, some of whom are here today with us, and our constituents across rural America. I look forward to working with you as we move through the FY26 process. As a reminder to the members, if you'd like to submit questions for the record, please submit them to the subcommittee staff within seven days. The subcommittee stands adjourned.

Thank you. Thank you, everyone. Thank you.