Transcripts For CSPAN Key Capitol Hill Hearings 20160310 : v

CSPAN Key Capitol Hill Hearings March 10, 2016

Poverty, lack of basic infrastructure like housing, Public Safety deficiencies among other things. The Unemployment Rate there is totally on acceptable it is near 50 , and an equally large percentage of the population is below the poverty level, and they have made steady progress on Economic Development in recent years, but they really need a boost. As part of the president s efforts, this promise own will help the Navajo Nation tackle the issues outlined in their application, which i have talked a little bit about here. I simply urge you to give consideration to the requests. I know there are many communities in need, but few face the extremely difficult conditions we see on the Navajo Nation. Sec. Vilsack that is one of the reasons we include that area and our strike zone initiative, but you are right, the strikes on would extend that approach to the federal agencies, so i appreciate the comments, senator. Sen. Udall could you tell me a little bit about the strikeforce effort . Sec. Vilsack strikeforce was focused to was designed to focus on the poverty in this country. What we found early in the administration was that we were not doing enough work in those areas to get folks to understand how to basically apply for programs that they could get help, so we instructed our teams to go to communities across the country where there is persistent poverty and basically work with a communitybuilding organization to identify projects and needs that we could address through usda programs. It is now operating in 129 counties, 20 one states, and several tribal areas. We have invested 26 one 3 billion 26. 3 billion. I would imagine none of those would have been made but not for the intense work relationship we created. We are working with over 1500 Community Building organizations and partners. It has been a successful endeavor, and i think that has led us to take a look at the promise own and some placebased initiatives throughout the entire federal government. Sen. Udall thank you very much for that initiative because i have it many communities in my state that need that kind of push that you are making their. Re. This next issue is an issue i made last year, and it has yet to be resolved. Two communities in new mexico chapterparall and it means neighborhoods or communities within 150 miles of the u. S. Mexico border that are economically distressed, and they have both been designated cologne he is, and they are ineligible for some usda rural funds. In this case because of their proximity to el paso, texas even though they are in new mexico, even though they do not benefit from any support or Municipal Services from a city or county like el paso, which theyre are close to, and because they are not in the same state, these communities have high poverty rates, limited publicsector funding thomas separated by over 40 miles from las cruces. These communities need Rural Development funds for housing projects, Economic Development funding, infrastructure improvements. The area has seen increasing traffic at the port of entry which is positive but really underscores the need for infrastructure. So waivers have been used for similar situations in the past but we are experiencing difficulty with the waivers in these cases. Would you work with me and within your authority to ensure that these two communities do not fall through the cracks and are made eligible for Rural Development assistance . Sec. Vilsack senator, as you were outlining your request, i turned to my staff to see what waivers are available and we will certainly work with you and your team to figure out if they are, how to use them, and if they are not, what else we could potentially due to provide because it is part of our strikeforce initiative, so we obviously are cognizant of the challenges of that particular area, so we would be happy to try to find Creative Solutions to the problem. Sen. Udall thank you very much. I could not think of a better person to be secretary of agriculture because you served as governor from a rural state. You know the communities and how they are struggling, and i appreciate this effort in terms of the strikeforce. I look forward to working with you. Thank you very much. I yield back, mr. Chair. Chairman you had no time to yield back, but thank you for the effort. Senator from north dakota . Thank you, mr. Chairman. Good to see you, mr. Secretary. On behalf of our farmers and ranchers, we want to make this bill as farm friendly as possible. That is particularly important right now with commodity prices. We are seeing real stress out there on the part of farmers and ranchers with these commodity crises. One area that we can help in terms of making sure that the farm bill is farmer friendly is with the National Statistics service data. I think that you are already working on this with your fsa director. But in some cases that nas data, because there are not enough survey forms sent in for some counties, we are getting a bad result. For example, its not unique to north dakota its occurring in other states as well. I believe iowa, i dont know about kansas. A number of states where you have counties and there are not enough of the survey forms that come back. The nas information is not used. Instead we are using Risk Management Agency Information , and we are getting a bad result. What i mean by that is that if you take counties in north dakota, logan and lamour, compare them to similar counties in average for corn. For example, for the year if you use the nas data excuse me if we dont have enough nas data and we are using the rma data and we are getting a result that doesnt correlate with like counties, so other counties that typically have the same yield , those farmers get a payment but because the rma payment is so high, it is disqualifying farmers in logan, for example. That is one example. There are other examples around the country. We have asked fsa to allow us to to work with the director in the respective state and use comparable counties with adequate nas data so that we dont get a skewed result. It is very important to farmers particularly with low commodity prices. So what can you tell me in terms of your willingness to provide this flexibility . I know that you are doing an interagency analysis or study, i think thats the right term for it. But what can you do to help your here, secretary, so that we can get this fixed . Sec. Vilsack well, as you know, congress made the decision to do a county program as opposed to an individual program. I think they did that because of the cost of the program. They needed to generate savings in the overall program. We obviously have to deal with the county program, and we obviously have a process by which we can try to treat as many of the several thousand counties that we are dealing with as fairly and equitably as we can. We have come up with the proposal in the outlined the you addressed, which is that we look at the nas data first and we if there are an inadequate number of surveys, we should be focusing on getting farmers to respond to the surveys. If we dont, we go to rma. We are not satisfied that is appropriate, enough, or correct then we have empowered our state committees to basically take a look and provide some direction. We think that we have some degree of predictability and consistency without necessarily creating a circumstance where we cant address the anomaly or the inaccuracy of information. Im more than happy to go back to our team and basically make sure that we are in a position to be able to explain why we are making the decisions that we are making. If we cant, the we obviously need to do something different. Sen. Hoeven my understanding is that it is currently in his interagency review, and i dont know what the results of that are. If the state committee is empowered to make a decision, i think thats where we need to go. Getting discretion out there in the field to your directors to make a good decision. Sec. Vilsack well, thats the key. A good decision. We dont necessarily want to create a circumstance where everybody is unhappy ultimately with what they get. Then you create a confusing circumstance with an individual program when by statute you are directed to have a county program. There is a balance here, and im more than happy to try to be flexible, but i think we have to have some system. Sen. Hoeven no, i hear you. And of course we want the forms to come in so you have adequate data and good data. But where that hasnt occurred just so that state committee or the director, harvey, wanted to see you do it, they are empowered to say that this is a nonsensical result and we will make an adjustment. My question is i dont think weve gotten that response back. They are still doing this interagency review and this has been going on since november and im asking for your help to get an answer. Sec. Vilsack well, you deserve an answer, and we will try to get human quickly. Get you one quickly. Sen. Hoeven thats great. Im also very concerned about any reductions from to the support for Crop Insurance, our number one Risk Management tool for farmers. You are probably not surprised to hear me say that. You and i have had this discussion before. But i am very concerned about that and will make sure that we do everything we can to support Crop Insurance. In fact, we included language in the farm bill to make sure that that didnt happen. On the positive side, though, i appreciate the support you have provided for Ag Research Service areas and for the National Institute of food and agriculture. I think that Research Area is incredibly important, incredibly impactful for our farmers and ranchers. If you have some thoughts there, i would welcome them. Sec. Vilsack briefly, on the Crop Insurance. There are two areas. One is on the preventative planning. Our Inspector General and General Accounting Office have been critical of the way that that program operates. I think it is appropriate for us to be responsive to those criticisms. What we have proposed in the budget is our effort at being responsive. On the price of harvest lost option, we are proposing a slightly different arrangement between the producer, the government, and the Insurance Company where we are currently financing 62 of the premium. We think that it is probably fair to taxpayers that it he be more of a 5050 partnership. Those are the two proposals. Sen. Hoeven i would point out that since 2008, 12 billion since 2008, 12 billion has been taken out of Crop Insurance support. You want a robust number of companies out there providing insurance to have a competitive market. We have to be careful or you will not have enough competition out there for a robust market. Sec. Vilsack thats true. Our projections on this return on budget are 18 . Sen. Hoeven for which they have to cover all of their costs. Sec. Vilsack well, not all of their costs. There is also an additional resource. Sen. Hoeven but again, at the end of the day if they cant make enough money to continue to stand as a business and cover their costs, you will not have a robust Insurance Group out there providing crop coverage. Sec. Vilsack im not sure that either one of these two proposals necessarily impacts the issue you have raised, but im certainly sensitive to the fact. That is why we continually look at the return on the investment. We had a couple of years where it was difficult, but we are beginning to see more profitability in that part of the operation. Again, i think it was 15 or 13 last year. 18 projected for this year. Sen. Hoeven i understand your point of view, though i dont agree with it. But again i want to emphasize that Crop Insurance support has been reduced by 12 million since 2008. There are a lot of programs across the federal government that have not contributed as much in terms of help with finding savings as Crop Insurance. Sec. Vilsack you dont have to tell me about reductions senator. My overall operating budget is less than it was in 2010. Sen. Hoeven secretary, thank you for your willingness to take a look at the nas data. I appreciate it. Chair senator . Sen. Murphy sen. Merkley i thought i would take a look at an issue i hear a lot about. Rural broadband. Folks note the important of it to the success of their Rural Communities. Importance of it to the success of the Rural Communities. As i understand it, the usda recently rewrote the broadband loan programs to reflect the 2014 farm bill. It has just gotten going, but i believe that you are now eliminating this. Meanwhile, the Grant Program that has increased is a distinctly different program. The Grant Program serves a small number of poor, unconnected communities. The number of communities it focused on in fy 15 were five communities. I think that there was a concern that there was going to be a sacrifice of these large expanses for assisting a small number of communities and whether or not that really reflects the demand for Rural Broadband there is probably a lot more thinking behind it, i just thought i would give you a chance to explain it. Sec. Vilsack well, senator, i appreciate the question. What we have found is that it is not impossible for companies to secure loans, but to the extent that they can get grant funds that either reduce the amount they have to borrow or reduce the Interest Rate on the loan, that makes it much more likely that they are in a position to do significant improvements and expansions. Listening to what we believe the industry is telling us is necessary to get more broadband in more places, combining that with, hopefully, what the fcc is attempting to do and hoping that it works properly to create more incentive and resource for expansion of broadband. The combination of those two. That is why we are proposing an increase in the Grant Program, because we think that will generate more activity than simply a loan program. Sen. Merkley thank you for the explanation. I look forward to tracking that. It is of so much importance. My colleague from wisconsin has arrived. I want to turn this over to her. Just closing on my comments thank you again for your service over seven plus years and counting. There is many more questions that i have that i will be submitting to you for the record, but i dont need to address them at this point. Thank you. Chair the senator from wisconsin. My intention is to have the senator from wisconsin ask her questions, i have a few followup questions, and then we would anticipate concluding the hearing. Senator i thank the chair. Mr. Secretary, in wisconsin water issues on everyones mind. Our Rural Communities are facing many challenges to protect their water quality. In particular, kewanee and door counties in wisconsins Northeastern Region have nitrate bacteria in their water. Testing is showing that more and more private wells are contaminated. Local stakeholder groups are working with the state department of Natural Resources to talk about longterm solutions. But as those deliberations continue, rural families remain without Immediate Solutions to these very pressing concerns and the obvious need for safe drinking water. Mr. Secretary, i believe that your department can help. But it is going to take some really, really hard work. I would ask you how you see the usda playing a role in these communities in wisconsin. Will you commit to working with me and the local communities to offer both immediate and longterm solutions that help watersheds in this vital region of our state and country . Sec. Vilsack senator, offhand do you know what the population are what the population is of those communities . Sen. Baldwin i would have to secretary vilsack is it greater or or less than 10000 . Sen. Baldwin i believe they are both greater, but they might be close. [whispering] counties, or . Yeah. They are sparsely populated. Sec. Vilsack the first line in your question, to the extent that the infrastructure can be modernized, obviously the usda has a Wastewater Treatment program available. We also have a partnership with cobank and other farm credit agencies that are providing infrastructure loans that the usda cant do or wont to do. Its leveraging our resources. We have had a series of partnerships with the farm Credit System where we will fund half a project and cobank will fund the other half. They have made a 10 billion commitment to infrastructure in rural areas across the united states. The third alternative on this side of the equation is to work with us to identify potentially private sector investors that might be willing to provide the financing to improve the systems. So those are three basic avenues of financing infrastructure. We would be more than happy to work with you and have our Rural Development people to work with those two counties and those two areas. You asked for a longterm solution. Obviously, longterm is to try to work with conservation programs to try to prevent the problem from getting worse and ultimately reversing it. Actually, wisconsin has a number of communities, like green bay that are working with the fox river, trying to create Ecosystem Markets where they essentially regulated industries would be able to pay farmers for conservation that would allow them to satisfy a particular ecosystem regulation. Or there may be a corporate entity that is looking from a social responsibility perspective. We just did an event with chevrolet on carbon credits

© 2025 Vimarsana