Hearings to examine a review of the USDA reorganization proposal.

1[Senate Hearing 119-132]2[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]34                                                        S. Hrg. 119-13256                           REVIEW OF THE USDA7                        REORGANIZATION PROPOSAL89=======================================================================1011                                HEARING1213                               BEFORE THE1415                       COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,16                        NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY1718                          UNITED STATES SENATE1920                    ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS2122                             FIRST SESSION2324                               __________2526                             July 30, 20252728                               __________2930                       Printed for the use of the31           Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry3233[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]3435                  Available on http://www.govinfo.gov/3637                                __________3839                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE4061-296 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 20254142-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------4344           COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY4546                    JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas, Chairman47MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky            AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota48JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota            MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado49JONI ERNST, Iowa                     TINA SMITH, Minnesota50CINDY HYDE-SMITH, Mississippi        RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois51ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas               CORY BOOKER, New Jersey52TOMMY TUBERVILLE, Alabama            BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico53JAMES C. JUSTICE, West Virginia      RAPHAEL WARNOCK, Georgia54CHARLES GRASSLEY, Iowa               PETER WELCH, Vermont55JOHN THUNE, South Dakota             JOHN FETTERMAN, Pennsylvania56DEB FISCHER, Nebraska                ADAM SCHIFF, California57JERRY MORAN, Kansas                  ELISSA SLOTKIN, Michigan5859               Fitzhugh Elder IV, Majority Staff Director60                    Jessica L. Williams, Chief Clerk61                Lauren Santabar, Minority Staff Director62                 Chu-Yuan Hwang, Minority Chief Counsel6364                           C O N T E N T S6566                              ----------6768                        Wednesday, July 30, 20256970                                                                   Page7172Hearing:7374Review of the USDA Reorganization Proposal.......................     17576                              ----------7778                    STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY SENATORS7980Boozman, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Arkansas......     181Klobuchar, Hon. Amy, U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota....     28283                                WITNESS8485Vaden, Stephen, Alexander, Deputy Secretary of Agriculture, USDA,86  Washington, DC.................................................     487                              ----------8889                                APPENDIX9091Prepared Statement:92    Vaden, Stephen...............................................    389394Document(s) Submitted for the Record:95Boozman, Hon. John:96    The Secretary of Agriculture, Secretary Memorandum: SM 1078-97      015........................................................    3998Klobuchar, Hon. Amy:99    National Association of Forest Service Retirees, letter......    44100    American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, letter.    47101    American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees,102      letter.....................................................    49103    Southern Environmental Law Center, letter....................    52104Fetterman, Hon. John:105    Agreement between the ERS and AFGE Local 3403, letter........    54106107Question and Answer:108Vaden, Stephen:109    Written response to questions from Hon. Amy Klobuchar........    60110    Written response to questions from Hon. Joni Ernst...........    67111    Written response to questions from Hon. Cindy Hyde-Smith.....    68112    Written response to questions from Hon. Charles Grassley.....    69113    Written response to questions from Hon. Michael Bennet.......    69114    Written response to questions from Hon. Cory Booker..........    74115    Written response to questions from Hon. Ben Ray Lujan........    81116    Written response to questions from Hon. Raphael Warnock......    83117    Written response to questions from Hon. Peter Welch..........    91118    Written response to questions from Hon. John Fetterman.......    92119    Written response to questions from Hon. Adam Schiff..........    95120121                           REVIEW OF THE USDA122                        REORGANIZATION PROPOSAL123124                              ----------125126                        WEDNESDAY, JULY 30, 2025127128                                        U.S. Senate129          Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry130                                                    Washington, DC.131    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:03 a.m., in132Room 328A, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. John Boozman,133Chairman of the Committee, presiding.134    Present: Senators Boozman [presiding], Hoeven, Ernst, Hyde-135Smith, Marshall, Tuberville, Justice, Fischer, Moran,136Klobuchar, Bennet, Smith, Lujan, Warnock, Welch, Fetterman, and137Schiff.138139   STATEMENT OF HON. BOOZMAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF140 ARKANSAS, CHAIRMAN, U.S. COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION,141                          AND FORESTRY142143    Chairman Boozman. Good morning and welcome. It is my144privilege to call this hearing to order to review the USDA145reorganization proposal.146    I welcome our witness, Judge Stephen Vaden, Deputy147Secretary of Agriculture. I appreciate your ability to appear148before the Committee on such short notice and the opportunity149to engage thoughtfully on the future of USDA and how it will150continue to efficiently serve our farmers, ranchers, and rural151communities.152    Despite being at the helm for less than six months,153Secretary Rollins has already made a significant and positive154impact on the agriculture sector in rural America. I appreciate155her commitment to serving our Nation's farmers, ranchers, and156foresters. She has worked tirelessly to implement emergency157economic assistance and supplemental disaster relief passed in158December to ensure that American farmers and ranchers receive159emergency assistance to keep their family farms in operation160and to help them recover from natural disasters. She has161championed provisions that bolster the farm safety net, crop162insurance, research, our animal health infrastructure, and163trade promotion programs Congress delivered in the One Big164Beautiful Bill.165    The Secretary has also taken action to defend American166livestock against the growing threat of New World screwworm, as167well as successfully reined in the highly pathogenic avian168influenza outbreak that has significantly impacted poultry169flocks and dairy operations across the U.S. She continues to be170a voice for American agriculture and those who feed, clothe,171and fuel our Nation.172    Last week, Secretary Rollins announced a major173reorganization of USDA. I appreciate the Secretary's emphasis174on improving effectiveness, accountability, enhancing services,175reducing bureaucracy, and cutting waste. I support those goals.176As we examine the proposal, we need to fully understand its177implications for the people USDA serves, especially how178reorganization will affect USDA's boots on the ground, presence179in rural America, and delivery of essential services.180    From its founding, USDA has been essential to American181life, supporting farmers and ranchers, stewarding natural182resources, investing in rural development, and advancing183innovation in food and agriculture. As the Department evolves184to meet 21st century challenges, it is important that any185organization enhances its ability to deliver on these186commitments. I share the Secretary's desire to ensure USDA187operates efficiently, is a good steward of taxpayer dollars,188and meets the needs of agriculture and rural America.189    We must also prioritize what matters most to producers in190rural communities: service, responsiveness, and results. USDA191is often the most visible face of the Federal Government in192rural America. That presence, whether through FSA offices,193conservation staff, or rural development programs, needs to be194preserved and empowered.195    As we review this plan, I look forward to learning more196about how this proposal strengthens the USDA's ability to197deliver on the ground, support implementation of the farm bill,198and serve as a reliable partner to people it was created to199support.200    Deputy Secretary Vaden, I recognize you have only been in201the Department for a little over three weeks after being sworn202in on July 7, so you are involved but not that involved. A lot203has gone on in the last three weeks, I am sure.204    Again, we want to thank you for coming on very, very short205notice, which was due to the fact that hopefully we will get206out of here in the next few days for a few weeks. Again, thank207you for being here to testify.208    I now turn to our Ranking Member, Senator Klobuchar.209210  STATEMENT OF HON. KLOBUCHAR, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF211                           MINNESOTA212213    Senator Klobuchar. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.214Thank you for working with me to hold this hearing at the last215moment. The reason it is short notice is because the216Administration put out a half-baked plan with no notice and217without consulting agricultural leaders.218    As we start this discussion, let me be clear, I support219efforts to make USDA work, but I do not think getting rid of22015,000 employees, which has already happened because of early221buyouts, because of firing people, because of everything else222that has happened, is good for agriculture. I do not think that223these tariffs, which have dried up markets when our farmers and224ranchers are already working on thin margins, have been good225for agriculture.226    We have a half-baked agenda that will almost certainly227result here in worse services for farmers, families, and rural228communities. Coordinated action and influence for rural America229and agriculture does not mean just being close to where the230producers are. That is true, we have that with ag. We have 90231percent of the employees already out in the field. What you232guys are planning on doing or proposing to us is to take that233other 10 percent and break them down and send them to five234different hubs, including a state that I would say is not in235the top 10 for agriculture, not even close.236    It also means having staff in a place, if we want to do our237jobs right, where they can meet with their peers in other238agencies and interact with key stakeholder groups and Members239of Congress. Whittling down USDA's resources to do this crucial240work puts rural America at a disadvantage when they do not have241people in the room where it happens.242    We have differences across the aisle, but I think every one243of my colleagues understands that you need people that can meet244with you. You need people that can go over to the White House245so that you do not have people that do not have the interests246of rural America in mind making all the decisions.247    I am extremely concerned about the harm that this248reorganization will have on the USDA's research. The previous249relocation of the Economic Research Service and the National250Institute of Food and Agriculture was nothing short of a251disaster. A 2023 report by the Government Accountability252Office, those reports are used by both Democrats and253Republicans to make their points, underscores the threat that254these short-sighted actions have on USDA stakeholders. GAO255explicitly stated, based on this much smaller relocation, that256ERS produced fewer key reports and that N-I-F-A, known as NIFA,257took longer to process grants because of relocation. Why would258we want that right now when we have already lost 15,000259employees, when farmers are already suffering, when we have260these tariffs walloping them?261    This means farmers did not get timely economic information,262and researchers were left waiting for critical research263funding. This reorganization plan would create similar chaos264but on a much grander scale, which seems to be what this265Administration is repeatedly about. Vacating long-standing266research labs, including the very lab where USDA began work on267sterilized flies to combat screwworms, and pushing researchers268out of federal service will threaten the innovation that our269farmers demand and need to combat animal and plant disease.270    Just this year, 1,600 employees have already left USDA271research agencies, and you want to make it even smaller when we272are trying to compete with other countries, when we know that273so many of our human-based diseases actually start with animals274all around the world, when we know that farming and ranching275has been the jewel of America's economy.276    I hope that today's discussion will shed light on the277effects this proposal will have on USDA's ability to respond to278wildfires, administer critical nutrition programs, protect279civil rights, and meet the needs of our farmers.280    Before I close, I want to point out that this281reorganization plan, as I noted at the beginning, was developed282without input of Congress or the very stakeholders USDA aims to283serve. It is unacceptable that we learned about this proposal284just minutes before it was announced.285    The first months of this Administration do not inspire286confidence, given the months of freezes, cancellations,287unfreezes, firings, hiring back, lease terminations, firings288and subsequent attempts to rehire veterinarians, farm loan289officers, and other critical positions. It has injected290uncertainty at a time when USDA's customers look for certainty291and trust.292    I did not vote for you, Mr. Deputy Secretary, but I did293think that you would go in, based on your experience, and be294able to do things that would actually help rural America. I295actually took you at your word when you had pledged to work296with us on things that would help. That is not what happened297here when we had absolutely no notice of what you were going to298do.299    Chairman Boozman. We will now introduce our witness, Deputy300Secretary of Agriculture Stephen Vaden. Deputy Secretary Vaden301was confirmed earlier this year, and prior to his confirmation302was a judge on the International Court of Trade. During the303first Trump Administration, he served as General Counsel of the304Department of Ag.305    Deputy Secretary Vaden is a native of Union City,306Tennessee, where his family has resided for many generations.307Again, we thank you very much for being here this morning, and308you are now recognized.309310  STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE STEPHEN ALEXANDER VADEN, DEPUTY311        SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, USDA, WASHINGTON, D.C.312313    Mr. Vaden. Chairman Boozman, Ranking Member Klobuchar,314Committee Members, thank you for your invitation to come here315today to talk about our reorganization plan. I have already316submitted my testimony to you in writing. I do not believe317reading it to you today would be a good use of our time.318    Instead, I would like to focus on some facts and begin to319answer some questions that have arisen. First, the Secretary's320plan proposes relocating 2,600 employees from the National321Capital Region to five hubs around the country. Let's put that322number in perspective, shall we? From January 2021 to January3232025, the Biden Administration, 2,200 employees left324Washington, DC. There was no congressional notice. There was no325outcry. There was no Committee hearing. For more than 1,700326days, extending well beyond any fair definition of the COVID327pandemic, USDA was on a maximum telework footing. Both career328and political leadership rarely set foot in USDA's329headquarters. Staff moved away from the National Capital330Region. They expected not to be asked to return. There was no331congressional notice. There was no outcry. There was no332Committee hearing.333    As was earlier noted, 90 percent of USDA's current staff334reports to work outside the National Capital Region. We propose335to add approximately 2.5 percent to that number, 2,600 people.336With respect, it is insulting to suggest that the more than 90337percent of USDA employees who clock in every day outside of338Washington, DC, are somehow less important and less vital than339the people who do the same in Washington, DC. Everyone's work340makes the Department. The heart of USDA is in the field, and341the maximum number of people possible should report to work342there.343    Speaking of where USDA employees report to work, USDA has a344total of 4,754 facilities at which its employees report to work345every day. The Secretary's proposal calls for closing exactly346four of those 4,754 places of employment. How did we determine347which ones to close? We followed congressional intent. Earlier348this year, on January the 4th, President Biden signed into law349the Use It Act. It passed this body, the Senate, 97 to 1. In350case you are wondering, the one Senator who voted against it351does not sit on the Agriculture Committee.352    What does the Use It Act require? All buildings, leased or353owned by a government agency, should be at least 60 percent354occupied. Not a single one, not a one of USDA's buildings in355the National Capital Region meet this congressionally mandated35660 percent occupancy rate.357    What does the Use It Act say? If you fail to meet it, the358agency should choose to consolidate and vacate to get into a359footprint that does meet the 60 percent threshold. That is360exactly what USDA is choosing to do, follow the law this body361passed.362    Finally, a note on timing. I understand the consternation363some Members of this Committee have with the fact that they364received notification at the same time that USDA's employees365did. There was a thought behind that, and that thought was366this. The employees are the ones who are most directly affected367by the Secretary's decision. Out of common courtesy and368respect, they should hear that decision from the Secretary369first and not from a leak that originates from somewhere else.370    USDA's entire focus of its reorganization efforts has been371on voluntary decisions by employees. The Secretary has been372frank with our employees about what our budgetary numbers373require and what the Administration's expectations are so that374those employees can make the best decisions for themselves and375their families. That will continue to be the Department's376guideposts.377    We understand the need to work with Congress. The 30-day378notification period required by law ensures that now is the379time for us to receive feedback from stakeholders, from our380employees, and from Members of Congress as well.381    I look forward to taking your questions.382    [The prepared statement of Mr. Vaden can be found on page38338 in the appendix.]384    Chairman Boozman. First, I would like to enter into the385record the memo that was provided, SM 1078-015, for the386Committee record, without objection.387    [The letter can be found on pages 39-43 in the appendix.]388    Chairman Boozman. Can you tell us a little bit about--we389have the 30-day period. What kind of timeline are we looking at390after that as we go forward?391    Mr. Vaden. Well, first, we have a 30-day period of392consultation.393    Chairman Boozman. Right.394    Mr. Vaden. That is required by statute, and we are going to395honor every day of that. As schedules allow, both the Secretary396of Agriculture and myself will travel to all five proposed hub397locations. We will be engaging in further conversations with398USDA's eight mission areas, as well as their agency leadership399on connecting the right functions of each agency and mission400area to a particular hub location.401    We also need to finalize our conversations with the General402Services Administration, which manages, of course, the entire403real estate footprint of the Federal Government regarding the404leases and facilities that they have available in these five405regions for USDA employees to move into.406    Following those discussions, we will issue a finalized407phased timeline for the implementation of the Secretary's plan.408This will include union notifications where required by409contractor law, employee notifications, including where needed,410options provided by VERA and VSIP. We will then initiate the411vacature of the National Capital Region space in a phased plan,412as we have laid out in the buildings we have intended to413vacate. Of course, throughout this process, we will consult not414only with our employees and our stakeholders but Congress as415well.416    Chairman Boozman. I think the thing that we are all417concerned about, I know you all are, and certainly we as a418Committee are, is the ability to serve customers in rural419communities and the agriculture community that really is in a420difficult situation. I am very proud of the work that we have421done, as I mentioned in our opening statement. Can you tell us422about how the plan is going to improve programs that support423Americans who live in rural areas as we go forward?424    Mr. Vaden. It is going to allow us to build the next425generation of USDA leadership. Simply put, the hardest problem426that any federal agency faces, and this is not limited to the427Department of Agriculture, is talent retention. The cost of428living here in Washington, DC, is prohibitive. Who do I have in429mind when I am thinking about what I want for the next USDA430leadership? Well, there is someone you all know here who is the431story that we are trying to seek and continue, and that is my432friend Ralph Linden, who is sitting back here behind me. He is433currently our acting General Counsel. Ralph started his tenure434with USDA in 1982, which also happens to be the year I was435born, so I know he has worked at USDA for 43 years.436    Ralph moved to a neighborhood in suburban Virginia. He437bought a home with his wife and started a family. Ralph has438worked his way up from the lowest of line attorneys in the439Office of General Counsel to the top position at the440Department, acting General Counsel. His institutional knowledge441of legal issues that have come across USDA's desk is442unparalleled. When he moved into that home in suburban443Virginia, all of his neighbors were government employees.444Today, all of the homes in Ralph's neighborhood sell for seven445figures. There are no government employee neighbors of his.446They are all dual professional, private sector doctors,447lawyers, lobbyists, your typical D.C. types, no government448employees to be found.449    The future Ralph Lindens of the world cannot buy a home in450Washington, DC, when the average price is seven figures. They451cannot start a family. They cannot go on the journey that Ralph452has had. They can do that in Raleigh, North Carolina. They can453do that in Indianapolis, Indiana. They can do that in Kansas454City, Missouri. They can do that in Fort Collins, Colorado.455Yes, they can do that in Salt Lake City, Utah, which was why456one of our principal considerations for where to put our457regional hubs, was the cost of living. We want people to come458to USDA for a career, to start a family, and to stay with us.459Unfortunately, given the cost of living in the National Capital460Region, the Ralph Lindens of the world can no longer do that in461the District of Columbia.462    Chairman Boozman. Very good. Senator Klobuchar.463    Senator Klobuchar. Thank you. It is apparent that USDA did464not consult with or even bother to notify Congress with this465plan. I would like to know, did you consult with the American466Farm Bureau before releasing this plan, the organization that467represents so many of our farmers and ranchers?468    Mr. Vaden. Senator, the Secretary's memorandum was the469first step, not the final step.470    Senator Klobuchar. You did not. Is that the answer?471    Mr. Vaden. This is the beginning of the consultation472process----473    Senator Klobuchar. Could you just answer yes or no? Did474you----475    Mr. Vaden [continuing]. not the end.476    Senator Klobuchar [continuing]. consult with the Farm477Bureau before releasing this?478    Mr. Vaden. The consultation process has just begun.479    Senator Klobuchar. You did not, for the record. Did you480consult with the farmers union, the National Farmers Union,481before releasing this plan? Yes or no?482    Mr. Vaden. No, because the consultation process has just483begun.484    Senator Klobuchar. Did you consult with or submit this plan485to the Office of Management and Budget before this?486    Mr. Vaden. A plan was submitted to the Office of Management487and Budget, and they are aware of our current plan.488    Senator Klobuchar. Sixteen hundred employees have left489USDA's research agencies. USDA fired many researchers,490including those working on avian flu, only to later backtrack.491USDA is extremely delayed in setting out funding for492competitive research programs this year, as so many of my493colleagues know. To me, these actions completely undermine494agriculture research, just as we are seeing more and more495animal diseases that are used against us in trade arrangements496that hurt our producers. Senator Smith and I have seen the497horrific effects of avian flu.498    Secretary Vaden, USDA's reorganization plan would vacate499USDA research labs and eliminate or consolidate offices for the500Ag Research Service, the Agricultural Statistics Service. Do501you believe that vacating research sites, eliminating offices,502and losing researchers will improve outcomes for farmers who503depend on this research?504    Mr. Vaden. Senator, 91 of 94 ARS research labs are505unaffected by the Secretary's memorandum. Further, the506Secretary's memorandum states in its plain text that what will507go on in Beltsville will take place over a period of years and508in a way that does not interfere with any ongoing research.509With regard to where researchers are, I think it is important510to note, as you have referenced ERS and NIFA multiple times,511that during the prior Administration, nearly all of the hiring512that took place in those agencies was done virtually, which is513to say, the employees that were hired reported to no office514other than their own kitchen. Some of them who did have offices515in the National Capital Region not only never reported to those516offices, but moved hundreds of miles away.517    Senator Klobuchar. Mr. Vaden, I know you will be surprised518at this, but I am not interested in relitigating the pandemic519right now, which spanned two Administrations, the Trump520Administration, part one, and the Biden Administration. What I521want to talk about is now. Do you think that these actions are522actually going to make us more competitive when it comes to ag,523more competitive when we are dealing with research issues524across the world? How will you ensure that critical research525projects will not suffer?526    Mr. Vaden. Absolutely, I do. Because on a government527salary, government employees cannot afford to start a quality528life in Washington, DC, but they most certainly can in529Indianapolis, Indiana.530    Senator Klobuchar. USDA's reorganization plan calls for531closing every one of the existing Food and Nutrition Service532offices, both the headquarters and regional offices, and533relocating those employees as well. As you know, these534programs, our food and nutrition assistance, which took a major535hit in this recent budget bill--well, except for the states536that have the highest error rates, it serves tens of millions537of customers every year, including over 40 million SNAP538recipients. The FNS has a huge task ahead implementing the bill539with these SNAP cuts, huge transformation that we have decided540to embark on.541    How can USDA possibly ensure the integrity of the billions542of dollars it is responsible for overseeing with this change543and closing down all the offices? Can you provide the Committee544with a breakdown of staff losses by function? Given our shared545interest in the program integrity, I would like to know how546many staff who have left positions related to financial547management program integrity or management review of nutrition548programs. Can you answer that?549    Mr. Vaden. Senator, two points in response to that. Number550one, I would be happy to get you those numbers, but your551supposition that all Food and Nutrition Service employees will552be leaving the National Capital Region is incorrect. Every553agency and every mission area under the Secretary's plan will554have representation and officials in Washington, DC. As I know555you know well, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program is556primarily administered by the states. What USDA's role is, is557to ensure the states are properly administering the program. It558makes sense to move the employees whose job it is to oversee559the states into these states that they are overseeing, rather560than keeping them in Washington, DC.561    Senator Klobuchar. Yes, I have just had a different562experience in my own state office, in my own work. I think like563when the work of our office is constituent services, you know,564I have one person in each of the areas, but I have kept people565together that have to interact to make decisions and do hard566work together and figure out when the constituents call. We567have a number of them with veterans concerns or a number of568them with adoption concerns. Having that kind of interaction569and having that kind of expertise in one space, which in the570case of USDA, already 90 percent of their workforce, as we both571agreed on, is dispersed.572    One thing we have not discussed, given the raging forest573fires we have seen recently, given the details included in the574USDA's reorganization plan, and as you know, the President's575budget proposed moving wildland fire operations out of the U.S.576Forest Service to a new federal wildland firefighting agency577housed in Interior. There is also reporting that the578Administration is considering moving parts of the USDA's Rural579Development Agency to the Small Business Administration. Is the580USDA still considering moving parts of the Forest Service and581Rural Development to other Cabinet agencies?582    When you are looking at only 10 percent of the workforce583already in one place, and you want to halve that, and then you584want to move away all the wildfire, are you trying to decimate585this agency, Mr. Vaden? Are you trying to do what they are586doing to the Department of Education? That is a question I want587answered. What about the Forest Service? Are you still pursuing588getting rid of that as well?589    Mr. Vaden. Senator, the President's budget proposal is590before this body. It speaks for itself. It calls for the591centralization of all federal wildfire fighting capabilities.592That is a proposal that predates this Administration, and I593think it is one that should be taken seriously.594    As it goes to the Forest Service, I want to make certain to595state for the record that the Secretary's memorandum, again in596its plain text, specifically notes that the Forest Service's597fire safety lab will not be moving and is protected in this598reorganization.599    Senator Klobuchar. Okay. Last question. Why did you tell600people to resign and fire them and then try to rehire them?601    Mr. Vaden. Senator, we do not have the money in our budget602to pay for all of the employees that were hired in the prior603Administration. Former Secretary Vilsack, in comments to Agri-604Pulse, admitted as much just last week.605    Senator Klobuchar. You are saying that you thought it was a606good idea to fire them and then try to rehire them, the same607people for the same positions, and you lost a whole bunch of608them, veterinarians and researchers?609    Mr. Vaden. Senator----610    Senator Klobuchar. You think that was a smart way to handle611it?612    Mr. Vaden [continuing]. were terminated as a result of the613DRP.614    Senator Klobuchar. All right. I am done.615    Chairman Boozman. Senator Hoeven?616    Senator Hoeven. Deputy Secretary, thanks for being here617today. I support finding cost savings where you can. I support618the idea of moving people out of the D.C. area and out into the619field and closer to the farmer. Of course, the ultimate goal620has to be better service to our farmers and ranchers across ag621country.622    I think the key here, though, that I want to talk about623with you is that when the Trump Administration went through624this process during the President's first term and moved NIFA625and ERS to Kansas City, there was a process. We had a process626where the Administration worked with Congress, and we went627through the options. People could request being included, and628there was a give and take. You know, that is kind of what we629are looking for, I think, this time. I understand your point,630okay, you wanted to bring something out. I think the key is631that we know that there is an ability to work with you on this632to effectuate the things we talked about, the cost savings,633better service, those kind of things.634    It also involves funding. I chair Ag Approps. It is going635to change your funding needs and where those allocations have636to go. We are hoping that--I mean, Republicans have cleared the637Ag Approps bill to be on the Senate Floor now, and I am hoping638with our colleagues across the aisle we are working on that639right now, so it is very timely. This process is important.640    As we look at the five sites, like from my part of the641world, there is nothing within 600 miles of us, from Fargo,642North Dakota, for example. We are in the heart of ag country.643My question to you is, where are we in this process?644    One other point I would make before you respond is that645Secretary Rollins was in front of our Ag Approps Committee, and646I specifically said, hey, will you work with us? Because we647talked about this reorganization effort, and I said, we support648the goals, but we want it to be a process where you work with649Congress, with the Senate, both the Authorizing Committee and650the Appropriations Committee on it, and we achieve those651results together. I think that will help garner a lot more652support for the effort.653    I want to know where, and I will be up to see you later654today, we can talk some more, but I want to know where we are655in this process so we can accomplish just what I am laying out656and what I think, you know, the Secretary and I had talked657about previously.658    Mr. Vaden. Well, Senator, as I stated in my opening659remarks, this is the first step, not the final step. We are now660accepting feedback, and we want to hear from you, and I know I661will be speaking with you later this afternoon. I look forward662to that meeting.663    We could not put offices everywhere, and we learned some664lessons from the ERS/NIFA relocation in term one. One of the665most important lessons that we learned was instead of looking666all over the map, literally, for where we should go if we are667looking to relocate, the first thing we should do is see where668we already are and where we already have office space available669and a core set of employees. That is one of the reasons, for670example, that Fort Collins, Colorado, jumped to the top of our671list.672    When we look at USDA's footprint in the State of Colorado,673we not only have all of the employees in Fort Collins, but in674nearby Lakeland and Denver. That just formed a natural core,675particularly with Forest Service equities, that made sense for676us to go ahead and build on. There is a similar story when you677look at Kansas City and when you look at Raleigh, North678Carolina, and the other hubs as well. That is what we were679looking at.680    While our plan does not have an office in North Dakota, one681thing I will note is that nearly all of these hubs are closer682to North Dakota than Washington, DC. While we could not put a683location in every state, we are bringing these hubs closer to684the American people that we serve, and if you look at a map, it685is kind of neat how it worked out that they are pretty evenly686spaced across the center of country from Raleigh all the way687over to Salt Lake.688    Senator Hoeven. Again, the things we talked about, you689know, cost reductions, moving people out of D.C. closer to the690farm country, better service for farmers and ranchers, I mean,691we can kind of go through and debate all the things you brought692up as to each of the hubs. For example, what is magic about693five hubs? How much agriculture is there in the State of Utah?694We can go through all those things, and whether in fact it is695actually easier or better for our farmers and our ranchers in696North Dakota, given the five hubs you have selected.697    There is a difference between you selecting five hubs on698your own and saying, okay, we are at the start of the plan, but699this is the plan, and we are going to talk about it, but this700is the plan. That is different than if we work together and701come up with a plan that people have had input, they have been702fairly heard and fairly treated, and it may be different than703five hubs, and it may be different than these locations, and it704may be different in form and function, but it is something that705ultimately this Congress has something to say about, both from706an authorizing standpoint, and certainly from an appropriation707standpoint.708    Is this a process where we are still going to work together709on an outcome, or is this an outcome that we are now just going710to talk about, but it is a fait accompli?711    Mr. Vaden. Senator, if you read the memorandum, it has712built-in flexibility. The memorandum lays out a vision, but713then there is a line in that memorandum which says the vision714and the plans laid out here can change, and the Secretary715delegated authority to me to make changes where needed.716    Senator Hoeven. Then we look forward to working with you on717it.718    Mr. Vaden. Thank you, sir.719    Senator Hoeven. Yes, thank you.720    Chairman Boozman. Senator Bennet.721    Senator Bennet. Thanks. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for722having this hearing.723    Mr. Vaden, thanks for being here. I will prove it to you724later, but I have long called for the idea of trying to725relocate people from Washington, DC, to parts of the country,726partly to get out of the insulation of this place, partly to727just be closer to, in this case, producers, but others as well.728Philosophically, that is where I have been. I say I have to729prove it to you because you just said Fort Collins had risen to730the top of your list, and I wonder if you could describe a731little bit what the intention is for that hub in Fort Collins.732We are pleased to have that announcement for our state. Then I733will ask you some follow-up questions. You mentioned fire. You734mentioned the Forest Service equities as part of that too, so735if you could just elaborate on that, I would appreciate it.736    Mr. Vaden. Well, as you know, Senator, in your State of737Colorado, the Forest Service already has many employees spread738between Fort Collins, Lakeland, and Denver. We want to build on739that. It makes sense for more of the Forest Service to be740located actually close to the forests it is in charge of741managing.742    I know there has been some questions by certain Members of743the Committee about Salt Lake City. That is also what brought744Salt Lake City into the mix, what it can offer the Forest745Service and, in particular, what it can offer the Forest746Service's aviation assets as it looks in whatever Congress747decides about the Administration's plan regarding centralizing748wildfire efforts to fight the forest fires that, unfortunately,749we know that the Forest Service will be charged with fighting.750    Now, what other agencies may join the Forest Service in751Fort Collins? Those lists have not been finalized. Partly that752is because we need to consult with the employees, and we need753to consult with the mission areas and agencies now that they754know what we think makes the most sense to see how they want to755adapt their footprint to these locations.756    Senator Bennet. I think those consultations are important.757I would also say it will be very important to consult with the758local communities as well. The world-class research that is759done at Colorado State University is an example of something760that I think the Department can build on that I hope that if761you and the Secretary are going to be out there, that you are762able to make the time to meet with the people on the ground at763the university and around that ecosystem to be able to try to764apply as much imagination as possible to the work that you are765trying to do.766    Mr. Vaden. Well, Senator, we join with you in wanting to767build in every force multiplier that we can. Either Brooke or I768will visit Fort Collins, and we will give you a heads up before769we go out there so if you wish to join us, you or your staff770are more than welcome to, as well as your colleague in the771Senate and the House.772    That is one of the reasons why we think this plan is such a773good idea, why you have laid out. When we get people into the774field with the people whom they serve, you just mentioned775Colorado State University, it is easier to collaborate, and it776is easier to multiply efforts. It is that in-person777collaboration that we are trying to spark.778    Senator Bennet. I was actually on the phone with the779Secretary this morning because we were having our biweekly fire780update as it happens, and Secretary Burgum was on that call781too. We had a, I think, seven Senators because this is a782moment, obviously, of deep peril in the West as it is every783summer. For us, this is life and death. The implementation of784these bureaucratic choices is not philosophical at the end of785the day. It is can we preserve the American West and can we786preserve our way of life? Can we preserve our drainages and the787water that we all rely upon? For us, none of this is trivial,788none of this is about politics.789    I would just finish by saying that the reorg that you guys790are talking about with respect to fire generally, you know,791that has to be something that there are deep consultations on.792Today, we had a discussion with the Interior Secretary and with793the Agriculture Secretary about the importance of thinking794about how we are doing fire mitigation, how we are doing forest795restoration, that this is not just about fighting fires, it is796about the entire landscape.797    I know John Hoeven knows this well from his work as798Governor, and what you do before a fire happens and what you do799on the back end of a fire. I hope we will use this as an800opportunity to try to think as deeply as we can about this801because we may never get another chance.802    Mr. Vaden. Well, Senator, I am with you on that. Obviously,803just as Brooke wants to work with you, I want to work with you804on this because this is something we cannot afford to get805wrong. I would just point out to you, I know you have probably806read the memorandum, but in the memorandum it notes that one of807the instructions from the Secretary is that, as we go forward808with this reorganization after consultation with Congress, we809are going to do so in a way that does not interfere with the810Forest Service during forest fire season. They are going to be811left to do their job, and they will move when it is safe for812them to do so.813    As I noted in response to your questions, we took in814particular account the Forest Service needs and in particular815its aviation needs with regard to our selections of Salt Lake816City, Utah, and Fort Collins, Colorado, as two of our five USDA817hubs.818    Senator Bennet. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.819    Senator Hoeven. Senator Hyde-Smith.820    Senator Hyde-Smith. Thank you very much. I certainly821appreciate you appearing today. You are doing a great job.822    Also, I just want to be very clear that I support the823efforts to make the Department of Agriculture more efficient824and physically sustainable and responsive to farmers and825producers, including making the USDA operate closer to the826people it serves. I support taking a thorough look at USDA827operations in Washington, DC, area and across the country to828correct inefficiencies and to restore fiscal responsibility. I829applaud you, Mr. Deputy Secretary, and the Secretary for830reviewing departmental operations to ensure USDA is carrying831out its missions in a responsible manner, and I think you are832doing exactly that.833    However, there are still many questions that need to be834answered on the specifics of the reorganization proposal, so I835am glad to understand that, you know, things are still open and836nothing is final yet, but it is a work in process.837    Page three of the Secretary's memo that was made public838last week states that the Agricultural Research Service will839eliminate its area offices, and residual functions will be840performed by its Office of National Programs. I have concerns841about the implication that this section may have for842agricultural research, specifically with the work being done in843Stoneville, Mississippi, that I think you are familiar with,844which is home to the Agricultural Research Service Southeast845area office. Stoneville is the largest agricultural research846location in the Southeast and one of the largest for ARS. It is847located in the Mississippi Delta where it remains close to848thousands of farmers, producers, key stakeholders, and849customers, which is a key pillar for the USDA reorganization850proposal. This location provides careers, expertise, and851economic opportunity in that area that struggles with poverty852for generations.853    The Southeast area office and the area administrative854office staff provide leadership, opportunity, accountability,855and administrative support services to all USDA research units856across the Southeast region. This includes 27 research857locations in Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana,858Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina,859Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, often in partnership with860our land-grant universities. This involves 60 research units,8611,500 employees, including nearly 500 scientists, and a $358862million annual budget.863    The Southeast area office is critical to the success of the864research programs covering everything from insect management865research, warm water aquaculture research, which is very big in866Mississippi, crop genetics, and water resource management. The867area office staff understands the research being conducted in868the region and supports the area's scientists located at the869various research units throughout the Southeast. This allows870for dedicated resources to work on challenges unique to871agriculture in the Southeast.872    Stoneville, located in a low-cost area, already operates as873a host center for federal employees. In addition, other federal874agencies, including the NRCS, ARS, the DOI, have employees875housed in that Whitten Center there. The center has the876capacity to house other agency employees and research programs877with quality office and lab space, which can be utilized as878part of this reorganization proposal.879    The area office operations budget of approximately $9.9880million will no longer be managed at Stoneville if the area881office is eliminated. This will have a negative effect on the882local economy in Mississippi if employees are reassigned to883other states. To me, this runs counter to the goal of moving884USDA staff outside of Washington, DC, and getting them closer885to the Department's customer base.886    I could go on for days talking about how valuable the887Southeast area office in Stoneville, Mississippi, is to USDA888agriculture research and our ability to remain a global leader889in agriculture.890    Mr. Deputy Secretary, what assurances can you provide me891that any proposal finalized by USDA will not negatively impact892the Stoneville ARS facility, its employees, or the important893work that is being done there?894    Mr. Vaden. Well, Senator, I thank you for the question, and895your passion for the center in Stoneville shines through in it.896First of all, let me make a distinction that may not have been897clear in my earlier remarks. The fact that the Secretary's898memorandum indicates that we are removing a level of middle899management between the people on the ground who actually do the900work and the people who ultimately are responsible for901overseeing it does not mean that automatically everyone who is902located in a former regional office of an agency will be moved.903    With respect to Stoneville, because of the important904research that is actually conducted there, I believe at the905current time, USDA's plan, subject of course to consultation906with you, is for the staff to remain there.907    Senator Hyde-Smith. Thank you very much for your answer.908    Senator Hoeven. Senator Smith.909    Senator Smith. Thank you, Senator Hoeven.910    Mr. Vaden, I am going to follow up on the questions that my911friend just asked regarding ARS facilities. We have two of them912in Minnesota, as you no doubt know. One of them is in St. Paul,913conducts research on Cereal disease, plant science, and soil914and water management. Of course, you probably also know that915earlier this year, those lab researchers in St. Paul were laid916off and then rehired. There is also a lab in Morris, Minnesota,917that focused on soil and water conservation. That lab has 15918full-time vacancies right now due to the current Trump919Administration's force reductions and lack of hiring.920    My first question is, what is the Administration's plans921for these two ARS facilities in Minnesota? What is your plan922for keeping them going, staffing, and letting them do their923work?924    Mr. Vaden. Well, I appreciate the question, Senator. With925regard to the staffing levels at those individual facilities in926Minnesota, I will have to get back with you on that. With927regard to the labs themselves, as I noted in the beginning, as928a result of the Secretary's plan and the President's budget,929which is currently pending before the Congress, 90 of 94 ARS930labs will be untouched. The labs that you have mentioned in the931State of Minnesota are among the 90 of 94 ARS labs that will932remain untouched by this reorganization.933    Senator Smith. Thank you. When I spoke with you during your934confirmation hearing, you and I had a conversation about the935importance of tribal relations and the trust and treaty936responsibilities that the Federal Government has to tribal937nations. As we both know, also the USDA does not have the best938track record when it comes to working with tribes.939    Let me ask you, could you describe what tribal consultation940you have undertaken so far with this reorganization? What are941your plans for that tribal consultation?942    Mr. Vaden. Well, we intend, during the consultation period943that has begun, to hear from all of our stakeholders, including944tribes. I hope you took note of the fact that in the945Secretary's memorandum, although it has not received as much946attention as certain other parts of the memorandum, we note947that we are going to consolidate tribal relations functions----948    Senator Smith. Yes, I noted that.949    Mr. Vaden [continuing]. within mission areas and ensure950that our Office of Tribal Relations delivers all statutorily951required functions. The reason that we want to do this is952similar to the reason that we are wanting to consolidate civil953rights functions at USDA.954    Historically, as you well know, there have been inequities955between agencies in terms of how these communities are dealt956with and the equality of service they get from USDA. We believe957that by consolidating these functions, we can truly ensure that958all tribal members receive the same level of service that they959deserve, regardless of which agency within USDA they are960dealing with.961    Senator Smith. I will look forward to following up with you962on that. If you will allow me, tribal nations are not another963constituency of the USDA. We have a government-to-government964relationship with tribal nations. In that sense, it is965different, though I mean in no sense any disrespect to the966important constituencies that the USDA has.967    Mr. Vaden, there is a huge interest in Minnesota in the968work that the USDA does around rural development. This has been969an area that I have spent a lot of time working on. I want to,970in the short time I have left--I am a little concerned about971what is in this reorganization plan or what is not in this972reorganization plan regarding what the Administration's plans973are for rural development. Can you tell me, does the974Administration commit to maintaining rural development as a975USDA mission area, rather than having it get farmed out to976other agencies across the Federal Government? What is your plan977for keeping rural development state offices?978    Mr. Vaden. Senator, rural development is very personal to979me. As you and I know, when I came before you for my980confirmation hearing, I live in rural America. That is where I981go home to. I have seen, as you have seen in the State of982Minnesota over the past many decades, where towns that used to983have multiple factories, including my own, have lost those in984recent years. You have a committed champion in rural985development at USDA in Secretary Rollins and myself.986    When it comes to our state-level offices for rural987development, the county offices I believe you referred to,988there is a reason why they are not mentioned in the memorandum.989That is because they are unaffected by this memorandum.990    Senator Smith. You expect those regional offices, those991local offices, to stay as they are right now?992    Mr. Vaden. Senator, we are going to leave the county-level993footprint alone as a result of this memorandum. That not only994goes for rural development, I want to be clear, it also goes995for the Farm Services Agency.996    Senator Smith. Just yesterday, the Banking Committee, where997I serve, passed unanimously out of Committee a significant998piece of housing legislation. Included in that legislation is a999bill that Senator Rounds and I from South Dakota have worked on1000to make important improvements and reforms to the Rural Housing1001Service so that we can preserve rural housing in communities.1002This is over 400,000 units of rural housing across the country.1003    I constantly hear about the challenges of staffing1004shortages and technology challenges in rural housing service,1005which makes it very difficult for the agency to actually1006function and operate effectively, and our bill addresses this.1007I want to just mention this to you because, as the Secretary1008and the agency moves forward, we have made an important first1009step with passing this legislation out of Banking Housing. Now,1010I hope that we can move it through the Senate Floor and through1011the House and get the President's signature. As I said, it is a1012unanimous passage out of Banking Housing Committee. I hope that1013we can continue to work on that.1014    Thank you. I am sorry I went over time, Mr. Chair.1015    Chairman Boozman. Senator Tuberville.1016    Senator Tuberville. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.1017    Mr. Vaden, thanks for being here, and thanks for what you1018are trying to do, increasing government efficiency, reducing1019unnecessary spending. We are $37 trillion in debt, and we need1020to look after our hardworking farmers and producers, our1021foresters. We have already lost 150,000 farms in the last few1022years, 25,000 farmers. The suicide rate is out the roof. We are1023losing. In the last profession I was in, you lose and you get1024your ass fired real quick, and we are losing.1025    Our farmers are--I mean, they are in trouble. Even if they1026make a profit this year, we are still going to lose thousands1027of farms. We are going to find out, really, how quick we are1028going to need farmers and producers when all this happens.1029    Our buildings are falling apart. We are in debt. We need1030expensive repairs. Do we have any estimates how much money this1031is going to cost the Federal Government and American taxpayers,1032you know, through the USDA of moving people around? I know that1033we do have some good structures, but have we looked into any of1034that at all?1035    Mr. Vaden. We do have an estimate, Senator, regarding how1036much at a minimum we expect to save once costs are taken into1037account, and that is approximately $4 billion. How did we get1038to that number? We got to that number by looking into account1039the headcount reductions as a result of the Deferred1040Resignation Program. Those alone will save the Department of1041Agriculture approximately $1.9 billion net.1042    You have mentioned the state of our buildings, and you are1043unfortunately correct, particularly when it comes to the1044National Capital Region, and you are looking at the four1045buildings that the Secretary's memorandum proposes to vacate.1046The value of the deferred maintenance on those buildings, the1047liability on USDA, is $2.2 billion, with a B, dollars, hard to1048conceive, but that is the calculation when you add those four1049buildings together of how much maintenance they need to bring1050them up to modern standards.1051    When you add those two sums together of expected savings,1052you are starting out with more than $4 billion. That is before1053we take into account the lower cost of living for employees,1054the lower lease rates that we will have to pay in the five1055hubs. Of course, the full value of that we will only know when1056the plan is finalized after consultation with Congress. We1057start out at a baseline of $4 billion worth of savings.1058    Senator Tuberville. You obviously did your due diligence on1059housing in some of these new locations. You feel good about1060that, about the amount that it will cut the cost of living for1061a lot of these young people, hopefully, that we get in the1062USDA?1063    Mr. Vaden. We do, Senator. As a matter of fact, if you take1064a look at the Federal Reserve Board's data, which of course, as1065you know, they analyze large regions of the country typically,1066not necessarily individual states. Washington, DC, falls into1067the Northeast region for the Federal Reserve Bank. According to1068the Federal Reserve, the average price of a home, the median1069price of a home in the Northeast region is more than $800,000.1070What, according to the Federal Reserve, is the median price of1071a home in the Midwest where we are sending many of our1072employees? It is less than half that.1073    Senator Tuberville. Yes, thank you. Talking about the1074nutrition and sending more people back into the states to help1075with that, my future plan, obviously, is trying to get back1076into the State Government and helping that area.1077    Our error rates, in a lot of our states, are awful,1078absolutely awful, and we want to get ours down in the State of1079Alabama, too. Do you think this will help be able to get error1080rates down to a point where we can survive, you know, and make1081sure we feed the right people and help the right people that1082need it, other than the people that are sitting on the couch1083and watching TV?1084    Mr. Vaden. I do, Senator. As I noted in response to an1085earlier question, of course the Food and Nutrition Service,1086they will have employees in Washington, DC, in either the1087Whitten or Yates building going forward under the Secretary's1088plan. As we shift more people into the field who are focused on1089the states and focused on the regions of the country that we1090serve, that means more people for individuals in Alabama and1091every other state to reach out to, to help with technical1092assistance and whatever other advice and counsel that we can1093offer, best practices, what have you, to get those error rates1094down so that states can come into compliance with the new bill1095that Congress has passed.1096    Senator Tuberville. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.1097    Chairman Boozman. Senator Welch.1098    Senator Welch. Thank you very much. Thank you.1099    First of all, I actually do support as much local1100engagement, local leadership as possible. I have introduced1101legislation on FEMA to push much more of the decision-making,1102much more of the authority, back to the local communities that1103are invested in making things work. All right? I believe more1104local leadership, less Washington-centered leadership, is1105important.1106    Let me begin. I have some inclination to be supportive of1107folks being back home, closer to where they are serving. The1108concern I have is whether the reorganization plan is on the1109level, whether it is about empowering local communities, or it1110is about decimating the already severely cut-back workforce.1111That is the tone of what my questions will be about.1112    In Vermont, we have lost 78 staff members already. Our1113local USDA is terrific. They are responsive. We call them. They1114give us an answer. They help us, right? That is what happens to1115you guys. We lost 78 people. How am I going to get excited1116about this so-called reorganization plan where folks are going1117back, but we have already lost 78? Tell me why I should be1118confident about this.1119    Mr. Vaden. Well, Senator, to use your phrase, this plan is1120on the level. The Secretary and I are both serious. Employees1121who accept their new locations, they have got a job, and we1122have got an office for them. We are planning a new home for1123them in a location where their federal salary will go farther.1124    Senator Welch. Here is what does not make sense to me. If1125you believe in the local control, why do you fire local people?1126    Mr. Vaden. Senator, if you are referring to the deferred1127resignation plan, those were voluntary decisions made by1128individual employees who chose, with the information that the1129agency provided to them, to seek a new career----1130    Senator Welch. I am going to interrupt you here because we1131are going to have a little bit of a disagreement on that. You1132know, in talking to a lot of federal workers, they felt the axe1133was coming down, and they had to make a choice between two1134really terrible things, get fired, get one of those notices1135that people get, and they then are escorted out of the building1136within five minutes--my daughter-in-law got that over at1137USAID--or take the buyout. That does not satisfy me. Again, we1138have got 78 people who wanted to stay on their jobs, by and1139large, and were doing a good job and could answer the phone1140when I called, and they are gone. Try to reassure me concretely1141about how this works out for the benefit of local folks and1142farmers who depend on USDA.1143    Mr. Vaden. Well, Senator, with regard to your concerns1144about terminations, I would point you to the language of the1145memorandum. The memorandum puts a thumb on the scale against1146future RIFs. As a matter of fact, the memorandum's terms1147specifically note that there can be no RIFs under this1148reorganization unless it is personally approved by me. With1149regard to----1150    Senator Welch. I do not want to cut you off, but----1151    Mr. Vaden. Sure.1152    Senator Welch [continuing]. you know what my concern is----1153    Mr. Vaden. I do.1154    Senator Welch [continuing]. and I would like to be able to1155follow up because I want this, in the real world, to be1156beneficial for folks in Vermont, for our farmers who are1157incredibly valuable citizens.1158    The other question I have is about the balance between the1159commodity farming interests and concerns that many of our1160Members on this Committee have because that is the farming in1161their region, and like the vegetable farmers or the dairy1162farmers. I have been working for years in trying to get more1163support for those local farming enterprises that are suitable1164for the state that I live in.1165    My concern is an imbalance here, and I am not going to be1166arguing about taking anything from our commodity folks, but I1167want more for folks with vegetable farms, farm-to-school,1168organic farms, and I do not see that priority as being1169important in what I have seen from the Department of1170Agriculture so far. Can you address that?1171    Mr. Vaden. Sure. Let me make two points in regard to that.1172First, this reorganization plan as proposed by the Secretary is1173not meant to preferentially advantage or disadvantage any1174particular sector of agriculture. Second, I know Senator1175Schiff, who just came in, shares your concerns about whether1176USDA cares as much about specialty crop farmers, I know you1177mentioned dairy farmers, as they do others.1178    Speaking for myself, I do. We want all farmers,1179traditional, organic, specialty crop, commodity crop, to make a1180profit and to do well. If there are things that we can do1181better, if there are ideas that you have about how we can serve1182your constituents better, or if there are programmatic ideas we1183can provide technical assistance on, please call me.1184    Senator Welch. Well, I will call you, and what it really1185does come down to is resource allocation because that is the1186reflection of the decision of Congress as to where the priority1187is. It is really essential to a lot of farmers that their non-1188commodity orientation be respected and be supported and be1189encouraged. Thank you very much.1190    Chairman Boozman. Senator Marshall.1191    Senator Marshall. Thank you, Chairman.1192    Mr. Vaden, welcome. Glad you are here today. In your1193testimony, you were mentioning some of the advantages of moving1194to some of these communities, and I would just point out that1195you failed to mention that moving to Kansas City, that suddenly1196you would have the advantage of being a Chiefs fan. Rather than1197suffering through another year here with the Washington1198Commanders, you failed to mention to be within an hour of the1199most storied basketball program in the Nation and just barely1200two hours away from the first land-grant university in America.1201    I just would want to give you a chance to talk a little bit1202more. You think about the Kansas City metro, within two-hour1203drive of the Iowa State University, the Nebraska University,1204Missouri, Arkansas--how far away is Auburn? Not too far, 351205miles.1206    Anyway, so my point is, you cannot coach talent. You have1207to have talent. Within just miles of there is some of the1208greatest ag research in the world. How important is that to1209American agriculture to have, let alone the affordability1210issues you mentioned?1211    Mr. Vaden. It is vital. I want to add to the mix NBAF. We1212have not forgotten about that. You have not either. I know1213there is some unfinished business left there. When you think1214about the potential that facility has and the technology and1215level of research that can go on there that are vital for the1216future of American agriculture, you have pointed to many of the1217reasons why Kansas City also joined as one of our five hubs.1218The Department put some thought into this. We want to spark1219that level of collaboration that you have noted, whether it be1220with our land-grant and non-land-grant university partners,1221whether it be with individual farmers, whether it be with the1222local chamber of commerce in an area that is driven and1223motivated, even though it may be in an urban setting, by1224agriculture.1225    I know that you are well aware that the Federal Reserve has1226a location in Kansas City, and that when we are looking at the1227shape of the agricultural economy for inclusion in the Beige1228Book, we look to what the Kansas City Fed has to say.1229    Senator Marshall. Yes.1230    Mr. Vaden. USDA will be able to take advantage of all of1231these synergies in not only Kansas City, but the other hubs1232that we have laid out.1233    Senator Marshall. Over the past four years, it was reported1234that only six percent of USDA employees were in the office as1235well, and more and more, just the crescendo of complaints from1236my ag producers back home, that they could work with their1237local FSA officer or their conservation officer, but then that1238report would get somehow clogged here in D.C. I want to1239compliment the White House, the $10 billion that was1240appropriated in spring within days. Within days, my farmers had1241the help that they needed, and then more recently, I think it1242was $16 billion.1243    Something is working right from a standpoint of customer1244service. I just cannot help but think when you have people1245working for USDA, out there going to church, going to the1246soccer match, all those type of things, with the local farmers1247and ranchers, it is going to be a better service as well.1248    Just talk about customer service, how that is going to be1249impacted by these people, you know, net-net, moving out into1250the hinterlands, as we call it.1251    Mr. Vaden. Well, I do not consider it the hinterlands. I1252consider it home, Senator, but with regard to having more1253people in the field, we agree with you that we think the level1254of service will improve. Not only do we agree with you, even if1255we had a disagreement, the Congress has legislated on this1256point. This is another matter that drove our consideration of1257this plan, and that is looking at USDA's reorganization1258authority, which was granted to us by the Congress in 1953.1259    If you actually look at the statute, I am a former judge,1260so I tend to look at statutes. What does the statute say? The1261statute says, in carrying out this law, ``The Secretary shall1262seek to simplify and make efficient the operation of the1263Department of Agriculture to place the administration of farm1264programs close to the State and local levels,'' from the1265statute. This is exactly what Congress intended, the maximum1266amount of USDA resources dedicated out in the field, not in1267Washington, DC.1268    Senator Marshall. Yes. I just want to make one last point.1269President Trump's tariffs are working. He has made incredible1270trade deals that are going to open up markets that we never had1271access to before. We have never sold a cheeseburger in all of1272Europe. Ethanol, 40 percent of our corn crop goes to ethanol.1273Suddenly, EU, U.K., all these countries are going to be buying1274ethanol as well. We are seeing manufacturing jobs move back to1275this country because of these tariffs as well. American1276agriculture will benefit significantly for long-term trade1277agreements, for long-term success as well, and we cannot wait1278to see what is next coming out of the White House and the1279tariffs.1280    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.1281    Senator Klobuchar. Mr. Chairman, before our next Senator1282asks questions, I just wanted to put on the record two letters.1283I will put a pin in my disagreements with Senator Marshall on1284the tariffs.1285    First of all, the National Association of Forest Service1286Retirees sent you and I a letter opposing the reorganization of1287the Forest Service, saying it would decimate the ability of the1288Forest Service to deliver services and conduct research.1289    Second letter, American Federation of Government Employees,1290which represents many of these USDA employees, they sent a1291letter to you and me opposing the reorganization due to the1292impact on the workforce and asking for an impact assessment and1293cost-benefit analysis.1294    Chairman Boozman. Without objection.1295    [The letters can be found on pages 44-53 in the appendix.]1296    Chairman Boozman. Let's see. Senator Lujan.1297    Senator Lujan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.1298    You know, farmers and ranchers back in New Mexico have told1299me that these tariffs feel like a gut punch. Everything's1300getting more expensive for them. Implements are getting more1301expensive. Fertilizer is getting more expensive. I mean, heck,1302I do not know how many of you buy ground beef. I do. If you go1303buy it now, compared to the prices that you saw just a little1304bit of time ago, I mean--anyhow, that is not what I am here to1305talk about today. I thought it was important to mention that,1306though.1307    Mr. Vaden, Secretary Rollins' memo proposes effectively1308eliminating the U.S. Forest Service's nine regional offices1309over the next year. As you know, the Forest Service's Southwest1310regional office is located in New Mexico. Now, what I am hoping1311is that we get some information shared with the employees in1312all parts of America where they are going to be impacted by1313this plan, including the 250 employees at the office. I want1314them to be prepared. Mr. Vaden, what will eliminating the1315regional office in Albuquerque mean for the employees there?1316    Mr. Vaden. Well, Senator, let me first of all point out1317that with regard to the Forest Service employees in1318Albuquerque, Albuquerque is specifically mentioned in the1319Secretary's memorandum because of its important H.R. functions.1320That is a core area of the Forest Service that will be1321unaffected by this reorganization.1322    Senator Lujan. Mr. Vaden, it is going to stay open?1323    Mr. Vaden. No, Senator. If you will allow me----1324    Senator Lujan. Okay. Well, then let's get on to the1325employees, please.1326    Mr. Vaden. No, Senator. The----1327    Senator Lujan. Let's fast-forward.1328    Mr. Vaden. The H.R. function will be there.1329    Senator Lujan. Okay.1330    Mr. Vaden. The regional office will no longer be there.1331    Senator Lujan. Okay. What does that mean to the employees?1332    Mr. Vaden. Those employees may be absorbed into other areas1333in Albuquerque or may be asked to move, pending consultation1334with the employees and the agencies.1335    I also think it is important to note, because I want to1336respond to the question that you sent to the Department of1337Agriculture just the other day, that you asked about the lease1338at the building at 333 Broadway Street SE. I thought you would1339want to know that that building has long been on the GSA1340priority list for closure. Its lease was set to end on the 31st1341of December 2026.1342    Senator Lujan. I appreciate that, Mr. Vaden, if I----1343    Mr. Vaden. This reorganization plan----1344    Senator Lujan. I have limited time, sir. Mr. Vaden--Mr.1345Chairman, can I get some help here? Mr. Vaden, I have limited1346time here. We sent you those questions so you could respond in1347writing. You chose not to do that so maybe now you will. I hope1348that you just respond to these questions in writing. That is1349why we sent them to you ahead of time.1350    Mr. Vaden. That question was not a part of the letter that1351Senator Klobuchar sent.1352    Senator Lujan. You just said I sent you a letter.1353    Mr. Vaden. No, you sent----1354    Senator Lujan. I just sent you some questions.1355    Mr. Vaden [continuing]. an inquiry.1356    Senator Lujan. Anyhow, I am not going to get into----1357    Senator Klobuchar. Mr. Chairman, if you could give----1358    Senator Lujan.--this back-and-forth----1359    Senator Klobuchar [continuing]. Senator Lujan extra time.1360One letter is not all we need here when we had no consultation.1361Senator Lujan has every right to send his own letter.1362    Senator Lujan. Mr. Vaden, what does it mean to the1363employees? Have they been consulted?1364    Mr. Vaden. Senator, the employee consultation begins now.1365As I mentioned in my----1366    Senator Lujan. When is now? Today?1367    Mr. Vaden. It began the day that the memorandum was issued.1368    Senator Lujan. Have the employees in Albuquerque been1369consulted?1370    Mr. Vaden. They will be consulted through their union1371members, through their----1372    Senator Lujan. It started----1373    Mr. Vaden [continuing]. union representatives----1374    Senator Lujan.--but they have not been consulted yet.1375    I would like to ask, Mr. Chairman, if we need to send a1376formal letter when the consultation in New Mexico will truly1377begin with the employees.1378    Now, based on the Secretary's memorandum, it is not clear1379if the center is going to be closed or relocated. That is why1380we are asking this particular question. The Administration1381needs to provide more details about this reorganization plan1382and how proposed changes will impact wildfire response. A lot1383of these questions may not even have to be asked today if our1384staff's questions would have been answered as opposed to1385ignored.1386    When will you, on behalf of the Department of Agriculture,1387provide this information to this Committee?1388    Mr. Vaden. Senator, we have already had multiple staff1389meetings. We would intend to continue those over the next 30-1390day consultation period----1391    Senator Lujan. Mr. Vaden, I will try to be more clear here.1392    Mr. Vaden [continuing]. and we are happy to----1393    Senator Lujan. I am sorry if my English is spoken with an1394accent. I apologize. I am proud to be born and raised in New1395Mexico. I will try to speak more clearly. When will you provide1396this information to this Committee?1397    Mr. Vaden. Senator, we will get it to you. You send us your1398questions. You will get----1399    Senator Lujan. I am asking you right now. When will you1400provide this information on the reorganization plan to this1401Committee, to the Members, to those of us that are duly elected1402to be here? When?1403    Mr. Vaden. As we finalize it, you will----1404    Senator Lujan. Is it not finalized?1405    Mr. Vaden. Senator, as I noted in my opening remarks, this1406is a vision to be implemented. The individual details will need1407to be worked out with the agencies and the employees.1408    Senator Lujan. Let me ask the question a different way.1409    Mr. Vaden. Obviously that involves consultation with you.1410    Senator Lujan. Mr. Vaden, when will you provide the1411existing information about the reorganization plan to this1412Committee and to the Members?1413    Mr. Vaden. The existing information is contained in the1414memorandum. If you want background data regarding how some of1415these decisions were made, we are happy to work with you on it.1416    Senator Lujan. I appreciate that. I appreciate it. We are1417on the same page there.1418    Now, Mr. Vaden, one thing I have been hearing from folks1419back home around SNAP and WIC is that we are seeing an all-out1420assault on these food programs. One in four Americans rely on1421programs to eat, as we all know. The Administration is1422attempting to gut the specialized workforce that ensures these1423programs are operating effectively and efficiently.1424    Now, I read the Secretary's memorandum that was released on1425the 24th. Now, the questions I am getting from people back in1426New Mexico is that they are already struggling to get timely1427technical assistance needed to effectively administer WIC to1428the mothers and kids back home. Has the Department conducted an1429analysis of how this proposed reorganization will impact the1430ability of Americans to access federal nutrition assistance1431programs?1432    Mr. Vaden. By sending more people into the states and1433having fewer people in Washington, DC, we will have more1434employees, including in the Food and Nutrition Service, closer1435and more available to our state partners to provide the1436assistance they need.1437    Senator Lujan. Again, Mr. Vaden, if I could just be clear,1438did you all conduct the analysis of how it is going to impact1439the ability to feed folks?1440    Mr. Vaden. Senator, as part of our plan, our entire effort1441was to increase----1442    Senator Lujan. Mr. Vaden, I appreciate that, sir. Did you1443conduct analysis? Has analysis been conducted, yes or no?1444    Mr. Vaden. Yes. We show that----1445    Senator Lujan. Okay, my question is when will----1446    Mr. Vaden [continuing]. by bringing more employees in the1447field we will get better results.1448    Senator Lujan. I appreciate that. You can submit that all1449in writing as well. When will you commit to sharing the1450analysis with this Committee?1451    Mr. Vaden. Senator, we will work with you following the1452hearing.1453    Senator Lujan. A week? A month? If it already exists, it1454could be here tonight.1455    Mr. Vaden. Senator, with regard to the analysis in each1456specific agency----1457    Senator Lujan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.1458    Chairman Boozman. Senator Fischer.1459    Senator Fischer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,1460Mr. Secretary, for your attendance here today. I appreciate1461that you answered our Chairman's call to come before this1462Committee and be here in a fairly short manner.1463    You may recall during your confirmation process, you and I1464discussed the potential benefits of relocation of USDA, and I1465shared that I thought Nebraska would be a great location for1466parts of the agency with a cheaper cost of living, a workforce1467where agriculture is ingrained in our culture, and high-quality1468educational institutions. Ultimately, I would have liked to see1469a process that allowed for Nebraska to demonstrate its strong1470value proposition.1471    While I do agree with the overreaching goal here, I have to1472express disappointment in how this has been rolled out and the1473lack of engagement with Congress prior to the announcement.1474    I also agree with Senator Hoeven that to accomplish a major1475reorganization, Congress will need to be a partner to provide1476resources and perhaps additional authorities. I hope you will1477commit that, moving forward, USDA will be proactive in1478engagement with this Committee and also with the Appropriations1479Committee.1480    Mr. Vaden. Well, Senator, as I noted in my opening remarks,1481the Secretary's memorandum was the first step, not the final1482step. It was essentially the green flag, not the checkered1483flag. Now what we are entered into is a 30-day statutorily1484required period, having given notice to you of our intentions1485to reorganize the Department to hear from you.1486    As Senator Hoeven noted, he is coming to meet with me later1487today. I thank him actually, since I am spending some time up1488here today with him, for him coming down to see me in my office1489in the Whitten building. I will be happy to meet with other1490Members of this Committee who have similar concerns, ideas,1491efficiencies that they want to share with us so we can make our1492plan better.1493    Senator Fischer. Thank you. I would like to start now with1494a few questions to understand some of the impacts to some of1495the USDA assets that we have in my State of Nebraska. We are1496home to several USDA research facilities, and that includes the1497U.S. Meat and Animal Research Center that conducts research1498that is strongly supported by our livestock industry, and a new1499ARS facility co-located at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln1500that is focused on innovative precision agriculture research1501for which construction has started. With the reorganization1502effort, can you verify that neither of these ARS facilities1503will be impacted?1504    Mr. Vaden. Senator, I can, and I am surprised you left out1505the NRCS Soil----1506    Senator Fischer. I was going to get to that.1507    Mr. Vaden [continuing]. Survey Center in Lincoln. All of1508those facilities are unimpacted. As you probably remember from1509my opening remarks, 90 of 94 ARS research facilities are1510unimpacted by this memorandum. That includes all of the1511facilities in Lincoln, and for that matter, the rest of1512Nebraska. You may have noticed in the Secretary's memorandum1513that while the individual facilities were not called out by1514name, Lincoln, Nebraska, was, and I am here to confirm that1515that was the intent of putting that in there to signal that1516those facilities, for the reasons you have noted, are important1517and are part of the 90 of 94 ARS facilities which will be1518untouched.1519    Senator Fischer. More broadly, as you go through this1520reorganization effort, what thought have you given to address1521any outstanding facility improvements that may be needed at1522these research centers? Basically, I am asking you, what1523commitment do you have to these centers in the future?1524    Mr. Vaden. Well, the budget is a number that Congress gives1525us. Obviously, for every dollar that we save, that gives us the1526opportunity, if Congress allows, us to reallocate those funds1527toward facilities we intend to keep. I am excited about the1528fact that the Secretary's plan calls for us to save at least1529$2.2 billion by ditching these National Capital Region1530facilities that are out of date and in disrepair. We are happy1531to work with the Congress if, as a result of those savings,1532there are other facilities that you think are worthy of1533investment with those moneys.1534    Senator Fischer. Thank you. I am sure we will be in touch1535in conjunction with the university. Thank you.1536    Chairman Boozman. Senator Warnock has something to do, so I1537think, Senator Schiff, you are going to allow him to precede1538you. Senator Warnock.1539    Senator Warnock. Thank you, Chair Boozman. Thank you,1540Senator Schiff.1541    Mr. Vaden, last week, without notice to the Members of this1542Committee, Secretary Rollins announced this mass1543reorganization. Now you are here in response to the Chairman's1544call. What I would like to know is whether this plan will1545disrupt the lives of everyday Georgians who depend on USDA's1546programs. These are folks I talk to, obviously, all the time1547and what USDA does or does not do, how it is able to deliver1548matters to farmers and families in Georgia.1549    I am proud to have secured $21 billion for farmers and1550rural communities in Georgia devastated by Hurricane Helene and1551other disasters. I am glad to see applications for some of this1552funding are finally opening up. We are already at the beginning1553of what could be a very rough hurricane season. I have seen1554firsthand the devastation that these hurricanes can bring. Are1555the USDA staff who administered disaster funding affected by1556this reorg?1557    Mr. Vaden. Senator, our intent in the Secretary's1558memorandum is that for these frontline-facing positions,1559whether it be the people who do our normal commodity programs1560or who are involved in the disaster relief programs, that their1561efforts not be affected by this reorganization.1562    Senator Warnock. Well, do you expect that part of USDA to1563see some downsizing of staff?1564    Mr. Vaden. Senator, we have made a commitment that if1565employees go with us to these new locations, they have got a1566job, and we are planning to have an office for them there. That1567is what we are planning for. Now, whether every employee will1568voluntarily decide to come with us, I do not know.1569    Senator Warnock. A relocation for a family is a big deal.1570    Mr. Vaden. It is.1571    Senator Warnock. What do you think will happen?1572    Mr. Vaden. Senator, I think actually a large number of them1573will choose to come. I think many of them will choose to come1574because, given cuts made by other federal agencies here in1575Washington, DC, the job market is not what it once was here. I1576think that the exciting opportunity these new hubs provide for1577them to actually be able to own a home affordably and grow and1578expand their family with the lower cost of living, that is one1579of the primary reasons we chose each of these five hubs, will1580attract them to come.1581    Senator Warnock. You do not expect a significant reduction1582in staff as a result of the reorganization?1583    Mr. Vaden. It is hard for me to predict how many will. Do I1584think 100 percent will say yes and relocate? No, Senator, that1585would not be realistic for me to say that. I think a1586significant percent, more than a majority, will choose to come.1587    Senator Warnock. What are your plans? What are your plans1588to ensure that this reorganization does not continue to delay1589the rollout of these critical funds that farmers need in the1590wake of these disasters?1591    Mr. Vaden. Well, Senator, FSA is hard at work on that. I1592have had meetings, even though I am only three weeks on the1593job, about the next phases of that rollout. You may have seen I1594participated with Secretary Rollins in the release of some of1595those funds my very first week on the job. You have my word1596that that is first and foremost in our mind. We are aware that1597the farm economy is not strong right now. Producers need these1598funds as quickly as possible, and we are going to get them out.1599    Senator Warnock. Will you review the impact of the1600reorganization plan and then report back to this Committee1601without us having to call you? Will you report back to the1602Committee regarding whether or not it is working?1603    Mr. Vaden. Absolutely. By the way, I do not know whether1604you were in here when I mentioned it for some of the other1605Senators. If so, I apologize for repeating myself. If you have1606ideas about how we can reorganize better or if there are1607particular things in Georgia that you want to draw our1608attention to, we are happy to meet with you.1609    I hope you saw in the memorandum that Athens, Georgia,1610though it is not a hub that we have selected, will play an1611important role in USDA going forward. The Forest Service, as1612you know, already has some significant assets in Athens,1613Georgia, and we actually intend to build on those as a part of1614our reorganization and are working with the southern region of1615the Forest Service and the current Regional Forester there in1616transitioning USDA's assets for the Forest Service, which are1617so important for the eastern region of the country, to the1618Athens location.1619    Senator Warnock. In the first Trump Administration, USDA1620relocated the National Institute of Food and Agriculture to1621Kansas City, Missouri. According to a report from the1622Government Accountability Office, this move resulted in the1623Black staff at this agency declining by 65 percent. Mr. Vaden,1624what is your plan to ensure that this reorganization does not1625disproportionately impact staff of a particular demographic?1626    Mr. Vaden. Senator, we are going to treat everyone equally,1627make certain everyone has the information, and as you are1628probably aware, you and Congress have generously granted to the1629agencies the ability to provide relocation assistance when1630things like this do happen, and of course employees who decide1631to make that move are eligible for this relocation assistance.1632    Senator Warnock. What is your plan to make sure--because we1633saw the disproportionate impact in Kansas in that case. What is1634your plan to ensure that we do not see this kind of1635disproportionate impact?1636    Mr. Vaden. Well, Senator, we want every employee to join1637with us, regardless of race, gender, or any other1638characteristic.1639    Senator Warnock. Yes, but I am asking----1640    Mr. Vaden. If you have ideas on how we can target specific1641populations to ensure that they see the benefits of the1642Secretary's plan, I would like to----1643    Senator Warnock. Well, to be quite honest with you, I am1644deeply suspicious of that because the approach of this1645Administration seems to be to push against any kind of1646intentional effort to make sure that we do not see1647disproportionate impact on a whole range of issues.1648    Let me ask you this thing. Yes or no, has the USDA1649conducted any sort of disparate impact analysis of this1650reorganization plan to determine if there is any1651disproportionate harm to any particular groups of staff or1652farmers?1653    Mr. Vaden. Not to my knowledge because the plan has not1654been finalized.1655    Senator Warnock. Will you commit to doing so and sharing1656the results with this Committee?1657    Mr. Vaden. Senator, we will take into account our civil1658rights responsibilities in everything we do.1659    Senator Warnock. My question is, would you conduct a1660disparate impact analysis?1661    Mr. Vaden. Senator, you have my word that everything we do1662will not be based on race.1663    Senator Warnock. I take that as a no. Thank you very much.1664    Chairman Boozman. Senator Moran.1665    Senator Moran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.1666    Mr. Secretary, thank you for your presence today. I1667appreciate the chance to be here to hear what you have to say.1668I am pleased that in three weeks on the job, you seem so1669knowledgeable about the details of the Department of1670Agriculture. I express my appreciation for the idea that work1671by federal employees and work for federal taxpayers and1672constituents, particularly farmers and ranchers, can be1673accomplished outside the D.C. area.1674    I have been through this issue with you previously in the1675earlier Administration and was pleased by the decision to have1676two research agencies relocated in Kansas City. I will leave1677off the word Missouri in that explanation, but two agencies1678located in Kansas City. I want to know, do you anticipate in1679moving any functions of TFAA or FAS outside the District of1680Columbia?1681    Mr. Vaden. Senator, I do not want to give a definitive yes1682or no answer, but as you know, our trade and foreign1683agricultural affairs mission area, which Congress instructed us1684to create in the 2018 Farm Bill, is something of a special1685animal, as most of its focus is actually international rather1686than domestic. It is basically a diplomatic corps for America's1687farmers, ranchers, and foresters.1688    Given the specific focus of that agency, while I cannot1689guarantee that there will not be some employee who gets1690relocated, I think that that agency, when we are looking at1691what it is we are trying to do and that agency's focus is1692international rather than domestic largely, that it might be1693among the lesser affected mission areas.1694    Senator Moran. Well, Kansas City Commodity Office has1695historically played a significant role in the function of1696international food aid programs, particularly Food for Peace.1697Do you see those functions continuing under this1698reorganization?1699    Mr. Vaden. All functions that remain with the Department of1700Agriculture by statute are unaffected. We cannot, with a1701reorganization, add to or reduce from the statutory1702responsibilities Congress has given to the agency.1703    Senator Moran. Do you have any insight into what1704subagencies, if any, could move to Kansas City besides ERS and1705NIFA? Kansas City is also the home to the RMA Compliance Office1706and the Domestic Inspection Operations Office for the Federal1707Grain Inspection Service. Thoughts about those?1708    Mr. Vaden. We do not have finalized lists. I think it is1709important to know that with regard to RMA, that that is an1710agency where, because of its function, many of the people are1711already out in the field, and some of them are remote. They are1712remote for a reason, not because it became cool five years ago,1713but because their job requires them to be on the road, and this1714reorganization plan does not affect that.1715    Senator Moran. I also would add--I do not know that I need1716any comment from you, but I would add that with the move of1717NIFA and ERS to Kansas City in the first Trump Administration,1718that decision was further confirmed by the actions of Secretary1719Vilsack. There was efforts at one point in time to try to1720reverse that decision, which Secretary Vilsack did not do. I do1721hope that we do better and presumably the times have changed in1722regard to COVID, but so many USDA employees have worked1723remotely. We had this conversation when you were in my office1724seeking my vote for your nomination's confirmation. I am1725pleased by the efforts that you have described to me then and1726again today in this hearing about the insistence that federal1727employees at USDA return to in-person positions. True?1728    Mr. Vaden. Yes, sir, and one thing I will note of1729bipartisan agreement during today's hearing is that it appears1730that Members of both sides of the aisle are sick of Teams1731meetings and teleworking, and we at USDA are definitely on that1732bandwagon. We want our employees who need to be in the office1733in the office.1734    Senator Moran. Mr. Secretary, thank you. You mentioned in1735your earlier comments about NBAF to Senator Marshall. Would you1736further explore with me and the Committee, you indicated that1737you recognize some things needed to be done? What do you1738anticipate those being, and how do you anticipate to accomplish1739it?1740    Mr. Vaden. Well, Senator, I know that I need to take a trip1741out there in order to see it myself, and I have been summarily1742briefed on some of the challenges that are currently engaged in1743at NBAF. I have a more in-depth briefing on my calendar after1744this hearing in the next couple of weeks. After I have had that1745briefing, I would be more than happy to sit down with you and1746talk specific.1747    Senator Moran. It is a jewel, a gem. I would like to visit1748with you. I am happy to come to see you. That seems to please1749you when we make the----1750    Mr. Vaden. Well, I can----1751    Senator Moran [continuing]. trip to your office, and I will1752do that.1753    Mr. Vaden [continuing]. come to see you. I was just1754complimenting Senator Hoeven for his extra effort----1755    Senator Moran. I do not want Senator Hoeven to receive any1756additional consideration than I do.1757    [Laughter.]1758    Senator Moran. I will come see you.1759    In addition to talking about relocation, I would love to1760have the conversation about NBAF, a project, the National Bio1761and Agro-Defense Facility that I have been involved in since, I1762do not know, my days in the House 20-plus years ago.1763    Thank you, sir.1764    Chairman Boozman. Senator Schiff.1765    Senator Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.1766    Mr. Vaden, I will not repeat except to say that I share the1767bipartisan concerns that have been raised about the creation of1768this plan without input from impacted entities or the Congress.1769One of the chief messages of USDA proposing this is centered1770around making USDA offices and services moving closer to1771American farmers.1772    I know this will not surprise you, but California is the1773number one ag-producing state in the union, and yet the1774proposed hub in place of USDA headquarters will be located in1775Salt Lake City, which is more than 500 miles from the Central1776Valley. My understanding is that none of the other five top ag-1777producing states will enjoy the presence of one of these1778regional hubs.1779    My question is, why was not a hub placed closer to the1780largest ag-producing state or, frankly, any of the other top1781five agriculture-producing states? Why were not those selected1782as venues?1783    Mr. Vaden. Fair question, Senator. First, I want to note1784just a simple geographic fact. While there are no hub locations1785in California itself, nearly all of our hub locations are1786closer to California than everybody being in Washington, DC.1787    With regard to your point about why California does not1788have a hub location, the simple answer is cost of living. We1789were looking at the cost of living for reasons that I noted. We1790want people to join USDA to build a career, to be able to1791purchase a home. The hub locations we chose, Salt Lake City1792being among, believe it or not, the cheapest cost of living on1793the list, allow that opportunity. Unfortunately, it is more1794difficult to do that in California with the price of housing.1795    Senator Schiff. There is going to be a huge cost of the1796relocation of all of the staff, indeed, if staff choose to1797relocate. In 2019, half of the staff at the two agencies that1798were part of the then-reorganization plan did not relocate. The1799GAO, in addition to the point that Senator Warnock made, also1800found that there was a tremendous loss of expertise in that1801relocation and that the new hires were very junior and lacked1802the kind of experience that was lost in that relocation.1803    Have you done an estimate of what the expected attrition1804is? If half the employees did not relocate, do you expect to1805lose half of these employees?1806    Mr. Vaden. I think the Secretary has spoken to that. We1807expect to have better results this time around, in part because1808we learned some lessons from ERS/NIFA. I mentioned some of1809those earlier in terms of looking for places focused on cost of1810living, looking at where we actually already were, and had a1811footprint of USDA employees with whom the new employees could1812collaborate.1813    I think that, given what we are trying to sell and the fact1814that, as you acknowledged, we are looking to build the future1815of USDA, not just maintain the present, these will provide us1816with the incentives to get these positions.1817    Senator Schiff. What is your estimate of the attrition? It1818was 50 percent in the last reorganization. What percentage?1819    Mr. Vaden. We do not have a specific number to offer at1820this time.1821    Senator Schiff. Let me raise a broader concern. No regional1822offices in California. In fact, we are losing in this1823reorganization an Agriculture Research Service office in1824California. The $20 billion in disaster relief, that aid1825includes a broad authority to deliver assistance through block1826grants to states. Despite California expressing interest and1827the legislation having no limits, USDA has announced such a1828narrow set of qualifications that it essentially excludes all1829but a few states in the Southeast. Moreover, USDA announced it1830was rescinding all but one Regional Conservation Partnership1831Program awards per state, and then all six California awards1832were canceled. Some of these projects even had the same goals1833as projects in other states, like my colleague Senator1834Fetterman in Pennsylvania.1835    I hope you can understand--and this is not to denigrate1836from Pennsylvania--just California would like to enjoy the same1837thing. My question is, all of California's conservation program1838grants canceled. California does not qualify for disaster1839assistance on the narrow definition. California gets no1840regional office. California loses one of the existing offices.1841It is hard not to perceive this as a political calculation1842rather than one that is in the best interest of farmers, given1843our dominance in agriculture. What do you have to say to1844California farmers who are feeling that the Administration, the1845President is not representing them, that he is punishing them1846because the state did not vote for him?1847    Mr. Vaden. Senator, that is not the case at all. With1848regard to moving more USDA employees, though not into1849California, much closer to California than Washington, DC, our1850employees will have more ready access to your state.1851    With regard to your notation about the ARS facility, I1852would note that the proposed closure of it is not a creature of1853the Secretary's reorganization. It is instead part of the1854President's budgetary proposal to this body. Of course, I am1855well aware that Congress holds the power of the purse and they1856make the final decision on what will get funded.1857    Finally, with regard to disaster assistance, I know that1858the first level of the block grant funding that we announced1859focused on those who had crop insurance and accepting those1860specialty crop producers who participate in NAP who are1861eligible for the current round of block grants. Specialty crops1862were left out. There is a second tranche that was noted and has1863yet to be announced that is designed to include so-called1864shallow losses, which, as you know, are losses that are not1865covered by crop insurance. I would love to talk with you more1866about that in the future as we move toward rolling out that1867proposal.1868    Senator Schiff. We will take you up on that invitation, but1869let me just say this. The fact that the California office is1870being closed as a budgetary decision rather than as a1871reorganization position does not give Californians any comfort.1872They just know they are losing an office and losing access.1873    In terms of an office in Utah being only 500 miles away,1874that is also not much of a comfort to California farmers,1875particularly when California farmers, I think if that is the1876choice, would rather have the experience of the current USDA1877employees in Washington than an inexperienced group of new1878employees in Utah.1879    Finally, the proof will be in the pudding. Right now,1880California grants are canceled. Right now, California does not1881qualify for disaster assistance. You know, however that is1882justified or rationalized, the proof will be whether resources1883actually get to California farmers, and that is the standard we1884will hold the Administration to.1885    Thank you, Chairman.1886    Chairman Boozman. Senator Justice.1887    Senator Justice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.1888    Mr. Vaden, okay, now listen, you know, I totally understand1889that people that are being relocated, it can be a stressful1890time. I get that completely, but let me just say just this. At1891one time not long ago, our family farm had grown to a size1892where we were probably really close to the biggest cash grain1893farmers east of the Mississippi River, corn, wheat, and1894soybeans. Would you not think, would you not think of all the1895Senators of all, I ought to know, I ought to really know what1896is happening and what is going on because we were farming in1897multiple states, I ought to really know the pulse of the1898farmers, the ranchers, the foresters. I ought to know. I mean,1899for God's sakes a living, of everything in the world that I1900ought to know about, I ought to know about this.1901    Now, I can tell you without any question that it would be1902great if you would have said, we are going to build one of1903these locations in West Virginia. You know, that would be great1904because we are close to 2/3 of the population of the country,1905and our cost of living is great, and, you know, our people are1906wonderful, and it would have been great. Here is the whole1907deal, and here is the thing you have just got to ask, so easy.1908Go ask the farmers, and I am sure you have done exactly that.1909Go ask the foresters. Go ask the ranchers one question, is it1910working? They will say, ain't no way. For God's sakes a living,1911why in the world do we have to run all over the place with our1912hair on fire going completely buck nuts and everything over1913just simply just this? It is not working.1914    Literally, these people have given us so much, it is off1915the chart. I listened to Coach Tuberville, and Coach, you know,1916Coach has a real, real understanding because he has the pulse1917of the people. He is right with the people, and he is right1918with our farmers. Well, there is nobody. There is nobody in the1919world that could be more with our farmers than I am, you know.1920    With all that being said, just absolutely just think. These1921people have given us innovation. They are the most productive1922people on the planet, and we are losing them. Coach just said1923the suicide rate is off the chart. We are losing thousands of1924farms every year. You are going to lose more this year, right1925now.1926    You know, with all that being said, what in the world are1927we trying to pretend to ourselves that absolutely this thing is1928working and working in D.C.? What you are saying to the world1929is all we are trying to do is put these people closer to the1930pulse, to the pulse of what is going on. We are trying to do it1931in a way that is equitable in every way, cost of living, you1932know, great people, great resources, all that stuff. We are1933trying to do all that.1934    Now look, I am a white-haired new guy on the block that has1935done a lot of stuff, and I have done one whale of a lot of just1936this. Absolutely, I know what is going on in the farm1937community, the forestry community, our ranching community. I1938know, and it is high time that we try to do something to reward1939and help and make easier and everything else for all those1940people that are busting their you-know-what for all of us every1941day.1942    Mr. Chairman, I do not have any questions. I do not have a1943question one. All I am telling you is absolutely, we absolutely1944need to move and do the very best that we can for these great1945people tomorrow.1946    Anyway, Mr. Chairman, thank you.1947    Chairman Boozman. Thank you. Senator Fetterman.1948    Senator Fetterman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.1949    Hello, Mr. Vaden. Now, I am sure you are aware you are an1950expert in part of this industry. You will probably know that1951Pennsylvania, that is our largest industry. Now I think we can1952all agree that, at least in my state, I assume that it is1953probably nationally, that the vast majority of the parts of my1954state are very red and they are more aligned with the GOP. For1955me, and I think we agree that ag is bipartisan, and that is the1956way I approach this kind of a thing.1957    Often, you know, I am advocating the kinds of parts in1958Pennsylvania that just they are maybe not going to vote for,1959for me because I think it is an incredibly difficult job to be1960a farmer. I revere in what they do for our Nation.1961    Today, though, I am here to express my concern because I1962today am as the voice for the unions that are really, really1963concerned based by your choice to relocate for me. That is why1964I really wanted to bring up and, you know, there really was1965not--you know, I am concerned there really was not any1966negotiation or anything with the unions for this in advance for1967that.1968    When ERA and NIFA were relocated in 2019, workers were1969promised relocation expenses and incentives. I actually have1970the signed agreement between them and the union outlining these1971relocation incentives. I ask unanimous consent that it be1972entered into the record.1973    Chairman Boozman. Without objection.1974    [The letter can be found on pages 54-57 in the appendix.]1975    Senator Fetterman. I do believe the Department walked back1976a little bit on this promise. Mr. Vaden, I am asking, are you1977willing to commit to covering all the relocation expenses for1978the USDA staff who choose to move or are forced because this is1979part of the plan?1980    Mr. Vaden. Senator, Congress has a cap that they have put1981by statute on the maximum amount of relocation assistance that1982we can provide. However, within that range, we do have quite a1983lot of flexibility. As I mentioned earlier in the hearing, it1984is our intent to cover these employees' expenses within the1985bounds set by Congress.1986    Senator Fetterman. Thank you. That is a great answer.1987    Mr. Vaden, I appreciate the Department being available for1988a staff briefing yesterday. I just really want to make sure1989that the voice of the union here is--and I really want to have1990more--and to commit to more union engagement through all this.1991I would like to invite you to help facilitate meetings with the1992union leaders and those other members to be more a part of this1993process. I assume that you are open to that.1994    Mr. Vaden. Absolutely.1995    Senator Fetterman. Okay. Now, in my last minute, are you1996familiar with the spotted lantern fly?1997    Mr. Vaden. Yes, sir. As a matter of fact, I saw some in1998Washington, DC, last week, sadly.1999    Senator Fetterman. Yes. Oh, yes. I love stomping them. You2000know, I am a great Pennsylvanian and a great American. Wherever2001I see them, it is like, stomp it, stomp it, stomp it.2002    Mr. Vaden. Well, you will be glad to know that I did some2003of that myself down near city center.2004    Senator Fetterman. Yes, no, and of course, I mean, that is2005really a concern about that invasive species. We want to make2006sure--it seems like now you are aware of it. You know, can we2007ensure that Pennsylvania farmers from the lantern fly control2008programs will not be interrupted?2009    Mr. Vaden. Senator, as part of the Secretary's2010reorganization proposal, it specifically notes the importance2011of ensuring that nothing interferes with the important work2012APHIS does, whether we are looking at New World screwworm or2013whether we are looking at the spotted lantern fly or whether we2014are looking at a future threat to come. Everything that we do2015will be implemented in a way that does not affect APHIS'2016important work in this area.2017    The final point that I would note on that is nearly all of2018the people who are involved in battling these invasive species2019are already on the frontline and not located in Washington, DC.2020    Senator Fetterman. Okay. Thank you.2021    Chairman Boozman. Thank you. Senator Ernst.2022    Senator Ernst. Thank you, Chairman Boozman, for holding2023this hearing today.2024    Welcome back to the Committee, Deputy Secretary Vaden. It2025is good to have you here.2026    I am actually really excited about this hearing and the2027opportunity. Secretary Vaden, I have spoken with you and2028Secretary Rollins at length about this issue that we are2029talking about today. First, getting our folks back into the2030office, that has been really important to me. Consolidating or2031selling off unused office space and moving USDA closer to those2032it is meant to serve, which is our farmers and our rural2033communities. Again, just want to thank you for making this a2034priority.2035    As you know, the status quo is forcing taxpayers to foot2036the bill for billions in deferred maintenance. We do not hear a2037lot of that talked about, but there is deferred maintenance and2038there are the ongoing operating costs, all for buildings that2039are almost entirely empty. Just last week, 78 percent of the2040seats in the USDA South building were not filled. However, this2041represents a significant improvement from the past number of2042years.2043    When Secretary Vilsack sat in that very seat that you are2044sitting in today, a year ago, a year ago, he denied evidence2045exposed by the GAO revealing the USDA headquarters building had2046an 11 percent utilization rate in 2023. He also said the2047whistleblower letter that I received, ``isn't even close to2048correct'' to the USDA building usage at that time. Well, folks,2049Secretary Vilsack lied.2050    Thanks to this Administration's dedication to transparency,2051I actually have the data to back that up. In February 2024, as2052Secretary Vilsack testified before this Committee and told us2053there was nothing to see here, USDA's three main Washington,2054DC, office buildings had barely over 13 percent of their seats2055filled.2056    Unfortunately for taxpayers, USDA is not the only agency2057holding onto unaffordable properties that are nearly vacant.2058This includes nearly 7,700 vacant federal buildings and another20592,200 that are largely empty. To fix this, the Senate must pass2060my For Sale Act to dispose of underutilized buildings,2061including the Ag South building, and to return the money from2062those sales to the taxpayers. We need more of these agencies to2063follow Secretary Rollins' and USDA's lead. With that being2064said, that is a great plug for my For Sale Act.2065    Deputy Secretary Vaden, I find it interesting. We really2066have not heard any outrage from our colleagues when it comes to2067the Biden Administration, when they kept USDA's workforce2068almost entirely remote and our offices sat empty. Yet now we2069are starting to hear all of those concerns about relocating2070positions into the very communities that USDA is supposed to2071serve. My question, I would love to hear your thoughts on this.2072Can you expand on the main factors that led to the USDA to2073consolidate offices in the D.C. region and move those positions2074to the other states?2075    Mr. Vaden. Well, Senator, first, let me thank you for your2076leadership on this issue because you were focusing on telework,2077the inefficiencies it created, and the vastly empty government2078buildings that dot the District of Columbia before it was cool.2079Thank you for doing that.2080    Like you, I got a chuckle when I read the letter that was2081sent to me Monday night with the concerns expressed about2082meetings only done by telework and who is going to be at the2083Department manning the store. As you well know, that was the2084Biden Administration. That was USDA for the past four years.2085Drive by the Whitten building. Drive by the South building. The2086parking lots were empty.2087    Here in the Trump Administration, we want people in the2088office. As you have noted, even when we have got all of our2089employees in the office, we are still not reaching the2090congressionally mandated threshold of 60 percent occupancy.2091That is not a high bar. That still leaves 40 percent vacant.2092With regard to the South building, on high-attendance Sunday--2093they used to call it at my church--we hit 36.9 percent.2094    Senator Ernst. That is the high mark.2095    Mr. Vaden. That is barely half of what Congress has2096mandated that building should hold, which, again, is only 602097percent in order for us to keep it.2098    What drove our consideration was fairness to the taxpayer,2099asking them, can we really expect them to foot the bill for a2100building that is largely empty? Obviously, in the executive2101branch, we are charged with carrying out the laws that Congress2102passed. You made your intent incredibly clear when you passed2103the Use It Act by a vote of 97 to 1 in the U.S. Senate, and we2104are following it.2105    Senator Ernst. I am so thankful for that. I am glad that we2106are actually going through this exercise now to move more of2107our folks out to the people that they should be serving, our2108farmers and our rural communities.2109    I am going to also add to the record, Senator Marshall was2110talking about Kansas State University being the first land-2111grant institution. I will note that Iowa was the first state to2112accept the Morrill Act of 1862, which established our land-2113grant universities. Iowa State University was the first2114institution to open its doors to co-ed students. Thank you.2115    Thank you. I yield back.2116    Chairman Boozman. Thank you.2117    Thank you again, Deputy Secretary Vaden, for your time and2118insight today and again, doing this on very, very short notice.2119    The hearing record will remain open for five business days.2120That concludes our hearing, and it is now adjourned.2121    [Whereupon, at 12:57 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]21222123=======================================================================21242125                            A P P E N D I X21262127                             July 30, 202521282129=======================================================================21302131[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]21322133=======================================================================21342135                         QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS21362137                             July 30, 202521382139=======================================================================21402141[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]21422143                                 [all]