regenerate should there be an event or incident. that prompted us to take a look at our own storage and seed bank capacity to do a better job of maintaining, testing and examining the seed banks to make sure we continue to maintain adequate supplies and that they haven't been contaminated or impacted in any way. number three, you know, working on ways in which we can provide better information concerning stewardship responsibilities in terms of knowing what your neighbor's planting, knowing how what you may do may impact potentially your neighbor and the value that's -- the high val added opportunity that organic promotes and provides. number three -- or number four i think there was a concerted effort to increase our research budget and to make sure that our conservation resources were being made more available.

so there's been a concerted effort in ac 21 to continue to focus on these issues. the labeling issue is a challenging one because historically our labeling has been for either nutrition or because of a known hazard or something that requires a warning. i think it's fair to say that this isn't about nutrition and at least from my perspective, it's not about any kind i have safety hazard. this is more about consumers' right to know. candidly i think the debate is a 20th century debate in the 21st century. there was mention of bar codes and other ways, necessarilies in europe is currently using a ur code. it could be something like a bar code that would allow folks with smartphone or the ability in grocery stores to have reading devices that would allow folks to have all the information they need and want about a product without necessarily creating a

label that might accepted the wrong message about the safety of the product. we are engaged with the fda in discussions how we might be able to promote such a concept and idea. so we're trying to be informative in this space. it would be difficult if you're going to end up with 50 different standards, that's going to create serious challenges in the marketplace in terms of which states require what labels and what does the label look like and where does it go. i'm sure there's going to be litigation for quite some time. i'm trying to figure out, is there a third way to do this? i think technology may be the answer. >> i'm definitely out of time. but i'm sure i'll get a chance to follow-up. thank you for your answers. >> thank you, mr. secretary, for spending the last three hours with us. we're glad to have you here today also as well as mr. young, thank you for being here, as well. we look forward to following up on some of these things we

discussed today and all the best to you at usda and the subcommittee is adjourned. >> thank you. >> next, the russian foreign minister and secretary of state john kerry discussing the situation in ukraine. a house appropriations subcommittee hearing on the 2015 budget request for the agriculture department. >> alex smith, chair of the college republican national committee and natasha mckenzie discuss a new poll profiling millennial's in adulthood. syria,landis talks about

the effectiveness of u.s. policy decisions there, and the influence of al qaeda. science students of yellow university describes his field experiment to test whether the offices of members of congress are more likely to grant access to contributors then constituents. we will take your calls and you could join the conversation on facebook and twitter. journal" is live at 7 p.m. eastern -- 7 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> when we say freedom of choice, let people go their own way. what we mean is that they know best. the government does not know best. the notion of a tommy -- of a omy is a-- auton one-word way of saying that people know better than outsiders do about what will make their lives better.

this sounds kind of academic and abstract but i think the stakes are real and concrete. the question really we think about our policies, at least a lot of the question is are people going to be sick? are they going to be miserable? are they going to be dead? if we have some policy, whether it involves savings for retirement or if it involves privacy on the internet or if it involves air-quality, if we can think of some way that makes them less likely to be sick or miserable or dead, while also letting them ultimately go their own way if that is what they want, that is probably a good bargain. his latest,tein on nudge?" sunday night at 8:00. setrussian foreign minister

the west and russia do not have a common vision of the situation in ukraine. he described talks with secretary john kerry as constructive but add substance -- adds sanctions would be counterproductive. they said they would respect crimea. the u.s. and the european union have both said the referendum is a legal and if it goes forward, russia could face economic sanctions. this is just over 15 minutes. >> ladies and gentlemen, we have intensive day of negotiations with john kerry about the situation in ukraine. of course, both parties, ourselves and the american partners, are seriously concerned. we have expressed our position as to what is happening and what are the reasons for what is happening and what are the

measures that the international community should take to begin an inclusive international dialogue that would overcome the deep split within society and to implement the constitutional reform that should in our conviction take part in the interest of all the regions of ukraine. from our side, we have expressed deep concern with the fact that no necessary measures are being taken to provide security and order. no efficient measures are taken to prevent unlawful actions of radicals that escalate provocations, including armed provocations with violence and try to affect what is happening in the country. we have attracted our partners' attention to the fact that the

agreement of the 21st of february is implemented, like giving up weapons, vacating the squares and buildings, and our american partners have agreed that order should be brought in this area. they agreed the constitutional reform that needs to overcome this situation is very important. as to practical matters that should be taken, that could be taken by foreign partners of ukraine, we do not have common vision of the situation. the differences are there. but the dialogue was definitely constructive, and it could help us to understand how much and

how good we understand each other and, in general, the overall picture of u.s.-russian relations. from that point of view, the negotiations were very useful. we discussed crimea. we have repeated our position that was expressed by the president of russian federation. we will respect the will of the people of crimea that would be expressed at the referendum of the 16th of march. >> ok, so international press and russian press. >> [indiscernible] >> will russia agree for creation of an international contact group with european

union, russia, and the united states? i have already spoken on the issue. the contact group that is being offered by our western partners is based on the premises that would be the purpose of this multilateral purpose should be facilitating direct contact between russia and ukraine. we think that this is wrong approach. the crisis was not caused by russia. we warned our european partners that ukraine should not be put before a false choice when it was done when the signing of the association agreement between the ukraine and eu was about to happen, and president yanukovych decided to delay the signing of the agreement.

we warned against encouraging illegal, unlawful demonstrations, especially those that -- with the participation of armed groups. the international community, if responsible, needs to appeal to immediate beginning of the process of constitutional reform. ukrainian parliament can initiate this process by inviting all the regions of the country and providing equal participation in the negotiations. we have our own suggestions of offers that we were giving to our western partners a week ago, and we would be happy to make them available to the media. i will repeat, the most

important thing is that this is not international structure to look into ukraine-russian relationships. the relationships have never been ceased. what happened in kiev, when the legally elected president was overthrown, had some complications, but russian president putin encourages the russian government to work side by side with ukrainian minister, and the complex alongside the lines of the foreign minister. contacts with foreign ministers never ceased. so any questions there are could be resolved and raised in direct dialogue, contact. the ukrainian side suggested to convene the cis council.

ukraine is presiding in the cis, and they offered to have this council in kiev. we suggested that we should begin it with the deputy foreign ministers and to have it in minsk. unfortunately, our colleagues declined this offer. in our understanding the role of the international community is to encourage a dialogue about constitutional reform with the understanding that long inaction and encouragement of current leadership in ukraine in the direction that they are moving now has in fact caused the supreme soviet of crimea to start the referendum. we are committed to respect the

results of the referendum. >> [indiscernible] are russian military forces being made ready to enter into ukraine -- [indiscernible] the minister this morning made clear he was ready to act to take citizens under their protection -- [indiscernible] >> what happened has become subject of commentary from russian foreign ministry. you have this text you could have a chance to familiarize yourself with it. it is a horrible situation. the military armed people, militants, started the violent intrusion into the demonstration.

russian government has known no plans of military intrusion into eastern ukraine. we are based on the assumption that the rights of russian, hungarians, bulgarians, ukrainians need to be protected. what is happening in crimea that there are now serious violations of breaches is the result of the self-defense groups be determined not to repeat what happened at maidan, where the camp town in the center of the european city is still there. and i want to ensure you that we do not have any plans of non-transparency what we are doing. just a few days ago, the ukrainian party in the framework of the treaty of the open sky

decided to have an extraordinary measure and fly about -- across the territory where the russian military exercises were happening. they were granted this permission. >> [indiscernible] >> we were discussing this subject, this story, and what is different is that each case is a separate case, singular case. i am convinced that kosovo was a very special case, and crimea is also very special case. >> [indiscernible] >> did secretary kerry raise the issue of sanctions, threaten russia with sanctions, and what

is your view on the prospect -- [indiscernible] >> secretary kerry did not voice any threats against russia. as to the sanctions, we live in international information space, we are hearing what is being discussed in washington or in europe, and let me assure you that our partners understand that sanctions is a counterproductive instrument, and if the decision is made, it will be their decision. it certainly won't facilitate, it will not be helpful in the mutual interests of businesses and developing operations.

we will take any reciprocal measures. there is no point in guessing now. we have to wait. >> [indiscernible] >> as to the referendum that is about to happen in crimea on sunday, we have expressed our position through president putin. we will respect the choice of the people of crimea, of the peoples of crimea. and as to the attitude toward the results of the referendum,

we will express it when the results are known. the ukrainian parliament has already accepted the resolution that is about the independence of the crimean parliament. we have to wait for the result. as to the statements of our western partners, i have already spoken on this subject. we believe that the right for self-determination has not been canceled. this is one of the important postulates of the u.n. status. and in concluding, there is a history of the people there for self-determination. we were talking about kosovo, but there is another state, comoros island, where at the end of the last century there was a referendum about independence from france.

one of the islands was against, and france insisted on recounting of the vote so that not the overall number of people who voted in the comoros islands, but each and every island separately. and the island of mallorca remained within france, first as a colonial territory, and later on it was included into french republic as just another department. was it an annexation or self-determination? the united nations or the african union did not accept the decision of france, but the european union did. and as to the reaction of our western partners, let me say it again, it will be their decision.

the russian president is in constant contact with president obama, with chancellor merkel, with prime minister cameron, with other european leaders, with the chinese chairman, the turkish prime minister, and i am in constant daily talks, telephone talks and meetings with our western partners. we are not hiding our position. we are not evading the questions that are being asked. it all needs to be discussed honestly. >> [indiscernible]

>> i cannot answer this question. we never decline and reject a cooperation and diplomatic framework, and if our partners do not want that, we can never force them to do that. but i do hope -- i feel in personal meetings and conversations that i hope that they are aware that this is the case that cannot be looked into in an isolated way, without looking to the history. there are precedents of international law, and everybody understands that crimea for russia is something really important, what it means for russia. it means immeasurably more for

russia than falklands for united kingdom or comoros for france. thank you. >> john kerry is in london holding meetings on ukraine with prime minister david cameron. and the russian foreign minister. the meeting comes just a few days before a planned referendum in crimea. the u.s. and european union have both said the referendum is a legal -- illegal and if it goes forward russia could face economic sanctions. this is 20 minutes. >> good afternoon, everybody. president obama, as you know, asked me to come to london in an effort to try to de-escalate the situation in ukraine.

today, foreign minister lavrov and i engaged in a very in-depth constructive dialogue on how to address legitimate concerns in the context of a unified, sovereign ukraine. the united states strongly supports the interim government of ukraine, and we continue to favor a direct dialogue between ukraine and russia as the very best way to try to resolve the crisis. i came in here in good faith with constructive ideas which we did put forward, on behalf of president obama, in order to try to restore and respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of ukraine while addressing at the same time russia's legitimate concerns. foreign minister lavrov and i

talked for a good six hours, and the conversation was very direct, very candid, frank, and i say constructive because we really dug into all of russia's perceptions, their narrative, our narrative, our perceptions, and the differences between us. i presented a number of ideas on behalf of the president, which we believe absolutely could provide a path forward for all the parties. however, after much discussion, the foreign minister made it clear that president putin is not prepared to make any decision regarding ukraine until after the referendum on sunday. the united states' position on that referendum, i must say, is clear, and it is clear today. we believe the referendum is contrary to the constitution of ukraine, is contrary to

international law, is in violation of that law, and we believe it is illegitimate. and as the president put it, illegal under the ukrainian constitution. neither we nor the international community will recognize the results of this referendum. we also remain deeply concerned about the large deployments of russian forces in crimea and along the eastern border with russia as well as the continuing provocations and some of the hooliganism of young people that have been attracted to cross the border and come into the east as well as some of those who live there. i was clear with foreign minister lavrov that the president has made it clear there will be consequences if russia does not find a way to change course, and we do not say that as a threat. we say that as a direct

consequence of the choices that russia may or may not choose to make here. if russia does establish facts on the ground that increase tensions or that threaten ukrainian people, then obviously, that will beg an even greater response, and there will be costs. president obama and i could not be more convinced that there is a better way for russia to pursue legitimate interests in ukraine. we believe it is not insignificant that we acknowledge there are legitimate interests -- historical, cultural, current strategic. these are real interests. and i think all of us who are joined together in the eu and extended contact group understand those interests and are prepared to respect them.

but that requires also that russia would respect the multilateral structure that has guided our actions since world war ii and the need for all of us to try to resolve this challenge and to meet those interests through the international multilateral legal norms which should guide all of our behavior. foreign minister lavrov and i talked about that and we talked about the other options that are available, options of dialogue, options of various contacts, meetings that could take place, options of international legal remedy, options of joint multilateral efforts that would protect minorities, u.n. options, international human rights organizations options, many options for the ways in

which any challenges associated with the rights of people could be addressed. we are prepared to address those rights, whether they be the rights of ukrainian living in the west, ukrainian living in the east, somebody of russian language and russian dissent that might feel threatened, all minorities, all people should be protected. foreign minister lavrov and i agreed we are going to stay in touch in the next days on ukraine as well as on the other issues of concern, which we are working on -- syria, iran, and other challenges of mutual concern. before i close, i want to reiterate what president obama said in the oval office on wednesday when he visited with the ukrainian prime minister.

the united states stands with the people of ukraine in their desire to make their own choices about their future and to be able to live their lives in a unified, peaceful, stable, and democratic ukraine. the president said clearly that is our only interest. that is what drives us, not a larger strategy, nothing with respect to russia directly. we are interested in the people of ukraine, having the opportunity to have their country's sovereignty and territorial integrity respected as we would ask that to happen for any country. so i will be briefing prime minister shortly as well as all of our colleagues and counterparts in the eu and members of the contact group as soon as i leave here. i will engage in those briefings, and i look forward to taking a couple of questions.

>> mr. secretary, as you noted, russian troops are carrying out extensive military exercises in ukraine, and at the same time the russian foreign ministry said today that the kremlin reserves the right to protect what it calls compatriots' lives in ukraine. did you obtain a clear assurance from mr. lavrov that russia will not use these forces to intervene in eastern ukraine, as they have in crimea? what did they say was the purpose of this exercise, and has russia abided by its obligations to provide osce nations with timely information about the size of the exercise, the types of forces involved, the purpose of the exercise? have they done that for this current exercise, and have they

done that for the one immediately prior? >> i do not know whether or not they have made that notification. i have been wrapped up in these talks and in other talks. i'm not aware of whether or not that notification was made. i can tell you indeed we talked about these exercises and we talked about the level of troops that are deployed, where they are deployed, wha the purpose is, and i raised very clearly the increased anxiety that is created within ukraine as a consequence of this. we talked about one of the proposals we made, discussed the possibility of drawing all forces back, reducing these tensions, returning to barracks, having a freeze on those kinds of deployments, while the diplomacy is working.

i think in fairness that foreign minister lavrov is going to report that proposal back to president putin as he will all of the proposals that we put on the table this afternoon. he is going to fly back, have that discussion with him. so the president will be well aware, president putin, of all the options we have offered. that was one of the principal areas of discussion, is this increased tension created by these additional deployments, in crimea, as well as along the border of the east, and the need to reduce that kind of tension. and it is our hope that they will take those necessary steps. with respect to assurances, it is my understanding this afternoon that foreign minister lavrov gave assurances, publicly, with respect to their

intent, but i think all of us would like to see actions, not words, that support the notion that people are moving in the opposite direction and in fact diminishing their presence. right now, in this particular climate, given what has been happening, we really needed to hear a more declarative policy in order to make clear where russia is proceeding with respect to these troops and these exercises. >> thank you. mr. secretary, you said last week that crimea is ukraine. we were told crimea is more important to russia than the falklands to britain. did you get any indication from

mr. lavrov that russia would not annex crimea, and even if so, why would not greater economy that kiev said it would allow, why would it not set a dangerous precedent? >> the issue of additional autonomy for crimea is one that is constantly on the table. it has been on the table prior to russia making these moves. that is really a decision for the ukrainian government to make. in his visit to washington, the prime minister made it clear that they are prepared to provide additional autonomy. they see it as no threat to the integrity and sovereignty of the ukraine. i think they see it as strengthening it. we don't know definitively what president putin is going to decide.

what was made clear, any decisions regarding the next steps until the vote has been taken, he has said that once the referendum vote is taken, he will make a decision with respect to what will happen. i would say to him today, as i said to foreign minister lavrov, that is a decision of enormous consequence with respect to the global community. we believe that a decision to move forward by russia, ratify that vote initially would be a backdoor annexation of crimea and against international law. and fly in the face of every legitimate effort to say there

is a different way to proceed to protect the interest of crimea and protect russia's interests and respect the integrity of the ukraine and the sovereignty of ukraine. we hope president putin will recognize that none of what we are saying is meant as a threat. it is not meant in a personal way. it is meant as a matter of respect for the international multilateral structure that we have lived by since world war ii. and for the standards of behavior about annexation, secession, and how countries come about it. here in great britain, the parliament voted to legitimize a vote in scotland about where scotland would want to proceed.

the ukrainian legislature would have to vote to legitimize a secession effort by any state or province or entity. the autonomous region of the ukraine. that is why this runs against the constitution of the ukraine. we hope that president putin will hear that we are not trying to challenge russia's rights or interests. its interest in protecting its people, its strategic position. none of those things are being threatened. they can all be respected even as the integrity of the ukraine is respected. we hope that president putin will see that there is a better way to address those concerns that he has.

>> thank you. mr. secretary, prime minister lavrov said there is no common vision between the west, russia, and the ukraine. and that russia would respect the results of sunday's referendum. despite your message that this is not meant as a threat, but do you believe that diplomacy is failing and they will go ahead with what you just termed as a possible backdoor annexation of crimea? and is it now safe to say that monday we will see sanctions from the european union and the united states? and what gives you confidence

that those sanctions will in any way change his mind we see falling. >> i suspect the market in russia and moscow can be significantly affected by these choices. i think it will have an impact. the reality is that president putin's statement that he will respect the vote is how he chooses to respect the vote. if the people of crimea vote overwhelmingly as one suspects they will to affiliate or be associated with russia, he can respect the vote by making sure the autonomy is increased. without necessarily making a decision to annex.

i'm not going to interpret what it may or may not mean. i think it is more important for the president to understand that we are prepared to respect his interests, rights, and they can be fully respected. and that he can have a claim that serves his purpose of protecting the people that he is interested in protecting by augmenting their rights and by asserting his prerogatives at the end of this effort. there are other options and that is what we are continually trying to say. until he has made his decision, those options are still on the table and we hope he will make a different set of choices. what was the other part of your question? with respect to the president

and the european community, if the referendum takes place, there will be some sanctions. there will be some response. if there is greater diplomatic opportunity that can be pursued and that is, in fact, on the table, i am confident that whatever the responses will be calibrated accordingly. if, on the other hand, a decision is made that is negative or flies in the face of the rationale that the eu and others have put on the table, that will obviously demand some further response which i am confident both the eu and the united states will produce. it is not our preference. it is not where we want to go. it is not what we are choosing as a first choice. but if the wrong choices are

made, there will be no choice but to respond appropriately because of the gravity of this breach of international standard and breach of international law, frankly, to the global standard by which nations have been called upon to try to behave. we believe these are consequences that can be felt in many other parts of the world. there are many places where people might take the wrong lesson from that. i think many people are concerned about that. thank you very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] ofa bipartisan group johnrce men are in --

mccain is leading the the that the delegation which includes john hope it of north dakota, ron johnson of wisconsin, and jeff flake. three democratic senators are also there. murphy,bin, christopher and sheldon whitehouse of rhode island. senators mccain and murphy, who was chairman of the senate european subcommittee, travel to kiev and address the antigovernment demonstrators that helped lead to the ousting of former president. >> a house appropriations subcommittee hearing on the 2015 budget request for the agriculture department. hearinge subcommittee for the homeland security department.

>> what war is. what military action is? we are still trying to work our way through those issues. the tenets that i think are applicable on the fact that whatever we do, international law will pertain. if we find ourselves getting to a point where we believe that ciber is taking us down in armed conflict scenario, the rules in the law of armed conflict will retain as much in this domain as it does in any other. i don't think cybe is different in that regard. i think those sets of procedures, policies and law as a nation represent a good point of departure. >> senate armed services takes up intelligence and military nominations. tv, amy barnes and

jonathan allen look at hillary clinton's political career center 2008 primary defeat, saturday night at 8:15 p.m. on c-span2. novelist robert penn moran interviews martin luther king jr. saturday evening at 7 p.m. and 11 p.m. secretary testifies before the house appropriations subcommittee on our culture. -- agriculture. he outlines priorities for this fiscal year. the 23 billion-dollar request includes funding for world development, food safety, and the special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children known as wick. this is about two and a half hours. okay. good morning, everyone.

subcommittee will come to order. before we begin today i would like to express to you, mr. secretary, and to the u.s. forest service our condolence in the loss of an officer who lost his life this week jason chris was killed in the line of duty, on this past wednesday along with his k-9 partner. we do appreciate the men and women who serve in law enforcement at the local, state, and the federal level. and as they put their lives on the line in the line of duty on a daily basis. so, mr. secretary, we realize any time you lose a -- one of your finest, we certainly have sympathy and certainly, along with forest service, and of course the chris family. i did want to mention that this morning before we get started. of course this morning we're pleased to welcome the secretary of agriculture, tom vilsack. along with the chief economist, joseph gauber, and also the u.s.

budget director mike young. thank you all three for being here this morning. we start our review of the department of ag's fc-15 budget request. basically we have three goals for this subcommittee for fy-15. the first goal is a robust oversight. as stewards of the taxpayer dollar we're all responsible for ensuring these funds are wisely invested and properly used. through oversight we can detect, eliminate fraud, waste and abuse. sometimes we're criticized for focusing on fraud and supplemental nutrition and assistance program known as snap. however this is usda's largest program. according to a december '13 "new york times" article it has an overall loss percentage of 4.07% per year. which is about $3 billion. when fraud and erroneous payments are combined. in addition, snap fraud undermines support for this program, and other federal nutrition programs.

i'd like to be clear that i support oversight and elimination of fraud in each and every usda program. including the farm programs, and insurance. those programs should not be neglected to be looked at in any way, as i mentioned. oversight is also about promoting strong program management. usda has had trouble for years securing its i.t. systems. we heard testimony last week that usda continues to have problems with this. of course as you can imagine it's disappointing to all of us to hear that. we also suggested the agency should rebalance the work and focus on managing their programs instead of just delivering benefits. the second goal is to ensure the appropriate level of regulations to protect producers and the public. this is about usda's -- how they implement laws, including the new farm bill and the 2010 healthy hungry free kids act.

at times it appears at usda appears to pick and to choose when it will be flexible to suit its own agenda. unfortunately we have seen the administration go beyond congressional kin at times. i will explore some of these in more detail as we go through the questions. my third goal is to ensure the funding is targeted to vital programs. there are two sides of this. one is about the decisions of the subcommittee will make to allocate funding in our bill. the other is about the administration priorities. as you know, we cannot fund and do everything. we must focus on programs that are most effective, and broadly supported, and those that are address imminent threats. wic is effective and broadly supported program. we will scrutinize the fy-15 request to assure sufficient funding is provided to meet the current case loads. however, we cannot provide excessive funding that will then unnecessarily limit funding for

other programs that are of high priority. regarding rural housing programs, frankly, i don't understand why usda proposes to dramatically reduce funding for them. these programs have broad support across congress as they help low income and oftenaterly americans to have decent homes. and i hope we can discuss this a little more detail as we go through the questions. turning to usda's budget request at first glance it would appear to be modest and straightforward. it is $228 million below the fy-14 enacted level. however there are several new programs, and significant increases in funding for others. some of these increases are offset by questionable decreases. such as the closing of 250 farm service agency offices and the reduction of 815 staff years without any real background on how you arrive at the savings. there are major increases, including three innovation institutes, costing $75 million,

and huh dwrndreds of new staff the rural development mission area. in addition the budget proposes major changes to crop insurance program with the goal of saving 14.3 billion over 10 years. this is clearly an authorizing issue and the 2014 farm bill just spoke to it. while many believe that this program could be improved it is not realistic to pay for increases based on proposals that at a minimum have to be addressed by the authorizing committee. in closing, i must mention the president's separate and additional $56 billion request. the opportunity growth and security initiative. while it would provide $277 million for usda it cannot even are considered as it is above the agreed upon discretionary cap for fy-15. chairman rogers, who is with us here this morning has definitely stated that the house will write its appropriate bill to the

established accounts of just over $1 trillion. senate appropriations chairman mikulski has said the identical same thing. the additional request also is irresponsible given our debt, our deficit and our overall economic situation. while the federal budget deficit has fallen sharply during the past few years, the congressional budget office estimates that under current law the deficit this year will be $514 billion. so even after all the tough battles to reform spending, deficit spending this year will still exceed spending on all nondefense discretionary dollars by $22 billion. cbo further projects that under current policies public debt will reach $21 trillion. and that is 79s% of our gross domestic product by 2024. i think if you look at those numbers, they are very staggering. before i recognize you, mr. secretary, for your opening

statement, i would ask the ranking member of the subcommittee, the distinguished gentleman from california, mr. farr, for any opening remarks that he may have. mr. farr? >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. and indeed, it's always a great beginning of the year to have mr. secretary here. your department has awesome jurisdictional responsibilities for all the food in america, for all the development of rural america, and essentially for all our ag interests around the world. and i think, frankly, with your background as a mayor, and a governor, that you really know how to handle your job well. i think you do a very good job. i would be interested in a comment or two. last year we were able, in this tightening to give flexibility to the department of defense in how they spent sequestration funds. essentially rather than just us putting it all in a category,

and across the board cuts and things like that, we gave them the flexibility to make those determinations. and i'm wondering if there's any unfunded balances that -- unobligated balances that you might have some ideas about how to use your -- give you some flexibility to use those in a limited budget as the chairman indicated. so, i have lots of questions. it's a very exciting department. and essentially i think a lot of us are here because it's also the biggest department in the united states government that handles poverty in america. and overseas. and i really appreciate your responsibility in that area. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. farr. also we have the full committee chairman mr. rogers from kentucky that has joined us this morning. i'd like to recognize him for any remarks that he might like to make. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you for getting us off to a great start on the subcommittee. this is the earliest that we've started off these hearings in my memory or recollection.

and we're doing it because we inherited a top number that both the house and senate can appropriate to. we're not dependent on waiting for the budget committee to come forward with a budget resolution that can be agreed to by the other body. so consequently we're way ahead of ourselves and we're going to try to keep going that way, mr. secretary so that we can get this committee back to regular order like we used to do things. 12 individual bills, conferenced separately with the senate. let me start off by thanking you, mr. secretary, for coming to my district recently. to help announce, as you did, the strike force program of the department, to try to help rural communities combat the difficulties that they're in economically. and the strike force that you

announced we're incorporating in kentucky, at least, with a program that the governor and i just announced called s.o.a.r., shaping our appalachian region. a region hit by devastating coal job losses. and the s.o.a.r. program will attempt to find new ways to make a living, to provide jobs in a formally coal dominated part of the country. so i thank you for that. ranking member lowey and i have committed to moving all of the 12 bills through subcommittee, full committee, and the floor, and we plan to move that process along at a very brisk pace, as you can tell. we've had, i think you're the fifth secretary that we've had on the hill this week before our committee. we plan to move this process along briskly. unquestionably, this return to regular order is critical to

crafting bills that wisely spend taxpayer dollars. the fiscal '14 omnibus package that we passed in january, funding the balance of this fiscal year, prime example of what we can accomplish together. this committee was able to provide every facet of the federal government with adequate, responsible funding, while continuing to reduce federal spending. totally $165 billion in cuts since fiscal '10. we've had to work hard to bring about these discretionary reductions. taking a lot of late nights and compromises, but we have gotten it done. now we've got to tackle mandatory spending. that's the big problem. when i first came here mandatory spending was a third of federal spending. now it's two-thirds and growing. and it's squeezing out everything else. we've had to reduce defense

spending. we've had to reduce spending for everything you can imagine in the discretionary side, because of the crowding out that the mandatory spending has caused us to have to deal with. so, mandatory spending, two-thirds of federal spending, is the problem. i see no leadership from this administration to try to tackle this major issue. and while mandatory spending comprises about 86% of your department's request, only 14% is what we actually sit down and decide how to be spent. the rest is on automatic pilot. and that's no way for a government to be operated, and you, above all, experienced that as governor. your budget proposes to lower

mandatory and discretionary spending within the department. however, we've heard this before, and over the last few years we've seen your artificially low estimates on mandatory spending blown up by the middle of the year. so, it is time to get serious about the mandatory spending crowd-out that's taking place, and have an honest discussion about how to deal with it. we can't hide behind phony estimates anymore. once again in this year's budget, the request proposes a significant cut to the section 502 direct loan and the mutual and self-help housing programs. we've seen this kind of smokescreen, and again from this administration, we're funding is cut for useful programs, in order to make room for new spending and create the illusion of budget savings.

the concern i have is that this shows a disrespect for our rural communities, and the constituents who made these programs successful. in my district, a group called kentucky highlands, whom you're familiar with, through its self-help housing program, has completed 20 homes, currently has six more under construction using section 523 self-help technical assistance and section 502 direct loans. for example one woman in my district just finished a three bedroom home for $98,000. if she had used the contractor, that same home would have cost $145,000. the rental home where she and her young daughter previously lived was so poorly insulated that she kept the thermostat at 52 degrees in the winter just so the electric bill would stay below $500 a month.

her electric bills now are expected to average around $100 a month. in her new home. another single mother in my district used these programs to build a four bedroom home for herself and her four children, $102,000. a contractor would have charged her $148,000. and it would not have been possible without the section 502 direct loan program. and the equity earned through section 523. it seems to me that this is sort of thing we should be encouraging and there are a lot more hard-working people like these women who are more than happy to put in the time and effort to gain their own home. so i hope that we can begin to support this program with a little more emphasis than we've seen in the budgets so far. so mr. secretary we look forward to hearing your testimony. we welcome you to the hill. we thank you for visiting in

kentucky, as you did. and we look forward to working with you. >> thank you. >> thank you, chairman rogers. also we have the ranking full committee ranking member, miss lowey. and we'd like to recognize you for your opening comments. >> well, thank you very much, chairman aderholt and ranking member farr. it is a pleasure for me to welcome secretary vilsack. you've had a distinguished career, and we're fortunate to have someone of your caliber and experience in this position. thank you. mr. secretary, your department plays an important role in nutrition assistance for vulnerable populations. conservative efforts. rural community development. research to combat climate change and improve crop yields. the range and scope of usda's responsibilities is truly amazing. i was particularly pleased that your budget request fully funds the expected participation for the wic program, along with

additional funds to successfully implement the new wic rule. as you know the new rule notably provides more money for the purchase of fruits and vegetables for children, makes other important improvements, as well. with approximately 15,000 nutritionally at-risk women, infants and children served per month in new york, this program is vital to the health of young mothers and their children and i applaud the department for issuing the new rule. additionally, while i oppose the $66 million cut to the food piece program i agree with the proposal to grant the administration the authority to use up to 25% of title ii resources available in cash for emergencies to better respond to multiple, high-level crises around the world. this change will allow u.s. aid

to administer the program to reach an estimated 2 million more people in chronically food insecure communities like syria, the central african republic, south sudan, with the same resources. i look forward to working with my colleagues on the committee to continue to review the president's budget request, to ensure that we adequately fund initiatives to combat hunger, ensure the safety of our food supply, and support sustainable agriculture practices. thank you. >> thank you, miss lowey. just a reminder, if you could put electronics on the silent mode during the hearing that would be helpful. also we understand that we may have votes that will be called over the next few minutes. so, we will have the -- take questions or take your statement as long as we can, and then we will do a temporary adjournment

to go vote and then we'll be back for more questions. so everybody is welcome to come back after the votes to proceed. so secretary vilsack without objection your entire written testimony will be included in the record. but at this time i'd recognize you now for your statement, and then we'll proceed on with our questions. thank you again for being here. >> mr. chairman, congressman farr and members of the committee, thank you very much for the opportunity to be here this morning. let me start by focusing on the impact of this budget on real people. 40,000 farmers, 85% of which will be beginning farmers, or socially disadvantaged farmers, will benefit under this budget. crop insurance will cover $63 billion in crops, afis will protect $165 billion in value in livestock, poultry and specialty gro crops as a result of this budget. the foreign ag service will continue to support $140 billion in agricultural exports, at or near record levels, which help

to support nearly 1 million jobs here at home. the food and nutrition assistance programs will benefit nearly 47 million americans under the s.n.a.p. program. 8.7 million women, infant and children under the wic program. nearly 3 million young people during the summer feeding programs. the food safety budget will provide assistance and help in protecting our food supply, and reducing foodborne illnesses by an estimated 52,000 illnesses. nrcs will help provide condition servation assistance that will add 23 million acres of land to our conservation programs which are at record levels, helping nearly a half a million producers do a better job of conserving soil and protecting the water. while it's not specifically related to this budget, it does have an impact on this budget. our overall budget will also support 193 million acres of forest and grasslands under the

u.s. forest service jurisdiction which will protect 70,000 communities that are located within the urban wildlife interface and the 45 million homes that are located in those communities. rural development will help support, create and retain 44,000 jobs with the investments we make through our rural business programs. our rural utilities will provide additional improved electric service to 4.6 million. 2.2 million people will receive better water and sewage facilities. 140,000 households and businesses will benefit from expanded broadband access. 166,000 people will have the dream of home ownership as a result of this budget. i think it is important to point out that the budget authority that we are requesting in terms of housing has actually increased. the problem and challenge is that interest rates have driven up the cost of borrowing. which is why it's going to be difficult for us to reach the program levels in the past. this is not a situation where

we're cutting. it's a situation where the cost of lending has increased. 13 million people will benefit from community facilities located in their community improving. these might be police stations and fire stations, they may be hospitals, libraries or schools that we invest our community facility resources in. and our research facilities will help to support nearly 100 research facilities in the agricultural research service that are currently involved in 800 research projects that over the last five years have supported 250 patents, and 383 licensing agreements which lead to jobs and small business growth. in addition, the nifa program, national student and grant program is helping to support our land grant universities, our historic black colleges and universities. our hispanic serving institutions and our travel colleges and universities. this is about results, and we're focused on results. we're also focused on reforms. this budget proposes a number of reforms.

including the ability of modernizing our farm service agency offices, so that they can better handle the challenges that formers and rural americans face by providing a bridge to those farmers through additional opportunities. we will also continue to focus our efforts on reform on our rental assistance program so that it continues to support the 285,000 families that benefit from our rental assistance program. we need to right-size that program, and we need additional tools to be able to do that. given actions taken by congress in the past, that have now created a challenging situation for us would fit rental assistance within existing budgets. we're also going to continue to look at ways in which we can improve our services, through a series of reforms that are outlined in this budget, including the development of a rural core which will be 150

experts in rural development whose focus and job will be to look at the areas of most persistent poverty to assist and to complement and amplify the strike force initiative that chairman rogers alouded to. this budget will also focus on opportunity. the ability to significantly expand low fund regional food systems as an alternative for small and midsize producers, additional new market opportunities for them, we'll also take advantage of new farm bill that passed, that creates an opportunity for us to expand rural manufacturing, 14% of all american manufacturing is related to food and agriculture and we want to expand on that with the biobased product manufacturing opportunities that the farm bill presents. this bill also focuses on innovation. three innovation institutes focused on antimicrobial resistance, pollinators and the bioproduct manufacturing will assist and help in preserving

our agricultural production, and expand new uses and opportunities for agricultural products. and we will also focus on an effort to do a better job of addressing the challenges that the poultry industry in particular face with disease. we have antiquated facilities, which is, frankly, true of our entire agricultural research service. we need a new and creative way to address the challenges of our infrastructure, and one way we can do that is by taking a look at our unobligated balances as representative farr had suggested, allowing us to retain those balances, that are within a budget that's been approved by this committee, and use them to upgrade our facilities. this would also give us an opportunity to better manage and perhaps reduce the 70 million square feet of space that we currently operate, lease or own. as i shared with you earlier, yesterday, mr. chairman, i think there is an opportunity for us to save significant resources by

right-sizing our rental properties within the capital area and by improving our lab facilities in ars. to do that we need a revenue resource that is predictable and one that we can budget from, that has been difficult to do. so that's the roi of this budget. reform and results. opportunity and innovation. and i'd like to point out that this budget, the discretionary spending, is about half a billion dollars less than it was when i became secretary. so i think we have and will continue to try to manage this budget in an appropriate, an appropriate way. two additional comments specifically relating to comments that you made, mr. chairman. we are proud of the work that we're doing, on s.n.a.p. integrity. you mentioned the combined error and fraud rate of 4.7%. 4.07%. that is at record lows. and it needs to be pointed out that we have aggressively pursued integrity in these

programs. last year 42,000 individuals were disqualified from the program. 1200 businesses were disqualified. over 733,000 investigations and interviews were conducted to ensure the integrity of this program. we are proposing in this budget additional resources, not only to improve our integrity efforts in s.n.a.p. but also to focus on some of the other programs, including crop insurance program where the error rate alone is in excess of 5%. so, we think we are doing the job in terms of oversight. and in terms of integrity. and i would say that we are working very hard on securing our i.t. systems, significant improvements have been made. when i became secretary we had 17 e-mail systems. we now have a single e-mail system. that's part of the 1.2 billion that we've saved through our administrative services process, and blueprint for stronger service. so i look forward to responding to the questions that the committee has. these are difficult budget times, but there are significant results that come from this

budget, and we are going to work hard to make sure that the people of rural america and all of america are served well by the usda. >> thank you, mr. secretary. and what we'll do is again we will proceed on. it's probably going to be another 15 or 20 minutes before we have any votes. so we'll proceed as long as we can, and then we'll return after the votes. let me start out with something that was in the fy-14 amny bus. language was included to direct the usda to establish a waiver process for schools that are finding the implementation of the school breakfast and the competitive food regulations are two costly. chairman klein of the education workforce committee and i sent a letter asking that you act quickly to put this waiver into place and if there's no action. if there's no objection i'd like

to enter a letter from the school nutrition association supporting the waiver and let me just say one of the paragraphs from the school nutrition association said since the passage of the health 800 free kids act, school food authorities have continued to take great pride in providing our students with helpful and tasty meals to more than 30 million students each school day. however, the yearly changes have placed an undue financial and administrative burden on operators and industry alike. thus the waiver will allow certain schools the option to have more time to prepare their district schools and students. i know you have sent a letter to us, and i literally just received it this morning right before i walked into the hearing so i hadn't really had a chance to look at that. but could you tell me about how you could possibly implement a waiver like that? >> mr. chairman, i appreciate the question. i think it's important to point out that school districts have received the benefit of a

six-cent increase as a result of the healthy free kids act. we obviously respect very much the directive from congress. 90% of school districts across the united states have embraced and are currently being certified in terms of their participation in the healthy free kids act and nutritional standards improving so we are focused now on the 10% that are having a bit more difficulty. we want to help those 10%. the richard b. russell national school act basically makes it literally impossible for us to provide the waiver that you have requested by express language in that statute. we are prohibited from granting a waiver, and i'll quote from the statute. the secretary may not grant a waiver under this subsection that increases federal costs or that relates to, "a," the nutritional content of meals served, and under paragraph sub-j the sale of competitive foods. your letter was directed both to the breakfast program and the nutritional standards and to the

sale of competitive foods. we are trying to help those school districts. we recently announced $5.5 million in grants under our smarter school lunch room program. this is going to provide $50,000 to each state to assist in competitive grants up to $350,000 for districts, and for school associations, and for departments of education to assist and help the other 10% of schools that are having a more difficult time. where there has been an opportunity for us to be a bit flexible, as is the case of protein content of meals we have been able to do that. we proposed initially some changes that we then made those changes in terms of protein content, and portion size permanent. we will continue to look for ways to help the 10% of schools that are having a difficult time. but, unless this law changes, mr. chairman, i don't think i have the statutory authority to be able to do what you would like us to do. >> well, needless to say, we're getting feedback from our

schools that they want to see some kind of waiver. schools are searching for some type of relief. but, i do know that the farm bill explicitly prohibits usda from advertising and recruiting for s.n.a.p. but, you were quoted as saying we'll find a way to make sure people know about the program. i guess my question, if you really wanted to, i could think maybe you could find some creative ways to be implement this waiver, an you know the intent of the language is not to permanently waive the standards and requirements of the law, it is a process to delaying more time for schools to comply with the regulations. in fact, usda provides a similar delay for the breakfast requirements, when it issued the final regulation on the new school and meal standard. i quote most notably this final rule provides additional time for the implementation of the school breakfast requirement and

modifies those requirements, in a manner that produces the estimated cost for breakfast changes as compared to the proposed rule. mr. secretary, these challenges are not going away and i would hope that you would work to the with us to try to find ways to help the school cafeterias. >> mr. chairman, i think we are willing to find ways, and we'll be happy to work with this committee, and with you, to look for ways. i think the law is pretty explicit as it relates to the waiver of the program in terms of nutrition standards and competitive foods. but we're more than happy, and i think we've shown in the past a willingness to be flexible. i would point out, i think the s.n.a.p. situation is a bit different simply because i think there's a difference between educating and advocating. and i think what congress was attempting to tell us is that you didn't want us to incent, or encourage recruitment of people to go out and search for people to qualify for s.n.a.p. i'm not sure that you intended to prevent us from educating

people about the existence of the program. one of the concerns that we've had about this program is that when i became secretary only 52% of eligible folks participated in the program. and that was because a number of states were not really doing a very good job of letting folks at least know that the program existed. today, that participation rate is about 80%. so, you know, i think we will obviously work with you on waivers, and on flexibilities within whatever statutory responsibilities we have. >> well -- i am hearing a great pushback and it is a very real concern out there among schools, and they're very, very concerned about it. and i want to relate that to you, because as a representative, and hearing from these school cafeterias, they are very, very concerned. so mr. farr? >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i think i'll follow up on your question. there is a lot of concern and it's because, frankly, if you look into the law as i have, on

nutrition, our idea of getting nutritional food to the children in this country is absolutely a smart thing to do. the problem is, congress has micromanaged this program, where every child who walks in to the cafeteria has to first of all be means tested. you don't do that when they get on the bus. you don't to that when they walk into the library. but if they're going to walk into a food area they've got to be means tested so we can tell which kid gets free or reduced lunch payments. then we go on to dictate the portion size, the nutritional content. we even last year went so far, because of special interests, the potato lobby here, this congress ordered you worked out sort of mitigated the language between the senate and the house, to figure out how to make white potatoes as a wic food program as a nutritional item. and i think we asked you, in our legislation, the language saying we expect of you to amend the

rules governing wic program to include, in effect, white potatoes in the wic food package. we asked for a report from you, if you chose not to amend the rules. and i think undersecretary kincannon recently sent us that report. i suspect that we're going to be back here with the same members of the committee saying they didn't win last year, they're going to be back again this year, and i just wondered, we never got a chance to hear your viewpoints after this committee had done its work. it was in the full committee. what are your views on this issue? >> well, congressman, i think it's important to point out that we approach the institute of medicine to ask for advice as to how to structure a wic program that would provide supplemental assistance and nutrition for women, infants and children. they took their job very seriously, they made a set of

recommendations, and the recommendations were that we should focus on nutritious choices in food products that would not normally be purchased or not normally be used by women, infant and children. the issue with potatoes, white potatoes and potatoes generally is the average american consumes almost 90 pounds of potatoes a year. >> what's that? >> almost 90 pounds of potatoes a year. the average american consumes almost 90 pounds. like 88.7 pounds of potatoes. so the institute believed that it would be appropriate to focus on vegetables that weren't consumed in quite the same level of quantity, and so they suggested and proposed and directed us to focus on green, orange, red vegetables. which we have done in the wic program. the report that undersecretary kincannon provided essentially says we have nothing against potatoes but this is a supplemental program. this is supposed to supplement what people would otherwise normally buy.

and that's why potatoes were not included. and why we focus the wic package on more nutritious alternatives that are not normally purchased by women for their children. so, it's really based on the institute of medicine recommendation. now the potato folks say whether there's additional nutritional information, fair enough. we have asked the institute of medicine to sort of accelerate their review. they do this periodically accelerate the review and if there's additional information or new information that's come to light we'll certainly take that into consideration. but at this point in time this is really a focus on what will supplement and complement what people are already purchasing. >> in getting back to the schools lunch programs and the school feeding programs, could we have use the appropriate technology, you've talked in -- about sort of streamlining the management of rural fsa offices and combining them through electronics. is there a way where we could essentially, if we have to -- if we're not going to changed

microrequirements of measuring each child each day for the amount of food they get and whether it's nutritional food could we begin sort of a bar code system so that things that the chairman are talking about where the servers are -- they're just overwhelmed by the amount of work they have to do, and the limited amount of money they have. can't we use smart technology to sort of portion size and make sure that the child who is receiving that proportion is also all those records are kept electronically? >> well, i think a couple things, congressman. we are obviously very anxious to work with technology advances to modernize our programs. it is an issue of resources, obviously. we are -- we think the first order of business is to help schools better equip themselves to be able to produce food on site, which is why we've had the school equipment grant program nearly $200 million has already been granted out to schools to

improve their equipment purchases so they can actually produce food on site. we've also recently launched the community eligibility program. currently roughly 3300 school districts representing 22,000 schools and several million children currently, because of the high level of poverty in their school district, rather than forcing them to go through this process of deciding who gets free and reduced lunch and who doesn't, essentially everyone is considered and deemed to be part of the free and reduced lunch population, so it saves the school district the administrative expense, and the cost, and ensures that every youngster who should be participating in the program does. that may be an opportunity to take a look at that process, and to determine whether or not that would be an easier way to administer these programs. so we are looking at ways to streamline. we are looking at ways to improve equipment. and we'd be happy to work with you on other ideas.

>> thank you very much. appreciate. my time. thank you mr. chairman. >> mr. rogers. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, let me ask you about the s.n.a.p. program. in your budget request, you propose that we spend $104.7 billion for food stamps. that's 3.3 billion dollar increase in one year. i'm told that there's some 49 -- 47 million participants per month. and whether you call it education or recruitment, there are people out there, from the government, that are aggressively seeking out people to sign up. and let me ask you, where in your budget request do you have moneys for, quote, education,

unquote? >> mr. chairman, we provide several hundred million dollars to states, through the education and training part of the budget, that provides them resources to do several things. one is to make sure that those who are eligible are aware of the existence of the program. and to work with us to do a better job of connecting the 8% of snap beneficiaries that are able bodied without dependents, to be able to access work opportunities if they're aware of jobs that are available. one of the great opportunities, i think, that the farm bill presents is the ability with the pilot programs authorized in the farm bill for states and for us to do a better job of connecting those able-bodied folks to work. i think that will result in a decline in the number of people currently receiving s.n.a.p. and we anticipate and are projecting a decline because of the improving economy. >> well, you know, the farm bill is pretty plain.

the language is as blunt as you can put it, i think, that no money shall be used for the purpose of soliciting, advertising and recruiting for s.n.a.p. and you call it education. but i think the intent of the bill, and for all practical purposes, is a prohibition. >> mr. chairman, i think that you're correct, there is a prohibition towards using resources to hire people who would go out and who would be paid based on the number of people that signed up the program. i think that there were concerns expressed about that practice that some states utilized. and i think it's important to point out that states administer this program. and so so many decisions that are being made in terms of how to recruit, versus how to educate, are being made at the state level. >> but certainly, surely the

u.s. department of agriculture has the capability by regulations to tell the states what they can and can't do. >> well, we do. and we are working with them. part of the problem, mr. chairman, is that there are some folks, when they get in to a position in state government where they are happy to have a program, they just simply don't want people to use it. and that's what we found when i came in to this office. we found a number of states where the participation rate in s.n.a.p. was woefully inadequate. there were a lot of people who qualified for this program who simply didn't get in the program. and the question -- i think the key here is, as long as the qualifications are what they are, i would hope that we would want in a perfect world everyone who is qualified for the program using the program, and participating in the program. as opposed to obviously nobody wants people that aren't qualified to be participating in the program. that shouldn't happen, to the chairman's point about integrity and mistakes and so forth we

obviously want to continue to reduce those. >> well, this item in the budget, $104.7 billion out of $144 billion, 80% of your budget is going roughly for the food stamp program >> well, mr. chairman, could i put this in a slightly different light, if i could. first of all, i think it's important to understand who gets this perk. 92% of the people receiving this program are senior citizens, people with serious disabilities, children, or those who are actually in the workforce who are struggling because they've got a minimum wage job, or they have a part-time job. so it's helping a substantial number of people who i think are playing by the rules. secondly, this is part of the overall effort to stabilize prices and so forth in terms of agriculture and the economy, because if people can buy more in the grocery store what we do know is they do, indeed, buy more. and it is clearly an anti-poverty program that is

effective. records would show that this s.n.a.p. program helps to reduce the poverty late, it helps to reduce the severity of poverty that folks face. i think it's a successful program. the best way to reduce the number, the best way to reduce the number, is to do a better job of linking people who are able bodied who can work and should work to jobs that we know are out there. and we do need to do a better job of that. and i think the farm bill gives us an opportunity to do that. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> the vote has been called, but i want to answer miss recognize. we have several minutes before we have to go. >> a quick question. frl following up on some of your comments. the budget requests $30 million to continue to program to provide money to food for poor children during summer months when they're not benefitting from school feeding programs. there were very encouraging results for the pilot program at a modest cost of about $60 per

child a month using existing with or snap ebt programs. the budget proposes to either continue the demonstrations in the same area or go statewide in some smaller states. i know it would be very helpful in new york. i think it's an important program. can you tell me what you have learned from the existing demonstration program? what dro you hope to achieve with the 2015 budget proposal? >> congresswoman, there are 20 million youngsters on free and reduced lunches in the country. in the summer months it reaches 3 million. there's a significant delta. we want to figure out ways to improve the nutritional opportunities to the youngsters. we know it's linked to their health and exal achievement. so this program has essentially focused on 100,000 youngsters. it's ramped up over the period of the last couple of years. it provides 60 bucks a month to the youngsters in additional

food. it helps to reduce food and security among the population by 30%, which is a fairly significant number. what we would like to do is ramp this up. we think we can still get the same kind of benefits, even if the overall amount is less than $60. we think we can still get significant benefits. but we would like to expand it. we would like to see what this would look like on a statewide basis. iz. we newsed them in the summer programs, the winter programs. we'll talk further about it.

thank you very much. >> okay. again, we apologize for the votes. as you know, that's out of our control. so we will take a recess for about 25 minutes, and then we'll reconvene. and so thank you for your patience with us. and priorities for the year. this is live coverage on c-span 3.

okay we're back. and we'll again with mr. latham. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. welcome, mr. secretary. this is my last time probably to be here with you. and i guess i want to make a couple couple observations. going back with the clinton administration, the bush administeed administrati administration. i had always heard from farmers that they felt that the department was supporting them. that that was their advocates in washington, for the farmers, was the department of agriculture. i will just have to say i hear every time i meet with farmers, talk to them one on one, is that there is a huge change. they don't think the department is on their side.

when you look at things like the department of labor, when they come out with a proposed rule so that farm kids can help their parents on the the farm, the first response from you in the department basically is in support of the department of labor, rather than the farm and farm families. the department, i mean, you've got a lot of livestock producers out there. the department talks about meatless monday and the message that sends to their, what should be the department's constituency. that you're against them. you're not with them. when they're inundated with regulations from epa, whether under the clean water act, particlants with the clean air act and dust, we don't hear anything in opposition from the

department to support the farmers themselves and their positions. renewable fuel standard coming out. i would like to know what advice or counsel or what the department's position is that's going to be devastating to a lot of people in rural iowa certainly and a lot of places across the midwest and throughout the country as far as agriculture. but i just am -- leaving here it is very, very disappointing to see the change in attitude at the department towards what should be their constituents. the farmers themselves. this is something that is obviously near and dear to my heart with my background, coming from the big town of alexander, 165 people, living in the suburbs on the farm outside of

town. but there is a change. there's a huge change. and i hear it every day. and i don't know if you want to respond. we have a luncheon. that's why i have the green tie on with the irish ambassador here. i don't know in you have any response. but it is very discouraging to me. >> well, congressman, i am surprised by your comments, and i do want to respond, because i think they merit a response. request reference to the department of labor, this department basically suggested that it was not the appropriate approach and that we suggested it was an opportunity for us to better educate folks about public safety and farm safety generally. and we work with the labor department to get that rule pulled. and to create an alternative

approach. >> well, it wasn't your first response in your tweet. >> yes, it was. >> in support of -- >> yes, it was. yes, it was. >> no, no. our first response, congressman, was to suggest that there was a better way to do this. and we're working with penn state and another grant universities to develop a curriculum that will make it easier, and we work with the farm bureau and national farmers union. you can ask the others in the room with me when that was proposed. as it relates to meatless money, i was very critical of that effort and immediately so. it was pulled immediately. it wasn't something that i sanctioned. and i would point out livestock exports are at record levels under this administration. every dollar that we spent in promotion is generating $35 in trade. with we are at record levels of agricultural trade and record levels of farm income.

in terms of the e.p.a., we're working to make sure they fully understand and appreciate what will and will not hall and they're looking at. we've arranged for meetings to take place between farm groups and the epa administrator. we've arranged that the epa administrators go out and talk to farmers. industrial doesn't exist, and you know it. as far as the rsf is concerned, we are working with the epa so they fully understand and appreciate the current situation relative to gas. when the rsf was established, as you well know, it feels based on the assumption there would be increased gas utilization by americans. that's not necessarily been the case. we are focused on making sure there are continued opportunities to expand exports of ethanol and continued capacity to have higher blends. in fact, i have spoken directly to governor branstad in our home state about a joint effort to

encourage more e-85 tanks. i find it interesting that congress made it more difficult for us to do that when you essentially restricted us from using funds for blender pumps. we'll figure out a way to continue to help the expand opportunity for higher blend. so i'm happy to visit with those farmers who expressed disappointment to you. . that's not what i hear, and so obviously we must be talking to a different group. >> i think we're probably talking to different people. . >> i don't think we are, congressman. with all due respect. >> i know what i know. and it's very disheartening to me to see the change in the relationship. there is an absolute feeling out in the country that the department sides more with epa or takes the orders from above and not advocating for farmers. >> that's just not true. that's just not true. >> that reality and perception can be reality.

but that is the reality of the situation. anyway, thank you very much, mr. chairman. f i'll have to excuse myself here. >> thank you. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. ful welcome, mr. secretary. let me thank you for your work. for your work to strengthen the integrity of the wic program and a science based food package that is essential to improving the health of our kids. secondly, i would like to quickly applaud, if if i can, the governors in the six states, connecticut, new york, rhode island, montana, oregon, and pennsylvania, and thank them for making up the difference in food stamp program and understanding how critically important it is for vulnerable populations. on this issue because i want to move to another one quickly, in light of the education, commentary that we've heard here today, it's interesting to note that sfa, these are news

releases na come out regularly. usda reminds producers of an approaching deadline on crp general sign up. sure disaster deadline approaches for 2011 crops. farmers and ranchers are reminded that the sign up period for revenue payments for 2009 losses has opened. enrollment reminders for direct encounter payments and other sfa programs. my god, if we can be getting notices out for all these other efforts, we sure ought to be able the to get notices and education out to the farmers about dealing with their participating in the food stamp program. let me move to another area, mr. secretary. and that is, again, thank you for the restriction prohibiting domestic horse slaughter. thank jack kingston from coming by and mentioning it.

but on a different area, why is the department so intent on moving guard with the proposed poultry modernization rule and given the reality associated with this proposal? rule is based on a program that has an inspection model project or h.e.m.p. gao twice found to have no food safety benefits. i just will -- this is a -- over 15 years usda's food safety and inspection service has been running pilot programs in 25 chicken and turkey processing plants called the base inspection model project. the project has been assessed twice. both times failed to convince investigators of any food safety benefits. also their commentary was that there's no data collected over the 15-year run of the program that demonstrates any reduction

in food born bacterias. stutd studies showed a reduction in salmonella when more offline testing is done. no provisions in the modernization plan for mandating microbial testing. there were limitations in the data that was found by gao. in the report on chicken plants. there wasn't a report on the pilot program at turkey plants. sfis has said it plans to address some of the limitations as it works on the final rule. the question is shouldn't the usda be addressing the data limitations so that we better understand the implications, including on food safety before we move forward with the rule.

i've said nothing about worker safety. or any of the other areas that come into play with this effort. so that's a first question on this effort. without complete disclosure from sfif, the public does not have complete and accurate information to inform their comments on the proposed rule and provide them with a clearer understanding of the potential impacts of the final rule. again, shouldn't we be more transparent with the public? work with stake holders concerning the implications on food safety, worker safety, and the treatment of an ma'ams before we move forward on this rule? >> congresswoman, thank you for asking the question. i guess i have a slightly different view of the rule than what you just outlined. i spent some time yesterday actually taking a look at the rule and reading it.

and what i know from my reading is we've had a 30-year history with the 25 plants you mentioned. there's been a recent review of data concerning the 25 plants, and i believe the professionals are confident in saying that there has been an increase of compliance with safety standards equal two fewer product safety issues in the plants than tp general plants that we have and the other processes that we use and equal two t to fewer safety issues in the plants based on the data. this is a voluntary program. it's a program that would be phased in. it would provide more inspections offline. it would require more verification of compliance with standard operating procedures and with the requirements. line speeds would average -- have averaged in the plant ps 131 per minute. there's obviously a difference between line speed and inspection and processing as it relates to worker safety. the processing, which is where the worker safety issues arise is really a function of

equipment. it's a function of facility lay out. the number of employees involved. and the rule would provide if there are come compliance problems that we would be able to shut the process down. it would require new microbiological testing and make strong -- to worker safety. routine surveillance, quick mitigation of problems and injury prevention program would be recommended. a complaint procedure would be set up. our workers would have opportunities to take a look, and if they saw a worker condition unsafe they could report it. i think on balance we believe this will save and present roughly 52 illnesses a year and we think the poultry system has

not been modernized in 60 years. this system was established in 1950. she said it with such an emphasis as if 1950 were so long ago. that was the year i was born. it was a while ago. and certainly i have evolved over a period of 63 years. hopefully we can evolve a process. and i think we have made an effort to listen. when the final rule is proposed. that will reflect itself in proposals. >> mr. secretary, isn't it true the poultry companies will decide on their own performance standards? and we are providing only guidance? and then the piece of this in which is very interesting is the end of the process if we find fecal material and all this other -- these other unbelievable contaminants on the product, that then it's dipped in a chemical bath, so that we

then deal with whatever toxic configuration that is dealing with. and we are eliminating inspectors. we're allowing the company to put inspectors on. in addition to that there isn't a training program set up for inspectors. we'll have more time to talk about this. i understand my time is done. i think there's a vast amount of information. i will hope you will chance what the gao was saying because the gao reports are very, very clear to see no health benefits arising for this, and the further understanding with salmonella, we are putting ourselves in public health danger. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for being here, mr. secretary. in your testimony you talked about how the discretionary

spending under your watch has been cut to almost half a billion dollars. i want to commend you for that. working with chair imagine rogers and the leadership here we have been successful. do you have numbers on what mandatory spending has done in the same time period? >> we can get you those numbers, congressman. i'm sure it's likely increased, although with the recent changes in the farm bill, we're expecting mandatory funding to go down. >> my figures tell me the mandatory spending has gone up at about the same rate ads discretionary figures have gone down. so the net cost is about the same. does that seem consistent with what information you might have? >> can you give me just a

second? i want to make sure i answer your question accurately. >> well, what i -- >> dwail there's been an increase in mandatories during the period of about $31 billion. >> 31 billion. so we're cutting on the discretionary side. but the mandatory continues to go up. >> the discretionary side is something i have at least some control over. the mandatory side is obviously mandatory. >> right, and i don't think there's anything that better highlights the issues that we're dealing with than those two statements. that we have to continue to work together to find a way to reduce the mandatory side of spending. that's what is going to bankrupt this country.

all of our mandatory spending. i've been reading some dietary guidelines that have been published. and they say they want us -- they're going to focus on an ecologically responsible diet. and i'm just curious, what is an ecologically responsible diet? >> well, i think it's important to put this in proper context. we take a look periodically. we have a set of experts who will make a set of recommendations to hhds in terms of dietary guidelines. and historically, not just in this this administration, but dating back to the bush administration, there were a series of factors looked at in terms of individual decision

making relative to diet and food system issues that impacted and affected the availability of foods. so it is, i think appropriate to take a look in an overview and in a context area a variety of things that could potentially impact the availability of food. if you say it would be helpful for people to consume fruits and vegetables, that assumes fruits and vegetables are going to be available. and the question, are we going to have as many fruits and vegetables available to us this year when a fate look california that produces 50% is inpacted by a drought that's the worst it's seen in, i don't know, 100 years. so there's a context for that as it related to what can we recommend? what impacts will there be relative to the availability of what we're going to recommend? >> i don't know that that really

recommend answered my question. what i would encourage you to do -- >> i'm not sure that's what they will ultimately decide. i don't think that's the question that the dietary guidelines will decide. i think mail make a set of recommendations about what a diet should look like in order to be healthy. and as they develop those recommendations they're going to take a look at a broad array of things in terms of what the context of those dietary guidelines. so i don't know that they're going to tell us what that is or that we have to decide what that is. their recommendation as to what a nutrition and balanced diet looks like and should look like. >> and final question. the former farm bill was very explicit. they were spoetzed to issue guidelines within 18 months

after 2008. and we still don't have those guidelines. when can we expect them? >> we will have them in 2014. >> in march of 2014 or december? >> well, i don't mean to be facetious. sometimes between march of 2014 and december because it has to go through a process. we are in the process of finalizing the rules. we have gotten and received a more definitive definition of what cat fish constitutes. i didn't know there was 39 or 40 varieties of cat fish. now i know that. and it wasn't clear from the language of the previous farm bill what congress intended and whether the inspection should be narrow or broad. you have given us specific recommendations that you want. that is very helpful to us in completing our process.

. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. secretary. i think many of us in congress are very interested in the department's development of the new regulations in connection with the farm bill defining the term active personal management as used to make actively engaged in farming determinations beginning in 2015 under the farm bill. and members in my district believe that there's a misconception of exactly what farmer is and does on a day-to-day basis. one of my farmers actually said, and i want to quote. most will prefer driving a drak tor than doing all the tasks they face. unfortunately they spend their

time coordinating with the fertilizer guy and talking about soil samples. getting the parts to fix the plan or getting to the bank oar working on leases, doing the paperwork. most of us wish we could get back on the tractor. that's the easy part of the job. clearly farming is not just driving a tractor. and it will be critically important to care for the considerable sitz and the cropping mix. the regional locations of the farms. the unique characteristics in developing this new definition. i believe that the conference report provides excellent guidelines for your consideration. and i hope every effort will be made to make certain throughout the process there's flo disruption to family operations provided in the statute. i would like to get your