WASHINGTON, D.C. – House Agriculture Committee Vice Chairman Austin Scott (GA-08) questioned USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack about the low percentage of projected spending on farm programs in the 2023 Farm Bill during a House Agriculture Committee hearing.

“The 2023 Farm Bill is currently projected to spend approximately 4% on commodity programs and 7% on crop insurance. That’s less than 12% that would actually go to support production agriculture. 82% of it goes to SNAP,” Scott said. “We’ve all seen what happened with the price of eggs with the supply and demand issues, and I guess my question for you is, do you think that the decline in the percentage of spending on actual farm programs is right? I mean, we’re less than 12% of what we call the Farm Bill actually going to commodity support programs. Do you support that number being so low?”

The full exchange can be watched here or read below:

Rep. Austin Scott: “Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Vilsack, you have talked about the declining number of farmers in the country, as my colleague, Ranking Member Scott, did. The 2023 Farm Bill is currently projected to spend approximately 4% on commodity programs and 7% on crop insurance. That’s less than 12% that would actually go to support production agriculture. 82% of it goes to SNAP.

We’ve all seen what happened with the price of eggs with the supply and demand issues, and I guess my question for you is, do you think that the decline in the percentage of spending on actual farm programs is right? I mean, we’re less than 12% of what we call the Farm Bill actually going to commodity support programs. Do you support that number being so low?”

Secretary Vilsack: “Well, you know, I support a strong commitment to nutrition and food security Congressman. There’s no importance of that, not just to the people who need that food assistance, but also farmers. Now, remember 18 cents, 16 cents, and 18 cents of every food dollar ends up in a farmer’s pocket that’s spent at the grocery store. It’s also about jobs. So, there are a multitude of issues involving SNAP. Having said that, I think you have to look at the other steps that we can take at USDA that are, in fact, providing assistance and help to our producers.”

Scott: “And what are those steps?”

Vilsack: “Well, those steps are creating additional market opportunities.”

Scott: “And what are those market opportunities?”

Vilsack: “Well, let’s start with the Climate-Smart Agricultural Commodity Partnership Initiative. 141 partnerships. Investing resources that provide assistance to roughly 60,000 farmers, 25 million acres, value-added, additional value-added opportunity where they’ll make more money for the commodities they produce.

Plus, they’re also going to be able to comply with and take full advantage of ecosystem service markets, expanded processing capacity, providing opportunities for more local and regional sales of livestock, so they get a better price, a more competitive price. The conversion of agricultural waste into a variety of new bio-based products by virtue of the infrastructure law and the…”

Scott: “Secretary Vilsack, I’m going to run out of time, but I want to, I think everybody in America is watching this is smart enough to recognize that the volume of food, as we’ve seen with eggs, I mean, there are supply and demand issue there, and so, now I’m, no matter how much you give somebody in SNAP benefits, if the cost of groceries continues to go up because of inflation and bad policies, then they have less food to eat at the end of the day. Even if you doubled their food stamps, if the price of eggs goes up three-fold, then they can buy fewer eggs with the same number of dollars.

90% of the food supply in this country, 90% of the food supply in this country, comes from 12% of the farms. Now, I’m all for beginning, young and small farmers, but if you don’t have those large farmers out there that produce 90% of the food supply in this country, then you’re not going to have the groceries on the shelf. And so, I want to ask you again, the Farm Bill. You’ve been the Secretary of Ag for ten of the last 20 years, if I’m not mistaken. When you were originally Secretary of Ag, what percentage of the Farm Bill went to production agriculture?”

Vilsack: “It’s roughly the same as it was.”

Scott: “No, Sir. I don’t think, I think you’re. We’ll check those numbers. But, do you think that the Farm Bill, that less than 12% of Farm Bill spending should go to production agriculture?”

Vilsack: “You know, that’s a difficult question to answer because you are limiting the conversation to the Farm Bill when there are other things that are being done by the department. ERP for example, that’s a good example. It’s ad-hoc disaster assistance. There’s research. There’s a whole series of resources that are being provided that you are not included in the equation Congressman.”

Scott: “I absolutely support research in extensions. I think the majority of that, that’s done that’s done right, is actually done at the state level through the land grant institutions. But let me, let me ask you one other question.

In the Inflation Reduction Act, there was money set aside to pay off loans. You had phase one, you had phase two, you’re about to come out with phase two, as I understand it. But phase one, am I correct that the loans that were paid off, if you were more than 60 days late, if you were more than 60 days late, your loan got paid off? But if you had sold your car and other assets to pay off, to make your note current, then you got nothing?”

Vilsack: “Let’s be clear about this. If you’re more than 60 days delinquent, you were brought current. Your loan was not paid off.”

Scott: “Plus next year.”

Vilsack: “Exactly. I’m just…”

Scott: “Well, no, If you, if your loan would have matured previously, you got paid off in some cases.”

Vilsack: “Very, very, very few cases.”

Scott: “But you did get paid off in some cases, correct?”

Vilsack: “Maybe a handful of cases, but the vast majority of people got their payment made, and then we also, just, I’m trying to answer your question, Congressman. We’re also bringing, those folks who actually did the right thing, we are actually bringing them the same benefits.”

Scott: “My time has expired. I’m going to be asking for more detailed information on that.”

Rep. Rick Crawford: “Mr. Secretary, I’m going to yield the balance of my time to my colleague from Georgia, Mr. Scott.”

Scott: “Secretary Vilsack, Mrs. Adams brought up the issue of the loans as well. My question, if you’re going to do it based on discrimination, are they going to have to have some evidence of discrimination, or are they going to be allowed to self-certify discrimination?”

Vilsack: “There will be a requirement Congressman for establishing the nature of the discrimination that took place.”

Scott: “So, they will not be allowed to self-certify?”

Vilsack: “They will provide the information under penalty of perjury, which we think is a pretty significant one.”

Scott: “That’s what, but that’s what self-certification. That’s self-certification. So, that’s self-certification with no evidence.”

Vilsack: “They have to provide, they have to provide information and documentation as well, Congressman, so it’s not the, it’s not that they just.”

Scott: “So, they’re going to have to provide evidence? They’re not going to be allowed to self-certify? They’re not going to be able to just walk in, sign the form that says, ‘I was discriminated against.’”

Vilsack: “No, no.”

Scott: “They’re going to have to provide evidence?”

Vilsack: “No.”

Scott: “Okay, so, they’re going to have to provide evidence. Okay, thank you.”

###