“Right now, California grants are canceled. Right now, California doesn’t qualify for disaster assistance. And however that is justified or rationalized, the proof will be whether resources actually get to California farmers, and that’s the standard we’ll hold the administration to.”
Washington, D.C. – During a Senate Agriculture Committee hearing, U.S. Senator Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) pressed Department of Agriculture (USDA) Deputy Secretary Stephen Vaden on the latest USDA announcement regarding moving staff to different hubs around the country, none of which are in California – the largest agriculture producing state in the nation.
Schiff highlighted concerns about the proposal and emphasized that the plan does nothing to serve farmers and ranchers in California and will contribute to additional staff cuts at the department. Schiff also pressed Vaden on how this is the latest in a series of moves by the administration to punish blue states, like California, by canceling program grants and making federal resources inaccessible.
Watch his remarks here. Download his remarks here.
Key Excerpts:
On USDA’s proposal neglecting California farmers:
Schiff: […] I share the bipartisan concerns that have been raised about the creation of this plan without input from impacted entities or the Congress. But one of the chief messages of USDA proposing this, is centered around making USDA offices and services moving closer to American farmers. I know this won’t surprise you, but California is the number one ag producing state in the union, and yet, the proposed hub in place of USDA headquarters will be located in Salt Lake City, which is more than 500 miles from the Central Valley. And my understanding is that none of the other five top ag producing states will enjoy the presence of one of these regional hubs. So, my question is, why wasn’t a hub placed closer to the largest ag producing state, or, frankly, any of the other top five agriculture producing states? Why weren’t those selected as venues?
Vaden: Fair question, Senator. First, I want to note just a simple geographic fact, while there are no hub locations in California itself, nearly all of our hub locations are closer to California than everybody being in Washington, DC. With regard to your point about why California doesn’t have a hub location, the simple answer is, cost of living. We were looking at the cost of living for reasons that I noted. We want people to join USDA, to build a career, to be able to purchase a home. The hub locations we chose, Salt Lake City being among, believe it or not, the cheapest cost of living on the list allow that opportunity. Unfortunately, it’s more difficult to do that in California with the price of housing.
Schiff: Well, there’s going to be a huge cost to the relocation of all of these staff, indeed, if staff choose to relocate. […]
On the administration’s political calculations against California:
Schiff: Let me raise a broader concern, no regional offices in California. In fact, we are losing in this reorganization an Agriculture Research Service office in California. The 20 billion in disaster relief. That aid includes a broad authority to deliver assistance through block grants to states, despite California expressing interest and the legislation having no limits, USDA has announced such a narrow set of qualifications that essentially excludes all but a few states in the southeast. Moreover, USDA announced it was rescinding all but one Regional Conservation Partnership Program Awards per state, and then all six California awards were canceled. Some of these projects even had the same goals as projects in other states, like my colleague, Senator Fetterman, in Pennsylvania. I hope you can understand, and this is not to denigrate from Pennsylvania, just California would like to enjoy the same thing. And so my question is, all of California’s conservation program grants canceled. California doesn’t qualify for disaster assistance on the narrow definition. California gets no regional office. California loses one of the existing offices. It’s hard not to perceive this as a political calculation, rather than one that’s in the best interest of farmers, given our dominance in agriculture. What do you have to say to California farmers who are feeling that the administration, the president, is not representing them? That he’s punishing them because the state didn’t vote for him?
Vaden: Senator, that’s not the case at all. With regard to moving more USDA employees, though not into California, much closer to California than Washington, DC, our employees will have more ready access to your state. With regard to your notation about the ARS facility, I would note that the proposed closure of it is not a creature of the Secretary’s reorganization. It is instead part of the president’s budgetary proposal to this body. And of course, I am well aware that Congress holds the power of the purse, and they make the final decision on what will get funded. Finally, with regard to disaster assistance. I know that the first level of the block grant funding that we announced focused on those who had crop insurance and accepting those specialty crop producers who participate in NAP who are eligible for the current round of block grants, specialty crops were left out, there is a second tranche that was noted and has yet to be announced, that is designed to include so called shallow losses, which, as you know, are losses that are not covered by crop insurance. So, I’d love to talk with you more about that in the future as we move toward rolling out that proposal.
Schiff: We’ll take you up on that invitation. But let me just say this, the fact that the California office is being closed as a budgetary decision, rather than as a reorganization position, does not give Californians any comfort. They just know they’re losing an office and losing access. In terms of an office in Utah being only 500 miles away, that is also not much of a comfort to California farmers, particularly when California farmers, I think if that’s the choice, would rather have the experience of the current USDA employees in Washington than an inexperienced group of new employees in Utah. And finally, the proof will be in the pudding. Right now, California grants are canceled. Right now, California doesn’t qualify for disaster assistance. And however that is justified or rationalized, the proof will be whether resources actually get to California farmers, and that’s the standard we’ll hold the administration to.
###