[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

HEARING FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECEIVING
TESTIMONY FROM THE HONORABLE
BROOKE L. ROLLINS, SECRETARY, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

=======================================================================

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

__________

JUNE 11, 2025

__________

Serial No. 119-7

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture
agriculture.house.gov

______

U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

62-625 PDF WASHINGTON : 2026

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE

GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania, Chairman

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota, Ranking
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia, Vice Minority Member
Chairman DAVID SCOTT, Georgia
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas JIM COSTA, California
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts
DOUG LaMALFA, California ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut
TRENT KELLY, Mississippi SHONTEL M. BROWN, Ohio, Vice
DON BACON, Nebraska Ranking Minority Member
MIKE BOST, Illinois SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas
DUSTY JOHNSON, South Dakota ANDREA SALINAS, Oregon
JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana DONALD G. DAVIS, North Carolina
TRACEY MANN, Kansas JILL N. TOKUDA, Hawaii
RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa NIKKI BUDZINSKI, Illinois
MARY E. MILLER, Illinois ERIC SORENSEN, Illinois
BARRY MOORE, Alabama GABE VASQUEZ, New Mexico
KAT CAMMACK, Florida JONATHAN L. JACKSON, Illinois
BRAD FINSTAD, Minnesota SHRI THANEDAR, Michigan
JOHN W. ROSE, Tennessee ADAM GRAY, California
RONNY JACKSON, Texas KRISTEN McDONALD RIVET, Michigan
MONICA De La CRUZ, Texas SHOMARI FIGURES, Alabama
ZACHARY NUNN, Iowa EUGENE SIMON VINDMAN, Virginia
DERRICK VAN ORDEN, Wisconsin JOSH RILEY, New York
DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington JOHN W. MANNION, New York
TONY WIED, Wisconsin APRIL McCLAIN DELANEY, Maryland
ROBERT P. BRESNAHAN, Jr., CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
Pennsylvania SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California
MARK B. MESSMER, Indiana
MARK HARRIS, North Carolina
DAVID J. TAYLOR, Ohio

______

Parish Braden, Staff Director

Brian Sowyrda, Minority Staff Director

(ii)

C O N T E N T S

----------
Page
Adams, Hon. Alma S., a Representative in Congress from North
Carolina:
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Submitted letter............................................. 107
Carbajal, Hon. Salud O., a Representative in Congress from
California, submitted press release............................ 156
Costa, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from California,
submitted letters.............................................. 105
Craig, Hon. Angie a Representative in Congress from Minnesota,
opening statement.............................................. 4
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Jackson, Hon. Jonathan L., a Representative in Congress from
Illinois, prepared statement................................... 7
Thompson, Hon. Glenn, a Representative in Congress from
Pennsylvania, opening statement................................ 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Vindman, Hon. Eugene Simon, a Representative in Congress from
Virginia, submitted articles................................... 108

Witness

Rollins, Hon. Brooke, Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Washington, D.C................................................ 7
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Submitted questions.......................................... 157

HEARING FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECEIVING
TESTIMONY FROM THE HONORABLE
BROOKE L. ROLLINS, SECRETARY, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

----------

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 11, 2025

House of Representatives,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:06 a.m., in Room
1300, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Glenn Thompson,
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Members present: Representatives Thompson, Lucas, Austin
Scott of Georgia, Crawford, DesJarlais, LaMalfa, Rouzer, Kelly,
Bacon, Bost, Johnson, Baird, Mann, Feenstra, Miller, Moore,
Finstad, Rose, Jackson of Texas, De La Cruz, Nunn, Van Orden,
Newhouse, Wied, Messmer, Harris, Taylor, Craig, David Scott of
Georgia, Costa, McGovern, Adams, Hayes, Brown, Davids of
Kansas, Salinas, Davis of North Carolina, Tokuda, Budzinski,
Sorensen, Vasquez, Jackson of Illinois, Gray, McDonald Rivet,
Figures, Vindman, Riley, Mannion, McClain Delaney, and
Carbajal.
Staff present: Justin Benavidez, Laurel Lee Chatham, Austin
DeBerry, Luke Franklin, Justina Graff, Harlea Hoelscher, Sofia
Jones, Joshua Maxwell, Josie Montoney, Thomas Newberry, Sam
Rogers, Patricia Straughn, Joshua Stull, John Konya, Britton
Burdick, Suzie Cavalier, Kate Fink, Clark Ogilvie, Michael
Stein, and Jackson Blodgett.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GLENN THOMPSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM PENNSYLVANIA

The Chairman. The Committee will come to order. Welcome,
and thank you all for joining today's hearing where we will
hear from Secretary Rollins from the U.S. Department of
Agriculture. After brief opening remarks, Members will receive
testimony from our witness today, and then the hearing will
open to questions.
So once again, good morning, everyone. I would like to
welcome you all to today's hearing and extend a special thanks
to the Honorable Brooke Rollins for joining us for her first
appearance before this Committee as our 33rd Secretary of
Agriculture. I am proud to call her a friend and deeply
appreciative of the leadership she has shown in just a few
short months on the job. Madam Secretary, we are truly grateful
to have you with us today.
This Committee is dedicated to the prosperity and long-term
sustainability of rural America. Our nation's farmers,
ranchers, and foresters are the fundamental piece of America's
number one industry which clothes and feeds millions of
American families and billions around the world.
And that is why Congress came together at the end of last
year to provide meaningful relief with $21 billion to address
weather-related losses in 2023 and 2024 and another $10 billion
to help offset sustained economic losses impacting producers. I
am grateful to Secretary Rollins for the work she has done and
will continue to do to get those dollars out the door and
ensure that help reaches the producers who need it most.
Largely thanks to these investments and a renewed emphasis
on expanding global markets, recent USDA forecasts show net
farm income stabilizing for 2025. Those dollars, while not
enough to make producers whole, were enough for many to keep
the lights on and obtain credit to farm another year. However,
input costs remain high and commodity prices continue to soften
and forecast margins, working capital, and debt loads continue
to deteriorate.
Our work to support America's farmers and ranchers is not
yet complete. Over the past several years, the producers we
represent have withstood an unprecedented mix of adversity, a
global pandemic, record inflation, supply chain disruptions,
animal disease, and natural disasters, and yet they have
continued to deliver the safest, most abundant, and most
affordable food supply in the world. While that is not
something that we take for granted, it is something we must
support through sound policy, stable markets, and a strong
USDA.
That said, we have plenty to discuss this morning, Madam
Secretary. We are eager to hear your plans to make USDA more
efficient, particularly as it relates to reorganization
efforts, ensuring that there is not a disruption to customer
service. We are also interested in your strategy to support
producers with today's challenging trade environment and animal
health risks. As you and the President work to lower barriers
and open new markets and we navigate these issues together, I
trust you will continue to keep the interests of the American
agriculture front and center.
We are turning the page to a new chapter for American
agriculture, one where new scientific breakthroughs and
technology will work hand in hand with tradition, stewardship,
and grit to address the challenges at hand and build on the
legacy of resilience and innovation driven by our farmers and
ranchers.
As part of that new chapter, it is incumbent on Congress to
do our job. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (Pub. L. 119-21) is
a critical down payment on meaningful change for America, but
it is just the beginning. We must also deliver a full farm bill
reauthorization that provides certainty and long-term support
for our producers. Once we complete the reconciliation process,
we will build on that foundation with a comprehensive farm bill
later this year.
Secretary Rollins, I know that you bring to this role a
deep belief in the power of rural America and the American
farmer. We share that belief. I know that we are aligned in our
commitment to the people in this country who produce, as well
as those who consume. As we begin this conversation today, I
want to underscore my hope and expectation that the
relationship between this Committee and the Department of
Agriculture will be a strong, productive partnership. The
future of our food supply, our environment, and our economy
depends on it.
With that, I thank you again, Secretary Rollins, for your
service and your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Thompson follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Glenn Thompson, a Representative in Congress
from Pennsylvania
Good morning, everyone. I would like to welcome you all to today's
hearing and extend a special thanks to the Honorable Brooke Rollins for
joining us for her first appearance before this Committee as our 33rd
Secretary of Agriculture.
I'm proud to call her a friend and deeply appreciative of the
leadership she has shown in just a few short months on the job. Madam
Secretary, we're truly grateful to have you with us today.
This Committee is dedicated to the prosperity and long-term
sustainability of rural America. Our nation's farmers, ranchers, and
foresters are the fundamental piece of America's number one industry,
which clothes and feeds millions of American families, and billions
around the world.
That is why Congress came together at the end of last year to
provide meaningful relief with $21 billion to address weather-related
losses in 2023 and 2024, and another $10 billion to help offset
sustained economic losses impacting producers.
I'm grateful to Secretary Rollins for the work she has done and
will continue to do to get those dollars out the door and ensure help
reaches the producers who need it most.
Largely thanks to these investments and a renewed emphasis on
expanding global markets, recent USDA forecasts show net farm income
stabilizing for 2025. Those dollars, while not enough to make producers
whole, were enough for many to keep the lights on and obtain credit to
farm another year.
However, input costs remain high, commodity prices continue to
soften and forecast margins, working capital, and debt loads continue
to deteriorate.
Our work to support America's farmers and ranchers is not yet
complete.
Over the past several years, the producers we represent have
withstood an unprecedented mix of adversity: a global pandemic, record
inflation, supply chain disruptions, animal disease, and natural
disasters.
And yet, they've continued to deliver the safest, most abundant,
and most affordable food supply in the world. That's not something we
take for granted. It is something we must support--through sound
policy, stable markets, and a strong USDA.
That said, we have plenty to discuss this morning, Madam Secretary.
We're eager to hear your plans to make USDA more efficient,
particularly as it relates to reorganization efforts and ensuring there
is not a disruption to customer service. We're also interested in your
strategy to support producers with today's challenging trade
environment and animal health risks.
As you and the President work to lower barriers and open new
markets and we navigate these issues together, I trust you'll continue
to keep the interests of American agriculture front and center.
We are turning the page to a new chapter for American agriculture--
one where new scientific breakthroughs and technology will work hand-
in-hand with tradition, stewardship, and grit to address the challenges
at hand and build on the legacy of resilience and innovation driven by
our farmers and ranchers.
As part of that new chapter, it is incumbent on Congress to do our
job. The One Big Beautiful Bill is a critical down payment on
meaningful change for America--but it's just the beginning.
We must also deliver a full farm bill reauthorization that provides
certainty and long-term support for our producers.
Once we complete the reconciliation process, we will build on that
foundation with a comprehensive farm bill later this year.
Secretary Rollins, I know that you bring to this role a deep belief
in the power of rural America and the American farmer.
We share that belief. I know we are aligned in our commitment to
the people in this country who produce as well as those who consume.
As we begin this conversation today, I want to underscore my hope--
and expectation--that the relationship between this Committee and the
Department of Agriculture will be a strong, productive partnership.
The future of our food system, our environment, and our economy
depends on it.
With that, I thank you again, Secretary Rollins, for your service
and your testimony. I now yield to Ranking Member Craig from the great
State of Minnesota for her opening remarks.

The Chairman. I now yield to Ranking Member Craig from the
great State of Minnesota for her opening remarks.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ANGIE CRAIG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM MINNESOTA

Ms. Craig. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I want to welcome Secretary Rollins to our Committee
hearing today. She reminded me in the back room that she spent
every summer in Minnesota, so she has a deep connection to my
home state as well.
Doing right by our family farmers requires working across
the aisle. That has been a trademark of this Committee over
time, and that is how successful farm bills usually function.
Traditionally, USDA has reflected that commitment as well by
supporting our family farmers as they grow food that feeds our
country and the world, ensuring our food is safe to eat,
stopping the spread of animal disease, and innovating the
future of food and agriculture.
However, I am genuinely concerned that under this
Administration, agricultural policymaking has become more
partisan and polarized. This reckless push to cut nearly $300
billion in funding to a title of the farm bill instead of
prioritizing getting a 12 title, 5 year farm bill across the
finish line is of particular concern to this Committee, and it
has put the bipartisan farm bill in jeopardy.
In addition, DOGE has been given essentially a free pass to
damage program integrity and undermine the USDA's ability to
carry out its core functions and provide key services that
America's farmers rely on.
Madam Secretary, your agency has fired and then had to
rehire agency employees because of uninformed and reckless
decisions over the course of the past few months. Our trade
deficit is increasing. Retaliatory tariffs are coming.
Countries are already moving to buy commodities from other
nations instead of America's farmers. Input costs are
stubbornly high. The bird flu remains a concern. Food banks
have been defunded. Billions of dollars in farm programs remain
frozen. School cafeterias have been cut off from sourcing
locally grown food. Food safety and animal health experts have
been fired or forced out. Nutrition assistance programs are
being decimated. The farm bill is in jeopardy. The USDA
Inspector General who rooted out fraud, waste, and abuse was
fired. And the MAHA Commission, which USDA signed off on, is
issuing reports with made-up science and fake citations without
talking to family farmers.
I grew up in farm country. My grandfather was a farm
foreman. And I now have the opportunity and honor of
representing corn, soybean, pork, and turkey producers, among
others, in Minnesota's 2nd District. They are tough people.
They want markets, not farm income from more government
handouts because their government's policies are hurting their
farms.
So yes, Madam Secretary, we are grateful that you have come
to testify in front of us today, and we have a lot to talk to
you about. Thank you for being here.
And, Mr. Chairman, I yield.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Craig follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Angie Craig, a Representative in Congress
from Minnesota
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to welcome the Secretary to our Committee hearing today. We
have a lot to cover--and thank you for being here.
Doing right by our family farmers often requires working across the
aisle. That's been a trademark of this Committee over time. And that's
how successful farm bills usually function.
Traditionally, USDA has reflected that commitment as well. By
supporting our family farmers as they grow food that feeds our country
and the world, ensuring our food is safe to eat, stopping the spread of
animal-borne disease and innovating the future of food and agriculture.
However, I am genuinely concerned that under this Administration,
agricultural policymaking has become much more partisan and polarized.
This reckless push to cut nearly $300 billion in funding to a title of
the farm bill--instead of prioritizing getting a full 12 title, 5 year
farm bill across the finish line--is of particular concern. And has put
a bipartisan farm bill in jeopardy.
In addition, DOGE has been given essentially a free pass to damage
program integrity and undermine the USDA's ability to carry out its
core functions and provide key services that America's farmers rely on.
Your agency has fired and then had to rehire agency employees because
of uninformed and reckless decisions over the course of the past few
months.
Our trade deficit is increasing. Retaliatory tariffs are coming.
Countries are already moving to buy commodities from other nations
instead of American farmers. Input costs are stubbornly high. The bird
flu remains a concern. Food banks have been defunded. Billions of
dollars in farm programs remain frozen. School cafeterias have been cut
off from sourcing locally grown food. Food safety and animal health
experts have been fired or forced out. Nutrition assistance programs
are being decimated. The farm bill is in jeopardy. The USDA Inspector
General, who rooted out fraud, waste and abuse, was fired. The MAHA
Commission is issuing reports with made-up science and fake citations
without talking to family farmers.
I grew up in farm country. My grandfather was a farm foreman. And I
now have the honor of representing corn, soybean, pork and turkey
producers, among others, in Minnesota's 2nd District. They're tough
people; they want markets, not farm income from more government
handouts because their government's policies are hurting their farms.
So yes--we have a lot we want to talk to you about today. Thank you
for being here.
I yield back.

The Chairman. I thank the gentlelady. She yields back.
The chair would request that other Members submit their
opening statements for the record so our witness may begin her
testimony and to ensure that there is ample time for questions.
[The prepared statements of Ms. Adams and Mr. Jackson of
Illinois follow:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Alma S. Adams, a Representative in Congress
from North Carolina
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank Secretary Rollins for
being here, and I look forward to your testimony and the opportunity to
have a conversation.
Today, we are in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, where
American families are living paycheck to paycheck, and I am deeply
concerned about the actions from the White House.
So far, we have seen . . .
The Local Food Purchase Assistance Cooperative Agreement was
terminated. The Local Food for Schools Cooperative Agreement Program
was canceled. These programs provided nearly $30 million to North
Carolina for these vital community partnerships and distribution of
local, healthy foods.
The 1890 National Scholars Program, suspended. I am pleased that
the USDA lifted the suspension. However, for this program to truly
thrive, scholars and institutions need assurance that it won't face
sudden suspensions again. I heard directly from representatives of 1890
Institutions, and they shared how deeply concerning this pause was for
them and their students--many of whom were left uncertain about their
financial stability and educational futures. That is why I introduced
the Land-Grant Institution Parity Act, which protects Federal funding
for our land-grant colleges and universities, including the country's
19 land-grant HBCUs, commonly referred to as 1890 Institutions.
The National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), frozen. The
University of North Carolina at Charlotte has been a recipient of a
nearly $63,000 grant from NIFA.
The Emergency Food Assistance Program, canceled.
Despite court orders and the rescission of the initial memo, key
USDA programs remain stalled, and uncertainty and confusion remain
among families, farmers, and universities as they await the
disbursement of funds and question whether programs will be frozen
again or canceled in the future.
In fact, Nourish Up, a food pantry network in my district of
Mecklenburg County that strives to provide help to the more than
200,000 people with food insecurity in the community, feels whiplash.
After freezes, terminations, and proposed cuts to food assistance
programs were revealed several months ago, staff at the food pantry
noted that the uncertainty about available funds has added a layer of
unpredictability to planning for nonprofits and other safety net
organizations that often operate on lean budgets.
I am also deeply concerned of the White House's desire to have this
`One Big Beautiful' bill--I will tell you. there is nothing beautiful
about it. And it is not an exaggeration to say that this budget bill is
the single biggest threat to food security in generations.
In my district, we have 46,000 households that receive SNAP
benefits every month. That's one out of every seven.
The average SNAP benefit in North Carolina is only $5.70 per person
per day. That's already not enough to put food on the table anymore.
Reducing it further would cause food insecurity to grow in our
region and our state.
Four in five North Carolina families receiving SNAP benefits have
either a child, a senior, or an adult with a disability in their
household.
Whether it's a reduction in benefits or reducing the number of
recipients, both would lead to severe harm for food security in
Charlotte.
On top of SNAP cuts, the Republican budget bill would also add even
harsher work requirements on anyone trying to access the program.
To be clear, SNAP already has work requirements. It's estimated
that these requirements would threaten the food security of 375,000
North Carolinians.
Rather than help support the basic needs of their constituents,
Republicans want to kick more people off SNAP so they can fund their
tax breaks for billionaires.
It's unacceptable.
And, from the President's Budget and House Republican Agriculture
Appropriations bill, both want slash WIC's cash value benefit, which
allows families to purchase fruits and vegetables as part of their WIC
food package.
Let me be clear--these cuts don't happen in isolation--they target
the same low-income families who rely on SNAP, Medicaid, public
education, and other critical services. Slashing multiple supports at
once intensifies hardship and deepens poverty.
These actions will also harm American farmers who will no longer
see proceeds from producing this food.
I've spoken with farmers in my district about SNAP and they are
overwhelmingly supportive of this program.
Kim, a farmer in Charlotte, told me that, ``I support SNAP because
we are a farm located in a `food desert' within the City of Charlotte.
How can we feed our most vulnerable if we are unable to take these
benefits at our farmstand?''
Wendy, a farmer also from Charlotte, told me, ``We support SNAP
because it brings people to our farm who otherwise wouldn't have the
chance. We support SNAP because it gives small farms like ours a way to
serve the community while staying sustainable.''
We must work together to ensure that families and farmers across
the country are able to thrive. At the end of the day, these are not
red issues or blue issues--they are red, white, and blue issues--
American issues.
Thank you for being here, I look forward to your testimony, and I
yield back.
______

Prepared Statement of Hon. Jonathan L. Jackson, a Representative in
Congress from Illinois
Thank you, Chairman Thompson. Thank you, Ranking Member Craig, and
thank you, Secretary Rollins, for appearing before this Committee
today.
Last year, this Administration declared war. Not on the New World
screwworm advancing on our southern border, not on the corporate
consolidation squeezing our family farmers, but on an idea: the idea of
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. And in doing so, it has created a
crisis of competence and confidence at the U.S. Department of
Agriculture.
We are here today to examine whether the Secretary's actions--the
termination of over 3,600 contracts and the cancellation of nearly a
thousand employee trainings--are rooted in sound policy and the rule of
law, or in a politically motivated purge that has left this nation's
agriculture and food supply more vulnerable.
The Secretary has made ``merit'' her North Star. Yet, she has done
so while ignoring the legal definition of merit that has governed our
civil service for nearly half a century--the Merit System Principles,
codified at 5 U.S.C. 2301. These principles were not designed to be
``woke''; they were designed to prevent the very thing we are
witnessing: the replacement of a professional, experienced civil
service with one based on political loyalty.
If Congress does nothing, a dangerous precedent will be set. An
agency head will be allowed to disregard binding legal frameworks like
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 based on a secret, unwritten definition of
what they find politically objectionable. This is not oversight; it is
an assault on the rule of law itself.
I have significant concerns that I hope to address today. The
Secretary's crusade has been waged without providing this Committee, or
the American public, with a single, consistent definition of the ``woke
DEI initiatives'' she is so determined to eliminate. Agency action
cannot be arbitrary and capricious.
We will ask the Secretary to define her terms. We will ask how
eliminating training on preventing sexual harassment makes our food
safer. And we will ask if her own appointment meets the rigorous
standards of ``merit'' she seeks to impose on others, especially when
compared to the vast experience of her predecessor in this role.
The central question today is one of staggering hypocrisy. Can a
leader who rails against programs designed to create opportunity, while
seemingly being the beneficiary of a system that prizes political
connection over proven experience, be trusted to lead with integrity?
This is not an academic debate. This is about our nation's ability
to function. It's about the stability of the agency that ensures the
food on our tables is safe. It's about whether we will honor the legacy
of cases like Pigford v. Glickman and ensure the USDA serves all
farmers, not just a select few.
We have an opportunity to get answers today. The American people
deserve to know if their Department of Agriculture is being led based
on evidence and law, or on political whim and prejudice.
Thank you, and I yield back.

The Chairman. I am pleased to welcome to the Committee our
witness for today, USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins. Madam
Secretary, thank you for joining us, and we are now going to
proceed to your testimony. You will have 5 minutes. Thank you
for your written testimony that you have submitted. All of our
Members have a copy of that written testimony. The timer in
front of you will count down to zero, at which point your time
has expired.
Secretary Rollins, please begin when you are ready.

STATEMENT OF HON. BROOKE ROLLINS, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Secretary Rollins. Well, thank you, Chairman Thompson,
Ranking Member Craig, and distinguished Members of this
Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to
highlight what the U.S. Department of Agriculture has
accomplished since the start of our new Administration just a
short few months ago.
Under the Trump Administration, the hardworking Americans
who feed, fuel, and clothe our nation and the world are at the
center of everything we do at USDA. Our USDA is putting farmers
first and taking bold action every single day. The following is
a quick list of just a few of those highlights over the last
118 days.
First, tackling the avian bird flu outbreak and lowering
the price of wholesale eggs by more than 65 percent, with
retail prices following at 25 percent and gaining every week.
Second, taking action to respond to foreign disease
outbreaks like the New World screwworm because food security is
national security. I am sure we will get into that today.
Third, we have kicked off a comprehensive effort to
identify and to rectify politically motivated lawfare
originating and against our family farms, such as the Maude
family of South Dakota.
Fourth, we are streamlining unnecessary regulations and
cutting red tape for poultry farmers and other producers, for
example, by extending line speed waivers and removing
duplicative data collection.
Number five, USDA moved out the Emergency Commodity
Assistance Program in record time, and a lot of leadership in
this Committee to get that money there, and aid, have already
sent out aid to more than 500,000 farmers in just the last 8
weeks, with a total of over $7.7 billion out the door to date.
Additionally, we have issued $1 billion of the emergency
livestock relief to date and are on track to meet our deadlines
for the remaining Congressionally authorized disaster programs,
which are so important, especially since the farm bill was not
done in the last few years.
Number six, in the Oval Office yesterday, talking with
President Trump and the media about the increase of
productivity and production in our timber industry after being
decimated over the last few years.
Seventh, opening up five markets around the world in
certain parts of the world where new markets have been open and
our products have moved in, great American farm products.
And finally, continuing to address waste, fraud, and abuse
in SNAP and, frankly, all USDA programs that have long
neglected to put our farmers first. This includes a review of
thousands, tens of thousands of contracts, grants, employee
trainings, and DEI programs, resulting in over a savings of
$5.5 billion.
Now, let me expand on just a few of those in my remaining 2
minutes and 11 seconds. My team and I are regularly meeting, as
I mentioned, with foreign partners, expanding markets around
the world, promoting agricultural products, which are the best.
I have already traveled to the UK and to Italy. I am soon to
leave for Vietnam, Japan, and India, and after that going to
South America. We are working as hard as we possibly can,
pushing these aggressive trade deals to put our American
farmers and producers first.
In this Administration, it doesn't take more taxpayer
dollars to boost timber production, to unleash American energy
dominance, and to balance unfair trade commitments around the
world. It just takes a President who can harness the strength
and ingenuity of the American people.
There is still much work to be done as we realign the
American and world economy at the service of the American
people and the American farmer. We are leaving no stone
unturned as we evaluate the effectiveness of all of our
programs, and I thank each one of you on both sides of the
aisle for your collaboration in that effort.
We are also at a pivotal moment where we can safeguard our
country from fiscal ruin, and I applaud the steps this
Committee took, sir, on passing the One Big Beautiful Bill and
all of the work that that took. This bill leverages a once-in-
a-generation opportunity, and specifically for our farmers,
increasing $3.8 billion in income projected, protecting over
two million of our family farms from the death tax, and cutting
more than $10 billion in taxes, again, just in our agricultural
community.
As the 33rd Secretary of Agriculture, I have the profound
privilege of seeing firsthand how our nation's farmers serve as
the very heartbeat of this country. Their unwavering dedication
and resilience are not merely testaments to hard work, they
form the bedrock that upholds our national security,
revitalizes our rural communities, and preserves our cherished
traditions.
Our farmers and ranchers do not rest, and neither do we at
the USDA. I am proud to be at the helm of Abraham Lincoln's
``People's Department.'' I am proud to be at the table with
President Donald Trump and fighting for the very foundation of
our American way of life.
Thank you, and I look forward to today's discussion.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Rollins follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Brooke Rollins, Secretary, U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Craig, and distinguished Members
of this Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you to
highlight what the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has
accomplished since the start of the new Administration. President
Donald J. Trump said it best in his proclamation on National
Agriculture Day: ``From the earliest days of our Republic, our farmers
and agricultural communities have been the source of American success--
enduring the elements and defying hard conditions to cultivate our land
and feed the people. Farming is indelibly engrained in our history,
customs, and culture, and stands to this day as the bedrock of our
economy and way of life.'' As the 33rd Secretary of Agriculture, I have
the profound privilege of seeing firsthand how our nation's farmers
serve as the very heartbeat of America. Their unwavering dedication and
resilience are not merely testaments to hard work; they form the
bedrock that upholds our food security, revitalizes rural communities,
and preserves cherished traditions.
The People's Department is supposed to be the forefront of
agriculture, natural resources, rural development, food, and nutrition.
We should help shepherd public policy guided by the best available
science, laws passed by Congress, and the input of experts across this
great nation--especially those who tend our lands and livestock.
However, for too long, the hardworking Americans who feed, fuel, and
clothe the world have been sidelined in this mission. That changed
January 20. The President and I share the same goal of making
agriculture great again, and I personally have and will continue to
ensure farmers, ranchers, and the constituencies of the USDA have a
strong voice in the White House and around the world.
I'd like to start with a short list of what we have accomplished
before going into greater detail.

1. Supported American poultry and egg producers, addressed the avian
flu,\1\ and lowered the cost of eggs for consumers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2025/03/20/
usda-update-progress-five-pronged-strategy-combat-avian-flu-and-lower-
egg-prices.

2. Taken bold action to respond to foreign disease outbreaks like
New World screwworm \2\ to strengthen the domestic food
supply, because food security is national security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2025/05/27/
update-usda-efforts-fight-new-world-screwworm-mexico.

3. Launched a new web portal \3\ for potential victims of ongoing
lawfare originating under the Biden Administration to
submit their concerns and experiences.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2025/04/30/
secretary-rollins-hosts-maude-family-washington-after-us-government-
dropped-lawfare-case.

4. Fought for fair trade for all American farmers and ranchers \4\
by tackling trade barriers, visited two countries with
plans to visit five more before September 30 to both expand
market access and support the Trump Administration's trade
agenda.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2025/04/02/
usda-announces-agricultural-trade-promotion-programs-fy-2026.

5. Unleashed American energy dominance \5\ through expanded access
to mining and drillingon Federal land and releasing a
biofuels incentive program \6\ to help fuel America.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2025/03/25/
usda-delivers-rural-energy-commitments-provides-path-applicants-
support-us-energy-independence.
\6\ https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2025/03/31/
usda-delivers-rural-energy-commitments-strengthens-us-energy-security-
and-increases-american-grown.

6. Streamlined unnecessary regulations and cutting red tape for
agricultural producers. This work included sweeping reforms
to boost timber production, streamline pork and poultry
processing,\7\ and reduce wildfire risk through public-
private partnerships.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2025/04/04/
secretary-rollins-announces-sweeping-reforms-protect-national-forests-
and-boost-domestic-timber.
\8\ https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2025/02/26/
secretary-rollins-initiates-new-public-private-partnership-reduce-
wildfire-risk.

7. Signed a joint memo \9\ with Secretary Burgum on wildfire
preparedness, ensuring our two Departments are working in
close coordination this fire season.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2025/05/20/
secretary-rollins-and-secretary-burgum-sign-joint-fire-memo-ahead-peak-
fire-season-receive-fire.

8. Deployed resources to assist \10\ the wildfire response in
Canada.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2025/05/
31/usda-sends-fire-resources-assist-canada-wildfire-response.

9. Approved a variety of Congressionally authorized fund
distributions to support communities affected by wind
storms, drought, and disasters in the agricultural sector--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
at record speed.

10. Sought and addressed waste, fraud, and abuse in all USDA
programs, including, SNAPfraud,\11\ and woke programs \12\
that have long not put Farmers First.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2025/04/
24/usda-ensures-illegal-aliens-do-not-receive-federal-benefits.
\12\ https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2025/02/
20/secretary-rollins-releases-first-tranche-funding-under-review.

11. Reviewed thousands of contracts, grants, and employee trainings
and DEI programs resulting in terminations totaling over
$5.5 billion to date. USDA also identified and canceled
nearly 1,000 employee trainings, more than 750 of which
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
focused on DEI alone.

12. Led major steps to Make America Healthy Again \13\ (MAHA) through
prioritizing health in SNAP.\14\ Over the last few weeks, I
have signed the first food restriction waivers \15\
submitted by innovative governors in Nebraska, Iowa, and
Indiana. Each waiver restricts unhealthy foods from SNAP
and respect the generosity of the American taxpayer. The
MAHA movement at USDA has also supported the food
industry's voluntary changes \16\ to make food healthier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2025/04/
04/hhs-and-usda-hold-first-public-maha-event-outline-vision-healthier-
america.
\14\ https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2025/04/
15/rollins-applauds-arkansas-governor-submitting-snap-waiver-make-
america-healthy-again.
\15\ https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2025/05/
23/secretary-rollins-approves-state-waivers-make-america-healthy-again-
removing-unhealthy-foods-snap.
\16\ https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2025/04/
22/secretary-rollins-applauds-dairy-industry-voluntarily-removing-
artificial-colors-national-school.

13. Took leadership to make rural America \17\ prosper again by
reducing regulations and revitalizing communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2025/03/
04/secretary-rollins-previews-her-vision-restoring-rural-prosperity.

While USDA is taking bold action, I must also make note that we are
at a pivotal moment where we can safeguard our country from fiscal ruin
and I applaud the steps this Committee has taken in passing H.R. 1, the
One Big Beautiful Bill Act. It is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to
cut spending, fuel growth, and level the fiscal footing of the American
economy. This is in addition to much needed funding this Committee
provides for agricultural producers alongside reforms to cut waste,
fraud, and abuse in USDA programs--saving billions of dollars. USDA is
also doing its part to help return to greatness by eliminating wasteful
spending, promoting efficiencies, cutting regulatory red tape, and
shifting our mission towards expanding market opportunities for
farmers, rather than promoting programs that merely cater to special
interests of Washington D.C. bureaucrats who have never set foot in a
field or pasture.
Expanding on the above-mentioned actions, one of the most important
things we can do to help our nation's producers is to expand new
markets. After 4 years of inaction by the Biden Administration, which
caused America's agricultural trade balance to go from a surplus under
President Trump's first term to a significant deficit under President
Biden, USDA has now made it a top priority to advocate on behalf of
American agriculture on the world stage. Last month, I visited the
United Kingdom after President Trump announced a historic trade deal
that will lower tariffs, remove trade barriers, increase market access,
and strengthen cooperation on economic security. Seeing the UK is the
United States' fourteenth largest agricultural export market, this deal
can address disproportionately high tariffs, small tariff-rate quota
volumes, and unjustified non-tariff barriers.
Additionally, we've recently negotiated a new streamlined facility
registration process for U.S. dairy products bound for Costa Rica
providing increased access to a $130 million market. Panama partially
opened its pork import quota mechanism, which will allow an estimated
additional $30 million in U.S. pork product exports. South Africa
restored market access for U.S. microwave popcorn shipments, valued at
$2 to $3 million. USDA conducted two trade missions to Thailand and
Guatemala, and hosted USA Pavilions at six global trade shows with a
combined total of $282 million in projected exports. In the last 2
months, USDA's Foreign Agricultural Service has worked with India to
reduce India's tariff on U.S. Bourbon imports by 50 percent, resulting
in a likely $2 million increase in distilled spirits exports to India
in 2025. We worked with Japan to lift the mandatory aflatoxin testing
requirements on U.S. almonds, resulting in a likely eight to ten
percent increase of U.S. almond exports to Japan annually.
In April, USDA launched agricultural trade promotion programs for
Fiscal Year 2026 and is accepting applications for four export market
development programs. These programs historically total over $250
million annually. I also plan to travel to India, Vietnam, Japan, Peru,
and Brazil over the next 4 months. Together with the U.S. Trade
Representative, and the consummate dealmaking of President Trump, we
will build new markets, expand current markets, and hold existing
trading partners accountable to ensure trade is fair and reciprocal and
that the competitive position of U.S. agriculture reaches new heights.
Just as important as expanding export markets is protecting the
United States from foreign animal disease including combating highly-
pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI). I understand the importance of
animal health issues and the effects they have not just on ranchers and
producers, but also on trade and the prices for everyday consumers.
Since my first day, I have been intensely focused on tackling the avian
influenza crisis, and after USDA's announcement of our five-pronged
plan to curb avian influenza, I am happy to report that as of today,
wholesale egg prices have dropped sixty five percent since February 28.
Even though much of the public attention has been on avian
influenza, we are also working around the clock to address New World
screwworm. This pest feeds on livestock and could create an economic
impact of well over a billion dollars if it enters through our southern
border. I am in consistent communication with my counterpart in Mexico
to contain the threat south of the U.S. border. Our goal is to push
this pest back to the Darien Gap in Panama, and USDA is working daily
with Mexico to make sure the resources, tactics, and tools are in place
to do just that. Additionally, USDA recently announced a $21 million
dollar investment to renovate an existing fruit fly production facility
in Metapa, Mexico to further that long-term goal. Once operational,
this facility will produce 60-100 million additional sterile NWS flies
weekly to help push the population further south. Given the geographic
spread of NWS, this additional production capacity will be critical to
our response. Furthermore, we are still exploring many other options
including domestic facilities to produce sterile flies. In the
meantime, current restrictions on live animal imports from Mexico
remain in place, and as previously announced, USDA will continue to
evaluate the current suspension every thirty days.
While the threat of foreign animal disease is top of mind for many
livestock producers, the state of the farm economy is important to all
rural America. As goes agriculture, so goes rural main streets across
the country. That's why, upon my confirmation, crafting and
implementing the Congressionally directed Emergency Commodity
Assistance Program (ECAP) was preeminently important. On March 19, we
issued $10 billion in economic assistance for farmers and ranchers
through ECAP. The program has been extremely efficient, paying farmers,
on average, within 3 business days of an application submission. A note
of thanks to all of you for your unwavering support for producers in
times of economic crisis by passing that important legislation. USDA
continues to work diligently to deliver Supplemental Disaster Relief,
over $20 billion. Earlier last month USDA released our projected
timeline for development and delivery of each of the components that
comprise the full suite of Supplemental Disaster Assistance for
agricultural producers. On May 29, USDA released the Emergency
Livestock Relief Program (ELRP) payments to cover grazing losses due to
eligible drought or wildfire events in 2023 and 2024. Those emergency
relief payments are automatically issued for producers who have an
approved Livestock Forage Disaster Program (LFP) application on file
for 2023 and 2024 thus producers do not have to contact USDA to receive
payments. On April 22, USDA dispersed $340 million through the Rural
Development Disaster Assistance Fund across thirty-one states to
deliver relief to farmers, ranchers and rural communities impacted by
natural disasters such as hurricanes and wildfires that have caused
devastation across the country.
Part of making American agriculture more prosperous in a time of
economic hardship is eliminating the regulatory burdens that hinder its
growth. Under President Trump's leadership, we are streamlining
unnecessary regulations and cutting red tape for agricultural
producers, and other industries under the USDA purview, to allow them
to feed, fuel, and clothe the world. This includes making sweeping
reforms to protect national forests and boost domestic timber
production, ending regulations that have stifled energy and mineral
development on Federal lands so we may reaffirm America's role as a
global energy powerhouse, and reducing wildfire risk through public-
private partnerships and many other actions. I have been fortunate to
spend time with our wildland firefighters to thank them for their
heroic service. I value their perspectives and feedback, and I am proud
of the work they do to save lives and protect our beautiful homeland.
We will continue to execute President Trump's agenda to make America's
forests healthy and productive again.
In March, I announced new action to reduce burdens on the U.S. pork
and poultry industries, allowing for greater efficiency while
maintaining food safety standards. We are extending waivers allowing
existing establishments to maintain higher line speeds and are moving
towards rulemaking to make these standards permanent for more pork and
poultry plants. We have also withdrawn overly burdensome proposals
related to Salmonella in poultry as we reconsider more effective ways
to achieve public health objectives. These reforms will strengthen U.S.
food production, reduce costs for producers, and support a more
resilient supply chain--all without compromising food safety.
Finally, a major part of my role is overseeing the Department's
sixteen nutrition programs, on which USDA spends approximately $400
million a day. While these programs are critical, the American taxpayer
expects their generosity to be valued and for programs to be executed
with integrity and accountability. With this in mind, upon my swearing
in, I sent a letter to states and Tribal, Territory, and local
government partners noting a suite of guiding principles, each of which
can serve as catalysts for change, allowing the Department--and the
American taxpayer--to better serve vulnerable families and communities.
One of the guiding principles outlined in the letter is to make it
clear to states that they must ensure Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program (SNAP) benefits are provided with clear expectations that those
who can work, do. It is important to remind states that under current
law Congress conditioned the receipt of benefits by able-bodied adults
without dependents on satisfying work requirements. Many states
continue to abuse the system by requesting work requirement waivers
despite a national unemployment rate of 4.2% in April 2025. I applaud
this Committee for also prioritizing employment and look forward to our
continued partnership to get able-bodied adults off the sidelines and
into the world of work.
Equally important is making certain nutrition benefits are
preserved for those legally in our great country. The Department has
reminded all state agencies to enhance identity and immigration
verification when determining eligibility for programs like SNAP. A
recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) report indicated a
staggering $10.5 billion in improper SNAP payments were made in Fiscal
Year 2023 alone. This was about twelve percent of total SNAP payments
that year, nearly $30 million per day. The inadequate verification of
an applicant's identity and citizenship by states is specifically
highlighted as contributing to the improper payments of SNAP funds.
American agriculture began 4 centuries ago, when neighbors born
across an ocean came together in a New World to clear fields, build
homes, and plant crops on the edge of wilderness. That same spirit
animates us now. Our farmers who tend the fields do not rest from their
labor--neither do our ranchers and livestock producers who steward
their lands, herds, and flocks--and neither do the American mothers and
fathers who rely upon American agriculture to feed their families.
American agriculture does not rest--and neither will we at USDA. I'm
proud to be at the helm of the People's Department, at the table with
President Trump, and fighting for the most American of industries--
agriculture.

The Chairman. Thank you for your important testimony today,
Secretary.
At this time, Members will be recognized for questions in
order of seniority, alternating between Majority and Minority
Members and in order of arrival for those who joined us after
the hearing convened. You will be recognized for 5 minutes each
in order to allow us to get to as many questions as possible,
and I recognize myself for 5 minutes of questions.
Madam Secretary, I would like to talk with you about an
issue that poses an imminent threat to the pork industry and
livestock production overall. State mandates like California's
Proposition 12 are misguided, not based in sound science, and
create arbitrary production standards for pork producers.
In addition to being burdensome for producers, the final
pork product is also more expensive for consumers. Pork prices
in California have risen 20 percent on average since the
implementation of Prop 12, and the cost of constructing Prop
12-compliant barns are estimated to be at least $3,400 to
$4,000 per sow. With costs like these, neither the producer or
the consumer are winning.
As we all know, the Supreme Court has weighed in on this
matter and asked Congress to act. We attempted to do so in the
Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2024 (H.R. 8467, 118th
Congress). The language we included would ensure that livestock
producers only have to abide by production standards in the
state in which they reside, protecting both the rights of an
individual producer and states' rights.
I know you understand this issue well. Can you talk about
the negative impact that state mandates like Prop 12 have had
on the pork industry and the dangerous precedent it sets for
all livestock production? And what is the risk for both
producers and consumers if we do not act?
Secretary Rollins. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is a
really important question. It is one that came up a lot in my
confirmation process on the Senate side of the House. And one
thing I will note is that no one is more of a believer in
Federalism and the Tenth Amendment and our Founders' vision of
the states' rights to be able to be their own laboratories of
innovation. So I will say that first.
But second, when those ideas and those rules and those laws
begin to impact other states in such a negative way, that is
not what our Founders intended. That is not constitutional, and
it is not okay. The extreme impact of Prop 12, especially on
our pork producers, I believe this is a bipartisan question. We
may not all agree in this room, but I think most agree, even on
the Democratic side of the House, that it cannot stand. So I
stand in full support of your effort.
We are also looking at things we could potentially do at
the Department to mitigate for some of the consequences of this
rule that, again, California has the right to do what
California wants to do. But the minute that crosses the border
and begins to, again, compromise in such a significant way our
pork producers, we need to act.
The Chairman. Well, thank you, Secretary. I would like to
turn to a topic that is of increasing concern for our
producers, and that is the availability of agricultural labor.
Last Congress, the Committee convened the Agricultural Labor
Working Group, led by co-chairs Rick Crawford and Don Davis,
and they are working on turning their bipartisan
recommendations into legislation, but a legislative solution
will not address the immediate needs of the industry.
I was encouraged by President Trump's comments at the April
10 Cabinet meeting where he said he would work with the
agriculture industry and alluded to a process by which there
would be some sort of flexibility provided to farmers and a new
process to allow undocumented workers and their jobs to come
back in legally. However, recent enforcement actions have begun
to impact and even target agricultural operations, and yet
there is still a lack of clarity for producers.
As I am sure you know, these employers have a limited
ability to question an employee's documentation and are unaware
of any issues with their status until an I-9 audit is
conducted. What, if anything, are you, Secretary Chavez-
DeRemer, and Secretary Noem doing to follow through on the
President's comments and making sure that enforcement is not
impacting food security, which I think we both agree is a
matter of national security?
Secretary Rollins. No, that is right, sir. And in fact, I
was with the President yesterday in the Oval Office. I spoke
with him again this morning. This was one of the issues that we
spoke about. This President's commitment to ensuring that all
laws are followed remains paramount, but also combining that
with understanding the significant challenges to our ag
producers in finding the labor that is necessary to produce,
not only for their farms to be able to basically stay in
business, but also, to your point, this is much bigger than
that. This is a national security issue. And the moment that
America is not able to feed ourselves any longer, that is the
moment that we are no longer the superpower, the preeminent
superpower in the world. So that is how very seriously I take
this.
As you mentioned, on April 10 at our Cabinet meeting, the
President himself brought this issue up and specifically
directed Secretary Chavez-DeRemer, who herself is from a
farming background, who is our Labor Secretary, along with
myself and Secretary Noem, our DHS Secretary, who also is from
a farming and ranching background, to ensure that we are doing
everything we can to make sure that these farmers and ranchers
have the labor that they need.
So the President is hyper-focused on that, understanding
the challenges currently at hand, but please know that we are
in constant daily communication about how to solve for that
quickly, while also working in partnership with this Committee.
And, Mr. Chairman, your leadership on this has been really,
really important, as have so many sitting in the room today.
The Chairman. Thank you, Secretary. My time has expired.
And I will recognize the gentlelady from Minnesota, the
Ranking Member, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Craig. Thank you so much.
Over the past several months, I have met dozens of family
farmers and producers across this country. They have
represented operations of all different types and sizes.
Despite their many differences, there was a common theme
between all these meetings, the lack of certainty. Every
farmer, grower, rancher, and producer has said that they need
more certainty. And despite this Administration's promise to
put farmers first, we have seen that many of the actions are
actually harming them.
We have seen trade wars increase instability in farm
country and surrender market access to our competitors, like
Brazil. We have seen USDA programs that farmers rely on for
income frozen or eliminated with little to no explanation. And
on the ground in districts like mine, local FSA, NRCS, and
Forest Service staff are being let go. Wait-lists are getting
longer, and fewer USDA staff are available to help family
farmers navigate the agency's incredibly popular and impactful
programs. And the Administration wants to gut a title of the
farm bill in reconciliation.
I have three questions, so I may have to reclaim my time
during some of your answers because I want to make sure to get
to all of them. Let me start by asking about the agency, Madam
Secretary. Before the Department moved forward with its layoffs
restructuring plan, did the Department carefully analyze what
these folks did and the impact these cuts would have on farm
country?
Secretary Rollins. Well, thank you, ma'am, and certainly
had a great visit to your state, Sugar Beet Farm, recently.
The bottom line is this, that no one has been fired. There
were 15,000 USDA employees who took the resignation, the
deferred resignation, but no one was fired, so I think that is
really important. In a normal year, Madam, we will have 8,000
to 10,000 attrition rates. So while I think there is a big
narrative about how these important people have been fired,
that was not the case.
What we have done, and yes, to answer your question, is a
very careful review. Yesterday in the Oval Office we talked
about our wildland firefighters. They are at 96 percent full,
meaning we are ahead of where the Joe Biden USDA was last year
at this time to prepare for wildfire season.
To your point on the FSA offices, what I have asked every
Member to do--and I know you have my cell phone. I welcome
every Member, Republican or Democratic, to call me directly
with specific examples, and we can get on that right away
because that forward-facing part of USDA with our rural
communities and with our farmers is a priority to me.
Ms. Craig. Thank you.
Secretary Rollins. So if you could help us solve for that I
would appreciate that.
Ms. Craig. Thank you. I am going to go to my second
question. Thank you so much. Look, just to be clear, if you had
reviewed this, you would have made sure that folks who are
trying to stop bird flu in our country weren't allowed to
retire. In fact, I ran a big business for a lot of years before
I came to Congress, and voluntary retirements, often, exactly
the wrong people retire. That is why you make a more thorough
review of these things before you just say everybody who wants
to retire, retire.
But nonetheless, let's go on to trade. Forty percent of my
district is covered in corn and soy every summer. Since we are
losing market access in China, what markets are you targeting
to help U.S. soy producers compensate for the market access
that they have lost?
Secretary Rollins. Yes, I appreciate that question. And I
know in your comments you mentioned the farmers in trade and
the uncertainty, and we certainly realize that. We are very
aggressively, specifically on our row croppers, but to soy, for
example, really working to expand the markets. Last week, I was
in Italy. Interestingly, Italy, of course, the Government of
Giorgia Meloni is very aligned with President Trump. They are
very open. But Italy, again, as an example, imports about $75
billion in agriculture products. Only $1.7 billion comes from
our American farmers and ranchers, and this is one of our best
friends around the world.
So we had great conversations, specific to soy, on how we
get--which is the number one import but not nearly enough--how
we get more of that into Italy, into the EU, into Japan, into
India, into Vietnam----
Ms. Craig. Madam Secretary, I am sorry, I have 40 seconds.
Secretary Rollins.--and we will continue to do that.
Ms. Craig. I am going to reclaim my time.
Secretary Rollins. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Craig. China represents 50 percent of the U.S. soybean
market. I am not going to ask, but I believe it would have been
a better strategy to go get these markets before you do an
across-the-board trade war that decimates 50 percent of the
market.
Secretary Rollins. About 1 hour ago the President announced
a deal with China, so that is being solved.
Ms. Craig. So that is not a question.
And then, last question really is about HPAI. Do you
support--look, I have a bunch of turkey growers in Minnesota.
Don't even get me started on the MAHA report, Secretary
Kennedy. Do you support developing a robust vaccine strategy,
and will you commit to using vaccines to combat animal disease?
Secretary Rollins. We are looking at all of the above. We
have $100 million committed. We have 417 applications, Ranking
Member Craig, that we are currently working through. Vaccines,
therapeutics, we are looking at everything across the board.
Ms. Craig. Thank you, and I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired.
I now recognize the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Lucas, for
5 minutes.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And Secretary Rollins, thank you for taking time to testify
before the Committee today and discuss the issues that are
affecting our farmers back home.
Last week, I chaired a Subcommittee hearing to discuss
voluntary conservation programs in the farm bill and the
improvements Congress can make to ensure that these programs
truly work for producers that they are intended to benefit.
I heard from a variety of witnesses representing both
producers and technical assistance providers, and they agreed
with reinvesting the unobligated Inflation Reduction Act (Pub.
L. 117-169) funds into the baseline of the farm bill without
the climate sideboards is a necessary step to ensure that these
programs reach more producers.
To that end, Madam Secretary, I have heard from many of my
producers back home that the Climate-Smart Commodities Grant
process under the Biden Administration was confusing and left
little room for producer choice. Can you share with the
Committee what you are doing at USDA to revamp this program and
to streamline the application process for producers?
Secretary Rollins. Yes, sir. Thank you. That remains a top
priority for us. We have already made announcements on how to
make it easier, cleaner, and better, and to put our producers
first. We have asked several applicants to reapply based on
that as a priority in driving that forward. If you hear
anything different, Congressman, please let us know. It is
those anecdotes that help us get better. But yes, sir, we are
solving for that every day at USDA.
Mr. Lucas. It sounds like the Advancing Markets for
Producers Initiative is focused on making sure producers come
first and that USDA is a partner alongside producers rather
than a dictator. Does that sound like an accurate assessment of
what you and the Department are attempting to do?
Secretary Rollins. That is accurate. We have asked people
to reapply if and when they have at least 65 percent of their
application focused on producers.
Mr. Lucas. In my remaining time, I wanted to take a moment
to thank you for the Emergency Livestock Relief Program funds
that went out the door last month. Oklahoma has experienced
several severe fires in recent years that have impacted
hundreds of producers across the state. And under the Biden
Administration, it took an average of 13 months for disaster
funds to reach producers.
However, Congress passed the American Relief Act of 2025
(Pub. L. 118-158) in December, and producers have received ELRP
assistance in May. That is a significant improvement, and I
know my constituents are grateful. Madam Secretary, have you
received any immediate feedback on the rollout of these funds?
Secretary Rollins. We have been so grateful--realizing it
is imperfect, but we have been so grateful at the response. I
just want to say this morning at 6:00 a.m., I was on a
conference call with the team talking about the next round of
funds, 6:00 a.m. Last night at 10:30, I was on a call with a
couple of other Congressmen talking about it. We are so
committed to working 20 hours a day, sometimes more, to ensure
that this money moves as quickly and as efficiently as
possible. And I am really proud of the team for being able to
execute on that. And by the way, these are both politicals and
careers, which I just want to lift up.
Mr. Lucas. And I want to thank you for increasing funding
to reimburse states for food safety inspections. Oklahoma
administers top-notch food safety inspections, and I know my
constituents back home view it as a great example of the
Federal Government working in tandem with the state. Madam
Secretary, what additional steps do you think Congress needs to
take to ensure that state food inspection programs run smoothly
and that the funds USDA released are--and of course, the funds
are greatly appreciated, but there is a role here in Congress
to ensure the longevity of cooperative partnerships and state
programs.
Secretary Rollins. I think that it continues to be of
paramount importance, especially, as I mentioned in my opening
remarks, I think as Ranking Member Craig mentioned, I think as
Chairman Thompson mentioned, that food security is national
security. And just last week, if you weren't tracking, we
arrested someone that potentially had come in across the
borders with some agroterrorism products that could potentially
have really disrupted our food supply. So the food safety
inspection system specific to the states continues to be a
priority.
And again, anecdotally, if you see something different or
have suggestions, please let me know, top of the list for us.
Mr. Lucas. And my last thought is thank you for the very
aggressive approach on the screwworm flies.
Secretary Rollins. Yes.
Mr. Lucas. Being a livestock producer in Oklahoma, not that
far from your stomping grounds, we are really close to the
problem right now.
Secretary Rollins. We are really close. I will be making a
major announcement next week on the very next step, which will
be probably more aggressive than anyone in recent history on
the New World screwworm. And I think you and hopefully the
entire Committee will be very pleased.
Mr. Lucas. I and my constituents say thank you.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Rollins. Thank you, sir.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize Mr. David Scott from Georgia for 5 minutes.
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Secretary, you have advocated stopping the funding
going to the 1890s African American colleges and universities.
Do you realize the damage, backwardness, and evil that you have
done?
Secretary Rollins. Well, first of all, your premise is
completely wrong. In the last Administration, I was in
President Trump's West Wing, and fully funding the HBCUs was my
project. I stood in the Oval Office when that happened. I, to
date, continue to be, alongside President Trump, one of the
biggest advocates for our HBCUs and our 1890 projects, so I am
not sure what information you have, sir, but that is definitely
not me. And you can look at my long history of supporting those
efforts. I think they are very important.
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. So if I understand you
correctly, you support this vital program?
Secretary Rollins. Yes.
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. You have not frozen or
advocated freezing the money?
Secretary Rollins. No.
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. You are full steam ahead?
Secretary Rollins. Full steam ahead. Now, we are looking at
every program at USDA, so as part of the larger effort to
analyze and evaluate, yes. But no, our support is paramount for
those projects. The President has been unequivocal in his
support, and we will continue in that direction.
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. So in February, you did not
advocate suspending funding for the 1890s African American
student scholarship program?
Secretary Rollins. Not in total, sir. It was part of the
larger review of every program, including the farming program,
to ensure that we were using taxpayer dollars to their highest
and best use.
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Okay. The reason that I am very
concerned about this is that this is the most significant
bipartisan Democratic and Republican program here. Not only do
we support it, but this Committee voted to increase the funding
to $100 million from the $80 million that we got in the last
farm bill. We need you to help us secure that. This is the most
important product.
Let me tell you why this is so important historically.
There was a general in the Civil War that devastated the South.
William Tecumseh Sherman went through here and devastated. But
this same general laid out the program for revitalization of
the South, and he went to President Lincoln and said, ``In each
of the Confederate States, we are going to put land-grant
colleges. It is the land. It is the economy. It is the strength
of the South. '' And they put forward this program.
But there was no room for the African American community
until, in the 1890s, they brought forth the ``separate but
equal'' doctrine. Everywhere they had put the White land-grant
schools, they had to put the Black ones. And that is the growth
of this.
So I wanted to share with you the history. I am glad that
you are on our team and helping us. This is great news. Thank
you.
Secretary Rollins. Sir, thank you for that. And I will say
I am a proud graduate of Texas A&M University and spent a good
amount of time at Prairie View A&M about 45 minutes away. I am
really proud of that school. In fact, our Vice Chancellor of
Texas A&M and head of the ag school, Jeff Sable, is here. He
was my meats professor 30 years ago at Texas A&M, now running
the whole kit and caboodle. So no, we remain very committed and
understanding----
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Great. And I am a graduate of
the great alma mater, Florida A&M University.
Secretary Rollins. Yes, sir.
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. I wouldn't be here if they
didn't give me that scholarship.
Secretary Rollins. Yes, sir.
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Thank you.
Secretary Rollins. Thank you, sir.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
This Penn State land-grant university graduate recognizes
Mr. Austin Scott from Georgia for 5 minutes.
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And Madam Secretary, I appreciate your commitment to the
1890 colleges. That is important to all of us. It has
historically been done in a very bipartisan manner. And I might
also mention that my colleague, David Scott, I believe you were
in school with a Donald J. Trump at one point of your life. Is
that correct?
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Yes, at the Wharton School of
Finance, and he helped to get that scholarship program. It was
under his Administration that we passed it.
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Yes, sir.
Secretary Rollins. He is very committed.
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. All right. I want to bring
this up, Madam Secretary, and I am asking for your help with
this. And what I am asking for is transparency in this. And so
you will recall that in the American Rescue Plan (Pub. L. 117-
2), there was $3 billion that was put in for people. And if you
owed any money to the USDA, you were going to receive 120
percent of whatever your loan balance was. There was one race
that was excluded from that payment. The courts ruled that it
was unconstitutional, that you could not discriminate and
exclude a race from those payments. That money was--I think it
was four out of four Federal judges said you could not exclude
based on race.
So that same money was then transferred into the Inflation
Reduction Act. And in the Inflation Reduction Act, they did two
things. One of them was the Farm Loan Borrower's Relief
Program, and basically how any loan who was more than 60 days
late got brought current. So if you were 5 years late on your
farm payment, you got 5 years' worth of payments, plus the next
payment made. Now, if you cashed in your retirement plan to
make your farm payment, you didn't get anything. But anyway,
they brought those loans current and plus 60 days.
And my understanding is there is questions around the 1099.
It is clearly taxable income since there was not a bankruptcy,
and I just want to make sure that we are working with the IRS.
My understanding is two separate 1099s may have been issued on
that, and making sure that that is taxable income by law.
But then there was about $2.2 billion that was paid out,
and they were discrimination payments. Over 40 percent of those
payments went to people who had never farmed, and they ranged
between $5 and $500,000 in the payments. And my understanding
is a third-party vendor was used to make the determination of
discrimination or not discriminated against, and that third-
party vendor no longer exists, nor did they exist prior to the
program being put in. Fifty percent of the payments went to
Alabama and Mississippi. Almost 50 percent of the payments went
to people that never farmed.
And I just want to make sure that we are looking into this
and where those payments went to, who they went to, and that it
is going to be public record who received those payments.
And so I have met with your people. Just any comments on
that would be appreciated. But just, again, looking for a
commitment to continue to work to find out if there was fraud
in those payments.
Secretary Rollins. Congressman, what I have seen in the
last 118 days, since I was sworn in, in mid-February has blown
my mind. It is stunning the amount of money that was pushed out
in the last USDA without accountability, without understanding
of where it was going, just the pure sums are absolutely mind-
boggling. So we are working feverishly to try to get our arms
around it, and we will continue to do so. And I would so
welcome your partnership in that as we are moving that forward.
But, yes, you have my 100 percent commitment.
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. One hundred percent. I want to
know who was the vendor that got paid the ten percent of that
money. That is a lot of money that someone got paid.
Next, can you just give us an update on the block grant
applications process? I represent the State of Georgia. As you
know, we were devastated by the storms. But if you could update
us on the block grants, I would very much appreciate that.
Secretary Rollins. Yes, sir. The block grants are moving
forward. Georgia has been at the front of the line. They have
been extremely efficient. Their leadership has been great,
Tyler Harper and the whole team there. We have met with your
team from Georgia four different times. That money is likely to
move in the next week or 2.
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Thank you very much. And I
look very much forward to you in making sure that there is no
fraud or criminal activity in that other payment program.
Secretary Rollins. Great.
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Thank you.
Secretary Rollins. Sir, we will follow up with that. Thank
you.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Costa,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Costa. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and the
Ranking Member, for this important hearing. Thank you,
Secretary Rollins, for being here. It is good to see you again
since the swearing-in. And I want to remind you of that the
offer I made then and still stands, would like you to come out
to California and show you some of the most productive
agricultural land in the country. Last year, $59.5 billion at
the farm-gate, the largest agricultural state in the nation,
has been for decades.
I believe, and I think maybe there is a large consensus in
this room, that food is a national security issue. It doesn't
often get treated that way, but it is. I know from a lot of
perspectives, not only the people that I represent, but I am a
third-generation family farmer in California. And I think it is
important to note that California has over 70,000 farms.
Ranches are remarkably productive. Seventy percent of these
farms are less than 100 acres. Eighty-nine percent are less
than 500 acres, yet we produce 50 percent of the nation's
fruits and vegetables, 80 percent of the citrus production, 20
percent of the milk supply, and more than 400 different
agriculture commodities. It is truly an amazing story.
This food production goes towards supporting nearly five
million Californians who rely on SNAP, who are food-insecure,
as part of the 47 million Americans that also rely on SNAP as
their food safety net. And I think we need to work together if
we are going to get this farm bill done. That is the bottom
line. That is what we have always done in years past. And our
farmers and ranchers want to provide for our neighbors and
communities, and not cut them off from the dinner table.
That being said, Madam Secretary, I have a couple
questions. High-path avian flu hit the entire country. In
California, the dairy industry and the poultry industry were
hard hit. We know it is important that we follow science. You
said that in your testimony. I think it is important for all of
those impacted by the avian flu that we go forward with a
production of a vaccine, being mindful of our trading partners.
I have a bipartisan letter here, Mr. Chairman, I would like
to submit for the record on the high-path avian flu.
The Chairman. Without objection.
[The letter referred to is located on p. 106.]
Mr. Costa. Thank you. I would like to know whether or not
you are committed to continuing to work on a vaccination
program for the dairy industry, Madam Secretary.
Secretary Rollins. I am. One quick clarification to my
friend from Georgia, the crack team behind me, Mr. Scott, we
will be finalizing the agreement for Georgia next week. The
money will move in July, so I just wanted to make sure to
clarify.
But yes, sir, we remain wholly, wholly committed to looking
down every single path, under every single hood, doing
everything we can on this high-path to try to contain it. It
obviously has jumped to the dairy industry, could jump again to
another industry. It is of paramount importance we do that.
Mr. Costa. Well, and the possibility that it could affect
humans is a great concern to all of us. Let me go on.
Secretary Rollins. That is exactly right.
Mr. Costa. Next question involves market assistance for
specialty program crops. I have had a number of farmers in my
area that have applied for that. There has been confusion with
the FSA offices. They are still reaching out to determine
whether or not the payments from the market assistance
specialty crop program are going to take place. Could you
comment on this?
Secretary Rollins. I will. I want to make sure I get it
right. So let me flip in my handy-dandy little folder here.
We have allocated $2.65 billion to this program, so it is a
significant priority. That is what I wanted to check.
Mr. Costa. For the purpose of my time, why don't we follow
through with your office on these constituents who have been
calling my office, and we can try to resolve this problem?
Secretary Rollins. That would be great. We would welcome
that.
Mr. Costa. Food for Peace has been an important bipartisan
effort since its inception in 1954. I am very disappointed on
what happened with USAID, and I don't know how you folks are
going to be able to implement the responsibility as the
President has outlined. Do you agree the program should
continue for USDA? It not only helps people who are food-
insecure throughout the world, it helps America's view, and it
helps American agriculture. What is your position on that?
Secretary Rollins. Yes, well, we are reevaluating all of
it. I will tell you that we have 14 of the Food for Progress
projects remain active in 17 countries and funded. So the ones
that align with the America First agenda, the ones that make
sense to put America first and for our community, we are
continuing those. And that is the reorganization and the
refocus the President asked us to do, and to the American
people.
Mr. Costa. Well, more discussion to carry on here. Also,
research. Research has been an important component with our
land-grant universities. I will talk to you later and send you
a letter, but there are important programs at USDA stations
working together with California agriculture, and I am very
concerned about the reduction of these research programs. They
have done so much for so many.
Secretary Rollins. The research programs continue to be a
priority. What we are looking at, that the ones that aren't as
effective, the facilities are behind, they don't make sense, it
is a waste of taxpayer dollars. But overall, the USDA remains
extremely committed to the important research that our land-
grants do and partake. You will see an extension and expansion
in some of that but ensuring that it makes sense.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Costa. To be continued. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
Secretary Rollins. Thank you so much. And look forward to
connecting with your office specifically on the specialty
crops.
The Chairman. I am now pleased to recognize the gentleman
from Tennessee, Mr. DesJarlais, for 5 minutes.
Mr. DesJarlais. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Secretary Rollins, for being here today.
Farmers across Tennessee and the nation want America to be
healthy and are a critical part of the solution, but are also
very concerned about the Make America Healthy Again
Commission's report's potential implications on the agriculture
industry, specifically relating to pesticides and herbicides.
Unfortunately, the report sows seeds of doubt about our food
system and the hardworking farmers who feed the planet.
On top of that, outside USDA's participation on the
commission, our boots-on-the-ground farmers weren't included in
the development of the report. Do you have plans to remedy this
and make certain farmers are not only included but are at the
center of the discussion and decisions moving forward?
Secretary Rollins. My commitment is just that. And I have
worked and have been unequivocal on the record how important
these crop protection programs are, pesticides specifically,
glyphosate and others more specifically, and the President has
as well. So we will continue that. There is no doubt that we
could do better on the next report, and my commitment is to do
everything I can to ensure that our ag community is better
represented.
Mr. DesJarlais. Well, I know that will make Tennessee Farm
Bureau very happy, as well as many other farm bureaus and
farmers, so thank you for that.
There is probably no industry with more uncertainty than
agriculture, but there is one certainty in this Committee.
There will always be vigorous and lively debate over the SNAP
program. And I have been trying to get answers to a question
for years now about SNAP eligibility for non-citizens. And your
USDA manual has a list of 15 criteria for non-citizen groups
such as refugees, individuals granted asylum, Cuban, Haitian
entrants, all children under 18.
So we are often told that it is very difficult to be a
recipient of SNAP if you are not a legal citizen, but according
to USDA's own policy, that would appear that that is not
necessarily the case. A number that we hear, and I am sure it
is a moving target, is about 42 million Americans are on SNAP.
Is that still a good number?
Secretary Rollins. That is the correct number.
Mr. DesJarlais. Okay. And can you tell me roughly what
percentage of non-American citizens are on the SNAP program?
Secretary Rollins. Well, it should be zero. If it is not,
we are moving that direction. About a month ago, we put out a
very significant statement on this. This is news to me. We are
running it down right now, and we will circle back.
Mr. DesJarlais. Okay. I am sure that you can see the copy
of the eligibility, and it is immediate eligibility with no
waiting period for the group. And there are 15--I didn't read
them all. And I guess I just want to know where that money
comes from because we have to create a farm bill.
I am an advocate of the SNAP program. When I bring this up,
people think I am anti-SNAP. That is not true. Don't want
anyone to go hungry. I want everybody who needs to be fed to be
fed. I think one issue we have argued over during
reconciliation was able-bodied people who can work, with many
exceptions. And I think it was misrepresented who those people
were because we make it pretty clear that if you are disabled,
if you are a pregnant mother, if you have young children, if
you are elderly this doesn't apply to you.
But it is an issue that is pretty well received across all
political spectrums, whether you are Democratic, Independent,
or Republican. Roughly about 80 percent of all those groups
think that able-bodied people who can work should work. And I
hope that that is something we can get in the farm bill.
But I would actually like to see a number. If all children
under 18 that are in this country illegally, and we had 20
million people cross the border in the past 4 years, I don't
know what, maybe 25 percent were under 18. According to these
guidelines, they are eligible without a waiting period on SNAP.
So I would really like to get some clarity as we write a farm
bill and try to budget for the nutrition program, just what
part of the pie that consumes.
Secretary Rollins. Sir, I am told that that language you
are reading is Congressional language out of the Congressional
statute. So that is something that would need to be fixed by
this body. But we are obviously looking at it, and certainly
within our own USDA, ensuring that American taxpayer dollars
support Americans.
Mr. DesJarlais. And I would like to think that most people
would like to see their American tax dollars go to American
citizens. And then if there is some other solution to deal with
the immigration problem we now face, then we need to know what
that is. But we need to know what those numbers are as we plan
our farm bill.
Secretary Rollins. One other thing I think is important
just because this is such an important conversation is that we
did ask for the first time of any Republican or Democratic USDA
for the exact data that you are asking for from the states
because the states are implementing this. So hopefully we will,
for the first time, be able to answer that question.
Mr. DesJarlais. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
I now recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr.
McGovern, for 5 minutes.
Mr. McGovern. Thank you.
Madam Secretary, I have to be honest. I am deeply troubled
by what this Administration and this Congress are doing to so
many programs that help vulnerable people and small farms. We
live in the richest country in the history of the world. We
have 47 million Americans who are hungry or food-insecure. That
is a scandal. And hunger is getting worse under this
Administration.
We actually spent a few years developing a roadmap for
ending hunger in this country. The Biden-Harris Administration
hosted the second-ever bipartisan White House conference on
Hunger, Nutrition, and Health. And out of it came a national
strategy that called upon every sector of society to do their
part to end hunger once and for all.
And now Congressional Republicans are cutting food programs
indiscriminately with apparent support from the Trump
Administration. I mean, the Administration has already taken
$500 million away from food banks. And President Trump's budget
goes after WIC, slashing the food budgets of pregnant women,
breastfeeding moms, and young kids.
Meanwhile, your Department has cut farmer programs, too,
like the Local Food for Schools Program, Local Food Purchase
Assistance Program, and the Leahy Farm to School Program. Your
Department has frozen funds obligated to farmers, canceled
signed contracts, and purged career staff who work directly
with our farmers.
And internationally, this Administration is torching our
global food security programs like Food for Peace and the
McGovern-Dole Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program.
They are both eliminated in the White House budget. You said
that food security is national security. It is mind-boggling
that the Administration would cut those programs. And China is
filling the void. The bottom line is that these cuts are
hurting people. They are hurting consumers, hungry people, our
local economy, and hurting our farmers.
And so, Madam Secretary, I would urge you to read the
national strategy that came out of the White House Conference
on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health. And I hope I can persuade you
to make meaningfully combating hunger a priority because things
are going in the wrong direction.
But today, I need to talk about what small farmers in my
State of Massachusetts are up against. We have been losing
family farms in America over the last 50 years. And there are a
lot of reasons for it, and it is complicated. But what should
not be complicated is whether USDA has a responsibility to do
something, to try to stop it. Over the years, we have heard
from Secretaries of Agriculture like Earl Butz, who said, ``Do
farmers get big or get out?'' Or your predecessor, Sonny
Perdue, who said, ``In America, the big get bigger and the
small go out.'' I couldn't believe he said that. I guess a
simple yes or no question. Do you agree with that
characterization?
Secretary Rollins. No, sir----
Mr. McGovern. Okay.
Secretary Rollins.--I do not agree with that. And in fact,
we rolled out a significant small family farm program 3 weeks
ago, across the board, ensuring that these farmers can survive
and thrive----
Mr. McGovern. Well----
Secretary Rollins.--like never before.
Mr. McGovern. I am relieved to hear you say that you don't
share that philosophy because right now, small farmers in New
England are counting on you, right? Appropriations Ranking
Member Rosa DeLauro and I teamed up at the end of last year to
craft a disaster supplemental package specifically targeted to
help small specialty crop farmers in our region, plus Alaska
and Hawaii, who need to be made whole after catastrophic
infrastructure and crop losses in the last few years. We have
had unprecedented floods, freezes, and storms, and our farmers
are at risk of losing everything. The modern farm safety net
does not catch them. It was woven for farms that are much
bigger or only grow a few crops.
Traditional diversified operations, meaning local fruit and
veggie farms that feed their communities, do not have any
safety net because the Federal Government has never adequately
created one for them. When disaster strikes, they are on their
own. That is why we created this Farm Recovery and Support
Block Grant to finally change that.
I am terribly concerned right now with how your Department
has been making decisions about the rollout of the program so
far, and I hope that you would agree that farmers and not
bureaucrats or politicians in Washington should be deciding on
which disaster relief programs best meet their needs.
I know there is ongoing conversations between state
agriculture commissioners and the Department, but I would urge
you to listen to the ag commissioners, and I would just ask you
to, this is not a trick question. Will you commit to working
with us and our state agriculture commissioners to make sure we
don't leave our small farmers behind? Because this is a really
big concern in Massachusetts and throughout New England.
Secretary Rollins. Yes, sir, and I have had multiple
conversations with Congresswoman DeLauro and your ag
commissioners. We have met with your state eight different
times on this, and we will be rolling that out very, very
quickly.
Mr. McGovern. Yes. I think there is a concern based on some
of these conversations that the USDA is not quite understanding
the uniqueness of some of these smalls in New England, and a
lot of them are afraid that they will not qualify for any
relief. And again, we passed this in the supplemental bill. We
put it in the supplemental bill to address the needs of these
small farmers.
Secretary Rollins. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. LaMalfa,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thanks for joining us, Madam Secretary. I
appreciate you being here, and we have a lot to do.
Secretary Rollins. Yes.
Mr. LaMalfa. As you know, we have very large and
destructive wildfires all over the West, especially in my
districts in California. The Paradise Fire, the Dixie Fire, 1
million acres, it is on and on. So we know the overgrowth of
fuel and the declining forest health due to the overcrowding of
the tree population is a big part of that. So where does the
overgrowth of fuel come from? Lack of management.
What we also have as an issue is unkept roads on Federal
lands make it basically where you can't even enter, whether it
is private lands or Forest Service roads. We have the problem
with these blocked roads. One of the areas I would highlight or
lowlight is the Mendocino National Forest in northern
California. In the last couple decades, 97 percent of that unit
has burned. Think about that a moment, 97 percent of a given
forest has burned in a not that long period of time.
So what the issue is, is they are not maintaining their
roads, so therefore, private parties can't get on their land.
Forest Service, if they decide they are going to do any work,
can't get on the land. And they will tell us that, well, we
don't have enough money in the pot to maintain the roads, but
they have the money in the rest of the pots to do other things
that they can't do. So maybe they need to move the money from
the other pot to getting the roads fixed first so we can even
enter the lands. So that is some of the frustration there.
Secretary Rollins. Yes, sir.
Mr. LaMalfa. Last Congress, we were told in a field hearing
by the Forest Service, we have more money than we have ever had
after some of the spending programs under the Biden
Administration. Yet in the same sentence say, we need more
money in order to process a particular sale that is being
talked about. So do we have any idea where the money is going
to be spent overall to do catastrophic fire prevention in
Forest Service? Do you see much happening there?
Secretary Rollins. Well, 100 percent. And I was in the Oval
Office yesterday with the President talking about this very
issue. You will see something else coming out tomorrow from the
White House on this very issue. We are 96 percent full on our
hiring for the fire season, which, again, is ahead of where
Biden was a year ago. So if there is a narrative that we are
not fully funding, it couldn't be more wrong. We already have
an 8+ percent timber increase in production with a goal of
getting to 4 billion acre-feet over the next few years, which
will solve for so much of this.
Mr. LaMalfa. Good.
Secretary Rollins. So this President is--I am very
encouraged by his interest in this, and I think we are going to
be able to really make some real progress for the first time in
30 years.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thanks so much. We really, really need it
because we are way behind on 193 million acres that Forest
Service has under their purview, and that some of these units
are proud of a few loads of firewood, not the amount of boards
we need to be moving.
Secretary Rollins. Yes. That is right.
Mr. LaMalfa. Let me talk about specialty crops real quick
here, too. In California, we have lots of almonds, walnuts,
prunes, peaches. Many things that are grown in California
aren't grown anywhere else in the U.S. or in any significant
number. So I am really pleased that the Marketing Assistance
for Specialty Crops, that you are boosting that significantly,
which means a lot for helping move these products, since if we
don't grow them in California, we are probably going to have to
import them somewhere.
Secretary Rollins. That is right.
Mr. LaMalfa. So how is the timeline going for the continued
rollout of the MASC program?
Secretary Rollins. We are moving very, very quickly. Of
course, everything is under review in partnership with the
White House, and so we are currently in review phase, but
hopefully very soon that second tranche will begin to move,
understanding how important this is, especially for the smaller
farms, which really reflect the specialty crop industry.
Mr. LaMalfa. Well, I am excited for that tranche, thank
you.
Secretary Rollins. Yes, you are welcome.
Mr. LaMalfa. One final thought here. On the north coast
just above the Bay Area, there is this Point Reyes Seashore
National Park. I am pretty sure you are aware of what is going
on there.
Secretary Rollins. Yes, sir.
Mr. LaMalfa. We have had long-time, multi-, five or six
generation farmers and ranchers there that were approached in
about 1960 because the government wanted their land to form a
park. They finally struck a deal, say, hey, we will sell after
a lot of browbeating and threat of eminent domain. They said,
``Okay, we will sell you the land, but we would like to lease
it back and farm it and ranch it for dairies, beef, and like
that.'' And these are organic growers. These are very
responsible growers that are taking care of that land.
They have been, over the decades, worn down and finally are
being kicked off the land unless folks in the Administration
can help prevent this from happening. And so I beg you, and
working with Secretary Burgum on that, to help preserve these
dairies and beef operations because they actually maintain the
land. I have seen talk where the Park Service, as soon as they
have accomplished kicking them off, they are going to have to
hire somebody to graze the land, like their own manager to
graze it anyway. It makes no sense. So we have them drifting
out by lawsuit after lawsuit because they have to get NEPAs and
things.
Secretary Rollins. Yes, sir.
Mr. LaMalfa. They used to get 20 year leases from the Park
Service. The Park Service has got giant issues there. Not
completely your bailiwick, but I know you want to support.
Thank you for helping with that and for helping make sure
agriculture can thrive as these responsible folks are doing.
Secretary Rollins. Yes, sir. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, just
let me say I have just become very aware of this issue in the
last month and am very focused on it. I had a briefing on it
yesterday. I would love to talk to you maybe tomorrow and get a
full download, as I would like to get out to California very
soon and go meet with them.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thanks so much. We would love to have you out.
Secretary Rollins. Yes, sir. Thank you.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
I now recognize Ms. Adams from North Carolina for 5
minutes.
Ms. Adams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Madam
Secretary, for being here. And let me just say how delighted I
was to hear about your support for HBCUs. I am HBCU strong. I
am a proud graduate twice of North Carolina A&T State
University, an 1890, the largest public HBCU in the nation, so
I am happy to hear what you said about that, and we will look
forward to your support.
Secretary Rollins. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Adams. But the House Republicans' budget proposes
shifting SNAP benefit and administrative costs to states. I
served in the State House of North Carolina for 20 years, so I
know the challenges that they have. So the CBO anticipates that
these cuts could lead states to cut all or some food assistance
for 1.3 million Americans due to the cost shift. Is that right?
Yes or no?
Secretary Rollins. I am sorry, ma'am----
Ms. Adams. Well, that is a yes or no.
Secretary Rollins. You are talking about the----
Ms. Adams. That the shifting might cause states to cut all
or some food assistance.
Secretary Rollins. Oh, currently under consideration. Well,
the partnership and the idea of the states, we spend $400
million a day----
Ms. Adams. Okay. Well, want I want to----
Secretary Rollins.--at USDA, and that partnership I think
is really important, and that is what the leadership of this
Committee led.
Ms. Adams. Okay. Let me do this. I have a series of
questions, and they are pretty much yes or no. So are you in
support of these unfunded mandates?
Secretary Rollins. I am in support of the most fiscally
responsible effort to ensure that we are delivering the right
amount of aid to the people who need it.
Ms. Adams. Okay. So let me just say that the CBO has
confirmed that this is an unfunded mandate, and the states have
confirmed it, as well as our counties.
And Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into the record a
letter from the North Carolina Association of County
Commissioners that speak to that issue. Madam Secretary----
The Chairman. Without objection.
Ms. Adams. Thank you.
Madam Secretary, are you aware of reports from USDA that
show that food insecurity has risen 3 years in a row? Yes or
no?
Secretary Rollins. Ma'am, we have $42 million on the SNAP
program. At this point of employment and unemployment, the last
time, we had $17 million so that program has exponentially
grown.
Ms. Adams. Okay.
Can you give me a yes or no? Okay. well, my time is--let me
just move on then. Okay. So are you aware that recent USDA
reports show that grocery prices are expected to increase by
3.3 percent this year?
Secretary Rollins. Inflation has gone down for the first
time since the last Trump Administration was here, so that will
directly reflect on groceries.
Ms. Adams. I want a yes or no, but I don't suppose I am
going to get one. But anyway, listen, we should not be taking
food assistance from families, revenue from our farmers and
rural economies at any time, but especially not as costs are so
high and expected to rise further. SNAP is an effective
economic stabilizer during downturns, with every dollar
generating as high as a $1.80 economic impact during these
downturns. So shifting costs to the states removes that
economic stabilizing impact because states will see their tax
base decrease substantially at exactly the moment when more
spending is most needed.
So my next question--it is a yes or no if you can do that--
are you in favor of removing this economic benefit, especially
for rural and small town cities and the farmers who benefit
from the sale of their produce in these towns?
Secretary Rollins. No one in America should go hungry, so
of course I am in support of programs that are effectively run
that fill that gap.
Ms. Adams. All right. I am not sure if you are saying yes
or no. But anyway, let me just say this. States already--and I
have heard so many people talk about the skin in the game, and
states do have skin in the game already through the 50/50
administrative cost-share and the current monetary penalty that
they face for a too-high payment error rate. In fact,
Pennsylvania was sanctioned $40 million last year for having a
high error rate.
So let me ask one last question. So with fewer staff--we
have suggested, for example, that we know that there have been
cuts, right? So with fewer staff and reduced resources, will
the USDA be able to endure timely and effective support for
state agencies as they handle complex policy changes, waivers,
and investigations into instances of scheming theft and
technical assistance requests?
Secretary Rollins. To this, I can say yes.
Ms. Adams. Okay. Thank you.
Secretary Rollins. You are welcome.
Ms. Adams. So giving ongoing unfunded and understaffing in
states causing delays in SNAP application processing, is the
USDA taking action to help states process applications more
quickly? Can you say yes or no, ma'am?
Secretary Rollins. I would need to look into that, but my
assumption is yes, that we are doing everything we can to help
move that quickly.
Ms. Adams. Okay. Thank you very much. The USDA's 1890
scholars----
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia [presiding.] I am sorry, ma'am,
your time has expired.
Ms. Adams. Am I out of time?
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Adams. Why is the clock still ticking here? Okay.
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Adams. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. All right.
Ms. Adams. I yield back, and thank you, Madam Secretary.
Secretary Rollins. Thank you, ma'am.
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. It is all good, Ms. Adams.
Mr. Crawford, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary, thank you for being here. I appreciate you
joining us today.
A lot of important issues, not the least of which is
national security for our nation's food supply and our
producers. Before the recent news of two Chinese nationals
smuggling what many believe to be a weapon of agroterrorism, I
had a conversation with DNI Gabbard about getting USDA office
opened and staffed with ICE personnel to begin working with you
and others to address matters like this when they come up, and
hopefully before they ever make it to our borders. I know you
will work closely with DNI Gabbard as a matter of national
importance.
This is a new authority that we tried to get in place under
the previous Administration. It has actually taken us years to
get to this point, so I hope that we will be aggressive, and
these incidents really underscore the need for it.
Secretary Rollins. Agreed. I will do everything I can.
Please feel free to call me if you think there is more I can
do.
Mr. Crawford. Absolutely. I appreciate that.
Recently, the National Security Commission on Emerging
Biotechnology issued a salient report on a multitude of issues
facing our ag and biotech sector. And when you think about
areas that need the most attention in our country like our
supply chains, specialized subject matter expertise, bio-
surveillance and bioweapons, and the gaps that exist at USDA,
how do you prioritize those personally, and how can we here in
Congress help you fill those gaps?
Secretary Rollins. I think it is of utmost importance. You
will hear from USDA in the coming week, in fact, in the coming
couple of days, a renewed, elevated, and amplified focus on
just that, how we work across this government under Donald
Trump to ensure we are addressing all of this at warp speed,
aggressively to solve for it. It really is a national security
issue, and making sure that people understand what is at stake
is really important.
Mr. Crawford. Well, and I am glad we had an opportunity to
talk about this and make sure that you were aware of that
authority that does exist in statute that was not acted on in
the previous Administration. It is most definitely a priority,
as we have seen in the news lately, and we don't want to get
caught flat-footed on these incidents of potential
bioterrorism, agroterrorism.
Let me shift gears on you just in the remaining 3 minutes
that I have. I am from Arkansas. You may already know this. I
represent the largest rice-growing district in the country, in
addition to lots of soy, corn, wheat, et cetera. Rice farmers
and rice mills in my district directly benefit from the bulk
shipments that are part of the Food for Progress program, Pub.
L. 83-480, and that ships rice, wheat, other commodities in
bulk in international aid.
I know the Trump Administration has taken a hard look at
all foreign aid programs to ensure they are functioning as
originally intended, which includes serving as a market for
producers. I was pleased to see the McGovern-Dole applications
open up a few weeks ago for the 2025 funding. Do you have any
timeline when we might see Food for Progress, when that might
be announced?
Secretary Rollins. I know we have 14 current active Food
for Progress projects going on right now in 17 countries. Yes,
you are right, May 9 was the McGovern-Dole announcement. Let me
find out the exact date on that, sir, probably during the next
question, and I will respond immediately.
Mr. Crawford. Perfect. Thank you so much. And I don't have
any further questions, so I will yield back. Thank you, Madam
Secretary.
Secretary Rollins. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. The chair now recognizes Ms.
Brown for 5 minutes.
Ms. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Ranking
Member Craig.
Secretary Rollins, thank you for appearing before the
Committee today to talk about what has been happening over at
USDA for the past 6 months.
I want to start by asking you some questions about the Make
America Healthy Again movement and the MAHA report that your
agency, alongside the Department of Health and Human Services,
released last month. Secretary Rollins, did you personally
review the MAHA report prior to its publication on May 22nd?
Secretary Rollins. Yes, I did.
Ms. Brown. Okay. Since you reviewed the report before
publication, did you notice the report cited nonexistent
studies or that there were a number of missing or broken links
or that the report misrepresented underlying studies? And if
so, why did you not ensure they were corrected before the
report was published? And if not, do you take responsibility
for the work the agency publishes on your behalf without your
review?
Secretary Rollins. Those have all been solved, but thank
you for the note.
Ms. Brown. See, what I am concerned about here is making
sure that our children in our country are actually healthier.
And I welcome this conversation with my colleagues and the
Administration. But sound policy actually follows sound
science.
Secretary Rollins. I agree.
Ms. Brown. And right now, we are not all working from the
same set of facts. So as you move toward the August deadline
for the second report, I strongly encourage you to follow the
science, not to jump to conclusions, and to rebuild trust by
ensuring transparency, accuracy, and meaningfully engaging
scientists, agricultural, and nutritional stakeholders.
So turning to another area----
Secretary Rollins. I agree. Thank you.
Ms. Brown. You're welcome. Turning to another area of
concern, I want to talk about the Quarterly Agricultural Trade
Report. Earlier this year, you indicated the report would be
released on May 29. Yet, it was ultimately published several
days late and without the usual explanatory section. It had
been reported that you delayed the report because it showed an
increase in the trade deficit in farm goods for later this
year.
So Secretary Rollins, why was the report delayed and
incomplete? And was the delay related to the report showing a
worsening trade deficit in farm goods?
Secretary Rollins. I will look into that and get back to
you. It is my understanding that we wanted to make sure it was
complete, that the citations were correct, and that the review
was done in total. Of course, I have only been on the job 118
days with 100,000 employees, and multiples of these reports
moving all the time directly out of USDA. But we will look into
that and circle back.
Ms. Brown. So did your team remove the explanatory text
from the report specifically because it attributed to the
growing trade deficit to the Trump Administration's tariff
regime?
Secretary Rollins. It is my understanding that that was not
the case, but we will look into that. I think the President has
been very forward-leaning on understanding that we are in some
time of uncertainty, but as these trade deals continue to get
done, China announced about an hour ago, the UK 2 weeks ago,
more coming, that that is going to be a really important part
of the conversation moving forward. I want to make sure every
piece of research we move out is the best cited, et cetera, and
so that is a big part of my portfolio right now is to ensure
that.
Ms. Brown. I am glad you mentioned uncertainty because
economists, farmers, and others rely on reports like this to
track markets and plan for the future. When you start to insert
politics into data releases, you harm the reputation of your
Department and erode the trust the government is trying to
produce when it has untainted data.
So Secretary Rollins, will you commit to publishing data
and reports that are complete and free from tampering of the
underlying data?
Secretary Rollins. We just have to make sure our internal
review process is in place. But yes, we will work around the
clock to ensure it is the correct data that gets out at the
right time to make the most impact for our farmers and
ranchers.
Ms. Brown. I appreciate that. I expect my colleagues and I
will continue this conversation because the stakes are simply
too high for those who fuel and feed our nation. At a time when
chaos reigns from this Administration, our farmers deserve
certainty and support from Washington, not uncertainty and
spin, so thank you, Madam Secretary.
Secretary Rollins. Thank you, Congresswoman. I appreciate
it.
Ms. Brown. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman [presiding.] The gentlelady yields back.
I now recognize the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Kelly,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Kelly. Madam Secretary, thank you for your time today
and a sincere thank you to President Trump and your team at
USDA for putting American farmers back at the heart of our
national agriculture policy. Under President Trump's
leadership, we no longer focus on empty rhetoric. We are
advancing policies that actually deliver real results for
producers like mine in Mississippi.
And I hope that when you visit Mississippi in the very near
future, you will have a chance to go to Mississippi State
University, which is our great land-grant university, which
also has a great veterinary program and a lot of ag research
there.
Secretary Rollins. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kelly. We are trying to make sure we get you up there
so----
Secretary Rollins. I met with your President yesterday.
Mr. Kelly. I know.
Secretary Rollins. Okay. So yes, we will be there.
Mr. Kelly. He told me I better put that in or he would not
support me anymore.
Secretary Rollins. I have a cowbell to prove it for the
record, a very loud one.
Mr. Kelly. I really appreciate--last year, we fought real
hard on this Committee to get $10 billion, to get it to our
farmers, to keep many of them from going under this year. I
really appreciate your rapid response to getting that money out
and having policy to make sure that our farmers and the lenders
for our farmers can actually lend.
Secretary Rollins. Yes.
Mr. Kelly. There is another $21 billion in economic
assistance that is coming through the emergency disaster
relief. What are your plans to quickly distribute that money?
Because we are still in dire need in farm country.
Secretary Rollins. Yes, that is going to be, well, we have
already started moving that. The first $1 billion moved about a
week ago through the livestock program. The block grants are
moving right now. Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia will be in the next 8 or so
weeks. The rest of those we are negotiating with. Of course,
the $220 million on the New England States, as our friends on
the Democratic side have brought up a couple of times, I am in
constant communication with those ag commissioners.
If you see something, though, Congressman, that you don't
believe we are moving quickly enough, you are hearing that it
is too complicated, please just let me know. We are solving for
that every day.
Mr. Kelly. And then I know you have talked plenty about
this, but unfortunately, I have another Secretary and another
hearing at the same time, the Secretary of the Navy.
Secretary Rollins. Yes.
Mr. Kelly. But on the screwworm----
Secretary Rollins. Yes.
Mr. Kelly.--what are we doing to make sure--it is going to
devastate. I am in Mississippi, and especially in south
Mississippi, it is rapidly moving. What are we doing to ensure
that it does not get to our shores? Because we need to stop it
before it gets here because it would devastate herds if it gets
here.
Secretary Rollins. No, there is no doubt. And as you may or
may not know, but good for the entire Committee to hear, we
shut down the ports of entry about 2 to 3 weeks ago, much to
the chagrin of my counterpart in Mexico, Secretary Berdegue,
and their Administration. We had call after call after call of
them really asking us to reconsider, reconsider, reconsider.
But that screwworm had moved from within 1,100 miles of our
border to 700 miles of our border within a matter of weeks. As
you know, in the 1950s when it hit, it took 30 years for the
livestock community to recover from that. I will have a major
announcement next week on the very next step on putting the
resources, the time, and the effort into continuing to push it
back.
Mr. Kelly. I always say I represent the one percenters, the
one percent who serve this nation in uniform, and the one
percent who feed the world, our farmers. And I truly believe
that because I believe national security is farm security and
our ability to produce.
That being said, Madam Secretary, I really appreciate you
getting after the fraud and abuse in the SNAP programs to kick
people off who shouldn't be on there that are taking away from
people who should be, not cutting benefits, but cutting the
people who shouldn't be getting to start with.
One thing I hope that you will help us on is our H-2A and
our H-2B workers are critical to our farms.
Secretary Rollins. Yes.
Mr. Kelly. The process makes it harder than it should be.
Secretary Rollins. Yes.
Mr. Kelly. We get them notice that they are going to get
these workers long after they can use them, especially when you
are talking about sweet potatoes or planting or harvesting
anything.
What are you going to do to expedite the process so people
who are legally coming here on H-2As or H-2Bs can get here
quicker, stay longer, and help our farmers? What are you going
to do in that area?
Secretary Rollins. Well, and I would say the fourth thing
is the expense of it, right? I mean, in Texas, the citrus
producers who even get the H-2A workers are averaging $23 an
hour, and a mile across the border, it is $2 an hour. So that
is a big part of it too.
But listen, we talked about this a little bit earlier. I
talked to the President about this, this morning, again
yesterday. He is acutely aware of the challenges, understanding
that the leadership from this Committee must continue, that
Congress has to move forward on a solution, but working with
Lori Chavez----
Mr. Kelly. Let me stop real quick, because I have one more
comment I want to make.
Secretary Rollins. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kelly. This deal where a guy who drives a pickup truck,
and they made a regulation that he drove a pickup truck, so now
he is a truck driver and gets a different wage, you need to put
a stop to all these stupid regulations we got in the last
Administration.
Secretary Rollins. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kelly. And with that, I yield back.
Secretary Rollins. We are working on it. Thank you, sir.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has----
Secretary Rollins. I will be in Mississippi soon, for the
record.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
I now recognize the gentlelady from Kansas, Ms. Davids, for
5 minutes.
Ms. Davids of Kansas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank
you to Secretary Rollins for being here today.
The USDA plays a vital role in Kansas and across the
country, supporting our rural producers, ensuring affordable
food, and protecting the safety of our food systems. Americans
rely on USDA every single day, whether they realize it or not,
when they fill their grocery carts, when they grab milk from
the fridge or drive past farmland that feeds their communities.
And this is why I am deeply alarmed by what I consider to
be reckless and unjust firings carried out by DOGE and the
ripple effects that we are seeing in our communities because
these firings don't just affect Federal workers. They threaten
food safety, they stall critical research at places like Kansas
State University, and they leave farmers and ranchers without
the support that they depend on.
And we can't talk about shared values of improving
government efficiency while simultaneously pulling the rug out
from the very people who keep our food supply running. You
can't eliminate good-paying skilled jobs in Kansas City at the
same time that our producers are already facing droughts,
volatile markets from reckless tariffs, and rising costs.
And this is not just a policy issue. It is very personal to
the folks at home. The Kansas City metro is home to about
30,000 Federal workers, including many of the USDA's Economic
Research Service and National Institute of Food and
Agriculture. These are neighbors, they are families, friends,
and certainly they deserve better than chaos.
Meanwhile, we are seeing new emerging threats. We have
already discussed today a bit about the New World screwworm,
which poses a serious risk to Kansas livestock and even to
human health. And I am very proud to cosponsor the bipartisan
STOP Screwworms Act (H.R. 3392, Strengthening Tactics to
Obstruct the Population of Screwworms Act) because we
definitely need to be proactive on this.
And at the same time, I am deeply concerned about the USDA
staffing cuts at the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility in
Manhattan, Kansas. It is the nation's first biosafety level 4
lab for livestock. It was built to protect us from the worst
animal diseases. And I understand that 28 employees were fired
on a single day. Then later, some of those firings were walked
back. A similar situation unfolded at the Food Safety and
Inspection Service. That kind of instability certainly shakes
the foundation of the USDA's mission and puts our food supply,
our economy, and the public trust at risk.
So Secretary Rollins, I am curious, were the firings a
clerical mistake, or did someone have second thoughts about the
initial decision to fire these specific people at the National
Bio and Agro-Defense Facility?
Secretary Rollins. Well, there was a lot there, but let me
answer that last question first. There were no firings. There
was a probation period. They were all brought back. I worked
with the Senators from your state to ensure that was the case.
So if you were hearing differently, will you please let our
office know? But it is my understanding that all of that was
unfrozen almost immediately and put back into place.
Ms. Davids of Kansas. So I guess the concern is that we
have heard about the New World screwworm already.
Secretary Rollins. Right.
Ms. Davids of Kansas. During that time, I think the bird
flu was one of the bigger concerns that was being kind of
mainstream talked about spreading throughout the country. There
are other potential animal diseases. How could the National Bio
and Agro-Defense Facility or even like our Food Safety and
Inspection Service even be part of the chopping block in the
first place? Was there not any discussion about how those
decisions were going to be made? The fact that people were at
the facility on one day, told to leave, and then told to come
back, especially at these specific facilities that are meant to
protect us from some of the worst animal diseases that could
spread to humans, I am just curious how that even happened.
Secretary Rollins. It clearly was an imperfect process but
one that we moved to rectify within hours, if not days. One
thing I want to make sure you understand, though, is when
President Trump--when we left in the first Administration, USDA
had about 90,000 employees. When we came back 4 years later, we
had 112,000 employees, so working again to realign and refocus
and understanding what the priorities are.
There is no question that the priority of whether New World
screwworm or HPAI, keeping our food supply safe and secure for
the world, ensuring our farmers are put first continues to be a
priority, and my commitment is to ensure that is so. So if you
are hearing anything differently, please reach out to me
directly, and we will work to rectify it, as we have been
doing.
Ms. Davids of Kansas. Thank you. And Mr. Chairman, I yield
back.
Secretary Rollins. Thank you.
The Chairman. I thank the gentlelady. She yields back.
I now recognize Mr. Baird for 5 minutes.
Mr. Baird. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member.
And Secretary Rollins, we really appreciate you being here.
It is exciting. It is really exciting to see the things you are
doing for agriculture.
Secretary Rollins. Thank you.
Mr. Baird. And I want to tell you, too, it was great to see
you yesterday, and thank you for allowing me to be with
Secretary Kennedy and you and Governor Braun from Indiana and
Governor Huckabee Sanders from Arkansas. So I really feel the
work that you are doing, and I appreciate the hard work you are
doing to make America healthy again.
But in order to get to the questions that I am interested
in, one of the areas that I am going to start with--and it was
mentioned yesterday--later this month, your Department will
publish the Fiscal Year 2024 SNAP payment error rates. And I
know for 2023, $13 billion in SNAP payments went out the door
erroneously. In fact, $1 in every $10 in SNAP that year was in
an overpayment. So it is unacceptable to this body and to the
taxpayers, and this behavior should not continue. So I would
like to have what you are doing and what you can do to help
alleviate this kind of behavior.
Secretary Rollins. Yes, it was great to have you in my
office at USDA as well. I would like to invite anyone,
Republican and Democratic, to come visit any time.
I think that the error rate, you say $1 in $10, that is
what we know of. We think it is probably much higher than that.
That is why these efforts are so important. We just have had
three stings in just the last couple of weeks, counting for
tens of millions of dollars, working in concert with the Secret
Service and other key investigative agencies, including our
team at USDA. We will not stop until this is rooted out.
But I think it goes to the bigger question, and that is
when, again, the last time we had 42 million people--or the
last time we had this unemployment number in America, which is
low, the last time we had 17 million people on SNAP. Today,
with the same unemployment number, we have 42 million people on
SNAP. So the exponential growth of this program, especially
over the last 4 years, a 40 percent increase in the last 4
years is going to bring with it the fraud and the waste and the
abuse that we have to counter. So I look forward to working
with you, continuing to work across the U.S. Government to root
that out.
Mr. Baird. Well, thank you for that effort. And then my
other area goes to another area that is of interest to me in
agriculture, and that is agricultural biotechnology. And in
that, I include this artificial intelligence, as well as
quantum computing. But nonetheless, that is really the
forefront of innovation. It enables farmers and ranchers to
produce more using less resources. The USDA, through the Animal
and Plant Health Inspection Service Biotechnology Regulatory
Service, plays a key role in enabling the innovation to come to
market.
So how do we see USDA--how do you feel about helping get
this kind of innovation quickly to our farmers and producers?
Secretary Rollins. There is no group of people that have
been more innovative than our farmers and ranchers over 249
years, none. And as we have gone and seen this firsthand from
basically feeding ourselves to now feeding the world, we should
be so proud and continue to work so hard to lift up and to
elevate these incredible men and women.
There is no doubt, and what I have seen firsthand in terms
of the innovation in agriculture is absolutely mind-blowing. So
we will continue to work and find partners in that across the
country, and to ensure that our farmers and ranchers have
everything they need to continue to be the leaders in
agriculture around the world.
Mr. Baird. Thank you very much for that perspective and
that answer. And, I share the view that you have. Agriculture
is the foundation of this country and it has been from its very
beginning, the 249 years you mentioned.
Secretary Rollins. Yes.
Mr. Baird. I really appreciate your perspective and your
work in the agricultural arena.
Secretary Rollins. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Baird. Thank you. I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
I am pleased to recognize the gentlelady from Oregon,
Congresswoman Salinas, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Salinas. Thank you, Chairman Thompson, and thank you,
Ranking Member Craig, and thank you, Secretary Rollins, for
being here today.
Madam Secretary, food banks across the country are
responding to consistently increasing demand, and Oregon is no
exception. Right now, one in eight Oregonians and, even more
troubling, one in six children, are experiencing food
insecurity. Last year alone, visits to Oregon food bank sites
surged to a record 2.5 million. This was a 31 percent increase
over the previous year. Despite this overwhelming need, USDA
recently canceled $500 million in funding to The Emergency Food
Assistance Program, or TEFAP. That decision led to the
cancellation of about 30 full truckloads of food meant to be
distributed across our state.
I recently introduced a piece of legislation, the Farmers
Feeding America Act of 2025 (H.R. 3784), to provide a
significant increase to TEFAP. And as the title implies, it is
critical to remember that Federal nutrition programs also
benefit our agricultural sector by providing additional revenue
streams that they may not otherwise be able to attain from
producers.
So this is, or was, true of the Local Food Purchase
Assistance Program and the Local Food for Schools and Child
Care Programs as well, just as it is for SNAP. These are very
simple questions, just require a yes or no answer. First, do
you acknowledge that the demand at food banks is increasing
year over year, or at least it did over last year?
Secretary Rollins. I haven't seen the numbers, but I will
take you at your word.
Ms. Salinas. Okay. Thank you. And then, do you agree that
Federal nutrition programs provide an important stream of
revenue for America's farmers?
Secretary Rollins. When executed correctly, yes.
Ms. Salinas. Okay. Thank you. Well, I appreciate your
acknowledgement of these basic realities. I am puzzled, though,
why this Administration and my Republican colleagues still seek
to cancel and defund these programs, despite understanding the
critical needs for both those who are hungry, as well as for
our agricultural sector. But again, I do thank you.
So we have heard a great deal from this Administration
about mass deportation plans and workplace immigration raids,
and we are already seeing the chaos these actions cause across
the country. These operations have swept up not only
undocumented individuals, but also legal residents, work visa
holders, and even some U.S. citizens. There have been well-
documented cases of individuals with legal protections being
wrongly detained or deported, sowing fear throughout farmworker
and immigrant communities, including those in Oregon.
At a Senate Agriculture Committee hearing, the President of
the American Farm Bureau, Zippy Duvall, warned that these mass
deportation plans could put farms out of business and disrupt
the food supply at a scale comparable to what we saw during the
COVID-19 pandemic.
Similarly, this Committee also held a hearing earlier this
year on the state of the economy, and I asked the witnesses,
most of which were called to testify by the Majority, whether
they thought mass deportations would have the same impact that
Mr. Duvall outlined, and they agreed.
In Oregon, we know how real this threat is. Our state's
agricultural sector, from berries to nursery crops to wineries,
relies heavily on immigrant labor. And in fact, approximately
73 percent of Oregon's crop farm workers, the workers who
actually pick crops, are foreign-born, which mirrors the
national average. Further, almost half of these workers are
undocumented, which is also close to the national average.
Without these workers, Oregon's farms and farms across this
nation simply cannot function.
So, given these realities, do you agree with the assessment
by Mr. Duvall and the witnesses who testified before this
Committee that mass deportations could upend America's
agricultural sector?
Secretary Rollins. The President himself, in a Cabinet
meeting, discussed this. I talked to him about it this morning.
There is a recognition that there has to be a balance. He
remains committed to ensuring that no laws are broken, but
while realizing that our agriculture community, specifically
our dairy farmers, a lot of our row croppers, our specialty
crops, there is a massive labor issue that we have to work to
solve in partnership with Congress.
Ms. Salinas. Thank you. All right. The Rural Energy for
America Program, commonly known as REAP, offers grants and loan
guarantees to farmers, ranchers, and rural small businesses for
energy efficiency improvements and renewable energy systems.
Since its inception in the bipartisan farm bill in 2008, REAP
has provided grants and loans that have helped more than 21,000
farms and 32,710 rural small businesses. I have personally
toured multiple operations in my district that have benefited
from this program.
Unfortunately, these beneficiaries, like Oregon Flowers,
Inc., in Aurora, Oregon, reported that they saw their REAP
grant funding delayed as part of this Administration's ill-
advised funding freeze. Fortunately, I have heard that Oregon
Flowers' grant has been unfrozen, as have those for other
recipients in the district.
Given I have seen the impact of these projects in my
district, I do have a couple of questions. I know Ranking
Member Craig and her Senate counterpart sent you a letter
asking for an update on REAP funds at the end of April, but you
have yet to respond. Are any REAP grants still frozen?
Secretary Rollins. I am proud to say I think we are
completely caught up in all the letters, which is sort of
unprecedented, so that should be solved for. There should be a
letter on their desks at least as of last night.
Ms. Salinas. Okay. All right.
Secretary Rollins. So it may be late. But yes, we have
fully unfrozen all of those programs. Again, in a commitment to
the American taxpayer to understand the efficiency, the
efficacy of all of these programs, we undertook a lot of
review. But it is important, and those are important to local
communities and worked with some of the leaders in your state,
specifically. I remember some phone calls and found them to be
very valid.
Ms. Salinas. Thank you. I yield back.
Secretary Rollins. Thank you, Congresswoman.
The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired.
I now recognize the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bacon, for
5 minutes.
Mr. Bacon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am an equal opportunity critic of Secretary Rollins, as
people maybe share, but I want to commend you. You have done a
great job today. I think you are doing a great job as
Secretary. I think the Administration made a great choice in
you for Secretary of Agriculture.
Secretary Rollins. Thank you.
Mr. Bacon. The first question I want to ask is, it is not
your doing, the problem, but you can have a hand in helping us
here. Canada is Nebraska's largest trading partner. It is the
cornerstone of our agriculture economy. And we have this
agreement, USMCA, that the President negotiated in his first
term. They were in compliance. And we talk about tariffs with
dairy, but that was written into the USMCA deal, and then they
gave us tariffs on wood. It was meant to be equal. But the
tariffs are hurting us with Canada.
Also, the talk of the 51st state from the Administration
has angered so many Canadians. And I hear from our business
leaders in Omaha that they are losing business from Canada,
that they are saying, ``Hey, we don't want to do business with
you right now.'' So we are paying for this, at least in
Nebraska, I am sure other states as well. I hope you can help.
I hope you have a kind of timeline that maybe we can get an
agreement so we can get trade back going, and we need to repair
this relationship that is important to not just Nebraska, all
of the United States.
I yield back.
Secretary Rollins. Well, sir, I appreciate that. Clearly,
as I mentioned a little bit earlier, it is an uncertain time.
Our farmers and producers are the most affected by the
uncertainty. Remarkably, they have remained very committed. In
fact, the latest poll shows that the community is actually
higher in support today than they were even before what we call
Liberation Day when the President enacted the reciprocal
tariffs.
Having said that, I hear you. If you would send specific
examples, I think that would really help me fully understand as
these conversations are ongoing and I am at the table.
Mr. Bacon. Really, I have talked to business leaders in
Omaha. We have Fortune 500 companies. Canadians are calling
them saying, we don't want to do business with you right now.
But I don't really understand the reason for tariffs on Canada
to begin with when they have been in compliance with an
agreement that was negotiated by this President. For many of
us, it doesn't make sense.
But let me go to question number two. You and I spoke on
the phone, and I really appreciate you taking my call regarding
staffing and funding cuts with the U.S. Meat Animal Research
Center in Nebraska. Do you have any update on efforts to
restore these critical research positions and sustainable
funding?
Secretary Rollins. I don't right in front of me, but I will
before we conclude today so we will get right back to you.
Mr. Bacon. Okay.
Secretary Rollins. I am grateful. It is important to us,
and we have some great universities trying to work with you.
Secretary Rollins. Yes, thank you.
Mr. Bacon. You have already addressed my third question,
but I just want to say thanks for your candor on the Make
America Healthy Again and the impacts on farmers. I appreciate
your feedback and your candor.
My final question is this. On March 20, the USDA's
Agricultural Research Service distributed a directive
restricting the use of more than 100 terms in the evaluation
agreements. Among these prohibited were ethanol, sustainable
aviation fuel, water conservation, and groundwater pollution.
All these things are important to Nebraska. Why do we do that?
Because a lot of these research areas are important to the
Midwest. And can you provide an update or a rationale?
Secretary Rollins. Yes, of course. That was fixed almost
immediately.
Mr. Bacon. Okay, good.
Secretary Rollins. So unless you hear differently, we have
not heard any other issues with that. We solved for that right
away.
Mr. Bacon. Okay. Thank you so much. Those are my four
questions.
Secretary Rollins. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. Bacon. I will give you back a minute 40.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize the gentlelady from Hawaii, Representative
Tokuda, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Tokuda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I wanted to follow up on your response to Ranking Member
Craig. The USDA did, in fact, fire nearly 6,000 probationary
employees as part of a government-wide reduction in force. This
was in addition to the deferred resignations that were
received. The courts did, in fact, force you to reinstate these
employees. Do you agree with the court's decision, then, and
regret your initial decision to DOGE 6,000 of your employees?
Just a simple yes or no, please.
Secretary Rollins. I believe that was before I was sworn
in, but we are undertaking every----
Ms. Tokuda. Do you believe that the Administration regrets
a decision, then, to DOGE 6,000 employees?
Secretary Rollins. Well, I am not going to talk for the
entire Administration. I think the effort to ensure that every
tax dollar is spent is a really worthy effort----
Ms. Tokuda. Okay. One----
I want to move on because I have a lot of questions.
Secretary Rollins.--even if it is imperfect.
Ms. Tokuda. If the courts had not stopped your
Administration, would you have stood by the firings, and would
you have pushed for more firings?
Secretary Rollins. If you and I had had the discussion, you
would know that I have been so open to these discussions, no
matter Republican or Democratic, in ensuring that we are doing
everything we need to do to basically effectuate the USDA's
mission.
Ms. Tokuda. Okay.
Secretary Rollins. So I don't want to speculate in
hypotheticals.
Ms. Tokuda. All right. Well, I will just say that there
were 6,000 firings, of which the courts did have to then make
you reverse the decision. And I am curious as to how much were
actually brought back.
But I do want to move on along this line. In April,
Secretary Rollins, you stated that the USDA will be optimizing
and reducing the size of the workforce to become more
efficient. USDA employees have been told the goal is to cut
back the workforce to fiscal 2019 levels, which would lead to a
reduction of around 23 percent of the agency's workforce. Is
this still your goal, to get to Fiscal Year 2019 staffing
levels, yes or no?
Secretary Rollins. Is this not unbelievable, though, to
you, that USDA under your Administration----
Ms. Tokuda. Just a simple yes or no answer, please.
Secretary Rollins.--increased 25 percent by 20,000 people?
Ms. Tokuda. I have a number of questions. Mr. Chairman if
you can ask the witness to answer.
Okay. So I am going to----
Secretary Rollins. I don't--I mean----
Ms. Tokuda.--assume your answer is yes, that that is in
fact still your cut goal. If not, please submit it for you.
Now, the 15,000 who took the deferred resignation is less
than 15 percent. So even as we are trying to recruit people
back, and we have seen this recently because we are vacant in
certain areas we need, are you still trying to cut by 23
percent, yes or no? I feel you are not----
Secretary Rollins. We are working every day----
Ms. Tokuda.--going to answer this.
Secretary Rollins.--on behalf of the American people to put
farmers first and make sure these programs are done with the
utmost integrity.
Ms. Tokuda. Farmers need people to help them answer the
questions they have and provide----
Secretary Rollins. They don't need 25,000----
Ms. Tokuda.--the technical assistance they need.
Secretary Rollins.--new employees based on a crazy
infusion----
Ms. Tokuda. Do you think----
Secretary Rollins.--of spending from the last
Administration----
Ms. Tokuda. Okay. Here is a simple question for you----
Secretary Rollins.--and the American people agree with
that.
Ms. Tokuda. Do you feel you are adequately staffed to meet
your mission?
Secretary Rollins. We are----
Ms. Tokuda. Yes or no?
Secretary Rollins.--adequately staffed to meet our mission.
Ms. Tokuda. Okay. Well, then this is a question I think you
need to talk to farmers about as to whether or not they think
they have staffing at USDA to actually support the programs
they need.
Secretary Rollins, you are from Texas, which currently
leads the nation in rates of food insecurity and hunger. In
Dallas-Fort Worth, the metropolitan area encompassing where you
live, childhood hunger, food insecurity rates are at 20.9
percent. One in five children go to bed hungry. You have been
an advisor to Governor Rick Perry, cutting the local food
purchase assistance and Local Food for Schools funding.
Secretary Rollins. That was 20 years ago.
Ms. Tokuda. I agree, but you have instinct and knowledge of
what it is like to have to take care of a state. You cut LFP
and LFS by $1 billion. Central Texas lost 40 loads of food
within weeks of the decision. That is 913,000 pounds of food,
or 716,000 meals. You also cut TEFAP by $500 million.
Texas is a top recipient of all of these particular funds,
and with the combined cuts, the Houston Food Bank alone lost
about 15 percent of their funding from these cuts. That is $11
million or 500 tractor-trailer loads of food.
My question is, just even thinking about Texas because you
have an intimate knowledge and understanding of this area, do
you think Texan children and families don't need these meals?
Secretary Rollins. I think that a wholesale review of all
of these programs is necessary. I don't know if you heard,
but----
Ms. Tokuda. But while we review it, are people hungry?
Secretary Rollins.--the last time we had this number of----
Ms. Tokuda. Six containers of protein and food----
Secretary Rollins.--unemployment, we had 17 million
people----
Ms. Tokuda.--were turned away from Hawaii.
Secretary Rollins.--on the SNAP program. Today, we have 42
million. We spend $400 million----
Ms. Tokuda. Are you done?
Secretary Rollins.--a day----
Ms. Tokuda. Secretary, are you then----
Secretary Rollins.--$400 million a day----
Ms. Tokuda.--saying that the food you cut was not needed--
--
Secretary Rollins.--on nutrition programs.
Ms. Tokuda.--by the people who were going to eat them? It
is a simple question.
Secretary Rollins. Texas has half the poverty of California
by having lower taxes and less government programs. We are
moving people into real jobs and real prosperity----
Ms. Tokuda. You are then implying that people who are
receiving----
Secretary Rollins.--at a rate that states that don't move
forward----
Ms. Tokuda.--those food--again----
Secretary Rollins.--with freedom have.
Ms. Tokuda.--these are redundant----
Secretary Rollins. So I will not let you denigrate my state
that has become the model in the country for the American
dream, for prosperity----
Ms. Tokuda. Your state is leading the country----
Secretary Rollins.--for good jobs, for good health care----
Ms. Tokuda.--in hunger and food insecurity right now.
Secretary Rollins.--et cetera. Thank you.
Ms. Tokuda. And we are talking about the fact that your
state alone has lost tens of millions, if not more, dollars'
worth of funding under your lead of this particular department.
Secretary Rollins. Four hundred million dollars a day----
Ms. Tokuda. And it is a question----
Secretary Rollins. --should be plenty----
Ms. Tokuda. You must ask yourself----
Secretary Rollins.--to support these programs.
Ms. Tokuda.--for every dollar you cut, who goes hungry
throughout this country? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Rollins. In America----
Ms. Tokuda. I yield back.
Secretary Rollins.--there will not be a hungry child.
The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back.
I now recognize the gentlelady from Illinois, Mrs. Miller,
for 5 minutes.
Secretary Rollins. Hello.
Mrs. Miller. Hello, Secretary Rollins. It is a pleasure to
have you join us today, and I am looking forward to working
with you and President Trump in making American farmers great
again.
As you are well aware, we are seeing taxpayer-subsidized
Chinese solar covering some of the best farm ground in the
world, class A and class B farm ground. I was proud to
reintroduce the No Solar Panels on Fertile Farmland Act of 2025
(H.R. 1080) this Congress, which bans taxpayer funding for
solar panels, especially those made in China, from being
installed on America's fertile farm ground.
I want to publicly applaud your leadership in taking action
to stop Chinese Communist Party from buying up American
farmland. Hostile foreign powers should never be allowed to
control critical American assets like our food production.
Recently, organizations like the Bezos Earth Fund have
spent millions of dollars to paint the livestock and
agriculture industries as drivers of climate change. These
grants have sparked significant concerns among cattle producers
because foreign countries who seek to undermine the integrity
of the Angus breed and our beef industry often target cattle as
major environmental culprits.
But I know we are in good hands with you as our Secretary.
Secretary Rollins, what measures is the USDA taking to ensure
that fertile farmland remains dedicated to food production and
isn't repurposed for large-scale renewable energy projects?
Secretary Rollins. Well, first of all, thank you,
Congresswoman. Can I note that three of my four kids just
arrived? Jake Rollins, Anna Rollins, and Lily Rollins, part of
the government process here, and what a joy to have them.
Mrs. Miller. That is great.
Secretary Rollins. Yes. So you and I have discussed this a
lot. Your leadership on the solar panels and on the Chinese
threat is so appreciated and so inspiring. We rolled out our
Small Family Farm Initiative about 3 weeks ago. The solar panel
piece of that is part of it. We are actually moving regs
through our system right now. So hopefully, in partnership with
you and with this Congress as we move this forward, I have
spoken with the President about it specifically. He too is very
interested in it.
Regarding the Angus beef, I would love more information on
that.
Mrs. Miller. Okay.
Secretary Rollins. This is the first time I have actually
heard of that, but remain acutely aware of the threats at stake
and what we need to do to begin to solve for that. I have been
in a lot of meetings about that at the White House.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you very much. And I would like to say
that solar and wind is not only taxpayer-subsidized Chinese
energy, but it is unreliable, and it is increasingly
unaffordable. And by covering rural America with it, they are
driving people out of rural America and ruining our beautiful
landscape. And we know President Trump loves beautiful things
so----
Secretary Rollins. Yes, he does. That is exactly right.
Mrs. Miller. Given the concerns about foreign entities
acquiring U.S. farmland, how is the USDA collaborating with
other agencies to monitor and regulate such transactions,
especially those involving nations hostile to the U.S.?
Secretary Rollins. We have 400,000 acres of farmland in the
last decade that has been purchased by the CCCP, 400,000. This
happened without much because I don't think we knew it was
happening. Now that we realize what a significant problem it
is, we are working across the Federal Government. I was, again,
in a meeting just yesterday about this issue, and we will
continue to build out the plan to ensure that we are addressing
this extreme threat to not only our farmland and our American
way of life, but to our national security.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you. And in light of the significant
spending by Bezos Earth Fund and other similar groups, what is
USDA doing to ensure Federal dollars are not being spent to
push this radical anti-agriculture ideology?
Secretary Rollins. Obviously, we have been talking about
this for the last few hours, but every single dollar we are
spending is under review to ensure that it is being spent with
the taxpayers in mind, with the President's vision in mind, and
what he was elected to do last November. And we are making a
lot of progress.
But having said that, and I ask this from both sides of the
aisle, anything that you see or hear differently, please let me
know. We are not going to be able to do this alone with just
our staff.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you. I am so grateful for you, and I
yield back.
Secretary Rollins. Thank you, Congresswoman.
The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back.
I am now pleased to recognize Mr. Vindman for 5 minutes.
Mr. Vindman. Thank you, Secretary Rollins, for testifying
today. Do you support farmers?
Secretary Rollins. Of course. Yes.
Mr. Vindman. And how about the families that go to grocery
stores, do you support them as well?
Secretary Rollins. I do. I have four children. Three of
them are here who eat groceries too.
Mr. Vindman. Wonderful. Glad to see them. Let's talk about
the trade war. Yes or no, are you aware that farmers need
inputs that we typically import to grow the crops?
Secretary Rollins. Which input? Yes, in general, but which
ones specifically are you talking about?
Mr. Vindman. Oh, just in general, I am talking about it,
and yes is the right answer.
Yes or no, will higher costs of inputs force farmers to
increase prices for their goods, resulting in higher costs for
families at the grocery store?
Secretary Rollins. Mr. Vindman, under the last
Administration, inputs went up 30 percent here in America, so
that is the bigger question----
Mr. Vindman. Madam Secretary----
Secretary Rollins.--not the trade war.
Mr. Vindman. We are not talking about the previous
Administration. We are talking about this Administration.
Secretary Rollins. Well, but that is really important. I
mean, that is 100 days versus 4 years. That is a 30 percent
increase in inputs. Under the Biden Administration, a $50
billion trade deficit that wasn't there----
Mr. Vindman. Madam Secretary, I am aware of that----
Secretary Rollins.--when the first Trump Administration
left.
Mr. Vindman.--but I am asking this----
Secretary Rollins.--I mean, if you want to talk about----
Mr. Vindman. Reclaiming----
Secretary Rollins.--the driving cost of groceries----
Mr. Vindman. Reclaiming my time.
Secretary Rollins.--that is where that is coming from.
Mr. Vindman. Reclaiming my time.
Secretary Rollins. Yes, sir. Please continue.
Mr. Vindman. So yes or no, will higher costs of inputs
force farmers to increase their prices?
Secretary Rollins. Yes----
Mr. Vindman. Okay.
Secretary Rollins.--as evidenced under the Biden
Administration.
Mr. Vindman. I am glad you agree, and I would like to
submit for the record an article titled, How Tariffs on Steel
and Aluminum Could Show Up on Your Grocery Store Bill.
The Chairman. Without objection.
[The article referred to is located on p. 154.]
Mr. Vindman. Trump doubled tariffs on steel and aluminum,
and so the cost can go up to ten percent more. How much is the
SNAP benefit per person per day?
Secretary Rollins. Six dollars is, I believe, the latest
number.
Mr. Vindman. Actually, it is $6.20, which when you are
talking about $6, that 20 actually is meaningful.
Secretary Rollins. Agreed.
Mr. Vindman. Yes or no, do you think food being more
expensive makes life more difficult for families on SNAP?
Secretary Rollins. Well, I think that is right. That is
exactly the President's bringing it down. We have a lower
inflation than we have had since the last time Trump was here.
Mr. Vindman. Madam Secretary, actually----
Secretary Rollins. The cost of eggs went up 237 percent----
Mr. Vindman. Madam Secretary----
Secretary Rollins.--under Joe Biden. They are down 65
percent now so----
Ms. Davids of Kansas. Reclaiming my time.
Secretary Rollins.--I don't know if this is the right
discussion you want to have, but clearly, we are----
Mr. Vindman. Reclaiming my time.
Secretary Rollins.--solving for that. Okay.
Mr. Vindman. So we just discussed tariffs and the fact that
tariffs--and we already have this article that I have entered
into the record--are going to increase the costs.
So food being more expensive makes life more difficult. We
already agreed to that. And in only the first 6 months, it
sounds like this Administration is heading in the opposite
direction with the tariffs, and your Administration is pushing
a bill that would tighten people's SNAP benefits even more. Are
you aware that SNAP recipients shop at the same grocery stores
as every other American?
Secretary Rollins. I am aware that we all use the same
grocery stores, yes. I do believe there is a food desert out
there in some of rural America that we are working to solve.
Mr. Vindman. And I agree with that as well, given that----
Secretary Rollins. Yes.
Mr. Vindman.--I have significant rural parts in my
district. Yes or no, do you know that in rural counties,
retailers that have SNAP shoppers will lose income if those
folks lose their benefits?
Secretary Rollins. Well, again, $42 million versus $17
million the last time we were at this unemployment number so--
--
Mr. Vindman. It is a straightforward, simple question,
Secretary. In rural counties, if retailers lose SNAP shoppers,
will they lose income for these folks?
Secretary Rollins. Just yesterday, we signed three more
SNAP waivers of the $111 billion we spend every year on SNAP,
$27 billion is on sugary drinks and junk food.
Mr. Vindman. All right.
Secretary Rollins. We are reforming the SNAP program to
allow more nutritious foods.
Mr. Vindman. Reclaiming my time. I am sorry.
Secretary Rollins. Please.
Mr. Vindman. I only have 5 minutes, so I need to move
through this.
Secretary Rollins. Well, hopefully, I have a chance to
answer the questions, but I understand.
Mr. Vindman. Yes or no, do you know that 27,000 retailers
in rural areas might have to shut down if SNAP benefits are
cut, creating even bigger food deserts, the deserts that you
just referenced, in our country?
Secretary Rollins. Clearly, that will not be happening as
we continue to move away from processed foods and sugary drinks
to a more nutritious menu----
Mr. Vindman. Madam Secretary----
Secretary Rollins.--for all of our recipients.
Mr. Vindman.--that sounds like a no, that maybe you don't
know that, subject to----
Secretary Rollins. We spend $400 million a day, sir----
Mr. Vindman. Reclaiming my time.
Secretary Rollins.--on these programs, $400 million a day.
Mr. Vindman. Reclaiming my time. So I would like to submit
for the record an article titled, SNAP Cuts Are Likely to Harm
More than 27,000 Retailers Nationwide, from the Center for
American Progress.
Secretary Rollins, did you know or did you or did you not--
--
The Chairman. Without objection.
[The article referred to is located on p. 108.]
Mr. Vindman. Thank you--that the state of the ag economy is
perhaps the worst it has been in 100 years?
Secretary Rollins. The state of the ag economy is indeed
under a massive challenge, but 30 percent input costs from the
Biden Administration, a $50 billion----
Mr. Vindman. Madam Secretary----
Secretary Rollins.--trade deficit that was not there, that
is the reason----
Mr. Vindman. That sounds like a yes.
Secretary Rollins.--for the farm economy.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Vindman. Thank you. I yield back.
Secretary Rollins. Thank you.
The Chairman. I will now recognize the gentleman from Iowa,
Mr. Feenstra, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Feenstra. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I want to thank you, Secretary Rollins, for being here
today. I am so impressed with what you have done in the first
several months of being in your Administration.
Secretary Rollins. Thank you.
Mr. Feenstra. I just think that you are delivering on
Trump's America first farming agenda, and that is so important.
I mean, promises made, promises kept by his Administration, and
you are taking full advantage of what is happening there for
our families and our communities.
Secretary Rollins. Thank you.
Mr. Feenstra. I want to talk about, you came to Iowa. Thank
you very much.
Secretary Rollins. I did. It was wonderful.
Mr. Feenstra. I have the second largest ag district in the
country. And you probably saw that we are very, very involved
in biofuels, ethanol and biodiesel. And I would just love to
ask, where do you see that going, and how can we continue to
make sure ethanol and biodiesel is successful as we move
forward? And what can USDA do in those arenas to make sure that
we protect our farming community and create those markets for
our farmers?
Secretary Rollins. Yes, I had such a great day in Iowa. I
mean, that part of the country is just so special. I had a
little comment coming from behind. And it was really
encouraging. I will note that this President has been, again,
resolute in his support of the industry.
Mr. Feenstra. Yep.
Secretary Rollins. But one thing I want to note, and Mr.
Vindman brought up the trade war, but--trade recalibration/
discussion, but the UK deal, the first deal that was just
struck 3 weeks ago in the Oval Office, ethanol went to a 0
percent tariff under that deal.
Mr. Feenstra. Yes, that is huge.
Secretary Rollins. Three days later, I was in the UK
talking to the leaders there. They were so surprised, first of
all, to have the Secretary of Ag there because they hadn't seen
one in a long time.
Mr. Feenstra. Yep.
Secretary Rollins. But second, the idea that we can move
our ethanol around the world in an unprecedented way is so
tremendously helpful to our farmers in the parts of the country
that rely on that. So I think the future could not be brighter,
sir, for your constituents in that part of the country, and I
am really proud of that.
Mr. Feenstra. Yes, thank you. I am really proud of it, too,
and where this is going to go and how it is going to grow.
I do want to talk a little bit about SNAP benefits because
I want you to answer the question, which is wonderful. I mean,
what we are trying to do is simply reduce fraud, waste, and
abuse, and error rates. And some of these states that have
massive error rates, they don't care literally don't care. And
that is wrong.
Secretary Rollins. Yes. We can't even get the data.
Mr. Feenstra. Right. And we can't even get the data. I
mean, it is shameful. And that is the story that is never
talked about.
Secretary Rollins. That is right.
Mr. Feenstra. And I just want to say what we are doing in
the Agriculture Committee here is just simple. It is just
saying, hey, we want to protect the program and reduce ag fraud
and abuse.
Secretary Rollins. That is exactly right. And again, I
can't overstate the amount of money, of taxpayer dollars, that
was just willy-nilly thrown into the wind in the last
Administration.
Mr. Feenstra. That is right.
Secretary Rollins. It is stunning. And I don't say that as
a political stunt. I am not trying to get in a back-and-forth
with the Democrats on this, but it is absolutely astounding
without really any regard to the taxpayer and how their money
is being spent in ensuring that these programs are meeting and
reaching the people----
Mr. Feenstra. That is right.
Secretary Rollins.--that really need them, and so that is
what we are working to do.
Mr. Feenstra. Yes, and thank you for that. I really
appreciate that. And we have just got to get these error rates
under control. We absolutely have to. It is fiscal
responsibility to the taxpayers. The taxpayers are the ones
that are funding all this.
I just want to talk one more moment. On our export markets,
we look at corn and soybeans and things that go bump in the
night on the commodity prices and stuff like that. What can we
do to open more markets? You just talked about the UK. Thank
you very much. Where do you see other markets providing more
at-market access to some of these commodities?
Secretary Rollins. I have been so far to UK and Italy,
talked about those countries, but also the EU. In 2 weeks, 3
weeks, I am headed to Vietnam, Japan, and India. After that, I
am headed to Peru and Brazil. I have been really surprised, but
in the best way, at how excited these countries are for us to
be there on the ground, how they understand that the 15 percent
average tariff put on our American agriculture products versus
the on-average five percent that we put on their products they
understand that is not sustainable----
Mr. Feenstra. That is right.
Secretary Rollins.--that we have to do better in putting
our American products forward.
As I mentioned, Italy imports $75 billion in ag products
every year. Only $1.7 billion of that is from America. This is
one of our best partners, more aligned----
Mr. Feenstra. Exactly.
Secretary Rollins.--with our values than most any other
country.
So just being on the road----
Mr. Feenstra. Yep.
Secretary Rollins.--working around the clock----
Mr. Feenstra. Thank you.
Secretary Rollins.--sending the teams out into the world,
the President being the chief negotiator, not allowing
Americans to take a back seat ever again----
Mr. Feenstra. That is right.
Secretary Rollins.--this is going to be a gamechanger.
Mr. Feenstra. Yes. Well, I just want to say thank you,
Secretary, and I also want to say thank you. I had the largest
bird outbreak of avian bird flu in my district in the 4th
District.
Secretary Rollins. You do.
Mr. Feenstra. It was awful.
Secretary Rollins. Yes.
Mr. Feenstra. And you stepped right up and you got it done.
Thank you so much.
And finally, you have to come to the Iowa State Fair and do
the governor's steer show. I hope you are there. Thank you.
Secretary Rollins. I will be there.
Mr. Feenstra. All right.
Secretary Rollins. She and I are going to show steers
against each other.
Mr. Feenstra. Absolutely.
Secretary Rollins. Yes.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
Secretary Rollins. Thank you.
The Chairman. I now recognize the gentlelady from Illinois,
Ms. Budzinski, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Budzinski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I do want to
thank our Ranking Member Craig. Secretary Rollins, thank you
for taking time to appear before the Committee today.
My district in central and southern Illinois is home to
some of the nation's most productive farmland, with some of the
top corn and soybean-producing counties in the country, as well
as a wide variety of specialty crops. It is also home to
facilities for some big names in agricultural industry--ADM,
Primiant, Kraft, Tillamook--they just opened a factory in
Decatur--plants like Corteva, Bayer, Nutrien, and a lot more.
And, of course, it is home to a tremendous amount of
agricultural research at my alma mater at the University of
Illinois, but also Southern Illinois University in
Edwardsville, and many great community colleges throughout my
district. So I am sure you can understand why I am so thrilled
to serve on this Committee because the work we do here and the
work done at USDA matters so much to the district that I
represent.
Madam Secretary, can you tell me, do you agree that the
primary function of the USDA is to serve farmers in our rural
communities? Just yes or no.
Secretary Rollins. Yes.
Ms. Budzinski. Okay. Thank you. Madam Secretary, I do have
some concerns about the way things have been going just over
these last 6 months. Just to start, the President's budget for
USDA was abysmal, in my opinion. It kneecaps agricultural
research; threatens American dominance in international
development; forces women, infants, and children to go hungry;
and decimates NRCS.
Just last week in this Committee, we heard directly from
farmers about the importance and success of conservation
programs for their operations. The idea that we would take away
opportunities to improve farmers' livelihoods and to completely
eliminate conservation technical assistance, which farmers have
told this Committee directly that they rely on, I think is
ridiculous.
I urge you to be thoughtful about the impacts of the
suggestions you have made. These are not inconsequential
programs. There is no backstop. Please consider the farmers
that you do claim to serve.
I also want to bring to your attention some changes that
have been made that have serious issues within my district. The
elimination of the Local Food Purchase Assistance and the Local
Foods for Schools programs, they both were incredibly
important, and it is distressing to my community that they have
been eliminated, and across Illinois as well share in that
concern. This program was an incredible opportunity to connect
farmers with their neighbors in need, as well as local small
businesses.
I am lucky to have a great relationship with Sola Gratia
Farm in Urbana, a vegetable and fruit operation whose primary
goal is to provide food to local residents, particularly for
vulnerable populations. LFPA helped them accomplish this goal.
They also were connected to local small businesses through
LFPA like Martinelli's Market in Champaign, Illinois. And
Martinelli's is also dealing with the Administration's tariffs,
driving up the prices of their ingredients. So the rug was
pulled out from under them when USDA canceled the LFPA
contracts, contracts which helped them to buy locally and feed
our communities. Now tariffs are driving up Martinelli's
overall prices, and Solo Gratia lost its purchasers.
This is just an example of the many concerns I have for my
district, but I want to use my time to draw your attention to
an opportunity----
Secretary Rollins. Can I respond to any of that?
Ms. Budzinski. Let me get through my points, and if we have
time, then I welcome your comments.
Secretary Rollins. Okay.
Ms. Budzinski. Attention to an opportunity. This is an
opportunity that could be at USDA.
Secretary Rollins. Love opportunities.
Ms. Budzinski. With this Administration--yes. So with this
Administration's shuttering of USAID, Feed the Future labs
across the country have closed with the exception of one at
Kansas State University, the Climate Resilient Cereals Lab.
One lab that was impacted and therefore closed was in my
district. The Soybean Innovation Lab, or SIL, at the University
of Illinois, has been conducting critical research for over 12
years on new varieties of soybeans. This research not only
supports developing nations, but it supports domestic growers.
Development of soybean genetics in the United States helps us
to maintain our global dominance in the soy market, which is
critical for the farmers in the heartland. It also introduces
brand new international markets to American products, which I
know is a mission of this Administration.
I understand that the majority of USAID activity has been
moved to the State Department, including programming for the
Feed our Future Lab at Kansas State. Madam Secretary, I ask you
to please look into the importance of the Soybean Innovation
Lab for American agriculture. Is that something that you would
be willing to take a look at?
Secretary Rollins. Yes, I would be very willing to do that
and follow up that conversation.
Ms. Budzinski. That would be wonderful.
Secretary Rollins. Yes, thank you.
Ms. Budzinski. Thank you, Secretary.
Thank you. I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired.
I now recognize the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr.
Rouzer, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Rouzer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Madam
Secretary, for being here. We have had the occasion to meet
briefly on a couple of occasions.
Secretary Rollins. There you are.
Mr. Rouzer. Yep.
Secretary Rollins. Thank you.
Mr. Rouzer. And I appreciate your work. USDA is near and
dear to me. During Bush 43, I was an SES political appointee
over at USDA Rural Development.
Secretary Rollins. Yes.
Mr. Rouzer. I have great appreciation for the variety of
missions of the Department and appreciate your service.
First, I want to begin by thanking you for your work with
the North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Services on their state block grant application for losses from
Hurricane Helene, obviously a very, very devastating storm.
And, as you know, this devastation was far beyond just crop
loss, affecting a broad range of our more than $111 billion
agriculture economy, including timber, infrastructure,
agritourism, and aquaculture losses.
And it is my understanding that our staffs have been
communicating, and I know you are working really, really
closely with the state to address these issues and just really
appreciate your work in that regard, if you want to provide a
little update on that.
Secretary Rollins. Yes. We have been in close contact with
your state and the leaders in your state. I visited North
Carolina, one of the first states I went to. I think we have
had five formal meetings, but almost daily conversations. Those
funds are close to contract and should be released very soon.
Mr. Rouzer. And you may have mentioned this while I was out
at another committee meeting, and so my apologies if it is
redundant. North Carolina is the third most agriculturally
diverse state in the country, and so we have a lot of specialty
crops. If you can touch base or just bring us up to date real
quickly on the Marketing Assistance Specialty Crop rollout for
economic assistance for specialty crops, I would be most
interested in that.
Secretary Rollins. Yes, as you may remember, that is a
significant investment on our end at USDA, about $2.65 billion
we have announced. Those are moving but still under review. It
is a significant number that we are working with our partners
over at the White House on. The first tranche is moved, the
second tranche is shortly behind. I don't have a specific date
in front of me, but we will reply back to your office and make
sure you are fully aware of that.
Mr. Rouzer. Thank you very much. One other quick item, the
H-2A program, I know the Chairman made reference to this in his
opening statement. I can't stress enough how critical it is to
have a good workable program, and that AEWR, the adverse effect
wage rate, is a real issue for our growers.
Secretary Rollins. Yes.
Mr. Rouzer. In fact, we had a bipartisan working group that
the Chairman put together. We had a whole list of areas of
unanimity between Republicans and Democrats, and one of them
was the need to freeze that AEWR. We have a great Secretary of
Labor in place. And I remember during the first Trump
Administration, there were a variety of departments that were
working together to make some good reforms administratively to
the H-2A program.
Secretary Rollins. Yes.
Mr. Rouzer. So I just want to underscore just how important
that is and give you an opportunity to talk about that just a
minute, if you can.
Secretary Rollins. Yes, I am fully aware. In fact, in
Texas, I went and visited some citrus growers in south Texas,
and we could look across the border where the average hourly
rate was $2 in Mexico to produce the same or to basically move
the same produce through in Texas at $23 an hour. This is
unsustainable. I have talked to Lori Chavez-DeRemer, our
Secretary of Labor, about it. I have also spoken to the
President about it. We remain fully committed to working with--
obviously, you all are going to be the main movers and shakers
for real change, but whatever we can do through the government,
the Executive Branch, please, please, please let us know
because we realize what a huge problem this is.
Mr. Rouzer. Well, we look forward to working with you very
closely on that because it is probably one of the greatest
needs American agriculture has.
Secretary Rollins. That is right.
Mr. Rouzer. You can't harvest a crop in many cases,
particularly specialty crops, if you don't have labor.
Secretary Rollins. That is exactly right.
Mr. Rouzer. All right. In my remaining time, I want to put
in a plug for our food assistance programs. A lot of them are
administered at USAID, but they really belong under the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, in my opinion. One in particular,
the McGovern-Dole Food Aid Program, I used to work for U.S.
Senator Elizabeth Dole in a previous life. I grew very close to
Senator Dole from Kansas. And when you travel overseas and you
see--you go in these schools, and the only reason why these
kids are in school in these third-world countries is basically
because of the McGovern-Dole food program. It is the only
nutrition they get during the day. And it provides not only a
humanitarian aspect, but there is also a diplomatic, long-term
America-first aspect as well.
Secretary Rollins. Very quickly, 30 of those programs are
still moving, and we opened up funding for the next round on
May 9, just a few weeks ago, understanding it is realigning
around the President's vision and the countries that help
America, but we are aware and tracking that.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
At the Minority's request, I am going to recognize Mr.
Jackson from Illinois for 5 minutes.
Mr. Jackson of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield to
Congresswoman Hayes. They wanted us to switch orders.
The Chairman. Then I don't recognize the gentleman from
Illinois as Mr. Jackson, okay?
I recognize the gentlelady from Connecticut, Mrs. Hayes,
for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Hayes. I am not sure what is going on. Don't I get my
own 5 minutes? Thank you.
Thank you, Secretary Rollins, for being here today.
Secretary Rollins. Thank you.
Mrs. Hayes. It is no secret that I am in opposition to the
Republican bill and the deep cuts to SNAP, and I have been
vociferous and clear about that. I just want to add, as we are
talking about the Republican proposals in the Department of
Agriculture, there are serious concerns that many of the
actions being taken threaten the bipartisan coalition that has
helped pass multiple farm bills, and we would be hard pressed
to get the full Congress to pass a bill that guts billions of
dollars from our most vulnerable communities.
But today, my questions are going to be focused on small
farms in my district. Between 2017 and 2022, Connecticut lost
roughly 460 farms. Projections by the American Farmland Trust
estimate that my state will lose 55,000 acres of farmland if we
do not step in to preserve what remains.
There are many factors contributing to the loss of farmland
in New England, as we heard Mr. McGovern talk about earlier.
One of the most consistent is the failure of farm safety net
programs. Guardians Farms, a small, first-generation farm in
Southbury, Connecticut, in my district, began operation in
2020, and they sell dairy products at farmers' markets on the
weekends. Two years of heavy rain have resulted in fewer
visitors to the farm and damage to the pasture, barn, and
chicken coops. Earlier this year, they requested $50,000 from
USDA to help make up for lost revenue and to help with repairs.
As of today, they still have not received any disaster
assistance.
Last year, Congress funded two disaster relief programs and
designed them to work together to ensure all impacted farms
receive some type of assistance. The Supplemental Disaster
Relief Program would fund larger operations, and the Farm
Recovery and Support Block Grant would provide targeted relief
to smaller farms in smaller states.
Secretary Rollins, it is my understanding that USDA has
directed Connecticut to choose between one of two of those
programs and a small farm block grant, rather than assessing
both, as Congress intended. What is the justification for
denying Connecticut farmers the ability to access the relief
Congress has voted to provide for them?
Secretary Rollins. Well, first of all, thank you. That is a
great question. I have been in a lot of conversations on this.
In fact, my next one is with your colleague, Rosa DeLauro, at 4
o'clock, once I leave here. We are continuing to assess what
this means, understanding that this $220 million block grant to
New England that you all put in the Relief Act at the end of
last year is different. It is different than Georgia, North
Carolina, some of the bigger farming communities with the
bigger farms.
So we are continuing to look at this. The decision has not
been released yet, but will be soon. We remain very committed
and have been working with your ag commissioner from
Connecticut and across New England for the last few months and
will continue to do so.
Mrs. Hayes. Well, I appreciate you explaining what USDA is
doing as a whole, but my question was about why Connecticut is
being denied access to both programs. I know that there has
been concern about double dipping, but there are audit
processes in place, certification processes in place. And what
ends up happening is exactly what we anticipated. The smallest
farmers are left out because they don't have access to these
programs. And my fear is that Connecticut will be kept waiting
for relief because the program is not being implemented
properly.
Your budget proposal would cut funding for the Farm Service
Agency by an additional $250 million. I am concerned that
Connecticut farmers, again, will see diminished capacity from
USDA to address their needs. How will the USDA deliver payments
to farmers in a more efficient manner when you are cutting
resources and the staff who do the work?
Secretary Rollins. So ma'am, the $10 billion that moved out
very quickly, the ECAP, you all passed it around Christmas,
maybe December 20. We moved it out $10 billion in a matter of 6
to 8 weeks. The longest waiting time was 3 days once that was
moved out. We have sent the money to 500,000 farmers across
America. This is months and months and months ahead of where a
normal USDA moves it out. So I think our track record hopefully
speaks for itself.
Mrs. Hayes. Well, again, I hope that there is some
consideration for the smallest farmers----
Secretary Rollins. I agree.
Mrs. Hayes.--who don't have grant writers or access to
these programs or the ability to reach out and get a response.
Secretary Rollins. One hundred percent.
Mrs. Hayes. I appreciate the fact that money is getting out
the door. My concern, once again, is that it is going to the
largest farmers in the largest agricultural communities and
leaving behind the farmers who literally have less than 100
acres and are doing this work and it is their family business.
Secretary Rollins. I agree.
And Congresswoman, what I would ask is when you hear those
stories and you are called, to call me specifically and say
this is what is happening in my district, and this is who is
not getting the attention that they deserve, and that will help
us solve for that.
Mrs. Hayes. I appreciate that. I will follow up and make
sure you have the information on Guardians Farm in Southbury,
Connecticut.
Secretary Rollins. That would be great.
Mrs. Hayes. It is a veteran-owned farm, and they are
struggling right now.
Thank you, I yield back.
Secretary Rollins. What was the name again?
Mrs. Hayes. Guardians Farm.
Secretary Rollins. Guardians Farm.
Mrs. Hayes. I will make sure you get the information.
Secretary Rollins. Thank you.
The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired.
At the request of the Secretary and in consultation with
the Minority, we are going to do two more questions and then
take a 20 minute break and then reconvene. And I will keep an
order of those in the room at the time of the break so that
that will be the order when we come back, and I will announce
what time that is when we see when these next two individuals
are done.
So at this point, I recognize Mr. Johnson from South Dakota
and then in the direction of the Minority, Mr. Jackson from
Illinois.
So Mr. Johnson is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Secretary, I feel like we are talking to a member of
your team every week on something or other, so I am----
Secretary Rollins. That is right.
Mr. Johnson.--going to walk through six issues, and then
you can comment on any of them that you like.
First off, I want to thank you for working with us to
provide some relief to that South Dakota ranching couple, the
Mauds.
Secretary Rollins. Yes.
Mr. Johnson. It should never have gotten to the point it
did, and thank you to your team for seeing the wisdom forward,
common sense.
Number two, I want to affiliate myself with Mr. Costa's
remarks about high-path avian influenza, still a tremendous
threat, and as he said, not just to poultry but also to our
herds as well.
Secretary Rollins. Yes.
Mr. Johnson. And then I was grateful to see your five-prong
plan had vaccines as an important part of it. I think there has
been some concern that maybe the priority in USDA shifted
around a little bit, and so I just want to highlight the
incredible work that a number of companies, including Medgene,
are doing in developing some really powerful vaccines that I
think are the long-term solution to this problem.
Secretary Rollins. Good.
Mr. Johnson. Not even long-term, I mean just the solution
here I think sooner than we realize.
Number three, forestry, Mr. LaMalfa said it well. I mean,
we have a lot we need to do out in the forest. I mean, a
managed forest is a healthy forest. We have a million acres of
National Forest land in the Black Hills, and it has been a long
time since we have been able to hit the data-driven harvest
targets.
Secretary Rollins. Yes.
Mr. Johnson. We have had mills close, lots of jobs lost.
When we lose that infrastructure, it is almost impossible to
ever get it back, which means the forest turns into a
tinderbox.
I have confidence in your team. Mr. Schultz, Mr. French, I
enjoy working with them. So I just want to thank you and ask
you to continue to back their efforts to approach this issue
with some real urgency. I think we are making progress, but we
have a ways to go yet.
Number four, I want to thank your team for the incredible
responsiveness they have shown in working with South Dakota
State University in making some alterations to what is now
known as the Producers First program. This is going to show us
the way forward on some resiliency in how we feed and make sure
that the bison and the cattle can get to market and that
nutrition is a key part of what they do because we still want
to discover some research and how to do better.
Number five, I met with a few dozen dairy producers. And
ma'am, this is not going to come as any surprise to you. They
have a real anxiety in farm labor.
Secretary Rollins. Yes.
Mr. Johnson. And some folks are not sure how they are going
to hang on. They view you as a huge leader. They view you as a
critical--I mean, this problem will not get solved without
Brooke Rollins. And they believe in you, ma'am. And if there is
anything I can do to help in developing solutions so we can--
not just in dairy, of course. This is a bigger problem. But, we
have to find a solution.
Secretary Rollins. Right.
Mr. Johnson. And finally, number six, and then I will shut
up, trade, just little old South Dakota, we export almost $6
billion a year overseas in ag. That is $6,000 a year for every
single South Dakotan every single year. Clearly, this
Committee, strong believers in MAP, FMD. And I know you are a
strong believer, and I would just ask you to continue to be a
strong voice for more trade, which will make America stronger.
And I know that is where the Administration's headed.
Secretary Rollins. Yes, I think----
Mr. Johnson. What am I missing, ma'am?
Secretary Rollins. No, I think you covered it very well. I
just want to start with the last one first on the trade. And I
am not sure if you were in the room, Congressman, but the
encouragement that I have received just in these first few
international trips has been remarkable, in fact, stunning. I
think that the world is ready to recalibrate. I think that the
President has been such an effective leader on this. I know the
uncertain times our producers are feeling. There is no one who
is operating more on the margins than our farmers and ranchers,
understand this. The President certainly understands it.
But I do believe with every fiber of my being that this era
of unlimited or unprecedented prosperity for our ag community
is just around the corner because of these trade
renegotiations. I am just really, really sure of that.
I also want to comment on the timber piece of this. I was
just in the Oval Office yesterday with the President talking
about timber, talking about the firefighting because they are,
as you know, interwoven inextricably. And I think that we are
going to have another meeting tomorrow in the Oval Office on
the issue. The President has been resolute in the increase of
25 percent in timber production, which, by the way, that will
be the same number we had 30 years ago in 1994. Since then, our
entire timber industry, as you know from your state and others,
has been decimated.
So the focus, the investment, the putting our timber
industry back at the front of the line to ensure they are able
to do and thrive, but also on the back end to mitigate against
more and unnecessary fires, it continues to be a priority of
this Administration, and I am really, really proud of that.
Mr. Johnson. With that, Mr. Chairman, the Secretary and I
have solved all the problems, and I would yield back.
Secretary Rollins. I think we are done here.
Mr. Johnson. And by the way, you are unflappable. I did not
know that my mean comment about Iowa and Jess would be picked
up by you. It was mostly for your staff's benefit, but you are
unflappable. You kept rolling, so thank you. I yield.
Secretary Rollins. Yes, I did. Thank you, sir.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman's time
has expired. Now I recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr.
Jackson, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Jackson of Illinois. Thank you, Honorable Chairman
Thompson. Thank you, Ranking Member Craig and distinguished
Members of this Committee. Thank you, Secretary Rollins. I look
forward to working with you in the months and years to come.
Secretary Rollins. Me too.
Mr. Jackson of Illinois. You are head of a Department with
a budget of hundreds of billions of dollars, over 100,000
employees, 4,500 offices, 29 different agencies, and so the job
is enormous.
Secretary Rollins. That is right.
Mr. Jackson of Illinois. And I come here not to affix blame
but to seek solutions.
Madam Secretary, your Department proudly announced in a May
1 press release that it has terminated over 3,500 contracts and
grants, totaling over $5.5 billion, and canceled nearly 1,000
trainings to eliminate ``woke'' DEI initiatives. For the
record, does the United States Department of Agriculture under
your leadership have an official written definition of DEI--I
am a bit confused--one that would withstand legal scrutiny
under the Administrative Procedures Act that you used as a
specific uniform standard to justify these cancellations?
Secretary Rollins. I believe that we do, sir, but let me
check on that, and I will circle back to your office, and we
can talk directly.
Mr. Jackson of Illinois. Okay. Thank you. I have not been
able to find one. I reached out to the office starting in
February, so I would simply just assume at this point, for the
record, that the answer would be written no.
Under the Administrative Procedures Act, codified in
section 5, U.S. Code 551, agencies' actions cannot be arbitrary
and capricious, yet we see some of the terminations of these
programs without a single written guiding principle, so we have
to make sure that this is codified into law.
Under the previous Secretary of Agriculture, we had a
blueprint, an outline of where the Department was going. I hope
in the weeks and months to come, this is on the thing. The
Department of Agriculture has operated consistently by giving
us a blueprint.
The second question I would have for you, your department
has canceled outreach and recruitment in the name of
eliminating DEI, so I don't know what it is that is being
eliminated, that is being cut because DEI is very vague. It
means many things to many people. And so if you exclude the
longstanding Federal hiring initiatives like the Veterans'
Recruitment Appointment, authority of the Schedule A hiring, or
authority for people with disabilities, both of which are
designed to create a more diverse and inclusive Federal
workforce, would you agree that is a noble goal?
Secretary Rollins. Well, the first thing I will say--and I
really actually appreciate the conversation--is that the
President clearly has been very clear in his directive. We are
operating under his Executive Order----
Mr. Jackson of Illinois. Okay.
Secretary Rollins.--on all of the above----
Mr. Jackson of Illinois. Reclaim my time. I appreciate that
because I fundamentally disagree with the President----
Secretary Rollins. I understand.
Mr. Jackson of Illinois.--and I can appreciate your
integrity, but the President is simply wrong on this, and I
hope more people in the Administration can speak up to him. He
can make a mistake, but it seems like people get very confused
around him.
The Federal definition of diversity explicitly includes
these groups, the disabled, the rural Americans, which are all
groups that have faced barriers to Federal employment in the
past. By canceling many of these programs unintentionally, they
become collateral damage, and so I would like to make sure that
we continue to broaden the workforce and pull as many people
in.
Also, we have talked about now, I see in this declaration,
about meritocracy. You say your Department now operates on
meritocracy.
Secretary Rollins. Yes, sir.
Mr. Jackson of Illinois. Are you aware that the nine merit
system principles codified in section 5 of the U.S. Code 2301
already exist to ensure fair and merit-based hiring, free from
political influence? That is already baked into this. I don't
know why there is new emphasis on saying there is meritocracy.
Does USDA, under your leadership, have an official written
policy defining what constitutes merit that supersedes or
replaces these Congressionally mandated principles? We already
have them in the documents.
Secretary Rollins. I am not aware of that, but I am really
glad, again, for this conversation. My commitment is to look at
that very closely. Obviously, I am a big believer in the
President's vision on this and the meritocracy approach, but it
is a fair question. How do we define that and what does that
look like?
Mr. Jackson of Illinois. Okay. And that will be on section
5. So these terms that mean woke and so forth, there is another
term that they have on your website regarding color-blindness
as a goal that you have. Did someone put into the record that
color-blindness is a physical impairment, or is there a new
definition of what color-blindness means? Is that an asset? Can
you help me define what is color-blindness and the values or
merits of it?
Secretary Rollins. My understanding is this is from the
Executive Order, the President's directive, and that we are
looking at merit and the best possible employees for the
American farmers.
Mr. Jackson of Illinois. I got you.
Reclaiming my time. So color-blindness, are we talking
about having a lack of racial equity, racial justice? Is that
the code word for it?
Secretary Rollins. Yes.
Mr. Jackson of Illinois. Okay. Well, the President, again,
is wrong because you know the case of Pigford v. Glickman. It
has already been documented that there has been a history of
racial discrimination, prejudice, and racism. It has already
had lawsuits filed and settled by farmers--African American,
Latino, and indigenous--that did not have fair access to the
resources of our agency. So I don't want to fix the blame, I
want to fix the problem. But if some people are willfully
blind, if he wants people going around the Department of
Agriculture with mismatched clothes because he is now
championing blindness, I think that is wrong, and that should
not be classified.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back, and thank you for your time.
Secretary Rollins. I look forward to continuing that
conversation.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
The Committee will stand in recess for 20 minutes, gaveling
back in at 12:55. And at that time, the Members who have been
in the room here, I will share with you what I have for order.
Mann, Davis, Moore, Sorensen, Harris, Vasquez, Taylor, Riley,
De La Cruz, and Mannion.
We stand in recess.
Secretary Rollins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Recess.]
The Chairman. The Committee shall come to order. I note
that there is a quorum present for the purposes of taking
testimony and receiving evidence.
I now recognize the gentleman from Kansas, Mr. Mann, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Mann. Welcome back, Madam Secretary.
Secretary Rollins. Thank you.
Mr. Mann. Thank you for being here today, and thank you for
your leadership in supporting farmers, ranchers, and ag
producers across the country.
It was an honor to have you visit the Big First District of
Kansas during your first week on the job back in February right
after you were confirmed, and we had a chance, as you recall,
to participate in a roundtable discussion with ag producers,
stakeholders. We toured Finney County Feedyard, the Ponderosa
Dairy. We even met with some local FFAers, which was a huge
highlight of mine. I know that is something that is near and
dear to your heart as well.
One of my first meetings with President Trump, I distinctly
remember him telling me of his love for the American farmer,
and I very much appreciate that you also share that passion.
Over the past few months, you and the President have led the
way in supporting rural America, and I look forward to
continuing to work with you for the next 4 years so that we
make agriculture great again and everything that it possibly
can be.
Secretary Rollins. Amen.
Mr. Mann. A couple questions. First one, Madam Secretary,
the One Big Beautiful Bill Act is a major step forward in the
future of American agriculture. We are able to strengthen crop
insurance, raise reference prices, really help our producers.
We also are able to include historic landmark investments in
funding for trade promotion programs in the House version.
After the last Administration's failure to act on expanding
international markets, I have been really encouraged at your
efforts to rebalance trade to support the American farmer and
rancher. In particular, I appreciate that you will be traveling
on a trade mission to India here in the next few weeks where
greater market access for crops like sorghum would be a
gamechanger for our Kansas producers and a clear win for the
U.S. and India.
With the significant upgrade in trade promotion resources,
can you share what you and Ambassador Greer will be pursuing to
unlock opportunities for U.S. exports commodities like sorghum
as part of our discussion specifically with India?
Secretary Rollins. Yes, specific to India--and I will
absolutely, Congressman, circle back to you with a little more
detail. I have about three countries ahead of India so I
haven't focused on India just yet even though we are headed
there very soon.
Mr. Mann. Yes.
Secretary Rollins. But I think that India is reflective--to
your point on sorghum and a lot of our row crops, there is just
so much opportunity there. We talked a lot this morning about
national security, agricultural security is national security.
A lot of that is opening up markets with our friends like India
and moving away from other markets that clearly are not aligned
with us on a value-by-value basis.
What I have found with Ambassador Greer, with Secretary
Lutnick, with Secretary Bessent, and the ultimate sort of
dealmaker, President Donald Trump, is they are, we are
relentless, relentless. And again, I think I mentioned this a
couple of times, but it is worth repeating, the few countries I
have already visited, the countries that have already visited
me, everyone is so anxious to support this vision of opening up
more American products and decreasing the tariffs while working
on the non-tariff trade barriers.
So there is a lot more to come, would love to work with
you, though, as we are prepping for India and other countries,
specific to sorghum and other row crops.
Mr. Mann. Would love to. I think India is a huge
opportunity for sorghum and other commodities as well.
Secretary Rollins. Yes.
Mr. Mann. Thank you for that.
Second question, earlier this year, I introduced
legislation to move back to USDA a program that is not only
dear to the people of Kansas, but also vital to our ag
producers in the country. Food for Peace was a program that I
have long supported, and it has supported American agriculture
in helping feed millions of people around the world. It was
originally housed with the USDA when it was created over 70
years ago. A Kansan came up with the idea years ago. My bill
would return it back to us, or return it home to the USDA,
ensuring its long-term sustainability.
I am optimistic that Congress will soon act to codify this
move, realigning Food for Peace with USDA where it began. If
and when that transition takes place, can you commit that the
Department will continue to fund and operate Food for Peace as
robustly as it currently has been administered? And welcome any
thoughts about Food for Peace.
Secretary Rollins. Sure. And understanding that is moving
through the system, not wanting to get ahead of President Trump
specifically, but we stand ready. If that is the Congressional
direction, we will work with you and your partners to ensure
the contained sustainability--continued, I should say,
sustainability and success and changes if necessary.
Mr. Mann. And great program, right?
Secretary Rollins. Yes.
Mr. Mann. We are shipping commodities grown here in bags
that say a free gift from the American people. It is good for
our farmers good for our shippers, good for the mouths that
receive it.
Secretary Rollins. Yes.
Mr. Mann. I think someone asked you about Food for Progress
earlier. I might loop back in with your office on that as well.
But just really appreciate you being here.
Secretary Rollins. Thank you.
Mr. Mann. Thank you for all that you are doing for
agriculture.
Secretary Rollins. Thank you so much. Good to see you,
Congressman.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognized gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Davis,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Davis of North Carolina. Thank you so much, Mr.
Chairman.
Secretary Rollins, thank you so much for being with us
today.
Secretary Rollins. Good to see you.
Mr. Davis of North Carolina. I was looking forward to the
Committee, I am sure, as we have been excited about you coming.
I want to share a picture, the best that I can reflect from
so many conversations, what is taking place in eastern North
Carolina back home. Farmers are absolutely getting pounded.
These are, without any doubt, tough times, and they are facing
many challenges. And between increased labor costs, low
reference prices, increased input costs, so much uncertainty,
double-duty drawback for tobacco growers, trade, just
uncertainty, and in the midst of it all, we still, regardless
of how we got here, have no farm bill. And let's be clear,
reconciliation is no substitute for a farm bill.
Secretary Rollins. I agree.
Mr. Davis of North Carolina. In North Carolina, we have out
west, which I traveled a little over a week ago to the western
part of the state, and it is a dire situation that is still on
the ground there as people are trying to pick up the pieces in
the aftermath of Hurricane Helene. But then out east, which I
am honored to represent, we have had our fair share of
challenges as we have been crushed with drought. There is so
much going on.
And by the way, I would like to personally welcome you to
eastern North Carolina.
Secretary Rollins. I would love that.
Mr. Davis of North Carolina. But what we are leaving
farmers now, we are leaving farmers these options. Option A,
more debt, take on more debt; or option B, I am going to throw
my hands up in the air and call it quits.
Here is the reality. I grew up cropping tobacco and doing a
lot of hard work that we enjoyed doing as kids, and this is
part of our heritage. And when you talk in particular, family
farmers, they want to continue and pass it on to the children,
the next generation. But how many children want to take on all
of this right now?
So my first question is, what is the timeline for getting
the disaster and economic agriculture assistance out the door
that is going to help us in North Carolina?
Secretary Rollins. Yes, I appreciate the question. God
bless you. You are welcome. First of all----
Mr. Davis of North Carolina. You took up 5 seconds of my
time.
Secretary Rollins. I know.
Mr. Davis of North Carolina. That was a big one.
Secretary Rollins. That was an amazing sneeze.
The first thing I will say is with ECAP in North Carolina,
6,389 of your producers received $118 million over the last
month or 2, so hopefully, that is at least a step in the right
direction.
On the emergency livestock relief, which we just released
in the last week or 2, there is significant numbers going that
way, 599 producers for 2023, another 423 producers for 2024, a
total of $1.4 billion, I believe, on that.
Mr. Davis of North Carolina. And Madam Secretary, let me
acknowledge the work that is taking place. I just want to
really paint the picture. There is still a lot more work to be
done.
Secretary Rollins. Yes.
Mr. Davis of North Carolina. And if I can shift, can you
speak on whether you are working with RMA, the Risk Management
Agency, Administrator Swanson, to defer interest charges on
crop insurance premiums for the current year?
Secretary Rollins. I don't have that answer, but by the end
of the next question, we will have that for you. I am not 100
percent sure, so I don't want to answer wrongly, but we will
get that to you right away.
Mr. Davis of North Carolina. Okay. Super. Thank you. And I
want to really thank the Chairman because we have really been
knee-deep in the H-2A program. This is so far an antiquated
policy that is still out there, and we just got to come
together and get this done. And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
the task force, the working group that we advanced.
But I want to come in particular with AEWR because I hear
so much about AEWR, and this is a real legitimate concern. My
question is, what has been the communication from USDA with
DOL, as well as DHS, in relation to ensuring there are enough
workers available to continue to feed, fuel, clothe the
American people so they can continue to keep the operations
going?
Secretary Rollins. Well, as we discussed this morning,
although, sir, I don't think you were in the room, there is
obviously a very understandable concern in the agriculture
market on labor. I spoke with the President about it this
morning. I had a meeting with both Secretary Noem and Secretary
Chavez-DeRemer on Monday night. The President, in an April 10
Cabinet meeting on his own, talked about it.
There is no doubt that, first of all, significant reform
needs to happen to the H-2A, H-2B, et cetera, which I know you
all are leading on in a bipartisan effort, but also the
importance of our Administration and this President, which he
does, recognizing that we have a major gap in the labor market
for our dairy farmers, a lot of our row croppers, and how you
balance that, obviously, with his commitment to America and to
the American voters, which we don't all agree on, but to
address illegal immigration. So please know I am committed to
working around the clock to solve for that.
Mr. Davis of North Carolina. Thank you so much.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Davis of North Carolina. Yes.
Secretary Rollins. Thank you.
The Chairman. I now recognize the gentleman from Alabama,
Mr. Moore, for 5 minutes.
Secretary Rollins. Hello.
Mr. Moore. Over here, Secretary Rollins. How are you?
Welcome.
Secretary Rollins. Thank you.
Mr. Moore. Thank you for being here today, and thank you
for all your work you are doing on negotiating with countries.
I think reference prices, input costs have been mentioned by
Mr. Davis. Obviously, that is an issue. We have lost a lot of
farms, and I think as a result of inflation, obviously. We have
printed money like drunk sailors in D.C. for the last 4 years,
and in some cases, that is an insult to drunk sailors. But
inflation has really caught our producers in a tough, tough
spot with fuel costs and energy costs, those sort of things.
But one of the issues I want to kind of breach with you and
talk a little bit about is we recently have noticed there has
been some SNAP fraud and card scamming. And just a few weeks
ago, the DOJ charged a USDA employee and five others in a $66
million SNAP fraud and bribery scheme in New York. And
shockingly, this criminal scheme went on for years under the
prior Administration.
So Madam Secretary, what action is the Department taking to
ensure that these sort of egregious levels of fraud are being
addressed?
Secretary Rollins. This is at the very top of the list.
Currently, we can prove $1 of every $10, which is about $34
million a day is paid out in taxpayer money that is
fraudulently paid. We have an across-the-government, whole-of-
government approach right now. The New York case that you
mentioned is just one of many. There was a sting operation led
by our Secret Service, interestingly enough, on the West Coast
within the last month. Many more are coming, working alongside
Pam Bondi at the DOJ.
But part of that, sir--and we have talked about it a little
bit this morning--is the reluctance or refusal of many states
to turn their data over to us, so it is hard for us to even
know where that money is going and who it is being paid to. We
are now directing it, and if they are not willing to do it, we
are going to start moving through litigation. So we are going
to force the issue, but it has to stop, and we can't continue
to pay taxpayer dollars in such a fraudulent way.
Mr. Moore. Yes, you said earlier, it contains
sustainability. In some ways, I think you changed how you said
it, but I think in many ways, with SNAP, that is what we have
do.
Secretary Rollins. Yes.
Mr. Moore. We want it for the families that need it, right?
But the fraud is a big issue. And my concern--and I have been
on Agriculture Committee for 4 years now--is there is a supply
and demand curve. And, as SNAP, more and more money goes into
the SNAP programs, yet the producers, the suppliers themselves
are limited in their resources. Often, when you see that, what
happens at the grocery stores, the prices go up because the
demand goes higher and higher with government dollars going on
SNAP programs, yet we are not securing producers in the market.
And so, ultimately, the price goes up, and then the tax dollars
on those SNAP cards don't go nearly as far as they could have.
Secretary Rollins. That is right.
Mr. Moore. So I think, coupled with the fraud, increasing
production, certainly, and getting government spending, runaway
waste under control, helping with inflation, I think there is
an opportunity for us to certainly help our producers. And I
appreciate----
Secretary Rollins. That is right.
Mr. Moore. Again, I have the second largest peanut-
producing district in the nation, and I know that my farmers
would appreciate that, and we actually were peanut producers
until 1980. The drought and the armyworms kind of put us out.
Secretary Rollins. Yes.
Mr. Moore. So it is one of those things, I think we have
lost 150,000 farms. And so I appreciate the work you are doing,
the President is doing to try to help food security in this
country and make sure that we are competing with other nations
and certainly negotiating with other countries to buy our
products. And so thank you so much for your work on that.
Secretary Rollins. Yes, thank you.
Mr. Moore. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I am going to save
a little time and yield back.
Secretary Rollins. Thank you, Congressman.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Sorensen,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Sorensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I love the milk that is in front of you, just saying. Love
that it is whole milk, it is good.
Also, let it be known that we had a lunch break. I love
that.
Thank you to the Secretary for being with us on one of the
greatest, if not the greatest, Committee that we have on
Capitol Hill.
Secretary Rollins. Amen.
Mr. Sorensen. Just over the weekend, I drove through
Winnebago County, Illinois. We are at the very top of Illinois.
I noticed, being a kid that grew up in a small town, that a lot
of the fields aren't planted. It is June 11. Some farmers have
given up on seeing any profit this year. Mr. Davis and Mr.
Moore touched on input costs going up, just general costs going
up, but it is also costing our farmers when the USDA extension
services are reduced or canceled.
We are failing to open up foreign markets for export. The
USDA is cutting programs like conservation, rural development,
technical support. And the result, our smaller hometowns are
not doing better today, and they are losing faith. Farmers are
being hit really hard. And back home, those family farmers,
they don't want a handout from the Administration.
Secretary Rollins. That is right.
Mr. Sorensen. They want agriculture to work.
Secretary Rollins. Yes.
Mr. Sorensen. I am also struck that the Administration--in
your testimony, you have omitted any mention of changing
climate. It is no surprise here. I have studied meteorology for
the better part of the majority of my life. It is one of my
life's loves to communicate how our environment is changing.
And you can't tell farmers that climate change is a hoax
because they know you are lying to them.
I have seen the weather records on family farms. It is
harder to farm today than it ever was before because the game
is changing for them. So when you fail to acknowledge what they
are dealing with, and the Administration says it is a hoax, too
many of our farmers, they can't quit their jobs like I did to
come to Congress. They quit their life. We are failing to meet
their needs. And it is not politics, it is science. And you
can't make farmers stronger or make America healthy by slashing
the very systems that produce healthy food and homegrown clean
energy.
I did want to touch on, and I am very concerned that
producers may not get their harvest to local schools and food
banks through the LFPA. This improves our domestic food supply
chain resilience. It generates revenue for our farmers at a
time when they can't make a profit. A program that ensures
healthy food gets to those who need it most.
The Midwest Food Bank in the heart of Illinois provides
fresh local food to 288 organizations. The Northern Illinois
Food Bank provides more than 900,000 meals through their
program. This Administration's decision to cancel LFPA is a
blow to local farmers, to families in need, and the
institutions that serve them.
In your testimony to Congress, you have mentioned
repeatedly that this is COVID era. But while the pandemic is
largely over, we still have this uncertainty in middle America.
And now rural America is given more uncertainty as farmers see
these beneficial programs go away.
Kids nowadays say they get ``the feels'' when something
feels good. Farmers grow corn and soybeans back home. They
raise cattle. They are proud of their livelihood, but what
gives them ``the feels'' is when they provide food for our
neighbors, helping lift people out of hunger and out of poverty
through the LFPA.
So Madam Secretary, yes or no, will you commit to
establishing a similar program that connects local farmers and
local schools to food banks to provide healthier meals to
students, improve food access for families, and reinvest in our
economy?
Secretary Rollins. We are really--I know yes or no, but
forgive me. We are really focused on getting healthy produce
and local farming into the schools. But very quickly, in
Illinois, your local food for schools, you all still have $5.5
million out of $7 million sitting in a bank that has not been
distributed. And that was one of the reasons why the money
couldn't move fast enough into the food banks. So I
understand----
Mr. Sorensen. Let's put it into a program that works. I am
all for that.
I have deep concerns about Make America Healthy Again. As
you move the President's agenda forward, will you make sure
that there is a seat at the table for farmers, for ranchers?
The Agriculture Committee wants to be able to express what they
support, what they don't.
Secretary Rollins. Yes.
Mr. Sorensen. We need to meet the need for food production,
nutrition access, and rural economies. Can we get farmers at
the table?
Secretary Rollins. Yes.
Mr. Sorensen. Thank you. Also, I have very limited time
left, but last question. How committed are you to making sure
that our research, like the Peoria Ag Lab, our ag labs across
the country are fulfilled and that the money is going to them?
Secretary Rollins. Yes, of course. As we have refocused and
realigned, but we have ensured, other than a handful, that they
are continuing, they are strong, and that they are doing really
good work. The ones that we pulled back, we had major deferred
maintenance issues and a significant cost, so if you are
hearing differently, though, please call me and let us focus on
that.
Mr. Sorensen. Okay. Great.
Thank you, Madam Secretary.
Secretary Rollins. Yes, thank you.
Mr. Sorensen. I appreciate you.
Secretary Rollins. Thank you.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
I now recognize Mr. Harris for 5 minutes.
Mr. Harris. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And Madam Secretary, what a joy it is to have you here
today and we are certainly honored to have you.
Secretary Rollins. Thank you.
Mr. Harris. And I thank you for your time and your patience
and endurance through such a long hearing.
But Madam Secretary, the ongoing avian flu outbreak has led
to the loss of over 174 million birds since 2022. It has been a
plague on the industry for too long, and I frankly have heard
positive feedback from the broilers and layers in my district
in regards to your five-point plan. In fact, one of the things
I have heard here from my colleagues, and this being my
freshman term, is that you are probably the most qualified
individual to serve as Secretary of Agriculture that we have
had in the last generation.
Secretary Rollins. Thank you.
Mr. Harris. So USDA has outlined $1 billion plan with $500
million for farm biosecurity and $400 million for producer
relief. Can you elaborate more on how these funds are being
targeted to strengthen farm-level preparedness?
Secretary Rollins. Yes, I really appreciate that. Thank you
for those really nice words.
Since we rolled out the plan, we have done almost 850
biosecurity assessments, so meaning we go onto the farms and
help the farmers ensure that the barns are locked down. That is
clearly the number one and best and most effective way to stop
the HPAI is the biosecurity. So we have done about 830 of
those. We have spent a lot of money on indemnity, about $70
million to repopulate the barns to get the chickens back into
laying form very, very quickly. We have been importing some
eggs while we repopulate, which has allowed the prices to come
down. And then, of course, the $100 million focused on a long-
term solution, which hopefully we can get to in the short-term.
I am not sure that there has been anything more
heartbreaking to me in the 118 days since I was confirmed than
visiting with some of these egg farmers who have lost their
life. And I know there is this narrative that, ``Oh, they just
want the money and the depopulation.'' That is not it. These
farmers who basically have generational egg-laying farms have
lost everything.
And so I remain committed to them. I have visited with a
lot of them around the country over the last 100+ days. And
anything they are seeing that is not working, we would love to
know, but we are proud of the work so far.
Mr. Harris. Great. Can you share more about how efforts to
right-size the U.S. agriculture trade imbalance will actually
aid the industry's recovery and stabilize the egg supply we
have talked about?
Secretary Rollins. Yes, I think that with specifics to
trade, I was in the first Trump Administration. I was in the
West Wing with the President every day for the second, third,
and fourth year. I ran the domestic policy agenda. I obviously
have always believed in his vision of realigning the world and
that America has been taken advantage of.
What I didn't realize until this job is just how big the
disparity is and how our country has been so taken advantage of
year after year, decade after decade. And so the President's
focus for us in the ag community, as, again, uncertain as this
time is and as hard as it is, especially on some of our row
croppers, at the end of the day, just around the corner, is a
new day.
And when we left the first Trump Administration, there was
a trade surplus for ag. After 4 years of Joe Biden, it is a $50
billion trade deficit, money directly out of our farmers'
pockets. We are going to fix that. When we do, that will
significantly help all of our ag producers, but certainly the
ones in your district and the broiler and chicken industry
hopefully will be just as helped as everybody else.
Mr. Harris. Got you. And one final question. As you know,
timely access to credit is essential for producers, especially
during a downturn in the farm economy. I oftentimes hear from
both lenders and producers about the length of time it takes to
process loans. And given the President's strong commitment to
reducing the size of government and reducing regulations, can
you share any efforts that the Department is making to kind of
speed up this process?
Secretary Rollins. I talk about how the 118 days have been
filled with a lot of surprises both good and bad.
Mr. Harris. Right.
Secretary Rollins. And on the second part of that, the bad
side is just how stunningly bad this agency has been at
reacting, at helping, at supporting, and moving out some of
these programs. Some of those loan programs are at the very top
of the list. We have brought in a team of formerly private,
very successful industry bankers, et cetera, that can help us
recalibrate the whole program. And I think that is really,
really important. We can't do our job, and we can't do right by
these farmers under the current situation that we inherited.
Mr. Harris. Well, thank you again. And again from the 8th
District of North Carolina, we hear great things and a lot of
excitement about things moving forward.
Secretary Rollins. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Harris. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
Secretary Rollins. Thank you.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
I am now pleased to recognize Mr. Riley for 5 minutes.
Mr. Riley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you,
Secretary, for being here. I see your kids made an escape
during the break. Is that right?
Secretary Rollins. They are so happy.
Mr. Riley. I am sure they are.
Secretary Rollins. They are like, I think it is time for us
to go now, Mom.
Mr. Riley. They looked very engaged.
Secretary Rollins. Yes. Yes.
Mr. Riley. I will tell you----
Secretary Rollins. Eighteen, 17, and 15, yes.
Mr. Riley. So mine are 5 and 2, about to be 5 and 2, and my
5 year old--everybody here knows this already. My 5 year old is
my most senior chief advisor.
Secretary Rollins. Yes.
Mr. Riley. I am new here. And when I asked him what
committees I should get on, I read him the list of all the
committees in Congress, tried explaining to a 5 year old what
Ways and Means does. And at the end of it, he said, you have to
get on the one with the tractors and the farm animals, and so
here we are.
Secretary Rollins. So here you are. Congratulations.
Mr. Riley. Thank you. When I came here a few months ago, I
promised that I would work with anyone from any party who wants
to do right by upstate New York. And I am going to fight
anybody who is hurting us.
I think this Committee, one of the things I do like about
it, there are a lot of opportunities for bipartisanship.
Secretary Rollins. Yes.
Mr. Riley. Earlier today, I was working with my friend Zach
Nunn on the PLANT Act (H.R. 4014, Preventing Lethal
Agricultural and National Threats (PLANT) Act) to crack down on
China. There was some conversation here about cracking down on
China buying farmland. I think there is room for bipartisan
agreement on that.
One of the things I would really like to work on with you
is lowering grocery bills, and particularly egg prices, which I
know has been a priority of yours. Back during the Obama
Administration, they enacted some regulations that are still on
the books, and they are keeping hundreds of millions of
perfectly good American eggs off the market. And when you are
suppressing supply, that is part of what is driving up the
prices. So Dusty Johnson and I have a bipartisan bill. There
are ten Republicans, six Democrats on it, and I think eight of
us on this Committee, evenly divided, are doing that bill. We
were very creative in naming it the Lowering Egg Prices Act of
2025 (H.R. 2222). And I was just hoping to get your commitment
that you will work with us to get that bill done, get it to the
President's desk, and do some bipartisan relief on grocery
bills.
Secretary Rollins. I would love to do that. In fact, if we
could maybe next week jump on the phone and you could walk me
through it, that would be great.
Mr. Riley. Sure.
Great, I will take you up on that.
Secretary Rollins. What is the bill number?
Mr. Riley. That I don't know, but we can find----
Secretary Rollins. Okay.
No worries.
Mr. Riley. Yes. Yes.
Secretary Rollins. We will find it.
Mr. Riley. Yes.
Secretary Rollins. Yes.
Mr. Riley. Thank you. I have a follow-up on some questions
I have asked you in writing previously. I sent you a letter on
May 20 in which I asked you if you could get me a list of the
farmers in my district in New York 19, in upstate New York
whose contracts had been suspended because I want to be able to
reach out to each of them individually to make sure they are
getting what they need. I followed up with you on Monday
because I still had not received the list. And then about 20
minutes before today's hearing, I got a response from your
office. It didn't answer my question. It actually raised even
more questions for me.
And so, just what do I need to do to get--what I am asking
for is just a list of the farmers in my district whose
contracts have been suspended so that I can reach out to them
and make sure they are getting everything they need.
Secretary Rollins. They are confirming. It is our
understanding there is no list because everything is moving at
this point.
Mr. Riley. Okay.
Secretary Rollins. So if you are hearing differently or you
have someone saying we are not moving here, would you let us
know?
Mr. Riley. Well, this----
Secretary Rollins. But there should be no one that is
frozen.
Mr. Riley. No, no, but this is the problem is you are
putting the burden on farmers who are working 20 hours a day.
Secretary Rollins. But we don't think there is----
Mr. Riley. No, no, let me finish.
Secretary Rollins. But we don't think there is anyone----
Mr. Riley. Let me finish.
Secretary Rollins.--that has been frozen.
Mr. Riley. To come to me and say, I have a problem----
Secretary Rollins. There is no list.
Mr. Riley.--whereas our job should be--so you haven't kept
track----
Secretary Rollins. No----
Mr. Riley. You have----
Secretary Rollins.--we have.
Mr. Riley. You suspended----
Secretary Rollins. There is no one that is frozen in your
district.
Mr. Riley. That is what I am trying to get at and confirm.
Secretary Rollins. Yes.
Mr. Riley. You are telling me today, every contract that
had been suspended with a farmer in my district has since been
unfrozen.
Secretary Rollins. That is our understanding.
Mr. Riley. Okay. That is what I am trying to get at.
And then the last thing I wanted to talk with you about, I
would love for you to come visit Chobani with me. They are in
New Berlin in Chenango County doing incredible work. It is an
all-natural food company. I went and I took a tour a week or 2
ago. They are hiring thousands of upstate New Yorkers, buying
millions of gallons of upstate New York milk from upstate New
York farmers. They have this incredibly exciting expansion that
is happening across upstate New York. Whether you are a
Democratic or Republican, regardless of political party, it is
the thing that like everybody should be excited about, and I
would love to have you come with me, see it for yourself.
Secretary Rollins. It is incredible.
Mr. Riley. A tour----
Secretary Rollins. I haven't been there, but I have been in
contact with the CEO a couple of different times now so I am
very aware.
Mr. Riley. Good.
Secretary Rollins. I actually committed to him to come
visit. I didn't realize that was in your district, but that is
great.
Mr. Riley. Good.
Secretary Rollins. I will be there.
Mr. Riley. Terrific. Well, he is above my pay grade, so
since you gave him the commitment, I will just add mine onto it
and would love to host you.
Secretary Rollins. We will just follow up. That sounds
great.
Mr. Riley. All right.
Secretary Rollins. That sounds great. Thank you.
Mr. Riley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. I yield
back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize Mr. Taylor from Ohio for 5 minutes.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you
for holding this hearing today, and thank you, Secretary
Rollins, for being here. It is great to see you again. I
appreciate all the hard work----
Secretary Rollins. Yes, you too.
Mr. Taylor.--you are doing on behalf of the agriculture
community.
Across rural America, including in southern Ohio, solar
panels are being put on some of the best farmland in the world.
As you pointed out in a recent op-ed, the acquisition of land
for new farmers has also become increasingly difficult amid
high costs in real estate development. It is expected that 50
percent of all farmland will transfer hands in the next 20
years, and it is essential that that land goes to our next
generation of family farmers.
I believe farmers should have every right to do what they
want with their land, but the Federal Government should not be
incentivizing the most productive land being taken out of
production. That is why I introduced the Protecting American
Farmland Act (H.R. 3313) to prohibit all Federal funds, grants,
loans, tax credits, you name it, from going towards solar
panels converting prime farmland, and I have been thrilled to
see your proactiveness on this issue.
Could you talk a little bit about how solar panels on prime
farmland are making it more difficult for the next generation
of farmers to get started in the business, and for the peace of
mind of new farmers, can you commit that USDA funding won't go
towards putting solar panels on prime farmland in the future?
Secretary Rollins. One hundred percent, I can commit to
that. I will also say that I have spoken to the President about
this. I will also say that we are moving regulations through
USDA relative to this as much as we can within the Executive
Branch. Obviously, you all have the lead on that, and I will
support you in whatever way I can.
The final thing I will say is I spent my summers on our
family's row crop farm in Minnesota, and we would fly from
Texas to St. Paul every summer when I was growing up, working
up there, take the hour drive from St. Paul up to Clear Lake,
Minnesota, through the most beautiful farmland you have ever
seen. And in the, well, 53 years that I have been making that
drive, watching the solar panels take over all of that farmland
in that 72 mile drive is heartbreaking.
And so not only is it important for national security, not
only is it important for the preservation of our smaller family
farms, not only is it important for our row croppers where that
land is being taken off, but it is important for the fabric of
America that we are not selling away this farmland for solar
panels funded by some interesting things. So yes, I am 100
percent on board. Anything I can do to help on that, I am at
your beck and call.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you very much. As I travel around
southern Ohio, the most common thing I hear from farmers is the
need to protect the farm safety net, specifically crop
insurance and commodity programs. That is why in the One Big
Beautiful Bill that the House recently passed, we included the
much-needed investment in our farm safety net. These provisions
are one of the many reasons we need to put this bill on the
President's desk as quickly as possible. Secretary Rollins,
could you talk a little bit about the importance of including
farm safety net provisions in the One Big Beautiful Bill to our
farmers and rural communities?
Secretary Rollins. I got the call for this job from
President Trump on Saturday, November 23rd. I was the last
Cabinet, one of at least the larger spots left. He called me
Saturday morning. We were driving in our motorhome from Fort
Worth to Auburn, Alabama, for a football game, and hung up the
phone, obviously extremely honored, the honor of a lifetime.
And then the very next thought in my head was how are we going
to get a farm bill passed? And the reason is understanding the
margins that these farmers have been operating under and
understanding that the few times that we tried to get--we--I
should say I wasn't part of the last 4 years, but it was tried
to move a farm bill that was unsuccessful for a lot of reasons.
A lot of people were hurting because of that, but no one hurt
more by that than our farmers and those who rely on these
reference prices.
So I can't say enough and have been making this case to
anyone that will listen that this Big Beautiful Bill is
important for a lot of reasons, the President's tax cuts being
permanent, creating more jobs, keeping the death tax out of our
family farms, et cetera, et cetera. But I am not sure from my
perspective and this job that there is anything more important
than updating those reference prices, so I am very proud of
that. And hopefully, it goes to the finish line.
Mr. Taylor. Amen. Your lips to God's ears. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Secretary Rollins. Thank you, sir.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
I am now pleased to recognize the gentleman from New
Mexico, Mr. Vasquez, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Vasquez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you,
Secretary, for being here today. And I am up here next to the
Chairman.
Secretary Rollins. Yes, okay, I see you. Bad eyes.
Mr. Vasquez. Madam Secretary, I am glad that you have come
before our Committee today. I represent one of the largest and
most rural districts in the country, a district that elected
both me and President Trump. Farmers, ranchers, food banks, and
wildfire crews in my district rely on a properly staffed and
functioning USDA, not just for support, but for survival.
But right now, many of them feel that the USDA is failing
them. As an example, in Silver City, New Mexico, the Frontier
Food Hub, which is the only food pantry for hundreds of miles,
had its Community Food Project grant abruptly frozen halfway
through its 4 year term. Frontier Food Hub isn't just feeding
families. It is an organization that is supporting small-scale
rural producers in the region. Now, they spent those funds in
good faith, built partnerships, and hired local workers. But
when USDA turned off their contract with no warning and no
explanation and no opportunity to appeal or correct course, it
put their entire operation and the food security of the region
in jeopardy.
Secretary Rollins, as you can see, this is a critical
program in a place like Silver City, New Mexico. Would you
commit to upholding funding for rural communities in places
like Silver City that provide these services?
Secretary Rollins. Are you talking about the local food,
the LFPA, or the Local Food for Schools, the local food
purchases? There are so many. I have a couple different
thoughts, but depending on which one you are talking about.
Mr. Vasquez. Yes, it is the Community Food Project.
Secretary Rollins. The Community Food Project. Okay. Okay.
I understand. So our commitment, and continues to be, that we
ensure that we are using taxpayer dollars, that the producers
around those areas, understanding some of the food insecurity,
continues to be a priority.
What I would really appreciate--and I have actually been
talking to Senator Heinrich from New Mexico about a couple of
other key issues--is that you let us know specifics in what
that looks like and how it has compromised, potentially, the
goals of that community in New Mexico.
Mr. Vasquez. Thank you, Madam Secretary. I appreciate that,
and we will follow up.
Now, I also represent the Gila and the Lincoln National
Forest, and we are heading into peak wildfire season.
Secretary Rollins. Yes.
Mr. Vasquez. New Mexico experienced two of its largest
wildfires just 2 years ago. Yet dozens of our seasoned Forest
Service firefighters and trail crews have been fired and
sidelined. In fact, I met with a group of seven members of a
trail crew who actually are the ones who maintain the trails
and cut fire lines in the wilderness areas of the forest who
are just 1 week away from being fired. These are the very
people that we rely on to protect our communities, to clear our
trails, and to manage our forests. And without them, this
wildfire season could be more dangerous, deadly, and disastrous
than the one we recently saw.
We are now in fire season. Has the USDA done any analysis
on how these cuts impact public safety in fire-prone rural
communities?
Secretary Rollins. We have. We are 96 percent operational.
We are way ahead--not way ahead, we are ahead of where the
Biden Administration was a year ago in preparation for fire
season. We have more firefighters on the ground and ready to
go. I actually have been in conversations about this also with
your Senator from New Mexico, specifically talking about the
New Mexico challenges. So we are aware and leaned in, but
again, please send any information to me that you see that is
different from what I am understanding for New Mexico.
Mr. Vasquez. Thank you, Madam Secretary. I appreciate that.
And where a lot of the work happens, again, is with the trail
crews who have a function within the larger preventative
control of these forest fires, and so we definitely need
firefighters to respond to a fire incident, but we also need
the folks who are out there cutting those trails that allow
those firefighters in, so I would suggest that we continue to
look at those positions as very valuable to the entire
firefighting ecosystem.
Secretary Rollins. I agree. And we have invested a lot of
money in the clearing, so let me get my arms around exactly
what that looks like for New Mexico and we will follow up.
Mr. Vasquez. Thank you so much, Madam Secretary.
Now, every Member of this Committee has shared similar
stories involving food pantries left in the dark, trail crews
cast aside, producers that the USDA has promised to support. I
introduced the Honor Farmer Contracts Act (H.R. 2396), which is
a bill essentially that would allow USDA to fully pay those
contracts that have already been executed, some dealing back
all the way to last year because constituents are holding up
their end of the deal, but they feel USDA isn't. So I would
love for you to take a look at that bill and see if it is
something that you would support.
Now, I listen to the people on the ground in my district,
and so I created an agriculture advisory group. Now, in my
district, we grow pecans, chili, cotton, beef, and so many
other specialty crops as well. And those local leaders that
make up my Ag Advisory Committee, which the Chairman here has
been gracious enough to talk to, would love the opportunity to
talk with you and even more so to see you in the district. And
in order to understand these impacts in my local community,
would you be willing to visit the 2nd district of New Mexico in
the near future?
Secretary Rollins. I would. I would.
Mr. Vasquez. Thank you so much, Madam Secretary.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Secretary Rollins. Yes, thank you, sir.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. De La Cruz,
for 5 minutes.
Ms. De La Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Secretary, for being here today.
I sit before you with immense gratitude and a profound
sense of hope for our farmers, especially in deep south Texas.
We are indebted to you for not only focusing and visiting our
Rio Grande Valley and our deep south Texas, but talking about
what was the number one issue for us, which was the water
deliveries that came from Mexico that they were obligated to
give us due to the 1944 Water Treaty (Treaty Series 994,
Utilization of Waters of the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers and of
the Rio Grande).
Your tireless effort in putting that at the front of the
national stage and sitting in the Oval Office many times with
President Trump and being the voice for south Texas farmers who
had really lost hope, many of which lost their farms. In fact,
as you know, we lost our sugarcane industry due to Mexico not
delivering that water.
Secretary Rollins. We did.
Ms. De La Cruz. So thank you from the bottom of my heart
and from all of south Texas.
Not only that, but you quickly pushed forward the $280
million that went to our farms that were affected by the 1944
Water Treaty. Yesterday, I had one of my farming constituents
here that I took to dinner, and she said, ``Monica, we received
our money from the $280 million that were allocated to us, and
it saved our farm family. Had we waited even a moment longer, I
would not be able to sit with you today as a farming family.''
Secretary Rollins. That is amazing.
Ms. De La Cruz. So I know that it made a profound impact.
Thank you, thank you, thank you. Your tireless effort has been
noticed and recognized, and you made a difference in our family
community and our farming community.
Secretary Rollins. Thank you.
Ms. De La Cruz. That being said, I also want to say that
the next step for us with the 1944 water treaty is that we work
together with you, with Secretary Rubio, as well as the Trade
Secretary to make sure that we get the 1944 water treaty as
part of the discussion into the USMCA agreement. That will be
our goal, that the treaty become part of the USMCA agreement so
that it has teeth for further discussions should Mexico not
comply again with the 1944 Water Treaty.
Secretary Rollins. Yes.
Ms. De La Cruz. So can I have your commitment to work with
us in getting the 1944 water treaty into the USMCA agreement?
Secretary Rollins. Yes.
Ms. De La Cruz. Thank you so much. I appreciate that.
Secretary Rollins. Yes.
Ms. De La Cruz. So now that we have made big strides in
getting water delivered to our farmers, the next thing is the
screwworm. That is something that is of great importance to our
farmers, our ranchers, our cattlemen are very, very worried
about the screwworm. It is a devastating pest that poses a
severe risk to our livestock and our wildlife and is
threatening generational farms and farming families. It could
have catastrophic consequences to our agricultural economy and
to our natural ecosystem.
Recognizing the urgency of this threat, I was proud to
introduce the New World Screwworm Preparedness Act of 2025
(H.R. 3806) and believe that this legislation will help bolster
our defenses and enhance surveillance and ensure that we have
the necessary resources and infrastructure to prevent and
respond to potential outbreaks.
With this in mind, I would like to encourage you to
consider a sterile fly facility is established here in the
United States, but consider Moore Air Base in Hidalgo County as
its potential sites. Would that be something that you would
consider?
Secretary Rollins. Yes, and we will be in touch on that
very soon. But you are 100 percent right, Congresswoman, and it
continues to be my great honor to partner with you. You are
relentless and just such a great advocate, and I am just really
honored, first on the water, now working together on the
screwworm. I know you know this. I am in constant communication
with my counterpart in Mexico, Secretary Berdegue and the
Mexican Government. We have to move the screwworm back, and if
we don't, we will have another 3 decades of trying to recover
from it. So we will have an announcement very, very soon, and
you will be hearing from our office on that.
Ms. De La Cruz. Excellent. Well, thank you. I hope that
Moore Air Base will be considered since it does have the
infrastructure available to combat this.
Secretary Rollins. Yes.
Ms. De La Cruz. Thank you. I yield back.
Secretary Rollins. Thank you.
The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired.
I will be recognizing Mr. Mannion next, and then that will
finish up the kind of special order of those who were here when
we recessed, and then we will resume the regular order on the
list here.
So Mr. Mannion is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Mannion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary,
thank you for appearing today and for your service to America's
farmers. Earlier this year, I wrote a letter expressing deep
concern about USDA's plan to close dozens of FSA and NRCS
offices nationwide. In May, I also joined a delegation letter
about the proposed lease termination of the Syracuse, New York,
field office that serves my district.
I appreciate receiving USDA's response to that letter this
morning, but I remain worried that shutting these front door
offices will leave rural producers without the help and
assistance they rely on. So just where are you in terms of USDA
reorganization and potential office moves?
Secretary Rollins. And sir, I am sorry, I missed it. Which
specific offices?
Mr. Mannion. It was Syracuse, New York.
Secretary Rollins. The Syracuse, New York, FSA office or
Rural Development? Do you know which one?
Mr. Mannion. It is a USDA office, yes.
Secretary Rollins. Okay. Well, we are going through the
reorganization. So for example, in some buildings, we have four
different leases. Our GSA is the one managing all of that. I am
not aware of any office that is closing. We shouldn't in terms
of our interfacing with the farmers. But again, if you could
get more specifics, we can dig into that.
Mr. Mannion. Sure. Yes.
Secretary Rollins. And in fact, the team maybe can look at
that right now.
Mr. Mannion. I appreciate that.
Mr. Riley is adjacent to my district. He mentioned our
dairy community in my conversations with representatives from
USDA and our farmers, how essential these offices are.
Secretary Rollins. They are.
Mr. Mannion. And they appreciate having that easy access
and can problem solve and assist those that need it.
Secretary Rollins. I agree.
Mr. Mannion. I appreciate you looking into that and
certainly understand that there is a lot going on at these
points, and I will give more details on the specific division
that you had requested. We will follow up with your team.
Just finally, as far as dairy, New York is the fifth
largest dairy state in the country. I do not have that Chobani
plant in my district, nor do I have the new proposed $1.2
billion Chobani plant that will be in Representative Stefanik's
district.
Secretary Rollins. Yes. That is right.
Mr. Mannion. But I share many concerns that have been
expressed in this hearing. There will need just themselves
upwards of 180,000 more cows many of whom do exist or will
exist in my district and neighboring.
Secretary Rollins. Yes.
Mr. Mannion. So I thank you. I ask that you, I am sure,
will continue to work with the Secretary of Labor and other
members of this Administration and the legislature to work
towards a year-round dairy farmer visa.
Secretary Rollins. That is right. And understanding that
labor H-2A needs so much work, and this Committee has done
hero's work on it, but no one is more affected and needs reform
more than our dairy industry. And so working very closely and
in concert, I have to try to get that done is of utmost
priority for me.
Mr. Mannion. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
Secretary Rollins. Thank you.
Mr. Mannion. I yield back.
Mr. Finstad [presiding.] All right. There is a new sheriff
in town, so I am going to recognize myself.
Secretary Rollins. I am so sorry. The lease cancellation
you are talking about was rescinded so that should be solved.
Mr. Mannion. Yes. Thank you.
Secretary Rollins. The Syracuse, New York. You are welcome.
I am so sorry, sir.
Mr. Finstad. Already off the rails. Perfect.
Secretary Rollins. Already breaking the rules.
Mr. Finstad. Madam Secretary, it is great to have you here.
I just have to start out by saying you are a breath of fresh
air, your optimism, your excitement, and the fact that you were
essentially born and raised just about an hour and a half north
of where my row crop farm is brings a smile to my face.
I want to talk a little bit about really the family farm
and the future of the family farm. I am a fourth-generation
farmer. I am a farm kid and a product of the 1980s when we had
some really tough times, and the message to farm country was,
this is no life for you, get off the farm, we can't make it.
Interest rates are too high. Commodity prices were too risky.
You know the routine. And now we fast forward, and I am raising
the fifth generation.
And I look at egg trade deficit. I look at the inputs that
continue to cripple us. I look at a stagnant market. And so as
I look to what we were able to do in the reconciliation
package, the Big Beautiful Bill, there are some things that I
would like to hear your thoughts on. And specifically to me, as
I get closer to 50 and further away from 40, I start thinking
about things like what does passing the farm on look like?
Secretary Rollins. Yes.
Mr. Finstad. And farmers of my size really are crippled
with the fact that if we were to gift or to, God forbid, hit
the pearly gates early and our kids are left with our farm, do
they sell land just to pay the tax bill?
Secretary Rollins. Right.
Mr. Finstad. And so in the reconciliation package, I am
really proud of the fact that we were able to take a look at
the death tax, the estate tax, but more specifically the 199A,
the 45Z, the 179 deductions, and the permanency that we were
able to make in that. So I would like to hear your thoughts on
maybe the business side of farming and what we were able to
accomplish in the Big Beautiful Bill through the House here and
maybe give a message of hope to the fifth generation of my farm
and what it looks like to be a farmer in Minnesota in the
future.
Secretary Rollins. Yes, thank you for that. And the best
part about my job in the last 118 days, we have been nonstop on
the road, been to your amazing state, been to I think 17 or 18
states at this point, two countries, we will continue, but just
meeting with the farmers and hearing from them specifically.
Everywhere I go, I will do two or three roundtables so I can,
it is not one or two. It is a 15, 20, 25 person roundtable and
just hearing from people just like you who are third, fourth,
fifth, sixth, seventh generation farmers. And the number one
concern that always comes up is how do I preserve this way of
life for my children and my children's children?
And that has really struck me as perhaps when I leave,
hopefully in 3\1/2\ years, but perhaps when I leave, if there
is one thing I could have done, it would have been to make the
road smoother for the generations coming behind you and coming
behind me to stay in this way of life. And so about a month
ago, I told the team, I said, we have to come up with a--I am a
policy person at heart. We have to come up with a slate of
policy that allows this to continue indefinitely.
And as we hit year 250 for the American dream and the
American birthday, a country that was founded on farming and
farmers, that was fought by farmers in the original revolution,
that the entire fabric of our nation is based on that
discipline and hard work and love of country, I just can't
underscore how important this is.
And so the work that you all did in the Big Beautiful Bill:
whether it was protecting two million family farms from the
death tax, whether it was making sure we have $10 billion in
tax cuts going to our family farmers, whether it was a $3.8
billion increase in income to our family farmers, whether to
your point, the 45Z and extending that to 2031, these are
gamechangers. And I will do whatever I can all day, every day
to ensure that it moves forward in a significant way.
Having said all of that, if we don't open up these world
markets, if we don't bring down the cost of inputs, if we don't
ensure that our family farms have a prosperous future where
they are not reliant or mostly reliant on the government
payout, then we won't get to the next 250 years and be the
America that we are today. That is how seriously I take this.
So thank you for your work, and thank you for the opportunity
to partner on that.
Mr. Finstad. I appreciate that. And in the few seconds that
I have left, I mean, I will just tell you that the farmers that
I have the honor of representing southern Minnesota tell me all
the time that they want to farm for a market. They don't want
to farm for the mailbox.
Secretary Rollins. That is right.
Mr. Finstad. They don't want the government to have to step
in because they want a market that produces, and they want to
run their business as a business. So I really appreciate your
thoughts and appreciate the passion that you bring to this role
and looking forward to your continued leadership.
Secretary Rollins. Oh, thank you, Congressman.
Mr. Finstad. You bet. All right. With that, we will go to
Mr. Gray.
Mr. Gray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Craig.
Secretary Rollins, thank you for appearing here today. It is
nice to see you again. We met at your first day on the job.
Secretary Rollins. Yes, we did.
Mr. Gray. I came over with the Chairman. You were nice
enough to give me your cell phone number so we could keep in
touch.
Secretary Rollins. Yes. Good to see you.
Mr. Gray. Nice to see you again. Next time, we will make
sure we invite.
Secretary Rollins. Yes. Don't take it personally.
Mr. Gray. So my district lies in the heart of California's
Central Valley, a region that feeds the nation and much of the
world. We produce over $59 billion in agricultural output each
year, accounting for one in every four bites of food consumed
by Americans daily. We grow almonds, dairy, citrus, tomatoes,
cotton, you name it, and we do it with less water, less margin
for error, and more climate risk than just about anywhere else
in the country.
What keeps us competitive and what keeps us resilient is
research and innovation. My district is home to both UC Merced
and Merced College, both institutions that are leading the
country in that respect. At Merced College, the Ag Tech
Workforce Initiative is redefining how we train and up-skill
the next generation of agricultural professionals.
Complementing this effort, we have a 22,000 square foot Ag
Innovation Center. UC Merced is home to one of the most
cutting-edge smart farms in the country, all of this supported
through Federal and state investments, including the $65
million F3 award benefiting both those institutions and those
programs.
These institutions produce the science that allows
agriculture in the valley to stay ahead of diseases, water
scarcity, global competitors, and we are not talking about the
ivory tower theory here. We are talking about cutting-edge,
applicable, and exciting research happening every day in our
universities and, more importantly, on our farms. This leads to
better irrigation systems that stretch every drop of water,
pest and drought resilient crop varieties, carbon-smart
techniques that boost soil health and reduce emissions. These
are the very tools that will shape the future of agriculture,
not just in California, but throughout the country.
And yet, the USDA's 2025 budget proposal slashes millions
in agricultural research and farmer support. While we are
reducing our investment in American ag research, countries like
China and Brazil are doubling down. They are building new
research stations, funding climate-resilient agriculture,
dominating global markets with lower costs and higher volume.
If we want American agriculture to remain the global gold
standard, we cannot afford to fall behind in innovation.
And let's be clear, food security is national security.
When USDA cuts research funding, it is not just scientists who
lose out, it is farmers trying to manage water shortages, it is
dairy producers investing in affordable feed alternatives or
methane digesters and other technologies to help them remain
competitive.
So Madam Secretary, these cuts send the wrong message that
rural America is expected to do more with less, that we will
figure it out without the resources or tools our competitors
are using to leap ahead. I know budgets are tight, but cutting
research is both short-sighted and fiscally irresponsible.
So Secretary Rollins, my question is two-part. One, how do
you and I collaborate and how do we collaborate here in
Congress as a body to ensure that this Administration starts to
prioritize these critical investments that will be the
foundation of agriculture and farming over this next 100 years?
And two, can I get a commitment from you that you will come to
my district and let me show you firsthand the innovation and
breadth of production that makes up the greatest and largest
farming valley in the world?
Secretary Rollins. Yes, the last question first, I would be
honored to come visit. If I could provide a little context
though because I do think your points are salient and they are
important, but in the budget, we only cut about seven percent,
and that went from $2.1 billion with ARS to $1.9 billion, and I
understand what you are saying, that is still seven percent or
7.6 percent I think, but that was very specific to some
outdated facilities that weren't online and weren't producing
the research that was necessary.
We remain wholly committed to the research that you
mentioned, the university that you mentioned. I am a product of
a land-grant, Texas A&M out of Texas, really believe in the
work that is being done. And to your point about national
security, it is more important today than ever before that we
continue that.
Mr. Gray. Well, Madam Secretary, I appreciate that
response, and I look forward to hosting you in Merced and
throughout the San Joaquin Valley. It is a beautiful place, and
we do some incredible things there. And, you have said this
Administration supports agriculture, you have said you want to
level the playing field for rural producers. I would certainly
like to work with you----
The Chairman [presiding.] The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Gray. Thank you.
Secretary Rollins. I look forward to that, thank you.
Mr. Gray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Secretary Rollins. Thank you.
The Chairman. I am now pleased to recognize the gentleman
from Texas, Mr. Jackson, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Jackson of Texas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
Madam Secretary, for being here today. We appreciate your time.
I just want to tell you, start off by saying the great State of
Texas is really proud of you. You did a wonderful job. We
really appreciate it.
Secretary Rollins. Thank you.
Mr. Jackson of Texas. I will say that, during the Biden
Administration, the USDA was weaponized to push identity
politics, green energy scams, and lots of other things that
were the detriment of rural America and our agricultural
producers. Once again, on behalf of myself and the hardworking
farmers and ranchers of Texas' 13th Congressional District, I
want to thank you, Madam Secretary, for returning the USDA to
its original mission of taking care of all of these that feed
and clothe our country.
I have the pleasure, as you know, of representing the
largest fed cattle district in the United States, and my
feeders rely on imports of live cattle from Mexico to
supplement their feedyards and remain competitive in what they
do.
I understand that the restriction on live animals was not
an easy choice and that the USDA made that to protect America's
herd health. But every day that imports are suspended, my
constituents, their businesses are severely impacted.
Madam Secretary, I just wanted to ask you, as you mentioned
in your testimony, the USDA is currently reviewing the import
suspension every 30 days. Could you please describe to us, what
are the metrics the agency would like to reach before resuming
reentry of live cattle, and what can this Committee do to
enhance inspection activities at U.S. ports of entry along the
southern border once the suspension is lifted? We want to do
everything we can to get this over as quickly as possible.
Secretary Rollins. Yes, I hear you, and realize this is a
significant, significant decision with big, big, big
consequences for not just Mexico, but for us, for Texans and
for the industry. The 30 days is our benchmark, but we are
assessing every single day. The metric that we are looking for
is to watch the screwworm retreat south. It basically moved
from about 1,100 miles from the border to 700 miles from the
border within just a matter of weeks, which again, we hadn't
seen that kind of movement in decades. I can't underscore
enough what a dire situation this is. We have put tens of
millions of dollars into additional sterile fly production
south of the border. We will have a significant announcement in
a couple days to continue expanding on that.
I am in almost daily touch with Secretary Berdegue of
Mexico. The challenge is that the sophistication of their data
collection, not surprisingly, south of the border is not up to
our standards. So they have, I will give them credit, more than
ever before, at least in our team's partnership, have been more
open and more willing to allow our team on the ground to
ourselves assess the situation. But please know, please know,
that every day we are on this and we understand the consequence
of this decision and are working so hard to be able to open
those ports back up.
Mr. Jackson of Texas. Thank you. I appreciate that. And
obviously, the sterile fly facility is going to help with
dealing with this from the long-term so that we don't get, like
you said, in a situation where it plagues us for the next 30
years.
Secretary Rollins. Yes.
Mr. Jackson of Texas. But yes, anything we can do on the
short-term, that is going to be key for the folks that I
represent right now.
I also wanted to applaud your leadership in quickly and
effectively delivering desperately needed economic assistance
for America's farmers and ranchers. While the last
Administration delayed critical disaster assistance to promote
identity politics, which, just was unthinkable, your agency is
working to swiftly deliver support to producers that will help
them remain in operation. As we continue to move towards the
implementation of the Supplemental Disaster Relief Program, how
are you ensuring that our farmers who suffered from indemnified
losses and shallow losses are compensated in a timely fashion?
Secretary Rollins. I am really proud of this. I think
relative to--and not to throw the last Administration
completely under the bus, I think this is true of many of the
Administrations before us, but we have moved more quickly than
even most people thought possible. The ECAP, of course, went
out ahead of time, and you send your paperwork in. Within 3
days, we turn the funding around. The next tranche is the $20
billion. The $10 billion was the first tranche. The $21
billion, we have already begun to move that out. You probably
are tracking the livestock piece was the first piece.
Mr. Jackson of Texas. Yes.
Secretary Rollins. In Texas alone, 41,000 producers, 2023
losses; 13,000 producers, 2024 losses. That money is moving. We
have already begun distribution and should be finished in the
next 30 to 60 days with all of it. There are some hangups with
the Northeast block grant, but for Texas and the livestock, it
is moving very quickly.
Mr. Jackson of Texas. Well, thank you. I appreciate it. I
think you are doing a great job. It is much faster than it used
to be, and it hasn't been so much the ability to get the relief
approved, but to get it delivered to those who need it, so
thank you for what you are doing.
Secretary Rollins. That is right.
Mr. Jackson of Texas. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield
back.
Secretary Rollins. Thank you.
Mr. Jackson of Texas. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.
I am now pleased to recognize the gentleman from Alabama,
Mr. Figures, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Figures. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Rollins, pleasure to meet you. My feelings are
hurt that I was not one of the cool kids that got to come over
in the early days of you coming on board.
Secretary Rollins. We will fix that.
Mr. Figures. But I appreciate you being here, also
appreciate your staff getting you ready for this. I have been
in their shoes before in preparing an Executive Branch
official, a Cabinet agency head for this sort of testimony.
Secretary Rollins. Yes. It is a lot of work.
Mr. Figures. It is.
Secretary Rollins. Yes.
Mr. Figures. It is indeed. I represent Alabama, the 2nd
Congressional District of Alabama, which includes Mobile,
Montgomery, Tuskegee, Troy, Phoenix City, and a bunch of other
places I am sure you have never heard of. But within it is
Tuskegee, formerly the Tuskegee Institute, now Tuskegee
University, one of the land-grant colleges.
Secretary Rollins. Yes.
Mr. Figures. We also have Alabama A&M University in the
State of Alabama, another land-grant college. And given USDA's
history, particularly in the State of Alabama, one of my
colleagues earlier mentioned how about 50 percent of the Black
farmer litigation settlement money is coming to Alabama. There
is a sensitivity there----
Secretary Rollins. Yes.
Mr. Figures.--just given historical race relations with
USDA--obviously, that predated you, in how USDA treats minority
communities, particularly in the State of Alabama. And so
through that lens, the suspension of the land-grant scholars
program was something that resonated a little bit differently
for us in Alabama. And just in looking at a timeline--look,
trust me, I want to grill you on the things that I think you
are fully responsible for and praise you for things as well.
Secretary Rollins. I appreciate that.
Mr. Figures. But looking at the timeline, I kind of doubt
it was you that made that full decision and pushed that full
process, just given when you were confirmed, when the
suspension was announced, when the suspension was reversed. And
so I want to get to a little bit of the bottom of how we got
there because that really impacted a lot of students across the
country, especially at Tuskegee University. And that university
has done a lot in terms of ag. We know the history of George
Washington Carver and what they have meant.
So my question to you is, first, twofold. One, the 1862
schools also have the same land-grant scholar program. Is that
correct?
Secretary Rollins. I believe that is correct, but I want to
confirm that.
Mr. Figures. All right. Thank you. And it is also my
understanding that when the 1890 land-grant scholar program was
paused, that funding was paused, that it was not paused for the
1862 schools. Is that your understanding of it?
Secretary Rollins. I need to research that. I am so sorry.
I don't have that off the top of my head.
Mr. Figures. Got it, no problem. Media reports and what was
uploaded on the website indicates as much.
Secretary Rollins. Yes.
Mr. Figures. And so given that history that I just alluded
to, it feels bad. We have had some people talk about identity
politics, but it feels that, when you have the 1862 schools,
which are the Texas A&Ms and the LSUs, historically White----
Secretary Rollins. Auburn.
Mr. Figures.--when they were established, segregated
institutions, their funding is not touched. But then you have
the 1890s, which were all historically Black colleges that are
post-Civil War. Their funding was stopped. That feels
problematic based on identity. And that was something that we,
obviously, took issue with, and it was reversed within 5 days.
But I feel like looking at that timeline, that that was
something that was already in motion before you were confirmed.
And so my question is, was that a product of DOGE, or was that
the product of--like how did we get there, I guess, is the
first question.
Secretary Rollins. Yes, and I wish I knew the answer to
that because it was before my time. But I will say this, that I
was in the first Trump Administration. We were the first
Administration to guarantee full funding for the HBCUs.
Mr. Figures. And I am not questioning your commitment to
them.
Secretary Rollins. No, but I want----
Mr. Figures. I just want to make sure----
Secretary Rollins. I think it----
Mr. Figures.--that we don't end up there with some future
funding----
Secretary Rollins. Yes----
Mr. Figures.--that----
Secretary Rollins. No, sir, I appreciate that, and I take
it to heart. And I understand the optics. I do. And I think it
is important to note that this Administration is very committed
to those universities and have been unequivocal in saying so.
Mr. Figures. I appreciate it. And I don't want to cut you
off.
Secretary Rollins. The early days were imperfect.
Mr. Figures. I just want to capitalize on my last 45
seconds here.
Secretary Rollins. Yes, sorry.
Mr. Figures. But thank you for that, and definitely want to
work towards making sure that that does not happen again
because it feels very racially motivated when the----
Secretary Rollins. I can promise you it was not racially
motivated. I think it was just an imperfect process that was
happening.
Mr. Figures. Well, I can appreciate that. I can appreciate
that.
Last thing that I have time for, and I will follow up with
you on some other things because I would love to sit down with
you is rural hospitals in my district are among the worst in
the country.
Secretary Rollins. I would welcome that.
Mr. Figures. We have 26 rural hospitals in the State of
Alabama that have been rated at risk of closure. We have 22
that are rated at immediate risk of closure. We have several in
my district that are month to month. They have to go borrow
money or get money from the city council or county commission
every single month just to be able to make payroll.
Secretary Rollins. Yes.
Mr. Figures. We need help with that to keep these
communities open. They support our farmers. They support the
industries that are left in our rural communities. And I really
want to sit down with you and figure out ways we can leverage
the programs that you guys have to support rural hospitals to
keep them open in my district and across the state in this
country.
Secretary Rollins. I can't tell you how important I think
that is. And we talk a lot about farming and agriculture that
is the driver, but the rural piece of this and having thriving
rural communities, you can't do that without the hospitals, the
housing, the childcare, et cetera, so I am very focused on this
for the long term.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. I now
recognize the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Rose, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Rose. Thank you, Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member
Craig, for holding this vital hearing today. And thank you,
Secretary Rollins, for your testimony and joining us today.
I want to begin by applauding the Trump-Vance
Administration on the nomination of now-Secretary Rollins to
lead the U.S. Department of Agriculture and guide the backbone
industry of our country.
Secretary Rollins, I appreciate your diligent work thus far
delivering on a new and empowering era for our farmers and look
forward to working with you to secure a prosperous future for
all of rural America. As a fellow former State FFA officer and
a former commissioner of agriculture and a fierce conservative,
I am confident the Department will continue to thrive under
your leadership. And I would be remiss if I didn't say I was
not excited about your newly confirmed deputy secretary,
Stephen Vaden----
Secretary Rollins. From Tennessee, yes.
Mr. Rose.--from our own State of Tennessee. He is a dear
friend and I know will be a capable ally and----
Secretary Rollins. Yes, he will.
Mr. Rose.--assistant to you.
Secretary Rollins, thank you for your swift action in
suspending the implementation of the previous Administration's
overreaching and impractical rule, the Horse Protection Act
amendments. As the Department engages with qualified
individuals to restructure the rule, can you highlight details
of the Administration's plan to ensure a new rule has not only
longevity and remains practical for equestrian industries,
specifically the Tennessee Walking Horse industry?
Secretary Rollins. Well, I think the first conversation I
ever had with Stephen Vaden, who I did not know before this
process began about 6 months ago, was about this rule. So you
have no greater advocate. I would like to say I am going to be
the greatest advocate. I am a horse girl. I grew up showing
horses, but I don't think I beat Stephen Vaden. So listen, our
commitment is that we are here for 4 years. We are going to do
everything we can to do right by our agriculture community,
including our horse community. But if it all whiplashes back
the day that we leave, then it perhaps is for naught. And so
ensuring that we can do this in an intentional way with
longevity is of utmost importance, so we really look forward to
your partnership in that.
Mr. Rose. Well, thank you, Secretary Rollins. And I don't
want to speak too much for the Chairman, but he has enjoyed
riding a Tennessee Walking Horse himself----
Secretary Rollins. I love it.
Mr. Rose.--and invite Ranking Member Craig to come down and
experience that. And I think anyone who rides a Tennessee
Walking Horse will understand what has made them so popular
through the years, so thank you for that commitment.
I am proud of the investments in production agriculture
Republicans secured in the House version of the One Big
Beautiful Bill Act that passed recently on the House side.
However, we are still on the clock, you might say, to pass a
farm bill with robust provisions that strengthen rural America.
Madam Secretary, as we turn our focus to passing a new farm
bill, can you highlight some of the titles and programs
Congress should prioritize from your perspective to ensure that
this legislation provides the necessary tools to bolster
farmers and landowners?
Secretary Rollins. Well, I think that a lot of that,
obviously, is in the Big Beautiful Bill hopefully will stay in
to the finish line. But if not, or if so, the continued effort
on reference prices is so important for the viability and
continuing work.
Obviously, the rural prosperity part of this, we will see
what that looks like, but I will be rolling something out on
that very soon in partnership.
The lot of what we are already talking about, of course,
SNAP reform is a major, major issue. We have talked a lot about
that today. Of course, that is 85 percent of the farm bill
depending on how you slice the cheese. So there is a lot that
we can prioritize, but ultimately, continuing to put our
farmers first, moving toward a new era of prosperity, opening
up markets, bringing down inflation and the cost of inputs,
ensuring we have the crop protection tools that we need, all of
the above is important. I am not sure there is, frankly, a more
important effort once we get through this reconciliation bill
and effort than the farm bill will be in just a little while.
Mr. Rose. Well, thank you. And you mentioned opening
markets. In my lifetime--and we are not that far apart in age--
thankfully, for most of my lifetime, the U.S. has enjoyed a
trade surplus with respect to agricultural products. But we saw
during the prior Administration that change to a considerable
trade deficit. And I think that is driven by a number of
factors, but first among them is the lack of focus by the prior
Administration on opening markets. So in the last 20 seconds,
if you could speak to what you can do as Secretary and what the
Administration will do to open markets for U.S. agricultural
products abroad.
Secretary Rollins. We will be relentless, and we will not
sleep until those markets are open. And I think you see an all-
of-government approach. And I have mentioned this, but let me
repeat quickly because I know we are out of time. Just in my
first two trips, first to the UK, second to Italy, headed to
Vietnam, Japan, and India in a couple of weeks, then down to
Peru and Brazil and others, the encouragement, the meetings I
have had, not just with the government, the important piece of
this is with the private-sector as well. In Italy, a week and a
half ago, I was meeting with the soybean buyers, the Italian
soybean buyers. And they are so excited. I am meeting with them
again in a week. They are coming to America to talk about this,
that the sky, I believe, is the limit for this new era for our
farmers and ranchers.
Mr. Rose. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Mr. Chairman, I yield
back.
Secretary Rollins. Thank you.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
I am now pleased to recognize the gentlelady from Maryland,
Mrs. McClain Delaney for 5 minutes.
Mrs. McClain Delaney. So thank you, Secretary Rollins. I
really appreciate your deep preparation today. You are diving
into the figures and really having the ability and receptivity
to following up with each of our offices.
It really makes a difference.
Secretary Rollins. Thank you.
Mrs. McClain Delaney. I did watch your children. They were
very patiently waiting. And I, too, have an 18 year old
daughter, and she is headed to Texas for college in the fall.
Secretary Rollins. Oh, that is--well, where in Texas?
Mrs. McClain Delaney. TCU.
Secretary Rollins. Oh, that is my hometown. At least you
didn't say Texas. If you said the University of Texas, that
would have been tough. But no, that is great.
Mrs. McClain Delaney. Oh, my gosh.
Secretary Rollins. That is a great place.
Mrs. McClain Delaney. I have four daughters. So anyway----
Secretary Rollins. Oh, congratulations.
Mrs. McClain Delaney.--I grew up in a farming family in
Buhl, Idaho. I would have been a fourth-generation farmer had I
not moved to Maryland. But I really appreciate farm country and
rural America.
But I represent the 6th District of Maryland, and it
stretches from the tech hubs of Montgomery County to the
orchards and farms of Frederick and Allegany and Garrett and
Washington Counties. And I love the conversation about the
dairy farmers because we have a lot of dairy farms in
Washington County.
But Maryland has over 12,000 farms, and we support over
83,000 jobs, and it generates billions a year. But when I spoke
with all of our five farm bureaus and our farmers and our
ranchers, they are really very concerned about cuts to
agricultural education and research, the tariffs, obviously,
and unstable markets. And it is a tsunami of challenges.
I will follow up with some questions at the end because I
won't get through to all of them, but I have two key concerns
from my constituents. One is about rural broadband access, and
one is about staffing challenges at the Farm Service agencies.
And they just really want kind of a roadmap on what is ahead.
So I did listen to your confirmation hearing, and you were
very articulate. But you did say, when farmers prosper, rural
America prospers. And I so agree with that because you pledged
to do everything in your power to help farmers, ranchers, and
our communities thrive. But I believe that access to
affordable, high-speed broadband ensures that rural America
thrives. And I had the privilege of serving at NTIA and helping
roll out the broadband.
The President's budget slashes rural broadband funding at
USDA and freezes the ReConnect Program entirely. And I also saw
the NTIA budget would be cut by 19 percent. This is really
concerning to me. If broadband is the backbone of economic
opportunity, as I believe it is, how do you intend to ensure
that our farmers and ranchers aren't left behind? And do you
have a clear roadmap or strategy about coordination of USDA
funds with other funding streams? Because it is really
important that we get this done.
Secretary Rollins. I couldn't agree with you more. I will
look into--I am going to make a note to myself--that specific
program you mentioned, the ReConnect. The President has been,
again, resolute in his commitment to ensuring that all of rural
America is connected. In the last Administration that I served
with him, this was a big part of our effort. So let me look
into that specifically and get back to you. I think that is
really important.
Mrs. McClain Delaney. The USDA freezes too, as well.
Secretary Rollins. The USDA freezes specifically. And then,
of course, as innovation changes with satellite and others,
there may be better ways for that connectivity, but would
really look forward to working with you and potentially
identifying what that looks like.
Mrs. McClain Delaney. Yes, and I would love to follow up on
that because I did a lot in the satellite and fiber arena.
There are a lot of challenges along that area.
Secretary Rollins. Yes.
Mrs. McClain Delaney. And then the second is really
something that was brought up by our five farm bureaus, and it
is a pressing problem. There are ongoing staff shortages at
Maryland's Farm Service Agency, and it is really risking delays
in services for our farmers. Right now, the state office lacks
a state executive director, and filling this leadership role is
really urgent. Maryland already has a qualified candidate ready
to step into the role and provide this assistance. And,
obviously, with 15 percent of USDA having left, it is really
important to have expertise within the states and fill these. I
just wanted to know if we could follow up with you and if you
had any insights into that.
Secretary Rollins. That would be great. I know we have
moved out a lot of those state directors. Obviously, you would
know--if you haven't heard we have done Maryland, then we
probably haven't, but let me check on that and get back to you.
I honestly am really looking forward in this next sort of month
or 2 to lean into this FSA question.
Mrs. McClain Delaney. Really important.
Secretary Rollins. I want to understand where all the
states are, where the offices are, the 4 hour wait times I keep
hearing about from people calling in. They are only open
Tuesday and Thursday until noon.
Mrs. McClain Delaney. Yes, I am hearing about it too, so
yes, that would be great.
Secretary Rollins. Yes, that is unacceptable. And so
whatever we need to do, we will solve for that. I have not had
the time yet to do it, but that is next so----
Mrs. McClain Delaney. Great. Okay. And I will just say, in
closing, I will be submitting a couple of questions for the
record, including about our Maryland University research and ag
innovation research, nutrition assistance, and then your
Supplemental Disaster Relief Program because we had historic
flooding in Allegany County. So thank you.
Secretary Rollins. Okay. I would welcome that. You got a
good basketball coach from Texas A&M, by the way.
Mrs. McClain Delaney. I yield back.
Secretary Rollins. He is very good. Yes.
The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired.
I now recognize Mr. Nunn from Iowa.
Mr. Nunn. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Secretary Rollins, again, for joining us here. You came as one
of the first states to the great State of Iowa, which is a
large leader in corn, soybean, hogs, and eggs, and thank you
for bringing down the price of eggs. It seems like a small
thing, but when you are a dad of six kids, it matters, and to
this country, it matters. Your leadership made that happen.
Thank you very much.
While you are there, I want to say thanks, first and
foremost, for learning about biofuels in a really meaningful
way and what this Committee and this team on both sides of the
aisle have done to make this a priority. You came to the Mann
Family Farm and you saw what it means to be able to have a
generational family farm.
Secretary Rollins. Yes.
Mr. Nunn. You are a daughter of the farmland, as it were,
and you helped make it a priority for other families to have
the same success.
I also want to say thank you for your quick work. When we
looked at actions here in D.C. having consequences, we were in
danger of Iowa State losing some of those frontline folks who
were providing treatments and vaccines and protection for
turkey flocks that were culled by \1/2\ million. And because of
your work, we were able to save not only those jobs that were
important, but they were critical for USDA security on the
frontline of agricultural health.
Secretary Rollins. Thank you.
Mr. Nunn. Last, I want to talk about one of the things that
was a top issue for so many of our farmers when you came to our
farm forums. It is about finding new markets.
Secretary Rollins. Yes.
Mr. Nunn. Challengingly, for the last 4 years, the Biden
Administration left us with zero new trade deals. We went from
trade equity in ag to a $50 billion deficit. That is real money
out of family farms, and that is real hardship going forward
for every one of us who enjoys paying a reasonable price at the
grocery store.
I am so proud that with our Chairman, we were able to move
forward $285 million for permanent, mandatory, year-over-year
funding for trade promotion that this Committee on both sides
secured in the reconciliation bill. Now, funding is critical,
but so is follow-through.
You heard from farmers at our roundtable that they don't
want a handout. They want to be able to sell their product. And
I want to say thank you so much for the trade work that you
have already taken because when you left Iowa, you took the
leadership role to go see the world. And we have heard about
trips to Europe, trips to Southeast Asia. You will be working
with India and Brazil. These are all great and important
opportunities for America to not only help feed and fuel the
world, but to make sure we are strong right here at home, so a
salute to you, Secretary Rollins.
Secretary Rollins. Yes, thank you.
Mr. Nunn. I do want to raise a concern that we have
experienced. In Iowa, we have seen Chinese theft of
intellectual property, literally Chinese nationals coming into
Iowa and taking corn seed out of the ground to take back to
China. Now, the FBI caught them, but that was in 2011.
Just this week, we have seen three different scenarios of
Chinese nationals who have pledged loyalty to the Chinese
Government bringing pathogens into the United States, including
fungus, that could decimate our crops. Had these biological
actions been taken, it would have devastated----
Secretary Rollins. That is right.
Mr. Nunn.--not only our ability to grow, but potentially
loss of life here in the U.S.
That is why I am proud to be working with Mr. Riley here
from New York on a bipartisan bill. It is called the PLANT Act,
Prevent Lethal Agriculture and National Threats Act. The
reality here is that we have a very high standard, and I am
asking for USDA's help in this in making sure that our Federal
agents close these dangerous loopholes that allow things like
this to enter our country. As it stands now, Federal
prosecutors must prove an intent to commit terrorism to bring
charges, and the reality is these guys are a clear threat
today.
Madam Secretary, would you agree that we need to strengthen
our legal tools to hold these individuals accountable for the
threats they are bringing to the United States?
Secretary Rollins. Absolutely, yes. And as we look to
release, build, implement, execute a national security plan in
the agriculture world, this is going to be a very important
part of that.
Mr. Nunn. One of the things that we would like to do is
also encourage you not only to identify the threat that is
coming in, but what they potentially could do here. We have a
real scenario in which the bioterrorism and the agroterrorism
that is coming in here will have impact far greater, so I
appreciate not only your support in that, but your leadership.
Secretary Rollins. Yes, thank you.
Mr. Nunn. Madam Secretary, we just want to also say thank
you so much for taking time in Iowa. I am going to be showing
cattle this year at the Iowa Charity Steers.
Secretary Rollins. I think we are going to be competitors,
aren't we?
Mr. Nunn. I think you are going to be competitors with me.
Secretary Rollins. Yes.
Mr. Nunn. I encourage you, you can take on my daughters,
they are showing sheep, and the youngest one is showing a
Persian cat, so if you want to bring it to the field you are
welcome.
Secretary Rollins. Of course, the Persian cat.
Mr. Nunn. You are welcome to the Iowa State Fair any time.
Secretary Rollins. My steer showers have now left, but yes,
they are all Hereford cattle showers too.
Mr. Nunn. Well, we are very grateful for the work you have
done on both sides of the aisle here.
Secretary Rollins. Thank you.
Mr. Nunn. This is a bright future for Iowa's farm families
and they have you to really thank for opening up those new
markets.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield my time back.
Secretary Rollins. Thank you.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr.
Carbajal, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, Secretary Rollins.
Secretary Rollins. Thank you.
Mr. Carbajal. First of all, let me just say thank you for
seeing the light and reopening the eight out of the nine USDA
offices in California that you closed and then realized it was
creating a lot of chaos for many of our farmers and would have
a really negative impact. You have reopened those, and I want
to thank you for that.
I represent the Central Coast of California where
agriculture is the number one industry, and a wide range of
specialty crops are grown. When I meet with growers back in my
district, one of the major issues they mention is the labor
shortage. I am sure you are aware the Administration has
intensified its deportation efforts, which have created
significant fear and uncertainty within California's
agriculture labor force. In fact, yesterday, a Farm Bureau in
my district publicly voiced concerns over the impact of these
enforcement actions.
And Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask for unanimous consent
to submit for the record the Ventura County Farm Bureau
statement if I may do so.
The Chairman. Without objection.
[The press release referred to is located on p. 156.]
Mr. Carbajal. I am going to give you that.
Madam Secretary, given the uncertainty of this immigration
climate as it relates to agriculture labor, what specific steps
is the Department of Agriculture taking to support both farmers
and the workforce?
Secretary Rollins. Well, thank you, and let me be clear. I
think it was a lease confusion with GSA. I don't think it was a
USDA question, but neither here nor there. I am glad those
offices are open for our farmers again.
The labor question is a significant one. It is one that is
perhaps maybe not the very top of the list, but for some they
would say the very top of the list. We feel it. I mentioned
earlier that in Texas, the citrus producers on the Texas side
of the border on average pay labor $23 if they can even get the
labor. On the other side at the Mexican border, it is $2 an
hour. This is unsustainable, and our ag community cannot
continue to do what they need to do under the current effort.
Clearly, the President has a vision that I support of
ensuring that we have legal immigrants in this country, but he
also recognizes--I spoke with him this morning and yesterday--
the shortages in the labor market, especially in the
agriculture community. On April the 10th, at our second or
third Cabinet meeting, he spoke in front of the cameras on this
and said to Lori Chavez-DeRemer, also herself from a farming
background from Oregon, but also California farming roots, our
Labor Secretary, in concert and partnership with this Committee
and Congress, we have to fix the H-2A program and ensure that
we can make certain that these producers have the labor that
they need to feed not only America, but the world.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you. Well, they are creating a lot of
fear and uncertainty, and a lot of this limited workforce is
quite frankly not showing up to harvest on our farms. Just
yesterday, we had some immigration raids on some of the farms
that are within my district, thus the statement that I just
submitted.
Secretary, I know some of my colleagues here today have
brought up the issue with H-2A, and during your testimony
before the House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee last
month, you mentioned that you were working with the Department
of Labor and the White House to reform the H-2A program. Can
you provide an update on the progress of those efforts, and
would the Administration support the bipartisan legislation
such as the Farm Workforce Modernization Act of 2023 (H.R.
4319, 118th Congress), which is one bipartisan, Secretary
Chavez-DeRemer was one of the coauthors of that, and I want to
just draw that to your attention.
One, would you support that? And for your awareness,
current Secretary Chavez-DeRemer, again, is a cosponsor, and I
would appreciate your response to that.
Secretary Rollins. Well, clearly, the real reform has to
come from Congress. I mean, I don't mean to pass the buck, that
is not it at all, but I have had lots of conversations, can we
do this, can we do that, can we do this, without Congressional
authorization. To your point, I think that the leadership
currently, our Administration realizes these significant
challenges and are open and welcome to trying to help however
we can to solve that, including the President, so I will
continue that effort.
Now, within the Labor Department, with Lori Chavez-DeRemer,
she is very focused on this issue. We have met about it
multiples of times. I think you will be hearing more about that
very, very soon. But you have our commitment. We are doing
everything we can to work to solve for that as much as we can.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you. Can you explain how proposed cuts
to nutrition programs like TEFAP and SNAP benefit growers,
especially when it is farmers who produce the fruits and
vegetables for these programs?
Secretary Rollins. Well, so on the one hand, you are
talking about the food bank programs, on the other, you are
talking about SNAP, so I will talk about SNAP first. We spend,
at just USDA, across 16 nutrition programs, about $400 million
a day on those nutrition programs. That is just alone. By any
given number, up to 30 percent of that is fraud, waste, and
abuse. At this time of unemployment, we were at 17 million, we
are now at 42 million people on the SNAP program, so there is a
lot of room to do better, and that is what we are going to do.
Mr. Carbajal. I am out of time, but let me just say, fraud
is one percent or less.
Secretary Rollins. There----
Mr. Carbajal. There is other--that is----
Secretary Rollins. Sir, that is not the case.
Mr. Carbajal. That is absolutely false, so I just want you
to know----
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
Secretary Rollins. We can't even get the data----
Mr. Carbajal. You are falsifying information.
Secretary Rollins. That is not--that is--please send what
you have, and then let me compare it to what we have because
that is----
Mr. Carbajal. Well, you could send me what you have, and we
will both compare what we have.
Secretary Rollins. Okay.
Mr. Carbajal. Okay.
Secretary Rollins. I will be happy to do that.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
I now recognize the gentleman----
Secretary Rollins. But one percent is--yes, okay. We will
do that. We will keep the conversation going.
The Chairman. I recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr.
Wied, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Wied. Well, Madam Secretary, thank you so much for your
willingness to be here today and answer questions about the
ongoings of the USDA. And, well, happy National Dairy Month as
well.
Secretary Rollins. That is right.
Mr. Wied. As you most certainly know, as America's dairy
land, it cannot be overstated how important agriculture and the
entire dairy industry is to my constituents, which is
Wisconsin's 8th Congressional District. We rank fourth in the
country in dairy production, and the entirety of the industry,
from milk to our world-famous cheeses, provides a $14 billion
economic impact. It is a priority of me to support this strong
tradition that we have in Wisconsin.
So despite strong growing demand from international
consumers, certain trading partners refuse to allow our
products to compete in their markets by erecting unfounded
barriers to trade. One of the worst offenders is our neighbor
to the north. Canada has continued to ignore its obligations
under the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement to provide the dairy
market access that they had agreed to in 2020.
Since then, the Canadian Government has administered their
dairy import quotas in a manner that intentionally limits our
ability to reach Canadian consumers, leaving many of the quotas
largely unfilled at the end of the year. So Wisconsin dairy
exporters have an easier time exporting to countries on the
other side of the world than to our next-door neighbor.
To add insult to injury, Canada continues to offload its
nonfat milk solids at artificially low prices on the global
market, undercutting our producers and circumventing its USMCA
commitments on dairy protein exports, of course, in the
process.
So Secretary Rollins, with the USMCA review coming up next
year, will you commit to working with your interagency partners
to ensure that Wisconsin dairy farmers receive the full
benefits of the trade deal as the negotiators intended?
Secretary Rollins. Yes, I really look forward to that. I
think it is such a--the dynamic is so different in the best way
this time with this Administration, not that we weren't getting
a lot of good things done in the first Trump Administration,
but this Cabinet is so aligned and so hand-in-glove together
that my partners, Lutnick, Bessent, Greer, all of the above,
the President as the negotiator-in-chief, I think that we are
going to see some really big wins. And yes, so putting cheese
and our dairy farmers at the top of the list is great.
Mr. Wied. Well, that is refreshing. Thank you.
So in Wisconsin, many multi-generational farms are at a
crossroads. Aging farmers are ready to retire, but younger or
beginning farmers often face steep barriers, as we know,
limited access to capital, limited land availability, and
economic uncertainty. Without meaningful support, farmland
risks being lost to non-agriculture uses. What is USDA doing to
support successful farm transitions, particularly in dairy,
which is a big part of our district, where high capital costs,
narrow margins, and labor challenges make it difficult for the
next generation to take over?
Secretary Rollins. And I mentioned this earlier, so forgive
me for those who are having to hear it again, but in the 17
states that I have visited so far, more states coming,
Wisconsin being right there, the best part, but also the most
challenging part, has been meeting with the farmers, and
sitting in a barn or a warehouse, at a roundtable with 20 or
30, hearing from them their biggest challenges and what we can
do to help that. And almost every one of them is a second or
third or fourth or fifth generation, some new farmers, too, and
that is a different discussion. And all of them say, ``I am
just so scared I am not going to be able to pass this on to my
kids and my kids to their kids.''
And so, about a month ago, we launched our Small Family
Farm Initiative, a slate of policy items that we can work
alongside states, ag commissioners, with you all in Congress,
that the executive can do himself through EOs, et cetera, to
ensure that we have just that.
I think what is in the Big Beautiful Bill is really
important. I think the work that you all did is just--you
should be so commended. The death tax now not applying to the
two million smaller farms, the additional tax cuts to our
farmers, the $3.8 billion in additional income to our farmers,
these are things that make a difference. But ultimately,
expanding the market, bringing down the cost of inputs,
protecting our crop protectants, et cetera, is just going to
continue to be at the top of the list, and we have just got to
do better, and that is what I am hoping to do.
Mr. Wied. So I know farmers and processors often have
different opinions on milk pricing, but one area of agreement
relates to having better data across the board. So in that
context, I have cosponsored a bipartisan bill to require USDA
to conduct dairy manufacturing cost surveys every 2 years to
help make sure that all stakeholders have the same data going
forward. I am thrilled that we are able to include funding, of
course, in this Big Beautiful Bill, in this reconciliation
package to implement this process. So when and if this is
enacted, will you work with us on this Committee to help get
this up and running as quickly as possible?
Secretary Rollins. One hundred percent, I will look forward
to that.
Mr. Wied. Okay, great. Well, thank you again for your
leadership.
Secretary Rollins. Thank you.
Mr. Wied. I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Messmer,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Messmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Secretary Rollins, for being here this afternoon.
Madam Secretary, let me start by thanking you for your
timely response to the avian influenza and screwworm issues.
Each have been of particular concern to the producers in my
district, and I am pleased to see mitigation efforts quickly
implemented.
With that said, I want to pivot on our focus to the
tremendous opportunity of biobased products industries. This
sector is quickly becoming a new, strong market for the farmers
in my district, but as the industry continues to grow, it is
important we clarify terminology. The inconsistent and
sometimes interchangeable use of terms like biobased, plant-
based, and bio-attributed creates customer confusion that can
undermine innovation in these markets. Would you and your staff
at USDA commit to partnering with me as I work to establish
clear, uniform definitions to provide clarity to farmers, bio-
manufacturers, and consumers, along with the biopreferred value
chain?
Secretary Rollins. Yes, we would look forward to doing
that.
Mr. Messmer. Thank you. We will be in touch.
Madam Secretary, farmers in my district were hit hard
during 2020 and 2021. When the USDA provided emergency relief
assistance, they applied and were accepted, but due to
incredible delays and programmatic errors, the agency failed to
hold up its end of the deal, leaving farmers that were reliant
on this lifeline high and dry without the aid they were
rightfully due. I have spoken to your team, and if there is a
solution to that problem, but unfortunately, those funds have
been completely depleted.
Now, that was a previous Administration, and I am very
pleased with the efforts you have put forth to ensure aid is
going to our farmers, real farmers, in a timely manner and
efficient manner. I know you have shared success stories today,
but can you specifically explain how you are working to ensure
that relief distributed under your leadership is free of the
flaws that plagued the last Administration and that the USDA
holds true to the promises it makes to our farmers?
Secretary Rollins. I appreciate that. And while we are not
going to be perfect, I do believe, based on what I have seen,
not just from the past Administration, but previous ones as
well, that we moved more quickly and with great intentionality.
Part of that was it was important to me to bring back some of
the team from the first Trump Administration who had lived this
before under Secretary Perdue and knew what they were doing.
And so as they built the ECAP program out and moving that
money, again, within 3 days, within just a couple months of the
appropriation from you all I think was record speed. We are now
into the second tranche. I believe that is record speed as
well. We have already moved $1 billion out on that second
piece, and we have more coming in the next days.
This next tranche is more complicated because it requires a
state-by-state agreement that has to be negotiated, versus ECAP
was just data, you plug into a formula, and you move the money,
but I am really proud of the team. If you hear differently,
please let us know, but we have the smartest people working on,
again, both politicals and careers. I don't want to take all
the credit. Our team sitting here is incredible, but we have
some amazing careers back at USDA, too, that are working 7 days
a week to move that out. I mentioned we had a 6:00 a.m.
conference call this morning. I was on the phone at 10:00 last
night on these issues just to ensure that we are moving as
quickly as we can for these farmers.
Mr. Messmer. Thank you. The farmers in my district will
appreciate that.
Secretary Rollins. Thank you.
Mr. Messmer. And pardon me, I know you have heard this many
times today, but it is important to the farmers in my district,
and so allow me to beat the drum one more time for fixes to the
ag labor issue.
Secretary Rollins. Yes.
Mr. Messmer. One of the issues I have been completely
flooded with in my inbox since getting here is farm labor.
Right now, Hoosiers pay just under $20 an hour for H-2A labor,
and on top of that is housing and transportation.
Secretary Rollins. Yes.
Mr. Messmer. But the wage isn't just unworkable, it is
inequitable. The only thing separating farmers in Mount Vernon,
Indiana, from farmers in Uniontown, Kentucky, is a river that
is less than a mile wide apart, and our Kentuckian neighbors
pay $3 an hour less in farm labor than those in Indiana. With
farm input costs skyrocketing, margins aren't nearly wide
enough to allow for this flawed wage calculation system.
Secretary, can we look at the USDA as a partner with myself
and the colleagues in Congress to seek a wage freeze in that ag
labor rate and enact expansive functional improvements to the
H-2A program?
Secretary Rollins. I would really welcome that partnership
and look forward to hopefully solving this for our ag
community.
Mr. Messmer. Well, love to be----
Secretary Rollins. It is a beast, yes.
Mr. Messmer. Love to be part of those discussions if
possible.
Secretary Rollins. Yes.
Mr. Messmer. Well, thank you, Madam Secretary.
Got to get our Indiana plugs in here. Indiana ranks number
one in the nation in commercial duck production, number two in
tomato and pumpkin production, number three in egg production
and spearmint production, number four in soybean and turkey
production--and probably the bulk of that turkey production
happens in my county--number five in corn production, and
number six in watermelon production. Each of those activities
combined contribute $35 billion to the economy of Indiana. But
to remain an incubator for ag innovations, these industries
need reliable and affordable access to labor.
Thank you, Chairman. I yield back my time.
Secretary Rollins. Thank you. Thank you so much.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
I now recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Van
Orden, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Van Orden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Secretary, thank you for being here.
Secretary Rollins. Thank you.
Mr. Van Orden. I mean, you are truly a breath of fresh air.
Secretary Rollins. Thank you.
Mr. Van Orden. It is just, your optimism is electric.
Secretary Rollins. Oh, thank you.
Mr. Van Orden. I want to take a second before I get into
this to apologize for one of my colleagues who was sitting here
berating you. So I am just going to ask you a few questions in
the vein that took place here.
Secretary Rollins. Thank you.
Mr. Van Orden. Are rocks heavy? Are trees made of wood? Is
gravity real? Yes? Okay.
Secretary Rollins. Yes. Thank you, yes.
Mr. Van Orden. Did the radical out-of-control government
spending by Joe Biden, who increased a massive amount of
liquidity to a market with scarcity, cause inflation to spike
and input costs to spike?
Secretary Rollins. Yes.
Mr. Van Orden. Those are all true statements. Okay. Thanks.
Hey, I want to thank you. I am done with that. That is just
silly. Badger you like that in front of your kids?
Secretary Rollins. Yes.
Mr. Van Orden. Your kids need to know you are a baller.
Tell them to watch this. A baller is a word that old people
use, and it means awesome.
Secretary Rollins. I will.
Mr. Van Orden. Thank you for getting the Dairy Business
Initiative back online.
Secretary Rollins. Yes.
Mr. Van Orden. Incredibly important. I know that when we
got this stuff going on and there is like a big hand, little
map taking place and we are going to skip a couple of beats, I
got that, but I think--I sent you a note, and you got that
turned back around like 94 hours later.
Secretary Rollins. Yes, thank you.
Mr. Van Orden. And it is right into my farmers and they are
so excited about it.
Secretary Rollins. Thank you.
Mr. Van Orden. You are welcome, ma'am.
So I do want to talk to you about agriculture labor because
I think we have an 80 percent solution. My office has been
working on this really since we started our Agricultural Labor
Working Group. And what we are going to do is just acknowledge
reality. The fact that the agriculture industry, the
construction industry, and hospitality industry are really
being floated by a lot of people that are here unlawfully. And
we are going to just say it out loud, and we are going to
address it in the most meaningful way.
It is not a pathway to citizenship. These people are going
to have to pay a fine. They are going to have to leave the
United States of America to return to send the message across
the world, if you are going to get a job here in the United
States, you are going to enter this country legally. The
employer's going to have to pay a fine, and they are going to
be able to come back here. And when they enter the United
States again, that is their born-again date. They are not
skipping anybody. It doesn't matter if they are here for 50
years. And we want to make sure that our farmers have a
continuous flow for agriculture labor. More to follow on that.
I am not even looking at H-2A because it is a broken, horrible
program.
Secretary Rollins. Yes.
Mr. Van Orden. So we are going to put that over here, and
if I can work with you on that I would love that.
Secretary Rollins. That sounds great.
Mr. Van Orden. The last thing that I want to talk to you
about really is milk labeling. Like what is milk, right? And
this is going to have a profound effect on my dairy farmers.
Here is what milk is according to you, ma'am. Milk is--on my
phone and I am over 50. Okay. There you go. Milk is the lacteal
secretion practically free from colostrum obtained by the
complete milking of one or more healthy cows. Milk that is in
its final package form for beverage use shall have been
pasteurized or ultra-pasteurized and shall contain not less
than 8.25 percent milk solid, not fat, and not less than 3.25
percent milk-fat. None of that comes from an almond or an oat.
So yes, go ahead. Messmer, I will give you a dollar if you can
milk an oat, right? So all I am asking is that the USDA follow
their own definition.
And I spoke to Secretary Kennedy about this, and he is all
on board.
Secretary Rollins. Yes.
Mr. Van Orden. Milk, whole milk is one of the most
nutritious things that our young people and aging people such
as myself could consume. But if you go to the store and you buy
almond milk, it ain't milk, bunch of sugars and stuff in there
and oats. So I really would like to talk to you about this to
get this done. We introduced a bill in the last Congress that
didn't get through the Senate. But, I am all for doing this
through initial executive action following up with some type of
legislation because it will have a profound effect on our dairy
industry.
Secretary Rollins. Yes, I hear you, and I couldn't agree
more. And, one of the vehicles that is coming soon is the
Dietary Guidelines which Secretary Kennedy and I are working on
together.
Mr. Van Orden. Oh, yes.
Secretary Rollins. And that is not due until October, but
you will see that way before October. And hopefully we can
continue the momentum toward the vision that you have that I
agree with.
Mr. Van Orden. Yes, ma'am. And so we can label milk skim
milk, one percent milk, two percent milk, and then we call it
whole milk. The whole milk, the fat content in whole milk is
3.25 percent, and people think they are drinking butter. And I
asked the person in the previous Administration who was
responsible for drawing up these Dietary Guidelines, I asked
her what the milk-fat content of whole milk was, and she said,
I don't know, six percent. That ain't it. So I am super excited
once again to be working with you hand in glove. I am very
proud of your work.
Secretary Rollins. Thank you.
Mr. Van Orden. Your kids need to know you are awesome.
Secretary Rollins. Thank you.
Mr. Van Orden. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Secretary Rollins. Thank you so much.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
Before we adjourn today, I invite the Ranking Member to
share any closing comments that she might have.
Ms. Craig. Well, thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Secretary Rollins, for being here, for
testifying in front of us and giving us so much of your time.
There was a lot of talk today about how the Trump
Administration is putting America's farmers first. But as I go
around my state and I ask many of the farmers, ranchers, and
producers, I think at this point, they would say that they are
a little bit less certain than that. The farmers I know and
speak to talk to me about uncertainty. They say they are not
sure whether they can make it another season. They are worried
about handing the farm over to their children, something
America's family farmers strive for and take pride in, but are
struggling to do under these economic conditions and
uncertainty. They tell me they want us to help develop markets,
not more government handouts or government income.
Since January, farm country has been dealt one blow after
another: trade wars that increase cost and eliminate markets;
USDA layoffs that impact farm program enrollment; the
elimination of oversubscribed USDA programs that farmers rely
on to help their bottom lines; contracts they have signed,
ignored; catering to an HHS Secretary who cites, believes, and
promotes fake science.
And Secretary Rollins, what my farmers would love to see is
you to stand up for them and against his fake science. You will
have to excuse me and my colleagues if we don't quite believe
the putting-farmers-first rhetoric. There is no doubt in my
mind that you are working hard. What I just said about the
problems in farm country I heard you say over and over again
today. But we shouldn't be pushing trade partners away from
America's soybean farmers and toward soy-grown products in
Brazil and Argentina. We should be working to increase market
access rather than watching our competitors eat into ours.
You have mentioned China agreed to a trade deal a few times
today. But if you look under the hood, it is not more market
access. It appears we have just re-agreed to move forward with
the previous tentative framework that was agreed to last month
in Geneva. So as we still sit here today, we still have the
concepts of a plan.
In addition, we shouldn't be signing onto and lending what
is left of USDA's credibility to MAHA Commission reports that
aim to take away the tools our American farmers use to grow our
food. We shouldn't be going along with the mismanagement of
USDA programs and personnel that Elon Musk and his DOGE kids
raided during the agency's early days. We have heard near
silence from the Cabinet during that period of time.
The current course on reconciliation is threatening the
farm bill coalition. And we should have been here trying to
pass a 5 year, 12 title farm bill rather than cutting SNAP by
$300 billion, putting the stability and income it provides to
family farmers in jeopardy.
When I became the Ranking Member of this Committee, I
promised to go anywhere and talk to anyone to improve life for
our family farmers. I have always called it like I see it. You
can ask the Biden Administration about that. I thought they
ought to be out there looking for more trade deals. And today,
as I look under the hood, this Administration so far is
creating the chaos that is failing them.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back.
Madam Secretary, I just want to thank you. Thank you for
your leadership, your vision, your partnership. You are the one
that described our relationship as a partnership, and it truly
is. One hundred and eighteen days on the job, and to step in
when we have had 4 years that our farm country was abandoned
under the previous Administration, where 2 years of those 4
years it took until the Biden Administration named two of the
top key trade individuals for agriculture trade, Assistant
Secretary for Foreign Agriculture and Trade at USDA left open
for 2 years, half the term. At USTR, 2 years where they didn't
name somebody as a Chief Agriculture Negotiator. So American
farmers were left in a hole. They were paid no attention to.
The previous Secretary, who I worked very hard to develop a
good relationship with, had no use for the Legislative Branch,
and took and used money, created programs that they clearly
said were temporary, and now my colleagues are complaining that
a temporary program created by the previous Administration
obviously ceases. Temporary is temporary.
Now, I see value in some of that. If Secretary Vilsack
would have come to us and really wanted to work with the
Legislative Branch, we could have worked on that. I think we
are looking at those things as we move forward. We can find the
monies to be able to fund it. We don't have jurisdiction over
the farmers to schools. That is a different Committee. But the
farmers to the food banks makes a lot of sense to me. I wish he
would have come to me. We could have legislated it, and then it
would still be in place. But that is on the previous
Administration. That is not on you, and that is not on
President Trump.
Again, that number I come back to is 118 days. I am so
impressed. In 118 days, this Committee, it was very partisan,
unfortunately, and I get it, reconciliation, no matter what
party is in the Majority, it is always partisan.
Secretary Rollins. Yes.
The Chairman. But, some of my colleagues missed the
opportunity to vote for all the things that we put together
under the Farm, Food, and National Security Act in terms of the
safety net. In 118 days, we have actually incorporated into
legislation the investments in Title I, which is the reference
prices. Doing that, and our Senate counterparts, Senate
Republicans are working on this, but a 10 to 20 percent
increase based on what they need, now not exactly maybe what
they wanted because there is a difference there. We did our due
diligence and looked at what they needed. Adding base acres for
the first time in generations, modernizing the Dairy Margin
Coverage Program, making investments in crop insurance but also
include specialty crops, all of that.
And some people call it the One Big Beautiful Bill, and
that is the official name of it. It is a little odd, but that
is okay. I call it Farm Bill 1.0. It really is Farm Bill 1.0.
With making crop insurance more affordable for everyone because
it is the most popular program that we found traveling the
country of 42 states, one Territory, about 115 listening
sessions, that is what we heard.
Making investments, as you heard today, in trade, in
research, in animal health, in Secure Rural Schools, which
expires for those school districts that are located within
National Forests. And so much more that is there.
So I am really proud of what we did with Farm Bill 1.0. I
like what I am hearing, actually, over on the Senate side. I
also like the fact that we, wherever it winds up in terms of
state share, the problem has not been what Congress has passed
in terms of our nutrition programs. Those are really good. The
problems have been in the states' execution and administration
of them.
It is the old adage, ``If you are spending somebody else's
money, you don't care, you are reckless.'' Well, we are not
asking much over there, and that number might even go down, we
will see. But I expect that results will go up. The error rates
are unacceptable. They hurt the people that those programs are
designed for.
So there is so much more I can't--I am really excited about
where we are at in 118 days. We have done that part with the
Agriculture Committee. We have a Farm Bill 2.0 we need to
finish up. We know that. That price tag will be much less. But
there are important--and the pieces of legislation that are
pending that didn't fit in reconciliation, most of those fit in
the category of--I mean, I think that the Farm, Food, and
National Security Act overall had 40 measures that were just
introduced by a Democratic, 140 measures were introduced by a
Republican and a Democratic, and then a fair amount that were
introduced by just a Republican. So it is a basis for a great
bipartisan, very affordable Farm Bill 2.0.
And then I am just so impressed with your written
testimony. The support for American poultry and egg producers,
addressing the avian flu, bold action to respond to foreign
disease outbreaks like the New World screwworm, launching that
new web portal for potential victims of ongoing lawfare,
fighting for fair trade for our farmers and ranchers,
unleashing American dominance, which includes biofuels, which
is so important as a market, but even more than that because
farming is energy-intensive, the cost of that diesel fuel, the
cost of that propane.
Streamlining unnecessary regulations, cutting you used to
have red tape. We are cutting red and green tape, actually. So
working with Secretary Burgum on wildfire preparedness,
deploying resources for wildfire responses, just a long list of
the outcomes in just 118 days.
Secretary Rollins. Thank you.
The Chairman. So I am looking forward to continuing that
partnership. Quite frankly, I think we are well on our way to
making agriculture great again in this country.
Secretary Rollins. Let's go.
The Chairman. So thank you so much.
Secretary Rollins. Thank you.
The Chairman. Under the Rules of the Committee, the record
of today's hearing will remain open for 10 calendar days to
receive additional material and supplementary written responses
from the witness to any questions posed by a Member.
This hearing of the Committee on Agriculture is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:01 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Submitted Letters by Hon. Jim Costa, a Representative in Congress from
California
letter 1
on behalf of agricultural council of california, et al.
March 17th, 2025

Hon. Brooke Rollins,
Secretary,
U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Washington D.C.

Re: Unified CA Bird Flu Strategy

Dear Secretary Rollins:

We want to begin by expressing our appreciation for the priority
the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has placed on
reducing the impacts of H5N1 Bird Flu on our food supply. This virus
poses a threat to American farming that requires a united front to
overcome. The work currently addressing prevention, response, recovery,
and research is showing tangible results and actionable findings.
There is one issue, however, that we would like to bring to your
attention for further discussion. Many states, including California,
are just emerging from the most devastating outbreak of bird flu in
poultry and livestock in our country's history. There is a national
desire to enhance readiness so that the 2024-2025 outbreak is not
repeated. If this virus circulates long enough in dairies without
additional mitigation, leading to impacts on beef breeds as well as
dairy breeds, the stakes will get even higher.
The points outlined in the current USDA plan will go a long way
toward prevention, but we encourage USDA to continue work that supports
dairy herd immunity through dairy vaccination, only to be used when the
benefits outweigh the costs. We know that even the best poultry or
dairy biosecurity may not work if the amount of bird flu virus in the
surrounding area is too high. Both migrating waterfowl and infected
dairies contribute to the threat to poultry. In major dairy production
states like California, this past year most poultry introductions came
from dairies, not wild birds. These high viral loads occur when bird
flu exponentially multiplies in herds without immunity for weeks to
months, as is currently the case with most dairy infections. We also
know that cattle must move between herds and states daily, resulting in
constant introduction of animals without immunity that may perpetuate
infection. Finally, when it comes to continuing dairy exposure to
virus, the role of wild birds is still not fully understood. Bird flu
devastates dairy families struggling with infected herds, but it is a
death sentence to neighboring poultry flocks who will die from this
virus and are therefore euthanized before further spread can occur.
For these reasons, while we support a cautious approach to vaccine
use, we strongly encourage continued Federal efforts to develop avian
influenza H5N1 vaccines for dairy cows, including research and
development support, safety and efficacy evaluations, use strategies,
export market management and consumer outreach. We recognize that use
of vaccination in dairy cows will require careful consideration and may
not come to pass if shown to be unnecessary, but we strongly urge USDA
to support vaccine development now because immunity through viral
exposure as experienced in 2024 carries unsustainable negative
consequences, and these initial preparation steps take time. We cannot
afford to delay preparedness.
The undersigned livestock community in California support the
continued prioritization of this next preparedness step related to
establishing herd immunity and reducing virus on dairy farms,
recognizing that actual use of vaccine will depend on the result of
these activities and real-time evaluation of costs and benefits.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

[Agricultural Council [Milk Producers [California Grain and
of California] Council]Feed Association]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

[California Dairy Campaign] [California Farm Bureau]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

[Western States Dairy Producers Association]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

[California Veterinary Medical [California Cattlemen's
Association] Association]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

[Pacific Egg and Poultry [Association of California Egg
Association] Farmers]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

[Western United Dairies] [Dairy Institute of California]

letter 2
June 11, 2025

Hon. Brooke Rollins,
Secretary,
U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Washington D.C.

Dear Secretary Rollins:

As Members representing the Central Valley of California, we write
to express our appreciation for the ongoing collaboration between
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS) towards combating H5N1, or bird flu.
The spread of this virus continues to pose a threat to our nation's
protein supply chain and agriculture industry across the nation.
Combating this virus will continue to require a united front. The
nonstop work by our dedicated researchers and veterinarians throughout
the National Animal Health Laboratory Network (NAHLN) continues to
demonstrate tangible results, presenting opportunities to take further
action.
The State of California is ground zero for conducting research to
understand the impacts of this disease. It is only in 2025 that our
constituents are starting to emerge from the most devastating outbreak
of bird flu in poultry and livestock in our nation's history. Our
producers, both dairy and poultry, are in unison and prepared to
enhance readiness to avoid another 2024-2025-style outbreak. As our
producers continue to monitor the situation, research has shown the
longer the virus circulates in dairies without additional mitigation,
there could be devastating impacts on dairy cattle, and the stakes will
continue to rise on impacts to beef cattle.
We appreciate the continued progress on USDA's Five-Pronged
Strategy, and we encourage USDA to also prioritize the important work
that must be completed before adding dairy vaccination for H5N1 as a
food defense option in the United States. Dairy vaccination may be the
most effective way to protect cattle and consequently protect poultry
in many regions of the country, including California. Creating and
sustaining dairy herd immunity will lessen the amount virus generated
by infected cows without the negative impacts of disease. We know that
H5N1 disease impacts are severe for dairy cows without any immunity,
but when the virus spreads from cows to poultry, the impacts are
catastrophic. Poultry biosecurity is a critical tool within the Five-
Pronged Strategy, however without sustained dairy herd immunity,
infected cows may continue to exponentially generate high viral loads
in environments often surrounding poultry flocks, rendering the best
biosecurity ineffective. The unknowns around wild birds and other
mechanisms of viral spread remain as research continues, but many
suspected disease vectors know no boundaries, making the potential for
reintroduction or spread to unaffected flocks and herds a significant
risk. Finally, dairy cattle and calves must move between farms and
often across state lines daily to optimize care and sustain food
production, and the risk of spreading virus with these movements will
be reduced if sufficient numbers of dairy cows have some level of
immunity to H5N1 via a vaccine option.
As Members of Congress representing the Central Valley of
California, we support the unified message from our dairy, poultry, and
livestock constituents in urging USDA to take a cautious approach
towards an avian influenza H5N1 vaccine for dairy cattle, but with
continued research and development support toward creation of a
vaccine. We additionally support continued dedication of resources
towards cooperative agreements between the state and Federal Government
for human and animal health.
It is critical as well that our trading partners are kept apprised
should any action be taken as California's dairy industry provides 20%
of our nation's milk supply and exports $3.2 billion in dairy products.
Thank you for your consideration of this letter and we stand ready to
work with you on this important health and food security matter.
Sincerely,

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Hon. Jim Costa, Hon. David G. Valadao,
Member of Congress Member of Congress

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Hon. Josh Harder, Hon. Vince Fong, Hon. Adam Gray,
Member of Congress Member of Congress Member of Congress

______

Submitted Letter by Hon. Alma S. Adams, a Representative in Congress
from North Carolina
June 7, 2025

Hon. Thom Tillis,
Senator,
Washington, D.C.

Re: SNAP Funding Reductions/Administrative Burden on Counties

Dear Senator Tillis,

I am writing on behalf of North Carolina's 100 counties to urge you
to preserve the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) at its
current level, to oppose funding cuts to SNAP, and to oppose changes to
SNAP work requirements that would result in a financial shift of
administrative functions to counties. To be clear, counties support
ensuring that taxpayer-funded programs are operated with integrity and
fiscal responsibility. What they oppose are unfunded mandates.
As you know, North Carolina is unique in that we are one of ten
states where counties administer SNAP and Medicaid eligibility
functions. Changes to application or redetermination processing for
these programs will have a direct impact on county functions and
further strain county budgets. Throughout your tenure of public
service, you have cautioned against ``shift and shaft'' tactics from
the Federal and state levels of government--sending unfunded mandates
to local governments. The proposed changes included in H.R. 1--the
``One Big Beautiful Bill Act''--would have that effect, specifically
related to the SNAP provision. These sections will double the work in
our county social service offices but send no funding to pay for it.
Beyond the county impacts mentioned above, SNAP is an important
program in our state, allowing low-income families with children, older
adults, and people with disabilities to be able to afford nutritious
food. The program is lean, with average benefits of about $5.70 per
person per day, and already includes work requirements plus stringent
audit processes to combat waste, fraud, and abuse. SNAP improves health
outcomes and decreases health care costs; recipients are admitted to
hospitals and emergency rooms less frequently and save Medicaid over
$2,000 annually.
By reducing Federal funding and shifting administrative costs to
state and local governments, Congress would force North Carolina and
its counties to replace tens of millions of dollars in lost revenue,
either by generating new funds through increased taxes or redirecting
them from other essential programs. Should the state be unwilling or
unable to replace the SNAP benefit reductions, individual counties will
be forced to choose between diverting funds from their own programs,
raising local taxes, or watching their residents go without this
important safety net. Local governments are most disadvantaged to
replace SNAP funding; the best way to ensure our residents receive this
benefit is to preserve Federal funding.
Our state's recovery efforts post-Helene are a vivid reminder of
the external pressures that counties must face while still providing
essential services. Twenty-five counties are still working to restore
infrastructure and economic opportunities for their residents--cutting
SNAP and implementing more stringent work requirements will drastically
increase the workload on county staff, leading to higher turnover,
missed deadlines, and more frequent errors, all of which will cause
further delays in service. Adding further pressure on county staff
reduces their ability to react in a timely manner during natural
disasters or other unforeseen events.
Thank you for your consideration of our request and input. As
always, we appreciate all you do for North Carolina, our counties, and
the people who call North Carolina home.
Sincerely,

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Kevin Leonard,
Executive Director,
North Carolina Association of County Commissioners (NCACC)

CC:

NCACC Board of Directors
North Carolina County Commissioners
Matt Chase, NACo Chief Executive Officer and Executive Director
Sharnese Ransome, NCACDSS Executive Director
______

Submitted Articles by Hon. Eugene Simon Vindman, a Representative in
Congress from Virginia
article 1

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

[https://www.americanprogress.org/article/snap-cuts-are-likely-to-harm-
more-than-27000-retailers-nationwide/]

May 8, 2025
SNAP Cuts Are Likely To Harm More Than 27,000 Retailers Nationwide
By Kyle Ross,\1\ Kennedy Andara \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.americanprogress.org/people/ross-kyle/.
\2\ https://www.americanprogress.org/people/kennedy-andara/.

A new analysis shows that 27,000 retailers in areas with the
highest shares of SNAP participants would be the most likely to bear
the brunt of proposed drastic cuts to food assistance.
More than 27,000 retailers in largely rural counties have the highest
risk of being harmed by Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program (SNAP) cuts
Percentage of people who received SNAP benefits, by county, 2022

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Editor's note: this is an interactive graphic. It displays
information concerning each county.
Notes: The authors measured the SNAP retailers per 1,000 SNAP
participants ratio as an indicator of food access for people
who receive assistance through SNAP. Retailers within counties
that were below the median ratio and in the top ten percent of
counties with the highest SNAP participation were marked as
being most at risk of being harmed by cuts in food assistance.
Because the SNAP retailers data does not account for
Connecticut's transition from counties to planning regions,
retailer addresses were crosswalked using ZIP codes. However,
the crosswalk is not exact since some ZIP codes cross planning
region boundaries.
Source: For a list of definitions for the included store
types, see U.S. Department of Agriculture, ``SNAP Store Type
Definitions'' \3\ (last accessed April 2025). U.S. Department
of Agriculture, ``SNAP Retailer Location Data'' \4\ (last
accessed April 2025); U.S. Census Bureau, ``SAIPE Model Input
Data: County SNAP Benefits Data,'' \5\ December 16, 2024; U.S.
Census Bureau, ``Annual Resident Population Estimates,
Estimated Components of Resident Population Change, and Rates
of the Components of Resident Population Change for States and
Counties: April 1, 2020 to July 1, 2024,'' \6\ March 12, 2025;
U.S. Department of Agriculture, ``2023 Rural-Urban Continuum
Codes'' \7\ (last accessed April 2025); CT Data Collaborative,
``Connecticut ZIP to Planning Region Crosswalk,'' \8\ September
13, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/store-definitions.
\4\ https://usda-snap-retailers-usda-fns.hub.arcgis.com/datasets/
USDA-FNS::snap-retailer-location-data/about.
\5\ https://www.census.gov/data/datasets/time-series/demo/saipe/
model-tables.html.
\6\ https://www.census.gov/data/datasets/time-series/demo/popest/
2020s-counties-total.html#v2024.
\7\ https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/rural-urban-continuum-
codes.
\8\ https://github.com/CT-Data-Collaborative/zip-to-planningregion/
blob/main/README.md.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Map: Center for American Progress.

Table 1
Retailers in more than 300 counties have the highest risk of being harmed by Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program (SNAP) cuts
(SNAP participation rates and the number of SNAP retailers, by county)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SNAP
% retailers
State County # of SNAP Population receiving Rural or # of SNAP per 1,000 Higher-risk
recipients SNAP urban retailers SNAP county
benefits recipients
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama Autauga Co. 8,029 59,736 13.4% Urban 48 6.0
Alabama Baldwin Co. 20,790 246,577 8.4% Urban 226 10.9
Alabama Barbour Co. 6,082 24,722 24.6% Rural 42 6.9 8Higher-
risk0
Alabama Bibb Co. 3,434 21,983 15.6% Urban 23 6.7
Alabama Blount Co. 6,483 59,491 10.9% Urban 49 7.6
Alabama Bullock Co. 2,738 10,126 27% Rural 15 5.5 8Higher-
risk0
Alabama Butler Co. 5,062 18,652 27.1% Rural 34 6.7 8Higher-
risk0
Alabama Calhoun Co. 20,707 115,744 17.9% Urban 141 6.8
Alabama Chambers Co. 6,956 34,093 20.4% Rural 45 6.5
Alabama Cherokee Co. 3,628 25,334 14.3% Rural 29 8.0
Alabama Chilton Co. 7,672 45,856 16.7% Urban 61 8.0
Alabama Choctaw Co. 3,199 12,420 25.8% Rural 17 5.3 8Higher-
risk0
Alabama Clarke Co. 5,832 22,545 25.9% Rural 35 6.0 8Higher-
risk0
Alabama Clay Co. 1,832 14,198 12.9% Rural 10 5.5
Alabama Cleburne Co. 2,779 15,353 18.1% Rural 28 10.1
Alabama Coffee Co. 7,968 54,769 14.5% Rural 59 7.4
Alabama Colbert Co. 7,707 58,023 13.3% Urban 74 9.6
Alabama Conecuh Co. 2,943 11,220 26.2% Rural 19 6.5 8Higher-
risk0
Alabama Coosa Co. 1,970 10,283 19.2% Rural 9 4.6
Alabama Covington 7,604 37,508 20.3% Rural 65 8.5
Co.
Alabama Crenshaw Co. 3,141 13,096 24% Rural 22 7.0 8Higher-
risk0
Alabama Cullman Co. 9,208 90,597 10.2% Rural 90 9.8
Alabama Dale Co. 9,811 49,472 19.8% Rural 59 6.0
Alabama Dallas Co. 13,915 36,772 37.8% Rural 50 3.6 8Higher-
risk0
Alabama DeKalb Co. 13,831 72,046 19.2% Rural 98 7.1
Alabama Elmore Co. 9,906 89,566 11.1% Urban 88 8.9
Alabama Escambia Co. 8,173 36,620 22.3% Rural 47 5.8
Alabama Etowah Co. 17,014 102,821 16.5% Urban 133 7.8
Alabama Fayette Co. 3,383 16,041 21.1% Rural 10 3.0
Alabama Franklin Co. 5,202 31,947 16.3% Rural 34 6.5
Alabama Geneva Co. 5,017 26,787 18.7% Urban 38 7.6
Alabama Greene Co. 2,498 7,412 33.7% Urban 12 4.8 8Higher-
risk0
Alabama Hale Co. 3,959 14,613 27.1% Urban 18 4.5 8Higher-
risk0
Alabama Henry Co. 2,983 17,638 16.9% Urban 17 5.7
Alabama Houston Co. 21,100 108,063 19.5% Urban 134 6.4
Alabama Jackson Co. 7,372 52,842 14% Rural 60 8.1
Alabama Jefferson 106,140 665,543 15.9% Urban 548 5.2
Co.
Alabama Lamar Co. 2,655 13,628 19.5% Rural 15 5.6
Alabama Lauderdale 10,877 95,903 11.3% Urban 95 8.7
Co.
Alabama Lawrence Co. 5,632 33,182 17% Urban 30 5.3
Alabama Lee Co. 18,529 181,044 10.2% Urban 118 6.4
Alabama Limestone 7,217 110,926 6.5% Urban 86 11.9
Co.
Alabama Lowndes Co. 3,578 9,778 36.6% Urban 17 4.8 8Higher-
risk0
Alabama Macon Co. 4,400 18,561 23.7% Urban 22 5.0 8Higher-
risk0
Alabama Madison Co. 36,551 404,155 9% Urban 308 8.4
Alabama Marengo Co. 4,922 18,790 26.2% Rural 22 4.5 8Higher-
risk0
Alabama Marion Co. 5,427 29,171 18.6% Rural 32 5.9
Alabama Marshall Co. 14,050 99,570 14.1% Rural 120 8.5
Alabama Mobile Co. 84,919 411,291 20.6% Urban 490 5.8
Alabama Monroe Co. 3,869 19,403 19.9% Rural 26 6.7
Alabama Montgomery 53,608 226,554 23.7% Urban 256 4.8 8Higher-
Co. risk0
Alabama Morgan Co. 16,516 124,218 13.3% Urban 122 7.4
Alabama Perry Co. 3,514 7,893 44.5% Rural 12 3.4 8Higher-
risk0
Alabama Pickens Co. 3,654 18,780 19.5% Urban 22 6.0
Alabama Pike Co. 6,572 32,998 19.9% Rural 37 5.6
Alabama Randolph Co. 5,075 22,442 22.6% Rural 28 5.5 8Higher-
risk0
Alabama Russell Co. 11,919 58,522 20.4% Urban 61 5.1
Alabama St. Clair 11,561 93,879 12.3% Urban 79 6.8
Co.
Alabama Shelby Co. 12,405 230,140 5.4% Urban 150 12.1
Alabama Sumter Co. 3,298 11,894 27.7% Rural 15 4.5 8Higher-
risk0
Alabama Talladega 13,782 80,674 17.1% Rural 97 7.0
Co.
Alabama Tallapoosa 7,514 40,910 18.4% Rural 48 6.4
Co.
Alabama Tuscaloosa 26,766 237,995 11.2% Urban 189 7.1
Co.
Alabama Walker Co. 10,573 64,408 16.4% Urban 65 6.1
Alabama Washington 2,970 15,098 19.7% Rural 16 5.4
Co.
Alabama Wilcox Co. 4,246 10,124 41.9% Rural 14 3.3 8Higher-
risk0
Alabama Winston Co. 3,418 23,741 14.4% Rural 23 6.7
Alaska Aleutians 187 3,453 5.4% Rural 4 21.4
East
Borough
Alaska Aleutians 136 5,115 2.7% Rural 6 44.1
West Census
Area
Alaska Anchorage 34,763 287,520 12.1% Urban 118 3.4
Municipalit
y
Alaska Bethel 8,493 18,272 46.5% Rural 47 5.5 8Higher-
Census Area risk0
Alaska Bristol Bay 83 877 9.5% Rural 2 24.1
Borough
Alaska Chugach 400 6,910 5.8% Rural 5 12.5
Census Area
Alaska Copper River 417 2,607 16% Rural 8 19.2
Census Area
Alaska Denali 105 1,583 6.6% Rural 2 19.0
Borough
Alaska Dillingham 1,527 4,716 32.4% Rural 8 5.2 8Higher-
Census Area risk0
Alaska Fairbanks 6,820 95,749 7.1% Urban 37 5.4
North Star
Borough
Alaska Haines 185 2,079 8.9% Rural 3 16.2
Borough
Alaska Hoonah- 380 2,282 16.7% Rural 5 13.2
Angoon
Census Area
Alaska Juneau City 2,806 31,742 8.8% Rural 12 4.3
and Borough
Alaska Kenai 6,859 60,631 11.3% Rural 47 6.9
Peninsula
Borough
Alaska Ketchikan 1,942 13,719 14.2% Rural 11 5.7
Gateway
Borough
Alaska Kodiak 955 12,655 7.5% Rural 11 11.5
Island
Borough
Alaska Kusilvak 5,400 8,196 65.9% Rural 24 4.4 8Higher-
Census Area risk0
Alaska Lake and 343 1,375 24.9% Rural 10 29.2
Peninsula
Borough
Alaska Matanuska- 11,768 113,505 10.4% Urban 51 4.3
Susitna
Borough
Alaska Nome Census 3,530 9,804 36% Rural 24 6.8 8Higher-
Area risk0
Alaska North Slope 1,076 10,789 10% Rural 12 11.2
Borough
Alaska Northwest 2,557 7,401 34.5% Rural 21 8.2 8Higher-
Arctic risk0
Borough
Alaska Petersburg 428 3,381 12.7% Rural 3 7.0
Borough
Alaska Prince of 1,100 5,655 19.5% Rural 4 3.6
Wales-Hyder
Census Area
Alaska Sitka City 605 8,370 7.2% Rural 4 6.6
and Borough
Alaska Skagway 33 1,096 3% Rural 1 30.3
Municipalit
y
Alaska Southeast 872 7,039 12.4% Rural 11 12.6
Fairbanks
Census Area
Alaska Wrangell 218 2,071 10.5% Rural 2 9.2
City and
Borough
Alaska Yakutat City 54 685 7.9% Rural 2 37.0
and Borough
Alaska Yukon- 1,503 5,165 29.1% Rural 27 18.0
Koyukuk
Census Area
Arizona Apache Co. 22,161 65,470 33.8% Rural 52 2.3 8Higher-
risk0
Arizona Cochise Co. 22,107 125,497 17.6% Urban 126 5.7
Arizona Coconino Co. 16,895 144,326 11.7% Urban 116 6.9
Arizona Gila Co. 10,261 53,927 19% Rural 54 5.3
Arizona Graham Co. 5,721 38,802 14.7% Rural 33 5.8
Arizona Greenlee Co. 639 9,321 6.9% Rural 9 14.1
Arizona La Paz Co. 3,138 16,555 19% Rural 41 13.1
Arizona Maricopa Co. 467,705 4,564,457 10.2% Urban 2,755 5.9
Arizona Mohave Co. 33,135 220,947 15% Urban 211 6.4
Arizona Navajo Co. 27,154 108,771 25% Rural 123 4.5 8Higher-
risk0
Arizona Pima Co. 144,026 1,059,412 13.6% Urban 688 4.8
Arizona Pinal Co. 54,992 465,476 11.8% Urban 205 3.7
Arizona Santa Cruz 10,891 48,801 22.3% Rural 34 3.1
Co.
Arizona Yavapai Co. 20,101 246,266 8.2% Urban 171 8.5
Arizona Yuma Co. 44,864 209,538 21.4% Urban 138 3.1
Arkansas Arkansas Co. 1,635 16,458 9.9% Rural 20 12.2
Arkansas Ashley Co. 2,521 18,318 13.8% Rural 17 6.7
Arkansas Baxter Co. 2,953 42,378 7% Rural 38 12.9
Arkansas Benton Co. 8,814 303,558 2.9% Urban 165 18.7
Arkansas Boone Co. 3,200 38,254 8.4% Rural 34 10.6
Arkansas Bradley Co. 1,262 10,167 12.4% Rural 14 11.1
Arkansas Calhoun Co. 362 4,703 7.7% Rural 3 8.3
Arkansas Carroll Co. 1,614 28,667 5.6% Rural 30 18.6
Arkansas Chicot Co. 2,001 9,836 20.3% Rural 16 8.0
Arkansas Clark Co. 1,914 21,136 9.1% Rural 18 9.4
Arkansas Clay Co. 1,362 14,229 9.6% Rural 13 9.5
Arkansas Cleburne Co. 1,838 25,272 7.3% Rural 26 14.1
Arkansas Cleveland 602 7,471 8.1% Rural 6 10.0
Co.
Arkansas Columbia Co. 2,647 22,316 11.9% Rural 26 9.8
Arkansas Conway Co. 1,827 21,091 8.7% Rural 21 11.5
Arkansas Craighead 10,116 112,828 9% Urban 102 10.1
Co.
Arkansas Crawford Co. 5,009 61,084 8.2% Urban 47 9.4
Arkansas Crittenden 6,561 47,031 14% Urban 64 9.8
Co.
Arkansas Cross Co. 1,577 16,594 9.5% Rural 21 13.3
Arkansas Dallas Co. 642 6,197 10.4% Rural 8 12.5
Arkansas Desha Co. 1,823 10,760 16.9% Rural 17 9.3
Arkansas Drew Co. 1,916 16,930 11.3% Rural 18 9.4
Arkansas Faulkner Co. 7,015 127,656 5.5% Urban 82 11.7
Arkansas Franklin Co. 1,362 17,274 7.9% Rural 15 11.0
Arkansas Fulton Co. 1,324 12,354 10.7% Rural 8 6.0
Arkansas Garland Co. 9,087 99,942 9.1% Urban 90 9.9
Arkansas Grant Co. 1,040 18,127 5.7% Urban 15 14.4
Arkansas Greene Co. 4,506 46,359 9.7% Rural 35 7.8
Arkansas Hempstead 2,097 19,469 10.8% Rural 19 9.1
Co.
Arkansas Hot Spring 2,851 33,170 8.6% Rural 23 8.1
Co.
Arkansas Howard Co. 1,392 12,583 11.1% Rural 15 10.8
Arkansas Independence 2,935 38,223 7.7% Rural 33 11.2
Co.
Arkansas Izard Co. 1,361 14,033 9.7% Rural 11 8.1
Arkansas Jackson Co. 1,941 16,607 11.7% Rural 19 9.8
Arkansas Jefferson 9,438 64,341 14.7% Rural 73 7.7
Co.
Arkansas Johnson Co. 2,739 25,997 10.5% Rural 33 12.0
Arkansas Lafayette 815 6,136 13.3% Rural 8 9.8
Co.
Arkansas Lawrence Co. 1,825 16,146 11.3% Rural 20 11.0
Arkansas Lee Co. 1,581 8,373 18.9% Rural 9 5.7
Arkansas Lincoln Co. 1,175 12,914 9.1% Rural 8 6.8
Arkansas Little River 1,322 11,811 11.2% Urban 9 6.8
Co.
Arkansas Logan Co. 2,044 21,242 9.6% Rural 19 9.3
Arkansas Lonoke Co. 4,000 75,219 5.3% Urban 54 13.5
Arkansas Madison Co. 1,326 17,493 7.6% Urban 14 10.6
Arkansas Marion Co. 1,380 17,236 8% Rural 14 10.1
Arkansas Miller Co. 4,915 42,484 11.6% Urban 46 9.4
Arkansas Mississippi 6,190 38,829 15.9% Rural 49 7.9
Co.
Arkansas Monroe Co. 1,039 6,574 15.8% Rural 17 16.4
Arkansas Montgomery 745 8,531 8.7% Rural 7 9.4
Co.
Arkansas Nevada Co. 826 8,191 10.1% Rural 9 10.9
Arkansas Newton Co. 706 7,093 10% Rural 6 8.5
Arkansas Ouachita Co. 2,584 22,010 11.7% Rural 26 10.1
Arkansas Perry Co. 768 10,073 7.6% Urban 7 9.1
Arkansas Phillips Co. 4,252 15,344 27.7% Rural 29 6.8 8Higher-
risk0
Arkansas Pike Co. 1,176 10,123 11.6% Rural 16 13.6
Arkansas Poinsett Co. 3,181 22,434 14.2% Urban 29 9.1
Arkansas Polk Co. 2,062 19,368 10.6% Rural 12 5.8
Arkansas Pope Co. 4,157 64,023 6.5% Rural 40 9.6
Arkansas Prairie Co. 638 8,038 7.9% Rural 11 17.2
Arkansas Pulaski Co. 36,400 399,886 9.1% Urban 341 9.4
Arkansas Randolph Co. 1,754 18,842 9.3% Rural 18 10.3
Arkansas St. Francis 3,955 22,387 17.7% Rural 33 8.3
Co.
Arkansas Saline Co. 5,419 127,419 4.3% Urban 83 15.3
Arkansas Scott Co. 1,492 9,787 15.2% Rural 13 8.7
Arkansas Searcy Co. 731 7,905 9.2% Rural 11 15.0
Arkansas Sebastian 11,622 129,226 9% Urban 126 10.8
Co.
Arkansas Sevier Co. 1,524 15,681 9.7% Rural 21 13.8
Arkansas Sharp Co. 2,121 17,790 11.9% Rural 22 10.4
Arkansas Stone Co. 1,296 12,591 10.3% Rural 11 8.5
Arkansas Union Co. 4,084 37,858 10.8% Rural 29 7.1
Arkansas Van Buren 1,419 16,114 8.8% Rural 12 8.5
Co.
Arkansas Washington 10,123 257,316 3.9% Urban 156 15.4
Co.
Arkansas White Co. 6,764 77,645 8.7% Rural 68 10.1
Arkansas Woodruff Co. 970 6,038 16.1% Rural 8 8.2
Arkansas Yell Co. 1,652 20,121 8.2% Rural 25 15.1
California Alameda Co. 157,744 1,635,693 9.6% Urban 1,054 6.7
California Alpine Co. 125 1,169 10.7% Rural 0 0.0
California Amador Co. 3,731 41,486 9% Rural 32 8.6
California Butte Co. 35,438 207,384 17.1% Urban 209 5.9
California Calaveras 5,622 46,544 12.1% Rural 44 7.8
Co.
California Colusa Co. 2,471 21,952 11.3% Rural 28 11.3
California Contra Costa 94,421 1,160,296 8.1% Urban 714 7.6
Co.
California Del Norte 6,179 26,758 23.1% Rural 32 5.2 8Higher-
Co. risk0
California El Dorado 12,736 193,071 6.6% Urban 126 9.9
Co.
California Fresno Co. 237,466 1,017,107 23.3% Urban 1,044 4.4 8Higher-
risk0
California Glenn Co. 4,055 28,371 14.3% Rural 43 10.6
California Humboldt Co. 26,310 135,013 19.5% Rural 170 6.5
California Imperial Co. 45,820 179,767 25.5% Urban 171 3.7 8Higher-
risk0
California Inyo Co. 2,253 18,745 12% Rural 19 8.4
California Kern Co. 180,911 917,293 19.7% Urban 975 5.4
California Kings Co. 27,816 152,776 18.2% Urban 135 4.9
California Lake Co. 15,399 68,239 22.6% Rural 76 4.9 8Higher-
risk0
California Lassen Co. 3,848 30,401 12.7% Rural 33 8.6
California Los Angeles 1,504,632 9,748,447 15.4% Urban 8,477 5.6
Co.
California Madera Co. 32,255 160,414 20.1% Urban 179 5.5
California Marin Co. 13,848 257,143 5.4% Urban 125 9.0
California Mariposa Co. 2,778 17,095 16.3% Rural 15 5.4
California Mendocino 15,711 90,027 17.5% Rural 108 6.9
Co.
California Merced Co. 58,437 292,034 20% Urban 288 4.9
California Modoc Co. 1,797 8,625 20.8% Rural 15 8.3
California Mono Co. 660 13,055 5.1% Rural 8 12.1
California Monterey Co. 45,586 436,427 10.4% Urban 314 6.9
California Napa Co. 8,172 134,492 6.1% Urban 75 9.2
California Nevada Co. 8,995 102,356 8.8% Rural 72 8.0
California Orange Co. 291,350 3,158,489 9.2% Urban 2,104 7.2
California Placer Co. 20,891 418,439 5% Urban 241 11.5
California Plumas Co. 2,357 19,433 12.1% Rural 24 10.2
California Riverside 293,758 2,479,628 11.8% Urban 1,890 6.4
Co.
California Sacramento 249,008 1,588,743 15.7% Urban 1,316 5.3
Co.
California San Benito 6,114 67,715 9% Urban 24 3.9
Co.
California San 345,028 2,196,029 15.7% Urban 2,004 5.8
Bernardino
Co.
California San Diego 391,261 3,283,755 11.9% Urban 2,366 6.0
Co.
California San 98,175 814,176 12.1% Urban 602 6.1
Francisco
Co.
California San Joaquin 113,700 795,880 14.3% Urban 696 6.1
Co.
California San Luis 22,296 282,535 7.9% Urban 204 9.1
Obispo Co.
California San Mateo 32,023 732,485 4.4% Urban 333 10.4
Co.
California Santa 52,069 445,286 11.7% Urban 307 5.9
Barbara Co.
California Santa Clara 121,312 1,883,653 6.4% Urban 934 7.7
Co.
California Santa Cruz 30,230 265,851 11.4% Urban 172 5.7
Co.
California Shasta Co. 27,553 180,972 15.2% Urban 203 7.4
California Sierra Co. 329 3,215 10.2% Rural 4 12.2
California Siskiyou Co. 8,473 43,746 19.4% Rural 78 9.2
California Solano Co. 51,102 449,724 11.4% Urban 305 6.0
California Sonoma Co. 37,290 483,398 7.7% Urban 373 10.0
California Stanislaus 79,816 552,410 14.4% Urban 579 7.3
Co.
California Sutter Co. 13,342 98,682 13.5% Urban 99 7.4
California Tehama Co. 11,386 65,269 17.4% Rural 70 6.1
California Trinity Co. 2,594 15,777 16.4% Rural 24 9.3
California Tulare Co. 126,486 478,288 26.4% Urban 494 3.9 8Higher-
risk0
California Tuolumne Co. 6,044 53,951 11.2% Rural 46 7.6
California Ventura Co. 71,864 835,032 8.6% Urban 623 8.7
California Yolo Co. 24,324 223,338 10.9% Urban 179 7.4
California Yuba Co. 17,446 84,335 20.7% Urban 89 5.1
Colorado Adams Co. 60,533 528,356 11.5% Urban 289 4.8
Colorado Alamosa Co. 4,627 16,593 27.9% Rural 21 4.5 8Higher-
risk0
Colorado Arapahoe Co. 60,505 658,176 9.2% Urban 346 5.7
Colorado Archuleta 1,648 13,987 11.8% Rural 9 5.5
Co.
Colorado Baca Co. 722 3,435 21% Rural 8 11.1
Colorado Bent Co. 975 5,430 18% Rural 6 6.2
Colorado Boulder Co. 18,277 328,039 5.6% Urban 154 8.4
Colorado Broomfield 3,035 76,245 4% Urban 33 10.9
Co.
Colorado Chaffee Co. 1,643 20,266 8.1% Rural 19 11.6
Colorado Cheyenne Co. 189 1,734 10.9% Rural 3 15.9
Colorado Clear Creek 550 9,324 5.9% Urban 6 10.9
Co.
Colorado Conejos Co. 1,650 7,560 21.8% Rural 7 4.2
Colorado Costilla Co. 1,327 3,609 36.8% Rural 9 6.8 8Higher-
risk0
Colorado Crowley Co. 1,016 5,601 18.1% Rural 4 3.9
Colorado Custer Co. 453 5,343 8.5% Rural 5 11.0
Colorado Delta Co. 4,290 31,573 13.6% Rural 21 4.9
Colorado Denver Co. 86,859 714,851 12.2% Urban 354 4.1
Colorado Dolores Co. 300 2,460 12.2% Rural 3 10.0
Colorado Douglas Co. 7,615 376,462 2% Urban 118 15.5
Colorado Eagle Co. 1,448 55,303 2.6% Rural 19 13.1
Colorado Elbert Co. 1,025 27,817 3.7% Urban 11 10.7
Colorado El Paso Co. 78,360 742,676 10.6% Urban 376 4.8
Colorado Fremont Co. 7,845 49,585 15.8% Rural 32 4.1
Colorado Garfield Co. 4,172 62,388 6.7% Rural 51 12.2
Colorado Gilpin Co. 501 5,910 8.5% Urban 4 8.0
Colorado Grand Co. 441 15,748 2.8% Rural 10 22.7
Colorado Gunnison Co. 1,027 17,319 5.9% Rural 13 12.7
Colorado Hinsdale Co. 9 773 1.2% Rural 1 111.1
Colorado Huerfano Co. 1,825 7,077 25.8% Rural 12 6.6 8Higher-
risk0
Colorado Jackson Co. 116 1,314 8.8% Rural 3 25.9
Colorado Jefferson 33,873 576,635 5.9% Urban 272 8.0
Co.
Colorado Kiowa Co. 232 1,430 16.2% Rural 4 17.2
Colorado Kit Carson 933 7,010 13.3% Rural 11 11.8
Co.
Colorado Lake Co. 463 7,356 6.3% Rural 9 19.4
Colorado La Plata Co. 4,529 56,577 8% Rural 41 9.1
Colorado Larimer Co. 29,323 368,017 8% Urban 182 6.2
Colorado Las Animas 3,323 14,312 23.2% Rural 15 4.5 8Higher-
Co. risk0
Colorado Lincoln Co. 786 5,520 14.2% Rural 7 8.9
Colorado Logan Co. 2,887 20,829 13.9% Rural 9 3.1
Colorado Mesa Co. 18,935 158,585 11.9% Urban 105 5.5
Colorado Mineral Co. 49 923 5.3% Rural 1 20.4
Colorado Moffat Co. 1,474 13,172 11.2% Rural 11 7.5
Colorado Montezuma 4,892 26,491 18.5% Rural 32 6.5
Co.
Colorado Montrose Co. 5,456 43,845 12.4% Rural 33 6.0
Colorado Morgan Co. 3,847 29,392 13.1% Rural 31 8.1
Colorado Otero Co. 4,689 18,272 25.7% Rural 26 5.5 8Higher-
risk0
Colorado Ouray Co. 211 5,108 4.1% Rural 3 14.2
Colorado Park Co. 1,367 17,929 7.6% Urban 8 5.9
Colorado Phillips Co. 469 4,464 10.5% Rural 6 12.8
Colorado Pitkin Co. 269 16,877 1.6% Rural 6 22.3
Colorado Prowers Co. 2,731 11,834 23.1% Rural 14 5.1 8Higher-
risk0
Colorado Pueblo Co. 42,097 169,485 24.8% Urban 123 2.9 8Higher-
risk0
Colorado Rio Blanco 764 6,561 11.6% Rural 12 15.7
Co.
Colorado Rio Grande 2,429 11,329 21.4% Rural 20 8.2
Co.
Colorado Routt Co. 616 25,112 2.5% Rural 14 22.7
Colorado Saguache Co. 1,379 6,632 20.8% Rural 8 5.8
Colorado San Juan Co. 51 796 6.4% Rural 2 39.2
Colorado San Miguel 317 8,011 4% Rural 7 22.1
Co.
Colorado Sedgwick Co. 428 2,294 18.7% Rural 2 4.7
Colorado Summit Co. 719 30,905 2.3% Rural 18 25.0
Colorado Teller Co. 2,444 24,858 9.8% Urban 21 8.6
Colorado Washington 604 4,840 12.5% Rural 2 3.3
Co.
Colorado Weld Co. 32,118 350,610 9.2% Urban 177 5.5
Colorado Yuma Co. 1,267 9,970 12.7% Rural 11 8.7
Connecticut Capitol 122,573 975,591 12.6% Urban 773 6.3
Planning
Region
Connecticut Greater 42,740 328,131 13% Urban 203 4.7
Bridgeport
Planning
Region
Connecticut Lower 10,746 176,159 6.1% Urban 105 9.8
Connecticut
River
Valley
Planning
Region
Connecticut Naugatuck 63,091 453,868 13.9% Urban 349 5.5
Valley
Planning
Region
Connecticut Northeastern 9,323 96,169 9.7% Rural 68 7.3
Connecticut
Planning
Region
Connecticut Northwest 8,963 113,289 7.9% Rural 68 7.6
Hills
Planning
Region
Connecticut South 76,429 569,866 13.4% Urban 437 5.7
Central
Connecticut
Planning
Region
Connecticut Southeastern 33,788 279,398 12.1% Urban 226 6.7
Connecticut
Planning
Region
Connecticut Western 21,768 625,454 3.5% Urban 247 11.3
Connecticut
Planning
Region
Delaware Kent Co. 31,322 187,819 16.7% Urban 140 4.5
Delaware New Castle 71,285 576,316 12.4% Urban 478 6.7
Co.
Delaware Sussex Co. 18,864 256,490 7.4% Rural 218 11.6
District of District of 139,407 676,725 20.6% Urban 416 3.0
Columbia Columbia
Florida Alachua Co. 33,655 285,241 11.8% Urban 217 6.4
Florida Baker Co. 4,211 27,781 15.2% Urban 32 7.6
Florida Bay Co. 23,697 185,732 12.8% Urban 225 9.5
Florida Bradford Co. 4,609 27,275 16.9% Rural 32 6.9
Florida Brevard Co. 64,797 631,956 10.3% Urban 471 7.3
Florida Broward Co. 249,980 1,966,237 12.7% Urban 1,086 4.3
Florida Calhoun Co. 2,393 13,462 17.8% Rural 9 3.8
Florida Charlotte 14,536 203,113 7.2% Urban 120 8.3
Co.
Florida Citrus Co. 20,921 162,586 12.9% Urban 118 5.6
Florida Clay Co. 20,651 226,797 9.1% Urban 140 6.8
Florida Collier Co. 20,948 400,510 5.2% Urban 238 11.4
Florida Columbia Co. 13,729 71,941 19.1% Rural 95 6.9
Florida DeSoto Co. 5,501 35,483 15.5% Rural 30 5.5
Florida Dixie Co. 3,607 16,839 21.4% Rural 21 5.8
Florida Duval Co. 159,784 1,021,040 15.6% Urban 920 5.8
Florida Escambia Co. 49,040 324,227 15.1% Urban 317 6.5
Florida Flagler Co. 11,447 126,974 9% Urban 70 6.1
Florida Franklin Co. 1,391 12,491 11.1% Rural 13 9.3
Florida Gadsden Co. 9,970 43,389 23% Urban 50 5.0 8Higher-
risk0
Florida Gilchrist 2,941 19,027 15.5% Urban 20 6.8
Co.
Florida Glades Co. 1,404 12,496 11.2% Rural 9 6.4
Florida Gulf Co. 1,816 15,302 11.9% Rural 20 11.0
Florida Hamilton Co. 2,646 13,216 20% Rural 22 8.3
Florida Hardee Co. 5,446 25,692 21.2% Rural 28 5.1
Florida Hendry Co. 9,165 41,725 22% Rural 43 4.7
Florida Hernando Co. 29,423 207,169 14.2% Urban 148 5.0
Florida Highlands 19,024 105,954 18% Urban 91 4.8
Co.
Florida Hillsborough 225,257 1,523,839 14.8% Urban 1,073 4.8
Co.
Florida Holmes Co. 4,183 19,324 21.6% Rural 25 6.0
Florida Indian River 15,559 167,698 9.3% Urban 109 7.0
Co.
Florida Jackson Co. 8,231 48,294 17% Rural 50 6.1
Florida Jefferson 1,846 15,090 12.2% Urban 20 10.8
Co.
Florida Lafayette 970 7,786 12.5% Rural 7 7.2
Co.
Florida Lake Co. 44,167 410,981 10.7% Urban 265 6.0
Florida Lee Co. 91,972 826,567 11.1% Urban 541 5.9
Florida Leon Co. 36,931 298,181 12.4% Urban 219 5.9
Florida Levy Co. 7,252 45,291 16% Urban 55 7.6
Florida Liberty Co. 1,198 7,609 15.7% Rural 9 7.5
Florida Madison Co. 2,967 17,978 16.5% Rural 26 8.8
Florida Manatee Co. 36,680 430,700 8.5% Urban 266 7.3
Florida Marion Co. 60,561 396,661 15.3% Urban 343 5.7
Florida Martin Co. 11,225 162,379 6.9% Urban 117 10.4
Florida Miami-Dade 604,250 2,713,415 22.3% Urban 1,358 2.2
Co.
Florida Monroe Co. 6,422 82,002 7.8% Rural 78 12.1
Florida Nassau Co. 6,644 97,891 6.8% Urban 74 11.1
Florida Okaloosa Co. 17,016 217,115 7.8% Urban 174 10.2
Florida Okeechobee 8,377 40,416 20.7% Rural 46 5.5
Co.
Florida Orange Co. 202,121 1,465,146 13.8% Urban 965 4.8
Florida Osceola Co. 71,467 426,556 16.8% Urban 258 3.6
Florida Palm Beach 162,053 1,531,542 10.6% Urban 805 5.0
Co.
Florida Pasco Co. 67,782 610,584 11.1% Urban 379 5.6
Florida Pinellas Co. 97,006 964,693 10.1% Urban 746 7.7
Florida Polk Co. 141,934 790,530 18% Urban 609 4.3
Florida Putnam Co. 16,670 74,805 22.3% Rural 95 5.7
Florida St. Johns 12,024 307,837 3.9% Urban 162 13.5
Co.
Florida St. Lucie 46,256 359,882 12.9% Urban 220 4.8
Co.
Florida Santa Rosa 14,779 198,363 7.5% Urban 137 9.3
Co.
Florida Sarasota Co. 26,404 464,067 5.7% Urban 257 9.7
Florida Seminole Co. 42,608 481,084 8.9% Urban 285 6.7
Florida Sumter Co. 8,774 144,978 6.1% Urban 90 10.3
Florida Suwannee Co. 8,749 45,370 19.3% Rural 58 6.6
Florida Taylor Co. 4,867 21,347 22.8% Rural 33 6.8 8Higher-
risk0
Florida Union Co. 2,290 15,490 14.8% Rural 14 6.1
Florida Volusia Co. 75,617 580,481 13% Urban 442 5.8
Florida Wakulla Co. 3,365 35,159 9.6% Urban 28 8.3
Florida Walton Co. 6,155 83,100 7.4% Urban 64 10.4
Florida Washington 3,422 25,426 13.5% Urban 35 10.2
Co.
Georgia Appling Co. 3,887 18,479 21% Rural 35 9.0
Georgia Atkinson Co. 1,846 8,236 22.4% Rural 16 8.7
Georgia Bacon Co. 2,491 11,174 22.3% Rural 18 7.2
Georgia Baker Co. 798 2,796 28.5% Rural 3 3.8 8Higher-
risk0
Georgia Baldwin Co. 7,816 43,649 17.9% Rural 64 8.2
Georgia Banks Co. 2,344 19,404 12.1% Rural 20 8.5
Georgia Barrow Co. 9,719 89,359 10.9% Urban 81 8.3
Georgia Bartow Co. 14,253 112,805 12.6% Urban 104 7.3
Georgia Ben Hill Co. 4,203 17,055 24.6% Rural 32 7.6 8Higher-
risk0
Georgia Berrien Co. 3,754 18,238 20.6% Rural 25 6.7
Georgia Bibb Co. 40,989 156,115 26.3% Urban 212 5.2 8Higher-
risk0
Georgia Bleckley Co. 2,244 12,270 18.3% Rural 15 6.7
Georgia Brantley Co. 3,913 18,196 21.5% Urban 24 6.1
Georgia Brooks Co. 3,621 16,300 22.2% Urban 25 6.9
Georgia Bryan Co. 3,771 48,316 7.8% Urban 37 9.8
Georgia Bulloch Co. 12,921 83,027 15.6% Rural 103 8.0
Georgia Burke Co. 5,775 24,433 23.6% Urban 35 6.1 8Higher-
risk0
Georgia Butts Co. 4,157 26,745 15.5% Urban 30 7.2
Georgia Calhoun Co. 1,369 5,471 25% Rural 7 5.1 8Higher-
risk0
Georgia Camden Co. 6,020 57,036 10.6% Rural 63 10.5
Georgia Candler Co. 2,509 11,000 22.8% Rural 16 6.4 8Higher-
risk0
Georgia Carroll Co. 18,903 124,564 15.2% Urban 124 6.6
Georgia Catoosa Co. 7,524 68,840 10.9% Urban 67 8.9
Georgia Charlton Co. 1,876 12,781 14.7% Rural 19 10.1
Georgia Chatham Co. 44,807 301,512 14.9% Urban 319 7.1
Georgia Chattahooche 721 8,773 8.2% Urban 3 4.2
e Co.
Georgia Chattooga 5,475 24,921 22% Rural 31 5.7
Co.
Georgia Cherokee Co. 13,328 281,455 4.7% Urban 122 9.2
Georgia Clarke Co. 15,853 129,954 12.2% Urban 122 7.7
Georgia Clay Co. 966 2,862 33.8% Rural 5 5.2 8Higher-
risk0
Georgia Clayton Co. 73,512 298,862 24.6% Urban 274 3.7 8Higher-
risk0
Georgia Clinch Co. 1,659 6,684 24.8% Rural 16 9.6
Georgia Cobb Co. 62,007 774,162 8% Urban 441 7.1
Georgia Coffee Co. 9,565 43,311 22.1% Rural 70 7.3
Georgia Colquitt Co. 10,459 45,952 22.8% Rural 68 6.5 8Higher-
risk0
Georgia Columbia Co. 10,346 162,681 6.4% Urban 101 9.8
Georgia Cook Co. 3,882 17,414 22.3% Rural 29 7.5
Georgia Coweta Co. 13,957 153,002 9.1% Urban 111 8.0
Georgia Crawford Co. 2,137 12,197 17.5% Urban 12 5.6
Georgia Crisp Co. 5,959 19,755 30.2% Rural 47 7.9 8Higher-
risk0
Georgia Dade Co. 1,779 16,114 11% Urban 32 18.0
Georgia Dawson Co. 2,035 30,175 6.7% Urban 30 14.7
Georgia Decatur Co. 7,159 29,038 24.7% Rural 45 6.3 8Higher-
risk0
Georgia DeKalb Co. 127,335 764,440 16.7% Urban 584 4.6
Georgia Dodge Co. 4,606 19,903 23.1% Rural 25 5.4 8Higher-
risk0
Georgia Dooly Co. 2,302 10,639 21.6% Rural 18 7.8
Georgia Dougherty 28,400 82,972 34.2% Urban 156 5.5 8Higher-
Co. risk0
Georgia Douglas Co. 23,884 147,690 16.2% Urban 127 5.3
Georgia Early Co. 3,282 10,567 31.1% Rural 20 6.1 8Higher-
risk0
Georgia Echols Co. 713 3,694 19.3% Urban 2 2.8
Georgia Effingham 6,411 69,030 9.3% Urban 53 8.3
Co.
Georgia Elbert Co. 3,986 19,853 20.1% Rural 26 6.5
Georgia Emanuel Co. 5,976 22,953 26% Rural 29 4.9 8Higher-
risk0
Georgia Evans Co. 2,427 10,662 22.8% Rural 24 9.9
Georgia Fannin Co. 2,655 25,702 10.3% Rural 26 9.8
Georgia Fayette Co. 6,493 122,150 5.3% Urban 77 11.9
Georgia Floyd Co. 15,996 99,586 16.1% Urban 119 7.4
Georgia Forsyth Co. 7,237 268,075 2.7% Urban 106 14.6
Georgia Franklin Co. 4,066 24,151 16.8% Rural 35 8.6
Georgia Fulton Co. 160,940 1,076,569 14.9% Urban 684 4.3
Georgia Gilmer Co. 3,657 32,413 11.3% Rural 34 9.3
Georgia Glascock Co. 437 2,919 15% Rural 5 11.4
Georgia Glynn Co. 13,073 85,202 15.3% Urban 123 9.4
Georgia Gordon Co. 7,659 58,909 13% Rural 73 9.5
Georgia Grady Co. 5,117 26,056 19.6% Rural 33 6.4
Georgia Greene Co. 2,520 20,136 12.5% Rural 29 11.5
Georgia Gwinnett Co. 94,116 980,015 9.6% Urban 581 6.2
Georgia Habersham 5,236 47,558 11% Rural 64 12.2
Co.
Georgia Hall Co. 19,407 213,126 9.1% Urban 182 9.4
Georgia Hancock Co. 1,679 8,453 19.9% Rural 15 8.9
Georgia Haralson Co. 5,615 31,340 17.9% Urban 49 8.7
Georgia Harris Co. 2,601 36,308 7.2% Urban 25 9.6
Georgia Hart Co. 3,992 26,877 14.9% Rural 25 6.3
Georgia Heard Co. 2,221 11,720 19% Urban 12 5.4
Georgia Henry Co. 35,314 248,559 14.2% Urban 199 5.6
Georgia Houston Co. 22,642 169,791 13.3% Urban 157 6.9
Georgia Irwin Co. 1,908 9,121 20.9% Rural 11 5.8
Georgia Jackson Co. 7,478 84,102 8.9% Rural 67 9.0
Georgia Jasper Co. 2,218 15,985 13.9% Urban 13 5.9
Georgia Jeff Davis 3,441 14,909 23.1% Rural 19 5.5 8Higher-
Co. risk0
Georgia Jefferson 3,606 15,318 23.5% Rural 28 7.8 8Higher-
Co. risk0
Georgia Jenkins Co. 2,028 8,661 23.4% Rural 8 3.9 8Higher-
risk0
Georgia Johnson Co. 1,990 9,255 21.5% Rural 14 7.0
Georgia Jones Co. 3,797 28,514 13.3% Urban 20 5.3
Georgia Lamar Co. 3,550 19,489 18.2% Rural 14 3.9
Georgia Lanier Co. 2,335 10,207 22.9% Urban 11 4.7 8Higher-
risk0
Georgia Laurens Co. 12,147 49,705 24.4% Rural 90 7.4 8Higher-
risk0
Georgia Lee Co. 4,212 33,699 12.5% Urban 30 7.1
Georgia Liberty Co. 11,126 68,031 16.4% Urban 75 6.7
Georgia Lincoln Co. 1,210 7,872 15.4% Urban 7 5.8
Georgia Long Co. 3,112 18,409 16.9% Urban 16 5.1
Georgia Lowndes Co. 23,385 119,547 19.6% Urban 138 5.9
Georgia Lumpkin Co. 3,052 34,763 8.8% Urban 23 7.5
Georgia McDuffie Co. 4,868 21,727 22.4% Urban 36 7.4
Georgia McIntosh Co. 2,161 11,190 19.3% Urban 19 8.8
Georgia Macon Co. 2,651 11,778 22.5% Rural 19 7.2
Georgia Madison Co. 4,385 31,447 13.9% Urban 36 8.2
Georgia Marion Co. 1,709 7,464 22.9% Urban 9 5.3 8Higher-
risk0
Georgia Meriwether 4,443 20,892 21.3% Urban 28 6.3
Co.
Georgia Miller Co. 1,259 5,790 21.7% Rural 9 7.1
Georgia Mitchell Co. 5,671 21,182 26.8% Rural 30 5.3 8Higher-
risk0
Georgia Monroe Co. 3,427 29,455 11.6% Urban 30 8.8
Georgia Montgomery 1,597 8,656 18.4% Rural 12 7.5
Co.
Georgia Morgan Co. 2,456 21,048 11.7% Urban 24 9.8
Georgia Murray Co. 7,168 40,432 17.7% Urban 50 7.0
Georgia Muscogee Co. 43,076 202,658 21.3% Urban 213 4.9
Georgia Newton Co. 21,953 117,970 18.6% Urban 86 3.9
Georgia Oconee Co. 1,527 43,676 3.5% Urban 25 16.4
Georgia Oglethorpe 1,982 15,532 12.8% Urban 11 5.5
Co.
Georgia Paulding Co. 17,858 178,885 10% Urban 80 4.5
Georgia Peach Co. 5,197 28,484 18.2% Urban 39 7.5
Georgia Pickens Co. 3,429 34,817 9.8% Urban 31 9.0
Georgia Pierce Co. 3,744 20,176 18.6% Rural 23 6.1
Georgia Pike Co. 1,921 19,936 9.6% Urban 17 8.8
Georgia Polk Co. 8,473 43,706 19.4% Rural 53 6.3
Georgia Pulaski Co. 1,794 9,953 18% Rural 16 8.9
Georgia Putnam Co. 3,394 22,928 14.8% Rural 28 8.2
Georgia Quitman Co. 592 2,254 26.3% Rural 6 10.1
Georgia Rabun Co. 1,724 17,292 10% Rural 18 10.4
Georgia Randolph Co. 2,064 6,155 33.5% Rural 11 5.3 8Higher-
risk0
Georgia Richmond Co. 47,098 206,510 22.8% Urban 247 5.2 8Higher-
risk0
Georgia Rockdale Co. 16,899 95,016 17.8% Urban 91 5.4
Georgia Schley Co. 839 4,503 18.6% Rural 4 4.8
Georgia Screven Co. 3,313 13,977 23.7% Rural 22 6.6 8Higher-
risk0
Georgia Seminole Co. 2,249 9,129 24.6% Rural 10 4.4 8Higher-
risk0
Georgia Spalding Co. 15,675 69,015 22.7% Urban 80 5.1 8Higher-
risk0
Georgia Stephens Co. 5,242 26,724 19.6% Rural 36 6.9
Georgia Stewart Co. 1,132 4,634 24.4% Urban 8 7.1 8Higher-
risk0
Georgia Sumter Co. 8,748 28,880 30.3% Rural 40 4.6 8Higher-
risk0
Georgia Talbot Co. 1,258 5,759 21.8% Urban 6 4.8
Georgia Taliaferro 325 1,600 20.3% Rural 3 9.2
Co.
Georgia Tattnall Co. 4,186 24,012 17.4% Rural 39 9.3
Georgia Taylor Co. 1,834 7,767 23.6% Rural 8 4.4 8Higher-
risk0
Georgia Telfair Co. 2,928 12,416 23.6% Rural 19 6.5 8Higher-
risk0
Georgia Terrell Co. 2,774 8,782 31.6% Urban 15 5.4 8Higher-
risk0
Georgia Thomas Co. 8,986 45,542 19.7% Rural 64 7.1
Georgia Tift Co. 9,153 41,378 22.1% Rural 81 8.8
Georgia Toombs Co. 6,919 26,881 25.7% Rural 45 6.5 8Higher-
risk0
Georgia Towns Co. 1,071 12,944 8.3% Rural 19 17.7
Georgia Treutlen Co. 1,679 6,353 26.4% Rural 10 6.0 8Higher-
risk0
Georgia Troup Co. 14,324 70,297 20.4% Rural 95 6.6
Georgia Turner Co. 2,353 8,842 26.6% Rural 17 7.2 8Higher-
risk0
Georgia Twiggs Co. 1,693 7,688 22% Urban 10 5.9
Georgia Union Co. 2,124 26,400 8% Rural 23 10.8
Georgia Upson Co. 6,587 28,098 23.4% Rural 32 4.9 8Higher-
risk0
Georgia Walker Co. 10,159 68,887 14.7% Urban 80 7.9
Georgia Walton Co. 12,380 103,056 12% Urban 88 7.1
Georgia Ware Co. 9,078 35,608 25.5% Rural 58 6.4 8Higher-
risk0
Georgia Warren Co. 1,394 5,168 27% Rural 9 6.5 8Higher-
risk0
Georgia Washington 4,343 19,791 21.9% Rural 26 6.0
Co.
Georgia Wayne Co. 6,383 30,786 20.7% Rural 42 6.6
Georgia Webster Co. 519 2,351 22.1% Rural 3 5.8
Georgia Wheeler Co. 1,263 7,307 17.3% Rural 8 6.3
Georgia White Co. 2,991 28,810 10.4% Rural 23 7.7
Georgia Whitfield 13,651 103,252 13.2% Urban 136 10.0
Co.
Georgia Wilcox Co. 1,762 8,747 20.1% Rural 17 9.6
Georgia Wilkes Co. 2,126 9,585 22.2% Rural 18 8.5
Georgia Wilkinson 1,948 8,689 22.4% Rural 15 7.7
Co.
Georgia Worth Co. 4,424 20,420 21.7% Urban 24 5.4
Hawaii Hawaii Co. 37,263 206,324 18.1% Rural 182 4.9
Hawaii Honolulu Co. 90,431 995,652 9.1% Urban 544 6.0
Hawaii Kalawao Co. 81 0% Urban 0 0.0
Hawaii Kauai Co. 7,807 73,823 10.6% Rural 70 9.0
Hawaii Maui Co. 16,442 164,479 10% Urban 125 7.6
Idaho Ada Co. 23,992 520,788 4.6% Urban 258 10.8
Idaho Adams Co. 287 4,780 6% Rural 7 24.4
Idaho Bannock Co. 8,988 89,871 10% Urban 66 7.3
Idaho Bear Lake 326 6,751 4.8% Rural 5 15.3
Co.
Idaho Benewah Co. 815 10,301 7.9% Rural 6 7.4
Idaho Bingham Co. 4,121 49,997 8.2% Rural 27 6.6
Idaho Blaine Co. 406 25,186 1.6% Rural 14 34.5
Idaho Boise Co. 423 8,426 5% Urban 7 16.5
Idaho Bonner Co. 2,795 51,521 5.4% Rural 29 10.4
Idaho Bonneville 10,053 129,690 7.8% Urban 84 8.4
Co.
Idaho Boundary Co. 887 13,377 6.6% Rural 11 12.4
Idaho Butte Co. 260 2,692 9.7% Urban 2 7.7
Idaho Camas Co. 46 1,168 3.9% Rural 1 21.7
Idaho Canyon Co. 19,973 251,532 7.9% Urban 126 6.3
Idaho Caribou Co. 346 7,208 4.8% Rural 9 26.0
Idaho Cassia Co. 2,149 25,625 8.4% Rural 22 10.2
Idaho Clark Co. 52 812 6.4% Rural 1 19.2
Idaho Clearwater 653 9,034 7.2% Rural 8 12.3
Co.
Idaho Custer Co. 259 4,503 5.8% Rural 5 19.3
Idaho Elmore Co. 2,171 29,494 7.4% Rural 16 7.4
Idaho Franklin Co. 508 15,172 3.3% Urban 6 11.8
Idaho Fremont Co. 747 14,048 5.3% Rural 6 8.0
Idaho Gem Co. 1,393 20,739 6.7% Urban 12 8.6
Idaho Gooding Co. 1,237 15,890 7.8% Rural 13 10.5
Idaho Idaho Co. 1,002 17,670 5.7% Rural 14 14.0
Idaho Jefferson 1,564 33,365 4.7% Urban 10 6.4
Co.
Idaho Jerome Co. 2,042 25,228 8.1% Urban 19 9.3
Idaho Kootenai Co. 9,712 183,540 5.3% Urban 110 11.3
Idaho Latah Co. 1,857 41,330 4.5% Rural 23 12.4
Idaho Lemhi Co. 592 8,286 7.1% Rural 9 15.2
Idaho Lewis Co. 442 3,727 11.9% Rural 5 11.3
Idaho Lincoln Co. 413 5,365 7.7% Rural 3 7.3
Idaho Madison Co. 2,494 55,427 4.5% Rural 12 4.8
Idaho Minidoka Co. 1,640 22,202 7.4% Rural 12 7.3
Idaho Nez Perce 3,001 43,003 7% Urban 36 12.0
Co.
Idaho Oneida Co. 252 4,740 5.3% Rural 4 15.9
Idaho Owyhee Co. 1,190 12,644 9.4% Urban 9 7.6
Idaho Payette Co. 2,426 26,934 9% Rural 22 9.1
Idaho Power Co. 794 8,122 9.8% Rural 6 7.6
Idaho Shoshone Co. 1,593 13,951 11.4% Rural 16 10.0
Idaho Teton Co. 230 12,553 1.8% Rural 5 21.7
Idaho Twin Falls 8,010 93,973 8.5% Urban 58 7.2
Co.
Idaho Valley Co. 389 12,436 3.1% Rural 11 28.3
Idaho Washington 972 11,198 8.7% Rural 15 15.4
Co.
Illinois Adams Co. 11,336 64,526 17.6% Rural 60 5.3
Illinois Alexander 2,090 4,859 43% Urban 5 2.4 8Higher-
Co. risk0
Illinois Bond Co. 2,188 16,716 13.1% Urban 13 5.9
Illinois Boone Co. 7,242 53,084 13.6% Urban 30 4.1
Illinois Brown Co. 611 6,321 9.7% Rural 4 6.5
Illinois Bureau Co. 4,969 32,862 15.1% Rural 40 8.0
Illinois Calhoun Co. 564 4,335 13% Urban 3 5.3
Illinois Carroll Co. 2,127 15,553 13.7% Rural 19 8.9
Illinois Cass Co. 2,277 12,672 18% Rural 14 6.1
Illinois Champaign 31,520 208,033 15.2% Urban 164 5.2
Co.
Illinois Christian 5,982 33,410 17.9% Rural 35 5.9
Co.
Illinois Clark Co. 2,426 15,211 15.9% Rural 18 7.4
Illinois Clay Co. 2,641 13,053 20.2% Rural 14 5.3
Illinois Clinton Co. 3,079 36,987 8.3% Urban 40 13.0
Illinois Coles Co. 9,860 46,708 21.1% Rural 45 4.6
Illinois Cook Co. 966,185 5,133,106 18.8% Urban 3,492 3.6
Illinois Crawford Co. 3,081 18,516 16.6% Rural 18 5.8
Illinois Cumberland 1,349 10,296 13.1% Rural 9 6.7
Co.
Illinois DeKalb Co. 14,710 100,569 14.6% Urban 78 5.3
Illinois De Witt Co. 2,627 15,341 17.1% Rural 17 6.5
Illinois Douglas Co. 2,393 19,702 12.1% Rural 26 10.9
Illinois DuPage Co. 68,290 925,143 7.4% Urban 520 7.6
Illinois Edgar Co. 3,466 16,426 21.1% Rural 17 4.9
Illinois Edwards Co. 919 6,073 15.1% Rural 8 8.7
Illinois Effingham 3,863 34,336 11.3% Rural 41 10.6
Co.
Illinois Fayette Co. 3,617 21,284 17% Rural 23 6.4
Illinois Ford Co. 1,974 13,270 14.9% Urban 14 7.1
Illinois Franklin Co. 10,017 37,226 26.9% Rural 50 5.0 8Higher-
risk0
Illinois Fulton Co. 5,746 33,022 17.4% Rural 31 5.4
Illinois Gallatin Co. 1,145 4,842 23.6% Rural 3 2.6 8Higher-
risk0
Illinois Greene Co. 2,330 11,643 20% Rural 14 6.0
Illinois Grundy Co. 5,400 53,153 10.2% Urban 39 7.2
Illinois Hamilton Co. 1,327 7,976 16.6% Rural 7 5.3
Illinois Hancock Co. 2,704 17,250 15.7% Rural 26 9.6
Illinois Hardin Co. 1,029 3,588 28.7% Rural 4 3.9 8Higher-
risk0
Illinois Henderson 988 6,168 16% Rural 7 7.1
Co.
Illinois Henry Co. 6,809 48,567 14% Urban 50 7.3
Illinois Iroquois Co. 4,545 26,417 17.2% Rural 34 7.5
Illinois Jackson Co. 12,427 53,004 23.4% Rural 50 4.0 8Higher-
risk0
Illinois Jasper Co. 1,178 9,185 12.8% Rural 6 5.1
Illinois Jefferson 7,739 36,415 21.3% Rural 42 5.4
Co.
Illinois Jersey Co. 2,920 21,222 13.8% Urban 14 4.8
Illinois Jo Daviess 1,834 21,863 8.4% Rural 15 8.2
Co.
Illinois Johnson Co. 1,993 13,401 14.9% Rural 11 5.5
Illinois Kane Co. 60,984 515,070 11.8% Urban 284 4.7
Illinois Kankakee Co. 21,650 106,221 20.4% Urban 115 5.3
Illinois Kendall Co. 11,392 137,602 8.3% Urban 67 5.9
Illinois Knox Co. 10,238 48,713 21% Rural 46 4.5
Illinois Lake Co. 71,260 712,143 10% Urban 413 5.8
Illinois LaSalle Co. 18,497 108,210 17.1% Rural 127 6.9
Illinois Lawrence Co. 2,633 14,937 17.6% Rural 12 4.6
Illinois Lee Co. 4,605 33,928 13.6% Rural 34 7.4
Illinois Livingston 5,039 35,513 14.2% Rural 41 8.1
Co.
Illinois Logan Co. 4,551 27,654 16.5% Rural 28 6.2
Illinois McDonough 4,654 26,965 17.3% Rural 29 6.2
Co.
Illinois McHenry Co. 22,111 311,921 7.1% Urban 164 7.4
Illinois McLean Co. 20,862 171,571 12.2% Urban 133 6.4
Illinois Macon Co. 25,674 101,369 25.3% Urban 117 4.6 8Higher-
risk0
Illinois Macoupin Co. 7,519 44,239 17% Urban 49 6.5
Illinois Madison Co. 40,963 263,981 15.5% Urban 246 6.0
Illinois Marion Co. 9,555 36,878 25.9% Rural 44 4.6 8Higher-
risk0
Illinois Marshall Co. 1,662 11,657 14.3% Urban 19 11.4
Illinois Mason Co. 2,465 12,717 19.4% Rural 15 6.1
Illinois Massac Co. 3,794 13,858 27.4% Urban 12 3.2 8Higher-
risk0
Illinois Menard Co. 1,504 12,076 12.5% Urban 9 6.0
Illinois Mercer Co. 1,794 15,512 11.6% Urban 18 10.0
Illinois Monroe Co. 1,433 35,107 4.1% Urban 22 15.4
Illinois Montgomery 5,253 27,971 18.8% Rural 42 8.0
Co.
Illinois Morgan Co. 6,926 32,931 21% Rural 42 6.1
Illinois Moultrie Co. 1,734 14,361 12.1% Rural 12 6.9
Illinois Ogle Co. 6,075 51,437 11.8% Rural 52 8.6
Illinois Peoria Co. 40,422 178,503 22.6% Urban 168 4.2 8Higher-
risk0
Illinois Perry Co. 3,312 20,503 16.2% Rural 17 5.1
Illinois Piatt Co. 1,373 16,678 8.2% Urban 12 8.7
Illinois Pike Co. 2,717 14,492 18.7% Rural 20 7.4
Illinois Pope Co. 703 3,757 18.7% Rural 3 4.3
Illinois Pulaski Co. 1,801 4,966 36.3% Rural 9 5.0 8Higher-
risk0
Illinois Putnam Co. 554 5,562 10% Rural 6 10.8
Illinois Randolph Co. 4,697 30,101 15.6% Rural 32 6.8
Illinois Richland Co. 3,147 15,536 20.3% Rural 14 4.4
Illinois Rock Island 27,405 141,812 19.3% Urban 149 5.4
Co.
Illinois St. Clair 53,470 252,947 21.1% Urban 221 4.1
Co.
Illinois Saline Co. 6,275 23,141 27.1% Rural 33 5.3 8Higher-
risk0
Illinois Sangamon Co. 36,417 194,483 18.7% Urban 185 5.1
Illinois Schuyler Co. 690 6,755 10.2% Rural 7 10.1
Illinois Scott Co. 848 4,898 17.3% Rural 3 3.5
Illinois Shelby Co. 2,719 20,706 13.1% Rural 26 9.6
Illinois Stark Co. 833 5,324 15.6% Urban 6 7.2
Illinois Stephenson 8,965 43,702 20.5% Rural 43 4.8
Co.
Illinois Tazewell Co. 17,498 129,859 13.5% Urban 113 6.5
Illinois Union Co. 3,511 16,901 20.8% Rural 21 6.0
Illinois Vermilion 20,733 72,089 28.8% Rural 85 4.1 8Higher-
Co. risk0
Illinois Wabash Co. 1,884 11,061 17% Rural 14 7.4
Illinois Warren Co. 2,866 16,368 17.5% Rural 20 7.0
Illinois Washington 1,347 13,650 9.9% Rural 14 10.4
Co.
Illinois Wayne Co. 2,611 15,903 16.4% Rural 18 6.9
Illinois White Co. 2,752 13,636 20.2% Rural 18 6.5
Illinois Whiteside 9,343 54,602 17.1% Rural 49 5.2
Co.
Illinois Will Co. 75,734 699,110 10.8% Urban 422 5.6
Illinois Williamson 14,011 66,565 21% Rural 62 4.4
Co.
Illinois Winnebago 70,088 282,081 24.8% Urban 289 4.1 8Higher-
Co. risk0
Illinois Woodford Co. 2,694 38,254 7% Urban 28 10.4
Indiana Adams Co. 1,753 36,204 4.8% Rural 20 11.4
Indiana Allen Co. 36,934 392,119 9.4% Urban 330 8.9
Indiana Bartholomew 5,724 83,746 6.8% Urban 66 11.5
Co.
Indiana Benton Co. 787 8,676 9.1% Urban 7 8.9
Indiana Blackford 1,421 11,905 11.9% Rural 16 11.3
Co.
Indiana Boone Co. 2,097 74,403 2.8% Urban 49 23.4
Indiana Brown Co. 635 15,617 4.1% Urban 9 14.2
Indiana Carroll Co. 1,098 20,507 5.4% Urban 19 17.3
Indiana Cass Co. 4,021 37,670 10.7% Rural 38 9.5
Indiana Clark Co. 7,738 124,306 6.2% Urban 106 13.7
Indiana Clay Co. 2,403 26,378 9.1% Urban 28 11.7
Indiana Clinton Co. 2,787 32,794 8.5% Rural 34 12.2
Indiana Crawford Co. 880 10,520 8.4% Rural 12 13.6
Indiana Daviess Co. 2,238 33,613 6.7% Rural 32 14.3
Indiana Dearborn Co. 2,919 50,976 5.7% Urban 33 11.3
Indiana Decatur Co. 1,936 26,458 7.3% Rural 29 15.0
Indiana DeKalb Co. 2,483 43,804 5.7% Rural 33 13.3
Indiana Delaware Co. 13,890 112,183 12.4% Urban 118 8.5
Indiana Dubois Co. 1,426 43,550 3.3% Rural 47 33.0
Indiana Elkhart Co. 13,610 207,161 6.6% Urban 159 11.7
Indiana Fayette Co. 3,769 23,342 16.1% Rural 22 5.8
Indiana Floyd Co. 5,668 80,662 7% Urban 48 8.5
Indiana Fountain Co. 1,191 16,601 7.2% Rural 20 16.8
Indiana Franklin Co. 1,256 23,107 5.4% Urban 21 16.7
Indiana Fulton Co. 1,647 20,353 8.1% Rural 21 12.8
Indiana Gibson Co. 2,185 33,004 6.6% Rural 42 19.2
Indiana Grant Co. 9,519 66,020 14.4% Rural 86 9.0
Indiana Greene Co. 2,939 31,076 9.5% Rural 29 9.9
Indiana Hamilton Co. 7,848 366,264 2.1% Urban 153 19.5
Indiana Hancock Co. 3,312 83,119 4% Urban 54 16.3
Indiana Harrison Co. 2,361 39,823 5.9% Urban 31 13.1
Indiana Hendricks 5,876 183,507 3.2% Urban 84 14.3
Co.
Indiana Henry Co. 4,658 48,829 9.5% Rural 54 11.6
Indiana Howard Co. 10,824 83,574 13% Urban 93 8.6
Indiana Huntington 2,591 36,799 7% Rural 30 11.6
Co.
Indiana Jackson Co. 3,495 46,385 7.5% Rural 42 12.0
Indiana Jasper Co. 2,475 33,280 7.4% Urban 50 20.2
Indiana Jay Co. 1,674 20,137 8.3% Rural 18 10.8
Indiana Jefferson 2,371 32,902 7.2% Rural 30 12.7
Co.
Indiana Jennings Co. 2,022 27,468 7.4% Rural 19 9.4
Indiana Johnson Co. 9,200 165,951 5.5% Urban 92 10.0
Indiana Knox Co. 4,181 35,895 11.6% Rural 36 8.6
Indiana Kosciusko 4,109 80,676 5.1% Rural 67 16.3
Co.
Indiana Lagrange Co. 1,362 40,865 3.3% Rural 16 11.7
Indiana Lake Co. 61,476 500,065 12.3% Urban 455 7.4
Indiana LaPorte Co. 12,665 111,810 11.3% Urban 109 8.6
Indiana Lawrence Co. 3,349 45,213 7.4% Rural 36 10.7
Indiana Madison Co. 16,338 131,524 12.4% Urban 135 8.3
Indiana Marion Co. 138,645 973,375 14.2% Urban 906 6.5
Indiana Marshall Co. 2,511 46,394 5.4% Rural 47 18.7
Indiana Martin Co. 831 9,808 8.5% Rural 10 12.0
Indiana Miami Co. 3,866 35,562 10.9% Rural 37 9.6
Indiana Monroe Co. 7,650 141,181 5.4% Urban 80 10.5
Indiana Montgomery 2,914 38,345 7.6% Rural 43 14.8
Co.
Indiana Morgan Co. 4,756 72,239 6.6% Urban 49 10.3
Indiana Newton Co. 1,206 13,841 8.7% Urban 17 14.1
Indiana Noble Co. 2,145 47,281 4.5% Rural 42 19.6
Indiana Ohio Co. 314 6,089 5.2% Urban 5 15.9
Indiana Orange Co. 1,696 19,633 8.6% Rural 19 11.2
Indiana Owen Co. 2,008 21,552 9.3% Urban 19 9.5
Indiana Parke Co. 1,577 16,365 9.6% Rural 15 9.5
Indiana Perry Co. 1,508 19,241 7.8% Rural 14 9.3
Indiana Pike Co. 968 12,139 8% Rural 13 13.4
Indiana Porter Co. 9,001 175,014 5.1% Urban 108 12.0
Indiana Posey Co. 1,759 25,111 7% Urban 20 11.4
Indiana Pulaski Co. 993 12,461 8% Rural 18 18.1
Indiana Putnam Co. 2,462 37,300 6.6% Rural 30 12.2
Indiana Randolph Co. 2,526 24,407 10.3% Rural 27 10.7
Indiana Ripley Co. 1,793 29,042 6.2% Rural 27 15.1
Indiana Rush Co. 1,385 16,661 8.3% Rural 17 12.3
Indiana St. Joseph 27,958 272,796 10.2% Urban 231 8.3
Co.
Indiana Scott Co. 2,651 24,455 10.8% Rural 27 10.2
Indiana Shelby Co. 3,158 45,213 7% Urban 37 11.7
Indiana Spencer Co. 1,222 19,890 6.1% Rural 17 13.9
Indiana Starke Co. 2,599 23,251 11.2% Rural 23 8.8
Indiana Steuben Co. 1,779 34,731 5.1% Rural 30 16.9
Indiana Sullivan Co. 1,914 20,702 9.2% Urban 25 13.1
Indiana Switzerland 1,022 9,985 10.2% Rural 11 10.8
Co.
Indiana Tippecanoe 13,580 189,402 7.2% Urban 128 9.4
Co.
Indiana Tipton Co. 800 15,329 5.2% Urban 15 18.8
Indiana Union Co. 605 6,975 8.7% Rural 6 9.9
Indiana Vanderburgh 18,447 179,725 10.3% Urban 178 9.6
Co.
Indiana Vermillion 1,653 15,397 10.7% Urban 18 10.9
Co.
Indiana Vigo Co. 13,765 106,066 13% Urban 113 8.2
Indiana Wabash Co. 2,039 30,869 6.6% Rural 31 15.2
Indiana Warren Co. 445 8,492 5.2% Urban 4 9.0
Indiana Warrick Co. 2,291 65,297 3.5% Urban 41 17.9
Indiana Washington 2,093 28,158 7.4% Urban 25 11.9
Co.
Indiana Wayne Co. 8,636 66,337 13% Rural 64 7.4
Indiana Wells Co. 1,454 28,339 5.1% Urban 15 10.3
Indiana White Co. 1,677 24,654 6.8% Rural 37 22.1
Indiana Whitley Co. 1,157 34,600 3.3% Urban 21 18.2
Iowa Adair Co. 466 7,457 6.2% Rural 9 19.3
Iowa Adams Co. 301 3,602 8.4% Rural 4 13.3
Iowa Allamakee 945 14,072 6.7% Rural 17 18.0
Co.
Iowa Appanoose 1,377 12,135 11.3% Rural 17 12.3
Co.
Iowa Audubon Co. 417 5,573 7.5% Rural 6 14.4
Iowa Benton Co. 1,550 25,756 6% Urban 26 16.8
Iowa Black Hawk 14,372 130,081 11% Urban 151 10.5
Co.
Iowa Boone Co. 1,493 26,570 5.6% Urban 20 13.4
Iowa Bremer Co. 983 25,260 3.9% Urban 24 24.4
Iowa Buchanan Co. 1,188 20,700 5.7% Rural 20 16.8
Iowa Buena Vista 1,600 20,651 7.7% Rural 27 16.9
Co.
Iowa Butler Co. 822 14,275 5.8% Rural 18 21.9
Iowa Calhoun Co. 684 9,725 7% Rural 17 24.9
Iowa Carroll Co. 1,266 20,565 6.2% Rural 21 16.6
Iowa Cass Co. 1,280 13,125 9.8% Rural 15 11.7
Iowa Cedar Co. 775 18,331 4.2% Rural 19 24.5
Iowa Cerro Gordo 3,788 42,408 8.9% Rural 48 12.7
Co.
Iowa Cherokee Co. 640 11,492 5.6% Rural 9 14.1
Iowa Chickasaw 522 11,755 4.4% Rural 13 24.9
Co.
Iowa Clarke Co. 838 9,676 8.7% Rural 14 16.7
Iowa Clay Co. 1,220 16,506 7.4% Rural 16 13.1
Iowa Clayton Co. 890 17,058 5.2% Rural 22 24.7
Iowa Clinton Co. 5,556 46,268 12% Rural 46 8.3
Iowa Crawford Co. 1,184 16,135 7.3% Rural 14 11.8
Iowa Dallas Co. 2,899 108,164 2.7% Urban 64 22.1
Iowa Davis Co. 491 9,158 5.4% Rural 8 16.3
Iowa Decatur Co. 771 7,822 9.9% Rural 9 11.7
Iowa Delaware Co. 821 17,590 4.7% Rural 13 15.8
Iowa Des Moines 5,518 38,258 14.4% Rural 43 7.8
Co.
Iowa Dickinson 917 18,052 5.1% Rural 20 21.8
Co.
Iowa Dubuque Co. 7,531 98,748 7.6% Urban 85 11.3
Iowa Emmet Co. 702 9,197 7.6% Rural 11 15.7
Iowa Fayette Co. 1,966 19,292 10.2% Rural 17 8.6
Iowa Floyd Co. 1,461 15,316 9.5% Rural 16 11.0
Iowa Franklin Co. 729 9,918 7.4% Rural 13 17.8
Iowa Fremont Co. 653 6,465 10.1% Rural 8 12.3
Iowa Greene Co. 854 8,707 9.8% Rural 11 12.9
Iowa Grundy Co. 512 12,379 4.1% Urban 12 23.4
Iowa Guthrie Co. 742 10,687 6.9% Urban 15 20.2
Iowa Hamilton Co. 864 14,848 5.8% Rural 21 24.3
Iowa Hancock Co. 574 10,664 5.4% Rural 10 17.4
Iowa Hardin Co. 1,365 16,677 8.2% Rural 24 17.6
Iowa Harrison Co. 1,089 14,635 7.4% Urban 15 13.8
Iowa Henry Co. 1,906 20,253 9.4% Rural 19 10.0
Iowa Howard Co. 511 9,502 5.4% Rural 13 25.4
Iowa Humboldt Co. 600 9,545 6.3% Rural 10 16.7
Iowa Ida Co. 495 6,900 7.2% Rural 13 26.3
Iowa Iowa Co. 721 16,491 4.4% Rural 16 22.2
Iowa Jackson Co. 1,530 19,350 7.9% Rural 21 13.7
Iowa Jasper Co. 2,906 37,966 7.7% Urban 34 11.7
Iowa Jefferson 1,533 15,632 9.8% Rural 16 10.4
Co.
Iowa Johnson Co. 9,366 156,815 6% Urban 107 11.4
Iowa Jones Co. 1,274 20,960 6.1% Urban 19 14.9
Iowa Keokuk Co. 930 9,895 9.4% Rural 10 10.8
Iowa Kossuth Co. 875 14,462 6.1% Rural 16 18.3
Iowa Lee Co. 4,345 32,793 13.2% Rural 34 7.8
Iowa Linn Co. 20,355 228,947 8.9% Urban 187 9.2
Iowa Louisa Co. 730 10,657 6.8% Rural 16 21.9
Iowa Lucas Co. 821 8,720 9.4% Rural 9 11.0
Iowa Lyon Co. 453 12,185 3.7% Rural 10 22.1
Iowa Madison Co. 666 17,050 3.9% Urban 14 21.0
Iowa Mahaska Co. 1,939 21,959 8.8% Rural 20 10.3
Iowa Marion Co. 1,772 33,582 5.3% Rural 32 18.1
Iowa Marshall Co. 3,775 39,940 9.5% Rural 47 12.5
Iowa Mills Co. 923 14,572 6.3% Urban 11 11.9
Iowa Mitchell Co. 487 10,557 4.6% Rural 12 24.6
Iowa Monona Co. 790 8,515 9.3% Rural 11 13.9
Iowa Monroe Co. 596 7,524 7.9% Rural 9 15.1
Iowa Montgomery 1,151 10,210 11.3% Rural 11 9.6
Co.
Iowa Muscatine 4,405 42,501 10.4% Rural 42 9.5
Co.
Iowa O'Brien Co. 694 14,107 4.9% Rural 19 27.4
Iowa Osceola Co. 355 6,073 5.8% Rural 7 19.7
Iowa Page Co. 1,338 15,169 8.8% Rural 15 11.2
Iowa Palo Alto 513 8,772 5.8% Rural 9 17.5
Co.
Iowa Plymouth Co. 1,049 25,714 4.1% Rural 20 19.1
Iowa Pocahontas 542 7,090 7.6% Rural 8 14.8
Co.
Iowa Polk Co. 50,523 501,261 10.1% Urban 449 8.9
Iowa Pottawattami 10,860 93,180 11.7% Urban 77 7.1
e Co.
Iowa Poweshiek 999 18,521 5.4% Rural 24 24.0
Co.
Iowa Ringgold Co. 427 4,692 9.1% Rural 5 11.7
Iowa Sac Co. 520 9,680 5.4% Rural 12 23.1
Iowa Scott Co. 20,481 173,985 11.8% Urban 172 8.4
Iowa Shelby Co. 811 11,745 6.9% Rural 12 14.8
Iowa Sioux Co. 974 36,231 2.7% Rural 28 28.7
Iowa Story Co. 3,847 99,995 3.8% Urban 66 17.2
Iowa Tama Co. 1,211 16,910 7.2% Rural 23 19.0
Iowa Taylor Co. 538 5,870 9.2% Rural 7 13.0
Iowa Union Co. 1,301 11,922 10.9% Rural 12 9.2
Iowa Van Buren 615 7,250 8.5% Rural 10 16.3
Co.
Iowa Wapello Co. 4,713 35,080 13.4% Rural 41 8.7
Iowa Warren Co. 2,022 54,325 3.7% Urban 44 21.8
Iowa Washington 1,398 22,541 6.2% Urban 26 18.6
Co.
Iowa Wayne Co. 522 6,472 8.1% Rural 7 13.4
Iowa Webster Co. 4,316 36,703 11.8% Rural 36 8.3
Iowa Winnebago 648 10,651 6.1% Rural 12 18.5
Co.
Iowa Winneshiek 697 19,915 3.5% Rural 16 23.0
Co.
Iowa Woodbury Co. 11,932 105,674 11.3% Urban 98 8.2
Iowa Worth Co. 493 7,316 6.7% Rural 6 12.2
Iowa Wright Co. 929 12,740 7.3% Rural 20 21.5
Kansas Allen Co. 1,402 12,479 11.2% Rural 18 12.8
Kansas Anderson Co. 460 7,787 5.9% Rural 8 17.4
Kansas Atchison Co. 1,334 16,091 8.3% Rural 9 6.7
Kansas Barber Co. 193 4,125 4.7% Rural 7 36.3
Kansas Barton Co. 2,147 25,055 8.6% Rural 25 11.6
Kansas Bourbon Co. 1,838 14,454 12.7% Rural 17 9.2
Kansas Brown Co. 799 9,371 8.5% Rural 11 13.8
Kansas Butler Co. 3,817 68,264 5.6% Urban 45 11.8
Kansas Chase Co. 128 2,559 5% Rural 2 15.6
Kansas Chautauqua 368 3,387 10.9% Rural 3 8.2
Co.
Kansas Cherokee Co. 2,053 19,043 10.8% Urban 20 9.7
Kansas Cheyenne Co. 97 2,613 3.7% Rural 3 30.9
Kansas Clark Co. 88 1,947 4.5% Rural 2 22.7
Kansas Clay Co. 372 8,048 4.6% Rural 9 24.2
Kansas Cloud Co. 639 8,937 7.2% Rural 11 17.2
Kansas Coffey Co. 598 8,261 7.2% Rural 9 15.1
Kansas Comanche Co. 63 1,695 3.7% Rural 4 63.5
Kansas Cowley Co. 3,972 34,457 11.5% Rural 30 7.6
Kansas Crawford Co. 4,028 39,180 10.3% Rural 40 9.9
Kansas Decatur Co. 156 2,681 5.8% Rural 3 19.2
Kansas Dickinson 1,066 18,344 5.8% Rural 22 20.6
Co.
Kansas Doniphan Co. 431 7,488 5.8% Urban 7 16.2
Kansas Douglas Co. 4,640 120,053 3.9% Urban 64 13.8
Kansas Edwards Co. 207 2,747 7.5% Rural 3 14.5
Kansas Elk Co. 214 2,448 8.7% Rural 3 14.0
Kansas Ellis Co. 1,111 28,868 3.8% Rural 20 18.0
Kansas Ellsworth 280 6,398 4.4% Rural 5 17.9
Co.
Kansas Finney Co. 2,550 37,665 6.8% Rural 39 15.3
Kansas Ford Co. 1,885 33,842 5.6% Rural 24 12.7
Kansas Franklin Co. 1,656 25,994 6.4% Rural 25 15.1
Kansas Geary Co. 2,639 35,525 7.4% Urban 20 7.6
Kansas Gove Co. 68 2,741 2.5% Rural 4 58.8
Kansas Graham Co. 118 2,395 4.9% Rural 3 25.4
Kansas Grant Co. 419 7,230 5.8% Rural 7 16.7
Kansas Gray Co. 123 5,707 2.2% Rural 5 40.7
Kansas Greeley Co. 45 1,230 3.7% Rural 1 22.2
Kansas Greenwood 570 5,917 9.6% Rural 11 19.3
Co.
Kansas Hamilton Co. 111 2,445 4.5% Rural 4 36.0
Kansas Harper Co. 407 5,374 7.6% Rural 9 22.1
Kansas Harvey Co. 2,132 33,710 6.3% Urban 25 11.7
Kansas Haskell Co. 149 3,573 4.2% Rural 5 33.6
Kansas Hodgeman Co. 68 1,707 4% Rural 4 58.8
Kansas Jackson Co. 607 13,285 4.6% Urban 9 14.8
Kansas Jefferson 664 18,344 3.6% Urban 17 25.6
Co.
Kansas Jewell Co. 157 2,906 5.4% Rural 2 12.7
Kansas Johnson Co. 11,650 619,311 1.9% Urban 273 23.4
Kansas Kearny Co. 131 3,854 3.4% Rural 9 68.7
Kansas Kingman Co. 379 7,184 5.3% Rural 5 13.2
Kansas Kiowa Co. 125 2,410 5.2% Rural 3 24.0
Kansas Labette Co. 2,269 19,750 11.5% Rural 23 10.1
Kansas Lane Co. 71 1,552 4.6% Rural 3 42.3
Kansas Leavenworth 3,617 82,852 4.4% Urban 40 11.1
Co.
Kansas Lincoln Co. 144 2,909 5% Rural 2 13.9
Kansas Linn Co. 814 9,771 8.3% Urban 10 12.3
Kansas Logan Co. 119 2,706 4.4% Rural 2 16.8
Kansas Lyon Co. 2,132 31,994 6.7% Rural 29 13.6
Kansas McPherson 1,153 30,106 3.8% Rural 28 24.3
Co.
Kansas Marion Co. 528 11,800 4.5% Rural 10 18.9
Kansas Marshall Co. 458 10,007 4.6% Rural 10 21.8
Kansas Meade Co. 199 3,905 5.1% Rural 8 40.2
Kansas Miami Co. 1,503 34,759 4.3% Urban 22 14.6
Kansas Mitchell Co. 268 5,774 4.6% Rural 7 26.1
Kansas Montgomery 3,696 30,905 12% Rural 34 9.2
Co.
Kansas Morris Co. 291 5,376 5.4% Rural 3 10.3
Kansas Morton Co. 128 2,600 4.9% Rural 3 23.4
Kansas Nemaha Co. 350 10,151 3.4% Rural 8 22.9
Kansas Neosho Co. 1,573 15,583 10.1% Rural 17 10.8
Kansas Ness Co. 81 2,671 3% Rural 5 61.7
Kansas Norton Co. 271 5,322 5.1% Rural 6 22.1
Kansas Osage Co. 1,008 15,690 6.4% Urban 17 16.9
Kansas Osborne Co. 213 3,488 6.1% Rural 5 23.5
Kansas Ottawa Co. 239 5,833 4.1% Rural 3 12.6
Kansas Pawnee Co. 410 6,153 6.7% Rural 4 9.8
Kansas Phillips Co. 198 4,792 4.1% Rural 6 30.3
Kansas Pottawatomie 834 26,331 3.2% Urban 12 14.4
Co.
Kansas Pratt Co. 361 9,080 4% Rural 8 22.2
Kansas Rawlins Co. 100 2,531 4% Rural 4 40.0
Kansas Reno Co. 4,790 61,514 7.8% Rural 43 9.0
Kansas Republic Co. 176 4,638 3.8% Rural 5 28.4
Kansas Rice Co. 649 9,387 6.9% Rural 9 13.9
Kansas Riley Co. 2,751 71,618 3.8% Urban 32 11.6
Kansas Rooks Co. 207 4,798 4.3% Rural 6 29.0
Kansas Rush Co. 182 2,949 6.2% Rural 4 22.0
Kansas Russell Co. 487 6,726 7.2% Rural 5 10.3
Kansas Saline Co. 4,163 53,461 7.8% Rural 47 11.3
Kansas Scott Co. 160 5,010 3.2% Rural 5 31.3
Kansas Sedgwick Co. 51,093 525,488 9.7% Urban 367 7.2
Kansas Seward Co. 1,294 21,326 6.1% Rural 24 18.5
Kansas Shawnee Co. 16,877 177,454 9.5% Urban 126 7.5
Kansas Sheridan Co. 100 2,428 4.1% Rural 2 20.0
Kansas Sherman Co. 381 5,857 6.5% Rural 5 13.1
Kansas Smith Co. 160 3,553 4.5% Rural 6 37.5
Kansas Stafford Co. 252 3,979 6.3% Rural 4 15.9
Kansas Stanton Co. 51 1,977 2.6% Rural 2 39.2
Kansas Stevens Co. 191 5,151 3.7% Rural 6 31.4
Kansas Sumner Co. 1,791 22,384 8% Urban 20 11.2
Kansas Thomas Co. 229 7,882 2.9% Rural 9 39.3
Kansas Trego Co. 85 2,757 3.1% Rural 6 70.6
Kansas Wabaunsee 254 7,002 3.6% Urban 5 19.7
Co.
Kansas Wallace Co. 73 1,491 4.9% Rural 2 27.4
Kansas Washington 183 5,495 3.3% Rural 7 38.3
Co.
Kansas Wichita Co. 86 2,061 4.2% Rural 3 34.9
Kansas Wilson Co. 846 8,577 9.9% Rural 11 13.0
Kansas Woodson Co. 208 3,122 6.7% Rural 6 28.8
Kansas Wyandotte 18,267 165,719 11% Urban 139 7.6
Co.
Kentucky Adair Co. 3,405 19,089 17.8% Rural 25 7.3
Kentucky Allen Co. 2,567 21,246 12.1% Urban 17 6.6
Kentucky Anderson Co. 1,582 24,279 6.5% Rural 18 11.4
Kentucky Ballard Co. 791 7,633 10.4% Urban 12 15.2
Kentucky Barren Co. 6,325 44,851 14.1% Rural 60 9.5
Kentucky Bath Co. 2,332 12,818 18.2% Rural 15 6.4
Kentucky Bell Co. 7,559 23,514 32.1% Rural 36 4.8 8Higher-
risk0
Kentucky Boone Co. 6,454 139,377 4.6% Urban 91 14.1
Kentucky Bourbon Co. 2,743 20,144 13.6% Urban 22 8.0
Kentucky Boyd Co. 6,871 48,048 14.3% Urban 52 7.6
Kentucky Boyle Co. 3,293 30,854 10.7% Rural 34 10.3
Kentucky Bracken Co. 1,096 8,436 13% Urban 8 7.3
Kentucky Breathitt 3,927 13,353 29.4% Rural 21 5.3 8Higher-
Co. risk0
Kentucky Breckinridge 2,730 20,942 13% Rural 27 9.9
Co.
Kentucky Bullitt Co. 5,643 83,901 6.7% Urban 63 11.2
Kentucky Butler Co. 1,885 12,371 15.2% Urban 14 7.4
Kentucky Caldwell Co. 1,633 12,601 13% Rural 15 9.2
Kentucky Calloway Co. 3,026 38,119 7.9% Rural 28 9.3
Kentucky Campbell Co. 5,543 93,305 5.9% Urban 66 11.9
Kentucky Carlisle Co. 582 4,723 12.3% Urban 6 10.3
Kentucky Carroll Co. 1,559 10,935 14.3% Rural 19 12.2
Kentucky Carter Co. 4,661 26,300 17.7% Urban 43 9.2
Kentucky Casey Co. 2,833 15,893 17.8% Rural 26 9.2
Kentucky Christian 9,038 72,213 12.5% Urban 70 7.7
Co.
Kentucky Clark Co. 4,495 37,012 12.1% Urban 33 7.3
Kentucky Clay Co. 6,229 19,884 31.3% Rural 33 5.3 8Higher-
risk0
Kentucky Clinton Co. 2,338 9,140 25.6% Rural 12 5.1 8Higher-
risk0
Kentucky Crittenden 896 8,971 10% Rural 9 10.0
Co.
Kentucky Cumberland 1,431 5,950 24.1% Rural 14 9.8
Co.
Kentucky Daviess Co. 10,413 103,373 10.1% Urban 94 9.0
Kentucky Edmonson Co. 1,439 12,300 11.7% Urban 11 7.6
Kentucky Elliott Co. 1,438 7,301 19.7% Rural 8 5.6
Kentucky Estill Co. 2,857 13,994 20.4% Rural 17 6.0
Kentucky Fayette Co. 27,416 321,505 8.5% Urban 253 9.2
Kentucky Fleming Co. 2,169 15,257 14.2% Rural 22 10.1
Kentucky Floyd Co. 9,101 35,519 25.6% Rural 63 6.9 8Higher-
risk0
Kentucky Franklin Co. 5,017 51,617 9.7% Rural 51 10.2
Kentucky Fulton Co. 1,331 6,389 20.8% Rural 10 7.5
Kentucky Gallatin Co. 738 8,786 8.4% Urban 9 12.2
Kentucky Garrard Co. 2,026 17,580 11.5% Rural 15 7.4
Kentucky Grant Co. 2,972 25,466 11.7% Urban 28 9.4
Kentucky Graves Co. 4,557 36,532 12.5% Rural 46 10.1
Kentucky Grayson Co. 3,773 26,623 14.2% Rural 36 9.5
Kentucky Green Co. 1,610 11,379 14.1% Rural 13 8.1
Kentucky Greenup Co. 4,155 35,384 11.7% Urban 41 9.9
Kentucky Hancock Co. 865 9,043 9.6% Rural 6 6.9
Kentucky Hardin Co. 9,780 111,776 8.7% Urban 102 10.4
Kentucky Harlan Co. 8,031 25,610 31.4% Rural 42 5.2 8Higher-
risk0
Kentucky Harrison Co. 2,191 19,085 11.5% Rural 24 11.0
Kentucky Hart Co. 2,867 19,592 14.6% Rural 29 10.1
Kentucky Henderson 5,122 44,017 11.6% Rural 45 8.8
Co.
Kentucky Henry Co. 1,453 15,730 9.2% Urban 22 15.1
Kentucky Hickman Co. 652 4,422 14.7% Rural 6 9.2
Kentucky Hopkins Co. 6,257 44,879 13.9% Rural 52 8.3
Kentucky Jackson Co. 3,431 12,989 26.4% Rural 19 5.5 8Higher-
risk0
Kentucky Jefferson 84,878 777,329 10.9% Urban 635 7.5
Co.
Kentucky Jessamine 5,376 54,333 9.9% Urban 43 8.0
Co.
Kentucky Johnson Co. 4,793 22,234 21.6% Rural 34 7.1
Kentucky Kenton Co. 12,980 170,413 7.6% Urban 120 9.2
Kentucky Knott Co. 3,846 13,848 27.8% Rural 20 5.2 8Higher-
risk0
Kentucky Knox Co. 9,441 29,734 31.8% Rural 43 4.6 8Higher-
risk0
Kentucky Larue Co. 1,740 15,165 11.5% Urban 17 9.8
Kentucky Laurel Co. 11,592 62,891 18.4% Rural 93 8.0
Kentucky Lawrence Co. 3,492 16,037 21.8% Urban 24 6.9
Kentucky Lee Co. 1,888 7,259 26% Rural 14 7.4 8Higher-
risk0
Kentucky Leslie Co. 2,603 10,044 25.9% Rural 13 5.0 8Higher-
risk0
Kentucky Letcher Co. 5,032 20,792 24.2% Rural 31 6.2 8Higher-
risk0
Kentucky Lewis Co. 2,643 12,924 20.5% Rural 16 6.1
Kentucky Lincoln Co. 3,824 24,392 15.7% Rural 38 9.9
Kentucky Livingston 950 8,960 10.6% Urban 16 16.8
Co.
Kentucky Logan Co. 3,359 27,855 12.1% Rural 31 9.2
Kentucky Lyon Co. 506 9,119 5.5% Rural 7 13.8
Kentucky McCracken 7,877 67,333 11.7% Urban 71 9.0
Co.
Kentucky McCreary Co. 4,481 16,788 26.7% Rural 27 6.0 8Higher-
risk0
Kentucky McLean Co. 891 9,112 9.8% Urban 12 13.5
Kentucky Madison Co. 9,764 95,219 10.3% Rural 89 9.1
Kentucky Magoffin Co. 3,459 11,325 30.5% Rural 17 4.9 8Higher-
risk0
Kentucky Marion Co. 2,693 19,731 13.6% Rural 22 8.2
Kentucky Marshall Co. 2,800 31,766 8.8% Rural 34 12.1
Kentucky Martin Co. 2,650 11,095 23.9% Rural 28 10.6
Kentucky Mason Co. 2,870 16,880 17% Rural 23 8.0
Kentucky Meade Co. 2,453 30,028 8.2% Urban 24 9.8
Kentucky Menifee Co. 1,362 6,215 21.9% Rural 13 9.5
Kentucky Mercer Co. 2,182 22,927 9.5% Rural 20 9.2
Kentucky Metcalfe Co. 1,996 10,401 19.2% Rural 11 5.5
Kentucky Monroe Co. 1,903 11,328 16.8% Rural 14 7.4
Kentucky Montgomery 4,022 28,348 14.2% Rural 44 10.9
Co.
Kentucky Morgan Co. 2,336 14,156 16.5% Rural 23 9.8
Kentucky Muhlenberg 4,410 30,684 14.4% Rural 35 7.9
Co.
Kentucky Nelson Co. 3,600 47,429 7.6% Urban 46 12.8
Kentucky Nicholas Co. 1,154 7,776 14.8% Rural 11 9.5
Kentucky Ohio Co. 3,151 23,549 13.4% Rural 29 9.2
Kentucky Oldham Co. 1,428 69,506 2.1% Urban 26 18.2
Kentucky Owen Co. 1,287 11,292 11.4% Rural 15 11.7
Kentucky Owsley Co. 1,555 3,941 39.5% Rural 10 6.4 8Higher-
risk0
Kentucky Pendleton 1,579 14,688 10.8% Urban 14 8.9
Co.
Kentucky Perry Co. 7,028 27,378 25.7% Rural 43 6.1 8Higher-
risk0
Kentucky Pike Co. 11,736 56,328 20.8% Rural 82 7.0
Kentucky Powell Co. 2,618 13,067 20% Rural 20 7.6
Kentucky Pulaski Co. 10,820 65,776 16.4% Rural 94 8.7
Kentucky Robertson 342 2,254 15.2% Rural 2 5.8
Co.
Kentucky Rockcastle 3,391 16,213 20.9% Rural 23 6.8
Co.
Kentucky Rowan Co. 3,677 24,428 15.1% Rural 38 10.3
Kentucky Russell Co. 3,334 18,177 18.3% Rural 30 9.0
Kentucky Scott Co. 4,150 59,413 7% Urban 33 8.0
Kentucky Shelby Co. 2,763 48,884 5.7% Urban 36 13.0
Kentucky Simpson Co. 2,047 19,926 10.3% Rural 21 10.3
Kentucky Spencer Co. 973 20,204 4.8% Urban 12 12.3
Kentucky Taylor Co. 3,958 26,421 15% Rural 36 9.1
Kentucky Todd Co. 1,421 12,431 11.4% Rural 12 8.4
Kentucky Trigg Co. 1,272 14,338 8.9% Urban 18 14.2
Kentucky Trimble Co. 682 8,525 8% Rural 8 11.7
Kentucky Union Co. 1,559 13,107 11.9% Rural 20 12.8
Kentucky Warren Co. 15,792 140,503 11.2% Urban 132 8.4
Kentucky Washington 2,100 12,062 17.4% Rural 14 6.7
Co.
Kentucky Wayne Co. 4,800 19,663 24.4% Rural 27 5.6 8Higher-
risk0
Kentucky Webster Co. 1,518 12,724 11.9% Rural 20 13.2
Kentucky Whitley Co. 8,447 36,950 22.9% Rural 55 6.5 8Higher-
risk0
Kentucky Wolfe Co. 1,976 6,415 30.8% Rural 14 7.1 8Higher-
risk0
Kentucky Woodford Co. 1,728 27,150 6.4% Urban 22 12.7
Louisiana Acadia 14,763 56,812 26% Urban 73 4.9 8Higher-
Parish risk0
Louisiana Allen Parish 4,415 22,297 19.8% Rural 24 5.4
Louisiana Ascension 14,200 130,505 10.9% Urban 110 7.7
Parish
Louisiana Assumption 4,192 20,482 20.5% Urban 18 4.3
Parish
Louisiana Avoyelles 11,021 38,733 28.5% Rural 58 5.3 8Higher-
Parish risk0
Louisiana Beauregard 5,723 36,587 15.6% Rural 33 5.8
Parish
Louisiana Bienville 3,479 12,627 27.6% Rural 20 5.7 8Higher-
Parish risk0
Louisiana Bossier 17,633 129,324 13.6% Urban 101 5.7
Parish
Louisiana Caddo Parish 55,989 229,109 24.4% Urban 219 3.9 8Higher-
risk0
Louisiana Calcasieu 31,316 202,664 15.5% Urban 232 7.4
Parish
Louisiana Caldwell 2,268 9,508 23.9% Rural 11 4.9 8Higher-
Parish risk0
Louisiana Cameron 570 4,907 11.6% Urban 10 17.5
Parish
Louisiana Catahoula 2,449 8,625 28.4% Rural 11 4.5 8Higher-
Parish risk0
Louisiana Claiborne 3,619 13,825 26.2% Rural 16 4.4 8Higher-
Parish risk0
Louisiana Concordia 5,698 18,138 31.4% Rural 25 4.4 8Higher-
Parish risk0
Louisiana DeSoto 5,757 26,883 21.4% Urban 23 4.0
Parish
Louisiana East Baton 84,434 451,122 18.7% Urban 409 4.8
Rouge
Parish
Louisiana East Carroll 2,318 6,966 33.3% Rural 7 3.0 8Higher-
Parish risk0
Louisiana East 3,005 19,180 15.7% Urban 15 5.0
Feliciana
Parish
Louisiana Evangeline 9,270 32,084 28.9% Rural 46 5.0 8Higher-
Parish risk0
Louisiana Franklin 5,908 19,341 30.5% Rural 32 5.4 8Higher-
Parish risk0
Louisiana Grant Parish 3,980 22,022 18.1% Urban 17 4.3
Louisiana Iberia 18,699 68,344 27.4% Rural 83 4.4 8Higher-
Parish risk0
Louisiana Iberville 7,496 29,696 25.2% Urban 26 3.5 8Higher-
Parish risk0
Louisiana Jackson 3,042 14,859 20.5% Rural 15 4.9
Parish
Louisiana Jefferson 66,812 427,739 15.6% Urban 335 5.0
Parish
Louisiana Jefferson 6,137 31,971 19.2% Urban 30 4.9
Davis
Parish
Louisiana Lafayette 40,937 248,145 16.5% Urban 251 6.1
Parish
Louisiana Lafourche 15,417 95,717 16.1% Urban 59 3.8
Parish
Louisiana LaSalle 2,408 14,799 16.3% Rural 16 6.6
Parish
Louisiana Lincoln 7,822 48,056 16.3% Rural 46 5.9
Parish
Louisiana Livingston 20,068 148,131 13.5% Urban 125 6.2
Parish
Louisiana Madison 3,612 9,492 38.1% Rural 12 3.3 8Higher-
Parish risk0
Louisiana Morehouse 7,677 24,435 31.4% Urban 30 3.9 8Higher-
Parish risk0
Louisiana Natchitoches 8,793 36,711 24% Rural 33 3.8 8Higher-
Parish risk0
Louisiana Orleans 82,225 370,473 22.2% Urban 274 3.3
Parish
Louisiana Ouachita 37,296 157,812 23.6% Urban 168 4.5 8Higher-
Parish risk0
Louisiana Plaquemines 2,924 22,603 12.9% Urban 19 6.5
Parish
Louisiana Pointe 4,178 20,221 20.7% Urban 24 5.7
Coupee
Parish
Louisiana Rapides 28,060 126,977 22.1% Urban 124 4.4
Parish
Louisiana Red River 2,335 7,487 31.2% Rural 8 3.4 8Higher-
Parish risk0
Louisiana Richland 5,254 19,828 26.5% Urban 28 5.3 8Higher-
Parish risk0
Louisiana Sabine 5,098 21,984 23.2% Rural 21 4.1 8Higher-
Parish risk0
Louisiana St. Bernard 9,934 44,474 22.3% Urban 57 5.7
Parish
Louisiana St. Charles 6,116 51,038 12% Urban 46 7.5
Parish
Louisiana St. Helena 3,493 10,814 32.3% Urban 18 5.2 8Higher-
Parish risk0
Louisiana St. James 3,771 19,397 19.4% Urban 16 4.2
Parish
Louisiana St. John the 8,849 39,938 22.2% Urban 47 5.3
Baptist
Parish
Louisiana St. Landry 24,798 81,642 30.4% Rural 107 4.3 8Higher-
Parish risk0
Louisiana St. Martin 11,891 51,260 23.2% Urban 59 5.0 8Higher-
Parish risk0
Louisiana St. Mary 12,773 47,816 26.7% Rural 54 4.2 8Higher-
Parish risk0
Louisiana St. Tammany 26,907 273,494 9.8% Urban 198 7.4
Parish
Louisiana Tangipahoa 29,831 136,734 21.8% Urban 163 5.5
Parish
Louisiana Tensas 1,241 3,848 32.3% Rural 10 8.1 8Higher-
Parish risk0
Louisiana Terrebonne 21,508 104,642 20.6% Urban 109 5.1
Parish
Louisiana Union Parish 4,416 20,691 21.3% Urban 21 4.8
Louisiana Vermilion 12,388 56,958 21.7% Urban 58 4.7
Parish
Louisiana Vernon 7,009 46,861 15% Rural 34 4.9
Parish
Louisiana Washington 12,648 45,002 28.1% Rural 63 5.0 8Higher-
Parish risk0
Louisiana Webster 8,367 35,635 23.5% Rural 53 6.3 8Higher-
Parish risk0
Louisiana West Baton 4,541 28,045 16.2% Urban 31 6.8
Rouge
Parish
Louisiana West Carroll 2,429 9,482 25.6% Rural 17 7.0 8Higher-
Parish risk0
Louisiana West 1,428 15,390 9.3% Urban 7 4.9
Feliciana
Parish
Louisiana Winn Parish 2,877 13,305 21.6% Rural 11 3.8
Maine Androscoggin 19,019 113,454 16.8% Urban 137 7.2
Co.
Maine Aroostook 12,981 67,250 19.3% Rural 88 6.8
Co.
Maine Cumberland 23,730 309,309 7.7% Urban 251 10.6
Co.
Maine Franklin Co. 4,382 30,604 14.3% Rural 40 9.1
Maine Hancock Co. 5,128 56,677 9% Rural 59 11.5
Maine Kennebec Co. 17,061 127,143 13.4% Rural 127 7.4
Maine Knox Co. 3,852 41,251 9.3% Rural 52 13.5
Maine Lincoln Co. 3,319 36,263 9.2% Rural 40 12.1
Maine Oxford Co. 10,006 59,539 16.8% Rural 60 6.0
Maine Penobscot 22,312 154,817 14.4% Urban 167 7.5
Co.
Maine Piscataquis 3,059 17,383 17.6% Rural 26 8.5
Co.
Maine Sagadahoc 2,971 37,402 7.9% Urban 36 12.1
Co.
Maine Somerset Co. 10,017 51,027 19.6% Rural 62 6.2
Maine Waldo Co. 5,689 40,212 14.1% Rural 50 8.8
Maine Washington 6,394 31,507 20.3% Rural 56 8.8
Co.
Maine York Co. 17,286 217,084 8% Urban 154 8.9
Maryland Allegany Co. 15,523 67,241 23.1% Rural 60 3.9 8Higher-
risk0
Maryland Anne Arundel 46,479 598,751 7.8% Urban 318 6.8
Co.
Maryland Baltimore 92,340 848,873 10.9% Urban 521 5.6
Co.
Maryland Calvert Co. 7,348 94,652 7.8% Urban 50 6.8
Maryland Caroline Co. 6,262 33,539 18.7% Rural 35 5.6
Maryland Carroll Co. 9,482 175,569 5.4% Urban 90 9.5
Maryland Cecil Co. 13,732 104,939 13.1% Urban 81 5.9
Maryland Charles Co. 15,466 170,376 9.1% Urban 99 6.4
Maryland Dorchester 8,078 32,599 24.8% Rural 40 5.0 8Higher-
Co. risk0
Maryland Frederick 18,013 288,316 6.2% Urban 149 8.3
Co.
Maryland Garrett Co. 4,195 28,619 14.7% Rural 43 10.3
Maryland Harford Co. 23,317 263,908 8.8% Urban 144 6.2
Maryland Howard Co. 19,610 336,439 5.8% Urban 120 6.1
Maryland Kent Co. 3,045 19,360 15.7% Rural 20 6.6
Maryland Montgomery 63,042 1,061,132 5.9% Urban 393 6.2
Co.
Maryland Prince 107,267 953,609 11.2% Urban 606 5.6
George's
Co.
Maryland Queen Anne's 3,087 51,803 6% Urban 33 10.7
Co.
Maryland St. Mary's 11,445 115,001 10% Urban 60 5.2
Co.
Maryland Somerset Co. 6,133 24,696 24.8% Urban 26 4.2 8Higher-
risk0
Maryland Talbot Co. 4,332 37,959 11.4% Rural 41 9.5
Maryland Washington 23,344 155,407 15% Urban 139 6.0
Co.
Maryland Wicomico Co. 19,662 104,985 18.7% Urban 114 5.8
Maryland Worcester 6,471 54,004 12% Rural 59 9.1
Co.
Maryland Baltimore 134,790 570,663 23.6% Urban 643 4.8 8Higher-
city risk0
Massachuset Barnstable 24,804 232,571 10.7% Urban 210 8.5
ts Co.
Massachuset Berkshire 25,049 129,551 19.3% Urban 131 5.2
ts Co.
Massachuset Bristol Co. 123,302 581,201 21.2% Urban 550 4.5
ts
Massachuset Dukes Co. 1,012 21,033 4.8% Rural 12 11.9
ts
Massachuset Essex Co. 132,865 810,039 16.4% Urban 591 4.4
ts
Massachuset Franklin Co. 12,882 71,050 18.1% Rural 107 8.3
ts
Massachuset Hampden Co. 151,728 461,440 32.9% Urban 530 3.5 8Higher-
ts risk0
Massachuset Hampshire 18,104 165,397 10.9% Urban 154 8.5
ts Co.
Massachuset Middlesex 140,921 1,629,805 8.6% Urban 976 6.9
ts Co.
Massachuset Nantucket 274 14,464 1.9% Rural 6 21.9
ts Co.
Massachuset Norfolk Co. 60,572 728,619 8.3% Urban 412 6.8
ts
Massachuset Plymouth Co. 69,041 534,297 12.9% Urban 359 5.2
ts
Massachuset Suffolk Co. 182,113 777,266 23.4% Urban 714 3.9 8Higher-
ts risk0
Massachuset Worcester 129,904 865,735 15% Urban 706 5.4
ts Co.
Michigan Alcona Co. 1,461 10,375 14.1% Rural 13 8.9
Michigan Alger Co. 786 8,767 9% Rural 12 15.3
Michigan Allegan Co. 10,650 121,262 8.8% Rural 93 8.7
Michigan Alpena Co. 4,231 28,813 14.7% Rural 30 7.1
Michigan Antrim Co. 2,145 24,296 8.8% Rural 23 10.7
Michigan Arenac Co. 2,295 15,115 15.2% Rural 26 11.3
Michigan Baraga Co. 1,065 8,194 13% Rural 10 9.4
Michigan Barry Co. 5,386 63,389 8.5% Urban 45 8.4
Michigan Bay Co. 14,991 102,754 14.6% Urban 126 8.4
Michigan Benzie Co. 1,452 18,336 7.9% Urban 19 13.1
Michigan Berrien Co. 21,819 153,064 14.3% Urban 156 7.1
Michigan Branch Co. 5,547 44,612 12.4% Rural 49 8.8
Michigan Calhoun Co. 24,837 133,475 18.6% Urban 177 7.1
Michigan Cass Co. 6,026 51,409 11.7% Urban 42 7.0
Michigan Charlevoix 1,914 26,117 7.3% Rural 28 14.6
Co.
Michigan Cheboygan 3,250 25,946 12.5% Rural 26 8.0
Co.
Michigan Chippewa Co. 4,601 36,236 12.7% Rural 40 8.7
Michigan Clare Co. 6,847 31,321 21.9% Rural 56 8.2
Michigan Clinton Co. 5,091 79,652 6.4% Urban 49 9.6
Michigan Crawford Co. 2,143 13,431 16% Rural 22 10.3
Michigan Delta Co. 4,383 36,818 11.9% Rural 36 8.2
Michigan Dickinson 2,626 25,977 10.1% Rural 26 9.9
Co.
Michigan Eaton Co. 10,399 108,962 9.5% Urban 104 10.0
Michigan Emmet Co. 2,256 34,204 6.6% Rural 36 16.0
Michigan Genesee Co. 83,208 402,031 20.7% Urban 471 5.7
Michigan Gladwin Co. 3,814 25,667 14.9% Rural 39 10.2
Michigan Gogebic Co. 2,512 14,399 17.4% Rural 22 8.8
Michigan Grand 6,151 96,337 6.4% Urban 82 13.3
Traverse
Co.
Michigan Gratiot Co. 5,366 41,134 13% Rural 41 7.6
Michigan Hillsdale 6,213 45,714 13.6% Rural 51 8.2
Co.
Michigan Houghton Co. 3,445 37,792 9.1% Rural 46 13.4
Michigan Huron Co. 3,627 31,150 11.6% Rural 43 11.9
Michigan Ingham Co. 47,773 284,761 16.8% Urban 244 5.1
Michigan Ionia Co. 7,159 66,774 10.7% Urban 65 9.1
Michigan Iosco Co. 4,568 25,460 17.9% Rural 44 9.6
Michigan Iron Co. 1,813 11,686 15.5% Rural 15 8.3
Michigan Isabella Co. 8,100 64,483 12.6% Rural 56 6.9
Michigan Jackson Co. 21,530 159,828 13.5% Urban 167 7.8
Michigan Kalamazoo 33,415 261,417 12.8% Urban 216 6.5
Co.
Michigan Kalkaska Co. 2,272 18,230 12.5% Urban 24 10.6
Michigan Kent Co. 73,041 660,134 11.1% Urban 565 7.7
Michigan Keweenaw Co. 150 2,151 7% Rural 3 20.0
Michigan Lake Co. 2,650 12,665 20.9% Rural 20 7.5
Michigan Lapeer Co. 8,047 88,701 9.1% Urban 80 9.9
Michigan Leelanau Co. 765 22,891 3.3% Urban 16 20.9
Michigan Lenawee Co. 11,023 98,284 11.2% Rural 84 7.6
Michigan Livingston 8,203 196,083 4.2% Urban 92 11.2
Co.
Michigan Luce Co. 934 6,254 14.9% Rural 10 10.7
Michigan Mackinac Co. 938 10,983 8.5% Rural 13 13.9
Michigan Macomb Co. 112,317 875,735 12.8% Urban 800 7.1
Michigan Manistee Co. 3,333 25,334 13.2% Rural 27 8.1
Michigan Marquette 6,424 67,103 9.6% Rural 55 8.6
Co.
Michigan Mason Co. 3,992 29,357 13.6% Rural 37 9.3
Michigan Mecosta Co. 5,428 41,424 13.1% Rural 54 9.9
Michigan Menominee 2,335 23,289 10% Rural 27 11.6
Co.
Michigan Midland Co. 8,760 83,761 10.5% Urban 74 8.4
Michigan Missaukee 1,935 15,228 12.7% Rural 21 10.9
Co.
Michigan Monroe Co. 15,563 155,412 10% Urban 117 7.5
Michigan Montcalm Co. 9,238 67,317 13.7% Urban 87 9.4
Michigan Montmorency 1,359 9,563 14.2% Rural 11 8.1
Co.
Michigan Muskegon Co. 34,046 175,526 19.4% Urban 187 5.5
Michigan Newaygo Co. 8,014 50,771 15.8% Rural 64 8.0
Michigan Oakland Co. 92,899 1,275,098 7.3% Urban 913 9.8
Michigan Oceana Co. 4,377 26,964 16.2% Rural 39 8.9
Michigan Ogemaw Co. 3,775 20,890 18.1% Rural 35 9.3
Michigan Ontonagon 684 5,895 11.6% Rural 12 17.5
Co.
Michigan Osceola Co. 3,623 23,257 15.6% Rural 30 8.3
Michigan Oscoda Co. 1,493 8,400 17.8% Rural 12 8.0
Michigan Otsego Co. 3,093 25,583 12.1% Rural 40 12.9
Michigan Ottawa Co. 17,199 300,910 5.7% Urban 169 9.8
Michigan Presque Isle 1,543 13,357 11.6% Rural 15 9.7
Co.
Michigan Roscommon 4,200 23,711 17.7% Rural 38 9.0
Co.
Michigan Saginaw Co. 39,003 188,425 20.7% Urban 218 5.6
Michigan St. Clair 21,437 159,882 13.4% Urban 167 7.8
Co.
Michigan St. Joseph 7,406 60,814 12.2% Rural 70 9.5
Co.
Michigan Sanilac Co. 5,649 40,536 13.9% Rural 59 10.4
Michigan Schoolcraft 1,133 8,189 13.8% Rural 7 6.2
Co.
Michigan Shiawassee 8,571 67,970 12.6% Rural 67 7.8
Co.
Michigan Tuscola Co. 7,518 52,932 14.2% Rural 59 7.8
Michigan Van Buren 11,222 75,690 14.8% Rural 95 8.5
Co.
Michigan Washtenaw 27,674 367,947 7.5% Urban 235 8.5
Co.
Michigan Wayne Co. 434,357 1,763,011 24.6% Urban 2,226 5.1 8Higher-
risk0
Michigan Wexford Co. 5,732 34,062 16.8% Rural 41 7.2
Minnesota Aitkin Co. 1,309 16,142 8.1% Rural 18 13.8
Minnesota Anoka Co. 21,390 369,479 5.8% Urban 206 9.6
Minnesota Becker Co. 3,487 35,387 9.9% Rural 38 10.9
Minnesota Beltrami Co. 7,916 46,440 17% Rural 42 5.3
Minnesota Benton Co. 3,995 41,570 9.6% Urban 31 7.8
Minnesota Big Stone 438 5,145 8.5% Rural 7 16.0
Co.
Minnesota Blue Earth 5,474 69,681 7.9% Urban 51 9.3
Co.
Minnesota Brown Co. 1,599 25,786 6.2% Rural 23 14.4
Minnesota Carlton Co. 2,629 36,501 7.2% Urban 34 12.9
Minnesota Carver Co. 3,065 110,215 2.8% Urban 47 15.3
Minnesota Cass Co. 4,420 31,287 14.1% Rural 36 8.1
Minnesota Chippewa Co. 1,107 12,335 9% Rural 9 8.1
Minnesota Chisago Co. 2,522 57,918 4.4% Urban 30 11.9
Minnesota Clay Co. 7,855 65,989 11.9% Urban 37 4.7
Minnesota Clearwater 1,067 8,636 12.4% Rural 11 10.3
Co.
Minnesota Cook Co. 273 5,732 4.8% Rural 9 33.0
Minnesota Cottonwood 1,150 11,416 10.1% Rural 15 13.0
Co.
Minnesota Crow Wing 4,509 67,862 6.6% Rural 54 12.0
Co.
Minnesota Dakota Co. 21,186 443,982 4.8% Urban 241 11.4
Minnesota Dodge Co. 1,122 21,027 5.3% Urban 16 14.3
Minnesota Douglas Co. 2,429 39,665 6.1% Rural 28 11.5
Minnesota Faribault 1,502 13,957 10.8% Rural 12 8.0
Co.
Minnesota Fillmore Co. 1,264 21,475 5.9% Urban 18 14.2
Minnesota Freeborn Co. 3,674 30,674 12% Rural 31 8.4
Minnesota Goodhue Co. 2,671 48,055 5.6% Rural 37 13.9
Minnesota Grant Co. 430 6,134 7% Rural 6 14.0
Minnesota Hennepin Co. 116,411 1,258,981 9.2% Urban 629 5.4
Minnesota Houston Co. 956 18,715 5.1% Urban 15 15.7
Minnesota Hubbard Co. 2,148 21,925 9.8% Rural 21 9.8
Minnesota Isanti Co. 2,396 42,725 5.6% Urban 30 12.5
Minnesota Itasca Co. 4,584 45,258 10.1% Rural 41 8.9
Minnesota Jackson Co. 729 9,905 7.4% Rural 11 15.1
Minnesota Kanabec Co. 1,536 16,465 9.3% Rural 13 8.5
Minnesota Kandiyohi 4,484 43,904 10.2% Rural 35 7.8
Co.
Minnesota Kittson Co. 355 4,058 8.7% Rural 7 19.7
Minnesota Koochiching 1,315 11,846 11.1% Rural 14 10.6
Co.
Minnesota Lac qui 470 6,688 7% Rural 8 17.0
Parle Co.
Minnesota Lake Co. 697 10,919 6.4% Rural 10 14.3
Minnesota Lake of the 301 3,902 7.7% Rural 4 13.3
Woods Co.
Minnesota Le Sueur Co. 1,407 29,205 4.8% Urban 17 12.1
Minnesota Lincoln Co. 297 5,626 5.3% Rural 6 20.2
Minnesota Lyon Co. 2,636 25,513 10.3% Rural 27 10.2
Minnesota McLeod Co. 1,907 36,791 5.2% Rural 34 17.8
Minnesota Mahnomen Co. 1,311 5,354 24.5% Rural 8 6.1 8Higher-
risk0
Minnesota Marshall Co. 578 8,890 6.5% Rural 8 13.8
Minnesota Martin Co. 2,068 19,687 10.5% Rural 19 9.2
Minnesota Meeker Co. 1,533 23,526 6.5% Rural 17 11.1
Minnesota Mille Lacs 2,462 27,270 9% Urban 29 11.8
Co.
Minnesota Morrison Co. 2,319 34,284 6.8% Rural 34 14.7
Minnesota Mower Co. 4,651 40,174 11.6% Rural 41 8.8
Minnesota Murray Co. 553 8,051 6.9% Rural 7 12.7
Minnesota Nicollet Co. 2,082 34,381 6.1% Urban 20 9.6
Minnesota Nobles Co. 1,827 22,030 8.3% Rural 27 14.8
Minnesota Norman Co. 699 6,354 11% Rural 8 11.4
Minnesota Olmsted Co. 13,626 164,151 8.3% Urban 93 6.8
Minnesota Otter Tail 3,871 60,530 6.4% Rural 45 11.6
Co.
Minnesota Pennington 1,073 13,832 7.8% Rural 9 8.4
Co.
Minnesota Pine Co. 2,917 29,458 9.9% Rural 26 8.9
Minnesota Pipestone 722 9,320 7.7% Rural 11 15.2
Co.
Minnesota Polk Co. 3,814 30,760 12.4% Urban 17 4.5
Minnesota Pope Co. 720 11,429 6.3% Rural 7 9.7
Minnesota Ramsey Co. 71,933 538,430 13.4% Urban 342 4.8
Minnesota Red Lake Co. 369 3,888 9.5% Rural 3 8.1
Minnesota Redwood Co. 1,155 15,362 7.5% Rural 14 12.1
Minnesota Renville Co. 1,272 14,540 8.7% Rural 14 11.0
Minnesota Rice Co. 4,105 67,696 6.1% Rural 41 10.0
Minnesota Rock Co. 628 9,596 6.5% Urban 7 11.1
Minnesota Roseau Co. 962 15,359 6.3% Rural 16 16.6
Minnesota St. Louis 20,122 199,598 10.1% Urban 156 7.8
Co.
Minnesota Scott Co. 6,049 154,606 3.9% Urban 70 11.6
Minnesota Sherburne 5,343 100,617 5.3% Urban 47 8.8
Co.
Minnesota Sibley Co. 918 14,964 6.1% Rural 11 12.0
Minnesota Stearns Co. 14,725 160,556 9.2% Urban 126 8.6
Minnesota Steele Co. 3,429 37,470 9.2% Rural 30 8.7
Minnesota Stevens Co. 635 9,692 6.6% Rural 7 11.0
Minnesota Swift Co. 851 9,774 8.7% Rural 8 9.4
Minnesota Todd Co. 1,759 25,568 6.9% Rural 30 17.1
Minnesota Traverse Co. 468 3,261 14.4% Rural 6 12.8
Minnesota Wabasha Co. 1,015 21,654 4.7% Urban 15 14.8
Minnesota Wadena Co. 1,691 14,284 11.8% Rural 12 7.1
Minnesota Waseca Co. 1,684 18,884 8.9% Rural 15 8.9
Minnesota Washington 10,183 276,530 3.7% Urban 113 11.1
Co.
Minnesota Watonwan Co. 681 11,245 6.1% Rural 16 23.5
Minnesota Wilkin Co. 677 6,363 10.6% Rural 2 3.0
Minnesota Winona Co. 3,224 49,585 6.5% Rural 34 10.5
Minnesota Wright Co. 5,073 148,218 3.4% Urban 77 15.2
Minnesota Yellow 602 9,484 6.3% Rural 8 13.3
Medicine
Co.
Mississippi Adams Co. 4,579 28,558 16% Rural 36 7.9
Mississippi Alcorn Co. 3,818 34,094 11.2% Rural 35 9.2
Mississippi Amite Co. 1,855 12,572 14.8% Rural 15 8.1
Mississippi Attala Co. 2,923 17,529 16.7% Rural 20 6.8
Mississippi Benton Co. 1,388 7,574 18.3% Urban 10 7.2
Mississippi Bolivar Co. 7,411 29,443 25.2% Rural 47 6.3 8Higher-
risk0
Mississippi Calhoun Co. 1,540 12,913 11.9% Rural 15 9.7
Mississippi Carroll Co. 1,034 9,747 10.6% Rural 9 8.7
Mississippi Chickasaw 2,454 16,870 14.5% Rural 23 9.4
Co.
Mississippi Choctaw Co. 806 8,086 10% Rural 9 11.2
Mississippi Claiborne 2,626 8,599 30.5% Rural 9 3.4 8Higher-
Co. risk0
Mississippi Clarke Co. 2,377 15,212 15.6% Rural 15 6.3
Mississippi Clay Co. 3,458 18,334 18.9% Rural 33 9.5
Mississippi Coahoma Co. 7,387 20,404 36.2% Rural 31 4.2 8Higher-
risk0
Mississippi Copiah Co. 5,630 27,811 20.2% Urban 41 7.3
Mississippi Covington 3,708 18,126 20.5% Rural 25 6.7
Co.
Mississippi DeSoto Co. 13,236 191,585 6.9% Urban 165 12.5
Mississippi Forrest Co. 10,048 78,284 12.8% Urban 98 9.8
Mississippi Franklin Co. 950 7,619 12.5% Rural 9 9.5
Mississippi George Co. 2,889 25,219 11.5% Rural 21 7.3
Mississippi Greene Co. 1,180 13,583 8.7% Rural 13 11.0
Mississippi Grenada Co. 3,075 21,152 14.5% Rural 28 9.1
Mississippi Hancock Co. 4,805 46,047 10.4% Urban 39 8.1
Mississippi Harrison Co. 31,009 210,972 14.7% Urban 203 6.5
Mississippi Hinds Co. 40,024 217,383 18.4% Urban 238 5.9
Mississippi Holmes Co. 4,828 16,147 29.9% Urban 31 6.4 8Higher-
risk0
Mississippi Humphreys 2,819 7,342 38.4% Rural 14 5.0 8Higher-
Co. risk0
Mississippi Issaquena 214 1,284 16.7% Rural 1 4.7
Co.
Mississippi Itawamba Co. 1,769 24,034 7.4% Rural 24 13.6
Mississippi Jackson Co. 14,353 145,218 9.9% Urban 133 9.3
Mississippi Jasper Co. 2,530 16,020 15.8% Rural 20 7.9
Mississippi Jefferson 1,704 7,086 24% Rural 8 4.7 8Higher-
Co. risk0
Mississippi Jefferson 1,660 11,086 15% Rural 11 6.6
Davis Co.
Mississippi Jones Co. 7,304 66,464 11% Rural 93 12.7
Mississippi Kemper Co. 1,550 8,692 17.8% Rural 10 6.5
Mississippi Lafayette 3,495 58,776 5.9% Rural 26 7.4
Co.
Mississippi Lamar Co. 4,114 65,811 6.3% Urban 39 9.5
Mississippi Lauderdale 12,242 71,323 17.2% Rural 93 7.6
Co.
Mississippi Lawrence Co. 1,828 11,766 15.5% Rural 17 9.3
Mississippi Leake Co. 2,728 21,279 12.8% Rural 21 7.7
Mississippi Lee Co. 8,071 82,946 9.7% Rural 96 11.9
Mississippi Leflore Co. 7,665 26,938 28.5% Rural 45 5.9 8Higher-
risk0
Mississippi Lincoln Co. 4,564 34,807 13.1% Rural 39 8.5
Mississippi Lowndes Co. 9,680 57,694 16.8% Rural 74 7.6
Mississippi Madison Co. 7,875 111,694 7.1% Urban 83 10.5
Mississippi Marion Co. 3,091 24,142 12.8% Rural 29 9.4
Mississippi Marshall Co. 3,820 33,897 11.3% Urban 50 13.1
Mississippi Monroe Co. 3,625 33,561 10.8% Rural 30 8.3
Mississippi Montgomery 1,684 9,547 17.6% Rural 15 8.9
Co.
Mississippi Neshoba Co. 5,765 28,854 20% Rural 32 5.6
Mississippi Newton Co. 2,262 21,017 10.8% Rural 20 8.8
Mississippi Noxubee Co. 3,069 10,019 30.6% Rural 15 4.9 8Higher-
risk0
Mississippi Oktibbeha 5,104 51,661 9.9% Rural 35 6.9
Co.
Mississippi Panola Co. 5,333 32,553 16.4% Rural 44 8.3
Mississippi Pearl River 7,217 57,338 12.6% Rural 71 9.8
Co.
Mississippi Perry Co. 1,592 11,440 13.9% Urban 12 7.5
Mississippi Pike Co. 7,736 39,592 19.5% Rural 68 8.8
Mississippi Pontotoc Co. 2,563 31,449 8.1% Rural 28 10.9
Mississippi Prentiss Co. 2,462 25,094 9.8% Rural 22 8.9
Mississippi Quitman Co. 1,227 5,683 21.6% Rural 12 9.8
Mississippi Rankin Co. 8,868 158,733 5.6% Urban 118 13.3
Mississippi Scott Co. 3,171 27,710 11.4% Urban 42 13.2
Mississippi Sharkey Co. 1,242 3,483 35.7% Rural 6 4.8 8Higher-
risk0
Mississippi Simpson Co. 3,210 25,615 12.5% Urban 33 10.3
Mississippi Smith Co. 1,261 14,095 8.9% Rural 10 7.9
Mississippi Stone Co. 2,318 18,834 12.3% Urban 19 8.2
Mississippi Sunflower 6,239 24,314 25.7% Rural 44 7.1 8Higher-
Co. risk0
Mississippi Tallahatchie 1,832 11,762 15.6% Rural 11 6.0
Co.
Mississippi Tate Co. 3,145 28,372 11.1% Urban 29 9.2
Mississippi Tippah Co. 1,668 21,480 7.8% Rural 25 15.0
Mississippi Tishomingo 1,700 18,626 9.1% Rural 21 12.4
Co.
Mississippi Tunica Co. 2,965 9,461 31.3% Urban 20 6.7 8Higher-
risk0
Mississippi Union Co. 2,367 28,130 8.4% Rural 23 9.7
Mississippi Walthall Co. 1,878 13,815 13.6% Rural 14 7.5
Mississippi Warren Co. 9,137 42,684 21.4% Rural 62 6.8
Mississippi Washington 12,895 42,490 30.3% Rural 68 5.3 8Higher-
Co. risk0
Mississippi Wayne Co. 4,319 19,617 22% Rural 23 5.3
Mississippi Webster Co. 1,407 9,953 14.1% Rural 11 7.8
Mississippi Wilkinson 1,530 8,175 18.7% Rural 9 5.9
Co.
Mississippi Winston Co. 2,933 17,527 16.7% Rural 23 7.8
Mississippi Yalobusha 1,997 12,395 16.1% Rural 20 10.0
Co.
Mississippi Yazoo Co. 6,339 24,698 25.7% Urban 32 5.0 8Higher-
risk0
Missouri Adair Co. 2,331 25,155 9.3% Rural 21 9.0
Missouri Andrew Co. 942 18,008 5.2% Urban 7 7.4
Missouri Atchison Co. 389 5,163 7.5% Rural 7 18.0
Missouri Audrain Co. 2,731 24,455 11.2% Rural 26 9.5
Missouri Barry Co. 4,836 34,931 13.8% Rural 48 9.9
Missouri Barton Co. 1,508 11,695 12.9% Rural 16 10.6
Missouri Bates Co. 1,605 16,156 9.9% Urban 18 11.2
Missouri Benton Co. 2,389 20,216 11.8% Rural 20 8.4
Missouri Bollinger 1,785 10,510 17% Urban 8 4.5
Co.
Missouri Boone Co. 15,095 187,743 8% Urban 120 7.9
Missouri Buchanan Co. 13,050 82,956 15.7% Urban 89 6.8
Missouri Butler Co. 8,559 42,150 20.3% Rural 50 5.8
Missouri Caldwell Co. 763 8,939 8.5% Urban 8 10.5
Missouri Callaway Co. 3,848 44,760 8.6% Urban 37 9.6
Missouri Camden Co. 3,449 43,779 7.9% Rural 47 13.6
Missouri Cape 8,937 82,940 10.8% Urban 51 5.7
Girardeau
Co.
Missouri Carroll Co. 767 8,410 9.1% Rural 10 13.0
Missouri Carter Co. 1,089 5,267 20.7% Rural 7 6.4
Missouri Cass Co. 6,868 110,345 6.2% Urban 77 11.2
Missouri Cedar Co. 1,925 14,612 13.2% Rural 14 7.3
Missouri Chariton Co. 567 7,395 7.7% Rural 9 15.9
Missouri Christian 5,706 93,130 6.1% Urban 64 11.2
Co.
Missouri Clark Co. 646 6,714 9.6% Rural 10 15.5
Missouri Clay Co. 15,620 257,037 6.1% Urban 152 9.7
Missouri Clinton Co. 1,369 21,339 6.4% Urban 21 15.3
Missouri Cole Co. 7,181 76,977 9.3% Urban 65 9.1
Missouri Cooper Co. 1,436 16,741 8.6% Urban 21 14.6
Missouri Crawford Co. 3,162 22,622 14% Rural 21 6.6
Missouri Dade Co. 826 7,679 10.8% Rural 11 13.3
Missouri Dallas Co. 2,124 17,610 12.1% Urban 20 9.4
Missouri Daviess Co. 698 8,455 8.3% Rural 10 14.3
Missouri DeKalb Co. 649 11,307 5.7% Urban 8 12.3
Missouri Dent Co. 2,383 14,471 16.5% Rural 10 4.2
Missouri Douglas Co. 1,797 11,967 15% Rural 10 5.6
Missouri Dunklin Co. 8,005 27,444 29.2% Rural 36 4.5 8Higher-
risk0
Missouri Franklin Co. 8,650 105,865 8.2% Urban 79 9.1
Missouri Gasconade 1,166 14,800 7.9% Rural 12 10.3
Co.
Missouri Gentry Co. 474 6,291 7.5% Rural 9 19.0
Missouri Greene Co. 31,753 303,336 10.5% Urban 245 7.7
Missouri Grundy Co. 1,216 9,828 12.4% Rural 12 9.9
Missouri Harrison Co. 917 8,213 11.2% Rural 11 12.0
Missouri Henry Co. 2,857 22,404 12.8% Rural 29 10.2
Missouri Hickory Co. 1,211 8,576 14.1% Rural 18 14.9
Missouri Holt Co. 358 4,265 8.4% Rural 5 14.0
Missouri Howard Co. 755 10,169 7.4% Urban 8 10.6
Missouri Howell Co. 7,266 40,612 17.9% Rural 60 8.3
Missouri Iron Co. 1,744 9,411 18.5% Rural 14 8.0
Missouri Jackson Co. 94,319 716,580 13.2% Urban 560 5.9
Missouri Jasper Co. 16,716 123,969 13.5% Urban 141 8.4
Missouri Jefferson 17,053 229,268 7.4% Urban 142 8.3
Co.
Missouri Johnson Co. 3,445 54,423 6.3% Rural 47 13.6
Missouri Knox Co. 355 3,777 9.4% Rural 7 19.7
Missouri Laclede Co. 5,077 36,330 14% Rural 38 7.5
Missouri Lafayette 2,905 32,937 8.8% Urban 39 13.4
Co.
Missouri Lawrence Co. 4,687 38,672 12.1% Rural 34 7.3
Missouri Lewis Co. 736 9,888 7.4% Rural 12 16.3
Missouri Lincoln Co. 5,122 63,184 8.1% Urban 43 8.4
Missouri Linn Co. 1,302 11,842 11% Rural 12 9.2
Missouri Livingston 1,274 14,365 8.9% Rural 15 11.8
Co.
Missouri McDonald Co. 3,028 23,623 12.8% Rural 32 10.6
Missouri Macon Co. 1,225 15,084 8.1% Rural 16 13.1
Missouri Madison Co. 1,967 12,763 15.4% Rural 10 5.1
Missouri Maries Co. 631 8,434 7.5% Rural 6 9.5
Missouri Marion Co. 3,564 28,489 12.5% Rural 38 10.7
Missouri Mercer Co. 248 3,469 7.1% Rural 5 20.2
Missouri Miller Co. 2,778 25,384 10.9% Rural 26 9.4
Missouri Mississippi 2,871 11,683 24.6% Rural 16 5.6 8Higher-
Co. risk0
Missouri Moniteau Co. 1,042 15,241 6.8% Urban 13 12.5
Missouri Monroe Co. 731 8,650 8.5% Rural 11 15.0
Missouri Montgomery 1,177 11,463 10.3% Rural 17 14.4
Co.
Missouri Morgan Co. 2,658 21,781 12.2% Rural 31 11.7
Missouri New Madrid 3,296 15,686 21% Rural 25 7.6
Co.
Missouri Newton Co. 6,994 60,107 11.6% Urban 64 9.2
Missouri Nodaway Co. 1,251 20,690 6% Rural 16 12.8
Missouri Oregon Co. 2,171 8,709 24.9% Rural 16 7.4 8Higher-
risk0
Missouri Osage Co. 640 13,399 4.8% Urban 13 20.3
Missouri Ozark Co. 1,388 8,970 15.5% Rural 12 8.6
Missouri Pemiscot Co. 4,816 14,880 32.4% Rural 20 4.2 8Higher-
risk0
Missouri Perry Co. 1,550 18,882 8.2% Rural 17 11.0
Missouri Pettis Co. 5,716 43,381 13.2% Rural 42 7.3
Missouri Phelps Co. 4,649 45,301 10.3% Rural 38 8.2
Missouri Pike Co. 1,888 17,650 10.7% Rural 21 11.1
Missouri Platte Co. 4,262 110,593 3.9% Urban 52 12.2
Missouri Polk Co. 3,732 32,669 11.4% Urban 26 7.0
Missouri Pulaski Co. 4,730 53,824 8.8% Rural 37 7.8
Missouri Putnam Co. 382 4,653 8.2% Rural 4 10.5
Missouri Ralls Co. 785 10,419 7.5% Rural 12 15.3
Missouri Randolph Co. 3,224 24,619 13.1% Rural 29 9.0
Missouri Ray Co. 2,060 23,119 8.9% Urban 16 7.8
Missouri Reynolds Co. 1,208 5,994 20.2% Rural 10 8.3
Missouri Ripley Co. 2,779 10,699 26% Rural 14 5.0 8Higher-
risk0
Missouri St. Charles 14,695 414,055 3.5% Urban 209 14.2
Co.
Missouri St. Clair 1,221 9,581 12.7% Rural 15 12.3
Co.
Missouri Ste. 1,296 18,614 7% Rural 15 11.6
Genevieve
Co.
Missouri St. Francois 9,965 66,938 14.9% Rural 62 6.2
Co.
Missouri St. Louis 101,334 991,881 10.2% Urban 640 6.3
Co.
Missouri Saline Co. 2,618 23,016 11.4% Rural 23 8.8
Missouri Schuyler Co. 359 4,016 8.9% Rural 6 16.7
Missouri Scotland Co. 289 4,653 6.2% Rural 6 20.8
Missouri Scott Co. 7,403 37,869 19.5% Rural 35 4.7
Missouri Shannon Co. 1,784 7,223 24.7% Rural 10 5.6 8Higher-
risk0
Missouri Shelby Co. 594 6,004 9.9% Rural 9 15.2
Missouri Stoddard Co. 4,330 28,366 15.3% Rural 29 6.7
Missouri Stone Co. 2,770 32,137 8.6% Rural 35 12.6
Missouri Sullivan Co. 677 5,828 11.6% Rural 7 10.3
Missouri Taney Co. 6,516 56,736 11.5% Rural 67 10.3
Missouri Texas Co. 3,221 25,298 12.7% Rural 23 7.1
Missouri Vernon Co. 2,769 19,608 14.1% Rural 17 6.1
Missouri Warren Co. 2,873 37,292 7.7% Urban 23 8.0
Missouri Washington 4,520 23,389 19.3% Rural 29 6.4
Co.
Missouri Wayne Co. 2,308 10,807 21.4% Rural 17 7.4
Missouri Webster Co. 3,639 40,369 9% Urban 37 10.2
Missouri Worth Co. 159 1,943 8.2% Rural 3 18.9
Missouri Wright Co. 3,131 19,108 16.4% Rural 28 8.9
Missouri St. Louis 62,509 286,292 21.8% Urban 269 4.3
city
Montana Beaverhead 540 9,742 5.5% Rural 8 14.8
Co.
Montana Big Horn Co. 3,219 12,858 25% Rural 14 4.3 8Higher-
risk0
Montana Blaine Co. 968 6,956 13.9% Rural 8 8.3
Montana Broadwater 322 7,787 4.1% Urban 6 18.6
Co.
Montana Carbon Co. 510 11,241 4.5% Urban 8 15.7
Montana Carter Co. 22 1,402 1.6% Rural 1 45.5
Montana Cascade Co. 8,699 84,908 10.2% Urban 55 6.3
Montana Chouteau Co. 263 5,917 4.4% Rural 4 15.2
Montana Custer Co. 848 12,005 7.1% Rural 7 8.3
Montana Daniels Co. 53 1,644 3.2% Rural 1 18.9
Montana Dawson Co. 548 8,801 6.2% Rural 7 12.8
Montana Deer Lodge 851 9,541 8.9% Rural 10 11.8
Co.
Montana Fallon Co. 112 3,047 3.7% Rural 2 17.9
Montana Fergus Co. 611 11,669 5.2% Rural 8 13.1
Montana Flathead Co. 6,492 111,783 5.8% Rural 71 10.9
Montana Gallatin Co. 2,450 124,733 2% Urban 62 25.3
Montana Garfield Co. 22 1,221 1.8% Rural 1 45.5
Montana Glacier Co. 3,148 13,637 23.1% Rural 13 4.1 8Higher-
risk0
Montana Golden 64 838 7.6% Rural 1 15.6
Valley Co.
Montana Granite Co. 134 3,482 3.8% Rural 3 22.4
Montana Hill Co. 2,928 16,069 18.2% Rural 13 4.4
Montana Jefferson 586 12,864 4.6% Urban 7 11.9
Co.
Montana Judith Basin 69 2,082 3.3% Rural 1 14.5
Co.
Montana Lake Co. 4,103 32,821 12.5% Rural 30 7.3
Montana Lewis and 5,076 73,681 6.9% Urban 46 9.1
Clark Co.
Montana Liberty Co. 96 1,972 4.9% Rural 1 10.4
Montana Lincoln Co. 2,662 21,485 12.4% Rural 26 9.8
Montana McCone Co. 17 1,712 1% Rural 1 58.8
Montana Madison Co. 250 9,237 2.7% Rural 7 28.0
Montana Meagher Co. 103 2,025 5.1% Rural 3 29.1
Montana Mineral Co. 562 5,037 11.2% Urban 6 10.7
Montana Missoula Co. 8,554 120,931 7.1% Urban 75 8.8
Montana Musselshell 548 5,188 10.6% Rural 4 7.3
Co.
Montana Park Co. 723 17,783 4.1% Rural 12 16.6
Montana Petroleum 10 520 1.9% Rural 1 100.0
Co.
Montana Phillips Co. 422 4,223 10% Rural 5 11.8
Montana Pondera Co. 599 6,093 9.8% Rural 6 10.0
Montana Powder River 53 1,725 3.1% Rural 1 18.9
Co.
Montana Powell Co. 498 7,063 7.1% Rural 5 10.0
Montana Prairie Co. 58 1,114 5.2% Rural 1 17.2
Montana Ravalli Co. 2,972 47,177 6.3% Rural 30 10.1
Montana Richland Co. 592 11,191 5.3% Rural 12 20.3
Montana Roosevelt 2,754 10,514 26.2% Rural 9 3.3 8Higher-
Co. risk0
Montana Rosebud Co. 1,322 8,122 16.3% Rural 12 9.1
Montana Sanders Co. 1,343 13,396 10% Rural 20 14.9
Montana Sheridan Co. 195 3,550 5.5% Rural 4 20.5
Montana Silver Bow 3,844 35,876 10.7% Rural 33 8.6
Co.
Montana Stillwater 327 9,194 3.6% Urban 7 21.4
Co.
Montana Sweet Grass 128 3,724 3.4% Rural 6 46.9
Co.
Montana Teton Co. 327 6,349 5.2% Rural 4 12.2
Montana Toole Co. 311 5,072 6.1% Rural 6 19.3
Montana Treasure Co. 54 749 7.2% Rural 0 0.0
Montana Valley Co. 704 7,560 9.3% Rural 6 8.5
Montana Wheatland 190 2,043 9.3% Rural 4 21.1
Co.
Montana Wibaux Co. 35 924 3.8% Rural 1 28.6
Montana Yellowstone 12,875 169,817 7.6% Urban 105 8.2
Co.
Nebraska Adams Co. 2,615 31,023 8.4% Rural 21 8.0
Nebraska Antelope Co. 326 6,299 5.2% Rural 6 18.4
Nebraska Arthur Co. 15 427 3.5% Rural 0 0.0
Nebraska Banner Co. 19 656 2.9% Rural 0 0.0
Nebraska Blaine Co. 25 448 5.6% Rural 0 0.0
Nebraska Boone Co. 238 5,366 4.4% Rural 9 37.8
Nebraska Box Butte 1,109 10,685 10.4% Rural 8 7.2
Co.
Nebraska Boyd Co. 69 1,737 4% Rural 3 43.5
Nebraska Brown Co. 147 2,894 5.1% Rural 5 34.0
Nebraska Buffalo Co. 2,955 50,528 5.8% Rural 42 14.2
Nebraska Burt Co. 529 6,790 7.8% Rural 7 13.2
Nebraska Butler Co. 361 8,432 4.3% Rural 5 13.9
Nebraska Cass Co. 1,197 27,169 4.4% Urban 14 11.7
Nebraska Cedar Co. 294 8,366 3.5% Rural 7 23.8
Nebraska Chase Co. 177 3,768 4.7% Rural 3 16.9
Nebraska Cherry Co. 365 5,495 6.6% Rural 10 27.4
Nebraska Cheyenne Co. 838 9,524 8.8% Rural 8 9.5
Nebraska Clay Co. 441 6,070 7.3% Rural 5 11.3
Nebraska Colfax Co. 643 10,645 6% Rural 11 17.1
Nebraska Cuming Co. 391 8,970 4.4% Rural 8 20.5
Nebraska Custer Co. 570 10,503 5.4% Rural 10 17.5
Nebraska Dakota Co. 1,917 21,253 9% Urban 21 11.0
Nebraska Dawes Co. 662 8,250 8% Rural 8 12.1
Nebraska Dawson Co. 2,074 24,048 8.6% Rural 22 10.6
Nebraska Deuel Co. 168 1,900 8.8% Rural 5 29.8
Nebraska Dixon Co. 141 5,522 2.6% Rural 4 28.4
Nebraska Dodge Co. 3,300 37,130 8.9% Rural 35 10.6
Nebraska Douglas Co. 58,995 587,894 10% Urban 374 6.3
Nebraska Dundy Co. 106 1,601 6.6% Rural 2 18.9
Nebraska Fillmore Co. 330 5,529 6% Rural 9 27.3
Nebraska Franklin Co. 219 2,834 7.7% Rural 4 18.3
Nebraska Frontier Co. 142 2,624 5.4% Rural 3 21.1
Nebraska Furnas Co. 426 4,573 9.3% Rural 9 21.1
Nebraska Gage Co. 1,906 21,542 8.8% Rural 16 8.4
Nebraska Garden Co. 238 1,837 13% Rural 3 12.6
Nebraska Garfield Co. 42 1,783 2.4% Rural 3 71.4
Nebraska Gosper Co. 90 1,831 4.9% Rural 2 22.2
Nebraska Grant Co. 24 587 4.1% Rural 1 41.7
Nebraska Greeley Co. 86 2,237 3.8% Rural 2 23.3
Nebraska Hall Co. 6,411 62,292 10.3% Urban 55 8.6
Nebraska Hamilton Co. 365 9,439 3.9% Rural 7 19.2
Nebraska Harlan Co. 131 3,023 4.3% Rural 3 22.9
Nebraska Hayes Co. 29 864 3.4% Rural 1 34.5
Nebraska Hitchcock 218 2,611 8.3% Rural 2 9.2
Co.
Nebraska Holt Co. 586 10,069 5.8% Rural 15 25.6
Nebraska Hooker Co. 24 680 3.5% Rural 2 83.3
Nebraska Howard Co. 315 6,521 4.8% Urban 8 25.4
Nebraska Jefferson 713 7,151 10% Rural 4 5.6
Co.
Nebraska Johnson Co. 292 5,264 5.5% Rural 5 17.1
Nebraska Kearney Co. 217 6,708 3.2% Rural 5 23.0
Nebraska Keith Co. 607 8,205 7.4% Rural 14 23.1
Nebraska Keya Paha 16 801 2% Rural 1 62.5
Co.
Nebraska Kimball Co. 299 3,344 8.9% Rural 4 13.4
Nebraska Knox Co. 613 8,356 7.3% Rural 9 14.7
Nebraska Lancaster 26,896 325,252 8.3% Urban 180 6.7
Co.
Nebraska Lincoln Co. 3,327 33,619 9.9% Rural 30 9.0
Nebraska Logan Co. 21 691 3% Rural 1 47.6
Nebraska Loup Co. 20 597 3.4% Rural 0 0.0
Nebraska McPherson 11 374 2.9% Rural 0 0.0
Co.
Nebraska Madison Co. 2,737 35,427 7.7% Rural 34 12.4
Nebraska Merrick Co. 438 7,709 5.7% Urban 7 16.0
Nebraska Morrill Co. 521 4,528 11.5% Rural 4 7.7
Nebraska Nance Co. 141 3,323 4.2% Rural 5 35.5
Nebraska Nemaha Co. 528 7,028 7.5% Rural 6 11.4
Nebraska Nuckolls Co. 279 4,076 6.8% Rural 3 10.8
Nebraska Otoe Co. 1,017 16,243 6.3% Rural 15 14.7
Nebraska Pawnee Co. 191 2,536 7.5% Rural 3 15.7
Nebraska Perkins Co. 85 2,844 3% Rural 2 23.5
Nebraska Phelps Co. 468 9,007 5.2% Rural 9 19.2
Nebraska Pierce Co. 328 7,326 4.5% Rural 9 27.4
Nebraska Platte Co. 2,024 34,452 5.9% Rural 24 11.9
Nebraska Polk Co. 225 5,234 4.3% Rural 6 26.7
Nebraska Red Willow 767 10,557 7.3% Rural 8 10.4
Co.
Nebraska Richardson 667 7,736 8.6% Rural 9 13.5
Co.
Nebraska Rock Co. 46 1,234 3.7% Rural 2 43.5
Nebraska Saline Co. 978 14,621 6.7% Rural 14 14.3
Nebraska Sarpy Co. 8,355 196,606 4.2% Urban 88 10.5
Nebraska Saunders Co. 871 23,159 3.8% Urban 10 11.5
Nebraska Scotts Bluff 4,705 35,798 13.1% Rural 25 5.3
Co.
Nebraska Seward Co. 599 17,623 3.4% Urban 10 16.7
Nebraska Sheridan Co. 382 5,015 7.6% Rural 11 28.8
Nebraska Sherman Co. 168 3,000 5.6% Rural 4 23.8
Nebraska Sioux Co. 11 1,129 1% Rural 1 90.9
Nebraska Stanton Co. 142 5,748 2.5% Rural 3 21.1
Nebraska Thayer Co. 310 4,866 6.4% Rural 5 16.1
Nebraska Thomas Co. 40 667 6% Rural 2 50.0
Nebraska Thurston Co. 1,586 6,549 24.2% Rural 6 3.8 8Higher-
risk0
Nebraska Valley Co. 324 4,064 8% Rural 6 18.5
Nebraska Washington 660 21,175 3.1% Urban 10 15.2
Co.
Nebraska Wayne Co. 422 9,898 4.3% Rural 7 16.6
Nebraska Webster Co. 309 3,334 9.3% Rural 5 16.2
Nebraska Wheeler Co. 28 784 3.6% Rural 0 0.0
Nebraska York Co. 900 14,319 6.3% Rural 14 15.6
Nevada Churchill 3,641 25,828 14.1% Rural 24 6.6
Co.
Nevada Clark Co. 397,007 2,321,961 17.1% Urban 1,378 3.5
Nevada Douglas Co. 2,342 49,592 4.7% Rural 29 12.4
Nevada Elko Co. 4,990 53,943 9.3% Rural 47 9.4
Nevada Esmeralda 91 744 12.2% Rural 0 0.0
Co.
Nevada Eureka Co. 162 1,862 8.7% Rural 4 24.7
Nevada Humboldt Co. 1,823 17,262 10.6% Rural 20 11.0
Nevada Lander Co. 508 5,769 8.8% Rural 7 13.8
Nevada Lincoln Co. 524 4,421 11.9% Rural 7 13.4
Nevada Lyon Co. 6,302 61,589 10.2% Urban 49 7.8
Nevada Mineral Co. 865 4,538 19.1% Rural 6 6.9
Nevada Nye Co. 10,285 54,710 18.8% Rural 42 4.1
Nevada Pershing Co. 673 6,446 10.4% Rural 6 8.9
Nevada Storey Co. 118 4,165 2.8% Urban 1 8.5
Nevada Washoe Co. 47,255 496,458 9.5% Urban 335 7.1
Nevada White Pine 1,095 8,734 12.5% Rural 9 8.2
Co.
Nevada Carson City 6,919 58,094 11.9% Urban 49 7.1
New Belknap Co. 4,293 64,647 6.6% Rural 58 13.5
Hampshire
New Carroll Co. 2,528 52,094 4.9% Rural 45 17.8
Hampshire
New Cheshire Co. 5,154 77,386 6.7% Rural 72 14.0
Hampshire
New Coos Co. 3,312 31,430 10.5% Rural 39 11.8
Hampshire
New Grafton Co. 4,384 92,943 4.7% Rural 92 21.0
Hampshire
New Hillsborough 25,023 426,307 5.9% Urban 305 12.2
Hampshire Co.
New Merrimack 8,311 156,241 5.3% Rural 112 13.5
Hampshire Co.
New Rockingham 8,113 319,298 2.5% Urban 196 24.2
Hampshire Co.
New Strafford 8,038 132,451 6.1% Urban 93 11.6
Hampshire Co.
New Sullivan Co. 3,802 43,881 8.7% Rural 41 10.8
Hampshire
New Jersey Atlantic Co. 37,926 276,111 13.7% Urban 239 6.3
New Jersey Bergen Co. 37,083 957,235 3.9% Urban 401 10.8
New Jersey Burlington 19,790 466,710 4.2% Urban 267 13.5
Co.
New Jersey Camden Co. 73,357 525,395 14% Urban 432 5.9
New Jersey Cape May Co. 7,368 95,415 7.7% Urban 73 9.9
New Jersey Cumberland 25,093 151,686 16.5% Urban 151 6.0
Co.
New Jersey Essex Co. 124,831 854,738 14.6% Urban 602 4.8
New Jersey Gloucester 16,120 306,936 5.3% Urban 177 11.0
Co.
New Jersey Hudson Co. 99,728 708,657 14.1% Urban 572 5.7
New Jersey Hunterdon 3,053 129,977 2.3% Urban 51 16.7
Co.
New Jersey Mercer Co. 33,452 382,165 8.8% Urban 267 8.0
New Jersey Middlesex 53,711 866,241 6.2% Urban 470 8.8
Co.
New Jersey Monmouth Co. 27,384 644,994 4.2% Urban 346 12.6
New Jersey Morris Co. 13,719 512,685 2.7% Urban 212 15.5
New Jersey Ocean Co. 54,799 656,386 8.3% Urban 306 5.6
New Jersey Passaic Co. 78,154 516,287 15.1% Urban 505 6.5
New Jersey Salem Co. 8,099 65,167 12.4% Urban 52 6.4
New Jersey Somerset Co. 9,828 348,319 2.8% Urban 140 14.2
New Jersey Sussex Co. 3,886 145,638 2.7% Urban 54 13.9
New Jersey Union Co. 42,952 573,600 7.5% Urban 362 8.4
New Jersey Warren Co. 7,176 110,885 6.5% Urban 62 8.6
New Mexico Bernalillo 141,109 673,039 21% Urban 436 3.1
Co.
New Mexico Catron Co. 269 3,793 7.1% Rural 7 26.0
New Mexico Chaves Co. 17,482 63,907 27.4% Rural 71 4.1 8Higher-
risk0
New Mexico Cibola Co. 8,280 26,771 30.9% Rural 24 2.9 8Higher-
risk0
New Mexico Colfax Co. 3,028 12,289 24.6% Rural 20 6.6 8Higher-
risk0
New Mexico Curry Co. 15,544 47,391 32.8% Rural 53 3.4 8Higher-
risk0
New Mexico De Baca Co. 307 1,697 18.1% Rural 6 19.5
New Mexico Dona Ana Co. 67,155 223,604 30% Urban 154 2.3 8Higher-
risk0
New Mexico Eddy Co. 12,454 60,221 20.7% Rural 56 4.5
New Mexico Grant Co. 6,939 27,699 25.1% Rural 22 3.2 8Higher-
risk0
New Mexico Guadalupe 1,271 4,324 29.4% Rural 14 11.0
Co.
New Mexico Harding Co. 32 627 5.1% Rural 2 62.5
New Mexico Hidalgo Co. 1,090 4,012 27.2% Rural 10 9.2
New Mexico Lea Co. 18,230 72,300 25.2% Rural 83 4.6 8Higher-
risk0
New Mexico Lincoln Co. 4,109 20,339 20.2% Rural 28 6.8
New Mexico Los Alamos 278 19,259 1.4% Rural 8 28.8
Co.
New Mexico Luna Co. 10,664 25,677 41.5% Rural 27 2.5 8Higher-
risk0
New Mexico McKinley Co. 26,370 70,084 37.6% Rural 77 2.9 8Higher-
risk0
New Mexico Mora Co. 691 4,142 16.7% Rural 5 7.2
New Mexico Otero Co. 12,719 68,650 18.5% Rural 47 3.7
New Mexico Quay Co. 2,630 8,536 30.8% Rural 16 6.1 8Higher-
risk0
New Mexico Rio Arriba 12,898 39,986 32.3% Rural 42 3.3 8Higher-
Co. risk0
New Mexico Roosevelt 2,606 18,896 13.8% Rural 16 6.1
Co.
New Mexico Sandoval Co. 23,710 153,509 15.4% Urban 77 3.2
New Mexico San Juan Co. 34,265 120,580 28.4% Urban 125 3.6 8Higher-
risk0
New Mexico San Miguel 8,309 26,899 30.9% Rural 31 3.7 8Higher-
Co. risk0
New Mexico Santa Fe Co. 20,885 155,768 13.4% Urban 82 3.9
New Mexico Sierra Co. 4,627 11,485 40.3% Rural 18 3.9 8Higher-
risk0
New Mexico Socorro Co. 5,199 16,142 32.2% Rural 20 3.8 8Higher-
risk0
New Mexico Taos Co. 7,930 34,594 22.9% Rural 37 4.7 8Higher-
risk0
New Mexico Torrance Co. 6,077 15,398 39.5% Urban 20 3.3 8Higher-
risk0
New Mexico Union Co. 224 3,996 5.6% Rural 7 31.3
New Mexico Valencia Co. 18,808 78,254 24% Urban 58 3.1 8Higher-
risk0
New York Albany Co. 34,556 316,287 10.9% Urban 281 8.1
New York Allegany Co. 5,587 46,850 11.9% Rural 52 9.3
New York Bronx Co. 490,283 1,384,189 35.4% Urban 2,003 4.1 8Higher-
risk0
New York Broome Co. 26,571 197,340 13.5% Urban 216 8.1
New York Cattaraugus 10,959 76,036 14.4% Rural 62 5.7
Co.
New York Cayuga Co. 9,215 74,758 12.3% Rural 57 6.2
New York Chautauqua 23,926 125,310 19.1% Rural 128 5.3
Co.
New York Chemung Co. 14,109 81,598 17.3% Urban 98 6.9
New York Chenango Co. 6,261 46,301 13.5% Rural 65 10.4
New York Clinton Co. 11,191 77,978 14.4% Rural 85 7.6
New York Columbia Co. 5,546 61,187 9.1% Rural 82 14.8
New York Cortland Co. 5,933 46,133 12.9% Rural 52 8.8
New York Delaware Co. 4,559 44,769 10.2% Rural 58 12.7
New York Dutchess Co. 18,040 298,186 6% Urban 168 9.3
New York Erie Co. 147,427 948,745 15.5% Urban 905 6.1
New York Essex Co. 3,268 36,788 8.9% Rural 47 14.4
New York Franklin Co. 6,693 46,072 14.5% Rural 52 7.8
New York Fulton Co. 8,027 52,245 15.4% Rural 48 6.0
New York Genesee Co. 4,785 57,482 8.3% Rural 52 10.9
New York Greene Co. 4,504 47,388 9.5% Rural 54 12.0
New York Hamilton Co. 266 5,108 5.2% Rural 5 18.8
New York Herkimer Co. 8,897 59,576 14.9% Urban 63 7.1
New York Jefferson 14,808 115,487 12.8% Urban 127 8.6
Co.
New York Kings Co. 606,214 2,596,607 23.3% Urban 3,284 5.4 8Higher-
risk0
New York Lewis Co. 2,915 26,602 11% Rural 32 11.0
New York Livingston 5,731 61,385 9.3% Urban 45 7.9
Co.
New York Madison Co. 6,585 67,062 9.8% Urban 68 10.3
New York Monroe Co. 109,665 751,827 14.6% Urban 611 5.6
New York Montgomery 7,934 49,434 16% Rural 64 8.1
Co.
New York Nassau Co. 41,019 1,386,825 3% Urban 630 15.4
New York New York Co. 240,581 1,597,103 15.1% Urban 1,308 5.4
New York Niagara Co. 26,650 210,466 12.7% Urban 193 7.2
New York Oneida Co. 38,703 228,502 16.9% Urban 271 7.0
New York Onondaga Co. 68,796 470,432 14.6% Urban 455 6.6
New York Ontario Co. 9,350 112,509 8.3% Urban 82 8.8
New York Orange Co. 40,035 406,677 9.8% Urban 273 6.8
New York Orleans Co. 5,350 39,329 13.6% Urban 33 6.2
New York Oswego Co. 18,184 118,110 15.4% Urban 109 6.0
New York Otsego Co. 5,864 60,408 9.7% Rural 76 13.0
New York Putnam Co. 2,487 98,274 2.5% Urban 33 13.3
New York Queens Co. 331,319 2,285,640 14.5% Urban 1,908 5.8
New York Rensselaer 15,022 159,530 9.4% Urban 148 9.9
Co.
New York Richmond Co. 70,240 492,640 14.3% Urban 359 5.1
New York Rockland Co. 43,843 340,756 12.9% Urban 159 3.6
New York St. Lawrence 14,049 107,043 13.1% Rural 125 8.9
Co.
New York Saratoga Co. 13,847 238,491 5.8% Urban 163 11.8
New York Schenectady 22,196 159,846 13.9% Urban 166 7.5
Co.
New York Schoharie 3,671 30,062 12.2% Urban 34 9.3
Co.
New York Schuyler Co. 2,077 17,591 11.8% Rural 19 9.1
New York Seneca Co. 3,647 32,610 11.2% Rural 36 9.9
New York Steuben Co. 11,459 92,420 12.4% Rural 101 8.8
New York Suffolk Co. 108,364 1,529,565 7.1% Urban 758 7.0
New York Sullivan Co. 13,347 79,768 16.7% Rural 121 9.1
New York Tioga Co. 5,285 47,708 11.1% Urban 39 7.4
New York Tompkins Co. 7,694 105,827 7.3% Urban 82 10.7
New York Ulster Co. 18,039 182,357 9.9% Urban 154 8.5
New York Warren Co. 6,726 65,448 10.3% Urban 75 11.2
New York Washington 6,556 60,764 10.8% Urban 61 9.3
Co.
New York Wayne Co. 8,539 90,831 9.4% Urban 79 9.3
New York Westchester 77,237 993,488 7.8% Urban 567 7.3
Co.
New York Wyoming Co. 2,513 39,528 6.4% Rural 33 13.1
New York Yates Co. 2,080 24,469 8.5% Rural 23 11.1
North Alamance Co. 26,993 176,544 15.3% Urban 164 6.1
Carolina
North Alexander 5,085 36,237 14% Urban 31 6.1
Carolina Co.
North Alleghany 1,767 11,187 15.8% Rural 12 6.8
Carolina Co.
North Anson Co. 6,825 22,346 30.5% Urban 34 5.0 8Higher-
Carolina risk0
North Ashe Co. 4,373 27,062 16.2% Rural 20 4.6
Carolina
North Avery Co. 2,036 17,550 11.6% Rural 14 6.9
Carolina
North Beaufort Co. 9,809 44,356 22.1% Rural 57 5.8
Carolina
North Bertie Co. 4,768 16,947 28.1% Rural 26 5.5 8Higher-
Carolina risk0
North Bladen Co. 7,969 29,365 27.1% Rural 45 5.6 8Higher-
Carolina risk0
North Brunswick 15,744 152,836 10.3% Urban 139 8.8
Carolina Co.
North Buncombe Co. 32,097 274,112 11.7% Urban 198 6.2
Carolina
North Burke Co. 12,977 87,732 14.8% Urban 99 7.6
Carolina
North Cabarrus Co. 25,878 236,078 11% Urban 161 6.2
Carolina
North Caldwell Co. 13,755 80,259 17.1% Urban 84 6.1
Carolina
North Camden Co. 960 11,089 8.7% Urban 8 8.3
Carolina
North Carteret Co. 7,124 69,369 10.3% Rural 72 10.1
Carolina
North Caswell Co. 4,518 22,219 20.3% Rural 25 5.5
Carolina
North Catawba Co. 23,481 163,286 14.4% Urban 176 7.5
Carolina
North Chatham Co. 5,349 80,080 6.7% Urban 49 9.2
Carolina
North Cherokee Co. 4,911 29,431 16.7% Rural 30 6.1
Carolina
North Chowan Co. 2,785 13,921 20% Rural 17 6.1
Carolina
North Clay Co. 1,659 11,610 14.3% Rural 11 6.6
Carolina
North Cleveland 24,030 100,771 23.8% Rural 139 5.8 8Higher-
Carolina Co. risk0
North Columbus Co. 12,892 50,027 25.8% Rural 83 6.4 8Higher-
Carolina risk0
North Craven Co. 15,184 102,392 14.8% Rural 106 7.0
Carolina
North Cumberland 81,238 339,068 24% Urban 318 3.9 8Higher-
Carolina Co. risk0
North Currituck 2,152 31,011 6.9% Urban 28 13.0
Carolina Co.
North Dare Co. 2,748 38,047 7.2% Rural 48 17.5
Carolina
North Davidson Co. 28,081 172,443 16.3% Urban 162 5.8
Carolina
North Davie Co. 5,227 44,087 11.9% Urban 51 9.8
Carolina
North Duplin Co. 9,721 49,072 19.8% Rural 70 7.2
Carolina
North Durham Co. 38,433 331,568 11.6% Urban 204 5.3
Carolina
North Edgecombe 16,600 48,481 34.2% Urban 71 4.3 8Higher-
Carolina Co. risk0
North Forsyth Co. 63,378 389,519 16.3% Urban 346 5.5
Carolina
North Franklin Co. 10,172 74,326 13.7% Urban 56 5.5
Carolina
North Gaston Co. 40,454 234,208 17.3% Urban 212 5.2
Carolina
North Gates Co. 1,674 10,373 16.1% Urban 8 4.8
Carolina
North Graham Co. 1,623 8,052 20.2% Rural 6 3.7
Carolina
North Granville 8,047 60,867 13.2% Rural 60 7.5
Carolina Co.
North Greene Co. 4,376 20,415 21.4% Rural 20 4.6
Carolina
North Guilford Co. 98,200 547,195 17.9% Urban 514 5.2
Carolina
North Halifax Co. 15,773 47,623 33.1% Rural 90 5.7 8Higher-
Carolina risk0
North Harnett Co. 21,668 138,583 15.6% Rural 99 4.6
Carolina
North Haywood Co. 9,129 62,595 14.6% Rural 47 5.1
Carolina
North Henderson 10,864 118,336 9.2% Urban 76 7.0
Carolina Co.
North Hertford Co. 6,078 19,525 31.1% Rural 34 5.6 8Higher-
Carolina risk0
North Hoke Co. 10,693 53,759 19.9% Urban 44 4.1
Carolina
North Hyde Co. 958 4,616 20.8% Rural 5 5.2
Carolina
North Iredell Co. 15,517 196,129 7.9% Urban 146 9.4
Carolina
North Jackson Co. 5,143 43,880 11.7% Rural 34 6.6
Carolina
North Johnston Co. 29,344 234,762 12.5% Urban 157 5.4
Carolina
North Jones Co. 2,090 9,243 22.6% Rural 8 3.8 8Higher-
Carolina risk0
North Lee Co. 9,766 65,687 14.9% Rural 78 8.0
Carolina
North Lenoir Co. 14,975 54,529 27.5% Rural 76 5.1 8Higher-
Carolina risk0
North Lincoln Co. 10,683 93,103 11.5% Urban 79 7.4
Carolina
North McDowell Co. 8,769 44,759 19.6% Rural 53 6.0
Carolina
North Macon Co. 4,631 37,996 12.2% Rural 37 8.0
Carolina
North Madison Co. 3,354 21,912 15.3% Urban 17 5.1
Carolina
North Martin Co. 5,280 21,502 24.6% Rural 29 5.5 8Higher-
Carolina risk0
North Mecklenburg 146,750 1,149,349 12.8% Urban 718 4.9
Carolina Co.
North Mitchell Co. 2,620 15,051 17.4% Rural 16 6.1
Carolina
North Montgomery 4,461 25,884 17.2% Rural 34 7.6
Carolina Co.
North Moore Co. 10,768 105,548 10.2% Urban 92 8.5
Carolina
North Nash Co. 18,720 95,922 19.5% Urban 127 6.8
Carolina
North New Hanover 27,123 236,147 11.5% Urban 209 7.7
Carolina Co.
North Northampton 4,986 16,806 29.7% Rural 30 6.0 8Higher-
Carolina Co. risk0
North Onslow Co. 23,977 206,718 11.6% Urban 139 5.8
Carolina
North Orange Co. 11,120 150,744 7.4% Urban 86 7.7
Carolina
North Pamlico Co. 1,947 12,269 15.9% Rural 14 7.2
Carolina
North Pasquotank 8,301 40,818 20.3% Rural 44 5.3
Carolina Co.
North Pender Co. 8,291 65,697 12.6% Urban 60 7.2
Carolina
North Perquimans 2,443 13,243 18.4% Rural 20 8.2
Carolina Co.
North Person Co. 7,345 39,396 18.6% Urban 42 5.7
Carolina
North Pitt Co. 37,375 177,090 21.1% Urban 190 5.1
Carolina
North Polk Co. 2,390 20,006 11.9% Rural 18 7.5
Carolina
North Randolph Co. 24,316 146,174 16.6% Urban 134 5.5
Carolina
North Richmond Co. 14,994 42,360 35.4% Rural 77 5.1 8Higher-
Carolina risk0
North Robeson Co. 44,708 116,313 38.4% Rural 205 4.6 8Higher-
Carolina risk0
North Rockingham 18,131 92,044 19.7% Urban 118 6.5
Carolina Co.
North Rowan Co. 22,876 149,514 15.3% Urban 127 5.6
Carolina
North Rutherford 14,010 64,829 21.6% Rural 74 5.3
Carolina Co.
North Sampson Co. 12,935 59,096 21.9% Rural 60 4.6
Carolina
North Scotland Co. 11,325 33,548 33.8% Rural 57 5.0 8Higher-
Carolina risk0
North Stanly Co. 9,538 64,285 14.8% Rural 72 7.5
Carolina
North Stokes Co. 6,550 45,137 14.5% Urban 45 6.9
Carolina
North Surry Co. 12,523 71,489 17.5% Rural 99 7.9
Carolina
North Swain Co. 2,281 13,968 16.3% Rural 16 7.0
Carolina
North Transylvania 4,016 33,668 11.9% Rural 29 7.2
Carolina Co.
North Tyrrell Co. 677 3,469 19.5% Rural 6 8.9
Carolina
North Union Co. 19,786 249,714 7.9% Urban 144 7.3
Carolina
North Vance Co. 14,312 42,258 33.9% Rural 70 4.9 8Higher-
Carolina risk0
North Wake Co. 90,918 1,174,107 7.7% Urban 662 7.3
Carolina
North Warren Co. 4,476 18,700 23.9% Rural 29 6.5 8Higher-
Carolina risk0
North Washington 3,174 10,798 29.4% Rural 18 5.7 8Higher-
Carolina Co. risk0
North Watauga Co. 2,640 55,404 4.8% Rural 44 16.7
Carolina
North Wayne Co. 24,575 118,185 20.8% Urban 129 5.2
Carolina
North Wilkes Co. 12,700 65,801 19.3% Rural 86 6.8
Carolina
North Wilson Co. 17,111 78,838 21.7% Rural 114 6.7
Carolina
North Yadkin Co. 5,092 37,539 13.6% Urban 37 7.3
Carolina
North Yancey Co. 3,023 18,790 16.1% Rural 12 4.0
Carolina
North Adams Co. 117 2,106 5.6% Rural 3 25.6
Dakota
North Barnes Co. 609 10,743 5.7% Rural 7 11.5
Dakota
North Benson Co. 1,519 5,794 26.2% Rural 7 4.6 8Higher-
Dakota risk0
North Billings Co. 35 1,022 3.4% Rural 0 0.0
Dakota
North Bottineau 432 6,372 6.8% Rural 5 11.6
Dakota Co.
North Bowman Co. 121 2,892 4.2% Rural 5 41.3
Dakota
North Burke Co. 51 2,133 2.4% Rural 1 19.6
Dakota
North Burleigh Co. 3,997 100,436 4% Urban 46 11.5
Dakota
North Cass Co. 9,906 193,670 5.1% Urban 111 11.2
Dakota
North Cavalier Co. 142 3,616 3.9% Rural 2 14.1
Dakota
North Dickey Co. 221 4,941 4.5% Rural 6 27.1
Dakota
North Divide Co. 73 2,174 3.4% Rural 2 27.4
Dakota
North Dunn Co. 170 4,005 4.2% Rural 3 17.6
Dakota
North Eddy Co. 230 2,311 10% Rural 3 13.0
Dakota
North Emmons Co. 171 3,267 5.2% Rural 6 35.1
Dakota
North Foster Co. 193 3,377 5.7% Rural 4 20.7
Dakota
North Golden 62 1,746 3.6% Rural 3 48.4
Dakota Valley Co.
North Grand Forks 3,959 72,103 5.5% Urban 58 14.7
Dakota Co.
North Grant Co. 163 2,248 7.3% Rural 5 30.7
Dakota
North Griggs Co. 127 2,268 5.6% Rural 5 39.4
Dakota
North Hettinger 141 2,425 5.8% Rural 4 28.4
Dakota Co.
North Kidder Co. 116 2,396 4.8% Rural 3 25.9
Dakota
North LaMoure Co. 94 4,061 2.3% Rural 4 42.6
Dakota
North Logan Co. 68 1,849 3.7% Rural 2 29.4
Dakota
North McHenry Co. 359 5,208 6.9% Urban 7 19.5
Dakota
North McIntosh Co. 130 2,503 5.2% Rural 4 30.8
Dakota
North McKenzie Co. 412 13,905 3% Rural 12 29.1
Dakota
North McLean Co. 290 9,851 2.9% Rural 7 24.1
Dakota
North Mercer Co. 284 8,333 3.4% Rural 6 21.1
Dakota
North Morton Co. 2,124 33,741 6.3% Urban 18 8.5
Dakota
North Mountrail 408 9,255 4.4% Rural 15 36.8
Dakota Co.
North Nelson Co. 159 3,011 5.3% Rural 4 25.2
Dakota
North Oliver Co. 58 1,858 3.1% Urban 3 51.7
Dakota
North Pembina Co. 300 6,764 4.4% Rural 7 23.3
Dakota
North Pierce Co. 215 3,944 5.5% Rural 3 14.0
Dakota
North Ramsey Co. 1,006 11,552 8.7% Rural 10 9.9
Dakota
North Ransom Co. 207 5,648 3.7% Rural 5 24.2
Dakota
North Renville Co. 73 2,267 3.2% Urban 4 54.8
Dakota
North Richland Co. 924 16,577 5.6% Rural 17 18.4
Dakota
North Rolette Co. 3,477 11,889 29.2% Rural 17 4.9 8Higher-
Dakota risk0
North Sargent Co. 171 3,823 4.5% Rural 5 29.2
Dakota
North Sheridan Co. 82 1,285 6.4% Rural 1 12.2
Dakota
North Sioux Co. 1,177 3,697 31.8% Rural 4 3.4 8Higher-
Dakota risk0
North Slope Co. 39 684 5.7% Rural 0 0.0
Dakota
North Stark Co. 1,891 32,762 5.8% Rural 16 8.5
Dakota
North Steele Co. 96 1,782 5.4% Rural 3 31.3
Dakota
North Stutsman Co. 1,290 21,518 6% Rural 15 11.6
Dakota
North Towner Co. 135 2,060 6.6% Rural 3 22.2
Dakota
North Traill Co. 339 7,958 4.3% Rural 8 23.6
Dakota
North Walsh Co. 714 10,468 6.8% Rural 9 12.6
Dakota
North Ward Co. 4,485 68,831 6.5% Urban 45 10.0
Dakota
North Wells Co. 302 3,916 7.7% Rural 5 16.6
Dakota
North Williams Co. 1,321 38,012 3.5% Rural 23 17.4
Dakota
Ohio Adams Co. 5,605 27,449 20.4% Rural 31 5.5
Ohio Allen Co. 12,430 101,086 12.3% Urban 113 9.1
Ohio Ashland Co. 3,928 52,010 7.6% Rural 42 10.7
Ohio Ashtabula 17,221 96,987 17.8% Urban 110 6.4
Co.
Ohio Athens Co. 8,813 61,029 14.4% Rural 61 6.9
Ohio Auglaize Co. 2,791 45,949 6.1% Rural 32 11.5
Ohio Belmont Co. 8,186 65,495 12.5% Urban 64 7.8
Ohio Brown Co. 5,960 43,707 13.6% Urban 44 7.4
Ohio Butler Co. 39,943 390,689 10.2% Urban 306 7.7
Ohio Carroll Co. 2,778 26,677 10.4% Urban 18 6.5
Ohio Champaign 3,934 38,712 10.2% Rural 25 6.4
Co.
Ohio Clark Co. 22,572 134,686 16.8% Urban 123 5.4
Ohio Clermont Co. 14,272 210,906 6.8% Urban 145 10.2
Ohio Clinton Co. 5,164 41,902 12.3% Rural 40 7.7
Ohio Columbiana 13,973 100,537 13.9% Rural 114 8.2
Co.
Ohio Coshocton 5,450 36,583 14.9% Rural 27 5.0
Co.
Ohio Crawford Co. 6,368 41,532 15.3% Rural 42 6.6
Ohio Cuyahoga Co. 208,105 1,239,720 16.8% Urban 1,125 5.4
Ohio Darke Co. 4,032 51,526 7.8% Rural 36 8.9
Ohio Defiance Co. 3,825 38,183 10% Rural 33 8.6
Ohio Delaware Co. 5,991 227,008 2.6% Urban 99 16.5
Ohio Erie Co. 9,117 74,563 12.2% Urban 75 8.2
Ohio Fairfield 14,673 163,166 9% Urban 96 6.5
Co.
Ohio Fayette Co. 4,210 28,856 14.6% Rural 34 8.1
Ohio Franklin Co. 162,610 1,327,687 12.2% Urban 1,049 6.5
Ohio Fulton Co. 2,920 42,083 6.9% Urban 31 10.6
Ohio Gallia Co. 5,986 29,014 20.6% Rural 40 6.7
Ohio Geauga Co. 2,623 95,552 2.7% Urban 64 24.4
Ohio Greene Co. 12,667 169,380 7.5% Urban 109 8.6
Ohio Guernsey Co. 5,709 38,069 15% Rural 39 6.8
Ohio Hamilton Co. 105,524 826,970 12.8% Urban 663 6.3
Ohio Hancock Co. 5,764 74,793 7.7% Rural 57 9.9
Ohio Hardin Co. 3,415 30,400 11.2% Rural 29 8.5
Ohio Harrison Co. 2,032 14,351 14.2% Rural 16 7.9
Ohio Henry Co. 1,387 27,517 5% Rural 25 18.0
Ohio Highland Co. 6,277 43,396 14.5% Rural 48 7.6
Ohio Hocking Co. 5,453 27,843 19.6% Urban 24 4.4
Ohio Holmes Co. 1,012 44,380 2.3% Rural 26 25.7
Ohio Huron Co. 7,243 58,256 12.4% Rural 65 9.0
Ohio Jackson Co. 6,283 32,634 19.3% Rural 43 6.8
Ohio Jefferson 11,954 64,286 18.6% Urban 68 5.7
Co.
Ohio Knox Co. 5,327 63,186 8.4% Rural 39 7.3
Ohio Lake Co. 16,294 231,968 7% Urban 186 11.4
Ohio Lawrence Co. 12,196 56,571 21.6% Urban 63 5.2
Ohio Licking Co. 17,287 181,899 9.5% Urban 135 7.8
Ohio Logan Co. 4,861 46,040 10.6% Rural 48 9.9
Ohio Lorain Co. 34,993 316,616 11.1% Urban 243 6.9
Ohio Lucas Co. 67,195 427,154 15.7% Urban 417 6.2
Ohio Madison Co. 4,031 43,613 9.2% Urban 34 8.4
Ohio Mahoning Co. 43,488 226,104 19.2% Urban 224 5.2
Ohio Marion Co. 10,484 64,576 16.2% Rural 62 5.9
Ohio Medina Co. 9,044 183,520 4.9% Urban 117 12.9
Ohio Meigs Co. 4,497 21,971 20.5% Rural 28 6.2
Ohio Mercer Co. 1,804 42,403 4.3% Rural 29 16.1
Ohio Miami Co. 8,872 110,245 8% Urban 79 8.9
Ohio Monroe Co. 1,679 13,225 12.7% Rural 17 10.1
Ohio Montgomery 79,438 534,355 14.9% Urban 467 5.9
Co.
Ohio Morgan Co. 2,102 13,648 15.4% Rural 11 5.2
Ohio Morrow Co. 2,976 35,317 8.4% Urban 28 9.4
Ohio Muskingum 14,802 86,114 17.2% Rural 92 6.2
Co.
Ohio Noble Co. 1,329 14,364 9.3% Rural 12 9.0
Ohio Ottawa Co. 3,077 39,984 7.7% Urban 34 11.0
Ohio Paulding Co. 1,912 18,763 10.2% Rural 18 9.4
Ohio Perry Co. 6,075 35,483 17.1% Urban 36 5.9
Ohio Pickaway Co. 6,473 59,987 10.8% Urban 41 6.3
Ohio Pike Co. 6,845 26,991 25.4% Rural 44 6.4 8Higher-
risk0
Ohio Portage Co. 14,155 161,924 8.7% Urban 131 9.3
Ohio Preble Co. 3,681 40,557 9.1% Rural 37 10.1
Ohio Putnam Co. 1,752 34,331 5.1% Rural 19 10.8
Ohio Richland Co. 18,785 125,268 15% Urban 126 6.7
Ohio Ross Co. 12,374 76,479 16.2% Rural 75 6.1
Ohio Sandusky Co. 5,495 58,591 9.4% Rural 55 10.0
Ohio Scioto Co. 18,383 72,312 25.4% Rural 88 4.8 8Higher-
risk0
Ohio Seneca Co. 6,293 54,563 11.5% Rural 53 8.4
Ohio Shelby Co. 3,822 47,723 8% Rural 39 10.2
Ohio Stark Co. 47,512 373,008 12.7% Urban 316 6.7
Ohio Summit Co. 76,084 536,582 14.2% Urban 473 6.2
Ohio Trumbull Co. 31,445 200,716 15.7% Urban 209 6.6
Ohio Tuscarawas 9,479 92,030 10.3% Rural 101 10.7
Co.
Ohio Union Co. 2,724 66,927 4.1% Urban 31 11.4
Ohio Van Wert Co. 2,428 28,806 8.4% Rural 21 8.6
Ohio Vinton Co. 3,146 12,585 25% Rural 15 4.8 8Higher-
risk0
Ohio Warren Co. 9,526 250,298 3.8% Urban 130 13.6
Ohio Washington 7,447 58,883 12.6% Rural 69 9.3
Co.
Ohio Wayne Co. 9,048 116,609 7.8% Rural 87 9.6
Ohio Williams Co. 3,346 36,621 9.1% Rural 38 11.4
Ohio Wood Co. 6,683 131,821 5.1% Urban 89 13.3
Ohio Wyandot Co. 1,741 21,574 8.1% Rural 21 12.1
Oklahoma Adair Co. 5,965 19,513 30.6% Rural 26 4.4 8Higher-
risk0
Oklahoma Alfalfa Co. 528 5,697 9.3% Rural 6 11.4
Oklahoma Atoka Co. 2,482 14,311 17.3% Rural 20 8.1
Oklahoma Beaver Co. 443 5,044 8.8% Rural 4 9.0
Oklahoma Beckham Co. 4,198 21,990 19.1% Rural 35 8.3
Oklahoma Blaine Co. 1,679 8,477 19.8% Rural 19 11.3
Oklahoma Bryan Co. 7,538 48,229 15.6% Rural 51 6.8
Oklahoma Caddo Co. 5,751 26,282 21.9% Rural 39 6.8
Oklahoma Canadian Co. 13,207 169,507 7.8% Urban 105 8.0
Oklahoma Carter Co. 9,831 48,488 20.3% Rural 76 7.7
Oklahoma Cherokee Co. 8,490 48,058 17.7% Rural 56 6.6
Oklahoma Choctaw Co. 4,151 14,416 28.8% Rural 21 5.1 8Higher-
risk0
Oklahoma Cimarron Co. 245 2,229 11% Rural 5 20.4
Oklahoma Cleveland 29,600 299,950 9.9% Urban 184 6.2
Co.
Oklahoma Coal Co. 1,056 5,309 19.9% Rural 10 9.5
Oklahoma Comanche Co. 22,255 122,390 18.2% Urban 120 5.4
Oklahoma Cotton Co. 1,014 5,473 18.5% Urban 11 10.8
Oklahoma Craig Co. 2,595 14,180 18.3% Rural 19 7.3
Oklahoma Creek Co. 12,294 72,698 16.9% Urban 62 5.0
Oklahoma Custer Co. 4,284 28,075 15.3% Rural 35 8.2
Oklahoma Delaware Co. 6,422 41,491 15.5% Rural 47 7.3
Oklahoma Dewey Co. 555 4,387 12.7% Rural 8 14.4
Oklahoma Ellis Co. 396 3,693 10.7% Rural 6 15.2
Oklahoma Garfield Co. 10,107 61,990 16.3% Urban 77 7.6
Oklahoma Garvin Co. 5,361 25,793 20.8% Rural 39 7.3
Oklahoma Grady Co. 6,924 56,700 12.2% Urban 56 8.1
Oklahoma Grant Co. 453 4,124 11% Rural 4 8.8
Oklahoma Greer Co. 1,147 5,548 20.7% Rural 7 6.1
Oklahoma Harmon Co. 663 2,428 27.3% Rural 5 7.5 8Higher-
risk0
Oklahoma Harper Co. 304 3,176 9.6% Rural 6 19.7
Oklahoma Haskell Co. 2,962 11,644 25.4% Rural 22 7.4 8Higher-
risk0
Oklahoma Hughes Co. 2,919 13,421 21.7% Rural 22 7.5
Oklahoma Jackson Co. 4,274 24,671 17.3% Rural 28 6.6
Oklahoma Jefferson 1,502 5,428 27.7% Rural 11 7.3 8Higher-
Co. risk0
Oklahoma Johnston Co. 2,372 10,328 23% Rural 17 7.2 8Higher-
risk0
Oklahoma Kay Co. 9,485 43,726 21.7% Rural 52 5.5
Oklahoma Kingfisher 1,491 15,313 9.7% Rural 15 10.1
Co.
Oklahoma Kiowa Co. 2,149 8,437 25.5% Rural 17 7.9 8Higher-
risk0
Oklahoma Latimer Co. 2,612 9,580 27.3% Rural 17 6.5 8Higher-
risk0
Oklahoma Le Flore Co. 11,088 49,004 22.6% Rural 67 6.0 8Higher-
risk0
Oklahoma Lincoln Co. 5,590 34,153 16.4% Urban 42 7.5
Oklahoma Logan Co. 4,433 52,029 8.5% Urban 45 10.2
Oklahoma Love Co. 1,616 10,184 15.9% Rural 12 7.4
Oklahoma McClain Co. 5,052 45,422 11.1% Urban 41 8.1
Oklahoma McCurtain 8,252 30,892 26.7% Rural 57 6.9 8Higher-
Co. risk0
Oklahoma McIntosh Co. 4,493 19,419 23.1% Rural 31 6.9 8Higher-
risk0
Oklahoma Major Co. 807 7,558 10.7% Rural 10 12.4
Oklahoma Marshall Co. 2,697 15,947 16.9% Rural 23 8.5
Oklahoma Mayes Co. 7,514 39,593 19% Rural 54 7.2
Oklahoma Murray Co. 2,010 13,677 14.7% Rural 15 7.5
Oklahoma Muskogee Co. 16,693 66,293 25.2% Rural 91 5.5 8Higher-
risk0
Oklahoma Noble Co. 1,359 10,861 12.5% Rural 15 11.0
Oklahoma Nowata Co. 1,768 9,447 18.7% Rural 16 9.0
Oklahoma Okfuskee Co. 2,511 11,230 22.4% Rural 14 5.6
Oklahoma Oklahoma Co. 167,747 805,165 20.8% Urban 723 4.3
Oklahoma Okmulgee Co. 8,700 36,937 23.6% Urban 46 5.3 8Higher-
risk0
Oklahoma Osage Co. 3,288 45,799 7.2% Urban 41 12.5
Oklahoma Ottawa Co. 7,521 30,366 24.8% Rural 36 4.8 8Higher-
risk0
Oklahoma Pawnee Co. 2,964 15,695 18.9% Urban 19 6.4
Oklahoma Payne Co. 9,808 83,029 11.8% Rural 68 6.9
Oklahoma Pittsburg 8,446 43,517 19.4% Rural 66 7.8
Co.
Oklahoma Pontotoc Co. 7,260 38,074 19.1% Rural 40 5.5
Oklahoma Pottawatomie 14,758 73,403 20.1% Rural 85 5.8
Co.
Oklahoma Pushmataha 2,377 10,728 22.2% Rural 16 6.7
Co.
Oklahoma Roger Mills 422 3,366 12.5% Rural 3 7.1
Co.
Oklahoma Rogers Co. 9,431 99,103 9.5% Urban 63 6.7
Oklahoma Seminole Co. 6,042 23,484 25.7% Rural 30 5.0 8Higher-
risk0
Oklahoma Sequoyah Co. 10,193 39,756 25.6% Urban 51 5.0 8Higher-
risk0
Oklahoma Stephens Co. 8,097 43,674 18.5% Rural 52 6.4
Oklahoma Texas Co. 2,161 20,635 10.5% Rural 19 8.8
Oklahoma Tillman Co. 1,627 6,968 23.3% Rural 12 7.4 8Higher-
risk0
Oklahoma Tulsa Co. 111,027 679,212 16.3% Urban 524 4.7
Oklahoma Wagoner Co. 8,215 86,755 9.5% Urban 51 6.2
Oklahoma Washington 8,558 53,289 16.1% Rural 48 5.6
Co.
Oklahoma Washita Co. 2,011 10,715 18.8% Rural 14 7.0
Oklahoma Woods Co. 873 8,602 10.1% Rural 10 11.5
Oklahoma Woodward Co. 2,725 20,054 13.6% Rural 24 8.8
Oregon Baker Co. 3,897 16,933 23% Rural 22 5.6 8Higher-
risk0
Oregon Benton Co. 11,252 97,406 11.6% Urban 66 5.9
Oregon Clackamas 48,407 423,217 11.4% Urban 251 5.2
Co.
Oregon Clatsop Co. 7,150 41,595 17.2% Rural 51 7.1
Oregon Columbia Co. 9,079 53,589 16.9% Urban 39 4.3
Oregon Coos Co. 16,957 65,135 26% Rural 67 4.0 8Higher-
risk0
Oregon Crook Co. 5,397 26,393 20.4% Urban 19 3.5
Oregon Curry Co. 5,249 23,614 22.2% Rural 25 4.8
Oregon Deschutes 24,089 206,491 11.7% Urban 118 4.9
Co.
Oregon Douglas Co. 28,573 112,226 25.5% Rural 153 5.4 8Higher-
risk0
Oregon Gilliam Co. 386 2,012 19.2% Rural 4 10.4
Oregon Grant Co. 1,453 7,221 20.1% Rural 13 8.9
Oregon Harney Co. 1,731 7,537 23% Rural 14 8.1 8Higher-
risk0
Oregon Hood River 2,947 24,028 12.3% Rural 25 8.5
Co.
Oregon Jackson Co. 47,599 222,153 21.4% Urban 190 4.0
Oregon Jefferson 7,048 25,319 27.8% Urban 27 3.8 8Higher-
Co. risk0
Oregon Josephine 24,973 87,786 28.4% Urban 96 3.8 8Higher-
Co. risk0
Oregon Klamath Co. 20,025 70,404 28.4% Rural 80 4.0 8Higher-
risk0
Oregon Lake Co. 1,949 8,365 23.3% Rural 10 5.1 8Higher-
risk0
Oregon Lane Co. 74,726 386,187 19.3% Urban 333 4.5
Oregon Lincoln Co. 10,662 50,756 21% Rural 64 6.0
Oregon Linn Co. 29,129 130,516 22.3% Urban 122 4.2
Oregon Malheur Co. 8,742 31,868 27.4% Rural 40 4.6 8Higher-
risk0
Oregon Marion Co. 69,381 349,388 19.9% Urban 284 4.1
Oregon Morrow Co. 2,399 12,257 19.6% Rural 18 7.5
Oregon Multnomah 142,603 795,960 17.9% Urban 650 4.6
Co.
Oregon Polk Co. 15,327 89,986 17% Urban 53 3.5
Oregon Sherman Co. 475 1,953 24.3% Rural 9 18.9
Oregon Tillamook 4,898 27,516 17.8% Rural 38 7.8
Co.
Oregon Umatilla Co. 16,724 79,732 21% Rural 86 5.1
Oregon Union Co. 5,778 26,167 22.1% Rural 31 5.4
Oregon Wallowa Co. 1,115 7,647 14.6% Rural 8 7.2
Oregon Wasco Co. 5,517 26,535 20.8% Rural 33 6.0
Oregon Washington 61,063 600,229 10.2% Urban 315 5.2
Co.
Oregon Wheeler Co. 219 1,434 15.3% Rural 3 13.7
Oregon Yamhill Co. 16,832 107,817 15.6% Urban 78 4.6
Pennsylvani Adams Co. 7,846 106,017 7.4% Urban 67 8.5
a
Pennsylvani Allegheny 162,096 1,233,821 13.1% Urban 955 5.9
a Co.
Pennsylvani Armstrong 10,490 64,664 16.2% Urban 58 5.5
a Co.
Pennsylvani Beaver Co. 24,562 165,682 14.8% Urban 145 5.9
a
Pennsylvani Bedford Co. 6,816 47,395 14.4% Rural 51 7.5
a
Pennsylvani Berks Co. 59,589 432,281 13.8% Urban 371 6.2
a
Pennsylvani Blair Co. 23,012 120,796 19.1% Urban 121 5.3
a
Pennsylvani Bradford Co. 8,600 59,800 14.4% Rural 79 9.2
a
Pennsylvani Bucks Co. 40,764 645,871 6.3% Urban 361 8.9
a
Pennsylvani Butler Co. 15,269 197,422 7.7% Urban 149 9.8
a
Pennsylvani Cambria Co. 25,333 131,432 19.3% Urban 121 4.8
a
Pennsylvani Cameron Co. 962 4,406 21.8% Rural 5 5.2
a
Pennsylvani Carbon Co. 9,084 65,466 13.9% Urban 48 5.3
a
Pennsylvani Centre Co. 8,145 157,992 5.2% Urban 79 9.7
a
Pennsylvani Chester Co. 28,416 547,248 5.2% Urban 255 9.0
a
Pennsylvani Clarion Co. 5,357 37,280 14.4% Rural 43 8.0
a
Pennsylvani Clearfield 13,062 77,881 16.8% Rural 74 5.7
a Co.
Pennsylvani Clinton Co. 5,637 37,873 14.9% Rural 33 5.9
a
Pennsylvani Columbia Co. 8,897 65,347 13.6% Rural 63 7.1
a
Pennsylvani Crawford Co. 13,395 82,380 16.3% Rural 81 6.0
a
Pennsylvani Cumberland 23,130 268,740 8.6% Urban 186 8.0
a Co.
Pennsylvani Dauphin Co. 51,368 289,049 17.8% Urban 282 5.5
a
Pennsylvani Delaware Co. 76,753 577,040 13.3% Urban 401 5.2
a
Pennsylvani Elk Co. 3,790 30,453 12.4% Rural 30 7.9
a
Pennsylvani Erie Co. 55,717 269,112 20.7% Urban 272 4.9
a
Pennsylvani Fayette Co. 30,484 125,622 24.3% Urban 141 4.6 8Higher-
a risk0
Pennsylvani Forest Co. 647 6,621 9.8% Rural 7 10.8
a
Pennsylvani Franklin Co. 18,032 157,017 11.5% Urban 113 6.3
a
Pennsylvani Fulton Co. 2,016 14,557 13.8% Rural 10 5.0
a
Pennsylvani Greene Co. 6,977 34,566 20.2% Rural 36 5.2
a
Pennsylvani Huntingdon 5,744 43,303 13.3% Rural 39 6.8
a Co.
Pennsylvani Indiana Co. 11,969 82,901 14.4% Rural 71 5.9
a
Pennsylvani Jefferson 6,439 43,725 14.7% Rural 49 7.6
a Co.
Pennsylvani Juniata Co. 2,506 23,290 10.8% Rural 23 9.2
a
Pennsylvani Lackawanna 40,565 215,797 18.8% Urban 204 5.0
a Co.
Pennsylvani Lancaster 53,654 556,991 9.6% Urban 369 6.9
a Co.
Pennsylvani Lawrence Co. 16,677 84,800 19.7% Urban 93 5.6
a
Pennsylvani Lebanon Co. 17,633 144,003 12.2% Urban 112 6.4
a
Pennsylvani Lehigh Co. 57,391 377,019 15.2% Urban 296 5.2
a
Pennsylvani Luzerne Co. 66,488 326,892 20.3% Urban 309 4.6
a
Pennsylvani Lycoming Co. 17,562 113,223 15.5% Urban 92 5.2
a
Pennsylvani McKean Co. 7,472 39,791 18.8% Rural 46 6.2
a
Pennsylvani Mercer Co. 19,020 109,115 17.4% Rural 107 5.6
a
Pennsylvani Mifflin Co. 7,350 45,993 16% Rural 46 6.3
a
Pennsylvani Monroe Co. 23,010 167,437 13.7% Rural 127 5.5
a
Pennsylvani Montgomery 58,592 865,848 6.8% Urban 459 7.8
a Co.
Pennsylvani Montour Co. 1,615 18,122 8.9% Rural 17 10.5
a
Pennsylvani Northampton 32,625 318,044 10.3% Urban 206 6.3
a Co.
Pennsylvani Northumberla 16,763 90,093 18.6% Rural 82 4.9
a nd Co.
Pennsylvani Perry Co. 4,612 46,214 10% Urban 41 8.9
a
Pennsylvani Philadelphia 474,962 1,570,554 30.2% Urban 1,669 3.5 8Higher-
a Co. risk0
Pennsylvani Pike Co. 6,719 60,647 11.1% Rural 31 4.6
a
Pennsylvani Potter Co. 2,422 16,203 14.9% Rural 19 7.8
a
Pennsylvani Schuylkill 23,611 143,205 16.5% Rural 149 6.3
a Co.
Pennsylvani Snyder Co. 3,502 39,525 8.9% Rural 37 10.6
a
Pennsylvani Somerset Co. 10,722 72,613 14.8% Rural 77 7.2
a
Pennsylvani Sullivan Co. 597 5,892 10.1% Rural 7 11.7
a
Pennsylvani Susquehanna 4,815 38,115 12.6% Rural 27 5.6
a Co.
Pennsylvani Tioga Co. 6,082 40,954 14.9% Rural 43 7.1
a
Pennsylvani Union Co. 3,400 42,745 8% Rural 31 9.1
a
Pennsylvani Venango Co. 9,191 49,695 18.5% Rural 49 5.3
a
Pennsylvani Warren Co. 5,844 37,843 15.4% Rural 32 5.5
a
Pennsylvani Washington 26,989 209,962 12.9% Urban 167 6.2
a Co.
Pennsylvani Wayne Co. 6,268 51,132 12.3% Rural 45 7.2
a
Pennsylvani Westmoreland 44,664 352,054 12.7% Urban 282 6.3
a Co.
Pennsylvani Wyoming Co. 3,716 26,034 14.3% Urban 23 6.2
a
Pennsylvani York Co. 54,195 461,385 11.7% Urban 338 6.2
a
Rhode Bristol Co. 2,648 50,388 5.3% Urban 26 9.8
Island
Rhode Kent Co. 16,135 171,523 9.4% Urban 134 8.3
Island
Rhode Newport Co. 6,029 84,851 7.1% Urban 54 9.0
Island
Rhode Providence 109,988 662,209 16.6% Urban 655 6.0
Island Co.
Rhode Washington 7,469 130,527 5.7% Urban 79 10.6
Island Co.
South Abbeville 3,426 24,407 14% Rural 25 7.3
Carolina Co.
South Aiken Co. 22,477 174,075 12.9% Urban 179 8.0
Carolina
South Allendale 2,241 7,508 29.8% Rural 10 4.5 8Higher-
Carolina Co. risk0
South Anderson Co. 25,205 210,069 12% Urban 236 9.4
Carolina
South Bamberg Co. 3,203 12,966 24.7% Rural 24 7.5 8Higher-
Carolina risk0
South Barnwell Co. 5,194 20,469 25.4% Rural 36 6.9 8Higher-
Carolina risk0
South Beaufort Co. 11,129 195,932 5.7% Urban 129 11.6
Carolina
South Berkeley Co. 20,598 245,249 8.4% Urban 166 8.1
Carolina
South Calhoun Co. 2,268 14,200 16% Urban 11 4.9
Carolina
South Charleston 33,488 419,952 8% Urban 333 9.9
Carolina Co.
South Cherokee Co. 9,424 56,186 16.8% Rural 70 7.4
Carolina
South Chester Co. 6,570 31,972 20.5% Urban 41 6.2
Carolina
South Chesterfield 8,212 43,722 18.8% Rural 65 7.9
Carolina Co.
South Clarendon 6,659 30,976 21.5% Rural 46 6.9
Carolina Co.
South Colleton Co. 7,864 38,618 20.4% Rural 57 7.2
Carolina
South Darlington 13,648 62,434 21.9% Urban 97 7.1
Carolina Co.
South Dillon Co. 8,050 27,766 29% Rural 51 6.3 8Higher-
Carolina risk0
South Dorchester 14,781 166,029 8.9% Urban 124 8.4
Carolina Co.
South Edgefield 3,490 27,347 12.8% Urban 33 9.5
Carolina Co.
South Fairfield 4,439 20,430 21.7% Urban 32 7.2
Carolina Co.
South Florence Co. 25,145 136,860 18.4% Urban 184 7.3
Carolina
South Georgetown 8,317 64,753 12.8% Rural 82 9.9
Carolina Co.
South Greenville 45,798 548,447 8.4% Urban 473 10.3
Carolina Co.
South Greenwood 11,071 69,290 16% Rural 87 7.9
Carolina Co.
South Hampton Co. 3,954 18,147 21.8% Rural 31 7.8
Carolina
South Horry Co. 35,549 383,372 9.3% Urban 395 11.1
Carolina
South Jasper Co. 4,581 31,988 14.3% Urban 38 8.3
Carolina
South Kershaw Co. 8,927 67,917 13.1% Urban 68 7.6
Carolina
South Lancaster 10,445 104,795 10% Urban 99 9.5
Carolina Co.
South Laurens Co. 10,567 68,109 15.5% Urban 82 7.8
Carolina
South Lee Co. 4,128 16,119 25.6% Rural 29 7.0 8Higher-
Carolina risk0
South Lexington 30,188 305,147 9.9% Urban 317 10.5
Carolina Co.
South McCormick 1,242 9,741 12.8% Rural 7 5.6
Carolina Co.
South Marion Co. 7,962 28,494 27.9% Rural 47 5.9 8Higher-
Carolina risk0
South Marlboro Co. 6,209 26,003 23.9% Rural 40 6.4 8Higher-
Carolina risk0
South Newberry Co. 5,637 38,343 14.7% Rural 45 8.0
Carolina
South Oconee Co. 8,275 80,223 10.3% Rural 92 11.1
Carolina
South Orangeburg 18,573 83,165 22.3% Rural 142 7.6
Carolina Co.
South Pickens Co. 10,672 134,405 7.9% Urban 116 10.9
Carolina
South Richland Co. 52,322 421,693 12.4% Urban 363 6.9
Carolina
South Saluda Co. 2,738 19,086 14.3% Urban 23 8.4
Carolina
South Spartanburg 39,298 346,455 11.3% Urban 360 9.2
Carolina Co.
South Sumter Co. 19,768 104,068 19% Urban 124 6.3
Carolina
South Union Co. 5,110 26,787 19.1% Urban 42 8.2
Carolina
South Williamsburg 7,671 30,164 25.4% Rural 41 5.3 8Higher-
Carolina Co. risk0
South York Co. 22,599 294,057 7.7% Urban 195 8.6
Carolina
South Aurora Co. 84 2,772 3% Rural 5 59.5
Dakota
South Beadle Co. 2,223 19,356 11.5% Rural 22 9.9
Dakota
South Bennett Co. 868 3,339 26% Rural 7 8.1 8Higher-
Dakota risk0
South Bon Homme 332 7,088 4.7% Rural 8 24.1
Dakota Co.
South Brookings 1,269 35,442 3.6% Rural 21 16.5
Dakota Co.
South Brown Co. 2,522 37,915 6.7% Rural 23 9.1
Dakota
South Brule Co. 358 5,324 6.7% Rural 8 22.3
Dakota
South Buffalo Co. 723 1,848 39.1% Rural 3 4.1 8Higher-
Dakota risk0
South Butte Co. 910 10,788 8.4% Rural 10 11.0
Dakota
South Campbell Co. 53 1,367 3.9% Rural 1 18.9
Dakota
South Charles Mix 1,553 9,237 16.8% Rural 19 12.2
Dakota Co.
South Clark Co. 105 3,945 2.7% Rural 3 28.6
Dakota
South Clay Co. 1,012 15,277 6.6% Rural 9 8.9
Dakota
South Codington 1,719 28,756 6% Rural 19 11.1
Dakota Co.
South Corson Co. 1,334 3,797 35.1% Rural 2 1.5 8Higher-
Dakota risk0
South Custer Co. 325 9,024 3.6% Urban 9 27.7
Dakota
South Davison Co. 1,573 20,025 7.9% Rural 16 10.2
Dakota
South Day Co. 387 5,478 7.1% Rural 10 25.8
Dakota
South Deuel Co. 135 4,357 3.1% Rural 3 22.2
Dakota
South Dewey Co. 1,692 5,078 33.3% Rural 11 6.5 8Higher-
Dakota risk0
South Douglas Co. 53 2,797 1.9% Rural 2 37.7
Dakota
South Edmunds Co. 130 4,103 3.2% Rural 2 15.4
Dakota
South Fall River 500 7,373 6.8% Rural 11 22.0
Dakota Co.
South Faulk Co. 69 2,117 3.3% Rural 2 29.0
Dakota
South Grant Co. 306 7,535 4.1% Rural 8 26.1
Dakota
South Gregory Co. 262 3,993 6.6% Rural 9 34.4
Dakota
South Haakon Co. 72 1,830 3.9% Rural 4 55.6
Dakota
South Hamlin Co. 202 6,395 3.2% Rural 4 19.8
Dakota
South Hand Co. 66 3,123 2.1% Rural 3 45.5
Dakota
South Hanson Co. 71 3,461 2.1% Rural 1 14.1
Dakota
South Harding Co. 34 1,329 2.6% Rural 1 29.4
Dakota
South Hughes Co. 1,420 17,674 8% Rural 10 7.0
Dakota
South Hutchinson 294 7,375 4% Rural 9 30.6
Dakota Co.
South Hyde Co. 40 1,196 3.3% Rural 3 75.0
Dakota
South Jackson Co. 657 2,833 23.2% Rural 6 9.1
Dakota
South Jerauld Co. 51 1,645 3.1% Rural 2 39.2
Dakota
South Jones Co. 31 870 3.6% Rural 2 64.5
Dakota
South Kingsbury 166 5,282 3.1% Rural 4 24.1
Dakota Co.
South Lake Co. 494 10,945 4.5% Rural 6 12.1
Dakota
South Lawrence Co. 1,405 27,234 5.2% Rural 18 12.8
Dakota
South Lincoln Co. 1,235 71,156 1.7% Urban 42 34.0
Dakota
South Lyman Co. 611 3,717 16.4% Rural 5 8.2
Dakota
South McCook Co. 198 5,775 3.4% Urban 4 20.2
Dakota
South McPherson 82 2,401 3.4% Rural 3 36.6
Dakota Co.
South Marshall Co. 158 4,354 3.6% Rural 3 19.0
Dakota
South Meade Co. 965 30,679 3.1% Urban 19 19.7
Dakota
South Mellette Co. 572 1,867 30.6% Rural 4 7.0 8Higher-
Dakota risk0
South Miner Co. 85 2,289 3.7% Rural 2 23.5
Dakota
South Minnehaha 14,515 203,675 7.1% Urban 179 12.3
Dakota Co.
South Moody Co. 248 6,366 3.9% Rural 4 16.1
Dakota
South Oglala 5,794 13,482 43% Rural 10 1.7 8Higher-
Dakota Lakota Co. risk0
South Pennington 9,781 114,269 8.6% Urban 91 9.3
Dakota Co.
South Perkins Co. 89 2,807 3.2% Rural 3 33.7
Dakota
South Potter Co. 50 2,450 2% Rural 6 120.0
Dakota
South Roberts Co. 1,556 10,157 15.3% Rural 13 8.4
Dakota
South Sanborn Co. 85 2,413 3.5% Rural 1 11.8
Dakota
South Spink Co. 228 6,232 3.7% Rural 6 26.3
Dakota
South Stanley Co. 93 3,014 3.1% Rural 4 43.0
Dakota
South Sully Co. 16 1,478 1.1% Rural 1 62.5
Dakota
South Todd Co. 4,563 9,256 49.3% Rural 11 2.4 8Higher-
Dakota risk0
South Tripp Co. 596 5,548 10.7% Rural 9 15.1
Dakota
South Turner Co. 394 8,890 4.4% Urban 5 12.7
Dakota
South Union Co. 490 17,083 2.9% Urban 12 24.5
Dakota
South Walworth Co. 496 5,266 9.4% Rural 9 18.1
Dakota
South Yankton Co. 1,633 23,407 7% Rural 15 9.2
Dakota
South Ziebach Co. 1,031 2,369 43.5% Rural 0 0.0 8Higher-
Dakota risk0
Tennessee Anderson Co. 9,218 79,016 11.7% Urban 85 9.2
Tennessee Bedford Co. 6,692 52,088 12.8% Rural 57 8.5
Tennessee Benton Co. 2,552 16,001 15.9% Rural 19 7.4
Tennessee Bledsoe Co. 2,345 14,769 15.9% Rural 16 6.8
Tennessee Blount Co. 9,835 139,789 7% Urban 110 11.2
Tennessee Bradley Co. 12,412 110,814 11.2% Urban 124 10.0
Tennessee Campbell Co. 7,803 39,578 19.7% Urban 46 5.9
Tennessee Cannon Co. 1,830 14,797 12.4% Urban 13 7.1
Tennessee Carroll Co. 3,856 28,431 13.6% Rural 37 9.6
Tennessee Carter Co. 7,263 56,531 12.8% Urban 55 7.6
Tennessee Cheatham Co. 3,025 41,742 7.2% Urban 38 12.6
Tennessee Chester Co. 2,205 17,599 12.5% Urban 14 6.3
Tennessee Claiborne 5,073 32,400 15.7% Rural 39 7.7
Co.
Tennessee Clay Co. 1,374 7,635 18% Rural 10 7.3
Tennessee Cocke Co. 7,101 36,786 19.3% Rural 56 7.9
Tennessee Coffee Co. 7,738 59,663 13% Rural 75 9.7
Tennessee Crockett Co. 1,885 13,862 13.6% Urban 13 6.9
Tennessee Cumberland 6,919 63,537 10.9% Rural 71 10.3
Co.
Tennessee Davidson Co. 68,951 711,280 9.7% Urban 566 8.2
Tennessee Decatur Co. 1,621 11,546 14% Rural 16 9.9
Tennessee DeKalb Co. 2,920 21,013 13.9% Rural 21 7.2
Tennessee Dickson Co. 5,194 55,793 9.3% Urban 61 11.7
Tennessee Dyer Co. 6,595 36,392 18.1% Rural 47 7.1
Tennessee Fayette Co. 4,300 43,296 9.9% Urban 36 8.4
Tennessee Fentress Co. 3,610 19,336 18.7% Rural 24 6.6
Tennessee Franklin Co. 4,269 44,156 9.7% Rural 53 12.4
Tennessee Gibson Co. 6,958 50,855 13.7% Urban 58 8.3
Tennessee Giles Co. 3,548 30,560 11.6% Rural 43 12.1
Tennessee Grainger Co. 3,251 24,191 13.4% Urban 26 8.0
Tennessee Greene Co. 7,830 71,279 11% Rural 97 12.4
Tennessee Grundy Co. 2,942 13,813 21.3% Rural 28 9.5
Tennessee Hamblen Co. 8,116 65,263 12.4% Urban 83 10.2
Tennessee Hamilton Co. 38,976 375,861 10.4% Urban 392 10.1
Tennessee Hancock Co. 1,864 6,838 27.3% Rural 8 4.3 8Higher-
risk0
Tennessee Hardeman Co. 3,245 25,493 12.7% Rural 30 9.2
Tennessee Hardin Co. 4,295 27,240 15.8% Rural 33 7.7
Tennessee Hawkins Co. 7,866 57,915 13.6% Urban 55 7.0
Tennessee Haywood Co. 3,843 17,470 22% Rural 22 5.7
Tennessee Henderson 4,008 27,907 14.4% Rural 31 7.7
Co.
Tennessee Henry Co. 4,650 32,328 14.4% Rural 32 6.9
Tennessee Hickman Co. 3,256 25,479 12.8% Urban 19 5.8
Tennessee Houston Co. 1,137 8,230 13.8% Rural 8 7.0
Tennessee Humphreys 2,009 19,046 10.5% Rural 20 10.0
Co.
Tennessee Jackson Co. 1,836 12,022 15.3% Rural 12 6.5
Tennessee Jefferson 5,780 56,739 10.2% Urban 53 9.2
Co.
Tennessee Johnson Co. 2,697 18,044 14.9% Rural 19 7.0
Tennessee Knox Co. 41,450 495,882 8.4% Urban 401 9.7
Tennessee Lake Co. 1,510 6,493 23.3% Rural 8 5.3 8Higher-
risk0
Tennessee Lauderdale 4,926 24,725 19.9% Rural 26 5.3
Co.
Tennessee Lawrence Co. 5,431 45,476 11.9% Rural 60 11.0
Tennessee Lewis Co. 1,778 12,934 13.7% Rural 18 10.1
Tennessee Lincoln Co. 4,173 36,006 11.6% Rural 43 10.3
Tennessee Loudon Co. 3,882 58,255 6.7% Urban 56 14.4
Tennessee McMinn Co. 7,149 54,680 13.1% Rural 64 9.0
Tennessee McNairy Co. 3,753 25,971 14.5% Rural 25 6.7
Tennessee Macon Co. 4,195 26,225 16% Urban 26 6.2
Tennessee Madison Co. 14,422 99,264 14.5% Urban 104 7.2
Tennessee Marion Co. 4,161 29,101 14.3% Urban 44 10.6
Tennessee Marshall Co. 3,301 35,862 9.2% Rural 32 9.7
Tennessee Maury Co. 8,625 108,007 8% Urban 95 11.0
Tennessee Meigs Co. 2,133 13,265 16.1% Rural 16 7.5
Tennessee Monroe Co. 6,109 47,694 12.8% Rural 64 10.5
Tennessee Montgomery 21,430 235,252 9.1% Urban 166 7.7
Co.
Tennessee Moore Co. 421 6,715 6.3% Rural 4 9.5
Tennessee Morgan Co. 2,847 21,176 13.4% Urban 24 8.4
Tennessee Obion Co. 4,503 30,365 14.8% Rural 39 8.7
Tennessee Overton Co. 2,731 22,992 11.9% Rural 28 10.3
Tennessee Perry Co. 1,211 8,702 13.9% Rural 9 7.4
Tennessee Pickett Co. 742 5,102 14.5% Rural 6 8.1
Tennessee Polk Co. 2,247 17,799 12.6% Urban 20 8.9
Tennessee Putnam Co. 8,312 82,603 10.1% Rural 89 10.7
Tennessee Rhea Co. 5,207 34,056 15.3% Rural 43 8.3
Tennessee Roane Co. 6,183 55,256 11.2% Urban 58 9.4
Tennessee Robertson 6,180 75,402 8.2% Urban 71 11.5
Co.
Tennessee Rutherford 23,216 362,044 6.4% Urban 261 11.2
Co.
Tennessee Scott Co. 5,040 22,033 22.9% Rural 23 4.6 8Higher-
risk0
Tennessee Sequatchie 2,612 16,943 15.4% Urban 23 8.8
Co.
Tennessee Sevier Co. 7,804 99,318 7.9% Rural 135 17.3
Tennessee Shelby Co. 173,305 918,382 18.9% Urban 949 5.5
Tennessee Smith Co. 2,157 20,485 10.5% Urban 20 9.3
Tennessee Stewart Co. 1,397 14,001 10% Urban 15 10.7
Tennessee Sullivan Co. 19,043 160,891 11.8% Urban 156 8.2
Tennessee Sumner Co. 12,767 204,018 6.3% Urban 142 11.1
Tennessee Tipton Co. 7,508 61,577 12.2% Urban 47 6.3
Tennessee Trousdale 1,144 12,085 9.5% Urban 14 12.2
Co.
Tennessee Unicoi Co. 2,148 17,606 12.2% Urban 21 9.8
Tennessee Union Co. 3,097 20,483 15.1% Urban 21 6.8
Tennessee Van Buren 758 6,455 11.7% Rural 8 10.6
Co.
Tennessee Warren Co. 6,302 42,014 15% Rural 49 7.8
Tennessee Washington 13,050 136,339 9.6% Urban 129 9.9
Co.
Tennessee Wayne Co. 1,824 16,259 11.2% Rural 17 9.3
Tennessee Weakley Co. 3,925 33,032 11.9% Rural 41 10.4
Tennessee White Co. 3,696 28,004 13.2% Rural 30 8.1
Tennessee Williamson 3,462 261,536 1.3% Urban 108 31.2
Co.
Tennessee Wilson Co. 8,115 159,029 5.1% Urban 114 14.0
Texas Anderson Co. 6,576 57,296 11.5% Rural 47 7.1
Texas Andrews Co. 1,643 18,372 8.9% Rural 16 9.7
Texas Angelina Co. 14,097 87,229 16.2% Rural 85 6.0
Texas Aransas Co. 3,287 24,973 13.2% Urban 23 7.0
Texas Archer Co. 557 8,858 6.3% Urban 9 16.2
Texas Armstrong 102 1,857 5.5% Urban 4 39.2
Co.
Texas Atascosa Co. 9,271 50,935 18.2% Urban 54 5.8
Texas Austin Co. 2,706 31,067 8.7% Urban 31 11.5
Texas Bailey Co. 907 6,853 13.2% Rural 8 8.8
Texas Bandera Co. 1,805 22,127 8.2% Urban 18 10.0
Texas Bastrop Co. 10,344 106,484 9.7% Urban 81 7.8
Texas Baylor Co. 499 3,476 14.4% Rural 5 10.0
Texas Bee Co. 5,199 30,995 16.8% Rural 26 5.0
Texas Bell Co. 49,936 387,828 12.9% Urban 309 6.2
Texas Bexar Co. 275,087 2,063,840 13.3% Urban 1,359 4.9
Texas Blanco Co. 533 12,439 4.3% Rural 8 15.0
Texas Borden Co. 44 581 7.6% Rural 0 0.0
Texas Bosque Co. 1,919 18,701 10.3% Urban 31 16.2
Texas Bowie Co. 14,331 91,689 15.6% Urban 107 7.5
Texas Brazoria Co. 33,700 388,946 8.7% Urban 248 7.4
Texas Brazos Co. 19,303 242,515 8% Urban 132 6.8
Texas Brewster Co. 705 9,381 7.5% Rural 12 17.0
Texas Briscoe Co. 122 1,441 8.5% Rural 4 32.8
Texas Brooks Co. 2,377 6,960 34.2% Rural 12 5.0 8Higher-
risk0
Texas Brown Co. 4,748 38,411 12.4% Rural 46 9.7
Texas Burleson Co. 2,376 18,739 12.7% Urban 21 8.8
Texas Burnet Co. 3,254 52,578 6.2% Rural 40 12.3
Texas Caldwell Co. 5,648 47,920 11.8% Urban 41 7.3
Texas Calhoun Co. 2,668 19,735 13.5% Rural 24 9.0
Texas Callahan Co. 1,567 14,275 11% Urban 17 10.8
Texas Cameron Co. 103,235 425,819 24.2% Urban 421 4.1 8Higher-
risk0
Texas Camp Co. 2,048 12,750 16.1% Rural 15 7.3
Texas Carson Co. 358 5,809 6.2% Urban 9 25.1
Texas Cass Co. 4,887 28,530 17.1% Rural 33 6.8
Texas Castro Co. 866 7,307 11.9% Rural 9 10.4
Texas Chambers Co. 3,963 51,403 7.7% Urban 30 7.6
Texas Cherokee Co. 7,707 51,666 14.9% Rural 46 6.0
Texas Childress 775 6,834 11.3% Rural 10 12.9
Co.
Texas Clay Co. 935 10,484 8.9% Urban 9 9.6
Texas Cochran Co. 484 2,551 19% Urban 4 8.3
Texas Coke Co. 322 3,347 9.6% Rural 7 21.7
Texas Coleman Co. 1,116 7,863 14.2% Rural 14 12.5
Texas Collin Co. 40,869 1,163,724 3.5% Urban 512 12.5
Texas Collingswort 399 2,584 15.4% Rural 5 12.5
h Co.
Texas Colorado Co. 2,288 20,926 10.9% Rural 24 10.5
Texas Comal Co. 8,652 184,799 4.7% Urban 98 11.3
Texas Comanche Co. 1,597 13,903 11.5% Rural 16 10.0
Texas Concho Co. 310 3,371 9.2% Rural 5 16.1
Texas Cooke Co. 3,859 43,047 9% Rural 42 10.9
Texas Coryell Co. 8,240 84,224 9.8% Urban 47 5.7
Texas Cottle Co. 210 1,317 15.9% Rural 4 19.0
Texas Crane Co. 449 4,557 9.9% Rural 7 15.6
Texas Crockett Co. 308 2,952 10.4% Rural 6 19.5
Texas Crosby Co. 1,176 5,010 23.5% Urban 10 8.5
Texas Culberson 406 2,159 18.8% Rural 7 17.2
Co.
Texas Dallam Co. 472 7,271 6.5% Rural 10 21.2
Texas Dallas Co. 316,124 2,613,712 12.1% Urban 1,815 5.7
Texas Dawson Co. 1,914 12,171 15.7% Rural 14 7.3
Texas Deaf Smith 2,522 18,433 13.7% Rural 19 7.5
Co.
Texas Delta Co. 732 5,417 13.5% Rural 6 8.2
Texas Denton Co. 40,904 980,355 4.2% Urban 363 8.9
Texas DeWitt Co. 3,079 19,783 15.6% Rural 15 4.9
Texas Dickens Co. 210 1,734 12.1% Rural 3 14.3
Texas Dimmit Co. 2,650 8,377 31.6% Rural 17 6.4 8Higher-
risk0
Texas Donley Co. 329 3,275 10% Rural 6 18.2
Texas Duval Co. 3,124 9,688 32.2% Rural 19 6.1 8Higher-
risk0
Texas Eastland Co. 2,441 17,909 13.6% Rural 33 13.5
Texas Ector Co. 20,496 161,480 12.7% Urban 166 8.1
Texas Edwards Co. 279 1,423 19.6% Rural 2 7.2
Texas Ellis Co. 15,547 212,548 7.3% Urban 122 7.8
Texas El Paso Co. 145,850 868,890 16.8% Urban 658 4.5
Texas Erath Co. 3,238 43,929 7.4% Rural 35 10.8
Texas Falls Co. 2,836 16,958 16.7% Urban 22 7.8
Texas Fannin Co. 3,332 37,237 8.9% Rural 32 9.6
Texas Fayette Co. 1,798 24,987 7.2% Rural 22 12.2
Texas Fisher Co. 407 3,639 11.2% Rural 6 14.7
Texas Floyd Co. 1,074 5,250 20.5% Rural 6 5.6
Texas Foard Co. 121 1,062 11.4% Rural 2 16.5
Texas Fort Bend 56,706 893,319 6.3% Urban 388 6.8
Co.
Texas Franklin Co. 1,219 10,641 11.5% Rural 13 10.7
Texas Freestone 2,367 20,006 11.8% Rural 21 8.9
Co.
Texas Frio Co. 3,749 18,220 20.6% Rural 18 4.8
Texas Gaines Co. 1,748 22,157 7.9% Rural 16 9.2
Texas Galveston 35,352 357,735 9.9% Urban 280 7.9
Co.
Texas Garza Co. 589 4,527 13% Urban 7 11.9
Texas Gillespie 1,086 27,572 3.9% Rural 12 11.0
Co.
Texas Glasscock 32 1,145 2.8% Rural 0 0.0
Co.
Texas Goliad Co. 788 7,144 11% Urban 4 5.1
Texas Gonzales Co. 3,094 19,865 15.6% Rural 25 8.1
Texas Gray Co. 3,053 20,986 14.5% Rural 25 8.2
Texas Grayson Co. 13,589 143,292 9.5% Urban 126 9.3
Texas Gregg Co. 17,795 125,668 14.2% Urban 137 7.7
Texas Grimes Co. 3,764 31,141 12.1% Rural 25 6.6
Texas Guadalupe 13,250 182,953 7.2% Urban 101 7.6
Co.
Texas Hale Co. 5,156 32,007 16.1% Rural 33 6.4
Texas Hall Co. 527 2,820 18.7% Rural 7 13.3
Texas Hamilton Co. 794 8,314 9.6% Rural 17 21.4
Texas Hansford Co. 314 5,117 6.1% Rural 7 22.3
Texas Hardeman Co. 494 3,509 14.1% Rural 8 16.2
Texas Hardin Co. 6,468 57,819 11.2% Urban 47 7.3
Texas Harris Co. 623,573 4,806,747 13% Urban 3,626 5.8
Texas Harrison Co. 9,570 70,047 13.7% Urban 59 6.2
Texas Hartley Co. 137 5,220 2.6% Rural 3 21.9
Texas Haskell Co. 811 5,412 15% Rural 8 9.9
Texas Hays Co. 13,945 269,476 5.2% Urban 139 10.0
Texas Hemphill Co. 189 3,204 5.9% Rural 3 15.9
Texas Henderson 11,940 84,508 14.1% Rural 81 6.8
Co.
Texas Hidalgo Co. 221,600 889,799 24.9% Urban 965 4.4 8Higher-
risk0
Texas Hill Co. 4,609 37,320 12.3% Rural 51 11.1
Texas Hockley Co. 2,928 21,227 13.8% Urban 21 7.2
Texas Hood Co. 4,403 66,315 6.6% Rural 59 13.4
Texas Hopkins Co. 3,862 37,834 10.2% Rural 35 9.1
Texas Houston Co. 3,661 21,936 16.7% Rural 26 7.1
Texas Howard Co. 4,094 30,745 13.3% Rural 36 8.8
Texas Hudspeth Co. 864 3,454 25% Urban 6 6.9 8Higher-
risk0
Texas Hunt Co. 12,020 108,532 11.1% Urban 85 7.1
Texas Hutchinson 2,287 20,176 11.3% Rural 26 11.4
Co.
Texas Irion Co. 97 1,544 6.3% Urban 2 20.6
Texas Jack Co. 802 8,755 9.2% Rural 10 12.5
Texas Jackson Co. 1,925 15,162 12.7% Rural 16 8.3
Texas Jasper Co. 6,272 32,518 19.3% Rural 42 6.7
Texas Jeff Davis 89 1,908 4.7% Rural 2 22.5
Co.
Texas Jefferson 41,778 252,095 16.6% Urban 287 6.9
Co.
Texas Jim Hogg Co. 1,413 4,764 29.7% Rural 10 7.1 8Higher-
risk0
Texas Jim Wells 9,829 38,755 25.4% Rural 50 5.1 8Higher-
Co. risk0
Texas Johnson Co. 15,509 195,774 7.9% Urban 120 7.7
Texas Jones Co. 2,022 20,316 10% Urban 17 8.4
Texas Karnes Co. 2,099 15,039 14% Rural 20 9.5
Texas Kaufman Co. 16,897 172,951 9.8% Urban 110 6.5
Texas Kendall Co. 1,560 49,046 3.2% Urban 21 13.5
Texas Kenedy Co. 26 358 7.3% Rural 0 0.0
Texas Kent Co. 63 739 8.5% Rural 0 0.0
Texas Kerr Co. 3,985 53,785 7.4% Rural 38 9.5
Texas Kimble Co. 482 4,438 10.9% Rural 9 18.7
Texas King Co. 3 233 1.3% Rural 0 0.0
Texas Kinney Co. 515 3,143 16.4% Rural 4 7.8
Texas Kleberg Co. 6,191 30,454 20.3% Rural 30 4.8
Texas Knox Co. 533 3,288 16.2% Rural 7 13.1
Texas Lamar Co. 7,311 50,513 14.5% Rural 65 8.9
Texas Lamb Co. 2,049 12,774 16% Rural 16 7.8
Texas Lampasas Co. 2,143 22,789 9.4% Urban 15 7.0
Texas La Salle Co. 1,307 6,561 19.9% Rural 17 13.0
Texas Lavaca Co. 1,991 20,661 9.6% Rural 21 10.5
Texas Lee Co. 1,708 17,966 9.5% Rural 18 10.5
Texas Leon Co. 2,040 16,228 12.6% Rural 21 10.3
Texas Liberty Co. 17,335 102,661 16.9% Urban 108 6.2
Texas Limestone 3,450 22,224 15.5% Rural 24 7.0
Co.
Texas Lipscomb Co. 205 2,855 7.2% Rural 4 19.5
Texas Live Oak Co. 1,476 11,571 12.8% Rural 18 12.2
Texas Llano Co. 1,923 22,664 8.5% Rural 19 9.9
Texas Loving Co. 5 47 10.6% Rural 0 0.0
Texas Lubbock Co. 38,404 318,324 12.1% Urban 243 6.3
Texas Lynn Co. 820 5,751 14.3% Urban 6 7.3
Texas McCulloch 1,271 7,494 17% Rural 12 9.4
Co.
Texas McLennan Co. 33,636 266,254 12.6% Urban 233 6.9
Texas McMullen Co. 62 571 10.9% Rural 1 16.1
Texas Madison Co. 1,796 13,642 13.2% Rural 13 7.2
Texas Marion Co. 1,882 9,677 19.4% Rural 12 6.4
Texas Martin Co. 572 5,226 10.9% Urban 5 8.7
Texas Mason Co. 244 3,975 6.1% Rural 4 16.4
Texas Matagorda 6,167 36,182 17% Rural 52 8.4
Co.
Texas Maverick Co. 16,843 57,813 29.1% Urban 52 3.1 8Higher-
risk0
Texas Medina Co. 6,518 53,756 12.1% Urban 48 7.4
Texas Menard Co. 215 1,979 10.9% Rural 3 14.0
Texas Midland Co. 13,954 172,705 8.1% Urban 149 10.7
Texas Milam Co. 3,616 25,649 14.1% Rural 27 7.5
Texas Mills Co. 383 4,504 8.5% Rural 4 10.4
Texas Mitchell Co. 901 8,959 10.1% Rural 10 11.1
Texas Montague Co. 1,946 21,134 9.2% Rural 18 9.2
Texas Montgomery 48,093 680,824 7.1% Urban 372 7.7
Co.
Texas Moore Co. 1,607 21,156 7.6% Rural 28 17.4
Texas Morris Co. 2,403 12,082 19.9% Rural 14 5.8
Texas Motley Co. 88 1,033 8.5% Rural 4 45.5
Texas Nacogdoches 9,590 64,995 14.8% Rural 48 5.0
Co.
Texas Navarro Co. 7,810 54,775 14.3% Rural 56 7.2
Texas Newton Co. 2,192 12,076 18.2% Rural 7 3.2
Texas Nolan Co. 2,367 14,460 16.4% Rural 21 8.9
Texas Nueces Co. 61,858 351,852 17.6% Urban 307 5.0
Texas Ochiltree 702 9,718 7.2% Rural 11 15.7
Co.
Texas Oldham Co. 81 1,764 4.6% Urban 4 49.4
Texas Orange Co. 11,987 85,125 14.1% Urban 99 8.3
Texas Palo Pinto 3,228 29,292 11% Rural 44 13.6
Co.
Texas Panola Co. 3,025 22,730 13.3% Rural 23 7.6
Texas Parker Co. 8,337 165,899 5% Urban 93 11.2
Texas Parmer Co. 734 9,657 7.6% Rural 13 17.7
Texas Pecos Co. 1,887 14,742 12.8% Rural 23 12.2
Texas Polk Co. 8,057 53,223 15.1% Rural 54 6.7
Texas Potter Co. 18,199 115,100 15.8% Urban 131 7.2
Texas Presidio Co. 1,322 5,970 22.1% Rural 11 8.3
Texas Rains Co. 1,318 12,858 10.3% Rural 10 7.6
Texas Randall Co. 8,430 146,221 5.8% Urban 105 12.5
Texas Reagan Co. 273 3,161 8.6% Rural 6 22.0
Texas Real Co. 450 2,819 16% Rural 6 13.3
Texas Red River 1,759 11,594 15.2% Rural 17 9.7
Co.
Texas Reeves Co. 1,840 11,750 15.7% Rural 25 13.6
Texas Refugio Co. 1,039 6,649 15.6% Rural 10 9.6
Texas Roberts Co. 34 804 4.2% Rural 0 0.0
Texas Robertson 2,903 17,135 16.9% Urban 24 8.3
Co.
Texas Rockwall Co. 4,670 123,538 3.8% Urban 56 12.0
Texas Runnels Co. 1,242 9,896 12.6% Rural 16 12.9
Texas Rusk Co. 6,494 52,597 12.3% Urban 43 6.6
Texas Sabine Co. 1,820 10,035 18.1% Rural 13 7.1
Texas San 1,602 7,886 20.3% Rural 12 7.5
Augustine
Co.
Texas San Jacinto 4,526 28,399 15.9% Urban 26 5.7
Co.
Texas San Patricio 12,099 70,044 17.3% Urban 77 6.4
Co.
Texas San Saba Co. 646 5,873 11% Rural 7 10.8
Texas Schleicher 265 2,351 11.3% Rural 4 15.1
Co.
Texas Scurry Co. 1,866 16,258 11.5% Rural 18 9.6
Texas Shackelford 343 3,201 10.7% Rural 4 11.7
Co.
Texas Shelby Co. 4,370 24,163 18.1% Rural 30 6.9
Texas Sherman Co. 174 2,781 6.3% Rural 5 28.7
Texas Smith Co. 25,541 242,249 10.5% Urban 190 7.4
Texas Somervell 648 9,791 6.6% Rural 11 17.0
Co.
Texas Starr Co. 20,945 65,793 31.8% Rural 99 4.7 8Higher-
risk0
Texas Stephens Co. 1,173 9,374 12.5% Rural 12 10.2
Texas Sterling Co. 89 1,417 6.3% Rural 5 56.2
Texas Stonewall 119 1,218 9.8% Rural 3 25.2
Co.
Texas Sutton Co. 330 3,239 10.2% Rural 12 36.4
Texas Swisher Co. 1,170 6,952 16.8% Rural 7 6.0
Texas Tarrant Co. 209,689 2,161,670 9.7% Urban 1,474 7.0
Texas Taylor Co. 16,795 145,481 11.5% Urban 157 9.3
Texas Terrell Co. 67 693 9.7% Rural 1 14.9
Texas Terry Co. 1,951 11,462 17% Rural 11 5.6
Texas Throckmorton 149 1,543 9.7% Rural 3 20.1
Co.
Texas Titus Co. 4,169 31,273 13.3% Rural 36 8.6
Texas Tom Green 12,014 119,006 10.1% Urban 97 8.1
Co.
Texas Travis Co. 80,371 1,332,544 6% Urban 692 8.6
Texas Trinity Co. 2,801 13,996 20% Rural 21 7.5
Texas Tyler Co. 3,248 20,447 15.9% Rural 24 7.4
Texas Upshur Co. 5,540 42,492 13% Urban 34 6.1
Texas Upton Co. 390 3,157 12.4% Rural 7 17.9
Texas Uvalde Co. 6,241 24,895 25.1% Rural 29 4.6 8Higher-
risk0
Texas Val Verde 9,896 47,678 20.8% Rural 36 3.6
Co.
Texas Van Zandt 5,846 62,872 9.3% Rural 49 8.4
Co.
Texas Victoria Co. 14,011 91,128 15.4% Urban 90 6.4
Texas Walker Co. 6,764 79,821 8.5% Rural 66 9.8
Texas Waller Co. 5,817 61,967 9.4% Urban 32 5.5
Texas Ward Co. 1,264 10,946 11.5% Rural 22 17.4
Texas Washington 3,161 36,382 8.7% Rural 25 7.9
Co.
Texas Webb Co. 66,412 268,276 24.8% Urban 217 3.3 8Higher-
risk0
Texas Wharton Co. 6,340 41,811 15.2% Rural 42 6.6
Texas Wheeler Co. 529 4,801 11% Rural 10 18.9
Texas Wichita Co. 17,106 130,166 13.1% Urban 120 7.0
Texas Wilbarger 1,897 12,544 15.1% Rural 18 9.5
Co.
Texas Willacy Co. 5,046 20,231 24.9% Rural 23 4.6 8Higher-
risk0
Texas Williamson 25,935 673,951 3.8% Urban 310 12.0
Co.
Texas Wilson Co. 3,933 52,772 7.5% Urban 30 7.6
Texas Winkler Co. 909 7,305 12.4% Rural 17 18.7
Texas Wise Co. 4,784 74,900 6.4% Urban 56 11.7
Texas Wood Co. 4,556 46,967 9.7% Rural 39 8.6
Texas Yoakum Co. 733 7,523 9.7% Rural 13 17.7
Texas Young Co. 1,843 17,998 10.2% Rural 19 10.3
Texas Zapata Co. 4,258 13,841 30.8% Rural 29 6.8 8Higher-
risk0
Texas Zavala Co. 3,501 9,382 37.3% Rural 15 4.3 8Higher-
risk0
Utah Beaver Co. 466 7,348 6.3% Rural 6 12.9
Utah Box Elder 2,825 61,590 4.6% Rural 35 12.4
Co.
Utah Cache Co. 5,058 140,450 3.6% Urban 46 9.1
Utah Carbon Co. 2,464 20,530 12% Rural 19 7.7
Utah Daggett Co. 40 1,011 4% Rural 1 25.0
Utah Davis Co. 12,168 370,424 3.3% Urban 130 10.7
Utah Duchesne Co. 2,096 20,158 10.4% Rural 20 9.5
Utah Emery Co. 740 10,104 7.3% Rural 18 24.3
Utah Garfield Co. 218 5,264 4.1% Rural 6 27.5
Utah Grand Co. 520 9,809 5.3% Rural 17 32.7
Utah Iron Co. 4,271 62,607 6.8% Rural 30 7.0
Utah Juab Co. 581 12,575 4.6% Urban 10 17.2
Utah Kane Co. 357 8,208 4.3% Rural 7 19.6
Utah Millard Co. 769 13,328 5.8% Rural 20 26.0
Utah Morgan Co. 130 12,860 1% Urban 5 38.5
Utah Piute Co. 90 1,493 6% Rural 3 33.3
Utah Rich Co. 83 2,634 3.2% Rural 3 36.1
Utah Salt Lake 62,284 1,192,255 5.2% Urban 617 9.9
Co.
Utah San Juan Co. 2,586 14,411 17.9% Rural 20 7.7
Utah Sanpete Co. 1,676 29,762 5.6% Rural 15 8.9
Utah Sevier Co. 1,888 22,065 8.6% Rural 14 7.4
Utah Summit Co. 424 43,134 1% Rural 20 47.2
Utah Tooele Co. 4,090 79,981 5.1% Urban 33 8.1
Utah Uintah Co. 3,419 37,162 9.2% Rural 24 7.0
Utah Utah Co. 21,751 704,764 3.1% Urban 223 10.3
Utah Wasatch Co. 513 36,731 1.4% Rural 13 25.3
Utah Washington 8,976 197,898 4.5% Urban 78 8.7
Co.
Utah Wayne Co. 152 2,632 5.8% Rural 3 19.7
Utah Weber Co. 16,839 269,823 6.2% Urban 136 8.1
Vermont Addison Co. 2,918 37,619 7.8% Rural 34 11.7
Vermont Bennington 5,584 37,367 14.9% Rural 51 9.1
Co.
Vermont Caledonia 4,484 30,578 14.7% Rural 30 6.7
Co.
Vermont Chittenden 13,442 170,050 7.9% Urban 159 11.8
Co.
Vermont Essex Co. 1,071 5,988 17.9% Rural 2 1.9
Vermont Franklin Co. 6,210 50,732 12.2% Urban 64 10.3
Vermont Grand Isle 835 7,508 11.1% Urban 14 16.8
Co.
Vermont Lamoille Co. 2,533 26,177 9.7% Rural 26 10.3
Vermont Orange Co. 3,072 29,892 10.3% Rural 31 10.1
Vermont Orleans Co. 4,813 27,618 17.4% Rural 35 7.3
Vermont Rutland Co. 8,387 60,381 13.9% Rural 77 9.2
Vermont Washington 5,713 60,165 9.5% Rural 71 12.4
Co.
Vermont Windham Co. 6,041 45,951 13.1% Rural 55 9.1
Vermont Windsor Co. 6,019 58,116 10.4% Rural 53 8.8
Virginia Accomack Co. 5,398 33,157 16.3% Rural 44 8.2
Virginia Albemarle 6,077 114,925 5.3% Urban 64 10.5
Co.
Virginia Alleghany 2,202 14,764 14.9% Rural 13 5.9
Co.
Virginia Amelia Co. 1,467 13,419 10.9% Urban 12 8.2
Virginia Amherst Co. 3,992 31,512 12.7% Urban 30 7.5
Virginia Appomattox 2,489 16,696 14.9% Urban 15 6.0
Co.
Virginia Arlington 8,462 233,976 3.6% Urban 97 11.5
Co.
Virginia Augusta Co. 5,800 77,919 7.4% Urban 51 8.8
Virginia Bath Co. 338 4,077 8.3% Rural 3 8.9
Virginia Bedford Co. 6,423 80,798 7.9% Urban 65 10.1
Virginia Bland Co. 587 6,151 9.5% Rural 5 8.5
Virginia Botetourt 1,821 34,092 5.3% Urban 21 11.5
Co.
Virginia Brunswick 3,321 15,856 20.9% Rural 17 5.1
Co.
Virginia Buchanan Co. 5,178 19,329 26.8% Rural 29 5.6 8Higher-
risk0
Virginia Buckingham 2,822 16,983 16.6% Rural 19 6.7
Co.
Virginia Campbell Co. 6,910 55,035 12.6% Urban 49 7.1
Virginia Caroline Co. 3,971 31,959 12.4% Rural 34 8.6
Virginia Carroll Co. 4,740 29,096 16.3% Rural 41 8.6
Virginia Charles City 867 6,580 13.2% Urban 6 6.9
Co.
Virginia Charlotte 2,148 11,427 18.8% Rural 16 7.4
Co.
Virginia Chesterfield 29,381 378,488 7.8% Urban 211 7.2
Co.
Virginia Clarke Co. 598 15,312 3.9% Urban 6 10.0
Virginia Craig Co. 528 4,859 10.9% Urban 4 7.6
Virginia Culpeper Co. 4,280 54,250 7.9% Urban 31 7.2
Virginia Cumberland 1,911 9,755 19.6% Rural 7 3.7
Co.
Virginia Dickenson 2,864 13,714 20.9% Rural 19 6.6
Co.
Virginia Dinwiddie 4,390 28,112 15.6% Urban 21 4.8
Co.
Virginia Essex Co. 1,938 10,644 18.2% Rural 14 7.2
Virginia Fairfax Co. 48,677 1,140,521 4.3% Urban 432 8.9
Virginia Fauquier Co. 3,059 74,686 4.1% Urban 33 10.8
Virginia Floyd Co. 1,709 15,625 10.9% Urban 18 10.5
Virginia Fluvanna Co. 1,751 28,134 6.2% Urban 9 5.1
Virginia Franklin Co. 6,913 55,047 12.6% Urban 57 8.2
Virginia Frederick 5,658 94,839 6% Urban 65 11.5
Co.
Virginia Giles Co. 2,109 16,430 12.8% Urban 24 11.4
Virginia Gloucester 3,859 39,546 9.8% Urban 33 8.6
Co.
Virginia Goochland 1,222 26,184 4.7% Urban 16 13.1
Co.
Virginia Grayson Co. 2,580 15,310 16.9% Rural 13 5.0
Virginia Greene Co. 1,887 21,026 9% Urban 14 7.4
Virginia Greensville 1,859 11,232 16.6% Rural 25 13.4
Co.
Virginia Halifax Co. 6,172 33,599 18.4% Rural 51 8.3
Virginia Hanover Co. 5,335 112,889 4.7% Urban 79 14.8
Virginia Henrico Co. 34,876 334,855 10.4% Urban 263 7.5
Virginia Henry Co. 9,944 49,765 20% Rural 70 7.0
Virginia Highland Co. 118 2,303 5.1% Rural 7 59.3
Virginia Isle of 3,691 40,149 9.2% Urban 31 8.4
Wight Co.
Virginia James City 4,457 81,426 5.5% Urban 41 9.2
Co.
Virginia King and 1,059 6,721 15.8% Urban 3 2.8
Queen Co.
Virginia King George 2,136 27,867 7.7% Rural 20 9.4
Co.
Virginia King William 1,574 18,528 8.5% Urban 15 9.5
Co.
Virginia Lancaster 1,344 10,838 12.4% Rural 14 10.4
Co.
Virginia Lee Co. 5,666 21,842 25.9% Rural 37 6.5 8Higher-
risk0
Virginia Loudoun Co. 11,328 432,897 2.6% Urban 151 13.3
Virginia Louisa Co. 3,946 39,986 9.9% Rural 29 7.3
Virginia Lunenburg 2,165 12,020 18% Rural 10 4.6
Co.
Virginia Madison Co. 1,116 14,013 8% Rural 11 9.9
Virginia Mathews Co. 792 8,467 9.4% Urban 6 7.6
Virginia Mecklenburg 4,877 30,511 16% Rural 43 8.8
Co.
Virginia Middlesex 1,500 10,958 13.7% Rural 11 7.3
Co.
Virginia Montgomery 6,394 98,980 6.5% Urban 68 10.6
Co.
Virginia Nelson Co. 1,755 14,692 11.9% Urban 13 7.4
Virginia New Kent Co. 1,214 25,000 4.9% Urban 17 14.0
Virginia Northampton 2,291 11,974 19.1% Rural 14 6.1
Co.
Virginia Northumberla 1,552 12,263 12.7% Rural 15 9.7
nd Co.
Virginia Nottoway Co. 2,907 15,561 18.7% Rural 19 6.5
Virginia Orange Co. 3,267 38,019 8.6% Rural 31 9.5
Virginia Page Co. 2,856 23,747 12% Rural 16 5.6
Virginia Patrick Co. 2,890 17,569 16.4% Rural 19 6.6
Virginia Pittsylvania 8,836 59,845 14.8% Rural 54 6.1
Co.
Virginia Powhatan Co. 1,273 31,582 4% Urban 12 9.4
Virginia Prince 3,470 21,856 15.9% Rural 27 7.8
Edward Co.
Virginia Prince 3,585 43,067 8.3% Urban 23 6.4
George Co.
Virginia Prince 28,932 487,523 5.9% Urban 219 7.6
William Co.
Virginia Pulaski Co. 5,326 33,639 15.8% Urban 36 6.8
Virginia Rappahannock 484 7,445 6.5% Urban 1 2.1
Co.
Virginia Richmond Co. 1,299 9,099 14.3% Rural 12 9.2
Virginia Roanoke Co. 6,205 96,856 6.4% Urban 56 9.0
Virginia Rockbridge 2,434 22,585 10.8% Rural 28 11.5
Co.
Virginia Rockingham 5,098 85,390 6% Urban 51 10.0
Co.
Virginia Russell Co. 5,511 25,440 21.7% Rural 20 3.6
Virginia Scott Co. 3,718 21,497 17.3% Urban 38 10.2
Virginia Shenandoah 4,813 44,905 10.7% Rural 46 9.6
Co.
Virginia Smyth Co. 6,185 29,393 21% Rural 41 6.6
Virginia Southampton 2,520 17,897 14.1% Rural 15 6.0
Co.
Virginia Spotsylvania 11,986 146,744 8.2% Urban 96 8.0
Co.
Virginia Stafford Co. 10,360 163,233 6.3% Urban 92 8.9
Virginia Surry Co. 915 6,506 14.1% Urban 11 12.0
Virginia Sussex Co. 1,851 10,652 17.4% Urban 17 9.2
Virginia Tazewell Co. 8,226 39,650 20.7% Rural 56 6.8
Virginia Warren Co. 3,934 41,436 9.5% Urban 33 8.4
Virginia Washington 7,095 53,846 13.2% Urban 65 9.2
Co.
Virginia Westmoreland 3,024 18,704 16.2% Rural 22 7.3
Co.
Virginia Wise Co. 7,949 35,324 22.5% Rural 49 6.2
Virginia Wythe Co. 4,399 28,143 15.6% Rural 45 10.2
Virginia York Co. 3,145 71,209 4.4% Urban 42 13.4
Virginia Alexandria 11,297 155,235 7.3% Urban 81 7.2
City
Virginia Bristol City 4,508 16,884 26.7% Urban 32 7.1 8Higher-
risk0
Virginia Buena Vista 941 6,567 14.3% Rural 9 9.6
City
Virginia Charlottesvi 4,465 45,223 9.9% Urban 50 11.2
lle City
Virginia Chesapeake 21,643 252,493 8.6% Urban 177 8.2
City
Virginia Colonial 2,624 18,265 14.4% Urban 27 10.3
Heights
City
Virginia Covington 1,255 5,668 22.1% Rural 13 10.4
City
Virginia Danville 12,748 42,099 30.3% Rural 75 5.9 8Higher-
City risk0
Virginia Emporia City 1,847 5,524 33.4% Rural 3 1.6 8Higher-
risk0
Virginia Fairfax City 975 24,825 3.9% Urban 29 29.7
Virginia Falls Church 393 14,518 2.7% Urban 14 35.6
City
Virginia Franklin 2,531 8,259 30.6% Rural 15 5.9 8Higher-
City risk0
Virginia Fredericksbu 4,144 28,709 14.4% Urban 32 7.7
rg City
Virginia Galax City 1,634 6,724 24.3% Rural 18 11.0
Virginia Hampton City 22,693 137,970 16.4% Urban 129 5.7
Virginia Harrisonburg 4,703 51,207 9.2% Urban 64 13.6
City
Virginia Hopewell 6,783 22,848 29.7% Urban 34 5.0 8Higher-
City risk0
Virginia Lexington 365 7,508 4.9% Rural 4 11.0
City
Virginia Lynchburg 12,506 79,279 15.8% Urban 73 5.8
City
Virginia Manassas 3,567 42,710 8.4% Urban 39 10.9
City
Virginia Manassas 1,181 16,675 7.1% Urban 6 5.1
Park City
Virginia Martinsville 3,966 13,686 29% Rural 23 5.8 8Higher-
City risk0
Virginia Newport News 34,591 184,004 18.8% Urban 189 5.5
City
Virginia Norfolk City 40,498 232,766 17.4% Urban 193 4.8
Virginia Norton City 1,049 3,594 29.2% Rural 13 12.4
Virginia Petersburg 11,325 33,481 33.8% Urban 59 5.2 8Higher-
City risk0
Virginia Poquoson 391 12,624 3.1% Urban 10 25.6
City
Virginia Portsmouth 23,307 96,989 24% Urban 91 3.9 8Higher-
City risk0
Virginia Radford City 1,562 16,723 9.3% Urban 14 9.0
Virginia Richmond 39,112 228,670 17.1% Urban 227 5.8
City
Virginia Roanoke City 21,793 97,743 22.3% Urban 144 6.6
Virginia Salem City 1,790 25,698 7% Urban 26 14.5
Virginia Staunton 3,166 25,942 12.2% Urban 37 11.7
City
Virginia Suffolk City 11,554 98,630 11.7% Urban 73 6.3
Virginia Virginia 32,410 454,886 7.1% Urban 307 9.5
Beach City
Virginia Waynesboro 3,247 22,742 14.3% Urban 27 8.3
City
Virginia Williamsburg 1,140 15,757 7.2% Urban 17 14.9
City
Virginia Winchester 3,487 27,919 12.5% Urban 39 11.2
City
Washington Adams Co. 4,432 20,843 21.3% Rural 21 4.7
Washington Asotin Co. 4,295 22,497 19.1% Urban 12 2.8
Washington Benton Co. 30,900 212,838 14.5% Urban 152 4.9
Washington Chelan Co. 9,437 80,032 11.8% Urban 66 7.0
Washington Clallam Co. 10,680 77,675 13.7% Rural 63 5.9
Washington Clark Co. 56,603 517,036 10.9% Urban 277 4.9
Washington Columbia Co. 706 4,018 17.6% Rural 5 7.1
Washington Cowlitz Co. 21,365 112,058 19.1% Urban 96 4.5
Washington Douglas Co. 4,978 44,147 11.3% Urban 28 5.6
Washington Ferry Co. 1,659 7,435 22.3% Rural 9 5.4
Washington Franklin Co. 15,596 98,461 15.8% Urban 84 5.4
Washington Garfield Co. 329 2,355 14% Rural 3 9.1
Washington Grant Co. 19,306 101,308 19.1% Rural 103 5.3
Washington Grays Harbor 15,955 77,080 20.7% Rural 96 6.0
Co.
Washington Island Co. 6,158 86,744 7.1% Rural 32 5.2
Washington Jefferson 3,282 33,597 9.8% Rural 23 7.0
Co.
Washington King Co. 189,993 2,271,238 8.4% Urban 1,235 6.5
Washington Kitsap Co. 25,174 277,876 9.1% Urban 151 6.0
Washington Kittitas Co. 4,397 47,368 9.3% Rural 37 8.4
Washington Klickitat 3,454 23,248 14.9% Rural 16 4.6
Co.
Washington Lewis Co. 14,638 85,307 17.2% Rural 110 7.5
Washington Lincoln Co. 1,536 11,609 13.2% Rural 9 5.9
Washington Mason Co. 10,736 68,238 15.7% Rural 49 4.6
Washington Okanogan Co. 9,202 43,255 21.3% Rural 62 6.7
Washington Pacific Co. 3,935 24,067 16.4% Rural 27 6.9
Washington Pend Oreille 2,668 14,153 18.9% Rural 12 4.5
Co.
Washington Pierce Co. 114,807 927,313 12.4% Urban 545 4.7
Washington San Juan Co. 967 18,666 5.2% Rural 12 12.4
Washington Skagit Co. 16,709 131,229 12.7% Urban 116 6.9
Washington Skamania Co. 1,254 12,454 10.1% Urban 11 8.8
Washington Snohomish 72,590 841,529 8.6% Urban 480 6.6
Co.
Washington Spokane Co. 83,972 549,835 15.3% Urban 367 4.4
Washington Stevens Co. 8,270 48,273 17.1% Urban 47 5.7
Washington Thurston Co. 34,777 298,645 11.6% Urban 192 5.5
Washington Wahkiakum 610 4,691 13% Rural 5 8.2
Co.
Washington Walla Walla 8,213 62,085 13.2% Urban 46 5.6
Co.
Washington Whatcom Co. 25,033 230,701 10.9% Urban 160 6.4
Washington Whitman Co. 4,119 47,653 8.6% Rural 24 5.8
Washington Yakima Co. 60,264 256,566 23.5% Urban 250 4.1 8Higher-
risk0
West Barbour Co. 3,127 15,397 20.3% Rural 15 4.8
Virginia
West Berkeley Co. 15,964 129,538 12.3% Urban 87 5.4
Virginia
West Boone Co. 5,449 20,925 26% Urban 30 5.5 8Higher-
Virginia risk0
West Braxton Co. 2,989 12,158 24.6% Rural 22 7.4 8Higher-
Virginia risk0
West Brooke Co. 2,645 21,739 12.2% Urban 26 9.8
Virginia
West Cabell Co. 17,263 92,501 18.7% Urban 97 5.6
Virginia
West Calhoun Co. 1,786 6,056 29.5% Rural 14 7.8 8Higher-
Virginia risk0
West Clay Co. 2,804 7,819 35.9% Urban 13 4.6 8Higher-
Virginia risk0
West Doddridge 1,189 7,719 15.4% Rural 6 5.0
Virginia Co.
West Fayette Co. 8,425 39,411 21.4% Urban 58 6.9
Virginia
West Gilmer Co. 1,253 7,309 17.1% Rural 9 7.2
Virginia
West Grant Co. 1,877 10,965 17.1% Rural 11 5.9
Virginia
West Greenbrier 6,011 32,348 18.6% Rural 58 9.6
Virginia Co.
West Hampshire 3,594 23,464 15.3% Urban 30 8.3
Virginia Co.
West Hancock Co. 3,996 28,265 14.1% Urban 29 7.3
Virginia
West Hardy Co. 2,128 14,196 15% Rural 20 9.4
Virginia
West Harrison Co. 9,335 64,683 14.4% Rural 83 8.9
Virginia
West Jackson Co. 5,311 27,624 19.2% Rural 38 7.2
Virginia
West Jefferson 5,099 58,957 8.6% Urban 50 9.8
Virginia Co.
West Kanawha Co. 32,205 175,899 18.3% Urban 213 6.6
Virginia
West Lewis Co. 3,630 16,719 21.7% Rural 26 7.2
Virginia
West Lincoln Co. 5,697 19,862 28.7% Rural 27 4.7 8Higher-
Virginia risk0
West Logan Co. 8,203 31,251 26.2% Rural 48 5.9 8Higher-
Virginia risk0
West McDowell Co. 6,704 17,790 37.7% Rural 35 5.2 8Higher-
Virginia risk0
West Marion Co. 9,169 55,799 16.4% Rural 70 7.6
Virginia
West Marshall Co. 4,731 29,722 15.9% Urban 25 5.3
Virginia
West Mason Co. 5,149 24,938 20.6% Rural 36 7.0
Virginia
West Mercer Co. 14,038 58,599 24% Rural 69 4.9 8Higher-
Virginia risk0
West Mineral Co. 3,618 26,872 13.5% Rural 31 8.6
Virginia
West Mingo Co. 7,871 22,427 35.1% Rural 23 2.9 8Higher-
Virginia risk0
West Monongalia 8,567 106,921 8% Urban 78 9.1
Virginia Co.
West Monroe Co. 1,922 12,314 15.6% Rural 14 7.3
Virginia
West Morgan Co. 2,293 17,380 13.2% Urban 17 7.4
Virginia
West Nicholas Co. 5,477 24,266 22.6% Rural 46 8.4
Virginia
West Ohio Co. 6,964 41,473 16.8% Urban 44 6.3
Virginia
West Pendleton 960 6,051 15.9% Rural 10 10.4
Virginia Co.
West Pleasants 1,181 7,564 15.6% Rural 6 5.1
Virginia Co.
West Pocahontas 1,407 7,776 18.1% Rural 18 12.8
Virginia Co.
West Preston Co. 5,322 34,196 15.6% Urban 40 7.5
Virginia
West Putnam Co. 6,441 57,070 11.3% Urban 62 9.6
Virginia
West Raleigh Co. 15,976 72,863 21.9% Urban 97 6.1
Virginia
West Randolph Co. 4,995 27,539 18.1% Rural 35 7.0
Virginia
West Ritchie Co. 1,894 8,239 23% Rural 18 9.5
Virginia
West Roane Co. 3,164 13,794 22.9% Rural 16 5.1 8Higher-
Virginia risk0
West Summers Co. 3,077 11,711 26.3% Rural 17 5.5 8Higher-
Virginia risk0
West Taylor Co. 2,661 16,386 16.2% Rural 14 5.3
Virginia
West Tucker Co. 955 6,625 14.4% Rural 9 9.4
Virginia
West Tyler Co. 1,559 8,081 19.3% Rural 9 5.8
Virginia
West Upshur Co. 4,811 23,715 20.3% Rural 35 7.3
Virginia
West Wayne Co. 7,838 38,025 20.6% Urban 46 5.9
Virginia
West Webster Co. 2,785 8,125 34.3% Rural 14 5.0 8Higher-
Virginia risk0
West Wetzel Co. 3,091 14,027 22% Rural 21 6.8
Virginia
West Wirt Co. 1,402 5,095 27.5% Urban 7 5.0 8Higher-
Virginia risk0
West Wood Co. 14,748 83,364 17.7% Urban 97 6.6
Virginia
West Wyoming Co. 4,745 20,570 23.1% Rural 29 6.1 8Higher-
Virginia risk0
Wisconsin Adams Co. 3,421 21,211 16.1% Rural 13 3.8
Wisconsin Ashland Co. 2,869 16,037 17.9% Rural 21 7.3
Wisconsin Barron Co. 5,621 46,828 12% Rural 52 9.3
Wisconsin Bayfield Co. 1,889 16,664 11.3% Rural 17 9.0
Wisconsin Brown Co. 28,908 270,561 10.7% Urban 194 6.7
Wisconsin Buffalo Co. 1,051 13,400 7.8% Rural 10 9.5
Wisconsin Burnett Co. 2,231 16,973 13.1% Rural 19 8.5
Wisconsin Calumet Co. 2,521 52,745 4.8% Urban 17 6.7
Wisconsin Chippewa Co. 6,428 66,775 9.6% Urban 47 7.3
Wisconsin Clark Co. 3,035 34,742 8.7% Rural 28 9.2
Wisconsin Columbia Co. 5,016 58,337 8.6% Urban 52 10.4
Wisconsin Crawford Co. 1,991 16,032 12.4% Rural 23 11.6
Wisconsin Dane Co. 45,035 570,869 7.9% Urban 349 7.7
Wisconsin Dodge Co. 7,832 88,539 8.8% Rural 58 7.4
Wisconsin Door Co. 2,103 30,597 6.9% Rural 32 15.2
Wisconsin Douglas Co. 5,430 44,238 12.3% Urban 29 5.3
Wisconsin Dunn Co. 4,251 45,676 9.3% Rural 33 7.8
Wisconsin Eau Claire 10,226 106,835 9.6% Urban 69 6.7
Co.
Wisconsin Florence Co. 550 4,708 11.7% Rural 3 5.5
Wisconsin Fond du Lac 9,461 104,010 9.1% Urban 68 7.2
Co.
Wisconsin Forest Co. 1,571 9,344 16.8% Rural 12 7.6
Wisconsin Grant Co. 4,673 51,337 9.1% Rural 47 10.1
Wisconsin Green Co. 2,896 36,864 7.9% Urban 27 9.3
Wisconsin Green Lake 2,019 19,241 10.5% Rural 16 7.9
Co.
Wisconsin Iowa Co. 1,897 23,959 7.9% Urban 13 6.9
Wisconsin Iron Co. 777 6,221 12.5% Rural 8 10.3
Wisconsin Jackson Co. 2,678 20,930 12.8% Rural 18 6.7
Wisconsin Jefferson 6,977 85,809 8.1% Rural 54 7.7
Co.
Wisconsin Juneau Co. 4,179 26,743 15.6% Rural 34 8.1
Wisconsin Kenosha Co. 22,153 167,920 13.2% Urban 124 5.6
Wisconsin Kewaunee Co. 1,382 20,681 6.7% Urban 16 11.6
Wisconsin La Crosse 10,550 120,359 8.8% Urban 66 6.3
Co.
Wisconsin Lafayette 1,406 16,926 8.3% Rural 12 8.5
Co.
Wisconsin Langlade Co. 3,281 19,528 16.8% Rural 24 7.3
Wisconsin Lincoln Co. 3,104 28,345 11% Rural 25 8.1
Wisconsin Manitowoc 7,733 81,256 9.5% Rural 52 6.7
Co.
Wisconsin Marathon Co. 12,410 138,175 9% Urban 112 9.0
Wisconsin Marinette 5,224 42,000 12.4% Rural 55 10.5
Co.
Wisconsin Marquette 1,852 15,776 11.7% Rural 18 9.7
Co.
Wisconsin Menominee 2,075 4,199 49.4% Rural 7 3.4 8Higher-
Co. risk0
Wisconsin Milwaukee 241,787 921,977 26.2% Urban 857 3.5 8Higher-
Co. risk0
Wisconsin Monroe Co. 5,282 46,021 11.5% Rural 47 8.9
Wisconsin Oconto Co. 3,545 39,660 8.9% Urban 40 11.3
Wisconsin Oneida Co. 3,816 38,267 10% Rural 41 10.7
Wisconsin Outagamie 13,559 192,561 7% Urban 131 9.7
Co.
Wisconsin Ozaukee Co. 3,172 93,115 3.4% Urban 46 14.5
Wisconsin Pepin Co. 542 7,400 7.3% Rural 8 14.8
Wisconsin Pierce Co. 2,063 42,597 4.8% Urban 32 15.5
Wisconsin Polk Co. 4,243 45,608 9.3% Rural 51 12.0
Wisconsin Portage Co. 5,970 70,799 8.4% Rural 53 8.9
Wisconsin Price Co. 1,824 14,178 12.9% Rural 19 10.4
Wisconsin Racine Co. 30,068 196,710 15.3% Urban 145 4.8
Wisconsin Richland Co. 2,275 17,161 13.3% Rural 14 6.2
Wisconsin Rock Co. 24,794 163,959 15.1% Urban 130 5.2
Wisconsin Rusk Co. 2,373 14,180 16.7% Rural 17 7.2
Wisconsin St. Croix 4,469 96,138 4.6% Urban 56 12.5
Co.
Wisconsin Sauk Co. 7,475 65,916 11.3% Rural 61 8.2
Wisconsin Sawyer Co. 2,877 18,575 15.5% Rural 17 5.9
Wisconsin Shawano Co. 4,790 41,017 11.7% Rural 38 7.9
Wisconsin Sheboygan 12,299 117,860 10.4% Urban 83 6.7
Co.
Wisconsin Taylor Co. 1,824 19,946 9.1% Rural 13 7.1
Wisconsin Trempealeau 2,599 30,920 8.4% Rural 31 11.9
Co.
Wisconsin Vernon Co. 2,775 31,110 8.9% Urban 26 9.4
Wisconsin Vilas Co. 3,090 23,755 13% Rural 23 7.4
Wisconsin Walworth Co. 8,541 105,705 8.1% Rural 71 8.3
Wisconsin Washburn Co. 1,989 16,915 11.8% Rural 17 8.5
Wisconsin Washington 7,020 137,999 5.1% Urban 73 10.4
Co.
Wisconsin Waukesha Co. 15,937 411,061 3.9% Urban 212 13.3
Wisconsin Waupaca Co. 4,816 51,645 9.3% Rural 43 8.9
Wisconsin Waushara Co. 2,948 24,932 11.8% Rural 20 6.8
Wisconsin Winnebago 16,496 171,049 9.6% Urban 117 7.1
Co.
Wisconsin Wood Co. 9,931 73,849 13.4% Rural 64 6.4
Wyoming Albany Co. 1,451 38,361 3.8% Rural 15 10.3
Wyoming Big Horn Co. 639 11,876 5.4% Rural 10 15.6
Wyoming Campbell Co. 2,160 47,049 4.6% Rural 33 15.3
Wyoming Carbon Co. 717 14,527 4.9% Rural 17 23.7
Wyoming Converse Co. 776 13,774 5.6% Rural 11 14.2
Wyoming Crook Co. 99 7,417 1.3% Rural 8 80.8
Wyoming Fremont Co. 4,483 39,545 11.3% Rural 29 6.5
Wyoming Goshen Co. 683 12,638 5.4% Rural 4 5.9
Wyoming Hot Springs 243 4,609 5.3% Rural 4 16.5
Co.
Wyoming Johnson Co. 237 8,735 2.7% Rural 10 42.2
Wyoming Laramie Co. 5,214 100,860 5.2% Urban 60 11.5
Wyoming Lincoln Co. 431 20,690 2.1% Rural 16 37.1
Wyoming Natrona Co. 5,662 79,565 7.1% Urban 49 8.7
Wyoming Niobrara Co. 207 2,346 8.8% Rural 3 14.5
Wyoming Park Co. 943 30,530 3.1% Rural 17 18.0
Wyoming Platte Co. 481 8,655 5.6% Rural 10 20.8
Wyoming Sheridan Co. 1,195 32,049 3.7% Rural 15 12.6
Wyoming Sublette Co. 144 8,767 1.6% Rural 10 69.4
Wyoming Sweetwater 2,288 41,322 5.5% Rural 34 14.9
Co.
Wyoming Teton Co. 49 23,341 0.2% Rural 6 122.4
Wyoming Uinta Co. 1,205 20,722 5.8% Rural 17 14.1
Wyoming Washakie Co. 294 7,728 3.8% Rural 5 17.0
Wyoming Weston Co. 356 6,872 5.2% Rural 10 28.1
\9\ https://
www.fns.us
da.gov/
snap/store-
definition
s.
\10\ https:/
/usda-snap-
retailers-
usda-
fns.hub.ar
cgis.com/
datasets/
USDA-
FNS::snap-
retailer-
location-
data/
about.
\11\ https:/
/www.censu
s.gov/data/
datasets/
time-
series/
demo/saipe/
model-
tables.htm
l.
\12\ https:/
/www.censu
s.gov/data/
datasets/
time-
series/
demo/
popest/
2020s-
counties-
total.html
#v2024.
\13\ https:/
/www.ers.u
sda.gov/
data-
products/
rural-
urban-
continuum-
codes.
\14\ https:/
/github.co
m/CT-Data-
Collaborat
ive/zip-to-
planningre
gion/blob/
main/
README.md.
\15\ https:/
/www.ameri
canprogres
s.org/wp-
content/
uploads/
sites/2/
2025/05/
Higher-
risk-SNAP-
retailers.
xlsx.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: The authors measured the SNAP retailers per 1,000 SNAP participants ratio as an indicator of food access
for people who receive assistance through SNAP. Retailers within counties that were below the median ratio and
in the top ten percent of counties with the highest SNAP participation were marked as being most at risk of
being harmed by cuts in food assistance. Because the SNAP retailers data does not account for Connecticut's
transition from counties to planning regions, retailer addresses were crosswalked using ZIP [C]odes. However,
the crosswalk is not exact since some ZIP codes cross planning region boundaries.
Source: For a list of definitions for the included store types, see U.S. Department of Agriculture, ``SNAP Store
Type Definitions'' \9\ (last accessed April 2025). U.S. Department of Agriculture, ``SNAP Retailer Location
Data'' \10\ (last accessed April 2025); U.S. Census Bureau, ``SAIPE Model Input Data: County SNAP Benefits
Data,'' \11\ December 16, 2024; U.S. Census Bureau, ``Annual Resident Population Estimates, Estimated
Components of Resident Population Change, and Rates of the Components of Resident Population Change for States
and Counties: April 1, 2020 to July 1, 2024,'' \12\ March 12, 2025; U.S. Department of Agriculture, ``2023
Rural-Urban Continuum Codes'' \13\ (last accessed April 2025); CT Data Collaborative, ``Connecticut ZIP to
Planning Region Crosswalk,'' \14\ September 13, 2023.
Table: Center for American Progress.
Download the list of individual SNAP retailers at higher risk here.\15\

The U.S. House Committee on Agriculture will soon release its
proposal for what are likely to be the largest cuts to the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) in its history.\16\ Options under
consideration reportedly include forcing states to take on a portion of
benefit costs \17\ for the first time; \18\ freezing \19\ benefit
increases from future Thrifty Food Plan adjustments; and expanding \20\
burdensome work requirements to older Americans and families with
children \21\--all of which would cut at the heart of the nation's food
assistance system. Cuts to SNAP would not just affect Americans
enrolled in the program but would also pull the rug out from under
grocers, farmers, and the broader economy.\22\ A new Center for
American Progress analysis identifies the 27,000 authorized SNAP
retailers that would be at higher risk of financial hardship in
response to such cuts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ https://unidosus.org/blog/2025/02/24/house-budget-resolutions-
cuts-to-snap-largest-in-us-history/.
\17\ https://www.huffpost.com/entry/snap-cuts-budget-
reconciliation-beautiful_n_6813a6ffe4b0964363620874.
\18\ https://www.americanprogress.org/article/shifting-snap-costs-
to-states-would-make-future-recessions-worse/.
\19\ https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2025/05/06/congress/
house-republicans-snap-food-aid-00330620.
\20\ https://www.foxnews.com/politics/escape-poverty-millions-more-
food-stamp-recipients-required-work-under-new-house-gop-proposal.
\21\ https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/worsening-snaps-
harsh-work-requirement-would-take-food-assistance-away.
\22\ https://www.americanprogress.org/article/shifting-snap-costs-
to-states-would-make-future-recessions-worse/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retailers in counties with high SNAP usage and low food access are at
higher risk
The impacts of cuts to SNAP are likely to be felt most strongly in
areas with the highest rates of SNAP participation. In these
communities, even if a family doesn't personally see their budget for
food reduced, community residents could see their local grocer close.
Families that see their benefits reduced or taken away entirely will
have fewer resources to pay for the costs of rising food prices,\23\
meaning more people will go hungry as sales at authorized SNAP
retailers fall. This can be particularly difficult for businesses in
communities with high rates of SNAP participation that depend on the
revenue from these benefits. As Figure 1 shows, more than 27,000
retailers in over 300 counties across the country could soon face
severe financial hardship if cuts to food assistance were to be
enacted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-congressional-
republican-budget-plan-will-hurt-americans-wallets/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To determine which businesses are most likely to be harmed by SNAP
cuts, the authors utilized two county-level factors. First, the authors
identified the top ten percent of counties with the highest SNAP
participation rates \24\ relative to the total population, based on
administrative participant data \25\ for 2022--the latest available--as
well as U.S. Census Bureau population data.\26\ Second, the authors
used a ratio for the number of SNAP retailers per 1,000 SNAP
recipients, with counties below the median ratio having limited options
for families receiving assistance to use their benefits. The 27,266
businesses in the 303 counties that met both criteria are classified as
being at higher risk from SNAP cuts. This includes 3,721 smaller
grocery stores, 994 specialty stores, and 600 farmers and markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ https://www.census.gov/data-tools/demo/saipe_treemap/
saipe_snap_treemap.html.
\25\ https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/saipe/guidance/model-
input-data/snap.html.
\26\ https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/popest/
2020s-counties-total.html.

95 percent of counties with the highest rates of people
receiving SNAP have limited access to retailers that accept
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SNAP benefits.

Importantly, access to authorized SNAP retailers fell with rising
SNAP participation. In fact, 95 percent of counties with the highest
rates of people receiving SNAP have limited access to retailers that
accept SNAP benefits, highlighting the disparities in food access \27\
among poorer parts of the country. Even if there are other stores
nearby, families receiving assistance can be limited by those that
accept SNAP. Rural areas are disproportionately represented among these
high-risk counties, making up 77 percent of these areas despite only
representing 62 percent of counties, according to the Department of
Agriculture's Rural-Urban Continuum Codes.\28\ The relatively few
businesses within these communities that accept SNAP payments are
essential for meeting the needs of families that already struggle
affording enough food. Cutting SNAP benefits would put the future of
these businesses at risk by slashing a substantial source of revenue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ https://www.aecf.org/blog/communities-with-limited-food-
access-in-the-united-states.
\28\ https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/rural-urban-continuum-
codes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SNAP is a lifeline for rural economies and small grocers
Cuts to food assistance will have strong negative impacts on
families' budgets and will lead to decreases \29\ in spending on food
and other household goods, causing ripple effects for communities'
local economies. In rural areas, $1 of SNAP spending generates roughly
$1.50 \30\ in local economic activity during recessions. Prior research
\31\ also demonstrates that SNAP dollars have a larger relative
positive impact on rural economies by increasing employment and
economic output than it does for urban economies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/
2025/mar/how-cuts-medicaid-snap-could-trigger-job-loss-state-revenue.
\30\ https://ers.usda.gov/sites/default/files/_laserfiche/
publications/93529/ERR-265.pdf?v=84771.
\31\ https://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/pub-
details?pubid=102286.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grocery retailers of all sizes should expect \32\ shocks to their
revenue following cuts in food assistance. SNAP benefits are vital to
the economic stability of the grocery industry and related jobs in
agriculture. In 2020, SNAP supported nearly 199,000 \33\ jobs within
the independent grocery industry and another 45,000 jobs \34\ in
related industries such as agriculture, manufacturing, transportation,
and local services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ https://www.cnbc.com/2025/04/16/proposed-snap-cuts-pressure-
low-income-shoppers-retailers.html.
\33\ https://grocers.guerrillaeconomics.net/res/Methodology.pdf.
\34\ https://frac.org/blog/part-3-the-real-cost-of-cutting-snap-
jobs-lost-stores-closed-communities-undermined.

``Some stores in low-income neighborhoods have more than 50
percent SNAP sales. A 20 percent cut to SNAP would make it very
difficult for stores like this, in food deserts, to remain
open.''
Stephanie Johnson, National Grocers Association

Grocers,\35\ farmers,\36\ and researchers \37\ are already
expressing concerns about how SNAP cuts will impact grocery retailers
across the nation. In an interview,\38\ Stephanie Johnson of the
National Grocers Association stressed the connection between SNAP sales
and independent grocers, saying, ``Some stores in low-income
neighborhoods have more than 50 percent SNAP sales. A 20 percent cut to
SNAP would make it very difficult for stores like this, in food
deserts, to remain open.'' A March 2025 study \39\ published by the
Commonwealth Fund estimates that the cuts proposed in the House budget
resolution would result in the loss of almost 78,000 food-related jobs
in agriculture, retail grocery, and food processing, as well as 65,000
jobs in other industries, as local economies feel the impacts of
decreased economic spending. Losing these 143,000 jobs would devastate
communities and only worsen food access in rural areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ https://frac.org/blog/part-5-when-snap-slips-small-towns-
suffer-the-hidden-costs-of-cutting-food-assistance.
\36\ https://frac.org/blog/snap-cuts-threaten-the-fabric-of-rural-
communities-farms-families-and-small-businesses.
\37\ https://www.splcenter.org/resources/stories/effects-cuts-snap-
federal-food-program-across-south/.
\38\ https://frac.org/blog/part-3-the-real-cost-of-cutting-snap-
jobs-lost-stores-closed-communities-undermined.
\39\ https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/
2025/mar/how-cuts-medicaid-snap-could-trigger-job-loss-state-revenue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
Cutting food assistance would destabilize the food industry amid a
period of already great uncertainty. The hardship generated by
reductions in SNAP sales for retailers that depend on customers having
access to these benefits coincides with the expected rising cost of
goods \40\ due to Trump's tariffs and the growing fears \41\ of an
upcoming recession. Grocery stores that are forced to cut staff and
close in response to reduced food purchasing will further limit access
to food in communities across the country, even for consumers who do
not use SNAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ https://www.americanprogress.org/article/examples-of-
potential-consumer-price-hikes-under-trumps-tariffs/.
\41\ https://www.npr.org/2025/04/30/nx-s1-5380204/trump-economy-
gdp-tariffs-recession-consumers.

The authors would like to thank Lily Roberts, Joe Radosevich,
Natalie Baker, Emily Gee, Colin Seeberger, Madeline Shepherd, Jerry
Parshall, Bianca Serbin, Bill Rapp, and Will Beaudouin for their
feedback.
Contacts
Press
Julia Cusick, Vice President, Communications,
jcusick@americanprogress.org
Government Affairs
Madeline Shepherd, Senior Director, Government Affairs, mshep
herd@americanprogress.org

Jerry Parshall, Senior Director, Safety and Justice Campaign; Director,
State and Local Government Affairs, jparshall@americanprogress.org

The positions of American Progress, and our policy experts,
are independent, and the findings and conclusions presented are
those of American Progress alone. American Progress would like
to acknowledge the many generous supporters who make our work
possible.
article 2

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

[https://www.marketplace.org/story/2025/06/03/trumps-steel-and-
aluminum-tariffs-could-drive-up-grocery-costs]

Jun. 3, 2025
How tariffs on steel and aluminum could show up on your grocery bill
Tariffs on steel and aluminum impact everything from packaging to
the bottom lines of stores like Walmart.

Trade War 2.0 \1\ By Samantha Fields \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.marketplace.org/trade-war-2-0.
\2\ https://www.marketplace.org/author/samantha-fields.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Canned food could get more expensive if the cost of steel and
aluminum goes up. And if food distributors switch to, say,
plastic, the cost of food in plastic could go up too.
Ronaldo Schemidt/AFP via Getty Images.

What's the first thing you thought about when you heard President
Donald Trump was doubling tariffs on steel and aluminum? The price of
groceries? Yes, no, us neither.
President Trump campaigned on the promise that he would lower
prices, including food prices. But his decision to double tariffs on
steel and aluminum to 50% is likely to have the opposite effect,\3\
including when it comes to grocery bills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://www.marketplace.org/story/2025/03/03/what-do-trumps-
tariffs-mean-for-your-grocery-bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``Tariffs on inputs like steel and aluminum may not seem that
connected to food, but they are critical for packaging,'' said David
Ortega, a food economist and professor at Michigan State University.
He said to think about all those canned goods you buy: canned tuna,
soda, beer, pet food. They're all packaged in steel or aluminum.
Usha Haley, a professor at the Barton School of Business at Wichita
State University, said most of it is imported.
``The United States just does not produce enough steel. And the
U.S. imports nearly 70% of tinplate steel that manufacturers use for
cans of fruits, vegetables, essential foods and pet foods,'' she said.
If these tariffs remain in effect, she said, we're likely to start
seeing all sorts of prices go up at the grocery store. And not just on
canned goods.
For instance, if companies that currently use aluminum to package
certain products, like soda, start using more plastic instead, that
could cause plastic--and anything packaged in it--to get more
expensive, too.
``There are also indirect costs. The costs of transportation, the
cost of fixing up trucks etc.,'' Haley said. All of which also get more
expensive as steel and aluminum do. And that can trickle down into the
prices we pay for pretty much everything at the store.
John Clear, a partner on the retail team at AlixPartners, said
retailers are in a tough spot: ``Consumers are super conscious of all
the price increases, so they know they're losing trust. But also they
don't have a lot of room in their margins to continue to swallow
costs,'' he said.
Especially after pandemic supply chain issues and the inflation
that followed.
So say a company that sells canned vegetables does decide to pass
along the increased cost of a steel can to customers?
Clear said that might only be an extra 2 to 5.
``Which doesn't seem a lot. But a can of sweet corn at Walmart is
like 42 to 45,'' he said.
So an extra 5 would make it cost about 10% more. A lot of people
buying canned fruits and vegetables are on SNAP benefits,\4\ Clear
said, which already don't go very far.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ https://www.marketplace.org/story/2023/03/21/one-mom-on-what-
the-end-of-additional-snap-benefits-means-to-her-family.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``So if you think that's replicated across a number of items within
their basket every week, suddenly that actually becomes quite
impactful, and will ultimately mean that they probably buy one less
unit,'' he said.
Which again, might not seem like a lot, but if you're a big company
like Walmart and thousands of customers start buying one less can of
corn at thousands of stores, it adds up.
______

Submitted Press Release by Hon. Salud O. Carbajal, a Representative In
Congress from California
For Immediate Release

June 10, 2025
Farm Bureau of Ventura County Condemns ICE Activity in Oxnard
``ICE Threatens Our Industry, Our Economy, and Our Community''
Ventura County, CA--The Farm Bureau of Ventura County, representing
hundreds of farmers, ranchers, and agricultural businesses across the
region, strongly condemns the actions taken by Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) in Oxnard this morning. Reports indicate that ICE
agents attempted to enter a local packing facility without a judicial
warrant, conducted operations in agricultural fields, and initiated
vehicle stops on roads frequently used by agricultural workers
commuting to job sites.
As working producers and stewards of Ventura County's $2 billion
agricultural economy, we know firsthand that our industry cannot
function without the contributions of our workforce. These are people
we rely on, respect, and work alongside every day. They are skilled
professionals who bring deep experience and an extraordinary work ethic
to Ventura County's fields and ranches. Their labor is the reason our
region is recognized as one of the most productive agricultural areas
in the world.
The conduct of ICE this morning, marked by racial profiling,
intimidation, and attempts to enter private property without judicial
authorization, constitutes an unacceptable escalation. This approach
undermines constitutional rights and directly threatens the integrity
of California's agricultural economy.
Let us be unequivocal: racial profiling is illegal. Intimidation is
not enforcement. Using fear to destabilize the workforce that powers
our farms is a reckless and short-sighted tactic with far-reaching
consequences. These actions erode community trust, disrupt harvests,
and impose undue strain on operations large and small. When our
workforce is afraid, fields go unharvested, packinghouses fall behind,
and market supply chains, from local grocery stores to national
retailers, are affected. This impacts every American whoeats.
We urge swift and coordinated action at the local, state, and
Federal levels to safeguard farmworkers and ensure the continued
strength of our agricultural industry.

Local Actions We Urge Ventura County and City Governments to Take:

Law enforcement agencies must be trained on their
constitutional responsibilities, including the right to decline
unlawful orders from ICE, CBP, or other Federal entities. The
defense of ``I was just following orders'' is neither legally
nor morally sufficient. Officers must be empowered to uphold
civil liberties, not violate them.

The Ventura County Sheriff's Office should implement a
policy to notify the Rapid Response Network (RRN) when ICE
operations occur, similar to how fire departments notify the
Red Cross during house fires. RRN offers legal assistance,
emergency support, and trauma-informed care to affected
families, resources essential to maintaining community
stability.

We recommend the County train designated staff that work
throughout the county, such as Weights and Measure & Ag
Commissioner staff to serve as legal observers during ICE
operations. The presence of trained observers, who document and
question from a safe distance, has been shown to deter unlawful
detentions and reduce instances of racial profiling.

State Legislative Action Needed:

We call on California's Assemblymembers and State Senators to
strengthen and expand protections for immigrant workers statewide. This
includes:

Standardized training for local agencies

Stronger limits on cooperation with Federal immigration
enforcement

Prohibitions against data-sharing or indirect involvement in
ICE operations

Federal Oversight and De-escalation:

We urge our Federal representatives to:

Conduct immediate investigations into ICE activity in
Ventura County

Withhold funding from operations that violate constitutional
protections

Take legislative steps to reduce the militarization of
immigration enforcement in agricultural communities

Farm Bureau members care deeply about their workers, not as
abstract labor, but as human beings and valued community members who
deserve dignity, safety, and respect. Ventura County agriculture
depends on them. California's economy depends on them. America's food
system depends on them.

We invite our colleagues in local government, especially the
Ventura County Board of Supervisors, city councils, and departments
with direct community interface, such as Human Services, the Farmworker
Resource Program, and Public Health, to add their voices and leadership
to this effort.

Media Contact:

Farm Bureau of Ventura County
Maureen McGuire
(805) 310-3620
Maureen@farmbureauvc.com
______

Submitted Questions
Response from Hon. Brooke Rollins, Secretary, U.S. Department of
Agriculture
Questions Submitted by Hon. Glenn Thompson, a Representative in
Congress from Pennsylvania
Question 1. While the farm bill provides significant funding for
voluntary farm conservation programs each year, the demand for the
programs far exceeds the available funding. To allow for additional
funding, the SUSTAINS Act was introduced to allow for private donations
directly into the existing programs including EQIP, CSP and RCPP. The
authority has now been law for several years but was never implemented
by the Biden Administration. Can you provide the Committee with update
on implementation of the SUSTAINS Act?
Answer. Unfortunately, the Biden Administration failed to fulfill
its duty of implementing the SUSTAINS Act. USDA is working to formulate
a plan to execute and implement the program moving forward.

Question 2. On April 14, 2025, USDA announced that the Climate-
Smart Commodities Program is being reformed as the Advancing Markets
for Producers (AMP) initiative. Can you update the Committee on the
status of the reworked initiative? What is the process for AMP and what
guidance has USDA given program participants that wish to modify their
application or project? Is there a timeframe for projects to be
resubmitted and approved?
Answer. Recipients for all projects were given the opportunity to
continue work in AMP through an amendment of the original award to meet
the threshold of USDA's priorities. Agreement holders were notified of
this opportunity on May 15, 2025, and were given until June 20, 2025,
to submit amendment packages. The agency is currently reviewing the
amendment packages and will proceed with signature and approval for
those that meet the initiative priorities.

Question 3. As reported, USDA canceled on June 11th some Regional
Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) awarded grants that were to
receive funding through the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). Will program
participants that had their projects canceled be able to reapply for
RCPP or modify their current terms or application? How is USDA working
with entities that received or were expecting IRA funding through RCPP
for applications and projects that have been canceled?
Answer. On July 4, 2025, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act was signed
into law, which rescinded all unobligated Inflation Reduction Act
funding for RCPP. Awards with programmatic partnership agreements and
supplemental agreements that were signed were allowed to move forward.
It is important to note that no RCPP contracts were canceled.
Applicants who were not awarded are encouraged to reach out to their
state RCPP Coordinator to strengthen their proposal for consideration
in the next funding cycle using farm bill funding.

Question 4. USDA's Rural Development programs are crucial to the
rural economy, the heartbeat of America. They provide the foundation
and services needed to help rural America thrive. USDA knows rural
America. I have concerns with the FY 2026 President's Budget Request
that proposes to terminate the USDA Rural Business and Industry
Guaranteed Loan Program and the Rural Business Development Grants
Program. Will you commit to working with me and this Committee to keep
these USDA programs available for rural America and the farmers they
serve?
Answer. USDA acknowledges the role that Rural Development programs
play in supporting rural communities and farmers. The Administration's
budget proposal reflects a commitment to fiscal responsibility and
streamlining programs to maximize impact. We are committed to
evaluating all avenues to support rural economic development and job
creation, consistent with the President's vision for a strong American
economy.

Question 5. I am a strong supporter of the USDA Rural Development
Innovation Center and included codifying language in the farm bill that
passed the House Agriculture Committee last year. Has USDA considered
collaborating with the Cooperative Extension Service to help
disseminate information, hold joint virtual webinars or in-person
sessions, etc., about the multitude of RD programs available?
Answer. The Rural Development Innovation Center is dedicated to
enhancing program delivery and empowering rural communities through
strategic partnerships and data-driven solutions. USDA is exploring
collaboration with the Cooperative Extension Service to disseminate
information, host joint webinars, and conduct in-person sessions.

Question 6. From EMS stations to childcare centers, USDA's
Community Facilities Programs play a vital role in helping rural
communities invest in essential infrastructure. How is USDA ensuring
that these funds can continue to be accessible to small and under-
served communities, and will you explore new flexibilities or outreach
efforts to improve program delivery?
Answer. Ensuring these funds are accessible, especially for rural
communities, is a priority. We are continuously reviewing our program
delivery to streamline processes and reduce burdens, making it easier
for communities with limited capacity to apply. This includes exploring
new flexibilities in application requirements and providing targeted
technical assistance and outreach.

Question 7. High-speed internet remains out of reach for many rural
communities, limiting opportunities for education, business, health
care, and local government services. How is USDA RD adapting its
broadband deployment strategy, particularly through ReConnect, to
ensure these investments are timely, technologically flexible, and
accessible to counties with limited grant-writing capacity?
Answer. USDA Rural Development is adapting our broadband deployment
strategy to address the unique challenges of rural communities. We aim
to prioritize technological flexibility, allowing for various solutions
that best suit local needs. For counties with limited grant-writing
capacity, we are bolstering our outreach and support services,
providing direct assistance, workshops, and clear guidance to help them
navigate the application process and secure the funding critical for
closing the digital divide.
Small Rural Communities
Question 8. Small rural communities and systems face numerous
challenges in providing clean drinking water and ensuring adequate
waste disposal. USDA has often been the largest source of grant
financing for rural communities and systems. The FY 2025 enacted
funding level for USDA's Water and Wastewater grants is $380 million.
The FY 2026 budget proposes $144 million for the same programs. How can
rural communities secure much needed funding for their systems when the
proposed level is well below the programs' historic funding levels?
Answer. We recognize the challenges rural communities face in
maintaining and upgrading their water and wastewater infrastructure,
and Rural Development remains a steadfast partner in these efforts. The
President's FY 2026 budget proposal reflects a broader strategy to
prioritize fiscal discipline and target resources where they are most
impactful. Our commitment to supporting essential water and wastewater
systems in rural America is unwavering. We will continue to maximize
the impact of available funds through strategic allocations, leveraging
partnerships, and emphasizing projects that demonstrate the highest
need and long-term sustainability.

Question 9. Several states have pointed to staffing shortages in
the state SNAP offices as the reason for skyrocketing error rates
coming out of the pandemic. Enhanced IT systems, including the use of
artificial intelligence (AI), stand out as a potential solution for
states who are struggling with workforce challenges. What barriers
exist at the Federal level to prevent states from using AI, and what
steps has the Department taken to remove unnecessary barriers and
encourage states to use AI in their administration of SNAP?
Answer. SNAP is unique among Federal programs due to requirements
in the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 that State SNAP agencies certify
SNAP households using state agency employees that were hired under a
merit system. As I outlined in my February 13, 2025, letter to state,
Tribal, Territory, and Local Government Partners, I am committed to
supporting state innovation through approval of waivers and pilot
projects. AI holds enormous potential to streamline access to nutrition
benefits, reduce administrative burden, and improve customer
experience.
USDA encourages state agencies to implement system enhancements
that can streamline the SNAP application process and prepare cases for
final eligibility determination by merit staff.

Question 10. The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023 required
the Department to issue guidance and promulgate notice-and-comment
rulemaking on SNAP EBT card security. What is the status of the
rulemaking, and when can we expect a rule to be published in the
Federal Register?
Answer. USDA Food and Nutrition Service takes its responsibility of
helping to prevent fraud, particularly SNAP Electronic Benefit Transfer
(EBT) theft, seriously. USDA has made significant and sustainable
progress, in partnership with states, third-party EBT processors, and
authorized SNAP retailers, to modernize EBT systems and reduce fraud.
USDA anticipates the rule, ``Enhancing Electronic Benefit Transfer
(EBT) Card Security Measures,'' will publish in the Federal Register
next year.

Question 11. The most recent data from the Department estimates
that 1.6 percent of all SNAP benefits were trafficked from 2015 to
2017, representing about $1 billion. When will the Department publish
an updated estimate of trafficking in SNAP?
Answer. FNS has strengthened its focus on SNAP trafficking,
including expanding the use of data analysis to detect fraudsters and
taking immediate administrative action to ensure that stores that
violate SNAP rules no longer participate in the program. Retailers who
commit program violations may also be subject to monetary penalties,
fines, and/or criminal prosecution.

Question 12. SNAP state administrative expenses have increased by
30 percent since 2019, and the Congressional Budget Office even
estimates these costs will increase by 40 percent over the 10 year
budget window, far outpacing inflation. Does the Department know what
is driving the increase in the costs at the state level? What specific
state and local government costs are increasing?
Answer. SNAP State Administrative Expenses (SAE) are affected by
many factors, such as participation levels, the number and salary level
of state agency staff, inflation, the location of state agency offices,
issuance costs, worker training costs, degree of automation, and level
of fraud control activity. The increase in SNAP SAE is driven by
increased spending on certification activities and automated data
processing operations and systems development. These investments
include developing remote systems and expanded call centers,
streamlining eligibility determinations, implementing required program
changes, hiring additional state staff to manage increased
applications, and updating legacy platforms.

Question 13. As part of their SNAP state administrative expenses,
how much are states spending on SNAP outreach? Has spending on outreach
increased? Please share outreach spending broken down by state going
back to Fiscal Year 2015.
Answer. Spending on outreach has increased but represents a small
percentage of SNAP SAE costs. In FY 2015, the state share of outreach
expenditures was $36,185,786 and the Federal share was $36,028,618. FY
2015 SNAP outreach spending (Federal + state) totaled $72,214,404.
In FY 2024, the state share of outreach expenditures was
$76,867,615. The Federal share was $76,841,391. The total (Federal +
state) spending for FY 2024 was $153,709,006. This represents an
increase of $40,838,997 in state costs, and an increase of $81,494,602
in total costs (Federal + state), between FY 2015 and FY 2024. Outreach
represented 0.92% of SAE in FY 2015 and 1.3% of SAE in FY 2024.

National Data Bank Version 8.2 Public Use SC4--Up To 99 Variables--
States Ascending
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SNAP Outreach State SNAP Outreach Total
State/Territory Share Fed Share
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2015
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama 127,664 127,664
Alaska 14,826 14,825
Arizona 3,388,798 3,388,798
Arkansas 190,412 33,315
California 8,219,735 8,219,736
Colorado 156,803 156,802
Connecticut 552,983 552,982
Delaware 121,912 121,911
District of Columbia 71,286 71,285
Florida 166,658 166,657
Georgia 1,286,102 1,286,102
Guam
Hawaii 197,843 197,843
Idaho 0 0
Illinois 1,082,119 1,082,118
Indiana 450,537 450,537
Iowa 89,552 89,551
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana 181,821 181,821
Maine
Maryland 1,188,989 1,188,990
Massachusetts 690,592 690,592
Michigan 320,491 320,491
Minnesota 1,651,239 1,651,238
Mississippi 29,215 29,213
Missouri 183,856 183,856
Montana 0 0
Nebraska 293,851 293,852
Nevada 1,362,138 1,362,138
New Hampshire 5,458 5,457
New Jersey 197,598 197,598
New Mexico 0 0
New York 3,340,935 3,340,935
North Carolina 454,715 454,716
North Dakota 50,790 50,790
Ohio 1,174,552 1,174,551
Oklahoma
Oregon 395,899 395,899
Pennsylvania 1,198,841 1,198,842
Rhode Island 454,668 454,667
South Carolina 1,399,438 1,399,438
South Dakota
Tennessee 558,868 556,452
Texas 2,372,264 2,372,264
Utah 0 2,355
Vermont 434,075 434,074
Virginia 109,473 109,473
Virgin Islands
Washington 1,409,908 1,409,909
West Virginia 83,714 83,713
Wisconsin 525,168 525,168
Wyoming 0 0
-----------------------------------------------
U.S................. 36,185,786 36,028,618
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2016
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama 169,752 169,752
Alaska 16,294 16,295
Arizona 1,519,645 1,519,647
Arkansas 107,509 107,508
California 8,069,173 8,069,174
Colorado 309,084 309,084
Connecticut 564,944 564,944
Delaware 109,032 109,032
District of Columbia 73,669 73,669
Florida 184,833 177,785
Georgia 1,196,147 1,196,147
Guam
Hawaii 326,167 50,000
Idaho 0 0
Illinois 949,863 949,863
Indiana 480,982 480,983
Iowa 152,841 152,841
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana 243,752 243,752
Maine
Maryland 1,267,285 1,267,285
Massachusetts 705,638 705,637
Michigan 469,331 469,331
Minnesota 2,100,982 2,100,980
Mississippi 48,778 48,780
Missouri 224,363 224,363
Montana 8,923 8,923
Nebraska 319,074 319,074
Nevada 1,570,901 1,570,900
New Hampshire 3,679 3,680
New Jersey 182,798 182,798
New Mexico
New York 3,252,832 3,252,833
North Carolina 537,598 537,599
North Dakota 50,339 50,340
Ohio 1,604,339 1,604,339
Oklahoma
Oregon 347,706 347,707
Pennsylvania 1,400,472 1,400,473
Rhode Island 495,231 495,231
South Carolina 996,703 996,703
South Dakota
Tennessee 332,158 329,013
Texas 2,626,359 2,626,358
Utah 0 15,997
Vermont 444,234 444,235
Virginia 80,720 80,720
Virgin Islands
Washington 1,458,892 1,458,892
West Virginia 109,320 109,320
Wisconsin 742,047 742,047
Wyoming 0 0
-----------------------------------------------
U.S................. 35,854,389 35,584,034
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2017
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama 201,852 201,853
Alaska 46,386 46,386
Arizona 0 2,582,935
Arkansas 25,912 25,912
California 9,772,870 9,772,870
Colorado 584,689 584,690
Connecticut 536,915 536,916
Delaware 110,629 110,629
District of Columbia 65,728 65,728
Florida 176,251 176,251
Georgia 1,267,110 1,267,110
Guam
Hawaii 194,141 194,140
Idaho 0 0
Illinois 1,110,225 1,110,225
Indiana 468,774 468,774
Iowa 128,614 128,614
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana 289,712 289,712
Maine 512 511
Maryland 1,511,679 1,511,680
Massachusetts 725,873 725,872
Michigan 536,168 536,168
Minnesota 2,163,606 2,163,608
Mississippi 71,500 71,501
Missouri 432,293 432,294
Montana 17,252 17,252
Nebraska 318,247 318,246
Nevada 1,634,951 1,634,950
New Hampshire 8,474 8,473
New Jersey 220,392 220,392
New Mexico
New York 6,724,077 6,724,077
North Carolina 387,826 387,825
North Dakota 62,497 62,497
Ohio 1,822,642 1,822,641
Oklahoma
Oregon 372,382 372,380
Pennsylvania 1,478,280 1,478,280
Rhode Island 434,324 434,323
South Carolina 1,280,235 1,280,234
South Dakota
Tennessee 352,927 352,927
Texas 2,601,381 2,601,381
Utah 24,539 24,538
Vermont 477,538 477,537
Virginia 87,691 87,690
Virgin Islands
Washington 3,067,709 3,067,710
West Virginia 104,456 104,456
Wisconsin 698,042 698,042
Wyoming 0 0
-----------------------------------------------
U.S................. 42,597,301 45,180,230
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2018
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama 198,687 198,688
Alaska 32,098 32,098
Arizona 7,118,109 2,593,630
Arkansas 25,502 25,499
California 10,144,023 10,144,024
Colorado 709,687 709,687
Connecticut 416,542 416,542
Delaware 115,035 115,035
District of Columbia 83,280 83,280
Florida 177,955 177,955
Georgia 1,407,651 1,407,651
Guam
Hawaii 131,510 131,509
Idaho 0 0
Illinois 1,268,334 1,268,334
Indiana 530,216 530,216
Iowa 146,782 146,782
Kansas
Kentucky 424 424
Louisiana 269,256 269,256
Maine
Maryland 1,290,151 1,290,151
Massachusetts 798,380 798,380
Michigan 1,457,714 1,457,714
Minnesota 2,438,828 2,438,793
Mississippi 99,931 99,932
Missouri 552,033 552,033
Montana 9,401 9,401
Nebraska 368,489 368,488
Nevada 1,527,612 1,527,612
New Hampshire 4,266 4,266
New Jersey 128,251 128,251
New Mexico
New York 6,858,325 6,858,325
North Carolina 842,599 842,598
North Dakota 59,181 59,181
Ohio 2,273,370 2,273,369
Oklahoma 0 0
Oregon 745,475 745,476
Pennsylvania 1,519,238 1,519,237
Rhode Island 524,189 524,188
South Carolina 1,252,211 1,252,211
South Dakota
Tennessee 551,479 551,480
Texas 3,267,084 3,267,083
Utah 22,415 22,414
Vermont 486,962 486,962
Virginia 92,643 92,643
Virgin Islands
Washington 3,749,468 3,749,468
West Virginia 123,807 123,807
Wisconsin 595,575 595,576
Wyoming 0 0
-----------------------------------------------
U.S................. 54,414,168 49,889,649
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2019
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama 239,052 239,052
Alaska 66,955 66,956
Arizona 12,897,607 2,725,399
Arkansas 27,727 27,727
California 13,629,085 13,629,085
Colorado 1,227,185 1,227,185
Connecticut 491,326 491,327
Delaware 132,712 132,713
District of Columbia 103,075 103,075
Florida 166,107 166,108
Georgia 1,481,430 1,481,430
Guam
Hawaii 210,882 210,881
Idaho
Illinois 1,488,865 1,488,864
Indiana 414,169 414,170
Iowa 119,880 119,881
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana 261,058 261,058
Maine
Maryland 1,760,449 1,760,447
Massachusetts 1,059,965 1,059,966
Michigan 1,495,971 1,366,774
Minnesota 2,518,185 2,518,185
Mississippi 104,845 104,845
Missouri 381,944 381,943
Montana 10,059 10,060
Nebraska 387,383 387,383
Nevada 1,288,008 1,288,007
New Hampshire
New Jersey 216,621 216,621
New Mexico
New York 6,135,827 6,135,827
North Carolina 826,633 826,633
North Dakota 53,463 53,464
Ohio 1,980,111 1,980,110
Oklahoma 0 0
Oregon 751,501 751,500
Pennsylvania 1,818,039 1,818,039
Rhode Island 482,872 482,873
South Carolina 1,515,524 1,515,524
South Dakota
Tennessee 709,052 709,052
Texas 3,058,103 3,058,103
Utah 23,250 23,250
Vermont 570,962 570,963
Virginia 62,143 62,142
Virgin Islands
Washington 3,719,835 3,719,836
West Virginia 123,093 123,093
Wisconsin 878,858 878,857
Wyoming 0 0
-----------------------------------------------
U.S................. 64,889,811 54,588,408
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama 297,926 297,926
Alaska 52,441 52,442
Arizona 2,785,664 2,785,664
Arkansas 61,916 61,916
California 16,382,406 16,382,406
Colorado 1,660,694 1,660,695
Connecticut 443,481 443,482
Delaware 130,164 130,165
District of Columbia 175,507 80,393
Florida 244,846 244,847
Georgia 1,740,347 1,740,347
Guam
Hawaii 522,131 0
Idaho
Illinois 1,727,066 1,727,065
Indiana 481,744 481,745
Iowa 193,789 193,790
Kansas 46,443 46,443
Kentucky
Louisiana 211,607 211,607
Maine
Maryland 2,393,860 2,393,861
Massachusetts 1,057,862 1,057,861
Michigan 1,505,308 1,505,308
Minnesota 2,607,555 2,607,555
Mississippi 177,973 177,974
Missouri 403,084 403,084
Montana 10,060 10,060
Nebraska 334,448 334,447
Nevada 1,185,464 1,185,464
New Hampshire
New Jersey 305,850 305,850
New Mexico
New York 5,640,744 5,640,744
North Carolina 394,036 394,037
North Dakota 59,762 59,763
Ohio 1,846,295 1,846,295
Oklahoma 0 0
Oregon 736,148 736,148
Pennsylvania 1,900,575 1,900,575
Rhode Island 305,301 305,301
South Carolina 1,319,824 1,319,824
South Dakota
Tennessee 686,896 686,896
Texas 1,426,644 1,426,644
Utah 12,468 12,468
Vermont 707,977 707,978
Virginia 36,178 36,178
Virgin Islands
Washington 4,097,331 4,097,331
West Virginia 125,538 125,539
Wisconsin 700,504 700,504
Wyoming
-----------------------------------------------
U.S................. 57,135,857 56,518,622
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2021
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama 286,127 286,128
Alaska 101,498 101,499
Arizona 2,881,047 2,881,047
Arkansas 76,344 76,345
California 15,079,814 15,079,814
Colorado 2,156,083 2,156,083
Connecticut 234,084 234,084
Delaware 135,873 135,872
District of Columbia 103,940 103,940
Florida 222,545 222,545
Georgia 1,976,679 1,976,680
Guam
Hawaii 392,483 392,483
Idaho
Illinois 1,986,888 1,986,887
Indiana 244,901 244,901
Iowa 219,063 219,064
Kansas 60,451 60,451
Kentucky
Louisiana 238,793 238,793
Maine 399 397
Maryland 2,551,627 2,551,627
Massachusetts 1,329,963 1,329,964
Michigan 1,435,475 1,435,475
Minnesota 2,833,324 2,833,324
Mississippi 194,661 194,661
Missouri 434,527 434,527
Montana 20,120 20,120
Nebraska 386,826 386,826
Nevada 1,188,356 1,188,357
New Hampshire
New Jersey 253,876 253,876
New Mexico
New York 7,094,242 7,094,242
North Carolina 1,516,424 1,516,424
North Dakota 49,260 49,261
Ohio 2,354,293 1,849,878
Oklahoma 408,776 408,775
Oregon 18,688,155 688,155
Pennsylvania 2,769,332 2,769,331
Rhode Island 119,909 119,910
South Carolina 1,432,153 1,432,152
South Dakota
Tennessee 766,005 766,005
Texas 2,009,354 2,009,353
Utah 42,367 42,367
Vermont 557,294 557,294
Virginia 39,868 39,868
Virgin Islands
Washington 4,122,616 4,122,616
West Virginia 125,845 125,232
Wisconsin 764,123 764,124
Wyoming
-----------------------------------------------
U.S................. 79,885,783 61,380,757
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2022
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama 140,555 140,556
Alaska 75,554 75,554
Arizona 2,785,719 2,785,719
Arkansas 72,401 72,401
California 17,501,604 17,501,603
Colorado 2,701,157 2,701,157
Connecticut 465,578 465,578
Delaware 186,149 186,149
District of Columbia 177,405 177,405
Florida 181,706 181,706
Georgia 2,257,675 2,257,674
Guam
Hawaii 396,894 396,893
Idaho
Illinois 2,203,305 2,203,304
Indiana 342,640 342,640
Iowa 246,693 246,693
Kansas 54,585 54,584
Kentucky 76,276 76,276
Louisiana 573,548 573,548
Maine 4,462 4,457
Maryland 3,229,171 3,229,171
Massachusetts 1,413,670 1,413,670
Michigan 2,070,360 2,070,360
Minnesota 2,963,475 2,963,474
Mississippi 190,767 190,767
Missouri 564,448 564,448
Montana 23,972 23,973
Nebraska 325,577 325,577
Nevada 1,277,764 1,277,764
New Hampshire 0
New Jersey 885,609 885,609
New Mexico
New York 5,242,227 5,242,229
North Carolina 1,946,629 1,946,629
North Dakota 60,593 60,594
Ohio 2,240,929 1,980,293
Oklahoma 611,474 611,475
Oregon 679,930 679,929
Pennsylvania 2,836,921 2,836,920
Rhode Island 352,572 352,571
South Carolina 1,400,876 1,400,876
South Dakota
Tennessee 618,872 618,872
Texas 5,530,134 5,530,133
Utah 36,157 36,157
Vermont 548,090 548,092
Virginia 67,681 67,680
Virgin Islands
Washington 4,180,904 4,180,904
West Virginia 125,539 125,539
Wisconsin 1,131,101 1,131,101
Wyoming
-----------------------------------------------
U.S................. 70,999,348 70,738,704
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2023
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama 246,668 246,669
Alaska 0 109,168
Arizona 4,188,514 4,188,514
Arkansas 89,460 89,460
California 15,916,817 15,916,818
Colorado 3,087,364 3,087,364
Connecticut 143,870 143,870
Delaware 184,067 184,066
District of Columbia 246,658 246,658
Florida 254,076 254,076
Georgia 2,347,651 2,347,651
Guam
Hawaii 407,647 407,647
Idaho
Illinois 2,382,014 2,382,014
Indiana 561,002 561,003
Iowa 247,053 247,053
Kansas 66,978 66,977
Kentucky 106,995 106,995
Louisiana 477,265 477,265
Maine 181 178
Maryland 2,484,209 2,484,210
Massachusetts 1,813,333 1,813,334
Michigan 2,007,185 2,007,184
Minnesota 3,135,571 3,135,571
Mississippi 204,352 204,352
Missouri 660,105 660,105
Montana 22,998 22,999
Nebraska 325,454 325,453
Nevada 1,300,490 1,300,472
New Hampshire 13,112 13,113
New Jersey 798,553 798,553
New Mexico
New York 4,128,987 4,128,987
North Carolina 1,037,935 1,037,936
North Dakota 67,952 67,953
Ohio 2,094,574 2,094,573
Oklahoma 914,234 914,234
Oregon 874,135 874,134
Pennsylvania 2,986,605 2,986,606
Rhode Island 608,482 608,481
South Carolina 1,778,148 1,778,148
South Dakota
Tennessee 865,007 865,007
Texas 5,103,289 5,103,288
Utah 44,345 44,344
Vermont 688,007 688,008
Virginia 260,851 260,850
Virgin Islands
Washington 4,831,113 4,831,113
West Virginia 114,345 114,345
Wisconsin 1,484,455 1,484,455
Wyoming
-----------------------------------------------
U.S................. 71,602,106 71,711,254
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2024
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama 173,588 173,587
Alaska 184,536 184,537
Arizona 3,562,676 3,562,677
Arkansas 102,705 102,705
California 15,966,394 15,966,394
Colorado 2,709,382 2,709,382
Connecticut 174,184 174,184
Delaware 162,333 162,333
District of Columbia 258,425 258,425
Florida 210,504 210,504
Georgia 2,320,659 2,320,660
Guam
Hawaii 522,276 522,275
Idaho
Illinois 2,214,420 2,214,421
Indiana 569,008 569,008
Iowa 272,259 272,258
Kansas 125,578 125,578
Kentucky 157,058 157,059
Louisiana 440,602 440,603
Maine 0 0
Maryland 1,755,901 1,755,901
Massachusetts 2,282,348 2,282,348
Michigan 2,086,267 2,086,267
Minnesota 4,223,385 4,223,384
Mississippi 203,414 203,414
Missouri 731,977 731,977
Montana 29,631 29,630
Nebraska 337,976 337,977
Nevada 1,626,237 1,626,237
New Hampshire 56,266 30,040
New Jersey 1,919,238 1,919,238
New Mexico 29,939 29,940
New York 5,324,729 5,324,730
North Carolina 1,764,683 1,764,683
North Dakota 116,597 116,596
Ohio 2,429,718 2,429,717
Oklahoma 1,188,153 1,188,153
Oregon 1,017,824 1,017,825
Pennsylvania 1,818,108 1,818,108
Rhode Island 475,248 475,249
South Carolina 1,849,483 1,849,483
South Dakota
Tennessee 920,343 920,343
Texas 6,760,558 6,760,558
Utah 21,931 21,931
Vermont 766,062 766,061
Virginia 313,152 313,152
Virgin Islands
Washington 5,089,296 5,089,296
West Virginia 121,481 121,481
Wisconsin 1,481,083 1,481,082
Wyoming
-----------------------------------------------
U.S................. 76,867,615 76,841,391
------------------------------------------------------------------------
07/09/2025, 12:29 p.m.

Question 14. The most recent study published by the Department on
foods typically purchased by SNAP households contains purchasing data
from 2011. Does the Department plan to initiate a new study on the food
choices of SNAP and non-SNAP households as part of the Food and
Nutrition Service's next Research and Evaluation plan?
Answer. FNS initiated a study on the food purchases of SNAP
households in late Fiscal Year 2023 and expects its completion in
Fiscal Year 2026.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Angie Craig, a Representative in Congress
from Minnesota
USDA Workforce/Staffing
Question 1. In your Senate confirmation hearing testimony, you said
``we must work with the great men and women of USDA and the stakeholder
community to immediately and comprehensively get a handle on the state
of animal-disease outbreaks, including H5N1 and New World Screwworm,
and do everything possible to eradicate them.'' Yet on your first day
in the office, you fired \1/4\ of the great men and women who worked at
USDA's National Animal Health Laboratory Network, which plays a major
role in responding to animal-disease outbreaks.
How does cutting a 14 person staff by 25 percent further our
efforts to test for and track diseases like H5N1, which is impacting on
the price of eggs people have to pay at the store each day?
Answer. USDA worked swiftly to rescind the termination notices
those employees received.
Question 1a. Given that the United States reviews and judges
foreign countries own animal-disease control programs and have cited
weaknesses in those programs as an excuse to keep foreign animal
product imports out, isn't there a danger that your actions could lead
to similar reviews and decisions by other nations and hurt our farmers
ability to export U.S. animal products?
Answer. There have not been any barriers to trade imposed by other
countries as a result of the subsequently rescinded terminations you
mentioned above. I will continue to work to ensure that APHIS has the
resources needed to maintain mission critical activities, including
providing technical expertise in discussions regarding sanitary and
phytosanitary export issues.

Question 2. In a press release on your first full day on the job,
you said you ``welcome DOGE's efforts at USDA because we know that its
work makes us better, stronger, faster, and more efficient.'' So are
you promising farmers, ranchers, loggers and the other stakeholders who
depend on USDA and the services it provides that the DOGE recommended
personnel reductions you have adopted will not result in any slowdown
or delay in services to these constituencies by the Department and its
agencies nor any degradation in the quality of work these
constituencies enjoyed prior to these personnel reductions?
Answer. I fully support President Trump's directive to eliminate
wasteful spending and ensure taxpayer dollars are used effectively.
USDA is optimizing building capacity and consolidating underutilized
offices to reduce inefficiencies while continuing to prioritize
frontline services for farmers, ranchers, and rural communities. I
understand the array of mission critical positions and programs at the
Department and will ensure that those areas have the resources and
personnel they need to continue serving the American people.

Question 2a. Does DOGE have to review farm loans or guarantees over
$500,000? Who else has to review these loans?
Answer. I have hired people at the Department who are dedicated to
finding and resolving inefficiencies. Their charge is simple, to help
me refocus USDA on its core mission of serving the American people
rather than the bureaucracy of Washington D.C. These efficiency
personnel perform a concurrent review of Farm Loan Programs
applications. This process began on April 30 and there has not been a
delay in the processing of applications for direct loan or loan
guarantee assistance. Notably, FSA underwriting policies and procedures
have not been altered by this new review process. FSA submits a request
for review upon receipt of an application, allowing the review to occur
concurrently with FSA's own application analysis. All reviews to date
have been cleared and completed within 1 business day of submission,
thus avoiding delays.

Question 3. It is my understanding that the Department fired 28
people with the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF) in
Manhattan, Kansas one day, only to rescind some of the firings the next
day. The NBAF is the forefront of our nation's efforts to protect
against transboundary, emerging, and zoonotic animal diseases that
threaten our nation's food supply, agricultural economy, and public
health. Additionally, several positions in the Food Safety & Inspection
Service (FSIS) were likewise fired only to have the Department attempt
to correct the error.
Were these firings a clerical mistake or did someone have second
thoughts about the initial decision to fire these people after the
fact?

Question 3a. Didn't you or someone at the Department review the
list of terminated positions before they went out in order to catch
obviously careless mistakes like this?

Question 3b. With the threat of bird-flu further spreading
throughout the country, plus other potential animal diseases, how could
the NBAF or FSIS be on the chopping block in the first place; wasn't
there any discussion before these decisions were made?
Answer 3-3b. There have not been any reductions in force at USDA.
The standup of NBAF continues to be a priority, and voluntary
resignations will not negatively impact the mission transfer timeline.

Question 4. We know that many of the jobs at USDA require specific
education and training, if not years of experience, in order to address
the specific challenges USDA is faced with resolving every day. Do you
agree with that statement?

Question 4a. Do you have the ability to replace these experienced
folks who have left the agency? Do you have permission to hire given
the hiring freeze this Administration had required?

Question 4b. How many people can you hire? How many have been
hired? What roles are they filling? What about roles in agricultural
research or in cybersecurity? What about those with knowledge about
loans and loan processing? Are you able to job-share so that as people
with years of experience leave, they can co-work with new staff who
need to get up to speed quickly?
Answer 4-4b. USDA is committed to providing the most efficient and
effective service possible to meet and exceed the needs of the people
we serve. We will continue to review, assess, and solve for the best
ways to ensure that service.

Question 4c. Does USDA have enough trained epidemiologist to battle
H5N1 or to prevent the spread of New World Screwworm? Does USDA have
enough experienced staff to negotiate with foreign countries about
opening new markets?
Answer. I will continue working to ensure USDA has the resources
needed to maintain mission critical activities, including preventing
the spread of the New World Screwworm and expanding market access.

Question 5. We have been informed that 17 USDA employees were fired
from the Agricultural Research Service's U.S. Meat Animal Research
Center (USMARC) in Nebraska. This action led Laura Field, Executive
Director of the Nebraska Cattlemen to express \1\ her organization's
concern given the importance of the Center to the beef industry and
potential for losing the Center's ability continue to do ground-
breaking research. In her view, USMARC isn't a place with wasteful
spending and inefficiencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.dtnpf.com/agriculture/web/ag/news/business-inputs/
article/2025/02/19/usda-cuts-stretch-across-nations-top.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is she wrong? Were the 17 employees who were let go an unnecessary
wasteful expense? Can you guarantee to Ms. Field and us that USMARC
will not see any slowdown or loss of productivity or innovation due to
these cuts?
Answer. Eleven probationary employees at USMARC were released and
all were subsequently offered reinstatement. Any employees that have
left their position at USMARC did so voluntarily. Critical research at
USMARC continues without any slowdown or loss of productivity or
innovation.
attachment

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

[https://www.dtnpf.com/agriculture/web/ag/news/business-inputs/article/
2025/02/19/usda-cuts-stretch-across-nations-top]
Array of Jobs, Grants Lost Across Ag
USDA Cuts Stretch Across Nation's Top Research Labs to Small, Urban
Farmers Markets
2/19/2025 D 2:33 PM CST

By Chris Clayton,\1\ DTN Ag Policy Editor
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.dtnpf.com/agriculture/web/ag/news/
author?authorFullName=Chris%20
Clayton.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Opened in May 2023, the National Bio and Agro Defense
Facility (NBAF) in Manhattan, Kansas, was called the crown
jewel in foreign animal disease research to defend agriculture
from such outbreaks. The local newspaper reported 28 scientists
and staff were terminated as part of the USDA job cuts. (DTN
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
file photo by Chris Clayton)

Editor's Note: This story is updated from the Tuesday, Feb.
18, version.
* * * * *
Omaha (DTN)--There are still no concrete details about the number
of job cuts at the U.S. Department of Agriculture or which grant
contracts have been canceled, but ground-breaking meat labs and the
country's new crown jewel facility for combating foreign animal
diseases were not spared from cuts.
President Donald Trump on Tuesday called for ``radical
transparency'' to shed light on what he views as wasteful spending
across Federal agencies.
For people and groups impacted, they see the cuts in a different
light.
At least 17 employees were laid off at the USDA Agricultural
Research Service's U.S. Meat Animal Research Center in Nebraska, the
Lincoln Journal-Star first reported. Known as USMARC, the science lab
has 35,000 acres and more than 25,000 livestock, including cattle,
sheep and hogs. The facility conducts research on meat quality and
safety, animal breeding and genetics, feed quality and efficiency, and
overall livestock production.
Laura Field, executive director of Nebraska Cattlemen, said her
members started hearing about the layoffs at USMARC last week. ``We
know there have been categories of folks that have been lost, and it's
a real concern for us because the U.S. Meat Animal Research Center is
such an important part of the beef industry from a production
perspective,'' Field said. ``The research they have done there is so
ground-breaking, and if they have losses that impact their ability to
function, what that could mean for the cattle industry.''
Beyond the research, Field noted the facility has 25,000 head of
livestock that need to be taken care of as well.
Field added, ``I think we all believe firmly that there is probably
some need for the government to take a look at positions and have
conversations about wasteful spending and efficiencies, but USMARC is
certainly not a place where that is the case. We think they are already
operating on a pretty thin budget, and they're doing a really good job
given all of the work they are doing.''
Along with cuts at USMARC, the local newspaper in Manhattan,
Kansas, the Mercury, reported at least 28 people had been fired at the
National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF), a $1.25 billion, state-
of-the-art USDA/Department of Homeland Security research facility that
just opened within the past 2 years. NBAF is the country's only level 4
biosecurity lab for animals and the first lab capable of diagnostics
and vaccines for zoonotic diseases. Among those fired was a high-level
researcher working on avian influenza, the Mercury reported.
NBC News then reported USDA had ``accidentally'' fired researchers
working on avian influenza.
In a statement late Tuesday to DTN, USDA confirmed the department
was seeking to rehire employees working on avian influenza.
``USDA continues to prioritize the response to highly pathogenic
avian influenza (HPAI). Several job categories, including
veterinarians, animal health technicians, and other emergency response
personnel have been exempted from the recent personnel actions to
continue to support the HPAI response and other animal health
priorities. Although several positions supporting HPAI were notified of
their terminations over the weekend, we are working to swiftly rectify
the situation and rescind those letters--USDA's Food Safety and
Inspection Service frontline positions are considered public safety
positions, and we are continuing to hire the workforce necessary to
ensure the safety and adequate supply of food to fulfill our statutory
mission.''
Individual Stories
At the USDA National Laboratory for Agriculture and the Environment
in Ames, Iowa, the Iowa State Daily reported the lab's 2022 student
employee of the year was fired. Logan Conner had worked at the lab for
more than 2\1/2\ years and was a research technician at the facility
before being released on Friday.
``It was completely out of the blue,'' Conner told the school
newspaper. ``No one at the building had any say or jurisdiction over
who got fired (or) when--it was all just probationary employees.''
In Illinois, A.J. Ruggieri, an Army veteran who served 2\1/2\ years
in Africa, described himself as a Republican who voted for Trump, but
also someone who started a new job in early December doing
communications for the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).
He noted he got the job partially because of his veteran status. He had
thought he accepted an offer for a deferred resignation but was instead
told on Friday he was being terminated under the probationary period
status instead. He noted his wife is also ill with influenza.
``The first thing I did was call my wife. How were we going to pay
for the prescriptions she needed? How were we going to pay for the
emergency-room visit we had planned because her condition had worsened
overnight?'' Ruggieri wrote in the Champaign News-Gazette. ``As I stood
there, I was no longer a Federal employee. Was my Federal health
insurance gone? What about dental insurance? We still have one child
with braces. No clarification was given. There was no indication that
the premiums were being paid from my paycheck, no severance discussed,
nothing.''
Ruggieri added, ``Everything comes at a cost. The only thing
constant is change, but my question is not whether we can make America
great again, but how do we do so? There is no civility in this, no
courage, no honor, no consideration for the citizen employee. Just the
bottom line cloaked in a technicality of a Federal regulation.''
In Kansas City, Missouri, Alana Henry found out Friday night her
group's 3 year, $165,000 farmers['] market grant had been taken away
from USDA because it falls under the category of diversity, equity and
inclusion (DEI). Henry's organization, the Ivanhoe Neighborhood
Council, had a signed contract with USDA last fall. It was among $33.5
million in grants to 113 groups across 43 states expand local and
regional food systems, especially in under-served urban and rural
communities.
``We had already started working on it and had received our first
disbursement,'' Henry told DTN. ``You know, I had kind of been on pins
and needles, so I'm not entirely surprised, but of course there is a
level of shock and anger.''
Henry, who also operates an urban farm, said the grant was meant to
help expand a neighborhood farmers' market and also further help
provide fruits and vegetables to young mothers on the Women, Infants
and Children (WIC) program, as well as seniors in the area who buy food
at the farmers market.
``We were very excited about creating a space for them to purchase
from vendors who were authorized to accept those benefit programs and
do it in a way that preserves their dignity,'' Henry said.
Henry is unsure how to proceed after being told the grant ``no
longer effectuates agency priorities regarding diversity, equity and
inclusion programs and activities,'' based on the letter she received.
``Not only is it unfair, but clearly they didn't understand the
sort of impact of the work we are doing and have been doing, but it's
also potentially illegal,'' Henry said, noting USDA's breach of
contract.
Henry was not aware Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins spent
Tuesday just a few miles away speaking to a conference of farmers in
downtown Kansas City.
``I wish I had known that because I would have shown up,'' Henry
said.
USDA, White House on Cuts
In response to questions from DTN, a spokesperson responded Tuesday
afternoon, ``Secretary Rollins fully supports President Trump's
directive to optimize government operations, eliminate inefficiencies,
and strengthen USDA's ability to better serve American farmers,
ranchers, and the agriculture community. We have a solemn
responsibility to be good stewards of Americans' hard-earned taxpayer
dollars and to ensure that every dollar is being spent as effectively
as possible to serve the people, not the bureaucracy.''
The spokesperson added, ``As part of this effort, USDA has released
individuals in their probationary period of employment. Secretary
Rollins understands the array of mission-critical positions and
programs at the Department, and she will ensure that those areas have
the resources and personnel they need to continue serving the American
people.''
USDA has not released details about the full number of people
terminated across the department or the grants that have been
rescinded.
Speaking Tuesday on RFD-TV, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins
said, ``The United States Department of Agriculture is filled with
incredible, hard-working people. But there's also some realignment that
needs to happen. Only 6% of our workforce actually goes into the
office. There's 106,000 employees and 29 different departments. Are we
doing everything to the best of our ability with the best people to
serve our farmers and our ranchers?''
An anonymous USDA employee on Wednesday called out DTN for quoting
Rollins above and not fact-checking that statement. A report by the
White House Office of Personnel Management in 2024 showed USDA had
112,659 employees in Fiscal Year 2023 with 26,449 eligible for
``telework'' that year. The percentage of employees who worked remotely
and did not work in the office was 23% of the workforce, meaning 77% of
USDA employees actually worked in their offices nationwide that year. A
link to the report is below.
See, OPM telework report, 2024 https://www.opm.gov/telework/
history-legislation-reports/status-of-telework-in-the-federal-
government-2024.pdf.
The White House Office of Communications also on Tuesday issued a
statement from the President calling for ``Radical Transparency About
Wasteful Spending.'' The statement said the government spends too much
on programs, contracts and grants that do not promote the interests of
the American people.
``For too long, taxpayers have subsidized ideological projects
overseas and domestic organizations engaged in actions that undermine
the national interest,'' according to the President's statement. ``The
American people have seen their tax dollars used to fund the passion
projects of unelected bureaucrats rather than to advance the national
interest. The American people have a right to see how the Federal
Government has wasted their hard-earned wages.''
The President called for department agencies ``to take all
appropriate actions to make public, to the maximum extent permitted by
law and as the heads of agencies deem appropriate to promote the
policies of my Administration, the complete details of every terminated
program, canceled contract, terminated grant, or any other discontinued
obligation of Federal funds. Agencies shall ensure that such
publication occurs in accordance with all applicable laws, regulations,
and the terms and conditions of the underlying contract, grant, or
other award.''
For more, see ``Forest Service, NRCS Among Agencies Hit by Mass
Firings as USDA Cuts Jobs'' here: https://www.dtnpf.com/agriculture/
web/ag/news/article/2025/02/14/forest-service-nrcs-among-
agencies?itm_source=parsely-api

Question 6. We have lost countless dedicated public servants at the
Forest Service, many of whom held wildfire certifications and served on
the line during fire season, and nearly all of whom played essential
support roles for the Agency's core functions. How can you guarantee us
that these cuts and hiring freezes will not result in any deterioration
of the Forest Services' ability to provide for public safety when
wildfires strike?
Answer. In support of the President's vision and the Secretary's
direction, the Forest Service worked with OPM to exempt wildland fire
hiring from the national hiring pause. The agency has nearly met our
target of having 11,300 firefighters on board for the summer peak.
Additionally, we have invited staff who had voluntarily separated from
the Forest Service through the deferred resignation program and who
hold current red cards, to come back and support fire assignments this
season. We have already had these staff members taking assignments into
support roles. We will do everything we can to reduce the

Question 7. We are already hearing \2\ concerns about the Elon Musk
universal Federal employee buyout. Specifically, meatpackers worry that
if many food safety inspectors take the buyout, it could lead to plant
shutdowns for lack of inspectors. Plus, with the hiring freeze in
place, questions remain on whether we are bringing on replacement meat
inspectors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/trumps-funding-
freeze-hurts-american-farmers-and-consumers-rcna192333.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you tell us how many food inspectors are taking advantage of
deferred resignation programs, and whether you foresee any potential
shutdown of meat-packing facilities due to insufficient number of
inspectors?
Answer. As part of this reorientation, the Deferred Resignation
Program (DRP), a completely voluntary tool, was used to empower
employees to decide what is best for them. As of May 1, 2025, 555
employees from FSIS voluntarily elected deferred resignation. These
departures had no impact on the agency's ability to provide inspection
coverage at establishments. Because of the essential nature of their
work, FSIS frontline inspectors and veterinarians were not offered the
opportunity to participate in the second round of DRP. FSIS frontline
positions are considered public safety positions pursuant to
Secretarial Memorandum 1078-008 issued on April 22, and USDA is
continuing to hire the workforce necessary to ensure the safety of food
to fulfill our statutory mission.
attachment

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

[https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/trumps-funding-freeze-
hurts-american-farmers-and-consumers-rcna192333]
Trump's funding freeze leaves American farmers like me out in the cold
How the Administration's funding freeze threatens the
infrastructure that keeps rural communities--and everyday America--
running.

Feb. 16, 2025, 10:52 AM EST

By Rob Larew, President, National Farmers Union

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Editor's note: the video is retained in Committee file.

The Trump Administration's decision to pause and review Federal
funding has sparked uncertainty for many Americans. Even if you have
not personally felt the effects yet, you soon might, because these
abrupt freezes are hitting family farmers and ranchers hard. And when
farmers struggle, every consumer feels it at the grocery store.
Agriculture is a complex industry, often overlooked in national
policy discussions. Farmers take on an immense amount of financial risk
to put a crop into the ground or raise a herd of livestock, only to be
wiped out by a natural disaster, rising costs or collapsing markets.
The programs under review--or those completely frozen--help family
farmers manage risk, access credit and stay afloat when times get
tough.

Without intervention, these cuts will ripple through rural
economies.

Like all businesses, farmers need some stability to succeed. As a
sixth-generation farmer from West Virginia, I understand the
Administration's desire to root out waste, fraud and abuse in Federal
programs. But the current freeze is creating chaos instead of reform.
No one knows what funding will be available, or if key programs will
have the staff needed to operate. Here are a few examples of the
funding freeze's real-world impacts on America's farmers.
The freeze has most immediately impacted Federal conservation and
voluntary climate-smart agriculture projects. Across the country,
farmers have been left in limbo after making sustainability
investments, trusting that the government would uphold its commitments.
For example, some farmers who purchased cover crop seed to improve
soil health or installed solar panels to reduce energy costs are now
learning that Federal reimbursements have been cut off. These are not
theoretical losses. These are real financial burdens that could push
family farms into bankruptcy. Without intervention, these cuts will
ripple through rural economies. Every farm that goes out of business
means fewer families in rural communities, less money spent at the
local businesses, fewer kids in the local schools, and fewer tax
dollars for roads, hospitals and emergency services.
Farmers and policymakers in both parties have broadly supported
international food aid for decades. American farmers produce more food
than we can consume, and food aid donations serve the dual purpose of
providing a new market opportunity for farmers and feeding people in
need around the world. The U.S. purchased roughly $2 billion in food
aid last year from American farmers; dismantling our food aid program
is certain to disrupt market prices and create additional stress for
U.S. food producers.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Editor's note: the video is retained in Committee file.

Beyond agriculture, the funding freeze threatens the infrastructure
that keeps rural communities running. Federal grants and loans help
small towns replace aging and costly infrastructure, such as broadband
and water systems, and invest in local meat and food processing. Local
entities have relied on Federal loans and loan guarantees--existing
commitments that the government is now freezing, leaving farmers,
investors, lenders and rural communities on the hook for funds already
spent.
Shrinking the size of the Federal workforce might seem like a
reasonable way to cut costs, but in agriculture it could have
disastrous consequences. Farmers rely on Federal employees to
administer disaster relief, risk management programs and conservation
initiatives, and rural areas already struggle to recruit and retain
qualified staff.
One of the more alarming impacts could be on U.S. Department of
Agriculture food safety inspectors. Meatpacking plants cannot operate
without them, meaning staffing shortages could slow or shut down
processing facilities. This would hurt livestock growers, who already
face limited options due to industry consolidation. It would also
reduce meat supply, driving up prices for consumers. These funding
freezes do not just hurt individual farmers. They reinforce a food
system already dominated by a handful of powerful corporations. Over
the past several decades, agriculture has become more concentrated,
with a few companies controlling everything from seeds and fertilizers
to meatpacking and grain trading. Farmers have few choices on where to
sell their products, leaving them at the mercy of companies that keep
farm prices low while raising costs for consumers.

Every farm that goes out of business means fewer families in rural
communities, less money spent at the local businesses, fewer kids in
the local schools, and fewer tax dollars for roads, hospitals, and
emergency services.

Further instability in Federal programs only strengthens these
monopolies. When family farmers lose access to credit, conservation
programs or technical assistance, they are more likely to be forced out
of business or absorbed by corporate interests. That means less
competition, fewer independent farmers and higher grocery prices for
American families.
Finally, Federal research funding drives breakthroughs in crop and
animal science, safeguarding our food supply from emerging diseases and
advancing technologies that help farmers produce more with fewer
resources. However, the current funding freeze has stalled agricultural
research, leaving farmers without the tools they need to adapt to a
changing climate and evolving threats. Investing in agriculture is
investing in the future--ensuring farmers can keep farming, rural
communities can stay vibrant, and every American can have access to
safe, affordable food.
Supporting family farmers and ranchers means supporting the
backbone of our nation. These funding cuts are not just numbers on a
budget spreadsheet; they represent real dollars that sustain families
and power rural economies. Freezing spending and making sweeping
decisions without Congressional oversight just adds more uncertainty to
a stressed farm economy. The right way to evaluate government programs
is through thoughtful, measured approaches that protect taxpayer
dollars without causing harm to family farmers, ranchers and rural
communities.
Policymakers must listen to the voices of those most impacted and
recognize the real-world consequences of any cuts. Our rural economy
and food system--and therefore all of America--depends on it.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Rob Larew
Rob Larew is a leader in agriculture, public policy and rural
advocacy. Larew leads the second-largest general farm
organization as the 15th President of National Farmers Union,
representing more than 230,000 family farmers and ranchers
across the country. A sixth-generation farmer from West
Virginia, Larew has dedicated his career to advancing the
interests of family farmers and rural communities across the
United States.

Question 7a. How long it takes to train a new meat inspector,
assuming USDA might have to try to staff up?
Answer. Formal and on-the-job-training of new inspectors depends on
the position they are hired in. It ranges from 2 weeks (for food
inspectors, GS 5-7) to around 6 weeks (for Consumer Safety Inspectors,
GS 5-9).

Question 8. According to the President's Executive Order, once the
hiring freeze is lifted, you will only be able to hire one employee for
every four that have left, presumably whether through buyout, firing,
or reduction in force. Given the competing needs for USDA researchers,
loan officers, food inspectors, firefighters, and other positions that
deal directly with America's farmers, ranchers, and loggers, how will
you prioritize which functions gets these precious staff resources and
which functions do without?
Answer. USDA will continue to assess staffing needs to ensure
mission critical activities are carried out and will use the funding
provided by Congress to implement programs across the Department. I
will also continue to work with agencies to understand where
opportunities and challenges are.

Question 9. President Trump has proposed slashing USDA funding for
the very technical assistance that farmers around the country rely on
for valuable farm income and which allow them be better stewards of
their land. We hear daily how vital this support is to America's
farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners. Do you support the
President's cuts to programs that directly support our hard-working
farmers and ranchers?
Answer. USDA fully supports President Trump's directive to ensure
taxpayer dollars are used effectively. USDA will continue to prioritize
frontline services for farmers, ranchers, and rural communities. I
understand the array of mission critical positions and programs at the
Department and will ensure that those areas have the resources and
personnel they need to continue serving the American people.

Question 9a. NRCS staff are the boots on the ground that are there
to help America's farmers and ranchers. How many NRCS staff have left,
been fired, or been bought up this year? How can you say that you are
putting farmers first, when the very people that who's job is to help
farmers are being terminated or bought out?
Answer. Approximately 2,455 NRCS staff voluntarily took the
Deferred Resignation Program. I will ensure the Natural Resources
Conservation Service has the resources necessary to perform mission
critical work.

Question 10. We understand the Department's earlier efforts to fire
its probationary employees and conduct additional mass layoffs is
currently being stayed by court order as the ongoing litigations
continues. During that initial round of firings of probationary
employees, we heard countless stories of veterans losing their jobs
under this Administration. While the firing of probationary employees
at USDA did not qualify as a reduction-in-force (RIF), if you wanted to
honor the service of these veterans performed for their country, you
could have applied in this instance the same protections and
preferences veterans would enjoy under a formal RIF. Instead, you chose
to fire those probationary employees who also served their nation in
the military along with everyone else.
Don't you believe the men and women who wore the uniform and wanted
to continue to serve in a different capacity deserve just a little more
consideration than a summary firing without considering of any
alternatives for them?

Question 10a. According to several reports, each individual agency
& Department had the final say on these firings plus a list of possible
exceptions were given. Is it your testimony that the President and OPM
in directing this action provided no flexibility or guidance to protect
veterans from being subject to this action?
Answer 10-10a. Over the last 4 years, USDA's workforce grew by 8%,
and employees' salaries increased by 14.5%--including hiring thousands
of employees with no sustainable way to pay them. This all occurred
without any tangible increase in service to USDA's core constituencies
across the agricultural sector. With respect to probationary employees,
they have been restored to the respective employment status they each
held prior to their termination. USDA paid each probationary employee
any commensurate back pay, from the respective date of termination.
USDA also acted diligently to complete the administrative steps related
to notifying the probationary employees of their reinstatement,
ascertaining whether some of the probationary employees choose to
resign, processing the reinstatements for purposes of all relevant USDA
record systems, and returning the reinstated employees to duty status.

Question 11. During your initial firing of probationary employees,
hundreds of them came forth to show that their termination notices
indicated that their probationary period of employment was terminated
due to poor performance. This notice was given to employees who had no
performance review, those who did have reviews but received favorable
reviews, and even those who were promoted after a favorable review. On
April 18, 2025, a Federal judge issued an order requiring USDA to
provide these employees with a written statement, stating that their
termination was not performance or fitness based but was made as part
of a government-wide mass termination. This notice can be found on
USDA's website, which also includes a statement from the Department
that it believes this order to be both legally and factually erroneous.
Who made the decision at USDA to send these notices to probationary
staff since they must have been drafted before you were sworn in?

Question 11a. Who at USDA was involved in these conversations since
you were not yet sworn in as the Secretary? Under what authority were
they acting?

Question 11b. On your first day, you held a party while these
notices were being sent. Would you do it again?

Question 11c. You have testified to Congress that no one at USDA
has been fired. Yet, thousands of employees who were at USDA prior to
January 20, 2025 have been terminated, resigned, placed on
administrative leave, been part of a reductions in force, or have taken
a deferred resignation. Please provide a list, by agency, division,
mission area, or program area of the positions that were staffed prior
to January 20, 2025 which are no longer staffed.
If any positions have been eliminated at USDA, please provide a
list of positions that have been eliminated.
Answer 11-11c. Over the last 4 years, USDA's workforce grew by 8%,
and employees' salaries increased by 14.5%--including hiring thousands
of employees with no sustainable way to pay them. This all occurred
without any tangible increase in service to USDA's core constituencies
across the agricultural sector. It is the policy of USDA not to release
personally identifiable information of USDA employees. With respect to
probationary employees, they have been restored to the respective
employment status they each held prior to their termination. USDA paid
each probationary employee any commensurate back pay, from the
respective date of termination. USDA also acted diligently to complete
the administrative steps related to notifying the probationary
employees of their reinstatement, ascertaining whether some of the
probationary employees choose to resign, processing the reinstatements
for purposes of all relevant USDA record systems, and returning the
reinstated employees to duty status.

Question 12. Section 3(c) of Executive Order ``Implementing The
President's `Department of Government Efficiency' Workforce
Optimization Initiative'' requires all Departments and agencies to
initiate large-scale reductions in force (RIFs), or mass firings. We
understand USDA has completed its plan for compliance with this Order,
even as the Courts have paused its implementation.
Was the Department given a target number or goal to hit for the
reductions in force that every Department and agency is required to
implement pursuant to this Executive Order?

Question 12a. As the Executive Order directs the Department to
prioritize for RIFs those employees who are not designated as essential
during a lapse in appropriations, has USDA looked at who was previously
deemed non-essential in the first Trump Administration's government
shutdown during 2018 and 2019. Tell me what guidance you gave your
staff when you asked them to figure out who gets RIF'd and who stays?
Answer 12-12a. Over the last 4 years, USDA's workforce grew by 8%,
and employees' salaries increased by 14.5%--including hiring thousands
of employees with no sustainable way to pay them. This all occurred
without any tangible increase in service to USDA's core constituencies
across the agricultural sector. On July 24, 2025, USDA announced an
intended reorganization to make certain USDA can afford its workforce.
To date, much of USDA's personnel reduction was through voluntary
retirements and the Deferred Retirement Program (DRP), a completely
voluntary tool. As of July 24, 2025, approximately 15,364 individuals
voluntarily elected deferred resignation. When necessary, USDA will
continue to fully leverage voluntary programs such as the Voluntary
Early Retirement Authority (VERA) and Voluntary Separation Incentive
Payments (VSIPs). At this time, it is unlikely that USDA will perform
any large-scale reductions in force, focused and limited reductions in
force may be implemented only if needed.

Question 13. Where are you in terms of the USDA reorganization and
office moves? I understand my Republican colleagues in the Senate are
pleading for you to move offices to their states.
Have you had any conversations with elected officials about these
moves?

Question 13a. Has GSA begun working on procuring office space for
staff to move into?

Question 13b. Will you commit to notifying Congress before a local
or regional USDA office is closed or otherwise impacted by a
restructuring or lease termination?

Question 13c. Will you commit to holding public meetings on
proposed closures in the county where the USDA office is located?

Question 13d. Will you commit to holding the required public
meetings for any proposed closures of county or regional FSA offices?
Answer 13-13d. USDA announced on August 1, 2025, the opening of a
30 day public comment period for stakeholders, including USDA
employees, Members of Congress, and agricultural and nutrition
partners, to provide feedback on the Department's reorganization plan,
as outlined in the Secretary's memorandum issued on July 24, 2025.

Question 14. Eliminating telework and remote schedules and
requiring USDA Federal workers to work daily from an office, often not
one affiliated with their agency, has resulted in higher costs as well
as a drastic loss in productivity and morale, compromising the services
USDA provides for the American public, most notably farmers. Yet
previously, the Secretary herself indicated that a flexible work
schedule was integral to her success. Given the USDA's commitment to
science and services to the American public, when will the USDA begin
shifting back to telework and remote work schedules to increase
productivity and reduce costs?
Answer. A 2023 study conducted by the GAO reported an 11% space
utilization for USDA headquarters alone. Interestingly, Congress has
set a utilization goal of 60%, which means that Congress agrees in-
office work leads to greater productivity. I am committed to ensuring
the most efficient and effective Department as possible. That effort is
only possible when employees are at work, in an office, ready and
available to serve Americans. In addition, President Trump issued a
Presidential Action Memo that directed agencies to take all necessary
steps to terminate remote work arrangements and require employees to
return to work in-person at their respective duty stations on a full-
time basis. USDA will continue to comply with this directive.

Question 15. We continue to be concerned about staffing issues at
USDA offices. How many USDA NRCS offices are currently unstaffed?
According to a late March Agri-Pulse article,\3\ ``At least eight USDA
offices in Indiana are devoid of NRCS staff following recent cuts, as
are six in Kansas, five in Oklahoma, four in Missouri and three in
Minnesota.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://www.agri-pulse.com/articles/22487-workforce-cutbacks-
strip-many-nrcs-offices-of-staff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Answer. Public Law 115-334, Section 12410 indicates: ``The
Secretary shall not close any field office of the Natural Resources
Conservation Service unless, not later than 30 days before the date of
the closure, the Secretary submits to the Committee on Agriculture of
the House of Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate a notification of the closure.''
It also indicates: ``The Secretary shall not permanently relocate any
field-based employees of the Natural Resources Conservation Service or
the rural development mission area if doing so would result in a field
office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service or the rural
development mission area with two or fewer employees, unless, not later
than 30 days before the date of the permanent relocation, the Secretary
submits to the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives
and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate
a notification of the permanent relocation.'' NRCS has adhered to these
prohibitions, ensuring no county-based employees have been relocated in
a manner that would necessitate notification to the Committees on
Appropriations.
attachment

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

[https://www.agri-pulse.com/articles/22487-workforce-cutbacks-strip-
many-nrcs-offices-of-staff]
Workforce cutbacks strip many NRCS offices of staff
03/05/25 6:07 AM By Noah Wicks \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.agri-pulse.com/authors/295-noah-wicks.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The USDA Service Center in Malvern, Arkansas (Photo: USDA)

Update: A Federal appeals board on Wednesday ordered USDA to
allow fired probationary employees to return to work until
April 18. In a statement to Agri-Pulse, a USDA spokesperson
said the agency ``will work to abide by the ruling and has no
further comment at this time.'' Read more here.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://www.agri-pulse.com/articles/22509-judge-orders-usda-
probationary-employees-reinstated.

USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service didn't have a
district conservationist in Bradley County, Arkansas, for almost 11
years before Josh Hardin showed up.
When Hardin was hired by NRCS last August, he was tasked with
bringing life to an office that had not existed in over a decade. After
the agency rented a space in an old bank building for him to work from,
he brought in chairs and tables from home, decorated the space with
potted plants and outfitted the kitchen with supplies.
Hardin worked hard to rebuild relationships with area farmers who
were distrustful of the agency, which for years only sent
conservationists from Mississippi or other parts of Arkansas to help
them address soil erosion, water quality and other natural resource
concerns. He had the right degrees, knew the community and operated a
farm a few counties over, he said. When he first applied for the post,
Hardin said his supervisors saw him as a ``perfect fit.''
Despite the hour and 10 minute drive to work every day, Hardin
finally felt like he'd landed his dream job. He helped at least 30 new
``clients,'' as he calls them, apply for conservation programs during
his tenure. He believes that number is an undercount.
``Rarely in life do we get to be in a place where it's like an
eclipse,'' Hardin said. ``You're doing what you want to do, you're
making the money you need to make to do it and people are also happy
you're there.''
Then the email came.
On Feb. 13 and 14, at least 1,200 probationary NRCS employees were
informed that their positions were terminated, as were workers in other
branches of USDA. Hardin was one of them.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Josh Hardin (Photo: Josh
Hardin)

``We lost a man that was energetic
and was really, really well equipped to
work with the people here,'' Arkansas
timber and cattle producer Allen Primm
said of Hardin's termination.
Now, the Bradley County office once
again lacks a district conservationist
of its own, leaving farmers without a
local contact
qualified to initiate contracts or authorize payments. Buyouts and
firings have shrunken staffs at other USDA field offices as the Trump
Administration works to downsize the Federal workforce. Leases for some
locations will soon be terminated.
At least eight USDA offices in Indiana are devoid of NRCS staff
following recent cuts, as are six in Kansas, five in Oklahoma, four in
Missouri and three in Minnesota, according to a tally by one source
familiar with these offices. Some of these are ``effectively
shuttered,'' the source said.
NRCS Chief Louis Aspey told reporters Monday at Commodity Classic
in Denver that the agency would stretch staff to cover offices that
lost personnel. While he said there shouldn't be any offices ``without
any staff there at all,'' he added, ``If there are, we're realigning at
the state level to make sure that there's seamless coverage.''
In a statement, a USDA spokesperson said Secretary Brooke Rollins
``fully supports President Trump's directive to improve government,
eliminate inefficiencies, and strengthen USDA's many services to the
American people.''
The spokesperson also mentioned the idea of ``consolidating certain
field offices,'' a move they said ``helps ensure that the American
people's hard-earned taxpayer dollars are used effectively while USDA
continues to prioritize the delivery of essential services to farmers,
ranchers, and producers.''
In a memo circulated on Jan. 20,\3\ Office of Personnel Management
Acting Director Charles Ezell gave agency heads 4 days to identify all
probationary employees, or employees with only 2 years of service or
less, and ``promptly determine whether those employees should be
retained at the agency.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://www.agri-pulse.com/ext/resources/pdfs/Guidance-on-
Probationary-Periods-Administrative-Leave-and-Details-1-20-2025-
FINAL.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When mid-February came around, as many as 200,000 probationary
employees across the Federal Government received emails informing them
they were fired. In a petition filed \4\ to the Merit Systems
Protection Board last week, Special Counsel Hampton Dellinger said some
5,900 USDA employees were removed from their jobs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ https://www.agri-pulse.com/ext/resources/pdfs/USDA-Systemic-
Stay-%28redacted%29.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agencies in recent weeks have attempted to bring back some fired
staffers seen as critical, like scientists working on the government's
highly pathogenic avian influenza response.
Federal Judge William Alsup of the Northern District of California
on Feb. 27 ordered OPM \5\ to rescind its Jan. 20 directive, noting in
his ruling that it ``did not have the authority to direct the firing of
employees, probationary or otherwise, in any other Federal agency.''
OPM revised its initial guidance \6\ on Tuesday, adding a statement
saying it ``is not directing agencies to take any specific performance-
based actions regarding probationary employees.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https://www.agri-pulse.com/ext/resources/pdfs/Alsup-order.pdf.
\6\ https://www.agri-pulse.com/ext/resources/pdfs/OPM-Guidance-
Memo-on-Probationary-Periods-Administrative-Leave-and-Details-3-4-
2025.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another 75,000 workers across the entire Federal Government have
voluntarily accepted deferred resignation and will receive full pay and
benefits until Sept. 30.
The mass workforce reductions follow a years-long effort by NRCS
leaders \7\ to bring on enough new workers to offset a seemingly
endless stream of employee departures due to retirements and job
changes while also expanding the agency's ranks to handle $19.5 billion
in new conservation dollars provided by the Inflation Reduction Act.
While NRCS had 11,709 full-time staff last October and aimed to reach
14,000 by 2026, recent employee losses are certain to have set back
those efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ https://www.agri-pulse.com/articles/21766-getting-grounded-
inside-usdas-efforts-to-staff-up-to-meet-farmers-environmental-
challenges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agency's remaining county office employees are now likely to
face heavier workloads, longer travel distances for on-the-ground
visits and confusion stemming from frozen Federal funds. It may take a
while for some producers to feel the effect of the staff cuts, but many
will see impacts eventually, said Kansas Farmers Union Executive
Director Nick Levendofsky.
``The paperwork is stacking up. The work that needs to be done out
in the field and on the ground is stacking up. And people are
scrambling to pick up the pieces, basically,'' said Levendofsky, who
noted Kansas has lost at least 81 NRCS staffers in recent weeks.
One four-county service area went from having an NRCS technician in
each office to having one for all four counties, said one respondent to
a survey released last week \8\ by the National Association of
Conservation Districts. Some survey participants expected backlogs for
cultural resources, engineering and wetland compliance to grow, while
others said producers may be left waiting for payments amid shortages
of qualified agency employees able to handle project inspection and
check-out.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ https://www.nacdnet.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/2025-02-28-
Conservation-District-Survey-Report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``Certainly, the loss of Federal capacity is being felt,'' said
Jeremy Peters, NACD's CEO.
Speaking to Agri-Pulse in Washington, House Ag Committee Chair
Glenn ``GT'' Thompson, R-Pa., offered some criticism of the NRCS staff
terminations, saying ``it makes no sense when you have a farm bill that
promotes technical service for farmers to downsize the number of
professionals'' who provide that assistance.
The Trump Administration is now beginning the process of
terminating state and county office leases \9\ as part of its cost-
cutting efforts. So far, it is looking to do so at 58 facilities used
by NRCS and the Farm Service Agency, according to an online database
the Department of Government Efficiency calls its ``Wall of Receipts.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ https://www.agri-pulse.com/articles/22481-usda-prepares-for-
some-state-county-office-lease-terminations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acting FSA Chief Steve Peterson told Agri-Pulse Monday at Commodity
Classic that any lease terminations will not occur until ``down the
road,'' giving agency leaders some time to make plans for relocating
staff. He said the purpose is to ``evaluate savings and see whether or
not there's the ability to renegotiate or find other locations in those
areas to possibly find cheaper rent.''
As the Trump Administration attempts to shrink the Federal
workforce, it makes sense that it would also try to limit the amount of
buildings it leases, said Bruce Knight, who served as NRCS chief during
the George W. Bush Administration.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Bruce Knight (Credit: Bruce
Knight)

``If we're going to have fewer folks
in government, you don't need the
office space to house people who aren't
there,'' Knight told Agri-Pulse.

Still, legal hurdles may complicate any Trump Administration
efforts to downsize FSA and NRCS operations, particularly at the county
level.
Language in the 2018 Farm Bill bars the [A]griculture [S]ecretary
from closing any NRCS field offices or leaving them with fewer than two
employees through staff relocations without notifying the House and
Senate Ag Committees 30 days in advance. This provision likely remains
in effect after two temporary farm bill extensions, said recently
retired ag policy lobbyist Ferd Hoefner.
Additionally, the funding package approved by lawmakers in fiscal
2024 barred USDA from using appropriated funds to close Farm Service
Agency county offices or leave county offices with two or fewer staff
by relocating employees, unless it sought approval from the House and
Senate Appropriations committees in advance. The government is
currently being funded under terms of the FY24 appropriations
legislation.
``Both Republican and Democratic Administrations have tried to
close county offices and Congress routinely blocks it,'' Hoefner said,
though he added ``normal process is going to go by the wayside'' in the
Trump Administration.
Hardin, the terminated Arkansas employee, has filed an appeal with
the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, submitted a grievance with the
Office of Special Counsel and is interested in joining a lawsuit filed
by the American Federation of Government Employees should it become a
class action, all in the hopes of getting his job back.
And he says he's not the only one trying.
``If you're a Federal employee, you just don't know which way is up
right now,'' he said. ``It feels like that's the point, that the chaos,
that these people are intentionally inflicting drama and abuse so we'll
just run away. But I think they underestimate the people they're
messing with. They're really just making us all want to fight more.''

Rebekah Alvey, Phil Brasher and Lydia Johnson contributed to
this report.

For more news, go to www.agri-pulse.com.
Editor's note: This story was updated to include comment from
a USDA spokesperson.

Question 16. We are concerned with USDA local and regional office
and staff capacity. How many USDA county, local, regional offices are
under consideration for closure, lease termination, consolidation, or
other changes? How many USDA offices around the country are unstaffed,
how many are understaffed, and how many have been consolidated or
otherwise impacted by staffing issues?
Answer. USDA is optimizing building capacity and consolidating
underutilized offices to reduce inefficiencies while continuing to
prioritize frontline services for farmers, ranchers, and rural
communities. I understand the array of mission critical positions and
programs at the Department and will ensure that those areas have the
resources and personnel they need to continue serving the American
people. NRCS and FSA has ensured no county-based employees have been
relocated in a manner that would necessitate Congressional
notification.
Farm Bill
Question 17. The economic assistance package Congress passed last
year makes payments based on planted acres. Crop insurance operates
based on planted acres. The farm safety net, however, is based on base
acres resulting in farmers possibly getting payments for commodities
they don't even grow. Congress established base acres in order to
comply with World Trade Organization (WTO) rules which limit how much
the U.S. can spend to support farmers; rules that don't apply equally
to all WTO members. If we're going to ignore our trade commitments like
the USMCA to impose tariffs, why shouldn't we just ignore the WTO and
reconsider the whole base acre approach to the farm safety net in favor
of a planted-acre approach?
Answer. Base acres are a critical mechanism to ensure that safety
net programs do not influence planting decisions. This is a core
principle to ensure that our farmers have fair and consistent
protection while they take on the hard work of feeding, fueling, and
clothing the world.

Question 18. We were unable to extend authorization of every farm
bill program at the end of last term. Can you describe the impact that
has had?

Question 18a. Are you hearing from folks involved in the orphan
programs that did not get funded?
Answer 18-18a. USDA implements the programs that are authorized and
funded by Congress.

Question 18b. What about regarding reimbursement of skimmed/
electronically stolen benefits--have you heard about the impacts of
that expiration from states operating SNAP or from participants, who
are victims of skimming?
Answer. USDA continues to work diligently to prevent fraud and
ensure program integrity. FNS has made significant and sustainable
progress in partnership with states, third-party EBT processors, and
retailers to modernize EBT systems and reduce fraud. FNS has several
important initiatives underway to strengthen protection for program
benefits.

Question 19. More than 20 percent of agriculture products produced
in the U.S. are exported, and foreign markets have an outsize impact on
the national farm economy. The last trade war that the President
started was a $27 billion hit to farmers. How will the current much
larger trade war trade war impact American producers and farmers?
Answer. President Biden left American farmers and ranchers with a
nearly $50 billion trade deficit. President Trump's leadership to seek
fair and reciprocal treatment for our great producers will bring more
stable long-term market opportunities around the world for agricultural
exports.

Question 20. Suggested cuts to SNAP in the reconciliation process
are projected to cost farmers over $30 billion in farm income. This is
approximately the same size as the tariff impacts that devastated
prices during the first Trump Administration. Does USDA have a plan to
address an additional hit to farm income? The combination of trade
policy that removes markets for Americans and domestic policy that also
diminishes demand at-home is a deadly one for farmers in this country.
How are farming families supposed to survive such a major hit to their
bottom line?
Answer. We are aggressively pursuing market access opportunities
across the globe. I am proud of the work our team is doing to support
concrete wins for American farmers and ranchers. Just a few of these
include:

Maintaining fair dairy access in Costa Rica \4\ for American
dairy farmers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2025/05/28/
make-agriculture-great-again-trade-win-secretary-rollins-secures-
greater-market-access-costa-rica-us.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Protecting pork market access in Panama.

Removing non-tariff barriers for almonds in Japan.

Resolving barriers to poultry market access in Angola, the
9th largest market globally for U.S. poultry.
attachment

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

[https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2025/05/28/make-
agriculture-great-again-trade-win-secretary-rollins-secures-greater-
market-access-costa-rica-us]
Make Agriculture Great Again Trade Win: Secretary Rollins Secures
Greater Market Access with Costa Rica for U.S. Dairy Industry
Release No.: 0121.25

Published: May 28, 2025

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

(Washington, D.C., May 28, 2025)--Under U.S. Secretary of
Agriculture Brooke L. Rollins' leadership, American dairy producers
will have greater market access as Costa Rica has approved the first
U.S. dairy facility to be registered under their new streamlined
approval process.\1\ The Trump Administration continues to break down
non-tariff barriers, and this latest action is the first of many wins
ahead for American dairy producers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://apps.fas.usda.gov/newgainapi/api/Report/
DownloadReportByFileName?fileName=
Costa+Rica+Dairy+Facility+Registration+Requirements_San+Jose_
Costa+Rica_CS2025-0011.pdf
&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``Under President Trump's leadership, USDA is putting Farmers
First. Securing greater market access for American dairy farmers is a
much-needed win for the U.S. dairy industry and will give our producers
better increased access to a $130 million market in Costa Rica. I look
forward to continuing to Make Agriculture Great Again by breaking down
trade barriers and opening new markets for our farmers and ranchers
around the globe,'' said Secretary Rollins.
On May 22, Costa Rica's National Animal Health Service (SENASA)
officially approved the first American dairy cooperative for export to
Costa Rica, making it the first U.S. dairy facility to be registered
under the new streamlined approval process that eases market access for
U.S. dairy products. This first registration paves the way for future
U.S. dairy exports to Costa Rica, a $60 million market in 2024, that
could have been lost if the Trump Administration was not able to
navigate their new process.
This Make Agriculture Great Again trade win comes on the heels of
other major efforts from the Trump Administration to expand market
access for American producers. In the last 2 months, USDA's Foreign
Agricultural Service (FAS) has worked with India to reduce tariffs on
U.S. Bourbon imports by 50 percent, resulting in a likely $2 million
increase in distilled spirits exports to India in 2025. USDA has also
worked with Panama to exempt U.S. pork from Panama's import quota
mechanism and Pakistan to eliminate its arbitrary genetically
engineered ban on U.S.-grown soybeans, resulting in the immediate sale
of 65,000 metric tons of U.S.-grown soybeans in the country. The FAS
efforts to expand market access also included working with Japan to
lift the mandatory aflatoxin testing requirements on U.S. almonds,
resulting in a likely eight to ten percent increase of U.S. almond
exports to Japan annually.
Farm Labor Uncertainty
Question 21. We hear a great deal from the Administration about
mass deportation plans and raids on businesses that have scooped up
non-documented residents, legal foreign residents, and even U.S.
citizens. At a hearing before the Senate Agriculture Committee, Zippy
Duvall, the President of the American Farm Bureau, warned that
``Trump's deportation plans could lead to farms going out of business
and an interruption in our food supply'' at a scale comparable to the
COVID-19 pandemic.
Given that American agriculture's dependence on foreign human
labor, would you agree with American Farm Bureau President Duvall's
assessment or is he wrong?
Answer. The President has been unequivocal that there will be no
amnesty, and I think that's very important. It is possible for our
farmers to be successful through a combination of American labor,
foreign workers that come legally to our country, and increased
automation. Some reform within the current governing structure
concerning the visa process will also be necessary.

Question 21a. Do you believe there is a danger that the
Administration's current and proposed actions on immigration may make
even legal workers think twice before coming here to the U.S. to work,
because farmers are certainly telling us they are worried about that?
Answer. Workers that are in the United States legally have no
reason to be concerned.

Question 22. During your testimony before the House Agriculture
Appropriations Subcommittee last month, you said that you were working
to reform the H-2A program with the Department of Labor and the White
House.
Can you provide an update on how those efforts are going?

Question 22a. Who, besides cabinet officials and your staff, is
involved?
Please provide the House Agriculture Committee regular updates on
this work.
Answer 22-22a. Conversations between the Department of Agriculture,
Department of Labor, Department of Homeland Security, Department of
State, and other relevant entities in the Executive branch are ongoing.
I will update the House Agriculture Committee on these conversations
whenever appropriate.
Funding Freeze/Cancellations
Question 23. The Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities
initiative, now know as Advancing Markets for Producers (AMP) has
proved to be a valuable addition to USDA's efforts to promote
voluntary, farmer-led conservation in rural America. We have heard
participants around the country describe being left waiting, uncertain
whether farmers will be compensated for the tremendous environmental,
economic, and agronomic benefits they have been working toward. I
strongly urge you to improve communication moving forward.
Can you confirm USDA will honor its promises to farmers and
ranchers and provide the same amount of funding originally obligated to
each PCSC project be available under AMP?

Question 23a. Will AMP applications be reviewed and re-approved on
a rolling basis? What is the expected timeline for projects to hear
from USDA?
Answer 23-23a. The Advancing Markets for Producers (AMP) initiative
will champion USDA's mission with the policy priorities of Farmer
First, Market and Value Chain Development, and Community and
Cooperative Development. AMP will continue to fund conservation
practices and support farmers. Recipients for all projects were given
the opportunity to continue work in AMP through an amendment of the
original award to meet the threshold of USDA' s priorities. Agreement
holders were notified of this opportunity on May 15, 2025, and were
given until June 20, 2025, to submit amendment packages. The agency is
currently reviewing the amendment packages and will proceed with
signature and approval for those that meet the initiative priorities.

Question 24. In mid-April, the three nationwide awardees of the
USDA NIFA Farm and Ranch Stress Assistance Network (FRSAN) lost access
to their USDA reimbursement portal. This is both an infuriating and
devastating development for these networks of practitioners, and for
farmers and farm workers across the country who rely on this
programming. All three networks have shut down their services,
exacerbating the mental health crisis facing farmers across the
country. Frozen payments and continued uncertainty around whether or
not the FRSAN contract will ultimately be honored continues to cause
significant harm to American producers who struggle with mental health,
especially amid dire economic conditions.
Why was FRSAN, an essential program that supports farmers in
emergency situations, paused at all?

Question 24a. This program is life or death. When can we expect
this lifeline to American farmers who are struggling to be turned back
on?
Answer 24-24a. The funding for FRSAN is not paused.

Question 25. On March 7th, USDA terminated all FY 2025 contracts
for the Local Food Purchase Assistance Cooperative Agreement Program
(LFPA) and the Local Food for Schools Cooperative Agreement Program
(LFS) because the agency determined that the agreements ``no longer
effectuates agency priorities.'' These programs were successful in
building stronger economies and regional supply chains by connecting
farmers, ranchers, and fishermen to local market opportunities--
outcomes that I believe should be in line with the agency's priorities.
These cancellations totaling over $1 billion will shutter valuable
local markets for producers and take away healthy, nutritious foods
from schoolchildren and families in need. These programs are not just
relics of COVID programming, LFPA and LFS serve as models of USDA
procurement that are both targeted and effective and, unlike the
Farmers to Families Food Boxes that came before it, it supported local
and regional producers and organizations to prioritize equitable
distribution.
When you abruptly canceled $660 million from LFS and $420 million
from LFPA, the farmers that prepared to grow and provide food for their
local communities and already signed contracts for seed, labor, and
transportation, are now left with huge holes in their pockets and lost
markets, since these programs operate on a reimbursement basis. In
addition, food banks and schoolchildren will no longer receive local,
healthy products through LFPA and LFS.
How does taking away resources and markets from farmers and food
away from low-income people and children align with the agency's
priorities?
Answer. With 16 robust nutrition programs in place, I will work to
ensure USDA remains focused on its core mission: strengthening
nutrition assistance for those most in need, supporting agricultural
markets, and ensuring access to nutritious food.

Question 25a. On March 14th, over 80 of my colleagues sent a letter
to USDA following the termination of LFPA and LFS agreements demanding
answers and justification. Your agency's response on April 2nd left a
number of our questions unanswered and simply pointed to the increase
of Section 32 purchases to support The Emergency Food Assistance
Program (TEFAP)--a program your agency has also terminated $500 million
in CCC funding for.
Secretary Rollins, you point to TEFAP as a reprieve for farmers and
hungry Americans when you slashed local foods programs and at the same
time, cut half a billion dollars from TEFAP. Are you aware that
overall, cutting LFPA, LFS, and TEFAP will provide quality food to
fewer Americans even accounting for the sporadic Section 32 purchases?
Answer. USDA released in March over $450 million in previously
obligated funds for LFPA and LFS to fulfill existing commitments and
support ongoing local food purchases. USDA continues to purchase food
for TEFAP, with more than $271 million spend in FY 2025 thus far.

Question 25b. Secretary Rollins, your letters from April 2nd and
April 29th indicated that current LFPA and LFS may be extended upon
request. What factors are considered in the evaluation of an extension
request? Will an extension be funded through the Commodity Credit
Corporation (CCC)? When can we expect those extensions to be confirmed?
Answer. USDA continues to work with individual recipients based on
their circumstances to assess extension requests. Extensions provide
recipients with a longer period of time to expend previously obligated
LFPA and LFS funds. Extensions continue to be confirmed as details are
finalized between the Department and the requesting recipient.

Question 26. The Rural Energy for America Program, commonly known
as REAP, offers grants and loan guarantees to farmers, ranchers, and
rural small businesses for energy efficiency improvements and renewable
energy systems. Since its inception in the bipartisan farm bill in
2008, REAP has provided grants and loans that have helped more than
21,000 farms and 32,710 rural small businesses.
In March, USDA announced the release of previously frozen REAP
funding, but by April there will still reports on the ground of funding
being under review and grants being frozen. The Ranking Members of both
the Senate and House Ag Committees sent your agency a letter asking for
an update on April 25th, but they have not received a response since.
Are any REAP grants still frozen?

Question 26a. Why has your agency not responded if the funds are
out the door?

Question 26b. Why were these funds were frozen in the first place?
This program is a win-win for our nation's farmers and rural
communities, and freezing funding threatens not only those projects,
but calls into question if our constituents can trust the Federal
Government to uphold their end of the bargain when they enter into a
contract.
Answer 26-26b. USDA has released all previously frozen funds for
REAP. We are committed to processing these as quickly and efficiently
as possible. The process of thoroughly reviewing and obligating a large
volume of grants, particularly after a period of programmatic
assessment, is complex and ongoing. Our priority has been to ensure the
proper and timely disbursement of funds to eligible recipients.

Question 27. Previously at USDA, grants and awards were recommended
by USDA-subject matter experts (SMEs) in collaboration with independent
scientific reviewers. Under the new Administration, additional
mechanisms have been added for the review and recommendation process
with non-SMEs having disproportionate influence on award decisions.
Please describe the qualifications of those reviewing the awards in
these additional stages and the experience they have in agricultural
research.
Answer. Once applications for a program are received, the NIFA
National Program Leader for the program convenes a peer-review panel
led by a panel chair. All identities of the peer reviews are kept
confidential. Once recommendations are made for awards to be funded,
the recommended projects go through compliance and due diligence to
ensure the prospective grantee is eligible to receive NIFA funding.
Finally, all recommended projects are administratively reviewed by an
internal team at USDA to ensure the projects align with Administration
priorities. Once completed, the project directors are notified of the
status of their application.

Question 28. USDA grants and awards for FY 2025 have been delayed
given these additional mechanisms. What is the timeline for the release
of FY25 awards and what will the USDA do to ensure this delay does not
impact USDA's relationships with agricultural researchers and
stakeholders? Moreover, given the involvement of the office of
efficiency/DOGE, what will the USDA do to guarantee scientific
integrity remains USDA's primary priority for NIFA, ARS, ERS, and other
REE mission areas?
Answer. NIFA is making use of all mechanisms to deliver FY25 funds
to stakeholders in an efficient manner. NIFA leaders have remained in
contact with partner universities and stakeholder organizations to
ensure they are kept abreast of our progress and what to expect in the
time between now and the end of FY25 to ensure obligation of 1 year
funds.

Question 29. Previously published RFAs (notifications of funding
opportunities) have been removed from the USDA NIFA websites and the
timing for the release of the new RFA continues to shift. Because of
this significant delay, researchers and stakeholders will have limited
time to submit proposals which will impact research, timelines, and
outcomes that can benefit U.S. agriculture. How will the USDA prevent
the delay in the release of the RFA from compromising the mission of
NIFA and ensure the programs continue to operate with funds allocated
to the most critical agricultural issues?
Answer. USDA NIFA intends to obligate all 1 year funding by
September 30, 2025. NIFA staff are identifying mechanisms to do this
such as funding meritorious unfunded proposals from FY24 RFAs and
streamlining peer review processes for other RFAs to meet the fiscal
year deadline.

Question 30. As of June 17th a large number of awards from previous
years have been terminated or suspended often for using scientific
terms such as ``climate'' or ``sustainable''. Many of the terminated
research projects will have direct impacts on farmers, production,
market access and farm revenue. Given USDA's commitment to science and
supporting farmers and producers, when will these suspensions be
lifted, terminations rescinded, and the awards accessible to
researchers and scientists?
Answer. Putting American Farmers First means cutting the millions
of dollars that are being wasted on woke DEI propaganda. Under
President Trump's leadership, I am putting an end to the waste, fraud,
and abuse that has diverted resources from American farmers and
restoring sanity and fiscal stewardship to the U.S. Department of
Agriculture.
Food Aid
Question 31. In your termination letters for 27 Food for Progress
and 17 McGovern-Dole projects you stated that the terminated agreements
``are not in alignment with the foreign assistance objectives of the
Trump Administration.'' According to your own website the key objective
of the McGovern-Dole Program ``is to reduce hunger and improve literacy
and primary education, especially for girls.'' Can you identify what
exactly you are opposed to? Are fighting hunger and promoting literacy
are not objectives for this Administration?
Answer. Fighting hunger and promoting literacy remain core
objectives of the McGovern-Dole program. The FY25 Notice of Funding
closed on June 23, 2025, and my team is actively reviewing projects
that align with President Trump's foreign policy objectives in putting
Americans first. Individual projects that do not meet this standard
were terminated.

Question 32. I have heard that the termination of the McGovern-Dole
and Food for Progress programs was at the request of the White House
and that there may have been a list of proposed cancellations that went
beyond what you terminated. Please provide a full list of proposed
cancellations and the justifications for why those programs were going
to be canceled.
Answer. A full list of terminated McGovern-Dole and Food for
Progress projects was provided to your staff on May 22, 2025.
The United States Department of Agriculture's Foreign Agriculture
Service (FAS) has terminated 27 Food for Progress agreements and 17
McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition
Program agreements that are not in alignment with the foreign
assistance objectives of the Trump Administration. All terminated
awardees will be reimbursed for costs incurred up to the effective date
of termination. A sample, redacted termination letter for each program
is attached.

Please note that all U.S. agricultural producers have received
payment for commodities in which partners have drawn down or have
requested to be drawn down from the Department; and that partners are
required to deliver any commodity en route to its final destination in
accordance with the Agreement.

While certain projects were terminated, USDA/FAS continues to
administer both the Food for Progress and McGovern-Dole International
Food for Education and Child Nutrition Programs:

14 active Food for Progress projects remain in 17 countries;
and

30 active McGovern-Dole projects remain in 22 countries.

In addition, USDA/FAS is planning for the next phase of the
programs; having published the FY25 McGovern-Dole notice of funding
opportunity on May 9, and is finalizing its notification of FY 25
funding opportunity for Food for Progress.

27 Terminated Food for Progress Awards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Country Organization Short Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY14 Guatemala Gov. of Guatemala Connecting
producers to non-
U.S. markets
FY16 Haiti CRS Connecting
producers to non-
U.S. markets
FY18 Guatemala Technoserve Connecting
producers to non-
U.S. markets
FY19 Peru NCBA CLUSA Connecting
producers to non-
U.S. markets
FY19 West Africa CNFA Connecting
producers to non-
U.S. markets
FY20 Bangladesh Land O Lakes Connecting
producers to non-
U.S. markets
FY20 Colombia Prtnrs of the Mandating climate-
Amrcs smart practices
FY20 DR IESC Studying arbitrary
scientific
guidelines
FY20 Uganda CRS Connecting
producers to non-
U.S. markets
FY20 West Africa Technoserve Connecting
producers to non-
U.S. markets
FY22 Thailand Winrock Providing financing
and cash
assistance
FY22 Peru NCBA CLUSA Mandating climate-
smart practices
FY22 Jamaica ACDI/VOCA Connecting
producers to non-
U.S. markets
FY22 Malawi Winrock Mandating climate-
smart practices
FY22 Burundi Technoserve Connecting
producers to non-
U.S. markets
FY23 Nepal Lutheran Wrld Providing financing
Relief and cash
assistance
FY23 Bangladesh ACDI/VOCA Mandating climate-
smart practices
FY23 Lesotho Land O Lakes Mandating climate-
smart practices
FY23 Ivory Coast Technoserve Connecting
producers to non-
U.S. markets
FY23 Mauritania Prtnrs of the Mandating climate-
Amrcs smart practices
FY24 Sri Lanka IESC Studying methane
emissions in dairy
sector
FY24 Cambodia Land O Lakes Supporting another
government's lab
research
FY24 Tanzania Lutheran Wrld Connecting
Relief producers to non-
U.S. markets
FY24 Tunisia Prtnrs of the Mandating climate-
Amrcs smart practices
FY24 Benin Prtnrs for Devpt. Connecting
producers to non-
U.S. markets
FY24 Madagascar CRS Mandating climate-
smart practices
FY24 Rwanda CNFA Building capacity
for government
instns.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

17 McGovern-Dole Terminations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY Country Organization
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY19 Uzbekistan Mercy Corps
FY19 Togo CRS
FY20 Guatemala CRS
FY20 Honduras CRS
FY20 Mali CRS
FY21 Benin CRS
FY21 Burkina Faso CRS
FY21 Kyrgyzstan Mercy Corps
FY21 Laos CRS
FY21 Sierra Leone CRS
FY22 Burundi CRS
FY22 Lesotho CRS
FY22 Madagascar CRS
FY22 Timor-Leste CARE
FY23 Nepal WFP
FY23 Nicaragua Project Concern Int'l
FY24 Guinea-Bissau CRS
------------------------------------------------------------------------

attachment 1
[Date]

[Address]

Dear [Address]

This letter provides notice that the United States Department of
Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS), is terminating your
federal award, Food for Education Agreement #OGSM: FFE-XXX-20XX-XX,
McGovern-Dole 20XX [Country] (the ``Agreement''). FAS is terminating
the Program Agreement in accordance with Part V, Paragraph D, of the
Agreement; 7 C.F.R. 1599.17; and 2 C.F.R. 200.340-343.
Termination. FAS notes that this termination is not a result of any
noncompliance with the Agreement on the part of [Organization]. FAS has
determined that the McGovern-Dole Agreement specified above does not
align with the foreign assistance objectives of the Department. See 2
C.F.R. 200.340(a)(4); 7 C.F.R. 1599.17(a)(2). Pursuant to, among
other authorities, 2 C.F.R. 200.339-343, which are applicable to
your Agreement, the Department hereby terminates award No. (FFE-XXX-
20XX-XXX) in its entirety effective June 30, 2025.
Closure. You must submit all final reports and a final payment
request no later than 120 calendar days after June 30, 2025. You will
be reimbursed for costs incurred up to the effective date of
termination that are determined to be consistent with 2 C.F.R.
200.343, Effects of suspension or termination. FAS will evaluate the
allowability of other expenses incurred following termination as
appropriate, as described at 2 C.F.R. 200.472. However, properly
incurred expenses associated with the security, integrity, and
disposition of any commodities currently in [Organization] possession,
or en route to their final destination, shall be reimbursed. Any open
balance remaining 120 days after the effective date of termination will
be unavailable for payment.
If you do not submit all reports in accordance with the terms and
conditions of the Agreement within one (1) year of the effective
termination date, FAS must proceed to close out the Agreement with the
information available. In these circumstances, in accordance with 2
C.F.R. 200.344, FAS must report your material failure to comply with
the terms and conditions of the Agreement in SAM.gov using the
Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). In this
way, failure to submit timely and accurate final reports may affect
your future funding.
Recipients are required by Federal regulation to retain all Federal
Agreement records consistent with 2 C.F.R. 200.334.
[Organization] is responsible for ensuring the security and
integrity of any undistributed donated or procured commodities and must
dispose of such commodities only as agreed by FAS. If [Organization]
has active shipments en route to the final program destination,
[Organization] is instructed to work with FAS to facilitate the
delivery of those commodities in accordance with the Agreement and
cease any further calls forward for commodities under the Agreement.
Any sale proceeds, FAS-provided funds, interest, or program income
that have not been disbursed must be used or returned only as agreed to
by FAS. Within 120 days of the date of termination, please send
repayment via check for the funds representing the remaining cash
resources. The check should be made payable to the Foreign Agricultural
Service, and mailed to:

USDA FMMI FMS Collections
PO Box 979099
St. Louis, MO 63179-9000

If the method of delivery requires a physical street address, the
following address should be used:

U.S. Bank
Lockbox 979099
1005 Convention Plaza
St. Louis, MO 63101

Please ensure that the check is accompanied by clear information on
the Program Agreement number and date, the country name, and the
program.
Termination of the Agreement does not affect FAS's right to
disallow costs and recover funds based on a later audit or other
review. In addition, termination does not affect a recipient's
obligation to return any funds due as a result of later refunds,
corrections, or other transactions, including final indirect cost rate
adjustments (refer to 2 C.F.R. 200.345).
If you have questions, contact lindsay.carter@usda.gov.
Sincerely,

Mark Slupek,
Acting Associate Administrator and General Sales Manager,
Foreign Agricultural Service,
United States Department of Agriculture.
attachment 2
[Redacted]

[Redacted]
[Redacted]
[Redacted]
[Redacted]

Dear [Redacted]

This letter provides notice that the United States Department of
Agriculture, Commodity Credit Corporation CCC is terminating your
federal award, Food for Progress Agreement [Redacted], Food for
Progress FY 2024 [Redacted] (the ``Agreement''.) CCC is terminating the
Program Agreement in accordance with Part IV, Paragraph D, of the
Agreement; 7 C.F.R. 1499.16; and 2 C.F.R. 200.340-343.
Termination. CCC notes that this termination is not a result of any
noncompliance with the Agreement on the part of [Redacted] CCC has
determined that the Food for Progress award specified above does not
align with the foreign assistance objectives of the Department. The
award is therefore inconsistent with, and no longer effectuates,
Department priorities and is no longer necessary or desirable. See 2
C.F.R. 200.340(a)(4); 7 C.F.R. 1499.16(a)(2). Pursuant to, among
other authorities, 2 C.F.R. 200.339-343, which are aplicable to your
award, the Department hereby terminates award No. [Redacted] in its
entirety effective May 31, 2025.
Closure. You must submit all final reports and a final payment
request no later than 120 calendar days after May 31, 2025. You will be
reimbursed for costs incurred up to May 31, 2025, that are determined
to be consistent with 2 C.F.R. 200.343, Effects of suspension or
termination. CCC will evaluate the allowability of other expenses
incurred following termination as appropriate, as described at 2 CFR
200.472. However, properly incurred expenses associated with the
security, integrity, and disposition of any commodities currently in
[Redacted] possession, or en route to their final destination, shall be
reimbursed. Any open balance remaining 120 days after the date of this
notice will be unavailable for payment.
If you do not submit all reports in accordance with the terms and
conditions of the Agreement within one (1) year of the effective
termination date, CCC must proceed to close out the award with the
information available. In these circumstances, in accordance with 2
C.F.R. 200.344, CCC must report your material failure to comply with
the terms and conditions of the award in SAM.gov using the Contractor
Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). In this way, failure
to submit timely and accurate final reports may affect your future
funding.
Recipients are required by Federal regulation to retain all Federal
award records consistent with 2 C.F.R. 200.334.
[Redacted] is responsible for ensuring the security and integrity
of any undistributed donated commodities and must dispose of such
commodities only as agreed to by CCC. If [Redacted] has active
shipments en route to the final program destination, [Redacted] is
instructed to facilitate the delivery of those commodities in
accordance with the Agreement and cease any further calls forward for
commodities under the Agreement.
Any sale proceeds, CCC-provided funds, interest, or program income
that have not been disbursed must be used or returned only as agreed to
by CCC. Within 120 days of the date of termination, please send
repayment via check for the funds representing the remaining cash
resources. The check should be made payable to the Commodity Credit
Corporation, and mailed to:

[Redacted]
[Redacted]
[Redacted]
[Redacted]

If the method of delivery requires a physical street address, the
following address should be used:

[Redacted]
[Redacted]
[Redacted]
[Redacted]

Please ensure that the check is accompanied by clear information on
the Program Agreement number and date, the country name, and the
program.
Termination of the agreement does not affect CCC's right to
disallow costs and recover funds based on a later audit or other
review. In addition, termination does not affect a recipient's
obligation to return any funds due as a result of later refunds,
collections, or other transactions, including final indirect cost rate
adjustments (refer to 2 C.F.R. 200.345).
If you have questions, contact your FAS Program Contact at
[Redacted].
Sincerely,

[Redacted]
[Redacted]
Foreign Agricultural Service,
United States Department of Agriculture.

Question 33. Food for Progress purchases and monetizes U.S.
commodities. This program helps build the agricultural sector in other
countries while directly helping U.S. farmers. You claim to support
farmers, if that is true the why are you canceling programs that
directly support U.S. farmers?
Answer. The Food for Progress program has not been canceled. 14
active projects remain ongoing in 17 countries. Individual projects
that did not align with the Department's foreign assistance objectives
were terminated. All commodity purchases for the terminated projects
had already taken place. The FY26 Notice of Funding closed July 31,
2025.
MAHA Commission
Question 34. In last month's MAHA Report, in Section 1, ``The Shift
to Ultra-Processed Foods'', under the heading ``Government Programs
Compounding the Issue'', the report notes that crop insurance primarily
covers traditional field crops, that specialty crops account for only
17 percent of the entire Federal crop insurance portfolio, and
subsidies for fruits, vegetables, tree nuts, and support for organic
foods account for a mere 0.1 percent of the farm bill spending.
If these facts are, using the report's terms, ``compounding the
issue'', then what is the solution?
Answer. We must do more to improve the health outcomes of our
children and families, and President Trump knows agriculture is at the
heart of the solution. Secretary Kennedy and I are actively working
together in crafting sensical Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGAs)
that are set to be released soon. The agencies are working to ensure
Federal nutrition advice is sound, simple, and clear. The guidelines
will prioritize whole, healthy, and nutritious foods such as dairy,
fruits, vegetables, and meats.

Question 34a. It appears the report is setting up for a call to
increase farm bill funding for crop insurance and other programs that
specifically support specialty crops to encourage their production;
would that be a fair assessment?
Answer. I look forward to sharing more information as it pertains
to critical support for our producers when the report is released soon.

Question 34b. How do we pay for such increases? Should they be paid
for by reduction in support for traditional field crops?
Answer. As the report is announced soon, I look forward to sharing
more information.

Question 34c. Given this sentiment, has Secretary Kennedy or others
on the MAHA Commission shared their thoughts on the increases in the
farm safety net included in reconciliation and how they view it in a
MAHA context?
Answer. We are working diligently to make sure our farmers and
producers are able and equipped to continue providing the healthiest
food to children and families.

Question 34d. Secretary Kennedy has repeatedly amplified unproven
and unscientific claims that threaten America's farmers and food
producers, including calling sugar a poison. Why should America's sugar
growers trust an Administration that lets their primary voice for human
health disparage an entire industry based on nothing but his own
personal view?
Answer. My commitment is to continue working with American farmers
to ensure that our producers have a seat at the table

Question 34e. What have you said to him directly regarding his
comments, if anything?
Answer. Secretary Kennedy and I share the same views, working to
ensure our farmers, ranchers, and producers have a seat at the table,
and the tools needed to continue providing food for the country and
world.

Question 35. Secretary Kennedy has taken drastic steps to undermine
national vaccination policy. Do you share his views and are you
allowing him to dictate how you approach vaccination strategy for
animals?
Answer. Secretary Kennedy and I both look forward to assisting
American farmers, ranchers, and producers, in our commitment to
ensuring that we have the healthiest nation, even as it pertains to our
vaccine strategy.

Question 36. We have heard from many farmers and farm groups that
the MAHA report was threatening to them. I understand the White House
is trying to assuage the feelings of farmers by hosting meetings with
various ag groups this week and next.
What are you hearing from farmers?

Question 36a. What should I tell my farmers to help ease their
concerns?
Answer 36-36a. America's farmers and ranchers dedicate their lives
to feeding their country and the world, and in doing so have created
the safest and most abundant and affordable food supply in the world.
Secretary Kennedy and I both look forward to assisting American
farmers, ranchers, and producers, in our commitment to ensuring that we
have the healthiest nation.
Oversight
Question 37. We are concerned that Members of this Committee are
not getting regular updates on the important work of USDA, like H5NI or
New World Screwworm to name just two areas of concern. I think we've
only had one New World Screwworm briefing for staff, and none for
Members. This is unacceptable. Will you commit to provide regular
briefings to Members and staff on these issues?
Answer. Yes. Of note, USDA's Office of Congressional Relations
hosts a monthly Congressional briefing to provide HPAI and New World
Screwworm (NWS) updates and has held multiple additional Congressional
briefings in conjunction with my announcements related to NWS and the
southern border ports.

Question 38. Do you not believe that Congress, particularly this
Committee of jurisdiction, has an important oversight function?

Question 38a. Committee Democrats have read more about what USDA is
doing in press releases and statements from groups like the Cattleman,
that we have heard from the USDA Office of Congressional Relations.
This is serious. The work of Congress is serious. Our oversight
role is serious. Why are we not getting the news and information from
USDA in a timely manner?
Answer 38-38a. USDA has, and will continue to hold, regular
briefings on a multitude of topics across all mission areas. We have
provided technical assistance on legislation to any office that
requested us to do so. We regularly provide advanced copies of press
releases and notices to the Hill on upcoming issues. We are responding
to every letter, email, and phone call from our colleagues in Congress.
Our briefings are bipartisan. Our responses to Congressional offices
are bipartisan. We invite your office and any other office to engage
with us.

Question 39. Secretary Rollins, your budget proposal zeroes out
funding for Conservation Technical Assistance. This is a highly
unpopular proposal here on the Hill, as you will see reflected
throughout the appropriations process. If Congress provides funding for
this program and others that you have rashly proposed cutting, can you
guarantee that you will implement the bill we passed as legally
required?
Answer. USDA will follow the law.
SNAP
Reconciliation Cuts

Question 40. In the Republicans' reconciliation package, an extreme
provision was included to create an unfunded mandate for states to pay
for a portion of SNAP benefits, ranging anywhere from 5 to 25 percent
in any given year, with little to no ability for the state to predict
where they'll fall in that range. CBO estimates that, collectively,
states would be forced to reduce or eliminate food assistance for about
1.3 million people in an average month.
What are the options or authority that states will have to meet the
match in other ways if they aren't able to find the money--i.e., via
SNAP benefit and eligibility cuts? The bill doesn't explicitly provide
states with that authority and, in our markup, our Chairman refused to
answer the question of what would happen if a state couldn't meet their
match. But without other options, states would have to drop out of the
program entirely if they couldn't meet their match. Under the
majority's proposed reconciliation bill, will states that cannot meet
their match be able to cut benefits or eligibility by an equivalent
amount?
Answer. The One Big Beautiful Bill (P.L. 119-21) was signed into
law on July 4. USDA FNS is currently reviewing the enacted legislation
to assess its immediate impacts on our programs, including SNAP. FNS is
committed to ensuring a smooth and effective implementation, and I will
direct my team to update you as soon as there is additional guidance.

Purchase Restriction Waivers

Question 41. We support promoting healthier diets and lifestyles
for all Americans. I do have serious concerns, though, with us making
life more difficult for Americans who are already struggling to make
ends meet. We shouldn't make a program that is supposed to make their
lives easier too confusing and too frustrating for anyone to want to
participate in.
Yet, you have already approved three different waivers, each of
which have different restrictions on what can be purchased with SNAP.
One restricts soda and candy, one restricts soda and energy drinks, and
one restricts candy, candy-coated items, gum, licorice, mints, fruit
leathers, sweetened baking chocolate, fruit or nuts with any sugar or
honey added, granola bars--unless they include flour--and various types
of popcorn if it has any sugar content, like kettle corn.
You state in your approval letters that these waivers cannot ``in
any way impede inter-operability of SNAP program benefits'' and that
purchases made across state lines won't negatively impact SNAP
eligibility for households.
What happens if someone participating in SNAP in a restricted state
purchases a restricted item across state lines? Nothing? Folks living
near state lines can switch stores so they don't have to deal with
confusing red tape? How's that going to be effective in determining
whether restrictions are effective in these demonstration projects?
Answer. SNAP restriction waivers do not affect or impede SNAP
inter-operability. SNAP restrictions operate at the state level, and
all SNAP recipients making a purchase with SNAP benefits within a state
with an approved waiver must comply, regardless of residency. The terms
and conditions of the waiver approval require each state to track and
evaluate out-of-state transactions in bordering states.

Question 41a. What kind of signage are you requiring retailers
provide to explain this to folks so they can avoid embarrassment at
checkout with all these changes?
Answer. Each state approved for a SNAP restriction waiver is
required to develop in-depth SNAP client and SNAP retailer
communication plans detailing education materials and methods. State
agencies are working collaboratively with retailers to develop these
communication plans to ensure clear guidance, staff training,
consistent messaging, and effective outreach to customers to ensure
they understand what foods are and are not allowable for purchase with
SNAP benefits.

Question 41b. Can retailers in these states that don't want to deal
with this red tape and confusion to opt out of these pilots?
Answer. Retailers may not opt out of the SNAP restriction waivers.
Participation is mandatory for all retailers in states with approved
waivers. However, approved states are offering 6 months lead time or
more to educate retailers about the waiver restrictions and provide
technical assistance to support them as they come into compliance to
support these pilot projects.

Question 41c. For example, will a grocer that doesn't know that a
granola bar was reformulated last week and no longer includes flour be
penalized for committing a violation if they sell it to a SNAP
participant? Will the participant be penalized if they try to buy it?
Answer. FNS is committed to program integrity and is providing
ongoing technical assistance to state agencies, who are, in turn,
working closely with retailers. SNAP restriction waivers are not
implemented immediately upon approval which allows for careful planning
and coordination of restricted items. State agencies will be in
continued communication with retailers to ensure compliance with the
waiver restrictions as new products enter the marketplace.

Question 42. These SNAP purchase restriction waivers specifically
depend on the SNAP-Ed program--the one which Republicans want to
eliminate--to ``provide additional nutrition support and education'' as
part of state assessment of the pilot's success. Given that the
reconciliation bill eliminated SNAP-Ed, will you be reevaluating those
approvals?
Answer. SNAP restriction waivers are not dependent on the SNAP-Ed
program, and states have the flexibility to tailor evaluation plans
based on available resources.

SNAP Data Security

Question 43. In response to the Administration's May 20th Executive
Order 14243, ``Stopping Waste, Fraud, and Abuse by Eliminating
Information Silos,'' USDA issued a letter to SNAP state agencies on May
6th, requesting ``unfettered access'' to sensitive data on program
participants, including, but not limited to, names, dates of birth,
personal address, Social Security Numbers and benefits received. While
a recent court filing from USDA indicates that your department will not
collect this data while it works to comply with the Privacy Act, we
still have significant concerns. There are already secure mechanisms to
combat the rare instances of fraud in SNAP, like the National Accuracy
Clearinghouse (NAC), Quality Control system, and fraud investigators
within FNS and states. So, it's clear that sprawling access to SNAP
recipients' personal data is not necessary to ensure the program is
running well. Instead, consolidating the personal data of tens of
millions of Americans puts their data at serious risk and could
undermine trust in the program moving forward.
Secretary, when will the National Accuracy Clearinghouse be
implemented in all states? Is it still on track to be live nationwide
by the statutory deadline of the October 2027 deadline (as USDA's
website states)?
Answer. Yes, all states are on track to implement the NAC
nationwide by October 2027.

Question 43a. And as you know, the NAC uses Social Security
Numbers, and dates of birth are used by the state agencies to find a
positive match. However, these identifiers are not uploaded directly to
the NAC. In order to protect participant information, state agencies
will use a privacy-preserving record linkage process--or PPRL--to
convert these data elements to a secure cryptographic hash before
sharing the information to the NAC. The PPRL process allows the NAC to
accurately match individuals, while preventing the collection and
storage of the names, social security numbers, and dates of birth in
the NAC system. If your agency insists on moving forward with
consolidating SNAP data under this Executive Order, do you commit to
using a privacy-preserving record linkage process to protect Americans'
sensitive personal data?
Answer. Due to pending litigation, USDA is unable to comment on
this question.

SNAP Skimming

Question 44. As you know, SNAP skimming is a form of theft that
occurs when an illegally installed device on a point-of-sale terminal
steals information from a SNAP recipient's Electronic Benefit Transfer
(EBT) card to make unauthorized purchases and drain the SNAP
recipient's account without their knowledge. Unfortunately, EBT
cardholders don't have the same Federal consumer protections as debit
and credit card holders, including reimbursement for losses due to
unauthorized electronic transactions.
In December 2022, Congress passed the Consolidated Appropriations
Act (CAA) of 2023 to address this issue by authorizing Federal funds to
pay for the benefit reimbursements. From 2022 to 2024, all 53 states
and Territories reported instances of skimming and over $320 million in
stolen benefits had been replaced under the 2023 CAA authority.
Unfortunately, last December, Democrats and Republicans negotiated
a bipartisan deal to extend the law replacing stolen SNAP benefits for
an additional 4 years, but at the eleventh hour, Speaker Johnson and
Republicans in Congress reneged on that deal, blocking reimbursement of
stolen SNAP benefits.
The 2023 CAA instructed USDA to promulgate regulations to require
states to comply with those updated security measures. The Biden
Administration convened a working group with states, retailers,
processors, and industry experts and coordinated with the Accredited
Standards Committee X9 to write and inform this regulation. In fact,
they had this regulation slated to be published by April or May of this
year, but it has not yet been published by the new Administration.
Secretary, we know you share in the desire to prevent the theft of
SNAP dollars from low-income families--and even participated in a raid
last month to target some of these bad actors. When does the
Administration plan to publish this rule to require states to make
security updates to prevent this type of theft? Will USDA mandate the
transition to chip card and/or mobile technologies, both of which show
promise in combating electronic theft?
Answer. USDA Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) takes its
responsibility of helping to prevent fraud--particularly SNAP
Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) theft--seriously and has made
significant and sustainable progress in partnership with states, third-
party EBT processors, and retailers to modernize EBT systems and reduce
fraud. USDA anticipates the rule, ``Enhancing Electronic Benefit
Transfer (EBT) Card Security Measures,'' will publish in the Federal
Register next calendar year.
Trade
Question 45. Politico reported that Trump officials delayed and
redacted the USDA quarterly outlook for U.S. agricultural trade because
the report predicts an increase in the nation's trade deficit in farm
goods. The May 2025 report was dated May 29, but was not released until
June 2. The written analysis accompanying the report still has not been
published.
These delays and redactions undermine trust in USDA research.
Secretary Rollins, what was your involvement in this delay? Was this
delay due to understaffing at USDA? Given the importance of timely,
politically independent, and complete reports, what will you do to
ensure that such delays do not occur in the future? Can you commit to
preventing future interference with USDA research processes?
Answer. While many of the data products released by USDA are
required by statute, others--including the quarterly Outlook for U.S.
Agricultural Trade report--do not have this same requirement. USDA
determined releasing only the data is sufficient for stakeholder needs.
We remain committed to providing timely, accurate, and useful data in
service to U.S. agriculture.

Question 46. The written analysis that typically accompanies the
report is a valuable tool for analysts, farm groups, commodity traders,
and policy makers. Can you explain why the written analysis was
redacted? Even if this analysis is not required by statute, why would
you block publication of critical USDA insights that help
decisionmakers take informed actions to best support U.S. agriculture?
When can we expect this written analysis?
Answer. In an effort to simplify this report's information and
maintain clear communication of the data, only the actual data was
published. USDA will continue to evaluate the best way to provide clear
and transparent information that best serves farmers.

Question 47. We are already seeing China increase soy purchases
from countries such as Brazil and Argentina, hurting U.S. soy exports.
What will you do to help U.S. soy producers compensate for the market
access they have lost because of the President's on-again off-again
tariffs?
Answer. Response: President Biden left American farmers and
ranchers with a nearly $50 billion trade deficit. President Trump's
leadership to seek fair and reciprocal treatment for our great
producers will bring more stable long-term market opportunities around
the world for agricultural exports.
We are aggressively pursuing market access opportunities across the
globe. I am proud of the work our team is doing to support concrete
wins for American farmers and ranchers. Just a few of these include:

Maintaining fair dairy access in Costa Rica \5\ for American
dairy farmers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2025/05/28/
make-agriculture-great-again-trade-win-secretary-rollins-secures-
greater-market-access-costa-rica-us. Editor's note: the press release
is incorporated as an attachment to Ms. Craig's Question 20 response.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Protecting pork market access in Panama.

Removing non-tariff barriers for almonds in Japan.

Resolving barriers to poultry market access in Angola, the
9th largest market globally for U.S. poultry.

Question 47a. Secretary Rollins, you have been very vocal in your
support of the President's tariff policies. Could you tell me,
specifically, what role you have played in these trade deliberations?
If you did not play a direct role, who was responsible for these
policies which are having such a profound impact on our nation's
farmers?
Answer. I have consistently been the number one advocate for
American farmers and ranchers in pushing for fair trading relationships
around the world. I regularly speak directly to my counterparts in
other governments about the unfair treatment our producers are facing,
as well as working closely with my colleagues across President Trump's
cabinet to ensure that farmers have a vocal seat at the table in all of
our international negotiations.

Question 48. You recently returned from a trip to Rome where you
were focused on improving market access to Italy and the EU According
to USDA's Foreign Agricultural Service Data, Italy imported $1.8
billion in U.S. agricultural goods in 2024. Even if you are successful
in increasing demand for U.S. agriculture in Italy and similar markets,
how will these efforts even begin to address the harm our farmers are
already feeling from lost market access and damaged trading
relationships with countries such as China (who imported $27.3 billion
in U.S. agriculture in 2024), Canada (who imported $32.4 billion in
2024), and Mexico (who imported $31.3 billion in 2024)?
Question 48a. What have been the concrete outcomes of your ongoing
campaign to promote U.S. agriculture abroad?

Question 48b. How much did your trip cost?
Answer 48-48b. We are aggressively pursuing market access
opportunities in every country around the world. There is no single
country that we can rely on as the only destination for our
agricultural exports. Our Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs team
is working daily in markets around the world to reduce trade barriers
and improve access for American farmers, ranchers, and foresters. I am
proud of the work our team is doing to support concrete wins for
American farmers and ranchers. Just a few of these include:

Maintaining fair dairy access in Costa Rica \6\ for American
dairy farmers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2025/05/28/
make-agriculture-great-again-trade-win-secretary-rollins-secures-
greater-market-access-costa-rica-us. Editor's note: the press release
is incorporated as an attachment to Ms. Craig's Question 20 response.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Protecting pork market access in Panama.

Removing non-tariff barriers for almonds in Japan.

Resolving barriers to poultry market access in Angola, the
9th largest market globally for U.S. poultry.

Question 49. You recently returned from a trip to the UK What
agreements were signed there?

Question 49a. How much did your trip cost?
Answer 49-49a. While in the UK, I secured major wins for American
exporters of energy resources, including fair market access for wood
pellets to be utilized to support energy production in the UK, as well
as additional opportunities to import ethanol produced in the U.S. I
also highlighted additional opportunities for U.S. un-milled rice
exports to the UK and advocated for the U.S. seafood industry and U.S.
dairy products, which are unfairly targeted by risk classifications or
are only accepted due to minor technicalities that can be addressed
through partnerships between the U.S. and UK Governments. Throughout my
visit, I fought to improve the public misperception about the safety,
quality, and consistency of America's agricultural products. Through
conversations with American farmers who export to the UK, I confirmed
they are interested in exporting more products, and UK importers and
retailers are interested in selling and promoting more American
agricultural goods.

Question 50. You have traveled internationally extensively during
your first few months. How much have taxpayers paid for those trips?
Answer. International travel is very common across Administrations
for senior leadership within USDA. To date, I have traveled to the
United Kingdom and Italy on official business with reciprocal visits
here in the United States. USDA will continue to be a good steward of
taxpayer dollars when performing such travel.
Food Safety
Question 51. One of the only actions you've taken on food safety
was to cancel The National Advisory Committee on Microbiological
Criteria for Foods (NACMCF) and the National Advisory Committee on Meat
and Poultry Inspection (NACMPI). These committees were established in
1988 and 1971 respectively, are made up of volunteers, and were
extremely low cost at under $500,000.
One of the NACMCF projects that was pending before the panel was
terminated was seeking advice from the expert panel on how to
strategically use Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS), in addition to any
other current or emerging technologies and strategies, to help FSIS
rank and focus resources on foodborne microbial pathogen subtypes based
on public health risk. How does USDA intend to access this important
insight?
Answer. I fully support the President's directive to improve
government, eliminate inefficiencies, and strengthen USDA's many
services to the American people. USDA's Food Safety and Inspection
Service (FSIS) continues to deliver its mission to keep the supply of
meat, poultry and egg products safe, wholesome and properly labeled for
consumers. FSIS has extensive food safety expertise and utilizes its
technical background to guide advancements in the food safety space in
the U.S. and abroad. FSIS scientists regularly collaborate with Federal
public health partners and researchers across USDA to evaluate new
technologies and explore new applications of existing technology,
including how to use WGS data to target the microbial pathogens of
greatest public health concern. We will continue to rely on the vast
experiences and resources within the Department and Federal Government,
to generate science and data that informs our work and upholds our
commitment to protecting consumers from foodborne illness.
Additionally, FSIS senior leadership will continue to meet regularly
with consumer and industry groups to hear concerns and receive
feedback.

Question 51a. Another pending NACMCF project sought to acquire a
better understanding of the factors that contribute to Cronobacter
contamination of powdered infant formula and the production environment
to increase the effectiveness of prevention and management strategies.
This is critical information that could be useful in preventing
outbreaks involving infant formula products. How will this be accessed?
Answer. USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) does not
regulate infant formula.

Question 51b. For the 2025-2027 committee term, NACMCF was to work
on charges related to Listeria in ready-to-eat (RTE) meat and poultry
products from FSIS, in response to the deadly Boar's Head outbreak last
year. This would have been important research to have in helping to
prevent future outbreaks in RTE products. How does USDA intend to
obtain this scientific expertise?
Answer. Protecting consumers from foodborne illness is a top food
safety priority for USDA. On July 15, I announced a new, comprehensive
plan to bolster USDA's efforts to combat foodborne illness. Under
President Trump's leadership, Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)
is enhancing Listeria sampling, prioritizing thorough food safety
assessments in ready-to-eat establishments, collecting more and better
in-plant data on Listeria risk factors and taking immediate enforcement
actions to address recurring noncompliance and ensure safe food
production. FSIS experts will also be analyzing the new data collected
as part of this effort to identify further enhancements to sampling and
inspection.
Miscellaneous Topics
Question 52. Secretary Rollins, we are hearing from producers
throughout the country about the uncertain Federal funding and policy
environment. With regard to conservation, states and conservation
districts are facing this as well, and are worried that they will be
expected to step in when NRCS does not. Can you speak to the importance
of program consistency and reliability when it comes to conservation
planning and implementation specifically, and how you're working to
ensure farmers can rely on USDA?
Answer. USDA will continue to uphold President Trump's commitment
to America's farmers and ranchers while making sure the critical
programs our customers rely on remain available.

Question 53. Secretary Rollins, your proposal to zero out
conservation technical will massively hinder the ability of farmers to
enroll in USDA conservation programs. No farmer wants this program cut.
And at a bipartisan, conservation-related hearing last week, every
witness before the Committee confirmed this by sharing how essential
Conservation Technical Assistance is to producers. The President's
initial budget release claimed that many farmers have been forced to
participate in the program, an outright lie, as these programs have
always been voluntary. Why did you recommend cutting this support for
farmers?
Answer. The President's Budget eliminates discretionary funding for
conservation technical assistance because it has historically received
over $1 billion in mandatory funding, in addition to funding at the
state and local levels. While funding has helped producers deploy
conservation practices on their lands, many have been forced to
participate in the program in order to comply with state environmental
regulations such as California's Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program,
which regulates agricultural runoff. These cost drivers should be
connected to the resource demands they impose.

Question 54. Secretary Rollins, the President's budget proposed
eliminating funding for the Forest Service's Collaborative Forest
Landscape Restoration program (CFLRP), one of the Agency's most popular
and effective programs. There is bipartisan support for this program in
Congress and vulnerable communities depend on the forest management
activities it funds. It's clear that a cut to this program will
actively hinder our ability to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire
and support economic revitalization in rural communities. Can you
please explain why you proposed zeroing out CFLRP?
Answer. As an Agency, we are looking to maximize the return of
every dollar entrusted to us. We will continue to leverage
collaboratives to achieve priority forest landscape outcomes.

Question 55. Secretary Rollins, according to the Forest Service
itself, ``in its first 10 years, the Collaborative Forest Landscape
Restoration program created nearly $2 billion in local labor income and
supported an average of 5,440 jobs annually.'' The program also treated
an area larger than New Jersey, and between FY 2013 and FY 2019,
accomplished 19 percent of the Forest Services total hazardous fuels
treatments and 15 percent of the timber volume sold. A proposal to cut
this program runs counter to your own proposed goals for forest
management. Why was this program cut?
Answer. As an Agency, we are looking to maximize the return of
every dollar entrusted to us. We will continue to leverage
collaboratives to achieve priority forest landscape outcomes.

Question 56. Secretary Rollins, your budget proposal includes
slashing support for state, Tribal, and private forestry programs.
These programs provide technical and financial assistance to landowners
and resource managers to help sustain the nation's forests and
grasslands, protect communities from wildland fire, and restore forest
ecosystems. I don't think there's a forestry group or stakeholder out
there that would support wholesale elimination of an entire branch of
the Forest Service, so why should Congress?
Answer. The FY 2026 request eliminates funding for the State,
Private, and Tribal Forestry account to ensure fiscal responsibility
with American taxpayer dollars and to better balance the appropriate
roles of Federal and state governments. The budget request anchors to a
return to federalism, which is a priority for the Trump Administration.
It encourages increasing state and local governments' authority to fund
the management of state and privately-owned forests, community
preparedness, and public risk mitigation activities in alignment with
local priorities. Our partnerships with states and local governments
are a key aspect of managing the nation's forests. We will continue our
steadfast partnerships with states and local communities to ensure
America's forests are healthy and resilient. Changing the funding model
to have our non-Federal partners contribute more significantly ensures
that all of us have a financial stake in managing our forests.

Question 57. Secretary Rollins, your budget strips all funding from
Rural Development Business and Industry loans, and Rural Business
Development grants. The only reason given is that these programs are
duplicative of programs elsewhere in government, but I am here to tell
you that there aren't other programs doing this work or providing this
capital. Only about 15 percent of businesses are in rural areas and
cuts to these rural development programs will hurt these rural
businesses. USDA which is the only agency with a proven track record of
in rural America, why does this USDA think that other agencies are
better suited to serve rural America?
Answer. The Trump Administration continues our commitment to rural
America, and we are doing so by reforming the Federal bureaucracy.
Reducing government spending, by ending duplicative programs, and
enhancing accountability, we are ensuring that taxpayer dollars are
being used responsibly.

Question 58. Secretary Rollins, USDA's budget zeros out the
ReConnect rural broadband program. Can you please explain why this
Administration doesn't think rural America deserves the same access to
the internet as their more urban counterparts?
Answer. The Trump Administration absolutely believes that rural
Americans deserve reliable, affordable, and fast broadband internet.
USDA continues to work with our partners at FCC and the Department of
Commerce in deploying the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment
(BEAD) Program. The BEAD program provides $42.5 billion for broadband
deployment.

Question 59. Bolstering America's domestic energy supply chain has
always been a joint effort across several Federal agencies. Our
nation's farmers rely on the supply chains the renewable energy sector
provides. How is USDA working with other agencies to strengthen our
domestic energy supply by boosting agriculture-related products like
biofuels, synthetic aviation fuel or solar?
Answer. I am in consistent communication with Administrator Zeldin
and the White House about the importance of biofuels to the farm and
rural economy. I am supportive of Administrator Zeldin's proposed
Renewable Fuel Standard with the highest ever volume requirements for
American grown biofuels. America's national security depends on our
energy security, and biofuels are a crucial asset that bring more jobs
and help farmers in rural America. I will continue advocating for
biofuels and for policies that support a strong commodity market.

Question 59a. When did you last speak with Secretary Wright about
these issues?
Answer. Secretary Wright and I meet regularly to develop plans for
energy generation and transmission. I'm proud to partner with Secretary
Wright so we can continue to serve the President's vision of unleashing
American energy.

Question 60. In your testimony, you state that you ``addressed the
avian flu.'' So is it done? Have we no more transmission? No more
poultry dying? No more dairy cows being impacted?
Answer. My five-pronged strategy to improve biosecurity on poultry
farms and lower egg prices is working. I will continue to implement
this strategy and explore all options to help all producers protect
their animals from avian influenza.

Question 61. Given the MAHA reports call for reducing ultra
processed foods in schools, will the MAHA recommendations, due out in
August, include support for programs like the Local Food for Schools
initiative that not only helped create a pipeline for delicious healthy
food items but also supported local farmers?
Answer. The work of the MAHA Commission is ongoing, and we look
forward to sharing those recommendations soon. USDA continues to have
16 robust nutrition programs in place.

Question 62. How will USDA work with school nutrition operators to
better understand operational challenges and provide policy
recommendations that would support the MAHA report goals? We understand
that the SNA has invited you and Secretary Kennedy to meet with their
members. Is that something you will commit to before the August report
is released?
Answer. As I mentioned at my confirmation hearing, children are
suffering from diet-related chronic disease at unheard of rates. School
lunch is an important part of that conversation, because we should all
want it to be the best meal eaten, not just the best meal served.
States and nutrition program operators have a significant role in
administering the FNS Child Nutrition Programs these programs. There
are various opportunities to tailor child nutrition program
implementation to local needs and circumstances. I look forward to
hearing innovative ideas from those at the state level and those who
directly serve our children in cafeterias across the country.

Question 63. What is USDA doing to communicate the opportunity to
drive growth in our rural economies at this critical time and ensure
that the Administration, including the Office of Management and Budget,
understands the direct impact that a strong Renewable Volume
Obligations can have on American farmers and U.S. agriculture markets?
Answer. USDA acknowledges the vital role that Rural Development
programs play in supporting rural communities and farmers. The
Administration's budget proposal reflects a commitment to fiscal
responsibility and streamlining programs to maximize impact. We are
always open to constructive dialogue with Congress and this Committee
to ensure rural America has the resources it needs to thrive. We are
committed to evaluating all avenues to support rural economic
development and job creation, consistent with the President's vision
for a strong American economy.

Question 64. It is imperative that EPA take a careful and judicious
approach to Small Refinery Exemption (SRE) petitions and ensure that
biofuel blending volumes are not negatively impacted by any action on
pending SRE petitions. If mishandled, SREs could short-circuit the RVO,
destabilize farm economies, and wipe out the benefits of a strong rule.
We all saw a preview of the relationship between blending volumes and
agriculture markets in the last few weeks when soybean prices fell by
28 and bean oil trading was halted all due to a rumor about EPA's
planned blending volumes and when EPA was forced to publicly dispel a
rumor that it would be approving all 169 pending small refinery
exemptions after RIN prices dropped precipitously. What is USDA doing
to ensure that the Administration understands how abuse of SRE
authority hurts American farmers?
Answer. I remain in consistent communication with Administrator
Zeldin and the White House about the importance of biofuels to the farm
and rural economy. I am supportive of Administrator Zeldin's proposed
Renewable Fuel Standard with the highest ever volume requirements for
American grown biofuels. America's national security depends on our
energy security, and biofuels are a crucial asset that bring more jobs
and help farmers in rural America. I will continue advocating for
biofuels and for policies that support a strong commodity market.

Questions Submitted by Hon. Austin Scott, a Representative in Congress
from Georgia
Specialty Crops
Question 1. USDA's Marketing Assistance for Specialty Crops (MASC)
program provided much-needed aid to specialty crop producers across the
country, particularly to the diverse group of growers across my
district in Georgia. However, as you are aware, specialty crop growers
are still facing a number of challenges such as labor costs and
increased costs of production. What is your planned timeline for
distribution of the remaining 15% payment rate allocated in the MASC
program, and do you plan to provide additional assistance to the
specialty crop sector, whether via the MASC program or another
initiative?
Answer. USDA has issued the second round of MASC payments.

Question 2. Unfair trade practices continue to impact the U.S.
agriculture industry. In recent years, U.S. fruit and vegetable growers
have faced increased competition from foreign-subsidized and less
regulated imports being dumped into our markets. This dramatically
impacts Southeast producers and threatens the success and future of
seasonal and perishable produce. How can the Administration help level
the playing field for American many specialty crop farmers who are
currently forced to compete with lower costs of production in other
countries, primarily Mexico?
Answer. Unfair foreign trade practices undermine the
competitiveness of American farmers and ranchers, creating an uneven
playing field, in foreign markets and here at home. I am fighting to
ensure that we address unfair practices, and I am proud to support
President Trump's reciprocal tariff negotiations, so that our producers
can compete on a level playing field.
Disaster Relief Implementation and Oversight
Question 3. Madam Secretary, Congress appropriated substantial
disaster relief funding to respond to natural disasters in 2023 and
2024. Can you provide an update on how those funds will be distributed,
what states or regions have received support, and what the current
outstanding needs are?
Answer. USDA has announced the projected timeline for development
and delivery of each of the components that comprise the full suite of
Supplemental Disaster Assistance for agricultural producers online at
https://www.fsa.usda.gov/resources/programs/20232024-supplemental-
disaster-assistance.
attachment

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

[https://www.fsa.usda.gov/resources/programs/20232024-supplemental-
disaster-assistance]
2023/2024 Supplemental Disaster Assistance
What It Is
The American Relief Act of 2025,\1\ Pub. L. No. 118-158 (the Act),
signed into law on Dec. 21, 2024, provided the U.S. Department of
Agriculture with more than $30 billion to deliver disaster recovery
assistance to farmers and livestock producers. Below is a projected
timeline for development and delivery of each of the components that
comprise the full suite of Supplemental Disaster Assistance for
agricultural producers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/10545.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projected Timeline
Timeline Summary \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ [See table below.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emergency Commodity Assistance Program (ECAP)
The Emergency Commodity Assistance Program (ECAP) \3\ provides
economic loss assistance for covered commodities based on 2024 planted
and prevented planted acres.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://www.fsa.usda.gov/resources/programs/emergency-
commodity-assistance-program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Important Dates
March 19, 2025: Sign-up began

August 15, 2025: Sign-up ends

Nearly $8B in payments have been paid out to date. View more
payment information on the ECAP Dashboard.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ https://www.fsa.usda.gov/resources/programs/emergency-
commodity-assistance-program/dashboard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emergency Livestock Relief Program (ELRP) for Drought and Wildfire
The Emergency Livestock Relief Program (ELRP) \5\ for Drought and
Wildfire will provide assistance for losses due to drought and
wildfires in 2023 and 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https://www.fsa.usda.gov/resources/programs/emergency-
livestock-relief-program-elrp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Important Dates
May 29, 2025:DA announced ELRP payments to begin livestock
producers impacted by drought and wildfires in 2023 and 2024.
ELRP Rule\6\ published on the Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/05/29/2025-
09581/emergency-livestock-relief-program-elrp-2023-and-2024.

Farm Service Agency ELRP webpage.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ https://www.fsa.usda.gov/resources/programs/emergency-
livestock-relief-program-elrp.

May 30, 2025: The target date for FSA county offices to sign
and certify.
Emergency Livestock Relief Program (ELRP) for Flooding and Wildfire on
Non-Federal Lands
The Emergency Livestock Relief Program (ELRP) for Flooding will
provide assistance for losses due to flooding wildfire on non-Federal
[lands.] USDA has never stood up an assistance program for livestock
due to flooding, this requires more time due to needed software
changes.
Important Dates
Week of September 8, 2025: The target for program
announcement
Supplemental Disaster Relief Program (SDRP)
The Supplemental Disaster Relief Program\8\ will provide assistance
to producers for necessary expenses due to losses of revenue, quality
or production of crops due to weather related events in 2023 and 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ https://www.fsa.usda.gov/sdrp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Important Dates
For producers with indemnified losses:

July 10, 2025: Sign-up began

For uncovered losses (shallow losses) including producers without
crop insurance, and quality losses we need more time to collect the
data:

October 2025: The target for sign-up to begin
General Block Grant Authority
USDA is using general block grant authority to pay on losses due to
adverse weather events for 2023 and 2024. General block grants will not
duplicate assistance for which USDA covers a similar loss.

USDA has received general block grant requests from:

Florida--announced July 21, 2025 \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ https://www.fsa.usda.gov/news-events/news/07-21-2025/secretary-
rollins-announces-6759-million-disaster-assistance-farmers.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Georgia

North Carolina--announced September 5, 2025 \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ https://www.fsa.usda.gov/news-events/news/09-05-2025/usda-
announces-2212-million-grant-agreement-cover-agricultural-losses.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
South Carolina

Tennessee

Virginia--announced July 28, 2025 \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ https://www.fsa.usda.gov/news-events/news/07-28-2025/
secretary-rollins-announces-609-million-disaster-assistance-farmers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timing
We are currently engaging with the above states to negotiate their
final agreement. These are agreements between the states and USDA.
New England and Pacific Block Grant
Provides compensation for necessary expenses related to crop,
timber and livestock losses, including on-farm infrastructure as a
consequence of any adverse weather event in 2023 and 2024. Small block
grants will not duplicate assistance for which USDA covers a similar
loss.

New England and Pacific block grants were specifically
earmarked by Congress to cover:

Alaska

Connecticut

Hawaii

Maine

Massachusetts

New Hampshire

Rhode Island

Vermont
Timing
FSA is actively engaged with all eight states eligible working to
refine these agreements. These are agreements between the states and
USDA.

Important Dates
Timeline Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Program Milestone
------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 19, 2025 Emergency Commodity Sign-up began
Assistance Program
(ECAP)
May 29, 2025 Emergency Livestock USDA starts ELRP
Relief Program (ELRP) payments to livestock
for Drought and producers impacted by
Wildfire drought and wildfire
in 2023 and 2024--
Complete
See USDA News
Release\12\
\12\ https://
www.usda.gov/about-
usda/news/press-
releases/2025/05/29/
usda-provide-1-
billion-livestock-
producers-impacted-
drought-or-wildfire-
2023-and-2024.
May 30, 2025 Emergency Livestock Target date for FSA
Relief Program (ELRP) county offices to sign
for Drought and and certify
Wildfire
Week of July 7, 2025 Supplemental Disaster Sign-up to begin
Relief Program (for
producers with
indemnified losses)
August 15, 2025 Emergency Commodity Sign-up ends
Assistance Program
(ECAP)
Week of September 8, Emergency Livestock The target for program
2025 Relief Program (ELRP) announcement
for Flooding and
Wildfire on Non-Federal
Lands
October 2025 Supplemental Disaster Target for sign-up to
Relief Program (for begin
producers with
uncovered/shallow
losses)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additional Resources
Emergency Commodity Assistance Program (ECAP) Fact Sheet \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ https://www.fsa.usda.gov/tools/informational/fact-sheets/
emergency-commodity-assistance-program-ecap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emergency Commodity Assistance Program (ECAP) Dashboard \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ https://www.fsa.usda.gov/resources/programs/emergency-
commodity-assistance-program/dashboard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Texas Water Treaty (Block Grant) Announced \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2025/03/
19/usda-announces-280-million-grant-agreement-support-rio-grande-
valley-agricultural-producers-amid.

Question 4. What metrics or data is USDA using to assess whether
disaster funds have reached impacted producers, particularly in under-
served rural or forested areas?
Answer. USDA is committed to leveraging data currently on file to
deploy critical disaster relief in a manner that aligns with
Congressional intent while accurately and consistently calculating
assistance for losses suffered by all eligible participants.

Question 5. Are there any remaining delays or bureaucratic barriers
preventing full deployment of disaster block grant funds to impacted
states, and if so, how is USDA working to address those challenges?
Answer. There are no remaining delays or bureaucratic barriers
preventing deployment of block grant funds. USDA's team is in
consistent communication with each block grant state, holding at a
minimum, weekly meetings to ensure each state's specific questions and
needs are addressed.
Emergency Forest Restoration Program (EFRP)
Question 6. The Emergency Forest Restoration Program (EFRP) is one
of the few cost-share programs available to private forest landowners
after natural disasters. However, landowners frequently report that
reimbursement delays and eligibility limitations make recovery nearly
impossible. What improvements is USDA considering to streamline EFRP or
make it more responsive?
Answer. The Farm Service Agency has begun providing more frequent
and geographically tailored training to staff and stakeholders for the
Emergency Forest Restoration Program (EFRP). Additionally, staff
closely monitor funding expenditures to quickly identify bottlenecks
and apply the necessary resources to address delays.

Question 7. Last year's draft of the farm bill in both the House
and Senate included proposals to reform and strengthen EFRP. If those
provisions aren't enacted legislatively, does USDA have existing
authority to make any of those improvements unilaterally through
administrative changes?
Answer. Changes such as covering livestock watering structures on
grazed forestland which were damaged by a qualifying natural disaster
and covering losses on private property incurred by fires started by
the Federal Government have been implemented administratively.

Question 8. Given the increasing scale of natural disasters--
wildfires, hurricanes, tornadoes--how is USDA evaluating the long-term
sustainability and funding needs of EFRP to ensure it can support
timely recovery for forest landowners?
Answer. There are sufficient budgetary resources for EFRP. FSA
works closely with Federal, state and local forestry partners to gather
feedback on disaster trends to provide needed resources in a timely
manner following disasters.
Forest Landowner Disaster Recovery
Question 9. Private forest landowners manage over half of our
nation's forests, yet they lack the recovery tools and safety nets that
row crop and livestock producers have access to through USDA. Do you
agree that this is a gap in our disaster and risk management portfolio?
Answer. USDA stands ready to assist all producers without regard to
their types of yields. Forestry products are an integral part of the
U.S. economy and USDA fully recognizes the private forest landowners'
role in their availability.

Question 10. Will you commit to working with Congress and the Trump
Administration to advance the Disaster Reforestation Act, which would
allow forest landowners to deduct the value of timber destroyed by
natural disasters?
Answer. We will be glad to work with your office on this topic.

Question 11. How is USDA incorporating the needs of forest
landowners into broader disaster and risk mitigation planning,
especially given their role in forest management, preserving
watersheds, and providing wildlife habitat?
Answer. NRCS conservationists work with private forest landowners
and managers to plan and install forestry practices that can improve
growth, reduce risk, and improve forest health while addressing other
landowner goals, such as wildlife habitat or livestock grazing
considerations.

Question 12. Would you support parity in tax and disaster recovery
treatment for forest owners comparable to other agricultural producers,
recognizing the long timelines and investment risks associated with
timber production?
Answer. USDA will implement any changes Congress wishes to enact to
better assist forest landowners.
International Trade and Regulatory Compliance: EUDR Concerns
Question 13. The United States has a strong record of being the
``green standard'' for sound forest management--we grow more trees than
we harvest nationwide, and in regions like the southeastern U.S., we
grow three trees for every one harvested. While we were glad--but not
surprised--to see the United States classified as ``low risk'' under
the European Union's Deforestation Regulation (EUDR), we are
disappointed that this designation does not exempt U.S. producers from
the costly and burdensome compliance requirements, including
geolocation and due diligence tracking. Is USDA working with USTR and
other agencies to push back on the implementation of this misguided
regulation and protect our forest landowners from unfair burdens?
Answer. USDA is working closely across the Administration to fight
the unfair burdens of the EUDR. A ``low risk'' designation does not do
enough to reduce the burdens that many industries will face under this
arbitrary standard. I will continue fighting to ensure the European
Union cannot put baseless regulations on American producers.

Question 14. One of the biggest challenges with EUDR is the
traceability requirement. In many cases--such as wood pellets,
engineered wood products, or recycled materials--it is functionally
impossible to trace a finished product back to a specific tract of
family-owned land to prove that no deforestation occurred. Does USDA
agree that this compliance framework is impractical and that U.S.
producers should not be penalized for sustainable forest management
practices?
Answer. Yes, the EUDR compliance requirements are far too
burdensome for American producers.

Question 15. China, despite having well-documented issues with
illegal logging and forest loss, was also classified as ``low risk'' by
the EU. This raises serious concerns about how these risk
determinations were made. Is USDA engaging with the EU or other global
partners to challenge the legitimacy of these classifications and
ensure a level playing field for U.S. forest products?
Answer. Yes, USDA has been consistent that the ``low risk''
designation does not accurately account for U.S. forestry practices in
relation to other countries. We are engaging regularly with the EU and
other partners to find a reasonable and practical path forward.

Question 16. Is the Trump Administration continuing to push back
against the EUDR's unintended consequences, and are there efforts
underway to coordinate with other nations who share our concerns to
apply pressure on the EU to revise or delay these compliance mandates?
Answer. USDA is actively seeking ways to ensure that U.S. producers
do not have the unreasonable compliance burdens currently outlined by
the EUDR. We are coordinating with other like-minded countries who
share this concern.
Trump Administration Executive Orders on Timber and Domestic Supply
Chain
Question 17. On March 1st, the Trump Administration issued two
Executive Orders--one directing Federal agencies to boost domestic
timber production and another to evaluate the volume and national
security implications of timber imports. How is USDA responding to
these directives, and what steps are being taken to support domestic
timber supply?
Answer. The Forest Service is developing a national strategy that
outlines our agency's goals, objectives, and initial actions related to
increase active forest management. Additionally, all Regional Foresters
are developing 5 year strategies, tiered to the national strategy, to
increase their timber volume offered, leading to an agency-wide
increase of 25% over the next 4-5 years. Furthermore, District Rangers
and Forest Supervisors will utilize direct timber sale opportunities
with interested purchases operating on and around forests. Finally, all
agency timber sales will use base rates or minimum rates, where
appropriate, based on Emergency Authorizations outlined by the
Secretary in Secretarial Memo 1078-006.

Question 18. Private landowners manage the majority of our nation's
forests. Is USDA working with these landowners to expand timber
production on private lands as part of the broader effort to secure
domestic supply?
Answer. USDA partnerships with the states and local governments are
a key aspect of managing the nation's forests including assistance to
private landowners. The FY 2026 request eliminates funding for the
State, Private, and Tribal Forestry account to ensure fiscal
responsibility with American taxpayer dollars and to better balance the
appropriate roles of Federal and state governments. The Budget request
anchors to a return to federalism and encourages increasing state
authority to fund the management of state and privately-owned forests.
Changing the funding model to have our non-Federal partners contribute
more significantly ensures that all of us have a financial stake in
managing our forests.

Question 19. Many rural communities are seeing sawmills and wood-
processing facilities close, which reduces market access and undermines
domestic supply chain resilience. Is USDA examining how these mill
closures impact landowners' ability to harvest and market their timber?
Answer. USDA is proactively investing in projects that strengthen
wood products manufacturing facilities, positioning them to overcome
manufacturing challenges, and create and retain jobs. Three key grant
programs of the Forest Service: Wood Innovations, Community Wood, and
Wood Products Infrastructure Assistance have helped build markets,
support efficient processing, and strengthen our critical wood products
infrastructure. From 2021-2024, the Forest Service has provided nearly
$190M to 482 projects across the country, matched or leveraged with
$618 million from applicants. Of these projects, 288 projects ($140
million), supported sawmills and other wood processing facilities.

Question 20. Will the Administration continue to find ways to
secure America's critical natural resources--like timber and wood
products--for both domestic use and export markets, including strategic
industries like biomass energy, cross-laminated timber, and sustainable
aviation fuel?
Answer. The Administration is committed to maintaining markets for
timber and wood products. The agency's Wood Innovation Grants Program
is one of the ways the agency supports markets for these products. The
program, launched in 2015, stimulates, expands, and supports U.S. wood
products markets and wood energy markets to support the long-term
management of National Forest System and other forest lands. National
focus areas include mass timber, renewable wood energy, and
technological development that supports hazardous fuel reduction and
sustainable forest management.
National Organic Program
Question 21. A petition sent to USDA from Biodegradable Products
Institute asks that AMS add a definition of ``compost feedstock'' to
the Federal organic regulations, 7 CFR 205.2, and to make certain
conforming and clarifying adjustments to the related regulations. Our
nation's leading producers of compostable packaging are facing serious
barriers in California that could be fixed by USDA acting on a 2023
petition to deregulate how compost is managed in the National Organic
Program. Will you commit to reviewing this petition and consider an
interim final rule to give farmers and packaging companies the relief
they deserve?
Answer. USDA is assessing the petition, and it has been the subject
of National Organic Standards Board meetings. That discussion and
analysis is continuing.

Question Submitted by Hon. Scott DesJarlais, a Representative in
Congress from Tennessee
Question. I understand a petition has been at USDA for
approximately 2 years seeking to update the definition of compost in
the National Organic Program in support of biomanufacturers. Have you
had an opportunity to review this petition, if so, can you advise on
when to expect a decision? If not, is there a timeline for review and
potential approval?
Answer. USDA is assessing the petition, and it has been the subject
of National Organic Standards Board meetings. That discussion and the
analysis is continuing.
Question Submitted by Hon. David Rouzer, a Representative in Congress
from North Carolina
Question. Given our nation's current fiscal situation and the need
to fully maximize the impact of the resources allocated across the
Federal Government, including USDA, I agree with the need to pursue
greater efficiencies as reflected in the Administration's budget. The
Farm Service Agency (FSA) is one of the key agencies where staff
resources can be better supported with technology efficiencies, which
the budget highlighted as `improving online services so that farmers
are receiving top-notch service to meet their needs'.
A prime example of this efficiency is third-party providers who
work with producers for activities such as crop planted acreage
reporting to FSA. USDA can easily and quickly improve this experience
for producers by embracing this process, as required in the 2014 and
2018 Farm Bills.
Will you provide details on how your office plans on working with
FSA to ensure they are closely working with third parties to determine
functionalities most helpful in leveraging existing technologies and
data sets, and prioritize automation of activities which benefit both
county office staff and producer convenience?
Answer. I fully support President Trump's directive to eliminate
wasteful spending and ensure taxpayer dollars are used effectively. By
working with the Department of Government Efficiency, USDA can utilize
private sector experience to obtain cost effective and overdue IT
modernization.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Don Bacon, a Representative in Congress
from Nebraska
Question 1. The FY 2025 NOFO for Food for Progress was posted and
then taken down. This is a mandatory farm bill program authorized by
Congress.
When will the FY 2025 NOFO for Food for Progress be re-posted?
Answer. The FY25 Notice of Funding closed on July 31, 2025. USDA is
currently reviewing applications in order to make awards.

Question 1a. Given the delays in posting the FY 2025 Food for
Progress NOFO, is USDA anticipating an expedited award process? If yes,
how might this differ from how previous years were awarded?
Answer. USDA will work expediently to process applications and make
awards in accordance with the statutory requirements.

Question 1b. Why was the FY25 McGovern-Dole NOFO allowed to go
forward?
Answer. The FY25 Notice of Funding closed on June 23. USDA is
currently reviewing applications in order to make awards.

Question 2. USDA recently terminated 27 Food for Progress awards
and 17 McGovern-Dole Food for Education awards. The termination letters
state the programs were no longer serving the foreign assistance
objectives of USDA.
What are the foreign assistance objectives of USDA going forward
which all the food aid programs must align with?
Answer. USDA is prioritizing foreign assistance that makes America
safer, stronger and more prosperous. Assistance that meets USDA's core
objectives and ensures a return on investment for American farmers,
ranchers, foresters and agriculture producers. These objectives are
outlined in a June 30 Secretarial Memorandum: https://www.usda.gov/
sites/default/files/documents/sm-1078-012.pdf.
attachment
United States Department of Agriculture Office of the Secretary
Washington, D.C. 20250
Secretary's Memorandum 1078-012

June 30, 2025
Prioritizing Foreign Assistance From The United States Department Of
Agriculture, Which Makes The United States Of America Safer,
Stronger, And More Prosperous.
1. Purpose
The purpose of this Memorandum is to establish a return to American
principles and realign the Department's focus towards its original
objectives of maximizing and promoting American agriculture, ensuring a
safe, nutritious and secure food supply, enhancing rural prosperity,
and protecting our National Forests and Grasslands. To achieve this
purpose, this memorandum orders the rescission of all foreign
assistance previously granted through the Department which does not
actively make the United States of America safer, stronger, and more
prosperous. It also calls on the Department to recognize the goodwill
of American farmers, ranchers, foresters, and agricultural producers in
all foreign assistance programs.
The United States of America has long been the most generous and
charitable country in the world. American prosperity has been shared
for decades in the spirit of kindness to feed the hungry and
economically develop a great many countries. However, for too long,
this generosity has been taken advantage of by a foreign aid industry
and bureaucracy that is not aligned with American interests. American
agriculture feeds, fuels, and clothes the world.
Therefore, this Department and all supporting agencies and mission
areas will focus on foreign assistance that prioritizes (1) making
America safer, stronger, and more effective; (2) meeting our core
objectives at USDA; and (3) ensuring a return on investment for the
American farmers, ranchers, foresters, and agricultural producers who
seek to support vulnerable communities around the world with the bounty
of American agriculture.
2. Policy
To affect these priority areas, USDA will:

1. Review and terminate foreign assistance projects that do not
contribute to making America safer, stronger, and more
prosperous, specifically when it comes to American farmers,
ranchers, foresters, and agricultural producers. Any
projects focused exclusively on benefiting foreign
agricultural systems, with no tie to the American people or
developing market access for the American producer, will no
longer continue.

2. Realign Department foreign assistance priorities towards projects
that support the economic prosperity of American farmers,
ranchers, foresters, and agricultural producers.
Specifically, foreign assistance must support, develop, or
advance market opportunities for American agriculture and
forest products while seeking to support vulnerable
communities across the globe.

3. Bring American farmers and ranchers back to the decision-making
table for foreign assistance. For too long, the foreign aid
industry has operated in a vacuum, one that has not also
prioritized the goals of the American agricultural
community. USDA will solicit input from American farmers
and ranchers on how best to serve vulnerable communities.

4. Coordinate with all other relevant Federal agencies to ensure
aligned foreign assistance objectives in the interest of
the American people. The Federal Government should have
complimentary foreign assistance projects and objectives,
not duplicitous or competing priorities which do not
provide effective and efficient use of taxpayer dollars.
USDA will work closely within the Executive Branch to
further efficient foreign assistance programs that directly
further the safety, strength, and prosperity of the United
States of America. The Office of Budget and Programs
Analysis (OBPA) and Office of General Counsel (OGC) shall
assist USDA agencies and organizations properly to comply
with the provisions of this.
3. Incidental Transfers
The Assistant Secretary for Administration, the Chief Financial
Officer, and the Director, Office of Budget and Program Analysis, are
authorized to approve such transfers of funds, personnel, employment
authority, space, records, property, and incidentals as may be
necessary to implement the provisions of this Memorandum.
4. Effective Date and Termination
This memo is effective immediately.

Brooke L. Rollins,
Secretary,
U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Question 2a. Will there be any additional terminations? Can USDA
provide assurances that it will not terminate awards before programming
can begin moving forward like what has occurred with the FY 2024
terminated awards?
Answer. USDA will continue to ensure that all projects align with
the foreign assistance objectives of the Department.

Question 2b. Is USDA considering a process to allow terminated
awards to be reinstated? If yes, please provide more information about
this process.
Answer. There is no formal appeals process for terminated projects
which do not align with the Department's foreign assistance objectives.

Question 2c. What is USDA planning to do with the returned funds
from the monetization sales?
Answer. USDA will reallocate any recouped funds towards projects
that are aligned with the foreign assistance objectives of the
Department.

Question 3. The recent ``Make America Healthy Again'' (MAHA)
Commission Report--produced jointly by DHHS, USDA, and EPA--has raised
serious concerns in farm country. The report cites numerous sources
that do not exist and misrepresents others to justify its claims that
pesticide products are responsible for America's chronic disease,
despite a lack of evidence.
Why was the ag community effectively shut out of the entire report-
drafting process?
Answer. My commitment is to ensure that our agriculture community
is represented in this process.

Question 3a. The report concluded that more research is necessary.
What immediate steps is USDA taking to strengthen and expand
agriculture research efforts?
Answer. USDA remains committed to supporting high-priority research
that is responsive to the needs of American farmers and ranchers
through both the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) and the National
Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA).

Question 3b. Now that the report is out, how will you work via the
interagency process to correct the misinformation and anti-farmer
findings in MAHA's first report?
Answer. America's farmers and ranchers dedicate their lives to
feeding their country and the world. They have created the safest, most
abundant, and most affordable food supply in the world. We are working
to make sure our kids and families consume the healthiest food we
produce.

Question 3c. What will USDA's involvement be in shaping the
strategy that the Commission will issue in August?
Answer. USDA remains committed to working with our agency
colleagues while advocating for America's farmers and ranchers.

Question 3d. What specific actions is the MAHA Commission taking to
ensure that farmers have a seat at the table and that their input will
be actively considered?
Answer. The Trump Administration has a unique, once-in-a-generation
opportunity to unify our vision across key programs and initiatives,
fostering a healthier, more vibrant America with the work of the
Commission. The U.S. Department of Agriculture recognizes the vital
role of farmers to produce the safest most abundant food supply in the
world. USDA remains steadfast in supporting continued access to safe,
effective solutions that enable our farmers and ranchers to feed, fuel,
and clothe the U.S. and the world.

Question 4. The American Relief Act, passed in December 2024,
provided approximately $21 billion in funds for agricultural producers
that suffered losses due to natural disasters. Those funds were
statutorily required to be released by March 21, 2025. Currently the
aid schedule released by USDA states that sign up for the Supplemental
Disaster Relief Program will not begin until July 7th for previously
indemnified losses and September 15th for uncovered losses. In the
meantime, producers awaiting relief, in some cases, require these
payments to shore up credit agreements with lenders, putting them in an
especially precarious position.
What is the cause of this nearly 3 month delay?
Answer. The Emergency Commodity Assistance Program (ECAP) was
launched ahead of the 90 day deadline as mandated by Congress. This was
the only portion of the supplemental disaster assistance that had a 90
day deadline. USDA is also committed to the timely delivery of the
other components of the American Relief Act to provide relief much
faster than that of the previous Administration. A timeline for
development and delivery of each of the components that comprise the
full suite of Supplemental Disaster Assistance for agricultural
producers cans be found here:https://www.fsa.usda.gov/resources/
programs/20232024-supplemental-disaster-assistance.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Editor's note: the website snapshot is incorporated as an
attachment to Mr. Austin Scott's Question 3 response.

Question 4a. What immediate steps have been taken or are planned to
correct this issue?
Answer. The Emergency Commodity Assistance Program (ECAP) was
launched ahead of the 90 day deadline as mandated by Congress. This was
the only portion of the supplemental disaster assistance that had a 90
day deadline. USDA is also committed to the timely delivery of the
other components of the American Relief Act to provide relief much
faster than that of the previous Administration. A timeline for
development and delivery of each of the components that comprise the
full suite of Supplemental Disaster Assistance for agricultural
producers cans be found here: https://www.fsa.usda.gov/resources/
programs/20232024-supplemental-disaster-assistance.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Editor's note: the website snapshot is incorporated as an
attachment to Mr. Austin Scott's Question 3 response.

Question 5. With regard to the termination of the 2019 tomato
suspension agreement, Mexico has threatened it will retaliate against
American agricultural products.
Have you had any discussions with USTR or Commerce on the status of
the negotiations, and how can you ensure that the rest of U.S.
agriculture does not get caught in the crossfire?
Answer. The U.S. Department of Commerce announced the termination
of the 2019 tomato suspension agreement on July 14, 2025. I will
continue to be an advocate for American producers to have a level
playing field domestically and around the world. The U.S. Government
will closely monitor for any retaliatory action by Mexico and respond
accordingly.

Question 6. In your testimony before the House Agriculture
Committee on June 11, 2025, you stated that there have been no cuts in
funding and no employees have been terminated at the U.S. Meat Animal
Research Service. Numerous producer organizations who rely on the
research which comes out of these institutions say that while this is
technically correct, it is not the whole story.
Between January 20, 2025, and June 15, 2025, what is the average
timeline between when a research procurement contract action has been
received by USDA from the University of Nebraska's Agroecosystem
Management Research Unit, the Wheat, Sorghum and Forage Research Unit,
and the U.S. Meat Animal Research Center, and when the facility
received final approval to execute the requested research procurement
contract?
Answer. The average timeline from receipt to approval and execution
of a contract at these locations during the requested period was 32
calendar days.

Question 6a. What is USDA's standard evaluation process on research
procurement contracts when making approval/denial decisions?
Answer. An agency seeking approval for a research procurement
contract must submit the request to their Mission Area's Chief
Operating Officer. Upon Mission Area approval, the request is forwarded
to the Office of Contracting and Procurement for their review and
approval. Once approved, the action may then be solicited.

Question 6b. What immediate steps can USDA take to improve research
procurement contract decision turnaround time?
Answer. ARS has implemented an efficient review process, enabling
their Mission Area's Chief Operating Officer to approve requests within
1 to 2 business days. ARS works closely with the Department's Office of
Contracting and Procurement to ensure that urgent and high-priority
needs are expedited, with some approvals occurring the same day the
need is identified.

Question 6c. How many unfilled USDA employee vacancies were there
on January 20, 2025 at the University of Nebraska's Agroecosystem
Management Research Unit, the Wheat, Sorghum and Forage Research Unit,
and the U.S. Meat Animal Research Center, respectfully?
Answer. Listed below are vacancies on January 20, 2025 (not
including seasonal fieldwork positions):

12 vacancies at the Agroecosystem Management Research Unit

2 vacancies at the Wheat, Sorghum and Forage Research Unit

25 vacancies at the U.S. Meat Animal Research Center

Question 6d. How many USDA employee vacancies were there on June
15, 2025 at the University of Nebraska's Agroecosystem Management
Research Unit, the Wheat, Sorghum and Forage Research Unit, and the
U.S. Meat Animal Research Center, respectfully?
Answer. Listed below are vacancies on June 15, 2025 (not including
seasonal fieldwork positions):

13 vacancies at the Agroecosystem Management Research Unit

3 vacancies at the Wheat, Sorghum and Forage Research Unit

27 vacancies at the U.S. Meat Animal Research Center

Question 6e. What steps will USDA take to fill unfilled positions
at these facilities?
Answer. USDA is committed to following all Presidential Memoranda
governing the hiring of Federal civilian employees within the Executive
Branch which states that ``no Federal civilian position that is
presently vacant may be filled, and no new position may be created''
unless specifically outlined in the memoranda or mandated by applicable
law. Any recruitment actions undertaken for any vacancies will meet
these specifications. Once approval to commence hiring is received, ARS
will implement the procedures detailed in the Merit Hiring Plan issued
by the Office of Personnel Management on May 29, 2025.

Question 6f. How many USDA employees at the University of
Nebraska's Agroecosystem Management Research Unit, the Wheat, Sorghum
and Forage Research Unit, and the U.S. Meat Animal Research Center, had
their employment terminated and reinstated between January 20, 2025,
and June 15, 2025, respectfully?
Answer. There were five probationary employees at the Agroecosystem
Management Research Unit, two probationary employees at the Wheat,
Sorghum & Forage Research Unit, and eleven probationary employees at
the U.S. Meat Animal Research Center. All eighteen employees were
offered reinstatement.

Question 6g. Of the USDA employees of the University of Nebraska's
Agroecosystem Management Research Unit, the Wheat, Sorghum and Forage
Research Unit, and the U.S. Meat Animal Research Center, who had their
employment terminated and reinstated between January 20, 2025, and June
15, 2025, how many have resigned or retired, respectfully?
Answer. Between January 20, 2025, and June 15, 2025, three
employees at the Agroecosystem Management Research Unit, two employees
at the Wheat, Sorghum & Forage Research Unit, and five employees at the
U.S. Meat Animal Research Center voluntarily left their position.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Tracey Mann, a Representative in Congress
from Kansas
Question 1. Thank you for your work to secure our border with
Mexico in regards to the New World Screwworm and the recent
announcement of a $21 million investment to produce additional sterile
flies to push this devastating parasite farther south from our nation's
borders. Can you provide us a timeline on when that facility in Metapa,
Mexico will be fully operational? If New World Screwworm makes its way
into the United States, what would be in your view the best response to
eradicate this parasite?
Answer. Mexico is planning for the Metapa facility to be
operational within an aggressive 12-18 month timeframe. Once completed,
the facility will serve as a sterile insect production site capable of
generating an additional 60-100 million sterile insects per week,
significantly boosting the regional supply and enhancing overall
capacity for sustained sterile fly release. Sterile insect technique
(SIT) remains a powerful component of the eradication strategy but
alone cannot effectively eradicate New World Screwworm. If NWS makes
its way into the United States, eradication will require robust field
surveillance, education and outreach to ensure prompt identification
and treatment, and strict animal movement controls, in addition to SIT.
USDA broke ground on a domestic sterile fly dispersal facility in Texas
and have begun developing plans for a potential domestic production
facility to increase readiness and provide the United States with
contingency capability. Furthermore, USDA is working rapidly to explore
new technologies and science for the production of sterile insects and
for NWS treatments.

Question 2. Biofuels markets provide critical domestic demand for
growers, but they have been impacted by surging levels of imported
products from China and Brazil that have diluted the American farmer's
position. To address this, I introduced the Farmer First Fuel
Incentives Act which would restrict foreign feedstocks from being
eligible for Federal tax credits for biofuels markets. This policy was
recently passed by the House as a part of our One Big Beautiful Bill,
and we hope that the Senate will maintain this restriction to ensure
that biofuels markets are structured the way Congress intends--with the
farmer at the front of the line. How does USDA view policies to protect
domestic feedstock producers, and how does the Administration feel
about tax dollars potentially being spent to subsidize foreign products
instead of American agriculture?
Answer. USDA supports advancing American energy security through
our domestic homegrown biofuels industry.
Question Submitted by Hon. Brad Finstad, a Representative in Congress
from Minnesota
Question. Recently the Minnesota Turkey Growers Association
commissioned a study that detailed the alarming economic impact of
avian metapneumovirus on Minnesota's ag economy. The study showed $112
million in lost turkey output, $17 million reduction in labor income,
$31 million in lost value added to the Minnesota economy, reduction in
tax revenue of nearly $8 million--all in 2024 alone.
These stark economic realities of aMPV have led MTGA and
Minnesota's turkey industry to request USDA open existing indemnity
programs, like LIP and ELAP, to help keep independent growers in
business until a robust and successful aMPV vaccination program can be
fully implemented.
Will you share a status update on that request?
Answer. USDA's Center for Veterinary Biologics has granted
emergency authorization for the use of both domestically produced
experimental autogenous aMPV vaccines and imported aMPV vaccines that
are unlicensed in the U.S.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Dan Newhouse, a Representative in Congress
from Washington
Question 1. The Marketing Assistance for Specialty Crops (MASC)
program is vital to producers in my district. Please provide an update
on the issuance of the second tranche of payments for this program that
was announced by USDA earlier this year.
Answer. USDA has issued the second round of MASC payments.

Question 2. Out-of-control and unsustainable labor cost increases
driven by the terms and conditions of the H-2A program is posing a
significant threat to the ability of many U.S. growers to continue to
produce healthy, American-made food. I have significant concerns with
the data collection method used by the Farm Labor Survey. The Survey
results are used by the Department of Labor to establish a government-
mandated wage for employers using the H-2A temporary foreign worker
program. Deficiencies in the data collection have contributed to non-
justifiable wage reporting that has greatly exacerbated unsustainable
increases to labor costs for H-2A users and made the program
inaccessible to some growers. Will you follow up on that pledge by
instructing NASS to:

a. Once again report a ``Field & Livestock Combined'' annual average
hourly base wage, as was done by USDA under the first Trump
Administration, but was halted by the Biden Administration;
and

b. Expand the survey's sample size and refine the survey's design to
increase clarity, brevity, and comprehension; and

c. Determine any degree to which the inclusion of wages paid to H-2A
workers affects the average hourly base wage, considering
regions where H-2A workers and those in corresponding
employment make up a larger or smaller percentage of the
agricultural workforce and:

d. Explore the ability to make an empirical assessment based on the
data collected as to whether the admission of H-2A workers
either benefit and protect domestic worker jobs in
agriculture or have an adverse effect.

e. Collaborate with their colleagues at USDA and DOL to ensure that
producers are appropriately educated and aware of the
impact of their participation.

Answer. I will commit to collaborating with the Department of Labor
and other relevant entities in the Executive branch to advocate for
necessary reforms to the H-2A program to make sure the program is
affordable and accessible for all growers who are unable to find a
domestic workforce.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Alma S. Adams, a Representative in Congress
from North Carolina
Question 1. Earlier this year, the USDA's 1890 National Scholars
Program was suspended, pending further review. I am pleased that the
USDA lifted the suspension. However, for this program to truly thrive,
scholars and institutions need assurance that it won't face sudden
suspensions again. I heard directly from representatives of 1890
Institutions, and they shared how deeply concerning this pause was for
them and their students--many of whom were left uncertain about their
financial stability and educational futures. That is why I introduced
the Land-Grant Institution Parity Act, with Congressman Figures on the
Committee, which protects Federal funding for our land-grant colleges
and universities, including the country's 19 land-grant HBCUs, commonly
referred to as 1890 Institutions.
Can I count on your commitment to work together in addressing the
real challenges and opportunities for our 1890s and HBCUs?
Answer. USDA remains committed to supporting our land-grant
institutions, including our 1890 land-grant universities, to ensure
they can continue to train the next generation of agriculturalists.
Additionally, I look forward to working with the White House and other
Federal agencies to continue implementing Executive Order 14283, White
House Initiative to Promote Excellence and Innovation at Historically
Black Colleges and Universities.

Question 2. The application deadline for the 1890s National
Scholars Program was March 15, 2025. From my understanding, in early
May 2025, approximately 700 applications had been received, but no
scholarships had yet been awarded.
How is the USDA addressing these applications to ensure a timely
selection process?
Answer. This year, USDA selected 29 student scholars based on
funding and workforce needs.

Question 2a. Could you please describe the criteria and review
processes being used to evaluate the applications?
Answer. Applications undergo an initial screening to confirm
submission of required materials and eligibility and then USDA
collaborates with 1890 land-grants to confirm admission eligibility
before forwarding qualified applications for agency review and
selection. USDA looks forward to identifying ways to improve this
process in the future.

Question 2b. Additionally, what is the projected timeline for
notifying applicants of scholarship decisions?
Answer. USDA notified all applicants of application status on
August 1, 2025.

Question 3. In addition to serving on this Committee, I also serve
on the House Education and Workforce Committee, which oversees the WIC
program. I was encouraged to see that it was one of the few programs to
receive an anomaly for the Continuing Resolution passed in March. I was
also pleased to see the recognition WIC received in the Make America
Healthy Again (MAHA) commissioned report for its critical role in
improving nutritional outcomes by providing access to healthy foods,
such as fruits and vegetables through the Cash Value Benefit, or CVB.
Research shows that increased consumption of fruits and vegetables is
linked to better health outcomes for families, including reduced risk
of maternal and infant mortality, improved nutrient intake, and long-
term prevention of diet-related chronic diseases.
Since the CVB increase in 2021, and later codified in the 2024 USDA
Final Rule, young children on WIC are now eating an additional \1/4\
cup of fruits and vegetables per day. Parents and caregivers say they
can afford a healthier diet, increase their variety of fruits and
vegetables, and serve their families more fruits and vegetables, all
thanks to the CVB.
However, recent proposals in President Trump's Fiscal Year 2026
budget request and the House Republicans Agriculture Appropriations
bill, call for cutting back the CVB to 2014 levels.
Given that increased CVB levels have helped families consume more
fruits and vegetables, do you believe that cutting funding for the CVB
would reduce families' access to and consumption of these healthy
foods? Yes or No.
Answer. I appreciate the value of the Special Supplemental
Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) to pregnant
and post-partum mothers and their children. WIC has a proven track
record of improving the health of nutritionally at-risk women, infants
and children. It ensures WIC participants receive nutritious
supplemental food purchases that are adjusted according to
participants' life stage nutritional needs, including support for
purchasing fresh fruits and vegetables, to promote health eating habits
and improved health outcomes.

Question 4. Secretary Rollins, you have approved three state waiver
requests to restrict SNAP purchases under pilot authority. These pilots
require robust evaluation to assess their impacts.
Given the stated goal of the MAHA initiative, will states be
required to evaluate individual-level health outcomes among SNAP
participants?
Answer. SNAP restriction waivers require an evaluation plan and
data reporting elements, which state agencies have some flexibility in
designing. State agencies will use various methods to evaluate the
pilot project and associated outcomes.

Question 4a. If not, what metrics will USDA use to determine
success after the 2 year pilot period?
Answer. States are required to develop an evaluation plan that
defines project success and outcomes, detailed data points and metrics
to be collected, and a description of how they will be analyzed.

Question 4b. What role, if any, are SNAP participants or community
organizations playing in the design and evaluation of these pilot
programs?
Answer. States are required to collect, measure, and analyze input
from a variety of stakeholders--including SNAP households, retailers,
and community-based organizations--through a variety of feedback
channels such as webinars, town halls, surveys, focus groups, and
public comment periods as they develop and evaluate the pilot.

Question 4c. How is USDA ensuring that these voices are reflected
in the development and review process?
Answer. FNS is meeting frequently with state agencies to discuss
opportunities and challenges associated with implementing the waiver.
State agencies are working collaboratively with retailers to develop
communication plans to ensure clear guidance, consistent messaging, and
effective outreach to customers. Retailers may request or recommend
educational signage and materials for use in stores.

Question 5. Secretary Rollins, pilot projects under SNAP are
permissible under the statute in order to test and evaluate different
ways to improve the program. Several of the SNAP restrictions waiver
requests from states outline that they will work with SNAP-Ed to define
the evaluations.
Given that the reconciliation bill eliminated SNAP-Ed, will you be
reevaluating those approvals?
Answer. SNAP restriction waivers are not dependent on the SNAP-Ed
program, and states have the flexibility to tailor evaluation plans
based on available resources.

Question 6. Secretary Rollins, you have approved six state waiver
requests to restrict SNAP purchases under pilot authority. In
establishing any pilot, robust evaluation measures are required to
determine the effects of the project.
Given the stated goal of these pilots to Make America Healthy
Again, will states be evaluating the health outcomes of individual SNAP
participants?

Question 6a. If not, how will USDA evaluate the outcome of the
pilots after 2 years?
Answer 6-6a. Like all SNAP demonstrations, states are required to
conduct an evaluation to determine the effects of these pilots. There
are many options in evaluating such a project, and the law does not
specify the scope and nature of a project's required evaluation. FNS is
encouraging states to work with SNAP-authorized retailers to secure
data on SNAP purchases, and to supplement this with data on the food
choices of participants to the extent possible.
While it is difficult to assess changes in individual long-term
health outcomes over the short duration of these pilots, existing
evidence is clear that dietary improvements can reduce chronic disease
risk over time. If states are able to identify changes in food
purchases and/or by SNAP participants that are correlated with the
scope or timing of the pilots, that would represent promising evidence
of potential positive impacts of changes to the definition of eligible
foods. More study would be needed to determine any causal links or
influences.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Nikki Budzinski, a Representative in
Congress from Illinois
Question 1. Once volumes are set, it is imperative that EPA take a
careful and judicious approach to Small Refinery Exemption (SRE)
petitions and ensure that biofuel blending volumes are not negatively
impacted by any action on pending SRE petitions. If mishandled, SREs
could short-circuit the RVO, destabilize farm economies, and wipe out
the benefits of a strong rule. We all saw a preview of the relationship
between blending volumes and agriculture markets in the last few weeks
when soybean prices fell by 28 and bean oil trading was halted all due
to a rumor about EPA's planned blending volumes and when EPA was forced
to publicly dispel a rumor that it would be approving all 169 pending
small refinery exemptions after RIN prices dropped precipitously.
Answer. Secretary Rollins is in consistent communication with
Administrator Zeldin and the White House about the importance of
biofuels to the farm and rural economy. Secretary Rollins is supportive
of Administrator Zeldin's proposed Renewable Fuel Standard with the
highest ever volume requirements for American grown biofuels. America's
national security depends on our energy security, and biofuels are a
crucial asset that bring more jobs and help farmers in rural America.
The Secretary will continue advocating for biofuels and for policies
that support a strong commodity market.

Question 2. Secretary Rollins, you serve on the Make America Health
Again Commission. I know you support the goal of making Americans
healthier--we all do. America's farmers and ranchers are a critical
part of solution here, not the problem. Now that the report is out,
what can you tell us about USDA's involvement in shaping the strategy
that the Commission will issue in August?
Answer. USDA recognizes the vital role of farmers to produce the
safest most abundant food supply in the world. The Trump Administration
remains steadfast in supporting continued access to safe, effective
solutions that enable our farmers and ranchers to feed, fuel, and
clothe the U.S. and the world.

Question 2a. Can you ensure that farmers have a seat at the table?
Answer. I commit is to continue working with American farmers to
ensure that our producers have a seat at the table.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Gabe Vasquez, a Representative in Congress
from New Mexico
Question 1. Wildfire severity and frequency has been increasing
over the past several decades, with more than double as many acres
burned on average per year from the 1990s to today. The USFS plays a
pivotal role in managing forests to prevent catastrophic wildfire and
in fighting fires when they grow out of control or threaten communities
and approximately 75% of USFS staff are trained in wildland
firefighting. While catastrophic wildfire is increasing, USFS staff has
been severely cut during this Administration, with 25% of staff either
resigning, being laid off, or accepting early retirement.
Do you feel that USFS has the staffing necessary to adequately
suppress catastrophic wildfire and protect communities throughout the
west from the unfettered spread of wildfire?
Answer. In support of the President's vision and the Secretary's
direction, the Forest Service worked with OPM to exempt wildland fire
hiring from the national hiring pause. The agency has nearly met our
target of having 11,300 firefighters on board for the summer peak.

Question 2. The President's FY26 skinny budget proposes changes to
eliminate the U.S. Forest Service's Research and Development (R&D)
deputy area. The R&D program works at the forefront of science to
inform the management of our nation's 193 million acres of forests and
grasslands. R&D work is also foundational to forest product innovations
and essential market analyses. The R&D team (which, at the beginning of
this year was made up of about 2,000 people nationwide including a
center in Albuquerque) also develops predictive wildfire models,
including one for hazardous fuels treatments which returns $7 in
benefits for every $1 in Federal funds invested. The USFS R&D office in
Albuquerque generates research around forest health, wood beetles, and
informs land managers about forest conditions. Forest Service R&D leads
the world in forest research and the private sector is not likely to
fill its role.
Do you believe that up to date locally based scientific research is
important to informed natural resource management?
Answer. USDA recognizes that sound decision-making incorporates a
multitude of factors. The Department supports research that is aligned
to the Agency's land management focus through the Forest Inventory and
Analysis program. We will also continue to leverage the tremendous work
of universities we have traditionally partnered with to deliver world-
class research.

Question 2a. We are hearing that USFS Research and Development is
being effectively eliminated. How are you ensuring that forest
landowners and managers have adequate science to manage the nation's
private and public forests?
Answer. The FY 2026 Budget terminates the Forest and Rangeland
Research program to ensure fiscal responsibility with taxpayer dollars
and appropriate alignment of resources with the Forest Service's
responsibility to steward National Forest System lands. The eliminated
programs in this account were out of step with the practical needs of
forest management for timber production. The long-standing census of
forest resources and conditions through the Forest Inventory and
Analysis program would continue under the National Forest System
account to ensure that it is aligned with the practical needs of active
forest management for timber production. The Joint Fire Science program
was also maintained and would be moved to the DOI as part of the
proposal for a new U.S. Wildland Fire Service.

Question 2b. We are currently in peak wildfire season in New
Mexico. Do you feel USDA and USFS have adequate research, science, and
staff to ensure that communities in the state are supported in forest
management to prevent catastrophic wildfire?
Answer. The Budget fully supports the President's bold actions in
Executive Order 14225, ``Immediate Expansion of American Timber
Production,'' to improve forest management and increase domestic timber
production, and the Administration's goal of restoring federalism by
empowering states to assume a greater role in managing forest lands
within their borders. The requested funding level supports the highest
priorities in forest management, including timber sales and hazardous
fuels removal. Further, implementation of Executive Order 14308,
``Empowering Commonsense Wildfire Prevention and Response,'' will
reform the Federal approach to wildland fire management, creating
operational efficiencies for the Federal wildfire mission and
streamlining efforts around risk mitigation and coordination with non-
Federal partners to combat the wildfire crisis.

Question 3. Prescribed fire is a vital component of forest
management and plays an irreplaceable role in preventing severe
wildfire. We have concerns that the USFS is rolling back their
commitment to doing prescribed fire work on federally owned and managed
lands.
What are the current USFS authorities for conducting prescribed
fire on USFS lands, and is the agency committed to continuing to
utilize prescribed burning as a tool for proactive forest management?
Answer. The Forest Service conducts prescribed fires as tool to
manage National Forest System Lands with these authorities and
direction: Organic Administration Act of 1897 (Citation: 16 U.S.C.
475); Weeks Act of 1911 (16 U.S.C. 552, 563); Clarke-McNary Act of
1924 (16 U.S.C. 564 et seq.); National Forest Management Act of 1976
(16 U.S.C. 1600-1614); Federal Land Policy and Management Act of
1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.); Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et
seq.); Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (16 U.S.C. 6501 et
seq.); various Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Acts (often
include specific line items for hazardous fuels reduction and fire
management); and United States Forest Service Manual and Directives
(Forest Service Manual (FSM) 5100--Fire Management). The agency is
committed to continuing to use this tool as a component of forest
management.

Question 4. The President's budget proposes eliminating the Forest
Service's State, Private, and Tribal Forestry branch, save for the
Forest Inventory and Analysis program. The State, Private, and Tribal
Forestry branch is responsible for absolutely essential cross-boundary
forest work that promotes watershed health and drinking water
availability, ample timber production, and fire resilient landscapes
across the nation. In other words, this branch is responsible for
generating tremendous public good on private lands for all Americans to
benefit from. It helps prevent the deadly spread of forest pests and
diseases and leads fire management on behalf of the Federal Government.
If this branch were to be eliminated, Americans can say goodbye to the
cooperative forestry programs that promote forest management and keep
forests as forests, instead of parking lots.
What reasons can you give for why these programs that provide
outsized benefit to the American people should be eliminated?
Answer. The President has pledged to manage National Forests for
their intended purpose of producing timber. The Budget reduces funding
for the Forest and Rangeland Research program because it is out of step
with the practical needs of forest management for timber production,
but maintains funding for Forest Inventory and Analysis, a longstanding
census of forest resources and conditions.

Question 5. The President's FY26 Budget proposes zeroing out the
NRCS discretionary technical assistance budget. Conservation technical
assistance, or CTA, pays for the field conservation professionals who
provide tailored conservation solutions to producers who request them.
These key field staff work directly with farmers and ranchers to assess
their specific conservation needs, and their expert advice is one of
the most cost-effective avenues for conservation gains.
What is your plan to ensure that NRCS will have adequate staff to
be able to meet the steep producer demand for locally tailored
conservation solutions?
Answer. Farmers will continue to receive conservation technical
assistance funded from the following farm bill programs: the
Environmental Quality Incentives Program, the Conservation Stewardship
Program, the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program, the Regional
Conservation Partnership Program, and the Agricultural Management
Assistance Program. NRCS partners with state conservation agencies,
local conservation districts, and third-party private sector entities
(known as Technical Service Providers). The Conservation Technical
Assistance program will be realigned to reflect the total salaries and
expenses needed to provide technical assistance to deliver programs
authorized by Congress. Multiple funding sources will contribute to the
salaries and expenses needed to fund the NRCS workforce.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Josh Riley, a Representative in Congress
from New York
Question 1. During the hearing, you stated that it was your
understanding that no contracts between USDA and farmers in New York's
19th Congressional District (NY-19) remained suspended.
Please confirm that your understanding is correct (i.e., that all
contracts between USDA and farmers in NY-19 have resumed). If it is not
correct, please explain that.

Question 1a. Please provide a list of any contracts between USDA
and farmers in NY-19 that had been suspended or terminated since
January 20, 2025, so that I can follow up with the affected farmers to
ensure they are receiving all the support they need.
Answer 1-1a. There are no suspended contracts between USDA and the
roughly 4,500 farmers in New York's 19th Congressional District.

Question 2. America's immigration system is a complete mess. We
must secure America's borders after years of the Biden Administration's
failure to do so. And, consistent with Due Process and the
Constitution, we should remove people who commit violent crimes while
unlawfully present in the United States. However, the farmers I
represent (many of whom have supported you and the President in the
past) are very concerned that your Administration's immigration
enforcement actions will sweep too broadly and result in the
deportation of hardworking, law-abiding farmworkers, many of whom have
been working on Upstate New York's farms for many years. Removing these
immigrants would devastate our agriculture economy and tear apart our
rural communities. As you know, many farmworkers are here unlawfully
not because they are ``criminals'' but rather because politicians from
both parties have completely failed to fix our nation's broken
immigration system. For example, if our immigration laws made any
sense--which they don't--we would have visas for dairy workers to milk
the cows year-round. But since politicians have failed to fix the laws,
family farmers have been put to an impossible choice of either hiring
undocumented labor or going out of business. I was very encouraged to
read a New York Times article days after your hearing in which the
President announced that he would stop immigration raids on farms and
other agricultural sites, reportedly as a result of your counsel to
him. I'd welcome the opportunity to work with you to update our
immigration laws in a way that best supports Upstate New York's family
farms. In the meantime, can you please confirm that the Administration
will not deport any farmworker or farmworkers' immediate family member
in NY-19 who (1) has not committed a crime (aside from unlawfully
entering or remaining present) and (2) is endorsed by his or her family
farm employer? The many family farms I represent need and deserve that
assurance from you and the Administration.
Answer. The President has been unequivocal that there will be no
amnesty, and I think that's very important. It is possible for our
farmers to be successful through a combination of American labor,
foreign workers that come legally to our country, and increased
automation. Some reform within the current governing structure
concerning the visa process will also be necessary.

[all]