SENATE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, & FORESTRY
HEARING ON USDA REORGANIZATION PROPOSAL
For questions on the note below, please contact the Delta Strategy Group team.
On July 30, the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry held a hearing to review the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) reorganization proposal, with Deputy Secretary of Agriculture Stephen Vaden as the sole witness. A copy of Deputy Secretary Vaden’s opening statement is available here, with Chairman Boozman’s (R-AR) opening statement available here and Ranking Member Klobuchar’s (D-MN) available here.
Below is a summary of the hearing prepared by Delta Strategy Group, which includes several high-level takeaways, followed by summaries of opening statements and discussion.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
- Chairman Boozman (R-AR) praised Secretary Rollins’ implementation of emergency assistance and disaster relief, alongside her support for farm safety net programs, crop insurance, research, and trade promotion under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA). He supported the goals within the USDA reorganization proposal focused on effectiveness, accountability, service enhancement, and waste reduction, but emphasized the need to assess its impact on USDA’s rural presence and necessary services to producers.
- Senator Marshall (R-KS) defended President Trump’s tariff strategy, stating that the tariffs are working and have enabled trade deals that will open previously inaccessible markets. He raised how it will result in increased U.S. market access and new opportunities, citing expanded ethanol exports to the EU and UK, with forty percent of the U.S. corn crop going to ethanol. He framed how tariffs are driving and will deliver long-term benefits for U.S. agriculture through long-term trade agreements.
- Discussions cited the USDA buildings’ history of low occupancy and telework, with Deputy Secretary Vaden referencing how the Use It Act, passed by the Senate 97-1 during the Biden administration, mandated all government buildings to meet at least sixty percent occupancy. He cited the USDA South Building’s highest occupancy as 36.9 percent, and how not one of USDA’s buildings in the National Capital Region (NCR) meets the congressionally mandated occupancy rate.
- Deputy Secretary Vaden stated that USDA expects to save at least $4 billion under the reorganization plan, including $1.9 billion in net savings from the Deferred Resignation Program (DRP) and $2.2 billion in avoided deferred maintenance costs by vacating four NCR buildings. Regarding the proposed relocation of USDA employees and five hubs, Deputy Secretary Vaden raised how the hardest problem that any federal agency faces, not limited to USDA, is talent retention. He emphasized that the cost of living in Washington, D.C., is prohibitive to government employees.
- Senators Van Hoeven (R-ND) and Fischer (R-NE) emphasized that to accomplish a major reorganization, Congress will need to be a partner to provide resources and perhaps additional authorities. They called for Deputy Secretary Vaden’s commitment that, moving forward, USDA will be proactive in engagement with the Agriculture Committee alongside the Appropriations Committee. Several Senators expressed their disappointment about how the reorganization proposal was rolled out, as they criticized the lack of engagement with Congress prior to Secretary Rollins’ announcement.
- Democrats, led by Ranking Member Klobuchar (D-MN), criticized the USDA’s reorganization proposal, specifically that USDA employees, agricultural stakeholders, and Congress were not consulted prior to the proposal being released. Ranking Member Klobuchar entered a letter into the record from the American Federation of Government Employees in opposition of the reorganization due to the impact on the workforce in repeated calls for an impact assessment and cost-benefit analysis.
SUMMARY
Opening Statements and Testimony
Chairman John Boozman (R-AR)
Last week, Secretary Rollins announced a major reorganization of USDA. I support the goals and appreciate the Secretary’s emphasis on improving effectiveness, accountability, enhancing services, reducing bureaucracy, and cutting waste. As we examine the proposal, we need to fully understand how reorganization will affect USDA’s boots-on-the-ground presence in rural America and delivery of essential services. As the department evolves to meet 21st-century challenges, it is important that any organization enhances its ability to deliver on these commitments. We must also prioritize what matters most to producers in rural communities: service, responsiveness, and results. USDA is often the most visible face of the federal government in rural America. That presence, whether through FSA offices, conservation staff, or rural development programs, needs to be preserved and empowered.
Ranking Member Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)
I support efforts to make USDA work, but I do not think getting rid of 15,000 employees, which has already happened because of early buyouts and firings, is good for agriculture. I do not think that these tariffs, which have dried up markets when producers are already working on thin margins, have been good for agriculture. Coordinated action and influence for rural America and agriculture does not mean just being close to where the producers are. We have ninety percent of the employees already out in the field, but what you all are planning on doing, or proposing to us, is to take that other ten percent, break them down, and send them to five different hubs, including a state that is not in the top ten for agriculture or even close. Whittling down USDA’s resources to crucial work puts rural America at a disadvantage when they do not have people in the room where it happens. The previous relocation of the Economic Research Service (ERS) and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) was nothing short of a disaster. A 2023 report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) underscores the threat these short-sighted actions have on USDA stakeholders. GAO explicitly stated, based on this much smaller relocation, that ERS produced fewer key reports and that NIFA took longer to process grants because of relocation. Vacating long-standing research labs and pushing researchers out of federal service will threaten the innovation that farmers demand and need.
USDA Deputy Secretary Stephen Vaden
The Secretary’s plan proposes relocating 2,600 employees from the NCR to five hubs around the country. From January 2021 to January 2025, 2,200 employees left Washington, D.C. There was no congressional notice, outcry, or Committee hearing. For more than 1,700 days, extending beyond any fair definition of the COVID pandemic, USDA was on a maximum telework footing. Both career and political leadership rarely set foot in USDA’s headquarters. Staff moved away from the NCR and expected not to be asked to return. Ninety percent of USDA’s current staff report to work outside the NCR. We propose to add approximately 2.5 percent to that number. The heart of USDA is in the field, and the maximum number of people possible should report to work there. USDA has a total of 4,754 facilities at which its employees report to work every day, and the Secretary’s proposal calls for closing exactly four. We followed congressional intent in determining which to close. On January 4th, President Biden signed into law the Use It Act. It passed the Senate 97-1, with the only Senator who voted against it not sitting on this Committee. The Act requires that all buildings leased or owned by a government agency should be at least sixty percent occupied. Not a single one of USDA’s buildings in the NCR meets this congressionally mandated sixty percent occupancy rate. USDA is following the law this body passed. I understand the consternation some Committee members have with the fact that they received notification at the same time USDA’s employees did. There was a thought behind that, and that was that the employees are the ones who are most directly affected by the Secretary’s decision. Out of common courtesy and respect, they should hear that decision from the Secretary first and not from a leak that originates from somewhere else. USDA’s entire focus of its reorganization efforts has been on voluntary decisions by employees. The Secretary has been frank with employees about budgetary requirements and what the administration’s expectations are so they can make the best decisions for themselves. That will continue to be USDA’s guidepost. We understand the need to work with Congress. The thirty-day notification period required by law ensures that now is the time for us to receive feedback from stakeholders, employees, and Congress.
DISCUSSION
Chairman Boozman (R-AR): What can you tell us about the thirty-day period and the timeline afterward? Vaden: We have a thirty-day period of consultation that is required by statute, and we are going to honor every day of that. As schedules allow, both the Secretary and myself will travel to all five proposed hub locations. We will be engaging in further conversations with USDA’s eight mission areas, as well as agency leadership, on connecting the right functions of each agency and mission area to a particular hub location. Throughout this process, we will consult with our employees, our stakeholders, and Congress.
Chairman Boozman (R-AR): Can you tell us how this plan will improve programs for the agriculture community and rural areas? Vaden: It is going to allow us to build the next generation of USDA leadership. The hardest problem that any federal agency faces, and this is not limited to USDA, is talent retention. The cost of living here in Washington, D.C., is prohibitive to government employees.
Ranking Member Klobuchar (D-MN): Did you consult with the American Farm Bureau or National Farmers’ Union before releasing this plan? Did you consult with or submit this plan to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)? Vaden: No, the Secretary’s memorandum was the first step, and the consultation process has just begun. A plan was submitted to OMB, and they are aware of our current plan.
Ranking Member Klobuchar (D-MN): Do you believe vacating research sites, eliminating offices, and losing researchers will improve outcomes for farmers who depend on this research? Vaden: Ninety of 94 ARS research labs are unaffected by the Secretary’s memorandum. Further, the memorandum states in its plain text that what will go on in Beltsville will take place over a period of years and in a way that does not interfere with any ongoing research.
Ranking Member Klobuchar (D-MN): Do you believe these actions will make the U.S. more competitive in agriculture globally, especially regarding research? How will you ensure critical research projects do not suffer? Vaden: Absolutely, I do. On a government salary, government employees cannot afford to start a quality life in Washington D.C.
Senator Van Hoeven (R-ND): Where are we in the process, and will you work with Congress, both the authorizing and appropriations Committees, as Secretary Rollins committed? Vaden: This is the first step, not the final step. We are now accepting feedback, and we want to hear from you.
Senator Van Hoeven (R-ND): Is this a process where we are still going to work together on an outcome, or is this an outcome that we are just going to talk about, but it is fait accompli? Vaden: The memorandum has built-in flexibility. It lays out a vision, but then there is a line that says the vision and the plans laid out here can change.
Senator Bennet (D-CO): Will you and the Secretary make time to meet with people on the ground in local communities and at research institutions, and consult with them to help apply as much imagination as possible to this work? Vaden: We want to build in every force multiplier that we can. That is one of the reasons why we think this plan is such a good idea to get people into the field with the people whom they serve. It is easier to collaborate, and it is easier to multiply efforts. It is that in-person collaboration that we are trying to spark.
Senator Hyde-Smith (R-MS): What assurances can you provide that any proposal finalized by USDA will not negatively impact the Stoneville ARS facility, given that the Southeast Area Office supports sixty research units? Vaden: The fact that the memorandum indicates that we are removing a level of middle management between the people on the ground who actually do the work and the people who ultimately are responsible for overseeing it does not mean that automatically everyone who is located in a former regional office of an agency will be moved.
Senator Smith (D-MN): What are the administration’s plans for the two ARS facilities in Minnesota? Vaden: With regard to the labs themselves, as a result of the Secretary’s plan and the President’s budget, which is currently pending before Congress, ninety of 94 ARS labs will remain untouched by this reorganization.
Senator Smith (D-MN): Does the administration commit to maintaining rural development as a USDA mission area rather than having it get farmed out to other agencies across the federal government? Vaden: You have committed champions in rural development at USDA in myself and Secretary Rollins. State-level offices for rural development are unaffected by this memorandum. We are going to leave the county-level footprint alone as a result of this memorandum. That not only goes for rural development, but also for FSA.
Senator Tuberville (R-AL): Do we have any estimates of how much this is going to cost the federal government and American taxpayers for USDA moving people around? Have we looked into that at all, such as expensive repairs needed to buildings? Vaden: We do have an estimate regarding how much at a minimum we expect to save once costs are taken into account, and that is approximately $4 billion. That is before we consider the lower cost of living for employees, and the lower lease rates we will pay in the five hubs. The full value will be known when the plan is finalized after consultation with Congress.
Senator Welch (D-VT): How can I be confident this plan is about empowering local communities rather than decimating an already severely cut-back workforce? If you believe in local control, why do you fire local people? Vaden: The language in the memorandum puts a thumb on the scale against future Reductions in Force (RIFs) and specifically notes that there can be no RIFs under this reorganization unless it is personally approved by me.
Senator Welch (D-VT): Can you address the concern that there is an imbalance between support, or regional variations in resource allocation? Vaden: This reorganization plan is not meant to preferentially advantage or disadvantage any particular sector of agriculture. If there are things that we can do better or if there are programmatic ideas we can provide technical assistance on, please call me.
Senator Marshall (R-KS): How will customer service be impacted by USDA employees moving, given past concerns about reports getting clogged in D.C. and the value of staff being embedded in local farm communities? Vaden: We agree with you that the level of service will improve, and Congress legislated on this point.
Senator Fischer (R-NE): Will you commit that, moving forward, USDA will be proactive in engagement with this committee and the appropriations committee, recognizing that Congress will need to be a partner to provide resources and possibly additional authorities to accomplish a major reorganization? Vaden: The Secretary’s memorandum was the first step, not the final step. It was essentially the green flag, not the checkered flag. Now, we have entered the thirty-day statutorily required period, having given notice to you of our intentions to reorganize USDA, to hear from you. As Senator Hoeven noted, he is coming to meet with me later today, and I will be happy to meet with other members of this committee who have similar concerns, ideas, or efficiencies that they want to share with us so we can make our plan better.
Senator Moran (R-KS): Do you anticipate moving any functions of Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs (TFAA) or Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) outside D.C.? Vaden: I do not want to give a definitive answer, but TFAA’s mission area, which Congress instructed us to create in the 2018 Farm Bill, is special, as most of its focus is international rather than domestic. Given the specific focus of that agency, while I cannot guarantee that there will not be some employee who gets relocated, that it might be among the lesser affected mission areas.
Senator Fetterman (R-PA): Are you willing to commit to covering all relocation expenses for USDA staff who choose to move or are forced to move as part of this plan? Vaden: Congress has a cap that they have put by statute on the maximum amount of relocation assistance that we can provide. However, within that range, we do have quite a lot of flexibility, and it is our intent to cover these employees’ expenses within the bounds set by Congress.
Senator Ernst (R-IA): Can you expand on the main factors that led USDA to consolidate offices in the D.C. region and move those positions to other states? Vaden: We were focusing on telework, the inefficiencies it created, and the vastly empty government buildings that dot D.C. before it was cool. That was the Biden administration and USDA for the past four years. Even when we have all of our employees in the office, we are still not reaching the Congressionally mandated threshold of sixty percent occupancy, which is not a high bar.