A Nomination Hearing was held Tuesday morning, Feb. 2, to consider 70-year-old Thomas J. Vilsack for the Secretary of Agriculture position. Both Senator Joni Ernst and Senator Chuck Grassley, along with many other representatives from across the nation, participated in the event, asking many questions as to what he would support and the policies he would promote.
Grassley had the distinct privilege of introducing Vilsack.
“I know that he knows agriculture very well. He knows the importance of maintaining the institution of the family farm,” Grassley said as he pointed out there are more than 88,000 family farms in Iowa alone. “Family farms are the foundation of success for American Agriculture.”
Grassley also noted that Vilsack in the past has served as the Mayor of Mt. Pleasant, IA, during the 1980s farm crisis, is a former two-term Governor of Iowa, and spent eight years as the Secretary of Agriculture during the Obama administration, amongst other qualifications.
“He knows how to faithfully execute the laws of the Department of Agriculture…should he be confirmed (as the Secretary of Agriculture), and I think he will, his experience from the 1980s farm crisis will serve him well at this time of more family farms being under distress,” Grassley added.
Vilsack is honored for the nomination, saying “When I was getting involved in politics, I followed Robert Kennedy and sort of modeled my views after his and he often challenged us to think about ‘Why not?’ He used to quote ‘Some people look at things as they are and say ‘Why?’ and others dream of things that never were and say ‘Why not?’ I think we are faced today with a number of ‘Why not?’ opportunities and moments in agriculture, in the food industry, and in rural America.”
Vilsack went on to state what he believes some of those “Why not?” moments include:
-
The Department of Agriculture has to be responsible to aggressively look at nutrition insecurities and assistance.
-
They have to review additional COVID relief funding and get money into the hands of farmers, ranchers, producers, and rural America as quickly and efficiently as possible.
-
They have to make sure essential workers in agriculture are protected and safe.
-
They have to work with Congress and others to rebuild the rural economy and put it in better shape than even before COVID.
-
They have to address climate change.
-
They need to address the openness and fairness of markets.
-
And finally, a zero tolerance for descrimation and the burden of poverty.
-
“You bring a unique perspective to this position,” said Senator Ernst when it was her turn to speak during the hearing. “Not only have you had the opportunity to serve as our Agriculture Secretary before, but of course more importantly for Senator Grassley and I, you bring a unique perspective being from Iowa. My hope is that if confirmed to the position again, that you will stand firm for our farmers and ranchers in Iowa as you work to implement the new policies of this new administration.”
Ernst proceeded to ask Vilsack bio-fuels, noting a recent study that showed greenhouse gas emissions from corn ethanol (with a large production base in Iowa) are 46% lower than gas, yet an executive order roughly two weeks ago was issued to change the fleet of federal vehicles to electric.
“Will you be directing USDA to purchase Tesla trucks that run on electricity or will you be supporting our farmers and purchase Ford F-150s that run on E85 (ethanol)?” she asked him.
Vilsack responded, “I don’t think it’s an either or circumstance. I think there’s an opportunity to advance both.”
He explained that even if electric cars are purchased, there will still be a need for biofuels in the “foreseeable future.” They would look for expanded opportunities to use biofuels as well as continued need for them to power ships, plans, and non-electric vehicles people still have. He said he also believes there will still be opportunities to promote rural renewable energy.
Ernst said her concern is that Obama made renewable fuel promises in Iowa that were never carried out.
“Get the renewal of the RFS done,” Ernst requested of Vilsack.
Grassley also asked about biofuels in relation to the CARES Act I issued last March. He stated that $24.5 billion was issued to help ag and food distribution for lower income people, but they also tried to get the previous Ag Secretary to use some of that money for biofuel. That individual said he did not have the authority to do that. Grassley explained that in the CARES Act II issued just before Christmas, that provision for authority was included.
“Would you assist us to get money to the biofuel producers,” he questioned Grassley.
“It’s about strong markets,” Vilsack said.
Another concern to Grassley was beef producers. He explained to Vilsack that four companies currently control over 80% of beef processing…which he said lead to a shortage of meat in the grocery stores and producers with “no bids on their animals.”
“Would you try to reinstate the Fair Market Practice rule,” Grassley questioned if Vilsack is indeed confirmed as the Secretary of Agriculture?
Vilsack said they would need to take a look at ways to provide incentives to expand the number of beef processors and help farmers and ranchers feeling like they aren’t getting a fair shake.
One final question presented by Grassley was about crop incentives.
“We continue to see large farms use loopholes to maximize crop insurance payments. I’ve long advocated for the responsible payment limitation commodity programs,” Grassley said. “I believe farmers should only receive payments if they’re actually engaged on the farm and running the farm and working the farm.”
He wanted to know what Vilsack thought were appropriate hours for someone to work on the farm to qualify for farm payments?
Vilsack said his goal would be to get that money to the “farmers on the ground” and at risk, not to the people/farmers who are part of a partnership structure.
By Tuesday afternoon, the Senate Agriculture Committee had already unanimously approved Vilsack’s nomination for ag secretary, leading to a vote by the full U.S. Senate that required a simple majority.
