TO REVIEW THE STATE OF THE RURAL ECONOMY WITH AGRICULTURE SECRETARY TOM VILSACK
Summary
The printed record of a Committee on Agriculture hearing, Serial No. 117-26, on January 20, 2022, titled "To Review the State of the Rural Economy with Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack." Chairman David Scott of Georgia presided, and Ranking Minority Member Glenn Thompson gave an opening statement. Scott's prepared statement seeks updates on pandemic relief programs including the American Rescue Plan, disaster assistance and the 2018 Farm Bill. The witness was Secretary of Agriculture Thomas J. Vilsack, whose material describes over $1 billion under American Rescue Plan Section 1006 for underserved communities and an Equity Commission. Submitted letters include ones from Jim Nussle of the Credit Union National Association and James D. Ogsbury of the Western Governors' Association.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Cite this document
“TO REVIEW THE STATE OF THE RURAL ECONOMY WITH AGRICULTURE SECRETARY TOM VILSACK.”
Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/to-review-the-state-of-the-rural-economy-with-agriculture-secretary-to-eae5dcbdc1/
, SHA-256 108fd30d6e897a660259331c5a59e998f1ff11e9aeca90add7507230c221f122.Full text
[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
TO REVIEW THE STATE OF THE RURAL
ECONOMY WITH AGRICULTURE SECRETARY
TOM VILSACK
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JANUARY 20, 2022
__________
Serial No. 117-26
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture
agriculture.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
48-753PDF WASHINGTON : 2022
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
DAVID SCOTT, Georgia, Chairman
JIM COSTA, California GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania,
JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts Ranking Minority Member
FILEMON VELA, Texas AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina, Vice ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD,
Chair Arkansas
ABIGAIL DAVIS SPANBERGER, Virginia SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee
JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri
ANTONIO DELGADO, New York DOUG LaMALFA, California
SHONTEL M. BROWN, Ohio RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia
CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina
GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, TRENT KELLY, Mississippi
Northern Mariana Islands DON BACON, Nebraska
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire DUSTY JOHNSON, South Dakota
CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana
SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York JIM HAGEDORN, Minnesota
STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands CHRIS JACOBS, New York
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona TROY BALDERSON, Ohio
SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas
RO KHANNA, California TRACEY MANN, Kansas
AL LAWSON, Jr., Florida RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa
J. LUIS CORREA, California MARY E. MILLER, Illinois
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota BARRY MOORE, Alabama
JOSH HARDER, California KAT CAMMACK, Florida
CYNTHIA AXNE, Iowa MICHELLE FISCHBACH, Minnesota
KIM SCHRIER, Washington JULIA LETLOW, Louisiana
JIMMY PANETTA, California
SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
______
Anne Simmons, Staff Director
Parish Braden, Minority Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Baird, Hon. James R., a Representative in Congress from Indiana,
submitted letter............................................... 84
Brown, Hon. Shontel M., a Representative in Congress from Ohio,
prepared statement............................................. 4
Cloud, Hon. Michael, a Representative in Congress from Texas,
submitted articles............................................. 87
Hartzler, Hon. Vicky, a Representative in Congress from Missouri,
submitted letter............................................... 83
Kuster, Hon. Ann M., a Representative in Congress from New
Hampshire, submitted letter.................................... 79
Letlow, Hon. Julia, a Representative in Congress from Louisiana,
submitted letter............................................... 102
Scott, Hon. David, a Representative in Congress from Georgia,
opening statement.............................................. 1
Prepared statement........................................... 2
Submitted letter............................................. 79
Hon. Glenn Thompson, a Representative in Congress from
Pennsylvania, opening statement................................ 2
Witness
Vilsack, Hon. Thomas ``Tom'' J., Secretary, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Washington, D.C................................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Supplementary material....................................... 126
Submitted questions.......................................... 146
Submitted Material
Nussle, Jim, President and Chief Executive Office, Credit Union
National Association, submitted letter......................... 129
Ogsbury, James D., Executive Director, Western Governors'
Association, submitted letter.................................. 130
Turner, Jessica, President, Outdoor Recreation Roundtable,
submitted letter............................................... 144
TO REVIEW THE STATE OF THE RURAL ECONOMY WITH AGRICULTURE SECRETARY
TOM VILSACK
----------
THURSDAY, JANUARY 20, 2022
House of Representatives,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:00 a.m., in Room
1300 of the Longworth House Office Building and via Zoom, Hon.
David Scott of Georgia [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Members present: Representatives David Scott of Georgia,
Costa, McGovern, Adams, Spanberger, Hayes, Delgado, Brown,
Rush, Pingree, Kuster, Bustos, Maloney, Plaskett, O'Halleran,
Carbajal, Khanna, Lawson, Craig, Harder, Axne, Schrier,
Panetta, Bishop, Thompson, Austin Scott of Georgia, DesJarlais,
Hartzler, LaMalfa, Davis, Allen, Rouzer, Kelly, Bacon, Johnson,
Baird, Hagedorn, Jacobs, Balderson, Cloud, Mann, Feenstra,
Miller, Moore, Cammack, Fischbach, and Letlow.
Staff present: Lyron Blum-Evitts, Prescott Martin III, Anne
Simmons, Ashley Smith, Parish Braden, Caleb Crosswhite, Josh
Maxwell, Patricia Straughn, Jennifer Tiller, and Dana Sandman.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID SCOTT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM GEORGIA
The Chairman. The Committee hearing will come to order.
I want to welcome everyone, and I want to thank you for
joining us today to have our hearing, which is entitled, To
Review the State of the Rural Economy with Agriculture
Secretary Tom Vilsack. After brief opening remarks, Members
will receive testimony from our witness today, and then the
hearing will be open to questions. Without objection, the chair
may recess the Committee, subject to the call of the chair at
any point during this hearing.
And now, I just want to give my brief opening statement. I
want to welcome everyone who are watching this hearing today,
and I would like to start by, first of all, extending a warm
greeting to my dear friend, Secretary Vilsack. And we are
delighted to have you with us today, Secretary.
Now, a key function of our House Agriculture Committee is
to conduct oversight and ensure that the Executive Branch is
implementing Congressionally authorized programs as they are
intended. One other thing, the Secretary has a hard stop at
2:00 p.m., and also, when we return after our work period, we
will begin to take up the 2023 Farm Bill.
[The prepared statement of Mr. David Scott follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. David Scott, a Representative in Congress
from Georgia
Good morning, and welcome to all who are watching the hearing
today. I would like to start by extending a warm welcome and return to
my friend and our witness today, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack.
A key function of our House Agriculture Committee is to conduct
oversight and ensure that the Executive Branch is implementing
Congressionally authorized programs as intended. Today, I hope to hear
critical updates on the implementation of pandemic relief programs,
including the American Rescue Plan, and the status of disaster
assistance, as well as updates on the implementation of the 2018 Farm
Bill.
With that, I yield to the Ranking Member for any opening remarks he
may have.
The Chairman. Secretary, with that, we are going to hear
from our Ranking Member with any opening remarks he has.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GLENN THOMPSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Thompson. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Mr. Secretary, good to see you. Welcome to Capitol Hill.
Glad to have you here.
Mr. Chairman, thanks for holding today's hearing and thank
you, Secretary Vilsack, for traveling to Washington, D.C. to
join us.
This Committee is well overdue for a general audience with
you, and I want to mention in advance that I appreciate your
willingness to appear before us to respond to each Members'
questions and concerns.
Mr. Secretary, I was pleased and hopeful when President
Biden asked you to join his team. Your experience during
President Obama's Administration, and quite frankly, the years
in between was appreciated, and like that of your predecessor,
would continue to cultivate and execute the policies necessary
to make rural America thrive.
As I travel the country, those who produce the food, the
fiber, and the energy that keeps this country running are
telling me a different story. Unfortunately, I am also seeing
it firsthand throughout my home State of Pennsylvania.
Now, President Biden has fostered an agenda that is kind of
rife for executive overreach and regulatory uncertainty, and a
far-left ideology that just doesn't align with the hardworking
men and women who enrich our nation and our world. Mr.
Secretary, our constituents want a government that works for
them as an advocate for their businesses, their products, their
livelihoods, and I will tell you at this stage, folks do not
believe this Administration is in their corner.
Farmers, ranchers, foresters, and consumers are battling
significant supply chain disruptions and rising energy and
input costs, increasing inflation, and longstanding labor
shortages, and these strains exacerbate the ongoing challenges
of production agriculture.
As you know, Mr. Secretary, our communities are looking for
solutions, and they don't need onerous Federal regulatory
burdens and mounds of new red tape from WOTUS and NEPA to
controversial livestock rules and other regulatory action. That
is what they and we are witnessing. Our nation's ability to
provide its citizens and the world with the safest, most
affordable, and abundant food and fiber supply is our
fundamental mandate. I know all of us in both parties realize
and are motivated by this tremendous responsibility.
Unfortunately, there remains a disconnect between our
shared mandate and what is coming out of Washington. In
Congress, trillions in ideological new spending was
contemplated and signed into law when instead, we needed
targeted fixes to supply chain bottlenecks and labor shortages.
And now, it appears further funding is under discussion that
fails to address the frail Biden economy, including the massive
labor shortfalls.
Under this Administration, we see a Clinton Era Swine
Inspection Program rolled back, despite being grounded in
science and designed enhanced processing capacity, efficiency,
and food safety. We need greater certainty and supply chain
resiliency for both producers and consumers.
On other fronts, domestic productivity relative to resource
use for agriculture is up a whopping 287 percent since the
1940s--I think that is something we all should be very proud
of--while the total farm inputs remain mostly unchanged. Our
producers have spent decades showing the world that they are
the answer to reducing global greenhouse gas emissions, and
they are not the problem. Activists with little knowledge of
production agriculture are winning the day, and I hope this
Administration and Department rethink their alliance with these
coalitions and ideologues.
Mr. Secretary, I want to be your partner. Makeshift
responses to Congressional inquiries, and in many cases, no
response at all, have made it extremely challenging for my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle, myself included, to
maintain a meaningful dialogue with the Department. Policy
briefings and Administration updates with little to no notice
for Members further strain our partnership. There is an
opportunity to work together. I believe that wholeheartedly,
and we stand ready. A critical part of doing so is beginning
our 2018 Farm Bill implementation and oversight process and
working towards the next reauthorization. That is putting
politics aside. That is what we tend to do here on the
Agriculture Committee: and beginning an earnest, deliberative
process of what is working and what is not for producers, rural
communities, and consumers.
I look forward to starting that process with our Members
and with you, Mr. Secretary, but in the meantime, we must
stabilize our economy and supply chains, improve labor force
participation, deliver commonsense regulatory action, and
better understand the needs of our shared constituency. I think
that starts with this hearing, so I am very appreciative of the
Chairman for this hearing. And again, I thank the Secretary for
coming before this Committee, and I look forward to more
productive and consistent discourse.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you, Ranking Member.
The chair would request that other Members submit their
opening statements for the record so the Secretary may begin
his testimony, and to ensure that there is ample time for
questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Brown follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Shontel M. Brown, a Representative in
Congress from Ohio
Thank you, Chairman Scott and Ranking Member Thompson, for holding
this hearing. And thank you, Secretary Vilsack for joining us today to
review the state of the rural economy and the operations of the
Department of Agriculture.
As we know too well, COVID-19 has taken a heavy toll on many of our
communities and deepened the hunger crisis. USDA's Economic Research
Service found that, while the number of Americans who are food-insecure
remained level throughout 2020, hunger increased for Black and Latino
families and the food-insecure household rate was significantly higher
than the national average--21.7 percent versus 10.5 percent.
Unfortunately, the pandemic's impact on hunger was felt quite
inequitably.
Food insecurity is an unconscionable, crippling reality for far too
many Americans. Our communities cannot flourish when many of their
residents, especially our students, still lack basic, regular access to
nutritious food.
That is why I introduced the Afterschool Meals Act (H.R. 6357). My
legislation will alleviate hunger among the most vulnerable students by
enabling schools to provide healthy and nutritious meals to children in
afterschool care. I am also a co-lead of Congresswoman Alma Adams'
coming legislation that seeks to combat college hunger by providing
enrolled students with access to information about SNAP benefits.
The Chairman. Our witness today is our 32nd Secretary of
Agriculture, and a great ally of our nation's farmers and
ranchers, Secretary Tom Vilsack. We are so pleased to welcome
you back to our Agriculture Committee, and Mr. Secretary,
please begin when you are ready.
STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS ``TOM'' J. VILSACK, SECRETARY, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Secretary Vilsack. Mr. Chairman, thank you very, very much.
I appreciate the opportunity to be here today, and also to
Representative Thompson, thank you for the opportunity to
appear before the Committee, and I thank the Members for this
opportunity.
I suppose I could focus on the fact that our farm income is
as good as it has been in the last 8 years that we have had
record exports, but I would really like to focus on one phrase
of my testimony on page four, because I think it explains the
heart of the challenge that farmers and rural America faces and
has faced for a considerable period of time.
I want to focus on the phrase, extraction economy. I make
this reference on page four of my testimony in order to set the
stage for discussion, hopefully over the long haul as you begin
your process of the farm bill reauthorization.
Our extraction economy is an economy that essentially, we
take things from the land and off the land, and unfortunately,
rather than converting them in, value-adding, in and close to
the rural areas where the natural resource is, they are
transported long distances where they are value-added in some
other location where opportunities and jobs are created
elsewhere. I think it is going to be important for us as we
look forward to try to develop what is called a circular
economy, in which the wealth is created and stays in rural
areas.
Let me give you a couple of examples of how that could
happen. There has been a focus on local and regional food
systems. We learned during the pandemic that our system, our
food system was not as resilient as we hoped it would be. One
of the ways of making it more resilient is to create local and
regional opportunities. That is one of the reasons why we are
focused on expanding processing capacity, something that I hear
all the time when I travel around the country. The need for our
cattle producers, our livestock producers, our hog producers to
have choice and opportunity for a local processing facility
that creates local jobs that allows that revenue and wealth
that is created from processing to stay in the community.
Another example is obviously the biobased manufacturing.
Biofuels are one example, but there are a multitude of ways in
which we can convert agricultural waste product into a wide
variety of things beyond renewable energy and fuel, to include
chemicals, materials, fabrics, and fibers, again, creating
opportunity for farmers, and additional income sources as well
as rural jobs.
Climate change creates an opportunity for us. As we look at
ways in which rural lands can be used to sequester carbon, as
we embrace climate-smart agricultural practices, it opens up a
whole new vista of opportunity for farmers to essentially be
paid for the carbon sequestration that they are currently doing
and will do in the future.
These are all examples of a circular economy where the
wealth basically stays. The opportunity is created. The jobs
are created in rural areas. We at USDA are focused on trying to
insert and encourage that type of circular economy to be more
prevalent in rural areas across the United States.
Mr. Chairman, I know that there are a variety of questions
that will be posed today, but I hope as this Committee begins
its serious work on the farm bill, that you will take some time
to work with us to take a look at how we might be able to do a
better job of maintaining and creating wealth in rural
communities, and making sure that historically underserved
populations and communities also get a fair amount of
attention. We at USDA are committed to working with you in
partnership to use the resources that are available from
Congress in a way that helps to create those kinds of
opportunities.
With that, I will yield back the balance of my time and
look forward to the questions that you all have.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Vilsack follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Thomas ``Tom'' J. Vilsack, Secretary, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and Members of the
Committee, for the opportunity to come before you today to discuss the
state of the rural economy in the United States. The COVID-19 pandemic
has been incredibly difficult on Americans in urban, rural, suburban
and Tribal communities alike. Throughout the nation, the pandemic has
exposed economic, racial, and geographic disparities that call us to
action. In rural and Tribal communities especially, COVID-19 has
exposed decades of underinvestment in the infrastructure and
institutions that make a rural place a vibrant, thriving community. It
has also exposed that aspects of both U.S. and international food
systems are rigid, consolidated, and fragile. Concurrently, drought,
wildfire, and severe weather have exposed the perils of climate change
for agriculture, people, and the planet.
Despite the challenges of the past 2 years, rural and Tribal
communities, and American farmers, ranchers, and farmworkers have
remained resilient. Rural businesses, schools, and health care
providers have harnessed technology in new ways to access new markets,
educate their children and deliver healthcare. Farmers and ranchers
have continued to produce and deliver the fruits of their labor and are
seizing the opportunity that consumer interest in supporting local
producers and businesses provides. Farmworkers, meat processing
workers, and grocery workers have risked health and safety on the
frontlines to keep our communities fed. Producers and communities have
weathered storms and drought with resourcefulness, creativity, and a
renewed understanding of the implications of climate change. Amidst the
tremendous challenges of our time, in rural America there is
opportunity and there is also a sense of urgency.
That's why, the past year, the Biden-Harris Administration worked
with Congress to get the American Rescue Plan passed and deliver
Pandemic Assistance to help farmers and families recover. And that's
why President Biden secured bipartisan support for historic investments
in infrastructure. These investments will rebuild the physical
infrastructure of our country, grow the economy for decades to come,
create good-paying, union jobs, and help close the digital divide in
rural areas--all of which will better position our agriculture and
rural communities to compete in a global economy. My vision has been--
and will continue to be--to deploy these new resources in ways that
will enable rural communities to build back better, with increased
resiliency and equity.
Building Back Better in Rural America
Small towns and rural communities provide the food, water, energy,
nature, and culture that benefit people everywhere. Everyone benefits
when rural communities thrive. Unfortunately, as I imagine many of you
know well, we continue to see persistent challenges in rural America--
from access to broadband to declining numbers of rural hospitals--that
have exacerbated the difficulties facing rural residents during the
pandemic.
We have a dichotomy in rural America. On one hand, the agriculture
economy is strong. Net farm income jumped in 2021 by 23% to $116.8
billion \1\ and after 2 years \2\ of being a net-importer, the United
States is back to its rightful place as a significant contributor to
our trade balance by driving exports to record high levels in 2021. The
United States exported a record $172.2 billion in farm and food
products in fiscal 2021, up 23 percent from 2020. Preliminary estimates
of export levels for calendar year 2021 suggest that the United States
will set an all-time record, and the outlook for 2022 looks optimistic
for continued growth of agricultural exports. Demand for American
agricultural products, here and abroad, has rebounded and has remained
strong and growing. USDA will continue to focus on maintaining and
expanding access to export markets for American producers through
rebuilding trust with our partners and also holding them accountable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.ers.usda.gov/media/tzjlfczt/
farmsectorindicators_december2021.xlsx.
\2\ https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/outlooks/102735/aes-
118.pdf?v=964.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the other hand, we know that rural communities, including
farmers and ranchers, still face challenges from the pandemic, many of
which are seeded in challenges that have existed for far too long.
COVID-19 exposed a rigid, fragile, and consolidated food system that
led to bottlenecks and supply constraints. We have witnessed how the
structure of food systems have resulted in higher consumer prices while
the value to producers is constrained or even declined in many cases.
And for decades rural America faced the headwinds of an extraction
economy. Big businesses and corporate power in our food systems have
undercut locally owned businesses and family-owned farms leaving little
opportunity for rural people and places to retain the wealth they
create and get ahead.
These are systemic challenges that have failed rural communities
and the rural economy for decades, resulting in continued population
decline and a persistent higher rate of poverty overall than metro
areas since poverty rates were first officially recorded in the 1960s.
And now, we also see emerging, new and unprecedented challenges
related to drought, wildfire, and climate change. To truly build back
better and stronger, we must seize the moment to address these
challenges across the board rather than simply returning to the way
things were before the pandemic and economic downturn. The stakes
couldn't be higher. This is a critical moment to make clear the value
proposition that rural America provides. We must recognize the full
contributions of rural communities and harness the innovative nature of
our farmers and ranchers and our rural communities. Armed with the
right tools and resources, this is the moment to build back better with
a more resilient, equitable and circular economy that ensures wealth
sticks and truly benefits the people and places that create it.
That's why at USDA we are focused on the following key priorities:
Creating more and better market opportunities for producers
and consumers alike. The food systems of the future needs to be
fair, competitive, distributed, and resilient. The success of
American agriculture hinges on innovation and the development
of new markets.
Addressing climate change via climate-smart agriculture,
forestry and energy. Our comprehensive climate-smart strategy
will help position the agricultural sector and rural America as
leaders in helping tackle this challenge.
Advancing racial justice, equity, and opportunity. We are
taking bold, historic action to reduce barriers to access and
advance opportunity for underserved communities.
Tackling food and nutrition insecurity. We are focused on
ensuring Americans have consistent access to safe, healthy,
affordable food essential to optimal health and well-being.
More and Better Markets
Over this last year, USDA has worked to deploy every resource
available to help support our rural communities build a better future
together. We know that the gains we are seeing in the agricultural
economy have been extremely uneven across the country and across
commodities. Meanwhile, producers are navigating supply chain
disruptions as well as short- and long-term challenges with access to
markets for their products. That's why we worked hard to address gaps
and disparities in the assistance that the Administration provided
producers. A year ago, we briefly paused implementation of the prior
Administration's CARES and CAA programming so that we could evaluate
what types of commodities and which types of agricultural producers had
received significant support and who had been left out. We then created
the Pandemic Assistance Initiative to ensure that USDA support would
reach a broader set of producers, workers, and businesses. Over the
course of the year, we've made over $13 billion available in Pandemic
Assistance, of which almost $9 billion has been outlaid, in ways that
align with on-the-ground needs of producers of all stripes.
Additionally, we've committed more than $4 billion in American
Rescue Plan funds towards our Build Back Better food system
transformation effort. This funding will help build a food system of
the future that is fair, competitive, distributed, and resilient;
supports health with access to healthy, affordable food; ensures
growers and workers receive a greater share of the food dollar; and
advances equity as well as climate resilience and mitigation.
Through Pandemic Assistance and our Build Back Better Food System
Transformation Initiative we have aided in the historic economic
recovery from the pandemic, helped families put food on the table, and
are ensuring producers and rural businesses have the resources and
tools to thrive longer-term. We are ensuring American agriculture is
part of addressing food and nutrition insecurity and building strong
rural economies, including by standing up cooperative agreements with
state and Tribal governments to procure and distribute local and
regional foods and by supporting the purchases of agricultural
commodities to help schools across the country make sure students have
access to healthy meals.
The pandemic exposed a food system that is rigid, consolidated, and
fragile. The reduction in meat processing capacities is just one
example of the systemic failures that hurt producers and consumers
alike. Fifty years ago, ranchers received over 60 of every dollar a
consumer spent on beef, compared to about 39 today. Hog farmers got
40 to 60 on each dollar spent 50 years ago, down to about 19 today.
Producers all across the country for too long have faced a marketplace
that benefits a few large companies over those who are growing,
harvesting, and processing our food. With more capacity and
competition, we can level the playing field for producers.
Thanks to the funding provided by Congress and this Committee,
particularly in the American Rescue Plan Act, as part of the Build Back
Better Food System Transformation Initiative, USDA is making important
investments in U.S. food systems that will allow us to create more and
better markets for producers and consumers alike. The investment of $1
billion in American Rescue Plan funds we announced earlier this month
to expand independent processing capacity will help move us towards a
fairer, more competitive, and more resilient meat and poultry supply
chain.
We are also working closely with the Department of Justice and the
White House to strengthen the rules that protect farmers, ranchers, and
consumers. USDA will issue new, stronger rules under the Packers and
Stockyards Act that will seek to increase competition and strengthen
the fairness and resiliency of livestock and poultry markets on behalf
of farmers, ranchers, and growers.
I look forward to working with Congress on these important issues
as you look for additional ways to ensure that our farmers and ranchers
have better access to processing capacity and consumers have more
choices in the marketplace.
Climate-Smart Agriculture and Forestry
As this panel is keenly aware, our farmers, ranchers, and foresters
are on the front lines when it comes to dealing with the impacts of
climate change. We've seen unprecedented droughts, wildfires, and other
weather-related challenges increase in recent years and USDA has
provided much-needed relief to those affected by these disasters.
However, while agriculture is uniquely vulnerable to a warming climate,
the sector is also uniquely positioned to help address the problem.
Policies that drive climate solutions across the agricultural sector
and rural America can both help tackle this challenge, while also
creating new revenue opportunities for producers and rural communities.
That approach, where rural communities can be leaders in clean energy,
and where farmers, ranchers, and foresters can access new market
opportunities, while also doing right by the climate, is the approach
of the Biden-Harris Administration.
We expect that markets in both the U.S. and around the world are
continually going to demand more climate-smart commodities. USDA has a
long history of market facilitation and development for agricultural
and forestry producers and climate-smart commodities represent a new
and potentially growing market opportunity. At USDA, we are on the cusp
of providing significant help to encourage the growth of these
commodities through the Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities
Program. With this approach, we will fund pilots and demonstration
projects that will encourage farmers to come together, deploy climate-
smart practices, and produce climate-smart commodities. This approach
will be voluntary, incentive based and available to producers of all
sizes, all methods, all locations, and all types of production.
Importantly, our work through this program will complement and build on
activities and transactions that are already starting to occur in the
private marketplace, making those opportunities to add value and create
new revenue streams available to more American producers. Of course, at
the same time we will also work with our research mission area, land-
grant universities, and others to measure, quantify, and verify the
climate benefits of the program based on sound, peer-reviewed science.
At the end of the day, this new commodity program is about creating new
revenue streams for farmers while helping to combat climate change.
It's an exciting opportunity and over the course of the next several
months we're looking forward to sharing additional details surrounding
this effort.
USDA is also focused on how we can drive tangible benefits to those
communities disproportionately impacted by climate change, including
underserved communities. To achieve this, we will prioritize equitable
access to the assistance and incentives intended to help producers and
land managers address the causes and consequences of climate change.
Additionally, USDA agencies are working to find new ways to prioritize
investments in forestry, clean energy, energy efficiency, and
infrastructure in underserved communities that will mitigate against
climate change, increase climate resilience, and to measure and track
the benefits those vital investments provide. We're also redoubling our
efforts to protect rural communities from the ravages of climate-driven
wildfires. Earlier this week I rolled out a new comprehensive strategy
to mitigate wildfire risk to communities and infrastructure, a
significant paradigm shift in forest management that I look forward to
working with you all to implement in the coming years.
I would also like to extend my appreciation for the resources that
the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act is making available to USDA
for wildfire risk reduction and watershed protection and
rehabilitation, and reforming wildland firefighter compensation, among
other important programs. As I have stated before, however, we cannot
comprehensively and effectively reduce the serious risk that
catastrophic wildfires pose to many communities around our nation
without substantial additional funds. The Infrastructure Investment and
Jobs Act provides an important down payment on these resources and the
Build Back Better Act includes transformative investments that would do
even more to help us address this crisis and enable our long-standing
conservation programs to do double duty in service of combating climate
change, which poses an existential threat to our farmers and ranchers,
and to all of us.
Food and Nutrition Insecurity
As USDA builds back better and with a recognition that food and
health are inherently intertwined, we are focused on ensuring Americans
have consistent access to the safe, healthy, affordable food essential
to optimal health and well-being.
While keeping the food supply safe, as USDA does each day, we must
also tackle both food insecurity and nutrition insecurity. USDA's
nutrition programs are the most far-reaching tools available to ensure
all Americans have access to healthy, affordable food. Over the past
year, USDA has taken steps to support the millions of families who have
struggled to make ends meet and keep food on the table during the
pandemic with increased benefits through the host of programs available
to assist those in need, expanded access to those programs, and
outreach to those that have been historically underserved.
In the coming year, we will build on the innovation required by our
COVID-19 pandemic response, as well as the historic investments in
nutrition and food assistance we made this previous year, which helped
to reduce the prevalence of hunger nationwide. The number of households
reporting that they sometimes or often did not have enough food dropped
by 32 percent in 2021 and experts estimate the U.S. had the lowest
child poverty rate ever in 2021. This is profound progress that we will
build upon as we invest in bold solutions that enhance food safety,
reduce both food and nutrition insecurity and, ultimately, improve
health and well-being.
Recommitting Ourselves to Equity and Inclusion
For much of the history of USDA, policy design and implementations
have rewarded those who own land, who have collateral, who have greater
access to USDA programs, and communities with more resources to
leverage, while others have faced discrimination and inequities.
Over the last year, USDA has worked tirelessly to address
historical inequities in how we deliver programs across the board for
rural communities and how we promote diversity and inclusion within our
own workforce. The Department has taken bold and historic actions to
reduce barriers to access to USDA's programs, advance opportunity for
underserved communities, and root out generations of systemic racism
and discrimination. To further bolster this work, USDA is focused on
delivering on the Justice40 Initiative and ensuring that underserved
communities can equitably benefit from USDA resources and funding.
Soon, USDA will also announce the members of USDA's new Equity
Commission, which will hold its first meeting in February. This
Commission, which was authorized by Congress as part of the American
Rescue Plan Act, offers an historic opportunity to root out barriers to
access and improve the Department for the benefit of underserved
communities, the overall American farm and agriculture sector, and our
economy. The Equity Commission is tasked with providing USDA with
recommendations on policies, programs, and actions needed to advance
equity and address racial equity issues within the Department of
Agriculture and its programs, including strengthening accountability at
the Department. The Equity Commission will play a key role in
identifying the root causes--systemic and systematic--of existing
inequities and will assist USDA in centering equity and justice as it
develops and strengthens policies and approaches to truly serve all
people regardless of their background or experience. I know that the
work of the Equity Commission will also prove invaluable to this
Committee as you consider ways to remove barriers to our programs and
ensure equal opportunity to individuals and communities.
I want you to know that we are doing everything we can to ensure
that all farmers and communities can benefit from USDA investments and
that we are working to ensure equity is at the center of our
programming in rural communities and across the Department. I
particularly want to thank the Chairman and other Members of this
Committee for their steadfast commitment on this issue and for the
input many of you have provided to me on how we can work to ensure that
all programing is equitable and how USDA can better represent the
diversity of America.
Conclusion
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and Members of the Committee, thank
you for the opportunity to speak to you today about the current state
of the ag and rural economy in the United States and this
Administration's commitment to a prosperous rural America. Throughout
the course of this past year, I've had the opportunity to travel across
this great country and meet with many of the people we serve. I've
visited states in every region of the country. I've been to many of
your districts and met with your constituents. I've met with farmers,
ranchers, farm workers, processors, foresters, and families living in
our rural communities. I have been able to hear their concerns and
their optimism about the future. I too am optimistic about the future,
especially today as we celebrate this first year of the Biden-Harris
Administration and look ahead to continuing to fight for rural
communities, and the farmers, ranchers, and foresters, who sustain
them.
At the end of the day, my vision for rural America is a place where
people want to stay and raise their children because they have access
to good-paying jobs, or they have enough revenue coming in to make a
decent living on the farm--no matter the size--without having to work
other jobs. It's where families have access to quality healthcare and
education, clean drinking water, broadband internet and the
infrastructure needed to build and maintain vibrant communities. We
must seize this moment to reimagine and rebuild an economy that invests
in rural America and works for our rural families. It is not acceptable
for us to fail our rural communities. We have a responsibility to work
together, across the aisle to address these challenges. The Biden-
Harris Administration has been working hard to build back better,
stronger, and more resilient and equitably than ever before. I look
forward to working with this Committee on this mission.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your important
testimony.
At this time, Members will be recognized for questions in
order of seniority, alternating between Majority and Minority
Members, and you will be recognized for 5 minutes in order to
allow us to get to as many questions as possible. And, I will
certainly hold each Member to that strict 5 minutes, because I
want to be able to make sure every Member has a chance to ask
the Secretary questions. Please keep your microphones muted
until you are recognized in order to minimize any background
noise.
And now, I recognize myself for my questions.
Mr. Secretary, as you may know, our cotton industry is
suffering in a very particular area with our cotton
merchandisers, and they have had great impact and effect from
our COVID-19 crisis. As you may recall, I wrote you a letter
and asked for your help, and what we could do to help our
cotton merchandisers, because Mr. Secretary, they are very
critical to the risk management and liquidity for our cotton
farmers.
So, Mr. Secretary, I want to help them. I know you do, too.
And so, what can we do? Can we use some of your authority with
the COVID-19 funds to be able to get help to them? What can we
do to help our cotton merchandisers?
Secretary Vilsack. Mr. Chairman, we have been in
consultation with a number of representatives of the cotton
industry and cotton and textile user industry in an effort to
try to determine how best to help. The FSA is, in part,
drafting a notice of funds availability that we hope to be able
to make available sometime in the early spring that would
provide some additional resources, and we are trying to
structure this in a way based on our conversations with the
industry to be able to provide some assistance and help to the
industry.
This is one of many programs that we have inserted and
adopted as a result of the resources that have been made
available under the American Rescue Plan (Pub. L. 117-2) and
under the CARES Act (Pub. L. 116-136), and a variety of
pandemic assistance programs designed to make sure that we have
a significant amount of effort at USDA to provide assistance
and help to those who were not adequately helped in the
previous Administration with these resources.
The Chairman. Thank you for that.
And now, I would like to recognize the Ranking Member for
his questions.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, thanks again. I really appreciate you being
here. Mr. Secretary, as you know, and I know this is an issue
important to you--dairy. Dairy has long been a priority of
mine, and it is also our largest commodity in Pennsylvania.
And, as I talk with dairy farmers actually all across this
country, I know it is important throughout our dairy states. I
am glad that dairy stakeholders are having serious discussions
about the potential reforms to the Federal Milk Marketing Order
system, and I think the system has long needed some
improvements for dairy farmers. I don't think we can keep doing
what we have been doing and expect different results when you
look at the attrition, the loss of dairy farms.
But the COVID-19 pandemic has really put a spotlight on
some of those deficiencies. Conversations are still going on
within the industry to reach consensus, which I think is
critically important. But can you comment or commit that your
Department will work with us and the dairy sector to help this
process along?
Secretary Vilsack. Representative, thanks very much for the
question, and certainly, I hear, as you have heard, concerns
about the Marketing Order. And I think it is important and
necessary for the dairy industry to develop a consensus
opinion. I think as you travel around the country and as I do,
what you hear in Pennsylvania may be a little different than
what you hear in Vermont, maybe a little different than what
you hear in Idaho, maybe a little bit different in New Mexico,
and certainly different from what you hear in California in
terms of the needs of this industry.
But I think the industry is serious about this effort, and
we will work collaboratively with the industry to try to
improve. That is one of the reasons why we recently announced
the Supplemental Dairy Margin Assistance, the dairy payment
through the Pandemic Market Volatility Assistance Program, and
why we created the Dairy Donation Program. We are trying to
find ways to use existing tools to provide help to this
industry.
Mr. Thompson. I do think the consensus is out there, maybe
not on exactly what to do, but there is a need for change, and
that is helpful to be able to bring people together. And so, I
look forward to working with you in that arena.
Mr. Secretary, in March of 2021, you made reference in a
press release to gaps and disparities at USDA concerning COVID
relief, and in statements with the press since then, you have
implied that funding in many program areas has been
disproportionate or skewed by race, and that same phrase, gaps
and disparities, was in your written testimony today.
Now, following your initial press statement last year, my
staff reached out to USDA numerous times requesting to see the
data that supports that comment, that consistent comment you
have used. And after no response, I wrote to you personally
asking for a response to these inquiries. This week, 9 months
after first engaging on this issue, my office received a letter
acknowledging this request. The response I received, though,
was merely a regurgitation of preexisting USDA press releases
that I already had on hand, and not the data I sought, which
was disappointing. The timeline of the response is equally
disappointing.
So, Mr. Secretary, I know that we both agree that this
plague has been devastating to all stakeholders and
communities, and this Committee has a responsibility to meet
the needs of all producers that require us to work together,
and that does require us to work together. I look forward to us
doing better. So, I believe this also highlights the need for
increased oversight, Mr. Chairman, from this Committee, not
only on the farm bill implementation, but also the COVID
relief, and I hope to see a greater responsiveness from our
USDA partners. I think we are all part of a great farm team,
and when we are working together, every American family
benefits, and the rural economy benefits.
And so, I am just hopeful that we can work in a more
responsive, and just a better way going forward.
Secretary Vilsack. Well, Congressman, I think what I said
and what I intended was to focus on the fact that the existing
assistance under the Trump Administration was focused in a
number of geographic areas and a number of commodities. And I
think a recent GAO study suggested exactly that, and that is
one of the reasons why we used the resources under the CARES
Act and under the pandemic assistance resources to spread out
and to try to provide help and assistance to those who hadn't
received as much help. Dairy was one area; biofuels industry is
another area. The spot market for hogs, the folks who were
selling hogs on a cash market, that is another area. The
pandemic needs of specialty crops, that is another area. So, we
have made an effort to try to make sure that we were providing
assistance and help in a comprehensive way as opposed to
focusing in on a specific geographic commodity, or specific
area.
Mr. Thompson. Right. I think that data would just be
helpful to----
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
The gentleman from California, Mr. Costa, who is also the
Chairman of the Subcommittee on Livestock and Foreign
Agriculture, is now recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Costa. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for bringing
us together and support and the opportunity to have a
conversation with our Secretary of Agriculture. It is good to
see you back, Mr. Secretary.
We could spend the whole day talking about the rural
economy and the challenges we face across the country
regionally and the different impacts this pandemic has had in
terms of closing restaurants and schools, and impacting our
food supply chain in ways that we could never imagine. And
obviously, we are still working on that effort with our ports
in Long Beach and Los Angeles.
But I would like to focus on a couple of areas, and
continue this effort as we set the table for the farm bill next
year that I know the Chairman and all of us are very interested
in doing.
We touched upon the effort of the challenges regionally of
milk production, by the way, I want to commend you and
Ambassador Tai on that resolution with Canada on the recent
decision that was made. That is helpful, I believe, to ensure
we have a level playing field with our neighbors to the north.
But that limitation on the program, the Pandemic Market
Volatility Assistance Program that you implemented to reimburse
dairy farmers for their losses obviously impacts producers
differently around the country, and the limitation that 5
million pounds per producer obviously doesn't reflect one-size-
fits-all. I am wondering, we are trying to figure out in areas
of the country where it doesn't, how we might provide an effort
to cover the losses that they sustained during that time.
Mr. Secretary, do you care to comment?
Secretary Vilsack. Congressman, the reason why we
established that limitation was the fact that during the course
of the previous Administration, the way in which COVID relief
was provided and helped as it relates to the food box program
resulted in somewhat of a distortion in the market that created
a situation where there was a significant difference between
Class I and Class III. Now, many producers, many small
producers were hurt, and so, this was designed to provide
assistance and help to the small producers that were hurt
because of that circumstance.
I am happy to work, and we did work and are working on a
variety of other ways to help the dairy industry across the
board, and would be happy to work with you on any ideas or
thoughts that you have to provide assistance and help to the
dairy industry.
Mr. Costa. Good. We will follow up on that.
The trade issue that has been discussed before is critical
to American agriculture, as well as California agriculture, the
number one ag state in the nation. Forty-four percent of
California's agricultural production is exported, and I am
wondering as we look to having a level playing field not only
with our consumers that we export to: Asia, but also to Europe
as well. And I am wondering what kind of oversight the
Department intends to follow with in regards to the new
agreement we have with the U.S.-Mexico-Canada agreement?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, you alluded to the fact that we
supported the U.S. Trade Representative's Office in connection
with the Canadian dairy situation. Certainly pleased to see
that that tariff rate quota will be implemented the way in
which it was intended. We are working with our colleagues and
our friends in Mexico on a variety of issues, not the least of
which is glyphosate, biotech approvals for corn--the ability
for us to be able to continue to sell corn for feed into
Mexico. We received assurances from the Mexican Secretary
Villalobos that that, in fact, will continue to take place.
So, there are ongoing conversations. I probably have spoken
to the Secretary in Mexico at least six times, seven times
since I took office, and I have had a number of responses and
communications with my Canadian counterpart as well. So, there
is a constant effort to ensure enforcing, and this is really
designed to create a sense of trust about trade agreements, not
just in Mexico and Canada, but also in China. We obviously have
some unfinished business with reference to Phase 1, and we
continue to press China to increase their purchases, and also
to address many of the important----
Mr. Costa. Do you believe China has kept their commitments
under the previous agreement?
Secretary Vilsack. No. They are $13 billion short on
purchases, and there are seven key areas where they have yet to
perform. Biotech approvals, DDG sales, tariffs on ethanol, a
variety of other sort----
Mr. Costa. We will follow up on that, Mr. Secretary. My
time is running down. I just want to commend your efforts,
because you and I have talked about it on forestry and the
horrific fires and our ability to manage our forests the way
that really we have been neglecting. And we want to support
your efforts there. There is a lot to be done. This 10 year
program that you unveiled earlier this week is something that
we want to work with you on.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Austin Scott, is recognized
now for 5 minutes.
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Vilsack, I have talked with some of my chemical
distributors about the crop protection products. They are
telling me that the raw materials are in the country, but the
labor shortage is what is creating the backup and the
challenges with actually getting the product to the warehouses
for the farms. Is that consistent with what you are hearing
from the people at USDA?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, we are certainly concerned about
the lack of truck drivers, which is why we are working with the
Department of Labor and are encouraged by their efforts to
create an apprenticeship program and to speed up the process to
get people behind the wheel, and to work with states to issue
CDL licenses as quickly as possible. So, it is an area that we
are concerned about.
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. I think they are talking about
shortages in labor at the manufacturers as well as trucking
shortages and other things.
It does concern me that in many cases, I feel like people
don't recognize how important the timeliness is with regard to
the application of crop protection and crop promotion,
fertilizer products to get the yields that our farmers depend
on and we all depend on for our food supply in this country.
And so, I hope you and USDA will stay on the Department of
Transportation and the Department of Labor, making sure they
understand that when we have to have these crop protection
products in the field, putting it on 2 or 3 weeks late doesn't
work.
You were given an additional $10 billion this past fall for
disaster assistance for extreme weather in 2020 and 2021. Can
you give us an update or any details on where the distribution
of those funds stands?
Secretary Vilsack. Yes. Let's talk about the $750 million
that was allocated for the livestock industry. We are going to
take a look at a process by which we can use existing data from
the Livestock Forage Program to facilitate payments, and the
hope is that those payments will be made to livestock producers
sometime this spring. The expectation is that there may be
additional need, a second tranche of resources that will be
made available with a more detailed application, but we are
trying to simplify the process so we can get resources to these
farmers as quickly as possible.
On the grain side, we hope to use NAP data and RMA crop
insurance data to essentially create a pre-filled out
application which will speed up the process of a first tranche
of resources to those producers, and then a second tranche for
shallow losses in areas that weren't covered, folks who didn't
have NAP coverage or who didn't have crop insurance coverage.
So, the goal here is to try to get these payments out this
spring.
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. This spring. So, hopefully by
the end of April then?
Secretary Vilsack. April, May, sometime in that timeframe.
The key here, Representative, is to make sure that we get it
done as quickly as possible, which is why we are simplifying
the process and trying to use existing data to speed up the
process.
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Okay. One last question. The
Commodity Credit Corporation. I know there is a tremendous
amount of discussion about climate-smart agriculture and the
Commodity Credit Corporation. It is my understanding that $1
billion in CCC funds are being used for climate-smart
agriculture and forestry. How does this fit under the pretty
specific enumerated purposes of the CCC? What specific
authority in the Charter Act will be used, and can you give us
more details on this initiative?
Secretary Vilsack. As you well know, the Commodity Credit
Corporation in part is designed to provide for the promotion of
commodities. And what we are hearing and seeing from the
industry is, the food industry is the need for climate-smart
commodities for sustainably produced commodities in which they
can ensure their consumers that what they are purchasing is not
harmful to the environment.
So, we want to be able to help producers create those
climate-smart commodities. It falls under, it is either Section
4 or Section 5 of the CCC, and we are very confident that we
have the capacity and ability to use this without jeopardizing
any of the other needs or reasons for the CCC. This will give,
and actually farm groups and food groups have basically
proposed and suggested this, and the Food and Farm Alliance
document on climate-smart agriculture suggesting the need for
demonstration and pilot projects funded through the CCC, and we
are following the prescription of groups like the American Farm
Bureau in their advocacy for this.
So, we feel very confident we have the legal grounds based
on the fact that we will be promoting climate-smart
commodities.
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, my time has
expired.
The Chairman. Thank you.
The gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. McGovern, who is also
the Chairman of our House Committee on Rules, is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. McGovern. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
for your leadership. I want to thank Secretary Vilsack for his
service and for his team at USDA. I have found them always to
be very responsive, and I appreciate that.
I want to start off by saying that I am currently working
with Congressman Grijalva to organize a roundtable on Tribal
farming and indigenous food systems. And while we all must do
more to honor and learn from the experiences of indigenous
people, I want to thank you, Mr. Secretary, and your team at
USDA for all the work that you have done so far in this space.
As I have pushed for a White House Conference on Food,
Nutrition, Health, and Hunger, I have had the opportunity to
see a wide range of places that are working to ensure access to
culturally appropriate foods for people. For example, I was in
New York City recently at a place called the Met Council that
focuses on providing access to kosher and Halal foods for those
who would otherwise be forced to choose between their faith and
having food on the table. Many of the programs that I saw when
I was in San Francisco specialize in providing culturally
appropriate foods for Asian and Latinx communities. At the St.
Mary's Food Bank in Phoenix, Arizona, which is the oldest food
bank in America, they have made it a mission to provide
culturally appropriate native foods for elders to eat.
And so, as we discuss more at the upcoming roundtable,
indigenous people know the power of sovereignty and the power
of making decisions that encompass your own values on behalf of
your people. And we will hear about how self-government means
very clearly being able to feed your people.
The U.S. Federal Government has much to learn from the
indigenous peoples of this land, and that priority of feeding
your own people is one that I know I will certainly carry with
me.
My questions are, with that, Mr. Secretary, I would like to
know more about what USDA is doing to ensure access to
culturally appropriate foods, and what do you need from
Congress to ensure that our food programs are meeting the needs
of all who use them? And then second, can you tell me a little
bit more about the efforts to incorporate regional purchasing
in the Food Distribution on Indian Reservations Program?
Secretary Vilsack. Congressman, several points here. We
have entered into eight demonstration projects with eight
Tribes through our Office of Tribal Relations to begin to
incorporate more fully indigenous foods into the foods that are
available under the Federal food program for Tribes and under
our SNAP Program. We are trying to figure out ways in which we
can incorporate more fully and completely the availability of
indigenous foods. It is not just the ability of meeting the
food security and cultural needs of populations, it is also
about creating opportunity and economic opportunity. And to the
extent that you create a local and regional food system, one
that is designed to produce those culturally appropriate foods,
you are also creating jobs and you are creating what I referred
to earlier as that circular economy. We are continuing to work
with Tribes to try to do more of this.
I would say one of the challenges in this space we are also
trying to address, and that is the fractionated ownership of
land, particularly in Tribal areas, as well as African American
farmers, and this is an issue we are trying to address with the
Heirs Property Rule that we instituted. There is roughly $120
million that is going to be made available for sort of a
revolving loan fund that will create the opportunity for people
to consolidate land title, which in turn will allow them to
exercise and to be able to access resources from USDA. And so,
these are integrated parts.
In terms of what Congress can do, obviously one thing you
can do is to have a budget. That is the first thing we would
like to see, because that would allow us the ability to have
sufficient resources to be able to provide the technical
assistance that is needed to institute many of these programs.
Mr. McGovern. And a general question about access to more
culturally appropriate foods, which seems to be an issue that I
hear a lot about, as I mentioned my visit to New York City with
the Met Council. Is the USDA doing anything to try to address
that issue?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, one of the things we are trying to
do is to make sure that we have available processing capacity
that creates that culturally appropriate food. And as we look
at the various programs that we have announced recently to try
to expand capacity and expand competition, bear in mind that
part of those resources need to be done to make sure that the
kosher and Halal foods are available, and that they are
produced and processed in the appropriate way.
Mr. McGovern. Well thank you, and I look forward to working
with you.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. DesJarlais, is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. DesJarlais. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Vilsack, it is great to see you here again. Last
time we spoke, I introduced you to the issue of the black
vultures, which apparently, we are going to be talking about
some more again this year, because it is getting worse again.
But that is not what I want to focus on today.
Obviously, protecting the health and safety of USDA
employees and farmers, customers, is of critical importance.
However, as it stands today, farmers are not getting an
acceptable level of service from FSA field offices that they
deserve. Before COVID, farmers were able to come to the office
at a time convenient for them on their often strict schedules,
but now they are having a hard time getting an appointment at
all. Meanwhile, signup for crop year 2022 programs is imminent.
When do you expect USDA field offices to return to normal
operating levels?
Secretary Vilsack. Congressman, you and I have obviously a
difference of opinion on this, because we keep track of the
level of work that is being done at Farm Service Agency offices
to try to see whether or not the pandemic has negatively
impacted the ability to get work done. And in fact, as we see,
we are continuing to work at pre-pandemic levels.
Let me give you a sense of this. In Fiscal Year 2021, those
folks at the Farm Service Agency did 21,833 direct loans, 7,218
guaranteed loans, 12,244 ownership loans, 12,528 operating
loans, and 4,270 micro loans. I mean, there was a lot of work
done in addition to CRP, in addition to over $7 billion of
pandemic assistance provided.
So, the work is getting done, and it is getting done
because folks are working online. They are working with email.
They are working on the phones, and they are working in
offices.
Mr. DesJarlais. Well, I will just say that----
Secretary Vilsack. We are going to be----
Mr. DesJarlais.--we have the largest Farm Bureau office in
the country in my district in Columbia, Tennessee, and this
question came directly from them. So, maybe I will have someone
from your staff, if you don't mind, get in touch Tennessee Farm
Bureau, because they are saying that people don't have access
to the FSA office, and a lot of it is staffing issues due to
the COVID restrictions and vaccination mandates. I think
supposedly there is about 80+ percent compliance, 88 percent
compliance, but those were people who had gotten one vaccine.
What is the current status? Are people going to still be
restricted from going to work if they are not fully vaccinated?
Even the CDC, I think yesterday, said that natural immunity was
more effective against Delta than the vaccine. So, we are in a
changing process, this whole process of the vaccine has kind of
mutated as we have gone along, and I think we need to get up
with the times. Main street businesses are getting back and
running. You are saying the work is getting done, but that is
not what we are seeing in Tennessee.
Secretary Vilsack. Well, there are a lot of loans and a lot
of activities done.
Let me just simply say that 88 percent, almost 89 percent
of our employees are vaccinated, and that compliance rate----
Mr. DesJarlais. With one vaccine though, correct?
Secretary Vilsack. I am answering your question, sir.
Ninety-seven percent of the workforce actually is either
vaccinated or has requested an accommodation, and we are
working through those accommodations. If they continue to work
when they request an accommodation, they just simply have to be
masked. They have to have social distancing and things of that
nature. So, 97 percent of the workforce is currently covered,
and we are working through the remainder of the workforce,
encouraging them to either get vaccinated or to request
accommodation, and they still have time to do that.
Mr. DesJarlais. Okay. Well, my understanding was that USDA
had the highest number of exemption requests in all the
agencies, but that those won't be available. So, I am getting
double information here from what you are telling me. You are
saying that is not the case?
Secretary Vilsack. That is not the case.
Mr. DesJarlais. Okay. Well, that is good to know because
the main thing is, at least in Tennessee, I don't know about my
colleagues, but they are having issues getting appointments
with FSA. So, we would hope that could be addressed.
Let me finish. The farmers and ranchers feel like the EPA
and this Administration are attacking them. From not defending
the Trump WOTUS definition to revoking tolerances of approved
crop protection tools, and skyrocketing input costs, I
certainly understand why they have these concerns, Mr.
Secretary. Can you tell me how you are serving as an advocate
for production agriculture and defending agriculture throughout
the Biden Administration?
You have 45 seconds. You can have them all.
Secretary Vilsack. Thank you.
Encouraging the EPA to do what they are currently doing,
which is to reach out to farm groups and farmers across the
country to listen to concerns that they may have about the
implementation and formation of the rule, and I appreciate the
relationship that I have with Administrator Regan on that
score.
We are also taking a look at ways in which we at USDA can
provide help and assistance once the rules are determined, in
terms of providing assistance and help through our conservation
programs to make sure that folks are in compliance. Those are
our two principal responsibilities, I think is to encourage
outreach and to make sure we are using all the tools to help
farmers implement as accurately as possible.
Mr. DesJarlais. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
The gentlewoman from North Carolina, Ms. Adams, who is also
the Vice Chair of the Committee on Agriculture, is now
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Adams. Thank you, Chairman Scott and Ranking Member
Thompson for hosting the hearing today, and Secretary Vilsack,
good to see you again.
Rural communities continue to face unique challenges that
must be addressed to achieve growth. Our farmers need key
resources to be successful and our socially disadvantaged and
small- to mid-size farmers must receive special attention,
because they are more vulnerable to outside factors. Farmers
continue to experience challenges presented by COVID-19, supply
chains, labor market shortages, access to resources, et cetera.
At the same time, issues with climate change and the
management of carbon on farms must be considered. So, as co-
chair of the bipartisan HBCU Caucus, I have to note that our
1890 land-grant institutions play an important role to
contribute to research and extension and teaching in food and
agricultural sciences. These institutions do extensive work
that supports their surrounding communities, including those
located in hard-to-reach areas. But as you know, Mr. Secretary,
these institutions can work more closely with USDA across the
entire Department. So, can you speak to any collaboration on
rural development, rural health, climate change, and nutrition
programs like WIC where USDA can better support the work and
contributions of land-grant institutions to their communities
and our country?
Secretary Vilsack. I appreciate the question. I had a great
meeting with the Council of Presidents representing all the
HBCUs a month or so ago, and we talked about the opportunities
within Rural Development.
First order of business is to make sure that there is an
understanding in the HBCUs of the extraordinary scope of the
programs that we have at USDA, and to encourage greater
collaboration. We are already beginning to see a number of
projects, additional resources being provided, $21.8 million
provided to HBCUs on 58 projects to try to expand their reach
into the community. We will continue to look at Sec. 2501
funding. We continue to look at ways in which we can encourage
both HBCUs and other cooperators to be able to provide the
technical assistance and connection between underserved
communities and underserved producers and USDA.
We recently announced $75 million of resources under the
American Rescue Plan to create that bridge, that connection
between producers and the USDA, and we look for expansion of
that cooperative effort. Our NRCS just recently announced a $50
million initiative with over 118 cooperators now being
contracted to provide information and assistance in terms of
conservation programs. Our RMA is spending several million
dollars to expand outreach so people understand the wide range
of crop insurance tools that are available.
So, there is a concerted effort here to make sure that we
are doing a better job of connecting, and certainly HBCUs are
at the center of it.
Ms. Adams. Thank you, sir.
I helped sponsor the Centers for Excellence in the 2018
Farm Bill. It is important that we work to ensure their
success, but broadly speaking, how can NIFA better support
land-grant institutions as it relates to the Centers of
Excellence?
Secretary Vilsack. We recently announced an Ag Center of
Excellence, Ag Business Innovation Center, $2 million
commitment for that purpose, and we are also seeing additional
resources requested in the budget to be able to expand Centers
of Excellence at HBCUs. So, that work continues. It is somewhat
dependent on our ability to get the 2022 budget through the
process.
Ms. Adams. Great, thank you.
As you know, many of our states where the 1890 land-grant
institutions are located do not receive their 1:1 matching
grant. We have had some issues here in my State of North
Carolina. So, what steps could USDA take to ensure that states
provide 1:1 matching funds for these institutions?
Secretary Vilsack. Continued advocacy with governors, and
making sure that they are fully aware and appreciate the
opportunities in their communities, in their states, from
having an active and engaged HBCU, the Federal resources that
can be leveraged.
I would also say that I think it is important for us to
continue to work--this is a little bit afield of your
question--but the need for us to do a better job of connecting
with minority-serving institutions across the board to
encourage more internships, fellowships, and scholarships so
that we, again, create a closer connection. And the reason for
this is simple. Eight percent of the workforce at USDA is under
the age of 35, and so, we are going to face a significant
workforce shortage at some point in time in the near future. We
have to make sure we have the brightest and best coming to
USDA.
Ms. Adams. Thank you, Secretary Vilsack. That was going to
be my next question about supporting Centers of Excellence in
the 2023 Farm Bill. Based on what you said, you are in support
of that.
Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I am going to yield
back. My time is up.
The Chairman. The gentlelady from Missouri, Mrs. Hartzler,
is now recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Hartzler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and it is good to
see you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you for all that you do for
agriculture. I am very excited and appreciative of what you are
doing to try to promote more meat processing plants nearby in
our rural communities, and I know that has been a focus of
yours.
I did send a letter last July asking for some clarification
of what the criteria was going to be for distribution of that
first $375 million for independent processors. So, could you
give me an update on the criteria for those monies, and more
specifically, will processors who began operating or conducted
any expansions since or during the beginning of COVID be able
to qualify for these monies?
Secretary Vilsack. We provided some additional resources
for existing facilities to expand under our Food Supply Chain
Guaranteed Loan Program that was announced several weeks ago.
In addition, as you mentioned, the grant program is going to be
broken down into two tranches. The first $150 million is going
to be made available. We hope the framework of that and the
structure of that will be disclosed in the next few weeks, and
it is designed primarily to jumpstart projects that are ready
to go, that are shovel ready. They just need a little
encouragement. They could be an expansion of an existing
facility, or they could be new construction. Either one will
qualify. And the hope is that we get 10, 15, 20 projects that
are funded through that process, and then in the summer,
another $225 million of grant resources and $275 million of
additional low interest financing will become available. That
will also be available for both existing facilities wishing to
expand, and for new facilities.
And the goal here is to make sure that we are addressing
the wide array and range of needs from very, very small
processing operations to mid-size operations. We are hopeful
that we see farmer-owned cooperatives take a look at the
possibility of accessing some of these resources so that we
expand capacity and obviously competition, and the belief is
that when we do that, producers will benefit and so will
consumers.
Mrs. Hartzler. Sure. Well, there are some entities that
stood up because they saw a need, and they went in debt. And
now they can't qualify because they are already up and running.
They are not expanding, they started from fresh, but I would
encourage you, maybe we could talk offline, to not forget those
people who put everything on the line and went to the bank and
mortgaged everything in order to set up a plant, but now they
don't qualify just because of the timing.
Anyway, I would appreciate if we could talk further about
that, and we don't leave anybody out who has stood up and
really tried to help in that regard.
There also is some recent news regarding, and it is
exciting, there was a successful transplant of a heart of a
genetically engineered pig into a human, and that is something
certainly in advancements that we can be pleased about of
biotechnology. But unfortunately, it is also a stark reminder
of the lack of a clear path to commercialization for animal
biotechnology products intended for agriculture rather than
medical purposes. For example, the University of Missouri in my
district has been a leader in developing PRRS-resistant hogs,
and because of the current process and jurisdictional mayhem
between USDA and FDA, this technology is not yet available for
producers, and yet, China and other countries are moving
forward very rapidly to get to this point, but we already have
that technology.
Mr. Secretary, as we move closer to having a confirmed FDA
Commissioner, how do you plan to engage with your counterparts
at HHS to finalize the work started on the advanced notice of
proposed rulemaking and MOU on the genetically engineered
animals?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, Congresswoman, we actually thought
we had done that work with the assigned MOU, but there is some
indication from the FDA and Department of Health and Human
Services that they don't believe that there was authority for
the folks who signed that on behalf of FDA. So, we obviously
would, as soon as the FDA Commissioner is confirmed, we will
work very closely with that individual to make sure that there
are ongoing discussions and negotiations to complete that MOU.
We understand and appreciate the necessity of having clarity,
and we are anxious to have that.
Mrs. Hartzler. That is good. That would be great.
Reuters reported that the Biden Administration is
considering lowering the 2022 ethanol blender mandate, below
the proposed 15 billion gallons potentially hamstringing the
biofuels industry. Are you aware of these reports, and do you
agree that cutting biofuel blended would only serve to hurt
rural communities?
The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired. Mr.
Secretary, you may follow up on that.
Secretary Vilsack. I would just mention, the biofuel levels
for 2021, 2022 are the highest in the history of the program,
which indicates a projected growth. And in addition, the
Department of Agriculture is providing $700 million of
additional assistance to the biofuel industry to encourage it
to get it through the pandemic situation, as well as $100
[million] to expand access to higher blends. So, I think I can
make the case that the Administration is supporting this
industry. Sixty-five waivers that were denied by the EPA that
might very well have been granted during the previous
Administration.
[The information referred to is located on p. 126.]
The Chairman. The gentlewoman from Connecticut, Mrs. Hayes,
who is also the Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Nutrition,
Oversight, and Department Operations is recognized now for 5
minutes.
Mrs. Hayes. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Secretary Vilsack for being here today.
The first thing I would like to discuss is food access in
rural areas through the SNAP Online Purchasing Pilot. Since the
creation of the pilot program in 2019 and the onset of the
COVID-19 pandemic, SNAP online purchasing has expanded into 48
states and over 75 SNAP retailers. In Connecticut, SNAP
recipients can buy groceries online through five different
grocery stores, though none are small, independent businesses.
However, the eligibility to actually utilize the program is not
equitable across the country. Although most states have SNAP
online purchasing retailers, the retailers do not always serve
all ZIP Codes within a state. According to a 2019 study, online
purchasing and delivery services were available to only 31
percent of Census tracks considered in rural food deserts. In
comparison, online food purchasing and delivery services were
available in 94 percent of Census tracks considered urban food
deserts.
Secretary Vilsack, Congress has provided $30 million for
the USDA to invest in SNAP online purchasing and other SNAP
technological modernizations throughout the pandemic. How has
the USDA used the funds Congress has provided to make SNAP
online purchasing a reality in all rural areas, and how can
Congress assist the USDA in making the programs more accessible
in these areas?
Secretary Vilsack. Well Congresswoman, the information that
I have is that today, 97 percent of households have the
opportunity for online purchasing. Obviously, I will be happy
to go back and make sure those numbers are accurate.
But to the extent that there is a need for a continued
focus on rural remote areas, I would say a couple of things.
First of all, we are looking forward at some point in time
early in 2022 in announcing a Healthy Food Financing Initiative
by using resources from the American Rescue Plan to begin
aggressively addressing the issue of food deserts. Part of the
issue here is not just the access to online, but also the
ability of having facilities to basically provide the food to
folks, so that is one thing that we expect to do, and a focus
of that effort will obviously be on rural and remote areas.
Second, we are also making sure that we are helping food
banks who also help to service those same individuals be able
to have access to resources to be able to figure out ways in
which they can more easily and more completely----
Mrs. Hayes. I can't hear anymore. Stop the timer.
Staff. We will address the technical issue. Please bear
with us. Thank you.
Mrs. Hayes. Thank you.
The Chairman. We have three engineers on the way up, and
so, we will pause until they can get here.
I think you are on. Bravo. Please continue.
Secretary Vilsack. Mr. Chairman, let me, if I could finish
the last comment, and it has to do with the role of the food
banks in trying to respond to rural and remote food needs.
We have also provided $100 million of what we refer to as
reach and resiliency resources for food banks across the
country, encouraging them to look for ways that they can
address the need for food security in rural and remote areas,
and also to have the infrastructure that will allow them to
store fresh produce, dairy products, and so forth,
refrigeration and storage capacity. So, hopefully we are
addressing in a multitude of ways the need for access to food
in those rural remote areas.
Mrs. Hayes. Thank you. I appreciate that answer.
My second comment is that Members of the NODO Subcommittee
have been working diligently to address veteran hunger. The
USDA's Economic Research Service released a report last year
finding that more than 11 percent of working age veterans lived
in food-insecure households, and that veterans have a 7.4
percent greater risk of food insecurity than the general
population.
To address this deeply concerning reality, how is the USDA
working with the VA to target food assistance to veterans, and
how is the USDA working to ensure eligible veterans know about
their eligibility to take advantage of these types of programs?
Secretary Vilsack. We are working with Veterans Affairs to
make sure that as individuals leave service--and Department of
Defense, as they leave service, that they are fully and
completely aware of the resources that are available to them,
including the ability to access SNAP benefits. We will continue
to work with both the VA and the Defense Department to make
sure that we are doing the very best job we possibly can to
make sure that those resources are available.
This is a sad state of affairs that folks who have served
our country are in need of this kind of assistance, and we need
to make sure that they get it.
Mrs. Hayes. Thank you, Secretary Vilsack. We had a hearing
in our subcommittee and heard from veterans, and it is tragic
that this is happening here in this country, and we have a
responsibility to do better. So, I look forward to working with
you to make sure that we close those gaps and support our
veterans.
I am coming to the end of my time, and I will leave you
with one last question that perhaps if you don't have time, you
can follow up on.
Between 2016 and 2020, the number of full-time employees at
the USDA decreased from nearly 94,900 to approximately 86,400.
Has this decrease affected USDA's ability to communicate with
states and producers about new programs and the process to
participate in them, and how can Congress assist USDA in
ensuring you have adequate staffing levels that you need to
take on the responsibilities we have tasked you with,
especially as we work towards this upcoming farm bill?
Secretary Vilsack. I think one of the areas where we have
dealt with the decline of workforce is in the Natural Resources
Conservation Service and in our Forest Service, and in our
ability to maintain----
[The information referred to is located on p. 126.]
The Chairman. The lady's time has expired.
The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Davis, is now recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Chairman Scott and Ranking Member
Thompson for holding this hearing, and also to my friend,
Secretary Vilsack, for coming to testify again today. It is
great to see you. I get to ask questions a little sooner than
when we first met a few years ago when you were sitting at that
same table.
Mr. Secretary, back in November we held a hearing on the
supply chain crisis, and the consensus was that every sector is
actually being crushed by this Administration's rampant
spending agenda that is really driving high costs and
inflation. These impacts are being felt by our constituents
everywhere. They see it in the empty grocery store shelves,
they pay more at the pump, and at their local businesses, and
as you just mentioned, in USDA's case, struggling to find
employees. There are approximately 11 million work ready adults
certified by their state workforce agencies that are receiving
SNAP benefits but could start working immediately to fill the
approximately 10.6 million open jobs that we have. We have an
entire intact workforce that could be moving products, stocking
shelves, and filling jobs. But that is if we prioritize
employment and training programs to train these individuals. We
could immediately solve a huge piece of the puzzle of our
supply chain crisis.
Mr. Secretary, I know the Administration has issued several
funding announcements to address the supply chain crisis, but
how can we get America back to work after 2 years of paying
people to stay home?
Secretary Vilsack. I had a little hard time understanding
the question, but I think I will try to respond to it.
One of the things that we are doing is obviously individual
states have the ability to make decisions concerning the
administration of SNAP and the ability to encourage folks who
are able-bodied to get back into the workforce. Some states
have exercised that power; other states are still in the
process of deciding whether to exercise that power. So, part of
this is that it is important for states to analyze their
current circumstance and make a decision about what to do.
In the meantime, I think we are looking at ways in which we
can provide help and assistance at USDA. One of the areas that
we are concerned about, frankly, is the fact that there are
agricultural products that are available and ready for export,
but for whatever reason, there are empty containers that are
leaving our ports because shippers are making the decision that
it is more profitable for them to have empty containers moved
back to Asia than it is to fill them with agricultural
products. So, we are looking for ways in which we can utilize
resources to fill those containers. Now, as we do, I think that
is going to create opportunities not only for agriculture, but
potentially for additional job efforts.
Nobody anticipated, I don't think, Congressman, the number
of people who made the life decision to retire. This obviously
is a challenge, and it is one that we are going to have to take
a look at creatively to try to address.
Mr. Davis. It is a challenge, and I agree, but I also think
there may be some ways to utilize the SNAP Education and
Training program to get our SNAP beneficiaries the training
that they need to go fill jobs that are available to replace
those who retired. So, I would urge you----
Secretary Vilsack. I am sorry. We just finished a rule on
improving the employment and training under the SNAP Program,
and it is important to talk about this because, again, it is
the state's responsibility to take the resources we are
providing them, millions of dollars. In many cases, states
don't spend those resources, and that is unfortunate, and in
many cases, they don't do a particularly good job. They know
who the SNAP beneficiaries are, and they know where the
workforce needs are, because they have workforce development
offices. And what this new rule is requiring states to do is to
do a better job of marrying that information and data so that
they can create the opportunities for folks to be gainfully
employed.
So, hopefully this new rule will address some of the
concerns that you are raising.
Mr. Davis. Great. That is great. I would love to continue
to work with you and the agency on ensuring that our states do
the right thing and use the program to their benefit.
I don't have a lot of time left, Mr. Secretary. I do want
to make sure, obviously prioritizing higher blends of ethanol
and biodiesel fuels we believe are going to help reduce
emissions and help lower prices at the pump. I just wanted to
get your response on USDA's Higher Blends Infrastructure
Incentive Program. It has been successful at increasing the
availability. Do you have any further plans to bolster the
HBIIP Program?
Secretary Vilsack. I think we just announced about $100
million to encourage expansion of higher blended fuels. I would
point out in the 9 seconds left that there is also a tremendous
opportunity in aviation fuel. The grand challenge that was
recently announced creates a tremendous opportunity for the
biofuel industry for expansion.
Mr. Davis. Great.
The Chairman. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Delgado, who
is Chairman of the Subcommittee on Commodity Exchanges, Energy,
and Credit, is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Delgado. Thank you, Chairman Scott, for holding this
hearing, and I want to thank Secretary Vilsack for testifying
before the Committee today.
Secretary Vilsack, one issue I have to raise relates to
milk consumption, a priority that I know you and I both share,
as we have spoken about it previously. Including when you came
to my district and met with my in-district Agriculture Advisory
Committee.
Ranking Member Thompson and I have offered bipartisan
legislation to allow schools to serve all varieties of milk,
including whole milk. I know that we are limited by current law
which stipulates that milk offerings in schools must align with
the most recent Dietary Guidelines, but I am concerned that
when the guidelines were last updated in 2020, the Dietary
Guideline Advisory Committee, DGAC, didn't appear to consider
some recent science that pointed toward positive or neutral
effects of dairy fat. With the whole milk being the preferred
choice when compared to skim or low-fat milk options, we know
it has a clear track record for improving milk consumption. We
also know that the DGAC wants to increase milk consumption. So,
accordingly, I do hope the next go-round the DGAC will at least
more carefully consider the full body of science.
I also appreciate that when you visited my district last
summer, you spoke about examining ways to encourage whole milk
in schools, possibly even through a pilot program, and I would
love to have you, if possible, elaborate on what specific
actions your Department is considering and what we can do on
our end to help make that happen?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, Congressman, one of the key
problems with the issue of whole milk is cost. If you talk to
school nutrition folks out there in the countryside, they
operate on a very difficult and tight budget, and part of the
issue is cost.
One thing we can do in terms of additional consumption of
milk is to take a look at ways in which the current supply of
milk is being made available, and whether or not it is a
barrier to consumption. If you look at the research, you are
going to find that the containers that are used in schools are
a barrier. They are difficult to open and so, kids oftentimes
just pass on the milk. Oftentimes the temperature of the milk
is not what it needs to be. So, we are looking at ways in which
we can provide resources to schools to basically create a way
in which the milk can be distributed at a very cold
temperature, and in containers that are less cumbersome as a
way of increasing milk consumption.
I would point out that while milk consumption is down in
this country, dairy consumption is not down. It is actually up.
We may not drink as much as we used to, but we certainly eat
more than we used to in terms of cheese and yogurt and things
of that nature, and we have instituted those products into the
school lunch and school breakfast programs.
Mr. Delgado. I appreciate that.
I do have one other question, but just to follow up in
terms of the cost. I know you mentioned the manner in which the
containers are presented could be helpful, but is there any
thought being done or any thought being given to the ways costs
can be addressed from the agency?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, you all have the opportunity to
make a determination and to provide the budget and resources
that would enable the reimbursement rate and the resources
available to schools could be increased to provide additional
resources.
Right now as a result of the pandemic, we are doing what we
can to increase access to resources, as school districts are
faced with some serious challenges. One of the reasons there is
a challenge is that not only--food is--we are changing the way
in which and where we eat food, about ten percent more in-home
consumption today than pre-pandemic, and that has created a
need for a shift away from supplying to restaurants versus
supplying it to a grocery store. Different packaging, different
sized containers, et cetera, all of which the supply chain is
working through as we hopefully, at some point in time, return
to whatever the new normal is.
Mr. Delgado. I appreciate that. I see that I am bumped up
against my 5 minutes, so I will circle back to you at a later
date. But I will yield back the rest of my time.
Thank you.
The Chairman. The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Allen, is
recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. Allen, you may want to unmute.
Mr. Allen. There we go. Can you hear me okay?
The Chairman. Yes, I can.
Mr. Allen. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Mr. Secretary. We have been wanting to hear from you. We are
almost 1 year into this Administration, and we have been
wanting to hear from you, particularly now, we are a nation in
crisis. You go to the gas pump. You may get gas, you may not.
But, we have a war on fossil fuel. We also seem to have a war
on agriculture. In my district, we have farmers trying to
export cotton, peanuts, pecans, you name it, and we can't get
containers loaded for whatever reason. China and their
situation, containers are going back empty. So, we have just
crisis after crisis after crisis on the supply chain issue, and
I am sure you are going to hear a lot more about that.
One issue that is specific to my district is, as you are
aware, the EPA banned the food tolerance of a critical
pesticide, chlorpyrifos, and right now, EPA's decision is in
conflict with actually what USDA pointed out that our science
supports the continued safe use of this chemical. Typically in
these situations, USDA would go to OMB and there would be some
kind of ruling there. Where are we with the situation on this
particular chemical, and what are you doing about it?
Secretary Vilsack. That is a good question, Congressman,
and I will tell you that we have ongoing conversations and
discussions with EPA. I don't know that we have necessarily
reached a consensus, but those discussions are ongoing.
Mr. Allen. Well, we are getting close to planting season
here, so there is a sense of urgency as you might understand.
As far as the situation with the cost of food at the
grocery store, I am getting hammered with that in the district.
Where are we with that, and what are you doing as far as
investigative work, and what might happen to relieve some of
that pressure?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, I think there are a couple, first
of all, there has been, in some of the areas where we have seen
increased prices, the good news is there has been some
deceleration in the last couple of months. Hopefully that
continues. Meat in particular has gone down just a bit.
This is basically strong demand, and as I indicated
earlier, strong demand globally and nationally, and
essentially, we are changing our patterns of how we eat and
where we eat, and the supply chain is in the process of
adjusting to the fact we are eating more at home and less out
at restaurants. We are trying to address the issue of ports by
encouraging longer hours at the ports. I mentioned the efforts
to try to get more drivers in trucks with apprenticeship
programs and CDL licenses being issued. We have popup ports
that are being encouraged to create movement of those
containers and getting them into the stream of commerce. We are
continuing to look for ways in which we can provide help and
assistance to families that are struggling. That is why we have
the SNAP Program and the review of the Thrifty Food Program.
That is why we provided additional assistance to schools in the
form of additional cash as well as additional food products
that we are purchasing. We have the summer EBT Program and
encouraging states to, again, apply for or to provide their
plans. So, there are a variety of things we are doing to try to
help folks through this difficult period, while we are trying
to balance supply and demand.
Mr. Allen. Also, recent attacks on our packaging
industries--of course, we talked--you are taking action as far
as the meat industry, but our chicken folks are very concerned
about production as far as line speeds and things like that.
Obviously, have you been on the front lines and talked to these
folks about the issues they are dealing with, obviously
workforce? I mean, we got workforce problems in agriculture.
I have about 18 seconds. Tell me what you are doing there.
Secretary Vilsack. Well, we are working through on the pork
side a Federal case that basically denied our rule. We are
working with nine entities, nine businesses. Five have applied
for a waiver. We are in the process of reviewing those waivers.
We have created a waiver system.
On the poultry side, we have asked for the court to remand
the litigation back to USDA so we can try to create a similar
waiver process in the poultry area. So, we are focused on that.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Rush, is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Rush. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this
hearing.
Secretary Vilsack, I am so delighted that you once again
are with us here today before this Committee, and I want you to
know that I really appreciate your continued commitment to
working with me and the other Members of this Committee.
Mr. Secretary, we really want to work with you. We really
do, and I am delighted that this feeling is mutually felt.
I recently mentioned to you there is too much potential
agriculturally in my City of Chicago, and its immediately
surrounding areas. Chicago was at one time and still is a hub
for railroads that connect our nation to more purposes of
agriculture. It is indeed a place where there are a lot of
bigger companies, bigger land that can be used specifically for
vertical farming.
Mr. Secretary, I think I might have shared with you that
for decades, Chicago was the nation's flower capital, the
pickle capital, and the lettuce capital for our nation, and
celery capital for our nation. And I think the one thing that
Chicago has the potential to be significant in the agricultural
sector.
With that said, Mr. Secretary, I want to discuss the
prognosis for Black farmers under your leadership. As you well
know, our nation's Black farmers are in desperate need of
assistance. In 1920, there was almost one million Black
farmers, of which my grandfather was one, accounting for 14
percent of farmers at that particular time. In 2017, there were
less than 50,000 Black farmers, making up only 1.4 percent of
the farming population.
Mr. Secretary, without action, this situation will only get
worse. It was recently reported that direct loan applications
are significantly more likely to be rejected for Black farmers
than for White farmers, and even when approved, the loans for
the Black farmers are far less than loans for White farmers.
Moreover, Black farmers all too often still feel as though they
are unwelcome in these local USDA field offices.
I know that you are working hard, your Department is
working hard at your direction to reverse the injustice once
and for all. And my question to you, Mr. Secretary, is will you
please outline exactly how USDA is working to help minority
farmers and particularly Black farmers?
Secretary Vilsack. Congressman, thank you very much for the
question.
When I saw the statistics concerning the declining rate of
African American farmer applications, I asked the team to take
an in depth look at the reason. And what we found was that it
oftentimes in some cases the application was withdrawn. In some
cases, the application was incomplete. In some cases, the
application just simply didn't have the cash flow that made
sense. A lot of different reasons. But I think the fundamental
concern and the fundamental challenge is that folks do not have
the technical assistance to be able to understand precisely how
to access USDA programs.
And for that reason, under the American Rescue Plan, we are
using resources to provide assistance to create cooperating
groups that can connect with those African American farmers,
those Black farmers, to provide the technical assistance, the
financial planning, the business planning, the development of
applications so that there is more success.
So, the first order of business here is to get folks the
kind of technical assistance they need, and the USDA has
expanded significantly efforts in that regard, and we are going
to continue to expand efforts. There is a lot more I can say,
but I see my time is up.
The Chairman. The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr.
Rouzer, is recognized now for 5 minutes.
Mr. Rouzer. Well, thank you, Chairman Scott, and Mr.
Secretary, always good to see you. I appreciate you being here
today.
I want to follow up on this inflation aspect. Certainly,
supply and demand is obviously a key component, but government
policy, particularly bad government policy, affects supply and
demand. Lack of labor is a big issue. When you pay folks not to
work, that exacerbates that problem. Excessive spending that is
not needed, you got too many dollars facing too few goods. The
easy money policies of the Fed, your restriction of oil and
natural gas development in this country, all that plays a part
in this inflation crisis that we are seeing.
I note that the Administration and you went after the meat
and poultry industry pretty strong not long ago, and I know
also that the Administration is pursuing additional GIPSA rules
on these industries, which will only further drive risk, which
increases cost, which increases inflation for consumers. And
so, I just really push back on these new GIPSA rules as
strongly as I possibly can, and note that multiple Congresses
have rejected these proposals in the past. Are you still intent
on moving forward with these, given the inflation crisis that
we have in this country?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, Congressman, I don't think the
GIPSA rules are connected to inflation. I think the strong
demand that we are seeing and a growing economy and an economy
that is growing at a record rate is in part a response.
Let me just simply say about GIPSA. Farmers deserve a fair
shake in the marketplace, and they don't get a fair shake. They
do not get a fair shake in the marketplace. Poultry producers
are not given a fair shake in the tournament system. It is not
transparent. They have very little rights. They have the rug
pulled out from them on multiple occasions, terrible stories of
investments they make only to find that the integrator
basically pulls business from them. So, this is about
fundamental fairness. It is about giving farmers a fair shake,
and you know what, I think that is the Department's business.
That is our role is to make sure that we are giving farmers a
fair shake, number one. Number two, it is important to expand
capacity. When 85 percent of beef processing is in the hands of
four companies, when 70 percent of pork processing is in the
hands of four companies, when over 50 percent of poultry
processing is in the hands of four companies, it is simply too
concentrated. There is not enough capacity and there is not
enough competition. And frankly, if we had more competition, we
would give consumers choice. And if consumers have choice, I
guarantee that is also going to impact and effect price in a
positive way. So, we are going to continue to do this.
Mr. Rouzer. Mr. Secretary, new rules and regulations only
add to cost and drive further consolidation.
Secretary Vilsack. It is about fairness.
Mr. Rouzer. Moving forward here.
As you probably know--I hope that you know--Appropriations
Subcommittee Chairwoman DeLauro has included a provision in the
House-passed Fiscal Year 2022 approps bill to reduce line
speeds in poultry plants, which all that is going to do is
reduce supply. You reduce supply and you have high demand, you
are driving up costs. What are we going to do about that?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, I think it is important for us to
understand that there are three dynamics here. There is a need
for continued farmer productivity and profit; there is a need
for worker safety; and there is a need for the processors as
well. And the goal here is not necessarily to pit worker safety
against farmer profits, or farmer profits against processor.
The goal here is to try to figure out how to balance.
I think there is a way forward. I think we found this with
a pilot program that we have in the pork industry where we are
encouraging folks to look at worker safety and also to look at
line speed, and I think there is a way to find a common ground
here. And that is what we are going to try to continue to try
to do at USDA. I am encouraged by the fact that five of the
nine pork processors are looking for a line speed waiver so
that they can have a higher line speed, but at the same time,
protecting their workers. That seems to me to be the way we
ought to approach this.
Mr. Rouzer. Mr. Secretary, I only have about 20 seconds
left.
Real quickly switching gears. African Swine Fever, I know
you are concerned about that and I am sure the Department is
doing everything possible to keep it out of this country. Can
you provide us a quick update on that front?
Secretary Vilsack. Significant investment of time and
resources in the Dominican Republic, working with them to put
together a plan. Dr. Shere has spent literally weeks in the
Dominican Republic----
[The information referred to is located on p. 127.]
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
And now, I recognize the gentlewoman from Ohio, Ms. Brown,
for 5 minutes.
Ms. Brown. Thank you, Chairman Scott and Ranking Member
Thompson, for holding this hearing, and thank you, Secretary
Vilsack for joining us today to review the state of the rural
economy and operations of the Department of Ag.
As we know too well, COVID-19 has taken a heavy toll on
many of our communities, and deepened the hunger crisis. USDA's
Economic Research Service found that while the number of
Americans who are food-insecure remained level through 2020,
hunger increased for Black and Latino families, and the food-
insecure household rate was significantly higher than the
national average, 21.7 percent versus 10.5. Unfortunately, the
pandemic's impact on hunger was felt quite inequitably.
Food insecurity is an unconscionable, crippling reality for
far too many Americans, and our communities cannot flourish
when so many people, especially our students, still lack basic
regular access to nutritious food.
That is why I introduced the Afterschool Meals Act (H.R.
6357). My legislation will alleviate hunger amongst the most
vulnerable students by enabling schools to provide healthy and
nutritious meals to children in afterschool care. I am also a
co-lead of Congresswoman Alma Adams' coming legislation that
seeks to combat college hunger by providing enrolled students
with access to information about SNAP benefits.
My first question is on September 16, 2015, the Federal
Government announced the U.S. 2030 Food Loss and Waste
Reduction Goal, the first Federal goal of its kind that seeks
to cut food loss and waste in half by the year 2030. What is
the USDA doing to advance the United States 2030 Food Loss and
Waste Reduction Goal?
Secretary Vilsack. We are working with what we refer to as
champions, an extended group of industry leaders that are
working with us to try to identify ways in which food waste can
be reduced. We are working with schools, we are working with
universities, we are working with the food industry, we are
working with grocery stores, we are working with restaurants,
we are working with food processing companies, all designed to
find creative ways to deal with the issue of food waste.
Roughly 30 percent of what we grow and raise in this
country is wasted, and it is an unfortunate circumstance and
one in which we are very serious about reducing. We are looking
for a set of conferences and webinars in 2022 to raise the
awareness of this issue. We are going to take a look at what
other countries are doing. I know that there are some
innovative and creative opportunities for food waste reduction
in Asian countries in particular, so there is an opportunity
for us to learn from that as well.
Portion sizes are critically important, and we are
obviously encouraging folks, especially in restaurants, to
think about that and to give people choices in terms of portion
sizes.
Ms. Brown. Thank you so much.
My second question is as mandated by the 2018 Farm Bill, in
December 2021, USDA completed a report that assesses the
progress of food loss and waste efforts. The report concludes
that there is a lack of overall funding for these programs. Can
you outline these programs for us?
Secretary Vilsack. I am sorry, Congresswoman, which
programs?
Ms. Brown. In the farm bill, the USDA completed a report of
the progress of food loss and waste efforts. There is a lack of
overall funding, I understand. Can you outline the issues
around the funding for these programs?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, I will have a better understanding
of that when we utilize a portion of the American Rescue Plan
resources to create more incentives and more resources
available for food waste efforts.
One of the things that we are doing with reference to urban
agriculture is expanding the compost opportunity with grants,
and there is a potential opportunity for us to significantly
increase our investment in compost, which obviously would begin
to address food waste.
One additional way is to encourage, obviously, I mentioned
portion size reduction, and then, of course, there is the issue
of recycling as well. So, there are a multitude of strategies,
and with additional resources from the American Rescue Plan, we
should be able to provide additional incentives to advance
those strategies so that people become more aware of them.
Ms. Brown. Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
The Chairman. The gentleman from South Dakota, Mr. Johnson,
is now recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr.
Secretary.
We have talked a lot about livestock issues in the past
year, sir. Obviously a great source of interest to you and me.
I mean, the Administration has had some rhetoric suggesting a
fair amount of wrongdoing or perhaps anti-competitive behavior
among the large four, and there is so much frustration out in
cattle country about these DOJ investigations or about Packers
and Stockyards activity that takes place, and we don't really
get any resolution. And I understand there are some reasons for
that, but I just wanted to pick your brain, sir. I mean, if we
have concerns about the marketplace and we announce an
investigation seemingly every year and we never drive to a
conclusion, does that actually benefit the marketplace at all?
Your thoughts?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, I think there is action by the
Department of Justice on a number of cases that are going
through the process, and so, you have to let them go through
the process before you can make a determination of whether or
not they were legitimate or not. We recently announced a joint
effort between the Department of Justice and USDA providing an
area and an opportunity for people to report anti-competitive
activities so that we can learn more of what is going on, on
the ground. In the meantime, obviously what we are doing at
USDA is to try to focus on three things: first, creating more
competition and capacity; second, creating more price discovery
to the extent that we can get more information on cash sales
and more studies to do that--we are obviously interested in
that so we have a better understanding of what the market is;
and third, making sure that farmers get a fair shake and that
they have the ability if they are not being treated fairly to
basically raise issues, and that goes to the Packers and
Stockyards.
And finally, we also want to make sure that consumers get
the right information on the country of origin in the grocery
store. If there is a label on ground beef, a pound of ground
beef that says, ``Product of the U.S.,'' we want to make sure
that consumers understand precisely what that means. So, we are
in the process of doing a fairly extensive survey to find out
if consumers understand what that means, and whether they place
value on it.
Mr. Johnson. Well, I think all of that is very well said,
and I applaud your efforts in many of those areas. And I would
agree. The current ``Product of the USA'' label, right now, I
think it is misleading. I think it provides inaccurate
information to consumers, and we have had, listen. I am not
going to hold you fully accountable or accountable at all for
promises the last guy made, but we have heard for years now
that we were going to reform the ``Product of the USA,'' and I
hope you can get it done, sir, in a way that maybe others
couldn't.
I want to get back to these investigations, though. You are
right. We need to let them run their course, but we had USDA
conduct an investigation that really some sort of an interim
report long after the Holcomb fire, but it didn't really drive
to ground some of these accusations about anti-competitive
behavior. Can we expect an update, or what is the status of
that investigation?
Secretary Vilsack. I will have to get back to you on that,
Congressman, because I am not prepared today to tell you
exactly what the status of that is. I would be happy to get
back, our staff will get back to your staff on that.
I would say that I have talked to the Attorney General. He
and his team is very sincere about this. They want to make sure
that the playing field is level, and I think we should all be
in for that.
[The information referred to is located on p. 128.]
Mr. Johnson. You mentioned price discovery is critically
important to a functioning marketplace, and I think you are
most certainly aware that last month the House passed out 410
yes votes to 11 no votes, the Cattle Contract Library. I think
the White House has done a good job of calling out support for
a number of different legislative proposals. Are there any
discussions internally with your team, sir, with the White
House about doing what you can to see that the Cattle Contract
Library (H.R. 5609) also gets through the Senate? It would
provide the much-needed transparency you talked about.
Secretary Vilsack. We are very supportive of that effort,
and very supportive of trying to get information so people know
what a legitimate contract is, and what reasonable contract
provisions are.
Mr. Johnson. And then finally, sir, I know that there are
concerns about confidentiality with the data that is released
currently. I think there is some belief that maybe
confidentiality issues stand in the way of price discovery, can
there be some flexibility in those provisions, going forward?
Secretary Vilsack. You have to--smart enough people ought
to be able to figure this out. To be able to get the kind of
information you need to make sure that your market is fair,
while at the same time making sure that you are not going
overboard, and that is the goal here. We will certainly work
towards that goal.
Mr. Johnson. Looking forward to working with you.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Johnson. And with that, I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentlewoman from Maine, Ms. Pingree, is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Pingree. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you
for holding this hearing. Secretary Vilsack, it is wonderful to
have you in front of us, and great to hear your answers to all
of our questions today.
I want to particularly commend you on speaking as favorably
as you did around the issues related to GIPSA, the lack of
fairness in the tournament system, line speeds. These are just
such critically important issues to address, both for our
farmers, and also the health and safety of people who work in
our production facilities. So, thank you for that.
I will get on to my questions. You know all too well that
Danone recently announced that they will be pulling out of the
Northeast, terminating the contracts of 89 organic dairy farms
in the region, including, unfortunately, 14 farms in Maine. So,
in response to this, there has been a stakeholder taskforce
that was convened, and they have submitted a list of over 30
recommendations to you last month, to both support the farms
who are losing their contracts, and to ensure the long-term
success of the organic dairy sector in our region, which has
been so important to our dairy farms.
These recommendations encompass everything from building
more regional processing capacity to developing new markets,
addressing transportation and distribution challenges, a lot of
things that could be done.
So, could you talk to me a little bit about the steps that
the USDA is taking to evaluate and act on those
recommendations?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, immediately following Danone's
announcement, we basically put together a meeting of
commissioners and secretaries of agriculture, and encouraged
the development of that report. I am certainly pleased to see
the comprehensive nature of it addressing a multitude of
issues, issues that not only does the Federal Government have
to be serious about, but also state governments as well, and
also the dairy industry. Certainly glad to see that Stonyfield
has stepped forward and made a commitment to provide help and
assistance, and that Danone has also extended the deadline, if
you will.
I have seen the report. I have seen the recommendations. I
asked for a meeting of our team so that we can go through those
recommendations and find out what we can essentially do in
terms of providing help and assistance. I think we will be able
to help on some of the recommendations. I think other
recommendations are probably more appropriately done at the
state and local level and the industry level, but we will be
getting a response back to the task force in the very near
future with what we think we are able to do. And the good news
is I think we have some resources that we can bring to bear to
provide help and assistance, as we are deeply concerned about
that, and it is reflective, frankly, of some of the challenges
that we have in other regions of the country.
Ms. Pingree. Well, thank you for that. I am pleased to hear
that you are going to come out with some of those responses
soon, and I do agree that some of the money that has been made
available to deal with the issues that we are dealing with in
the supply chain and with farmers around the country should be
helpful to this.
And I just want to reiterate, since I know you have made
both climate change and the issues related to consolidation in
agriculture top of mind, and an important priority for the
Department. The importance of protecting organic farms when we
are thinking about issues related to climate change is so
critically important. We do not want to lose that capacity, so
keeping them operating is a high, high priority for our New
England delegation.
I also wanted to ask you about climate-smart agriculture. I
really appreciated your comments in the testimony about
ensuring that the USDA's climate-smart agriculture and forestry
partnerships will be available to producers of all size, all
methods, all locations, and all types of production, which we
care deeply about.
So, even though I know you are working out some of the
details, can you help us understand how you will structure the
program to ensure this commitment is met?
Secretary Vilsack. The goal here, obviously, and hopefully
soon, is to announce the framework and the application process.
And the hope is that we are able to make some decisions on
applications in mid-2022. And again, I think we are structuring
this in a way that small-sized operators, different types of
operations, different production methods will be respected.
Different geographic challenges will also be addressed, and so,
it is going to be a concerted effort here to try to respond to
all of agriculture's need to participate in this effort and to
take full advantage of the resources that are available. And we
are going to make sure that underserved producers and
underserved communities are also not forgotten in this process.
That is the commitment, and I can guarantee to you that we will
make sure that we live up to that commitment.
Ms. Pingree. Great. Well, I really do appreciate the
commitment. I know from dealing with so many programs it is one
of the biggest issues we hear from our region to make sure that
as we implement these programs, they meet the needs of our
farmers.
I am out of time, but I greatly appreciate your time here,
and I will submit a couple other questions for the record.
Thank you.
The Chairman. The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Baird, is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Baird. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and you and the Ranking
Member for holding this hearing today. And I want to
congratulate the Secretary for serving once again as our
Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and I really
appreciate him being here today.
I will say to you, Mr. Secretary, the first part of my
comments you can take a brief breather, because you have
already answered the question, but I wanted to comment just to
reinforce that. And that deals with biotechnology, because I
really think it is going to play a major role in our ability in
agriculture to be able to feed the number of growing
populations around the world.
Even last fall, Representative Plaskett and I sent a
bipartisan letter that was signed by 37 Members of the
Committee to you and the FDA acting Administrator, Janet
Woodcock, urging the Administration to make progress on
implementing a more efficient science and risk-based regulatory
system that will allow a path to the market for animal
biotechnology products. I was really glad to hear that you are
working on an MOU, Memorandum of Understanding.
And to emphasize the importance of biotechnology, the pig's
heart that Representative Hartzler mentioned that was going
into a human being was somewhat genetically modified to make it
less resistant by human bodies.
I just think that we think that the USDA needs to take a
lead in developing a regulatory framework for animal
biotechnology, that encourages agriculture innovation and
provides access to valuable new technologies. One of the things
I am thinking about there, for example, is that we have feed
ingredients that we can reduce the methane from cattle by 36
percent, but yet, that has to go through an FDA process rather
than USDA. So, that part of my question period deals with
reinforcing that idea and so on. If you have comments, you are
welcome to make those at this time, and then I do have a
question after that.
Secretary Vilsack. Let me just respond to the feed issue
that you just raised.
I agree with you. I think we do need to modernize our
regulatory process as it relates to those kinds of feed
additives so that we don't treat them necessarily as
pharmaceutical products and having to go through a very
extensive and very expensive process when other nations are
getting the feed additive into their dairy industry, for
example, and allowing them to essentially get a market
advantage by suggesting that their dairy products, for example,
are more sustainably produced. So, I agree. I do think we need
to have a modernized approach here.
Mr. Baird. Thank you very much. I appreciate that answer
very much.
My question now gets down to the pandemic. It has been
tough on the entire economy, as you well know, and especially
on farmers and ranchers. And so, the question comes up, the
Spot Market Hog Pandemic Program. I have producers telling me
that they have had difficulty in accessing those funds, and so,
I am asking you what the current status is and how soon we
think we can get that kind of support to our pork producers.
Secretary Vilsack. Well, we published a Notice of Funding
Availability in December, December 14. We created a signup
period from December 15 to February 25, so we are obviously, we
initially set it up. As we set it up, we realized that there
were some issues relative to the eligibility requirements that
created some challenges, so we are in the process of revising
our application process. We hope to get that done very soon,
and the expectation is once we do, we hope to be able to see
payments made sometime in hopefully the March timeframe.
Mr. Baird. Well, thank you. We really appreciate that
effort and want to reemphasize how important it is to some of
the pork producers and the problems they have endured during
this pandemic.
So, thank you very much, and thank you very much for being
here. I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentlewoman from New Hampshire, Ms.
Kuster, is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Kuster. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to
Secretary Vilsack. Great to be with you. We appreciate you
being here today.
For nearly 2 years, our country has been grappling with the
COVID-19 pandemic, not only the staggering death toll it has
caused, but also the devastating impact that it has had on our
economy. In rural communities, hospitals and healthcare centers
in my district and across this country have been pushed to the
brink. Farmers and producers have faced numerous supply chain
challenges, and many families have struggled to work and learn
from home with insufficient broadband connectivity.
The good news is provisions in the American Rescue Plan and
the bipartisan infrastructure package, as well as the
widespread availability of vaccines and booster shots are
starting to make a tremendous difference. But as the omicron
variant continues to rage, there is no doubt we still have a
long way to go toward recovery.
Mr. Secretary, there is no lack of ground to cover, so
let's dive right in. Last May, I joined 49 other Democratic
Members in signing a letter to you calling for USDA to dedicate
$300 million in relief funding for one-on-one business
technical assistance for farms and food businesses. Business
technical assistance includes customized coaching for business
and marketing planning, financial and labor management, and
succession planning. These skills are essential to the success
of small- and mid-sized farms like those in my district, and
their long-term viability.
The Administration seems to have focused technical
assistance on the middle of the supply chain on underserved
communities and on USDA programming. All of this is important,
but there is a much broader need for business technical
assistance for farm and food businesses across the nation. Can
you share your progress on this request that my colleagues and
I submitted to you?
Secretary Vilsack. We are in the process of expanding our
efforts. In terms of the cooperators I mentioned earlier, we
provided $75 million to 20 entities to basically provide
additional assistance and help. We expect and anticipate that
there is going to be another request for applications that will
expand that number significantly, and expand the reach of our
collaborative efforts significantly. So, hopefully that will be
in part responding to the concern that you have.
We are also----
Ms. Kuster. Thank you. I am just going to keep moving
along, if you don't mind. I will look forward to those results.
I know it is a very successful program.
I also wanted to talk with you about how we can continue to
decarbonize the agricultural sector, recognizing farmers for
the steps they have already taken and incentivizing further
progress. Your USDA Building Blocks for Climate-Smart
Agriculture and Forestry found that on-farm renewable energy
technologies and improved energy efficiency offer the biggest
opportunity for reducing greenhouse gases.
I agree, but I have heard from constituents that the
ceiling for the Rural Energy for America Program, REAP, needs
to be higher and we need to prioritize small farm projects.
With that in mind, how can USDA and its partners in the Federal
Government help expand on-farm renewable energy use?
Secretary Vilsack. We would certainly like to see more
resources in the REAP Program. It would be interesting to take
a look at the data in terms of who has benefitted from REAP. I
think you are going to find that several thousand of those
grants went to small- and mid-size farming operations to
embrace renewable energy and energy efficiency.
We are going to continue to work, and obviously, the
passing of a budget would be helpful, because then we would
have a certain amount of funding that we could be sort of
assured of getting and resources and personnel to be able to
appropriately administer those programs.
I think the Climate-Smart Agriculture and Forestry
Partnership Initiative is also an opportunity as well for
significant pilots and demonstration projects to lift up the
decarbonization efforts. So, I think there are a multitude of
ways in which we can provide help and assistance.
Ms. Kuster. Great, and in my final moments here. Shifting
gears to dairy. In just a couple of months, schools will start
contracting for their milk supplies for the upcoming school
year, 2022-2023. There is a long-running discussion about
whether schools should be able to offer low-fat flavored milk.
Congress has been passing year-to-year riders in appropriations
bills to allow low-fat flavored milk, but schools really need
the predictability and certainty of knowing what the rules are
going to be.
I understand your Department has submitted a rule to OMB
that covers the next 2 school years, which is much appreciated.
Could you commit to quickly finalizing regulations that provide
schools with the certainty that they need?
Secretary Vilsack. Yes.
The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired, but Mr.
Secretary, you may answer.
Secretary Vilsack. Yes.
Ms. Kuster. Thank you, and I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you.
The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Balderson, is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Balderson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
Secretary Vilsack, for taking time today to come to the
Committee.
So many people in my district across Ohio and throughout
rural America still don't have reliable broadband access. I
think we all can agree here that what matters most is making
sure that we get to a point where every American is connected.
That being said, my primary concern is that USDA is not
using the funds at its disposal efficiently and in a targeted
manner. Last week, Lisa Hone, an expert on the broadband policy
at the White House briefed Administration staff and rural
stakeholders saying that the USDA's ReConnect Program is
focusing on very rural areas. ReConnect was created to target
those areas, and for the most part, it always has. However,
this assurance from Ms. Hone seems to be at odds with the
USDA's recent changes to the program. In ReConnect round 3, the
definition of underserved was changed from 25 megabytes per
second download speeds and 3 megabits per second upload speeds
to 100 down, 20 up. Sorry for the confusing numbers there. This
was done solely at the discretion of the USDA.
This only brings up overbuilding concerns for areas that
already have access to 25 down, 3 up, but also concerns that
the USDA will be spending more money upgrading networks in
areas where people already had, or at least had some sort of
high-speed broadband service, rather than in very rural areas
where many households completely lack broadband. To me, it
looks like USDA purposely made round 3 less targeted towards
these very rural households. Can you explain why this change
was made, and how are you making sure that the third round of
ReConnect funding will be continued to target households that
have no internet access, rather than overbuilding private
capital or upgrading networks that already exist?
Thank you.
Secretary Vilsack. The reason for doing this is because we
learned from the pandemic that 25/3 isn't sufficient when you
are dealing with distance learning, telemedicine, expanded
access to market for small business, precision agriculture on
the farm. There is a need for additional capacity, which we
learned during the course of the pandemic. So, it is equipping
rural America to basically have the kind of broadband access
that is meaningful and that actually can make a difference.
At the same time, the structure of the program does, in
fact, prioritize 25/3. So, to your point, I think there are
additional points for rural remote areas. There are additional
points for cooperatives and for nonprofits basically applying
for these resources. So, the structure of the program will
result in a significant improvement of access to meaningful
broadband, and at the same time, providing resources to those
unserved and underserved areas that you are concerned about,
because of the way the points system is structured.
Mr. Balderson. Okay. Thank you very much for the answer.
My next question, Mr. Secretary, the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act (Pub. L. 117-58) redefined eligible
service areas for the ReConnect Program from 90 percent of
households underserved to 50 percent, effectively reducing how
targeted the program is towards very rural areas.
To that end, are you concerned this reduced threshold will
cause ReConnect to be less targeted and create overbuilding of
broadband networks in areas that are already receiving funds
from other Federal broadband programs? A follow up to that
would be--go ahead, sir.
Secretary Vilsack. I am not, because I think the way in
which you can structure the points system that is used to
evaluate applications can allow you to ensure that you are
directing the program where it is needed most, and also to the
fact that there was, as well, a waiver of the match
requirement, which I suspect will also encourage and will see
applications from areas that have been historically
underserved.
I am not as concerned about the lowering of that threshold
as you might be.
Mr. Balderson. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back my remaining time.
The Chairman. The gentleman from Illinois--gentlelady, I am
sorry, Mrs. Bustos, who is also Chair of the Subcommittee on
General Farm Commodities and Risk Management, for 5 minutes.
Thank you.
Mrs. Bustos. All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, great to see you, and let me start out by
just saying thank you so much for taking the time just late
last year when you came to our Congressional district, visited
Arsenal Island between your home state and mine, and we had an
opportunity to host you at our lock and dam there, which is
Lock and Dam 15. And we took a little time that day to talk
about the importance of inland waterway infrastructure. And
then just yesterday, I think the Biden Administration can take
a victory lap, as can you, with the announcement that we have
$829 million that are flowing through the Navigation and
Ecosystem Sustainability Program, which we call NESP. That will
be used to modernize the locks and dams along the upper
Mississippi River.
If you could take just a little bit of time to talk about
the impact that modernizing our inland waterways like those on
the upper Mississippi River will have on the rural agricultural
economy?
Secretary Vilsack. That was a great trip, and I appreciate
you arranging it.
I learned during that trip that we can cut literally in
half the time it takes for a barge with soybeans to travel the
Mississippi River by improving the lock and dam system.
What does that mean? It means that we get that product to
port more quickly, less expensively, and as a result, we can
price that product for export at a very competitive price. When
30 percent of what we grow and raise is exported, our ability
to compete in a very competitive circumstance for agriculture
exports is absolutely directly connected to our advantage of
our transportation system, and because of the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act, we will now be in a position to
continue to maintain that competitive edge and advantage. And I
think that allows us to be confident that we are going to
continue to do a lot in exports. I am pleased that we had a
record year in agricultural exports last year, and that is one
of the reasons why farm income is up, and we expect and
anticipate that we are going to surpass that record this year.
But long-term, our ability to maintain that competitive
edge is directly connected to those improvements, and so, it is
a very big deal for American agriculture that those resources
are going to go to improve the lock and dam systems.
Mrs. Bustos. I agree. We could not have been more excited
with this announcement, and we are so grateful to you and to
the whole Biden Administration for seeing that this investment
is so important, especially in the upper Mississippi.
You talked a little bit earlier with Congresswoman
Hartzler's questions about the EPA releasing new renewable
volume obligations. So, I want to drill down just a little bit
deeper there.
It sets standards for how much renewable fuel, like
ethanol, so important to a region like the one I represent, and
how that will be required to be blended with gasoline going
forth.
I was very, very happy to see that the 2022 Renewable Fuel
Standard was set at what we would consider back on track as
President Biden promised, with a $15 billion--I am sorry, 15
billion gallon mandate. Can you talk, Mr. Secretary, a little
bit to the importance of this higher number for our family
farmers in rural America?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, it is an industry that does three
things. One, it supports stability in farm income for those who
are producing corn and for biodiesel soybeans. It increases job
opportunities in rural areas, and it provides consumers choice
and less expensive gas, and it is also beneficial to the
environment. So, actually, there are four benefits to this
industry.
That is why it is important in the industry to have
stability, and the stability comes not just in setting a
number, but in making sure that that number is real. And when
you have waivers as was granted in the previous Administration,
that number that was given by the previous Administration was
never real, because you were seeing it dissipated by the
granting of waivers. This EPA basically said 65 waivers, not
going to grant them, not going to approve them. The number we
are giving you is a real number and you can count on it, and I
think the stability is going to be very helpful to this
industry.
Mrs. Bustos. Yes, those waivers, we like to characterize it
as giving out candy on Halloween. They were just given out so
indiscriminately, it was so harmful to those who were in the
ethanol business. So, thank you for getting that back on track.
I had one more question. I will go ahead and hold off on
that in honor of the time that we have left. Thank you so much,
Mr. Secretary. Again, we really appreciate you being here, and
Mr. Chairman, I will yield back the 22 seconds I have left.
Thank you.
The Chairman. The gentlewoman from Washington, Ms. Schrier,
is recognized for 5 minutes. Ms. Schrier, you may want to
unmute.
Ms. Schrier. Thank you. Well, thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman, and welcome back, Mr. Secretary.
I want to mostly focus on the state of the tree fruit
industry today. As you know, Washington State is the nation's
top producing state for apples, pears, and cherries, many of
which are grown in my district, the 8th Congressional District.
I have heard from a lot of growers in my district lately about
really the precarious state of the industry right now. Trade
wars and the resulting retaliatory tariffs in India and China
continue to harm Washington apple growers who export \1/3\ of
their crop.
For example, India was a $120 million market for
Washington, and last year, that fell 83 percent to just $20
million. So, growers really risk permanently losing access to
these markets if our trade partners move on.
So, I guess my first just request, it is not even a
question for you, is just to continue to work on supply chains
and on trade so that they can keep these export markets.
Also, growers in my district know firsthand the challenges
of navigating climate change, and they had record heat this
last summer, and tree fruit is a perennial crop. So, trees
always sequester carbon, and tillage is not an issue after
initial planting. Cover crops, you can't always use them,
particularly with cherry trees because they can spread little
cherry disease. And so, a lot of the traditional climate-
friendly practices, they just don't apply to orchards.
And so, while orchardists in my district would love to
participate and really take advantage of these climate
friendly, climate-supportive programs, current policy
discussions focused on carbon markets and conservation programs
may fall short of what is needed to really help them adopt
fairly costly practices that will further reduce the industry's
carbon footprint.
My first question, Secretary Vilsack, is just as you are
thinking about different types of farms and having the farmers
at the table, what specific steps is USDA taking to ensure
perennial crops, orchards, are not left behind in these
efforts?
Secretary Vilsack. In the Climate-Smart Agriculture and
Forestry Initiative that we are working on, we are essentially
reaching out to producers of all types and basically saying
come to us with a pilot. Come to us with a demonstration
project that you believe will make an impact in terms of the
industry and in terms of climate, and let us figure out how we
can help finance that activity on the farm with a large enough
group of farmers that we can get data and information that
would allow us to create that climate-smart commodity I
referred to earlier.
There is nothing restricting the ability of the tree fruit
industry from coming together with a program that is
specifically designed to meet their needs to do what they can
do in terms of their carbon footprint, and come to us with an
application for resources to be able to fund that, and then we
would partner with a land-grant university or other entity that
would allow us to collect the data, the information that would
establish the standards so that when they begin to export or
when they begin to sell domestically, they are in a position to
be able to say to their customer, ``This is a sustainably
produced product, and here is the proof and the reason for
it.''
So, I would encourage them to apply.
Ms. Schrier. If you don't mind, I would love to just
highlight the supply chain. I talked about getting our goods
overseas, but I was just at Krainick Dairy in Enumclaw in my
district, and they are actually having a lot of trouble getting
penicillin and other medications to treat mastitis in their
cows, and so, I wanted to point out the supply chain in the
other direction and having a diversified source for things like
the medications that dairy farmers need for their cows.
And then I have just a few seconds remaining, but I wanted
to note I have heard a lot from my colleagues about the lack of
people in jobs and attributing blame. I will tell you that I
spent a lot of time with the business community and the farming
community, and I have heard loud and clear from both that we
need to take a look at our immigration policy, and that they
attribute a lot of their inability to find workers to the lack
of immigration.
So, thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. I yield back.
Secretary Vilsack. I couldn't agree more on the immigration
issue. Fix the system.
The Chairman. The gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Feenstra, is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Feenstra. Thank you, Chairman Scott, Ranking Member
Thompson, and thank you, Secretary Vilsack. It is always great
to see an Iowan in your position.
I just got a couple questions. Earlier this month, the USDA
announced its action plan for a fair, more competitive meat
supply chain. Of the four core strategies, the action plan
includes increasing transparency in the cattle market. Mr.
Secretary, can you expound on this core strategy and what we
may expect from the Administration?
Secretary Vilsack. I think it has to do, as you well know,
with transparency, more transparency in terms of the market
itself. We have too few cash transactions in the market, so it
is very difficult to determine when you have a cash transaction
whether you are getting a fair price or not. So, to the extent
that we can get more data, more transparency, that is
incredibly important.
The other aspect of transparency is when there is a
contracting relationship between a producer and a processor,
that there is a very specific understanding of exactly what
this agreement calls for, and what it requires. That is one of
the reasons why we are looking at ways in which we can create
more transparency in contracting terms so that people
understand and appreciate what is a fair contract and what may
not be quite fair to the producer.
Mr. Feenstra. Good. I am glad to hear that. I would love to
work with you on that.
Pivoting to broadband, I have a question about the
ReConnect Program. As you know, Iowa has the most community-
based broadband providers of any state in the country, and they
have been working tirelessly to ensure Iowa has a robust fiber
broadband connection. However, it is my understanding that the
scoring criteria for the third round of ReConnect Program puts
the providers at a 15 point disadvantage on grant applications
because their companies aren't local governments, nonprofits,
and cooperatives. I find that really concerning.
Mr. Secretary, these are local, family-owned commercial
companies that are providing a service to rural Iowa. Based on
your track record and serving rural America, will you look into
this concern and consider revising this new policy at RUS?
Secretary Vilsack. I am happy to look into it, Congressman,
but I would say that there are a number of criteria here that
would potentially play to the advantage of the companies you
mentioned: the rural location of the company, the economic need
of a particular area of Iowa, the fact that affordable service,
the price that is being paid, the opportunity to serve
vulnerable populations with the senior population in Iowa being
fairly significant. So, I think there are ways to offset what
you may perceive to be a disadvantage with one criteria with
advantages that play to the strengths of Iowa.
Mr. Feenstra. Thank you, Secretary. I would just simply say
this, is that you have private-sector companies now competing
with government, and I think that is very wrong. I mean, these
private-sector companies want to do a great job, but yet, they
are getting pushed out by government entities.
Secretary Vilsack. Wait a minute. What about cooperatives?
You don't want us to do this for them?
Mr. Feenstra. Cooperatives do play a part. I tend to agree.
Quick question for you. Two months ago, the FSIS announced
a trial program for a New Swine Inspection System, the NSIS
processing facilities to increase their line speeds. Why has
FSIS not approved any applications yet? The longer FSIS waits,
the more harm is caused to industry. Can you expound on that?
Secretary Vilsack. They are in the process of making sure
that working with our partners at OSHA that the worker safety
requirements of that waiver are valid and strong enough, and
that there is a way of providing appropriate oversight, because
we want that balance, as I said earlier, between worker safety,
the ability to process a number of hogs, and the profit for
producers. I don't think we should have to pit one against the
other. I think we have to figure out a way to have all three.
And I think this waiver process allows all three to take place,
so I am encouraged that we are going to see progress there.
Mr. Feenstra. Okay. Just pivoting to trade a minute, Mr.
Secretary.
What is USDA doing to encourage the pursuit of new trade
negotiations, particularly across Asia, to remove trade
barriers in the U.S.? Currently, we do not have an Under
Secretary, and I am just wondering two-fold, what are we doing
in Asia, and are we going to hire an Under Secretary of Trade?
Secretary Vilsack. There is an individual that is going
through the vetting process right now, and I am hopeful that
that concludes very soon.
In the meantime, we have a crack team that is working and
operating on trade. We have had some progress and some efforts
here. Mention was made to the dairy industry and the Canadian
decision, India opening up pork opportunities, Vietnam reducing
their tariffs.
We are trying to reestablish trust within trade and for
trade and about trade in America. I think there are a lot of
folks out there that feel that trade has disadvantaged the
United States. We are beginning to build trust by focusing on
enforcement of any trade agreement. That is why we are putting
pressure on China to live up to its Phase 1 trade agreements as
well.
Mr. Feenstra. Thank you, and I yield back. Thank you.
The Chairman. The gentlewoman from the U.S. Virgin Islands,
Ms. Plaskett, who is also Chair of the Subcommittee on
Biotechnology, Horticulture, and Research, is now recognized
for 5 minutes.
Ms. Plaskett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for providing this
venue for us to have discussion with the Secretary of
Agriculture. I believe this is so timely as we move into
hearings regarding the farm bill, and thank you Mr. Secretary
for your support of farmers, ranchers, and food systems in the
United States.
I wanted to ask you, you have mentioned quite often in your
discussion in your testimony three phrases that you have
discussed: rigid, consolidated, and fragile. Of course, we
understand the fragile portion of that, and you have also given
us some highlights about the consolidation that is occurring
with big business. But could you elaborate a little, just for
my own edification? I was really intrigued by those three words
and descriptions of the Agriculture Department, and what you
meant by rigid?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, there is, and I mentioned earlier
that there is a shift in consumption patterns in the United
States post-pandemic. Pre-pandemic 50 percent of our food was
consumed outside the home, 50 percent in the home. And we are
actually now seeing about a 60/40 split, between 40 percent
restaurants, 60 percent at home. The rigid nature of packaging,
of the way in which the food processing industry had basically
gotten comfortable with that ratio, gotten comfortable with the
supply chains that fed that ratio, and now, there is a bit of
disruption. The same thing is happening also in schools, where
individual companies that were distributing to schools for
whatever reason believe there is better opportunity someplace
else, and now they are beginning to shift, and that shift has
created a great deal of frustration and stress on the part of
nutrition officials in schools. So, it is the rigidity, the
ability to transition from one consumption pattern to another
consumption pattern, it is not easy. The transition has not
been easy, and that is the reason why we have some of the
challenges we have today. We are going to work through them.
Ms. Plaskett. Thank you.
Secretary Vilsack. We are going to try to provide more
flexibility in our system.
Ms. Plaskett. Thank you.
Secretary Vilsack. I am sorry. Part of it is having a local
and regional food system that complements that more rigid
national distribution, a complementary system is necessary.
Ms. Plaskett. Thank you.
I wanted to move on to the Micro-Grants for Food Security
Programs in U.S. Territories. As you heard, I represent the
Virgin Islands, and of course, you are aware that the non-
contiguous United States, that is, U.S. Territories along with
Hawaii and Alaska, have been provided through the Agriculture
Improvement Act of 2018, a new program to provide micro grants
through small scale gardening, herding, and livestock
operations. Can you speak to the success of this program as we
approach the next farm bill? Has the program been successful at
reducing food insecurity and developing local food systems in
these communities? Is there an increase in authorization
amount, currently at $10 million across all ten eligible
jurisdictions, warranted as we consider the next farm bill?
Secretary Vilsack. I think anything and everything we can
do to create the capacity of local and regional food systems to
be structured and created is beneficial. It is beneficial in
terms of addressing food insecurity and nutrition insecurity.
It is beneficial in terms of job creation. It is beneficial in
terms of a sense of community and a connection that people have
with their food supply, and an appreciation for those who
produce it. So, anything we can do to help create that
structure, because in addition, by doing it, you create a much
more resilient and less rigid food system than we have in the
country today.
Ms. Plaskett. Now, that is the intent of the program, but
if you could have your staff get back to me as to whether or
not they have seen any quantifiable difference in the food
security and issues that those territories have, I would
appreciate it.
And in my last remaining time, the renewable energy in the
Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico. As you know, the viability and
sustainability of energy in U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico
is of utmost importance to the well-being of our rural
communities. So much of our area is, in fact, rural. Energy
costs on our islands are higher than anywhere in the country,
and our geographic locations leave us vulnerable to climate
change, but also provide opportunities for adaptation and
innovation in resources. Congressman Ted Lieu and I have
introduced the renewable energy for those islands to create a
small new grant program within the Agriculture Department in
which grants may be awarded to nonprofits to facilitate
projects. Can you provide any perspective on the soundness of a
small----
The Chairman. The lady's time has expired; however, Mr.
Secretary, you may respond.
Secretary Vilsack. I will have our staff reach back out to
the Congresswoman's staff to provide any additional information
and response to that question.
Ms. Plaskett. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. The gentlelady from Illinois, Mrs. Miller, is
now recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you.
Mr. Secretary, a consistent concern for my fellow farmers
has to do with the skyrocketing costs of critical inputs like
fertilizer. We have seen a dramatic growth in fertilizer
prices. Nitrogen fertilizer has doubled in price, anhydrous
rose 131 percent, and pot ash is up 120 percent. Fertilizer is
an essential input for farmers. Without fertilizer, crop yields
and productivity would be significantly reduced.
My constituents don't want to see yield loss at a time when
commodity prices are high. Could you please tell me what the
USDA is doing to address these issues that threaten farmers,
especially small family farms?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, it is a challenge because of the
nature of what is causing this disruption. Part of it has to do
with global demand. Part of it has to do with decisions made by
other countries to prevent resources from coming to the U.S. I
think first and foremost, we need to expand our own capacity.
Second, we need to make sure that we are using fertilizer
appropriately and wisely.
I was recently at Iowa State University where farmers were
working with the university, and with a sensor program, they
have determined that potentially 30 percent of the corn acres
currently in Iowa that are utilizing fertilizer probably don't
need as much or any fertilizer. So, I think encouraging
additional precision agriculture so that our inputs are wisely
done, and finally, figuring out ways in which we can create
vehicles that will compensate farmers if, in fact, they decide
to apply less. So, we have this split nitrogen crop insurance
program now that essentially says that if you only apply
nitrogen once during the year as opposed to twice, if you have
a crop reduction, then there is crop insurance that can protect
you against that reduction.
So, I think there a multitude of strategies here to try to
address the longer-term issue. In the short-term, I think we
are going to try to focus on precision agriculture and making
sure that we use what resources we have wisely.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I can tell you that
time is of the essence here, and we do need to address the root
causes of the supply chain crisis, and the energy crisis
created by the Biden Administration.
Mr. Secretary, my constituents are also concerned the Biden
Administration is turning its back on farmers and the biofuels
industry. After pushing the Green New Deal policies that
promote electric vehicles with batteries made in China, I am
concerned that President Biden is not supporting renewable
fuels like ethanol.
So, my question for you is, will you commit to supporting
biofuels like ethanol, which are crucial to corn growers in
rural America?
Secretary Vilsack. Congresswoman, I don't have to commit.
We are doing that, and the reality is, I have 800 million
reasons why we are doing that: $800 million provided to biofuel
industry in terms of support during the pandemic, as well as
$100 million to expand access to higher blends, the ability to
have consumers have access to higher blends, 65 waivers that
might have been granted in the Trump Administration that were
denied by this EPA, a record amount of volume for 2022 under
the RFS, the grand challenge in aviation fuel to create a 36
billion gallon industry of 100 percent drop in it of biofuel
for our aviation industry has been launched by this
Administration. So, I think it is very unfair to suggest that
this Administration has not been supportive of the biofuel
industry.
Mrs. Miller. Well, the Biden Administration's effort to
push electric vehicles with batteries made in China is
extremely concerning to me and my constituents.
Mr. Secretary, I recently introduced a bill, the National
Security Moratorium on Foreign Purchases of U.S. Land (H.R.
6383), which would prohibit China and other adversarial nations
from buying American farmland. Right now, there are over
500,000 acres of farmland in Illinois totaling $4.1 billion
that are foreign-owned. This is a substantial national security
and economic issue for our nation. Could you please tell me
your position on the Chinese Communist Party buying U.S.
farmland?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, I am happy to take a look at what
you are proposing, and I also know that there are many state
statutes that prevent foreign ownership of land. Obviously, my
goal here in the United States is to make sure that we make
land access available to our own citizens, and that our own
citizens are able to afford and purchase land. We have a fairly
significant issue in terms of land access for a lot of farmers,
and we want to make sure we address that issue in a very
positive way.
Mrs. Miller. Excuse me. China is seeking to disrupt our
food supply and prolong the supply chain crisis we are facing,
so are you saying you are going to commit to doing everything
in your power to prevent adversarial nations from dominating
our supply chain?
The Chairman. The lady's time has expired; however, Mr.
Secretary, you can briefly answer.
Secretary Vilsack. Sure. Obviously, we are going to make
sure that we are going to protect Americans' capacity to own
farmland. We are also going to make sure that we continue to
figure out ways to walk the fine line with folks in China,
given the fact that they are our number one customer for
agricultural products. The exports to China, when they were
disrupted during the Trump trade war, caused significant
decline in commodity prices. We have seen better commodity
prices in the last year, which is good news for farmers.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you.
The Chairman. The gentleman from California, Mr. Khanna, is
now recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Khanna. Thank you, Chairman Scott. Thank you, Secretary
Vilsack, for your leadership. I have said to the White House
and to many of my colleague that I believe there is no one,
frankly, in our party or in our country who cares more or knows
more about rural America, and your voice is sorely needed in
many of our current debates in Congress.
Let me ask you this. Administration after Administration
comes and says we are going to get high-speed internet to rural
America. It seems like we actually finally have done something
about it, passing the bipartisan infrastructure bill. Could you
talk about what that means and USDA's role, and how you see
this being transformational in actually getting high-speed
internet to places that don't have it?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, Congressman, I think you are
absolutely right. The infrastructure bill basically provided a
significant amount of resources for the expansion of broadband
and meaningful broadband access. And so, our focus at USDA is
on meaningful access. Why is that important? It is important to
farmers because they are going to continue to embrace precision
agriculture. Every acre of ground is going to be analyzed. Data
is going to be collected. You need high-speed internet to do
that. Schools have learned during the pandemic of the
importance of remote learning and expanded distance learning.
That requires broadband. The medical community has absolutely
determined the need for telemedicine. I have been to clinics; I
have been to hospitals who absolutely need these in rural areas
to be able to access expert assistance and help for their
patients. That requires rural broadband. Small business wants
to expand their market opportunities beyond maybe the community
that they are located in, to the world. That requires high-
speed broadband access. And so, there are multiple reasons why
this is incredibly important for rural America. We cannot let
rural America be left behind here. I think with the resources
that you all have provided with the Department of Commerce, the
FCC, and us, that we are going to be committed to making sure
that these resources are put to use, and so that folks,
regardless of where they live, regardless of their ZIP Code,
have access to this important technology.
Mr. Khanna. That is wonderful to hear.
Could you also talk a little bit, I know we had a question
about biofuels, and I know you have long championed a vision of
biomanufacturing and all of the prospects of that, it can mean
for jobs in rural communities and in states across the Midwest.
Can you speak a little bit about what the Department of
Agriculture is doing and what more Congress can do to support
biomanufacturing?
Secretary Vilsack. One of the most important appropriations
in that infrastructure bill, which is a really, really small
amount in the scheme of things, might have a profound impact on
rural America, which is the money that you provided to
Department of Agriculture to look at this issue of biobased
manufacturing.
What is that? It is basically the conversion of
agricultural waste into a variety of products. The ability to
convert agricultural waste, not just into fuel, but also into
chemicals and materials and fabrics and fibers and energy, all
of which creates that circular economy, creates new income
sources for farmers. It creates the ability to avoid some of
the environmental challenges that we have with some of our
industries. I think there is a day when the issue of lagoons
will be something that we talk about as having been in the
past. That manure can be converted into a multitude of
products. Processing, manufacturing jobs can be created in
rural places. Additional income for farmers, more jobs, good
paying jobs in rural areas, reviving the rural economy and
creating a circular economy, and reducing the environmental
impact of agriculture and industry. It is an unlimited
potential here, and rural America is ripe for this opportunity
and those resources, albeit small, I think can create the
template for how communities might be and states might be
willing to embrace this and the farm policy might be able to
encourage it.
Mr. Khanna. Thank you. My final question for you, Secretary
Vilsack, is not as much in your role as Secretary, but as
someone who has dedicated your life to public service and the
country.
You have seen firsthand how divided we are in this country,
along party lines, between rural communities and urban centers.
It is no secret that one party is winning in one area, other
parties doing better in other areas. How do you think we can
start to overcome some of the divides in this country and do
what President Biden had aspired to do and start to heal this
country and bring it together?
Secretary Vilsack. That is a really profound question, and
I wish I had a simple and profound answer. But I think it is
community. I think it is understanding that the challenges that
we face as a country cannot be decided by a single individual
or a single group. The challenges are so large, it requires a
committed, united communal effort, and that is why it is
unfortunate to see the division that is making it harder to do
that.
The Chairman. The gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bacon, is
now recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bacon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am sorry for
having to step out for votes, so I missed a few of these
questions. Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here.
My first question deals with the foot-and-mouth disease
vaccine bank. I was the lead advocate for that in the 115th
Congress. We were able to get it in the farm bill. We were
given an approximately 3 year timeline to make it operational.
So, I would love to have your update on how we are doing with
the foot-and-mouth disease vaccine bank, and hopefully you have
good news. Thank you.
Secretary Vilsack. Significant progress. Over $27 million
has been invested, and we will continue to provide investments
into that very, very important vaccine. I would say that that
is not the only important vaccine that we are working on. We
are also working on a vaccine for African Swine Fever. Those
two vaccines are incredibly important in order to protect our
livestock industry.
Mr. Bacon. Well, 3 years ago we wouldn't have been able to
respond well to a foot-and-mouth disease outbreak. Would you
say that today we would be able to respond with the addition of
this vaccine bank?
Secretary Vilsack. I think we are in better shape today
than we were a year ago. I think we are in better shape than we
were 2 years ago. The reality is, I think we will be in better
shape next year than we are today.
Mr. Bacon. Okay, thank you.
As you mentioned the African Swine Fever, I read a report
that there were indications of African Swine Fever in Europe
this past week. Where are we at with our vaccine development?
Do you think we are 50 percent there, 60? I mean, hopefully we
are. I know it is a more complicated disease, but obviously it
would be a problem if it ever gets here.
Secretary Vilsack. Well, there are four or five patented
vaccines that have been developed today in our facilities, and
there are a couple of vaccines that are incredibly promising. I
believe that there is some consideration to the possibility of
having some pilots in some Asian countries that have been
suffering from African Swine Fever to determine the
effectiveness of these vaccines. I think we have made progress.
Having said that, the reality is we haven't figured it out
yet. We haven't solved it yet, and so, we have to make sure it
doesn't get into this country. And so, as a result of the
Haitian and Dominican Republic situation, we are aggressively
promoting activities down in that part of the world to
basically contain the situation and hopefully, over time,
correct it, making sure that we do everything we can in Puerto
Rico and elsewhere to prevent anything from coming into the
mainland, working with Customs to make sure that the right
questions are being asked at the border, increasing
communication in Puerto Rico and areas where there may be
potential issues in terms of folks coming in to the mainland
from those areas, making sure they are sensitive to all this.
So, we are doing everything we possibly can under the
circumstances to try to address this as aggressively as we can,
but it is not easy.
Mr. Bacon. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, and I want to
transition to trade, if I may.
Nebraska is an export state, much like Iowa, and we didn't
really hear much from President Biden until about November, or
from the Administration, on trade. We are starting to hear a
little more, but I sure hope it is a priority for this
Administration. Obviously, it is huge for the Midwest, corn,
soybeans, pork, beef. It is our bread and butter, really,
financially to our economic health of both of our states.
First, I just want your assurance that the Administration
is pushing trade; and second, can we have feedback on how China
is doing with their Phase 1 agreement that we had from 2 years
ago?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, there is a commitment to trade,
and it starts with enforcing the trade agreements we have so
that people can rebuild the trust in the concept of trade and
trading relationships.
Let's talk about China. They are $16 billion short of their
Phase 1 trade responsibilities from a purchasing perspective,
$13 billion in the first year, $3 billion last year. We are yet
to see where things will be in 2022. There are seven major
issues on the phytosanitary and sanitary side of the equation.
Biotech approvals, DDGs, ethanol, ractopamine and pork, issues
with hormones in beef that have not yet been resolved to the
complete satisfaction of the agreement. We are pushing on both
of those aspects, more purchases, completing the phytosanitary
and sanitary requirements of that agreement.
Mr. Bacon. Sorry. I yield back the balance of my time, and
thank you for the answers to the questions there, Mr.
Secretary. Thank you.
The Chairman. The gentleman from California, Mr. Carbajal,
is now recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Secretary
Vilsack.
As you know, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo Counties are
home to a wide array of specialty crop production. Shipping
delays and continuing labor shortages have caused supply chain
disruptions, which are amplified by the perishable nature of
our fresh fruits and vegetables grown in my district. The
pandemic has also shown us the high demand for getting fresh
and nutritious produce to hungry Americans.
Secretary Vilsack, is the USDA taking any steps to ensure
its Agricultural Marketing Service, AMS, commodity purchases
for domestic food programs include an increased amount of fresh
fruits and vegetables in an effort to meet broader USDA
nutritional guidelines?
Secretary Vilsack. The answer to that question is yes. In
the recently announced flexible Temporary Emergency Food
Assistance Program, TEFAP, we allocated $400 million for
purchases from local and regional food distributors with the
understanding that they were to provide an opportunity for
fresh fruit and produce to be part of those purchases.
We have also provided school districts with additional
resources with the same directive and the same opportunity for
using those additional resources for purchasing a specialty
crop. So, that is absolutely one of the priorities and one of
the areas that we are focused on.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you.
As you know, labor shortages have continued to be an issue
and at the forefront of many of our discussions regarding
agriculture. I have met with many stakeholders in my district
and had this very same discussion about labor. That is why I
was part of a bipartisan group of Members that worked to pass
the Farm Workforce Modernization Act of 2021 (H.R. 1603) last
March, which is currently pending action in the Senate. Can you
touch on what the Biden Administration is doing to help advance
this important legislation, and on a related note, could you
elaborate on the USDA's efforts to conduct research on
mechanization technologies, which could also help alleviate
labor shortages for specialty crop growers, and at the same
time, improve conditions for farmworkers?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, I know that there is research at
land-grant universities that we are funding in terms of
robotics and the ability of the capacity of the robotics to be
able to sense when food is ready to be picked and harvested.
I will tell you that, I am disappointed obviously in the
fact that the Parliamentarian in the Senate did not allow for
the inclusion of the Farm Worker Modernization Act in the Build
Back Better legislation that is currently before the Senate. I
think there is still an opportunity and a hope that there is
enough bipartisan support to get this passed. It is absolutely
vital. It is absolutely essential, and I would say it is going
to require some political encouragement on the part of folks to
stand up to those who want to use immigration as a political
wedge issue. The time for that is over. The time for--
especially with labor shortages. I have heard it here today.
One of the answers to labor shortages is having a working
immigration system, and it requires a bipartisan effort and
hopefully there are enough people of courage and conviction in
the United States Senate to get this done. It is long overdue.
Mr. Carbajal. Well said. Thank you.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (Pub. L. 116-
260) included important language extending SNAP eligibility to
college students who are eligible for work study, and those who
have an expected family contribution of $0. However, this
flexibility is not permanent, and I am concerned about the
looming hunger cliff that participating college students may
ultimately face. How will the end of this provision impact food
security among college students?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, at the present time because of the
extension of the Public Health Emergency, that opportunity
still exists for college students.
But, Congressman, I think one of the things we have to do
is I think we have to begin educating people around the country
who these college students are and why they may be slightly
different than the college students of a time when I went to
school, and perhaps when you went to school. There is a
significant difference in the population of people going to
school with a significant amount of individual challenges that
create food insecurity among those young people. And that is
one of the reasons why looking at the SNAP Program and
adjustments to the SNAP Program may make some sense, given the
nature and the breakdown of college students today, which is
really different. There are single parents, there are young
people who are sort of disconnected from families. There is a
variety of challenges these young people face, and I think we
have to do a better job of educating folks about precisely who
these people are.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you very much. My time is up. I yield
back.
The Chairman. The gentlelady from Florida, Mrs. Cammack, is
now recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Cammack. Well, thank you, Chairman Scott. Thank you to
Secretary Vilsack. I appreciate your time here today. I have a
litany of questions, so I am just going to jump right into
them.
Mr. Secretary, as you know, Florida is a heavy fluid milk
state. Our farms are much larger than many areas of the
country, very strong Class I production. Now, this is in regard
to the Pandemic Market Volatility Assistance Program. Now, when
the program was instituted, it was very welcome help and much
appreciated, but the 5 million pound per producer cap, which
was instituted solely at the discretion of the Administration,
will have the effect of significantly limiting reimbursements
to many of my producers. Keep in mind, these are family
operations by and large.
Now, my colleague, Representative Lawson and I, we are
working in a bipartisan way to try to solve this problem to
secure additional funding for this program. We actually sent
you a letter back in October and have not received a response.
So, this is a really important issue, I know, to many of
our producers across the State of Florida, but I know this is
important to you as well. So, I would like to just first ask as
we work through this, will you commit to working with us to
make sure that this funding helps to close the gap for many of
our producers who were hit very badly by the 2020 losses?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, I am happy to work on this issue.
I think we structured the program so that it provided the help
to the farmers who were most disadvantaged by the way in which
the market was adjusted and adapted to, the Food Box Program
and other challenges during the pandemic. We are obviously
looking for ways in which we can provide help and assistance,
but I am not going to be--I am not going to apologize, if you
will, for the 5 million pound threshold because it was designed
for those very small- and mid-sized dairy operations to
benefit. We have other things that provided help and assistance
to the dairy industry, not the least of which is the
supplemental Margin Protection Program for Dairy and the
structuring of that was pretty important to the dairy industry
as well.
Mrs. Cammack. And well, Mr. Secretary, I understand. I
mean, I understand where it was targeted at. We sustained
millions, millions in losses, and again, these are family
operations. These aren't major corporate entities. Florida,
given the Class I milk market that we are in, we sustained a
unique situation in Florida. But I do look forward to working
with you on it.
I am going to redirect here now to another topic that I
think is really important to highlight, and that is broadband.
Obviously, we would like to see some better coordination to
make sure that there is not overbuilding, because we have
several areas of rural America that programs like ReConnect
would be beneficial in, but because of the multiple programs
through FCC as well as USDA and others, we are seeing
overbuilding as a real issue.
But one of the topics that hasn't been touched on here
today is, I would think that USDA would want to encourage as
many broadband providers as possible to participate in USDA
programs, but some of the scoring preferences for round 3 of
the ReConnect Program seem to work against that goal.
Now, for example, providers are awarded points in the
application process for a commitment to net neutrality. That is
actually the language in the program.
Now, Mr. Secretary, you are fully aware that the net
neutrality rules were repealed by the FCC in 2018, correct?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, I am also aware of the fact that
we want to make sure that folks have access to as much capacity
and as much opportunity to use the internet as possible, and
that they shouldn't necessarily be restricted or confined to
choices that the provider provides, and that is the reason here
is to make sure that folks have the full range of capacities
available with the internet.
Mrs. Cammack. So, what does the Department plan to do to
police the net neutrality, because this is USDA, not FCC, if
the provider is not living up to the obligations to commit to
net neutrality? How does that benefit the deployment of a
variety of different services and providers in rural America?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, the point of this is to make sure
in the application that there is a process and a mechanism by
which we can assure performance, and obviously, there are
resources being provided over a period of time. And if it turns
out that the services are not what people were promised, well
then their recourse is to basically suggest a repayment of
those resources.
And so, at the end of the day, it is financially beneficial
for folks to try to see if they can live up to the
responsibilities in their application. If they don't want to
use that, if they don't want to make the commitment----
Mrs. Cammack. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I am so sorry. I
have to reclaim my time. I only have a few seconds left.
So, at this point, I would like to request a step-by-step
plan from the Department on its enforcement, how you define
that neutrality, how that is contradictory to FCC rules that
were repealed in 2018, and I would certainly appreciate a
follow up from you, Mr. Secretary.
And with that, I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you.
The gentleman from California, Mr. Harder, is now
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Harder. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Mr. Secretary, for joining us this afternoon.
I really appreciated your chance to connect and come to our
district even virtually last year. One of the topics that we
spent a lot of time discussing was wildfires, and especially
what the Department's plan is going to be, and I appreciate the
rollout this week of how the bipartisan infrastructure deal is
going to inform some of the investments the Department is going
to make to make sure that we hopefully can prevent some of
these terrible fires we have seen over the last couple years
across the West.
One of the challenges there are the reimbursements,
especially for our local fire departments. I was talking to one
of the fire chiefs in our City of Patterson recently, and he
let me know that he had to wait over a year before he could get
reimbursement from the Forest Service for one of the fires that
they actually helped support. And this is becoming more and
more common as these fires are getting bigger. We are having
more local fire departments spend weeks, even months on this
Federal land helping support the Forest Service. And it is not
just the timing of the reimbursements that is often so long, it
is the clarity of what exactly they are getting. I have talked
to some of our fire departments who have told me that one
document will say one amount and another document will say
another, and it is really hard for them to understand how much
they are actually being reimbursed. I know there are cost-
sharing agreements that govern this, but the GAO recently
published a report that noted all the ways in which this seems
to be falling short, and some of the challenges that it
inflicts on our local fire departments.
Can you talk about what the Department is planning to do to
address the GAO's concerns on reimbursement for these wildfires
to our local fire departments?
Secretary Vilsack. We are going to try to simplify the
process a bit, but I would say that oftentimes the challenge is
actually getting information, and especially in California,
getting information back from the local communities in terms of
what they are seeking reimbursement for. So, I think it is a
two-way street here in terms of transparency and cooperation.
But I do understand and appreciate that we need to speed up
the process, and I think we are committed to doing that, if we
are able to get the same level of cooperation from the local
folks.
Mr. Harder. Well, that is great to hear.
It just puts folks in a really tough spot, especially when
we have very small fire departments or even volunteer fire
departments to have a huge portion of their budget be very
unclear for months, even up to a year or longer.
I will be introducing legislation soon that suggests a
couple fixes to addressing this. I would love to get any
comments from the Department and you and your team, if there
are things that we could be doing at a legislative level to
support. Can I count on your support of that legislation to try
to do what we can to address this issue?
Secretary Vilsack. We will be happy to provide you the
technical assistance you need, Congressman.
Mr. Harder. Thank you. I appreciate it.
I also wanted to ask another question about the wildfire
plan that came out this week based on the bipartisan
infrastructure investments that we passed last year. One of the
things that this plan is intending to do is to triple the
number of acres, up to 75 million acres over the next 10 years
is my understanding, of trying to do more reduction of fuels to
try to make sure that these fires don't continue to be as bad
as they are.
What further investments, if any, do you think are
necessary to try to get this wildfire challenge under control?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, I would say that consistency in
funding is necessary. I think what you all have provided in the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which the President
supported and pushed, is sufficient resources for the next
couple of years. The question is whether or not we are in a
position to have that same level of funding and support for
years 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, because it is going to take a
while for us to get the hazardous fuel reduction. It is going
to take us a while to do the reforestation and the restoration
work that needs to be done in areas that have already been
impacted by fire. So, I think consistency in funding would be
how I would respond to your question, but it is great that we
have these resources. I know the Forest Service and the
Department of the Interior are going to work very
collaboratively with state and local folks to do as much work
as possible. It is a 350 percent increase in the level of
commitment and funding for hazardous fuel reduction, and it is
going to be focused on the areas of highest risk to
communities. So, hopefully over time, people will begin to see
fewer catastrophic fires and certainly less risk to people and
property and to key forest areas.
Mr. Harder. Wonderful. Thank you so much.
The Chairman. The gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Moore, is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Moore. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Earlier in your response to Mr. Allen, you mentioned a
court case regarding poultry line speeds and the potential for
a pilot program similar to the one announced for pork plants in
November. In responding to Mr. Rouzer, you touted the pork
pilot program as successful and a positive path forward.
I completely disagree. The affected pork plants were
already operating at safe and at higher speeds before this
Administration failed to defend the NSIS Program. And since the
new pilot program was announced in November, none of the plants
have been approved to participate. Can you elaborate, Mr.
Secretary, on what you are referring to regarding the poultry
program, and second, when can we expect the pork program trials
to actually begin?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, we are anxious to approve those
five companies that have made a request and making sure that it
is consistent with the promise and commitment that we have made
to try to balance worker safety, plant speeds, and profits for
farmers.
A Federal judge in Minneapolis basically ended the line
speed effort in pork, and it did for one reason and one reason
only. The Trump Administration did not include any
consideration during the course of the calculation of that rule
about worker safety. They had data. They had information. They
decided not to include it, and it was a significant problem
from a litigative standpoint.
So, there was no recourse here. So, the recourse is what do
you do in the face of a Federal judge that basically strikes
the rule? You go back to the companies in the industry and say
how can we work through this, and that is what we did. And I
think we are going to see these approvals in the very near
future.
On the poultry side, we have an existing case and we are
asking the court to give us the opportunity to sort of remand
the case back to the USDA so that the USDA is in a position to
try to create the same kind of opportunity on the poultry side
as on the pork side. And the point of this is to make sure that
we do a better job of balancing safety, profits, and processing
line speeds.
Mr. Moore. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Let me add a comment.
I have to go. I am out of time; but, I have toured a ton of
poultry plants in my lifetime. That is my background. That is
my degree. And 91 to 93 birds per minute is what we were
producing, and we were doing that safely.
With empty shelves in grocery stores and slowing production
down and starting to inhibit it, I think we are going to
continue to see the American consumer look for protein products
on shelves. And so, I just want to say, we need to be careful
sometimes. We overregulate stuff and it slows down the process.
I have seen these plants. They seem to work fairly safely, and
the American consumer right now needs food on shelves, and we
don't need more regulations.
Thank you, and my time is up.
The Chairman. The gentlewoman from Iowa, Mrs. Axne, is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Axne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Secretary Vilsack for being here. It is always good to be here
with my former boss from the State of Iowa, and my current
constituent. So, thank you so much, Secretary, for all the work
that you are doing. And I also want to thank you and President
Biden for the announcement this month on increasing competition
and resiliency in our cattle markets.
As you know, the lack of competition and transparency is
critically impacting Iowa's independent cattle producers, and
the funds announced by the USDA will go a heck of a long way to
expand processing options for those folks.
So, my first question is in regard to the announcement, it
also referenced my legislation, the Cattle Price Discovery and
Transparency Act of 2021 (H.R. 5992), bipartisan legislation
that will help facilitate actual negotiations of pricing
between producers and packers through establishing a regional
minimum for the cash market. And the bill led in the Senate (S.
3229) by my fellow Iowan, Senator Grassley, would help improve
price discovery and market fairness for cattle producers.
Mr. Secretary, my question: Will giving producers more
leverage and market information help address some of the issues
that we are seeing in our cattle markets?
Secretary Vilsack. Absolutely, Congresswoman, because if
you have greater transparency, then you have greater confidence
that the market price that you are receiving at a particular
point in time is a fair price. And I think there are many,
many, many producers out there that feel that they are not
currently getting a fair price.
Mrs. Axne. Well, thank you for helping us make that
transparent for our Iowa producers.
Another issue, and I am sure you have been hearing this,
but I have been hearing this as of late is that Iowan farmers
are concerned about the high cost of fertilizer this season, in
particular, of course, with our corn producers. They have seen
the highest cost of fertilizer per acre for any commodity out
there, and some farmers unfortunately are considering planting
less this spring due to this increased cost.
I know you have been watching this closely, Mr. Secretary,
so I am curious to see what you think the reasons are for this
volatility, and what steps the USDA and Congress can take to
address this issue?
Secretary Vilsack. Part of the reason is strong global
demand and domestic demand. Part of the reason is that we are
reliant on outside sources for some of the fertilizer that we
use, and those outside sources have made the decision to impose
export controls, which makes it difficult to get the supply
into the U.S. Part of the reason I think is that we need to
continue to accelerate significantly our efforts in precision
agriculture so that the application of fertilizer is strategic
and thoughtful.
Iowa State--I mentioned this earlier. Iowa State has
research that suggests that maybe as much as 30 percent of corn
acres today may not require any fertilizer at all. If we can
provide producers with sensor materials and sensor information
and technology that will allow them to more accurately
understand precisely where and how to utilize fertilizer, we
could potentially lower those input costs.
And finally, I think it is important for people to take
advantage of the program that we just recently announced, the
``split-apply'' nitrogen program (Post Application Coverage
Endorsement), at Risk Management Agency. The opportunity
potentially to obtain some protection if you make the decision
to split your nitrogen and apply it only once a year as opposed
to twice a year. If there are crop reductions, maybe there is a
way in which you can be compensated for those reductions. So, I
think there are a multitude of things we need to be doing in
the long-term, and in the short-term, folks need to take
advantage of the tools that are available.
Mrs. Axne. I absolutely appreciate that, and as we continue
to discuss this and further down the road, I definitely want to
talk more on precision agriculture as we roll out broadband as
part of our infrastructure bill. But this idea, as you
mentioned, to ensure that those farmers actually have access to
that precision agriculture, get the connectivity, but make sure
that they got what they need to use that. So, thank you for
addressing that.
One last question. I have lots of questions for you,
Secretary, but I want to end on cover crops, and thank you for
the focus that you have in the USDA on cover crops.
The creation of the Pandemic Cover Crop Program in 2021
provided a first step to incentivize broader adoption of soil
health practices that can help turn agriculture into a greater
solution to the climate crisis. Can you please elaborate for us
on the USDA's plan to roll out a 2022 Pandemic Cover Crop
Program, and could you give us a sense of how many acres would
be covered by that 2022 program, and how many acres did the
USDA enroll in the 2021 program as well?
Secretary Vilsack. The 2021 program was somewhere between
12 and 14 million acres, maybe as high as 15 million acres. The
goal here is to get to 30 million acres eventually. That is one
of the reasons why we were excited about the Soil Health
Initiative with the Soybean Association and a number of other
commodity groups. The Soil Health Institute basically
committing to working to doubling the level of cover crop acres
in the United States from roughly 15 million to 30 million by
2030.
We continue to look for ways in which we can provide
incentives. RMA is going to roll out the program for 2022 very
shortly, and the hope is that we will see ever increasing
interest in getting a reduction in crop insurance in exchange
for maintenance of these important cover crops.
In the meantime, we are also going to look for ways in
which we can expand market opportunities also for those cover
crops.
The Chairman. The gentlelady from Minnesota, Mrs.
Fischbach, is now recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Fischbach. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, regarding your agency's most recent
announcement on the availability of loans and grants for
additional meat processing capacity, can you give us any
additional detail regarding the details of the loans that will
be available? For example, what will the guarantees or the loan
limit be on those loans?
Secretary Vilsack. The purpose of the loans is obviously to
provide low interest financing so that folks who are interested
in expanding or building new capacity are in a position to be
able to get the capital necessary. I should also point out that
we also have a commitment to expanding worker training in this
area. We need more workers and we are going to try to work with
community colleges and other partners to try to provide
additional workforce.
Mrs. Fischbach. And more directly, the question was about
the loans and if there was any information.
My office has been fielding questions regarding the
application process and timing. Do you have anything to add in
that regard?
Secretary Vilsack. The first tranche of the resources will
be grant resources, $150 million. We hope to be able to get
that framework out in the next several weeks. The idea being
those shovel-ready programs and projects that are ready to go
but just need a push, this will provide that push. Then this
summer, we hope to put out both the $225 million of additional
grant money, as well as the $275 million in loans.
In the meantime, there is also a Food Supply Chain
Guaranteed Loan Program that is available that we announced
several months ago that folks might take a look at as well.
Mrs. Fischbach. Okay, and Mr. Secretary, how will this new
program differ from the current B&I Program in the terms, and
offering and administration?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, that is a Business and Industry
Loan Program, which is a loan guarantee program. This financing
could very well be direct loans from USDA, so there is that
difference. There may be a guaranteed portion of it too. We are
basically getting input from the industry in terms of how best
to structure this to meet the needs that are out there.
Mrs. Fischbach. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, and it
might be helpful if you kept Congress informed about how that
is going since we are, kind of, that first direct line for
constituents to call.
But switching gears a little bit. You mentioned earlier, I
believe it was in your opening comments or at least one of the
very first questions, about keeping dollars in rural areas. So,
with that in mind, I wanted to just ask about some of the
renewable fuels.
Cutting the amount of renewable fuels that are blended
increases the level of petroleum-based products in the
marketplace, hampering our efforts to fight climate change. And
despite the fact that the Administration is considering
reducing the Renewable Volume Obligation for biofuels in 2020,
2021, and even 2022, ignoring Congressional intent of the RFS
implementation, what impacts, particularly economic and climate
impacts, would reducing biofuel blending have on corn farmers
and rural communities throughout the U.S.?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, let's be clear about this,
Congresswoman. The 2022 number is a record amount, it is a not
a decrease. It is a record amount, and the 2020 and 2021
numbers are basically reflecting the reality of the pandemic.
So, I think it is an honest set of numbers, as opposed to what
happened in the previous Administration where numbers were said
and then waivers were granted to undercut those numbers. And
that was--the announcements were accompanied with 65 waiver
denials by the EPA. So, I think these numbers are--the 2022
number, an historic number, puts us on a trajectory of growth.
And don't forget, the aviation biofuel opportunity, which is
enormous because it is double the size of the existing biofuel
industry. A tremendous opportunity here.
Mrs. Fischbach. Mr. Secretary, reclaiming my time. I just
have a couple of extra seconds.
I just wanted to say, Mr. Secretary, I hope that you are
committed to those biofuels, because they are part of the
solution for climate change and they have been forgotten in
this new climate change argument that people are making. And
so, I want to make sure that people understand that they are
reducing emissions and that that our USDA Secretary is pushing
for that for the farmers that are producing that.
Thank you. With that, I yield back.
Secretary Vilsack. I am confident that I am one of the most
ardent proponents of biofuels anywhere in this country, and
have been for years, decades.
Mrs. Fischbach. I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back.
The gentleman from California, Mr. Panetta, is now
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Panetta. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this
opportunity and appreciate you holding this hearing where we
get to hear from the Secretary of Agriculture. Secretary
Vilsack, good to see you, and thank you very much for being
here today. I truly appreciate you showing up to Capitol Hill,
showing up out in our communities, and basically enduring this
long line of questioning--questions that you are getting. So,
thank you.
Also, as you may know, I hail from the Central Coast of
California out there in the Salinas, Pajaro, and San Juan
Valleys. Please know you have an open invitation to come out
and see our specialty crop producers. Our farmers and our
farmworkers would love to hear from you out there, and also
want to appreciate your considering that going forward.
As you know, with our specialty crops, mainly our big issue
is harvesting; therefore, it takes humans. Obviously, you know
well that no technology is yet able to replace the human
discernment of when it comes to picking a ripe, safe, clean,
aesthetically pleasing strawberry and so many other soft fruits
and vegetables. And unfortunately, the fact that we don't have
immigration reform makes it very difficult.
I want to thank you for your personal efforts with the
Senate to go up there and push forward the Farm Workforce
Modernization Act. I know you have done that. I know you will
continue to do that. Hopefully we can get that on some Members,
especially our Republican Senators' table so that they can also
be a champion, especially something that will help their states
going forward, and that is immigration reform for our domestic
ag workers. So, thank you for your efforts in that.
But I also--look. Right now, I don't want to ask--talk
about the lack of immigration reform, but I want to pivot to
what we are relying on, what our producers are relying on now
and what they need to rely on in the future. Obviously, our
domestic workforce is shrinking and it is aging. Therefore, the
only game in town or one of the few games in town is the H-2A
Program. My producers are running into a couple of
difficulties. Don't get me wrong, it has been working okay, but
there are some difficulties with it. One of them is that they
are experiencing delays dealing with the DOL. The DOL--I get it
because of COVID pandemic, people not showing up to work. There
are a lot of delays in receiving their H-2A visas. There are
rejections of their petitions for minor errors, and there is
really late or lacking communication from the DOL.
My question to you, sir, is have you heard of this? Is the
USDA engaging with the DOL to make the only game in town, the
H-2A process, actually work for our producers there on the
Central Coast?
Secretary Vilsack. I am cognizant of the concerns that
people have expressed about H-2A, and happy to work with the
Department of Labor to underscore the importance and necessity
of getting the processing of this done quickly and
expeditiously. It is a serious issue, and we are certainly
aware of it.
Mr. Panetta. Thank you.
Another issue they are starting to experience right now is
DHS expecting their workers to be vaccinated before coming into
the country. Is that something you are hearing about? Is that
something you are willing to work with us to maybe try to find
a compromise as to what we can do? What we did on the Central
Coast, we ran our own mass vaccine clinics with federally
qualified health clinics, our producers, our farmers, and our
farmworkers basically giving shots in arms to the H-2A workers
that are coming in.
Are you willing to work on some sort of compromise when it
comes to dealing with DHS on that type of mandate?
Secretary Vilsack. I am happy to work on this issue and
learn more about it.
Mr. Panetta. Thank you. Obviously, you have heard from my
colleagues about mechanization. Please know that myself and
Rodney Davis were the ones who worked hard to get that language
into the 2018 Farm Bill to put mechanization under the SCRI and
AFRI and know that coming up on the next farm bill, you are
going to hear more from us as well as my other colleagues,
apparently, when it comes to mechanization, obviously something
that is needed.
I want to commend you for your strategy on the wildfire
crisis. Thank you, thank you, thank you. We not only have a lot
of bounty; we obviously have a lot of forests out there on the
Central Coast.
One of the issues I am hearing about is the lack of
staffing. As you know, 80 percent of fires there in our
National Forests are caused by humans. I think a way to do that
is having more Forest Service personnel on the ground. Is your
Department working to address the critical staff shortages that
our National Forests are enduring right now?
Secretary Vilsack. We are converting temporary workers,
about 1,000 workers to full-time status. We are also increasing
the compensation and looking at ways in which we can reclassify
firefighters to encourage more recruitment. So, all three of
those things are being done.
Mr. Panetta. Real quickly, my bill, the REPLANT Act (H.R.
2049, Repairing Existing Public Land by Adding Necessary Trees)
was included in the IIJA. It is about reforestation. Do you
know when we could start to see those investments be
implemented?
Secretary Vilsack. I can tell you that Mitch Landrieu wants
us to get and the President wants us to get those resources in
the field as quickly as possible.
Mr. Panetta. Outstanding.
Secretary Vilsack. On time, on budget, and on task.
Mr. Panetta. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
The Chairman. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Jacobs, is
now recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Jacobs. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary, and thank
you for being here today. It was a pleasure to talk with you a
couple months ago on the phone.
I represent, again, western New York between Buffalo and
the outskirts of Buffalo and the outskirts of Rochester, and I
know you know that area fairly well, having gone to college out
this way. Many of the questions I had have already been asked.
I just wanted to touch on one real quick just to reiterate how
important in our region, as you know, right on the border of
Canada, is the dispute resolution ruling in our favor in
regards to dairy and the tariffs, and that I know you are going
to work alongside the Trade Rep to make sure Canada now adheres
to the ruling there so we can finally open up that market that
we have been trying to get into in Canada for our dairy.
But I wanted to just ask from your opening remarks, I was
very interested in the terminology of the circular economy that
you mentioned. I had not heard it that way, but it is something
I really thought a lot about in an area like ours where we are
trying to find ways to continue to have our agriculture sector
thrive. I have seen a few examples of what I now will call the
circular economy.
One, we have one ethanol plant in our area, which is fairly
rare for our area, and the initiative for that 20 years ago--it
is outside Medina--it was that many of the corn producers there
were just not able to survive because of the drop in the market
prices and other competition and so forth. So, this corn grower
took it on himself and started an ethanol plant, and that plant
now is servicing and did actually expand corn growing in that
area.
We also in Batavia, New York, the economic development
folks there filled an old factory with HP Hood where they make
nondairy creamers and other products, 250 jobs, but also it is
a source that the raw materials are coming from our dairy
farmers to supply that.
So, my question to you is how in articulating this concept
of the circular economy, what can we do to really make that a
reality and more commonplace? I would just love your thoughts
on that because I think it really is critically important that
we do more of that in regions like mine to assure that farmers
can have a thriving future moving forward. Thank you.
Secretary Vilsack. I think a commitment to more and new and
better markets. Now, that sounds like something simple, but the
reality is, we have to create different avenues, different ways
in which farmers can benefit from whatever they do on their
land. Traditionally they grow crops. In some cases, they feed
crops to the livestock and then they sell the livestock. The
question is what can we do to expand beyond those traditional
ways while preserving them, accessing additional revenue
opportunities.
So, to the extent that farmers could be paid for certain
climate-smart agricultural practices and create climate-smart
commodities, that is one avenue. To the extent, as your folks
have figured out, they can convert agricultural products to a
value-added product, whether it is a creamery that produces ice
cream or cheese, or whether it is an ethanol production
facility, that is another opportunity. I think there are
untapped opportunities in terms of agricultural waste.
Understanding how you essentially can separate the components
of agricultural waste.
Let me give you an example in the dairy industry. There is
separation capacity now to be able to separate solids from
liquids to reclaim from the liquids a certain organic material
that can be used for organic farming, and that is a value-added
ingredient opportunity that can be sold. You can take the rest
of the liquids and reclaim it and utilize it in scarce water
resource areas. That is pretty important. You can take the
balance, the solids, you can pelletize those solids and
basically put it in a bag and you can basically ship that
fertilizer anywhere in the world, or you can break it down even
further and create component parts that could go into a
chemical, into a material, into a fabric, into an energy
project, a wide variety of ways.
So, we need to fund the research that allows that to
happen. We need to fund the resources, the capital resources
that enable those kinds of activities to be located in rural
communities. So, farmers have additional income opportunities,
they create new job opportunities in rural areas, that wealth
stays in the rural community, it doesn't travel 1,000 miles
away.
Mr. Jacobs. Thank you. I look forward to working with you
on this great concept.
I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Lawson, is
now recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Lawson. Thank you, Chairman Scott, and thanks for
having this meeting today.
Mr. Vilsack, I want to make sure that I understood what you
were saying to Congresswoman Cammack when we were talking about
the joint effort that we had on a bipartisan basis concerning
the dairies and the farmer, and you said you wouldn't apologize
to the way things are happening. Maybe I didn't quite
understand you. Could you elaborate on that, please?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, when the Food Box Program was
initiated, there was a significant amount of cheese that was
purchased for the Food Box Program. Some folks made the
decision as a result of that, as they saw prices go up, they
made the decision to sort of pull out of the Federal Milk
Marketing Order, which distorted the market, and the result was
that smaller producers ended up getting perhaps not the price
that they thought they would get or the distribution they
thought they would get because of that disruption.
And so, what this was designed to do was it was designed to
provide equity, if you will, by providing some resources to
reimburse those smaller producers who were disproportionately
impacted and affected by that different pricing mechanism. And
so, it is designed to provide that kind of assistance and help,
and so, we set a threshold of 5 million pounds. That was
designed to target the resources, target the assistance, target
the help.
Mr. Lawson. So, the joint letter we sent in October, you
all are going to still respond to it and see what more can USDA
do to help with the disparities that we have. Am I correct?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, there are other programs that we
instituted that may very well provide assistance and help the
larger scale producers. The supplemental Margin Protection
Program for Dairy, for example, creates an opportunity for
people to adjust their production levels so that they are able
to purchase--or get more coverage and get more assistance. To
the extent that they use high-priced alfalfa as feed, there was
an adjustment made for that, all of which I think plays to the
potential for the larger operations. So, it is an effort to try
to make sure that we are balancing as best we can the help and
assistance being provided to the people that need it the most.
Mr. Lawson. Okay, thank you for that answer.
I want to say that as you know, citrus greening continues
to devastate farmers across the United States, and especially
in Florida. Since 2005, my home state has seen a decrease of 51
percent of its commercial citrus land, and since 2016, an
estimated $4.6 billion has been lost in the Sunshine State. How
can we, especially in the next farm bill--and I might say,
because of this disease, the Animal Plant Health Inspection
Services, APHIS, has been implemented. How can we--I think we
asked for about--it was about $50 million that was set aside
from Congressional appropriations to help with this situation.
Is that enough money for us to ask for in order for us to do
something about the citrus greening and the citrus disease?
Secretary Vilsack. Congressman, I think you need to
continue to fund research until we figure out how to solve this
problem, because it is obviously devastating. And I know from
my previous stint as Secretary, we saw increases in commitment
over a period of years, and some potential strategies that may
have merit. But I think you need to continue to fund and
finance the research necessary to figure this out.
Mr. Lawson. Okay. One quick question before my time runs
out.
Has any progress been made on insurance for timber because
of the devastation that we have had from hurricanes?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, let's see. I am not sure I
understand your question. We are obviously, to the extent that
there are applications out for additional support and help as a
result of timber loss, those will be processed. But if you are
asking about timber harvesting that was impacted by the
pandemic, those resources have been provided to several
thousand timber haulers and harvesters.
Mr. Lawson. Okay. So, a lot of the individual farmers that
have used this for retirement purposes and so forth, will they
qualify for any of those funds?
Secretary Vilsack. I am not sure of that, Congressman. Let
me check with our team and get back to you.
[The information referred to is located on p. 128.]
Mr. Lawson. Okay. With that, I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Cloud, is now
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Cloud. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Secretary, for being with us today. I wanted to start off by
thanking you for working with our office following the Texas
freeze to revise the rule to provide an avenue of relief for
aquaculture, and specifically our redfish farmers. It was much
appreciated, and so, thank you very much for that.
As you know, of course, we are facing a number of crises in
our nation at the moment, and it is certainly affecting our
rural communities. When I speak with farmers and ranchers in my
district and throughout Texas, they are concerned, of course,
about labor shortages, exacerbated in part by the
unconstitutional vaccine mandates, monetary policy, and supply
chain breakdown that are leading to massive inflation. As you
know, costs are going up for parts if you can find them,
fertilizer and pesticides are expensive and hard to come by, in
part because of kind of the assault against natural gas that we
have seen lately. If we don't fix this, it is going to lead to
even more empty shelves at the grocery store potentially, and
even higher food prices.
I haven't yet heard a farmer or rancher ask me if only I
had an electric tractor, but that is what our hearing was about
last week. What I do hear is they would like to get parts for
the tractor that they already do own. But I will say, the
biggest issue that I hear from farmers and ranchers in south
Texas by far as what they are concerned about is the border. It
is border security, and I would like to submit a few articles
for the record, without objection. Farm Progress, Border
situation threatens farmers' livelihood; Daily Mail, `This
needs to stop now': Texas farmer, 75, finds five abandoned
migrant girls--including a baby--under the age of 7 crying and
hungry on his land--and warns thousands will die this summer in
sweltering heat while Biden ignores the border crisis; Fox
Business, Texas ranchers pummeled by Biden's border crisis
`fear for their lives,' and Fox News, Texas rancher says he and
his neighbors find bodies of migrants on their properties.* And
this is true. It has become a daily thing, really, for the ag
community in Texas to have to personally carry the burden for
our border crisis. So, that comes in the way of them paying
tens of thousands of dollars to repair fences that have been
run through because of bailouts or they have been cut by human
traffickers, crops are destroyed or contaminated from foot
traffic, water sources are compromised, vehicles are stolen.
Families do fear for their lives on their own property because
of emboldened cartels and it isn't uncommon to find drugs or,
tragically, dead migrants on their property. And so, on June 3
of last year, the American Farm Bureau Federation sent you,
Secretary Mayorkas, and Secretary Haaland a letter talking
about this. It was signed from what I can tell by all 50 state
Farm Bureaus as well. Today, they tell me they haven't received
a response. And so, can you commit to conveying the concerns of
the ag community certainly in Texas, but this was signed by
every state, to convey those concerns to the White House to
reply to this letter? Would you be able to work with our office
in seeing what we can do to relieve the burden? Again, they are
having to personally pay for the burden of what is supposed to
be a national security issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Editor's note: the articles referred to are located on p. 87.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secretary Vilsack. Congressman, first of all, I have
personally communicated to 50 state presidents of the Farm
Bureau about this issue. We did provide a response, and we do
have roughly $3 million of EQIP resources that are now and have
been available for some time for producers to be able to be
compensated or reimbursed for the expenses that they are
incurring as a result of fence repairs and so forth. So, that
program has been set up.
Mr. Cloud. Okay. Well, thank you. I appreciate that, and we
will follow up then and figure out how to get that to the
farmers and ranchers, because they are not aware of it in our
district. So, I will be happy to work with you on that. So,
thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you.
One other issue that I do hear a lot about, though, the FSA
offices and the staffing issues. Again, they are trying to
apply and they are having trouble finding employees who can
help them. Sometimes the offices are closed. Sometimes they are
filling out applications in the parking lot. The staff has said
that they are working on a program called Jabber when they are
working remotely and any time they get a call, apparently they
have to log out and log back in, which is creating some
inefficiencies. We led a letter from the Oversight and Reform
Committee that I also serve on to the FSA inquiring about the
status of reopening and other staffing issues. We haven't
received a response to that letter, to my knowledge. Can you
reply to that, but then also, can you speak to how many
employees, including those in state and in the county USDA
offices like the Farm Service Agency offices, have been left or
forced to leave the USDA as a result of vaccine mandates? And
can you speak to how the USDA is weighing religious and medical
exemptions from the vaccine mandate?
Secretary Vilsack. Mr. Chairman, can I respond to that even
though the time is up?
The Chairman. Yes, you may.
Secretary Vilsack. First of all, we track and survey
activities in our Farm Service Agency offices to make sure that
the work is getting done, and we compare it to where things
were relative to pre-pandemic at the same time. I have seen
that survey, and it has indicated that we are on track to do
the level of work that was done pre-pandemic. I mentioned
earlier the tens of thousands of loans, the billions of dollars
that our Farm Service folks have gotten out from pandemic
assistance. I will tell you; they have done a remarkable job.
They have done a remarkable job.
I can tell you that at this point in time, roughly 600
people out of roughly 90,000 have failed to indicate whether
they are vaccinated or requesting an accommodation. The 88, 89
percent of folks have been vaccinated. The other folks have
requested an accommodation, and we are going through those
accommodation processes now. A number of them have been
granted, and in the meantime, all of those people, all 88
percent of our workforce and the ten percent of our workforce
that is requesting accommodation, all of those people are
working. Those who are requesting accommodations have just
simply been asked to put a mask on, to socially distance, to
protect themselves and to protect their coworkers and their
families and their communities.
The 600 or so that failed to respond, they have been given
several letters and opportunities to respond by either getting
vaccinated or to request an accommodation. I think some of them
have requested an accommodation and they have moved into that
process, which is good. We have begun, the first part of
January, a graduated level of suspension so that folks are
given multiple opportunities to make a choice whether to seek
an accommodation either for health reasons or for religious
reasons, or getting vaccinated. And at the end of the day, the
work is getting done. I just have nothing but admiration for
the people that work for the Farm Service Agency and for all
the people that work at USDA. I think they have done, on
balance, a remarkable job under very difficult circumstances.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Well said.
Mr. Cloud. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
The Chairman. The gentleman from Arizona, Mr. O'Halleran,
is now recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member,
for holding this important hearing today. Secretary Vilsack, it
was great seeing you once again. It was a pleasure spending
time with you out in Arizona on Tuesday. I look forward to
working with you on issues facing Arizonans who are dealing
with the impacts of wildfires, extreme drought, flooding, cost
of food, and obviously, making sure our farms in America
survive the recent issues that they face with the supply chain.
The 10 year fire announcement is long overdue, and I am
pleased that USDA and the Forest Service have committed to this
plan. Unabated wildfire poses an extreme risk to our
communities, families, and businesses, and I look forward to
continuing to work closely with you and Chief Moore over the
coming years to ensure that this remains on track and that
lives and livelihoods are protected.
I also want to specifically thank USDA and the Forest
Service for their commitment to the Four Forest Restoration
Initiative, or 4FRI. 4FRI has the potential to transform
northern Arizona's forest ecosystems, protecting the region
from catastrophic wildfire, while protecting plant and wildlife
diversity and economic development, along with our water
resources.
I also appreciate you visiting a small meat packer in
Arizona. The issues with rising food costs are ones that every
family is paying attention to. While I appreciate the
Administration's efforts to reduce food costs, the
Administration and this Committee must work with the
stakeholders to deliver real relief that Americans deserve.
I do want to make a quick comment about Mr. Panetta's
[inaudible] the staffing issues. I think that law enforcement
has to be filled in on one of those areas where staffing is
needed.
Now, questions, Secretary Vilsack. I have always been a
fierce advocate for dedicated funding for broadband in our
rural and Tribal communities. USDA's ReConnect Program is a key
part of that strategy. Since the program's inception, Congress
has dedicated over $4 billion for ReConnect and there clearly
is bipartisan support for this program.
In this most recent round of applications, USDA increased
the eligible areas to include areas that--with service less
than 100/20 speeds. While fast service is critical for rural
economies to compete, can you discuss how USDA is continuing to
prioritize projects in areas without any broadband, like most
of rural Arizona?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, the folks who go to the top of the
list, if you will, from an application perspective,
Congressman, are those who don't even have 25/3 speed, upload
and download speeds. So, that is a way of protecting, but it is
also--the 100/20 effort is really designed to reflect the
reality that you can have broadband, but if we are only
satisfied with 25/3, it won't be long before those people don't
have adequate broadband at all, because they will find that
they can't have more than one person download something in the
home, or they won't have the ability to do distance learning,
or they won't have adequate telemedicine capacity, or they
won't have precision agriculture available to their farmers.
So, the key here is to build a system that meets the demand
today and creates the infrastructure that will allow for
continued expansion as time goes on. But with the understanding
that those areas that are currently unserved get, in essence, a
priority to get to the top of the list.
So, I think it is an effort to try to balance with these
resources, and we have had a number of projects, 181 projects,
about $1.5 billion has already been committed from the various
programs that you have funded, and we anticipate and expect
decisions being made very shortly this year on the $1.15
billion on round 3, and then hopefully round 4 and 5 come after
that.
Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you, Secretary.
As a grandfather myself, it breaks my heart to see kids go
hungry. As many as 13 million kids don't know where they are
getting their next meal. We have to do better. I appreciate the
actions you have taken to address hunger, especially the
reevaluation of the Thrifty Food Plan, as directed by the
bipartisan 2018 Farm Bill, which I and many others on this
Committee passed. Mr. Secretary, can you tell us what impact
the reevaluation to the Thrifty Food Plan has had in addressing
hunger, especially among children?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, it has provided additional
resources at a time when many families might have been faced
with a cliff. We are also taking a look at ways in which we can
continue to provide assistance, and are encouraging states to
use the opportunities of the Pandemic EBT Program to not only
provide additional assistance now, but also during the summer.
That is a very key area, Congressman, the summer EBT Program,
and hopefully states get their plans on file and we get them
approved quickly.
Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you.
The Chairman. The gentleman from Kansas, Mr. Mann, is now
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Mann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Secretary, thank
you for being here this morning.
I appreciated Congressman Cloud's comments and questions
about the vaccine mandates a couple questions ago and what they
are doing to our FSA offices in Kansas and their ability to
deliver services, so thank you for that attention there.
I represent the big 1st District of Kansas, which is the
third largest ag producing district in the country, by dollars.
International trade is the key component of economic growth and
recovery. Mr. Secretary, just 2 years ago China made a deal
with the United States, the Phase 1 China trade deal, to import
$36 billion worth of U.S. ag products in 2020 and 2021. As you
know, China failed to meet that commitment by close to $7
billion. That is 20 percent. Again, $7 billion. It feels like
China sold America a bill of goods and the Biden Administration
has made no effort to rectify the situation. By refusing to
hold China accountable, the Biden Administration is hurting all
American farmers, ranchers, and producers, from wheat farmers
in Kansas to rice growers in California.
A few weeks ago, I understand you stood on a stage in a
room full of producers and acknowledged that China fell short
on their end of the deal, and in response to our concerns, you
said, ``But here is the deal with our Chinese friends. They are
light on what they have committed to purchase, and that is why
Ambassador Tai, our U.S. Trade Representative, continues to
converse with China about the necessity of living up totally
and completely to the Phase 1 trade agreement, making up that
deficit over the next several years.''
The next several years was never part of this 2 year deal
that we are now at the end of. China said they would purchase a
certain amount of ag products and they didn't. Mr. Secretary,
my question is, I join farmers and ranchers in their concern
about this trade deficit with China and with your remarks. What
should I tell Kansans about how you, Ambassador Tai, and
President Biden are taking immediate action to hold China
accountable so they buy our ag products and put upward pressure
on prices?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, I think your constituents should
be reminded that we have a record year in ag exports. A record
that was set in 2013 when I was Secretary before was surpassed
this year--or last year in 2021, and it is expected and
anticipated that that record will be broken again this year.
So, you can talk about the fact that there have been 2 record
years of ag exports, which is one of the reasons why commodity
prices across the board are significantly stronger and higher
than they were a year ago today.
Second, you can tell folks and people that there is an
ongoing negotiation with China. I don't know where your figures
are coming from, but my figures say that they are $16 billion
light, and they are also light on seven very important sanitary
and phytosanitary barriers. And so, we are giving China--we are
putting them on notice that this is something that we want them
to live up to the Phase 1 agreement. We want our Mexican
friends to live up to USMCA. We want our Canadian friends to
live up to USMCA. We want our trading partners to live up to
agreements. And so, the first and foremost program and step
here is to indicate our focus on trade enforcement, and that is
what we are doing. That is why we took Canada and used the
USMCA process to raise issues about the tariff rate quotas, and
they weren't fulfilling the responsibilities of USMCA.
So, it is not correct to suggest that we haven't done
anything. It is indeed correct to suggest that we have asked
the Chinese to increase more, and obviously, if they don't,
then there are a wide variety of ways in which we can respond
to that, and no doubt we will.
Mr. Mann. Yes. Any amount of understanding, the numbers I
have seen, I think they are $16 billion short on the whole
deal, $7 billion short on purchasing our ag products. But
whatever it is, they have been short.
Secretary Vilsack. No, no. It is $16 billion on the ag
products.
Mr. Mann. Okay, okay.
On the input side, the other big issue that I constantly
hear from our producers is we have seen a four to five times
increase in fertilizer costs, dramatically increasing input
costs for producers here as we are starting to head into the
spring. I know that you were asked about this earlier, and I
think the response was that we should tell producers to
decrease the use of fertilizer. That is not going to cut it for
my producers who have had plans in place and crop rotations and
such for years. A lot of this comes down to decreasing import.
China is no longer exporting fertilizer like they were. What do
we do there? What should we tell farmers, and how do we improve
and really decrease input prices, as we are about to see our
producers get squeezed? Their margins are going to be squeezed
greatly if we don't do something quickly.
Secretary Vilsack. Well, we have been historically opposed
to export controls and will continue to be historically opposed
to export controls, number one. Number two, I think it is
important and necessary as farmers understand and learn more
about precision agriculture, we are going to see farmers
understand and appreciate the importance and opportunity to
actually produce more with less. This is not a suggestion where
you simply eliminate the utilization of fertilizer. This is a
suggestion where you understand and appreciate where it needs
to be applied, right place, right time, right amount.
Mr. Mann. I agree. A lot of my producers have done that for
a long, long time. They still have to apply fertilizer this
year.
The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired.
The gentlewoman from Minnesota, Ms. Craig, is now
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Craig. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and Secretary
Vilsack, thank you so much for being with us today to give us
an update on the rural economy.
I really appreciated you visiting the 2nd District last
year, and Under Secretary Torres Small also visited my district
back in December. So, thank you so much to the USDA for the
strong, strong partnership.
I have a brief comment and three quick questions to cover
with you today, and I don't have a lot of time so I am going to
move quickly through them.
First, a comment on risk management and the farm safety
net. I was extremely glad to see the recent announcement that
the Risk Management Agency is adding PACE (Post-Application
Coverage Endorsement) to its crop insurance offerings, which is
going to help farmers manage risk as they invest in key
conservation practices. As USDA continues to develop new
programs, I want to reiterate my support for the farm programs
that are already in place, including the Federal Crop Insurance
Program. The farm safety net is critical for producers in my
district, and I will be working on that in the next farm bill.
Question one for you, though, Mr. Secretary, first on
biofuels. I want to thank you for your support of renewable
fuels over the years. I know we both see the benefit of
biofuels for family farmers, as well as to meet our carbon
reduction goals, which is why I am pushing for the year-round
sales of E15. How do you see the Administration utilizing
biofuels like ethanol and biodiesel in achieving your
transportation sector emission reduction goals, and how quickly
can USDA distribute the recently announced $100 million for
biofuels infrastructure?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, that resource is going to be made
available very, very shortly, as well as the $700 million to
the biofuel industry. Applications will be received very soon,
and hopefully by the summer those monies will be distributed.
In terms of E15, we are working with our partners at EPA. I
think they announced an effort to try to get input from folks
in terms of how best to institute a statewide or nationwide,
rather, E15 mandate or requirement or opportunity, however you
want to phrase it. And I would say it is going to continue to
play a critical role. I mean, I realize that people are, there
is a lot of conversation about electric cars, but the reality
is we are still going to have for the foreseeable future,
probably in my lifetime for sure, we are still going to have
cars that require biofuel. And hopefully over time, we have
airplanes and ships that require biofuel. And in doing so, we
will see an expanded biofuel industry. We won't see the
elimination of this industry; we will see the expansion of it,
new opportunities, new jobs. So, I am excited about the
industry and I think the future is bright for the industry.
Ms. Craig. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I know you have a lot
of bipartisan support here on this Zoom and in the meeting room
for your statement there.
Let's go back to the reason you were in Minnesota here back
in the summer. A question on drought relief. When the two of us
spoke in August in Minnesota, it was clear that you were
thinking about how USDA can be better prepared to support
farmers and ranchers in the upper Midwest if we have those
periods of extreme drought like we experienced this last year.
What program changes is USDA considering to address future
extreme regional droughts, and will you commit to partnering
with this Committee to address those solutions in the upcoming
farm bill? And if you will, about 30 seconds.
Secretary Vilsack. Well, we are obviously focusing on
implementing the $10 billion you all provided under WHIP+, and
trying to do that in a thoughtful and creative way, and a fast
way. Second, I would suggest as you are putting the farm bill
together, that you understand the need for flexibility. You
also need to understand the regional differences as we develop
programs. I know it is easier to do a nationwide program, but
the reality is we are so complicated in agriculture that we
really need to create regional approaches that allow us to have
some greater flexibility in the application of these programs.
Ms. Craig. Thank you so much, and finally, quickly, rural
broadband. Obviously, I am grateful for your continued
advocacy. The ReConnect Program is a key part of that work, and
I appreciate your focus on ReConnect.
After the October announcement about making $1.15 billion
available through ReConnect, I did hear, though, from a number
of community-based rural broadband providers. Can you briefly
describe why USDA decided to deprioritize those community
providers, and are you open to working with the Committee to
ensure that we have funding for all rural broadband providers?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, I think the challenge here with
these resources is to make sure that we are providing
opportunity in a balanced way, and that is what we attempted to
do with our third tranche. And we learn from each application
process what we need to focus on for the next application
process. So, this is an ongoing iterative process, and we
learn, which is why we established some of the criteria for
round 3. No doubt, some of those criteria will be applied to
round 4. There may be new criteria. We will listen, we will
learn, and we will attempt to try to do the very best job of
making sure these resources provide as much assistance and help
in expanding as much access to meaningful broadband as
possible.
Ms. Craig. Well, Mr. Secretary, thank you very much.
The Chairman. The gentlelady from Louisiana, Ms. Letlow, is
now recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Letlow. Thank you, Chairman Scott.
Mr. Secretary, as I travel throughout the 5th Congressional
District, I continue to hear concerns from Louisiana farmers
about the many challenges currently facing the agriculture
industry. Cost of production is on the rise, and fertilizer
prices have continued to climb to near-record high levels. This
is a troublesome trend. Rice is one of the top commodities in
my district and the state. As you well know, rice is a high
input cost crop with very particular infrastructure and
equipment needs, and it has an outsized impact on local
economies.
That is why I asked the Agricultural and Food Policy Center
at Texas A&M University to conduct a study to determine the
economic impacts of input prices using their 64 representative
farms, including a grain farm located in my district. Here is a
copy of this study. This report found that there will be a
significant impact on the cost of inputs, both on the whole
farm level and per acre varying by commodity. Rice farms
experience the highest fertilizer cost increase, averaging
$62.04 per acre, and our other crops are not far behind.
Further exacerbating the situation is the fact that rice
farmers have not seen the increase in commodity price, much
like other crops. Compared to the 2020 prices recorded by the
Economic Research Service, the current market price for rice is
relatively static since the last year, up just four percent. I
would also point out that traditional farm bill programs are
not designed to react to these economic challenges.
Secretary Vilsack, I sent your office a letter with a copy
of this report enclosed. I ask that you review the analysis in
its entirety and examine the negative implications of reduced
net farm income due to increased costs of production.
Last September, USDA announced a set of investments to
address the challenges facing America's agriculture producers,
including $500 million to provide relief from agriculture
market disruption. As part of this initiative, one area of
focus included the availability and cost of certain materials.
However, we have yet to see any outcomes further detailing the
implementation of these funds. Mr. Secretary, can you provide
this Committee with an update on the implementation of these
funds, and any action USDA is taking to help our agriculture
producers in addressing the impact of increased energy and
input costs?
Secretary Vilsack. We are in the process of finalizing the
opportunity to use a portion of the $500 million that you
referred to, to assist in dealing with some of the supply chain
challenges that we face, particularly as it relates to exports,
and we are looking forward to that.
I have actually seen the study that you have alluded to. In
fact, I looked at it last night in preparation for this
hearing, and it is a challenge. There is no question about it.
I think there are multiple ways to deal with this. There is no
short-term solution. We faced a similar situation back in 2014/
2015 with high fertilizer prices. I think one thing we need to
do is take a look at ways in which we can be less dependent on
outside sources and resources for these materials so that we
don't face export controls as we are facing today, which is an
issue. I think we obviously have to continue to address the
supply chain challenges that we face to the extent that that is
contributing to it, additional port hours, truck drivers with
things we have discussed earlier today. And I think we have to
continue to equip farmers with information and technology and
the capacity to produce more with less. I think that is part of
the challenge as well.
There is no silver bullet. I wish there were, and if there
were, we would certainly be on top of it.
Ms. Letlow. Well, thank you for reviewing the study, and I
look forward to receiving your formal response to my letter,
and working with you to help alleviate the lasting effects of
supply chain disruptions.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the remainder of my time.
The Chairman. The gentleman from California, Mr. LaMalfa,
is now recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the time
here, and thank you, Secretary, for your extensive time with us
in this Committee today. I appreciate the efforts. I know you
get to make a trip out West a little bit later today, so
hopefully we can find a way to resolve some of California's
water supply and water storage issues out there on that
conversation.
So, let me cover a couple things really fast in the
beginning here. We have, as has been mentioned by several other
Members here, but I feel obligated to too, payments that need
to be getting out to growers here, we are hearing about
especially in some of our northern California counties. That
might have something to do with staff issues in some of the
counties. I don't know if it is COVID related or what have you,
but the dollars are just not getting out the door of the
original $10 billion for the wildfire, drought, and other
natural disasters we have had in the last couple years. It has
been well over 100 days on that, and so they are wondering why
isn't it getting out the door? So, please, your attention on
that, especially with northern California FSA offices.
And also as an aside to, our ag products that are stuck on
a dock, stuck in containers. California, many of our nut
growers are really, really suffering on exports, and so,
whatever push you as Secretary can do, sir, to get our Trade
Representatives and enforce our trade agreements we have, China
and them. When we have empty containers going back or sometimes
ships with no containers on them, that is a real problem
because our products need to be going on those ships back and
have some semblance of a balance of trade. And so, whatever
push the USDA can have with our Trade Reps would be greatly
appreciated, because our almond growers, walnut growers are
just getting killed with this stuff sitting on the docks and in
storage, and it is going to carry over in the following years
and just smash the price on those products.
So, sir, let me shift gears to our forestry issues now. One
fire, just one fire in my district was right at a million acres
last year. It was called the Dixie Fire. I want to see if the
Forest Service, we can press them to up their targets for
timber work for the coming year. Do you see the agency
harvesting in 2022 in any fashion a significant increase? How
important is this, do you think, as far as our timber
harvesting for the rural economy, obviously, as we still need
wood and paper products in this country. It is nice to have
them domestically produced and for forest health. So, what do
you think about those, sir?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, I would say that the 10 year plan
that we announced earlier this week speaks to the opportunity
for the Forest Service to do a lot more work in a lot of
different areas across the board to make our forests healthier
and more resilient. So, I think you can expect to anticipate
much more work, and we are going to be focusing on as well on
making sure that we reduce the risk to communities and people
from these horrific fires. And over time, I think we can reduce
the risk and the size of these fires. It is going to take some
time, with these resources from the infrastructure bill, we are
now in a position to be able to do much, much more.
Let me just say on the export issue, we are addressing that
and I think in the very near future we will have at least some
opportunity to try to resolve this. I think the port of Oakland
is underutilized out there on the West Coast, and I think there
is an opportunity there for us to work in concert with that
port to see if we can do something about those empty
containers.
On the WHIP+ Program, as I mentioned earlier, we are trying
to simplify the process so we can get resources out to folks as
quickly as possible, using existing NAP and RMA data, and/or
livestock forage data to get payments to people hopefully in
the spring and summer of this year.
Mr. LaMalfa. I appreciate that. It will be good to see if
some of these dollars can get out there for the forestry we are
talking about.
But yes, we do have staffing issues, it seems to come down
to, whether it is FSA offices, and we have had Forest Service
offices that don't even bother to open up for months. Simple
things like Christmas tree permits in some of my counties are
very difficult to get out the door with that. So, we have to
look at staffing more, and not have such a clamp down because
of COVID situations.
So, on forestry, coming back to that, because it is a big
deal. I talk about that the most. On the hazardous fuel
reduction in the wildland urban interface areas, we need
commercial partners, and in the recent Build Back Acts, they
were restricted from having commercial partners. Is that
something that we can be more aggressive on, and having--there
is not enough Forest Service time or personnel or dollars.
Commercial users can help do that.
Secretary Vilsack. A portion of the infrastructure bill
does provide resources to the state and local governments to be
able to partner with us and so, obviously there will be
opportunities there as well.
Mr. LaMalfa. Not just governments, I am sorry, but with
actually the logging industry out there.
Secretary Vilsack. I am sorry, I got the red light. I am
not sure----
Mr. LaMalfa. The professional loggers out to the commercial
industry, they can do much more than the government can do. How
come we can't partner with them more so?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, I think they will be engaged and
have been engaged and will continue to be engaged because of
the additional resources that are now available. Some of these
contracts have been pretty expensive, which has limited the
amount of work that we have been able to do. There is a whole
other discussion about wood products, and I think there is
important opportunity there for us to expand significantly the
use of wood in construction.
Mr. LaMalfa. Okay. Well, let's see if we can battle
through, then, on the Build Back Better restriction on that.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Yes. Before we adjourn today, I want to
invite our Ranking Member to share any closing comments he may
have.
Mr. Thompson. Well, first of all, Mr. Chairman, thank you
to you for this hearing and extending the invitation to the
Secretary, and Secretary, thank you for your leadership and
being with us here today on Capitol Hill and joining us. We
appreciate your time and look forward to partnering with you on
the important work ahead. I know it is a full plate when you
look at the responsibilities of the Department of Agriculture.
Obviously, food is important, but it is so much more in the
scope of what you do and what we do on this Committee. And so,
that partnership is really important.
I also want to extend my appreciation to your team of
talented professionals at the Department. I do want to also say
specifically thank you for FSIS Administrator Paul Kiecker. He
has been just great. In Pennsylvania alone on this issue of
protein processing of getting out with his team, and I
appreciate the visit to Bell and Evans Chicken, that is
poultry, and appreciate the visit to Nicholas Meats which is on
the capital side. And so, he has been really hands on and just
really a great communicator and a great partner.
In closing, I do want to put a final point on one issue.
Mr. Secretary, there is a concern in Congress that when any
Secretary acts unilaterally with the CCC, and in fact, we have
seen Congress limit your powers of this office when this
authority is abused. There have been limited details made
available to us related to the climate program you described,
and I know you identified two sections specifically. Earlier in
response to a question from Representative Austin Scott, you
stated you are very confident in your legal authority, and that
is an assured statement, given this program seemingly is being
created unilaterally and out of whole cloth, as we speak. I
will stress that this Committee remains skeptical of the legal
authority provided to you and your office under the CCC for
this program, and looking at the enumerated powers in the Act,
we think that no amount of mental gymnastics could get you
there.
That said, this Committee would like more details from you
on this program, but we also want to hear specifically from OGC
on the exact language that provides you the authority under the
CCC Charter Act, and we want to hear from you prior to any
funds being obligated. Is that something I can get a commitment
from?
Secretary Vilsack. We will be happy to share the details of
this program with you, Congressman, and also provide you with
the basis upon which we believe that this is an appropriate use
of these resources.
[The information referred to is located on p. 128.]
Secretary Vilsack. I will tell you, we are not putting
anything at risk here in terms of our ability to do everything
else that is important for the CCC, and I think, again, I would
point out that major farm organizations have called upon us to
do exactly what we are doing in exactly the form we are doing
it. And that is, it is the Farm Bureau, it is major commodity
groups.
So, we are trying to be responsive to what we are hearing
on the outside here and look forward to working with you to get
you to a place where you are a bit more comfortable with this.
But at the end of the day, we are going to have to do this. We
are going to have to get engaged in this, and I will tell you
why we have to get engaged. To the extent we are concerned
about export markets, my previous stint when I worked for the
dairy industry, our competitors are absolutely going to make
this a marketing advantage. We got to get there first.
Mr. Thompson. Right, and I couldn't agree with you more. I
encourage you to check out the SUSTAINS Act (H.R. 2606,
Sponsoring USDA Sustainability Targets in Agriculture to
Incentivize Natural Solutions Act of 2021), and we want to be
there right there with you. We have already been working very
aggressively in this space with bills.
So, I want to just thank you for that, and thank you for
your time today, Mr. Secretary, and for the commitment to you
and the professionals at USDA to be ready to work together on
continued oversight in preparation for the next farm bill.
Once again, Mr. Chairman, thanks for holding this hearing.
I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you.
As I bring this great and very informative hearing to a
close today, I first want to thank you, Secretary Vilsack. Your
testimony was brilliant. It truly was. It was well-prepared and
well-received on our end. And we thank you for that. This has
been a 4 hour hearing, and we appreciate your time and your
commitment. And I am just looking forward to continuing to work
with you and the USDA on all of the things that we have worked
on, and so, thank you again, and God bless you.
Secretary Vilsack. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
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 now
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:01 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Submitted Letter by Hon. David Scott, a Representative in Congress from
Georgia
December 9, 2021
Hon. Thomas ``Tom'' J. Vilsack,
Secretary,
United States Department of Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
Dear Secretary Vilsack,
Thank you for your proactive efforts addressing our supply chain
challenges and your September announcement of $3 billion in investments
for drought resilience, animal disease prevention, and market
disruption relief.
I am writing this personal letter to you to ask: if you would be
kind enough to please use a portion of the $500 million you have
dedicated to providing relief from agricultural market disruptions, to
provide critical financial assistance to help our merchandisers of U.S.
cotton.
Mr. Secretary, our nation's cotton industry is experiencing
unprecedented supply chain disruptions. And, our nation's cotton
merchandisers are being significantly impacted by COVID-related demand
erosion and by supply chain disruptions. And, this has now created
unparalleled costs and losses impacting our merchandisers of U.S.
cotton.
And, as Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, I stand ready
to work together with you, as a partner, in bringing this very much
needed financial help to our merchandisers of U.S. cotton. And, Mr.
Secretary, my request to you is very important to me and, most
certainly, to the cotton industry because of the important role that
our cotton merchandisers play in providing the liquidity and the risk
management for all our U.S. cotton producers and farmers.
Secretary Vilsack, I deeply and personally appreciate your help
with my request for you to use a portion of the $500 million funding
for agriculture market disruption to provide financial relief for our
merchandisers of U.S. cotton. Thank you, and God bless you.
Your friend,
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
David Scott,
Chairman, House Committee on Agriculture.
______
Submitted Letter by Hon. Ann M. Kuster, a Representative in Congress
from New Hampshire
May 24, 2021
Hon. Thomas ``Tom'' J. Vilsack,
Secretary,
United States Department of Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
Dear Secretary Vilsack,
The coronavirus pandemic has had substantial impacts on farm and
food businesses across the nation, from farms and ranches to food hubs
and processing facilities. Some businesses saw their markets disappear
overnight, requiring a rapid course shift to reach new customers, while
others saw demand skyrocket beyond existing capacity. The pandemic has
underscored the need to better equip these businesses--especially those
serving local and regional markets--with the tools needed to capitalize
on new opportunities, create jobs, and achieve a more resilient food
system.
Given this critical need, we are writing to urge the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) to allocate at least $300 million from
within existing pandemic response authorities, including stimulus
funding enacted in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, and the
American Rescue Plan Act, to dramatically increase one-on-one business
technical assistance targeting small- and mid-sized farm and food
businesses. This type of investment in the future has a proven track
record of improving regional supply chain resiliency. It will also
translate into new capital and opportunities, particularly for
communities that the Biden Administration has identified as
underserved, including socially disadvantaged populations and low-
income rural areas.
Farmers and ranchers are entrepreneurs, not just agricultural
producers. This past year has demonstrated that improved business
skills and financial literacy are essential to enabling these
businesses to survive unforeseen market disruptions. Many small- and
mid-sized operations did not have the adequate financial recordkeeping
needed to access coronavirus relief through Federal opportunities.
Providing customized support in the form of one-to-one technical
assistance--for financial literacy, business planning, market
development, succession planning, and accessing land and capital--will
help create new jobs and increase sustainability for both the current
and next generation. One state program found that 2 years of tailored,
in-depth business planning support generated on average a 62 percent
increase in net income for farm and food businesses, and helped
businesses gain jobs at a rate three times that of the sector on
average.\1\ This is just one example of what can be achieved
nationally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 2017 VT Farm & Forest Viability Program Annual Report to the
Legislature, Vermont Housing & Conservation Board, January 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are encouraged by your announcement on March 24 that the USDA
will dedicate at least $6 billion in discretionary funding previously
enacted by Congress for a new Pandemic Assistance for Producers
initiative to support producers who were underserved by the previous
Administration's relief measures. Through the American Rescue Plan Act,
Congress provided an additional $3.6 billion in funding to improve
supply chain resiliency and help producers as well as small- and mid-
sized processors respond to the pandemic. Dedicating a portion of these
funds to one-on-one business technical assistance is critical to
meeting these goals. Currently, support for this assistance is being
provided on a piecemeal basis across the country by public and NGO
service providers who rely on inconsistent government and philanthropic
funding sources. While the recent supplemental funding for USDA's Local
Agriculture Market Program (LAMP) and Farming Opportunities Training
and Outreach (FOTO) represent critical investments in small- and mid-
sized farm and food businesses, these programs have a wide range of
uses and are not specifically designed to support in-depth and
sustained business technical assistance. In fact, a dedicated
investment in business technical assistance will help ensure the impact
and longevity of these LAMP and FOTO investments. Therefore, we urge
the USDA to dedicate at least $300 million for business technical
assistance, delivered in the form of multi-year grants to public and
NGO agricultural service providers with a history of providing this
type of assistance and a track record of increasing business skills,
profitability, and access to land and capital.
Thank you for your continued support of the nation's agriculture
producers. We know you share our concern about future viability and
sustainability within the industry. We are grateful for the work you
and the Department have done to support farms, ranches, and other food
businesses as the pandemic continues, and look forward to working with
you to advance support for these businesses.
Sincerly,
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Hon. Patrick J. Leahy, Hon. Antonio Delgado,
United States Senator Member of Congress
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Hon. Cory A. Booker, Hon. Chellie Pingree,
United States Senator Member of Congress
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Hon. Sherrod Brown, Hon. Cynthia Axne,
United States Senator Member of Congress
Hon. Robert P. Casey, Jr., Hon. Sanford D. Bishop, Jr.,
United States Senator Member of Congress
Hon. Richard J. Durbin, Hon. Suzanne Bonamici,
United States Senator Member of Congress
Hon. Kirsten E. Gillibrand, Hon. Cheri Bustos,
United States Senator Member of Congress
Hon. Mazie K. Hirano, Hon. Ed Case,
United States Senator Member of Congress
Hon. Angus S. King, Jr., Hon. Jim Costa,
United States Senator Member of Congress
Hon. Amy Klobuchar, Hon. Joe Courtney,
United States Senator Member of Congress
Hon. Ben Ray Lujan, Hon. Angie Craig,
United States Senator Member of Congress
Hon. Edward J. Markey, Hon. Rosa L. DeLauro,
United States Senator Member of Congress
Hon. Jeff Merkley, Hon. Jahanna Hayes,
United States Senator Member of Congress
Hon. Christopher Murphy, Hon. James A. Himes,
United States Senator Member of Congress
Hon. Jack Reed, Hon. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson,
Jr.,
United States Senator Member of Congress
Hon. Bernard Sanders, Hon. Marcy Kaptur,
United States Senator Member of Congress
Hon. Brian Schatz, Hon. Ann M. Kuster,
United States Senator Member of Congress
Hon. Charles E. Schumer, Hon. James R. Langevin,
United States Senator Member of Congress
Hon. Jeanne Shaheen, Hon. Sean Patrick Maloney,
United States Senator Member of Congress
Hon. Tina Smith, Hon. James P. McGovern,
United States Senator Member of Congress
Hon. Debbie Stabenow, Hon. Stacey E. Plaskett,
United States Senator Member of Congress
Hon. Chris Van Hollen, Hon. Mark Pocan,
United States Senator Member of Congress
Hon. Sheldon Whitehouse, Hon. C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger,
United States Senator Member of Congress
Hon. Bobby L. Rush,
Member of Congress
Hon. Kim Schrier,
Member of Congress
Hon. Abigail Davis Spanberger,
Member of Congress
Hon. Paul Tonko,
Member of Congress
Hon. David J. Trone,
Member of Congress
Hon. Peter Welch,
Member of Congress
______
Submitted Letter by Hon. Vicky Hartzler, a Representative in Congress
from Missouri
July 30, 2021
Hon. Thomas ``Tom'' J. Vilsack,
Secretary,
United States Department of Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
Dear Secretary Vilsack,
Thank you for your recent announcement of plans to invest in our
nation's meat processing capacity. As you know, the industry has
experienced several disruptions in recent months and small processors
were crucial in supporting the supply chain across Missouri and the
nation.
As your team seeks input on the strategy for the $500 million from
the American Rescue Plan to support new competitive entrants in meat
and poultry processing, I want to highlight the need for processors who
stood up or made expansions during the COVID-19 pandemic to be eligible
for these investments.
According to Rabobank Research, adding packing capacity could
result in more balanced profitability throughout the supply chain and
suggests that an additional 5,000 to 6,000 head of daily beef packing
capacity would help achieve this. The estimated cost for building a
small 20 head per week processing facility, which is the average for
Missouri plants, is $1.2 million for all the construction, permits,
equipment, etc. With the need for processors to shell out this amount
of capital, reserving a portion of the $500 million to invest in
processors who opened their doors or made expansions during the COVID-
19 pandemic would be a wise use of taxpayer dollars.
These small businesses stepped up in a desperate time of need and
took on substantial risk--and debt--to help stabilize the supply chain
and provide local options for both producers and consumers. These
processors should not be penalized for rising to meet local need amid a
global pandemic. In an effort to help ensure the long-time viability of
these processors, I request a portion of this funding be made available
in the form of grants to processors who began operating or conducted
any expansion since the COVID-19 pandemic designation.
This request will be submitted through the Federal Register comment
page as well. Thank you for your consideration and please do not
hesitate to contact me if I may be of any service to you during this
process or in the future.
Sincerely,
Hon. Vicky Hartzler,
Member of Congress.
______
Submitted Letter by Hon. James R. Baird, a Representative in Congress
from Indiana
October 7, 2021
Hon. Thomas ``Tom'' J. Vilsack, Hon. Janet Woodcock,
Secretary, Acting Commissioner,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Food and Drug Administration,
Washington, D.C.; Washington, D.C.
Dear Secretary Vilsack and Acting Commissioner Woodcock,
As you know, several challenges facing the agriculture industry and
our communities have emerged or intensified in recent years. Zoonotic
disease, climate change, and a growing global population require us to
consider new solutions to protect our food supply and sustainably meet
demand. Ongoing research and existing innovations in animal genetics
show great promise in addressing these challenges. However, an
efficient, risk and science-based regulatory system that can create a
safe, predictable path to market is imperative to capitalizing on these
solutions. We believe the existing U.S. regulatory process for the
review of animals developed or improved through biotechnology requires
significant improvement to meet that standard, and we encourage the
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Food & Drug Administration
(FDA) to continue working with each other and with other relevant
Federal partners to appropriately modernize this important process.
For thousands of years, genetic improvements have been a hallmark
of agriculture. Over the last century, organized research and formal
plant and animal breeding programs have rapidly advanced the success
and sustainability of agricultural production. Since the 1950s, milk
production \1\ in the United States has nearly doubled while using half
the number of cows, reducing both the environmental footprint and costs
of production. However, many of the challenges we face today will not
afford us another 70 years to make similar incremental improvements.
Zoonotic disease risks like SARS-CoV-2 or recent avian influenza spread
to humans in Asia,\2\ could be greatly mitigated by disease-resistant
livestock.\3\ Animals improved to reduce methane emissions \4\ or
improve heat tolerance \5\ could play an important role in our efforts
to address climate change and achieve more resilient supply chains.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.wpr.org/how-we-produce-more-milk-fewer-cows.
\2\ https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/21/science/bird-flu-
pandemic.html.
\3\ https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/06/190604084855.htm.
\4\ https://www.newscientist.com/article/2208449-we-could-breed-
climate-friendly-cows-that-belch-less-methane/.
\5\ https://www.researchgate.net/publication/
313956642_BREEDING_AND_GENETICS_
SYMPOSIUMBreeding_heat_tolerant_dairy_cattle_the_case_for_introgression_
of_the_slick_
prolactin_receptor_variant_ into_dairy_breeds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, the existing regulatory system is not conducive to
the timely adoption of these sorts of innovations. In the past 25
years, only two animals intended for agricultural purposes have been
approved for use domestically by FDA. One of these innovations is
primarily intended for biomedical applications,\6\ and both took
decades to achieve regulatory approval. A costly, protracted regulatory
system will continue to stifle important agricultural innovations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ https://www.statnews.com/2020/12/14/fda-approves-genetically-
altering-pigs/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efforts to modernize the regulatory environment for products of
biotechnology have transcended Administrations and party lines--a
tradition we hope to see continued. In 2015, President Obama's
Executive Office of the President (EOP) issued a memo \7\ initiating a
process to modernize the Federal regulatory system for products of
biotechnology with the objective of ensuring public confidence,
preventing unnecessary barriers to future innovation, and continuing to
protect health and the environment. These are sound objectives, and we
support efforts to continue exploring improvements in our regulatory
system, such as USDA's publication of an Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (ANPR) regarding whether to establish regulations for the
movement of certain animals modified or developed using genetic
engineering. We were heartened by the decision to extend the ANPR's
comment period to ensure ample opportunity for thoughtful input from
the public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/
microsites/ostp/modernizing_the_
reg_system_for_biotech_products_memo_final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With the ANPR comment period now closed--and as the Administration
decides how to best navigate this vital modernization effort--we
encourage USDA and FDA to carefully consider the feedback provided by
stakeholders. The challenges facing our food supply and society demand
an improved regulatory approach, and we are hopeful that this
Administration will rise to the occasion and empower agriculture with
the tools necessary to be a part of the solution.
Sincerely,
Hon. Stacey E. Plaskett, Hon. James R. Baird,
Member of Congress Member of Congress
Hon. David Scott, Hon. Glenn Thompson,
Chairman, Ranking Minority Member,
House Committee on Agriculture House Committee of Agriculture
Hon. Alma S. Adams, Hon. Cynthia Axne,
Member of Congress Member of Congress
Hon. Troy Balderson, Hon. Sanford D. Bishop, Jr.,
Member of Congress Member of Congress
Hon. Cheri Bustos, Hon. Salud O. Carbajal,
Member of Congress Member of Congress
Hon. J. Luis Correa, Hon. Jim Costa,
Member of Congress Member of Congress
Hon. Angie Craig, Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford,
Member of Congress Member of Congress
Hon. Rodney Davis, Hon. Antonio Delgado,
Member of Congress Member of Congress
Hon. Randy Feenstra, Hon. Michelle Fischbach,
Member of Congress Member of Congress
Hon. Jim Hagedorn, Hon. Vicky Hartzler,
Member of Congress Member of Congress
Hon. Jahana Hayes, Hon. Chris Jacobs,
Member of Congress Member of Congress
Hon. Dusty Johnson, Hon. Trent Kelly,
Member of Congress Member of Congress
Hon. Ann Kirkpatrick, Hon. Ann M. Kuster,
Member of Congress Member of Congress
Hon. Doug LaMalfa, Hon. Al Lawson, Jr.,
Member of Congress Member of Congress
Hon. Julia Letlow, Hon. Barry Moore,
Member of Congress Member of Congress
Hon. Tom O'Halleran, Hon. Jimmy Panetta,
Member of Congress Member of Congress
Hon. David Rouzer, Hon. Bobby L. Rush,
Member of Congress Member of Congress
Hon. Kim Schrier, Hon. Austin Scott,
Member of Congress Member of Congress
Hon. Abigail Davis Spanberger,
Member of Congress
______
Submitted Articles by Hon. Michael Cloud, a Representative in Congress
from Texas
Article 1
[https://www.farmprogress.com/farm-policy/border-situation-threatens-
farmers-livelihood]
Border situation threatens farmers' livelihood
Worsening Border Situation: Texas rancher Katie Hobbs'
husband found five girls dumped by a river on the Texas-Mexico
border.
Ranching families on the border faced with bailouts,
unfriendly visitors and high costs to rebuild.
Jacqui Fatka \1\ D Jun. 29, 2021
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.farmprogress.com/author/Jacqui-Fatka.
As the border situation continues to grab headlines and even a
recent visit from Vice President Kamala Harris, those farmers and
ranchers along the border are seeing the situation getting worse every
day.
The new reality for many farmers in Southern states are
``bailouts,'' where smugglers driving vehicles crowded with immigrants
entering the U.S. illegally are in a police pursuit. As everyone bails
out of the vehicle, the smugglers crash through fences, dump clothes
and backpacks, and leave children to fend for themselves.
``There is a crisis going on along the border, not just the Texas
border. Unless you have been here and live here, you have no idea how
bad it is. No idea until you live it,'' says Stephanie Crisp-Canales.
Crisp-Canales was born and raised in LaSalle County, Texas, about
56 miles from the Mexican border. When she was a child growing up on
the family ranch, many immigrants crossed the border illegally, looking
for a better life.
Editor's note: the video is retained in Committee file; and
is available at https://player.vimeo.com/video/542720896.
``They didn't steal. They didn't try to break into your house. They
came to the door, rang the doorbell and just wanted something to eat.
Most of them offered to do something in return for food and wanted to
do something to repay the kindness you showed them,'' Crisp-Canales
shares.
When she was 14 or 15 years old, she had her first experience of
those trying to do harm against her. ``At that point I started to see a
change, and it no longer became as safe to go outside,'' she recalls.
``It has slowly gotten worse and worse and worse until where we are
today. We have multiple bailouts a day,'' she explains.
The American Farm Bureau Federation joined all 50 state Farm
Bureaus and Puerto Rico Farm Bureau in sending a letter in early June
urging the Biden Administration to address the surge of undocumented
immigrants entering the United States. The letter points out that local
and state border security resources have been exhausted, leaving little
help for farmers and ranchers. It highlights the problem of human
smugglers, known as Coyotes, explaining that landowners live in fear
while Coyotes reap a windfall from leaving people destitute.
``Human smugglers (Coyotes) are making false promises and doing
whatever it takes to get paid and get away, including jeopardizing
lives and property,'' the letter continues. ``In their desperation to
evade law enforcement, Coyotes abandon people, steal vehicles,
vandalize property and threaten the safety and livelihoods of farmers
and ranchers. They are often criminals who smuggle drugs and firearms
into the country, frequently leaving them on farmers' and ranchers'
property, causing unrest for farm and ranch families.''
Crisp-Canales explains previously when a bailout occurred on your
property, the landowner could claim that vehicle. The salvaged vehicle
could then be used to pay for repair costs and offset the costs from
the bailouts of the coyote drivers who unload immigrants across the
terrain if there's a threat of being caught. Now the laws require the
vehicle to be sold at auction and the landowner isn't compensated at
all.
``We have to pay to fix our fences and replace gates when it's
happening multiple times per day. It is costly. It sucks. It's just
awful,'' she laments.
Fellow Texas rancher Dale Smith shares the current scenario is
``dramatically different than what we've seen in the past.''
Previously, he would see families or people who were friendly. Now it
is individuals with camouflaged backpacks cutting fences and people on
the highway carrying firearms and drugs along with a dozen people
crammed into a vehicle.
Texas rancher Brian King says over the last 6 years he went from
having just two bailout incidents on his farm to a now weekly
occurrence over the last 4 months.
Bill Martin, who farms in Dimmit County, Texas, has been ranching
all his life. ``This is just about the worse I've ever seen traffic
coming in across the border,'' he states. Prior to this year he went 2
years without seeing a single illegal. Now he's picking up 50 pounds of
leftover backpacks and clothes just dumped on his property for those
who don't need it for the next stage.
He recently found the water line left running. ``If I hadn't found
it, it would cost me $1,500 and the cattle wouldn't have had water.''
Marcus Canales of LaSalle County says everybody knows south Texas
has always had its issues with those crossing the border. But the surge
coming in continues to create headaches. In his location near
Interstate 35, one of his biggest fears is if a bailout opens up a
fence and a cow gets out on the interstate, he can get sued.
Jim Chilton is a fifth-generation Arizona rancher and has land with
14 miles exposed to the Mexico border. When he started farming at the
location west of Tucson in 1987, there was no real issue at the border.
In the mid-1990s to 2008, waves of people were coming in and mainly
headed to California, Illinois and the coasts to work until the
recession hit and the traffic stopped.
After that, Chilton says the drug cartels took over all the truck
trails on his ranch, and he believed the traffic changed to drug
packers. The drug packers and cartel now use people who do want to seek
asylum as decoys and once border control's attention is diverted to
those individuals, the cartel knows they can run the drugs up without
fear of apprehension.
``We need to secure the border because the people coming across our
ranch aren't asylum seekers; these are bad guys,'' Chilton shares.
For more stories on the border impact on farmers, visit https://
texasfarmbureau.org/border-crisis-impacts.
Article 2
[https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9566251/Texas-farmer-finds-
five-abandoned-migrant-girls-7-land-border-crisis-worsens.html]
`This needs to stop now': Texas farmer, 75, finds five abandoned
migrant girls--including a baby--under the age of 7 crying and
hungry on his land--and warns thousands will die this summer in
sweltering heat while Biden ignores the border crisis
Farmer Jimmy Hobbs, 75, says he found the five little girls
on Sunday at 8.30am while doing a round of his land in Quemado,
Texas
The girls were all hungry and crying; one was naked and
crawling because she is too young to walk
Three were from Honduras--they are 7, 3, and 2
Two are from Guatemala and are aged 5 years old, and 11
months old
The farmer said he gave them food, water and shade until CBP
arrived 3 hours later
He said the current border crisis is the worst he's seen in
the 75 years he has lived on the farm
It's unclear what will now happen to the girls--Customs
Border Patrol hasn't indicated where they are, or if they can
stay in the U.S.
Hobbs and his wife Katie begged Biden to tighten the rules
or come to the border to see the crisis for himself
They said that as summer approaches, many will die trying to
get into the country in sweltering heat
The number of migrant children being held in CBP detention
centers has doubled over the last month--there are now more
than 21,000
By Jennifer Smith for DailyMail.com \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/
search.html?s=&authornamef=Jennifer+Smith+For+
Dailymail.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Published: 08:16 EST, 11 May 2021 D Updated: 13:17 EST, 11 May 2021
Five abandoned girls from Honduras and Guatemala were found on
Sunday on the land of a Texas \2\ farmer, hungry and crying after being
left by their families to try to get into the country alone in another
example of the worsening border crisis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/texas/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Three of the girls are from Honduras. They are 7, 3, and 2. The
other two are from Guatemala and are aged 5 and 11 months old.
They are now at Uvalde Station, where they'll be processed, before
being given to Health and Human Services.
Jimmy Hobbs, the 75-year old farmer and his wife Katie gave an
interview to Texas Congressman Tony Gonzales which was posted on
Twitter \3\ after the pair submitted photos and videos to social media
groups that campaign for tighter border control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/twitter/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gonzalez also shared a gut-wrenching image of the girls lying in
dirt. In one of the videos she shared, Katie fumed in the background:
`These children dumped out on the side of the river here on our farm.
`If this doesn't make you mad and make you want to take to the
streets, I don't know what will. They have no mother, no father, no
nothing. This is one of our workers' wives right here taking care of
this tiny one. No one with these children.'
Hobbs is an onion and watermelon farmer who has lived on the land
he owns his entire life. The farm is in Quemado, Texas, which sits on
the border with the Mexican state of Coahuila.
He said that he believes the girls would have died if he hadn't
found them, and that the situation at the border is the worst it has
been in the 75 years he has lived on the farm.
He and his wife warned that there will be `thousands more' who get
into perilous danger and die this summer trying to illegally cross the
border as temperatures rise and President Biden continues to shrug off
the crisis and leave it to Vice President Kamala Harris to handle
instead.
Since Biden took office, there has been a rush of people trying to
illegally get into the country and the number of kids in detention
centers has doubled over the last 2 months. Now, there are 21,000 in
U.S. custody. Neither the President nor the Vice President has visited
the border.
Five girls from Honduras, Guatemala and Mexico were found on
Sunday by Texas onion and watermelon farmer Jimmy Hobbs on his
property in the border town of Quemado, across from the Mexican
state of Coahuila. The photo was posted on Twitter by
Congressman Tony Gonzalez on Sunday after first being shared on
border Facebook groups.
Editor's note: the video is retained in Committee file; and
is available at https://www.dailymail.co.uk/embed/video/
2416996.html.
On Sunday morning, Katie Hobbs and her husband Jimmy Hobbs
discovered five migrant girls near a river on their farm in
Quemado, Texas, which borders with the northeastern Mexican
state of Coahuila.
The farmer and his wife gave the girls food, water and sat
them in shade while they waited for CBP to arrive at the scene.
The youngest of the girls is so little she can't walk yet.
She was naked when the farmer arrived and the girls didn't have
any diapers for her either. She is shown being cradled by one
of the farm workers' wives.
They also called on the wife of one of their workers, who
speaks Spanish, to comfort the girls. They are now in CBP
custody, along with 21,000 other kids.
The farmer and his wife spoke to Republican Congressman Tony
Gonzalez about what they found. Gonzalez posted a video of their
comments on Twitter.
`I was making a round on the farm and about 8.30 in the morning, I
was just driving along and all of a sudden I see them.
`Five little baby girls, all by themselves, hungry crying. One
didn't have any clothes on.
`Immediately, I called border patrol but they're snowed under, they
don't have any help either.
`I waited for a while then I called one of my workers and asked his
wife to go up to the house and bring some food and water,' the farmer
said.
The farmer brought the girls into shade and gave them food and
water for `two and a half hours' before police arrived.
`It was really hot. I don't think they would have made it if I
hadn't found them,' he said.
The farmer's wife added: `It needs to stop right now.
`There's going to be thousands. This is just 5 miles of the Rio
Grande. That's a huge border, this is happening all up and down it.
`It can't go on. It's going to be too hot. There are going to be a
lot of deaths, a lot of suffering this summer.'
The farmer added a plea to President Biden--tighten the rules to
prevent people from flooding the border or come and see the crisis for
yourself.
Editor's note: the video is retained in Committee file; and
is available at https://www.dailymail.co.uk/embed/video/
2416888.html.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9566251/Texas-
farmer-finds-five-abandoned-migrant-girls-7-land-border-crisis-
worsens.html#i-7fa779c46412539e
Republican Congressman Tony Gonzalez shared the photo on
Twitter and said it was another indicator of the escalating
crisis
`We're talking about how the United States is a humane country--
this is not humane anymore and it all started under [him].
`He either needs to come down here and look at this himself or
change it back,' he said.
His wife added that Trump's presidency was the first time they'd
felt safe in 30 years because it stopped migrants from rushing to the
border to try to get in.
`Change it back under Trump's Administration. For the first time in
30 years we felt secure here.
`It was working and it was working well. They stayed in Mexico.
Biden has shrugged off the crisis, refusing to even call it
one, for months.
`A lot of people are going to die this summer and we're going to be
witness to it.'
Customs and Border Patrol called the situation `heartbreaking'.
`It is heartbreaking to find such small children fending for
themselves in the middle of nowhere.
`Unfortunately this happens far too often now.
`If not for our community and law enforcement partners, these
little girls could have faced the more than 100 temperatures with no
help,' said Del Rio Sector Chief Patrol Agent Austin L. Skero II in a
press release.
The number of migrant children being held in CBP detention centers
has doubled over the last month--there are now more than 21,000.
One facility in Fort Bliss, Texas, has more than 4,500 kids in
custody.
Attorneys, advocates and mental health experts say that while some
shelters are safe and provide adequate care, others are endangering
children's health and safety.
`It's almost like Groundhog Day,' said Southern Poverty Law Center
attorney Luz Lopez.
`Here we are back to a point almost where we started, where the
government is using taxpayer money to build large holding facilities .
. . for children instead of using that money to find ways to more
quickly reunite children with their sponsors.'
The farm is in Quemado, Texas, which sits on the border with
the Mexican state of Coahuila.
Article 3
[https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/texas-ranchers-pummeled-by-
bidens-border-crisis-fear-for-their-lives]
Published October 13, [2021]
Texas ranchers pummeled by Biden's border crisis 'fear for their lives'
Border crisis cripples Texas couples' daily lives
By Alicia Warren \1\ FOXBusiness \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.foxbusiness.com/person/w/alicia-warren.
\2\ http://www.foxbusiness.com/.
Editor's note: the video is retained in Committee file; and
is available at http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/6276926350001.
Texas ranchers pummeled by President Biden's border crisis
'fear for their lives'
John Paul and Donna Schuster detail the impact the border
crisis has had on their daily lives.
John Paul and Donna Schuster have experienced firsthand the
damaging effects of the uncontrollable migrant surge \3\ wreaking havoc
on the U.S. southern border.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://www.foxnews.com/category/us/immigration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The crisis has crippled the couple's daily lives and they even
admitted to living in ``fear'' as they grapple with the consequences of
Biden's \4\ ``open border'' policies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ https://www.foxbusiness.com/category/joe-biden.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Texas \5\ ranchers discussed the devastation they've endured
during an emotional interview with ``Mornings with Maria'' \6\ host
Maria Bartiromo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https://www.foxnews.com/category/us/us-regions/southwest/texas.
\6\ https://www.foxbusiness.com/shows/mornings-with-maria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``You've got to look around like, is somebody out there? You just
don't know who's watching you,'' Donna Schuster told the FOX Business
host. ``There's some kind of sign that someone has been there since the
last time I was there the day before. It's either trash, footprints,
gate left open, fence cut, water line broken, float broken for a trough
that waters the livestock. It's something every single day,'' she said.
The Schuster's reside in Kinney County, approximately 28 miles from
the U.S., Mexico border. Their ranch has become an undeclared hideaway
for runaway migrants trying to avoid apprehension and enter the U.S.
illegally.
Migrants, many from Haiti, are seen at an encampment along
the Del Rio International Bridge near the Rio Grande in Del
Rio, Texas. (AP Photo/Julio Cortez, File) (AP Newsroom).
``By the time they show up at our house or they show up at our
ranch. They've called a ride or they've been walking for several
days,'' John Paul Schuster told Bartiromo.
The migrants trespassing on the couple's property has become a
norm. The ranchers have had to take matters into their own hands to
protect themselves, hiding pistols in their home, installing alarm
systems and even purchased a dog.
Donna Schuster started carrying a gun regularly after confronting
migrants walking towards her property in April. Her husband was tending
to machinery on the ranch.
Editor's note: the video is retained in Committee file; and
is available at http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/6276907947001.
Texas ranchers impacted by border crisis share emotional
story
Texas ranchers John Paul and Donna Schuster discuss the
overwhelming migrant surge, damage done to their property and
why they started carrying guns during an emotional interview
with FOX Business' Maria Bartiromo.
The border crisis has worsened since the Biden Administration took
office in January 2020. After dismantling Trump-era immigration
policies, the U.S. has dealt with record-breaking \7\ border
apprehensions \8\ as the migrant influx persists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ https://www.foxnews.com/us/migrant-crisis-us-mexico-border-
guatemalan-activist.
\8\ https://www.foxnews.com/category/us/immigration/border-
security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``The way this whole thing is shaking down and geared up from this
Administration is we're the victims,'' John Paul Schuster said
emotionally. ``It's bulls**t,'' he continued.
The Schuster's have even extended to help migrants seeking asylum
by offering them a job \9\ and working with them until their court date
arrives. Their offers were rejected every time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ https://www.foxbusiness.com/category/jobs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``We understand that there's people coming in that want a better
life, but there's a better way to do it than the way that it's
happening down here,'' Donna Schuster explained.
``We shouldn't be afraid in our own homes.\10\''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ https://www.foxbusiness.com/real-estate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article 4
[https://www.foxnews.com/us/texas-rancher-bodies-dead-migrants-
properties]
Published April 8, [2021]
Texas rancher says he and his neighbors find bodies of migrants on
their properties
`There is a sense of fear that exists down here all the time,' Whit
Jones says
By Talia Kaplan \1\ D Fox News \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.foxnews.com/person/k/talia-kaplan.
\2\ https://www.foxnews.com/.
Editor's note: the video is retained in Committee file; and
is available at http://video.foxnews.com/v/6247469972001.
Texas rancher says he, neighbors find bodies of migrants on
property
Texas rancher Whit Jones explains what he has been
experiencing amid the migrant surge at the southern border.
Texas \3\ rancher Whit Jones told ``Fox & Friends'' \4\ on Thursday
that he and his neighbors have found bodies of migrants \5\ on their
properties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://www.foxnews.com/category/us/us-regions/southwest/texas.
\4\ https://www.foxnews.com/shows/fox-and-friends.
\5\ https://www.foxnews.com/category/us/immigration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jones, who lives in Hebbronville, Texas, said that while he has
found about two to three bodies a year, ``a neighbor of mine has been
finding close to ten a year for the last 10 years.''
He noted that currently, he has found mostly adult males who would
not qualify for asylum, on his property.
``Right now we're seeing hardly any children or women because of
everything that's going on on the river,'' Jones explained. ``Those
people aren't having to make this journey.''
He noted that women and children can claim asylum and are ``being
bused places,'' which leads to more ``single men coming up'' and
results in ``a little bit more of a dangerous situation.''
``There is a sense of fear that exists down here all the time,''
Jones told host Brian Kilmeade.\6\ ``It's a terrible situation.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ https://www.foxnews.com/person/k/brian-kilmeade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., said last month that similar issues
have been reported by ranchers in Arizona.
``I spoke with John Ladd, a local rancher in Cochise County, who
told me in the past 30 years he's had over a dozen dead illegal
immigrants on his ranch,'' Blackburn tweeted.
https://twitter.com/MarshaBlackburn/status/
1373743724497235972.
President Biden \7\ has scrapped a number of former President
Trump's immigration policies, which included wall construction and
having asylum seekers remain in Mexico instead of staying in the U.S.
while they wait for their cases to be heard. The moves have led to a
record surge in migrants,\8\ including unaccompanied minors, that has
strained capacity at immigration facilities in recent weeks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ https://www.foxnews.com/category/person/joe-biden.
\8\ https://www.foxnews.com/politics/migrants-released-without-
court-dates-border-surge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jones explained that he lives a little north of the border with
Mexico.
``Typically what we hear about on the news is people crossing that
border,'' he explained. ``But essentially there's another border that
is about 50 miles to the north and we call it the 'interior check
system' or the `interior checkpoint.' ''
``So once all these people get across the river, they then now have
to make another journey across to this next,'' he continued.
Jones said he is hoping to get a state law passed that would help
``penalize smugglers'' and provide protection for migrants.
He noted that the law would ``strengthen the penalty on trespassing
from a state level'' and would allow ``our local law enforcement the
ability to do more with the situation.''
Talia Kaplan is a reporter for FoxNews.com. Follow her on
Twitter @taliakaplan.
______
Submitted Letter by Hon. Julia Letlow, a Representative in Congress
from Louisiana
January 19, 2022
Hon. Thomas ``Tom'' J. Vilsack,
Secretary,
U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
Dear Secretary Vilsack:
As our nation is presented with on-going disruptions to the supply-
chain, I continue to hear the concerns of Louisiana farmers about the
challenges of rapidly rising costs of production, specifically the
alarming rate of increased fertilizer prices. Higher input costs are
not only a direct hit on the farm, but a compounding issue that
consumers will ultimately absorb for years to come. The reality of an
already weakened supply-chain is that the situation could get much
worse if the Federal Government doesn't act immediately to adequately
address the needs of our farmers who fuel local economies and provide
for our nation's food security. True market distortion will have a
crippling effect on the equity of American farms, endangering the
future of our domestic energy and food production.
That is why I asked the Agricultural and Food Policy Center (AFPC)
at Texas A&M University to conduct a study to determine the economic
impacts of input prices using their 64 representative farms, including
the grain farm located in my district. As you know, AFPC has a trusted
expertise in analyzing the effects of farm policies by applying their
model of farms located in different regions of the United States and
cultivating a variety of crops. Additionally, I asked AFPC for their
recommendations on what actions Congress and the Administration could
take to alleviate these challenges as farmers gear up for the 2022
Spring planting season.
I write to request that you review in its entirety the enclosed
report, authored by Dr. Joe Outlaw, that AFPC recently published in
response to my request. This analysis found that there will be a
significant impact on the costs of input both on the whole-farm level
and per-acre varying by commodity, therefore resulting in lower cash
receipts for 2022. Reflecting the findings of this report, I ask that
you examine the negative implications of reduced net farm income due to
increased cost of production and determine the need to assist our
farmers.
As part of a comprehensive announcement last September, USDA
announced $500 million in investments to provide relief from
agriculture market disruption. However, we have yet to see any outcomes
further detailing the implementation of these funds. One area of focus
highlighted in the announcement included the availability and cost of
certain materials, which is a purposeful fit to respond to the current
challenges presented by high fertilizer prices. I request that you
carefully consider the real-time impact to farmers when developing and
deploying this initiative.
Congress and the Administration acted swiftly to provide much
needed assistance to the agriculture industry in the onset of COVID-19,
and I stand ready to work with you now in finding a solution to address
these lasting effects of supply-chain disruptions impacting American
agriculture.
Thank you for your consideration of this request. Please don't
hesitate to contact my office at [Redacted] if you have any questions
or if I can provide further assistance.
Sincerely,
Hon. Julia Letlow,
Member of Congress.
attachment
Economic Impact of Higher Fertilizer Prices on AFPC's Representative
Crop Farms
Agricultural and Food Policy Center, Texas A&M University
January 2022
Photos courtesy USDA.
Department of Agricultural Economics College Station, Texas 77843-2124
Texas AgriLife Research Telephone: (979) 845-5913
Texas AgriLife Extension ServFax: (979) 845-3140
Texas A&M University http://www.afpc.tamu.edu D
@AFPCTAMU
2022 by the Agricultural and Food Policy Center
Briefing Paper 22-01
Joe L. Outlaw, Henry L. Bryant, J. Marc Raulston, George M. Knapek,
Brian K. Herbst, Bart L. Fischer
Introduction
This report analyzes the economic impacts of higher fertilizer
prices on the Agricultural and Food Policy Center's (AFPC's) 64
representative crop farms. The analysis was requested by U.S.
Representative Julia Letlow from the 5th District of Louisiana. The
results are presented relative to the August 2021 FAPRI Baseline
analysis. Additional detail is presented for the Louisiana
representative grain farm that is located in her Congressional
district.
Background
According to USDA, fertilizer use by U.S. producers peaked in 1981
at 23.7 million tons.\1\ Since that time, fertilizer use has
experienced annual volatility with no persistent trend. Of the three
primary types of commercial fertilizer--nitrogen, phosphorus, and
potassium (NPK)--nitrogen accounts for more than 50 percent of total
use by weight. Recent fertilizer price increases across all three
primary nutrients have caused significant concern among producers. For
the 2022 crop, producers are experiencing sticker shock as well as
product shortages (Figure 1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/fertilizer-use-and-
price/summary-of-findings/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 1: Monthly Average Fertilizer Nutrient Prices, January 1995 to
October 2021.
Source: Compiled from DTN spot market price data for the last
trading day of each month. The markets include New Orleans,
Corn Belt, Southern Plains, South Central, Southeast and
Florida. The phosphorous price is specifically for diammonium
phosphate (DAP).
Data and Methods
Model
For over 30 years, AFPC has maintained a farm-level policy
simulation model (FLIPSIM) developed by Richardson and Nixon (1986) for
analyzing the impact of proposed policy changes on U.S. farms and
ranches. AFPC currently uses a next generation simulation model--Farm
Economics and Solvency Projector (FarmESP)--developed by Dr. Henry
Bryant, that moves to the Python platform and includes all of the
previous generation's policy and tax capabilities with a significant
upgrade in terms of crop insurance capabilities.
Data
The data to simulate farming operations in FarmESP comes primarily
from AFPC's database of representative farms. Information to describe
and simulate these farms comes from panels of farmers (typically 4-6
producers per location) located in major production regions in 21
states across the United States. The farm panels are reconvened
frequently to update the representative farm data. The representative
farms are categorized by their primary source of receipts--for example,
feedgrain, wheat, cotton and rice. The representative farm database has
been used for policy analysis for over 30 years analyzing the impacts
of proposed policies on the past seven farm bills. As noted above, this
report focuses on AFPC's 64 representative crop farms (Figure 2).
Figure 2: Location of AFPC Representative Crop Farms by Type.
Table 1: FAPRI August 2021 Baseline Update Crop Prices, 2019-2026.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crop Prices 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corn ($/bu.) 3.56 4.40 5.34 4.55 4.45 4.37 4.26 4.18
Wheat ($/bu.) 4.58 5.05 6.31 5.67 5.79 5.64 5.61 5.55
Upland Cotton Lint ($/lb.) 0.5960 0.6650 0.7902 0.7133 0.7203 0.7273 0.7280 0.7287
Sorghum ($/bu.) 3.34 5.00 5.88 5.01 4.93 4.85 4.73 4.66
Soybeans ($/bu.) 8.57 10.90 13.18 12.01 11.75 11.42 11.22 11.09
Barley ($/bu.) 4.69 4.75 5.66 5.29 5.06 4.89 4.82 4.76
Oats ($/bu.) 2.82 2.77 3.52 3.39 3.30 3.22 3.19 3.17
All Rice ($/cwt.) 13.60 13.90 14.26 14.43 14.46 14.46 14.47 14.68
Soybean Meal ($/ton) 285.67 376.75 357.76 319.84 316.11 308.58 304.42 299.87
All Hay ($/ton) 163.00 159.00 182.73 170.45 163.05 160.43 158.40 157.48
Peanuts ($/ton) 410.00 420.00 413.64 417.00 412.06 406.57 403.37 402.44
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI) at the University of Missouri-Columbia.
Table 2: FAPRI August 2021 Baseline Update Assumed Rates of Change in Input Prices and Annual Changes in Land
Values, 2020-2026.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Rate of Change for Input Prices Paid:
Seed Prices (%) ^2.24 ^0.24 3.30 3.32 2.45 1.75 1.27
Nitrogen Fertilizer Prices (%) ^3.22 17.29 9.94 ^1.21 ^3.33 ^1.63 ^0.97
Potash and Phos. Fertilizer Prices (%) ^0.79 25.96 13.61 ^1.48 ^2.25 ^1.99 ^1.32
Herbicide Prices (%) ^2.55 ^3.13 2.92 1.37 1.54 1.58 1.64
Insecticide Prices (%) ^6.05 ^0.15 2.60 1.68 1.85 1.90 1.93
Fuel and Lube Prices (%) ^15.63 2.00 13.87 ^0.18 0.64 1.06 1.20
Machinery Prices (%) ^0.81 4.72 6.00 ^3.18 0.37 0.89 1.17
Wages (%) 2.63 4.88 3.90 3.64 3.26 3.08 2.99
Supplies (%) 1.65 7.50 0.54 1.73 1.89 2.09 2.10
Repairs (%) 1.57 5.62 1.12 2.10 2.31 2.52 2.55
Services (%) ^0.17 3.51 5.70 1.01 2.16 2.13 2.14
Taxes (%) 0.68 2.10 2.67 6.26 5.68 1.57 1.48
PPI Items (%) ^1.96 5.81 4.78 0.01 0.99 1.07 0.98
PPI Total (%) ^1.64 5.41 4.53 0.69 1.48 1.38 1.30
Annual Change in Consumer Price Index (%) 1.25 3.66 2.41 2.07 2.09 2.12 2.15
Annual Rate of Change for U.S. Land Prices (%) 0.00 6.96 5.60 ^1.87 ^2.06 ^0.60 ^0.27
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI) at the University of Missouri-Columbia.
Projected commodity prices, policy variables, and input inflation
rates are from the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute
(FAPRI) August 2021 Baseline (Tables 1 and 2). Each representative farm
is simulated using the FarmESP model assuming FAPRI's projected prices
and annual inflation rates through 2022 for the Baseline Scenario.
AFPC's representative farms are all assumed to be full-time,
commercial-scale family operations. As indicated in Table 1, most
commodities are expected to continue to see better than average prices
over the next year.
Model Modifications
The inflation rates for fertilizer nutrient prices obtained from
FAPRI in Table 2 were evaluated and determined to be quite low relative
to current market conditions. Spot market data obtained from DTN was
evaluated and the cost indices for both fertilizer categories in Table
2 were adjusted for the higher prices experienced thus far in 2021 that
are assumed for 2022. The FarmESP model assumes all fertilizer used for
the 2022 crop is purchased in 2022 rather than some in the Fall of 2021
and the rest during 2022.
Table 3: Fertilizer Nutrient Inflation from the FAPRI Baseline and High
Fertilizer Scenario for 2022.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAPRI August Baseline High Fertilizer
Nutrient 2022 Scenario 2022
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nitrogen (AA) 9.94% 55.43%
Potash and Phosphorous 13.61% 50.84%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scenarios Analyzed
The following two scenarios were analyzed for each of the 64
representative crop farms:
Baseline Scenario. Each farm is analyzed assuming FAPRI
November Baseline commodity prices and inflation rates (Tables
1 and 2).
High Fertilizer Scenario. Same as the Baseline Scenario with
fertilizer nutrient inflation for 2022 from Table 3.
Results
In the results tables that follow, the first two letters of a farm
name reflect the state abbreviation followed by letters (in many cases)
describing geographic location and type of farm (e.g., G for feedgrain,
W for wheat, etc.). Some locations have both a moderate and large-sized
farm, while others have only one farm size of that type in the region.
The number in a farm's name indicates the total acres on the farm.
Appendix A provides an overview of the characteristics of AFPC's
representative farms. Appendix B provides the names of producers, land-
grant faculty, and industry leaders who cooperated in the panel
interview process to develop the representative farms. Additional
information about the representative farms can be found in AFPC Working
Paper 21-1 by Outlaw, et al., March 2021. The breakdown of the 64 crop
farms by type is as follows:
Feedgrain: 25
Wheat: 11
Cotton: 13
Rice: 15
Tables 4-7 contain the simulation results for each of the
representative crop farms. The primary economic variable being
evaluated is ending cash at the end of 2022 under the Baseline Scenario
and the High Fertilizer Scenario labeled Alternative. As would be
expected with only fertilizer costs increasing, the difference in
ending cash is negative for all farms. That difference averages $94,000
for the feedgrain farms, $68,000 for the wheat farms, $87,000 for the
cotton farms and $98,000 for the rice farms. These numbers differ by
farm for a number of reasons, including the amount and type of products
used and number of acres planted.
Table 4: Representative Feedgrain Farm Results.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ending NPK
Planted Cash Ending Cash Ending Cash Costs NPK Costs NPK Costs NPK Costs
Farm Area Base Alternative Difference Base Alternative Difference Difference
(Acres) (1,000) (1,000) (1,000) (1,000) (1,000) (1,000) ($/Acre)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IAG1350 1,350 ^266.6 ^313.6 ^47 169 231 62 45.73
IAG3400 3,400 513.4 416.9 ^97 367 500 133 39.11
NEG2400 2,400 1,401.4 1,309.9 ^92 341 469 128 53.22
NEG4500 4,300 690.5 533.4 ^157 547 748 201 46.83
NDG3000 3,000 687.7 630.1 ^58 227 310 82 27.49
NDG9000 9,000 4,112.1 3,938.8 ^173 674 913 240 26.62
ING1000 1,050 249.9 226.1 ^24 106 143 38 35.98
ING3500 3,500 1,148.2 1,049.3 ^99 412 560 148 42.23
OHG700 700 194.7 182.9 ^12 46 63 17 24.27
OHG1500 1,500 942.8 902.1 ^41 170 231 61 40.73
MOCG2300 2,300 983.6 946.7 ^37 160 219 59 25.63
MOCG4200 4,200 2,548.9 2,479.7 ^69 296 408 111 26.49
MONG2300 2,300 521.8 481.8 ^40 180 244 65 28.20
LANG2502,500 485.6 402.1 ^84 278 383 105 42.13
TNG2500 2,875 568.9 462.5 ^106 387 524 138 47.85
TNG5000 5,500 2,207.5 1,981.4 ^226 880 1,196 316 57.47
NCSP2000 2,000 ^252.5 ^344.5 ^92 309 422 113 56.51
NCC2030 1,600 787.4 763 ^24 107 146 39 24.58
SCC2000 2,000 264.9 168.2 ^97 336 461 124 62.15
SCG3500 3,500 1,198.9 1,036.8 ^162 615 841 225 64.37
TXNP3450 3,192 1,669.5 1,575.9 ^94 342 475 134 41.84
TXNP10880 10,180 6,942.9 6,592.9 ^350 1,270 1,740 471 46.23
TXPG2500 2,500 818.4 743.3 ^75 222 308 85 34.13
TXHG3000 3,000 377 303.2 ^74 216 298 82 27.27
TXWG1600 1,600 2.4 ^29.3 ^32 91 125 35 21.73
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average..... 3,178 1,152 1,058 ^94 350 478 128 39.55
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 5: Representative Wheat Farm Results.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ending NPK
Planted Cash Ending Cash Ending Cash Costs NPK Costs NPK Costs NPK Costs
Farm Area Base Alternative Difference Base Alternative Difference Difference
(Acres) (1,000) (1,000) (1,000) (1,000) (1,000) (1,000) ($/Acre)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WAW2800 2,640 591.1 530.3 ^61 216 299 83 31.62
WAW10000 8,500 1,836 1,642.7 ^193 652 898 246 29.00
WAAW5500 2,600 ^312.7 ^348.7 ^36 101 141 40 15.33
ORW4500 2,250 ^63.9 ^79.9 ^16 50 70 20 8.68
MTW9500 5,301 1,025.7 949.6 ^76 320 438 119 22.41
KSCW2000 2,600 760.8 737.3 ^24 104 143 40 15.23
KSCW5300 7,327 2,213.6 2,137.8 ^76 311 427 117 15.92
KSNW4000 3,000 87.7 36.8 ^51 177 243 66 21.94
KSNW8000 7,600 2,613.5 2,471.5 ^142 595 818 223 29.37
COW3000 1,688 63.5 51.3 ^12 46 65 18 10.69
COW6000 4,000 ^767.9 ^827.8 ^60 165 229 63 15.87
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average..... 4,319 732 664 ^68 249 343 94 19.64
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 6: Representative Cotton Farm Results.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ending NPK
Planted Cash Ending Cash Ending Cash Costs NPK Costs NPK Costs NPK Costs
Farm Area Base Alternative Difference Base Alternative Difference Difference
(Acres) (1,000) (1,000) (1,000) (1,000) (1,000) (1,000) ($/Acre)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TXSP4500 4,500 643.4 574.9 ^69 208 287 79 17.62
TXEC5000 5,000 1,325.1 1,287.5 ^38 124 171 47 9.41
TXRP3000 3,000 ^272 ^292.3 ^20 62 85 23 7.74
TXMC2500 2,410 497 426.4 ^71 212 292 81 33.42
TXCB4000 4,000 759.9 677.1 ^83 245 339 94 23.48
TXCB10000 10,000 3,430.2 3,256 ^174 551 764 214 21.37
TXVC5500 5,100 2,387.4 2,285.7 ^102 337 471 134 26.27
ARNC5000 5,000 3,229.1 3,120.5 ^109 441 607 166 33.23
TNC3000 3,000 1,958.4 1,873 ^85 336 460 124 41.20
TNC4000 4,100 1,405.3 1,274.8 ^131 452 617 165 40.12
ALC3500 4,375 2,773.2 2,691.1 ^82 358 490 131 30.04
GAC2500 2,500 1,388.2 1,275.7 ^113 440 600 160 63.83
NCNP1600 1,600 ^206.3 ^260.6 ^54 174 236 62 38.63
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average..... 4,199 1,486 1,399 ^87 303 417 114 29.72
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 7: Representative Rice Farm Results.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ending NPK
Planted Cash Ending Cash Ending Cash Costs NPK Costs NPK Costs NPK Costs
Farm Area Base Alternative Difference Base Alternative Difference Difference
(Acres) (1,000) (1,000) (1,000) (1,000) (1,000) (1,000) ($/Acre)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAR1200 1,200 782.7 737.8 ^45 194 267 73 60.70
CAR3000 3,000 24.4 ^224.5 ^249 723 999 276 91.96
CABR800 800 252.1 196.4 ^56 165 229 64 79.94
CACR800 800 ^456.2 ^525.7 ^70 197 272 75 93.84
TXR1500 600 ^241.7 ^282.7 ^41 118 164 45 75.73
TXR3000 1,500 375.1 288.1 ^87 272 376 105 69.74
TXBR1800 600 218.3 172 ^46 142 199 57 94.31
TXER2500 2,500 728.8 609.3 ^120 422 583 161 64.28
LASR2001,200 89.6 16.3 ^73 246 337 91 76.10
ARMR6500 6,500 2,836 2,628.4 ^208 819 1,113 295 45.34
ARSR3240 3,240 1,136.8 1,030.3 ^107 411 560 149 45.88
ARWR2500 2,500 ^63 ^128.1 ^65 253 345 92 36.90
ARHR4000 4,240 136.7 6.6 ^130 456 626 170 40.13
MSDR5000 5,000 2,156.9 2,108.3 ^49 193 267 74 14.86
MOBR4000 4,000 673.9 540.7 ^133 449 613 163 40.84
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average..... 2,512 577 478 ^98 337 463 126 62.04
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nutrient (NPK) Costs for the farm are also evaluated for the
Baseline Scenario and High Fertilizer Scenario (Alternative). Across
all farm types, the increase under the Alternative varies from a low of
$94,000 for the wheat farms to $128,000 for the feedgrain farms. This
result provides an indication of the increased amount of financing that
is currently needed to plant the 2022 crops. The last column of each
table contains the increase in cost per acre due to the higher
fertilizer costs. As expected, the wheat farms have the lowest increase
at $19.64 per acre due to lower application rates. Wheat is followed by
the cotton farms at $29.72 per acre, the feedgrain farms at $39.55 per
acre and finally the rice farms at $62.04 per acre.
Table 8: LANG2500 Feedgrain Farm Results.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expected Base Alternative Fertilizer
Planted Base PK Alternative N Alternative PK Yield Fertilizer Fertilizer Expense
Crop Area Base N ($) ($) ($) ($) (Units/ Expenses ($/ Expenses ($/ Change ($/
(Acres) Acre) Yield Unit) Yield Unit) Yield Unit)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Irrigated Corn (bu) 750 77,987 47,577 110,253 63,165 175 0.9567 1.3213 0.36
Irrigated Soybeans (bu) 656.2 0 25,808 0 34,264 55 0.7151 0.9494 0.23
Non-irrigated Soybeans 218.8 0 4,858 0 6,450 30 0.7401 0.9826 0.24
(bu)
Long Grain 500e (lbs59,990 18,178 84,810 24,134 7,000 0.0223 0.0311 0.0088
Irrigated Cotton (lbs) 281.2 20,997 11,595 29,684 15,394 1,100 0.1054 0.1457 0.0404
Non-irrigated Cotton 93.8 7,004 3,868 9,902 5,135 900 0.1288 0.1781 0.0493
(lbs)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Results for the North Louisiana Feedgrain Farm (LANG2500)
This diversified farm is categorized as a feedgrain farm in our
database because the majority of income tends to come from corn and
soybeans (1,625 acres); however, the farm also has significant rice
(500) and cotton (375) acreage. Looking at the farm as a whole in Table
4, the farm has an $84,000 lower ending cash balance in 2022 due to the
higher fertilizer costs. Across all acres, fertilizer costs are $42.13
per acre higher for the High Fertilizer Scenario relative to the
Baseline Scenario.
Table 8 highlights the differences in individual nutrient costs for
the Baseline Scenario and Higher Fertilizer Scenario (Alternative) for
each of the crops planted. The change in fertilizer expense between the
two scenarios is summarized by dollars per yield unit to provide some
context regarding the impact relative to commodity prices. For example,
irrigated corn would need an additional $0.36 per bushel to be as well
off as under the baseline scenario. The other crops range from $0.23
and $0.24 per bushel for irrigated and nonirrigated soybeans,
respectively, to $0.0088 per pound (or $0.88 per hundredweight) for
long-grain rice, to $0.0404 and $0.0493 per pound for irrigated and
non-irrigated cotton, respectively.
Discussion
AFPC was asked about actions Congress or the Administration could
take to help alleviate some of the concerns raised in this report. In
response, we offer two key observations.
First, the farm safety net is designed primarily to address price
and yield risk or a combination of the two (i.e., revenue volatility).
It is not designed to account for reductions in net farm income due to
increased costs of production. In other words, the farm safety net does
little to provide assistance to producers in the circumstances they are
currently facing. While there may be other factors at play in the case
of rising fertilizer costs, COVID-induced supply chain disruptions are
certainly partly to blame. Regardless of the factors driving the
increase in costs, the reality on the ground--as highlighted clearly in
this report--is that producers are facing the prospect of a huge
increase in costs going into the 2022 Spring planting season.
Second, whether through the Coronavirus Food Assistance Program
(CFAP) or the Pandemic Assistance for Producers initiative, Congress
and the Administration have a solid roadmap for addressing COVID-
related strains in the farm economy. The situation currently facing
producers would certainly seem to fit that mold.
Summary and Conclusions
As the nation struggles to recover from the COVID-19 pandemic, a
number of supply chain disruptions continue to wreak havoc on
agricultural input markets, both in terms of availability and cost of
inputs. In the case of fertilizer, prices have exploded over the past
year. Under FAPRI's August 2021 baseline outlook, nitrogen prices were
expected to increase about 10% in 2022. Based on current spot market
prices, it appears as though fertilizer prices will increase in excess
of 80% for the 2022 planting season (relative to 2021).
The purpose of this report was to analyze the impact that increased
fertilizer prices would have on AFPC's 64 representative farms. The
report found that the largest whole-farm impact would fall on AFPC's
feedgrain farms at an average of $128,000 per farm and the largest per-
acre impact would fall on AFPC's rice farms at $62.04 per acre. Given
the farm safety net is not designed to address rapidly rising costs of
production, there are growing concerns in the countryside about the
need for additional assistance.
References
FAPRI-MU. (2021, September). Baseline Update for U.S. Agricultural
Markets (Report #04-21). Food and Agricultural Policy Research
Institute (FAPRI) at the University of Missouri. Available at: https://
www.fapri.missouri.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/August-2021-Baseline-
Outlook-Update.pdf.
Outlaw, J.L., B.L. Fischer, G.M. Knapek, B.K. Herbst, J.M. Raulston,
H.L. Bryant, D.P. Anderson, S.L. Klose and P. Zimmel. Representative
Farms Economic Outlook For The January 2021 FAPRI/AFPC Baseline.
Agricultural and Food Policy Center, Texas A&M University, College
Station, Texas, AFPC Working Paper 21-1, March 2021. Available at:
https://www.afpc.tamu.edu/research/publications/files/707/WP-21-01.pdf.
Richardson, James W. and Clair J. Nixon. (1986). Description of
FLIPSIM V: a General Firm Level Policy Simulation Model. Texas
Agricultural Experiment Station. Available at: https://
oaktrust.library.tamu.edu/handle/1969.1/129137.
Appendix A--Representative Farm Characteristics
2020 Characteristics of Panel Farms Producing Feed Grains and Oilseeds
IAG1350 IAG1350 is a 1,350 acre northwestern Iowa
(Webster County) grain farm. The farm is moderate
sized for the region and plants 810 acres of corn
and 540 acres of soybeans annually. Sixty-one
percent of this farm's 2020 receipts come from
corn production.
IAG3400 This 3,400 acre large-sized grain farm is
located in northwestern Iowa (Webster County). It
plants 2,040 acres of corn and 1,360 acres of
soybeans each year, realizing 61 percent of
receipts from corn production.
NEG2400 South-central Nebraska (Dawson County) is home
to this 2,400 acre grain farm. This farm plants
1,600 acres to corn and 800 acres to soybeans.
The farm splits its corn acres evenly between
yellow and white food-grade corn. Sixty-six
percent of gross receipts are derived from corn
sales.
NEG4500 This is a 4,500 acre grain farm located in
south-central Nebraska (Dawson County). This
operation plants 3,000 acres of corn and 1,000
acres of soybeans each year. Remaining acres are
planted to alfalfa. A portion (25 percent) of the
corn acreage is food-grade corn. In 2020, 69
percent of total receipts were generated from
corn production.
NDG3000 NDG3000 is a 3,000 acre, moderate-sized, south
central North Dakota (Barnes County) grain farm
that plants 500 acres of wheat, 1,000 acres of
corn, and 1,500 acres of soybeans. One hundred
acres are enrolled in the Conservation Reserve
Program. The farm generated 36 percent of 2020
receipts from soybean sales and 42 percent from
corn sales.
NDG9000 This is an 9,000 acre, large-sized grain farm
in south central North Dakota (Barnes County)
that grows 4,500 acres of soybeans, 2,500 acres
of corn, 1,250 acres of wheat, and 500 acres of
barley annually. The remaining acreage is
enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program.
Soybean and corn sales accounted for 75 percent
of 2020 receipts.
ING1000 Shelby County, Indiana, is home to this 1,000
acre moderate-sized feedgrain farm. This farm
annually plants 475 acres of corn, 525 acres of
soybeans, and 50 acres of wheat that is double
cropped with soybeans. Due to this farm's
proximity to Indianapolis, land development
pressures will likely constrain further expansion
of this operation. Forty-seven percent of 2020
receipts came from corn sales.
ING3500 ING3500 is a large-sized grain farm located in
east central Indiana (Shelby County). This farm
plants 1,750 acres to corn and 1,750 acres to
soybeans each year. In 2020, 53 percent of gross
receipts were generated by corn sales.
OHG700 This is a 700 acre, moderate sized grain farm
in north western Ohio (Henry County). This farm
planted 105 acres of corn and 280 acres of
soybeans in 2020. Because of the wet spring there
were 315 acres that were not planted and was
taken as preventive planting insurance. Normally
would be 350 acres each of corn and soybeans.
Twenty-nine percent of 2020 receipts were
generated by corn sales.
OHG1500 This is a 1,500 acre, large-sized grain farm in
north western Ohio (Henry County). This farm
planted 202 acres of corn, 304 acres of soybeans,
and 150 acres of wheat in 2020. Because of the
wet spring there were 844 acres that were not
planted and was taken as preventive planting
insurance. Normally would be 675 acres each of
corn and soybeans plus the 150 acres of wheat.
Thirty-six percent of 2020 receipts were
generated by corn sales.
Appendix Table A1. Characteristics of Panel Farms Producing Feed Grains.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IAG1350 IAG3400 NEG2400 NEG4500 NDG3000 NDG9000 ING1000 ING3500 OHG700 OHG1500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
County Webster Webster Dawson Dawson Barnes Barnes Shelby Shelby Henry Henry
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Cropland 1,350.00 3,400.00 2,400.00 4,500.00 3,000.00 9,000.00 1,000.0 3,500.0 700.00 1,500.0
0 0 0
Acres Owned 250.00 850.00 600.00 2,150.00 720.00 4,000.00 350.00 1,225.0 350.00 375.00
0
Acres Lea1,100.00 2,550.00 1,800.00 2,350.00 2,280.00 5,000.00 650.00 2,275.0 350.00 1,125.0
0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assets ($1,000)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 3,333.00 10,626.0 6,433.00 19,239.0 4,274.00 21,435.0 3,803.0 12,035. 3,337.0 4,273.0
0 0 0 0 00 0 0
Real Estate 2,650.00 8,500.00 4,231.00 15,273.0 3,011.00 15,114.0 3,195.0 10,276. 2,927.0 2,927.0
0 0 0 00 0 0
Machinery 683.00 2,126.00 1,615.00 3,881.00 942.00 4,362.00 554.00 1,379.0 345.00 940.00
0
Other & 0.00 0.00 587.00 86.00 321.00 1,960.00 54.00 380.00 64.00 405.00
Livestock
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debt/Asset Ratios
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 0.27 0.19 0.17 0.18 0.14 0.17 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.17
Intermediate 0.11 0.20 0.24 0.19 0.07 0.26 0.24 0.24 0.11 0.16
Long Ru0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.19
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020 Gross Receipts ($1,000) *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 1,006.90 2,212.80 2,750.10 4,705.50 1,578.90 4,917.30 776.10 2,907.8 295.50 514.00
0
Corn 616.10 1,340.90 1,808.20 3,233.30 663.60 1,716.00 365.90 1,534.6 84.70 187.00
0
0.61 0.61 0.66 0.69 0.42 0.35 0.47 0.53 0.29 0.36
Wheat 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 172.20 524.60 18.10 0.00 2.40 89.10
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.17
Soybeans 269.40 597.00 672.10 754.70 575.30 1,949.30 309.10 1,089.8 173.00 181.50
0
0.27 0.27 0.24 0.16 0.36 0.40 0.40 0.38 0.59 0.35
Barley 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 212.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hay 0.00 0.00 0.00 274.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other 121.40 274.90 269.80 442.80 167.80 515.20 82.90 283.50 35.40 56.40
0.12 0.12 0.10 0.09 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.10 0.12 0.11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020 Planted Acres **
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 1,350.00 3,400.00 2,400.00 4,300.00 3,100.00 9,000.00 1,050.0 3,500.0 385.00 656.20
0 0
Corn 810.00 2,040.00 1,600.00 3,000.00 1,000.00 2,500.00 475.00 1,750.0 105.00 202.50
0
0.60 0.60 0.67 0.70 0.32 0.28 0.45 0.50 0.27 0.31
Wheat 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 500.00 1,250.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 150.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.14 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.23
Soybeans 540.00 1,360.00 800.00 1,000.00 1,500.00 4,500.00 525.00 1,750.0 280.00 303.80
0
0.40 0.40 0.33 0.23 0.48 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.73 0.46
Barley 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 500.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hay 0.00 0.00 0.00 300.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CRP 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 250.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Receipts for 2020 are included to indicate the relative importance of each enterprise to the farm. Percents
indicate the percentage of the total receipts accounted for by the livestock categories and the crops.
** Acreages for 2020 are included to indicate the relative importance of each enterprise to the farm. Total
planted acreage may exceed total cropland available due to double cropping. Percents indicate the percentage
of total planted acreage accounted for by the crop.
2020 Panel Farms Producing Feed Grains and Oilseeds
MOCG2300 MOCG2300 is a 2,300 acre grain farm located in
central Missouri (Carroll County) and plants
1,150 acres of corn and 1,150 acres of soybeans
annually. This farm is located in the Missouri
River bottom, an area with a large concentration
of livestock production. This farm generated 54
percent of its total revenue from corn and 36
percent from soybeans during 2020.
MOCG4200 This is a 4,200 acre central Missouri (Carroll
County) grain farm with 2,310 acres of corn and
1,890 acres of soybeans. This farm is located in
the Missouri River bottom, an area with a large
concentration of livestock production. Corn sales
accounted for 61 percent of farm receipts and
soybeans accounted for 30 percent in 2020.
MONG2300 MONG2300 is a 2,300 acre diversified northwest
Missouri grain farm centered in Nodaway County.
MONG2300 plants 1,125 acres of corn, 1,125 acres
of soybeans, and 50 acres of hay annually. The
farm also has a 300 head cow-calf herd. Proximity
to the Missouri River increases marketing options
for area grain farmers due to easily accessible
river grain terminals. In 2020, 48 percent of the
farm's total receipts were from corn, 40 percent
from soybeans, and ten percent from cattle sales.
LANG2This is a 2,500 acre northeast Louisiana
(Madison Parish) diversified grain farm. This
farm harvests 500 acres of rice, 875 acres of
soybeans, 375 acres of cotton, and 750 acres of
corn. For 2020, 49 percent of farm receipts came
from corn and soybean sales.
TNG2500 This is a 2,500 acre, moderate-sized grain farm
in West Tennessee (Gibson County). Annually, this
farm plants 1,025 acres of corn, 1,475 acres of
soybeans, and 375 acres of wheat (planted before
soybeans) in a region of Tennessee recognized for
the high level of implementation of conservation
practices by farmers. For 2020, 41 percent of
farm receipts were from sales of corn and 41
percent from soybeans.
TNG5000 West Tennessee (Gibson County) is home to this
5,000 acre, large-sized grain farm. Farmers in
this part of Tennessee are known for their early
and continued adoption of conservation practices,
including no-till farming. TNG5000 plants 2,500
acres of corn, 500 acres of wheat, 2,500 acres of
soybeans (500 of which are double-cropped after
wheat). The farm generated 52 percent of its 2020
gross receipts from sales of corn and 33 percent
from soybeans.
NCSP2000 A 2,000 acre diversified farm located in
southern North Carolina (Bladen County). NCSP2000
plants 400 acres of peanuts, 1,100 acres of corn,
and 500 acres of soybeans. Sixty-three percent of
receipts for this farm came from corn and soybean
sales in 2020; thirty percent of receipts came
from peanut sales.
NCC2030 This is a 2,000 acre grain farm located on the
upper coastal plain of North Carolina (Wayne
County). NCC2030 plants 400 acres of corn, 200
acres of wheat, and 1,000 acres of soybeans
annually. Corn accounted for 25 percent of this
farm's 2020 receipts, while soybeans accounted
for 34 percent.
SCC2000 SCC2000 is a moderate-sized, 2,000 acre grain
farm in South Carolina (Orangeburg County)
consisting of 800 acres of corn, 550 acres of
cotton, 250 acres of peanuts, and 400 acres of
soybeans. Forty-one percent of the farm's
receipts were from corn sales during 2020.
SCG3500 A 3,500 acre, large-sized South Carolina
(Clarendon County) grain farm with 1,800 acres of
corn, 750 acres of cotton, 600 acres of peanuts,
and 350 acres of soybeans. The farm generated 47
percent of 2020 receipts from corn sales and 4
percent from soybean sales.
Appendix Table A2. Characteristics of Panel Farms Producing Feed Grains.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOCG2300 MOCG4200 MONG2300 LANG2500 TNG2500 TNG5000 NCSP2000 NCC2030 SCC2000 SCG3500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
County Carroll Carroll Nodaway Madison Gibson Gibson Bladen Wayne Clarend Clarend
on on
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Cropland 2,300.00 4,200.00 2,300.00 2,500.00 2,500.0 5,000.0 2,000.00 2,000.0 2,000.0 3,500.0
0 0 0 0 0
Acres Owned 1,380.00 1,800.00 1,610.00 500.00 625.00 1,375.0 700.00 225.00 550.00 1,400.0
0 0
Acres Lease920.00 2,400.00 690.00 2,000.00 1,875.0 3,625.0 1,300.00 1,775.0 1,450.0 2,100.0
0 0 0 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assets ($1,000)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 12,432.00 18,091.0 12,950.0 3,929.00 5,395.0 12,016. 5,074.00 2,560.0 3,487.0 7,700.0
0 0 0 00 0 0 0
Real Estate 10,755.00 14,943.0 11,792.0 2,158.00 3,803.0 8,539.0 3,474.00 1,445.0 2,274.0 5,099.0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Machinery 1,246.00 1,920.00 978.00 1,595.00 1,429.0 2,442.0 1,599.00 863.00 1,122.0 2,061.0
0 0 0 0
Other & 432.00 1,227.00 180.00 176.00 163.00 1,035.0 2.00 253.00 90.00 540.00
Livestock 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debt/Asset Ratios
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 0.17 0.16 0.16 0.18 0.19 0.15 0.25 0.15 0.16 0.16
Intermediate 0.21 0.11 0.23 0.21 0.28 0.21 0.20 0.33 0.11 0.14
Long Ru0.18 0.18 0.16 0.17 0.16 0.16 0.18 0.07 0.18 0.18
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020 Gross Receipts ($1,000) *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 1,681.80 3,039.10 1,855.80 2,191.90 1,781.5 3,877.8 1,764.20 1,357.0 1,690.7 3,574.4
0 0 0 0 0
Corn 914.40 1,841.60 892.40 638.20 735.70 2,003.0 876.90 333.60 694.20 1,676.3
0 0
0.54 0.61 0.48 0.29 0.41 0.52 0.50 0.25 0.41 0.47
Wheat 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 136.70 214.40 0.00 81.40 5.50 15.50
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.06 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00
Soybeans 603.30 900.70 743.10 443.40 728.50 1,262.3 228.20 457.60 148.00 157.20
0
0.36 0.30 0.40 0.20 0.41 0.33 0.13 0.34 0.09 0.04
Cotton 0.00 0.00 0.00 316.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 401.70 634.50
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.18
Peanuts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 535.10 0.00 232.90 685.70
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.14 0.19
Rice 0.00 0.00 0.00 469.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hay 0.00 0.00 31.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other 164.10 296.80 189.30 324.20 180.60 398.10 124.00 484.40 208.40 405.30
0.10 0.10 0.10 0.15 0.10 0.10 0.07 0.36 0.12 0.11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020 Planted Acres **
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 2,300.00 4,200.00 2,750.00 2,500.00 2,875.0 5,500.0 2,000.00 1,600.0 2,000.0 3,500.0
0 0 0 0 0
Corn 1,150.00 2,310.00 1,125.00 750.00 1,025.0 2,500.0 1,100.00 400.00 800.00 1,800.0
0 0 0
0.50 0.55 0.41 0.30 0.36 0.46 0.55 0.25 0.40 0.51
Wheat 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 375.00 500.00 0.00 200.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.09 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00
Soybeans 1,150.00 1,890.00 1,125.00 875.00 1,475.0 2,500.0 500.00 1,000.0 400.00 350.00
0 0 0
0.50 0.45 0.41 0.35 0.51 0.46 0.25 0.63 0.20 0.10
Cotton 0.00 0.00 0.00 375.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 550.00 750.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.21
Peanuts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 400.00 0.00 250.00 600.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.13 0.17
Rice 0.00 0.00 0.00 500.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hay 0.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CRP 0.00 0.00 20.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Pasture 0.00 0.00 430.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Receipts for 2020 are included to indicate the relative importance of each enterprise to the farm. Percents
indicate the percentage of the total receipts accounted for by the livestock categories and the crops.
** Acreages for 2020 are included to indicate the relative importance of each enterprise to the farm. Total
planted acreage may exceed total cropland available due to double cropping. Percents indicate the percentage
of total planted acreage accounted for by the crop.
2020 Panel Farms Producing Feed Grains and Oilseeds
TXNP3450 This is a 3,450 acre diversified grain farm
located on the northern High Plains of Texas
(Moore County). This farm plants 1206 acres of
cotton, 1,294 acres of irrigated corn, 260 acres
of irrigated sorghum for seed production, and 432
acres of irrigated wheat annually. Forty-seven
percent of total receipts are generated from corn
sales.
TXNP10880 TXNP10880 is a large-sized diversified grain
farm located in the Texas Panhandle (Moore
County). This farm annually plants 4,454 acres of
cotton (3,962 irrigated/492 dryland); 3,962 acres
of irrigated corn; 1,272 acres of grain sorghum
(530 irrigated for seed production/492 dryland/
250 irrigated for commercial use); and 492 acres
of dryland winter wheat. Forty percent of 2020
cash receipts were derived from corn sales.
TXPG2500 The Texas Panhandle is home to this 2,500 acre
farm (Deaf Smith County). Annually, wheat is
planted on 534 acres (350 irrigated and 184
dryland), 1,000 acres planted to irrigated corn,
783 acres are planted to cotton (600 irrigated
and 183 dryland), and grain sorghum is planted on
183 dryland acres. Fifty-four percent of 2020
cash receipts were generated by corn sales.
TXHG3000 This 3,000 acre grain farm is located on the
Blackland Prairie of Texas (Hill County). On this
farm, 2,000 acres of corn, 500 acres of cotton,
and 500 acres of wheat are planted annually.
Grain sales accounted for 67 percent of 2020
receipts with cotton accounting for nineteen
percent of sales. Forty beef cows live on 300
acres of improved pasture and contribute
approximately two percent of total receipts.
TXWG1600 This 1,600 acre farm is located on the
Blackland Prairie of Texas (Williamson County).
TXWG1600 plants 800 acres of corn, 300 acres of
sorghum, 400 acres of cotton, and 100 acres of
winter wheat annually. Additionally, this farm
has a 40 head beef cow herd that is pastured on
rented ground that cannot be farmed. Grain sales
accounted for 55 percent of 2020 receipts with
cotton accounting for 28 percent of sales.
Appendix Table A3. Characteristics of Panel Farms Producing Feed Grains.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TXNP3450 TXNP10880 TXPG2500 TXHG3000 TXWG1600
------------------------------------------------------------------------
County Moore Moore Deaf Hill Williamso
Smith n
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Cropland 3,450.00 10,880.00 2,500.00 3,000.00 1,600.00
Acres Owned 2,588.00 4,160.00 1,875.00 450.00 150.00
Acres Lease862.00 6,720.00 625.00 2,550.00 1,450.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assets ($1,000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 8,573.00 21,181.00 6,122.00 2,571.00 1,886.00
Real Estate 6,452.00 12,091.00 3,735.00 1,208.00 1,299.00
Machinery 1,315.00 5,207.00 1,939.00 1,144.00 498.00
Other & 806.00 3,883.00 448.00 220.00 89.00
Livestock
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debt/Asset Ratios
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 0.14 0.14 0.18 0.19 0.18
Intermediate 0.18 0.20 0.24 0.25 0.18
Long Ru0.15 0.15 0.17 0.18 0.17
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020 Gross Receipts ($1,000) *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 3,223.80 10,273.00 2,309.00 1,376.80 737.90
Corn 1,509.50 4,091.00 1,250.10 750.40 276.30
0.47 0.40 0.54 0.55 0.37
Wheat 140.60 113.50 147.10 114.60 27.80
0.04 0.01 0.06 0.08 0.04
Cotton 1,026.50 3,835.90 546.70 254.60 206.10
0.32 0.37 0.24 0.19 0.28
Grain Sorghum 186.10 1,084.00 28.50 51.80 103.90
0.06 0.11 0.01 0.04 0.14
Cattle 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.50 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00
Other 361.20 1,148.70 336.50 179.90 123.80
0.11 0.11 0.15 0.13 0.17
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020 Planted Acres **
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 3,192.00 10,180.00 2,500.00 3,300.00 1,600.00
Corn 1,294.00 3,962.00 1,000.00 2,000.00 800.00
0.41 0.39 0.40 0.61 0.50
Wheat 432.00 492.00 534.00 500.00 100.00
0.14 0.05 0.21 0.15 0.06
Cotton 1,206.00 4,454.00 783.00 500.00 400.00
0.38 0.44 0.31 0.15 0.25
Grain Sorghum 260.00 1,272.00 183.00 0.00 300.00
0.08 0.13 0.07 0.00 0.19
Pasture 0.00 0.00 0.00 300.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Receipts for 2020 are included to indicate the relative importance of
each enterprise to the farm. Percents indicate the percentage of the
total receipts accounted for by the livestock categories and the
crops.
** Acreages for 2020 are included to indicate the relative importance of
each enterprise to the farm. Total planted acreage may exceed total
cropland available due to double cropping. Percents indicate the
percentage of total planted acreage accounted for by the crop.
2020 Characteristics of Panel Farms Producing Wheat
WAW2800 This is a 2,800 acre moderate-sized grain farm
in the Palouse of southeastern Washington
(Whitman County). It plants 1,840 acres of wheat
and 800 acres of dry peas. Disease concerns
dictate rotating a minimum acreage of peas to
maintain wheat yields. This farm generated 63
percent of 2020 receipts from wheat.
WAW10000 A 10,000 acre, large-sized grain farm in the
Palouse of southeastern Washington (Whitman
County). Annually, this farm allocates 5,800
acres to wheat and 2,700 acres to dry peas.
Diseases that inhibit wheat yield dictate the
rotation of a minimum acreage of peas. Wheat
sales accounted for 61 percent of 2020 receipts.
WAAW5500 South-central Washington (Adams County) is home
to this 5,500 acre, large-sized wheat farm.
Annually, this farm plants 2,600 acres of wheat
in a wheat-fallow rotation. Additionally, 300
acres are enrolled in CRP. In 2020, 91 percent of
the farm's income came from wheat.
ORW4500 ORW4500 is a 4,500 acre large-sized grain farm
located in northeastern Oregon (Morrow County).
This farm plants 2,250 acres annually in a wheat-
fallow rotation. Eighty-six percent of this
farm's 2020 total receipts came from wheat sales.
MTW8000 North-central Montana (Chouteau County) is home
to this 9,500 acre farm on which 3,500 acres of
wheat (1,920 acres of winter wheat, 1,344 acres
of spring wheat, and 544 acres of Durham), 590
acres of barley, and 1200 acres of dry peas are
planted each year. MTW8000 uses no-till
production practices. In 2020, 50 percent of
receipts came from wheat.
KSCW2000 South central Kansas (Sumner County) is home to
this 2,000 acre, moderate-sized grain farm.
KSCW2000 plants 800 acres of winter wheat, 1,100
acres of soybeans, 200 acres of cotton, and 500
acres of corn each year. For 2020, 19 percent of
gross receipts came from wheat.
KSCW5300 A 5,300 acre, large-sized grain farm in south
central Kansas (Sumner County) that plants 2,385
acres of winter wheat, 1,590 acres of corn, and
3,352 acres of soybeans. Twenty-two percent of
this farm's 2020 total receipts were generated
from sales of winter wheat.
KSNW4000 This is a 4,000 acre, moderate-sized northwest
Kansas (Thomas County) grain farm. This farm
plants 1,200 acres of winter wheat (wheat-fallow
rotation), 1,200 acres of corn, and 600 acres of
sorghum. This farm generated 26 percent of 2020
receipts from wheat and 62 percent of its
receipts from feed grains.
KSNW8000 KSNW8000 is a 8,000 acre, large-sized northwest
Kansas (Thomas County) grain farm that annually
plants 1,200 acres of winter wheat, 5,470 acres
of corn, 800 acres of sorghum, and 130 acres of
soybeans. The farm generated 8 percent of
receipts from wheat and 79 percent from feed
grains during 2020.
COW3000 A 3,000 acre northeast Colorado (Washington
County), moderate-sized farm that plants 1,012
acres of winter wheat and 675 acres of corn each
year. COW3000 has adopted minimum tillage
practices on most of its acres. This farm
generated 54 percent of its receipts from wheat
and 35 percent from corn.
COW6000 A 6,000 acre, large-sized northeast Colorado
(Washington County) wheat farm. It plants 2,000
acres of wheat, 1,000 acres of millet, and 1,000
acres of corn. During 2020, 50 percent of gross
receipts came from wheat sales and 24 percent
came from corn sales.
Appendix Table A4. Characteristics of Panel Farms Producing Wheat.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WAW2800 WAW10000 WAAW5500 ORW4500 MTW9500 KSCW2000 KSCW5300 KSNW4000 KSNW8000 COW3000 COW6000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
County Whitman Whitman Adams Morrow Chouteau Sumner Sumner Thomas Thomas Washington Washington
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Crop- 2,800.00 10,000.00 5,500.00 4,500.00 9,500.00 2,000.00 5,300.00 4,000.00 8,000.00 3,000.00 6,000.00
land
Acres Owned 800.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 2,000.00 5,000.00 700.00 1,325.00 600.00 2,100.00 2,100.00 3,000.00
Acres Leas2,000.00 7,500.00 3,000.00 2,500.00 4,500.00 1,300.00 3,975.00 3,400.00 5,900.00 900.00 3,000.00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assets ($1,000)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 3,352.00 11,380.00 2,396.00 1,945.00 9,201.00 2,901.00 6,611.00 4,315.00 9,280.00 4,443.00 6,855.00
Real Estate 2,526.00 7,810.00 1,788.00 1,407.00 6,527.00 2,000.00 4,032.00 3,233.00 6,066.00 4,128.00 5,536.00
Machinery 500.00 2,490.00 601.00 516.00 2,027.00 538.00 1,506.00 1,083.00 2,172.00 282.00 1,319.00
Other & Live- 326.00 1,081.00 8.00 22.00 647.00 363.00 1,073.00 0.00 1,041.00 33.00 0.00
stock
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debt/Asset Ratios
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 0.14 0.15 0.23 0.18 0.18 0.12 0.14 0.23 0.16 0.16 0.20
Intermediate 0.07 0.21 0.07 0.12 0.23 0.04 0.16 0.29 0.17 0.09 0.13
Long Run0.17 0.15 0.18 0.16 0.19 0.17 0.17 0.19 0.18 0.16 0.15
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020 Gross Receipts ($1,000) *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 1,448.20 4,811.70 736.70 558.90 2,324.00 1,031.70 2,585.90 897.50 2,647.50 475.90 1,022.10
Corn 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 239.30 775.40 385.00 1,745.20 167.60 241.80
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.30 0.43 0.66 0.35 0.24
Wheat 908.40 2,928.10 669.40 481.20 1,170.10 191.50 569.90 230.50 222.10 256.00 508.20
0.63 0.61 0.91 0.86 0.50 0.19 0.22 0.26 0.08 0.54 0.50
Soybeans 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 290.10 965.10 0.00 74.60 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.37 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00
Cotton 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 195.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Grain Sor- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.50 15.50 172.00 275.20 0.00 0.00
ghum
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.19 0.10 0.00 0.00
Barley 4.00 37.30 2.00 0.00 207.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Millet 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 174.50
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17
Dry Peas 340.40 1,233.10 0.00 0.00 521.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.24 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other 195.40 613.30 65.30 77.70 424.90 110.60 260.00 110.10 330.50 52.30 97.50
0.14 0.13 0.09 0.14 0.18 0.11 0.10 0.12 0.13 0.11 0.10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020 Planted Acres **
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 2,640.00 8,700.00 2,900.00 2,250.00 5,301.00 2,600.00 7,327.00 3,000.00 7,600.00 1,987.50 4,000.00
Corn 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 500.00 1,590.00 1,200.00 5,470.00 675.00 1,000.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.22 0.40 0.72 0.34 0.25
Wheat 1,840.00 5,800.00 2,600.00 2,250.00 3,534.00 800.00 2,385.00 1,200.00 1,200.00 1,012.50 2,000.00
0.70 0.67 0.90 1.00 0.67 0.31 0.33 0.40 0.16 0.51 0.50
Soybeans 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,100.00 3,352.00 0.00 130.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.46 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00
Cotton 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 200.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Grain Sor- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 600.00 800.00 0.00 0.00
ghum
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.11 0.00 0.00
Barley 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 589.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Millet 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,000.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25
Dry Peas 800.00 2,700.00 0.00 0.00 1,178.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.30 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CRP 0.00 200.00 300.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 300.00 0.00
0.00 0.02 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Receipts for 2020 are included to indicate the relative importance of each enterprise to the farm. Percents indicate the percentage of the total
receipts accounted for by the livestock categories and the crops.
** Acreages for 2020 are included to indicate the relative importance of each enterprise to the farm. Total planted acreage may exceed total cropland
available due to double cropping. Percents indicate the percentage of total planted acreage accounted for by the crop.
2020 Characteristics of Panel Farms Producing Cotton
TXSP4500 The Texas South Plains (Dawson County) is home
to this 4,500 acre, large-sized cotton farm that
grows 4,380 acres of cotton (2,880 dryland, 1,500
irrigated), and 120 irrigated acres of peanuts.
Cotton sales comprised 75 percent of 2020
receipts.
TXEC5000 This 5,000 acre farm is located on the Eastern
Caprock of the Texas South Plains (Crosby
County). Annually, 4,700 acres are planted to
cotton (2,230 irrigated and 2,470 dryland) and
300 acres to dryland wheat. In 2020, cotton sales
accounted for 74 percent of gross receipts.
TXRP3000 TXRP3000 is a 3,000 acre cotton farm located in
the Rolling Plains of Texas (Jones County). This
farm plants 1,800 acres of cotton and 1,200 acres
of winter wheat each year. The area is limited by
rainfall, and the farm uses a conservative level
of inputs. Sixty-three percent of 2020 farm
receipts came from cotton sales. Fifty head of
beef cows generated three percent of farm
receipts.
TXMC2500 This 2,500 acre cotton farm is located on the
Coastal Plain of southeast Texas (Wharton
County). TXMC2500 farms 300 acres of sorghum,
1,455 acres of cotton, and 655 acres of corn. In
2020, cotton sales comprised 55 percent of total
cash receipts on this operation.
TXCB4000 A 4,000 acre cotton farm located on the Texas
Coastal Bend (San Patricio County) that farms
2000 acres of cotton, 1,600 acres of sorghum, and
400 acres of corn annually. Sixty percent of 2020
cash receipts were generated by cotton.
TXCB10000 Nueces County, Texas is home to this 10,000
acre farm. Annually, 5,000 acres are planted to
cotton, 4,500 acres to sorghum, and 500 acres of
corn. Cotton sales accounted for 63 percent of
2020 receipts.
TXVC5500 This 5,500 acre farm is located in the lower
Rio Grande Valley of Texas (Willacy County) and
plants 2,550 acres to cotton (425 irrigated and
2,125 acres dryland), 2,295 acres to sorghum (170
irrigated and 2,125 dryland), and 255 acres of
corn. In 2020, 40 percent of TXVC5500's cash
receipts were generated by cotton sales.
ARNC5000 This 5,000 acre farm is located in northern
Arkansas (Mississippi County) and plants 2,500
acres to cotton, 500 acres to corn, 1,000 acres
of soybeans, and 1,000 acres to peanuts. In 2020,
44 percent of ARNC5000's cash receipts were
generated by cotton sales.
TNC3000 A 3,000 acre, moderate-sized west Tennessee
(Fayette County) cotton farm. TNC3000 consists of
825 acres of cotton, 1,375 acres of soybeans, and
800 acres of corn. Cotton accounted for 30
percent of 2020 gross receipts, with corn and
soybeans contributing 25 percent and 27 percent,
respectively.
TNC4000 TNC4000 is a 4,000 acre, large-sized West
Tennessee (Haywood County) cotton farm. This farm
plants 1,000 acres of cotton, 2,000 acres of
soybeans, 700 acres of corn, and 400 acres of
wheat each year. During 2020, cotton sales
generated 30 percent of gross receipts.
Appendix Table A5. Characteristics of Panel Farms Producing Cotton.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TXSP4500 TXEC5000 TXRP3000 TXMC2500 TXCB4000 TXCB10000 TXVC5500 ARNC5000 TNC3000 TNC4000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
County Dawson Crosby Jones Wharton San Nueces Willacy Mississippi Fayette Haywood
Patricio
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Cropland 4,500.00 5,000.00 3,000.00 2,500.00 4,000.00 10,000.00 5,500.00 5,000.00 3,000.00 4,000.00
Acres Owned 500.00 1,250.00 875.00 180.00 600.00 1,500.00 1,750.00 1,000.00 300.00 400.00
Acres Leased 4,000.00 3,750.00 2,125.00 2,320.00 3,400.00 8,500.00 3,750.00 4,000.00 2,700.00 3,600.00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assets ($1,000)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 3,110.00 4,456.00 1,787.00 2,551.00 3,537.00 10,453.00 8,346.00 12,570.00 3,716.00 5,625.00
Real Estate 690.00 1,751.00 1,402.00 864.00 1,662.00 4,835.00 5,264.00 6,287.00 1,202.00 2,338.00
Machinery 2,040.00 1,918.00 344.00 1,268.00 1,467.00 3,832.00 1,796.00 4,424.00 1,387.00 2,419.00
Other & Livestock380.00 787.00 41.00 419.00 407.00 1,785.00 1,286.00 1,859.00 1,128.00 869.00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debt/Asset Ratios
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 0.18 0.11 0.43 0.19 0.21 0.20 0.18 0.15 0.13 0.14
Intermediate 0.21 0.09 0.20 0.24 0.28 0.31 0.29 0.22 0.19 0.15
Long Run 0.17 0.18 0.34 0.17 0.20 0.18 0.19 0.15 0.18 0.18
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020 Gross Receipts ($1,000) *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 2,531.50 2,885.40 817.00 1,788.80 2,605.70 6,853.00 4,412.10 5,092.40 2,467.60 3,184.90
Corn 0.00 0.00 0.00 327.20 113.60 95.10 159.20 417.50 610.20 499.30
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.04 0.01 0.04 0.08 0.25 0.16
Wheat 0.00 0.00 106.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 142.90
0.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05
Soybeans 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 569.00 655.70 934.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.27 0.29
Cotton 1,891.70 2,139.20 518.10 988.40 1,565.30 4,314.50 1,779.50 2,219.30 739.20 966.60
0.75 0.74 0.63 0.55 0.60 0.63 0.40 0.44 0.30 0.30
Grain Sorghum 0.00 16.30 0.00 144.20 418.10 1,332.30 884.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.01 0.00 0.08 0.16 0.19 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00
Peanuts 101.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 996.90 0.00 0.00
0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.00
Rice 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Cattle 0.00 0.00 27.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other 538.40 730.00 165.40 327.50 508.80 1,111.10 1,589.40 889.70 462.60 642.10
0.21 0.25 0.20 0.18 0.20 0.16 0.36 0.18 0.19 0.20
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020 Planted Acres **
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 4,500.00 5,000.00 3,000.00 2,410.00 4,000.00 10,000.00 5,100.00 5,000.00 3,000.00 4,100.00
Corn 0.00 0.00 0.00 655.00 400.00 500.00 255.00 500.00 800.00 700.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.27 0.17
Wheat 0.00 300.00 1,200.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 400.00
0.00 0.06 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10
Soybeans 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,000.00 1,375.00 2,000.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.46 0.49
Cotton 4,380.00 4,700.00 1,800.00 1,455.00 2,000.00 5,000.00 2,550.00 2,500.00 825.00 1,000.00
0.97 0.94 0.60 0.60 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.28 0.24
Grain Sorghum 0.00 0.00 0.00 300.00 1,600.00 4,500.00 2,295.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.40 0.45 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00
Peanuts 120.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,000.00 0.00 0.00
0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Receipts for 2020 are included to indicate the relative importance of each enterprise to the farm. Percents indicate the percentage of the total
receipts accounted for by the livestock categories and the crops.
** Acreages for 2020 are included to indicate the relative importance of each enterprise to the farm. Total planted acreage may exceed total cropland
available due to double cropping. Percents indicate the percentage of total planted acreage accounted for by the crop.
2020 Characteristics of Panel Farms Producing Cotton
ALC350A 3,500 acre cotton farm located in northern
Alabama (Lawrence County) that plants 1,050 acres
to cotton, 1,050 acres to corn, 1,400 acres of
soybeans and 875 acres to wheat (double cropped
with soybeans) annually. This farm was early to
adopt no-till cropping practices. Cotton sales
accounted for 26 percent of total farm receipts
during 2020.
GAC2500 Southwest Georgia (Decatur County) is home to a
2,500 acre cotton farm that plants 1,250 acres to
cotton, 800 acres to peanuts, and 450 acres to
corn. In 2020, farm receipts were comprised of
cotton sales (35 percent), corn (16 percent), and
peanut sales (33 percent). The farm also runs a
125 head beef cow herd, generating 3 percent of
2020 receipts.
NCNP1600 A 1,600 acre diversified farm located in
northern North Carolina (Edgecombe County).
NCNP1600 plants 320 acres of peanuts, 240 acres
of corn, 640 acres of cotton, and 400 acres of
soybeans. Twenty-three percent of receipts for
this farm came from peanut sales in 2020, 37
percent from cotton sales and 24 percent came
from corn and soybean sales.
Appendix Table A6. Characteristics of Panel Farms Producing Cotton.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALC3500 GAC2500 NCNP1600
------------------------------------------------------------------------
County Lawrence Decatur Edgecombe
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Cropland 3,500.00 1,250.00 1,600.00
Acres Owned 350.00 1,250.00 600.00
Acres Leased 3,150.00 0.00 1,000.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assets ($1,000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 6,127.00 10,860.00 3,834.00
Real Estate 2,808.00 8,416.00 2,572.00
Machinery 1,840.00 1,499.00 1,260.00
Other & Livestock 1,479.00 945.00 2.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debt/Asset Ratios
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 0.16 0.17 0.20
Intermediate 0.27 0.21 0.18
Long Run 0.18 0.18 0.16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020 Gross Receipts ($1,000) *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 3,235.70 3,528.70 1,339.90
Corn 746.60 549.00 141.60
0.23 0.16 0.11
Wheat 462.00 0.00 0.00
0.14 0.00 0.00
Soybeans 624.70 0.00 173.50
0.19 0.00 0.13
Cotton 833.50 1,239.50 491.60
0.26 0.35 0.37
Peanuts 0.00 1,162.00 305.10
0.00 0.33 0.23
Cattle 0.00 91.70 0.00
0.00 0.03 0.00
Other 568.90 486.50 228.10
0.18 0.14 0.17
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020 Planted Acres **
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 4,375.00 2,750.00 1,600.00
Corn 1,050.00 450.00 240.00
0.24 0.16 0.15
Wheat 875.00 0.00 0.00
0.20 0.00 0.00
Soybeans 1,400.00 0.00 400.00
0.32 0.00 0.25
Cotton 1,050.00 1,250.00 640.00
0.24 0.46 0.40
Peanuts 0.00 800.00 320.00
0.00 0.29 0.20
Pasture 0.00 250.00 0.00
0.00 0.09 0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Receipts for 2020 are included to indicate the relative importance of
each enterprise to the farm. Percents indicate the percentage of the
total receipts accounted for by the livestock categories and the
crops.
** Acreages for 2020 are included to indicate the relative importance of
each enterprise to the farm. Total planted acreage may exceed total
cropland available due to double cropping. Percents indicate the
percentage of total planted acreage accounted for by the crop.
2020 Characteristics of Panel Farms Producing Rice
CAR1200 CAR1200 is a 1,200 acre moderate-sized rice
farm in the Sacramento Valley of California
(Sutter and Yuba Counties) that plants 1,200
acres of rice annually. This farm generated 99
percent of 2020 gross receipts from rice sales.
CAR3000 This is a 3,000 acre rice farm located in the
Sacramento Valley of California (Sutter and Yuba
Counties) that is large-sized for the region.
CAR3000 plants 3,000 acres of rice annually. In
2020, 99 percent of gross receipts were generated
from rice sales.
CABR800 The Sacramento Valley (Butte County) is home to
CABR800, a 800 acre rice farm. CABR800 harvests
800 acres of rice annually, generating 99 percent
of 2020 farm receipts from rice sales.
CACR800 CACR800 is an 800 acre rice farm located in the
Sacramento Valley of California (Colusa County).
This farm harvests 800 acres of rice each year.
During 2020, 99 percent of farm receipts were
realized from rice sales.
TXR1500 This 1,500 acre rice farm located west of
Houston, Texas (Colorado County) is moderate-
sized for the region. TXR1500 harvests 600 acres
of rice. The farm generated 97 percent of its
receipts from rice during 2020.
TXR3000 TXR3000 is a 3,000 acre, large-sized rice farm
located west of Houston, Texas (Colorado County).
This farm harvests 1,500 acres of rice annually.
TXR3000 realized 98 percent of 2020 gross
receipts from rice sales.
TXBR1800 The Texas Gulf Coast (Matagorda County) is home
to this 1,800 acre rice farm. TXBR1800 generally
plants a third of its acres to rice annually and
fallows the remainder. The farm generated 98
percent of its receipts from rice during 2020.
TXER2500 This 2,500 acre rice farm is located in the
Texas Gulf Coast (Wharton County). TXER2500
harvests 1,250 acres of rice each year. The farm
also grows 1,250 acres of corn. Seventy-four
percent of 2020 receipts came from rice sales.
LASR2A 2,000 acre southwest Louisiana (Acadia, Jeff
Davis, and Vermilion parishes) rice farm,
LASR2000 is moderate-sized for the area. This
farm harvests 1,000 acres of rice and 200 acres
of soybeans. During 2020, 60 percent of gross
receipts were generated from rice sales.
ARMR6500 ARMR6500 is a 6,500 acre diversified rice farm
in southeast Arkansas (Desha County) that plants
650 acres of rice, 3,900 acres of soybeans, and
1,950 acres of corn. For 2020, 11 percent of
gross receipts came from rice sales, 29 percent
from corn sales, and 48 percent from soybean
sales.
Appendix Table A7. Characteristics of Panel Farms Producing Rice.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAR1200 CAR3000 CABR800 CACR800 TXR1500 TXR3000 TXBR1800 TXER2500 LASR2000 ARMR6500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
County Sutter Sutter Butte Colusa Colorad Colorad Matagord Wharton Acadia Desha
o o a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Cropland 1,200.00 3,000.00 800.00 800.00 1,500.0 3,000.0 1,800.00 2,500.00 2,000.00 6,500.00
0 0
Acres Owned 360.00 900.00 320.00 240.00 405.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 200.00 1,200.00
Acres Lease840.00 2,100.00 480.00 560.00 1,095.0 3,000.0 1,800.00 2,500.00 1,800.00 5,300.00
0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assets ($1,000)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 4,003.00 14,894.0 5,580.0 4,420.0 2,530.0 1,887.0 1,211.00 1,368.00 2,736.00 10,079.0
0 0 0 0 0 0
Real Estate 2,525.00 10,650.0 4,100.0 3,990.0 1,408.0 107.00 143.00 98.00 1,533.00 5,938.00
0 0 0 0
Machinery 894.00 3,616.00 1,265.0 430.00 1,114.0 1,546.0 903.00 1,017.00 1,119.00 2,836.00
0 0 0
Other & 584.00 628.00 216.00 0.00 8.00 234.00 164.00 252.00 83.00 1,305.00
Livestock
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debt/Asset Ratios
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 0.12 0.19 0.17 0.20 0.25 0.27 0.21 0.10 0.18 0.16
Intermediate 0.05 0.22 0.15 0.05 0.20 0.29 0.24 0.12 0.16 0.22
Long Ru0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.17 0.18 0.19 0.18 0.18 0.15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020 Gross Receipts ($1,000) *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 2,401.20 6,121.20 1,667.5 1,572.4 897.60 2,004.4 1,127.80 2,667.20 1,504.20 6,006.80
0 0 0
Corn 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 571.60 0.00 1,710.90
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.29
Soybeans 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 70.10 2,886.70
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.48
Rice 2,368.90 6,065.70 1,645.8 1,552.8 871.80 1,962.5 1,101.30 1,961.80 903.20 643.40
0 0 0
0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.97 0.98 0.98 0.74 0.60 0.11
Other 32.30 55.60 21.70 19.60 25.80 41.90 26.50 133.80 530.90 765.80
0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.35 0.13
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020 Planted Acres **
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 1,200.00 3,000.00 800.00 800.00 600.00 1,500.0 600.00 2,500.00 1,200.00 6,500.00
0
Corn 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,250.00 0.00 1,950.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.30
Soybeans 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 200.00 3,900.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.60
Rice 1,200.00 3,000.00 800.00 800.00 600.00 1,500.0 600.00 1,250.00 1,000.00 650.00
0
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.83 0.10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Receipts for 2020 are included to indicate the relative importance of each enterprise to the farm. Percents
indicate the percentage of the total receipts accounted for by the livestock categories and the crops.
** Acreages for 2020 are included to indicate the relative importance of each enterprise to the farm. Total
planted acreage may exceed total cropland available due to double cropping. Percents indicate the percentage
of total planted acreage accounted for by the crop.
2020 Characteristics of Panel Farms Producing Rice
ARSR3240 ARSR3240 is a 3,240 acre, large-sized Arkansas
(Arkansas County) rice farm that harvests 1,458
acres of rice, 1,458 acres of soybeans, and 324
acres of corn each year. Fifty-seven percent of
this farm's 2020 receipts came from rice sales.
ARWR2500 East central Arkansas (Cross County) is home to
this 2,500 acre rice farm. Moderate-sized for the
region, ARWR2500 annually plants 1,250 acres each
to rice and soybeans. During 2020, rice sales
generated 62 percent of gross receipts.
ARHR4000 ARHR4000 is a 4,000 acre large-sized northeast
Arkansas (Lawrence County) rice farm that
annually harvests 2,400 acres of rice, 1,400
acres of soybeans, and 200 acres of corn. Rice
sales accounted for 74 percent of 2020 farm
receipts.
MSDR5000 MSDR5000 is a 5,000 acre Mississippi Delta
(Bolivar County) rice farm that annually harvests
1,667 acres of rice and 3,333 acres of soybeans.
Rice sales accounted for 42 percent of 2020 farm
receipts. Soybeans account for 51 percent of
receipts.
MOBR4000 MOBR4000 is a 4,000 acre Missouri Bootheal
(Pemiscot County) rice farm. The farm annually
harvests 1,320 acres of rice, 1,800 acres of
soybeans and 880 acres of corn. Rice sales
accounted for 45 percent of farm receipts in
2020.
Appendix Table A8. Characteristics of Panel Farms Producing Rice.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARSR3240 ARWR2500 ARHR4000 MSDR5000 MOBR4000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
County Arkansas Cross Lawrence Bolivar Pemiscot
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Cropland 3,240.00 2,500.00 4,000.00 5,000.00 4,000.00
Acres Owned 648.00 1,250.00 1,000.00 3,000.00 1,000.00
Acres Leas2,592.00 1,250.00 3,000.00 2,000.00 3,000.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assets ($1,000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 6,088.00 7,873.00 9,107.00 18,981.00 10,186.00
Real Estate 3,749.00 6,295.00 5,987.00 14,540.00 6,921.00
Machinery 1,677.00 1,517.00 3,023.00 3,497.00 2,987.00
Other & Livest662.00 61.00 97.00 944.00 278.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debt/Asset Ratios
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 0.16 0.14 0.17 0.18 0.19
Intermediate 0.19 0.10 0.13 0.24 0.22
Long Run0.17 0.13 0.18 0.17 0.18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020 Gross Receipts ($1,000) *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 2,785.30 1,939.30 3,462.30 4,050.30 2,781.00
Corn 277.10 0.00 149.50 0.00 574.80
0.10 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.21
Wheat 9.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Soybeans 761.30 629.10 599.50 2,082.90 740.20
0.27 0.32 0.17 0.51 0.27
Rice 1,580.70 1,206.00 2,570.50 1,683.90 1,262.20
0.57 0.62 0.74 0.42 0.45
Other 156.60 104.20 142.80 283.50 203.90
0.06 0.05 0.04 0.07 0.07
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020 Planted Acres **
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 3,240.00 2,500.00 4,240.00 5,000.00 4,000.00
Corn 324.00 0.00 200.00 0.00 880.00
0.10 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.22
Soybeans 1,458.00 1,250.00 1,400.00 3,333.00 1,800.00
0.45 0.50 0.33 0.67 0.45
Rice 1,458.00 1,250.00 2,640.00 1,667.00 1,320.00
0.45 0.50 0.62 0.33 0.33
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Receipts for 2020 are included to indicate the relative importance of
each enterprise to the farm. Percents indicate the percentage of the
total receipts accounted for by the livestock categories and the
crops.
** Acreages for 2020 are included to indicate the relative importance of
each enterprise to the farm. Total planted acreage may exceed total
cropland available due to double cropping. Percents indicate the
percentage of total planted acreage accounted for by the crop.
Appendix B--Representative Farm Panel Members and Facilitators
Feed Grain Farms
Indiana
Facilitators
Mr. Scott Gabbard--Extension Educator, Shelby County, Purdue
Cooperative Extension
Panel Participants
Mr. David Brown Mr. Kevin Carson
Mr. Gary Everhart Mr. Andy Fix
Mr. Jason & Dan Foltz Ms. Carmen Hawk
Mr. Darrell Linville Mr. Gary Robards
Mr. Ken Simpson Ms. Angie Steinbarger
Mr. Doug Theobald Mr. Jeremy Weaver
Iowa
Facilitators
Mr. Jerry Chizek--County Extension Director, Webster County
Panel Participants
Mr. Doug Adams Mr. Brad Black
Mr. Dean Black Mr. Perry Black
Mr. A.J. Blair Mr. Gregg Hora
Mr. Tyler Lane Mr. Jay Lynch
Mr. Steve Peterson Mr. Doug Stanek
Mr. Jason Stanek Mr. Brent Wells
Mr. Kent Wuebker Mr. Loren Wuebker
Missouri--Central
Facilitators
Mr. Parman Green
Panel Participants
Mr. Joe Brockmeier Mr. Michael Brockmeier
Mr. Kevin Casner Mr. Mark Casner
Mr. Kyle Durham Mr. Dennis Germann
Mr. Todd Gibson Mr. Dale Griffith
Mr. Jack Harriman Mr. Todd Hensiek
Mr. Mike Hisle Mr. Preston Hisle
Mr. Glenn Kaiser Mr. Marc Kaiser
Mr. David Kipping Mr. Robert Kipping
Mr. Craig Linneman Mr. Mike Ritchhart
Mr. James Wheeler
Missouri--Northwest
Facilitators
Mr. Peter Zimmel--FAPRI, University of Missouri
Panel Participants
Mr. Terry Ecker Mr. Curtis Lewis
Mr. Russell Miller Mr. Matt Rosenbohm
Mr. Nick Rosenbohm Mr. Andrew Stoll
Nebraska--Central
Facilitators
Ms. Sarah Sivits
Mr. Bruce Treffer--Extension Educator, Dawson County
Panel Participants
Mr. Jim Aden Mr. Rob Anderson
Mr. Bart Beattie Mr. Greg Hueftle
Mr. Pat Luther Mr. Tim Maline
Mr. Clark McPheeters Mr. Scott McPheeters
Mr. Cody Peden Mr. Rod Reynolds
Mr. Dave Rowe Mr. Paul Stieb
Mr. Dan Strauss
North Dakota
Facilitators
Mr. Randy Grueneich--County Extension Agent, North Dakota State
University
Dr. Bryon Parman--Extension Associate--Farm Management, North Dakota
State University
Panel Participants
Mr. John Robert Anderson Mr. Eric Broten
Mr. Jim Broten Mr. Wade Bruns
Mr. Mike Clemens Mr. Mark Formo
Mr. Leland Guscette Mr. Rob Hanson
Mr. Jason Haugen Mr. Charlie Kreidelcamp
Mr. Greg Shanenko Mr. Anthony Thilmony
Ohio
Facilitators
Mr. Ben Brown--Assistant Professor
Panel Participants
Mr. Dean Bixel Mr. Scott Conrad
Mr. Mark Drewes Mr. Matt Eggers
Mr. Todd Hesterman Mr. Tim Holbrook
Mr. Eric Johnson Mr. Jeremy Tedrow
Mr. Kevin Thierry
Ohio--Napoleon
Facilitators
Mr. Ben Brown--Assistant Professor
Panel Participants
Mr. Dean Bixel Mr. Scott Conrad
Mr. Mark Drewes Mr. Matt Eggers
Mr. Todd Hesterman Mr. Tim Holbrook
Mr. Eric Johnson Mr. Jeremy Tedrow
Mr. Kevin Thierry
South Carolina
Facilitators
Mr. Scott Mickey
Dr. Nathan Smith
Panel Participants
Mr. Neal Baxley Ms. Vikki Brogdon
Mr. Chris Cogdill Mr. Harry DuRant
Mr. Sam DuRant Mr. Jason Gamble
Mr. Steven Gamble Mr. Barry Hutto
Mr. Tommy Lee Mr. Joe McKeower
Mr. John Michael Parimuha
Tennessee--Trenton
Facilitators
Mr. Jeff Lannom--Extension Agent & County Director, Weakley County
Mr. Chris Narayanan
Mr. Philip Shelby--Extension Agent, Gibson County
Mr. Tim Smith--County Extension Agent, Obion County
Panel Participants
Mr. Steven Agee Mr. Brent Baier
Mr. Kenneth Barnes Mr. Randy Boals
Mr. Mike Brundige Mr. John Chester
Mr. Kaleb Dinwiddie Mr. Mike Freeman
Mr. Bobby Garner Mr. Derek Griffin
Mr. Brent Griggs Mr. Gary Hall
Mr. Rob Holman Mr. Josh Little
Mr. Todd Littleton Mr. Jason Luckey
Mr. Ben Moore Mr. Scotty Ogg
Mr. David Oliver Mr. Eric Owen
Mr. John Parrish Mr. Eric Partee
Mr. Hedrick Shoaf Mr. Kevin Smethwick
Mr. Keith Steele Mr. Seth Taylor
Mr. James Wall Mr. Jody Wright
Mr. Jay Yeargin
Texas--Northern Blackland Prairie
Facilitators
Mr. Zach Davis--County Extension Agent, Hill County
Panel Participants
Mr. Chad Kaska Mr. Todd Kimbrell, Jr.
Mr. Chad Radke Mr. John Sawyer
Texas--Northern High Plains
Facilitators
Mr. Marcel Fischbacher--County Extension Agent, Moore County
Panel Participants
Mr. Tommy Cartrite Mr. Brent Clark
Mr. Justin Garrett Mr. Kelly Hays
Mr. Casey Kimbrell Mr. Tom Moore
Mr. Chandler Preston Mr. Jon Reznik
Mr. Stan Spain Mr. Darren Stallwitz
Mr. Dee Vaughan Ms. Linda Williams
Texas--Panhandle
Facilitators
Mr. Rick Auckerman--County Extension Agent, Texas Cooperative
Extension
Panel Participants
Mr. Michael Carlson Mr. Roy Carlson
Mr. Greg Chavez Mr. Steve Hoffman
Mr. Bob Meyer Mr. Tom Schlabs
Texas--Southern Blackland Prairie
Facilitators
Mr. Cooper Terrill--County Extension Agent, Williamson County
Panel Participants
Mr. Terry Pekar Mr. Herbert Raesz
Mr. Ken Seggern
Texas--Southwest
Facilitators
M[s]. Samantha Korzekwa--County Extension Agent, Uvalde County
Panel Participants
Mr. Jimmy Carnes Mr. Ralph Hesse
Mr. Mark Landry Mr. Danny Parker
Wheat Farms
Colorado
Facilitators
Mr. John Deering--Ag Business Agent, North Star Bank
Mr. Dennis Kaan--Director, Golden Plains Area Extension, Colorado
State University
Panel Participants
Mr. Rollie Deering Mr. Ward Deering
Mr. David Foy Mr. Dale Hansen
Mr. William Harman Mr. Barry Hinkhouse
Mr. Terry Kuntz Mr. Shane Leoffler
Mr. Dave Lillich Mr. Max Olsen
Ms. Sara Olsen Mr. Ken Remington
Mr. Craig Saxton Mr. Calvin Schaffert
Mr. Harlan Schaffert Mr. Dave Wagers
Mr. John Wright
Kansas--Northwest
Facilitators
Dr. Dan O'Brien--Area Extension Director, Kansas State University
Mr. Mark Wood--Extension Agricultural Economist, Kansas Farm Mgmt.
Association
Panel Participants
Mr. Tanner Brown Mr. Craig Busse
Mr. Steve Busse Mr. Rich Calliham
Mr. Sam Crouse Mr. Aaron Horinek
Mr. Lee Juenemann Mr. Daniel Leebrick
Mr. Kenan Reeh Mr. Tyler Roe
Mr. Steve Schertz
Kansas--South Central
Facilitators
Mr. Randy Hein--County Extension Agent, Sumner County
Mr. Zach Simon--County Extension Agent, Sedgwick County
Panel Participants
Mr. Colton Day Mr. Dennis Gruenbacher
Mr. Doug Hisken Mr. Aaron Lange
Mr. Kent Ott Mr. Steve Schmidt
Mr. Mike Slack Mr. Nick Steffen
Troy & Julia Strnad Mr. Tim Turek
Mr. Robert White
Montana--North Central
Facilitators
Mr. Lochiel Edwards
Panel Participants
Mr. Darin Arganbright Mr. Steve Bahnmiller
Mr. Duane Beirwagen Mr. Will Roehm
Mr. Dan Works
Oregon--North Central
Facilitators
Jon Farquharson
Panel Participants
Mr. Dana Heideman Mr. Bill Jepsen
Mr. Joe McElligott Mr. Craig Miles
Mr. Eric Orem Mrs. Shannon Rust
Mr. Tim and Shannon Rust
Washington
Facilitators
Mr. Aaron Esser--County Director, WSU Extension
Panel Participants
Mr. Trevor Jantz Mr. Ron Jirava
Mr. Mike Miller Mr. Justin Simonson
Mr. Travis Simonson Mr. Tim Smith
Mr. Traven Smith Mr. Steve Taylor
Washington--Palouse
Facilitators
Dr. Janet Schmidt--Extension Faculty, Washington State University
Mr. Steve Van Vleet--Extension Agronomist, Washington State University
Panel Participants
Mr. Ben Barstow Mr. Asa Clark
Mr. Gavin Clark Mr. Scot Cocking
Mr. Aaron Gfeller Mr. David Harlow
Ms. Kenda Hergert Mr. Dean Kinzer
Ms. Heidi Kopf Mr. Brian Largent
Mr. Gary Largent Mr. Michael Largent
Mr. Steve Mader Ms. Amy McKay
Mr. Clark Miller Mr. Bruce Nelson
Mr. Chris Schultheis Mr. David Swannack
Mr. Steve Teade Mr. Jon Whitman
Cotton Farms
Alabama
Panel Participants
Mr. James Blythe Mr. Paul Clark
Mr. Jarred Darnell Dr. Steve Ford
Mr. William Lee Ms. Larkin Martin
Arkansas
Facilitators
Mr. Ray Benson
Mr. Ronnie Kennett
Dr. Brad Watkins--Research Assistant Professor, U. of Arkansas
Cooperative Extension
Panel Participants
Mr. Chad Costner Mr. Heath Donner
Mr. Todd Edwards Mr. Cole Hawkins
Mr. Justin Hawkins Mr. Kenny Jackson
Mr. David Wildy
Georgia--Southwest
Facilitators
Ms. Nan Bostick--County Extension Coordinator, Decatur County
Mr. Cody Powell
Dr. Adam Rabinowitz
Panel Participants
Mr. Andy Bell Mr. Jerry Jones
Mr. Greg Mims Mr. Willard Mims
Mr. Brad Thompson Mr. Raymond Thompson
North Carolina
Facilitators
Mr. Daryl Anderson--County Extension Agent
Dr. Blake Brown
Mr. Gary Bullen
Mr. Kevin Johnson--County Extension Director, Wayne County
Panel Participants
Mr. Landis Brantham, Jr. Mr. Michael Gray
Mr. Willie Howell Mr. David B. Mitchell, Sr.
Mr. Danny C. Pierce Mr. Craig West
Mr. Bryant Worley
South Carolina
Facilitators
Mr. Jonathan Croft
Mr. Scott Mickey
Dr. Nathan Smith
Panel Participants
Mr. Jimmie Griner Mr. Dean Hutto
Mr. John McLaurin Mr. David Tindal
Mr. Landrum Weathers
Tennessee
Facilitators
Mr. Walter Battle--Co-Director, Haywood County Extension
Mr. Chris Narayanan
Ms. Lindsay Stephenson
Mr. Jeff Via--County Extension Director, Fayette County
Panel Participants
Mr. Alex Armour Mr. Link Carlton
Mr. Chuck Dacus Mr. Willie German
Mr. Lee Graves Mr. Ed Karcher
Mr. Rob Karcher Mr. Allen King
Mr. John King Mr. Kinney McRae
Mr. Hassell Smith
Texas--Coastal Bend
Facilitators
Mr. Bobby McCool--County Extension Agent, San Patricio County and
Aransas County
Mr. Mark Miller--Chief Operations Officer, Texas AgFinance
Mr. Jeff Nunley--Executive Director, South Texas Cotton & Grain
Association
Mr. Jason Ott--County Extension Agent, Nueces County
Mr. John Parker--Vice President, Texas AgFinance
Panel Participants
Mr. Travis Adams Mr. Marvin Beyer, Jr.
Mr. Colin Chopelas Mr. Jimmy Dodson
Mr. Jon Gwynn Mr. Darrell Lawhon
Mr. Larry McNair Mr. Andrew Miller
Mr. Toby Robertson Mr. Darby Salge
Mr. David Weaver Mr. Jon Whatley
Texas--Eastern Caprock
Facilitators
Ms. Caitlin Jackson
Panel Participants
Mr. Lloyd Arthur Mr. Brooks Ellison
Mr. Mark Schoepf Mr. Conner Wilmeth
Texas--Mid Coast
Facilitators
Mr. Jeff Nunley--Executive Director, South Texas Cotton & Grain
Association
Mr. Jimmy Roppolo--General Manager, United Ag
Panel Participants
Mr. Daniel Gavranovic Mr. Duane Lutringer
Mr. Cedric Popp Mr. Michael Popp
Mr. Darrell Schoeneberg Mr. Mike Watz
Texas--Rio Grande Valley
Facilitators
Mr. Matthew Rodriguez--County Extension Agent
Panel Participants
Mr. Jerry Chappell Mr. Joe Pennington
Mr. Spence Pennington Mr. Ivan Salazar
Mr. Zachary Swanberg Mr. Mark Willis
Texas--Rolling Plains
Facilitators
Mr. Steven Estes--County Extension Agent, Texas AgriLife Extension
Panel Participants
Mr. Larry Lytle Mr. Michael McLellan
Mr. Cody Roberts Mr. Brian Sandbothe
Mr. Mike Sloan Mr. Dale Spurgin
Mr. Rick Vickers Mr. Ferdie Walker
Mr. Terry White
Texas--Southern High Plains
Facilitators
Mr. Gary Roschetzky--County Extension Agent, Dawson County
Panel Participants
Mr. Terry Coleman Mr. Will Cozart
Mr. Kirk Tidwell Mr. Johnny Ray Todd
Mr. Donald Vogler Mr. David Warren
Rice Farms
Arkansas
Facilitators
Mr. Chuck Capps
Mr. Steve Kelley
Mr. Steven Stone
Dr. Brad Watkins--Research Assistant Professor, U. of Arkansas
Cooperative Extension
Mr. Gus Wilson
Panel Participants
Mr. John Gates Mr. Andrew Gill
Mr. Andy Gill Mr. Tad Keller
Mr. Joe Mencer Mr. Matt Miles
Mr. Jim Whitaker Mr. Sam Whitaker
Arkansas--East Central-Arkansas County
Facilitators
Mr. Bill Free--Riceland Foods, Inc.
Dr. Brad Watkins--Research Assistant Professor, U. of Arkansas
Cooperative Extension
Panel Participants
Mr. Brandon Bauman Mr. Derek Bohanan
Mr. Monty Bohanan Mr. Dusty Hoskyn
Mr. Stephen Hoskyn Mr. David Jessup
Mr. Garth Jessup
Arkansas--East Central-Cross County
Facilitators
Dr. Brad Watkins--Research Assistant Professor, U. of Arkansas
Cooperative Extension
Mr. Rick Wimberley--County Extension Agent--Staff Chair, U. of
Arkansas Cooperative
Panel Participants
Mr. Corbin Brown Mr. John Cooper
Mr. Byron Holmes, Jr. Mr. Bryan Moery
Mr. Roger Pohlner
Arkansas--Northeast-Lawrence County
Facilitators
Mr. Michael Andrews
Mr. Bryce Baldridge
Ms. Courtney Sisk
Dr. Brad Watkins--Research Assistant Professor, U. of Arkansas
Cooperative Extension
Panel Participants
Mr. Greg Baltz Mr. Jeremy Baltz
Mr. Ricky Burris Mr. Ronald Cavenaugh
Mr. Doug Cox Mr. Bruce Manning
Mr. Joe Richardson Mr. Vic Stone
California--Butte County
Facilitators
Dr. Luis Espino
Mr. Tim Johnson--President and CEO, California Rice Commission
Panel Participants
Mr. Seth Fiack Mr. Imran Khan
Mr. Peter Rystrom Mr. Josh Sheppard
Mr. Derek Sohnrey
California--Colusa County
Facilitators
Dr. Luis Espino
Mr. Tim Johnson--President and CEO, California Rice Commission
Panel Participants
Mr. Don Bransford Ms. Kim Gallagher
Mr. Leo LaGrande Mr. Charles Marsh
Mr. Alex Struckmeyer
California--Sutter County
Facilitators
Ms. Whitney Brim-DeForest--UCCE Farm Advisor
Mr. Tim Johnson
Panel Participants
Mr. Bard Anderson Mr. Paul Baggett
Mr. Tom Butler Mr. Mike DeWit
Mr. Ned Lemenager Mr. Charley Mathews
Mr. Jon Munger Mr. Rick Nelson
Mr. Michael Rue Mr. Don Traynham
Mr. Rob Van Dyke Ms. Nicole Van Vleck
Louisiana--Northeast
Facilitators
Mr. Scott Franklin
Panel Participants
Mr. Ed Greer Mr. Heath Herring
Mr. John Owen Mr. Russ Ratcliff
Louisiana--Southwest-Acadiana
Panel Participants
Mr. Al Cramer Mr. Tommy Faulk
Mr. David Lacour Mr. Alan Lawson
Mr. Jackie Loewer Mr. Micah Loewer
Mr. Christian Richard Mr. Fred Zaunbrecher
Mississippi--Cleveland
Facilitators
Dr. Larry Falconer--Extension Professor
Mr. Craig Hankins--Extension Agent
Panel Participants
Mr. Michael Aguzzi Mr. Austin Davis
Mr. Gary Fioranelli Mr. Randy Howarth
Mr. Kirk Satterfield
Missouri
Facilitators
Mr. Trent Haggard--Director, Fisher Delta Research Center
Panel Participants
Mr. John Anderson Mr. Alex Clark
Mr. Rance Daniels Mr. Russ Hoggard
Mr. Jim Priggel Mr. Will Spargo
Texas--Bay City-Matagorda County
Panel Participants
Mr. Dillon Berglund Mr. Barrett Franz
Mr. Coleman Franz Mr. Joey Sliva
Mr. Paul Sliva
Texas--Eagle Lake-Colorado County
Panel Participants
Mr. Allen Anderson Mr. Andy Anderson
Mr. Kenneth Danklefs Mr. Craig Guthman
Mr. W.A. ``Billy'' Hefner III Mr. Ira Lapham
Mr. Patrick Pavlu Mr. Bryan Wiese
Texas--El Campo-Wharton County
Panel Participants
Mr. Daniel Berglund Mr. Timothy Gertson
Mr. Mark Rasmussen Mr. L.G. Raun
Mr. Glen Rod Mr. Tommy Turner
Peanut Farms
North Carolina--Conway
Facilitators
Dr. Blake Brown
Mr. Gary Bullen
Mr. Bob Sutter
Panel Participants
Mr. Clarke Fox Mr. Ray Garner
Mr. Wayne Harrell Mr. Donny Lassiter
Mr. Brad West Mr. Donnie White
North Carolina--Elizabethtown
Facilitators
Dr. Blake Brown
Mr. Gary Bullen
Mr. Matthew Strickland
Mr. Bob Sutter
Panel Participants
Mr. Robert Byrd Mr. Wade Byrd
Mr. Jart Hudson Mr. Alex Jordan
Mr. Dan McDuffie Mr. Sean Morris
Mr. Dan Ward Mr. Wilbur Ward
______
Supplementary Material Submitted Hon. Thomas ``Tom'' J. Vilsack,
Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Insert 1
Mrs. Hartzler. That is good. That would be great.
Reuters reported that the Biden Administration is considering
lowering the 2022 ethanol blender mandate, below the proposed
15 billion gallons potentially hamstringing the biofuels
industry. Are you aware of these reports, and do you agree that
cutting biofuel blended would only serve to hurt rural
communities?
The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired. Mr.
Secretary, you may follow up on that.
Secretary Vilsack. I would just mention, the biofuel levels
for 2021, 2022 are the highest in the history of the program,
which indicates a projected growth. And in addition, the
Department of Agriculture is providing $700 million of
additional assistance to the biofuel industry to encourage it
to get it through the pandemic situation, as well as $100
[million] to expand access to higher blends. So, I think I can
make the case that the Administration is supporting this
industry. Sixty-five waivers that were denied by the EPA that
might very well have been granted during the previous
Administration.
Implementation of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) falls under the
jurisdiction of EPA.
Insert 2
Mrs. Hayes. . . .
I am coming to the end of my time, and I will leave you with
one last question that perhaps if you don't have time, you can
follow up on.
Between 2016 and 2020, the number of full-time employees at
the USDA decreased from nearly 94,900 to approximately 86,400.
Has this decrease affected USDA's ability to communicate with
states and producers about new programs and the process to
participate in them, and how can Congress assist USDA in
ensuring you have adequate staffing levels that you need to
take on the responsibilities we have tasked you with,
especially as we work towards this upcoming farm bill?
Secretary Vilsack. I think one of the areas where we have
dealt with the decline of workforce is in the Natural Resources
Conservation Service and in our Forest Service, and in our
ability to maintain----
As the current Administration implements new programs and increases
opportunities, especially in rural communities with underserved
populations, USDA needs the support of this Committee and Congress to
reinvest in USDA's long overlooked workforce and build it back through
investments in staff and technology. The USDA will continue to hire
based on hiring needs of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law,
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, and American Rescue Plan Act.
USDA is committed to continuing to deliver services to our
customers, but we need Congress to assist by ensuring sustained
resources are available to acquire and retain staff to support these
important initiatives. While USDA's overall attrition rate has remained
fairly stable over the last 10 years, we have critical shortages across
the Department in the areas of wildfire management, conservation, rural
development, and in our food and nutrition areas. USDA is focused on
continuity planning, considering attrition as part of our succession
management process.
Building a better America means bringing people of all backgrounds
and lived experiences to be a part of a healthy, safe, and inclusive
workplace--from ensuring we are recruiting the best and the brightest
across our great country to investing in our employees. We have
prioritized creating a diverse, inclusive, equitable and accessible
workplace; engaging and supporting our employees in meaningful ways;
recruiting the next generation of USDA staff and leaders. All of this
is great work. Yet, to ensure the efficacy of the staff who are leading
the programs and engaging with state customers, we need consistent
committed stable funding to sustain all the operational components
necessary to support the critical programmatic requirements and ensure
mission delivery is not impacted.
Insert 3
Mr. Rouzer. Mr. Secretary, I only have about 20 seconds left.
Real quickly switching gears. African Swine Fever, I know you
are concerned about that and I am sure the Department is doing
everything possible to keep it out of this country. Can you
provide us a quick update on that front?
Secretary Vilsack. Significant investment of time and
resources in the Dominican Republic, working with them to put
together a plan. Dr. Shere has spent literally weeks in the
Dominican Republic----
When an existing cooperative disease surveillance program
identified the virus in pigs last year in the Dominican Republic and
later in Haiti, APHIS took swift action to harden our defenses. We
already have a strong system of overlapping safeguards in place,
including restrictions against imports of animals or pork products from
ASF-affected countries. We looked closely at potential pathways of the
virus and worked with our partners to close them. For example, our U.S.
Customs and Border Protection colleagues enhanced inspections of
passengers coming from the region and are closely monitoring the
handling of regulated garbage from airplanes. We worked with the Coast
Guard to identify boat traffic coming from the islands to Puerto Rico
whose passengers could unintentionally carry the virus and have
conducted appropriate disease surveillance where the boats were
detected.
Most notably, we established a protection zone around Puerto Rico
and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Since those are U.S. territories, any
incursion of ASF onto those islands could trigger trading partners to
cut off trade from the mainland. The World Organisation for Animal
Health permits the establishment of a protection zone within an area
free of disease, as a temporary measure in response to an increased
risk from a neighboring country or zone of different animal health
status. The protection zone we created allows the continental U.S. to
retain its disease freedom status and continue our international trade,
even if there is an ASF detection in Puerto Rico or the U.S. Virgin
Islands. It also allows APHIS to enhance surveillance and create
additional rules for movement restrictions of live swine and products
out of the protection zone, protecting the islands from the virus and
enhancing protections for the U.S. livestock industry.
Beyond establishing the protection zone, we are focusing additional
resources on Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Our Wildlife
Services program is looking for and removing feral swine in Puerto Rico
and the U.S. Virgin Islands because feral swine are a natural reservoir
for the disease and could help the virus spread quickly if it moved to
those territories. We have also made improvements to the diagnostic
laboratory in Puerto Rico, providing resources and technical assistance
to increase that lab's capabilities to run important diagnostic tests.
We have enhanced inspections of passengers traveling to and through the
territories. We have run a bilingual public education campaign in those
territories and the region to education the public, veterinarians, and
producers about the risks of ASF and how they can help stop the spread
of the virus.
Using the emergency transfer authority under the Animal Health
Protection Act, I transferred $500 million to APHIS for these and other
enhanced ASF mitigation and response activities and to ensure our
domestic preparedness. APHIS has used that funding to strengthen its
response activities and has placed teams of veterinarians and animal
health officials in the region. APHIS officials are working closely
with the Dominican Republic, providing technical and financial
assistance for a plan to eradicate the disease from the country,
thereby strengthening the animal health security of our domestic
producers. In Haiti, APHIS is focused on providing supplies and remote
technical laboratory support to agricultural officials and is working
with them on long-range plans. We will continue to work with animal
health officials in the region in further developing those plans and do
everything we can to keep this high consequence disease out of the
country.
Insert 4
Mr. Johnson. . . .
I want to get back to these investigations, though. You are
right. We need to let them run their course, but we had USDA
conduct an investigation that really some sort of an interim
report long after the Holcomb fire, but it didn't really drive
to ground some of these accusations about anti-competitive
behavior. Can we expect an update, or what is the status of
that investigation?
Secretary Vilsack. I will have to get back to you on that,
Congressman, because I am not prepared today to tell you
exactly what the status of that is. I would be happy to get
back, our staff will get back to your staff on that.
I would say that I have talked to the Attorney General. He
and his team is very sincere about this. They want to make sure
that the playing field is level, and I think we should all be
in for that.
USDA's investigation remains outstanding. In particular, we are
closely coordinating with the Department of Justice around issues of
concern in the cattle and beef markets.
Insert 5
Mr. Lawson. . . .
Has any progress been made on insurance for timber because of
the devastation that we have had from hurricanes?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, let's see. I am not sure I
understand your question. We are obviously, to the extent that
there are applications out for additional support and help as a
result of timber loss, those will be processed. But if you are
asking about timber harvesting that was impacted by the
pandemic, those resources have been provided to several
thousand timber haulers and harvesters.
Mr. Lawson. Okay. So, a lot of the individual farmers that
have used this for retirement purposes and so forth, will they
qualify for any of those funds?
Secretary Vilsack. I am not sure of that, Congressman. Let me
check with our team and get back to you.
RMA is not allowed to compete with private insurance, so the
availability of private timber insurance limits RMA's ability to offer
timber insurance. Moreover, timber is challenging to insure due to the
multiyear process of growth. Although RMA has some experience with tree
insurance, it is a bit different because the primary indemnification is
replanting a tree and/or the lost value of fruit or nut production.
Trying to understand value over time and the associated risk of that
would require additional study. Additionally, timber insurance would
likely require a costly and time-consuming inventory as a condition of
insurance, which would require specialized experience to administer.
Even with these challenges, RMA remains open to researching potential
ways to provide more risk management options for timber producers.
Insert 6
Mr. Thompson. . . .
In closing, I do want to put a final point on one issue. Mr.
Secretary, there is a concern in Congress that when any
Secretary acts unilaterally with the CCC, and in fact, we have
seen Congress limit your powers of this office when this
authority is abused. There have been limited details made
available to us related to the climate program you described,
and I know you identified two sections specifically. Earlier in
response to a question from Representative Austin Scott, you
stated you are very confident in your legal authority, and that
is an assured statement, given this program seemingly is being
created unilaterally and out of whole cloth, as we speak. I
will stress that this Committee remains skeptical of the legal
authority provided to you and your office under the CCC for
this program, and looking at the enumerated powers in the Act,
we think that no amount of mental gymnastics could get you
there.
That said, this Committee would like more details from you on
this program, but we also want to hear specifically from OGC on
the exact language that provides you the authority under the
CCC Charter Act, and we want to hear from you prior to any
funds being obligated. Is that something I can get a commitment
from?
Secretary Vilsack. We will be happy to share the details of
this program with you, Congressman, and also provide you with
the basis upon which we believe that this is an appropriate use
of these resources.
Section 5 of the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter provides
authorities to ``make available materials and facilities required in
connection with the production and marketing of agricultural
commodities (other than tobacco)'' and ``increase the domestic
consumption of agricultural commodities (other than tobacco) by
expanding or aiding in the expansion of domestic markets or by
developing or aiding in the development of new and additional markets,
marketing facilities, and uses for such commodities.''
______
Submitted Letter by Jim Nussle, President and Chief Executive Office,
Credit Union National Association
January 20, 2022
Hon. David Scott, Hon. Glenn Thompson,
Chairman, Ranking Minority Member,
House Committee on Agriculture, House Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.; Washington, D.C.
Chairman Scott and Ranking Member Thompson,
On behalf of America's credit unions, I am writing in regard to the
hearing entitled, ``Review the State of the Rural Economy with
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack.'' CUNA represents America's credit
unions and their 120 million members.
Credit unions are not-for-profit financial institutions dedicated
to serving their members, regardless of location or socioeconomic
background. As of June 2019, almost \1/4\ of all credit unions are
headquartered in rural areas, making them uniquely positioned to serve
rural communities by providing capital infusions, loans for farmers and
ranchers and small businesses as well as loans for education, and
trusted advice.
Since the Great Recession, the number of bank branches has declined
by over 11,000 and according to the National Community Reinvestment
Coalition, nearly 90 banking deserts have been created as a result of
bank closures and failures. Yet, rural credit union membership has
grown rapidly--more than 15 percent since 2013.
Credit unions invest in the rural communities they serve by
providing affordable financial services options targeted to the unique
needs of their consumers. Rural credit unions serve 9.7 million
members--over \1/5\ of the nation's rural population.
One of the most important things that Congress could do is empower
rural communities through financial inclusion. That means ensuring that
Federal law permits all Federal credit unions to serve rural
communities, banking deserts, and all underserved areas. Given the
unprecedented economic disruption caused by COVID-19, it is important
now more than ever that rural communities have access to a trusted,
local financial partner. Credit unions are eager to be that partner,
but archaic charter and field of membership restrictions prevent most
from expanding more broadly to help those who are most in need.
The Expanding Financial Access for Underserved Communities Act
would address the epidemic of the unbanked and underbanked in the
United States by making it easier for consumers in areas without
sufficient financial services providers to access credit unions. We
strongly support this legislation, which would make three changes to
the Federal Credit Union Act to enable and encourage credit unions to
serve underserved and abandoned communities and promote financial
inclusion to all at no cost to the taxpayer.
First, the legislation would allow all Federal credit unions to add
underserved areas to their field of membership. Under current law, only
multiple common bond credit unions can add underserved communities.
Multiple common bond credit unions serve groups that have a definable
common bond of association or occupation. Second, the legislation
exempts business loans made by credit unions to businesses in
underserved areas from the credit union member business lending cap.
Finally, the legislation expands the definition of an underserved area
to include any area that is more than 10 miles from the nearest branch
of a financial institution. Currently, there are two other ways that an
area can qualify as underserved: (1) Community Development Financial
Institution (CDFI) Area or (2) New Markets Tax Credit Area. Adding this
third path for an area to be designated underserved is designed to
address the epidemic of rural banking deserts and ensure the
availability of cooperative financial services for all.
Allowing credit unions to expand into rural communities and other
underserved areas would advance communities throughout the nation by
giving tens of millions of consumers access to member-owned financial
services. CUNA conservatively estimates that this modest but meaningful
reform of field of membership rules would produce first-year benefits
for over one million consumers who now have no realistic, affordable
options in the financial marketplace.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Assuming first-year membership growth of 5% among credit unions
with restricted fields of membership that are not currently operating
in underserved areas and 2.5% growth among community-charted credit
unions not currently in underserved areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We hope the Committee will consider legislation that expands the
opportunity to serve rural and other underserved communities to all
Federal credit unions to ensure access to affordable financial services
for all.
On behalf of America's credit unions and their more than 120
million members, thank you for the opportunity to share our views.
Sincerely,
Jim Nussle,
President & CEO.
______
Submitted Letter by James D. Ogsbury, Executive Director, Western
Governors' Association
January 19, 2022
Hon. David Scott, Hon. Glenn Thompson,
Chairman, Ranking Minority Member,
House Committee on Agriculture, House Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.; Washington, D.C.
Dear Chairman Scott and Ranking Member Thompson:
In advance of the Committee's January 20, 2022, hearing on the
State of the Rural Economy, attached please find four Western
Governors' Association (WGA) policy resolutions:
WGA Policy Resolution 2020-07, Rural Development;
WGA policy Resolution 2020-06, Western Agriculture;
WGA Policy Resolution 2021-06, Disaster Preparedness and
Response; and
WGA Policy Resolution 2020-08, Broadband Connectivity.
I request that you include this document in the permanent record of
the hearing, as it articulates Western Governors' policy positions and
recommendations on rural economic health and development and related
matters.
Thank you for your consideration of this request and your attention
to this subject. Please contact me if you have any questions or require
further information. In the meantime, with warm regards and best
wishes, I am
Respectfully,
James D. Ogsbury,
Executive Director.
attachment 1
Policy Resolution 2020-07, Rural Development
A. Background
1. Vibrant and prosperous rural communities are essential components
of western states and the nation. Rural communities in the
West grow and supply food, steward natural resources,
contribute disproportionately to the armed services, and
are critical to state economies.
2. Rural communities in the West are richly diverse and face varying
threats and opportunities. They do, however, share common
characteristics, such as low population density and
distance from urban centers, that create challenges for
economic development.
3. Nationally, the rural population is increasing slowly after a
period of decline from 2010-2017, although there is great
variation in demographic trends at the county level. Many
rural western counties are experiencing population growth
due to net migration of retirees as well as people seeking
quality of life and amenities.
4. Most rural communities have a higher proportion of older
residents than urban and suburban communities. Rural
communities are preparing for an anticipated wave of
retirements, leading to a reduction in skilled workforce
and potential closure of local businesses.
5. Western states have many of the highest per-capita veteran
populations in the nation. It is estimated that
approximately 25 percent of all veterans live in rural
areas. These veterans have lower rates of employment
compared to veterans living in urban areas and to their
non-veteran rural colleagues.
6. Most rural communities have experienced slower economic and job
growth than their urban counterparts and have not yet fully
recovered from the 2008 recession. Many rural economies
rely heavily on a few industries. This makes these
communities more sensitive to trends affecting those
industries and can make it more difficult to recover from
disruptions. Rural communities have also been significantly
affected by the COVID-19 public health threat and will
suffer distress from any associated economic downturn.
7. Federal programs for rural development are spread across multiple
agencies. Some agencies are responsible for rural
infrastructure investments while others focus on economic
development. The multiplicity of administrating entities
and the lack of consistency across agencies: renders it
difficult for rural stakeholders to navigate Federal
programs; compounds time and expense needed to apply for
funding opportunities; and creates inefficiencies in the
distribution of resources.
8. The vast majority of Federal loan and grant programs for rural
communities are targeted to physical infrastructure. Little
funding exists to support development of local capacity,
including strengthening community organizations, nonprofit
entities, and other groups serving rural communities.
9. By offering opportunity, connectivity, and quality of life, rural
communities can thrive and prosper while improving economic
stability and protecting the rural character and natural
resources that draw people to these areas.
10. Small businesses, including farming and ranching, are the
foundation of rural economies, generating tax revenue,
creating jobs, providing essential goods and services, and
contributing to the culture and character of small towns.
Building a successful business in a rural community is
particularly challenging due to limited access to capital,
available workforce and smaller customer bases. Many
successful rural businesses operate on thin margins and if
they close, are extremely difficult to replace.
11. High-speed internet, commonly referred to as ``broadband,'' \1\
is the critical infrastructure of the 21st century and a
modern-day necessity for individuals, businesses, schools
and government. Many rural western communities lack the
business case for private broadband investment due to the
high cost of infrastructure and the low number of customers
in potential service areas. This has left many rural
businesses and citizens at a competitive disadvantage
compared to urban and suburban areas with robust broadband
access.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Federal Communications Commission defines fixed
``broadband'' as service offering minimum speeds of 25 Megabits per
second (Mbps) down and 3 Mbps up.
12. Transportation connectivity is critical to strengthening
economies and improving quality of life. Air service is
particularly important to connect remote western
communities to urban hubs. Pilot shortages, infrastructure
constraints, and airline consolidation have negatively
impacted rural air connectivity. The airline industry has
been significantly impacted by COVID-19 and rural service,
which is typically the least profitable, has been reduced.
B. Governors' Policy Statement
1. Western Governors believe that strengthening social
infrastructure in rural communities is the best strategy to
ensure rural quality of life and prosperity. Congress and
Federal agencies should increase the proportion of rural
economic development and infrastructure funding that goes
toward capacity-building. Accordingly, Western Governors
call for ample and consistent Federal funding for
institutions, training, and technical assistance. Robust
social infrastructure is fundamental to economic and
community development and maximizes the impact of state and
Federal resources.
2. Social infrastructure is especially critical during disasters or
crises. The COVID-19 pandemic and associated economic
crisis have illustrated the challenge of rapidly deploying
resources to the most urgent needs. Western Governors are
committed to strengthening the resilience of rural
communities by helping to foster local leadership and
strengthen networks and connections within and among rural
communities across the West.
3. Western Governors believe that many Federal programs for rural
development and distressed communities include unintended
barriers for rural individuals and entities that need
assistance most. Western Governors urge Federal agencies to
work with states to: thoroughly evaluate program
requirements; identify barriers for rural applicants; and
revise onerous requirements in a manner that recognizes the
limited resources and capacity of rural applicants. In
particular, Western Governors are concerned by:
a. Scoring criteria that relate to numerical size and impact,
such as the
number of jobs created or the number of people served,
which disadvan-
tage small and isolated communities;
b. Requirements that applicants partner with other institutions
like commu-
nity colleges or foundations, which may not operate in
the rural commu-
nity seeking assistance;
c. Financial match or cash-on-hand requirements that rural
organizations
cannot meet; and
d. Overly complicated or technical applications that deter rural
customers
from applying.
4. Western Governors also urge Federal agencies to use state data
for eligibility determinations when requested by states.
States often have more up-to-date and granular data for
rural communities than Federal sources.
5. Western Governors recognize and support efforts at the Federal
and state level to coordinate the deployment of resources,
leverage funding, and create one-stop application processes
for rural customers. Western Governors are interested in
exploring strategies to expand those models to include more
funders and further enhance coordination between agencies
and between states and the Federal Government.
6. Western Governors believe that changes in our economy, labor
force, and technological innovations require fundamental
changes in economic development strategies. Western
Governors promote rural development policies that focus on
quality of life and the support of small businesses and
entrepreneurs. This will develop rural communities that are
attractive places to live and work while protecting their
rural character, natural resource-based industries, and
natural areas.
7. In the wake of disasters in rural communities, including the
COVID-19 pandemic, providing small businesses with the
tools and resources to survive disruption and prosper again
is critical for economic recovery and social stability. The
impacts of COVID-19 mitigation measures have illustrated
the urgent need for working capital to stabilize rural
businesses and ensure their continued viability during
periods of prolonged disruption related to disasters and
emergencies. The Federal response to declared disasters
must include sufficient and accessible business
stabilization funds, including grants and long-term,
forgivable loans. Congress should also examine how such
funds are distributed by the Small Business Administration
(SBA), U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Development
(USDA RD), and the Economic Development Administration
(EDA) to ensure that adequate systems are in place to
handle demand during widespread emergencies.
8. During COVID-19 response, many small lenders could not access
Federal funds to support their communities because they did
not meet program thresholds or were unable to compete
against large banks. Small lenders, including community
development financial institutions (CDFIs), community
banks, and credit unions, are often the only lender serving
rural and Tribal communities. In the ongoing response to
the economic impacts of COVID-19, Western Governors
encourage Congress to set aside emergency relief funds for
small lenders and consider program requirements that allow
those entities to participate through a streamlined process
to rapidly distribute resources while maintaining fiscal
accountability.
9. Western Governors are eager to work with public universities,
community colleges, and the business community to expand
opportunities for young people to stay in their rural
communities. There is a high demand for skilled workers in
rural communities and states should work together on
regional solutions that provide the appropriate training
and skills for the jobs that are available in rural
communities where possible. Western Governors are also
committed to increasing employment among veterans and the
disabled community in the rural West.
10. Western Governors encourage increased flexibility in the use of
Federal economic development resources (particularly EDA
funds) to facilitate investments in quality of life and
amenities in rural communities. Governors believe that
metrics based solely on the absolute number of jobs created
do not reflect the important economic benefits of
investments in community assets that make rural communities
attractive places to live. Nor do they account for the
relative impact of job creation in less populated rural
communities or areas with high unemployment or poverty
rates.
11. Western Governors strongly support improving and increasing
broadband connectivity in the rural West through
significant Federal investments in mapping, deployment, and
adoption. The Governors have highlighted substantive policy
recommendations in the Western Governors' Association
policy resolution addressing broadband connectivity.
12. Western Governors have developed robust policies addressing the
challenge of providing services and maintaining
infrastructure essential to communities across the vast
expanse of the rural West. These policies address broadband
access, healthcare, surface transportation and water
quality. Western Governors are committed to working with
Congress and Federal agencies to improve the efficacy of
Federal and state programs to support critical
infrastructure in the rural West.
13. Western Governors recommend further changes in approach to
supporting water and wastewater infrastructure in the West:
a. Funding for communities not served by water systems is
critically need-
ed. Western Governors recommend set-asides to develop
innovative solu-
tions for communities and Tribes that cannot be served
by traditional
systems.
b. Western Governors are concerned about shortages of certified
water sys-
tem operators and request a coordinated effort to
increase training oppor-
tunities through the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Labor and college
and university
programs that develop these skilled workers to ensure
that existing water
access in rural communities can be maintained.
14. Western Governors emphasize that air service is a necessity in
many rural communities. As the airline industry recovers
from the economic impacts of COVID-19, Western Governors
urge Congress to consider measures to address challenges in
rural air connectivity, including funding for
infrastructure and service subsidies.
15. Western Governors support the use of cooperative business models
to preserve rural businesses and fill community needs for
childcare, homecare, main street businesses, housing, and
more. Western Governors recognize the need for substantial
technical assistance and education in developing new
cooperative businesses and support Federal funding of such
efforts.
16. Western Governors are concerned by food security challenges in
rural communities. Rural grocery store closures jeopardize
livability and community health. Western Governors are
interested in exploring strategies to ensure rural food
security by strengthening local agricultural economies and
developing regional approaches to rural food supply chains.
17. Housing remains a critical challenge in rural communities across
the West. Western Governors are committed to working
together to share best practices and effective solutions
for housing preservation and development in the rural West.
18. The Cooperative Extension System, which serves every county in
western states, is an important asset for rural
development. Western Governors believe that Cooperative
Extension can play a more meaningful role in economic
development efforts in distressed communities and support
continued investment in the system as it responds to the
changing needs of rural communities. Western Governors are
committed to maximizing the efficacy of Cooperative
Extension in their states.
C. Governors' Management Directive
1. The Governors direct WGA staff to work with Congressional
committees of jurisdiction, the Executive Branch, and other
entities, where appropriate, to achieve the objectives of
this resolution.
2. Furthermore, the Governors direct WGA staff to consult with the
Staff Advisory Council regarding its efforts to realize the
objectives of this resolution and to keep the Governors
apprised of its progress in this regard.
Western Governors enact new policy resolutions and amend
existing resolutions on a bi-annual basis. Please consult
www.westgov.org/resolutions for the most current copy of a
resolution and a list of all current WGA policy resolutions.
attachment 2
Policy Resolution 2020-06, Western Agriculture
A. Background
1. Agriculture in the western states and territories is
significantly different from that in other regions of the
country. The West has greater variations in soil, climate,
terrain, commodities, production practices and water
availability. That difference is even greater for Alaska,
Hawai'i and the U.S. territories.
2. Farms and ranches are important contributors to the economies and
quality of life of western states. Among other important
values, western agricultural lands are primary sources of
open space, wildlife habitat, water supplies, and diverse
rural economic opportunities in the recreation, food,
fiber, energy and biobased product industries.
3. Agriculture and food industry members support vibrant local
economies and robust and stable food security systems
across the West.
4. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), through the National
Agricultural Statistics Service, conducts the Census of
Agriculture every 5 years. Census of Agriculture data
provides valuable insights on the average age of producers,
new and young entrants to the agriculture sector, net cash
income, crop insurance payments, specialty crop production
and other useful metrics. State-acquired data must also be
considered when evaluating industry metrics.
5. The 2017 Census of Agriculture includes many useful findings
regarding the agricultural workforce in western states.
Notably, only six percent of primary producers are age 35
or younger, while over 25 percent are between 65 and 74
years old. Additionally, approximately 14 percent of
primary producers in western states have served or serve in
the U.S. military. Women's role in agriculture has grown
substantially as well, constituting over 38 percent of the
agricultural workforce in 2017, versus under 33 percent in
2012. Minority communities and seasonal and temporary
workers also make significant contributions to agricultural
production and distribution across the West.
6. The 2017 Census of Agriculture illustrates the importance of
specialty and high-value crop production in western states.
In terms of total cash value of agricultural production,
the top ten producing counties are all located in western
states.
7. Trade promotion plays an important role in ensuring that western
agricultural products have an opportunity to compete with
products produced and subsidized internationally. The
United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement and programs offered
by USDA and the Small Business Administration (SBA) all
help improve international market opportunities for
American growers and value-added product manufacturers.
8. The West's network of land-grant universities and colleges, as
well as Cooperative Extension Service programs and
Agricultural Experiment Stations, provide national
leadership in research to develop more resilient seeds and
crops, manage soil health, improve the health of public
lands, advance technology deployment in the biobased
economy and conduct on-farm experiments that help farmers
and ranchers be more effective and efficient.
9. Precision agriculture technologies are helping deliver increased
crop yields and farm productivity while reducing the use of
water, fertilizer, pesticides and other agricultural
inputs. Certain advanced agriculture technologies require
fixed or mobile broadband connectivity while others utilize
Global Positioning System tools.
10. Proper integration of many advanced agriculture technologies
requires producers to have robust broadband connectivity at
both their residences and across their operating areas.
Wireless technologies and access to wireless spectrum can
help support cost-effective technology adoption by
agricultural producers. USDA and the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) have recently launched efforts to promote
on-farm connectivity and the growth of the precision
agriculture sector.
11. Beyond the integration of advanced technologies, broadband access
allows producers to conduct necessary agricultural business
functions like online advertising and livestock auctions.
12. Western agricultural cooperatives perform many important
functions for their members and rural communities. These
include provision of seed, feed and fertilizer to growers;
product storage, processing and transportation; trade and
market promotion; and education and technical assistance.
13. Western Governors recognize that nutrition assistance programs
are necessary to meet the needs of children and the most
vulnerable, while creating economic opportunity across the
agriculture supply chain--from the store where food is
purchased, all the way back to the farm.
14. Agricultural production throughout the West requires integrated
water management and robust state, Federal, and private
cooperation and investment in water delivery
infrastructure, predictive and adaptive capabilities for
extreme weather variability, and data relating to water
resource availability.
15. The COVID-19 pandemic has created significant issues across food
supply and distribution networks. Growers, value-added
businesses, processing facilities, distribution companies
and food retailers, including farmers markets, have all
faced costly disruptions to their standard operations.
16. Without governmental action, the economic effects of the COVID-19
pandemic on growers, farmworkers, manufacturers, delivery
networks, and other agricultural entities are likely to be
long-lasting and severe. Circumstances that are likely to
affect the economic viability of producers, farmworkers and
agricultural businesses include: restaurant, hotel and
school closures; reduced consumer spending; seasonal and
migratory workforce disruptions; and disease outbreaks
within the agricultural community.
17. The COVID-19 pandemic is stressing state departments of
agriculture and the Cooperative Extension Services and
Agricultural Experiment Station networks. Many state
agricultural and food programs which are relied upon for
food safety and market development are likely to be
disrupted or canceled due to COVID-related challenges. The
Cooperative Extension Services and Agricultural Experiment
Station Networks are facing similar impediments to
important agricultural and food network research projects
due to data collection interruptions, personnel changes and
other issues associated with the COVID-19 pandemic.
18. USDA launched the Coronavirus Food Assistance Program and Farmers
to Families Food Box Program in order to address challenges
facing producers, agricultural businesses, and food
insecure families as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.
19. As western communities struggle to cope with disruptions to our
food supply chains and historic job losses due to COVID-19,
Governors continue to pursue solutions to connect surplus
agricultural products with the growing number of food
insecure families in our states. State and local leaders
are best positioned to strategically direct food purchasing
and distribution due to their understanding of unique
challenges facing farmers and food assistance providers in
their communities.
20. Local communities and food banks can face capacity issues, such
as staffing shortages and refrigeration and storage
challenges, while managing the preparation and distribution
of emergency food supplies. Many are also adjusting to new
packaging and distribution strategies, including grab-and-
go meals and home deliveries.
B. Governors' Policy Statement
1. Western Governors support funding for the USDA Market Access and
Foreign Market Development Programs and SBA State Trade
Expansion Program to promote opportunities for western
producers to increase export revenues and encourage trade
agreements that maximize benefits for the West's farmers
and ranchers. Western Governors appreciate the increased
alignment between USDA and SBA agricultural trade promotion
programs.
2. Western Governors support adequate funding for the USDA Specialty
Crop Block Grant Program, which provides critical research,
education, and promotion tools to fruit and vegetable
producers with an annual re-evaluation of funding formulas
and eligible crops.
3. Western states have experienced sharp declines in farm income and
farm prices since their peaks in 2013. Western Governors
support a farm safety net that recognizes past deficit
reduction contributions of the agricultural sector and
maintains funding for other key commodity, conservation,
crop insurance, research, energy, and export promotion
programs.
4. Western Governors encourage the expansion of programs that can
meet the unique educational, training, technical and
financial needs of new, beginning and veteran farmers and
ranchers and other USDA programming that can help returning
veterans develop and expand business opportunities in rural
communities.
5. Western Governors emphasize that the agriculture industry has a
growing need for workers with science, technology,
engineering and math (STEM) skills. We support efforts to
develop a diverse and skilled agricultural workforce, by
increasing awareness of career opportunities, expanding
education and training programs, and other means, in order
to meet the needs of this increasingly high-tech industry.
6. Western Governors support the expansion of research and
implementation funding to address drought, a changing
climate and extreme weather risks facing western producers.
7. Western Governors encourage the effective use of Cooperative
Extension Services, Agricultural Experiment Stations and
other partnerships to deliver practical tools, technologies
and information to farmers, ranchers and forest landowners.
We support Congressional and Administrative efforts that
provide support to the Cooperative Extension Services and
Agricultural Experiments Station networks as they address
research, staff capacity, and agricultural and food system
challenges associated with the COVID-19 pandemic.
8. Western Governors emphasize the importance of supporting the
growth of the precision agriculture sector and highlight
the substantive policy recommendations contained in our
policy resolution addressing broadband connectivity issues.
9. Western Governors support funding for Federal programs that
provide assistance to agricultural cooperatives across the
West. These include USDA Rural Cooperative Development
Grants and Value-Added Producer Grants, and programs
administered by USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service and
National Institute of Food & Agriculture.
10. Nutrition assistance programs should continue to provide
flexibility for states to respond to unique economic
conditions, serve all eligible participants without
drastically reducing benefits, and encourage continued
pursuit of transparency, efficiency, and accountability in
program administration.
11. Existing Federal assistance options that help build connections
between growers with surplus products and food insecure
families lack the flexibility to nimbly address needs in
many western communities. Western Governors support
Congressional and Administrative efforts to provide states
with emergency funding to purchase goods from local
producers who lack a market for their surplus crops, and
provide them to food banks and nutrition assistance
programs who are facing unprecedented demands.
12. Western Governors encourage USDA to coordinate with state
departments of agriculture and local governments in the
delivery of the Farmers to Families Food Box Program and
other Federal efforts focused on addressing food insecurity
challenges related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Strong
partnerships across Federal, state and local agencies can
help ensure that food is not wasted due to logistical and
capacity constraints at local food banks.
13. Western Governors support legislative measures that provide
states with access to flexible funding to respond to urgent
and emerging issues in the agricultural economy and food
supply chain. Additionally, we support legislative efforts
that address agricultural supply chain disruptions;
increase food banks and nonprofits' capacity to address
growing nutrition demands; provide personal protective
equipment and COVID-19 testing capacity to producers and
processing facility employees; and promote the ability of
producer and business cooperatives, state departments of
agriculture, and Cooperative Extension Services to
strengthen local food networks.
14. Western Governors recognize that the farm bill includes titles
and issues not contemplated in this resolution. We
encourage Congressional committees, Federal agencies and
the Executive Branch to review Governors' existing policy
resolutions addressing National Forest and rangeland
management; species conservation; voluntary conservation
programs; biosecurity and invasive species management;
rural development; and broadband connectivity.
C. Governors' Management Directive
1. The Governors direct WGA staff to work with Congressional
committees of jurisdiction, the Executive Branch, and other
entities, where appropriate, to achieve the objectives of
this resolution.
2. Furthermore, the Governors direct WGA staff to consult with the
Staff Advisory Council regarding its efforts to realize the
objectives of this resolution and to keep the Governors
apprised of its progress in this regard.
Western Governors enact new policy resolutions and amend
existing resolutions on a bi-annual basis. Please consult
www.westgov.org/resolutions for the most current copy of a
resolution and a list of all current WGA policy resolutions.
attachment 3
Policy Resolution 2021-06, Disaster Preparedness and Response
A. Background
1. Major disasters, emergencies and extreme weather events are
devastating to the people, property, economy, and natural
environment of the communities in which they occur. The
outcomes of disasters and emergencies can often be far-
reaching, with effects on the national economy,
infrastructure, and the import and export of commodities.
2. In the United States, disasters and emergencies and their
economic and public costs have increased significantly in
recent years. Federal disaster declarations (including
emergency declarations, major disaster declarations, and
fire management assistance grants) have surged since they
were first utilized in 1953. From 1953 to 1989, the average
number of annual Federal disaster declarations was 27.8.
That number escalated to an annual average of 108.7 from
1990 to 2016. The year 2020 saw a record 308 disaster
declarations by the Federal Government. Of these
declarations, 230 were for emergencies or major disasters,
surpassing the previous record of 128 dating back to 2011.
3. The Federal Government plays a critical role in disaster and
emergency response and long-term recovery efforts.
Accompanying the greater number of disasters has been an
increasing level of Federal disaster aid. From 1980 to
2009, the number of federally declared disasters which
resulted in costs exceeding $1 billion averaged
approximately 4.5, annually. That number has surged. From
2016 to 2020, the numbers rose with an average 16.2
disasters exceeding $1 billion in costs each year. In 2020,
there were a record-setting 22 disasters that exceeded $1
billion in costs.
4. Proactive emergency management efforts, such as hazard mitigation
and risk reduction activities, have an incredible return on
investment. Research has shown that actions taken before a
disaster to reduce hazards save, on average, $6 in future
response and recovery costs for every dollar spent on
hazard mitigation. At a time when state budgets are
struggling to keep up with more frequent and costly
disasters, investing in hazard mitigation could have a
profoundly positive effect on state and local budgets.
5. Certain types of disasters pose unique threats to western states
and have occurred with greater frequency in recent decades.
These include floods, droughts, tornadoes, mudslides,
earthquakes, hurricanes, and, particularly, wildfires.
Wildfires consumed approximately 3 million acres nationwide
in 1960. In 3 of the past 6 years, over 10 million acres
have burned annually. 2020 saw 10.1 million acres affected
by wildfire, of which nearly ninety-five percent were in
western states. Federal agencies' wildfire suppression
costs have increased from less than $240 million in 1985 to
over $2.2 billion in 2020. Experts project that wildfires
will continue to worsen, in terms of acreage burned and in
economic effects.
6. Disasters and emergencies have disproportionate effects on
different populations and communities. Race and ethnicity,
language, education and economic barriers, and immigration
status can negatively affect the outcomes of those
experiencing an emergency or disaster. These factors have
effects beyond the initial response and extend to recovery,
risk reduction, and preparedness program accessibility and
equity.
7. The National Response Framework and National Disaster Recovery
Framework describe how the Federal Government, states,
territories, localities, Tribes, and other public and
private sector institutions should respond to and recover
from disasters and emergencies. Local emergency agencies--
police, firefighters, and medical teams--are to be the
first responders in a disaster or emergency. State,
territorial, local, and Tribal governments have the lead
roles in disaster response and recovery. Federal agencies
can become involved in disaster and emergency response when
resource capacity or effective emergency management is
beyond the capabilities of a state, territory or Tribe.
These Federal efforts are primarily directed through the
Department of Homeland Security's Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA).
8. Governors have a key role in managing emergency response.
Governors typically are the state or territorial elected
official responsible for making a state disaster
declaration and directing disaster response in their
jurisdiction. Governors are also responsible for deploying
their state National Guard in emergency situations.
Governors hold the sole authority to request Federal
assistance when a disaster overwhelms state and local
capabilities, and are responsible for negotiating and
implementing interstate mutual aid agreements.
9. Disaster and emergency response and long-term recovery create a
significant financial burden. When authorized by FEMA, the
Public Assistance, Individual Assistance, and Hazard
Mitigation programs provide Federal funding which can
alleviate this strain. Affected homeowners may seek
Individual Assistance; state and local governments may seek
Public Assistance to reimburse for costs incurred from
debris removal, emergency protective measures during the
response, and permanent repair of damaged public
infrastructure; and Hazard Mitigation funds can help
communities rebuild and become more resilient against
future disasters. Other Federal agencies, such as the Small
Business Administration, Department of Agriculture (USDA),
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and
Federal Highway Administration also have programs designed
to assist in disaster and emergency recovery efforts. For
example, the USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service
(NRCS) Emergency Watershed Protection Program is designed
to protect people and properties from flooding that often
follows wildfire events.
10. In recent years, some petitions for long-term Federal recovery
aid have been denied. This has been most apparent in
petitions for Individual Assistance to counties affected by
disasters and emergencies, but has also occurred in
connection with state requests for Public Assistance. A
denial of Federal aid compounds problems for affected
communities struggling to recover from the devastation of a
disaster or emergency and slows recovery efforts in many
western states.
11. While most disasters affect a specific local area, the COVID-19
public health emergency was national in scope. The COVID-19
pandemic has highlighted the need for close coordination
between Federal, state, territorial, local and Tribal
governments in emergency management. The pandemic continues
to cause significant disruption across the world, requiring
ongoing attention from Governors and emergency management
and public health officials, affecting the lives of all
Americans, and complicating the flow of goods and services
across international borders.
B. Governors' Policy Statement
1. Governors need maximum flexibility to respond to disaster and
emergency circumstances that may evolve quickly over the
course of a disaster through the initiation of recovery.
Therefore, we should expeditiously remove any barriers
limiting a Governor and their executive branch agencies'
ability to save taxpayer money and expedite response and
recovery efforts while safeguarding lives, property and the
environment. Western Governors recognize that planning
processes and disaster and emergency protocols are
important aspects of emergency management, but that
Governors also need significant freedom to adapt those
plans to changing circumstances during the evolution of a
disaster or emergency.
2. Federal, state, territorial and Tribal efforts to prepare for,
mitigate against, respond to, and recover from emergencies
and disasters must ensure programs and response efforts are
inclusive, equitable, and accessible and representative and
reflective of the affected communities. Concepts of
inclusivity, diversity, equity and accessibility must be
included from initial development of programs, policies and
procedures to reduce risk in our communities and address
post-disaster survivor needs.
3. Western Governors recognize that community resilience is key to
ameliorating the effect of many disasters and emergencies.
Hazard mitigation and risk reduction are the most cost-
effective ways to protect lives, property, infrastructure
and the environment from the effects of natural and human-
caused hazards. Effective risk reduction strategy
development and implementation leverage broad stakeholder
input across multiple disciplines, sectors and levels of
government. Infrastructure planning should include
consideration of risk reduction measures for known hazards
as well as address the dynamic hazard profile created by a
changing climate. We must plan for tomorrow, not yesterday.
4. Western Governors encourage Congress and Federal agencies to
reassess the structure of disaster mitigation grant
programs, which can be too restrictive or narrowly tailored
to address community needs. Additionally, establishing
consistent administration standards for different Federal
grant programs, including the Hazard Mitigation Grant
Program, the State Homeland Security Program, and the
Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities and
Emergency Management Performance Grant programs, would
streamline application processes and eliminate confusion at
the local level.
5. Federal agencies conducting disaster recovery and assistance, as
well as the programs which they administer, should receive
adequate and consistent funding and allow Governors and
their designated executive branch agencies to have critical
input on where those funds are needed most. The lack of
speed, certainty and consistency in appropriation of
Federal disaster funding, such as HUD Community Development
Block Grant--Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) funds, are a
hinderance to coordinated recovery efforts and effective
utilization of public funds. For example, there is no
current appropriation (or public consideration) of funding
for the 2020 California wildfires, which occurred more than
7 months ago. Additionally, the inconsistent incorporation
of HUD mitigation resources (CDBG-MIT) is an obstacle to
effective coordination of mitigation efforts across program
areas.
6. Many rural western communities have less concentrated populations
than eastern states, making it difficult for western states
and territories to qualify for Individual Assistance and
Public Assistance declarations. Additionally, certain
criteria, such as considering Total Taxable Revenue of the
entire state when evaluating whether to provide a major
declaration for a localized event, makes it virtually
impossible for large states to receive a declaration.
Federal processes used to evaluate the need for access to
disaster aid programs should be reconsidered. Federal
agencies should reexamine the standards used to determine
the provision of Individual Assistance to homeowners and
the access to Federal aid needed for recovery from
disasters and emergencies that affect western states and
territories. The historically underfunded USDA NRCS
Emergency Watershed Protection Program should be revisited
and strengthened.
7. Western Governors recognize that as the first responders to a
disaster or emergency, states, territories, local
governments, and Tribes have better information about local
conditions and needs in the response and immediate recovery
phases of a disaster or emergency. FEMA and other
applicable Federal agencies should work directly with
individual states and territories, through Governors or
their designees, to jointly identify disaster risks and
methods by which such risks may be addressed. In
collaboration with Governors or their designees, Federal
agencies should reassess the administrative mechanisms to
establish the most effective means to determine the
necessity and provision of Federal disaster assistance.
8. Federal agencies should provide state, territorial, local, and
Tribal government officials with accessible and clear
information on available Federal resources and programs and
the most effective utilization of those resources in
disaster recovery. WGA has worked with Federal partners to
improve interagency coordination on post-wildfire
restoration work, including a roadmap of assistance
available to communities affected by wildfire and
identification of ``navigators'' to help communities
prioritize post-wildfire restoration needs. Western
Governors urge the Federal Government to prioritize the
funding of these important efforts, as they should have a
positive effect on maximizing the value of restoration work
and, more importantly, addressing the needs of communities
affected by wildfire.
9. Western Governors recognize that while aid may be provided
following a disaster, the event itself could be avoided or
minimized if resources were directed to pre-disaster
mitigation efforts. Rebuilding is too-often provided in a
delayed fashion or conducted without safeguards necessary
to prevent future disaster-related damages. This compounds
the vulnerability of western communities and resources in
the face of disasters. Federal legislation should
reconsider the important role of pre-disaster mitigation
that reduces the risk and minimizes the effects of
disasters and emergencies. When possible, pre-disaster
mitigation should be incentivized at the state and local
levels. Additionally, some western and midwestern states
are at risk of catastrophic earthquake. Mitigation
assistance beyond that currently administered by FEMA is
needed. Finally, mitigation funds tied to Fire Management
Assistance Grant (FMAG) declarations assist fire-ravaged
communities. The FMAG and Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
(HMGP) Post Fire Grant programs should be continued.
10. Western Governors encourage the Administration to consider
actions to increase communication between and cohesion of
Federal agencies in disaster and emergency response. The
Executive Branch should consider placing FEMA in the lead
role to coordinate communication between and cohesion of
Federal agencies in disaster and emergency response.
Strengthening Federal emergency management processes to
promote single, comprehensive points of contact would
streamline state-Federal coordination and help ensure
states and territories can allocate resources where they
are most needed. Western Governors support the
consideration of a national emergency management strategy
to provide consistent lines of communication between
Federal, state, territorial, local and Tribal governments.
11. Federal agencies should seek to eliminate duplicative
administrative processes to streamline post-disaster
assistance. Multiple agencies requiring overlapping or
duplicative reviews for post-disaster assistance adds time
and cost to recovery efforts.
12. Western Governors recognize the need for clear, consistent,
truthful and timely communication about the scope and scale
of disasters and emergencies, both between all levels of
governments and between governments and their constituents.
Clearly articulating what is known, and what is not known,
about a disaster or emergency is critical to developing and
executing an effective response from governments, promoting
public confidence in those response actions, and empowering
citizens to make informed decisions about their safety and
welfare.
C. Governors' Management Directive
1. The Governors direct WGA staff to work with Congressional
committees of jurisdiction, the Executive Branch, and other
entities, where appropriate, to achieve the objectives of
this resolution.
2. Furthermore, the Governors direct WGA staff to consult with the
Staff Advisory Council regarding its efforts to realize the
objectives of this resolution and to keep the Governors
apprised of its progress in this regard.
This resolution will expire in June 2024. Western Governors
enact new policy resolutions and amend existing resolutions on
a semiannual basis. Please consult http://www.westgov.org/
resolutions for the most current copy of a resolution and a
list of all current WGA policy resolutions.
attachment 4
Policy Resolution 2020-08, Broadband Connectivity
A. Background
1. High-speed internet, commonly referred to as ``broadband,'' \1\
is the critical infrastructure of the 21st century and a
modern-day necessity for businesses, individuals, schools
and government. Many rural western communities lack the
business case for private broadband investment due to the
high cost of infrastructure and the low number of customers
in potential service areas. This has left many rural
businesses and citizens at a competitive disadvantage
compared to those urban and suburban areas with robust
broadband access.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Federal Communications Commission defines fixed
``broadband'' as service offering minimum speeds of 25 Megabits per
second (Mbps) down and 3 Mbps up.
2. Broadband connectivity promotes economic prosperity and
diversity. Broadband connectivity is a key element of
innovations in precision agriculture, telehealth, remote
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
work and distance learning across the West.
3. Many broadband applications that promote rural, economic and
community prosperity rely on speeds greater than 25/3 Mbps.
This is especially true for functions that upload large
amounts of data, such as telehealth, e-learning and
business applications.
4. Western states have unique factors that make planning, siting and
maintaining broadband infrastructure especially challenging
and costly. These include vast distances between
communities, challenging terrain, sparse middle mile and
long-haul fiber-optic cable, and the need to permit and
site infrastructure across Federal, state, Tribal and
private lands. Alaska, Hawaii, and the U.S. territories
face particular broadband deployment challenges due to
factors involving distance, cost and applicable
technologies.
5. Western Governors and states are taking significant action to
accelerate broadband deployment in rural communities. These
actions include direct investment of state funds, reduction
of regulatory hurdles, and promotion of public-private
partnerships to deliver digital connectivity to unserved
and underserved areas.
6. Many western states have sought to expedite broadband
infrastructure deployment by adopting ``Dig Once''
policies, granting non-exclusive and non-discriminatory
access to rights-of-way and facilitating efficient ``co-
location'' of new broadband infrastructure on existing
structures.
7. A number of Federal agencies directly support rural broadband
deployment projects and data collection in western states.
These include the Federal Communications Commission (FCC),
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)
and Economic Development Administration.
8. Federal land management agencies, particularly the U.S. Forest
Service (USFS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Bureau
of Indian Affairs (BIA), play a crucial role in permitting
and siting broadband infrastructure in western states.
9. Both the Department of the Interior (DOI) and USFS recently
launched online mapping platforms identifying
telecommunications infrastructure sites on Federal lands.
This information can be used to inform private and public
broadband infrastructure investments.
10. High-quality data is necessary to ensure that public broadband
deployment efforts are cost-effective and prioritize areas
that either wholly or significantly lack access. Under its
current Form 477 reporting protocols, the FCC considers a
Census block ``served'' if a single residence in the block
has access to broadband. This practice overstates broadband
availability in larger, rural Census blocks common in
western states. The FCC's use of ``maximum advertised,''
not ``actual,'' speeds when mapping broadband coverage
further distorts reporting on the service customers
receive.
11. Whether or not an area is considered ``served'' has significant
effects on its eligibility for Federal broadband
infrastructure support. Inaccurate or overstated data
prevents businesses, local governments, and other entities
from applying for and securing Federal funds to assist
underserved or unserved communities.
12. S. 1822, the Broadband Deployment Accuracy and Technological
Availability (DATA) Act (Pub. L. 116-130), was enacted in
March 2020. This law requires the FCC to change the way
broadband data is collected, verified, and reported.
Specifically, the FCC must collect and disseminate granular
broadband service availability data from wired, fixed-
wireless, satellite, and mobile broadband providers. The
FCC is required to establish the Broadband Serviceable
Location Fabric, a dataset of geocoded information for all
broadband service locations, atop which broadband maps are
overlaid, to report broadband service availability data.
13. Given the number of Federal agencies and programs involved in
supporting rural broadband deployment, it can be
challenging for small, rural providers and communities to
identify and pursue appropriate deployment opportunities.
Businesses, local governments, electric and telephone
cooperatives, Tribes and other rural entities can also face
burdens in applying for and managing Federal funds. These
barriers include areas being incorrectly identified as
``served'' on broadband coverage maps, excessive
application and reporting procedures, and significant match
or cash-on-hand requirements.
14. Wireless spectrum is a valuable resource that can help support
innovative and cost-effective connectivity solutions in
western states.
15. Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) are vital elements of Internet
infrastructure that enable networks to exchange traffic
with each other. IXPs help promote low-cost data
transmission and improved overall local Internet
performance in the areas in which they are located.
16. Electric and telephone cooperatives have invested in broadband
infrastructure across the West. In certain states, these
cooperatives are the entities principally providing
broadband to rural communities, often at relatively low
costs to their members.
17. The FCC's 2020 Broadband Deployment Report estimates that 27.7
percent of Americans residing in Tribal lands lack fixed
terrestrial broadband coverage, compared to 22.3 percent of
Americans in rural areas and 1.5 percent in urban areas. A
2018 Government Accountability Office (GAO) Report \2\
asserts that the FCC overstates broadband coverage on
Tribal lands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Government Accountability Office: FCC's Data Overstate Access
on Tribal Lands. September 2018.
18. Tribal Nations, the majority of which are in western states, face
many barriers to the deployment of communications services.
These include rural, remote and rugged terrain; areas that
are not connected to a road system; minimal access to
middle mile and long-haul fiber-optic cable; and difficulty
in obtaining rights-of-way to deploy infrastructure across
some Tribal lands. These factors can all increase the cost
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
of installing, maintaining, and upgrading infrastructure.
19. Tribal Nations also face challenges securing funds through
Federal broadband deployment programs. A separate 2018 GAO
Report \3\ included a review of four Federal broadband
programs (three FCC, one USDA), and found that from 2010 to
2017, less than one percent of funding has gone directly to
Tribes or Tribally owned providers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Government Accountability Office: Few Partnerships Exist and
the Rural Utilities Service Needs to Identify and Address Any Funding
Barriers Tribes Face. September 2018.
20. Access to wireless spectrum is another crucial issue for Tribal
Nations. In February 2020, the FCC opened a priority filing
window for rural Tribes to access 2.5 GHz spectrum in
advance of an upcoming spectrum auction. This spectrum is
well-suited to provide low-cost broadband service in rural
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
areas.
21. Federal programs often direct broadband infrastructure funding to
community anchor institutions such as schools, libraries
and health centers. These anchor institutions can help
leverage additional public and private investments in
surrounding rural areas. Holistic funding approaches that
support infrastructure deployment ``to and through''
community anchor institutions can help promote connectivity
for students, patients and community members.
22. Western Governors appreciate USDA Rural Development's efforts to
promote broadband connectivity across the rural West.
USDA's many offerings, including the ReConnect Program,
Community Connect Grants, and Distance Learning and
Telemedicine Grants, all help promote prosperity and
quality of life in western states.
23. Western Governors have provided significant feedback on the
design of the ReConnect program, launched in December 2018.
Notably, Western Governors recommended that the ReConnect
Program, ``prioritize communities that either wholly or
severely lack access to broadband,'' and, ``reward project
applications that will deliver speeds that ensure rural
communities can prosper now and into the future as their
data transmission needs expand.''
24. The ReConnect Program contains a requirement that areas
designated to receive support through the FCC's Connect
America Fund Phase II (CAF-II) can only pursue ReConnect
funding through the entity that is receiving CAF-II
support. This restriction limits deployment of adequate
broadband capability in many rural areas.
25. The COVID-19 pandemic has amplified the importance of reliable
broadband connectivity as businesses, schools and health
care systems have transitioned to digital platforms and
practices. The transition to digital learning has been
particularly difficult for many rural and low-income
communities and K-12 schools due to lack of broadband
connectivity at home. Western states have employed creative
strategies to address student connectivity and ``homework
gap'' issues within our communities. These efforts include
using parking lots and school and transit buses to launch
public WiFi hotspots.
B. Governors' Policy Statement
1. Western Governors encourage Congress and Federal agencies to
recognize that the current definition of broadband--25/3
Mbps--does not correspond with the requisite download and
upload speeds necessary to support many business, education
and health care applications that promote economic and
community prosperity. We support efforts to adopt a higher,
scalable standard that more accurately reflects modern
innovations and bandwidth demands.
2. Regulations affecting broadband infrastructure permitting and
siting vary by state and can create additional obstacles to
private and public investment. Where possible, Western
Governors should work together to minimize this barrier.
3. Western Governors recommend the FCC, USDA and other Federal
agencies involved in broadband deployment pursue strong
partnerships with Governors and state agencies. Improved
coordination related to broadband coverage data collection
and verification and public investment can help ensure that
public funds are directed to areas in most need of
assistance.
4. Western Governors encourage the BLM, BIA and USFS to pursue
strategies to prioritize reviews for broadband
infrastructure permits on Federal lands. We support efforts
to improve permitting timelines for broadband
infrastructure co-located with existing structures and
other linear infrastructure, such as roads, transmission
lines and pipelines. We encourage improved planning and
permitting coordination between public lands management
agencies, as telecommunications projects in western states
can cross multiple Federal lands jurisdictions. DOI and
USFS's online mapping platforms identifying
telecommunications infrastructure sites on their lands will
be helpful tools to accomplish this goal.
5. Western Governors are encouraged that new data and mapping
platforms established by the Broadband DATA Act (Pub. L.
116-130) incorporate state-level data wherever possible.
State broadband offices and representatives can offer
invaluable information and on-the-ground perspectives
regarding broadband coverage in western states. We
encourage Congress to provide the FCC with the necessary
funds to implement the Act.
6. Western Governors encourage Congress and Federal agencies to
address application barriers for businesses, local
governments, cooperatives, Tribes and other entities
involved with broadband deployment in rural communities.
7. Western Governors appreciate the USDA and the FCC's efforts to
promote on-farm connectivity and the growth of the
precision agriculture sector. We encourage both agencies to
engage with Governors' offices, state broadband
representatives and state departments of agriculture as
they pursue policy and program initiatives to support
advanced agriculture technology development and adoption.
8. Western Governors recommend that adequate wireless spectrum be
allocated to support advanced and emerging agricultural
technologies.
9. Western Governors emphasize the growing importance of IXPs in
promoting cost-effective, reliable broadband service in
rural areas. We encourage Congress and Federal agencies to
promote investment in rural IXPs via applicable broadband
deployment programs, legislative proposals addressing
infrastructure, and other methods.
10. Western Governors encourage Federal agencies to continue
expanding the eligibility of electric and telephone
cooperatives to pursue USDA and FCC broadband deployment
program support, as cooperatives' existing infrastructure
and access to rights-of-way can help promote low-cost
connectivity solutions for rural communities.
11. Western Governors urge Federal agencies and Congress to pursue
policy, programmatic and fiscal opportunities to improve
broadband connectivity on Tribal lands. This includes
designing Federal programs in a way that promotes
partnerships between Tribes, states and various broadband
providers. We recommend that Federal broadband programs
allocate a designated portion of their available funding to
supporting projects on Tribal lands.
12. Western Governors encourage Congress and Federal agencies to
leverage community anchor institutions in rural communities
to spur connectivity to surrounding areas. We support
efforts to advance ``to and through'' policies that provide
flexibility to incentivize additional private or public
broadband infrastructure investment beyond connected
community anchor institutions.
13. Western Governors encourage USDA to address the ReConnect Program
eligibility criteria related to areas designated to receive
satellite support through the FCC's CAF-II auction. This
will enable many communities to pursue ReConnect
connectivity solutions that will support increased data
transmission needs into the future.
14. Western Governors request that FCC, USDA and other Federal
entities prioritize scalable broadband infrastructure
investments that meet communities' increased bandwidth
demands into the future. Funds for equipment maintenance
and upgrades are essential to ensure Federal broadband
investments continue to provide high-quality service.
15. Western Governors request that Congress and the FCC leverage
states' on-the-ground expertise by providing substantial
block grant funds to address rural connectivity challenges.
We support the use of state block grant funds to address
general broadband infrastructure issues and respond to
connectivity challenges raised by the COVID-19 pandemic.
16. Western Governors support efforts to promote flexibility within
the FCC's E-Rate Program in order to deliver home
connectivity solutions for unserved and underserved
students, and respond to connectivity issues associated
with the COVID-19 pandemic. We encourage the FCC to support
bus WiFi and other creative efforts that seek to address
the homework gap.
C. Governors' Management Directive
1. The Governors direct WGA staff to work with Congressional
committees of jurisdiction, the Executive Branch, and other
entities, where appropriate, to achieve the objectives of
this resolution.
2. Furthermore, the Governors direct WGA staff to consult with the
Staff Advisory Council regarding its efforts to realize the
objectives of this resolution and to keep the Governors
apprised of its progress in this regard.
Western Governors enact new policy resolutions and amend
existing resolutions on a bi-annual basis. Please consult
www.westgov.org/resolutions for the most current copy of a
resolution and a list of all current WGA policy resolutions.
______
Submitted Letter by Jessica Turner, President, Outdoor Recreation
Roundtable
January 19, 2022
Hon. David Scott, Hon. Glenn Thompson,
Chairman, Ranking Minority Member,
House Committee on Agriculture, House Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.; Washington, D.C.
Chairman Scott and Ranking Member Thompson,
On behalf of the Outdoor Recreation Roundtable and our 35 national
association members, I would like to thank you for convening this
important hearing on the State of the Rural Economy. Rural economies
and the outdoor recreation economy are intertwined, and we look forward
to working with the Committee to identify policies and opportunities to
help further strengthen both. There is no greater opportunity for
sustainable rural development than through embracing the outdoors and
there is no better time for the expansion of outdoor recreation into
the American fabric than now.
Outdoor Recreation Roundtable (ORR) is the nation's leading
coalition of outdoor recreation entities representing more than 110,000
American outdoor businesses and the full spectrum of outdoor
activities. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the
recreation industry generated $689 billion in economic output,
accounted for 1.8 percent of GDP, and 4.3 million American jobs in
2020, despite industry slowdowns and access restrictions caused by
COVID-19. Prior to the pandemic, outdoor recreation was growing faster
than the economy as a whole.
Rural economies across the country have been disproportionately
impacted by large industry shifts, especially within the manufacturing
and extractive sectors. Many communities dependent on these traditional
industries and the employment opportunities they provided have already
been impacted by boom and bust cycles, as well as the 2008 recession.
Now, the COVID pandemic has put significant pressures on rural
communities and the economies they rely upon.
Outdoor recreation is an antidote to these problems in many
communities. This sustainable and growing sector provides real benefits
to communities, from the economic boosts of a revitalized main street,
new entrepreneurship and increased visitation to existing businesses,
to public health benefits, strengthened communities, and recruitment
and retention of businesses and workforce. Additionally, outdoor
recreation creates new jobs in manufacturing, transportation and
warehousing, finance, insurance, advertising, professional and
technical services, and supports existing businesses with new clientele
and increased economic activity.
We greatly appreciate the work that Congress has done in recent
years to increase funding for programs in rural communities that
strengthen recreation infrastructure and expand access to grow local
economies. The Great American Outdoors Act, the bipartisan
Infrastructure Bill and the American Rescue Plan unlock funding for
outdoor recreation projects that will create jobs in gateway
communities and strengthen rural communities through people connecting
to safer and healthier outdoor assets[.]
The development of outdoor recreation economies needs to be part of
the solution for rural America as we all look to a broader strategy to
achieve economic diversification and resilience while maintaining
cultural heritage and landscape character. Rural communities can
flourish by prioritizing natural and built assets within or adjacent to
a community that enables outdoor recreation and its associated
economic, social, health, and environmental benefits. As more people
turn to outdoor recreation, alignment with rural communities will help
bring more spending, more jobs, and more growth.
I would also like to briefly discuss what ORR has been doing to
help facilitate the industry's growth within rural America.
We have created the ORR Rural Economic Development
Toolkit,\1\ which is a compendium of best practices, case
studies, and challenges related to economic development through
outdoor recreation. This toolkit was created from interviews
with over 60 practitioners across the country and was developed
in partnership with the Oregon State University Center for the
Outdoor Recreation Economy and the National Governors
Association. The response we have seen has been overwhelmingly
positive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://recreationroundtable.org/rural-development-toolkit/.
Editor's note: the Toolkit is retained in Committee file.
ORR is also stepping up to help rural communities
reinvigorate their local economies and create resilient
communities through outdoor recreation thanks in large part to
support from The VF Foundation. The Recreation Economy for
Rural Communities (RERC) assistance program, launched in 2019,
is underway and ORR is working with the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest
Service and the Northern Border Regional Commission to support
implementation grants for communities who have undergone
technical assistance. These grants will help make the economic
revitalization plans of communities come to life. For instance,
the community of John Day, Oregon developed a plan to enhance
its outdoor recreation economy amidst the backdrop of the
pandemic, and received $5,000 in seed funding from ORR in
partnership with the VF Foundation to implement its plan. The
small grant from ORR, in combination with technical assistance
from RERC, helped unlock millions of dollars in state grants to
support long-needed outdoor recreation infrastructure for John
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day.
Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, Americans rediscovered their love
for the outdoors. More people turned to outdoor recreation activities
like hiking, biking, fishing, camping, climbing, and boating than ever
before. People found solutions in the outdoors for their physical and
mental health, as well as opportunities to connect safely with family
and friends. The past 2 years have introduced millions of people to
outdoor recreation opportunities both close to home and across the
country. This trend reflects a long-term shift in the priorities of our
society, not a short-term trend expected to reverse itself.
The outdoor recreation industry looks forward to continuing to
partner with the Department of Agriculture and the Committee to help
build local outdoor recreation economies. We look forward to working
with the Committee and the Federal agencies to ensure that the
appropriate policies are in place to sustain long-term growth in rural
communities.
Sincerely,
Jessica Turner,
President.
______
Submitted Questions
Response from Hon. Thomas ``Tom'' J. Vilsack, Secretary, U.S.
Department of Agriculture
Question Submitted by Hon. David Scott, a Representative in Congress
from Georgia
Question. How many projects have been awarded or obligated annually
under the Biorefinery, Renewable Chemical, and Biobased Product
Manufacturing Assistance program over the past 5 years? How does that
compare to the number of applications that have been submitted for
Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the application? Please provide a list of the
award amount, awardees, and award status.
Answer. The 9003 program can provide loan guarantees of up to $250
Million for plants and projects in the advanced biofuels, renewable
chemicals, or biobased products space. Over the past 5 years, forty-two
entities applied for funding, thirty-six of which were invited to
participate in Phase II. Of those, three projects were approved,
obligated, and funded with loan guarantees of $416 Million. Another
nine were deobligated after approval. The three funded projects are as
follows, and all are closed and under construction, except Ryze
Renewables Las Vegas, which is in settlement negotiations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feedstock Product
Deployed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017 Ryze $112,580,000 Isotherm Non-edible
Renewables Hydroprocessin Distillers
Reno g Corn Oil
Biodiesel
2017 Ryze $198,000,000 Isotherm Non-edible
Renewables Hydroprocessin Distillers
Las Vegas g Corn Oil
Biodiesel
2021 BC Organics $100,000,000 Aneorobic Dairy Manure &
Digestion Food Wastes
Natural Gas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Questions Submitted by Hon. Alma S. Adams, a Representative in Congress
from North Carolina
1890 Land-Grant Institutions
Question 1. Does USDA tracking and reporting on state funding
support for the 1862 Universities include total support for the state?
I'm told in some states the disparity is 10:1 or even 20:1.
Answer. USDA tracks and provides the data on capacity funding
allocations and matching provided to the 1862 and 1890 land-grant
universities. The FY 2020 data is the most current information, with FY
2021 data expected to be publicly posted soon (https://
www.nifa.usda.gov/grants/programs/capacity-grants) under Allocations
and Matching.
Question 2. We anticipate in the next farm bill that we will look
to expand and provide sustainable support for the 1890 Scholarships and
the 1890 Centers of Excellence. Will the Administration support the
expansion of the 1890 Scholarship program and the Centers of Excellence
in the 2023 Farm Bill?
Answer. USDA has a long history of investing in and supporting our
nation's 1890 land-grant institutions and their students. The 1890s
have played a crucial role in building STEM programming for our
nation's youth, strengthening research, extension and teaching in the
food and agricultural sciences, and expanding the number of students
attracted to careers in agriculture, food, natural resources, and human
sciences. USDA looks forward to working with you and your Committee to
advance the goals of equity to better serve the needs of traditionally
underserved institutions and communities.
Socially Disadvantaged Farmers
Question 3. A recent OIG report found that, under the Trump
Administration, the USDA did not handle civil rights complaints in a
timely manner, averaging 799 days to process complaints, which is more
than four times the 180 day standard. What has been the USDA's progress
on getting caught up on these complaints, and what is the current turn
around, under the Biden Administration?
Answer. OASCR has demonstrated significant progress. In FY 2019,
the average processing time was 799 days. In FY 2021, the average
processing time was 491 days; it is currently 478 days. To further
ensure timely processing, OASCR intends to make the 365 day timeline
the benchmark for program complaints effective in FY 2023. OASCR
reports that the current inventory of program complaints is 225.
Because 365 days is still a long time for a review process,
however, OASCR is continuing to assess ways to further reduce the
program complaint processing timeline so long as we maintain a high-
quality investigative process. This issue will also continue to be
closely examined by USDA's senior leaders. Based on OASCR experiences
and feedback from stakeholders, the timing of program complaint
processing is impacted by a variety of factors: the timely submission
of details from complainants, the complexity of a complaint, the
particular USDA program involved, and resources available to
investigate and respond to the complaint from the field and USDA's sub-
component agencies. Currently, OASCR's main focus is on building its
capacity to achieve a 365 day timeline and publish updated policies on
its website by FY 2023.
With the additional appropriations, Congress provided in FY 2022,
OASCR will prioritize filling critical vacancies, train staff, and
improve OASCR's ability to reduce program complaint processing. This
will ensure complaints are processed in an improved manner from recent
years and will allow USDA to engage in proactive resolution efforts to
solve problems and better assist complainants.
Question 4. According to an OIG report, under the Trump
Administration, the Office of Partnerships and Public Engagement
mismanaged outreach and assistance for the Socially Disadvantaged
Farmers and Ranchers and the Veteran Farmers and Ranchers Program. What
steps is the USDA taking to address these issues and ensure that these
farmers receive the support they are entitled to?
Answer. In response to OIG Audit 91601-0001-21, on November 15,
2021, management accepted 16 recommendations and developed corrective
action milestone for these recommendations designed to prevent further
mismanagement within the Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers
and the Veteran Farmers and Ranchers Program. To date, 12 of the
corrective actions have been completed and are awaiting closure. The
remaining four recommendations are underway and are expected to be
completed by June 30, 2023. OPPE can provide the full list of
recommendations and corrective actions, if needed.
Broadband
Question 5. USDA's ReConnect Program has provided loans and grants
to assist with facility construction or improvement needed for
broadband connectivity in rural areas, and although the 2018 Farm Bill
authorized the Rural Broadband Program to offer similar grants, funding
has not been appropriated for this purpose. Can you share with us why
the Rural Broadband Program has not provided this grant funding?
Answer. The current program levels have limited the agency's
ability to offer grants.
Question 6. What is the USDA's timeline for providing robust
broadband in all rural areas?
Answer. USDA has announced more than $1.5 billion in awards through
our ReConnect Program under the first two funding windows and expects
to obligate at least $1.15 billion in awards under its third funding
window. Additionally, the agency announced the next ReConnect funding
window will offer more than an $1 billion. The application window for
Round 4 will open September 6, 2022. Through these opportunities the
USDA continues to invest in robust high-speed broadband networks.
Climate
Question 7. Secretary Vilsack's January 18, 2022 statement on
combating climate change mentioned USDA's continued efforts to support
reforestation and climate change resilience while increasing carbon
uptake and storage. Farmers across the U.S. can utilize crop rotation
and plant cover crops to decrease the release of carbon through soil,
yet according to a 2021 USDA report on cover crop trends, the cover
crop adoption rate is still only 5.1%. How will your announced changes
to EQIP increase the planting and use of cover crops to save topsoil
and decrease the release of carbon on farms?
Answer. Utilizing available funding, NRCS offered targeted cover
crop sign-ups through EQIP to target and streamline enrollment,
expediting the sign-up process for cover crops to improve access. This
approach allows the Agency to set an eligibility threshold to decrease
the time a producer needs to wait to know whether they are eligible or
not, thus increasing the attractiveness of enrollment. NRCS is also
increasing outreach to producers who have previously not worked with
the Agency to increase access to conservation assistance, including for
climate-smart practices like cover crops. Partnerships are also a key
component of NRCS's outreach strategy to increase adoption of climate-
smart practices, including equity conservation cooperative agreements,
as well as a partnership with commodity groups through Farmers for Soil
Health. These partners work with NRCS across the country to support
promotion of NRCS conservation programs and support for climate-smart
practices like cover crops.
Other Question(s)
Question 8. Funding has been made available for farmers through
legislation and programs like the farm bill and the Local Food Purchase
Assistance Cooperative Agreement Program (LFPA). It is important to
consider equity and access in the distribution of this funding. How
does the USDA make sure small, independent, and socially disadvantaged
farmers learn about these funding opportunities and what types of
technical assistance and support is available to help farmers apply for
funding?
Answer. A key goal of LFPA is to support underserved producers as
well as communities in need of food assistance. Each state, territory,
and Tribal applicant is asked to respond to the following questions as
part of their project narratives.
How will the funds increase local food consumption and help
build and expand economic opportunity for local, regional
farmers/producers and for socially disadvantaged farmers/
producers?
How will the distribution of food target underserved
communities and those communities not normally served through
traditional food distribution networks?
Additionally, AMS announces all funding awards through publication
on its website, as well as announcing all grant funding to the public
through Grants.Gov, and shares announcements through email GovDelivery
notices. In addition, AMS commonly distributes announcements to groups
representing small farm stakeholders, local and regional food
producers, and historically underserved producers. USDA's Office of
Partnerships and Public Education conducts additional outreach to these
groups to promote awareness of programs and funding opportunities.
USDA's Office of Tribal Relations works with the Inter-Tribal
Agriculture Council and other Tribal stakeholders to provide assistance
to Indian Country in applying for grant opportunities. AMS hosts
webinars and open office hours, to provide more information about
funding opportunities such as LFPA and to answer questions about the
various programs.
In Fiscal Year 21, AMS entered into cooperative agreements with two
HBCUs: the University of Maryland Eastern Shore and Florida A&M
University, to build back trust and confidence between underserved
communities, including to between Black, Indigenous, People of Color,
and rural, and the USDA. Through this initiative, USDA is taking action
to improve access to AMS grant programs through targeted outreach,
training, and technical assistance. This project conducts listening
sessions with communities in cooperation with a nationwide network of
universities, community organizations, and food system practitioners.
USDA has also launched the Meat and Poultry Processing Capacity--
Technical Assistance Program (MPPTA), to provide specific technical
assistance to meat and poultry processors across a range of needs
including Federal grant applicant management, plant operations, and
supply chain management. Through six cooperative agreements with
organizations who have strong connections to diverse populations, the
MPPTA Program is focused on outreach to small, rural, minority-owned,
Native American, and Tribal-owned businesses, and other underserved
groups seeking to build or expand local and regional meat and poultry
supply chain capacity.
USDA also expects to invest $400 million through Regional Food
Business Centers imminently, Centers will be designed to target support
to underserved communities in a particular region as identified by the
applicant.
Questions submitted by Hon. Antonio Delgado, a Representative in
Congress from New York
Question 1. Secretary Vilsack, as you know, we are in the midst of
a generational transition where more than 40 percent of farmland in
this country is likely to change hands.\1\ Keeping farmland in the
hands of working farmers is essential to ensuring the health of rural
economies and thus rural communities. We must pursue an equitable
transition of these 370+ million acres of farmland. With the future of
the Build Back Better Act in question, what resources may be available
to pilot ways we can ensure this land transitions to the next
generation of young farmers?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ According to AFT's 2020 Farms Under Threat report, (Attachment
1) ``Including nonoperator landlords, seniors aged 65 and older own
more than 40 percent of the agricultural land in the United States.
This suggests an impending transfer of more than 370 million acres of
farmland.'' Source: Freedgood, et al., Farms Under Threat, 2020.
Question 2. As you know, it is crucial that we provide strong
support for our dairy producers. I was pleased to see that after
leading 24 of my colleagues in a letter to the President calling for
reimbursements to dairy producers impacted by Class I mover-related
losses, USDA announced the Pandemic Market Volatility Assistance
Program. This program will provide $350 million in pandemic assistance
payments to dairy farmers who received a lower value for their products
due to market abnormalities caused by the pandemic. Can you tell us
when those reimbursements will be distributed?
Answer 1-2. USDA began disbursing money to handlers in January
2022. To date, approximately 99 percent of eligible producers have been
paid and USDA is diligently working to disburse monies to the remaining
producers.
Question 3. In May 2021, I led 49 other Democratic Members of
Congress in signing a letter \2\ calling for USDA to dedicate $300
million in relief funding for one on one business technical assistance
for farms and food businesses. Business technical assistance includes
customized coaching for business and marketing planning, financial and
labor management, transfer and succession, and other services essential
to the success of small- and mid-sized operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MSA4-
pe6pBx8tf6wMT3dEZFZvbHK_Mt5/view (Attachment 2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In your response to a question on this topic as part of the January
20, 2022 House Agriculture Committee hearing, you mentioned USDA's
recent announcement \3\ of technical assistance support for underserved
communities. We applaud this announcement as a critical step in helping
marginalized producers and entrepreneurs better access USDA
programming. There also remains a significant need for business
technical assistance for farm and food businesses across the nation,
going beyond improving producer access to USDA programs and working on
customized technical assistance for small- and mid-sized farms to
support farm viability. This need is especially acute in the region I
represent, given supply chain disruptions. The challenges specifically
facing smaller dairy producers in my region are emblematic of the
challenges facing producers and farm businesses across the country.
Customized assistance to these operations is needed now to help them
identify opportunities to diversify products and markets, improve
efficiency, and sustain their operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2021/11/24/usda-
announces-american-rescue-plan-technical-assistance (Attachment 3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you share your progress and timetable on the May 2021 request
to dedicate significant relief funding for business technical
assistance? Does USDA intend to meet this need through proposed
Regional Food Enterprise Centers? If so, will this support be provided
as requested for both farm operations as well as food businesses?
Answer. USDA intends to meet this need through the USDA Regional
Food Business Centers. With an investment of up to $400M, the Regional
Food Business Centers will provide coordination, technical assistance,
and capacity building support to small- and mid-size food and farm
businesses, particularly focused on product diversification,
processing, distribution and aggregation, and market access challenges.
The Regional Food Business Centers will target support to underserved
communities in a particular region as identified by the applicant. Food
and farm businesses will be beneficiaries of this program. The
Department plans to publish a Request for Applications in the near
future.
Question Submitted by Hon. Shontel M. Brown, a Representative in
Congress from Ohio
Question. As mandated by the 2018 Farm Bill, in December 2021 USDA
completed a report that assesses the progress of food loss and waste
efforts. The report concludes that there is a lack of overall funding
for these programs. Can you outline these programs for us?
Answer. A broad range of food loss and waste reduction activities
take place across USDA agencies, Mission Areas, and Offices,
The USDA Food Loss and Waste Liaison, in the Office of the Chief
Economist leads Department-wide initiatives on food loss and waste
including coordinating USDA's role on the Federal interagency
collaborations. Other USDA agencies and offices develop educational
resources or best practices and conduct outreach, invest in research on
food loss and waste reducing technologies, and fund stakeholder
initiatives that directly or indirectly support food loss and waste
reduction.
Historically, relatively few USDA or other agency resources have
been targeted specifically at food loss and waste (FLW) reduction,
though there is a broad array of efforts across the USDA that touch on
FLW. Many of these were outlined in the December 2021 Report to
Congress on USDA Food Loss and Waste Activities, Results, and New
Estimates. For example:
The Agricultural Research Service's National Program on
Product Quality and New Uses conducts research on new
technologies, some of which reduce spoilage of fresh foods, and
develops new products from food processing byproducts and
wasted materials.
The National Institute of Food and Agriculture's competitive
and noncompetitive grant programs, including the Agriculture
and Food Research Initiative, fund research that has led to
development of innovative technologies to reduce food loss and
waste or addressed other aspects of food loss and waste issues.
In 2020, USDA's Office of Urban Agriculture and Innovative
Production (OUAIP) competed and awarded ``Community Compost and
Food Waste Reduction'' Pilot Project grants and agreements.
Approximately $1.09 million was invested in 13 pilot projects
that developed and tested strategies for planning and
implementing municipal compost plans and food waste reduction.
USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) offers funding
opportunities that support a variety of agricultural
activities. Grants may be used for projects that reduce waste
through increased market efficiency, better storage, and
improved transportation. These grant lines include the
Farmers['] Market Promotion Program and Local Food Promotion
Program, and the Specialty Crop Multi-State Program. In August
2021, AMS announced the establishment of a $400 million Dairy
Donation Program (DDP). The DDP, established in accordance with
the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021, aims to facilitate
timely dairy product donations while reducing food waste.
Rural Development's Solid Waste Management Grant Program,
among other goals, funds projects that provide technical
assistance or training to help communities reduce the amount of
solid waste coming into a landfill. In FY19, grants with a food
waste component totaled over $3.5 million in funding and around
$3 million in FY20. RD has other loan and grant programs that
could incorporate funding, investment, and outreach initiatives
for FLW reduction, reuse and composting techniques.
The Farm Service Agency offers the Farm Storage Facility
Loan Program. This program provides low-interest financing to
help producers build or upgrade storage facilities. Appropriate
food storage can extend the storage life of foods and commodity
crops.
The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) administers The
Emergency Food Assistance Program, which funds projects to
reduce food waste at the agricultural production, processing,
or distribution level through the donation of food, and provide
food to individuals in need. FNS also provides guidance to
school foodservice managers with best practices to reduce food
waste (and total meal costs) while serving nutritious meals, as
well as educational materials for children and school
officials. FNS also conducts studies on plate waste to build
evidence about strategies that can reduce food waste.
The Food Safety and Inspection Service provides guidance on
food product labeling, as well as guidelines to assist with the
donation of eligible meat and poultry products to nonprofit
organizations.
Most recently, in June 2022, USDA announced an investment of up to
$90 million to prevent and reduce food loss and waste using American
Rescue Plan Act funds. Of this amount, around $30 million was used to
plus up the OUAIP's Composting and Food Waste Reduction cooperative
agreements over 3 years to assist local, municipal, and Tribal
governments, and/or school districts with projects to develop and test
strategies for planning and implementing compost plans and food waste
reduction plans.
Addressing FLW is a key component in improving supply chain
resiliency. Treating uneaten food as a valuable resource can lead to
new economic opportunities, including building local supply chain
networks that enable excess food to be used as inputs in other products
and/or directed into new markets. Furthermore, reducing FLW and its
associated emissions can reduce climate change, which negatively
impacts agriculture and can disrupt food supply chains.
USDA continues to explore new strategies to bolster food loss and
waste reduction to meet the U.S. goal to cut food loss and waste in
half by 2030.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Cheri Bustos, a Representative in Congress
from Illinois
Question 1. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has so many great
tools to build a climate friendly economy through renewables. The farm
bill's energy title programs stand out in this regard. How are you
thinking about utilizing the Biorefinery Assistance Program (Section
9003) to continue toward that goal?
Answer. The 9003 program can be a catalyst for new investments in
advanced biofuels, renewable chemicals, and biobased product. This
program is an important tool as we grow the bioeconomy and expand
market opportunities for feedstocks, like soybeans and food wastes.
Additionally, we are already seeing the program used to support the
production of sustainable aviation fuel. With opportunities in the
aviation industry expected to more than double current demand for these
biofuels, this is a significant opportunity for the 9003 program to
contribute to the Administration's goals regarding greenhouse gas
emissions reduction.
Question 2. The Biden Administration set an aggressive target for
the commercial production of 3 billion gallons of sustainable aviation
fuel (SAF) to operate U.S. aircraft by 2030, and 35 billion gallons by
2050. This will require significant investment by the renewable fuels
industry to achieve these results. Can these targets be achieved
without corn-based ethanol and soybean oil, which are key agricultural
feedstocks for SAF?
Answer. Thanks to the growth of U.S. production of sustainable
aviation fuel (SAF), airlines can help address climate change and
create rural jobs by using this fuel option. That's why USDA, the
Department of Transportation, and the Department of Energy announced a
``Grand Challenge'' to support the production of 35 billion gallons of
Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) per year by 2050. USDA has a crucial
role in SAF research and this government-wide effort to reduce costs,
enhance sustainability, and expand production and use of SAF. USDA is
investing in research to support the expansion of near-term feedstocks
from lipids (fats, oils, greases, and vegetable oil) that will include
soybean oil which is currently processed into renewable diesel. The
production of SAF from corn oil and corn-based ethanol is limited near-
term, but the alcohol to jet pathway for SAF is not yet commercial.
Corn-based ethanol as a SAF feedstock will come into greater play as we
move into the next decade with improvements in the sustainability of
corn production and the continued growth in the electrification of
light duty vehicles expected to release ethanol as a ground
transportation fuel and shunt it toward SAF production. Similarly,
pyrolysis processing of woody biomass and municipal solid waste are
expected to come on-line late in this decade. The SAF Grand Challenge
Roadmap proposes workstreams to identify additional lipid resources for
producing SAF, improving the sustainability of corn, soybean and canola
to meet international standards, and work on developing and
demonstrating avenues to SAF from the other feedstocks such as energy
cane, short-rotation woody crops, oilseeds and dedicated biomass crops
like perennial grasses. These crops can be used as cover to improve
soil quality, as buffer strips to reduce nutrient runoff into
watersheds, or as byproducts for animal feed. Additionally, biomass
supply chains and biorefineries centered around regional feedstocks
create jobs in rural communities.
Question 3. I applaud Secretary Vilsack and the Department for
their focus on cover cropping. Cover crops rebuild resiliency, promote
long term productivity and regenerate soils. However, less than seven
percent of American cropland uses cover crops. Creation of the Pandemic
Cover Crop Program (PCCP) in 2021 provided a key first step for
incentivizing the broader adoption of soil health practices that can
turn food and agriculture into a solution to the climate crisis. When
programs like crop insurance invest in cover crops, everyone stands to
benefit.
How do cover cropping and conservation practices promote economic
stability for the rural economy?
Answer. Conservation practices that sustain our soil and protect
our water are important to the economic vitality of Rural America in
many ways. Agriculture depends on healthy, productive soils, so
anything we can do to not only prevent soil erosion by wind and water,
but also improve soil health can have tremendous benefits to the
productivity of our farmers. Keeping living plants in the ground for
longer stretches of time not only helps prevent soil erosion, but it
also improves the health of the soil. In those places where outdoor
recreation might depend on water quality for fishing, boating,
canoeing, swimming, or other activities, cover crops can help by
keeping phosphorus and nitrogen in the soil where they help
agricultural productivity, and out of the water where they can lead to
impaired water quality.
Question 3a. Please elaborate on USDA's plans to roll out a 2022
Pandemic Cover Crop Program--how many acres could be covered by the
2022 program?
Answer. RMA rolled out the 2022 program successfully. With another
year of experience and more time to report, producers, agents,
insurance companies, and FSA county offices all were more prepared to
fill proper paperwork and reflect benefits on bills correct. The 2022
program also expanded eligibility for fall-planted insured crops and
Whole Farm Revenue Protection policies, as well as adding a matching
benefit for any state-funded cover crop programs. RMA expects over 11
million acres of insured crops to receive benefits as part of the
program. This is down slightly from 2021 due to weather patterns that
led to fewer cover crops being planted across the county for the 2022
crop year.
Question 3b. How many acres did USDA enroll in the 2021 program?
Answer. USDA paid approximately 12.2 million acres of insured crops
in 2021.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Ann M. Kuster, a Representative in Congress
from New Hampshire
Question 1. In May 2021, I joined 49 other Democratic Members of
Congress in signing a letter calling for USDA to dedicate $300 million
in relief funding for one on one business technical assistance for
farms as well as food businesses. Business technical assistance
includes customized coaching for business and marketing planning,
financial and labor management, transfer and succession, and other
services essential to the success of small- and mid-sized operations.
In your response to a question on this topic as part of today's
hearing, you mentioned USDA's recent announcement of technical
assistance support for underserved communities. We applaud this
announcement as a critical step in helping marginalized producers and
entrepreneurs better access USDA programming. However, this funding
supported a small number of service providers, when there is much
broader need for business technical assistance for farm and food
businesses across the nation. Also, this funding is targeted to
improving producer access to USDA programs. While helpful, it does not
address what we noted as the primary value of business technical
assistance in our letter to you; namely, customized technical
assistance for small- and mid-sized farms to support farm viability. We
see this need as especially acute in our region, given supply chain
disruptions. The challenges specifically facing smaller dairy producers
in my region are emblematic of the challenges facing producers and farm
businesses across the country. Customized assistance to these
operations is needed now to help them identify opportunities to
diversify products and markets, improve efficiency, and sustain their
operations.
Can you share your progress and timetable on the May 2021 request
to dedicate significant relief funding for business technical
assistance? Does USDA intend to meet this need through proposed
Regional Food Enterprise Centers? If so, will this support be provided
as requested for both farm operations as well as food businesses?
Answer. USDA intends to meet this need through the USDA Regional
Food Business Centers. With an investment of up to $400M, the Regional
Food Business Centers will provide coordination, technical assistance,
and capacity building support to small- and mid-size food and farm
businesses, particularly focused on product diversification,
processing, distribution and aggregation, and market access challenges.
The Regional Food Business Centers will target support to underserved
communities in a particular region as identified by the applicant. Food
and farm businesses will be beneficiaries of this program. The
Department plans to publish a Request for Applications in the near
future.
Question 2. I am alarmed by allegations concerning weak enforcement
of the Animal Welfare Act. The problem seems not to lie with
inspectors, who are doing their jobs documenting repeated violations by
license holders, but rather the problem seems to lie further up the
chain. We've seen recent examples of individuals facing dozens of
reports and hundreds of pages of violations before their licenses are
revoked. I am concerned that the licensing change USDA put in place in
2020 will not put an end to such cruelty without improvements regarding
how the Department views its Animal Welfare Act responsibilities. What
can USDA do more aggressively enforce the Animal Welfare Act and revoke
licenses before without the necessity of having a mountain of
documented infractions pile up first?
Answer. I can assure you that the welfare of animals is important
to the Department and to me personally. Over the last few years, I know
the enforcement numbers were down. Some of that was due to the
pandemic. Some of that was over pending litigation with respect to
administrative law judges and the extent of their enforcement powers.
We have taken steps to bring those numbers back up, and the number of
enforcement actions the agency takes has increased dramatically and is
line with pre-pandemic numbers. Further, APHIS has begun working
closely with counterparts in the Department of Justice to partner on
animal welfare cases and using the full extent of Federal authority to
take action against dog breeders and others who have put animals in
harm. We will continue to explore that relationship and other tools to
protect vulnerable animals.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Chellie Pingree, a Representative in
Congress from Maine
Question 1. In May 2021, I joined many of my colleagues on a letter
in support of dedicating $300 million in COVID relief funds to business
technical assistance for small- and mid-sized farms and food businesses
to support farm viability. I appreciated your remarks during the
hearing about USDA's $75 million investment in technical assistance for
underserved producers, but this should only be a first step. What
progress has USDA made on the request to dedicate additional funding
for business technical assistance in line with the May 2021 letter?
Will both farm operations and food businesses be eligible for this
support, as requested?
Answer. USDA intends to meet this need through the USDA Regional
Food Business Centers. With an investment of up to $400M, the Regional
Food Business Centers will provide coordination, technical assistance,
and capacity building support to small- and mid-size food and farm
businesses, particularly focused on product diversification,
processing, distribution and aggregation, and market access challenges.
The Regional Food Business Centers will target support to underserved
communities in a particular region as identified by the applicant. Food
and farm businesses will be beneficiaries of this program. The
Department plans to publish a Request for Applications in the near
future.
Question 2. There are several small communities in Maine that have
received ReConnect awards but are still struggling to move forward
several years later due to the program's onerous rules and
requirements. In comparison, broadband projects funded through state-
allocated funding from the CARES Act are completing their work in 8-12
months in Maine. I am very concerned that the program's requirements
may be eliminating ReConnect as a viable option to connect hard-to-
reach rural communities in my state--precisely the type of communities
Congress intended this program to serve.
To date, how many ReConnect awardees have subsequently declined
their award? Please provide a breakdown identifying the funding round,
type of project (100% grant, combination loan/grant, or 100% loan), and
type of eligible entity (e.g., corporation, state or local government,
cooperative, etc.).
Answer.
ReConnect awardees who declined their award
Count of
Entity Type by Funding Round and Type Entity Type
Round 1................................................. 9
100% Grant.............................................. 2
Cooperative or mutual organizations................... 2
100% Loan............................................... 4
Cooperative or mutual organizations................... 2
For-profit corporations............................... 1
Limited Liability Company or Limited Liability 1
Partnership..........................................
50% Loan/50% Grant...................................... 3
Cooperative or mutual organizations................... 1
For-profit corporations............................... 2
Round 2................................................. 8
100% Grant.............................................. 4
For-profit corporations............................... 2
Limited Liability Company or Limited Liability 2
Partnership..........................................
100% Loan............................................... 1
For-profit corporations............................... 1
50% Loan/50% Grant...................................... 3
Cooperative or mutual organizations................... 1
For-profit corporations............................... 2
Round 3................................................. 1
100% Grant.............................................. 1
For-profit corporations............................... 1
---------------
Grand Total......................................... 18
Question 2a. To date, what is the total amount of ReConnect funding
that has been deobligated as a result of awardees deciding not to move
forward with their projects?
Answer. $109,426,305
Question 2b. To date, how many ReConnect projects have been fully
completed? Please provide a breakdown identifying the funding round,
type of project (100% grant, combination loan/grant, or 100% loan), and
type of eligible entity (e.g., corporation, state or local government,
cooperative, etc.).
Answer.
Construction
Entity Type by Funding Round and Type Completed
Round 1................................................. 11
100% Grant.............................................. 3
For-profit corporations............................... 3
100% Loan............................................... 2
Cooperative or mutual organizations................... 1
Limited Liability Company or Limited Liability 1
Partnership..........................................
50% Loan/50% Grant...................................... 6
Cooperative or mutual organizations................... 1
For-profit corporations............................... 4
Limited Liability Company or Limited Liability 1
Partnership..........................................
---------------
Grand Total......................................... 11
Question 2c. USDA personnel have suggested that awardees must hire
full-time staff to administer and oversee their ReConnect award, but
many rural communities and small ISPs do not have the capacity and
resources to do so. What additional support can USDA Rural Development
provide to existing ReConnect awardees to help them navigate the
program's requirements?
Answer. The ReConnect program does not require that awardees hire
full-time staff to administer or oversee the ReConnect award.
Additionally, applicants and awardees have the opportunity to submit
questions and requests for technical assistance to Rural Utilities
Service (RUS) at any time using the ``Contact Us'' form on the
ReConnect website. Dedicated RUS staff respond to each question and
respond directly to the applicant or awardee.
Question 2d. What flexibility can USDA Rural Development provide to
existing ReConnect awardees who may be struggling? Will USDA consider
waiving or modifying any program requirements to help advance these
projects, particularly for smaller projects where the one-size-fits-all
requirements may not be commensurate with the size of the award?
Answer. There are multiple program requirements, and depending on
the particular requirement, the program has some flexibilities to
assist awardees. Regulatory requirements cannot be waived unless by
statute, or if the regulation's language provides for a waiver.
An example of a non-waiver requirement is included in ReConnect's
Round 4, which was funded through the Infrastructure Investment and
Jobs Act, and mandates that 50% or more of the homes in Proposed Funded
Service Area be unserved (while the regulation normally requires that
threshold to be 90%). This requirement will revert to 90% in future
rounds of funding unless other legislation is adopted, or the
regulation undergoes a revision.
Other requirements may be ones that the Agency can provide some
flexibility on, and we always want to work with our awardees. The
Agency has always offered to review issue and has provided waivers on
some requirements, but this is done on a case-by-case basis and must be
related to topics which we have the ability to offer waivers.
Question 2e. I have heard concerns that the program's processes are
outdated and heavily paper-based. What steps is USDA taking to
modernize the program and allow for electronic correspondence and
submission of documents?
Answer. The ReConnect program's application and reporting process
is conducted 100 percent online. In fact, ReConnect applicants are
required to submit their application online using the online
application portal. The RUS utilizes Salesforce, a Customer
Relationship Management (CRM) tool to administer the ReConnect
program's application and reporting portals. This allows applicants
more flexibility and ease of application and report submission.
Additionally, applicants have the ability to submit questions
directly to RUS staff electronically through the ReConnect ``Contact
Us'' portal.
Question 2f. I have heard frustrations that ReConnect awardees are
not receiving timely responses to their inquiries, with questions
sometimes going unanswered for several months. What steps are being
taken to ensure stakeholders are receiving timely responses? If USDA
requires additional staff to improve response times, will this be
reflected in the FY23 budget request?
Answer. Questions can come to the Agency several ways. For the
``Contact Us'' link offered on the ReConnect Program's site and inside
the Program's application portal (when an application window is open),
the Agency has a dedicated team in the National Office that respond to
questions during normal business hours. That team has additional
staffers who are considered subject matter experts as well as higher-
level leaders who can offer information and guidance if a more complex
answer is needed. Most questions are answered within 48 business hours.
There are some questions needing more time to research or, in the
case of IT issues, more time to troubleshoot the problem the author is
inquiring about. When these questions come in, an initial response is
sent informing the customer that additional time is needed, and staff
are assigned those questions to allow for focused attention ensuring an
answer is eventually given.
Some of these questions also include staff contacting the author of
the question outside of the system we use for ``Contact Us''. While
scheduled as quickly as possible, most do not wait more than 1-2
business days to occur.
Other questions could come to other offices and our staff work to
answer them as soon as possible. We are unaware of any questions going
months without being answered and strongly urge people to use the
``Contact Us'' portal when submitting questions because of our ability
to track those inquiries.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Angie Craig, a Representative in Congress
from Minnesota
Question 1. Mr. Secretary, thank you for considering the following
questions, which I was not able to ask during the hearing on January
20, 2022, but which I hope you may still be able to address.
Field veterinarians are critical to APHIS' ability to handle an
animal disease emergency and need to be in place as part of their
critical infrastructure. It is my understanding that the emergency
funds made available for the ASF outbreak in the Dominican Republic and
Haiti cannot be used to hire permanent employees. As you prepare the
Department's upcoming fiscal budget request, are you considering
including any requests for additional funds to better prepare APHIS'
veterinary field force to respond to an animal health emergency here in
the United States?
Answer. Veterinarians are critical to our ability to execute APHIS'
animal health mission. In addition to daily animal health work, APHIS
veterinarians are trained for responding to animal disease emergencies.
The types of animal health emergencies the agency has faced and the
pace of emergency responses stretches the agency's ability to fully
deliver support to state and industry stakeholders. APHIS is exploring
recruitment and hiring approaches to fill critical vacancies quickly
while building a sustainable pipeline of veterinarians for the future.
USDA does have a lot of flexibilities in the event of an animal health
emergency, as we recently saw with the outbreak of highly pathogenic
avian influenza. I have the authority to transfer funds from other
accounts to fund the full emergency response, which can include
bringing on additional workers. Additionally, in this latest response,
APHIS mobilized its Agency-wide workforce to bring additional help to
the emergency response.
Question 2. Thank you for your work to ensure robust export markets
for producers in Minnesota and across the country. Given your
acknowledgement that USMCA enforcement is critical, is USDA working
with Ambassador Tai and USTR to prepare for an enforcement case under
USMCA if Mexico does not reverse course and abide by the biotechnology
provisions in USMCA?
Answer. USDA continues to explore all possible avenues toward
satisfactory resolution of our concerns regarding Mexico's treatment of
agricultural biotechnology. I am grateful for the strong partnership of
Ambassador Tai and the close coordination between our staffs on this
critical issue.
Question 3. The EU has been successful in other countries around
the world by negotiating protections for Geographical Indications (GIs)
in trade agreements. These GI registrations for common food names
serves as a nontariff barrier to trade, forcing American exporters to
relabel to keep selling their products. In 2020, I and several other
Committee Members urged the U.S. Government to take a more forward-
leaning approach to dealing with this by securing direct market access
protections for the use of these terms in export markets. Can you
explain what USDA is doing to help work with USTR to protect common
names more proactively with our key trading partners?
Answer. In response to the EU's promotion of its exclusionary GI
policies, the United States continues intensive engagement to promote
and protect access to foreign markets for U.S. exporters of products
that are identified by common names. USDA and USTR are engaging
bilaterally with other countries to address concerns resulting from the
GI provisions in existing EU trade agreements, agreements under
negotiation, and other initiatives. USDA and USTR have engaged with the
governments of Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China,
Ecuador, Indonesia, Japan, Kenya, Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, Moldova,
Morocco, New Zealand, Paraguay, the Philippines, Singapore, Tunisia,
Uruguay, and Vietnam, among others. I have emphasized the importance of
protections for common names in my meetings with foreign counterparts,
most recently with the Chilean Minister of Agriculture. In addition,
USDA and USTR are advancing their objectives in international fora,
including the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, World Intellectual
Property Organization, and World Trade Organization.
Question 4. The Office of Pest Management Policy has a long and
important history of working with EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs
through pesticide product registrations and re-registrations. What is
your view on encouraging and supporting OPMP's role and emphasizing the
importance of pesticide tools in achieving climate-friendly
conservation practices, when appropriate?
Answer. USDA supports OPMP's role in collaborating and sharing
information with EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs in the interest of
ensuring growers' voices are at the table in conversations around
pesticide policy and specific pesticide mitigations. Specifically, we
are aware that some of EPA's recently proposed decisions may have
inadvertent adverse effects on climate friendly conservation practices.
OPMP is working to ensure EPA more broadly considers the impacts of
pesticide regulatory policies by providing substantiated information on
the impacts of pesticide mitigation on climate-friendly and other
conservation practices, and OPMP is working with colleagues across USDA
to research this specific topic. OPMP believes all costs and benefits
of pesticides should be considered in EPA's decision-making processes.
Question 5. During his confirmation hearing last summer, Under
Secretary Bonnie was asked about the Conservation Reserve Program, and
he answered ``It's vitally important that we get the right lands in the
program. We don't want to take highly productive lands into the
program.'' How is USDA approaching this issue, and are there additional
tools USDA needs to achieve the shared goal of promoting CRP and
ensuring the continued use of highly productive land?
Answer. CRP is an important tool in protecting soil from erosion,
providing habitat, and contributing to cleaner water. When commodity
prices are lower, it has been more attractive to producers to put
marginal field into the program. With current prices relatively high,
we have seen some producers choose to not renew expiring contracts.
USDA has taken several steps to help farmers address global food supply
issues. We have expanded the ability for farmers to insure a second
crop, usually soybeans or grain sorghum, following a winter wheat or
small grain crop. We also allowed producers with CRP contracts set to
expire at the end of this fiscal year the ability to prepare those
acres for a 2023 crop following the primary nesting season to provide
more flexibility to grow more food in 2023. We have also worked to
expand working lands conservation through CRP Grasslands. This allows
farmers and rancher to graze ground that may not be ideal for row
crops.
It is also very important to note that the acres that CRP targets
are marginal and highly erodible cropland, and a considerable
proportion of currently enrolled acres are in areas experiencing
drought. For these reasons, production on those acres is typically
marginal, and CRP enrollment causes minimal impacts to supply and
subsequent impacts in global markets. While some stakeholders have
pointed to changes in CRP as potential solutions to commodity supply
constraints, allowing production on CRP acres will not have a
significant impact on supply.
Question 6. The 2018 Farm Bill made several changes to the
Technical Service Provider Program (TSP), including streamlining the
certification process for becoming a TSP. The TSP Program has the
potential to add valuable on the ground technical capacity to help
deliver farm bill conservation programs. Can you provide an update on
what the Department is doing to implement these changes and make the
program more accessible?
Answer. Since the 2019 Farm Bill NRCS has implemented the following
changes and improvements to the TSP Certification program[:]
Streamlined application review process resulting in zero
applications being outside regulatory timelines for over 2
years running (60 day review period)
Reorganized practices and conservation activities and plans
to focus on clarity for TSP implementation
Implemented NRCS Registry system which automated workflows
for certification and allows TSPs the ability to manage their
own certification.
Worked with the Department to Eliminate or streamlined
barriers within the IT systems which created confusion and
delay for TSPs
Implemented third party certification recognition and
expanding opportunities for third party certification
Reevaluated Certification Requirements for clarity and
consistency
Developed Conservation Evaluation and Monitoring Activities
(CEMA) to expand opportunities for TSPs to provide valuable
technical knowledge
Exploring expanded use of TSPs outside of the EQIP program
to include CSP and CRP
In the process of updating online training available to
Technical Service Providers
Reevaluating staffing and organization of the program to
improve service, outreach, and training opportunities
Question 7. During the hearing, when I asked community-based
broadband providers in ReConnect Round 3, you shared with the Committee
that USDA learned things from previous rounds that led to the structure
of the Round 3 prioritizations. What did USDA learn in prior rounds
that led to the decision to provide cooperatives, nonprofits, and
governmental entities an additional 15 points in the Round 3 scoring?
And how does USDA plan to approach future rounds of ReConnect funding?
I ask on behalf of community-based broadband providers in my district
who have a proven track record of deploying networks and delivering
high-quality service as a small business in their communities.
Answer. The points for cooperative, nonprofits and government
entities encourage these entities to submit an application. These types
of entities take the earnings from the operation and put it back into
broadband facilities that further expands broadband service into the
rural areas. The scoring criteria can be modified anytime that a
funding announcement is published. For each additional funding round,
the Agency will evaluate the effectiveness of the criteria.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Glenn Thompson, a Representative in
Congress from Pennsylvania
Question 1. The 2018 Farm Bill created the Agriculture Advanced
Research and Development Authority, known as AGARDA, to conduct
advanced research and development in the areas of veterinary
countermeasures to biological threats, plant disease and plant pest
recovery countermeasures, and mechanization in the specialty crop
industry. The 2018 Farm Bill required USDA to make a strategic plan for
AGARDA publicly available within a year of enactment; however, there is
still no strategic plan publicly available. Report language in the
Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 also directed USDA to submit
the plan within 180 days of enactment yet there is still no strategic
plan.
The most recent iteration of the Biden Administration's tax and
spending bill would provide $30 million for AGARDA without ever seeing
a strategic plan from USDA. Mr. Secretary, can you provide the
Committee with an update on when a strategic plan for AGARDA will be
available?
Answer. The Agriculture Advanced Research and Development Authority
(AgARDA), as authorized in the Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018,
would allow USDA to develop technologies, research tools, and products
through advanced research on long-term and high-risk challenges for
food and agriculture. Through AgARDA, USDA can enable the research
necessary for engendering transformative impacts and the development of
new industries and partnerships, ensuring the United States maintains
its position as leader in global agricultural research and development.
USDA has been exploring options to implement this program, including
potential partnerships. USDA looks forward to working with the Congress
to ensure AgARDA's implementation meets Congressional expectations.
Question 2. Mr. Secretary: Given the challenge of climate change,
it seems that a clear path forward is for the public-sector to work
collaboratively with private enterprise. Private companies have made
major climate commitments, and many have significant financial
resources, but oftentimes are struggling to find ways to achieve their
goals. At the same time, USDA conservation programs are oversubscribed,
and agricultural producers have difficulty accessing these vital
programs. Do you support the SUSTAINS Act introduced by Ranking Member
Thompson which would allow USDA to accept and match private funds to
stretch the Federal dollar and accelerate the implementation of
climate-smart practices?
Answer. The private-sector has a significant role to play in
helping farmers, ranchers and forest landowners implement climate-smart
practices. USDA programs such as the Regional Conservation Partnership
Program and the Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities offer
opportunities for private sector to invest in on-farm conservation and
participate in projects that can help achieve climate commitments. USDA
has provided technical assistance to the Committee on the SUSTAINS Act
as it relates to NRCS's existing contribution authority and will
continue to provide this assistance as requested.
Question 3. In August 2021, President Biden and the Department
unilaterally increased Supplemental Nutrition Assistance (SNAP)
benefits by nearly 25 percent, the largest single and permanent
increase in nutrition benefits this nation has ever seen. I am of the
opinion this process lacked transparency, eroded public trust, and
disparaged Congressional intent. Adding insult to injury, it appears
the Department cherry-picked who would clear such an action.
For example, a recently released FOIA request stated that the
Office of the Chief Economist (OCE) was not asked to review any
information related to the update. Is this true?
Can you tell me why the Office that serves as ``the focal point for
economic and policy-related research and analysis'' would not be
consulted on a more than $20 billion per year benefit decision?
Answer. No, that is not correct. The FNS team met with the Office
of the Chief Economist (OCE) to discuss the overall process,
optimization model, and timeline for the TFP reevaluation in June. FNS
subsequently shared a draft of the Methods chapter of the TFP Report
with OCE. In addition, the teams met twice in August to discuss the
process and methodology, and FNS provided a briefing to Federal
stakeholders--including OCE--prior to the release of the update.
Question 4. Based on the most recent available data publicized by
the Department, some states are seeing declines in SNAP enrollment,
while other states continue to see growth in the program. Mr.
Secretary, to what do you attribute the significant variation in
enrollment trends between states? Is this a matter of policy choices or
operations? Or something else?
Answer. As it is designed to do, in response to the economic
hardship resulting from the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency, SNAP
participation grew rapidly across the country. As the nation continues
to recover from the pandemic, shifts in participation trends are
expected as state economic conditions change. A growing number of
states have begun to end state emergency declarations and transition
off program flexibilities available under such declarations. USDA
remains committed to assisting states with administering SNAP and
ensuring program integrity throughout the pandemic and as we continue
to transition through recovery to ensure access among eligible
populations.
Question 5. The current Food and Nutrition Service Deputy Under
Secretary is a former (and frankly, current) high-profile advocate for
SNAP expansion, appearing before Congress on many occasions to advocate
for increased participation and lax oversight rules. As an example, Ms.
Dean called the Program's statutory work requirement for childless
adults one of the ``harshest rules'' of the program. It appears her
leadership has led to an Agency that also denies that fraud exists and
devotes as little funding and programming as possible (about \1/20\ of
1 percent) to maintain the Program's integrity. Mr. Secretary, what is
being done to ensure that any policies advocated for by the current
Deputy Under Secretary, stakeholders, and this Administration are
carefully reviewed to protect taxpayer investment? What type of
internal controls exist when advising states or making policy
decisions? Lastly, has President Biden worked with you on formalizing a
nominee for this open Under Secretary position?
Answer. Integrity and payment accuracy are critical ongoing
priorities for USDA. SNAP state agencies are responsible for
identifying and holding accountable SNAP recipients who break the
rules, and USDA has numerous initiatives and resources focused on
strengthening the integrity of SNAP and improving payment accuracy. To
support state efforts, USDA provides policy guidance, regulations, and
technical assistance to strengthen states' ability to prevent, detect,
and investigate recipient fraud. Accurate payments mean better customer
service for SNAP clients, and USDA is committed to maintaining program
integrity as stewards of taxpayer dollars. In addition to the standard
statutory and regulatory tools usually deployed, USDA has also
initiated the following projects aimed at strengthening program
integrity.
Income Verification Pilot Program--In FY22, USDA awarded grants to
16 states to evaluate their use of third-party databases to verify
earned income (such as Equifax's The Work Number). Preliminary results
suggest this project may have a positive impact on payment accuracy.
USDA is using the information from grantees to pursue a national-level
contract that will allow all states to use this product for earned
income verification.
Understanding Risk Assessment in SNAP Payment Accuracy and
Employing Model Programs to States--USDA is conducting a study into how
state SNAP agencies use analytic risk assessment tools and what makes
the tools more or less effective. Concurrently, USDA is developing its
own risk assessment model that can easily be deployed to any state and
aims to identify characteristics of cases that are prone to payment
errors so state SNAP eligibility staff can provide extra layers of
review during the certification process to ensure households only
receive the benefits to which they are entitled. This model contains
safeguards to ensure the protection of protected classes.
SNAP Fraud Framework--For the last few years, the SNAP Fraud
Framework (SFF) has served as a cornerstone of recipient integrity
efforts, and USDA seeks to enhance the SFF as new technology and best
practices emerge. The SFF and its supporting documents are designed to
support states as they develop and improve efforts to prevent, detect,
and investigate fraud. In 2019, USDA established the SNAP Fraud
Framework Implementation Grant program. These grants aim to improve
state agencies' recipient fraud prevention, detection, and
investigation efforts, using principles from the SFF. Since 2019, USDA
has funded 23 awards totaling over $12 million dollars under this grant
program. New awards for FY 2022 will be announced soon.
Proposed Rulemaking to Strengthen Improper Payment Measurement
Process and Tools--USDA is working to issue proposed rulemaking to
strengthen the integrity of SNAP's payment accuracy measurement system.
These proposed changes will be published in April 2023 for notice and
comment.
Investments in IT Resources to Improve Improper Payment Measurement
and Analysis--USDA is developing a new computer system that will
provide a suite of tools and process efficiencies for state and Federal
reviewers conducting improper payment reviews. This system will also
provide better data analysis tools, allowing administrators at all
levels of the Program to make more informed decisions about how to
ensure the integrity of SNAP. USDA is adding additional data analytic
tools that will go beyond the improper payment data to integrate
multiple data sources, allowing for a more nuanced examination of the
causes for payment errors and how they can be addressed.
Statutory and Regulatory Ongoing Compliance Activities--USDA
continues to conduct management evaluations on state recipient
integrity and payment accuracy activities to ensure states are
following the law and regulations, as well as implementing the most
effective strategies to administer and oversee integrity
responsibilities. For states that are found to have deficiencies, USDA
works to establish corrective actions with the state to improve program
performance and payment accuracy. With the implementation of the
National Accuracy Clearinghouse regulations and system in 2023, FNS is
providing state agencies with a tool to prevent individuals from
receiving SNAP benefits in more than one state at the same time and
enable a timely response to minimize improper payments when duplicate
participation is discovered.
When issuing guidance or making policy changes, USDA strives to be
responsive to state requests, within the bounds of what is permissible
under current law and regulations. USDA also offers technical
assistance to present states with additional permissible options or
strategies to achieve state goals that may be more efficient or
effective based on experience in other locations.
USDA routinely utilizes Quality Control (QC) data, which, in
addition to measuring improper payments, also collects information
about program performance, to inform Program and policy decisions. For
instance, when considering state requests for SNAP demonstration
projects or waivers, USDA will review QC data as part of its assessment
to determine whether approval is appropriate. Additionally, there are
statutory and regulatory requirements to ensure taxpayer dollars are
safeguarded and that improvements are regularly made in administering
states. For example, states are financially held accountable for
improper payments, overpayments found in QC must be sent to state
claims offices, and USDA regularly works with states to proactively
target areas for program improvement to prevent future improper
payments, regardless of who USDA's political appointees are.
USDA also updates our practices as technology evolves. For example,
as USDA continues to implement the SNAP online purchasing pilot,
vigorous vetting and testing processes are followed to ensure that the
online shopping and payment experience is secure, private, easy to use,
and provides similar support to that found for SNAP transactions in a
retail store. USDA has added new reports and analysis tools to the
Agency's fraud detection system to assist in the monitoring of online
transactions.
Question 6. Mr. Secretary, colleagues and I have heard that as
states are trying to engage recipients in work-related programming
through the statutory general work requirements, they are receiving
guidance from FNS regional offices to not do so. Please share the
Department's guidance and/or position responsible for this action.
Answer. FNS has not provided guidance that discourages states from
engaging SNAP participants in work-related programming. USDA is
committed to helping state SNAP agencies increase the ability of SNAP
participants to obtain and retain good jobs and meet the skilled
workforce needs of employers. USDA is also committed to ensuring that
all states comply with all requirements of the Food and Nutrition Act
of 2008 (as amended through P.L. 115-334). Any guidance provided to
state agencies is for the purposes of ensuring compliance with Federal
law.
Question 7. Mr. Secretary, do you think SNAP and other nutrition-
related funding and programs have perpetuated the business of poverty?
Organizations reap billions in Department aid and only seem to ask for
more money at every turn. Do you think it is time to rethink how we
help people, who we partner with, and how we measure success?
Answer. SNAP is the most far-reaching, powerful tool available to
ensure that all Americans can afford healthy food--it's a lifeline for
tens of millions of Americans in every part of the country. It reduces
poverty and food hardship, and participation by young children has been
linked to better long-term health, education, and employment outcomes.
SNAP also helps to stabilize the economy and respond to increased need
during downturns. Every additional $1 in SNAP benefits can create at
least $1.50 in economic activity. FNS is continuously working to
improve the effectiveness and efficiency of nutrition assistance
programs, and we welcome the opportunity to work with Congress to do
the same.
The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and
Children (WIC) is one of the nation's most successful and cost-
effective nutrition intervention programs, as proven by the results of
studies conducted by FNS and other non-government entities. Since its
beginning in 1974, the WIC Program has earned the reputation of being
one of the most successful federally-funded nutrition programs in the
United States. Collective findings of studies, reviews and reports
demonstrate that the WIC Program is cost effective in protecting or
improving the health and nutritional status of low-income women,
infants and children.
Additionally, USDA's school meals programs provide critical
nutrition to tens of millions of children every school day. For many
children, the food they receive from school breakfast and lunch makes
up about half their dietary intake each school day. Students' success
in the classroom is connected to their ability to access healthy and
nutritious meals--and a study published in the Journal of the American
Medicine Association in 2021 found that school meals are the healthiest
meal kids receive each day. Research also shows kids who ate lunches
from school were more likely to consume milk, fruits, and vegetables
and less likely to consume desserts, snack items, and non-milk
beverages than kids who brought food from home. Strong school nutrition
programs are proven to work for schools and families.
Question 8. The 2015 Waters of the U.S. rule was a dramatic
expansion of the Clean Water Act beyond its historical reach and would
have been a disaster for farmers, ranchers, and rural America. Although
the 2020 Navigable Waters rule finally provided certainty and a
workable solution for agriculture, EPA is again creating great
confusion and concern among producers by attempting to again write a
new regulation. Given the great importance of WOTUS to farmers and
ranchers, how is USDA engaging with EPA on this rewrite? How do you
believe that agriculture will be treated under this new regulation and
how might it differ from the 2020 rule?
Answer. On June 8, 2021, EPA and the Army Corps announced their
intent to revise the definition of WOTUS to better protect our nation's
vital water resources that support public health, environmental
protection, agricultural activity, and economic growth. The agencies
have continued to engage with a variety of stakeholders including the
agricultural community. USDA continues to encourage EPA and Army Corps
to ensure that farmers, ranchers and private forest owners are central
to the engagement and rulemaking process. USDA is continuing to work
with EPA to ensure agriculture communities are invited and part of the
stakeholder engagement. We are committed to ensuring that farmers,
ranchers and private forest owners--those most impacted--are part of
the process being coordinated by EPA, and EPA shares and has
demonstrated this commitment as well.
Question 9. The pending Build Back Better Act contains some $27
billion for forestry-related activities. Given this significant price
tag and the prescriptive language on how funding can be used, was USDA
consulted on these provisions and/or did the Department provide
technical assistance as the bill was drafted?
Answer. USDA provided testimony before the Senate Energy and
Natural Resources Committee on June 24, 2021. A copy of the testimony
by Chris French, Deputy Chief of the National Forest System (NFS) can
be found at: https://www.energy.senate.gov/services/files/AAF7DF40-
2A47-4951-ADA4-4B124AD3894F.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Editor's note: the testimony referred to is retained in
Committee file.
Question 10. The Forest Service needs to get closer to, or above,
its national timber targets for the coming year. How much timber do you
foresee the agency harvesting in 2022 and beyond?
Answer. The Forest Service is actively striving to meet its timber
target for FY22. Currently we have attained 1.79 billion board feet
with 0.57 billion board feet prepared for or under advertisement. The
estimated total volume attainment for FY22 is 3.0 billion board feet.
With the new Bipartisan Infrastructure law and flat normal
appropriations. Outputs are anticipated to increase over time.
Question 11. Mr. Secretary, I have several questions on the Forest
Service's newly announced ``10 Year Strategy to Confront the Wildfire
Crisis.'' Specifically:
a. Can you provide details on how the Forest Service is identifying
``highest priority firesheds''? Is there a profile for each
fireshed? If so, does the Forest Service have details on
the history of the management of each fireshed and which
priority firesheds are located in the wildland-urban
interface?
Answer. The agency prioritized landscapes for initial funding under
the Wildfire Crisis Strategy (10 year Plan) from an all-lands
perspective, where Forest Service contribution to exposure was
relatively high, and where projects already had the groundwork in
place. Criteria for initial landscape investments included strong
collaborative and cross-boundary partnerships, alignment with high-risk
firesheds, meeting the intent of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law,
appropriate analysis under NEPA, and internal capacity and partner
capacity to initiate work in FY22. Work in these landscapes also had to
be designed at the scale of the issues or be able to build out to that
scale.
For this initial round of BIL investments, we selected landscapes
where we could have the greatest impact in reducing wildfire risk by
looking to areas that have plans to accomplish work with a
collaborative framework to implement quickly. Our focus with the 10
Year Wildfire Crisis Strategy is to mitigate exposure as much as we can
to high-risk communities, while also maintaining and creating resilient
landscapes. In addition to this approach, we have also looked at other
funding sources like disaster relief funds and regular appropriation
funds to invest in areas that were not selected in this initial round
of funding but still need fuels work done both on and off national
forests.
We currently do not have a profile for each fireshed but most
firesheds will have some percentage of land located in the WUI. The
research publication, ``Planning for future fire: scenario analysis of
an accelerated fuel reduction plan for the western United States'',
provides a detailed look at the scientific method used to develop
structure exposure.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Editor's note: the article referred to is retained in Committee
file and is available at https://www.fs.usda.gov/research/treesearch/
63129.
b. Which firesheds or projects are ``shovel ready'' as described in
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
the report? Is there a total acreage of these lands?
Answer. All 10 Initial Landscapes met the following criteria:
have projects that are at scale or can be built out to scale
(``shovel ready'')
are outcome driven
are collaboratively developed with communities and ready for
implementation
allow for investment in underserved communities
leverage current partner investments
maximize use of existing authorities
The table below shows the 10 Landscape Investments including the
total acreage of these areas.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Editor's note: the following table is excerpted from
Confronting the Wildfire Crisis Initial Landscape Investments to
Protect Communities and Improve Resilience in America's Forests, FS-
1187d, dated April 2022. The report is retained in Committee file, and
is available at https://www.fs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/WCS-
Initial-Landscape-Investments.pdf.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total FY Total FY 2022-
Size of FY 2022 FY 2022 2022-2024 2024
Landscape Name State Landscape Funding Accomplishment Funding Accomplishment
(Acres) (Millions) (Acres) (Millions) (Acres)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4FRI Arizona 2,400,000 $12.0 100,000 $160.0 300,000
Prescott Arizona 401,000 $11.12 8,000 $28.7 87,700
North Yuba California 313,000 $6.8 4,500 $25.5 16,900
Stanislaus California 245,000 $21.8 8,500 $55.2 32,500
Colorado Front Colorado 3,500,000 $18.1 10,000 $170.4 36,100
Range
Southwest Idaho Idaho 1,720,000 $17.4 18,000 $59.5 55,000
Kootenai Complex Montana 800,000 $3.6 900 $19.3 7,200
Enchanted Circle New Mexico 1,500,000 $6.6 9,000 $11.3 32,500
Central Oregon Oregon 2,600,000 $4.5 5,000 $41.3 50,000
Central Washington Washington 2,450,000 $24.6 24,000 $102.6 124,000
Initiative
-----------------------------------------------------------
Total $131.3 208,000 $673.8 742,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Acreage denotes the size of the landscape, not actual acres to be treated within that landscape. This
summary table represents total size of landscapes, FY 2022 funding and planned accomplishments, as well as
total funding and accomplishments for FY 2022-2024. The landscape size does not represent total planned
treatment acres. Strategic treatment objectives focused on reducing approximately 80 percent of the exposure
to structures indicate the need to treat 20 to 40 percent of the overall fireshed. The overall size of these
ten landscapes is 16 million acres, of which 7 million acres are high-risk firesheds. Applying the 20 to 40
percent treatment objective would indicate the long-term need to treat 1.4 to 2.8 million acres on these
landscapes.
c. How much of the land across the highest priority firesheds is
under wilderness, roadless, or other areas thinning is
restricted?
Answer. Firesheds were ranked based on exposure we could treat,
including the use of mechanical thinning. Exposure from lands that were
withdrawn from management was not included in the treatment plan or
ranking.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford, a Representative
in Congress from Arkansas
Question 1. I have heard from several agriculture producers in my
district asking for any details about WHIP+. Our farmers are currently
trying to obtain financing for what is looking like a very challenging
year, and they need to have a better understanding of their financial
picture as they go through that process. So, are there any details, any
at all, that you might be able to make public, such as payment rates,
coverage levels or eligibility criteria, so that even if signup is not
open farmers have the information about what they can expect as they
talk with lenders?
Answer. In May 2022, the Department announced that producers who
had crop insurance or NAP indemnity payments for 2020 and 2021 losses
caused by qualifying natural disasters would receive pre-filled
applications for the Emergency Relief Program (ERP). Those applications
were sent just before Memorial Day, and as of early August, over $6
billion in disaster payments have gone to those producers. The
application and payment process has been streamlined by relying on
existing crop insurance and NAP data. Many producers received payment
within 3-5 business days of signing their application in the FSA County
Office. The ERP process has saved nearly a million hours of FSA county
office employee time and effort compared to previous disaster payments.
Question 2. Secretary Vilsack, you have long been a strong advocate
for free and fair trade. During your stint with the U.S. dairy
industry, you saw firsthand some of the many impediments we have to
fair trade, including the dispute taken against Canada's dairy industry
through USMCA. So you know how important it is to operate on a level
playing field. India is a major rice and wheat producer and exports
millions of metric tons of both at prices that our producers can't
dream of competing with because of their illegal subsidies. Do you
support efforts taken by the U.S. rice and wheat industries to
encourage a trade case against India?
Answer. Thank you for your question regarding India's domestic
support measures for wheat and rice, and for your continued engagement
on this important matter. As mentioned in my letter of February 28,
2022, I share your concerns about India's domestic support policies.
USDA continues to work closely with USTR to consider all options
available to ensure U.S. rice and wheat industries can compete in a
fair, rules-based international trade environment. This includes the
pending consultations (requested on May 13, 2022) by the United States
and other WTO Members with India under the Bali Ministerial Decision on
Public Stockholding for Food Security Purposes. The consultations will
provide the United States an opportunity to seek additional information
regarding India's domestic support policies and express U.S. concerns
directly to India.
Question 3. Secretary Vilsack, a project started during your second
term as Secretary was the filing of a request for consultations with
China on two major World Trade Organization cases because of the way
China buys and subsidizes rice, wheat, and corn. As a result, the U.S.
historically won both WTO cases in 2019, but unfortunately, now after
more than 2 years, we still don't have those cases resolved and China
has not come into compliance. This results in U.S. commodities being
less competitive on the world stage and allows China to continue being
a bad actor, unscathed from losing both cases. Can you commit to
raising the resolution of this case with your colleagues within the
Administration?
Answer. As you noted, in 2019 the United States won two momentous
WTO dispute settlement cases challenging China's domestic support
policies and tariff-rate quota practices for grains. These cases were
taken to create export opportunities for U.S. agriculture, particularly
for grains in China. China has made some adjustments to its grain
policy but still has several measures of concern. Over this period we
have seen record U.S. grain exports to China, thanks in part to this
WTO action. These matters remain a high priority for USDA, and we
continue to work closely with USTR to monitor China's implementation of
the reforms required to comply with its obligations under the WTO and
commitments undertaken in the Phase One Agreement.
Question 4. Secretary Vilsack, free trade agreement talks began
with the UK in mid-2020 and were sidelined when the Administration
transitioned last year. Since that time, the UK has gone on to sign
deals with several U.S. competitors and the U.S. is being left behind.
In addition to a lack of market access openings with the UK, the
Section 232 retaliatory duties remain in place with the UK and
agriculture, like U.S. rice, orange juice, cranberries, and distilled
spirits, further compounding the issue. Can you help champion the need
for a U.S.-UK Free Trade Agreement within the Administration and press
for removal of these retaliatory tariffs?
Answer. USDA is working closely with USTR to support the U.S.-UK
Food Security dialogue, however with any trade deal we must stand
vigilant to ensure there is meaningful access and commitments for U.S.
agriculture. On March 22, 2022, Secretary of Commerce Gina M. Raimondo
and United States Trade Representative Katherine C. Tai announced a new
232 tariff agreement with the United Kingdom that removed retaliatory
tariffs on over $500 million worth of U.S. exports to the UK, including
American whiskey, corn, sweet corn, rice, kidney beans, orange juice,
cranberry juice, peanut butter, and tobacco products. The agreement on
232 tariffs and retaliation serves as another example of President
Biden's commitment to rebuilding and strengthening relationships with
our allies and partners.
Question 5. Secretary Vilsack, the ReConnect Round 3 FOA awards 15
points to applicants that are local governments, nonprofits, or coops,
though RUS has worked with for-profit commercial rural telcos for
decades, and dozens of small, commercial companies have already won
ReConnect awards in Rounds 1 and 2. Two examples are Yelcot Telephone
and Mountain View Telephone, both of which are small commercial
companies that are currently putting ReConnect awards to work to
improve broadband service in the rural areas of my district, and both
are interested in pursuing ReConnect awards in the future--including in
Round 3.
If a local government and a community-based commercial broadband
provider both apply for ReConnect Round 3 to serve the same area and
the only difference between the two is that one provider is a local
government and the other is a commercial company, wouldn't it be true
that the local government would win solely because of the preference
for local governments?
Answer. The agency's experience in Round 3 was that this
hypothetical situation never occurred. There were a variety of
applicants that applied in the same geographic area, but none of those
overlapping projects were decided based on this singular scoring
criteria.
Question 5a. Given their track record, commitment to rural America,
and history of working with RUS, why put small commercial rural
broadband providers such as Yelcot Telephone and Mountain View
Telephone at a disadvantage in competing for ReConnect awards solely
due to how they are organized?
Answer. The agency's scoring criteria is intended to encourage best
practices and is not intended to disadvantage any specific type of
provider. Commercial for-profit entities have been very successful in
winning grant funding under the ReConnect Program and we expect that to
continue.
Question 5b. Will you commit to making the necessary adjustments,
both now and in future FOAs, to ensuring that rural broadband providers
can compete for ReConnect awards on an even playing field, regardless
of their form of organization or commercial status?
Answer. The agency encourages all applicants to look at all the
possible points available in every Funding Opportunity Announcement.
The scoring matrix adopted by the Rural Utilities Service for the
fourth round of ReConnect establishes a tiered approach which
prioritizes funding for service to communities in the greatest need.
The FOA offers additional points for applications that propose to serve
the least dense rural areas (25 points), that connect areas without
access to 25 Mbps downstream and 3 Mbps upstream (25 points), as well
those that will serve areas with a high economic need (20 points). At
least 70 out of 175 possible points will go to applications that
prioritize the most unserved rural communities. Additionally,
applicants can request points for affordability, serving underserved
communities, embracing labor standards and more. Scoring design is a
delicate balance of interest to achieve the highest public good and the
agency is open to ongoing feedback on this goal.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Vicky Hartzler, a Representative in
Congress from Missouri
Question 1. Unfortunately for consumers and agriculture economies,
the oil sector won a court case which reestablished an arbitrary EPA
restriction on selling E15 during the summer months. For the past few
years, retailers have been able to sell E15 during the driving season,
providing a healthy economic boost to corn farmers and biofuel
producers, further decarbonizing the transportation sector, and
reducing the price at the pump. In fact, E15 saves consumers at least
5 to 10 a gallon, on average. However, the court decision puts all of
this at risk moving forward. Given the importance of having low-cost
fuel options for consumers, what steps are you and the Administration
taking to restore consumer access to E15 year-round?
Answer. While the issue of year-round E15 ultimately falls outside
of the Department's jurisdiction, we will soon make $100 million
available in grants for higher blends fueling infrastructure to support
demand for biofuels like E15. Biofuels are positioned to help reduce
our dependence on foreign oil and bring down the price for consumers at
the pump while supporting a critical market for commodities. For those
reasons, USDA has and will continue to support the biofuels industry.
Question 2. With a final rule on Child Nutrition Temporary
Standards for Milk, Whole Grains and Sodium currently under OMB/White
House review, what kind of certainty is going to be provided to schools
and the school food supply chain that flexibilities that have been in
place for the past 4-5 School Years will remain in place, particularly
given all of the supply chain and distributions schools and food
suppliers are dealing with right now?
Answer. In February, USDA issued a final rule setting interim
school meal standards for whole grains, milk, and sodium in the Child
Nutrition Programs. We are acutely aware of the challenges school food
professionals are facing, and this ``bridge rule'' set transitional
standards to give schools stability and time to transition from current
pandemic operations. And we have issued waivers to make sure that
schools don't face financial penalties for failing to meal standards
due to supply chain disruptions. With the transitional standards in
place, USDA has undertaken extensive stakeholder engagement as we work
to update the nutrition standards for the long-term, in a way that is
practical and puts children's health at the forefront.
Question 3. Mr. Secretary, your Foreign Agriculture Service works
closely with the U.S. Trade Representative to find us new markets for
farm products. Expanding market access seems stalled and other
countries are happy to step into that vacuum while we sit back. How is
USDA engaging with USTR to find more export opportunities for American
producers?
Answer. FAS and USTR enjoy a collaborative and productive
partnership in expanding the global footprint for American producers
and continue to work on a number of endeavors. FAS is working closely
with USTR to identify non-tariff agricultural trade barriers we can
address through the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework, one of President
Biden's signature foreign policy initiatives. FAS is also working
closely with USTR to ensure Mexico follows a transparent and science-
based approach in its treatment of products of agricultural
biotechnology. FAS and USTR collaboration have yielded valuable
opportunities recently for American producers including, wrapping up a
20 year effort to secure full access for U.S. tomatoes to Mexico,
prosecuting USMCA litigation with Canada on how it is administering its
dairy TRQ, and securing an agreement with Japan to increase the beef
safeguard trigger level under the U.S.-Japan Trade Agreement.
Furthermore, USDA has resumed in-person agribusiness trade missions,
USA pavilions at international trade shows and continues to creatively
use virtual trade events targeted at specific products to grow and
develop new trade opportunities. These efforts are designed to directly
connect U.S. agriculture and food producers with buyers from around the
world.
Question 4. Recently, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
announced a new additional step in the process for evaluating and
registering new active ingredients (AIs) through the Endangered Species
Act (ESA). As of January 11, 2022, the EPA will evaluate the potential
effects of the AI and initiate an ESA consultation with the Services,
as appropriate, before registration. While I can appreciate that this
has the potential to diminish legal risks and prevent registration
vacaturs in the future, I remain concerned about the potential impact
this action could have on producers.
On the same day as this announcement, the EPA announced the renewal
of registrations for Enlist One and Enlist Duo using this new process.
Enlist is a critical crop protection tool that many producers rely on;
however, this announcement prohibits the use of these products in
several counties across the nation, including several in my district.
The restriction of Enlist One and Enlist Duo in these counties will
hamper producers' abilities to make economical and efficient crop
management decisions for their specific operations. Therefore, I ask
the following questions:
Was the USDA, specifically the Office of Pest Management Policy,
consulted by the EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) as OPP was
developing this new policy?
Answer. Yes, OPMP was consulted as OPP was developing this new
policy, and USDA actively commented on pre-release drafts of the
policy.
Question 4a. If so, did the USDA share concerns that this
additional layer of process will hinder growers' access to critical
crop protection tools?
Answer. USDA, through OPMP, both shared and is working to address
concerns that this additional layer will hinder growers' access to
tools. The concerns were shared during our formal comment process on
the EPA's workplan, as well as in continuing dialogue with EPA and the
Services, as USDA is part of the Interagency Working Group on this
issue. OPMP is working to address this concern by being a voice at the
table on behalf of growers. OPMP is also working to get early access to
decision-making and thoughts by strengthening its relationship with EPA
and providing substantiated, supported information for EPA to consider
in its ESA decision-making process (e.g., usage, use practices, and
benefits of products).
Question 4b. Does the USDA have a role in this new consultation
process on new active ingredients?
Answer. USDA is a member of the Interagency Working Group
established by the 2018 Farm Bill. However, USDA's role in the ESA
consultation process for any given pesticide is informal. Through OPMP,
USDA is working to actively participate in conversations around any
given active ingredient and any actions needed to ensure grower voices
are at the table.
Question 4c. Will you press the EPA to incorporate USDA pesticide
use data when evaluating potential AI effects on federally threatened
or endangered species?
Answer. Yes, we commit to pressing EPA to incorporate usage data
for pesticides with similar uses and target pests, and any available
projected usage data for new active ingredients to support the approval
of those registrations.
Question 4d. Specifically, on the recent announcement regarding
Enlist One and Enlist Duo, is the USDA coordinating with the EPA to
ensure producers in the counties impacted by the new restrictions have
access to alternative crop protection tools?
Answer. Specifically, on the recent announcement regarding Enlist
One and Enlist Duo, is the USDA coordinating with the EPA to ensure
producers in the counties impacted by the new restrictions have access
to alternative crop protection tools?
Through OPMP, USDA has and will continue to coordinate with
affected producers on the need for alternative crop protection tools.
USDA will assist and support any related efforts by state lead agencies
or EPA to approve uses of alternative crop protection tools. In
addition, USDA supports EPA's March 29, 2022, revision to the January
registration division that restored use of Enlist One and Enlist Due in
all counties in several states.
In future decisions, USDA is encouraged that EPA's direction in
protection endangered species appears to support restrictions in
geographically specific areas rather than following political
boundaries. USDA will work to support the additional crop protection
tools wherever needed.
Question 4e. Is the USDA working with EPA and the registrant of
Enlist One and Enlist Duo on any additional studies that would help
alleviate restrictions on some of the counties currently impacted?
Answer. USDA is maintaining open lines of communications with both
EPA and the Enlist One and Duo registrant to understand whether there
is information that may help to alleviate restrictions. Additionally,
through the Interagency Working Group and other Federal collaborative
efforts, OPMP is also working with the Fish and Wildlife Service to
make connections between FWS and external entities who may have
resources to help facilitate the updating of species range maps. OPMP
also has regular conversations with our Federal partners to help
identify opportunities to refine assessments associated with any
pesticide regulatory actions.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Doug LaMalfa, a Representative in Congress
from California
Question 1. The forestry provisions in the stalled Build Back
Better Act contain a variety of restrictions that limit the kinds of
projects that the Forest Service can do. For example, none of the $4
billion for hazardous fuels reduction in areas outside of the wildland-
urban interface (WUI) can be used for projects with commercial
partners. It remains unclear why the drafters of this legislation
included these restrictive provisions. Was USDA or the Forest Service
consulted on these provisions? Do you believe that excluding commercial
activities from forest restoration or hazardous fuels reduction is
warranted? Would it not make more sense to eliminate these restrictions
in order to provide the Forest Service with the flexibility necessary
to do these urgent treatments?
Answer. The $4B for hazardous fuels reduction outside the wildland
urban interface referenced in the above question was not included in
the final enacted version of the ``Inflation Reduction Act'' (H.R.
5376). Under the wildfire crisis strategy, the Forest Service is
working with all partners, including existing industry, to reduce
wildfire exposure in the areas at highest risk. Markets for new and
existing forest products are (and will continue to be) necessary to
carry out this work.
Question 2. In response to the fatally flawed 2015 Cottonwood
decision, the Obama Administration filed a petition of certiorari that
stated this new precedent had the potential to ``cripple forest
management'' and that has certainly been the case--whole forests have
been shut down and hundreds of projects implicated. In some instances,
project areas have burned in wildfire while being delayed in the courts
over this very issue. Furthermore, limited Agency resources are
diverted to this procedural requirement and responding to frivolous
lawsuits instead of getting more work done on the ground. Has the
Cottonwood decision made western communities more vulnerable to
wildfires? The past four Chiefs of the Forest Service testified in
support of finding a solution to reverse this decision. Chief Moore has
committed to work with Congress to address this issue. Will USDA also
work with this Committee on a solution?
Answer. The Ninth Circuit's decision in Cottonwood Environmental
Law Center v. United States Forest Service,\3\ 789 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir.
2015), in which the court found the Forest Service retains
discretionary involvement or control over a forest plan after its
approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Editor's note: the case Cottonwood v. USDA is retained in
Committee file and is available at https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-
content/uploads/2016/07/15-1387-cert-petition.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cottonwood Decision remains a source of litigation and
continues to be an issue of concern for the Agency USDA is committed to
finding a collaborative, science-based approach to conserving wildlife
and managing our public lands and forests, and we will continue to work
with the Department of the Interior and Congress towards a solution.
Question Submitted by Hon. Rick W. Allen, a Representative in Congress
from Georgia
Question 1. Typically, regulatory actions costing $100 million or
more are required to go to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for interagency review per Executive Order 12866. Further, a Memorandum
to Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies and Independent
Regulatory Agencies on October 12, 1993, states EPA actions making
pesticide uses more stringent should go to OMB for interagency review.
The rule from the EPA on chlorpyrifos last August cost more than
$100 million. Given this fact and the 1993 memo, should the EPA have
sent the rule to OMB for interagency review?
Answer. USDA would have welcomed the opportunity to formally review
the August tolerance revocation rule and will work through OPMP to
ensure that EPA follows interagency review processes in its rulemaking.
OPMP did have the opportunity to review the 2015 proposed revocation.
Question 1a. Should the EPA rescind the final rule on chlorpyrifos
and send it back to OMB for interagency review?
Answer. At this point in the process, if EPA were to rescind the
final rule on chlorpyrifos, USDA would welcome the opportunity to
provide review.
Question 1b. Are you aware of more recent guidance from OMB or the
White House that speaks to the requirements of Executive Order 12866
applying to tolerances other than the memo from October 12, 1993?
Answer. USDA would welcome the opportunity to formally review any
pesticide decisions, including tolerance actions. By building trust,
OPMP is working to increase collaboration between organizations so that
OPMP information and input is considered whether or not interagency
review is formally required.
Question 1c. Do you believe the EPA should have stood by its
science, and what I understand was the urging of USDA's Office of Pest
Management Policy, to retain safe uses and a registration?
Answer. USDA would have preferred that EPA maintain the uses of
chlorpyrifos that meet its own safety standard, and our public comments
and discussions with EPA reflect a consistent position that we believe
EPA can still safely maintain limited uses.
Question 1d. Do you believe the EPA should send actions pertaining
to pesticides, especially those making pesticide tolerances more
stringent, to OMB for interagency review? Would this provide USDA a
greater seat at the table to harness EPA on pesticide issues? In the
aftermath of the EPA's decision on chlorpyrifos, have you and the
Administrator spoken about how to better coordinate on pesticide
decisions to ensure the needs agriculture community are being
represented?
Answer. USDA would welcome the opportunity to formally review any
pesticide decisions, including tolerance actions. In OPMP's role as the
voice of the grower and as a respected, reliable source of information
on pesticide usage and use practices, OPMP is working to increase
collaboration between organizations so that USDA input is considered
whether or not interagency review is formally required.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Dusty Johnson, a Representative in Congress
from South Dakota
Question 1. Mr. Secretary, South Dakota corn growers have recently
paid up to 300% more for nitrogen fertilizer than they did a year ago.
Recently, several state corn grower organizations, including, Iowa and
South Dakota, sponsored a study that examined several factors affecting
pricing, and it concluded that an import tax levied upon the last unit
of nitrogen sold in the U.S. market increased the price by that same
amount for all units sold here, and not just those imported under
tariff. The study proposed that two possible explanations exist for
this result--supply constraints and/or market power. Corn acres across
the country and in South Dakota are not at historic highs. They are
fairly unchanged compared to a year ago. My constituents also
understand there are other factors that are potentially affecting
price, such as supply chain issues, workforce shortages and inflation.
However, these factors simply do not account for that level of price
increase; this picture is just not right. Secretary, is market power a
factor in this price increase? Would you commit to examining this issue
with my constituents?
Answer. I share your concern that there may be more to the
increased prices for fertilizer and other inputs than just supply and
demand. As USDA indicated in ``Access to Fertilizer: Competition and
Supply Chain Concerns,'' [https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/
2022/03/17/2022-05670/access-to-fertilizer-competition-and-supply-
chain-concerns] \4\ two companies supply the vast majority of
fertilizer potash in North America, and four companies supply 75
percent of U.S. nitrogen fertilizers. These companies' possession of
scarce resources, often in other countries, and control over critical
production, transportation, and distribution channels raises heightened
risks relating to concentration and competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Editor's note: the Federal Register Notice is retained in
Committee file.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under Executive Order No. 14036 on Promoting Competition in
America's Economy and Executive Order No. 14017 on America's Supply
Chains, USDA takes seriously the implications of these concentrated
market structures on pricing and market access for producers, as well
as more broadly on supply chain-related risks. We are conducting a
review of these market structures and their conduct-related
implications through a series of initiatives and efforts. Our Request
for Information, launched in March of this year, yielded 1500 comments,
which we are currently reviewing carefully. We are also coordinating
closely with the Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general,
given their antitrust jurisdiction and interest in these markets.
In addition to investigating the immediate issues of whether market
power is being unfairly leveraged to increase profit margins on the
backs of farmers and ranchers, USDA is making investments to add new
independent options for producers through a $500 million fertilizer
capacity grant program expected to open for applications in September.
This program has the following goals:
Independent--outside the dominant fertilizer suppliers,
increasing competition in a concentrated market;
Made in America--produced in the United States by domestic
companies, creating good-paying jobs at home and reducing the
reliance on potentially unstable or inconsistent foreign
supplies;
Innovative--improve upon fertilizer production methods to
jump start the next generation of fertilizers;
Sustainable--reduces the greenhouse gas impact of
transportation, production, and use through renewable energy
sources, feedstocks, formulations, and incentivizing greater
precision in fertilizer use;
Farmer-focused--like other Commodity Credit Corporation
investments, a driving factor will be providing support and
opportunities for U.S. agriculture commodity producers.
Question 2. Mr. Secretary, there has been increased attention on
the climate and environment worldwide, putting the spotlight on
agriculture has as a major player to environmental and climate change.
USDA is in a position to stand up for the positive contributions
environmental agricultural producers make through their stewardship of
lands under their control. USDA has a history of helping producers
accomplish good stewardship through NRCS cost share programs. Funding
for these programs, such as EQIP, has not reached the level of projects
proposed. America the Beautiful, or 30 X 30, offers us the opportunity
to work with producers to employ an army of land managers who truly
care about and understand the needs of the land to make infrastructure
improvements that will benefit the environment. History has
demonstrated that producers are far better equipped to care for the
land than Federal agencies. Will you commit to making working lands
conservation a priority of ``America the Beautiful'' instead of
preservation by providing more funding to existing conservation
programs?
Answer. The Biden-Harris Administration has outlined the America
the Beautiful Initiative, a vision for how the United States can work
collaboratively to conserve and restore the lands, waters, and wildlife
that support and sustain our country. Through consultations with
farmers, ranchers, private landowners, and states and local
governments, USDA worked with other agencies to draft a report
outlining a preliminary set of recommendations for a locally led and
voluntary nationwide conservation goal to conserve 30% of U.S. lands
and waters by 2030.
The America the Beautiful Initiative calls for a decade-long effort
to support locally led and voluntary conservation and restoration
efforts across public, private, and Tribal lands and waters in order to
create jobs and strengthen the economy's foundation; tackle the climate
and nature crises; and address inequitable access to the outdoors. We
can only reach this goal by working together with producers and other
private landowners. This will be centered on voluntary, collaborative,
locally led efforts that will play a critical role in conservation
across private working lands.
We believe that this work must support both natural resource
conservation and the productivity of America's agricultural and private
forestry operations. We're here to support farmers/ranchers/forest
landowners/partners through incentivized voluntary conservation
practices that work for individual landowners and communities and are
effective, equitable, and enduring. Private working lands will be
valued--and landowner rights respected--as we collaborate to conserve
the lands and waters we all depend on.
Question 3. Mr. Secretary, we were energy independent a year ago,
but now we are begging OPEC to increase production. The drastic
increase in energy prices is hurting farmers. That also leads to
increased fertilizer prices. Phosphorus and Potash prices have doubled
compared to what we paid for the 2021 crop and liquid nitrogen has
tripled. The price of everything that has to be processed or
transported increases when energy prices increase. This is all causing
tremendous inflation stress on producers and capturing the margin from
rising prices. What will the Administration do to better utilize our
own domestic resources to bring down energy and fertilizer prices?
Answer. Fertilizer prices have more than doubled since last year,
and we recently announced that USDA will support additional fertilizer
production for American farmers to address rising costs and spur
competition. USDA will make available $500 million through a new grant
program this summer to support independent, innovative and sustainable
American fertilizer production to supply American farmers. Details on
the application process will be announced in the summer of 2022, with
the first awards expected before the end of 2022.
Question 4. Mr. Secretary, the EPA has thrown out the Navigable
Waters Protection Rule and appears to be going back to something
similar to the 2015 WOTUS rule. We are concerned about the process, and
it appears that very little stakeholder input will be considered as a
new rule is written. What can you do to help agriculture and small
business on this issue?
Answer. On June 8, 2021, EPA and the Army Corps announced their
intent to revise the definition of WOTUS to better protect our nation's
vital water resources that support public health, environmental
protection, agricultural activity, and economic growth. The agencies
have continued to engage with a variety of stakeholders including the
agricultural community. USDA continues to encourage EPA and Army Corps
to ensure that farmers, ranchers and private forest owners are central
to the engagement and rulemaking process. USDA is continuing to work
with EPA to ensure agriculture communities are invited and part of the
stakeholder engagement. We are committed to ensuring that farmers,
ranchers and private forest owners--those most impacted--are part of
the process being coordinated by EPA, and EPA shares and has
demonstrated this commitment as well.
Question 5. Mr. Secretary, to date, USDA has yet to name a nominee
for the still-vacant post for the Under Secretary for Trade and Foreign
Agricultural Affairs. This is a prominent trade position that many are
eagerly awaiting confirmation. There are potential markets of
opportunity for ethanol and dried distillers grains in South America
and Asia, so the biofuels sector is also watching closely on who you
select for this key position. Are you able to provide a status update
on where the process stands for that position?
Answer. USDA is pleased that the President nominated Alexis Taylor
for this important position. Alexis has dedicated her life to public
service. Her nomination builds upon USDA's commitment to link U.S.
agriculture to the world to enhance export opportunities for American
farmers and producers and increase global food security. She is the
right person to lead the Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs mission
area as we continue to address global food security, promote American
exports across the globe and strengthen trade relationships with our
global partners. We look forward to her swift confirmation by the
United States Senate.
Question 6. Mr. Secretary, recently, I more fully understand how
much of our animal health and feed industry lies in the hands of China.
China has efficiently and economically built modern vitamin and trace
mineral manufacturing utilizing export government subsidies. In fact,
China manufactures 100% of global vitamin B volume and controls over
half of the Vitamin D, E, K, and Vitamin C markets. Without vitamin
supplementation, production of milk, meat and eggs would be slashed by
at least 20% due to animal health related issues including disease and
death.
As part of the President's council on supply chain disruptions and
as you identify critical supply chain resiliency measures, will you
speak up for greater government incentives and investment to encourage
U.S. based manufacturing of vitamins and essential animal nutrients?
Answer. I will certainly continue to be an advocate for U.S.
farmers and ranchers and maximizing the health and profitability of
their industries, both in my role as part of the President's Supply
Chain Disruptions Task Force and outside of it. President Biden has
made domestic manufacturing and strengthening domestic supply chains
key goals of his Administration. As part of that work, the White House
has released the Biden-Harris Plan to Revitalize American Manufacturing
and Secure Critical Supply Chains in 2022 which includes highlights of
efforts happening across the government to support domestic
manufacturing, including by providing direct funding assistance for
small businesses through the Department of Treasury and the Small
Business Administration.
I am also actively working with my colleagues at the Department of
Transportation in order to ease shipping related issues, including
USDA's efforts to support ports exporting US agricultural products. I'd
also like to thank you and your colleagues for your leadership to pass
the Ocean Shipping Reform Act that President Biden signed into law
earlier this year.
Question 7. Mr. Secretary, as Ranking Member of the House
Agriculture Committee's Subcommittee on Livestock and Foreign
Agriculture, I appreciated your comments during the hearing on the need
for our trading partners to live up to our trade agreements and that
the first step is enforcement.
As a supporter of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement
(USMCA), I am growing concerned about Mexico's failure to honor its
commitments regarding the treatment of agricultural biotechnology
products and Mexico's decree to phase out imports of genetically
modified corn for human consumption. I appreciate the promises Mexico's
Secretary of Agriculture and Rural Development, Victor Villalobos has
made to you that this will not disrupt market access for U.S. producers
to the Mexican feed market, however, this does not change the fact that
the decree is not based on science and there are more than 25 biotech
product traits in the queue pending approval.
Mexico has failed to approve a new biotech product in 3 years.
Mexico's lack of transparent, timely, and science-based approval
process is undermining the U.S.'s ability to develop and deploy
innovative plant biotechnologies and hindering producers access new
plant technologies.
Given your acknowledgement that enforcement is critical, is USDA
working with Ambassador Tai and USTR to prepare for an enforcement case
under USMCA if Mexico does not reverse course and abide by the
biotechnology provisions in USMCA?
Answer. USDA continues to explore all possible avenues toward
satisfactory resolution of our concerns regarding Mexico's treatment of
agricultural biotechnology. I am grateful for the strong partnership of
Ambassador Tai and the close coordination between our staffs on this
critical issue.
Question 8. Mr. Secretary, the COVID reconciliation package passed
in December 2020 contained a provision ``COVID-19 Animal Surveillance''
It provided USDA with $300 million to conduct monitoring and
surveillance of susceptible animals for incidence of SARS-CoV-2. What
is the status of this program?
Answer. Since the beginning of the pandemic, APHIS has studied
SARS-CoV-2 in animals, through surveillance, testing, research, and
collaboration with partners. We confirmed cases in several animal
species including cats, dogs, certain zoo animals, mink, white-tailed
deer, and recently mule deer. The full list of confirmed cases of SARS-
CoV-2 in U.S. animals can be found on our One Health website.
Developed alongside our One Health partners across the human,
animal and environmental health communities, APHIS' strategic framework
for implementing the American Rescue Plan Act outlines how the agency
is focusing its efforts to prevent, detect, investigate and respond to
SARS-CoV-2 in animals, as well as other emerging diseases that could
pose a threat to humans and animals.
As the organization enhances and expands its capacities to address
the immediate threat of SARS-CoV-2, specialists at APHIS are building
critical capacity to address future emerging threats and prevent or
limit any future pandemics, to protect the health and welfare of the
nation's animals as it has for more than 50 years.
APHIS is currently conducting multiple projects under the American
Rescue Plan Act, including projects partnering with industry and
academia, aimed at understanding how the SARS-CoV-2 virus behaves in
different animals, how it moves between animals and people and what it
can do to interrupt the chain of transmission. For example, we are
partnering with state agencies and Tribes across the United States to
collect samples from white-tailed deer to determine how widespread the
disease is across the United States. This project will also help us
understand if deer can serve as a reservoir for the virus, which could
lead to new virus variants that may impact the health of animals and
humans. APHIS is also partnering with zoos and aquariums across the
country to identify which species have been exposed to SARS-CoV-2. This
study will also test free-ranging wildlife on and around facilities.
Researchers will also assess biosecurity practices and develop best
practices that zoos and aquariums can adopt to help prevent future
SARS-CoV-2 infections.
These are just a few examples of the initiatives APHIS is
implementing under the American Rescue Plan Act, which are critically
important given that scientists estimate that three out of every four
new or emerging infectious diseases in people come from animals. APHIS
is uniquely positioned for this work because of our scientific
expertise in animal health and animal diseases, including preparing for
and responding to foreign animal disease outbreaks.
Question 8a. I am also told it gives APHIS a great deal of latitude
on how the program will be implemented. Will it also provide funding
opportunities for research and vaccination?
Answer. APHIS recognizes that partnerships and leveraging external
innovations, tools and capacity are critical to the success of this
program. APHIS is implementing a multi-pronged approach to support
SARS-CoV-2 research in animals that includes partnering with industry
and academia to complete APHIS-led activities, participating in
existing Federal competitive grant initiatives, and considering other
ways to provide funding opportunities through the American Rescue Plan
Act, such as potentially developing a competitive funding opportunity.
APHIS will provide funding through grants and cooperative agreements,
promoting inclusive and equitable practices. These funding
opportunities under the American Rescue Plan Act will help leverage
both prior and new One Health partnerships while working toward the
goal of preventing or minimizing the next pandemic.
APHIS recently announced a funding opportunity under the American
Rescue Plan Act though a partnership with the National Institute of
Food and Agriculture (NIFA) via the Food Research Initiative (AFRI),
and the National Science Foundation (NSF) Ecology and Evolution of
Infectious Diseases (EEID) program. APHIS will be able to commit up to
$24 million for external research grants that streamline funding
critical SARS-CoV-2 research. These funds will make grants available to
eligible state and Federal agencies, academia, private organizations or
corporations, and individuals that apply and are selected. These grants
will support research that directly aligns with APHIS' American Rescue
Plan strategic framework and will fund key activities to:
Address gaps in surveillance and investigation activities
for SARS-CoV-2 in animals, including farmed animals, captive
wildlife, free-ranging wildlife, and companion animals.
Expand knowledge of susceptibility of species to SARS-CoV-2
to improve understanding of potential roles or routes of
transmission.
Develop surveillance tools and strategies for the rapid
detection and characterization of emerging and re-emerging
pathogens to support an early warning system to prevent or
limit future SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks.
Identify risks, effective interventions, and other measures
to prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2 at the human-animal
interface and/or impacts to the food supply.
Question 9. Mr. Secretary, we recently saw a news broadcast about
dairy co-ops that have full warehouses and nowhere to put milk due to
export difficulties, noting that cows never stop milking and the
product has to go somewhere. The coverage made it seem like U.S.
agriculture is at near crisis levels with the supply chain
difficulties, especially with dairy. Do you agree with that assessment?
Answer. U.S. dairy exporters have experienced some of the same
shipping difficulties that other exporters are facing (container
availability, shipping and trucking delays, trans-Pacific shipping rate
increases). Despite those difficulties, dairy exports continue to grow,
with exports reaching $7.66 billion in calendar year 2021. USDA offers
export certification services to assist in the exportation of dairy
products.
USDA continues to work with industry partners throughout the supply
chain to relieve the disruption created by the COVID-19 pandemic and
Russia's war with Ukraine and address the specific challenges
agricultural producers, including dairy cooperatives, are facing along
the supply chain. USDA formed partnerships with several ports as part
of the Biden Administration's Supply Chain Task Force efforts with
state and local governments. USDA recently announced plans to increase
capacity for exporting chilled and frozen agricultural commodities at
the Port of Houston in Houston, Texas, to help improve service for
shippers of U.S. grown agricultural commodities. USDA is partnering
with the Port of Houston to lease additional chassis, used to position
and store containers while waiting for vessels to arrive, enabling the
port to fully utilize its capacity for refrigerated shipping
containers. In addition, USDA is exploring expansion opportunities for
its ongoing partnerships with the Port of Oakland, the Port of Seattle,
and the Port of Tacoma to set up additional ``pop-up'' sites which will
make it easier for agricultural companies to fill empty shipping
containers. In addition, USDA is accepting applications for the
Commodity Container Assistance Program (CCAP) which provides per-
container payments to help cover additional logistics costs and ensure
that American-grown products can once again move efficiently through
supply chains to global markets. CCAP is currently a partnership
between USDA and the Port of Oakland and Northwest Seaport Alliance,
which includes the Port of Seattle and the Port of Tacoma in Washington
State. USDA continues to seek opportunities to partner with additional
ports or other intermodal container facilities to help American farmers
and agricultural producers move their product to market and manage the
short-term challenges. USDA will also continue to partner with other
Federal agencies and state and local governments to address port
operation challenges resulting from the ongoing supply chain
difficulties.
Question 10. Mr. Secretary, would you be open to adjusting RMA
policy for a producer to change their agent and/or agency of record by
the Acreage Reporting Date if at least one of the following criteria
are met: 1. Agent of record become physically ill, deceased, or unable
to perform the duties required of an agent, and there is no longer a
licensed agent within the agency of record to perform the agent duties.
2. Ownership of policy is transferred to another agent and/or agency
after the Sales Closing Date. The transfer must be completed by the
Acreage Reporting Date, and a producer may not change insurance
company, crops, coverage levels, options, or any elections with a Sales
Closing Date deadline that was already elected by the Sales Closing
Date?
What are the procedures if a crop insurance agent can no longer
perform the duties required and/or the agency is dissolved after the
Sales Closing Date?
Answer. RMA has procedures in place to address extenuating
circumstances. Our staff is glad to look into more details on these
particular scenarios.
Question 11. Mr. Secretary, several disease prevention and
preparedness programs at USDA continue to be understaffed and under
resourced, and the emergence of African Swine Fever in our hemisphere
highlights the gap that can be left when these programs are not
adequately funded. How is USDA strengthening surveillance capabilities
to stop the potential introduction of foreign and emerging diseases?
Answer. Prevention and preparedness are essential to keeping
foreign animal diseases out of the country and those efforts are
invaluable to protecting and enhancing markets for U.S. livestock
producers. The U.S. has the strongest animal disease surveillance in
the world, and it proved to be invaluable to us during this year's
outbreak of highly pathogenic avian influenza. The early warning we
received from the wild bird surveillance sounded the alarm and allowed
us, working with our state and industry partners, to get the word out
about the importance of hardening biosecurity on farms. We saw very
little lateral, farm-to-farm spread because of the increased attention
to biosecurity and the extra time and attention that wild bird
surveillance bought us. With respect to African swine fever, it was
actually our surveillance efforts that identified the disease in the
Dominican Republic, as part of an existing, international cooperative
surveillance program. That surveillance has allowed us to take all the
additional steps we have to protect U.S. producers and to continue to
keep the deadly disease out of the country.
Additionally, on July 15, USDA announced updates to our Swine
Hemorrhagic Fevers: African and Classical Swine Fevers Integrated
Surveillance Plan to reflect additional measures put in place over the
last year.
Questions Submitted by Hon. James R. Baird, a Representative in
Congress from Indiana
Question 1. Trade is a critical component of the U.S. Ag economy,
and foundation of many current agricultural markets. Though, to date,
President Biden has yet to name a nominee to the still-vacant post for
the Under Secretary for Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs.
What is the status of filling this important position?
Answer. USDA is pleased that the President nominated Alexis Taylor
for this important position. Alexis has dedicated her life to public
service. Her nomination builds upon USDA's commitment to link U.S.
agriculture to the world to enhance export opportunities for American
farmers and producers and increase global food security. She is the
right person to lead the Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs mission
area as we continue to address global food security, promote American
exports across the globe and strengthen trade relationships with our
global partners. We look forward to her swift confirmation by the
United States Senate.
Question 1a. In the absence of this Under Secretary, what effort is
the Department making to grow and develop new trade relationships?
Answer. USDA is working closely with USTR to identify non-tariff
agricultural trade barriers we can address through the Indo-Pacific
Economic Framework, one of President Biden's signature foreign policy
initiatives. Complimenting USDA's work to reduce barriers, USDA has
resumed in-person agribusiness trade missions, USA pavilions at
international trade shows and continues to creatively use virtual trade
events targeted at specific products to grow and develop new trade
relationships. These efforts are designed to directly connect U.S.
agriculture and food producers with buyers from around the world.
Question 1b. How are we doing at enforcing our current agreements
and improving the trade portion of the supply chain crisis crippling
our nation?
Answer. USDA is committed to ensuring our trading partners fulfill
the obligations they undertake in trade agreements with the United
States. We engage bilaterally and multilaterally, as appropriate. The
Foreign Agricultural Service works with regulatory agencies and the
Office of the Trade Representative to continue to press trading
partners in key markets to adhere to their World Trade Organization
commitments based on sound science, international standards, and the
principal of equivalence to help retain access to key markets around
the world. USDA efforts have borne fruit; our agricultural exports
continue to grow. The United States exported a record $176.5 billion of
agricultural products in 2021, a 27 percent increase from 2016.
Regarding the supply chain, USDA continues to work with industry
partners throughout the supply chain to relieve the disruption created
by the COVID-19 pandemic and address the specific challenges
agricultural producers are facing along the supply chain. As Secretary,
I have spoken one-on-one with the executives of five major ocean
carriers to press them on continuing concerns about service and
availability raised by agricultural exporters, and I encouraged greater
cooperation with agricultural export efforts, including committing to
providing needed empty containers. In addition, USDA formed
partnerships with several ports as part of the Administration's Supply
Chain Task Force efforts with state and local governments. USDA
recently announced plans to increase capacity for exporting chilled and
frozen agricultural commodities at the Port of Houston in Houston,
Texas, to help improve service for shippers of U.S. grown agricultural
commodities. In addition, USDA is exploring expansion opportunities for
its ongoing partnerships with the Port of Oakland, the Port of Seattle,
and the Port of Tacoma to set up additional ``pop up'' sites which will
make it easier for agricultural companies to fill empty shipping
containers. Furthermore, USDA is accepting applications for the
Commodity Container Assistance Program (CCAP) which provides per-
container payments to help cover additional logistics costs and ensure
that American-grown products can once again move efficiently through
supply chains to global markets.
Question 2. The pandemic has been tough on the entire U.S. economy,
and our farmers and ranchers are certainly no exception, which is why
Congress and the last two Administrations have all worked to develop
pandemic assistance programs for producers.
I've heard comments and concerns recently from constituents in
regard to delays and shortcomings in the pandemic assistance programs
such as a continual delay in the Spot Market Hog Pandemic Program, and
payment reductions in programs like the Timber Harvesters and Haulers
Program, among several others.
Why have programs like the SMHPP been stalled, and when can my
constituents expect to receive the support they've been promised?
Answer. FSA paused SMHPP payments when applications far outpaced
the estimates that had been used to set up the program. The pause in
payments allowed the Agency to work with stakeholders to better define
which sales would constitute spot market sales and qualify for the
program. On March 18, 2022, USDA published a revised SMHPP NOFA to
clarify hog eligibility (including expanded direct and third party
intermediary sales, documentation requirements, and payment factoring.
Due to producer confusion related to the eligibility of sales and
related supporting documentation, FSA included a provision requiring
all producers to provide verifiable or reliable documentation of their
eligibility of sales to confirm SMHPP payment eligibility and to
prevent erroneous payments.
Once FSA County Committees had finished considering SMHPP
applications, we had to decide whether to apply a payment factor or add
funding to the original $50 million allotted from Pandemic funding. We
decided to not factor the payments and producers received the full $54
payment per hog. The total ended up at $62.8 million.
Question 2a. For programs like the Timber Harvester and Hauler
program that have run out of money, how was total demand anticipated?
Does the Department anticipate making additional funds available for
this program?
Answer. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, provided up to
$200 million for PATHH. FSA collaborated with the U.S. Forest Service
to assess program subscription and determine eligibility. While
administering the program, it became evident that subscription far
exceeded initial estimates on interest and the funding available.
However, since the $200 million for PATHH was legislatively prescribed
in the CAA, any subsequent funding would require additional
appropriations.
Consistent with Congressional direction and leveraging
administrative authorities and flexibilities, USDA continues to deliver
programs and program modifications to fill gaps in previous rounds of
pandemic assistance and help underserved and small and medium sized
producers that need support most.
Question 3. Last fall, Representative Plaskett and I sent a
bipartisan letter signed by 37 Members of this Committee to you and FDA
acting administrator Janet Woodcock, urging the Administration to make
progress on implementing a more efficient, science and risk-based
regulatory system that will allow a path to market for animal
biotechnology products.
Recognizing the connection between human, animal, and environmental
health, animal biotechnology can help us advance one health objectives
by mitigating and preventing zoonotic diseases. These technologies can
help maintain U.S. producers' competitiveness in the global market by
helping reduce methane emissions from livestock and resilience to
extreme heat.
USDA needs to take the lead in developing the regulatory framework
for animal biotechnology that encourages agricultural innovation,
provides access to valuable new technologies to American livestock
producers, and ensures food safety and security for consumers.
What is the status of USDA's ANPR for animal biotechnology
regulations?
Answer. Through extensive stakeholder outreach, including through
our ANPR in 2021, we learned that all stakeholders seek clarity,
transparency, and finality regarding oversight of agricultural animal
biotechnology. USDA continues to engage with our interagency partners
to ensure that the United States continues to be a leader on this
important technology.
Question 3a. What discussions have been had between USDA and FDA
and within the Administration to create a workable regulatory framework
for animal biotechnology?
Answer. USDA staff are working with their counterparts in FDA to
enhance understanding of each other's regulatory authorities and
processes. Both USDA and FDA have skills that are relevant for animal
biotechnology, and we must coordinate effectively regardless of who
leads. USDA's experts are integral to every aspect of livestock
production, from research to trade, including protection of herd
health, animal health, and food safety. We know that all stakeholders
seek clarity, transparency, and finality regarding oversight of
agricultural animal biotechnology and we are committed to delivering a
predictable, transparent, and science-based regulatory process.
Question 4. Similar to the framework stifling animal biotechnology
innovation, regulatory hurdles are also preventing FDA's approval of
innovative feed ingredients with forward leaning environmental
benefits. As a result, we are falling behind our international
competitors with access to these technologies. You yourself highlighted
how beneficial these additives could be in helping to reduce
agricultural methane emissions when you testified before the House Ag
Appropriations subcommittee last April. Unfortunately, FDA's current
policy, which has not been updated since 1998, places an undue approval
burden on these products preventing companies from seeking approval in
the U.S.
How has USDA engaged with FDA to help modernize the agency's
approval process so that U.S. farmers can have access to these feed
additives to remain competitive in the global arena and reduce methane
emissions?
Answer. Regulatory approval for animal health products in the
United States is divided between FDA, USDA, and the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service, Center for Veterinary Biologics (APHIS CVB) oversees the
regulation of veterinary biologics; EPA oversees products deemed
pesticides; FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine (FDA CVM) governs the
regulation of pharmaceuticals and dietary supplements. USDA is
available to consult with FDA as it carries out its responsibilities.
In general, to receive drug approval from FDA CVM, the product's
sponsor must file information on the drug's chemistry and composition,
the proposed labeling, and evidence demonstrating three things (Meyer,
2014).\5\ First, the drug must be effective in doing what it proposes
to do on its label. Second, the sponsor must be able to consistently
manufacture the product with good practices. Finally, the drug must be
safe for the animal, the environment, and people, when used as directed
on the label.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Editor's note: the origin of the citation is not listed;
however, it is referenced in the Economic Research Service's report
ERR-264, The U.S. and EU Animal Pharmaceutical Industries in the Age of
Antibiotic Resistance (https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/
93179/err-264.pdf?v=961) The full reference (Meyer, S. 2014. ``Animal
Health Market in the Bric Countries and Comparison of Its Regulatory
Requirements for Veterinary Medicinal Products with EU Legislation.''
Master's Thesis), a master's thesis, is retained in Committee file and
is available at: https://www.dgra.de/deutsch/studiengang/master-thesis/
2014-56710.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We note that in 2019, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
announced the approval of Experior, the first animal drug that when fed
to beef cattle under specific conditions results in less ammonia gas
released as a byproduct of their waste.
Question 4a. If he's confirmed by the Senate, how will you engage
with Dr. Califf in his role as FDA Commissioner to streamline the
regulatory process in getting these technologies to market for our
livestock producers?
Answer. Where appropriate, USDA will work with FDA to share
streamlining best practices from the veterinary biologics program and
to support the consideration of feed additives that could reduce
methane emissions. Enteric fermentation is a natural digestive process
in animals where anaerobic microbial populations in the digestive tract
ferment feed and produce methane. Ruminants have greater rates of
enteric fermentation because of their unique digestive systems. Energy
content and quantity of feed also affect the amount of methane
produced, with lower quality and higher quantities of feed leading to
greater emissions. Changes to diet composition and the use of feed
additives can reduce methane emissions from enteric fermentation. In
particular, increasing dietary fat, providing higher quality forage,
increasing protein content of feed, increasing dry matter intake, and
decreasing the forage-to-concentrate ratio can reduce emissions from
enteric fermentation. Emerging research also is providing evidence that
feed additives, such as tannins, monensin, and 3-Nitrooxypropanol
(3NOP) reduce enteric emissions.
Question 5. We recently learned that growers aren't finding out
about those endangered Species Act restrictions on certain, specific
herbicides until after those changes are finalized. By that point, it's
too late for farmers to adjust because they have already purchased
their seeds and herbicides for the year. This is obviously a problem.
Can USDA work with EPA on this to ensure that, when EPA is
considering new ESA restrictions on the use of certain herbicides,
farmers are in the loop throughout the process and not kept in the dark
until it's too late for them to do anything about it?
Answer. Yes. USDA has, and will continue to, urge EPA to maintain
early and open lines of communication with growers to ensure that all
potentially affected stakeholders are aware of pending decisions.
USDA submitted extensive comments on EPA's recent ESA Workplan to
this effect and proposed several modifications to the workplan with a
focus on ensuring that farmers have early and regular opportunities to
be engaged in any ESA assessments for herbicides and other pesticides.
In addition, USDA/OPMP will be actively involved in the Federal
pilot mitigation effort that EPA announced in June. OPMP will provide a
grower voice at the table and facilitate grower input into that
process.
Question 6. In 2020, nearly 25 million acres of dicamba-tolerant
soybeans and 4\1/2\ million acres of dicamba-tolerant cotton were
sprayed over the top with low-volatility dicamba formulations. If these
dicamba formulations were to go off the market for any reason--and
given the current supply chain pressures facing the herbicide market--
do you have any projections or thoughts on what the economic and
agronomic impacts could be for farmers?
Has the Department done any analysis on that?
Answer. USDA has conducted some rough analyses of potential
economic impacts from major use restrictions of existing dicamba over-
the-top product registrations, but these analyses are of limited
utility because of the lack of public availability of reliable seed
trait adoption data for herbicide-tolerant seeds.
Question 6a. If not, could you work with us to have the Department
perform such analysis?
Answer. USDA would appreciate any support that can be provided to
facilitate access to reliable and representative seed trait adoption
data for herbicide-tolerant soybean and corn seeds. The best source of
these data are the seed companies themselves. This information would
allow OPMP to refine our rough analyses of potential impacts to U.S.
agriculture from changes to over-the-top dicamba product registrations.
Question 7. I share Secretary Vilsack's concern about the impact of
increased input costs on American farmers and appreciate you discussing
this concern before the Committee. That said, I've previously seen and
heard comments you and your Department have made in regard to seed
price increases as a significant contributor to this impact, and I
wanted to share some data points that will help to provide some
perspective to that point.
First, Texas A&M released a report earlier this month examining how
higher fertilizer prices will impact growers. In that report, Texas A&M
found that fertilizer prices increased nearly 26% in 2021 and can be
expected to increase more than 13.5% this year. This is in stark
contrast to the findings related to seed prices, which Texas A&M found
slightly decreased (^0.24%) in 2021 and are projected to increase 3.3%
this year.
Additionally, it is worth noting that USDA's own Economic Research
Service's data shows that seed prices remained fairly stable and
actually declined slightly from 2014 to 2020.
With this data in mind, I am curious to know what data the
Administration is relying upon in forming its conclusions that seed
prices have substantially increased.
Additionally, I understand that the Department plans to undertake
an investigation into seed prices.
What data the Administration is relying upon in forming its
conclusions that seed prices have substantially increased?
Answer. As directed under Executive Order 14036, Promoting
Competition in America's Economy, issued in July 2021, USDA is
conducting a study on issues of concern in competition and intellectual
property, covering seeds and other inputs. To gather information and
input from the public, USDA published in March 2022 a Request for
Information (RFI). A wide range of relevant stakeholders, including
academics, industry participants, plant breeders, and others, have
submitted comments, and we are currently reviewing those comments. We
are also carefully reviewing all available academic analysis, including
from both internal and external sources.
Question 7a. If it is true that the Department plans undertake this
investigation, what is the status of that investigation, and what
methodology does the Department plan to utilize?
Answer. As indicated above, USDA is conducting a study relying on
available academic resources and input from the public. We expect to
produce a published report in the coming months.
Question 8. The Biden Administration has made clear throughout the
past year that it prioritizes climate change mitigation as a primary
objective. As I've said several times as a Member of this Committee,
that I feel we have a real opportunity to turn climate change
mitigation into a boon for rural America and our farmers and ranchers
if we focus on opportunities and innovation instead of restrictions and
onerous regulation.
Unfortunately though, I am concerned that actions and statements by
the Administration in regard to cutting blended biofuels, retroactively
lowering Renewable Volume Obligations, and heavily subsidizing electric
vehicles over biofuels that could cut GHG emissions by 46% today, are
all steps in the wrong direction towards a goal of carbon reduction
that benefits farmers and Rural America.
With this in mind, do you think the Administration can expect to
achieve their GHG reduction targets without increased use of biofuels?
Answer. While the Administration has made new investments in
electric vehicles and charging infrastructure, the Department continues
to support the biofuels industry through its programs. Biofuels are
important part of our plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For
example, supporting the production of sustainable aviation has been a
major priority for this Administration. While electric vehicles are
also a part of the solution the bioeconomy will remain an essential and
growing industry in our country.
Question 8a. Are you aware of reports that the Administration may
make further cuts to biofuel blending and do you agree that cutting
biofuel blending would only serve to hurt rural economies, like those
in my district?
Answer. Implementation of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) falls
under the jurisdiction of EPA.
Question 9. Unfortunately for consumers and rural communities, the
biofuels industry recently lost a court case which re-established an
arbitrary EPA restriction on selling E15 during the summer months. For
the past few years, retailers have been able to sell E15 during the
driving season, providing a healthy economic boost to farmers and rural
communities, while reducing emissions and, and lowering prices at the
pump for consumers by 5-10 per gallon. Unfortunately though, this
court decision puts all of these benefits at risk moving forward.
Given the importance of having low-cost fuel options for consumers,
and considering the investments this and previous Administrations have
made into E15 infrastructure, what steps are you and the Administration
taking to restore consumer access to E15 year-round?
Answer. While the issue of year-round E15 ultimately falls outside
of the Department's jurisdiction, we will soon make $100 million
available in grants for higher blends fueling infrastructure to support
demand for biofuels like E15. Biofuels are positioned to help reduce
our dependence on foreign oil and bring down the price for consumers at
the pump while supporting a critical market for commodities. For those
reasons, USDA has and will continue to support the biofuels industry.
Question 10. There are so many issues that are facing production
agriculture and rural America, the supply chain, inflation, trade,
rising input costs. However, instead of addressing these, you spent a
significant portion of your testimony focused on a new, unauthorized,
$1 billion ``pilot'' to build out a climate-smart commodity program. We
already have many great conservation programs developed with bipartisan
support, that were debated and authorized by Congress. With that in
mind, I and others have concern with your efforts to act unilaterally
on a program your Department has created off the cuff using CCC funds
that I'm not sure rural America wants or that this Congress would
authorize.
Answer. Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities is complementary
to, through distinct from our existing set of conservation programs and
tools. Early adopters (those who have already applied some climate-
smart practices) are eligible and encouraged to be part of the pilot
projects. Federal funds under this funding opportunity may not be used
to pay for implementation of the same practice on the same land.
Generally, if a practice has (or had) a Federal contract and is still
within the project lifespan, then that specific practice on that
specific land will not be paid for again; however, an enhancement to
that practice or practices implemented on other areas of the farm are
acceptable. Payments to further incentivize the climate-smart commodity
generated are also acceptable.
Demand for this new program was extremely high and USDA is
currently reviewing $20 billion worth of proposals for Partnerships for
Climate-Smart Commodities.
USDA will continue to support the demand from producers for
climate-smart agriculture through our existing set of conservation
programs as well as through Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities.
Question 10a. My understanding, is that the lawyers at the
Department have had to spend many hours looking at your CCC authorities
in this regard. If the lawyers have given you the green light, this
Committee would like to see that reasoning on paper. If there is any
question on the matter, then this Committee would like to be made
abreast of that decision-making prior to you acting on it. Either way,
we need to hear from you prior to any funds being obligated for these
alleged purposes.
Can you please provide this information to the entire Committee,
and will you commit to sharing similar information with the entire
Committee in the future?
Answer. Section 5 of the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter
provides authorities to ``make available materials and facilities
required in connection with the production and marketing of
agricultural commodities (other than tobacco)'' and ``increase the
domestic consumption of agricultural commodities (other than tobacco)
by expanding or aiding in the expansion of domestic markets or by
developing or aiding in the development of new and additional markets,
marketing facilities, and uses for such commodities.''
Question 11. The Department has said many times, including in the
Thrifty Food Plan Report, that the increased benefits would support a
healthy diet. As a matter of fact, the word healthy appears 108 times
across the 125 page report. Yet, there seems to be little to no
research to support such a claim, as learned across briefings and
correspondence at the staff level.
How can we ensure that the Food and Nutrition Service conducts
research--under the funding and authority had through the annual
Research and Evaluation plan--on whether this increase will lead to
healthier eating, healthier purchases, and healthier outcomes?
Answer. The FNS Research and Evaluation Plan for FY 2023 will
include studies to determine the impact of the TFP reevaluation on SNAP
participants. Studies under consideration include field tests with SNAP
participants to assess their understanding of the Dietary Guidelines
and how they factor into shopping patterns, variations in shopping
patterns across regions and in urban compared to rural areas, and other
studies to examine how the TFP market baskets translate into real-life
shopping experiences for SNAP participants.
Question 12. Innovations in engineered microorganisms can create
breakthrough systems to unlock the potential for biology and transform
all industries.
In agriculture, it has the power to build a future to make foods
that are sustainable. For example, legumes, such as soybeans and peas,
already use bacteria to ``fix'' nitrogen in precisely this way. By
creating microbes that do the same for major cereal crops like corn, we
can reduce the need for fertilizer, slashing greenhouse gas emissions
in the process.
However, these breakthroughs are dependent on a clear, timely, and
science-based regulatory approval process that provides a viable path
to market.
While the SECURE rule helped streamline the deployment of
innovative plant technologies, it has created uncertainty for microbial
technology.
When will USDA develop and issue guidance for non-plant GE
organisms potentially subject to regulation under Part 340 and
establish a regulatory pathway like GE plants under the SECURE rule?
Answer. We know additional clarity and guidance is important to
developers. By the end of this fiscal year, we intend to post on our
website a comprehensive Frequently Asked Questions document that
answers commonly asked questions from developers who work with modified
microbes (i.e., microorganisms). During the first part of Fiscal Year
2022, we plan to post a draft guide for working with modified microbes
and will solicit feedback from developers on any remaining gaps in the
guide or areas that require further clarity, and then we will finalize
the document. With respect to establishing a regulatory review process
that would allow developers to demonstrate their modified microbes
should not be subject to regulatory oversight, establishing such a
process will involve initiating a new rulemaking. We are in the very
early planning phases and will ensure we engage with developers, as we
did when developing the SECURE rule, before advancing any proposed
rule.
Given the strong interest in modified microbes, USDA routinely
meets with developers to discuss the regulatory processes that apply to
current and future products. Additionally, in early 2022, we partnered
with the Innovative Genomics Institute and the Phytobiomes Alliance to
lead a workshop on genetically engineered microorganisms, with
presentations from each regulatory agency with oversight
responsibilities for these innovative products. As a part of this
workshop, regulators worked with developers to build case studies to
help guide developers in navigating the regulatory framework for
modified microbes.
In addition, USDA is conducting outreach to assist developers in
identifying clear pathways to market. For example, USDA partnered with
the Innovative Genomics Institute and the Phytobiomes Alliance to lead
a February 2022 workshop on genetically engineered microorganisms, with
presentations from each regulatory agency with oversight
responsibilities for these innovative products
Questions Submitted by Hon. Jim Hagedorn, a Representative in Congress
from Minnesota
Question 1. Mr. Secretary, any time USDA is a party in a lawsuit,
the Office of General Counsel submits a memorandum to the Solicitor
General the recommended course of action, including whether to appeal a
decision.
Were you aware of the General Counsel's memorandum to the Solicitor
General regarding United Food and Commercial Workers, et al. v. United
States Department of Agriculture (March 31, 2021)?
Answer. I am not going to address questions involving discussions
of legal matters I may or may not have had with the attorneys of the
Department.
Question 1a. If you were aware of this memorandum, did you approve
its recommendation before it was submitted to the Solicitor General?
Answer. See answer above.
Question 1b. Did USDA General Counsel recommend to the Solicitor
General that USDA should not appeal the decision in United Food and
Commercial Workers, et al. v. United States Department of Agriculture
(March 31, 2021)?
Answer. I am not going to address questions involving discussions
of legal matters between the attorneys of the USDA Office of the
General Counsel and attorneys of the Department of Justice.
Question 2. Mr. Secretary, when you appeared before the Committee
in October 2021, you alluded to a potential time-limited waiver program
for NSIS-eligible facilities to increase their line speeds. The details
of such a program were announced in early November 2021, and facilities
were invited to apply at that time.
Why has FSIS not approved outstanding applications for processing
facilities to enroll in the time-limited waiver program?
Answer. As described in a November 11, 2021, letter from FSIS to
all New Swine Inspection System (NSIS) establishments, FSIS is
reviewing the food safety support in each application received and
coordinating with OSHA for its review of worker safety support.
Question 2a. Can you explicitly detail the responsibility sharing
for FSIS and OSHA?
Answer. FSIS reviews each establishment's application to determine
if the establishment has: operated under the NSIS for at least 120 days
and followed all NSIS requirements during that time; demonstrated a
history of regulatory compliance (i.e., the establishment has not
received a public health alert for the last 120 days); not had an
enforcement action as a result of a Food Safety Assessment conducted in
the last 120 days; not received an enforcement action for humane
handling in the last 120 days; and not been the subject of a public
health related enforcement action in the last 120 days. After FSIS
determines that the establishment meets FSIS' standards for food safety
and humane handling, a team from OSHA reviews worker safety aspects of
the application. More specifically, OSHA's team determines whether the
establishment has received an OSHA citation in the past 3 years, is
subject to a current OSHA inspection, and is currently contesting any
OSHA citations. OSHA makes a recommendation regarding whether an
establishment meets the worker-safety requirements but the ultimate
decision on whether to grant a ``time-limited trial'' is made by FSIS.
Question 3. Mr. Secretary, the ReConnect Round 3 Funding
Opportunity Announcement (FOA) awards 15 points to applicants that are
local governments, nonprofits, or co-ops, though RUS has worked with
for-profit commercial rural telcos for decades, and dozens of small,
commercial companies have already won ReConnect awards in Rounds 1 and
2. One example is Harmony Telephone Company, a small commercial company
in my district that is currently putting a ReConnect award to work to
improve broadband service in southern Minnesota.
If a local government and a community-based commercial broadband
provider both apply for ReConnect Round 3 to serve the same area and
the only difference between the two is that one provider is a local
government and the other is a commercial company, wouldn't it be true
that the local government would win solely because of the preference
for local governments?
Answer. The agency's experience in Round 3 was that this
hypothetical situation did not occur. There were a variety of
applicants that applied in the same geographic area, but none of those
overlapping projects were decided based on this singular scoring
criteria. The method for scoring is reviewed each time a new round of
funding is made available, and the method has seen changes in each
round of funding. Those changes reflect the Agency's commitment to
ensuring the Program operates in ways that best serves the needs of
rural America and brings every potential partner to serve rural
communities
Question 3a. Given their track record, commitment to rural America,
and history of working with RUS, why put small commercial rural
broadband providers such as Harmony Telephone at a disadvantage in
competing for ReConnect awards solely due to how they are organized?
Answer. The ReConnect Program was developed to be fair to all
applicants. Although some criteria or requirements may favor one entity
type over another, ReConnect should be considered from a holistic view
where all aspects of the program are taken into consideration. Once all
the entities that will be receiving a Round 3 award are announced, the
Agency will complete an analysis of the entities that received the
awards against the requirements/scoring of Round 3.
Question 3b. Will you commit to making the necessary adjustments,
both now and in future FOAs, to ensuring that rural broadband providers
can compete for ReConnect awards on an even playing field, regardless
of their corporate form?
Answer. The ReConnect program regulation, 7 CFR 1740, outlines
which entities are eligible to apply for ReConnect funding.
Additionally, the application scoring criteria and other requirements
are updated for each round of funding and are outlined in the Funding
Opportunity Announcement (FOA). At the conclusion of each round, the
types of entities that received an award, the areas that receive
funding, and other factors are considered in preparation of the next
FOA.
In the fourth round of ReConnect funding, applicants could request
points if the entity is a local government, nonprofit, cooperative, or
public-private partnership where the applicant is one of these three
entities. This scoring criteria is used to encourage these types of
entities to apply for the program. Applicants are not required to be a
nonprofit, local government, or cooperative in order to apply for the
program or receive an award. This is just one of ten ways an applicant
can receive points in a competitive application. The fourth and current
round of ReConnect also offers points for applications that propose to
serve the least dense rural areas (25 points), that connect areas
without access to 25 Mbps downstream and 3 Mbps upstream (25 points),
as well those that will serve areas with a high economic need (20
points). At least 70 out of 175 possible points will go to applications
that prioritize the most unserved rural communities.
Question 4. Mr. Secretary, recently the daily pork cutout report--
USDA PK 602--has been extremely volatile, particularly in the ham
sector. Over the past year, the makeup of the Chicago Mercantile
Exchange (CME) cash index has gone from being made up of 40% cutout and
60% cash to the exact opposite.
Can you explicitly detail how the PK 602 report is being
calculated?
Answer. The National Daily Pork Report FOB Plant--Negotiated Sales,
LM_PK602, is released daily at 3 p.m. CST. This report features
negotiated sales, meaning the price is determined by seller-buyer
interaction and agreement, with delivery scheduled for no more than 14
days for boxed product and 10 days for combo product after the date of
the agreement. The product represented on the LM_PK602 report is for
sales in the previous 24 hour period, with delivery in the United
States or Mexico/Canada.
The carcass and primal values reported on the LM_PK602 report are
derived from a series of calculations using the prices of sub-primal
cuts and industry-average cut yields. In the first step, the sub-primal
cuts are used to determine a primal value. A value for each component
is determined by multiplying its individual value by its yield factor.
This must be done for each of the cutting styles for the primal. Next,
the overall primal value is calculated by combining the various cutting
style values based on the volumes reported for the specific day. Once
the primal value has been calculated, the value is converted from a
``trimmed'' primal value to an untrimmed, or commodity, primal value.
Lastly, the untrimmed primal values are combined, along with the four
individual carcass parts (jowl, hind feet, front feet, and neckbones)
to create the composite pork carcass cutout value (PCC) for the day.
The PCC is an estimated value of a standardized pork carcass (55-56%
lean, 215 lbs.) based upon industry average cut yields and average
market prices of sub-primal pork cuts.
For more specific information and detailed examples of the LM_PK602
calculation, please refer to A User's Guide to USDA's Pork Carcass
Cutout: https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/
LMRPorkCutoutHandout.pdf.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Editor's note: the referenced documents are retained in
Committee file.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For more information regarding LMR Pork Reports, please refer to A
User's Guide to USDA's LMR Pork Reports: https://www.ams.usda.gov/
sites/default/files/media/LMRPorkPriceReportsHandout.pdf.\6\
As for the ham primal and its recent volatility, this is generally
due to the large price spread between bone-in and boneless items and
the volume that is reported for each on a given day. Generally,
whenever there is a greater volume of bone-in items, the cutout will
move lower and whenever there is an influx of boneless items, the
cutout will move higher. This is because boneless items require more
input costs, such as labor. Bone-in and boneless hams do not always
trade equitably from day-to-day so a higher percentage of trading of
either on a given day can pull the cutout in a different direction,
making it appear volatile. In the past couple of years, plants have
shifted to more bone-in items, as labor shortages have been prevalent.
Therefore, boneless items are produced on an infrequent basis and trade
at a higher price level causing more volatility.
The CME cash index is regulated by the CME Group. Although our data
feeds the index, this is a calculation maintained outside of USDA/AMS;
therefore, we cannot speak to the index and how its components are made
up. For more information, please refer to the CME Lean Hog Futures
Rulebook: https://www.cmegroup.com/content/dam/cmegroup/rulebook/CME/
II/150/152/152.pdf and the Overview of CME Lean Hog Index and Lean Hog
Futures: https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/
AnneKrema_CMELeanHogOverview.pdf.\6\
Questions Submitted by Hon. Troy Balderson, a Representative in
Congress from Ohio
Question 1. The Federal Government already operates many broadband
connectivity programs through the FCC, NTIA, and Treasury Department.
Is the USDA collaborating with these agencies to ensure that funds are
being distributed efficiently and not overlapping with existing
programs? If so, can you elaborate on that collaboration and areas
where it can be improved?
Answer. USDA commits to working with all agencies that have
broadband programs. This is demonstrated by our interagency agreement
with NTIA, FCC and Treasury as well as our participation as a managing
member for the American Broadband Initiative.
Question 2. Last year, President Biden signed an Executive Order to
conserve 30 percent of America's land by 2030. When I first joined this
Committee, I asked an ag economist from the University of Illinois
about their policy analysis and whether set-aside programs are an
effective farm policy to help our environment, or if it sends a market
signal for foreign competitors to plant more and seize U.S. market
share. He specifically mentioned Brazil, saying: ``If they continue
burning rainforests to plant soybeans, we have not helped anybody's
situation much.''
Does the USDA have any concern that the President's Executive Order
will make American farmers less competitive, or if any environmental
benefits will be offset by countries with fewer environmental
protections increasing production to take over this market?
Answer. U.S. farmers and ranchers produce agricultural commodities
with relatively low GHG emission intensity relative to other countries.
USDA uses an integrated approach that provides agricultural producers
with financial resources and technical assistance through CSP and EQIP
to deliver environmental benefits and mitigate GHG emissions, while
also providing incentives to farmers who remove environmentally
sensitive lands from agricultural production, improving water quality,
reducing soil erosion, and increasing habitat for endangered and
threatened species. Regarding America the Beautiful, we understand that
efforts must be balanced to support both natural resource conservation
and the productivity of America's agricultural and private forestry
operations. We're here to support farmers/ranchers/forest landowners/
partners through incentivized voluntary conservation practices that
work for individual landowners and communities and are effective,
equitable, and enduring. We know many people are unsure about ``what
counts'' as conserved land under this national conservation goal.
Experts at USDA are part of a larger group working to define and report
on this. While we have more to learn and share, we can say for sure
that private working lands will be valued--and landowner rights
respected--as we collaborate to conserve the lands and waters we all
depend on.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Tracey Mann, a Representative in Congress
from Kansas
Question 1. As you know, China failed to meet their commitment to
the U.S. to purchase $73.9 billion in agricultural goods by $7 billion
in a single year, and by $16 billion over the course of the entire
agreement. How are you, Ambassador Tai, and President Biden taking
immediate action to hold China accountable?
Answer. We continue to engage regularly with our counterparts in
the People's Republic of China (PRC) to resolve outstanding issues
related to the Phase 1 Agreement. We note that, while PRC purchases
fell short of expectations in 2021, it was still a record year for U.S.
exports of agricultural products to the PRC. We exported nearly $33
billion in agricultural products to the PRC last year, which is
significantly more than we exported to any single other country.
Question 2. How is the Administration working to develop a new,
comprehensive, realistic deal with China to ensure American
agricultural goods continue to be open to Chinese markets and that
China's intentional limitation of their own exports doesn't happen
again?
Answer. USDA staff in Washington and in the PRC talk often with PRC
officials with the goal of resolving outstanding trade issues. While
concerns about PRC actions to restrict U.S. exports remain, it is
important to note that the PRC is now the single largest export market
for U.S. agricultural products. This is a marked turnaround from the
trade wars of 2018 and 2019, when U.S. agricultural exports to the PRC
fell to $9.2 billion and $13.9 billion, respectively. Only a couple
years later, we export between two to three times that much to the PRC,
which demonstrates that we have made significant progress, even if work
remains to be done.
Question 3. American commodity producers are operating at a clear
disadvantage to not only China, but also to India, where the Indian
Government is subsidizing more than half of the value of production for
rice and wheat, instead of the 10% allowable under World Trade
Organization rules. Last week, I authored a letter with Representative
Crawford and 26 of our colleagues, urging you and Ambassador Tai to
take action to reverse the trend of non-compliance by India. Can we
count on you to initiate a WTO litigation process through a request for
consultations?
Answer. Thank you for your question regarding India's domestic
support measures for wheat and rice, and for your continued engagement
on this important matter. As mentioned in my letter of February 28,
2022, I share your concerns about India's domestic support policies.
USDA continues to work closely with USTR staff to consider all options
available to ensure U.S. rice and wheat industries can compete in a
fair, rules-based international trade environment. This includes the
pending consultations (requested on May 13, 2022) by the United States
and other WTO Members with India under the Bali Ministerial Decision on
Public Stockholding for Food Security Purposes. The consultations will
provide the United States an opportunity to seek additional information
regarding India's domestic support policies and express U.S. concerns
directly with India.
Question 4. As this Committee begins to reauthorize a farm bill, do
you support an increased investment to the Foreign Market Development
program and Market Access Program?
Answer. USDA has not made specific farm bill proposals for Congress
to consider at this time. We look forward to working with Congress,
partners, stakeholders, and the public to identify shared priorities
for the 2023 Farm Bill and to ensure that the programs USDA implements
will best serve all people. It is through this shared work that USDA
can best deliver its mission to serve all Americans by providing
effective, innovative, science-based public policy leadership in
agriculture, food and nutrition, natural resource protection and
management, rural development, and market development
Question 5. In September 2021, you mentioned President Biden was in
the final stages of vetting and nominating a USDA Under Secretary for
Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs. What is the status for filling
that position?
Answer. USDA is pleased that the President nominated Alexis Taylor
for this important position. Alexis has dedicated her life to public
service. Her nomination builds upon USDA's commitment to link U.S.
agriculture to the world to enhance export opportunities for American
farmers and producers and increase global food security. She is the
right person to lead the Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs mission
area as we continue to address global food security, promote American
exports across the globe and strengthen trade relationships with our
global partners. We look forward to her swift confirmation as Under
Secretary.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Randy Feenstra, a Representative in
Congress from Iowa
Question 1. Mr. Secretary, during my questioning on the RUS
ReConnect's recent preferential scoring treatment for local governments
and nonprofits in their latest round of funding, you mentioned that
other factors such as rurality should help offset any disadvantage
commercial entities have in the scoring criteria. However, if all other
scoring factors are considered equal and the only difference is that
one applicant is a local government and the other is a family-owned,
community-based broadband provider, wouldn't it be true that the local
government would win solely because they're not a commercial entity?
Answer. The agency's experience in Round 3 was that this
hypothetical situation did not occur. There were a variety of
applicants that applied in the same geographic area, but none of those
overlapping projects were decided based on this singular scoring
criteria. The method for scoring is reviewed each time a new round of
funding is made available, and the method has seen changes in each
round of funding. Those changes reflect the Agency's commitment to
ensuring the Program operates in ways that best serves the needs of
rural America and brings every potential partner to serve rural
communities.
Question 1a. Why has USDA has decided a local government,
nonprofit, or cooperative is a more worthy recipient (even if only by
15 points) of these ReConnect funds than any other small, Iowa
community-based broadband provider with a proven reputation of serving
their communities with fiber-based, future-proof broadband networks.
Answer. The ReConnect Program was developed to be fair to all
applicants. Although some criteria or requirements may favor one entity
type over another, ReConnect should be considered from a holistic view
where all aspects of the program are taken into consideration.
The points for cooperative, nonprofits and government entities
encourage these entities to submit an application. These types of
entities take the earnings from the operation and put it back into
broadband facilities that further expands broadband service into the
rural areas. The scoring criteria can be modified anytime that a
funding announcement is published. For each additional funding round,
the Agency will evaluate the effectiveness of the criteria.
Question 2. Mr. Secretary, last year your Department announced a
$10 million initiative to quantify climate benefits of CRP contracts.
Idling productive farmland sends a market signal to U.S. competitors to
plant more acres or plant more aggressively and leads to practices
abroad with negative environmental impacts. For example, on its way to
becoming the world's largest exporter of soybeans and beef, Brazil's
farmers have plowed under more than half of the largest savanna on the
continent (the Cerrado).
When quantifying climate benefits of land idling programs like CRP,
are you going to factor in these increased carbon emissions that occur
as our competitors increase production to seize U.S. market share?
Answer. The acres that CRP targets are marginal and highly erodible
cropland, and a considerable proportion of currently enrolled acres are
in areas experiencing drought. For these reasons, production on those
acres is typically marginal, and CRP enrollment causes minimal impacts
to supply and subsequent impacts in global markets. While some
stakeholders have pointed to changes in CRP as potential solutions to
commodity supply constraints, allowing production on CRP acres will not
have a significant impact on supply.
CRP is an important tool in our nation's effort to reduce the worst
impacts of climate change facing our farmers, ranchers, and forest
landowners. In October 2021, USDA announced an investment of $10
million in a new initiative to sample, measure, and monitor soil carbon
on Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) acres to better quantify the
climate outcomes of the program. USDA began implementing this
initiative in the fall of 2021 with three partners, and that work is
part of a broader, long-term soil carbon monitoring effort across
agricultural lands that supports USDA's commitment to deliver climate
solutions to agricultural producers and rural America through
voluntary, incentive-based solutions.
Question 2a. Will the Department similarly undertake an initiative
to measure the climate benefits of working lands conservation programs
like CSP and EQIP? Why not prioritize these working lands programs that
derive environmental benefits while keeping land in production?
Answer. U.S. farmers and ranchers produce agricultural commodities
with relatively low GHG emission intensity relative to other countries.
USDA uses an integrated approach that provides agricultural producers
with financial resources and technical assistance through CSP and EQIP
to deliver environmental benefits and mitigate GHG emissions, while
also providing incentives to farmers who remove environmentally
sensitive lands from agricultural production, improving water quality,
reducing soil erosion, and increasing habitat for endangered and
threatened species.
Question 3. Mr. Secretary, as you well know sometimes the left hand
doesn't know what the right hand is doing in government. With respect
to fertilizer, the International Trade Commission and Department of
Commerce place duties on nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium (NPK)
which reduces market competition. Considering a limited supply of
product, the Department of Justice must now step in to address market
competition concerns. Is there a way to ensure that one Federal agency
does not have to undue the unintended consequences of another Federal
agency?
Answer. The United States International Trade Commission (USITC) is
an independent, nonpartisan, quasi-judicial Federal agency that
coordinates with the Department of Commerce on actions related to anti-
dumping and countervailing duties. Such actions are triggered by
petitions from the domestic industry. Recent fertilizer related actions
by the USITC have been mixed, including countervailing duties on
phosphate fertilizers from Morocco and Russia related to a 2020
petition by the Mosaic Company (1) and a decision to not impose duties
on urea ammonium nitrate solutions from Russia and Trinidad and Tobago
related to a 2021 petition by CF Industries. (2) USDA and the
Department of Commerce are members of the White House Supply Chain
Disruptions Task Force, which has included coordination of issues such
as fertilizer and USDA's efforts to support increased fertilizer
capacity and assist producers to manage this resource that will
ultimately help their bottom line. (3)[:] \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Editor's note: the referenced items are retained in Committee
file.
1. https://www.trade.gov/faq/final-determinations-countervailing-
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
duty-investigations-phosphate-fertilizers-morocco-and
2. https://www.usitc.gov/press_room/news_release/2022/
er0718ll1961.htm
3. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/
2022/05/11/fact-sheet-president-biden-announces-new-
actions-to-address-putins-price-hike-make-food-more-
affordable-and-lower-costs-for-farmers/
Questions Submitted by Hon. Mary E. Miller, a Representative in
Congress from Illinois
Question 1. As you mentioned during the hearing, the Administration
has proposed an increase of renewable fuel blended gallons in 2022.
However, as you also know, that rule is not final. While they proposed
an increase in future ethanol blends--which is simply returning them to
statutory levels--they actually reduced blend requirements for 2021 and
2022. So, while you may have thought your answer in response to the
question I asked you in the hearing was clever or acceptable, my
constituents and I found it deceiving.
What exactly are you doing to help the President understand how
misguided his biofuels policies are and how harmful they will be to
Rural America?
Answer. USDA has and will continue to make our bioeconomy a
priority. During the pandemic, we provided $700 Million in relief
funding to over 100 biofuels producers to ensure their continued
prosperity, and prosperity of the rural communities who rely on
biofuels manufacturers. With a record amount of volume in 2022, USDA
expects continued growth in the sector, with opportunities in the
aviation industry to more than double current demand for biofuels.
Biofuels are and will remain an essential industry for rural prosperity
and our energy infrastructure.
Question 1a. Year-round ethanol blends of E15 were stopped this
year, and the Administration has done nothing to make sure E15 year-
round blends continue. That policy will greatly impact the ethanol
industry this year. So, I will ask you again:
What exactly are you doing to help the President understand how
misguided his biofuels policies are and how harmful they will be to
Rural America?
Answer. Implementation of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) falls
under the jurisdiction of EPA.
Question 2. As you mentioned in your testimony, the 2 year Phase 1
deal with China--which officially ended on Jan. 1, 2022--included a
commitment from China to buy an average of $40 billion per year in
agricultural products. While we saw China vault back to being the No. 1
customer for U.S. agricultural products, the totals did not hit China's
commitments. China fell $13 billion below that total for 2020 ($27
billion), and they will come in $3 billion short for 2021 ($37
billion).
Will you commit to encouraging the Administration hold China
accountable for not meeting their purchasing requirements?
Answer. Yes. We continue to engage regularly with PRC officials to
resolve outstanding trade concerns. While work remains to be done, we
have made significant progress over the last several years. While U.S.
agricultural exports to the PRC fell to $9.2 billion in 2018 at the
height of the trade war, they were up to nearly $33 billion in 2021,
making the PRC our single largest agricultural export market
Question 2a. What are the Administration's plans for Phase 2?
Answer. We are still engaged in Phase One negotiations. We plan to
finish Phase 1 negotiations before proceeding to Phase 2.
Question 3. As you heard throughout the hearing, many are
questioning the Biden Administration's efforts on trade, my
constituents included.
Why has there still not been an Under Secretary for Trade at USDA
nominated after a year since the President took office?
Answer. USDA is pleased that the President nominated Alexis Taylor
for this important position. Alexis has dedicated her life to public
service. Her nomination builds upon USDA's commitment to link U.S.
agriculture to the world to enhance export opportunities for American
farmers and producers and increase global food security. She is the
right person to lead the Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs mission
area as we continue to address global food security, promote American
exports across the globe and strengthen trade relationships with our
global partners. We look forward to her swift confirmation as by the
United States Senate.
Question 3a. What are you doing to promote the confirmation of a
Chief Agriculture Negotiator for U.S. Trade Representative?
Answer. USDA is pleased that the President nominate Doug McKalip
for this important position. Doug is highly qualified and exceptionally
capable of serving the American people as Chief Agricultural
Negotiator. He has served as a key agriculture policy official for
nearly 3 decades and has worked on every aspect of farming from soil
conservation, and the supply chain to dealing with sensitive trade and
national security matters. Doug has been a key member of the USDA team
and his skills will serve him well as Chief Agricultural Negotiator for
the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR). We look
forward to the U.S. Senate confirming him at the earliest possible
opportunity.
Question 4. On January 2, 2022, Mexico's Government has issued a
decree to phase out the use of both glyphosate and genetically modified
corn for human consumption by 2024. President Andres Manuel Lopez
Obrador announced that biosecurity authorities would ``revoke and
refrain from granting permits for the release of genetically modified
corn seeds into the environment.''
While a total ban on the herbicide is still 3 years away, Federal
departments will immediately abstain from ``purchasing, using,
distributing, promoting and importing glyphosate or agrochemicals that
contain it as an active ingredient.''
This is especially concerning to corn growers in my district, as
Mexico is the top buyer of U.S. corn, accounting for 25% of U.S. corn
exports.
Will you demand the Administration prevent Mexico from implementing
their decree that bans glyphosate and the importation of GMO corn?
Answer. USDA works every day in close cooperation with others in
the Administration to ensure fair treatment of U.S. products by trading
partners. That is especially true of our efforts to ensure Mexico
follows a transparent and science-based approach in its treatment of
products of agricultural biotechnology.
Question 4a. What are you doing to ensure that--when corn is
finally delivered to Mexico--our agricultural products are accepted by
the Mexican Government?
Answer. USDA and interagency partners continue to carefully monitor
developments in Mexico, including at the border. To that end, we
maintain frequent communication with stakeholders across the value
chain and regularly stress to counterparts in Mexico the central
importance of predictable, transparent trade flows.
Question 5. I am concerned to hear that broadband funding has been
used to overbuild existing broadband networks instead of bringing the
benefits of broadband to unserved communities.
Do you agree that the priority for broadband funding and programs
at the USDA needs to be on unserved areas, those currently without
broadband?
Answer. USDA understands that unserved and underserved communities
face hardships and we see both areas as priority. Unserved areas may
lack service because of the costs associated with expanding service and
our programs seek to support those financial needs. Underserved areas
may have some access to broadband, but it could be of lower speeds
which do not support the level of service families need for work or
school, to access healthcare, or for communities to seek out economic
development opportunities. Various laws and regulations require us to
consider applications submitted through our programs for underserved
areas just as we must consider those applications from unserved areas.
Each type of area faces unique challenges and USDA is committed to
doing all we can for these communities.
Question 5a. Will you commit to working with the other 13 agencies
that are responsible for implementing 66 different broadband programs?
Answer. Yes, USDA commits to working with all agencies that have
broadband programs. This is demonstrated by our interagency agreement
with NTIA, FCC and Treasury as well as our participation as a managing
member for the American Broadband Initiative.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Kat Cammack, a Representative in Congress
from Florida
Question 1. Since the beginning of this Administration and a new
Congress, there has been a war on work in America like none we've seen
in our recent history. Policy after policy, not just in the food stamp
program, but in programs like unemployment, Medicaid, advance child tax
credit payments, and others--have been paying Americans more to stay
home than to work a good paying job. Yet there remain over ten million
open jobs in this country, just waiting for good workers to return.
Specifically, work requirements for able-bodied adults without
dependents (ABAWDs), which are required by law to receive food stamp
benefits, have been suspended entirely since the pandemic began. For
ABAWDs there is absolutely no excuse for them to not be searching for
work.
When President Biden finally decides to end the public health
emergency, what will you do immediately to reinstate work and tracking
requirements for ABAWDs?
Answer. The Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (FNA) limits the time an
able-bodied adult without dependents (ABAWD) can receive SNAP to 3
months in any 36 month period unless the ABAWD meets certain work
requirements or the ABAWD lives in an area in with an active waiver of
the time limit (an ``ABAWD waiver''). Per statute, states can request
and receive Federal approval for ABAWD waivers in areas with high
unemployment or a lack of sufficient jobs. States decide whether to
request to waive the ABAWD time limit and which geographic areas to
include in the waiver, if any. States are not required to make a waiver
request for qualifying areas. USDA reviews all ABAWD waiver requests,
validates the supporting data, and approves requests for areas that
meet regulatory standards codified at 7 CFR 273.24(f). USDA evaluates
whether the data supporting the request meets the objective,
quantitative regulatory standards.
The Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA), which was
enacted in March 2020, temporarily and partially suspended the time
limit for ABAWDs through the end of the month subsequent to the month
in which the Federal public health emergency (PHE) declaration based on
COVID-19 ends. By law, this suspension is effective nationwide while
the PHE remains active.
When the PHE ends, ABAWD time limits and work requirements will
again be in effect in any area without an active ABAWD waiver.
USDA is actively engaging with state SNAP agencies to help them
prepare to reinstate ABAWD requirements as required by law when the PHE
ends. USDA has issued guidance, hosted webinars, and hosted regional
calls to urge states to prepare as much as possible to reinstate the
time limits when required. Specifically, USDA has strongly encouraged
states to continue identifying and tracking ABAWDs, and communicating
work requirements to ABAWDs, even during the temporary suspension, so
that states are ready to implement the time limit as soon as the
suspension ends. In addition, USDA continues to work with state SNAP
Employment & Training (E&T) programs to connect them to effective
workforce development practices through initiatives such as SNAP to
Skills. FNS has worked with more than 27 states to help them improve
their E&T programs and connect participants to jobs in their
communities.
Question 2. Can you please provide me with a detailed plan from the
Department regarding how USDA plans to enforce a provider's
``commitment to net neutrality'' based on the conditions for being
awarded points under Round 3 of ReConnect?
Answer. Applicants that request and obtain the priority points
offered through a specific scoring criteria and subsequently receive an
award, effectively agree to fulfill the obligation incorporated in that
scoring criteria. USDA makes clear to awardees that breaching the
requirements of the scoring criteria they selected is a serious
material breach of their obligations to USDA. In such cases, the Agency
has the legal option to enforce its covenants with awardees and may
institute award suspension and debarment proceedings. If a complaint is
filed with USDA concerning an awardee's violation of its agreement to
USDA to follow net neutrality principles, the Agency will conduct a
full investigation into the situation and take appropriate action.
attachment 1
Farms Under Threat_The State of America's Farmland
Cover Image: Farmland and urban sprawl collide in Lompoc,
California. Aerial Archives/Alamy Stock Photo.
Above: A new housing development encroaches on farmland.
Anywhere, USA.
About the Quotes in this Report
Farms Under Threat: The State of America's Farmland honors two
former chiefs of the USDA's Soil Conservation Service (now NRCS): Hugh
Hammond Bennett, who led the soil conservation movement in the United
States and was the first head of the agency; and Norm Berg, who worked
with Bennett and rose through the ranks to serve as chief between 1979
to 1982. After he retired, Berg served as a senior policy advisor to
American Farmland Trust and the Soil and Water Conservation Society. To
learn more about these influential voices, see www.nrcs.usda.gov
(Bennett) and www.farmlandinfo.org/norm-berg-collection (Berg).
May 9, 2018
``Take care of the land and the land will take care of you .
. . .''
Soil conservation pioneer Hugh Hammond Bennett, 1947.
A crop of onion grown for seed in Payette County, Idaho.
David R. Frazier Photolibrary, Inc./Alamy Stock Photo.
Acknowledgments
Critical support from USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS), the Sarah K. deCoizart TENTH Perpetual Trust, and American
Farmland Trust's members, supporters, and Board of Directors made
possible this analysis of the past losses of, and future threats to,
America's farmland and ranchland. NRCS shared data and guidance,
reviewed reports, and provided financial assistance through an AFT-NRCS
Contribution Agreement 68-3A75-14-214. We also appreciate the guidance
offered by our Advisory Committee and other external reviewers.
Additional investments will help us continue these analyses, broadly
distribute the results, and act to conserve our agricultural land for
future generations.
About American Farmland Trust and Conservation Science Partners
American Farmland Trust (AFT) is a nonprofit conservation
organization founded in 1980 to protect farmland, promote sound farming
practices, and keep farmers on the land. For more information, visit
www.farmland.org/initiatives/farms-under-threat or our technical
information center at www.farmlandinfo.org.
Conservation Science Partners (CSP) is a nonprofit scientific
collective established to meet the analytical and research needs of
diverse stakeholders in conservation projects. More information is
available online at www.csp-inc.org.
Lead authors: A. Ann Sorensen, Julia Freedgood, Jennifer
Dempsey and David M. Theobald.
Suggested citation: Sorensen, A.A., J. Freedgood, J. Dempsey
and D.M. Theobald. 2018. Farms Under Threat: The State of
America's Farmland. Washington, D.C.: American Farmland Trust.
2018 American Farmland Trust.
Contents
Executive Summary
Key Findings
Key Recommendations
Introduction
What Is at Risk
Tracking the Status of Agricultural Land
Methods
Findings
Discussion
Recommended Actions
Future Farms Under Threat Releases and Analysis
References
Important Note on Data Revisions
May 2020
Since releasing this report in May of 2018, new data and refined
analyses have led American Farmland Trust (AFT) and Conservation
Science Partners (CSP) to revise the reported estimate of agricultural
land conversion. This revision only applies to the estimate of urban
development. The original estimate of conversion to low-density
residential land use is not being revised.
The underlying cause of the issue is that one of our foundational
datasets, the National Land Cover Database, used a different method to
map roads for 2002 than it had for 1992. Using the raw data, this
inconsistency would cause a very large overestimate of urban
conversion. To avoid this, we applied a correction in the analysis
process. Following this correction, we found that 16.3 million acres of
agricultural land had been converted to urban development from 1992-
2002 (the first half of the report period). These results were peer
reviewed before the report was published.
However, in May of 2019, a key Federal dataset (NLCD 2016) was
released with updates that enabled a major refinement in this
correction. Using the new data and enhanced correction method, the
analysis now shows that urban conversion between 1992 and 2002 was
probably closer to 6.5 million acres. AFT and CSP wanted to share this
revision to maintain transparency, even though the results in this
report were based on the best data available at that time.
More information on this revision is available in our white paper,
``Revision to American Farmland Trust's Farms Under Threat: The State
of America's Farmland: Improved data products enable more accurate
estimates of urban conversion.'' [i]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[i]\ https://farmlandinfo.org/publications/revision-to-farms-
under-threat-state-of-americas-farmland/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our new report, Farms Under Threat: The State of the
States,[ii] uses the newly released data to map conversion
of agricultural land from 2001-2016. This timeframe was chosen because
the underlying datasets were developed using consistent methods for
both 2001 and 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[ii]\ https://farmlandinfo.org/publications/farms-under-threat-
the-state-of-the-states/.
A selection of lettuce varieties at Lane Farms in Santa
Barbara, California. Chuck Place/Alamy Stock Photo.
Executive Summary
With Key Findings and Recommendations
The United States is blessed with a remarkably productive
agricultural landscape. Cropland, pastureland, rangeland, and woodland
support a regionally diverse food and farming system capable of
ensuring domestic food security. Agricultural land contributes to state
and local economies, supplies lucrative export markets, and bolsters
the nation's balance of trade. These exceptional natural resources
sustain valuable wildlife habitat, provide flood control and fire
suppression, scenic views, and resources for hunting and fishing. This
land also acts as an enormous carbon sink, drawing down carbon from the
atmosphere, which helps combat climate change. By 2050, the demands on
agriculture to provide sufficient food, fiber, and energy are expected
to be 50 to 70 percent higher than they are now. Given a limited land
area in the United States and the need to feed and house an increasing
number of people, it is more important than ever to protect the
agricultural land and natural resources needed for long-term
sustainability.
Beets in Inyo County, California. Inga Spence/Alamy Stock
Photo.
This call for action is documented and reinforced by the findings
of Farms Under Threat: The State of America's Farmland by American
Farmland Trust (AFT). The report's research shows that between 1992 and
2012, almost 31 million acres of agricultural land were irreversibly
lost to development. That is nearly double the amount of conversion
previously documented and is equivalent to losing most of Iowa or New
York. As alarming, this loss included almost 11 million acres of the
best land for intensive food and crop production. This is land where
the soils, micro-climates, growing seasons, and water availability
combine to allow intensive production with the fewest environmental
impacts. These precious and irreplaceable resources comprise less than
17 percent of the total land area in the continental United States.
Their conversion was equivalent to losing most of California's Central
Valley, an agricultural powerhouse.
U.S. Agriculture Relies on High-Quality Farmland
Only 17 percent of the land in the continental U.S. is
agricultural land with the productivity, versatility, and
resiliency (PVR) to produce a wide variety of crops with
minimal environmental limitations.
Over 20 years ago, AFT released the groundbreaking report, Farming
on the Edge. This compelling study and extensive mapping gained global
media attention by showing how sprawling development consumed America's
highest quality farmland in critical regions across the country. Now,
new threats to the nation's agricultural lands create a pressing need
to update the old analyses and assess threats to America's agricultural
land in the 21st century. Improvements in the availability of national
data and models now enable AFT to more accurately track the scale and
spatial location of the threat of development to the nation's
agricultural land.\1\ They also make it possible to assign values to
measure the land's productivity, versatility, and resilience. These
advances make it possible for AFT not only to examine past conversion
patterns but also to forecast future development patterns likely to
occur without better land use planning and policy intervention.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Farms Under Threat defines agricultural land as cropland,
pastureland, rangeland, and woodland associated with farms in the
continental United States (48 states), excluding federally owned
grazing land. This non-Federal agricultural land is called farmland and
ranchland by the public. The analysis uses the USDA National Resources
Inventory (NRI) definitions for cropland, pastureland, rangeland, and
forestland.
AFT's goal is to document the threats and offer policy
solutions to ensure the long-term protection and conservation
of agricultural land in the United States to sustain an
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
expanding population and maximize biodiversity.
These analyses underpin Farms Under Threat, AFT's multi-year
initiative to complete the most comprehensive assessment of the loss of
U.S. farmland and ranchland ever undertaken, both past and future.
AFT's goal is to document the threats and offer policy solutions to
ensure the long-term protection and conservation of agricultural land
in the United States to sustain an expanding population and protect
biodiversity. This first report, Farms Under Threat: The State of
America's Farmland, examines the nation's irreversible loss of
agricultural land to development between 1992 and 2012. A subsequent
report will analyze state-level data on past farmland conversion and
the effectiveness of state-level farmland protection policies. In a
third report, Farms Under Threat will assess a range of future threats,
forecast potential impacts to 2040 and recommend effective policies
that help conserve agricultural land.
Farms Under Threat: The State of America's Farmland significantly
improves the national inventory of agricultural land in multiple ways:
(1) It maps and analyzes the extent of low-density residential
development on agricultural land; (2) It identifies agricultural land
based on its productivity, versatility, and resiliency to support
intensive food and crop production (PVR values); (3) It includes a new
class of agricultural land that estimates woodland associated with farm
enterprises; (4) It maps grazing on Federal land; and (5) It shows the
spatial patterns of agricultural land uses and conversion to
development in a consistent way over time so that people can see the
patterns of change.
An Iowa soybean field. Design Pics Inc/Alamy.
Assigning PVR values to agricultural land helps quantify the
quality of the agricultural land converted by development. Land with
lower PVR values has progressively greater limitations that restrict
how it can be used and whether it can be cultivated. The land best
suited for intensive food and crop production has much higher PVR
values and is geographically limited to areas where the nation's soils,
micro-climates, growing seasons, and water access combine to allow
production with the fewest environmental impacts.
Key Findings \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ AFT is solely responsible for the conclusions and
recommendations in this report. Although information from NRCS data
comprises a major component of this analysis, the conclusions and
recommendations are AFT's alone.
New homes replace farmland in Dane County, Wisconsin. Bob
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nichols/USDA NRCS.
The U.S. converted almost 31 million acres of agricultural
land between 1992 and 2012. By including woodlands associated
with farms and low density residential development, this
analysis found nearly twice the conversion previously reported.
The loss is equivalent to developing most of Iowa or the entire
state of New York.
Overall, development disproportionately occurred on
agricultural lands. More than 70 percent of urban development
and 62 percent of all development took place on agricultural
land. Expanding urban areas accounted for 59 percent of the
loss, including the commercial, industrial, transportation, and
high-density residential development which reflect the
expanding footprint of U.S. cities and towns. Low-density
residential development accounted for 41 percent of the loss
and included residential areas with houses built on 1 to 20
acre parcels and exurban homes on even larger lots that
effectively removed these properties from agricultural uses.
Urban development favored cropland while low-density
residential development posed an equal threat to cropland and
pastureland. Urban development most frequently converted
cropland (41 percent) and lower percentages of pastureland
(25.9 percent), rangeland (23.8 percent), and woodland (9.3
percent). In contrast, low-density residential development
posed an equal threat to cropland and pastureland (34.5 percent
each) and favored woodland (19.9 percent) over rangeland (11.1
percent). For forestland, low-density residential development
presented a greater threat than urban development.
The impact of these development patterns puts high quality
agricultural land at risk. The analysis assigned values to
reflect the productivity, versatility, and resiliency (PVR
value) of agricultural land for cultivation. As the PVR value
increased, fewer acres of land qualified. The analysis found
that the median PVR value of agricultural land lost to
development was 1.3 times higher than the median PVR value of
land that stayed in production. These cumulative and
irreversible losses of most productive, versatile, and
resilient lands have serious implications for agricultural
productivity and domestic food security.
By 2012, the best land to support intensive food and crop
production had dropped to less than 17 percent of the total
land area in the continental United States. Only 324.1 million
acres of agricultural land had PVR values with the optimal soil
characteristics and growing conditions to support intensive
food and crop production with minimal environmental
limitations. This is slightly more than \1/3\ of agricultural
land.
In less than one generation,\3\ the United States
irrevocably developed nearly 11 million acres of its best land
for intensive food and crop production. While a 3.2 percent
loss does not sound devastating, it is roughly equivalent to
losing one of the most productive growing regions in the United
States, California's Central Valley.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ A generation is considered to be about 25.5 years in length.
Beyond food security and economic prosperity, well-managed
agricultural land provides open space, recreational resources for
activities like hunting and fishing, and critical ecological services
such as wildlife habitat, carbon sequestration, groundwater recharge,
and flood control. This incredible diversity provides the United States
with invaluable options to help the nation optimize use of agricultural
resources to sustain future generations.
Farmland Lost to Development, 1992-2012
All farmland lost: almost 31 million acres (nearly equivalent
to the land mass of New York State).
Some of our best farmland was irreversibly lost: almost 11
million acres (equivalent to 47% of the land mass of Indiana).
It is time for the United States to recognize the strategic value
of our agricultural land and step up our efforts to protect it. It is
critical to balance the growing demands for energy, housing,
transportation, and water to ensure our best agricultural land remains
available for food and other crop production. Through thoughtful and
carefully implemented land use and agricultural policies, the nation
can protect farmland and strategically direct development away from
critical agricultural resources while nourishing the land with
conservation practices and helping the farmers and ranchers who manage
this landscape to thrive.
Key Recommendations
Ripe cranberries in Valley Junction, Wisconsin.
Design Pics Inc./Alamy Stock Photo.
Based on these national findings, AFT believes a bold and
comprehensive national strategy is needed to save the land that
sustains us, including:
A dramatic increase in Federal investments in agricultural
land protection through the USDA Agricultural Conservation
Easement Program-Agricultural Land Easements (ACEP-ALE);
Supporting and fully funding the USDA agencies and their
programs that provide unbiased information to help monitor
changes to U.S. agricultural resources, including the NRCS'
National Resources Inventory (NRI), the National Agricultural
Statistics Service's (NASS) Tenure, Ownership and Transfer of
Agricultural Land (TOTAL) survey, and the Economic Research
Service's (ERS) Major Land Uses reports; and
Enacting a 21st century Federal agricultural land protection
platform to more effectively address the interconnected threats
to farmland from development, climate change, agricultural
viability, and farm succession.
Introduction
Blend Images/Alamy Stock Photo
The precious arable land that sustains life on Earth is a finite
and irreplaceable resource that is under heavy stress. Less than six
percent of the Earth's surface is suitable for agriculture and growing
food. When climate, soils, and topography are factored into the
equation, just over half of this land can be farmed without any
physical constraints (FAO 2011). Over ten percent of the world's arable
acres are in the United States.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Arable land is land capable of being farmed productively (i.e.,
being plowed or cultivated and used to grow crops).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States is blessed with a varied and extensive
agricultural landscape comprised of cropland, pastureland, rangeland
and woodland associated with farms, making agriculture a significant
contributor to rural and urban economies. However, agricultural land,
both domestically and globally, faces unprecedented challenges as the
world's population continues to expand. By 2050, the demands on
agriculture to provide the necessary food, fiber, and energy are
expected to be 50 to 70 percent higher than they are now. To meet these
demands, all countries must sustainably improve their agricultural
productivity, protect their natural resources, and deal with changing
weather patterns and the intensification of natural hazards (FAO 2011;
FAO 2017).
By 2050, the demands on agriculture to provide the necessary
food, fiber, and energy are expected to be 50 to 70 percent
higher than they are now.
Because the United States is home to such a significant amount of
the world's arable land, the protection of this resource is a national
and global concern.
Since our founding in 1980, AFT has been concerned about the loss
of agricultural land. Over 20 years ago, AFT released the
groundbreaking report Farming on the Edge to call attention to the
sprawling development that consumes America's highest quality farmland
in every state in the nation (Sorensen, et al., 1997). Farming on the
Edge was a wake-up call about the impacts of farmland loss and the need
to act to protect our agricultural land base from poorly planned
development. The report led to policy action at the Federal, state, and
local levels. While development slowed significantly during the
recession from 2007 to 2012, it has rebounded with the strengthened
economy. Recognizing the need to update AFT's old analyses and assess
the threats to America's agricultural land in the 21st century, AFT
launched its Farms Under Threat initiative, the most comprehensive and
ambitious assessment ever undertaken of the status and threats to U.S.
farmland and ranchland.
California pastureland. Gbaldauf/Istockphoto.
Farms Under Threat is a multi-year initiative to complete the most
comprehensive assessment ever undertaken of the status and threats to
U.S. farmland and ranchland. Its analyses underpin AFT's goal to
document the threats to the nation's agricultural resources and offer
policy solutions. The goal is to ensure the long-term protection and
conservation of America's diverse agricultural landscape to support
farmers and ranchers, sustain an expanding population, and maximize
biodiversity.
This report, Farms Under Threat: The State of America's Farmland,
is the first in a series of analyses of past and future threats to
America's agricultural land. AFT defines agricultural land as the non-
Federal cropland, pastureland, rangeland, and woodland associated with
farms that is managed to support agricultural production. For the first
time, data and models are available to spatially portray the extent,
diversity, and quality of America's agricultural land and the threat of
development. These tools make it possible to examine past conversion
rates and map the scale and location of that development. Future Farms
Under Threat assessments will analyze farmland conversion at the state
level and the effectiveness of state policies to address it; study
demographic shifts and the impending transition of agricultural land
ownership; and use housing density and climate projections to forecast
what could happen to the nation's agricultural land by 2040 if no
actions are taken.
AFT is working with Conservation Science Partners (CSP) to ensure
these assessments are grounded in reliable data and strong science.
This partnership is supported by the USDA's Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS). Additional guidance was provided by a
national Advisory Committee, and NRCS shared data and reviewed findings
and drafts of maps and reports.
What Is at Risk
Food in the Path of Development
Metropolitan counties and adjacent areas supply the majority
of domestically produced:
U.S. agricultural land supports state and local economies,
significant export markets, and the nation's balance of trade. Locally,
this agricultural land contributes to fiscal balance: as with other
commercial land uses, the property taxes generated by agricultural land
typically exceeds the expense of providing it with public services.\5\
Collectively, this land supports a regionally diverse food and farming
system and contributes to a secure food supply. Fifteen percent of U.S.
counties are classified as farming-dependent (in terms of jobs), and
nearly 60 percent of the market value of U.S. farm production comes
from metropolitan counties and adjacent areas.\6\ These counties supply
91 percent of domestically sourced fruits, tree nuts, and berries; 77
percent of vegetables and melons; 68 percent of dairy; and 55 percent
of eggs and poultry. Farms in metropolitan counties often supply local
and regional markets, making up 81 percent of food sold directly to
consumers; 76 percent of community-supported-agriculture (CSA) farms;
and 74 percent of farms selling directly to retail outlets.\7\ Fruits
and vegetables often require unique soils and microclimates, access to
water and labor, an existing infrastructure that has built up over time
(e.g., farm equipment, storage, processing, and packing facilities,
etc.), and markets to support production and sales (Plattner, et al.,
2014). The difficulty in moving production of these high-value crops
elsewhere has likely kept producers from expanding production, even
though domestic demand for fruit and vegetables now exceeds supply by
203 percent and 164 percent, respectively (White and Hall 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The median cost to provide public services for each dollar of
revenue raised is $0.30 for business, $0.37 for agriculture, and $1.16
for residential (www.farmlandinfo.org/costcommunity-services-studies).
\6\ Analysis by AFT's Farmland Information Center (FIC) combines
information from the 2012 Census of Agriculture with 2013 USDA Economic
Research Service (ERS) Urban Influence Codes (UIC). ERS classifies
counties into 12 groups. The FIC uses UICs 1-5 to identify the ``most
urban'' counties. These 1,652 counties comprise 54 percent of U.S.
counties.
\7\ See AFT's ``Food in the Path of Development'' fact sheet:
www.farmlandinfo.org/food-path-development-talking-points.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agriculture, food and related industries contribute $992 billion
(5.5 percent) to the U.S. GDP (USDA ERS 2015). Agriculture and its
related industries provide 11 percent of U.S. employment. Many economic
sectors rely on agricultural inputs, including forestry, fishing and
related activities; food, beverages, and tobacco products; textiles,
apparel, and leather products; food and beverage stores; and food
service, eating, and drinking establishments. U.S. agricultural exports
support output, employment, income, and purchasing power in both the
farm and non-farm sectors, and each dollar of agricultural exports
stimulates another $1.27 in business activity.
Agricultural Land Provides Benefits Beyond Food
Agricultural land also plays a significant role in the nation's
landscape and psyche. Along with food, fiber, and energy, Americans
highly value the contributions that agricultural land makes to the
environment and quality of life. Well-managed agricultural land
provides open space and scenic views; biodiversity and wildlife
habitat; and critical ecological services like fire suppression,
floodplain management, and carbon sequestration (Heimlich and Krupa
1994; Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development 2003;
Hellerstein, et al., 2002; Farm Foundation 2004; Swinton, et al., 2007;
Duke 2008; Freedgood and Fydenkez 2017). Agricultural land also
supports rural lifestyles and recreational opportunities like hunting,
fishing, and horseback riding. Many of the nation's agricultural
regions are deeply important to U.S. heritage, such as the glacially
borne wild blueberry barrens of Down East Maine; the wild rice region
of the upper Great Lakes; New Mexico's Hatch Valley, known as the
``chili pepper capital of the world''; and Michigan's Grand Traverse
cherry region, which produces most of the nation's tart cherries
(Hilchy 2008).
As an added benefit, agricultural land can help stabilize and
reduce future greenhouse gas emissions. Keeping land in agriculture and
limiting low-density residential development can curb one of the
largest sources of carbon emissions: transportation. Emerging studies
show that the average greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from urban land
uses are orders of magnitude higher than those from cropland
(approximately 66-70 times higher per unit area) (Culman, et al., 2014;
Shaffer and Thompson 2015; Arjomand and Haight 2017). In addition, GHG
emissions from lower density, suburban-style developments account for
roughly half of the GHG emissions in the United States (Jones and
Kammen 2013). Although a full accounting of emissions benefits from
protecting farmland will take more time, intact agricultural landscapes
provide communities with future opportunities to further reduce
emissions and sequester carbon in agricultural soils and vegetation
(Culman, et al., 2014). Farmers and ranchers manage more than 1 billion
acres of U.S. land, and agricultural practices that sequester carbon
and improve soil health-increasing soil productivity, resiliency, and
versatility--are the next frontier of agricultural innovation.
``We have been too wasteful too long in this country--indeed,
over most of the world. We had so much good land in the
beginning we thought the supply was limitless and
inexhaustible.''
Hugh Hammond Bennett, 1943.
Tracking the Status of Agricultural Land
A Colorado ranch during the Dust Bowl. USDA NRCS Archives.
Since the 1930s, the USDA has closely monitored the conditions and
threats to the nation's natural resources. The Dust Bowl of the 1930s
in the Great Plains dramatically called attention to the dangers of
severe drought and poor land management, leading to the establishment
of the USDA Soil Conservation Service (SCS) in 1935, now NRCS (USDA
1992). Since its founding, SCS/NRCS has periodically inventoried the
nation's land and natural resources and, in 1975, released the
Potential Cropland Study to examine the loss of the nation's best
agricultural land to urban development (Schnepf and Flanagan 2016).
The advent of NRCS' National Resources Inventory (NRI) in 1977 made
it possible to track the conditions and trends of soil, water, and
related resources. NRCS conducts this statistical survey of natural
resource conditions and trends on non-Federal land in cooperation with
Iowa State University's Center for Survey Statistics and Methodology.
Among other attributes, the NRI tracks changes in land cover/use, which
provides critical data on how much farmland is converted and other
trends affecting the nation's strategic land and natural resources
(Schnepf and Flanagan 2016). The precision of NRI statistical estimates
vary with the number of samples involved in a particular inventory
activity. Based on statistical area sampling, as opposed to full areal
coverage, it is most applicable for monitoring state and national
levels of gross land conversion (Lark, et al., 2017). The NRI currently
releases state-level estimates to the public and is exploring ways to
achieve statistical reliability for county-level sub-state estimates
(Schnepf and Flanagan 2016). These periodic inventories remain the
primary source of information about changes in land use in the United
States. However, leveraging the NRI by mapping the patterns of land
cover/use and trends over time provides powerful information to inform
planning and decision-making at state, county, and municipal levels.
The planners queried by AFT at the start of Farms Under Threat agreed
that having access to spatial maps was important for planning purposes.
The 1977 NRI data also became the primary data source for the
National Agricultural Lands Study (NALS) undertaken by USDA in 1979
(USDA and the President's Environmental Council 1981). When the NALS
opted to use the 1977 NRI data on urban and built-up uses of land, it
not only focused more national attention on the inventory work by SCS,
but it also generated considerable controversy in academic circles over
how much agricultural land was actually being converted to
nonagricultural uses. This controversy led USDA to establish new
procedures for identifying and recording urban and built-up areas that
were incorporated into the 1982 NRI and subsequent sampling (Schnepf
and Flanagan 2016). The findings in the NALS, along with a
Congressional report that concluded Federal infrastructure grants and
mortgage subsidies had led to wasteful farmland conversion (U.S.
Congress 1980), prompted the passage of the Farmland Protection Policy
Act (FPPA) as a subtitle in the 1981 Farm Bill.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Farmland Protection: The Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA)
Congress enacted the FPPA as a subtitle of the 1981 Farm Bill to
minimize the impact that Federal programs have on the unnecessary and
irreversible conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses. The FPPA
stipulates that Federal programs be compatible with state, local, and
private efforts to protect farmland. (For the purposes of the law,
Federal programs include construction projects--such as highways,
airports, dams, and Federal buildings--sponsored or financed in whole
or part by the Federal Government, and the management of Federal land.)
Federal agencies are required to develop and review their policies and
procedures to implement the FPPA every 2 years. NRCS is charged with
oversight of the FPPA (www.farmlandinfo.org/sites/default/files/FPPA_8-
06_1.pdf).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the NRI, USDA monitors other trends that impact the
nation's agricultural resources. The USDA Economic Research Service's
(ERS) major land use estimates and related cropland series provide a
comprehensive accounting of all major uses of public and private land
in the United States (www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/major-land-uses).
Every 5 years, the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service's
(NASS) Census of Agriculture does a complete count of U.S. farms and
ranches, providing information about land use and ownership, ownership
characteristics, production practices, income, and expenditures
(www.agcensus.usda.gov). In 2014, ERS and NASS completed the Tenure,
Ownership and Transfer of Agricultural Land (TOTAL) survey, the first
survey since 1999 to focus solely on the ownership and transfer of
agricultural land (Bigelow, et al., 2016). TOTAL provided invaluable
information about agricultural land ownership and otherwise unavailable
data on agricultural landlords. All of this critical information helps
USDA evaluate the status of the nation's soil, water, and related
resources on non-Federal land every 10 years as required by the 1977
Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act (RCA). RCA appraisals assess
the capacity of the nation's resources to meet present and future
demands and play a key role in shaping conservation strategies, but
they are scheduled to terminate on December 31, 2018
(www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/rca/national/technical/nra/rca/ida).
The Sneffels Range in Ridgeway, Colorado. Pat & Chuck
Blackley/Alamy Stock Photo.
Both NRI and RCA appraisals indicate the United States is
developing its more productive agricultural land at a disproportionate
rate. AFT identified the same trend when it documented the relationship
between highly productive farmland, land development trends, and
farmland loss over 20 years ago (Sorensen, et al., 1997). The need to
improve the nation's understanding of the scale and spatial location of
this threat provided the impetus for AFT's Farms Under Threat
initiative.
Mapping the quality of agricultural land and tracking its loss is a
critical step to better understanding the impacts of conversion that
has already occurred. However, this is not easy to do because the
various databases and maps available at the national level differ in
purpose, scope, and how various land categories and uses are defined
(Nickerson, et al., 2015). The collected data also differs in scale,
including their extent and spatial resolution, as well as in duration,
accuracy, update frequency, and timing. As a result, estimates from
different Federal agencies do not agree on how much agricultural land
the United States has--let alone how much the nation is losing.
``Each day, each year--individually and on a national scale--
the conversions of cropland to non-agricultural uses may not
have been large in proportion to the total national landscape.
However, collectively and cumulatively, these land use shifts
are seriously reducing the world's supply of important
farmlands. Moreover, while these continued losses are
`significant' or `rather serious' on a global scale, they may
already be critical for individual, local, or regional areas.''
Norm Berg, 1979.
To meet the need for more accuracy, AFT and CSP applied advanced
geospatial and remote sensing analysis to fill in the data gaps and
create the most comprehensive and most accurate national analysis ever
undertaken of agricultural land and conversion patterns from urban and
low-density residential development. Farms Under Threat: The State of
America's Farmland adds value to the national inventory of agricultural
land in multiple ways: (1) It includes a new class of agricultural land
that estimates woodlands associated with farm enterprise; (2) It maps
grazing on Federal land; (3) It identifies agricultural land based on
its productivity, versatility and resiliency to support intensive food
and crop production (PVR values); (4) It maps and analyzes the extent
of low-density residential development on agricultural land; (5) It
shows the spatial patterns of agricultural land uses and conversion to
development in a consistent way over time so that people can see the
patterns of change.
``Productive land is neither limitless nor inexhaustible.''
Hugh Hammond Bennett, 1959.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Farmland Protection: Agricultural Conservation Easement Program
(ACEP)
USDA's NRCS is a key partner for state and local governments,
private land trusts, and recognized Tribes working to protect farmland
and ranchland from development. The agency's Agricultural Conservation
Easement Program (ACEP), authorized in the farm bill, protects
agricultural land and conserves wetlands. The Agricultural Land
Easements (ALE) enrollment option provides matching funds to buy
conservation easements on farmland and ranchland. An agricultural
conservation easement is a deed restriction that landowners voluntarily
place on their property to restrict development and keep the land
available for farming. The funds from selling agricultural conservation
easements allow farmers to free up capital without having to sell their
land outright and are most often used to improve or expand the farm
operation (Esseks and Schilling 2013). Since 1996, NRCS has invested
about $1.5 billion in agricultural conservation easements through ACEP-
ALE and its forerunners, leveraging state, local, and private funds to
contribute to the long-term protection of more than 1.2 million acres
of agricultural land nationwide. The program has protected agricultural
land for agriculture, improved agricultural viability, encouraged on-
farm conservation, and helped farmers gain access to land (Esseks and
Schilling 2013). Although the demands for the Federal, state, and local
programs remains very high, the limitations in funding at all levels
constrains each partner's ability to protect this critical land. For
more information about the impact of the Federal farmland protection
program, see www.farmlandinfo.org/impacts-federal-farm-and-ranch-lands-
protection-program-assessment-based-interviews-participating-1.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Methods
Dickie Brothers Orchard in Roseland, Virginia. Pat & Chuck
Blackley/Alamy Stock Photo.
CSP analyzed the location, quantity, type, and quality of the
agricultural land converted to development in the continental United
States to a 30 meter resolution with mapping units of about 5 to 10
acres. To achieve this level of precision and inform future
forecasting, CSP focused on the 20 year time period \8\ between 1992
and 2012 when there were sufficient databases with the national
coverage necessary to complete the more detailed spatial mapping. The
most recent releases of databases with the coverage needed for a
national assessment are 2011 and 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ CSP initially applied this approach to map conversion over a 30
year period based on 1982 data from the NRI. However, because many of
the datasets used to model land cover/use represented conditions in the
early 1990s, the results were too inconsistent and had too much
variability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To show the extent of land in agricultural uses, the analysis
identifies and maps woodland, a new class of agricultural land, and
also maps grazing on Federal land. To provide greater clarity on the
extent of agricultural land conversion, it improves on previous efforts
to spatially map low-density residential development, which extends
beyond the suburbs into rural parts of counties. The conversion of
working land to very large lot developments not only diminishes the
agricultural land base, it also threatens the vitality of rural
economies. Finally, to more fully understand the quality of the
agricultural land being converted, it identifies and spatially maps
agricultural land based on values that denote their productivity,
versatility, and resiliency (PVR) for cultivation. This complex
approach significantly advances the understanding of farmland
conversion.
Developing the base map.
CSP started the assessment with the 2011 U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD)--a 30 meter resolution
national database that provides spatial reference and descriptive data
of land surface characteristics. It adds in critical data from the NRI
and Soil Survey Geographic Database SSURGO datasets (soil suitability
and capability classes), the NASS Cropland Data Layer (CDL) and Census
of Agriculture data (median farm size), the USGS NLCD accuracy
assessments, National Elevation Dataset (at 10 m) and Protected Areas
Dataset (PAD-US), and housing data from the U.S. Census Bureau at
Census block level. It directly incorporates NRI data to generate a
suitability model that produces maps of land cover/use at 1992 and 2012
and then applies additional geospatial analyses to quantify change.
Farmland in the Mohawk Valley, New York. Philip Scalia/Alamy
Stock Photo.
Farms Under Threat adds a new class of agricultural land: woodland
associated with farms. This is a subset of forestland that CSP mapped
by approximating the area of woodland reported by operators in the 2012
Census of Agriculture. To show the total extent of land in agricultural
uses, it includes Federal land that is grazed based on grazing permits
issued by the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Bureau of Land
Management in 2014 and 2015, respectively. It also identifies low-
density residential development as another land cover/use class.\9\
Depending on location, once this intensity of residential development
occurs on agricultural land, the analysis assumes it is no longer
primarily used for agricultural purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Farms Under Threat uses the NLCD definition for urbanization:
areas occupied by urban development or ``built-up'' areas of
commercial, industrial, transportation, and high-density residential
(NLDC categories 21-24). Low-density residential includes residential
areas with more than one housing unit per 1 to 2 acres up to homes on
10-20 acres as well as exurban homes on even larger lots that
effectively remove these properties' agricultural uses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The assessment focuses on the continental United States (the
contiguous 48 states) because of data availability and spatial data
processing efficiencies. A number of datasets used in the analyses were
either not available or had limited (less than 25 percent) spatial
coverage in Alaska and/or Hawaii. For Alaska, the NRCS NRI and SSURGO
soils databases were very limited; for both Alaska and Hawaii, data are
not available for the CDL or grazing allotments, and the earliest
availability of the NLCD is 2001 (not 1992).
Mapping and assessing irreversible losses due to both urbanization
and low-density residential development.
Previous work by the technical mapping team, access to unique
national data, and a geospatial model enabled CSP to map urbanization
and the low-density residential development that extends beyond the
suburbs. CSP started with the NLCD urban land cover/use class. The
satellite imagery used to create the NLCD dataset detects the high-
density urbanized or built-up areas but misses urban development hidden
under forested canopies, as well as low-density residential areas. This
shortcoming became apparent when CSP compared the detailed land use
observations from the NRI to the NLCD 2011. Roughly 30 percent of the
area represented by the NRI as urbanized did not fall on urban/built-up
classes in the NLCD.
The next step was to figure out how to spatially map low-density
residential development, especially large-lot development occurring in
exurban areas. AFT interviewed farmland protection practitioners,
county planners, and other key stakeholders at the start of the Farms
Under Threat initiative. In some parts of the country, these
stakeholders identified exurban development as the principal threat,
and they urged AFT to investigate the lower-density residential
development missed by the NRI.
A crop farmer in Oyster, Virginia. Blend Images/Alamy Stock
Photo.
The NRI urban classification captures residential land areas with
more than one housing unit per 1 to 2 acres up to homes on 10-20 acres.
This resulted in another gap between what the NLCD captures and the NRI
samples. To bridge the gap between NLCD and NRI, CSP sought to map both
the NRI residential land areas and the nonagricultural development on
larger lots.
To do this, CSP created an additional land cover/use category of
low-density residential. The low-density residential model filled in
the NRI urban projections up to one house per 10-20 acres. It also
captured exurban homes on even larger lots that effectively removed
even more land from agricultural uses. To identify these larger lot
residences, AFT asked NASS to generate the quartiles of farm size from
the 2012 Census of Agriculture for each county. The size of a viable
farm or ranch varies considerably from region to region and from county
to county. To distinguish between a viable agricultural operation and a
rural estate (also called a ``farmette'' or ``ranchette''), CSP
identified the low-end tail (approximately the 10th percentile) of the
entire distribution of farm sizes in each county by using 50 percent of
the lowest (25 percent) quartile. Based on feedback from scientists
involved with the NRI, CDL, and NLCD, this best represents the point
below which land previously identified as agricultural land is likely
too small or fragmented to support an agricultural operation. These
farm-size thresholds (calculated as roughly the 10th percentile of farm
size in the county) vary widely from county to county and state to
state and ranged in size from 2 acres (e.g., in parts of the Northeast)
to 186 acres (e.g., in parts of Great Plains, etc.). This land was then
re-classified as most likely low-density residential. Then CSP
harmonized this data with the housing density data from the U.S. Census
and used housing density to help distinguish large lot, low-density
residential from agricultural uses.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitations of the Data from Farms Under Threat: State of America's
Farmland
The Farms Under Threat: State of America's Farmland datasets are
produced at a resolution of 30 meters (about \1/4\ acre), though the
minimum mapping unit is 5 to 10 acres, which is useful to inform and
support sub-county decisions regarding mapped patterns at extents of
roughly 1,000 acres or greater. Calculating summaries of the data at
scales finer than this generally is not recommended. To characterize
broader-scale patterns and trends, the minimum analytical (decision)
unit should be aggregated to the sub-county level (approximately 10,000
acres or greater), the equivalent of a Hydrologic Unit Code 12 or HUC12
level. CSP and AFT recognize that there may be some utility for using
these data at relatively fine-scales, but caution that the
interpretation of the results be used appropriately and considered in a
probabilistic perspective, particularly when using the data for site-
scale planning exercises. Calculating landscape change is particularly
challenging, and so we suggest that appropriate scales for calculating
change or trends with data from Farms Under Threat: State of America's
Farmland should be done at county, state, and national scales. Fine-
scale analysis should proceed under advisement of the data developers
(CSP) on a case-by-case basis. As with any map, there is some level of
uncertainty associated with the data, and the statistical uncertainty
associated with our findings has been fully documented.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fields of squash in Virginia. Lance Cheung/USDA.
Assigning values to agricultural land based on their productivity,
versatility, and resilience for long-term cultivation.
Farmers and ranchers make decisions about how to use their land
based on soil type, water resources, climate, adjoining land uses,
proximity to markets and transportation, access to farm equipment, and
other factors (Olson and Lyson 1999). However, the long-term
sustainability of keeping the land in cultivation or in other
agricultural uses depends on the productivity,\10\ versatility \11\ and
resiliency \12\ (PVR values) of the land base. The research team looked
for factors that offered reliable national coverage and could act as
proxies to rank agricultural land nationally based on these key factors
and chose soil suitability, land cover/land use, and food production to
assess the land's potential to support long-term cultivation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Productivity is output per unit of input (often measured as
crop yield per acre). The highest productivity occurs in coastal areas
where climate, soil, location, and irrigated conditions favor the
production of perishable crops (fruits and vegetables) or where
integrated livestock operations draw from an extended cropping area.
Unfortunately, productivity can often mask environmental or heath
components of soil quality (Widbe and Gollehon 2006). The PVR analysis
considers soils, their limitations, climate, type of production, and
whether the land can produce commonly cultivated crops and pasture
plants without deterioration over a long period of time.
\11\ Versatility is the ability of land to support production and
management of a wide range of crops. It is mainly assessed in terms of
soil and land physical characteristics (Bloomer 2011).
\12\ Resiliency (the land's ability to maintain its potential to
provide ecosystem services) depends on the same factors that determine
potential productivity (topography, relatively static soil properties
and climate (UNEP 2016).
``Each acre not retained for use in agriculture, and each
acre exceeding the tolerance value in erosion loss, removes
flexibility for future decisions and reduces the nation's
options for directing our own destiny.''
Norm Berg, 1981.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Factors Used in the Productivity, Versatility and Resiliency
(PVR) Analysis
Soil suitability uses important farmland designations, which
interpret soil survey information to indicate relative suitability and
productivity of soils. Important farmland designations are an attribute
in the NRCS SSURGO database. This factor gets at the capacity of soils
to support agricultural production (productivity) and provides clues to
the land's versatility and resiliency to withstand weather extremes. We
consulted with state soil scientists and included the following
important farmland designations: prime farmland, prime farmland with
limitations, unique farmland, farmland of statewide importance, and
farmland of statewide importance with limitations. We reclassified
locally important soils in all states except Michigan and Ohio as not
prime, because states inconsistently define their locally important
soils and most states identify fewer than 1,000 acres as locally
important. Working with the NRCS state soil scientist, AFT reclassified
Michigan locally important soils in counties adjacent to Lake Michigan
as unique (since these areas support fruit trees or vineyards) and
reclassified the locally important soils in remaining counties as
statewide important. For Ohio, we reclassified locally important soils
as statewide important.
Broad land cover/use shows where different major types of
agriculture are conducted. Land cover is the vegetation or other kind
of material that covers the land surface. Land use is the purpose of
human activity on the land; it is usually, but not always, related to
land cover. Continuous production indicates there are relatively fewer
limitations and environmental consequences. It indicates resiliency
over time. We mapped land cover/use by combining data from the NRI, the
USGS National Land Cover Dataset for 2011, and the SSURGO database.
Food production was included in recognition of the fact that a
primary goal of agriculture is to feed people. This factor is
especially important as a proxy for characteristics that support
production of specialty crops that may require unique soils and
microclimates. Using data from the USDA NASS Cropland Data Layer, we
grouped 132 Individual cropland types into five main groups: 1. fruit
and nut trees; 2. fruits and vegetables grown as row crops; 3. staple
food crops (e.g., wheat, rice, barley, oats, dry beans, potatoes); 4.
feed grains, forages, and crops grown for livestock feed and processed
foods (corn and soybean; hay and alfalfa; oilseeds and sugar beets and
sugarcane); and 5. non-food crops (i.e., crops used for energy
production excluding corn, fiber, tobacco, and nursery/greenhouse).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pumpkin plants in Starlight, Indiana. Daniel Dempster
Photography/Alamy Stock Photo.
Farms Under Threat then used a structured, replicable process to
elicit feedback from 33 national experts to decide the importance of
each factor in determining the land's potential. The experts assigned
the strongest weight to soil suitability (given the value of 1.0),
followed by food production (= 0.522), and land cover/land use (=
0.398). For soil suitability, the experts ranked the soil types in the
following order: prime, unique, prime with limitations,\13\ state
important, and state important with limitations. For land cover/use,
types, the ranked order was cropland, pastureland, rangeland, and
woodland. For food production, the ranked order was fruit and
vegetables, fruit and nut trees, staple food crops, feed grains, and
forages and non-food crops. Because fruits, nuts, and vegetables occupy
only a small percentage of total cropland acres and often depend on
unique microclimates that limit their range, their ultimate weighting
within the analysis was higher to reflect their disproportionate value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Farms Under Threat uses the NRI definitions for the various
soil types. In this case, limitations denote the conditions that must
be addressed before the soil qualifies as prime (e.g., prime if
irrigated, prime if drained, prime if drained and either protected from
flooding or not frequently flooded, etc.) or statewide important.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Factoring in critical limitations to production and versatility.
To strengthen the soil suitability analysis, the analysis included
a secondary factor based on production limitations documented within
NRCS Land Capability Classes (LCC) (USDA SCS 1961). USDA developed this
classification to group soils primarily on the basis of their
capability to produce commonly cultivated crops and pasture plants
without deteriorating over a long period. The LCC considers management
hazards (e.g., erosion and runoff, excess water, root zone limitations,
and climatic limitations). It also helps identify production
versatility, identifying whether soils can be used for cultivated
crops, pasture, range, woodland, and/or wildlife food and cover. The
LCC identifies eight categories with increasing limitations. Land in
Classes I through IV is suited to cultivation, although Classes II
through IV have increasing limitations that reduce the choice of plants
and require the use of progressively more conservation practices.
Classes V through VIII are not suited to cultivation, and their use is
limited largely to pastureland, rangeland, woodland, or wildlife food
and cover. To improve the food production factor, the analysis also
incorporated information about growing season length that limits
production in parts of the country but allows almost year-around
production in some of the southern states and in some coastal regions.
After completing these refinements, CSP assigned each agricultural land
mapping unit (5-10 acres) a combined PVR value based on the PVR factors
and weighting (see Figure 4).
Cherry Bomb peppers growing in northern Illinois. Jess
Merrill/Alamy.
Identifying the best land for intensive food and crop production.
After assigning combined PVR values, CSP then applied a scenario
model to identify the best land for intensive food and crop production
(includes the production of fruits, vegetables, staple foods, grains,
and animal feed). The scenario model included soils that are prime,
unique, or prime with limitations; cropland and pasture; and the
relevant cropland types. The land with values at or above the resulting
PVR threshold value has the highest potential for food and crop
production with the fewest limitations and environmental impacts. This
subset of agricultural land is the best land for intensive food and
crop production in terms of its ability to support cultivation.
Checking the PVR continuum against other classification schemes.
To help put the PVR value continuum into context with other
classification schemes, CSP examined the PVR values generated for the
NRI points. For the NRI points designated as prime, the mean PVR value
was 0.45. For Land Capability Class designations, the mean PVR value
for LCC Class I points was 0.53, Class II was 0.49, Class III was 0.40,
Classes IV and V were 0.29, Class VI was 0.20 and Classes VII and VIII
were 0.15. Farms Under Threat: State of America's Farmland identifies
land with a PVR value above 0.43 as best suited for intensive food and
crop production. In other words, the threshold the scenario model uses
to identify the best land for intensive food and crop production picked
up all the prime farmland identified by the NRI points, all the
agricultural land in LCC Classes I and II, and some of the agricultural
land in LCC Class III.
The sun sets over an Iowa cornfield. Larry Lindell/
Istockphoto.
Findings \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ AFT is solely responsible for the conclusions and
recommendations in this report. Although information from NRCS data
comprises a major component of this analysis, the conclusions and
recommendations are AFT's alone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Between non-Federal and Federal lands, America's farmers and
ranchers make use of a diverse agricultural landscape that
covers 55 percent of the land area in the continental United
States.
Farms Under Threat land cover/use categories include cropland,
pastureland, rangeland, and woodland (Table 1) \15\ in the context of
other major land uses (e.g., urban, low-density residential, forest,
water, Federal, Federal land used for grazing, other rural land, etc.)
(Figure 1). The broad extent to which land in the continental United
States is used by farmers and ranchers becomes apparent when non-
Federal agricultural land and Federal land used for grazing are mapped
together (Figure 2). Farmers and ranchers use over 1 billion acres in
the continental United States (Table 2), roughly 55 percent of the land
area, providing a wide range of benefits and amenities that are valued
by the public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Direct comparison of Farms Under Threat with the NRI and other
agricultural datasets is difficult because of different
classifications, sources, time periods, and spatial resolution. The
accuracy of the revised cover types in our resulting map, compared to
the 800,000 NRI validation data points, is roughly 83 percent overall.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Note About Land Cover/Use Categories Used in Farms Under Threat
Farms Under Threat defines agricultural land as cropland,
pastureland, rangeland and woodland associated with farms in the
continental United States (48 states), excluding federally owned
grazing land. This non-Federal agricultural land is commonly referred
to as farmland and ranchland by the public.
Farms Under Threat uses the NRI definitions for rangeland,
forestland, cropland and pastureland. ``Woodlands'' is a new class of
forested cover that is part of a functioning farm. ``Federal (grazed)''
is a new class compiled from USFS and BLM allotment data. ``Urban'' is
mapped from the USGS NLCD urban/built-up categories. ``Low-density
residential'' is a new class calculated from Census block level housing
statistics. ``Other'' includes locations not classed in other cover/use
classes (e.g., along rural roads or scattered in areas with little
vegetation cover such as barren or steeper slopes). ``Water'' includes
freshwater and some near-shore ocean. Compared to NRI, FUT slightly
under estimates the total land area of the contiguous United States
(CONUS). All percentages reported are based on the total CONUS land
area reported by NRI and will not sum to 100 percent due to rounding
and other factors described in more detail in the FUT technical report.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 1: The extent and distribution of agricultural land in 2012.
Agricultural land in the continental United States, shown
here in shades of yellow and green, encompass roughly 912
million acres of non-Federal land, including cropland,
pastureland, rangeland and woodland associated with farms. This
agricultural land provides a rich and varied landscape that is
part of a larger mosaic of land cover/uses, including
forestland, Federal land, Federal land grazed by livestock, and
other rural land, as well as urban and low-density residential
development.
Table 2. Farms Under Threat agricultural land and Federal land used for
livestock grazing in 2012.*
See box [A Note About Land Cover/Use Categories Used in Farms
Under Threat] for an explanation of land use categories.
Figure 2: The widespread landscape used by farmers and ranchers in
2012.
Farmers and ranchers use over 1 billion acres, or 55 percent
of the land in the continental United States, which includes
agricultural land and Federal land used to graze livestock.
This map depicts only these land uses to show the broad extent
of land used for agricultural production.
Table 2. Farms Under Threat agricultural land and Federal land used for
livestock grazing in 2012.*
See box [A Note About Land Cover/Use Categories Used in Farms
Under Threat] for an explanation of land use categories.
Agricultural land varies in its potential to be used for
food and crop production.
The PVR land potential model calculates the productivity,
versatility and resiliency value at each location on the map (Figure
3). As PVR values decrease, the land has progressively greater
limitations and usually requires greater inputs to cultivate. Farmers
may also need to adapt crops and practices and increase their level of
management to use this land for cultivation. As PVR values increase,
fewer and fewer acres of land qualify. Land that has high enough PVR
values has the right soil characteristics and growing conditions to
support intensive food and crop production with the fewest
environmental limitations (Figure 5).
Figure 3: Combined productivity, versatility, and resiliency values for
agricultural land.
The productivity, versatility, and resiliency of agricultural
land for long-term cultivation largely depend on the quality of
the soils, the farming infrastructure that exists, and climatic
conditions, such as the length of the growing season. PVR
values are calculated using data of the PVR factors and expert-
based weights. Lower PVR values are shown by lighter tones,
indicating land that has progressively greater limitations, may
be more prone to off-farm environmental impacts, and that
offers less potential for food and crop production and narrower
choices for agricultural production in general.
Development converted almost 31 million acres of
agricultural land in the United States between 1992 and 2012,
nearly double the amount previously documented by national
datasets.
Agricultural land use in the United States continually changes--and
these changes mask the irreversible losses that are taking place. Farms
Under Threat was able to spatially map the patterns of conversion since
1992 that the NLCD was unable to distinguish through remote sensing
(Figure 4). Overall, more than 62 percent of the development that
occurred was on agricultural land.
Urban development converted roughly 18 million acres of
agricultural land (59 percent of conversion), reinforcing the findings
by the NRI. Farms Under Threat also captures and, for the first time,
spatially allocates the emerging threat of low-density residential
development associated with exurban development. Low-density
residential development converted nearly 13 million acres of additional
agricultural land (41 percent of conversion). Taken together, the loss
of agricultural land to development is far more widespread than
previously documented--nearly double previous estimates.
Figure 4: Conversion of agricultural land to urban and low-density
residential development between 1992 and 2012.
The development of agricultural land is shown in relationship
to the low-to-high continuum of productive, versatile, and
resilient values for agricultural land. The conversion of
agricultural land to urban and low-density residential uses
between 1992 and 2012 is shown as high (dark brown-red, >25%
conversion within a 10 kilometer (6.2 miles) radius), moderate
(light brown-red, 10-25% conversion) and low (tan, 5-10%
conversion). Urban areas are shown in gray.
Table 3. Conversion by land cover/use in thousands of acres between
1992 and 2012.
Over 70 percent of urban development and about 54 percent of
low-density residential development occurred on agricultural
land.
As shown in Table 3, in the context of all land uses, urban
development occurred more frequently on cropland (28.9 percent) than on
any other land use type, while low-density residential development was
more likely occur on forestland (41 percent).
When urban development occurred on agricultural land, it most
frequently converted cropland (41 percent) while converting much lower
percentages of pastureland (25.9 percent), rangeland (23.8 percent) and
woodland (9.3 percent). In contrast, low-density residential
development posed an equal threat to cropland and pastureland (34.5
percent each) and favored woodland (19.9 percent) over rangeland (11.1
percent).
After mapping the patterns of development on agricultural land, the
analysis determined whether the United States was disproportionately
losing agricultural land with higher PVR values. This was done by
comparing the PVR values of the agricultural land that was converted by
urban and low-density residential development between 1992 and 2012
with the PVR values of the agricultural land that was not developed.
Development patterns put higher quality agricultural lands
at greater risk.
The analysis found that land with higher PVR values was more at
risk of being developed. Figure 5 shows the cumulative distribution
curve of the PVR values of agricultural land in 1992 (335 million
acres) that remained in agriculture in 2012 contrasted with similar
cumulative distribution curves of the PVR values of land converted by
low-density residential (13 million acres) and urban development (18
million acres). These distribution curves show that urban development
and, to a lesser extent, low-density residential development occurred
on land with higher PVR values.
The median PVR value of agricultural land lost to development
(0.39) was 1.3 times higher than the median PVR value of land that
stayed in production (0.31). The contrasting distribution curves also
show the nation's best land for intensive food and crop production
(land with PVR values of 0.431 or higher) is disproportionately
converted by urban and low-density residential development up to a PVR
value of about 0.51.
It is interesting to note that above a PVR value of 0.51, the
distribution curves converge, indicating that conversion is now
proportional to the amount of agricultural land with these higher PVR
values (less than 25 percent of agricultural land in 1992). Although
the losses are no longer disproportional, the land with the highest PVR
values continues to be converted. All of these cumulative losses could
have serious implications for agricultural productivity and domestic
food security in future decades.
Figure 5: Distribution of PVR values for converted agricultural land
and land remaining in agriculture.
Cumulative distribution curves are shown for the PVR values
of agricultural land in 1992 that remained in agriculture (no
conversion) in 2012 (335 million acres) and for the
agricultural land lost through urban conversion (18 million
acres) and low-density residential conversion (13 million
acres). Development disproportionately occurred on land with
PVR values between 0.1 and 0.51. The distribution curves then
converge above a PVR value of 0.51, indicating that conversion
is now proportional to the amount of agricultural land with
higher values (>0.51). The dotted horizontal line shows the
median PVR value of the agricultural land that remained in
production was 0.31, whereas agricultural land lost to
development had a higher median PVR value of 0.39. A solid
vertical line shows the PVR threshold value (0.43) used to
identify the best land for intensive food and crop production
and represents slightly more than \1/3\ of agricultural land.
By 2012, the best land to support intensive food and crop
production comprised less than 17 percent of the total land
area.
Only 324.1 million acres of agricultural land had PVR values >0.43
that indicated that the right soil characteristics and growing
conditions were present and the land could be farmed with the fewest
environmental limitations (Figure 6). This is slightly more than \1/3\
of agricultural land.
Figure 6: Best agricultural land for intensive food and crop production
in 2012.
Agricultural land with PVR values between 0.43 and 1.0 is the
land most suited for the intensive production of fruit and nut
trees, vegetables, staple foods, grains, and animal feed with
the fewest environmental limitations. This land represented
about 36 percent of U.S. agricultural land, or only 16.7
percent of the total land area in the continental United States
in 2012.
Harvesting lettuce in New York State. Cavan Social/Alamy
Stock Photo.
In less than one generation, the United States irreversibly
lost nearly 11 million acres of the best land for food and crop
production.
From 1992 to 2012, the United States converted 10.928 million acres
of land where soils, climate, growing seasons, and access to water
combine to allow intensive food and crop production with the fewest
environmental impacts. To put this into perspective, this is equivalent
to losing 95 percent of California's Central Valley or 47 percent of
the state of Indiana. This is the land that can help ensure food
security for future generations, but only if the nation protects it
from any further conversion, soil erosion, and declines in soil health.
At this rate of loss (slightly over three percent), the nation would
lose over 15 percent of its best agricultural land by the end of the
century just to development--without factoring in any other threats.
But housing a growing population while losing land to a changing
climate will likely accelerate this rate of loss and farmers and
ranchers will have to produce more food, fiber and energy on the
agricultural lands that remain.
Harvesting wheat in the Palouse region of Washington State.
Rick Dalton--Ag/Alamy Stock Photo.
Discussion
CSA farmer in Iowa. Preston Keres/USDA.
U.S. agricultural land supports a regionally diverse food and
farming system and provides a secure food supply--for now. This land
also plays a significant role in the U.S. landscape and economy.
However, it faces unprecedented challenges as the world's population
continues to expand and the climate continues to change. By 2050, the
demands on agriculture to provide sufficient food, fiber, and energy
are expected to be 50 to 70 percent higher than they are now. Given a
fixed land mass in the United States and the need to feed an increasing
number of people, it is extremely important to consider land quality,
land availability, and the maximization of nutrient production per unit
of total land in the future (White and Hall 2017).
U.S. agricultural land also provides a wide range of benefits and
amenities that are valued by the public. Along with producing food and
crops, agricultural land is highly valued for providing wildlife
habitat and environmental benefits such as flood water storage, etc.
Well-managed agricultural land delivers a wide range of amenities that
motivate communities and land trusts to pay $88 to $124,000 per acre on
average to preserve this land (Brinkley 2012). These amenities include
ecosystem services that improve the quality of water, air and soil,
support wildlife and biodiversity, contribute to viewsheds and quality
of life, provide recreational opportunities, shape land use, help the
local economy, provide fresh healthy food, support community health and
cohesion, and sequester carbon. The more marginal agricultural land
where food production is rarely an option provide wildlife with the
food, water, shelter, and space they need (AFT 2017). This includes
wetlands, woodland, rangeland and pastureland with low-intensity
management. The permanent habitat interspersed throughout the
agricultural landscape (in areas like field margins, hedgerows, buffer
strips, riparian corridors, and wood lots) allow wildlife to travel
between larger areas of suitable habitat. Although quantifying the wide
range of benefits offered by agricultural land is still in its infancy
(Wainger and Ervin 2017), the market value of farmland services extends
far beyond the local community and should be viewed in a regional
context (Brinkley 2012). Because agricultural land varies so widely in
its potential, maintaining this diversity with the philosophy that
every acre counts provides the nation with options to optimize the
nation's limited land and agricultural resources to sustain future
generations.
Decades of urban and low-density residential development have
converted almost twice as much agricultural land as previously thought.
Urbanization and associated land-use dynamics beyond the urban fringe
encroach on both agricultural land and on natural land that supports
wildlife habitat (Theobald 2001). Farms Under Threat shows the past
spatial patterns of agricultural land conversion by exurban development
for the first time.\16\ This low-density residential development was
responsible for 41 percent of the conversion of agricultural land by
development between 1992 and 2012. The pattern of low-density
residential development expanding well beyond the suburbs represents an
additional, insidious threat to the nation's agricultural land. These
scattered single-family houses on large lots remove proportionately
more land from agricultural production and are not accounted for in
most national assessments. This pattern of development emerged in the
1970s, and by 1997, nearly 80 percent of the acreage used for housing
in the previous 3 years was land outside of urban areas, with 57
percent on lots of 10 acres or more (Heimlich and Anderson 2001). While
urban development has become more efficient and compact since then, it
appears that better land use planning (i.e., ``smart growth'') has not
yet reached the nation's exurban and rural areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ In this case, suburbs form the ring around the urban core, and
exurbs (with larger-lot homes) extend beyond the suburbs into rural
areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since 1997, large-lot properties have continued to increase in
number and are often too small for traditional farming, ranching, and
forestry uses. They no longer contribute to rural economies and lead to
a loss of open space, a decline in wildlife habitat, water quality
problems, and a higher demand for public services (Wilkins, et al.,
2003). The added roads, parking lots, and highly compacted lawns also
increase the risk of flooding and degrade water quality compared to
concentrating the same number of houses into compact neighborhoods and
village centers (Flinker 2010). The scattered development is subsidized
by those living in adjoining municipalities, and for many living in
these far-flung houses and subdivisions, the emergency response times
for police, ambulance, and fire fighters exceed national standards
(Esseks, et al., 1999). The development footprint grew from 10.1
percent to 13.3 percent from 1980 to 2000, outpacing the population
growth by 25 percent. By 2020, urban and suburban development is
forecast to expand by 2.2 percent and exurban development by 14.3
percent (Theobald 2001; 2005). Based on the past conversion patterns
shown by this present analysis, much of this forecasted expansion will
be on land with higher PVR values.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smart Growth: Balancing Economy, Community, and Environment
The antidote to development that needlessly paves over agricultural
land is not to halt development but to develop more thoughtfully. Smart
growth is a system of urban planning that seeks to balance the economic
benefits of growth with distinctive, attractive communities and the
protection of natural resources. Principles of smart growth that relate
to farmland protection include taking advantage of compact building
design and strengthening and directing development toward existing
communities. Compact development, and the transportation opportunities
that this encourages, can also provide greenhouse gas reduction
benefits. To learn more about smart growth principles, visit
www.smartgrowth.org.
Source: www.farmlandinfo.org/sites/default/files/EPA_what_is_smart_
growth_1.pdf www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/smart-growth-and-climate-change.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Farmland along the Connecticut River in South Deerfield,
Massachusetts. Norman Eggert/Alamy Stock Photo.
As agricultural land with higher PVR values is lost, cultivation
shifts to land with lower PVR values, which problematically can put
more pressure on water, soils, and biodiversity. Market demands (e.g.,
corn to produce ethanol as a biofuel), rising prices, and water
availability can accelerate this process, bringing even more of the
remaining land into cultivation. Land with lower PVR values is much
more limited in the crops it can support, and cultivation may lead to
more significant environmental impacts. More inputs (like pesticides
and fertilizers) and/or acres are required to maintain the same
production levels, putting even more pressure on water, soil, and
biodiversity (Verzandvoort, et al., 2009). For example, from 2001 to
2011, the Midwest lost cropland to urban expansion in the eastern part
of the region and gained cropland at the expense of rangeland in the
western part (Wright and Wimberly 2013; Emili and Greene 2014). Keeping
this new, more marginal cropland in cultivation is dependent on the use
of irrigation and the High Plains aquifer. Long-term, this trend could
be detrimental to the economy, the environment, and food security.
Unfortunately, development is just one of the many threats to the
nation's agricultural land base. Because development leads to the
irreversible loss of agricultural land, it commands AFT's immediate
attention in this analysis. However, several other interrelated factors
pose additional--and significant--risks that can take agricultural land
out of production and may result in its permanent loss. The cumulative
effects of these multiple threats to U.S. agricultural land
significantly increase the need to recognize the strategic values of
this land and step up efforts to protect it.
For example, the changing climate already has caused shifts in food
and fiber production and is intensifying competition for land with
available water. Since the late 1970s, climatologists have documented
weather-related changes that make it riskier to produce crops. These
include rising temperatures that can reduce crop yields, increases in
the length of the frost-free period (and corresponding growing season)
that affect what can be grown where, increases in precipitation and
heavy downpours, and more frequent extreme weather events: droughts,
floods, fires, and heat waves (Walsh, et al., 2014). Researchers also
have documented decreases in accumulated winter-chill units needed to
grow fruit in some of the nation's fruit growing regions (Baldocchi and
Wong 2007). A sampling of some of the crop damage in 2017 attributed to
a changing climate includes the loss of nearly 80 to 90 percent of the
peach crops in Georgia and South Carolina due to an overly warm winter
and hard freeze in the early spring. Other effects included damaged
peaches, blueberries, strawberries, and apples in parts of the
Southeast; extensive damage to wheat, hay, livestock, and other crops
in the Northern Plains due to extreme drought; and significant damage
to Florida's citrus, sugarcane, and vegetable crops due to Hurricane
Irma. The U.S. Office of Management and Budget and Council of Economic
Advisors (2016) expects increased extreme heat and drought, more
intense precipitation and soil erosion, growing stress from disease and
pests, shifting soil moisture and water availability for irrigation,
and higher concentrations of ozone, which will continue to reduce crop
yields and increase uncertainty for producers.
Hurricane Harvey severely damaged the Bayside-Richardson
Cotton Gin facility in Woodsboro, Texas, in 2017. Lance Cheung/
USDA.
U.S. solar panels. Istockphoto.
The production of energy for domestic use and export introduces a
new threat that competes for agricultural land. Energy production
includes nuclear, natural gas, coal, renewables (wind, geothermal,
solar, hydropower, biomass), oil and biofuels (corn, sugarcane,
soybean, and cellulose). Researchers predict that, by 2040, the
domestic production from all energy sources will rise by 27 percent and
impact more than 197 million additional acres of land, an area greater
than the state of Texas (Trainor, et al., 2016). Most of this
production will happen on agricultural land.\17\ This pace of
development is more than double the historic rate of urban, commercial,
and residential development, which has been the greatest driver of land
conversion in the United States since 1970. To further reduce GHG
emissions, states have also set ambitious goals for increasing the
generation of renewable energy, which include dramatic increases in
solar and wind energy. These efforts create opportunities for farmers
and landowners to reduce their energy expenses and earn new income, but
also pose threats to farmland and local food systems. For example, flat
and open farm fields, often the most productive agricultural land, are
also highly desirable for solar siting due to their ease of access and
lower costs to clear vegetation and construct facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Between 2000 and 2012, about 7 million acres were lost to oil
and gas drilling in 11 central U.S. states and three Canadian
provinces. About half the acreage was rangeland, 40 percent was
cropland, ten percent was forestland and a very small amount was
wetland (Allred, et al., 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agricultural land base is also vulnerable to demographic and
land ownership changes. Forty percent of U.S. agricultural land is
owned by people over the age of 65. According to the 2012 Census of
Agriculture, there are twice as many principal operators who are 75 and
older as those under 35. Based on the 2014 TOTAL survey (Bigelow, et
al., 2016) and data from the 2012 Census of Agriculture, AFT calculates
that about 370 million acres could change hands nationwide over the
next 20 years. At the same time, beginning farmers and ranchers face
major barriers like high start-up costs and difficulty accessing
capital and affordable land. As a result, the numbers of beginning
farmers and ranchers have declined steadily since 1982. Between 2007
and 2012, the number of beginning farmers declined by 20 percent
(Freedgood and Dempsey 2014). In coming years, how millions of acres of
agricultural land transfer and to whom--along with the agricultural
infrastructure and assets associated with them--will fundamentally
impact the structure of agriculture and rural America for generations
to come.
And, if agricultural activities damage, erode, compact, or salinize
the soil, the long term or permanent damage can also take land out of
production. The 2011 RCA appraisal reported that about 27 percent of
cropland acres were losing soil carbon (USDA 2011). Saline soils
occupied about 5.4 million acres of cropland, and another 76.2 million
acres were at risk, mostly in the southwestern United States. And
roughly 20 percent of non-Federal rangeland acres (82 million acres)
needed additional practices or management to restore rangeland health.
Even the most productive, versatile, and resilient acres require the
use of sound management practices to maintain or improve soil quality
and minimize environmental impacts. However, much higher levels of
management are necessary to prevent deterioration when soils are
cultivated on less productive acres (USDA SCS 1961). Some of the most
environmentally sensitive land (like wetlands and grasslands of
environmental significance) should not be cultivated at all. About 27
percent of cropland is highly erodible (USDA 2011) but can be carefully
cultivated if restrictions and regulations are followed.
Over the last 2 decades, improved management practices have made it
possible for producers to reduce soil erosion on cropland by 44 percent
(USDA 2015), but nutrient losses and greenhouse emissions for
agriculture still must drop dramatically to restore and maintain clean
water and stabilize the climate by 2050 (Hunter, et al., 2017). This
may require a significant increase in the use of conservation practices
on about 20 percent of U.S. cropland and additional conservation
practices on about 46 percent to prevent the continuing losses of soil
and nutrients.\18\ Compounding this challenge, more frequent extreme
weather events will likely increase both soil erosion and runoff,
particularly on less productive acres (SWCS 2003; Segura, et al.,
2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ The USDA NRCS Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP)
quantifies the environmental effects of conservation practices: https:/
/www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/technical/nra/ceap/.
The best land for intensive food and crop production is
critical for food security and the long-term sustainability of
the nation. Securing this land may also help stabilize and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
reduce future GHG emissions.
Balancing the growing demands for housing, food, energy, and water
to ensure our best agricultural land remains available for food and
crop production is critical. Since land with higher PVR values is most
at risk from development, planners, policy makers, and concerned
citizens should prioritize its protection before too late. Farms Under
Threat shows that conversion has already resulted in a disproportionate
loss of land with PVR values between 0.1 and 0.51. For the higher range
of PVR values between 0.51 and 1.0, the losses are proportional to the
shrinking amount of agricultural land existing at those higher PVR
values but continue to occur. The high productivity and economic
returns from land with the highest PVR values, along with effective
farmland protection policies, may be slowing the disproportional losses
at this point, and AFT will examine this in future analyses. But any
loss of land with these high PVR values is of great concern, even more
so if we factor in the cumulative effects of the multiple threats to
U.S. agricultural land mentioned above. The best land for intensive
food and crop production is critical for food security and the long-
term sustainability of the nation. Securing this land may also help
stabilize and reduce future GHG emissions. The detailed mapping
undertaken by Farms Under Threat, combined with AFT's upcoming
predictive analyses of the impacts of development and a changing
climate, can provide the solid foundation that the nation needs to
protect and conserve these irreplaceable natural resources.
Spinach pre-harvest in the Coachella Valley of California.
Inga Spence/Alamy Stock Photo.
Now is the time for the United States to recognize the strategic
value of its agricultural land and step up efforts to protect it. It is
worth repeating that beyond food security and economic prosperity,
well-managed agricultural land provides open space, resources for
hunting and fishing, and critical ecological services such as wildlife
habitat, carbon sequestration, groundwater recharge, and flood control.
This incredible diversity provides the nation with options going
forward that may help optimize the use of agricultural resources to
sustain future generations. The nation has already lost a significant
amount of its best land for intensive food and crop production and
faces the risk of losing even more in the future. However, through
thoughtful and carefully implemented agricultural, conservation, and
land use policies, the nation can strategically protect this land from
further development, nourish it with conservation practices, and help
the farmers and ranchers who manage this bountiful landscape thrive.
Recommended Actions \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ AFT is solely responsible for the conclusions and
recommendations in this report. Although data and information from NRCS
comprises a major component of this analysis, the conclusions and
recommendations come from AFT alone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``From every conceivable angle--economic, social, cultural,
public health, national defense--conservation of natural
resources is an objective on which all should agree.''
Hugh Hammond Bennet, 1959
``As a nation, we will conserve our productive land and use
it prudently only if there is sustained public demand for such
a course of action . . . .''
Hugh Hammond Bennet, 1959
The strategic value of U.S. agricultural land is now more important
than ever, and any further loss of the best land for intensive food and
crop production is short-sighted at best. When the issue of farmland
and ranchland loss came to the fore in the 1980s, several Federal
programs were implemented that we must continue to support and improve.
But, given the increasing number of threats to farmland and ranchland
and the even higher than previously known land loss of the last
decades, we also need a bold, comprehensive, 21st century Federal
commitment to saving the land that sustains us.
Additionally, concerted policy efforts at the state and local level
will be necessary in order to fully address the scope of farmland loss.
Future Farms Under Threat reports will detail these proposals.
Take Immediate Steps to Strengthen Existing Federal Farmland Protection
Policies
b Double funding for the Federal Agricultural Conservation Easement
Program (ACEP) in the 2018 Farm Bill. Congress has an immediate
opportunity to strengthen existing Federal farmland protection
efforts. Priorities for improving ACEP in the 2018 Farm Bill
include:
A young farmer harvests fresh vegetables in New York State.
Mint Images/Tim Pannell.
Increase Agricultural Conservation Easement Program
funding to at least $500 million annually. Without
additional funding, less than seven percent of farmers and
ranchers seeking to put agricultural conservation easements
on their properties would be able to protect their land.
Provide entities that have the demonstrated experience and
financial stability to achieve certification with greater
certainty in using their own deed terms. Improving the
current ACEP certification process will allow for faster
protection of farmland and ranchland when applicants craft
deed terms to fit the broad variety of farmland and
ranchland in need of protection. Every acre counts.
b Support and fully fund the critical programs that help monitor
threats to U.S. land resources. Just as important as funding
for on-the-ground farmland protection is the funding for
agencies and projects that help monitor farmland loss and
threats to farmland--and help measure successes in reversing
these trends.
Maintain and strengthen the NRCS National Resources
Inventory by restoring staff capacity and continuing to
support private-public partnerships. The NRI is the only
national land use data collected by Federal agencies and is
key to the strategic protection of agricultural land
resources.
Continue critical funding for the USDA National
Agricultural Statistics Service and Economic Research
Service to deliver objective, timely, and accurate national
research and analysis, including sufficient funding for a
new 50 state Tenure, Ownership and Transfer of Agricultural
Land (TOTAL) survey. This unbiased information provides
critical information for the nation's policymakers and
industry leaders to make decisions that can ensure future
food security and revitalize rural economies.
Reauthorize and fully fund the 1977 Soil and Water
Resources Conservation Act (RCA) and broaden its focus to
fully assess the interrelated factors affecting the long-
term sustainability of the nation's agricultural land as a
natural resource.
Enact a Bold and Comprehensive 21st Century Agricultural Land Policy
Platform
As evidenced by these initial findings, current Federal policies
are inadequate to safeguard America's farmland and ranchland for future
food security, economic opportunity, and community well-being. In
particular, since land with higher PVR values is most at risk from
development, we must prioritize their protection before it is too late.
A New England farm family. Ted Horowitz/Alamy Stock Photo.
A new level of Federal commitment is needed to save the land that
sustains America. A comprehensive 21st century agricultural land policy
platform might include:
b Develop a national designation for agricultural lands with high PVR
values and afford them special protections;
b Strengthen the Federal Farmland Protection Policy Act by requiring
Federal agencies to avoid farmland conversion;
b Require a mitigation fee to protect an equivalent amount of
farmland when projects that receive Federal funding or
incentives result in farmland conversion. Use mitigation fees
for Federal farmland protection projects;
b Dramatically increase ACEP-ALE funding in future farm bills to
fully meet demand and to leverage state, local and private
investments in farmland protection;
b Develop climate change solutions that take advantage of the
greenhouse gas reduction potential of farmland protection,
improved management practices, and smart growth;
b Enact Federal Tax Code changes that incentivize keeping
agricultural land in production and encourage its transfer from
one generation of farmers and ranchers to the next;
b Create tools that link farm business development and resource
protection, and tools that enable agricultural landowners to
plan for and address succession and retirement needs and
transfer their land to the next generation of farmers and
ranchers; and
b Fund new investments in planning to help rural communities address
low density residential development and plan more proactively
for agricultural economic development and conservation.
A diverse coalition of farm, conservation, rural development, and
planning organizations will be needed to shape and move such a Federal
agricultural land agenda, as well as to advocate for changes at the
state and local level. AFT welcomes organizations that want to join in
such an effort. As we face a growing global population and many new
threats to our agricultural land base, it is ever more urgent that we
all work together to protect farms and ranches.
Future Farms Under Threat Releases and Analyses
Blueberries ready for picking. KC Shields/Alamy Stock Photo.
State-level agricultural land cover/use data and conversion data: A
forthcoming Farms Under Threat: State of the States report will use
mapping and analyses to assess conversion of agricultural land at state
level. It will examine both the quality and quantity of agricultural
land lost to development within each state and compared with national
findings. AFT will also release a State Policy Scorecard to demonstrate
how states have used farmland protection policies to forestall
agricultural land conversion. By showing solutions as well as threats,
the State of the States report and State Policy Scorecard will share
effective policy solutions to galvanize action and encourage states to
increase and improve their efforts to protect farmland.
County data and projections to 2040: Going forward, AFT will
release county-level data and publish findings that include future
scenarios using housing density and climate projections to forecast
potential impacts to our agricultural land by 2040 if we fail to take
action. The Farms Under Threat data and models make it possible to
spatially locate the agricultural land that may be most at risk from
development and a changing climate.
Future analyses: As noted previously, development is not the only
threat our agricultural land faces over the next few decades. With
additional time and funding, AFT will map potential conversion due to
the expansion of energy and transportation infrastructures, identify
areas where we need to improve our soils and minimize the environmental
impacts of crop and livestock production, and analyze and map the
demographic shifts that put agricultural land at risk when it
transitions from older generation landowners.
In future analyses, AFT will consider how to strike a sustainable
balance among land use and land management, a viable agricultural
economy, and the maintenance of biodiversity to preserve the many
public benefits provided by the agricultural landscape. To keep track
of the future findings from Farms Under Threat, see the More
Information box[.]
An Oregon vineyard. KC Shields/Alamy Stock Photo.
References
Allred, B.W., W.K. Smith, D. Twidwell, J.H. Haggerty, S.W. Running,
D.E. Naugle and S.D. Fuhlendorf. 2015. ``Ecosystem services lost to oil
and gas in North America.'' Science 348, Issue 6233. pp. 401-402.
www.sciencemag.org/content/348/6233/401/suppl/DC1.
American Farmland Trust. 2017. America's Farms and Ranchlands:
Charting a Way for Biodiversity, Wildlife and Agricultural Production
to Co-Exist in the Future. A Farms Under Threat draft white paper. June
2017. American Farmland Trust, Washington, D.C.
Arjomand, S. and D. Haight. 2017. Greener Fields: Combating Climate
Change by Keeping Land in Farming in New York. American Farmland Trust.
May 2017. 16 pp.
Baldocchi, D. and S. Wong. 2007. ``Accumulated winter chill is
decreasing in fruit growing regions of California.'' Climate Change
(2008) 87 (Suppl 1): S153-S166. DOI 10.1007/s10584-00709357-8.
Bigelow, D., A. Borchers and T. Hubbs. 2016. U.S. Farmland
Ownership, Tenure and Transfer. USDA ERS Economic Information Bulletin
No. 161. August 2016. 53 pp.
Brinkley, C. 2012. ``Evaluating the benefits of peri-urban
agriculture.'' J. Plan Lit. 2012 August 27(3): 2590267. Doi:10.1177/
0885412211435172.
Blomer, D. 2011. Versatile Soils--Production Land. Report for
Hawke's Bay Regional Council. New Zealand. June 14, 2011. 37 pp.
Culman, S.W., V.R. Haden, T. Maxwell, H. Waterhouse and W. Horwath.
2014. Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Opportunities for California
Agriculture. Review of California Cropland Emissions and Mitigation
Potential. NI GGMOCA R 3. Durham, NC: Duke University. February 2014.55
pp.
Duke, J.M. 2008. ``Using research on farmland amenity values to
improve preservation policy.'' Northeast Regional Center for Rural
Development. Transatlantic Land Use Conference Policy Brief No. 3.
September 2008. 8 pp.
Emili, L.A. and R.P. Greene. 2014. ``New cropland on former
rangeland and lost cropland from urban development: The `replacement
land' debate.'' Land 2014, 3(3): 658-674.
Esseks, J.D., H.E. Schmidt and K.L. Sullivan. 1999. Living on the
Edge: Fiscal costs and public safety risks of low-density residential
development on farmland. American Farmland Trust Center for Agriculture
in the Environment. CAE/WP 98-1. January 1, 1999. 76 pp.
Esseks, J.D. and B.J. Schilling. 2013. Impacts of the Federal Farm
and Ranch Lands Protection Program: An Assessment Based on Interviews
with Participating Landowners. American Farmland Trust Farmland
Information Center, Northampton, MA. June 30, 2013. 126 pp.
Farm Foundation. 2004. Farmland Preservation: Issue Report. Issue
One, April 2004. 4 pp.
Flinker, P. 2010. The Need to Reduce Impervious Cover to Prevent
Flooding and Protect Water Quality. Ed. S. Miller, Rhode Island
Department of Environmental Management. May 2010. 20 pp.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2011. ``The
state of the world's land and water resources for food and agriculture
(SOLAW)--Managing systems at risk.'' Food and Agriculture Organization
of the United Nationals, Rome and Earthscan, London. 308 pp.
Pumpkins in Connecticut. Lee Hacker/Alamy Stock Photo.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2017. The
Future of Food and Agriculture: Trends and Challenges. Rome. February
2016. 180 pp.
Freedgood, J. and J. Dempsey. 2014. Cultivating the Next Generation:
Resources and Policies to Help Beginning Farmers Succeed in
Agriculture. Northampton, MA: American Farmland Trust. 44 pp. Available
online at www.farmlandinfo.org/cultivating-next-generation-resources-
and-policies-help-beginning-farmers-succeed-agriculture.
Freedgood, J. and J. Fydenkez. 2017. Growing Local: A Community
Guide to Planning for Agriculture and Food Systems. Northampton, MA:
American Farmland Trust. 56 pp. Available online at
www.farmlandinfo.org/growing-local-community-guide-planning-agriculture-
and-food-systems.
Heimlich, R.E. and W.D. Anderson. 2001. Development at the Urban
Fringe and Beyond: Impacts on Agriculture and Rural Land. Economic
Research Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Economic
Report No. 803. June 2001. 88 pp.
Heimlich, R. E. and K.S. Krupa. 1994. ``Changes in land quality
accompanying urbanization in U.S. fast growth counties.'' J. Soil and
Water Cons. 49(4): 367-374.
Hellerstein, D., C. Nickerson, J. Cooper, P. Feather, D. Gadsby, D.
Mullarkey, A. Tegene and C. Barnard. 2002. Farmland Protection: The
Role of Public Preferences for Rural Amenities. Agricultural Economics
Report No. 815. October 2002. 74 pp.
Hilchy, D. 2008. Gout de Terroir: Exploring the Boundaries of
Specialty Agricultural Landscapes. pp. 56-70. In: Goetcheus, C. and E.
MacDonald, Eds. 2008. Exploring the Boundaries of Historic Landscape
Preservation. Clemson University Digital Press. 208 pp.
Hunter, M.C., R.G. Smith, M.E. Schipanski, L.W. Atwood, and D.A.
Mortensen. 2017. ``Agriculture in 2050: recalibrating targets for
sustainable intensification.'' Bioscience, February 2017.
Jones, C. and D.M. Kammen. 2013. ``Spatial distribution of U.S.
household carbon footprint reels suburbanization undermines greenhouse
gas benefits of urban population density.'' Environ. Sci. Technol. 204,
48(2), pp. 895-902.
Lark, T.J., R.M. Mueller, D.M. Johnson and H.K. Gibbs. 2017.
``Measuring land-use and land cover change using the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's cropland data layer: cautions and recommendations.'' Int.
J. of Appl. Earth Observation and Geoinfo. Vol. 62: 224-235. October
2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2017.06.007.
Nickerson, C., M. Harper, C.J. Henrie, R. Mayberry, S. Shimmin, B.
Smith and J.H. Smith. 2015. Land Use and Land Cover Estimates for the
United States. Report prepared for the Interagency Council on
Agricultural and Rural Statistics, subcommittee of the Interagency
Council on Statistical Policy.
Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development. 2003. What the
Public Values about Farm and Ranchland: Workshop Proceedings. NERCRD
Regional Rural Development Paper No. 23. The Pennsylvania State
University, University Park, PA. 33 pp.
Olson, Richard K. and Thomas A. Lyson (eds.) 1999. Under the Blade.
The Conversion of Agricultural Landscapes. Westview Press. Boulder,
Colorado. 459 pp.
Plattner, K., A. Perez and S. Thornsbury. 2014. Evolving U.S. Fruit
Markets and Seasonal Grower Price Patterns. USDA Economic Research
Service. FTS-357-01. September 2014. 27 pp.
Schnepf, M. and P. Flanagan. 2016. A History of Natural Resource
Inventories conducted by the USDA's Soil Conservation Service and
Natural Resources Conservation Service. July 2016. 32 pp.
Segura, C., G. Sun, S. McNulty and Y. Zhang. 2014. ``Potential
impacts of climate change on soil erosion vulnerability across the
conterminous United States.'' J. Soil and Water Conservation 69(2): 171-
181. March-April 2014.
Shaffer, S. and E. Thompson. 2015. A New Comparison of Greenhouse
Gas Emissions from California Agricultural and Urban Land Uses.
American Farmland Trust. May 2015. 13 pp.
A snowy owl on a barn roof in Polson, Montana. Andrew Kandel
Stock Photography/Alamy Stock Photo.
Soil and Water Conservation Society. 2003. Conservation Implications
of Climate Change: Soil Erosion and Runoff from Cropland. Ankeny, IA:
Soil and Water Conservation Society. 26 pp.
Sorensen, A.A., R.P. Greene and K. Russ. 1997. Farming on the Edge.
American Farmland Trust Center for Agriculture in the Environment.
Northern Illinois University. DeKalb, Illinois. March 1997. 67 pp.
Swinton, S.M., F. Lupi, G.P. Robertson and S.K. Hamilton. 2007.
``Ecosystem services and agriculture: cultivating agricultural
ecosystems for diverse benefits.'' Ecological Economics 64 (2007): 245-
252.
Theobald, D.M. 2001. ``Land-use dynamics beyond the American urban
fringe.'' Geographical Review 91(3): 544-564.
Theobald, D.M. 2005. ``Landscape patterns of exurban growth in the
USA from 1980 to 2020.'' Ecology and Society 10(1): 32. 34 pp.
www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss1/art32.
Trainor, A.M., R.I. McDonald and J. Fargione. 2016. ``Energy sprawl
is the largest driver of land use change in United States.'' Plos ONE
11(9): e0162269. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0162269.
Herrick, J.E., O. Arnalds, B. Bestelmeyer, S. Bringezu, G. Han, M.V.
Johnson, D. Kimiti, Yihe Lu, L. Montanarella, W. Pengue, G. Toth, J.
Tukahirwa, M. Velayutham and L. Zhang. United Nations Environment
Program. 2016. Unlocking the Sustainable Potential of Land Resources:
Evaluation Systems, Strategies and Tools. A Report of the Working Group
on Land and Soils of the International Resource Panel. DTI/2002/PA.
ISBN: 978-92-807-3578-9. 96 pp.
U.S. Congress. 1980. House Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban
Affairs. Subcommittee on Cities. Compact Cities: Energy Saving
Strategies for the Eighties: Report Together with Dissenting Views.
U.S. Government Printing Office. 1980. 86 pp.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1992. Readings in the History of the
Soil Conservation Service.
USDA SCS Economics and Social Sciences Division. Historical Notes
Number 1. U.S. Government Printing Office: 1992 625-708/60587. 176 pp.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2011. RCA Appraisal: Soil and Water
Resources Conservation Act. July 2011. 112 pp.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2015. Summary Report: 2012 National
Resources Inventory. Natural Resources Conservation Service,
Washington, D.C. and Center for Survey Statistics and Methodology, Iowa
State University, Ames, Iowa. August 2015. 210 pp.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. 2015.
Effects of Trade on the U.S. Economy--2015. Agriculture Trade
Multipliers 2015, Summary of Findings. Available at www.ers.usda.gov/
data-products/agricultural-trade-multipliers/effects-of-trade-on-the-
useconomy-2015.
U.S. Department of Agriculture and President's Council on
Environmental Quality. 1981. National Agricultural Lands Study.
Washington, D.C.; National Agricultural Lands Study. 108 pp.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land-
Capability Classification. Agriculture Handbook No. 210. 25 pp.
U.S. Office of Management and Budget and Council of Economic
Advisors. 2016. The Fiscal Risks Facing the Federal Government. A
Preliminary Assessment. Prepared for U.S. Office of the President.
November 2016. 34 pp.
Verzandvoort, S., R. Rietra and M. Hack. 2009. Pressures on Prime
Agricultural Land in Europe. Alterra, Wageningen, UR. November 2009. 18
pp.
Walsh, J.S., D. Wuebbles, K. Hayhoe, J. Kossin, K. Kunel, G.
Stephens, P. Thorne, R. Vose, M. Wehner, J. Willis, D. Anderson, S.
Donley, R. Feely, P. Hennon, V. Kharin, T. Knutson, F. Landerer, T.
Lenton, J. Kennedy and R. Somerville. 2014. ``Chapt. 2: Our Changing
Climate.'' Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third
National Climate Assessment, J.M. Melilio, T.C. Richmond and G.W. Yohe,
Eds. U.S. Global Change Research Program, 19-77. Doi:10.7930/JOKW5CXT.
A blooming pear orchard in the Hood River Valley, Oregon.
Tomas Kaspar/Alamy Stock Photo.
Wainger, L. and D. Ervin. 2017. Synthesis Chapter--the Valuation of
Ecosystem Services from Farms and Forests: Informing a systemic
approach to quantifying benefits of conservation programs. The Council
on Food, Agricultural and Resource Economics (C-FARE). Report No. 0114-
301. Washington, D.C. March 2017. 36 pp.
White, R.R. and M.B. Hall. 2017. ``Nutritional and greenhouse gas
impacts of removing animals from U.S. agriculture.'' PNAS Early
Edition. 8 pp. www.pnas/org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1707322114.
Widbe, K. and N. Gollehon. 2006. Agricultural Resources and
Environmental Indicators. USDA Economic Research Service. Economic
Information Bulletin (EIB-16 July 2006). 239 pp. AREI/Land. 1.3: Land
and Soil Quality, pp. 25-33.
Wilkins, N., A. Hays, D. Kubenka, D. Steinbach, W. Grant, E.
Gonzalez, M. Kyelland and J. Shackelford. 2003. Texas Rural Lands:
Trends and Conservation Implications for the 21st Century. Texas A&M
Cooperative Extension and American Farmland Trust. March 2003. 28 pp.
Wright, C.K. and M.C. Wimberly. 2013. ``Recent land use change in
the Western Corn Belt threatens grasslands and wetlands.'' PNAS
110(10): 4134-4139. March 2013 www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/
PMC3593829.
Crop fields stretch to the horizon in Illinois. Dmathis/
Istockphoto
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
For More Information
To keep track of Farms Under Threat and make use of reports, data,
and white papers to build a constituency to protect this land for
future generations, visit our website at www.farmland.org/initiatives/
farms-under-threat. For technical questions concerning our analyses,
contact AFT's Farmland Information Center at www.farmlandinfo.org or
(800) 370-4879.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A new housing development on farmland in Loudoun County,
Virginia. Rob Crandall/Alamy Stock Photo
1150 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 600
Washington, D.C. 20036
(800) 431-1499 www.farmland.org
#farmsunderthreat
attachment 2
Editor's note: the letter dated May 24, 2021 was also submitted by
Mrs. Kuster and is located on p. 79. It is not duplicated here.
attachment 3
[https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2021/11/24/usda-announces-
american-rescue-plan-technical-assistance]
USDA Announces American Rescue Plan Technical Assistance Partnerships
Focused on Underserved Producers
Release & Contact Info
Press Release
Release No. 0260.21
Contact: USDA Press
Email: [email protected]
Washington, Nov. 24, 2021--The U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) is helping to ensure that underserved farmers, ranchers, and
foresters have the tools, programs and support they need to succeed in
agriculture. Today, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced USDA
will provide approximately $75 million in American Rescue Plan funding
to 20 organizations to provide technical assistance to connect
underserved producers with USDA programs and services. Organizations
were selected for their proven track records working with underserved
producer communities, such as veterans, beginning farmers, limited
resource producers, and producers living in high-poverty areas. These
organizations will work with underserved producer communities on
business and tax planning, financial assistance planning, market
planning, farmer advocacy, and business curriculum development.
The cooperative agreements announced today are an initial step in
deploying American Rescue Plan resources in response to demands for
more immediate assistance on farm business planning, market development
and access assistance, tax planning and land access assistance, to help
underserved producers succeed. This announcement is the latest in a
series of announcements building momentum around USDA's historic
commitment to center equity in decision-making and policymaking and
lower barriers to access USDA programming.
``As we build back better than we were before USDA is listening to
our customers, and we are proud to offer new tools to help address
inequities for underserved farmers and ranchers through the American
Rescue Plan,'' said Secretary Vilsack. ``We are committed to making
each of our programs equitable so all can benefit from the
opportunities USDA investments and programs help create. Our planned
work with these important cooperators will help USDA achieve these
important goals.''
A full list of cooperators is available at: www.usda.gov/sites/
default/files/documents/section-1006-list-of-cooperative-
agreements.docx (DOCX, 13.9 KB). Cooperators will work with other
cooperator organizations and USDA to address the needs of underserved
producer communities. For example:
The National Black Farmers Association will collaborate with
organizations and will provide financial and business
assistance and opportunities to receive USDA program technical
support.
The Intertribal Agriculture Council will lead training and
technical assistance with Native American farmers, ranchers and
forest landowners across the country.
The Farmer Veteran Coalition will coordinate with other
cooperators to focus on the needs of farmer and rancher veteran
members.
To ensure the partnerships announced today and future partnerships
funded via these American Rescue Plan funds are robust, all recipients
will work with USDA in intensive training and collaboration activities.
The American Rescue Plan Section 1006 provides direction and over
$1 billion in funding for USDA to take action to ensure underserved
communities have tools, programs and support they need to succeed. The
Biden-Harris Administration is committed to advancing equity as a key
priority. With the transformative funds provided by the American Rescue
Plan, USDA will focus on creating opportunity for underserved producers
through technical assistance and capacity building, access to land and
credit, and access to markets and market development. Through Section
1006, USDA is also standing up an Equity Commission to advise the
Secretary of Agriculture by identifying USDA programs, policies,
systems, structures, and practices that contribute to barriers to
inclusion or access, systemic discrimination, or exacerbate or
perpetuate racial, economic, health and social disparities. The
Commission nomination period has been extended to Nov. 30, 2021.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.usda.gov/equity-commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
USDA touches the lives of all Americans each day in so many
positive ways. In the Biden-Harris Administration, USDA is transforming
America's food system with a greater focus on more resilient local and
regional food production, fairer markets for all producers, ensuring
access to safe, healthy and nutritious food in all communities,
building new markets and streams of income for farmers and producers
using climate-smart food and forestry practices, making historic
investments in infrastructure and clean energy capabilities in rural
America, and committing to equity across the Department by removing
systemic barriers and building a workforce more representative of
America. To learn more, visit 3www.usda.gov.
USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
File and source
- File
- CHRG_chrg-117hhrg48753_chrg-117hhrg48753.htm
- Size
- 890,861 bytes
- SHA-256
- 108fd30d6e897a660259331c5a59e998f1ff11e9aeca90add7507230c221f122
- Original
- No public link identified.