    [House Hearing, 114 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

     OVERSIGHT OF USDA'S USE OF CENSUS OF AGRICULTURE AUTHORITY TO ACQUIRE
                    FARMERS' PERSONAL FINANCIAL INFORMATION

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                SUBCOMMITTEE ON
                   BIOTECHNOLOGY, HORTICULTURE, AND RESEARCH

                                     OF THE

                            COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                DECEMBER 9, 2015

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 114-37

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

                                    ______

                             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    97-972 PDF                     WASHINGTON : 2016
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
      Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
             DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
                              Washington, DC 20402-0001

                            COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE

                      K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas, Chairman

    RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas,             COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota,
        Vice Chairman                    Ranking Minority Member
    BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia              DAVID SCOTT, Georgia
    FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma             JIM COSTA, California
    STEVE KING, Iowa                     TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
    MIKE ROGERS, Alabama                 MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio
    GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania         JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts
    BOB GIBBS, Ohio                      SUZAN K. DelBENE, Washington
    AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia                FILEMON VELA, Texas
    ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas  MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico
    SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee          ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
    CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York      RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
    VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri             CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
    DAN BENISHEK, Michigan               SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
    JEFF DENHAM, California              ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
    DOUG LaMALFA, California             PETE AGUILAR, California
    RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois               STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands
    TED S. YOHO, Florida                 ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina
    JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana             GWEN GRAHAM, Florida
    RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia               BRAD ASHFORD, Nebraska
    MIKE BOST, Illinois
    DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina
    RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana
    JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan
    DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
    TRENT KELLY, Mississippi

                                     ______

                        Scott C. Graves, Staff Director

                    Robert L. Larew, Minority Staff Director

                                     ______

           Subcommittee on Biotechnology, Horticulture, and Research

                        RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois, Chairman

    GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania         SUZAN K. DelBENE, Washington,
    AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia                Ranking Minority Member
    CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York      MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio
    JEFF DENHAM, California              JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts
    TED S. YOHO, Florida                 ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
    JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan          GWEN GRAHAM, Florida
    DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington

                                      (ii)

                                 C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Davis, Hon. Rodney, a Representative in Congress from Illinois,
      opening statement..............................................     1
        Prepared statement...........................................     3
        Submitted report.............................................    37
        Submitted form...............................................    97
    DelBene, Hon. Suzan K., a Representative in Congress from
      Washington, opening statement..................................     9
        Submitted memorandum.........................................   121
    Peterson, Hon. Collin C., a Representative in Congress from
      Minnesota, opening statement...................................    23
        Submitted article............................................   122

                                    Witness

    Reilly, Joseph T., Administrator, National Agricultural
      Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington,
      D.C............................................................    10
        Prepared statement...........................................    12

     OVERSIGHT OF USDA'S USE OF CENSUS OF AGRICULTURE AUTHORITY TO ACQUIRE
                    FARMERS' PERSONAL FINANCIAL INFORMATION

                                  ----------

                          WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 2015

                      House of Representatives,
     Subcommittee on Biotechnology, Horticulture, and Research,
                                      Committee on Agriculture,
                                                       Washington, D.C.
        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:00 p.m., in
    Room 1302 of the Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Rodney
    Davis [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
        Members present: Representatives Davis, Thompson, Scott,
    Gibson, Yoho, Newhouse, DelBene, Kuster, Graham, and Peterson
    (ex officio).
        Staff present: Ashley Callen, Haley Graves, John Goldberg,
    Mary Nowak, Mollie Wilken, Stephanie Addison, John Konya, Anne
    Simmons, Keith Jones, Liz Friedlander, Matthew MacKenzie, Mike
    Stranz, Nicole Scott, and Carly Reedholm.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RODNEY DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                         CONGRESS FROM ILLINOIS

        The Chairman. This hearing of the Subcommittee on
    Biotechnology, Horticulture, and Research, regarding oversight
    of USDA's use of Census of Agriculture authority to acquire
    farmers' personal financial information, will come to order.
        I will tell you, this is my first time in this room, and
    the technological disadvantages we have here are interesting.
    We actually have a toggle switch on the microphone. I haven't
    seen one of those here, so welcome to history.
        I would now like to offer up a welcome to our witness, Mr.
    Reilly, from the USDA. Thank you for being here.
        I will go ahead and commence with my opening statement, and
    then let the Ranking Member commence with her statement. I will
    let the Members know that we are expecting votes during this
    hearing. Hopefully, they will not last long and we can
    immediately come back here and complete the hearing in a very
    timely manner.
        So with that, I want to begin by saying thank you again,
    Mr. Reilly. And today the Subcommittee will begin a public
    dialogue with the USDA's National Agricultural Statistics
    Service regarding concerns raised by producers pertaining to a
    perceived abuse of discretion in conducting the Census of
    Agriculture.
        The Census of Agriculture is conducted every 5 years by
    NASS, the most recent Census being taken in 2012. Data
    collected from the Census of Agriculture is incredibly
    important as it provides the only source of consistent, county-
    level statistics on agriculture operations throughout the
    United States. This data is used to prepare estimates of farm
    income and production costs, calculate research and extension
    formula allocations to land-grant universities--like the one I
    serve, the University of Illinois--evaluate agricultural
    programs and policies, to administer farm programs, and plan
    for operations during disease or pest emergencies. The Farm
    Credit Administration also uses the data to evaluate farmer
    loan programs. It is also intended to assist Congress in
    considering legislation, most notably the farm bill, and in
    overseeing farm programs.
        Implementation of the 2014 Farm Bill is particularly data-
    driven. It cannot be overstated how important it is that
    farmers have confidence in NASS' process and participate in the
    Census.
        States and local governments, as well as farm
    organizations, use the data collected from the Census of
    Agriculture to analyze and develop policies on land use, water
    use and irrigation, rural development, and farmland assessment.
    Rural electric companies use such statistics, they do this all
    the time, to forecast future energy needs.
        Prior to 1997, the Census of Agriculture was taken by the
    Census Bureau, an agency within the Department of Commerce.
    Following proposals by the Census Bureau to redefine farms
    solely in order to reduce its own workload and costs involved,
    the Agriculture Committee determined that it would be in the
    best interests of all parties to transfer the authority to
    conduct the Census from the Secretary of Commerce to the
    Secretary of Agriculture. Legislation was subsequently enacted
    to transfer the Census of Agriculture to the USDA.
        When we reported this legislation, Congress was cognizant
    of the amount of time taken by producers to respond to the
    Census questionnaire. In the report filed by this Committee, we
    specifically highlighted these concerns and instructed USDA to
    ensure that the Census questionnaire would be concise, easily
    readable and understandable, and relevant to today's
    agricultural operations.
        In fact, Congress specifically instructed the Secretary of
    Agriculture to undertake a review of all questions currently
    asked as a part of the Census of Agriculture to ensure their
    relevancy.
        In January of 2015, the Committee, both Majority and
    Minority, were contacted by farmers and ranchers concerned that
    the NASS improperly used the Census of Agriculture authority to
    conduct a survey entitled Tenure, Ownership, and Transition of
    Agricultural Land, or otherwise known as TOTAL. By invoking the
    Census authority, NASS rendered the TOTAL survey compulsory.
        The farmers and ranchers in touch with the House
    Agriculture Committee were confounded by the duplicative,
    intrusive, and over-broad nature of TOTAL. The TOTAL survey
    inquired about all aspects of an operator's personal financial
    portfolio, as well as all aspects of farm-related income and
    expenses. We will discuss the specific questions on the TOTAL
    survey during our question and answer time, but I would like to
    welcome Mr. Joe Reilly, the Administrator of the National
    Agricultural Statistics Service, to help the Committee
    understand how decisions were made to develop and mandate
    intrusive survey questions, questions that, on their face, have
    little to do with agricultural production. I think it is
    accurate to point out that these types of questions were
    certainly never intended by Congress to be included in a
    mandatory Census of Agriculture. In fact, the instructions
    Congress gave to the USDA at the time that the legislation was
    enacted point out that Congress was specifically concerned
    about this type of abuse of discretion.
        Mr. Reilly, thank you for being here today. It is our hope
    that you can shed some light on the decision-making process.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Davis follows:]

     Prepared Statement of Hon. Rodney Davis, a Representative in Congress
                                 from Illinois
        Today the Subcommittee will begin a public dialogue with USDA's
    National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) regarding concerns
    raised by producers pertaining to a perceived abuse of discretion in
    conducting the Census of Agriculture.
        The Census of Agriculture is conducted every 5 years by NASS, the
    most recent Census being taken in 2012. Data collected from the Census
    of Agriculture is incredibly important as it provides the only source
    of consistent, county-level statistics on agriculture operations
    throughout the United States. This data is used to prepare estimates of
    farm income and production costs, calculate research and extension
    formula allocations to land-grant universities, evaluate agricultural
    programs and policies, to administer farm programs, and plan for
    operations during disease or pest emergencies. The Farm Credit
    Administration also uses the data to evaluate farmer loan programs. It
    is also intended to assist Congress in considering legislation, most
    notably the farm bill, and in overseeing farm programs.
        Implementation of the 2014 Farm Bill is particularly data-driven.
    It cannot be overstated how important it is that farmers have
    confidence in NASS' process and participate in the Census.
        States and local governments, as well as farm organizations use the
    data collected from the Census of Agriculture to analyze and develop
    policies on land use, water use and irrigation, rural development, and
    farmland assessment. Rural electric companies use such statistics to
    forecast future energy needs.
        Prior to 1997, the Census of Agriculture was taken by the Census
    Bureau, an agency within the Department of Commerce. Following
    proposals by the Census Bureau to redefine farms solely in order to
    reduce its own workload and costs involved, the Agriculture Committee
    determined that it would be in the best interests of all parties to
    transfer the authority to conduct the Census from the Secretary of
    Commerce to the Secretary of Agriculture. Legislation was subsequently
    enacted to transfer the Census of Agriculture to USDA.
        When we reported this legislation, Congress was cognizant of the
    amount of time taken by producers to respond to the Census
    questionnaire. In the report filed by this Committee, we specifically
    highlighted these concerns and instructed USDA to ensure that the
    Census questionnaire would be concise, easily readable and
    understandable, and relevant to today's agricultural operations.
        In fact, Congress specifically instructed the Secretary of
    Agriculture to ``undertake a review of all questions currently asked as
    a part of the Census of Agriculture to ensure their relevancy.''
        In January 2015, the Committee, both Majority and Minority, were
    contacted by farmers and ranchers concerned that the NASS improperly
    used the Census of Agriculture authority to conduct a survey entitled
    Tenure, Ownership, and Transition of Agricultural Land (TOTAL). By
    invoking the Census authority, NASS rendered the TOTAL survey
    compulsory.
        The farmers and ranchers in touch with the House Agriculture
    Committee were confounded by the duplicative, intrusive, and over-broad
    nature of TOTAL. The TOTAL survey inquired about all aspects of an
    operator's personal financial portfolio as well as all aspects of farm
    related income and expenses. We will discuss the specific questions on
    the TOTAL survey during our question and answer time, but I would like
    to mention that NASS asked farmers how much they spend on health care
    and dental visits. You may think those are relevant areas to probe, but
    then we discovered NASS asked farmers how much they spend on vacations
    and going to the movies, if that is one's hobby. If a farmer or rancher
    ignored the survey, that producer could face a monetary penalty.
        The Committee began oversight in February 2015 by requesting
    briefings by NASS officials and has since reviewed approximately 49,000
    documents produced by USDA. Over the course of the Committee's
    oversight, it became clear that certain anomalies occurred during the
    planning and approval phase of the survey. The e-mails produced to the
    Committee show USDA leadership involvement in the process, which raises
    questions about the motivations for the compulsory nature of the TOTAL
    survey. The motivation for conducting TOTAL as a mandatory survey is
    unclear.
        Today we have invited Mr. Joe Reilly, the Administrator of the
    National Agricultural Statistics Service to help the Committee
    understand how decisions were made to develop and mandate intrusive
    survey questions, questions that on their face have little to do with
    agricultural production. I think it is accurate to point out that these
    types of questions were certainly never intended by Congress to be
    included in a mandatory Census of Agriculture. In fact, the
    instructions Congress gave to USDA at the time the legislation was
    enacted point out that Congress was specifically concerned about this
    type of abuse of discretion.
        Mr. Reilly, thank you for being here today. It is our hope that you
    can shed some light on the decision-making process.
        I now yield to the Ranking Member, Ms. DelBene for her opening
    comments.
                            PowerPoint Presentation

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. And I now yield to the Ranking Member, Ms.
    DelBene, for her opening comments.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SUZAN K. DelBENE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                        CONGRESS FROM WASHINGTON

        Ms. DelBene. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
    hearing today. And thank you, Mr. Reilly, for being with us.
        The thoughtful acquisition of data is essential to an
    informed decision-making process, both in the public and in the
    private sectors. What data to collect, how and when to collect
    it, and how to protect its appropriate use are all important
    questions for any organization engaged in data collection.
        Big data is a buzzword in agriculture these days. It is
    kind of a buzzword everywhere, and we had a hearing on it
    recently here in the Agriculture Committee. And this afternoon,
    we will hear from the National Agricultural Statistics Service,
    or NASS. NASS has been involved in the collection of big data
    long before today's innovation age, including things like The
    Internet of Things.
        In light of this new and exciting time, it is critical to
    better understand not just how the private-sector collects data
    through the newest production hardware and software, but how
    agencies such as NASS and the Economic Research Service collect
    their data. Even more important, we need to understand and
    ensure an individual's data is protected with the utmost care.
        The data that flows from the various NASS and ERS products
    are critical to virtually every aspect of sound decision-making
    within USDA and U.S. agriculture at large. Why? Because in some
    form or another, the data NASS collects informs decisions
    ranging from EPA pesticide registrations and USDA commodity
    program participation, to improving risk management tools for
    organic producers. I even use data collected from the Census of
    Agriculture when I introduced a resolution emphasizing the
    importance of specialty crops.
        Federal agencies have a responsibility to fully and
    transparently explain the relevancy for each of their data
    sets, and to engage in producer outreach to reassure a
    sometimes skeptical public that data is essential to a
    producer's access to farm programs, and being appropriately and
    safely collected. Furthermore, we should work together to
    ensure those collecting data hear from a range of opinions when
    constructing their surveys, and that they are not duplicating
    what we are asking individuals to complete.
        Realistically, if these data collection surveys are to
    adequately inform both public- and private-sector decision-
    makers, they may need to ask about some sensitive personal
    information; however, it is essential that this type of data be
    handled with the utmost care and concern.
        I look forward to hearing from our witness today, and hope
    everyone will leave this hearing with a better understanding of
    this topic at hand.
        And with that, I yield back.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. DelBene.
        And with that, Mr. Reilly, the floor is yours for your
    verbal statement.

             STATEMENT OF JOSEPH T. REILLY, ADMINISTRATOR,
             NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS SERVICE, U.S.
              DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, D.C.

        Mr. Reilly. Chairman Davis, Ranking Member DelBene, and all
    the Members of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to
    present the National Agricultural Statistics Service important
    role in agriculture.
        NASS administers the U.S. Agricultural Estimates program,
    which began in the Department of Agriculture back in 1863, and
    NASS also has the responsibility for conducting the U.S. Census
    of Agriculture every 5 years. And this was first done in the
    Department of Agriculture in 1997.
        Both the Agricultural Estimates program and the Census
    program align with the basic mission of NASS to provide timely,
    accurate, and useful statistics in the service of U.S.
    agriculture. NASS prepares estimates for numerous crops and
    livestock items, and we issue 400 separate reports annually, of
    which over 100 of them are Principle Economic Indicators of the
    United States. NASS provides technical assistance and training
    to other countries in support of the U.N. Global Strategy for
    Agricultural and Rural Statistics in the U.S. Feed the Future
    Program. NASS also conducts over 150 special surveys on a cost
    reimbursable basis for other agencies, State Departments of
    Agriculture, and universities and other agricultural
    organizations.
        The work that NASS does is critically important. It
    provides stability to our commodity markets, it supports our
    crop insurance program, it supports our disaster assistance
    program, and various farm bill programs. Inputs for farmer
    decisions and data to inform policy debates, and overall
    national security that comes from having a stable, reliable,
    nutritious and affordable U.S. food supply, is part of our core
    mission.
        I understand that the Committee has some concerns over this
    recent survey that we conducted, the Tenure, Ownership, and
    Transition of Agricultural Land Survey, or TOTAL, and that we
    conducted in partnership with the Economic Research Service,
    and I am going to be happy to address all of those concerns
    today.
        Precursors of this survey began in 1960, and the most
    recent, prior to this year, was conducted by the Department of
    Agriculture, called the Agricultural, Economic, and Land
    Ownership Survey in 1999, and these were conducted as special
    surveys under the Census of Agriculture authority. And myself,
    having worked with the government for 40 years, I was with the
    Agriculture Program back when it was at the Census Bureau
    during the transition, I led the Agriculture Program during the
    transition, and have been with NASS since 1997, so I have a
    strong background in this area.
        NASS acquired the authority for the Census of Agriculture
    in 1997, and prior to that, as I have stated earlier, the
    Census of Agriculture and all of the special studies, including
    AELOS, were conducted by the Bureau of the Census pursuant to
    Title 13 of the United States Code, to require responses to the
    Census and its follow-on programs.
        In 1997, as you know, Congress adopted the Census of
    Agriculture Act, which required and transferred the authority
    to conduct the Census of Agriculture from the Department of
    Commerce to the Department of Agriculture. In addition, the Act
    authorizes the USDA, in connection with the Census, to conduct
    any survey or other information collection, and employ any
    sampling or other statistical method that the Secretary
    determines, or that USDA determines, is appropriate.
        In summary, it is this Census of Agriculture Act that
    provides NASS the authority not only to conduct the Census and
    associated special studies, and where we invoke the mandatory
    reporting authority.
        Publication of information on land ownership began as far
    back as 1880, with the classification of farm tenure. Land
    ownership has been an important tool to gauge who owns the
    land, what is going to happen to the transition of land, and
    what are the finances surrounding the land, and how it affects
    the availability of the land going to farmers, especially new
    and beginning farmers. The Secretary's Advisory Committee on
    Agriculture Statistics provided advice to us in two meetings
    conducted in 2012 and 2013, which stated that as one of the top
    priorities for the agriculture community: the importance of
    this land ownership and tenure data.
        Also in partnership with ERS, NASS conducts an annual farm
    finance survey, which is called the Agriculture Resource
    Management Survey, or ARMS. The sampling population for our
    TOTAL survey and our ARMS survey were determined to have a very
    high level of overlap between the respondent farms, and,
    therefore, NASS and ERS decided early on in our planning
    activities to integrate the two surveys, which was a hope to
    reduce overall respondent burden, to save the taxpayers'
    resources, and would improve the quality of the data provided
    for this critical topic.
        Subsequently, NASS requested funding in our Fiscal Year
    2015 President's budget to conduct a mandatory survey under the
    Census of Agriculture authority on land ownership and farm
    finance. And if you read the details of our explanatory notes
    in our 2015 budget submission, it was clear that we did
    describe the process of how we were going to integrate this
    with the Agricultural Resource Management Study.
        In April of 2014, the Office of Management and Budget
    approval process required us to issue a Federal Register
    notice, notifying the public and everyone else of our intention
    to conduct the TOTAL survey, and to incorporate questions from
    the ARM survey. And it was noted in there, and in the
    subsequent Federal Register notice issued during the summer of
    2014, with more specific details on our intent, including a
    copy of the final questionnaire which notified the public and
    everyone else of the mandatory reporting status. NASS in that
    process received one public comment from the Bureau of Economic
    Analysis heavily supporting and identifying the important use
    of this land ownership information.
        NASS conducted the first mailing of the TOTAL questionnaire
    in December 2014, and subsequent mailings occurred through the
    spring of 2015. Once the data collection began, we did our
    editing analysis, and issued the results released on August 31
    of this year. This publication provided hundreds of important
    estimates, covering land ownership arrangements, the economics
    of land ownership, demographic characteristics, land unit uses,
    and a look ahead at potential ownership transfer, and this data
    has been highly valued since its release.
        NASS clearly understands the sensitivity of some of the
    questions that we pose to farmers and land owners. Questions
    covering the cost of health insurance, medical expenses and
    other things, appear to be of particular concern. In order to
    gauge the well-being of farm families, it is important to have
    a clear understanding not only of the farm operating expenses,
    but also of the farm household expenses. Similar questions have
    historically been asked in previous land ownership surveys and
    in the ARM surveys, and were both integrated in the TOTAL
    survey. Household expenses can be a significant factor in
    determining whether or not a farmer can pursue their full
    profession in agriculture, or are they necessitated to seek and
    obtain off-farm work and off-farm benefits. For all the
    information that NASS collects, we consistently offer a pledge
    of confidentiality, and we go to extreme measures to ensure
    that that occurs. In fact, I just left our crop report issuance
    which went out at noon today, and I invite all of you to see
    the security that is in place when we put out our crop report
    every month.
        By integrating the ARMS and TOTAL survey, and using
    mandatory authority, this reduced overall respondent burden and
    data collection costs, and greatly increased the quality and
    reliability of the data. NASS estimates that by having this
    integrated approach, we saved over 53,000 burden hours on our
    American farmers and operators, and saved not only from our
    appropriations but the taxpayers about $3 million in the
    implementation of the survey. While this is not a lot of money
    in the total Federal budget, to us in our data collection
    activities, it is quite a great deal.
        In summary, I feel strongly that NASS has been open and
    transparent and consistent with Congress through our funding
    requests with OMB and through our survey approval process, and
    with the American public through the issuance of all the
    Federal Register notice and conversations about the land
    ownership program. We have fulfilled the recommendations of our
    advisory council and many of the NASS customers by providing a
    product that has been highly valued and appreciated throughout
    the agricultural industry.
        And this concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman, and I am
    open to any questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Reilly follows:]

        Prepared Statement of Joseph T. Reilly, Administrator, National
        Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
                                Washington, D.C.
        Chairman Davis, Ranking Member DelBene, and Members of the
    Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to discuss
    the National Agricultural Statistics Service's (NASS) and Census of
    Agriculture's important role in agriculture. NASS' mission is to
    provide timely, accurate, and useful statistics in service to U.S.
    agriculture. NASS administers the U.S. Agricultural Estimates program,
    which began at the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) in
    1863. NASS also has conducted the Quinquennial U.S. Census of
    Agriculture since 1997, first collected by the Department of Commerce
    in 1840.
    Agricultural Estimates and the Census of Agriculture
        The primary activity of NASS is to provide reliable data to meet
    the decision-making needs of the agricultural industry. The agency
    fulfills its mission through an annual agricultural estimates program
    and the quinquennial Census of Agriculture. NASS prepares estimates for
    over 120 crops and 45 livestock items that are published annually in
    more than 400 separate reports, of which 110 are Principal Economic
    Indicators of the U.S. Farmers, ranchers, and agribusinesses
    voluntarily respond to a series of nationwide surveys about crops,
    livestock, prices, chemical use, and other agricultural activities each
    year. Surveys are conducted during the growing season to measure the
    impact of weather, pests, and other factors on crop production. In many
    cases, NASS supplements farmer surveys with field observations of plan
    counts and measurements. NASS also uses administrative data from other
    USDA, Federal and state agencies; data on imports and exports; and
    other survey data to ensure official estimates accurately represent
    agricultural inventories.
    Stakeholder Input
        NASS annually seeks input from the public on determining priorities
    and improving its products and processes. It consults with customers
    and stakeholders through meetings of the Secretary of Agriculture's
    Advisory Committee on Agriculture Statistics, interaction with
    producers, data users meetings with agribusinesses and commodity
    groups, special briefings for agricultural leaders during the release
    of major reports, numerous individual contacts, and through Federal
    Register notices issued to the public. In response to this input, NASS
    continues to improve the quality and accessibility of its reports. The
    agency has adjusted its agricultural estimates program and published
    reports, and has expanded electronic access capabilities. All reports
    issued by NASS' Agricultural Statistics Board are made available to the
    public at a previously announced release time to ensure equal access to
    the information. All national statistical reports and data products,
    including graphics, are available on the Web, as well as in printed
    form, at the time they are released. Customers can electronically
    subscribe to NASS reports and download them in an easily accessible
    format using standard software. NASS also provides free Rich Site
    Summary (RSS). A summary of NASS and other USDA statistical data is
    produced annually in USDA's Agricultural Statistics, available on the
    NASS home page or in hard copy.
    Collaboration with Other Agencies
        NASS conducts special surveys and provides consulting services for
    USDA agencies, other Federal or state agencies, universities, and
    agricultural organizations on a cost-reimbursable basis. Consulting
    services include assistance with survey methodology, questionnaire and
    sample design, information resource management, statistical analysis,
    and data collection. NASS has assisted USDA agencies in programs that
    monitor nutrition, food safety, environmental quality, and customer
    satisfaction. In cooperation with State Departments of Agriculture,
    land-grant universities, and industry groups, NASS conducts over 130
    special surveys each year covering a wide range of issues such as farm
    injury, nursery and horticulture, equine, farm finance, fruits and
    nuts, vegetables, and cropping practices.
    International Programs
        NASS provides technical assistance and training to improve
    agricultural statistical programs in other countries in cooperation
    with other government agencies on a cost-reimbursable basis. The NASS
    international program focuses on developing and emerging-market
    countries in Asia, Africa, Central and South America, and Eastern
    Europe. NASS assists countries in applying modern statistical
    methodology, including sample survey techniques. Accurate information
    about other countries is essential for successfully marketing U.S. farm
    products throughout the world. NASS has been an important contributor
    to the U.N. Global Strategy for Agricultural and Rural Statistics, and
    to the U.S. Feed the Future Program, contributing to better statistics
    for USDA global estimates of food supply.
    An Enhanced Research Program
        NASS's research program, which is focused on innovation and
    enhancement in statistical methods, business processes and data
    products in support, sustainment and improvement of NASS programs, has
    allowed the development of new statistical models for the estimating
    program; computer editing applications to replace manual review;
    expanded modes of data collection to include Computer Assisted Personal
    Interviewing and Computer Assisted Web Interviewing; implemented
    quality assurance protocols in routine operations; developed two new
    tools using remote sensing data--CropScape and VegScape; and further
    benefited from computer-based processing technology.
    Agricultural Estimates
        Annually, NASS issues over 400 agricultural estimates reports that
    are critically important in assessing current supply and demand in
    agricultural commodities. Producers, agribusinesses, farm
    organizations, commodity groups, economists, public officials, and
    others use the data for decision-making. The statistics NASS collects
    and disseminates ensure buyers and sellers have access to the same
    official statistics at the same pre-announced time, and making markets
    fair. The free flow of information minimizes price fluctuations for
    U.S. producers, makes commodity markets more efficient, and makes our
    nation's agricultural industry more competitive. The data has become
    increasingly important as producers rely on future contracts to manage
    risks. In the latest farm bill, county level information is critical in
    implementing the Agriculture Revenue Coverage (ARC) and Price Loss
    Coverage (PLC) programs administered by the Farm Service Agency.
    Census of Agriculture
        In 1997, Congress adopted the Census of Agriculture Act of 1997
    (the ``Act''), which requires USDA to conduct the Census of Agriculture
    every 5 years. The Census of Agriculture provides comprehensive data on
    the agricultural sector at the national, state, and county level. The
    Census of Agriculture is the only source for this information on a
    local level and is extremely important to the agricultural community.
    Prior to 1997 the Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census (BOC)
    conducted the Census of Agriculture and Census special studies. These
    surveys were conducted by BOC pursuant to BOC's authority under Title
    13 of the U.S. Code to require responses to the Census.a In
    addition to the requirement to conduct the quinquennial Census of
    Agriculture, the Act authorizes USDA, ``in connection with the
    Census,'' to ``conduct any survey or other information collection, and
    employ any sampling or other statistical method, that [USDA] determines
    is appropriate.'' b The Act also provides that anyone ``who
    refuses or willfully neglects to answer a question, shall be fined not
    more than $100.'' The Act of 1997 is what provides NASS the
    ``mandatory'' authority to conduct the Census of Agriculture and
    associated special studies.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \a\ See 1987 Census of Agriculture, Volume 3, Part 2,
    ``Agricultural Economics and Land Ownership Survey (1988)'', at
    Appendix B, Report Forms and Information Sheets (available at http://
    usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/AgCensusImages/1987/03/02/1987-03-02-
    appendixes.pdf), which has a copy of the AELOS questionnaire, which
    states: ``[R]esponse to this inquiry is required by law (title 13, U.S.
    Code).''
        \b\ Pub. L. 105-113 (codified primarily at 7 U.S.C.  2204g); 7
    U.S.C.  2204g(b).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        NASS recently published a Census of Agriculture for all 50 states
    and Puerto Rico through a progressively detailed series of releases.
    NASS issued a preliminary release of 2012 Census of Agriculture data in
    February 2014 that contained high level estimates at the U.S. and state
    level. In May 2014 NASS released the full Volume I series of data at
    the U.S., state and county level. In addition to the in-depth large
    publication released in May 2014, a number of special tabulations were
    subsequently released. Those include state and county profiles;
    Congressional District Profiles; Watershed Publication; Race, Ethnicity
    and Gender Profiles and Specialty Crop Report.
        After each Census of Agriculture is complete NASS uses the results
    to identify specific sectors of agriculture to collect in-depth
    details. Since the 2012 Census was published, NASS has conducted the
    following special studies: Farm and Ranch Irrigation Survey (FRIS),
    Census of Aquaculture, Tenure Ownership and Transition of Agricultural
    Land (TOTAL), Census of Horticulture, and Organic Production Survey. In
    2016 NASS plans to conduct a special study on Local Foods. This will
    help evaluate the manner in which local food systems improve community
    food security, and assist populations with limited access to healthy
    food.
        There are numerous, important uses for the data that come from the
    Census of Agriculture and the subsequent special studies. Below are a
    few:

       Provide critical data about the demographics and financial
            well-being of producers and the economic health of the farm
            sector;

       Evaluate historical agricultural trends to formulate farm
            and rural policies and develop programs that help agricultural
            producers and ultimately, consumers;

       Allocate local and national funds for farm programs, e.g.,
            extension service projects, agricultural research, soil
            conservation programs, and land-grant colleges and
            universities;

       Develop new and improved methods to increase agricultural
            production and profitability;

       Plan for operations during drought and emergency outbreaks
            of diseases or infestations of pests;

       Make informed decisions for individual operations within the
            farm, agribusiness, and related food and fiber sectors;

       Provide geographic data on production so agribusinesses can
            locate near major production areas for efficiencies for both
            producers and agribusinesses;

       Develop new and improved methods to increase agricultural
            production and profitability;

       Appraise water use trends and research crop production
            technologies that maintain precious water resources;

       Analyze land ownership and the prospect for new and
            beginning farmers to either start farming or expand their
            operations; [and]

       Study historic trends, assess current conditions, and plan
            for the future for both private and public decision-making.

        In 2015 NASS started producing the vital Current Agricultural
    Industrial Reports (CAIR) that were previously discontinued by the
    Department of Commerce. Commodities covered in these reports include:
    Oilseeds, Beans & Nuts; Fats and Oils; Cotton Manmade Fiber Staple &
    Raw Linters; Flour Milling Products, and Grain Crushing's & Co-Products
    Produced. Like other NASS products, these reports support estimation
    requirements for NASS, Economic Research Service (ERS), the World
    Agricultural Outlook Board (WAOB), and the USDA Chief Economist.
    Private industry uses CAIR and other NASS data to monitor the effect of
    international trade on domestic production, evaluate the relationship
    between company and industry performances, market analyses, assess
    current business conditions, and plan future operations.
        NASS is currently looking into the modern farm structure and its
    contributors, focusing on women and new farmers. NASS will modify
    statistical tools to better reflect the changing face of agriculture,
    especially including women, new farmers, and veterans on the farm.
    Protecting Producers' Personal and Financial Information
        With every survey NASS conducts, a pledge of confidentiality is
    provided to survey respondents and extensive measures are taken to
    honor that pledge. Title 7, U.S. Code, Section 2276 specifies neither
    the Secretary of Agriculture nor any USDA employee may, ``disclose such
    information to the public, unless such information has been transformed
    into statistical or aggregate form that does not allow the
    identification of the person who supplied particular information.''
    NASS employs a rigorous process to ensure that that the intent of this
    statute is met. Each year NASS employees are required to sign a
    ``Confidentiality Certification'' form that ensures understanding and
    compliance of Title 7 and other statutes covering data confidentiality.
    NASS processes information using approved and certified computer
    technology and protocols that protects data integrity. NASS maintains
    internal policies that specifies algorithms used to aggregate data and
    to determine if a summarized total may be disclosed or suppressed,
    prior to publication. Last, all NASS reports are released at an exact
    pre-determined and publicized time, to ensure that everyone has equal
    and fair access.
    Surveys Regarding Farmers' Financial Information
        Publication of data on land ownership characteristics began in
    1880, with the classification of farm tenure. Land ownership surveys
    have been an important tool used to gauge who owns land, the transition
    of land, finances surrounding land, and the availability of land to new
    and beginning farmers. Varying elements of farm financial data have
    been collected since the first agriculture Census was taken in the
    United States in 1840. The principal financial characteristics in
    earlier data collections were value of farm land and sales of
    agricultural products, but in 1890, Census data were also requested on
    farm mortgage debt. In later Censuses, farm taxes were included. Prior
    to NASS taking over the Census of Agriculture from the Department of
    Commerce in 1997, BOC conducted land ownership surveys using mandatory
    authority under Title 13 of the United States Code. Most recently, BOC
    conducted the Agricultural Economics and Land Ownership (AELOS) survey
    in 1988, as a follow-on survey to the 1987 Census of Agriculture. AELOS
    included the majority of the financial measures collected in the 1979
    and earlier Farm Finance Surveys and greatly expands the data on land
    ownership. That survey was conducted under BOC's mandatory authority.
    After the adoption of the Census of Agriculture Act, NASS conducted the
    AELOS survey in 1999, as a follow-on survey to the 1997 Census of
    Agriculture, using mandatory authority. As set forth in the report on
    the 1997 Census of Agriculture, ``AELOS was an integral part of the
    1997 Census of Agriculture and was conducted under the authority of the
    Census of Agriculture Act of 1997 . . . .'' In 2014, NASS changed the
    name of the AELOS survey to the Tenure, Ownership, and Transition of
    Agricultural Land (TOTAL). As set forth in the Federal Register notice
    announcing it, ``[t]he 2014 Tenure, Ownership, and Transition of
    Agricultural Land (TOTAL) is an integral part of the 2012 Census of
    Agriculture and is conducted under the authority of the Census of
    Agriculture Act of 1997.'' The 2014 TOTAL sampling population heavily
    overlapped the sampling population for the Agricultural Resources
    Management Survey (ARMS). The ARMS is an annual economic survey
    conducted jointly by NASS and the Economic Research Service (ERS). In
    order to save taxpayer resources and minimize burden on respondents,
    NASS and ERS integrated the two surveys.
    Summary
        NASS's dedication to research and continued process improvement
    will ensure the organization remains relevant and viable to fill the
    urgent need for timely, accurate, and useful statistics in service to
    U.S. agriculture. Knowing where our food is coming from, who is
    producing it, how much is being produced, and how the agricultural
    sector is performing financially adds to our national security by
    providing assurance that Americans have a safe, nutritious, affordable,
    and adequate supply of food.
        This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the
    opportunity to submit this statement for the record.

        The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Reilly. We appreciate you
    recognizing some of the points that I brought up during my
    opening statement about personal information, especially dental
    insurance, health insurance costs, but I want to start with a
    question.
        Are you generally a person willing to take risks, or do you
    try to avoid taking risks?
        Mr. Reilly. Well, sir, if you ask my wife, she will tell
    you that I am a risk-taker sometimes, but I am also very
    conservative in nature.
        The Chairman. But how does one man answer in your situation
    question number 7? Please put Slide 8 up on the screen.
        The Chairman. Question number 7 in the Census TOTAL survey
    asks that exact question, and asks you to rate from a score to
    zero as not willing to take risks, or 10, willing to take
    risks, how do you answer that question? And you can imagine the
    frustration some of our farmers feel. And I guess I need to ask
    you, why is that question on there?
        Mr. Reilly. When you look for questions like that, part of
    what individuals are looking for is dealing with farm and farm
    operations, and looking at the issues that they have to deal
    with managing their operation, how much risk do they want to
    incur, and what are they doing to try to mitigate risks
    involving with the farm operation.
        The Chairman. Well, Mr. Reilly, the farmers in my district
    are risk-takers. I don't think we need to ask the psychology of
    the farmer and the farm operation on a questionnaire that is
    already being determined to be intrusive. That is a question
    that does not need to be on there, among other questions, and I
    would hope that you would take that statement back.
        Let me go into a couple more issues. The House report
    language that accompanied the Census of Agriculture Act of 1997
    contains some instructions for your agency. It reads, ``The
    Committee recognizes the intrusive nature of a Census and the
    need to obtain relevant data for policymakers. Producers have
    serious time constraints and should only have to answer
    questionnaires that are concise, easily readable,
    understandable, and relevant to today's agricultural
    operations. The Committee is sympathetic to concerns of time
    spent filling out unnecessary paperwork.''
        That is why I bring this question up. I don't think it is
    relevant. But were you aware of this report language?
        Mr. Reilly. I was involved in the transfer program when the
    Census transferred, but no, sir, I was not aware of that
    specific language.
        The Chairman. Okay. Do you think NASS was mindful of this
    when TOTAL was drafted?
        Mr. Reilly. We go through a pretty extensive review process
    of trying to determine the content of all of our questionnaires
    that we issue. We gather information from our stakeholders,
    that is why we have such avenues as our advisory committee on
    agriculture statistics. We meet with various officials
    throughout the Department. We meet with farm organizations. I
    have ongoing meetings with the National Association of State
    Departments of Agriculture, and all of their Commissioners,
    Secretaries, and Directors of Agriculture, and we often discuss
    what are the data needs and what is necessary, and what
    individuals are looking for to manage various programs. And
    then to the best of our ability, we try to craft questions and
    things that will provide that needed information.
        The Chairman. Thank you. When and why did the USDA and NASS
    decide to conduct the TOTAL survey using the mandatory
    authority of the Census? Please put up Slide 1.
        The Chairman. This document produced to the Committee by
    USDA shows there was a plan being carried out. It reads, ``I
    stopped by to see Joe R.,'' which is you. I believe so. Is
    there another Joe R.?
        Mr. Reilly. No.
        The Chairman. All right. ``To clarify how he wants to
    proceed. He says, He is in agreement to replace ARMS III with
    TOTAL, and asked for mandatory authority.'' Take a moment to
    read that e-mail to refresh your memory. And I ask you again,
    when and why did the USDA and NASS decide to conduct the TOTAL
    survey using the mandatory authority of the Census? Was it
    before or after this e-mail?
        Mr. Reilly. Since I was not a party of this e-mail, and
    looking at the date of March 26, 2014, again, I will go back
    and look at our budget planning documents that were part of the
    2015 budget submission. And clearly in our explanatory notes
    there, in our request for the appropriations, we did spell out
    that we were requesting to conduct a survey using mandatory
    reporting authority, and we did have descriptions in there
    describing how we intended to integrate this with the
    Agricultural Resource Management Study. So----
        The Chairman. Do you recall----
        Mr. Reilly.--when you talk about the----
        The Chairman. Do you----
        Mr. Reilly.--decision that----
        The Chairman. Do you recall this conversation with Renee
    Picanso?
        Mr. Reilly. I don't recall this specific conversation, but
    I do recall the general process of what we were going through
    because, from the beginning of the process, since, again, we
    looked at historical precedence in being that every one of the
    land ownership surveys that was conducted under the Bureau of
    Census' authority, and the first one of which was transferred
    and conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, each one
    of those was conducted under mandatory authority.
        My understanding from the beginning, even from day one, and
    again, I just want to say that we were open and transparent
    because, even in our budget request, which went in early March,
    March 4 of 2014, we clearly put in there what our intention was
    and how we planned on doing it.
        The Chairman. Mr. Reilly, as you look at that e-mail from
    Renee Picanso, says she, who refers to you, seemed to think we
    were the ones pushing the dual mandatory authority. What do you
    think that means?
        Mr. Reilly. I am unclear what that means, what dual
    mandatory authority means. I think we were working on the
    details of how to integrate the two processes between the land
    ownership survey TOTAL and ARMS, and in doing so, and even in
    our Federal Register notice that we issued, it was our
    intention that we were suspending ARMS for the data collection
    year, and replacing the data collection with this TOTAL survey,
    again, with the idea that we were trying to minimize the
    reporting burden on the American farmer and the American
    public, and to ensure that we could obtain quality data, and to
    do it in a more cost-effective measure.
        The Chairman. So what you said just a few minutes ago was
    that the mandatory nature, in your opinion, was based upon the
    mandatory nature of what was expected when this was part of the
    Census Bureau, right?
        Mr. Reilly. And also with the first survey, the land
    ownership survey, conducted by USDA back in 1999. The same
    survey was mandatory at that time.
        The Chairman. Okay, and as you sit here today though, what
    is your understanding of the decision to mandate TOTAL? It is
    the Census' fault? What is it? Or it is the 1999 survey?
        Mr. Reilly. Well, again, many of the follow-on surveys are
    mandated because of the nature of what we are trying to do, and
    the sensitive data that we are trying to collect on those
    programs. If you think about the land ownership survey, it is
    essentially a Census of agricultural land in this country, and
    it is very important to try to figure out what is going on with
    the 915 million acres. And so having this mandatory authority
    in conducting this land ownership survey is really critical
    because we are going to two separate audiences. One is the farm
    operator, who is very involved with agriculture, but the other
    critical component is the farm landlord who, in many instances,
    is not involved in agriculture. Could be a resident, attorney,
    doctor, whatever, and have a practice, in New York City or any
    city across the country.
        So again, I am taking it back to the broader spectrum of,
    to do a complete agricultural land survey, you have to cover
    both of those segments; both the farm operator and owner, and
    the land owner who is not an operator.
        The Chairman. All right. Well, thank you.
        I will defer to my Ranking Member, Ms. DelBene, for 5
    minutes of questions.
        Ms. DelBene. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I would like
    to submit for the record this memo from USDA that talks about
    both NASS and ERS wanting to use mandatory authority from the
    Census to increase response rates. So that is some information
    to highlight what we were just talking about.
        [The document referred to is located on p. 121.]
        Thank you again, Mr. Reilly, for being here today. I
    appreciate that you and others at NASS have been working with
    folks on the Committee, and I would like to note here for
    everyone that throughout correspondence with the Committee,
    NASS has provided 49,000 documents and two briefings to the
    Committee. And so we appreciate all of your cooperation.
        Mr. Reilly, I am aware that there is an Advisory Committee
    on Agricultural Statistics, and I wondered if you could tell us
    a little bit about the makeup of that committee, and how their
    opinions are incorporated in the process.
        Mr. Reilly. Our Advisory Committee on Agriculture
    Statistics is a diverse membership. It is 20 committee members
    with two ex officio members. Out of the 20 members, we try to
    make sure that we have diverse representation from across
    agriculture. So we will have representatives that are there
    from commodity groups, commodity organizations. We will have
    representatives there from the universities', land-grant
    universities, we will have representatives that represent State
    Departments of Agriculture, and most importantly we have
    farmers and operators themselves who sit on our committee to
    provide us advice.
        Normally, knowing there is a lot of competing interests for
    agricultural data, the committee helps us to shape what are the
    data needs out there needed to define policy and implement
    certain programs throughout agriculture. Knowing that we have
    limited financial resources, they give us a gauge of how to put
    it in priority order. Knowing that you can't do everything,
    what is the most important. So with limited financial
    resources, we can focus on what the committee says are the most
    important agricultural data needs in the country.
        Ms. DelBene. It seems like it could be helpful to make sure
    that representatives, like all of us here in D.C., could help
    alert our producers to surveys that are coming out, and
    reiterate the importance of accurate information and how that
    might be used, as well as the number of programs that use NASS
    data so that folks are aware of that.
        Do you meet with agriculture groups on a regular basis, and
    is this something you have discussed so that people have more
    information about what is happening with the information you
    are collecting?
        Mr. Reilly. Yes. We hold a very large agricultural data
    user meeting in Chicago each year. It conducted in October. We
    meet regularly with people from different areas across the
    country who advise us on our chemical use program. I meet
    quarterly and at the end of the year with the National
    Association of State Departments of Agriculture, all the
    Commissioners, Secretaries, and Directors, who are advising me
    what needs they have to administer agricultural programs within
    their states, and on an ongoing basis I am meeting with
    representatives of all the different commodity groups. My door
    is always open, and normally on any given week, I have visitors
    who will come in from the corn growers, horticulture industry,
    Soybean Association, everything, and we are always discussing
    about the needs that they have for their particular industry
    and for agriculture in general.
        Ms. DelBene. Several years ago, you suspended several
    specialized reports that were important to some sectors in
    agriculture. I understand that it was budget concerns that led
    to those suspensions, but can you share with the Committee how
    your budget works; whether you get funding for specific work or
    whether you are prioritizing what types of work you are doing,
    given the resources that you have?
        Mr. Reilly. That is a very good question. Again, going back
    to my statement, talking about our overall program, we have two
    defined appropriations. So we get funding and appropriations
    for our Agricultural Estimates program and then for the Census
    of Agriculture program. And on the Agricultural Estimates
    program, many of these are the ones I refer to as the Principle
    Economic Indicators of the United States. So if any financial
    limitations come in play, those are our core ones that we want
    to keep in place. Second to that, we work with other USDA
    agencies that administer many aspects of the farm bill. So if
    something is required and data is needed, whether it is for
    crop insurance, disaster assistance, or things like that, those
    are our next level of priority that goes out in our
    Agricultural Estimates program, and----
        Ms. DelBene. And just one last thing, since I am running
    out of time. Do you get a specific line item for the Census of
    Agriculture itself in the budget?
        Mr. Reilly. Yes, we get an appropriation for the Census of
    Agriculture and all its related programs, and one for the
    Agricultural Estimates program and its sub-activities.
        Ms. DelBene. Thank you very much.
        I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        The chair will let everyone know votes have been called. I
    would like to allow my colleague, Mr. Scott, to ask his
    questions before we take off, and then we will go into recess
    and come back immediately after the two votes.
        Mr. Scott, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And, Mr. Reilly, did I understand you to say that the
    reason the questions were on the survey were to deal with
    whether or not the farmer could pay their bills? Is that
    effectively what you are asking?
        Mr. Reilly. Well, not necessarily, sir, whether they could
    pay their bills.
        Mr. Scott. What was your justification for asking those
    additional questions?
        Mr. Reilly. Okay. In recognizing agriculture, 97 percent of
    all the farms in this country are family-operated farms, and
    many individuals and policymakers, as you know, are concerned
    about maintaining the family farm in our nation. A family farm
    as a component, we know what their operating expenses are just
    for the business side of the farm operation, but out of our 2.1
    million farms in the country, less than \1/2\ of them are
    actually full-time farmers who can make a living doing farming
    full-time. So in looking at future security, the off-farm, what
    they do off-farm in their private employment, what kind of
    benefits, and what kind of expenses that they have to incur are
    key to the overall economic picture of the farm.
        Mr. Scott. Let's talk----
        Mr. Reilly. And is kind of unique to agriculture.
        Mr. Scott. Let's talk about one of those expenses. First,
    what if I simply choose not to fill this form out? I have, as a
    citizen of this country, the ability to just say I am not
    filling this out.
        Mr. Reilly. And many people do. Not everyone, even though
    it is mandatory fill it out, that----
        Mr. Scott. But according to the law, the citizen is
    required to fill it out?
        Mr. Reilly. That is correct.
        Mr. Scott. But what are the consequences for not filling it
    out?
        Mr. Reilly. The penalty is a $100 penalty.
        Mr. Scott. It is a $100 penalty. That may be the solution,
    to eliminate the penalty.
        I want to ask you about this question. Contributions to
    individuals outside of the household, including alimony, child
    support, gifts, and charitable contributions. With all due
    respect, it is none of your business what somebody gives to a
    charity. It is not. None of my business as the government. We
    have a First Amendment in this country. What gives you the
    right to demand that people tell you what they are giving to a
    charity?
        Mr. Reilly. Well, Congressman, and I respect privacy as
    well as everyone, and I know the sensitivity of a lot of this
    information, and I want you to know that we put a lot of effort
    on making sure that the same law that requires mandatory
    answers is the same law that guarantees the confidentiality and
    the protection of that information.
        Mr. Scott. Let me interrupt you there, I am sorry, because
    we are getting short on time. OPM was hacked. So when you have
    my information, if you have all of my information, can you
    guarantee me that it will never be hacked and never be made
    public?
        Mr. Reilly. We do extensive security----
        Mr. Scott. Would you, yes or no? OPM couldn't guarantee it.
        Mr. Reilly. Well----
        Mr. Scott. Can your agency guarantee that all of this
    privileged personal information, including what a person gives
    to their church or another charity they may choose to, could
    never be hacked and made public?
        Mr. Reilly. Well, sir, what I can guarantee is that we do
    everything possible to secure the information. We try to stay
    up-to-date with all of our IT protocols----
        Mr. Scott. I will----
        Mr. Reilly.--and things like that.
        Mr. Scott. I will take that as a no, with all due respect.
    I am somewhat taken aback by this, and I am also taken aback by
    the fact that it seems, as you go through the questions, and
    the slides that we have looked at and the e-mails, it seems
    that if it wasn't specifically illegal, then the discretion was
    used to do it anyway. And so where Congress gives an authority
    to do a survey that much of the information might be necessary
    for land use, since we didn't specifically say you can't do
    this, this, and this, you used your discretion to make it
    mandatory. Is that fair enough?
        Mr. Reilly. The discretion that we used was to look at the
    entirety of the data that was trying to be collected, and apply
    that discretion to everything that was on the form. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Scott. But you used discretion to make it mandatory
    instead of voluntary.
        Mr. Reilly. Well, when I say discretion, again, following
    the principles and practices that every program that we have
    conducted since moving the Census of Agriculture----
        Mr. Scott. But would you----
        Mr. Reilly.--program----
        Mr. Scott.--agree that there was a change to make this
    mandatory instead of voluntary?
        Mr. Reilly. Could you repeat that again, sir? I----
        Mr. Scott. Would you agree that there was a change to make
    this mandatory? This was not a mandatory report. The household
    characteristics was not a mandatory report until you used your
    discretion to make it one. Is that correct?
        Mr. Reilly. No. Again, going back and looking at all the
    previous surveys of the aspects of this, the household
    characteristics and information of off-farm income----
        Mr. Scott. Well, let me----
        Mr. Reilly.--and things like that were----
        Mr. Scott. Let me rephrase it. What did you----
        Mr. Reilly.--in previous surveys.
        Mr. Scott. What did you add this year?
        Mr. Reilly. Which exact questions?
        Mr. Scott. Yes.
        Mr. Reilly. I would have to look and go through every exact
    question. But one of the principles of----
        Mr. Scott. Let me ask one other thing then. What do you not
    have the authority to add to the question?
        Mr. Reilly. We have the authority to do the survey and add
    things that are relevant and have to have a justified need for
    what the data is going to be used for.
        Mr. Scott. Justify the need for making somebody disclose
    their charitable contributions to the government.
        Mr. Reilly. Again, sir, that would go to the overall
    economic well-being of that household on how much----
        Mr. Scott. Using that standard, there is no limit to what
    you can ask the American public.
        Mr. Reilly. And, again, going through the process, what I
    rely on is being open and transparent. When we go through this
    in our discussions and in the development of the questionnaire,
    we lay out right from the beginning in all of our Federal
    Register notices what we intend to ask.
        Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, my time has expired, but this is
    just a clear example of government overreach that we have
    responsibility to rein-in.
        And with that, I will yield what time I don't have left.
        The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
        With that, since we are in the midst of a two-vote series,
    the chair will call this Subcommittee into recess until we
    return immediately after votes.
        [Recess.]
        The Chairman. This hearing of the Subcommittee on
    Biotechnology, Horticulture, and Research will come back to
    order.
        Welcome back, Mr. Reilly. I--well, actually, thanks for
    allowing us the time to get back here. I apologize for making
    you wait. I appreciate your time here.
        We are going to go straight into the questioning, and it is
    for the Minority side.
        I recognize the Ranking Member of the full Agriculture
    Committee, Mr. Peterson, for 5 minutes.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. COLLIN C. PETERSON, A REPRESENTATIVE
                       IN CONGRESS FROM MINNESOTA

        Mr. Peterson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And, Mr. Reilly, yesterday or the day before, there was a
    story in a paper back home about farmers in two counties in
    North Dakota not receiving ARC county payments apparently
    because their neighbors had not sent in the NASS data, or the
    ones that did send them in were people that irrigated, and the
    ones that didn't irrigate didn't send them in. In any event,
    all of the counties around these two counties received
    payments, and it was quoted in there they thought their
    payments should have been $30 an acre but they got zero. Are
    you familiar with this situation?
        [The document referred to is located on p. 122.]
        Mr. Reilly. Not of that particular situation, no, but I am
    familiar with the program itself and how our data is used in
    the program.
        Mr. Peterson. Well, so we are using data to determine these
    payments, that is given by farmers that are not actually
    required by any law to do it.
        Mr. Reilly. It is voluntary, yes.
        Mr. Peterson. Well, what kind of a crazy system is that?
    Now, I was never in favor of this ARC county thing in the first
    place. If we had the PLC, this wouldn't have been an issue. But
    you can't explain to people how this is possible; that they
    were expecting to receive $30,000 worth of payments, and they
    are getting zero. And apparently, for some reason or another,
    they can't use the RMA data in those counties either. So this
    is I believe Stutsman and LaMoure County in North Dakota.
        First of all, I guess you need to become familiar with it,
    and second of all, there has to be a way to fix this. It is not
    right to treat people like this. So would you be able to fix it
    if there was--they said that it was only 15 percent of the
    people that sent their surveys in in that county?
        Mr. Reilly. Well, Congressman, this goes back to one of our
    fundamental missions is providing credible, reliable data in
    support of all kind of policies in farm programs. And in the
    data that is used for this, we are providing information on
    county estimates, which is the acreage, average yield, and
    production within the county, and we rely on the voluntary
    cooperation of the farmers to do that. And in our working
    relationship, both with the Risk Management Agency and the Farm
    Service Agency, we do, to the best of our ability, collect
    enough information to provide that data that is reliable for
    the counties. One of the situations that we deal with is not
    every county is equal with the number of people and the number
    of farms, but in the situations where we cannot provide
    credible, defensible information, we do not publish the
    information for that particular county.
        Mr. Peterson. Then if you don't publish information, they
    wouldn't be able to get the payments?
        Mr. Reilly. Well, again, my agency does not administer the
    program. All we do is deliver the data.
        Mr. Peterson. So if----
        Mr. Reilly. And FSA and RMA are looking for the best, most
    accurate data available, and in the situations like that, they
    have difficulties finding a source of data to determine, but
    that is not in my area.
        Mr. Peterson. If they only had 15 percent of the farmers
    respond with the NASS data, would that be considered
    inadequate?
        Mr. Reilly. It is not necessarily 15 percent of the
    farmers, there are two indications; we want to get a good
    distribution of the farmers, and we look to see how much of the
    coverage or the acreage or production we cover. So in a
    situation, if there were large operators and maybe a handful of
    them that we knew covered over 25 percent of the production of
    that commodity in that county, that would meet our criteria for
    reliability.
        Mr. Peterson. I think that----
        Mr. Reilly.--would be able to do it.
        Mr. Peterson.--maybe is what happened, because the large
    farmers that are irrigated sent in their data, and the smaller
    farmers that are not irrigated didn't, and so the irrigated
    acres got counted, and the yield is 40, 50 bushel more than the
    non-irrigated. Now, I don't know.
        Anyway, I would appreciate it if you would look into it. It
    is not my district, but----
        Mr. Reilly. We could look into that and get back to you
    with more information, yes, sir.
        Mr. Peterson. All right. And then the other thing that I am
    having questions about in my district is how you set the barley
    nationwide numbers. This is something I have been fighting over
    ever since I have been here in terms of trying to differentiate
    between feed barley and malting barley. And apparently, there
    have been questions asked of your agency about how you came up
    with this number on barley, and my people don't think they have
    gotten a good answer about how that was established. Do you
    know if it is some percentage of malting barley, some
    percentage of feed barley, how you came up with that number?
        Mr. Reilly. Well, sir, on our prices program, what we do is
    that we publish the prices of barley in three different
    categories. We publish an all-barley price, we publish a feed
    barley price, and a malting barley price. So we have that
    available, those three different components.
        Again, you have to look back to the actual ARC--I am not
    sure if that is the right program, but the farm program itself,
    as to which one of those did they choose to use. Are they
    choosing to use the all-barley price or the feed barley price?
    And I believe in the past, they were using the feed barley
    price, and now may be using the all-barley price. We don't set
    which price is used, we just give the prices on the three
    different categories.
        Mr. Peterson. Well, I guess the issue is if my farmers
    don't feel like they have gotten a good answer on how you came
    up with the all-barley price, which apparently was $5.30 for
    2014, could you submit to my office how you came up with that
    price----
        Mr. Reilly. Yes, we can.
        Mr. Peterson.--and what it was based on, and----
        Mr. Reilly. Yes.
        Mr. Peterson.--so forth?
        Mr. Reilly. We can give you an analysis of how we come up
    with that price.
        Mr. Peterson. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Peterson.
        I now recognize my colleague, Mr. Thompson, from
    Pennsylvania, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Thompson. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much. Mr. Reilly,
    thank you for being here.
        I appreciate the fact that we work hard to try to have good
    data in order to make good public policy. I think the farm bill
    that we did was a reflection of that and we appreciate that
    data. Although it is not to say I don't hear from my farmers
    from time to time, and they understand that good policy is
    driven by good data. I have tried to make that point when it
    comes to reflecting on the really good things that we were able
    to accomplish in the farm bill. But, they do have a point at
    times, certainly, where there is a balance and making sure that
    we are collecting just the information we need, and we do it in
    a way that is efficient so it doesn't become a burden. And I
    appreciate your help achieving those two objectives.
        I have a couple of questions for you. I understand there
    are two versions of TOTAL. Is that correct?
        Mr. Reilly. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Thompson. Okay. Now, there was the operator version and
    the landlord version. Does that sound accurate?
        Mr. Reilly. That is correct, yes.
        Mr. Thompson. The 1999 AELOS does not look like TOTAL,
    correct?
        Mr. Reilly. When you say does not look, it also had two
    different versions. It had an operator type of version and a
    landowner type of version as well. The exact content in that
    does change over time, but there were two separate components.
        Mr. Thompson. It is the current contents that is the
    distinguishing difference?
        Mr. Reilly. It would be the actual content that--yes, that
    would be a little bit different from the previous.
        Mr. Thompson. Okay. Now, farmers and ranchers are routinely
    asked these questions by ERS through the ARMS III Survey. Is
    that correct, Mr. Reilly?
        Mr. Reilly. They are asked questions in the ARMS survey
    primarily focusing on farm finances and other aspects, yes, but
    nothing on land ownership or intentions of transition of land
    or anything like that.
        Mr. Thompson. Okay. So trying to determine the difference
    then, the difference is that the ARMS III Survey is optional.
    Is that correct?
        Mr. Reilly. It is voluntary, yes.
        Mr. Thompson. Okay, voluntary. Great. Now, one obvious
    rationale for making the TOTAL survey mandatory is to increase
    response rates, and I get that. The more complete data, the
    better the information. Perhaps historically NASS and ERS were
    not satisfied with the response rates for prior surveys,
    however, this document shows that the response rates
    historically were acceptable, and I am assuming statistically
    acceptable. Can we put up Slide 2 up on the screen?
        Mr. Thompson. Is it there already? Okay. The 50 percent and
    the 74 percent returns seem acceptable. Now, again, Mr. Reilly,
    what was the motivation for conducting TOTAL using the
    mandatory Census authority?
        Mr. Reilly. Well, when you look at the term acceptable on
    the two response rates, and when you look at the reliability,
    especially for the landlord side, it is pushing some of our
    reliability boundaries of what we would deem acceptable. Now,
    we do publish with all of our numbers sort of a measure of
    error that goes with each one, but if sometimes those bounds
    are too great then we will not be able to publish the data.
        Now, since that time, we have been experiencing, and all
    statistical agencies have been experiencing, declining response
    rates. So a response rate that you achieved in 1999 looking
    forward, we were very apprehensive that, especially on the
    landlord side, whether we were going to be able to collect
    enough reliable data.
        Mr. Thompson. Also in the e-mail shown on the screen, it
    says, ``We didn't actually publish the percent.'' Instead, they
    published ``a bunch of text to try and confuse people about our
    actual rate.'' Who was NASS staff trying to confuse and why?
        Mr. Reilly. Well, I cannot say who is the author of this e-
    mail, but in looking at our description, we put out a lot of
    different numbers and adjectives to describe the quality of our
    data. Response is one of them, and response is sort of how many
    do you send out, how many do you get back and take that out. We
    also put in there reliabilities of how variable the information
    is, and also within a survey itself, we may have gotten a
    questionnaire back but major portions of those questions or
    items within that may remain blank. So you just can't always
    look at just one number and say I received X percent back, you
    have to look at the details within that, how many of the
    questions were actually answered, or how many had to be
    statistically looked at, and whether it was imputation or
    something, to try to complete the missing items. So there are
    different measures of quality that we try to issue.
        Mr. Thompson. No, I understand----
        Mr. Reilly. Okay.
        Mr. Thompson. I understand that, and I just want to
    clarify--the narrative concerns me, just the implications
    about, ``a bunch of published a bunch of text to try and
    confuse people about our actual rate.'' I certainly understand
    the standard deviation, and there are so many places to glean
    information from a survey participation rate and response, and
    those types of things, but any clarification in terms of what
    was being communicated or inferred in that e-mail by that
    statement?
        Mr. Reilly. And, again, I am not sure what specifically we
    are talking about, but over time, OMB has changed some of their
    requirements of how we calculate and the formula that goes into
    calculating a response rate. It used to be simple, taking sort
    of the number of forms you sent out and the number of forms
    that you received back in. But since that time, there have been
    new parameters and requirements placed on how we calculate
    this, and when you start describing out-of-businesses, how you
    treat an out-of-business or somebody that says they are no
    longer a farmer, or things like that, and you do that, the text
    is very confusing based on what people normally perceive as a
    response rate.
        Mr. Thompson. Sure. If you wouldn't mind and then I----
        Mr. Reilly. But we could clarify, we could provide you
    exactly how the responses----
        Mr. Thompson. Yes, if you work with your staff----
        Mr. Reilly.--calculate.
        Mr. Thompson.--to get a clarification for that, I would
    appreciate it.
        Mr. Reilly. Yes.
        Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        I would now like to recognize my colleague, Ms. Kuster, for
    5 minutes.
        Ms. Kuster. Thank you very much. Thank you Chairman Davis
    and Ranking Member DelBene. And thank you to the Administrator
    for being with us.
        I actually find this information helpful and very
    interesting, but I come from a much smaller state with much
    smaller farms. And it is important for me to understand the
    health and well-being of the communities in the rural part of
    my state, as well as the economy, and within families to
    understand do they have to take jobs off the farm to make life
    work, which is typically the case. It does seem to me, from
    this hearing, that there may be either a lack of coordination
    or maybe a lack of information and outreach that is causing the
    issues that have come up. I am wondering, can you suggest to me
    ways that NASS could improve outreach efforts to farmers, to
    industry, so that farmers will have a better understanding of
    the survey, know when and how the survey will be administered.
    But most importantly, they would have an understanding of how
    this is information on an aggregate level, not personal
    information. Also, how this type of data is helpful in making
    policy that then will come back to benefit their lives and
    rural communities.
        Mr. Reilly. And that is a very good question, and we,
    within our agency, realize that we rely on the cooperation of
    the farmers and ranchers, and we are doing a lot through our
    public affairs area of describing sort of what it is we are
    collecting. But more importantly, we are trying to educate as
    many as we can on the uses. And, for example, we have worked
    with many of the commodity industries, going back to show how
    the information we collect relates back to the ARC programs,
    how it relates back to crop insurance. And we have had joint
    brochures and explanatory statements developed both from us,
    RMA, the Corn Growers Association and Soybean Growers
    Association, that are looking at and trying to describe back to
    the farmers and ranchers how the data you provide to NASS is
    used to get you a crop insurance payment. And the more we
    educate and the more we can get that, the better off we are
    going to be able to complete our mission of getting the data,
    and the farmers will know how it is being used. And that is the
    critical thing that we are trying to communicate.
        Ms. Kuster. Yes, and I agree with you. I think that is
    critical. And I would say this is a very bipartisan Committee,
    that is rare on Capitol Hill, and we would like to work with
    you if there is a way that we can help communicate to our
    constituents, put out a press release, put it up on our
    websites in a way that helps make that case that this
    information is not meant to be intrusive, it is meant to be
    instructive as to how we make these decisions of public policy,
    and as you say, how the checks flow coming back to the farmers.
        So thank you for your testimony. I appreciate your time.
        Mr. Thompson [presiding.] The gentlelady yields back.
        I now recognize the gentleman from Washington, Mr.
    Newhouse.
        Mr. Newhouse. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr.
    Reilly, welcome.
        Mr. Reilly. Thank you.
        Mr. Newhouse. I appreciate your time here, your
    contributing to this conversation. It is very important stuff.
        I am a farmer myself. I have filled out many of the
    surveys, sometimes begrudgingly.
        Mr. Reilly. Yes, I understand.
        Mr. Newhouse. But I understand the importance of the
    information as it is gathered. Information is power and we need
    to make sure that producers in this country have good
    information, and so it is important stuff. That is why I am
    concerned about the program overall, and we want to make sure
    that there is confidence in it, that people see not only the
    need for it, but it is given that surveys are conducted in such
    a way that people feel that they are being treated fairly, and
    not questioning the information or the use of it, but just in
    the manner it is secured. Like I tried to express at the
    outset, farmers are busy----
        Mr. Reilly. Yes.
        Mr. Newhouse.--as you well know. We have a million things
    to do before yesterday, and to sit down and fill out a survey
    that is going to take 30 minutes, and turns out to be several
    hours, we don't get any money for that, and there are other
    things that are high on the priority list. So it is a very
    sensitive thing that we have to be very careful in protecting
    our credibility in this.
        I have a couple of questions. The 2014 TOTAL survey,
    administered by NASS, my understanding was 24 pages long, had
    326 questions. Is that correct?
        Mr. Reilly. Well, that would probably have been the
    operator component, yes.
        Mr. Newhouse. Okay.
        Mr. Reilly. There are two different components, yes.
        Mr. Newhouse. So would you describe in your estimation as
    that questionnaire being concise as Congress directed that it
    should be?
        Mr. Reilly. Well, again, in looking at serving the needs of
    the public, we operate under several different parameters. We
    have to be very cognizant of minimizing the response burden.
    And we work with strict guidance through the OMB pre-approval
    process of looking at the response burden that we have, and we
    still have to be able to collect the needed information. So as
    we go through, again, every step of our process, I won't say it
    is actually one of our golden rules, but we try to keep the
    response burden as minimal as possible. And if we are looking
    for new items and things like that, we try to take items off to
    keep it equivalent. But the needs and the data needs for
    agriculture do change over time, and there has been an appetite
    for more information as more needs are being identified across
    the country. But we are very aware of the response burden, and
    we work to make sure that everything that gets on that
    document. And again, as part of the review process in the
    Federal Register notice, we do send it out and give it to the
    public to look at--here is the type of questions, and see are
    we hitting the target, anybody have any comments, is there
    something that we are missing, is there something too much or--
    --
        Mr. Newhouse. So you----
        Mr. Reilly.--anything like that.
        Mr. Newhouse.--saying it needs to be relevant information,
    relevant questions?
        Mr. Reilly. Yes. Yes.
        Mr. Newhouse. Would you say questions about furniture and
    office supplies and license taxes, health expenses, how much
    was spent on entertainment, generally, are those relevant
    questions?
        Mr. Reilly. Well, again, especially dealing with
    agriculture, which is kind of unique, is because of the high
    percentage of farm operations that are family farms. Ninety-
    seven percent of all of our farms meet that criteria. And there
    is a difference, and there is a thing to look at the whole
    economic profile of the operation which doesn't just stop at
    the farm operation. So there is a need to gather some
    information about the off-farm-related activities to get a
    complete overall----
        Mr. Newhouse. Well----
        Mr. Reilly.--economic well-being picture----
        Mr. Newhouse. I have----
        Mr. Reilly.--of our farms and----
        Mr. Newhouse. I have just a short amount of time left, if I
    could ask quickly. I apologize for this, but in e-mails we have
    gotten from OMB, they directed NASS to speak with the USDA
    General Counsel about the content of the survey and whether
    USDA had the authority to combine TOTAL and ARM surveys to make
    them mandatory. I want to know if you were aware of those
    concerns, and do you know if that consultation ever took place?
    And I apologize for leaving you very little time.
        Mr. Reilly. I am not sure specifically which concerns you
    are talking about, but in looking at our consultation with OGC,
    I am in constant communication with them about various aspects
    of our program. And we can get back with you on any type of
    what their opinion is or whatever. We have had discussions not
    only on this program but other aspects of the Census of
    Agriculture program and the mandatory reporting over the years,
    and have a very strong working relationship with them. And in
    going through the OMB approval process, we do provide answers
    and questions and documentation to the OMB examiner, sort of
    justifying our request and our authority to do that.
        Mr. Newhouse. So you are saying those consultations did
    occur?
        Mr. Reilly. Well, on this specific program, not
    necessarily, but I do consult with them all the time. And we
    did provide, and I have had recent conversations with them on
    other programs under the Census of Agriculture, and we did
    provide some of our documentations that we had from previous
    conversations to the OMB examiner. And we can get any
    clarification----
        Mr. Newhouse. Okay.
        Mr. Reilly.--for the record if you need it of what OGC--
    because, again, every Census follow-on that we have conducted
    since the transfer at the Department of Agriculture has been
    conducted under the mandatory reporting authority.
        Mr. Newhouse. I have gone over my time, Mr. Chairman. I
    appreciate your leniency. Thank you.
        The Chairman [presiding.] It is freshman leniency, Mr.
    Newhouse. It won't happen in your next year. Thank you very
    much.
        The chair would like to recognize the Ranking Member, Ms.
    DelBene, for 5 minutes.
        Ms. DelBene. We all support other Washington State Members
    of the Committee, I just had a couple of extra questions, Mr.
    Reilly.
        We talk about voluntary and mandatory surveys, and so I
    wanted to know if you could explain for us the difference, why
    you decide to use one versus the other.
        Mr. Reilly. Well, first of all, when you talk about a
    decision process, essentially, with the Census of Agriculture
    program and the authority that we have had, all the special
    follow-ons that we have conducted as part of that program have
    been mandatory. Okay. So it is not like yes, no, or whatever,
    we have just conducted all of them as mandatory. And other than
    those programs, and knowing the important nature of what we are
    trying to get on those programs, on our Agricultural Estimates
    programs we have very little mandatory reporting on that side
    at all. So again, I look at this, and you look at the Census of
    Agriculture program and all the key related issues that it is
    trying then to subsequently measure are critical. With the
    response rates and the quality of the data to measure those
    sometimes are difficult to get to, so each one, starting with
    the 1999 AELOS and every special study that has been conducted
    under the Census of Agriculture authority has been mandatory
    reporting.
        Ms. DelBene. Can you give us more information on the types
    of responses you get, what the difference in responses you get
    between a mandatory and a voluntary----
        Mr. Reilly. Typically, we find that our response rate will
    probably increase and improve around 15 percent going from a
    voluntary to a mandatory program, about a 15 percent increase.
        Ms. DelBene. And how does that show itself in terms of the
    quality of the data that you get as a result?
        Mr. Reilly. In many times, it is absolutely critical,
    because when you look at the Census of Agriculture program,
    yes, we are looking at measuring things at a national level,
    but oftentimes you have to make sure we are putting out
    information on a sublevel, whether it be a state, or in some
    instances even below the state level. And that is where it
    becomes critical. If you look at response rates and making sure
    that certain issues are important in all states, it is
    difficult for some of the smaller states for us to collect
    certain data at a defensible statistical level without the use
    of that mandatory reporting.
        Ms. DelBene. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. I
    appreciate your time.
        Ms. Davis. Thank you.
        The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr.
    Yoho, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Yoho. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Reilly, thank you
    for being here.
        And I am going to pick up where my colleagues from
    Washington, in Washington, left off. And I am not as refined as
    my colleague to the left.
        Where I come from--I am a large animal veterinarian, I
    practiced for 30 years, I have dealt with rural agriculture all
    of my life since I was about 15. Where I come from, people are
    angry about these surveys. They are intrusive. If I were to ask
    you how many children do you have?
        Mr. Reilly. I do not have any children.
        Mr. Yoho. Do you travel?
        Mr. Reilly. Yes, I do travel.
        Mr. Yoho. Where do you like to travel?
        Mr. Reilly. State of Washington----
        Mr. Yoho. And if I kept going----
        Mr. Reilly.--because that is where my family is from.
        Mr. Yoho. And if I keep going and say how much do you spend
    on this, and what is in your annuity and things like that, you
    might get to a point where you say it is none of your darned
    business. That is what I run into.
        And, these questions, I find them offensive, and especially
    when it is mandatory. It was brought up by Austin Scott about
    the Fourth Amendment, the right of the people to secure their
    persons, their house, their papers and effects against
    unreasonable search and seizures, shall not be violated and no
    warrants shall be issued but upon probable cause supported by
    an oath. I think we have overstepped the boundaries of this.
    And this is why, at this point of time in our country,
    especially where I come from, it is a very conservative
    district, there is a lot of mistrust of government. And this is
    an intrusive program. And I understand the importance of having
    the information, to get that information to make the decisions
    that we have to up here, but there is a better way to do that,
    and I would encourage you highly to do that. If not, Congress
    will act, and you will have help from your own government.
        What I wanted to ask you is, OMB--and if you could raise
    Slide 5 please.
        Mr. Yoho. OMB raised concerns about making the TOTAL survey
    mandatory. This will be Slide 5. In the document on the screen
    now, an OMB employee advises, he is referring to the OMB
    General Counsel, believes that only the survey content named in
    the title is designated as mandatory. Were you aware of these
    concerns raised by OMB?
        Mr. Reilly. Well, I am not aware of these specific
    concerns, but in getting back to our OMB approval process, as
    you know, examiners come, examiners go, different things, and
    oftentimes people are not aware of all the rules and
    parameters. I have had conversations over the course of the
    year and my time, trying to explain to people what the
    authority provided to us under the Census of Agriculture Act
    was. And in looking at this, I can't comment specifically on
    this, but we have been through this. We have been through this
    several cycles. And I have talked with staff and I have a good
    relationship with OGC on many of the issues, but as far as my
    staff goes, we go back to what we have done before, how we have
    justified things before, and apparently whatever information
    that we provided back to OMB met their satisfaction because
    they did end up approving----
        Mr. Yoho. Well, let me go on to my next question then. OMB
    staff then directed NASS staff to consult with the USDA General
    Counsel to determine whether the Secretary had the
    discretionary authority to mandate TOTAL as part of the Census
    for Agriculture program. Did any such consultation occur in
    your knowledge?
        Mr. Reilly. Well, I am not aware--well, first of all, I am
    not aware of this request, and any conversation I am not----
        Mr. Yoho. Okay, so----
        Mr. Reilly.--aware of that, but----
        Mr. Yoho. But--okay.
        Mr. Reilly.--in dealings with the General Counsel, we just
    recently instituted a new Census of Agriculture report, current
    industrial reports, requested under Census of Agriculture
    authority, and I have had complete discussions with the General
    Counsel on that and those programs are being conducted----
        Mr. Yoho. Well, let me ask you this. Do you think the NASS
    staff has the right to ask those questions, to mandate TOTAL as
    part of the Census for Agriculture program? Is that a yes or a
    no? I mean I am just kind of looking for a yes or no.
        Mr. Reilly. Again, going back, all the programs that we
    have conducted on the Census of Agriculture and the special
    studies since the transfer over have been conducted under
    mandatory authority.
        Mr. Yoho. All right. So the question is, do they have the
    discretionary authority to do that? You are saying yes?
        Mr. Reilly. Well, I would say that, yes, all of them have
    been----
        Mr. Yoho. Okay.
        Mr. Reilly.--conducted that way.
        Mr. Yoho. I have a follow-up question then. Why were there
    no related documents produced to the Committee then when
    requested? And if you can't answer that, I would appreciate a
    written answer for that for this Committee so that we can look
    at that more in-depth.
        And, Mr. Chairman, I believe I have run out of time. And I
    am going to ask you to submit that. The question is, the OMB
    staff directed NASS staff to consult with the USDA General
    Counsel to determine whether the Secretary has the
    discretionary authority to mandate TOTAL, and did any such
    consultation occur? You said yes, you thought. If yes, why were
    then no related documents produced to the Committee that was
    requested?
        And I yield back. Thank you, sir. I will make sure you have
    them.
        Mr. Reilly. If I can make one clarification. I did not have
    a discussion with OGC about the TOTAL survey, I had discussions
    with them about other Census of Agriculture special studies,
    and more recently, the current industrial reports. So those are
    the conversations that I had. And if you need something from
    OGC that would document the authority to conduct the TOTAL, we
    can provide----
        Mr. Yoho. I will write this down. I am out of time, and I
    want to respect the Chairman's time and everybody else's. And I
    will get you those questions. Thank you.
        The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Mr. Reilly, thank you again. I have a few more questions.
        Following up a little bit on what Mr. Yoho started, several
    of the documents show various employees being instructed not to
    reveal ERS' involvement in the TOTAL survey. Let's put up Slide
    7.
        The Chairman. This is an example of this. This employee is
    under the impression that you do not want third parties to know
    about ERS' involvement and thereby create the appearance that
    NASS is conducting a Census for another agency. How do you
    explain this?
        Mr. Reilly. Well, sir, I am not familiar with this specific
    e-mail. And, again, I will go back to the process and the plan
    that we put in place for this. When we looked at doing the two
    different surveys, we identified there was much overlap between
    the two, and we attempted to try to do something that was
    efficient and reduce respondent burden. So essentially, we
    eliminated or suspended ARMS III for the particular year and
    incorporated some of those questions and some of the content
    into the TOTAL survey. And what we didn't want to do is that,
    when we were talking about this to anyone, is that we were not
    conducting ARMS this year. We wanted to make sure all of our
    materials and stuff like that reflected that we were doing a
    land ownership survey.
        The Chairman. Well, for the record, I would like to note
    that this information was submitted to you on Monday. So at
    some point in time, I would like to make sure that you have had
    a chance to see that before you arrived here, which is why we
    gave it to you----
        Mr. Reilly. Okay.
        The Chairman.--and I would hope we could get more of a
    response.
        And one last question on this issue. Did you direct
    employees to hide ERS' involvement in TOTAL?
        Mr. Reilly. I never directed or had any communication about
    hiding anything. In fact, I believe, and again, in my opening
    statement we, right from the beginning from our explanatory
    notes through the Federal Register process, talked about the
    collaboration with ERS on the program. So we never hid anything
    about the involvement or whatever. We were open and transparent
    right from the beginning.
        The Chairman. Well, thank you. I wanted to follow up on Mr.
    Yoho, since he started that line of questioning, and then go
    back now to something that was mentioned earlier by many of my
    colleagues and me about the mandatory nature of TOTAL.
        Can we put Slide 3 up please?
        The Chairman. This e-mail from NASS' OMB liaison states,
    ``Joe said we have the approval to treat this as a mandatory
    survey under the discretionary rights of the Secretary.'' And
    you just mentioned the mandatory issue in regards to OGC. Who
    granted that approval?
        Mr. Reilly. Well, I am not familiar with the particular e-
    mail, but again, in our process of submitting everything for
    OMB in our Federal Register notice and all the OMB approval
    process, we were right from the beginning with our intention to
    conduct this as mandatory reporting. So in our first Federal
    Register notice and in our second Federal Register notice, it
    was the intention in there that we were doing this as a
    mandatory reporting. And then, in essence, once we received OMB
    approval, then we proceed with implementing the program.
        The Chairman. Well, Mr. Reilly, again, this information was
    in the report that was submitted by your employees to us. I
    find it disheartening that we can't have a conversation here on
    information that your agency provided to us and get questions
    answered.
        Do you agree that the--well, you know what, I am going to
    skip that question.
        Mr. Thompson, do you have any more questions? All right, I
    will go into our closing statements.
        Mr. Reilly, thank you. I think all of us here on both
    sides, we understand the value of the Census of Agriculture
    survey. We truly do. Some of the responses that you have given
    today frustrate us to the point that maybe we will have another
    hearing on this. You mentioned the 1999 survey being the basis
    of the mandatory TOTAL survey. Well, let me for the record, and
    I will submit the 1999 survey for the record and also the TOTAL
    survey, you already know there is a major difference in what is
    being asked on the 1999 survey, and many of the questions that
    have been deemed intrusive on the TOTAL survey.
        [The information referred to is located on p. 58, and p.
    73.] *
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        * Editor's note: The 1999 AELOS survey and the ARMS III survey are
    Attachments 1 and 2 of the House Committee on Agriculture staff report,
    Oversight of USDA's Use of the Census of Agriculture Authority To
    Acquire Farmer's Personal Financial Information.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Chairman. Our farmers have been frustrated by this new
    mandatory survey. They have been frustrated by the questions
    that have been asked. I appreciate your responses regarding
    dental insurance, health insurance questions, but I still don't
    see the need to ask that in an agricultural survey. That is
    something other surveys within the Federal Government ask. My
    colleague, Mr. Scott from Georgia, brought up the issue of
    spending and even charitable contributions. Well, the IRS gets
    that information from every American if they itemize, and if
    they don't, why does the Census of Agriculture survey, why does
    TOTAL have to ask that information? I started today by asking
    you about if you are a risk-taker. By your own response, Mr.
    Reilly, you couldn't answer that question accurately. And how
    can we expect our farmers who don't understand the survey, who
    don't know the background of the survey, who don't know what
    that survey is going to be used for, how can you expect them to
    answer that question?
        I hope you can see today why we are frustrated. I hope you
    can see today why we expect you and the USDA to go back and
    rework something like this. Let's use some common-sense. And I
    would hope that what we take away from here is an opportunity
    to continue to work together; because we do truly value the
    statistical analysis that this survey can give, and I am
    personally afraid that the response rate is going to continue
    to go down when you add questions that are seemingly absurd to
    many of us.
        So with that, I want to say thank you again. Thank you to
    your staff. And I appreciate the opportunity to be here with
    you, and I look forward to working with you in the future.
        And now I have to go through my usual adjournment speech.
    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 Subcommittee on Biotechnology, Horticulture, and
    Research hearing is now adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 3:55 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
        [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
      Submitted Report by Hon. Rodney Davis, a Representative in Congress
                                 from Illinois
                            committee on agriculture
                          k. michael conaway, chairman

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Oversight of USDA's Use of the Census of Agriculture Authority To
            Acquire Farmer's Personal Financial Information
    Staff Report Prepared for the House Committee on Agriculture, U.S.
            House of Representatives, 114th Congress
    November 30, 2015
    I. Executive Summary
        In January 2015, the Committee, both Majority and Minority, were
    contacted by farmers and ranchers, also referred to as producers or
    operators, concerned that the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA)
    National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) improperly used the
    Census of Agriculture authority to conduct a survey entitled Tenure,
    Ownership, and Transition of Agricultural Land (TOTAL). By invoking the
    Census authority, NASS rendered the TOTAL survey compulsory. Farmers
    and ranchers across America were enraged when they realized the broadly
    scoped Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS III) was now being
    mandated by USDA.
        The farmers and ranchers in touch with the House Agriculture
    Committee, having no insight into the behind-the-scenes planning and
    execution of the survey, were confounded by the duplicative, intrusive,
    and over-broad nature of TOTAL. The TOTAL survey inquired about all
    aspects of an operator's personal financial portfolio as well as all
    aspects of farm related income and expenses. Examples of the intrusive
    nature include the following queries: ``income from private pensions,''
    spending on ``health and/or dental insurance costs,'' and values of
    ``financial assets held in non-retirement accounts'' such savings bonds
    and mutual funds. These questions on the TOTAL survey were required to
    be answered. Otherwise, the operator could face a monetary penalty. In
    order to understand all the facts surrounding this novel approach to
    ARMS III, on February 2, 2015, Chairman Conaway and Ranking Member
    Peterson sent a letter to Secretary Vilsack requesting information,
    documents, and a staff-level briefing related to the TOTAL survey.
        On February 5, 2015, and again on March 27, 2015, NASS officials
    briefed House Agriculture Committee staff regarding the TOTAL survey.
    Both briefings were fraught with contradictions and confusion. At one
    point, during the February briefing, NASS staff stated that the TOTAL
    survey had been conducted ``for years--since 1998.'' Then, when
    Committee staff challenged this statement, it was retracted. Based on
    the confused nature of the February briefing, Committee staff
    determined it was necessary to continue to press USDA for documents
    related to TOTAL and NASS's authority to conduct TOTAL as a mandatory
    Census of Agriculture follow-on survey.
        For 7 months, USDA produced approximately 49,000 documents, which
    Committee staff reviewed. On September 9, 2015, Chairman Conaway sent
    Secretary Vilsack a letter requesting transcribed testimony of two NASS
    employees, who have significant factual knowledge of the planning and
    execution of the TOTAL survey. USDA refused this request. Instead, USDA
    offered another briefing. Because USDA refused to produce witnesses to
    clarify certain documents and elaborate on the circumstances
    surrounding the TOTAL survey, the Committee is left with outstanding
    questions. These gaps in the record are addressed in Section III of
    this report.
        Over the course of the Committee's oversight of the TOTAL survey,
    it became clear that certain anomalies occurred during the planning and
    approval phase of the survey. The pace, timing, and fact that TOTAL
    resembled the ARMS III survey--a survey traditionally conducted as an
    optional survey to inform research by the Economic Research Service
    (ERS)--was driven by department-level leadership. The electronic mail
    messages (e-mails) produced to the Committee show USDA's involvement in
    the process, which raises questions about the political motivations for
    the compulsory nature of the TOTAL survey. Administrator Reilly, the
    official in charge of NASS and other NASS staff appear to have been
    receiving input from USDA-main headquarters. It is unclear who at the
    department-level was involved in planning the TOTAL survey. Either USDA
    failed to produce documents and communications to answer this question
    or the directions were verbal. Without having the opportunity to
    question appropriate witnesses and USDA officials, the Committee's
    oversight efforts are impaired. This also shields facts from Congress
    and American agricultural producers. However, one thing is clear: the
    TOTAL survey that was sent to operators is essentially a mandatory
    version of the ARMS III survey. The complete rationale for mandating
    TOTAL is, at this point, opaque to the Committee.
        Beyond the novel approach of mandating TOTAL, producers and
    ranchers from around the U.S. raised concerns about the survey content
    and the fact that it was extremely burdensome to complete. The TOTAL
    survey was broad and in some instances duplicative. While the Census of
    Agriculture is an important tool used by economists; state, local, and
    Federal policy-makers; financial analysts; and farmers themselves, it
    cannot be overly burdensome requiring farmers fill out unnecessary
    paperwork rather than focusing on their land. The House Agriculture
    Committee understood the importance of the Census as well as the
    balance that must be struck.
        In the report accompanying the Census of Agriculture Act of 1997,
    the Committee wrote that ``[p]roducers have serious time constraints
    and should only have to answer questionnaires that are concise, easily
    readable and understandable, and relevant to today's agricultural
    operations.'' \1\ Historically, the Census mandated reporting
    information focused on farm-related data such as crops planted, yields,
    crop insurance, and on-farm finances. With regard to the TOTAL survey,
    NASS engaged in a series of actions to convince the Office of
    Management and Budget (OMB) to sign off on making TOTAL mandatory for
    all recipients to complete. These actions allowed them to compel--
    through the threat of a monetary penalty--the collection of a vast
    amount on-farm and off-farm data from farmers, ranchers, and land
    owners. This report calls into question the propriety of invoking the
    Census authority to require American farmers and ranchers to fill out a
    burdensome questionnaire probing not only their farm-related finances,
    but also their off-farm financial information.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ H. Rep. No. 105-296 (Oct. 2, 1997).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        OMB plays a role in approving mandatory information collections
    across government. Notably, documents produced to the Committee
    demonstrate that OMB raised questions about NASS's authority to conduct
    TOTAL as a mandatory Census follow-on. The OMB General Counsel provided
    an informal opinion stating that NASS could not conduct the TOTAL
    survey under its mandatory Census authority. The OMB General Counsel
    stated that only survey content enumerated in Title 7 could be
    mandatory. NASS, in contrast, argued the Secretary of Agriculture had
    the discretion to determine survey content.
        OMB Staff advised NASS staff to seek guidance from the USDA General
    Counsel on the question of the Secretary's discretionary authority.
    NASS declined to follow OMB's advice. The record before the Committee
    is void of any legal analysis on the subject of whether it is
    permissible to conduct the TOTAL survey as a mandatory Census follow-on
    survey. In e-mails provided to the Committee, USDA contends it has
    broad authority to conduct smaller surveys containing material beyond
    what is enumerated in the Census of Agriculture statute. In responding
    to the TOTAL survey, operators are essentially providing all financial
    data related to farm and land operations as well as personal household
    financial data. USDA, by taking this new approach, has delved into data
    ranging from how much a rancher's family spends on everything from
    health insurance to dental checkups to how much they spend on
    vacations. The House Agriculture Committee staff disagrees with this
    approach.
    II. Background
    Relevant Agencies
        The Census of Agriculture is conducted every 5 years pursuant to
    the Census of Agriculture Act of 1997.\2\ NASS is the USDA agency
    delegated the authority to conduct the Census. According to the NASS
    website, the agency ``conducts hundreds of surveys every year and
    prepares reports covering virtually every aspect of U.S. agriculture.''
    \3\ NASS employs approximately 435 staff members in Washington, D.C.
    and 650 staff in field offices across the U.S. Its headquarters is in
    Washington, D.C. with 12 regional field offices serving the nation.
    NASS's annual budget is $172 million in discretionary dollars. The
    Administrator of NASS is Joseph T. Reilly. Reilly has served at NASS
    since 1997 and prior to joining NASS, he served at the Department of
    Commerce's Bureau of Census for 21 years.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ 7 U.S.C.  2204g states, in pertinent part:

          (a) Census of agriculture required

            (1) In general

              In 1998 and every fifth year thereafter, the Secretary of
    Agriculture shall take a Census
          of Agriculture.

            (2) Inclusion of specialty crops

              Effective beginning with the Census of Agriculture required
    to be conducted in 2008,
          the Secretary shall conduct as part of each Census of Agriculture
    a Census of specialty
          crops (as that term is defined in section 3 of the Specialty
    Crops Competitiveness Act of
          2004 (7 U.S.C. 1621 note; Public Law 108-465)).

            (b) Methods

              In connection with the Census, the Secretary may conduct any
    survey or other informa-
          tion collection, and employ any sampling or other statistical
    method, that the Secretary
          determines is appropriate.

            (c) Year of information

              The information collected in each Census taken under this
    section shall relate to the
          year immediately preceding the year in which the Census is taken.

        Frequently Asked Questions, About the Census, http://
    www.agcensus.usda.gov/Help/FAQs/General_FAQs/ (last visited Oct. 13,
    2015).
        The Paperwork Reduction Act ``requires agencies to submit approval
    requests for information collections to [the Office of Mgmt. &
    Budget's] Office of Information & Regulatory Affairs [OIRA]. OIRA then
    evaluates them under the standards of the Paperwork Reduction Act,
    approving them if they comply and assigning a control number.'' See
    https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/OIRA_QsandAs/. The Census of Agriculture
    and its follow-on surveys must be vetted in advance by officials at
    OIRA.
        \3\ http://www.nass.usda.gov/About_NASS/ (last visited Oct. 21,
    2015).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        ERS is the USDA agency responsible for producing analyses of
    economic and social science information on agriculture, rural
    development, food, commodity markets, and the environment. It compiles
    and disseminates data concerning USDA programs and policies to various
    stakeholders. Presently, ERS has no authority related to the Census of
    Agriculture. Since 2011, ERS has been led by Dr. Mary Bohman.
        Both NASS and ERS are housed within the Research, Education, and
    Economics mission area of USDA. These agencies are overseen by Under
    Secretary of Agriculture Dr. Catherine Woteki.
    The Census of Agriculture
        According to the NASS's website:

              [T]he Census of Agriculture is the leading source of facts
            and figures about American agriculture. Conducted every 5
            years, the Census provides a detailed picture of U.S. farms and
            ranches and the people who operate them. It is the only source
            of uniform, comprehensive agricultural data for every state and
            county in the United States. Participation by every farmer and
            rancher, regardless of the size or type of operation, is
            vitally important. By responding to the Census, producers are
            helping themselves, their communities and all of U.S.
            agriculture.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ See http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/About_the_Census/ (last
    visited Sept. 11, 2015).

        NASS conducted the most recent Census of Agriculture in 2012.
    Initially, the U.S. Department of Commerce's Bureau of Census (BOC)
    conducted the Census every 10 years.\5\ From 1920 through 1992, the BOC
    conducted the Census every 5 years.\6\ In 1997, the House and Senate
    passed the Census of Agriculture Act of 1997 to transfer the authority
    for conducting the Census from the BOC to USDA.\7\ On November 21,
    1997, President Clinton signed the Act (P.L. 105-113), which is now
    part of Title 7 of the United States Code.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ S. Rep. No. 105-141 (Nov. 7, 1997); H. Rep. No. 105-296 (Oct.
    2, 1997).
        \6\ Id.; noting that between 1978 and 1982, the Census of
    Agriculture was conducted every 4 years so as to align it with other
    economic surveys.
        \7\ Id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Data collected through the Census of Agriculture is used by
    numerous entities in both the public and private sectors. Farmers, farm
    product manufacturers, and the financial industry are among private
    sector consumers of the data. Additionally, state, local, and Federal
    policy-makers use the data to make decisions that will affect
    agriculture.\8\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ Frequently Asked Questions, About the Census, http://
    www.agcensus.usda.gov/Help/FAQs/General_FAQs/ (last visited Oct. 13,
    2015).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In addition to the Census, NASS also conducts follow-on surveys.
    Follow-on surveys are authorized in order to collect detailed
    information about specific agriculture related topics. Past follow-on
    surveys have included the Census of Horticulture, Organic Survey, and
    the On-Farm Energy Production Survey, among others. With proper notice
    and opportunity to comment,\9\ the follow-on surveys can be mandated
    under the Census of Agriculture authority.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ The Paperwork Reduction Act ``requires agencies to submit
    approval requests for information collections to [the Office of Mgmt. &
    Budget's] Office of Information & Regulatory Affairs [OIRA]. OIRA then
    evaluates them under the standards of the Paperwork Reduction Act,
    approving them if they comply and assigning a control number.'' See
    https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/OIRA_QsandAs/. The Census of Agriculture
    and its follow-on surveys must be vetted in advance by officials at
    OIRA.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        As mentioned above, participation in the Census of Agriculture and
    many of its follow-on surveys is required by law. Producers failing to
    answer the Census of Agriculture questions may be fined up to $100.
        NASS' funding varies from year to year and it is difficult to parse
    out Census funding from the numerous follow-on surveys NASS conducts.
    The appropriation is at its largest sum the year after a Census year
    which can be attributed to the fact that the survey is a look back at
    the data from the previous year. In the table below, the highlighted
    years are the peak years--those in which the survey is released.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     FY                            Census Funding *
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
             2016 (request)                               $45.747
                       2015                               $47.842
                       2014                               $44.545
                       2013                             8$58.0290
                       2012                               $41.639
                       2011                               $33.073
                       2010                               $37.908
                       2009                               $37.265
                       2008                             8$51.9850
                       2007                               $32.644
                       2006                               $28.824
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    * Dollar figures are in millions.

    The Agricultural Economics and Land Ownership Survey (AELOS)
        The Agricultural Economics and Land Ownership Survey (AELOS) was a
    survey conducted to gather information related to ``non-farming
    landlord contributions to production agriculture.'' \10\ The AELOS
    survey ``provided estimates of farm and ranch land acquisition and
    ownership, capitalization and debt, operating inputs and costs, and
    operator-landlord relationships.'' \11\ It provided a more
    comprehensive picture of the financial conditions in agriculture. The
    inaugural AELOS survey was conducted by NASS in 1999. Although USDA
    stated that the AELOS survey has ``been completed about every 10 years
    as a follow-on survey to the Census of Agriculture,'' \12\ documents
    show the sole AELOS survey was conducted in 1999. AELOS was an updated
    version of similar surveys which were conducted in 1959, 1964, 1970,
    1979, and 1988.\13\ NASS had planned to conduct an AELOS survey in
    2011, but canceled it due to budget constraints.\14\ Between 1999 and
    2000, NASS received $2 million to fund the AELOS survey.\15\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ [Redacted], Chief, Census Planning Branch, U.S. Dep't of
    Agric., National Agric. Statistics Serv., Tenure, Ownership, and
    Transition of Agricultural Land [TOTAL] Survey PowerPoint Presentation
    [USDA-CENSUS-0025401]; see also Letter from Hon. Todd Batta, Assistant
    Sec'y, Office of Cong. Affairs, U.S. Dep't of Agric. to Hon. K. Michael
    Conaway, Chairman, H. Agric. Comm., Mar. 13, 2015 [hereinafter Batta
    Letter, Mar. 2015].
        \11\ [USDA-CENSUS-0025401].
        \12\ Batta Letter, Mar. 2015.
        \13\ 1997 Census of Agric.: History, AC97-SU-4, Vol. 2, Subject
    Series, Part 4, http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/1997/History/
    history1997.pdf (last visited Oct. 8, 2015).
        \14\ Batta Letter, Mar. 2015.
        \15\ U.S. Dep't of Agric. Budget & Explanatory Notes, (available at
    http://www.obpa.usda.
    gov/).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The 1999 version of AELOS was conducted as a mandatory Census of
    Agriculture follow-on survey.\16\ A copy of the 1999 AELOS survey is
    provided as an attachment [Attachment 1] to this report.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \16\ [USDA-CENSUS-0025401]; see also Letter from Hon. Todd Batta,
    Assistant Sec'y, Office of Cong. Affairs, U.S. Dep't of Agric. to Hon.
    K. Michael Conaway, Chairman, H. Agric. Comm., Mar. 13, 2015
    [hereinafter Batta Letter, Mar. 2015].
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS)
        According to ERS' website, the ARMS survey is USDA's ``primary
    source of information on the financial condition, production practices,
    and resource use of America's farm businesses and the economic well-
    being of America's farm households.'' \17\ ARMS has three phases. The
    third phase, ARMS III, which is relevant to this oversight initiative,
    contains broad, probing questions about ``whole farm finance
    information'' and ``operator characteristics.'' \18\ For at least the
    past 10 years, ARMS has been conducted by ERS and NASS, jointly.\19\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \17\ Overview, What Is the Agricultural Resource Management Survey
    (ARMS)?, http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/arms-farm-financial-and-
    crop-production-practices.aspx (last visited Oct. 7, 2015) [hereinafter
    ERS webpage].
        \18\ USDA-CENSUS-0003565.
        \19\ ERS webpage; 1997 Census of Agric.: History, AC97-SU-4, Vol.
    2, Subject Series, Part 4, http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/
    1997/History/history1997.pdf (last visited Oct. 8, 2015).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        ARMS is an annual survey which provides data used by economists for
    various sorts of research, by producers in decision-making, and policy-
    makers.\20\ ARMS III data, in particular, is utilized by economists,
    financial analysts, and producers, among others. Data obtained through
    the ARMS survey is available on ERS' website dating back to 1996.\21\
    Funding for the ARMS survey comes from funds appropriated for ERS and
    has been approximately $19 million annually since Fiscal Year 2006.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \20\ ERS webpage.
        \21\ ERS webpage.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        It is important to note that historically the ARMS survey has not
    been mandatory for farm operators and has not been a part of the Census
    of Agriculture program. A copy of the ARMS III survey form is attached
    [Attachment 2] to this report.
    The Tenure, Ownership and Transition of Agricultural Land Survey
            (TOTAL)
        In March 2012, the Advisory Committee on Agriculture Statistics
    (ACAS) recommended that NASS conduct a land tenure survey. Based on
    this recommendation, NASS decided to conduct the TOTAL survey for the
    first time.\22\ Specifically, the ACAS report stated: ``[t]he Advisory
    Committee recommends that NASS perform a Land Tenure survey as early as
    possible but no later than 2015. This should be the highest priority
    `optional' [Census of Agriculture] follow-on.'' \23\ In its
    recommendation, the ACAS was not specific with regard to what questions
    should be included or excluded on a land tenure survey.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \22\ Batta Letter, Mar. 2015.
        \23\ Batta Letter, Mar. 2015; http://www.nass.usda.gov/About_NASS/
    Advisory_Committee_on_
    Agriculture_Statistics/ACAS_Nov_2013_Meeting_Executive_Summary.pdf
    (last visited Sept. 14, 2015).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        NASS and ERS, at some point, decided to combine ARMS III and AELOS
    to establish TOTAL, a Census follow-on that probed the agricultural and
    personal finances of farmers, ranchers, and land owners. The new survey
    was described by a NASS employee as ``[a]n integrated survey of farm
    finance and land ownership from all agricultural land owners.'' \24\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \24\ [Redacted], Workshop Overview: Why We Are Here PowerPoint
    Presentation, U.S. Dep't of Agric., [USDA-CENSUS-0004451].
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        NASS plans to conduct the TOTAL survey every 10 years to assist
    policy-makers, economists, financial analysts, and others who use the
    data.\25\ The TOTAL survey received $4.5 million in funding--$2.5
    million from NASS in Fiscal Year 2015 and $2.0 million from ERS in
    Fiscal Year 2014.\26\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \25\ E-mail from NASS Staff to NASS Staff, Re: TOTAL Supporting
    Statements, Oct. 20, 2014 [USDA-CENSUS-0029795].
        \26\ U.S. Dep't of Agriculture, Nat'l Agric. Statistics Serv.,
    Tenure, Ownership, and Transition of Agric. Land (TOTAL) Survey, Mar.
    19, 2014 [USDA-CENSUS-0002042].
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        On December 26, 2014, NASS sent the target populations the initial
    mailing related to TOTAL.\27\ A second mailing was sent on January 27,
    2015, and telephonic and field follow-up took place between February
    17, 2015 and April 2015.\28\ NASS published preliminary TOTAL results
    on August 31, 2015.\29\ Complete 2014 TOTAL results were released
    October 5, 2015.\30\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \27\ TOTAL Data Collection PowerPoint Slide [USDA-CENSUS-0004175];
    see also Memorandum from [Redacted], Chief, Census Planning Branch,
    Nat'l Agric. Statistics Serv., Oct. 15, 2014 [USDA-CENSUS-0025932].
        \28\ TOTAL Data Collection PowerPoint Slide [USDA-CENSUS-0004175].
        \29\ U.S. Dep't of Agric., Nat'l Agric. Statistics Serv., New
    Release available at http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Newsroom/2015/
    08_31_2015.php (last visited Sept. 15, 2015.).
        \30\ Press Release, Most of the U.S. Rented Farmland is Owned by
    Non-Farmers, available at http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Newsroom/2015/
    08_31_2015.php (Oct. 5, 2015).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Historical Relationship Between AELOS and ARMS III
        The 1999 version of AELOS was conducted as a mandatory Census of
    Agriculture follow-on survey.\31\ Management level coordination
    occurred with respect to AELOS and ARMS III. The coordination resulted
    in:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \31\ [Redacted], Chief, Census Planning Branch, U.S. Dep't of
    Agric., National Agric. Statistics Serv., Tenure, Ownership, and
    Transition of Agricultural Land [TOTAL] Survey PowerPoint Presentation
    [USDA-CENSUS-0025401]; see also Batta Letter, Mar. 2015.

              Approximately \1/3\ of AELOS records were completed using
            data from the 1999 ARMS Phase III. The goal was to have an ARMS
            questionnaire no longer in length than in 1998. Hence, some
            detail was sacrificed to make room for the needed AELOS
            items.\32\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \32\ 1997 Census of Agric., Volume 2, Part 4 ``History,'' at 159,
    (available at http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/1997/History/
    history1997.pdf) (last visited Oct. 21, 2015).

    In other words, NASS chose to rely on the non-mandatory ARMS III survey
    to gather some of the data needed for the mandatory AELOS. This allowed
    the agency to lessen the burden on producers and avoid redundancy, yet
    gather the necessary data without creating a super survey such as
    TOTAL.
    Two Versions of TOTAL
        TOTAL was comprised of two versions--the operator or producer
    version and the landlord-only version.\33\ According to USDA documents,
    the operator version ``target[ed] farm and ranch operators in the 48
    contiguous states,'' whose agricultural product sales totaled at least
    $1,000 annually.\34\ The operator version is most similar to the
    previously optional ARMS III survey.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \33\ Tenure, Ownership, and Transition of Agric. Land (TOTAL)
    Survey [USDA-CENSUS-0026258].
        \34\ [USDA-CENSUS-0026258].
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        For the landlord-only version, NASS targeted land owners who rent
    their land, but do not engage in farming operations.\35\ The landlord-
    only version of TOTAL is similar in content to previously mandatory
    AELOS survey.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \35\ [USDA-CENSUS-0026258].
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The content of ARMS III and the operator-only version of TOTAL are
    almost identical. This fact is borne out in numerous NASS staff e-mail
    messages. At one point a NASS staff member points out the confusion
    created by calling the landlord only version of TOTAL by its former
    name, ARMS III. On December 8, 2014, NASS staff wrote:

              I am a little confused on our use of ARMS in this news
            release. We continue to use ``ARMS'' internally to attempt to
            lessen the confusion in the TOTAL--Landlord Only survey and
            ARMS III but as far as any external communications go I was
            under the impression both surveys should be referred to as
            TOTAL. ``ARMS III'' was suspended in the OMB docket for this
            year and in its place is TOTAL. The ``ARMS'' form that the
            respondent receives says TOTAL on it.\36\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \36\ Electronic mail [E-mail] from NASS Staff A to a group of
    unnamed NASS Staff, Dec. 8, 2014 (emphasis added) [USDA-CENSUS-
    0004371].

        To lessen NASS staff confusion, the TOTAL operator version was
    often referred to as ARMS III. As part of the same e-mail exchange
    referenced above, NASS staff wrote: ``It does say ARMS III on it off to
    the side [of the questionnaire form] but the actual title of the survey
    is TOTAL.'' \37\ Similarly, USDA, in correspondence with Chairman
    Conaway, referred to the TOTAL survey as being previously known as
    AELOS and ARMS.\38\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \37\ Electronic mail [E-mail] from NASS Staff A to a group of
    unnamed NASS Staff, Dec. 8, 2014 [USDA-CENSUS-0004371].
        \38\ Batta Letter, Mar. 2015.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The TOTAL Survey Received Extensive Criticism from Recipients
        Documents reveal that in January 2015, many operators received both
    the ARMS III survey as well as the TOTAL survey. Farmers, ranchers, and
    operators objected to the government demanding that they respond to
    these questions not once in the ARMS III survey, but twice when they
    received the TOTAL survey. Section N of the TOTAL survey, operator
    version, required that all income, assets, debt, and spending be
    reported to USDA. Following is a snapshot of one of the most intrusive
    sections related to household financial information.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Farmers receiving the TOTAL survey were required to spend a great
    deal of time--time off the land they work--delving into their on-farm
    banking accounts as well as off-farm banking accounts. Numerous
    recipients had questions related to the survey. Agricultural producers
    e-mailed NASS's customer service address to ask questions and express
    consternation with the TOTAL survey. One respondent complained directly
    to USDA as is evidenced in the following e-mail in which the respondent
    requests assistance from NASS.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        One operator referred to the TOTAL survey as ``this extremely long
    form.'' \39\ Another operator requested a copy of the survey he or she
    filled out just the prior year. Specifically, the operator wrote:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \39\ Anonymous landowner to NASS Staff, Re: Survey Completion, Dec.
    26, 2014 [USDA-CENSUS-0049069].

              Is our survey from last year available to us to use? There
            will be no changes and I would like to refer to it. We had no
            idea this was going to be an annual event.\40\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \40\ Anonymous landowner to NASS Staff, Re: Previous years survey,
    Dec. 30, 2014 (emphasis added) [USDA-CENSUS-0049080].

    The individual above likely received the ARMS III survey and the TOTAL
    survey less than a year apart which shows both the duplicative nature
    of TOTAL and the burden NASS placed on American agricultural producers.
        In another case, an incensed landowner took his frustration with
    the TOTAL survey out on the dairy and grain farmer renting his land.
    The dairy farmer was fearful of losing the lease. NASS staff had not
    foreseen that land owners would be inconvenienced by the survey.\41\
    Below is a related e-mail showing NASS staff did not foresee landowners
    being perturbed by the length and breadth of the TOTAL survey.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \41\ E-mail from NASS Staff to NASS Staff, Re: Landlords being
    surveyed, Aug. 27, 2014 [USDA-CENSUS-0020008].

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, the department or agency
    gathering information from U.S. citizens is required to reduce the
    burden by means such as employing information resources and
    technology.\42\ In addition, the Act requires the Director of OMB to
    ``establish and oversee standards and guidelines by which agencies are
    to estimate the burden to comply with a proposed collection of
    information.'' \43\ These estimations must be reported OMB and provided
    on the survey form for recipients. In a nutshell, OMB must approve all
    mandatory information collections sent by the U.S. government. Even
    before NASS engaged OMB in the approval process, officials at USDA and
    NASS had decided to conduct the TOTAL survey as a mandatory Census of
    Agriculture follow-on survey.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \42\ See Public Law 104-13.
        \43\ See Public Law 104-13.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Decision to Make TOTAL Mandatory
        The driving force behind the decision to mandate TOTAL is unclear,
    however based on the documents produced to the Committee by USDA, it is
    apparent that officials at the department-level were aware of the shift
    to mandatory.
        According to documents, the plan was to merge ARMS III and AELOS to
    create a hybrid survey and use the Census authority to require
    producers to answer the survey questionnaires. On January 24, 2014, the
    NASS Assistant Administrator sent an e-mail to two other NASS staff
    relaying a conversation she had with Administrator Reilly. Her e-mail,
    inserted below, shows that Administrator Reilly was receiving direction
    from USDA officials on how to proceed with the TOTAL survey. USDA was
    dictating the timeline, content, and future decisions as indicated by
    the clause ``sounds like we will know something maybe next week from
    USDA.'' The entire e-mail is pasted below.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The following e-mail shows that numerous NASS staff members were
    aware of USDA's involvement in creating the content for the TOTAL
    survey. In the e-mail below, NASS staff suggested checking to insure
    content requested by USDA was included in the TOTAL survey. These e-
    mails demonstrate that USDA officials, perhaps within the Office of the
    Secretary, were dictating certain factors related to the TOTAL survey.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        It appears that USDA, NASS, and ERS conducted the TOTAL survey as
    mandatory to increase response rates.\44\ Yet, documents show USDA
    officials were influential in the execution of the survey--a fact which
    may indicate a political rational for mandating TOTAL. In March 2014, a
    memorandum was circulated throughout NASS that noted in order to
    mandate the TOTAL survey, NASS suspended the OMB docket for ARMS and
    ``submitted [a new docket] so we can carry the mandatory reporting
    statement on the questionnaires.'' \45\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \44\ U.S. Dep't of Agriculture, Nat'l Agric. Statistics Serv.,
    Tenure, Ownership, and Transition of Agric. Land (TOTAL) Survey, Mar.
    19, 2014 [USDA-CENSUS-0005647].
        \45\ U.S. Dep't of Agriculture, Nat'l Agric. Statistics Serv.,
    Tenure, Ownership, and Transition of Agric. Land (TOTAL) Survey, Mar.
    19, 2014 [USDA-CENSUS-0002042] (emphasis added).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        This March 26, 2014, e-mail confirms that Administrator Reilly,
    referred to below as Joe R., was carrying out the plan to rename ARMS
    III, TOTAL and make it mandatory. According to the e-mail, Reilly was
    not sure whose plan he was ratifying. Subordinate staff wrote: ``He
    seems to think that we were the ones pushing the dual mandatory and
    voluntary authority.'' On September 9, 2015, Chairman Conaway requested
    to interview two NASS staff members in order to fill gaps in the record
    such as this one. This request was not granted. Instead, USDA offered a
    third briefing. Without questioning NASS staff members, it is unclear
    who was proposing mandatory versus voluntary.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    The TOTAL Survey Contravenes Congress' Intent for the Census of
            Agriculture
        Mandating a burdensome survey such as ARMS III by renaming it TOTAL
    was not what Congress likely intended when it enacted the Census of
    Agriculture Act of 1997. On the contrary, Congress was aware of the
    burden placed on producers when responding to Census questionnaires. In
    reporting the Act, Congress adopted House Report 105-296, which
    clarifies their intent. It states:

              The Committee recognizes the intrusive nature of a Census and
            the need to obtain relevant data for policymakers. Producers
            have serious time constraints and should only have to answer
            questionnaires that are concise, easily readable and
            understandable, and relevant to today's agricultural
            operations. The Committee is sympathetic to concerns of time
            spent filling out unnecessary paperwork.\46\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \46\ H. Rep. No. 105-296, Purpose & Needs Section (1997).

    Based on the documents produced to the Committee, it does not appear
    that USDA complied with spirit and intent of Congress when deciding to
    include the TOTAL survey as a mandatory, follow-on element of the 2012
    Census.
    OMB Raises Questions Related to the Funding and Frequency of ARMS and
            TOTAL
        In an e-mail dated October 30, 2014, OMB staff asked about the
    frequency of the TOTAL survey. E-mails from NASS staff, in response,
    state that TOTAL will be conducted every 10 years.\47\ The funding,
    according to an e-mail dated April 21, 2014, would come from
    ``combining Congressional appropriations'' earmarked for the Census of
    Agriculture as well as ERS' funds. Combining funds from two agencies to
    conduct what NASS couched as a Census of Agriculture follow-on study
    raised a red flag for OMB.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \47\  E-mail from NASS Staff to NASS Staff, Re: TOTAL Supporting
    Statements, Oct. 20, 2014 [USDA-CENSUS-0029795].
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    OMB's Role in Mandating TOTAL
        Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, NASS is required ``to submit
    approval requests for information collections to the Office of
    Management and Budget's (OMB), Office of Information & Regulatory
    Affairs (OIRA).'' \48\ The Census of Agriculture and its follow-on
    surveys must be vetted, in advance, by officials at OIRA. OIRA
    evaluates the materials related to the surveys vis-a-vis the standards
    of the Act, approving them if they comply and assigning a control
    number. In the summer of 2014, OMB staff engaged both in person as well
    as through e-mail regarding the mandatory nature of the TOTAL survey.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \48\ See Pub. L. No. 104-13.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Internal NASS documents show that NASS staff knew to portray TOTAL
    as one survey--its precursor being AELOS in order to achieve mandatory
    status. If OMB suspected TOTAL was too similar to ARMS III, then OMB
    may not sign off on mandatory status for TOTAL. When asked about the
    public relations strategy for TOTAL, and whether there would be a
    distinction for ARMS III and TOTAL landlord-only, NASS staff responded
    tersely stating: ``For OMB purposes it is one survey.'' \49\ In
    actuality, operators received a now-mandatory ARMS III survey and the
    landlords received a version similar to AELOS. The entire e-mail
    exchange is below.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \49\ E-mail from NASS Staff to NASS Regional Field Office Staff,
    Re: ARMS III news release, Dec. 18, 2014 [USDA-CENSUS-0039968].

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        On March 21, 2014, NASS staff sent an e-mail to OMB staff,
    introducing the concept of the TOTAL survey.\50\ When NASS staff
    engaged OMB staff on TOTAL, NASS staff portrayed the TOTAL survey as
    similar to AELOS and therefore deserving of mandatory status. NASS
    staff explained that they would like to ``discuss some of the proposed
    details for integrating this new survey with the existing ARMS
    program.'' \51\ NASS staff also intimated that since the AELOS survey
    was mandatory, the TOTAL survey should be mandatory as well.\52\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \50\ Electronic Mail [E-mail] from NASS Staff B to OMB Staff A,
    Meeting to Discuss the Combing [sic] of ARMS III survey with a new
    survey called TOTAL, Mar. 21, 2014 [USDA-CENSUS-0009324].
        \51\  E-mail from NASS Staff B to OMB Staff A, Meeting to Discuss
    the Combing [sic] of ARMS III survey with a new survey called TOTAL,
    Mar. 21, 2014 [USDA-CENSUS-0009324]. Id.
        \52\ Id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Then, when OMB staff learned in an e-mail that ERS and NASS
    appropriations would be combined to fund the TOTAL survey,\53\ OMB
    staff deemed it necessary to consult with their Office of General
    Counsel (OGC) to inquire as to whether NASS had the authority to
    mandate the TOTAL survey.\54\ The following e-mail exchange shows NASS
    staff describing the funding sources for TOTAL. In response, OMB staff
    informed NASS that OGC was reviewing NASS' statutory basis for
    mandating TOTAL.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \53\ E-mail from NASS Staff B to OMB Staff, Re: Follow-up
    Information to TOTAL-ARMS meeting, Apr. 21, 2014 [USDA-CENSUS-0012904].
        \54\ E-mail Exchange between NASS Staff B and OMB Staff A, Apr. 21,
    2014 [USDA-CENSUS-0012904].

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    OMB Advises NASS on Whether It Is Permissible to Mandate TOTAL
        On May 8, 2014, the OMB OGC provided an informal legal opinion
    regarding whether the Census of Agriculture mandatory statutory
    authority was applicable in the case of the TOTAL survey. He found it
    was not. Below is the e-mail OMB staff sent NASS staff conveying the
    OMB OGC's opinion that only Census follow-on surveys with content laid
    out in the statute could be mandated. OMB staff also advised NASS staff
    to seek guidance from the USDA Office of General Counsel.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Documents show this was not the response NASS staff
    anticipated.\55\ Staff contemplated giving Administrator Reilly ``a
    heads up on this [development].'' \56\ On May 9, 2014, according to
    internal NASS e-mails, Administrator Reilly verbally assured staff that
    ``we [NASS] have approval to treat this as a mandatory survey under the
    discretionary rights of the secretary [sic].'' \57\ NASS staff operated
    under the assumption that the Secretary of Agriculture has the
    discretionary authority to render TOTAL mandatory since AELOS had been
    mandatory.\58\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \55\ E-mail Exchange between NASS Staff B and other NASS staff, May
    8, 2014 [USDA-CENSUS-0013920].
        \56\ E-mail Exchange between NASS Staff B and other NASS staff, May
    8, 2014 [USDA-CENSUS-0013920].
        \57\ E-mail Exchange between NASS Staff B and other NASS staff, May
    9, 2014 [USDA-CENSUS-0013937].
        \58\ E-mail from NASS Staff to OMB Staff, Apr. 21, 2014 [USDA-
    CENSUS-0012904].
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    NASS Staff Continued to Ignore OMB's Guidance
        In the e-mail inserted above OMB suggested NASS seek the advice of
    USDA's General Counsel regarding the question of whether NASS had the
    authority to conduct TOTAL as a mandatory survey.
        On July 17, 2014, OMB Staff again reiterated their opinion that if
    funds other than NASS funds are used for a particular survey, then that
    survey cannot carry the mandatory Census authority (see e-mail
    below).\59\ Continuing on July 18, 2014, OMB staff and NASS staff had a
    significant amount of correspondence related to the matter of whether
    the TOTAL survey could carry the Census mandatory authority. During the
    same time frame, NASS staff and OMB staff debated whether the Organic
    Survey was eligible to be conducted as a mandatory Census follow-on.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \59\ Email from OMB staff to NASS staff, Re: Submitted Request
    List, July 17, 2014 [USDA-CENSUS-0016781].

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ultimately, the Federal Register notice (FRN) submissions to OMB
    were amended to reflect the fact that these surveys would be conducted
    as mandatory Census follow-ons. Both the TOTAL Survey FRN and the
    Organics Survey FRN required amendment to notify the public of the
    compulsory nature of the surveys. This amendment is reflected in the e-
    mail message above.
    NASS Staff Admits They Did Not Seek Guidance from USDA's General
            Counsel
        In the following document related to the Organic Survey, NASS staff
    admitted he was not aware of any legal analysis related to the question
    of which surveys are authorized to be mandatory.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        In the e-mail above NASS staff argued that since the Organic Survey
    was partially funded by the Risk Management Administration of USDA, and
    conducted as a mandatory follow-on, then NASS could proceed with TOTAL
    as a mandatory follow-on survey.\60\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \60\ E-mail from NASS Staff to OMB Staff, Re: Ag Surveys Program
    (201312-0535-001), July 18, 2014 [USDA-CENSUS-0017084].
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        E-mails show that NASS staff internally debated the Secretary's
    authority to mandate the TOTAL survey. Instead of seeking guidance from
    the USDA Office of General Counsel, NASS staff decided, in a vacuum,
    that the Secretary had the discretion based on conversations with the
    NASS Administrator Reilly.\61\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \61\ E-mail from NASS Staff to OMB Staff, Re: Ag Surveys Program
    (201312-0535-001) DRAFT note to [Redacted], July 18, 2014 [USDA-CENSUS-
    0017040]; see also [USDA-CENSUS-0013937]; [USDA-CENSUS-0017058].
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        On July 18, 2014, an internal NASS e-mail exchange shows that NASS
    staff did not believe it was necessary to clarify NASS' position with
    regard to mandating the TOTAL survey. In response to the question of
    whether Administrator Reilly needed to verify the agency's position on
    the question of authority, NASS staff wrote: ``I think if OMB wants
    clarification [on the mandatory authority] they can initiate that
    process.'' \62\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \62\ E-mail from NASS Staff to NASS Staff, Re: Ag Surveys Program
    (201312-0535-001) DRAFT note to [Redacted], July 18, 2014 (emphasis
    added) [USDA-CENSUS-0017058].
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Also on July 18, 2014, OMB staff directed NASS staff to resubmit
    the FRN ``clearly stating that this collection would be mandatory and
    the authority under which NASS can make it mandatory.'' \63\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \63\ E-mail from OMB Staff to NASS Staff, Re: Ag Surveys Program
    (201312-0535-001), July 18, 2014 [USDA-CENSUS-00171155].
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    NASS Staff Believed Re-Titling the ARMS III Survey Sufficed to Render
            it Mandatory
        According to documents produced to the Committee, certain NASS
    staff believed the re-titling of the TOTAL survey allowed NASS to
    mandate the survey. On June 20, 2014, one NASS staff member wrote an e-
    mail expressing the idea that a simple title change in the survey was
    sufficient to render the TOTAL survey mandatory. Specifically, he
    wrote: ``Unfortunately, we had to change the title [from ARMS III to
    TOTAL] to allow for the OMB statement of `required;' however I am going
    to continue to refer to this document and all other related items as
    2014 ARMS III.'' \64\ See below for the full e-mail text.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \64\ E-mail from NASS Staff to NASS Staff, 6_20_14 Version 9
    (5).docx, June 20, 2014 (emphasis added) [USDA-CENSUS-0015310].

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        On August 4, 2014, the NASS staff member who liaises with OMB sent
    an e-mail to other NASS staff informing them that the TOTAL survey,
    landlord and operator versions were granted mandatory status by OMB. He
    directed his colleagues to include the appropriate language to reflect
    the mandatory status in all public relations materials.\65\ The fact
    that ERS was a partner in funding and planning the TOTAL survey,
    however, remained concealed from the public.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \65\ E-mail from NASS Staff to NASS Staff, TOTAL/ARMS Question,
    Aug. 4, 2014 [USDA-CENSUS-0018429].
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    NASS Concealed ERS' Cooperation on the TOTAL Survey
        Administrator Reilly, according to NASS staff e-mails, ``did not
    think it is appropriate for us [NASS] to conduct a Census for another
    agency,'' \66\ in this case, ERS. The e-mail below shows that as a
    result of Reilly's views, NASS staff did not insert references to ERS
    in the publicity materials for the TOTAL survey. News releases and all
    other promotional materials related to the TOTAL survey did not contain
    the ERS logo or make mention of the fact that ERS was a partner in
    TOTAL. Following is an e-mail showing the rationale for excluding
    references to ERS.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \66\ E-mail from NASS Staff to NASS Staff, Re: ARMS III news
    release, Dec. 18, 2014 [USDA-CENSUS-0039961].

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Internally, NASS staff appears to have disagreed with the approach
    taken in referring to TOTAL as a Census of Agriculture follow-on. In
    the instance below, a NASS staff member pointed out: ``the Census [was
    not used at all] to sample.'' The tone of the e-mail indicates contempt
    for the approach to TOTAL, and shows that the manner in which it was
    conducted was novel. Staff appears not to approve of leadership's
    decision with regard to the TOTAL survey. In particular, the staff
    member cited below stated: ``People are horribly picky about this whole
    TOTAL thing.''

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The record before the Committee demonstrates that USDA's NASS
    mandated a burdensome survey--ARMS III cloaked in the TOTAL title--a
    survey previously optional for producers. Their motives for this are
    unclear, but when questioned about it by OMB rather than seek counsel
    from USDA's OGC, NASS relied on Reilly's word. Since USDA has declined
    to fully cooperate with the Committee's oversight of TOTAL, gaps remain
    in the record. The following section focuses on what we do know--the
    findings, as well as the unanswered questions.
    III. Findings and Unanswered Questions
      b The TOTAL Survey is over-broad, duplicative, and burdensome.

      b The documents produced to the Committee showing numerous producer
            complaints related to TOTAL coupled with the feedback received
            by the Committee from producers indicates that the TOTAL survey
            simply goes too far.

      b OMB advised NASS that the TOTAL survey could not be mandated under
            the Census of Agriculture authority and instructed NASS to seek
            guidance from the USDA Office of General Counsel.

      b NASS failed to consult the USDA Office of General Counsel as
            advised by OMB before mandating the TOTAL Survey.

        Despite a request from Chairman Conaway to interview pertinent NASS
    staff, those requests were denied by the Office of Congressional
    Relations.\67\ As a result, the Committee needs answers to the
    following outstanding questions:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \67\ Letter from Hon. Todd Batta, Assistant Sec'y, Office of Cong.
    Affairs, U.S. Dep't of Agric. to Hon. K. Michael Conaway, Chairman, H.
    Agric. Comm., Sept. 28, 2015.

       When and why did USDA and/or NASS decide to conduct the
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            TOTAL survey using the mandatory authority of the Census?

       Who at the department-level was involved in the decision to
            mandate TOTAL as well as the planning and execution of the
            TOTAL survey?

       When was the decision made to add ARMS III to the land
            tenure survey recommended by the Advisory Committee on
            Agriculture Statistics?

       Who influenced the decision to integrate ARMS III and AELOS
            to produce the TOTAL survey?

       Who at USDA was involved in orchestrating the TOTAL survey
            and its execution plan?

       What was the rationale for mandating the TOTAL survey?

       Who, if anyone, was directing Administrator Reilly with
            regard to the TOTAL survey?

       Why did NASS staff choose not to consult USDA's OGC when OMB
            advised that they do so?

       Whether Congress and more specifically, the Appropriations
            Committee is aware that NASS uses funds from other USDA
            agencies to conduct Census follow-on surveys?

        Today, many questions linger. Either USDA failed to produce
    documents and communications far enough back in time to answer these
    questions, or the directions were verbal. Without having the
    opportunity to question appropriate witnesses and USDA officials, the
    Committee's oversight efforts are impaired. This also shields facts
    from Congress and American agricultural producers.
    IV. Conclusion
        This report is the result of Congress and, in particular, the House
    Agriculture Committee listening to its constituents. Farmers, ranchers,
    producers, and other operators contacted the Committee to raise
    concerns about what they viewed as an intrusive, burdensome, overreach
    of executive power. They had seen this survey before--it was the ARMS
    III survey. This time it was different. This time the USDA exercised
    its Census authority to mandate each farmer and rancher's
    participation. The fact that farmers and ranchers failing to fill out
    the 24 page operator version would be subjected to a monetary penalty
    was a tough pill to swallow. It was novel approach. This oversight
    initiative revealed that there were anomalies in the process.
        USDA and NASS' motivation for renaming ARMS III as TOTAL is
    unclear. If they were hoping to deceive farmers, their plan failed.
    They were not deceived and they did not stay silent on the matter.
    Instead, farmers and ranchers were angry that the government would
    require them to report how much their household spent on health care,
    dental care, and the values of their homes, vehicles, and retirement
    accounts.
        USDA, when crafting the TOTAL survey, failed to take into
    consideration the privacy of America's farmers, ranchers, and
    landowners. OMB advised NASS that their interpretation of the Census of
    Agriculture statue did not allow for mandating the TOTAL survey, which
    is essentially the ARMS III survey. NASS was unwilling to accept this
    answer. Repeatedly, NASS communicated to OMB that it was within the
    Secretary's discretion to mandate TOTAL. At the end of the day, OMB
    accepted this on face value and allowed NASS to resubmit the Federal
    Register notices indicating the mandatory status of the survey. NASS
    took all of these actions without once asking the advice of USDA's
    Office of General Counsel.
        The Committee is deeply concerned with regard to the TOTAL survey,
    that USDA and NASS exceeded their authority under the Census of
    Agriculture. The Secretary, in this case, abused his discretion. This
    oversight initiative has borne out the fact that anomalies occurred in
    the process of mandating TOTAL. As a result of the findings above,
    Committee staff recommends that Members of the Agriculture Committee
    review the attached surveys and the findings herein to determine
    whether it is appropriate to narrow the statutory language in 7 U.S.C.
     2204g.
    V. Options for Legislation Related to the Census
        Following are some legislative options for Members and their staffs
    to consider:

      1.  Statutorily limit the number of questions in Census surveys to
                reduce the time burden on survey recipients.

      2.  Amend the statute to make clear that Census follow-on survey may
                not mandate responses.

      3.  Requests of other agencies regarding content of any survey must
                be first subject to notice and comment, and detailed
                explanation of any question (purpose, how the data will be
                utilized, etcetera) must be provided well in advance.
    VI. Timeline of the Committee's Oversight of TOTAL and the Census
       On February 5, 2015, USDA and NASS staff briefed Committee
            staff. There were numerous unanswered questions flowing from
            this briefing.

       February 10, 2015, at the request of numerous producers, the
            Chairman and Ranking Member sent a letter to Secretary Vilsack
            requesting information and documents related to the Census of
            Agriculture and surveys conducted pursuant to that authority.
            The documents were due February 26, 2015.

       On February 26, 2015, Committee staff followed up with USDA
            staff to inquire about the status of the production.

       On March 16, 2015, USDA staff sent an e-mail containing a
            letter from Under Secretary Todd Batta, signed March 13, 2015.
            This letter answered the questions posed in the Chairman and
            Ranking Member's letter. No documents were provided.

       On March 18, 2015, Committee staff sent an e-mail to USDA
            staff narrowing the scope of and prioritizing the documents in
            the request.

       On March 23, 2015, USDA staff communicated to Committee
            staff that they would provide primarily publicly available
            documents to the Committee at the briefing on March 27, 2015.

       On March 27, 2015, USDA staff provided a briefing to
            Committee staff and produced a disk containing publicly
            available documents related to the Census of Agriculture.

       On April 7, 2015, USDA staff communicated that USDA was
            reviewing 56,000 documents that were potentially related to the
            Census of Agriculture request and that the Committee would
            receive relevant documents between April 10 and April 14, 2015.

       USDA produced documents to the Committee on April 17, 24,
            and June 8, 12, 26, and July 20, 2015. In total, USDA produced
            49,000 documents.

       On September 9, 2015, the Chairman sent letter to Secretary
            Vilsack requesting transcribed interviews of two NASS employees
            with factual knowledge of the planning of execution of the
            TOTAL survey.

       On September 28, 2015, Under Secretary Todd Batta wrote
            Chairman Conaway offering another briefing, and thereby
            declining to produce witnesses for a transcribed interview.
                                 [attachment 1]
    1999 Agricultural Economics and Land Ownership Survey Operator's Report

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                 [attachment 2]
    Agricultural Resource Management Survey Costs and Returns Report 2013

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     ______

    Submitted Form by Hon. Rodney Davis, a Representative in Congress from
                                    Illinois
      2014 tenure, ownership, and transition of agricultural land (total)

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

      Submitted Memorandum by Hon. Suzan K. DelBene, a Representative in
                            Congress from Washington
    USDA-CENSUS-0003500
    USDA United States Department of Agriculture
    National Agricultural Statistics Service
    Tenure, Ownership, and Transition of Agricultural Land (TOTAL) Survey
    March 19, 2014--DRAFT
    Background
        The TOTAL Survey has been funded $4.5 million ($2.0 million from
    ERS in FY14 and $2.5 million in NASS' FY15 Census budget). Unlike the
    Agricultural Economics and Land Ownership Survey (AELOS) conducted for
    1999, we are decoupling the request for names and addresses from the
    operators and expanding the scope of the Agricultural Resources
    Management Survey (ARMS), Phase III to collect data from the owners/
    operators. We are building a frame of landlords only from the June Area
    Frame (2014, rotated out segments from 2013, and rotated out segments
    from 2012) matched against administrative sources. The two
    administrative sources will be tax records purchased from CoreLogic and
    owners identified to Farm Services Agency (FSA). When those two sources
    do not provide information, NASS will utilize NASDA staff to visit the
    county tax assessor office to identify the land owners. Data from the
    landlords only will be collected on a questionnaire separate from the
    ARMS Phase Ill but during the same data collection window. It is a
    requirement that data be turned over to ERS no later than the end of
    July 2015 so products can be developed and shared with USDA by the end
    of September 2015.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Issue

        NASS and ERS both desire to use the mandatory authority of the
     Census of Agriculture to increase response rates. The current ARMS
     docket will be suspended and a new docket submitted so we can carry the
     mandatory reporting statement on the questionnaires.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        One issue is the access to ARMS records by sworn data users via the
    ERS data lab and through the data enclave. NASS has prohibited access
    to Census of Agriculture data and without approval, this combined
    effort under the Census authority would limit record level access.
    Should ERS and the data enclave be given access to the data file?
        A second issue is the NASS publication. Due to the narrow window of
    time between clean data file and data dissemination, should NASS agree
    to data dissemination via only on-line methods?
        In regards to the publication, should NASS utilize the new ERS farm
    typology definitions? The revised farm typology is summarized on page 2
    and page 3. Note that the categories size breaks are different and that
    they use gross cash farm income instead of gross farm sales.
    Proposal *
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        * Editor's note: this is an excerpt of the Memorandum.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                     ______

       Submitted Article by Hon. Collin C. Peterson, a Representative in
                            Congress from Minnesota
    Scrooged by the survey: Farmers miss out on ARC payments

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                Video hyperlink: https://content.jwplatform.com/videos/
            zXmgQ62z-hWqsCqCS.mp4.

    By Mikkel Pates/Agweek on Dec. 7, 2015 at 9:34 a.m.

        JUD, N.D.--Jeremy Nitschke says he fills out a lot of Federal
    agricultural surveys and responds to government surveys, but says a
    National Agricultural Statistics Survey that failed in his county
    shouldn't have cost him $30,000.
        At age 38, Nitschke is a farming partner with his younger brother,
    Nathan. The two farm in both Logan and LaMoure counties in North
    Dakota. They work in a loose association with an older Nitschke
    partnership that includes their father, Jon Nitschke, and their uncle,
    Jeff Nitschke.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              Jeremy Nitschke (right) and his uncle, Jeff Nitschke, are
            partners in separate family farming ventures. They farm
            primarily in North Dakota's LaMoure and Logan counties--the
            only two counties in North Dakota that are not eligible for
            corn payments in the Agriculture Risk Coverage-County program
            for the 2014 crop year. (Mikkel Pates/Agweek).

            [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              LaMoure and Logan counties were the only counties in North
            Dakota that didn't get payments for corn in the Agriculture
            Risk Coverage-County program for the 2014 crop year. Farmers
            had budgeted $20 to $67 per acre but got nothing, largely
            because they didn't fill out a voluntary yield survey. (Mikkel
            Pates/Agweek).

            [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              Farmers in North Dakota's LaMoure and Logan counties,
            including the Nitschke families who farm in Jud, N.D., didn't
            get the expected payments from the Agriculture Risk Coverage-
            County program for the 2014 crop year. (Mikkel Pates/Agweek).

        When only one out of five farmers who received NASS corn yield
    returned those surveys last fall, it affected whether farmers in the
    two counties would get a payment in the Agriculture Risk Coverage-
    County, also called ARC-CO.
        Jeremy and Nathan's partnership is typical and easy to calculate.
    The younger partners together have 1,000 acres of corn base on their
    FSA farm. With help from their loan officer, they calculated that,
    depending on yield, they might expect a net ACR-CO ranging from $20 to
    $67 per acre, or roughly $20,000 to $67,000.
        Instead, they got nothing. Jeremy says he might have made different
    program decisions if he'd known how ARC-CO could go wrong.
        ``How can you take $30,000 away just because people didn't fill out
    a survey?'' he says.
    How could it be?
        The Federal Agricultural Act of 2014, signed into law Feb. 7, 2014,
    is administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Farm Service
    Agency. Corn farmers who wanted to participate were offered a choice of
    two FSA farm programs on a farm-by-farm basis--the Price Loss Coverage
    program or the Agriculture Risk Coverage-County program.
        The PLC program has a reference price of $3.70 per bushel. Corn
    farmers would need to see the 2014 marketing year average fall below
    that to get a PLC payment.
        Few predicted prices would fall below that level.
        The final 2014 marketing year average national price came in right
    at $3.70 per bushel, so farmers did not receive a PLC payment on corn.
        Most corn farmers chose ARC-CO, which allows participants to
    receive revenue coverage when the current year revenue falls below a
    guarantee.
        Under ARC-CO, the benchmark price for corn is $5.29 per bushel.
    Software programs largely predicted that if farmers received normal
    yields and decreased prices the next 2 or 3 years, they'd likely get a
    payment in ARC-CO.
        In North Dakota, farmers typically relied on spreadsheets provided
    by North Dakota State University Extension Service. NDSU farm
    management specialists estimated 140 to 150 bushel per acre yields for
    LaMoure County and 90 to 100 bushel per acre yields for Logan County.
        Farmers wanting to participate in ARC-CO for the 2014 crop year had
    until April 7 to make program elections. By Sept. 30, they had to sign
    up a second time, to enroll into a contract. The same deadline was used
    for both the 2014 and 2015 crop contract.
    Olympic Averages
        ARC-CO guarantees were based on 5 years of county average yields
    and marketing year average prices--2009 to 2013.
        The benchmark revenue figure to determine whether payment should be
    made is the combination of yield and price--the Olympic average yield
    for those years multiplied by the Olympic average price for the same
    years.
        The ARC-CO payment guarantee was based on 86 percent of benchmark
    revenue, calculated with a formula based on Federal budgetary limits.
    It is further reduced by a factor of 0.932 (another seven percent
    reduction) for Congressional sequestration, another budget cut passed
    in 2011.
        In educating farmers about their options, the FSA and Extension
    Service routinely noted payments would be made on county yields
    generated by a hierarchy of sources: National Agricultural Statistics
    Service county yield surveys, if available; FSA data-mined yields from
    the Risk Management Agency, or crop insurance; crop reporting district;
    and a yield set by the FSA state committee, using neighboring counties
    with similar production.
        Everybody heard how it worked, but no one imagined the first option
    wouldn't be available because of a NASS survey. No one expected the
    second option would have such a negative impact.
    Survey Failure
        Darin Jantzi, NASS state statistician in Fargo, says there are
    roughly 282 corn producers in LaMoure County, according to the 2012
    Census of Agriculture.
        Yield surveys for the 2014 crop year were sent to 125 county
    producers in mid-October 2014. NASS waited for mailed responses for 3
    weeks. NASS surveyors then attempted to phone recipients, giving up
    only if the farmer refused, or at the end of the survey period.
        Only 27 of the surveys came back--three shy of the 30 producer
    minimum required. Further, the responses represented only 9.5 percent
    of the production acres in the county--far short of the 25 percent
    needed for a valid NASS yield.
        The next option was the RMA figure, which was 165 bushels per acre.
        Jeremy wasn't aware this was a problem until October.
        He got word from AgCountry Farm Credit Services officials in
    Jamestown. It sunk in when he wanted to pay a farm loan bill with his
    ARC-CO payment, and a clerk in the office said it would be impossible.
        ``She said I got paid on 270 acres of wheat,'' he says. ``Nothing
    on the corn.''
        Jeremy's uncle, Jeff, 59, thinks he failed to fill out the survey.
    But he also says if it were critical to paying farmers what they're
    owed, NASS should have done something to redo the surveys ``if it was
    this important for our payments.''
    RMA, FSA Differ
        Dale Ihry is a former FSA state specialist in Fargo and part of the
    ARC-CO farm bill team. He left that post in October to take a job as
    executive director of the North Dakota Corn Utilization Council. Ihry
    says FSA and RMA matches best in years when almost everyone in a county
    reports losses and RMA adjusts them.
        In years of no loss, RMA corn yields often run roughly 10 bushels
    per acre higher than the NASS yield.
        Ihry says the most reliable yield average for administering ARC-CO
    is the NASS County average yield. The FSA found that for corn counties
    in North Dakota, RMA yields would run roughly 10 bushels per acre
    higher than the county NASS yield. Yields certified to RMA during non-
    loss years might not reflect moisture content, test weight or damage.
        Aaron Krauter, North Dakota FSA state executive director, says he
    can vividly remember telling farmers about the NASS survey basis for
    ARC-CO, and the ``seed corn caps going up and down.''
        He says farmers need to understand the surveys are more important
    today. Farm programs have become more of a safety net and aren't simply
    direct payments.
        ``The reality is that farmers say they just throw these in the
    basket,'' Krauter says. ``I tell them, you can't.''
        Farmers right now are in the middle of filling out surveys for the
    2015 crops.
        In October, the FSA state committee requested the FSA in
    Washington, D.C., allow them to skip the RMA yield step for Logan and
    LaMoure counties, because it is ``obvious the yield is an outlier.''
        The national officials declined.
        Krauter says the 165 bushel per acre yield for LaMoure County is a
    record yield for any county in the state. The FSA state committee
    requested to use NASS yields for counties with similar productivity.
        Corn council and grower association boards have asked for the
    situation to be revisited. Krauter says he will keep asking Washington
    to ``consider the anomaly'' and allow the state committee to make a
    ``reasonable yield decision.''
        Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D., has requested that FSA Administrator Val
    Dolcini revisit the issue and consider making things right in LaMoure,
    Logan and other counties with similar situations, such as Ransom and
    Steele.
    County Rules
        Some counties in southeast North Dakota received $40 to $60 per
    acre payments on their corn base acres.
        ``A lot of corn producers in LaMoure and Logan counties think that
    is what they should be getting,'' Ihry says.
        Most realize LaMoure County was unlikely to have gotten a payment
    that high. He says if the state committee had been allowed to adjust
    the yields properly, LaMoure County would have received about $30 per
    base acre on their corn.
        But Ihry says it makes no sense that LaMoure County--a
    predominantly non-irrigated county--could exceed the state's record
    average corn yield by 10 bushels an acre. Next door, Dickey County,
    which completed its NASS surveys, had a yield of 150--a difference of
    15 bushels per acre.
        ``How, statistically, would that ever happen?'' Ihry asks.
        The FSA did change the rules for farmers in multiple counties.
    Farmers like Jeremy who declare LaMoure County their ``control'' county
    for FSA payments, can be paid for acres they farm in nearby counties,
    such as Stutsman County.
        About 90 percent of the Nitschkes' land is in LaMoure County,
    within 5 miles of the Stutsman County border.
        Meanwhile, some farmers who live in LaMoure County, but declare
    Stutsman County as their control county, receive the Stutsman County
    payment rate, before budget-reduction factors, of $61.36 per acre, even
    for land they farm in LaMoure County.
        Jeremy doesn't indicate his operation is jeopardized by the ARC-CO
    snafu, but it did hurt.
        He came back to the farm in 2004 and holds an associate's degree in
    agricultural finance from North Dakota State College of Science in
    Wahpeton. He is the Chairman of the CHS-Dakota Prairie Ag elevator
    board in Edgeley, N.D., and is concerned about the dozens of farmers
    have been hit with the problem.
        ``It's a lot of money,'' Jeremy says, estimating it is a multi-
    million-dollar difference from what was anticipated. ``It's going to
    make a huge impact in LaMoure County.''

                                      [all]