[Senate Hearing 115-594] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] S. Hrg. 115-594 COMMODITIES, CREDIT, AND CROP INSURANCE: PERSPECTIVES ON RISK MANAGEMENT TOOLS AND TRENDS FOR THE 2018 FARM BILL ======================================================================= HEARING before the COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION __________ JULY 25, 2017 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov/ __________ U.S.GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 29-640 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019 COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY PAT ROBERTS, Kansas, Chairman THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas SHERROD BROWN, Ohio JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota JONI ERNST, Iowa MICHAEL BENNET, Colorado CHARLES GRASSLEY, Iowa KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York JOHN THUNE, South Dakota JOE DONNELLY, Indiana STEVE DAINES, Montana HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota DAVID PERDUE, Georgia ROBERT P. CASEY, Jr., Pennsylvania LUTHER STRANGE, Alabama CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland James A. Glueck, Jr., Majority Staff Director DaNita M. Murray, Majority Chief Counsel Jessica L. Williams, Chief Clerk Joseph A. Shultz, Minority Staff Director Mary Beth Schultz, Minority Chief Counsel (ii) C O N T E N T S ---------- Page Hearing(s): Commodities, Credit, and Crop Insurance: Perspectives on Risk Management Tools and Trends for the 2018 Farm Bill............. 1 ---------- Tuesday, July 25, 2017 STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY SENATORS Roberts, Hon. Pat, U.S. Senator from the State of Kansas, Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.... 1 Stabenow, Hon. Debbie, U.S. Senator from the State of Michigan... 3 Panel I Rohwer, Bruce, Farmer, Rohwer Farms, Paullina, IA................ 6 Scott, Kevin, Owner/Operator, Evergreen Stock Farm, Valley Springs, SD.................................................... 7 Schemm, David, Farmer, Arrow S Farms, Sharon Springs, KS......... 9 McMichen, Nick, Owner/Operator, McMichen Farms, Centre, AL....... 10 James, Jennifer, Owner/Operator, H & J Land Company, Newport, AR. 12 Panel II Atkisson, Dan, Owner/Operator, Atkisson Land & Cattle, Stockton, KS............................................................. 35 Rogers, Meredith, Farmer, Family Farm Partners, Camilla, GA...... 37 Rynning, Robert, Owner/Operator, Robert Rynning Farms, Kennedy, MN............................................................. 38 Schlemmer, Ervin, Owner/Operator, Schlemmer Farms, Joliet, MT.... 40 Nobis, Ken, Owner/Operator, Nobis Dairy Farm, Novi, MI........... 41 Panel III Haney, Mark, President, Kentucky Farm Bureau Federation, Louisville, KY................................................. 52 Johnson, Roger, President, National Farmers Union, Washington, DC 54 Shute, Lindsey Lusher, Hearty Roots Community Farm and Co-Founder & Executive Director, National Young Farmers Coalition, Hudson, NY............................................................. 55 Cole, William, Stone Corner Farms and Chairman, Crop Insurance Professionals Association, Batesville, MS...................... 57 Rutledge, Ron, President & CEO, Farmers Mutual Hail Insurance Company of Iowa, West Des Moines, IA........................... 59 Minick, Mandy, Washington State President, Northwest Farm Credit Services, Pasco, WA............................................ 60 Kluesner, Brenda, Loan Officer & Crop Insurance Manager, Royal Bank, Cassville, WI............................................ 62 ---------- APPENDIX Prepared Statements: Gillibrand, Hon. Kirsten..................................... 72 Atkisson, Dan................................................ 73 Cole, William................................................ 85 Haney, Mark.................................................. 97 James, Jennifer.............................................. 110 Johnson, Roger............................................... 125 Kluesner, Brenda............................................. 131 McMichen, Nick............................................... 141 Minick, Mandy................................................ 151 Nobis, Ken................................................... 161 Rogers, Meredith............................................. 170 Rohwer, Bruce................................................ 179 Rutledge, Ron................................................ 180 Rynning, Robert.............................................. 191 Schemm, David................................................ 194 Schlemmer, Ervin............................................. 205 Scott, Kevin................................................. 221 Shute, Lindsey Lusher........................................ 224 Document(s) Submitted for the Record: Roberts, Hon. Pat: Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of America (IIABA), prepared statement for the Record.......................... 232 International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA), prepared statement for the Record................................... 243 American Bankers Association (ABA), prepared statement for the Record................................................. 252 M&W Farm & Ranch, prepared statement for the Record.......... 265 Question and Answer: Atkisson, Dan: Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts.......... 270 Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow...... 271 Cole, William: Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts.......... 273 Haney, Mark: Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow...... 274 Written response to questions from Hon. Amy Klobuchar........ 275 James, Jennifer: Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts.......... 276 Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow...... 277 Johnson, Roger: Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts.......... 280 Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow...... 281 Written response to questions from Hon. Amy Klobuchar........ 282 Kluesner, Brenda: Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts.......... 283 McMichen, Nick: Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts.......... 285 Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow...... 285 Minick, Mandy: Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow...... 288 Written response to questions from Hon. Sherrod Brown........ 289 Nobis, Ken: Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts.......... 291 Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow...... 292 Written response to questions from Hon. Sherrod Brown........ 294 Written response to questions from Hon. Amy Klobuchar........ 295 Rogers, Meredith: Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts.......... 297 Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow...... 297 Rohwer, Bruce: Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts.......... 299 Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow...... 299 Written response to questions from Hon. Sherrod Brown........ 303 Rutledge, Ron: Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts.......... 305 Rynning, Robert: Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts.......... 306 Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow...... 306 Schemm, David: Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts.......... 309 Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow...... 310 Schlemmer, Ervin: Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts.......... 314 Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow...... 315 Written response to questions from Hon. Steve Daines......... 316 Written response to questions from Hon. Amy Klobuchar........ 317 Scott, Kevin: Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts.......... 318 Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow...... 318 Shute, Lindsey Lusher: Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow...... 321 Written response to questions from Hon. Sherrod Brown........ 327 Written response to questions from Hon. Amy Klobuchar........ 330 COMMODITIES, CREDIT, AND CROP INSURANCE: PERSPECTIVES ON RISK MANAGEMENT TOOLS AND TRENDS FOR THE 2018 FARM BILL ---------- Tuesday, July 25, 2017 United States Senate, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, Washington, DC The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 8:31 a.m., in room 106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Pat Roberts, Chairman of the committee, presiding. Present or submitting a statement: Senators Roberts, McConnell, Boozman, Hoeven, Ernst, Grassley, Thune, Daines, Stabenow, Brown, Klobuchar, Bennet, Gillibrand, Donnelly, Heitkamp, Casey, and Van Hollen. STATEMENT OF HON. PAT ROBERTS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF KANSAS, CHAIRMAN, U.S. COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY Chairman Roberts. Good morning. I call this meeting of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry to order. I want to thank all the witnesses for coming. There is dead silence in the audience. Whispering is permitted but not for very long. I have repeatedly said we must listen to our farmers and ranchers first before writing any kind of a farm bill, and that is exactly what this Committee is continuing to do as of today. Whether Stabenow and I were wearing purple or green at the farm bill hearings in our home states, we have been listening to key stakeholders, including producers and those who make their livelihoods and live in our rural communities. By the end of this morning this Committee will have held hearings on eight of the farm bill titles. I know that several Senators, both on and off Committee, have also been gathering input and ideas from their states for the farm bill. So far this year I have joined agriculture roundtables and farm visits with Senator Daines in Montana--about 700 folks with cowboy hats--and Senator Strange in Alabama. The conversations at these visits have demonstrated that all of agriculture is struggling with low prices, not just one or two commodities or regions. This morning we are focusing our attention on risk management tools and the needs of producers from all across the country. Welcome, John. It is a good thing you showed up, because Grassley has an Iowa-Kansas plan. We were going to ram that through first. [Laughter.] Senator Boozman. I am here in force. Chairman Roberts. First, our two panels of men and women have participated in the Department programs administered by the Farm Service Agency and Risk Management agency. These producers have given up valuable time to provide real examples of why the farm bill is important to their operations and to so many others. They will provide updates from their perspective on what is working with the current farm bill and what can be improved in the commodity, credit, and crop insurance programs at the Department. Our third panel includes general farm organizations, crop insurance professionals, and the lending community who work to provide producers with the tools necessary to finance their agriculture operations. I know I speak for all members of this Committee by saying a heart-felt thank-you for being here today and your continued commitment on behalf of our farmers, our ranchers, and our growers. These are the folks who are feeding a troubled and hungry world. I am truly humbled by the work you do for our country and for our rural communities. While they work very hard every day to feed and to clothe us, America's farmers and ranchers are at the mercy of Mother Nature, when it comes to the weather on their farms. The High Plains are in the middle of a very damaging drought, while areas in the South are still drying out from flooding and tropical storms. When producers put their seeds in the ground, they do not expect a hailstorm to hit right as they are ready to harvest their crops. They would much rather reap the benefits of their hard work in the marketplace rather than receive an indemnity. The last farm bill made significant changes, and unlike previous policies, today's commodity programs, like crop insurance, are triggered only when there is a loss. Now given the current state of the farm economy and credit challenges facing many producers, especially young and beginning farmers, it is essential we also examine the FSA direct and guaranteed loan programs to determine if improvements can be made. As we review the risk management and credit programs and consider changes, the reality is we face budget constraints and limited resources for the farm bill. While much of our focus has been on the economic conditions in rural America and reduced farm income, we cannot ignore the cost side of our producers' balance sheets, and we should look for ways to ease those burdens. But during these tough economic times, I would remind my colleagues that we can promote stability and economic growth in our rural states through a farm bill. Adequate risk management tools and regulatory reform provide much-needed certainty to our producers. So the Committee must do our work in a timely and transparent manner, and today is an important step in that process. We need to continue working together to get a farm bill done. Our farmers, ranchers, growers, rural communities, and others that enjoy safe and affordable food are depending on us. Our witnesses have traveled from their farms and businesses as far away as Montana and the state of Washington. They represent a broad cross-section of production agriculture. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and I now recognize the distinguished member from Michigan for any remarks she may have. STATEMENT OF HON. DEBBIE STABENOW, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN Senator Stabenow. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and welcome to all of you. This is a very important hearing and, as you said, we have been moving through the titles on the farm bill, and it is my pleasure to work with you and I am confident we are going to be able to come together and be able to do what our farmers and ranchers and families need, which is to pass another farm bill. I have always said that agriculture is the riskiest business there is. From floods to droughts, a sudden turn in the weather can change everything for a farmer. Even on perfect sunny days in Michigan, commodity prices can drop unexpectedly due to global events, and bring sudden uncertainty to a farmer's bottom line. Despite the risks they face day to day, our producers persevere, through all odds, to grow food for our families, and drive our economy forward. Still, farmers sometimes need a leg up on the unknown to help them recover from losses outside of their control. The old subsidy program did not meet the needs of our farmers and either paid too much or too little, regardless of actual losses. That is why, in the 2014 Farm Bill, we came together and made historic reforms to end direct payments and create new tools for our farmers to better manage their risk and protect their farms and families from devastating losses. By transitioning to common-sense risk management, we now provide support for those who need it most, when they need it. Over 90 percent of Michigan farmers selected the Agricultural Risk Coverage program that has protected against both price and yield declines. By and large--and we are certainly open to suggestions on improvements--but this approach seems to be working. However, the one big exception has been the dairy safety net. I have heard from dairy farmers throughout Michigan and other states who have paid into the Margin Protection Program and received nothing in return during their time of need. Last week, I am happy to say that we took the first step towards closing the gap in the dairy safety net, through the Appropriations Committee, and I want to thank our colleague, Senator Cochran, Senator Leahy, both on this Committee, both leaders who led the Appropriations Committee, for their work on the appropriations bill which includes help both for dairy and cotton farmers. Not only does this give dairy farmers an interim improvement to their safety net but it also sets the stage for the next farm bill. Looking ahead, we need to make sure the farm safety net is responsive to the needs of all farmers, without creating the old system of indefensible subsidies that paid farmers even when times were good. When it is available, crop insurance is one of, if not the most important risk management tools for our producers, but historically it has not been available to some of the farmers who need it most. That is why I am so pleased, and fought so hard to expand and strengthen crop insurance for all farmers from expanding coverage to specialty crop growers, organic producers, and beginning farmers, to providing a whole farm option for diversified farms. I am committed, working with the Chairman, to continuing to build on this progress. I am committed to working with the USDA to expand and improve the insurance options as well for our dairy farms. Along with tools to help farmers manage risk, it is also critical we create opportunities to help farmers start and expand their operations. The farm bill provides many resources like access to credit, microloans, conservation programs, and training to help new farmers get their start in agriculture, and we need them. We need to ensure the USDA has producer-facing technology that opens the door for young and beginning farmers to carry on the legacy of American agriculture. There are also many returning veterans who are looking for post-service careers on the farm, and I am very excited about what I have heard in Michigan, and the people I have talked to at our farm field hearing in Michigan. We heard from an Army veteran who shared how outreach programs in the 2014 Farm Bill have helped veterans access loans to kickstart their farms. The farm bill is all about expanding opportunities. The farm bill policy we craft together should ensure that every farmer can start, expand, and protect their farm and livelihood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I do want to apologize in advance. In a little bit I have to step out for about 30 minutes and come back, because I am trying to be in two places at once, and until we get beam-me-up-Scotty technology I am going to have to run back and forth, so I do apologize for that. But I am so pleased we are doing this hearing. This is very, very important. Thank you. Chairman Roberts. Well, I thank the distinguished Senator for her remarks and we have arranged for a hologram to be right here---- Senator Stabenow. Good. Chairman Roberts. --to listen to all of the testimony. Senator Stabenow. That is good. Chairman Roberts. Now I would like to welcome our first panel of witnesses before the Committee, and Bruce, you not only have one but you have two outstanding Senators to introduce you, Senator Ernst and Senator Grassley. I do not know who would like to go first, but I have---- Senator Ernst. I will go first. Senator Grassley. She is going to do it all by herself. Chairman Roberts. You won the debate, or the coin toss. Senator Ernst. I won the coin toss. Chairman Roberts. Senator Ernst. Senator Ernst. Thank you. This morning I have the privilege of introducing Bruce Rohwer, who raises corn and soybeans near Paullina, Iowa, with his son and daughter. Additionally, he owns a drainage tiling business and runs a sow farrow-to-finish operation with his neighbor. Rohwer is a board member of the National Corn Growers Association, a farmer-led trade association with offices in St. Louis and Washington. Founded in 1957, this organization represents more than 40,000 dues-paying corn growers and the interests of more than 300,000 farmers. The NCGA and its 48 affiliated state associations work together to help protect and advance corn growers' interests. Rohwer has also served as Past President and Chair of the Iowa Corn Growers Association. Thanks, Bruce, for being here this morning, and we look forward to your testimony. I think, Chuck, you wanted to say good morning. Senator Grassley. Good morning. Senator Ernst. There you go. Thank you very much for being here today, Bruce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Roberts. That sets a record for the distinguished Senator from Iowa, Senator Grassley. Only two words. It is rather amazing. I now turn to Senator Thune, who is not here, to introduce our next witness. John is busy with leadership on another entire matter, and is meeting Grace Kelly down by the train station at high noon. That is an inside joke. I compare him to Gary Cooper, but then both of us realize that most of you out there do not know who Gary Cooper is. [Laughter.] Chairman Roberts. From Valley Springs, South Dakota, I want to welcome Mr. Kevin Scott. Mr. Scott and his wife operate a soybean and corn farm that was originally settled in 1885. Mr. Scott is a member of the Board of Directors and Governing Committee of the American Soybean Association. So, Kevin, thank you so much for coming today. Mr. David Schemm, joining us from Sharon Springs, Kansas, is Mr. David Schemm. You will recall that farmers know that mother nature may be doing something for them and to them, but you certainly do not expect that right in the middle of harvest. He has experienced that wonderful chance, or kind of operation, with regards to his wheat crop. They did one half in one field, did not do the rest, decided they would wait until the next day. The weather forecast in Sharon Springs, Kansas, America, was clear, and in the middle of the night they had a hailstorm. So David, I am sorry about that but, as he said to me, ``Well, that is just what you do when you are a farmer. You hope you have a better crop next year.'' Mr. Schemm and his wife live and work on their farm where they raise wheat, corn, and grain sorghum. He is the President of the National Association of Wheat Growers and is an active member of his local community. David, welcome. I look forward to your testimony. Luther Strange was going to introduce our next witness but I do not see him here. So Nick McMichen--I have got it--a fifth-generation cotton producer, joins us today from Centre, Alabama. He is the Alabama State Chairman for the American Cotton Producers and a delegate to the National Cotton Council. It is good to see you again, Nick. Thank you. Senator Boozman to introduce our final witness. Senator Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a real honor to introduce to you this morning Mrs. Jennifer James, a fourth-generation rice and soybean farmer from Newport, Arkansas. Jennifer farms with her father and brother on their recognized Arkansas Century Farm. The family takes great pride in their operation's commitment to providing over-winter habitat for water fowl and instituting practices to conserve water. Over the course of her career, Jennifer has held many roles as an active member of the rice industry at both the state and national levels. Jennifer is currently serving as the Chair of the USA Rice Sustainability Committee, a member of the USA Rice Farmers Board of Directors, Vice Chairman of the Arkansas Rice Farmers Board of Directors, member of the Arkansas Agriculture Board, and many other positions. The list goes on and on. Jennifer and her husband, Greg, have one 16-year-old son, Dylan, who hopes to follow in the footsteps of his parents and grandfather to work on the family farm. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Roberts. Thank you, Senator. We will now turn to the witnesses for their testimony. Mr. Bruce Rohwer. Bruce? STATEMENT OF BRUCE ROHWER, FARMER, ROHWER FARMS, PAULLINA, IOWA Mr. Rohwer. Thank you, Chairman Roberts, Ranking Member Stabenow, and members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to share National Corn Growers Association views on today's risk management tools. My name is Bruce Rohwer. I farm near Paullina, Iowa. We raise corn, soybeans, and have a farrow-to-finish hog operation. With ending stocks exceeding 2.4 billion bushels, it is more important than ever to build demand for U.S. corn. We need a robust livestock industry, more exports, and a strong and growing renewable fuels industry to make farming profitable. From 2006 to 2013, corn prices averaged $4.70 per bushel. Since then, prices have fallen below $4.00 and are projected to average $3.35 this marketing year. If prices remain below $4.00, incomes will be very low or negative. Input expenses have started to decline but not fast enough to make up for falling revenues. One key factor driving input expenses is a substantial increase in cost to register crop protection products, due largely to a rise in environmental safety data required by regulatory bodies. This is a serious concern given the importance of crop protection to risk management and profitability. According to USDA, corn production costs reached a high of $690 per acre in 2014. Revenues fell $190 per acre from 2012 to 2015, but production costs have only decreased about $15. You can understand the serious drain on working capital and equity farmers are experiencing. In neighboring Illinois, the Farm Business Farm Management estimates net farm income declining to an average of $500 in 2015, the lowest amount since the service began keeping records. Without the ARC program, 2015 incomes on these farms would have been more than $30,000 less. ARC-County has performed well, but NCGA asks you to consider several administrative concerns and changes in the market to ensure it remains an effective management tool. First, to ensure equitable payments we need the most accurate and consistent data sources. Second, program parameters at these lower prices will differ from when prices were falling from high levels. NCGA is evaluating many changes including yields to address county anomalies, longer production history for appropriate guarantees, reducing deductible to 10 percent, a floor price adjustment to better reflect the average cost of production. Commodity programs are essential but corn farmers' most important risk management tool is the Federal Crop Insurance program. Corn farmers predominantly insure with federal Revenue Protection, RP. More than 90 percent of the acres in the heart of the corn belt are insured at the 80-to-85 percent level. Coverage levels tend to fall in areas where risk yield increases and premiums rise. In January of 2016, in our risk management survey of farmers, the top concern was the potential cuts to premium discounts, coverage levels, and revenue policies price component. To sum up, crop insurance provides well-targeted within- year protection against yield loss and declining prices while ARC and PLC protect against multiple years of depressed markets. As the farm economy deteriorates, access to credit remains a critical part of farm safety net. The NCGA has joined other groups to support additional funding for FSA direct and guaranteed loans. NCGA appreciates the immense effort required to craft a new farm bill, and we look forward to working with you and your staff. [The prepared statement of Mr. Rohwer can be found on page 179 in the appendix.] Chairman Roberts. Thank you for your statement. Kevin, you are next. Thank you very much, sir. STATEMENT OF KEVIN SCOTT, OWNER/OPERATOR, EVERGREEN STOCK FARM, VALLEY SPRINGS, SOUTH DAKOTA Mr. Scott. Good morning, Chairman Roberts, Ranking Member Stabenow, and members of the Committee. I am Kevin Scott, a soybean and corn farmer from Valley Springs, South Dakota, and a member of the Board of Directors of the Governing Committee of the American Soybean Association. ASA represents U.S. soybean producers on domestic and international policies. We commend you for holding this hearing on ag risk management programs in advancement of development of the 2018 Farm Bill. ASA's policies on current Title 1 programs and crop insurance are approved by our voting delegates at Commodity Classic in February, and presented by the presidents of the Kansas and Michigan Associations at the listening sessions your Committee held earlier this year. I would like to briefly summarize those positions, and look forward to any questions you may have. ASA believes Title 1 programs have worked as intended, and supports reauthorizing ARC and PLC as choices on a farm-by-farm and crop-by-crop basis. We also support offering an option to reallocate crop acreage bases or to update bases to reflect recent planting history, and to update program payment yields if funding is available to do so. Payments under these programs should continue to be based on average planting of covered commodities in recent years, rather than on current-year plantings. Decoupling encourages farmers to follow market signals rather than prospects for receiving government payments. With regard to the county ARC program, yield data from RMA should be used, where available, rather than the current policy of using NASS data. For counties that lack RMA data, RMA yields from similar or adjacent counties should be used or averages to reduce discrepancies in yields and payments in neighboring counties. Du to the steep decline in farm prices since 2013, the revenue protection provided under the ARC program has also declined. While 4 percent of soybean producers signed up for county ARC under the 2014 Farm Bill, CBO projects that only 25 to 30 percent will choose ARC if it is reauthorized in its current form next year. ASA believes the Committee should look at ways to strengthen county ARC in order to make it a more attractive program option, without increasing the combined cost of ARC and PLC. Adjusting the ARC benchmark revenue guarantee or lengthening the year span for the Olympic average price could improve the choice given producers between the two programs. Regarding crop insurance, ASA strongly supports the current program as an essential tool for managing risk. Crop insurance is now widely acknowledge as the most valuable part of the farm safety net. However, farmers in some regions choose not to purchase policies, showing us all that there is still work to be done. The cost of crop insurance is paramount for Congress. It is also top of mind for farmers. For most of us, the cost of crop insurance is among the top expenses in growing a crop, along with land, seed, and fertilizer. The idea of capping insurance subsidies is perennial. I want to draw your attention to recent work by Kansas State University, showing that in Kansas last year farms would have hit the $40,000 payment limit at just 1,166 acres. If such a payment limit were imposed, farmers would pay 100 percent of the premium for any covered acres above that level. It is important for the Committee to recognize the high cost of crop insurance premiums to farmers, and that many family farm operations would easily hit such payment limits. That concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. I will be pleased to respond to any questions you or the members of the Committee may have. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Scott can be found on page 221 in the appendix.] Chairman Roberts. Kevin, I was just reading a report that came across my desk this morning that farmers in South and North Dakota say the drought is the worst they have ever seen. Would you say that is the case? Mr. Scott. It is serious. I live on the eastern edge of the state and my situation is not as serious, but the central parts of both states are in critical shape right now. Chairman Roberts. Thank you. David, please proceed. STATEMENT OF DAVID SCHEMM, FARMER, ARROW FARMS, SHARON SPRINGS, KANSAS Mr. Schemm. Chairman Roberts, Ranking Member Stabenow, and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. The past couple of years have been challenging for wheat farmers across the country, particularly because of historically low prices. Producers of hard red winter wheat even became eligible for market assistance loans and loan deficiency payments for the first time in several years because prices dropped below loan rates. We have also been hit with big weather and disease events. I have personally experienced freeze, blizzard, wheat streak mosaic virus, and hail in my area, and now a devastating drought is gripping the Upper Great Plains wheat region. It is events like these which have such a widespread impact that make farm bill program so important. The low prices have led to farmers needing to take out new loans to continue operating. As such, producers' debt-to-asset ratios have grown rapidly. I have included a chart in my written testimony with data from USDA's Economic Research Service, showing that over 8 percent of wheat producers are considered to be highly leveraged and 16 percent are extremely leveraged, showing the extent of economic stress. Additionally, the recent dip in planted wheat acres reflects the economic conditions in wheat country. Planting for this crop year is down 9 percent from the previous year and is the lowest planted acres since records began in 1919. The farm bill's Title 1 programs like ARC and PLC have served as key safety net programs that kick in for losses not covered by crop insurance. ARC has worked well but there are some tweaks that can be made, given the low-price environment, to improve it. We urge Congress to ensure that a mechanism is in place to maintain an appropriate benchmark revenue guarantee to help farmers through these difficult times. Included in my written statement are several options for both price and yield components of the ARC formula. We believe one of the tweaks is utilizing a reference price in the ARC formula that remains consistent with whatever the final PLC reference price, in order to set a floor for the benchmark guarantee. We also recommend prioritizing RMA yield data, where available. With regards to PLC, the current reference price for wheat of $5.50 per bushel is far below what it costs to produce the crop. We urge you to increase the wheat reference price so it more closely reflects the modern cost of producing the crop. It should be set at a level that is closer to $7.00 a bushel to try to truly enable PLC to function as a safety net for farmers when times are tough, like they are today. We think loan rates for Marketing Assistance Loans and LDPs should be increased as well. Ultimately, the next farm bill should maintain a choice between ARC and PLC so farmers can use the program that best fits their needs. The federal crop insurance program has been, and continues to be, farmers' most important risk management tool. A farmer might go many years paying premiums for a policy and rarely get an indemnity, and they would much rather get a return from the market than become eligible for an indemnity. Crop insurance is critically important to enable a producer to farm another year when events outside of their control impact them. The federal crop insurance program has also performed incredibly well, with an improper payment rate of just 2.2 percent, which is about half of the government-wide average of 4.39 percent. We also believe we need to continue a voluntary, incentive- based conservation program in the next farm bill. Our farmers have prioritized working lands conservation programs in our policies. We believe these policies should work with farmers to integrate conservation practices and techniques into the farming operations and should recognize the different needs in different parts of the country for different crop rotations. Wheat farmers across the nation are experiencing the toughest economic conditions they have faced since the 1980s. This next farm bill will be critically important to farmers. The political and policy dynamics facing Congress this year are much different than the process to write the last farm bill. A strong safety net and risk management system is needed now more than ever. Each year farmers face unpredictable risks when they plant crops in the ground and they rely on an effective risk management system and safety net to offset the inevitable weather disaster or price drop. Crop insurance and Title 1 programs have proven to be effective and good policy in general. With that I will happily answer any questions. [The prepared statement of Mr. Schemm can be found on page 194 in the appendix.] Chairman Roberts. David, right on time. Mr. McMichen, please, sir. STATEMENT OF NICK McMICHEN, OWNER/OPERATOR, McMICHEN FARMS, CENTRE, ALABAMA Mr. McMichen. Good morning, Chairman Roberts, Ranking Member Stabenow, and members of the Committee. My family and I operate a fifth-generation farm in Centre, Alabama, and we are partners in a cotton gin. Our crop mix consists of cotton, corn, peanuts, soybeans, and wheat. The passage of the current farm bill coincided with significant changes in the global cotton market. Shortly after the bill was approved, cotton prices began a significant decline, the result of a build-up of global cotton stocks, decreased demand, and reduced exports. I highlight these issues because of the strong influence of international markets and man-made fiber on the financial conditions of U.S. cotton farmers. In 2015, this led to the lowest U.S. cotton acreage in more than 30 years. Since 2014, market returns from cotton and cotton seed have fallen short of the total cost of production, and based on current market conditions, financial pressures will continue through 2018. Cotton is the only program crop that does not have long- term price protection in the farm bill. This situation is a result of policy changes forced by the WTO trade challenge by Brazil. As a result, Congress provided the STAX insurance policy for cotton. Unfortunately, given the changes in market conditions, STAX has proven inadequate. Our industry will continue to pursue the best policy to provide growers with adequate protection that is consistent with the needs of our industry, while taking into account the full value of the cotton crop from both fiber and seed. We are continuing our policy development work with the goal of providing agricultural committees with policy recommendations by early fall. Our industry can attest an effective safety net for producers must consist of two key components: a commodity policy that provides price or revenue protection to address prolonged periods of low prices, and a suite of crop insurance products producers can tailor to their risk management needs to address yield and price volatility within the growing season. Crop insurance remains a critical component of the overall safety net for cotton. Nearly all cotton acres are covered by some level of individual crop insurance. Our industry relies heavily on a properly functioning marketing loan program that helps ensure orderly marketing and the flow of cotton to the market. Maintaining the marketing loan policy, with some minor adjustments, is a priority. We are strongly opposed to any further tightening of payment limits and eligibility requirements. These policies are already too restrictive, given the scale of farming necessary to be competitive. The current definition of ``family member'' that is used for actively engaged should be broadened to ensure extended family members are not forced out of the farm simply because they do not fit the overly restrictive definition. The recent years of stability in the textile industry can be attributed to the benefits of the Economic Adjustment Assistance program. The program supports a manufacturing base that creates jobs in the U.S. We strongly support the continuation of this program. U.S. cotton is also heavily reliant on exports so it is essential to have well-funded programs to help leverage private sector resources to expand export markets and grow demand. A central part of this effort is the USDA MAP and FMD programs. In summary, for the past three years cotton producers have struggled with low prices, high production costs, and the resulting financial hardships. While cotton futures increased for a brief period earlier this year, markets have now retreated, meaning most cotton producers continue to face economic pressures and declining credit conditions. It is imperative that the next farm bill include cotton in the Title 1 programs to access the same complement of risk management tools as other crops. The National Cotton Council looks forward to working with the Committee and other agricultural organizations to pass a new farm bill that effectively addresses the needs of all commodities and all producers. Thank you, and I would be pleased to answer any questions you might have. [The prepared statement of Mr. McMichen can be found on page 141 in the appendix.] Chairman Roberts. Thank you, Nick. Mrs. James, please. STATEMENT JENNIFER JAMES, OWNER/OPERATOR, H&J LAND COMPANY, NEWPORT, ARKANSAS Mrs. James. Chairman Roberts, Ranking Member Stabenow, and members of the Committee, thank you for holding this important hearing. My name is Jennifer James. I am a fourth-generation rice farmer from Arkansas, and I am honored to offer this testimony on behalf of the USA Rice Federation. Rice is grown on three to four million acres across eight states. Arkansas counts for half of the annual production. The industry provides jobs and income for more than 128,000 people, so while a small commodity by acreage, we pack a punch, contributing $34 billion annually to the economy. Rice farms are economic drivers, generating, on average, $1 million per farm each year in our local economies. Unfortunately, rice growers have been forced to operate at or below their cost of production for the last three years. For young farmers, there has been little opportunity to build equity. The USDA's most recent price forecast for 2017 shows a 36 percent decline since the 2014 Farm Bill passed. U.S. rice farmers rely heavily on exports, with 50 percent of our production being sold to over 120 countries around the world. We account for 8 percent of global rice trade. This creates a volatile market which is compounded by the fact that the U.S. is the highest-cost producer globally. Many of our competitors are from developing countries with governments that heavily subsidize rice production, in many cases at levels well beyond their WTO commitments. The 2018 crop year is forecast to have some of the highest rice production costs on record, nearly $1,000 per acre. Because of specialized infrastructure, field equipment, soil types, and weather needed for rice, our operating costs exceed every other crop covered by the commodity title. Due to these factors, rice farming is a long-term commitment. We intend to ride out the storm but we could not do so without the safety net that the Price Loss Coverage program provides. One of the reasons I am still in business, along with the majority of rice farming families, is because of the 2014 Farm Bill's safety net, specifically PLC. Ninety-nine percent of long-grain rice farms and 94 percent of medium-grain farms selected PLC, and it has provided critical counter-cyclical assistance. While PLC has generally worked well, we believe it needs to be updated to reflect rising production costs and inflation. In my written testimony, I have laid out preliminary recommendations to make Title 1 assistance more effective for rice farmers, like moving up the timing of payments. We look forward to working with this Committee on these important details. The current actively engaged rules are problematic. The strict definitions impact farms not solely comprised of lineal family members and impose an arbitrary cap of three managers per operation. USDA's final rule also does not protect entities from maintaining family farm status following the death of a lineal family member. I urge this Committee to provide an exemption to protect farm families against unforeseen linkage breaks in operating structure, and while also protecting independent farm enterprises. USA Rice also supports the repeal of AGI tests. The farm bill should not punish growers for farming larger tracts or being profitable by disqualifying their operations from farm safety net programs. Finally, a $125,000 payment limit seemed like a far-fetched problem when prices were high in 2013-2014. Unfortunately, many rice farmers are hitting that pay limit today. It seems counter-intuitive to maintain policy that provides full assistance to producers when they experience some losses, but only partial assistance to those that are hit the hardest. If farm policy is meant to stand by the farmer when needed most, this problem should be addressed. My written statement contains some facts relative to crop insurance. In short, we need to make it work better for rice. I am also personally very committed to the conservation programs that do, in fact, mitigate risk for many rice farmers while providing benefits for our water, soil, and wildlife. There is so much more I could say but let me end with this. Farm families take an incredible risk each year in the face of often-distorted global markets, unpredictable weather, disease, and any other number of factors. We do this because we love it, and because a hungry world needs our product. But there are times when we need your help. I am here to ask that this Committee not only maintain our commodity title programs but also strengthen them, using our recommendation. USA Rice stands ready to work with you in your efforts to reauthorize this important legislation, and I look forward to your questions. [The prepared statement of Mrs. James can be found on page 110 in the appendix.] Chairman Roberts. Thank you, Mrs. James. We have 17 witnesses to provide testimony. I want to thank this panel very much. All of you mentioned crop insurance. I have a particular and keen interest in that program. We have all heard about the hail, the droughts, the floods, other risks that you have to face. Are there particular risks--and this is for the entire panel--are there particular risks that are not currently addressed under this program, and if you could, what improvements should we consider in the crop insurance title in the farm bill? We will start with Mr. Rohwer. Mr. Rohwer. For corn, I would say that the crop insurance program is situated well. The largest concern is that we not fix something that is not broken. Chairman Roberts. Thank you with that, Mr. Rohwer. Mr. Scott. Mr. Scott. For soybeans, also, the program fits fairly well on the crop insurance side. There are some specific areas that the program does not work as well, and so producers oftentimes will--sometimes choose not to participate in the program, based on it just does not fit their situation, and some of those things can be discussed later but they are kind of particular to certain regions of the country that the crop insurance is not quite as equitable as it could be in those areas. Chairman Roberts. In those areas, do those producers have any trouble getting a loan from their lender, since they do not have crop insurance? Mr. Scott. Well, I would say that some of the acres are insured and some are not. The farmer that I am particularly aware of---- Chairman Roberts. So there is one. Mr. Scott. Well, he is on our board and so we visit quite a little, and he just said that for a certain part of his acres the crop insurance does not work. It has to do with flood plain and other things that I do not deal with in South Dakota, and so I am not as familiar. Chairman Roberts. So it is a regulatory problem. Mr. Scott. Yes. Chairman Roberts. Okay. Mr. Scott. I would get back to you on some of the specifics of that later, if you want more information. Chairman Roberts. Okay. Thank you. David? Mr. Schemm. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you have mentioned, and I have heard repeatedly, crop insurance is a number one priority for our producers, in order for them to be able to farm the next year. It has functioned well. The one area that we are discovering where we believe there could be room for improvement is in regards to quality, in particular when we get into our northern states when they have a quality issue called falling numbers affect them on their crop insurance side of it, where producers are actually losing value to their crop from a quality standpoint, but RMA is actually utilizing that against their yield component. So there are tweaks that need to be made in that area, when it comes to the quality side of it, but overall the program is functioning well, and throughout the country I hear from our producers that it is vitally important that we protect it and maintain it where it is at. Chairman Roberts. Thank you, David. Nick? Mr. McMichen. Thank you, Chairman Roberts. Crop insurance in the cotton industry is a vital tool in our toolbox, and although everyone chooses to use crop insurance in some form or another it is much more of a regional product. From California to Virginia, the needs of cotton producers are much different than they are, say, in the high plains of Texas than they are to my friends in the Carolinas and Virginia that have suffered from quality losses. Although we need crop insurance, it identifies a much broader need of needing cotton back in Title 1. As that being in the toolbox crop insurance is for year-to-year losses in yield and revenue, and that would work and coincide with cotton being back in Title 1, I think would best improve our needs. Chairman Roberts. Mrs. James? Mrs. James. Thank you, Chairman Roberts. Thank you. For rice, as I mentioned, crop insurance does not work quite as well as the other crops. Because of our controlled environment, our yields are normally fairly stable, although we can have disasters from weather and disease at times. So we need to protect against revenue. The Chicago Board of Trade, for rough rice futures, is very thinly traded, and actually, in 2015, there were not even enough trades to even set the expected price in the spring, so we did not have a revenue policy that year. It is actually not as affordable for rice, and so we need to work on trying to make coverage more affordable for rice as well. Chairman Roberts. Real quickly, everybody has mentioned regulatory reform in one sense or another, and I can remember someone from Sharon Springs telling me--it was not you, David, but it was somebody a little senior to you--who talked to me some time ago, said, ``Pat, I have just about given up. I feel ruled, not governed,'' and, unfortunately, that has been a feeling in farm country for some time. If you had any regulation that has been bothering you, which one would you recommend that we take on? Let us go down the panel again. Mr. Rohwer? Mr. Rohwer. Specific regulation? I would guess that the---- Chairman Roberts. I know you want to use your shotgun, but use a rifle right now. Mr. Rohwer. Yes, sir. I would guess that it would have to do with the increased data that has to be done in the risk protection, or crop protection registration process. That extra that is being required to get these in is problematic because we need new crop protection approved by EPA. Chairman Roberts. Mr. Scott? Mr. Scott. Well, in South Dakota and North Dakota, we live in kind of the prairie pothole region, which is a code word for wetlands, basically, and we have incredible wetland determination problems in our area because of the backlog that has been created there. Farmers would like to drain and farm areas that they have that may be wet in the spring and dry out in mid summer, and become not a wetland anymore. It is just a spot in the field that has weeds. We would like to be able to drain those things. Our NRCS regulations are pretty interesting and not very compliant with other states. We have issues where our regulations seem to differ, and they it would be nice if they were all--you knew what you were getting into when you wanted a wetlands determination. But in South Dakota we have an issue there that we are not always sure that those things get done the way they should be done. Chairman Roberts. Okay. Move quickly, people. Mr. Schemm, please. David. Mr. Schemm. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, you have been to Sharon Springs and you know that we do not have a lot of navigable waters out our way, and so that is obviously a big concern that I have heard many times from our farmers out there. But it also, as Mr. Rohwer mentioned as well, is pesticide regulations, access to effective chemicals and crop protection products that have them very concerned as well. Chairman Roberts. So you are talking about WOTUS. I think the President has something to say about that. Mr. McMichen? Mr. McMichen. Thank you, Chairman Roberts. The Waters of the U.S. rule is a major concern to cotton farmers as well as Endangered Species Act, and having to consult with U.S. Fish and Wildlife as far as bringing products to the producer. The task that is coming forth, the consultation is far too cumbersome and takes too long to get products back to the farmers. So we would like to see that streamlined and think that process could be improved much upon, as well as repealing the Waters of the U.S. rule. Chairman Roberts. Thank you, sir. Mrs. James. Mrs. James. Conservation programs are extremely important to the rice industry and the registration for the SAMs and DUNS number to be eligible for those programs is extremely complex and cumbersome, so exempting us from those registrations would be quite helpful. Chairman Roberts. Thank you for that. Senator Gillibrand. Senator Gillibrand. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Would this be the appropriate time to introduce my witness for the third panel, or should I submit it for the record? Chairman Roberts. Well, you could hopefully come back to introduce that person or I could introduce that person on your behalf, or you could submit it for the record now. Senator Gillibrand. That would be fine. Then I would submit my introduction for Lindsey Shute, who will be on the third panel. Chairman Roberts. Without objection. Senator Gillibrand. Thank you. [The following information can be found on page 72 in the appendix.] Senator Gillibrand. Thank you. For this panel I do have some questions. On crop insurance, for Mr. Rohwer, on the end, in 2015, the corn growers in 51 of the 55 New York counties for corn that received an ARC payment. Given the extraordinary drought in western New York in 2016, and projected prices it is likely that many farmers will again receive payments, even as the average reference price slips. However, I suspect that a few counties will be left out because of how yields are calculated. I know that you have concerns about the data USDA has used in some counties to calculate yields. Can you expand on how the quality of this data could be improved and made more consistent? Mr. Rohwer. The corn growers feel that we could move to RMA data for better coverage throughout the country as a whole, and we are very supportive of Senator Hoeven's amendment to the Senate Ag Appropriations bill that would require, on a pilot basis, that state FSA offices and committees be able to determine ARC payments in counties that do not have a NASS published yield. But it is most important that whatever system is used within a county be the system that is used throughout the entire period of the program, we are not switching back between one year NASS, one year RMA. That is apples to orange. Senator Gillibrand. Right. Has the reluctance of some growers to participate in NASS surveys affected ARC payments in Iowa? Mr. Rohwer. Iowa has pretty good coverage of NASS surveys. There are areas where it comes close to not making the statistical minimum number of responses, but for the most part Iowa is pretty well covered with the NASS survey. Senator Gillibrand. Thank you. For other witnesses, several of you have cautioned the Committee against changing how USDA determines whether an individual is actively engaged in agriculture and therefore eligible for payments. The current definition seems fairly expansive. Did any of your farming operations have a major change in structure or the number of actively engaged individuals after the passage of the 2014 Farm Bill, or in 2016, with the change in who is eligible to be a farm manager? Anybody who has an answer. Mrs. James? Mrs. James. I did not have that instance actually occur but a concern of mine in my operation--I farm with my father and my husband--and my son, he is only 16, but he would like to--he dreams of coming back to the farm one day. So for the actively engaged rule, if I, myself, were to pass away, the direct lineage from grandfather to grandson has been broken and that could change the payment limits in the actively engaged rule for our family farm. Senator Gillibrand. So do you think that needs a legislative fix? Mrs. James. I think it definitely needs to be broadened. Senator Gillibrand. Yes. Without a doubt. Mr. McMichen. Senator Gillibrand, I would echo Mrs. James' statements. I have a daughter and a future son-in-law that are involved in the farm and I have a son that plans to come back to the farm also, and in the future, should one of those decide to step away and they had children in that operation, a first cousin would be ineligible to do that. So he would not be of lineal descent and that is something that needs to be addressed because they are family, as first cousins, so that needs to be addressed, I think, legislatively, because, frankly, that is incorrect and we think that should be looked at. Senator Gillibrand. Anyone else? [No audible response.] Senator Gillibrand. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Roberts. I thank the Senator. Senator Ernst. Senator Ernst. It is Senator Grassley. Chairman Roberts. Oh, it is Senator Grassley. I am sorry. Senator Grassley. Mr. Rohwer, I have one question for you but before that I think I ought to thank the Chairman for having this hearing, particularly on these most important parts of the farm bill, the safety net for farmers, because I hope it means that we are speeding along to get a bill brought up so we get one passed before we get into the new year. In your testimony, you discussed the ARC-County program and mentioned that the corn growers is reviewing a few ways to improve the program without undermining its market orientation. I would like to have you expand on your point that it is important to have market-oriented farm programs, and I would guess that your statement comes a little bit because it is connected to our trade policies, and to make sure that we are not doing something that violates our ability to trade. Mr. Rohwer. Thank you, Senator. We, as NCGA, have had our voting delegate body reaffirm that the preference in government program be revenue-based, that it is market oriented so that, whenever possible, the market is what is rewarding farmers and not the government. We feel that this is important to have it decoupled, as it has been, and that we are able to avoid complications that could arise from a program that might be crossways of WTO rules. This is where we feel that the current program is fitting well. Senator Grassley. Yes. Well, I happen to agree with you because I think markets provide clarity for when to plant more or less of a particular crop, before more market-oriented-- being more market oriented is also critical from this trade perspective that I referred to. We do not want another WTO cotton case that ends up with the taxpayers giving Brazil nearly $1 billion so that we can keep subsidies flowing to our cotton farmers instead of making changes. Mr. Chairman, I am going to take the rest of my time, and I do not think I will go into the 2 minutes and 35 seconds. You went over your time but I would like to finish a statement on another issue. I would like to address some comments that I have seen about payment limits and eligibility for farm programs. First, to groups that are complaining about the definition of family members related to program eligibility, I agree. That was wrong to include, at the last minute of the farm bill conference. My original payment limit language was far superior and much simpler. In fact, this family member gobbledygook was include solely as an end around my payment limit amendment, which was passed with bipartisan support on the floors of both bodies of the Congress in exactly the same form, and should not have been touched by conferees. The organizations who are now complaining were part of the effort to thwart my common-sense bipartisan payment limit reforms. For those who do not remember my payment limit amendment from the last farm bill, it was actually really quite simple. Everyone who really farms maintains eligibility, and an operation had the potential to name one additional manager. Admittedly, a few people who do not farm yet were listed as managers, for the sole purpose of getting subsidies, would have been kicked off the farm program, like that was a--but that was a very intent of my amendment, which I am sure everybody understands. Perhaps the most important thing that I can do is explain why this issue is so important. Giving non-farmers subsidies is completely indefensible, especially when we have a $20 trillion debt. If bigger farmers are as efficient as they claim, they should not need unlimited subsidies to make their business model work. All they are doing is shifting risks to the taxpayers. The true impact of unlimited subsidies to the largest farmers is that it keeps young farmers out. Mr. Schemm stated, in his testimony, that the average age of U.S. farmers is 58. That is not surprising considering the only ways to really get into farming is to be born or marry into a farming operation. Our rural communities have consolidated enough, when the largest farmers continue to take land that reduces the customer base in rural towns for restaurants and stores and small businesses, generally, and decreases the number of children in schools. So, Mr. Chairman, for the life of me I do not understand how $125,000 a year, which is usually $250,000 if the farmer is married, and double those limits again, if they grow peanuts, is not enough to get farmers through a year. I do not envy the budget challenges that Chairman Roberts faces with the farm bill one bit, but why do we leave loopholes in place that open us up for ridicule? What is the harm of supporting a policy that helps young and beginning farmers give us credibility against our critics and save our money for the taxpayers? So, Mr. Chairman, I am just trying to help you get by a very tight budget situation as we try to help those farmers that really are on the land, doing the work, and managing from the standpoint of participating. I yield the floor. Chairman Roberts. Well, thank you, Senator, for that very strong message. You are only over time by 1 minute and 45 seconds. [Laughter.] Senator Grassley. I reserve the rest of the 1 minute and 15 seconds. Chairman Roberts. I see. Well, I was about at that time so I think it is a fair shot. Message received. Senator Boozman. Senator Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mrs. James, last week I was encouraged that we might finally be able to export rice to China with the completion of the phytosanitary agreement. As the world's largest consumer of rice, that represents a tremendous market and certainly we have to open new markets for all of our commodities as we go forward. That truly is key. We are working hard to try and open the market with Cuba. They import 80 percent of their food and so that would, again, be a tremendous market for all of us. We operate on an international market. However, many actions by foreign governments distort world markets, as we have talked about, and again, this is a clear example of why we need to have a safety net for our farmers at home. Could you describe, in more detail, how Title 1 programs have helped your farm as well as the local economy and surrounding rural communities during this challenging economic time for farming? Could you also describe the importance in Title 1 programs of managing the risk from multi-year sustained low prices? Mrs. James. Yes. Thank you, Senator, and I look forward to hopefully exporting some rice to China as well. The Title 1 programs for rice have been lifesavers, actually, business savers. They have kept us in business, specifically the PLC program. Our main risk in rice production is price volatility, and so this has helped us tremendously. We are entirely irrigated and our yields do not fluctuate as much, but just like you said, we are at the mercy of the marketplace. I do not have many of the same risks as other row crops, or especially dry land crops, so irrigation is my insurance policy most years. PLC provides protection in multi-year price declines and it is not a complex program, and I do have a floor which is steady from year to year. Agriculture is very important to my community as well as other ag communities across this country. It is the driver of all the economics, and we can certainly see a difference in my community when agriculture is down and when it is up. So it hurts our schools, it hurts our hospitals, it hurts many other areas in our local economies when we have bad ag years. Senator Boozman. Very good. I hear a lot of concerns from producers about how further ratcheting down payment limitations could impact family farmers. Can you briefly describe what would happen to your family's farm if a payment limit of $50,000 was adopted in this farm bill? Mrs. James. If a payment limit of $50,000 were to be adopted it would most likely put my family farm out of business, and many others like mine. Just to give you a little example, $50,000 in the current price situation would cover around 250 acres of rice. With the cost of the tillage equipment, the planting equipment, a combine, a grain cart, semi trucks to haul that rice to market, it would not be economically feasible to plant 250 acres of rice. So that payment limit just is not economically feasible. Senator Boozman. Very good. I want to ask the panel, and quickly because we are running out of time and I do not want the Chairman getting on to me, about farm credit. Can you start, and perhaps talk a little bit about how the Title 1 programs and crop insurance, when you go to your banker to secure a loan, how important they are. Then, also, if we are having trouble with credit otherwise. Mr. Rohwer. The crop insurance program, specifically, is very important for securing loans, especially with young farmers as well as established farmers. You need to have access to credit, and this--by having a good, solid risk protection program like federal crop insurance, it ensures the banker that he will be able to have the loan serviced, so it is crucial. Senator Boozman. In your experience, do the bankers understand the farm programs? Do they understand the safety nets that are out there? Is credit more difficult to obtain? Mr. Rohwer. I use a small-town family banker and he is also a farmer, so he understands. Mr. Scott. If our bankers do not understand it, then you better make sure they do, because if they have questions then it is not a very good lending situation, and the crop insurance does give them some security. We have such huge input costs in farming right now that if you do not have some backing on that, then the credit is pretty difficult to obtain. Senator Boozman. Okay. Anybody else? Mr. Schemm. Thank you, Senator. Bankers understand crop insurance and it is a vital component that they are utilizing there. I think the challenge on the ARC side is an inconsistency in payments across counties, and so sometimes it becomes difficult for them to factor that in and then the delayed payments make it difficult, especially, again, for those beginning young farmers trying to establish credit. Senator Boozman. Very good. Mr. McMichen. Thank you, Senator Boozman. Crop insurance is a critical tool for us and with our bankers, in the cotton industry, we are under a very serious credit crunch, and with cotton not being a Title 1 commodity, bankers understand that but are reluctant to give loans out because there is no safety net. Crop insurance is just a tool for a temporary thing. So that further exemplifies the need for cotton to be in Title 1, because credit for cotton farmers is getting to be harder and harder to get, and for a young person, with the cost of a new John Deere harvester at $750,000, and he must farm 2,000 acres of cotton to justify one, it is virtually impossible to get that credit. So we need cotton back in Title 1 and we need that to help our credit also. Senator Boozman. Okay. Mrs. James? Mrs. James. I would say that the crop insurance for rice essentially is--it does not work quite as well, so bankers do understand about the PLC program and Title 1, how important it is for rice lending. Senator Boozman. Good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Roberts. Senator Ernst. Senator Ernst. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and this has been a great conversation today, and I want to go back. One of my questions did deal with ARC and the payment discrepancies between counties. I think a number of you have already touched upon that. I am glad to hear that. That is something that we can work on in the next farm bill, so I appreciate that. But through the discussion we have also touched upon some other things that are really important, all building off of crop insurance. We have talked about loans. We have talked about young farmers and how they can engage in farming activities. We have also talked about trade. Bruce, I am going to go back to you and let us talk a little bit about where we are as a country in leading the world. In your testimony you touched on the incredible yields that we have been able to experience through improvements made by corn farmers here in the United States, because those farmers are embracing technology and conservation practices. Our production capabilities really are the envy of the world. I hear that from a number of different organizations in other countries. We enjoy low food prices as a result of that, a definite benefit for us. But what, in your opinion, are the things that the Federal Government should be doing or should not be doing to ensure that we are maintaining our leadership role in agriculture? Mr. Rohwer. We need to keep our agriculture community strong and to do that we are going to need to figure out how to increase demand for our products. We have a three-legged stool of demand for corn, between livestock, exports, and the ethanol industry, and we need to make sure that demand is ever- increasing. The exports are the one area that has the most room to increase, and so it is absolutely crucial that we have a good trade climate worldwide so that we can find a home for this great bounty that we are able to produce. Senator Ernst. Thank you. I agree wholeheartedly, and we have to work on that export situation, and I am glad that we have Secretary Perdue pushing that as an initiative as well. I would like to touch a little bit upon our young farmers as well. Several of you have mentioned that you are engaged in farming with other family members, you are getting your children involved in that discussion as well. So from the entire panel, just very briefly, I would like to know, what were the biggest challenges that you faced when you entered into farming, and what challenges do you think our young farmers are facing now, as you are trying to bring them into the farming operation as well? We hear this from constituents all across the state of Iowa about how challenging it is, but maybe the differences between when you engaged in farming and maybe what you might see your children facing. Mr. Rohwer, if we could start with you, Bruce. Mr. Rohwer. I started in the late '70s, so I was ahead of the farm crisis of the '80s, so those were the challenges I faced as I started, and I hope that my children will not face the similar economic downturn that we faced back at that time. I think that is the quickest way to put it. Senator Ernst. Great. Thank you. Mr. Scott. I started in the '80s, and did not have anything and did not know any better, and that was a good place to start. Our kids nowadays, the hard part of that is we currently have had pretty good farm economy in the past few years and so our equipment and things are beautiful and wonderful, and we have got our infrastructure in pretty good shape. I am afraid that my son will not really know what hardship is, and this downturn has not all been bad. We could do pretty much what we wanted to in the past, for infrastructure and things, and not being able to do that is not a bad thing for the young people. So having them to go through that, I think, will improve their ability to perform in the future. Senator Ernst. Right. Very good. Thank you. Mr. Schemm. Thank you, Senator. I returned to the farm in the early '90s, and after having spent three months trying to purchase a small piece of land back then, trying to utilize USDA and beginning farmer loans, my banker threw his hands up in the air and said, ``I will just loan you the money for it because I know you and I know your family.'' So I hope, as my son here plans on returning to the farm after he graduates out of college, that he can have easier access to the programs, without having situations like that occur to him in the future. Senator Ernst. I hear that frequently. Thank you. Mr. McMichen. Thank you, Senator Ernst. When I started farming in the early 1990s, we are a fifth-generation farm growing cotton, at the time we had a vibrant cotton industry as well as a domestic textile industry. In return, that has reversed, and now we export 75 percent of our raw cotton to foreign countries. As we look forward to moving our farm forward with the sixth generation, and possibly forward after that, without an effective safety net for cotton our future is uncertain. Cotton is what has paid for our farms. It is what has done everything for us. We are the best, we the most efficient farmers in the world at what we do, and U.S. cotton is the envy of the rest of the world. We look forward to working with Congress and everyone else to make sure that we have excellent trade for our cotton and that we can expand markets and that we have a place for our cotton to go, and hope that our farm can continue. It started in 1842, and we could continue well on into the next century. Senator Ernst. Yes. Congratulations. Thank you. Mrs. James. I came back to the farm in the mid '90s, and actually walked our rice fields and did a lot of the agronomy at that time. So I think, moving forward to the financial area was much more difficult to conquer. So I think as my son enters into the operation, new farmers--the agronomy will come easy. We are great at producing food in this country, and actually, that may actually be the easy part. I think understanding the financial, the governmental, the crop insurance, the regulatory areas of farming in the future are going to be very important to new farmers. Senator Ernst. Yes. Great. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Chairman Roberts. Senator Heitkamp. Senator Heitkamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. All incredibly important and optimistic. I always tell people the single most important job for a North Dakota Senator is a farm bill that works as an effective safety net, but also helping to build other kinds of tools, like trade, like increased economic opportunity, like value-added, what can we do to actually produce fiber from the cotton that you grow. We look at all this, and the other side of the coin, beyond a safety net, is a good market. I just would like your reaction to some of the concerns, or no concerns that you have, in terms of U.S. trade policy and how we can move forward to advanced increased market, and maybe if you want to add a discussion about value-added agriculture and where the opportunities are in value-added agriculture that we are missing today. So we will start with the corn growers. Mr. Rohwer. Thank you, Senator. I think that as we see the continued improvements in our ability to grow crops, and have such prolific plants, that do so well under weather adversity the need for free trade agreements and the ability to sell, whether it is the corn, the livestock as meat, or the ethanol or DDGs as value-added, all of these things are why we have to find more and more markets, because we have the ability to produce so much more. Mr. Scott. Thank you, Senator. For soybean crop we export 60 percent of what we grow from the United States, and in South Dakota and North Dakota it is probably a much higher percent than that. As far as value-added, we would love to put it on a hoof and expert it that way. So continuing expanding our livestock industries in our states is critical. Also, the FMD and MAP funding, we have had, in the U.S., a pretty stagnant funding of that. It has been the same for many years. It is a very effective program, a high rate of return, and soybeans would love to have that expanded and utilized. Senator Heitkamp. Thank you. Mr. Schemm. Thank you, Senator. Yes, trade is vitally important to wheat. Fifty percent of our crop is exported every year nationwide. I think there are two components here. One is enforcement of trade agreements we have now. We have some countries out there now subsidizing their wheat farmers to the point of almost $10 per bushel. So we need to enforce those trade agreements that we do have. The other component of that, though, is we do need those trade agreements out there, and so that is vitally important. With those trade agreements coming out there, as Mr. Scott mentioned, we do need MAP and FMD funding increased. The return is around 35-to-1 on our dollars, and according to a recent Informa Economics study it has increased net farm income by almost 15 percent in being able to have that MAP and FMD funding out there to help establish those trade agreements and those relationships with those other countries. Senator Heitkamp. Thank you. Mr. McMichen? Mr. McMichen. Thank you, Senator. I would echo the statements of Mr. Schemm and Mr. Scott. The MAP and FMD funding is critical, and as cotton, as I stated earlier, about 75 percent of our cotton, raw cotton, is exported and another 15 to 20 percent is exported that is cotton textile products. The main export markets are China, Vietnam, Mexico, Turkey, and Indonesia, and we also would like to explore other options, as well as opening up the U.S. and China trade dialog to get additional U.S. cotton exported over there. We are also focused on working with Congress and the administration to ensure that NAFTA renegotiation does not harm the existing market for U.S. cotton and cotton textile products. So we look forward to working with all of you on that. Senator Heitkamp. Thank you. Mrs. James. First of all, I would like to thank you for your work on Senate Bill 275 with Senator Boozman in helping to open up some rice in Cuba, so we appreciate your work on that. Fifty percent of the rice crop is also exported, although we are only 8 percent of global trade. So we are privy to world market prices, and like some of the other panelists said, high subsidies in other countries. We have to compete against them. Also the FMD and MAP funds are very important to the rice industry as well. Senator Heitkamp. I think when we look at this, we look at component pieces of the farm bill and the safety net, but the best safety net is a free enterprise system where we can sell our products, and no one is more sophisticated in any industry on trade than agriculture, and we really appreciate all your support. Let us continue the dialog and let us make sure farmers are not left behind as we renegotiate and as we look at trade agreements. Chairman Roberts. Thank you, Senator. Senator Hoeven. Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to all of our witnesses for being here. Starting with you, Mr. Rohwer, talk to me about the importance of the FSA loan program, but also the guarantee limit and the direct loan limit and the funding level. What do we need to do? Mr. Rohwer. The FSA program is one of the loan programs, one of the best ways for farmers to facilitate their working capital. It is--the competitive interest rates there for young farmers is very, very helpful for them to be getting established, and these programs need to be continued and their funding fully supported, and be increased, if at all possible. Senator Hoeven. Right. So I have got legislation, on a bipartisan basis, that would increase the loan limit to about $2.5 million--excuse me--the guarantee, the FSA guarantee to about $2.5 million, and the direct loan to about $600,000. So, specifically, I want comment on that because I am trying to pass that legislation--unless you are not particularly enthusiastic, then if you want to pass that is fine. Mr. Rohwer. We need to make sure that the loan limits are high enough to be able to cover these infrastructure costs, because the costs of grain bins and related facilities like that are expensive, and it takes money. Senator Hoeven. Absolutely. I mean, look at the price of a tractor or a combine or any kind of tillage equipment, the price of land, your cost of inputs, right? I mean, is it not just common sense that we have got to increase both the guarantee limit and the loan limit, and actually the underlying funding amount, particularly as our farmers go through this challenging time with drought and with low prices. Mr. Rohwer. Farming has always been capital intensive, and as prices inflate on everything it only becomes more so. Senator Hoeven. Okay. Let us go right down the line, and I would love to have you express your enthusiasm, but if someone has a concern I want to hear that too. Mr. Scott. Increasing the amounts, of course, is just a reflection of what we are dealing with today, in today's markets. It is not impossible, or even improbable, that $1 million would be borrowed just for operating capital before you harvest the crop, and so a $600,000 operating note is very little for most family farms. Two-and-a-half million dollars, if you are going towards buying real estate, yeah, that is right in there. You can buy some real estate, and depending on where you live, of course, but in certain areas that does not last very long either. Senator Hoeven. Right. Mr. Schemm. So I am enthusiastic. Senator Hoeven. Good. Mr. Schemm. Yes, Senator. I would echo previous comments that with the additional costs, input costs that we deal with now, it is vitally important. It is unique, kind of, in my area, in the aspect that I grow both winter wheat as well as summer crops too, and so by utilizing those FSA loans what it allows me to do is not be forced into selling that wheat crop during the summer at a historically low period of time during harvest time, but to delay that to market that grain at a better time, so that I can help to pay input costs in my summer crops there. So because of the timing of different harvests in my area, the loan programs are vitally important. Senator Hoeven. That is--I mean, we are seeing that right now, for a farmer who was able to carry over some grain, and not sell it when prices were real low over the last year. But now with drought and so forth, you are seeing some of these prices improve, right, and a lot of them are not going to have a crop in our area this year. They would have that crop now to sell and get some money and maybe a little bit better price. So, I mean, you make a very important point there. Mr. Schemm. It has been very key in our area, particularly for the hard red winter wheat in quality, because quality is in demand this year. However, elevators are not willing to pay for that quality at harvest time. So it allows those producers to store that crop, to capture anywhere from a 20 cent to almost a dollar premium per bushel, so they are critically important to our producers. Senator Hoeven. Exactly. Mr. McMichen. Thank you, Senator. The cotton industry is heavily dependent on the loan also, because we are an export market most of the way there, so the marketing loan allows us to have our cotton and we can search for those markets to get the full benefit of our crops. As far as the loans that we do for beginning farmers, they are very important. I started out with a guaranteed loan from Farmers Home Administration, and I am a product of that, and it is very important. But the expanded limits, I think, are very important. Cotton is a unique crop because it requires specialized harvest equipment, and a new John Deere harvester is $750,000. So as a farmer begins, he has to have 2,000 acres of crop to justify that cotton picker, and at $750,000, you can tie up a lot of capital in a hurry. So the loans are very, very important to the cotton industry, and we appreciate that, and we push for expanded limits on that, and for a modified loan program for the cotton industry. Senator Hoeven. What is an average-sized farm for farmers that raise cotton? I am not as familiar with cotton since it is so incredible. What would be an average-sized farm down there? Mr. McMichen. In the last five years, cotton farms have consolidated a good bit, and a lot of it is due to the harvesting equipment. They no longer make basket pickers, which were less expensive. So now if you justify a new cotton picker, which rolls round rolls of cotton, they are about $750,000. So it would be in excess of 1,000, probably more like 1,500 to 2,000, and, in the process, a lot of farms can only justify growing so much cotton on their farms because of the expense of harvesting equipment. So if you make the jump from 2,000 acres to 3,000 to 4,000, you have got that added cost to think in there. So it is a very expensive cost and it is something that you only use two months out of the year, so it really ties up a lot of our capital. Senator Hoeven. Right. Mrs. James? Mrs. James. I do not personally use the FSA loans but USA Rice is certainly behind your legislation and supports it. Senator Hoeven. Thank you so much. I appreciate again all of you being here. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Roberts. Senator Klobuchar. Senator Klobuchar. Thank you. I want to thank Senator Stabenow for letting me go ahead. I first wanted to recognize back there, under the lights, Mr. Rynning, Robert Rynning. He is going to be on the next panel and I am headed to a judiciary hearing, and in case I miss him, I wanted to welcome him. He serves as the President of the U.S. Canola Association, and alongside his brother, nephew, and his wife, Darlene, he raises, canola, barley, wheat, and soybeans on his fifth-generation farm in Kennedy, Minnesota. I want to thank him for being here today. We are very proud of that crop, as well as so many others that we have in Minnesota, and that is one of the reasons that I am concerned about the proposed cuts to the crop insurance program that are in the current proposed budget from the administration. They put in place a cap on premium subsidies and eliminate the harvest price option. The crop insurance program is working for producers. We can always improve it. But I believe that it should be strengthened and not made more difficult. Could one of you talk about, or a few of you talk about the impact that these cuts would have on your operation, specifically in a time of lower crop prices? Anyone? Mr. Rohwer. Well, thank you, Senator. Every single farmer who purchases crop insurance would be impacted with these cuts because most of those types of proposals that you are talking about are the type of thing that would discourage people from participating in the crop insurance program, which means that you would be shrinking the risk pool, and a shrunken risk pool in insurance is not good for anybody. That would make crop insurance less effective, which then would likewise make access to credit more difficult, which would affect large, small farmers, established, and even young farmers beginning. Senator Klobuchar. Thank you. Mr. Rohwer, just a follow-up because I know you also are interested in the renewable fuel standard and how important this is to our policy. It is very important in my state. Earlier this summer the EPA released its proposed volume requirements for 2018 and 2019. What are your thoughts on the proposed rule? Mr. Rohwer. I am afraid you caught me off-guard there. Could you just summarize it? Senator Klobuchar. Well, the rule actually--there were some good things about it, but in terms of consistency with past policy a bunch of us up here fought really hard to get it stronger after a different version of it a few years ago. Mr. Rohwer. Oh, okay. Thank you. Senator Klobuchar. Remember that? Mr. Rohwer. Yes. Senator Klobuchar. Now it has come back again but there are still some concerns on some of the biodiesel issues and other things with the rule. Mr. Rohwer. We, as corn growers, do not follow real closely the biodiesel portion of the renewable fuels. Senator Klobuchar. Really? Mr. Rohwer. But we feel that it needs to be a strong and consistent requirement there, so that there is not a question in the market, is the level going to be here one year, there another year. It needs to follow the statute for all portions there, because that will strengthen the market and the demand for the grain inputs. Senator Klobuchar. Good. Mr. Scott, could you look at it from the perspective of soybean biodiesel producers, that we do not went the blend target reduced for advanced biofuels? Mr. Scott. Yes, absolutely, and, of course, about 50 percent of the fuel biodiesel produced is used--soybean oil is used in that production, so it is critical for our industry. But we were somewhat disappointed with the levels that were proposed and came out. We are producing above that level currently, and have the capability of doing even more. We need the security of knowing year-to-year what is going to be the volumes, so that infrastructure can be built. People who are interested in putting money into that industry can know that it will be there in the future for them. The dollar-a-gallon biodiesel tax credit would be also very important to us. Senator Klobuchar. All right. Thank you. One last question, Mr. Schemm. If producers did not have access--I am back on the crop insurance now--to the harvest price option, do you think it would impact program participation? Mr. Schemm. I definitely think it would. You had mentioned earlier the proposed budget as well. In my area, that would hit a cap of 1,800 acres of wheat in our area there, and our average farm size in my area is 3,200 acres. So, obviously, when it starts affecting that it starts then affecting the whole pool that is there, and then it affects the premium rates for the other producers that would remain in it. As far as harvest price option, currently 70 percent of our producers sign up for the harvest price option, and they pay a premium for the harvest price option, and what that allows them is the ability have a replacement value for their crop if it is lost, and it especially aids us when we talk about marketing that crop. If we do not have the bushels to fulfill contracts that we forward contracted, we then have to go out and purchase bushels to replace that forward contract, and without that HPO it is much more expensive to do that. Senator Klobuchar. Appreciate it. Thank you all. Chairman Roberts. Senator Thune, and Senator Thune, before you start your comments, I would like to point out, with regard to the President's budget that has been mentioned, and crop insurance, that I met with the President about three weeks ago, along with a telephone conversation, rather short, with Mr. Mulvaney, who is in charge of the budget, the Office of Management and Budget. The upshot is we are not going to cut crop insurance, period. The House budget reflects that. We have yet to determine a budget here, but that would be the Chairman's choice, and I am sure the distinguished Ranking Member as well. Senator Thune. Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank you and Senator Stabenow for holding the hearing today and for a great panel, and multiple panels today, on a very important subject, which is the next farm bill. I especially want to thank Kevin Scott for being here, representing the American Soybean Association, a multi-generation South Dakota farmer going back to 1885. I think the family operation has roots and he always provides great counsel and insight and advice to me and my staff, and to all of South Dakota when it comes to the issues that are important to agriculture, and to our country, I might add. So welcome. It is good to have you here, Kevin. Let me just ask a question that has to do with the commodity title of the next farm bill, and the first question has to do with something that the National Corn Grower said in their testimony today. I think Mr. Rohwer indicated there should be clear statutory language requiring financial assistance to be determined by physical location of a farm. So the question is--and I agree with that statement completely and would point out that I have got a bill, a Commodity Title Improvement Act bill, introduced earlier this year, that does include specific language that requires physical location of the farm to be used to calculate payments. Does everyone here on the panel agree that the commodity title payment should be calculated using a farm's physical location instead of according to administrative county? Mr. Rohwer. Yes, sir, we do. Senator Thune. Does anybody disagree with that? Okay. I have also introduced a bill that would create a short- term, three-to five-year easement program, which I have named the Soil Health and Income Protection Program, or SHIPP, and the question is, do you think that in today's short-term--or I should say in today's price environment that there is a need for such a short-term easement program with very flexible hay and grazing provisions that provide a reasonable alternative to cropping and placing expensive inputs on the poorest land on a farm? Mr. Rohwer. Conservation is always very, very important, and with the weather patterns that are becoming more and more variable some flexibility probably has its place. Senator Thune. Mr. Scott. Mr. Scott. The current CRP, of course, is a 10-year contract and that, for some people, is daunting. For me I may not farm for 10 years. I may, but a short-term, short-year span would probably fit in more situations than a long-term one. Mr. Schemm. Thank you, Senator. Our board has very much targeted working lands conservation as a priority with us, to try to work with those types of programs there, but then also targeted to areas with longer-term possibilities in those areas, to try to put sensitive lands, highly erodible lands into conservation programs. That is where we stand. Mr. McMichen. Thank you, Senator. Conservation is always one of the highest priorities and I think the short-term help that you are talking about would be very helpful to take sensitive land and less-productive land and allow it for better use. Senator Thune. Thanks. Mrs. James. In relation to the rice industry, I believe that we are only producing rice on the most highly productive land for rice, but in the other areas that you speak of it sounds like very important legislation. Senator Thune. I also, as part of a recently introduced bill, I included a provision that would require mandatory base updates using the planted and considered or prevented planted acres during the years 2014 to 2017. The bill also eliminates generic base acres that were created in the 2014 Farm Bill but leaves STAX in place. According to CBO, the mandatory base update saves $466 million, and the elimination of generic base acres saves $2.454 billion over 10 years. That, again, according to CBO. Although I believe that calculating any future farm bill commodity title payments that use base acres in the calculation should use a mandatory base update, I do not expect the commodity organizations to support this. But I do want to ask all of you the question about whether or not you think a change like that would make sense. I mean, do you believe that eliminating commodity title payments on land with base acres, that has not been planted to a commodity crop in the years 2014 to 2017, would be good policy and should be pursued in the next farm bill? Mr. Rohwer. Corn growers heard about this proposal of yours, sir, as our delegates were meeting here in Washington last week, and having it as a new idea we had not looked at all ramifications and this type thing, and so it was referred to our risk management action team to be looked into, to study just exactly how it would affect corn growers. We will be working through so as to decide where our position should be. Senator Thune. Okay. Thanks. Mr. Scott. Senator, you are also ahead of us on the soybean side. We have not also looked at the ramifications as closely as we could. I know you are thinking about things and trying to improve the program and we appreciate the effort. Keep it up. Keep bringing new ideas. Senator Thune. Okay. Well, we will take that for now until you get to yes. [Laughter.] Mr. Schemm. Thank you, Senator. You know, it is something that initially our board has come out for a voluntary update, but the concern that we would have is obviously, being very export sensitive as possible, implications it could have with our export markets and what kind of litigation could be possibly brought against us. Senator Thune. Thank you. Mr. McMichen. Thank you, Senator. In regard to generic base acres, which is very sensitive to the cotton industry, they were established in the current farm bill because cotton was no longer a covered commodity, due to the Brazil WTO case. Cotton base acres would have been of no value to producers and land owners unless cotton base was reallocated to allow for support on covered commodities on these planted acres. Generic base was never intended to be a long-term policy and it should be dealt with in the next farm bill, if not before. There are various ways to convert generic base back to cotton, or cottonseed base, and possibly other covered commodity bases, and the cotton industry is evaluating these options to help develop industry recommendations. We all agree, though, that the crop bases should be decoupled in the next farm bill. Senator Thune. Thanks. Mrs. James. Over the years that you speak of, the price of rice declined, and so we should not be--farmers should not be punished for following market signals and maybe not planting as many acres of their base during that particular time. Senator Thune. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just think that base acres ought to reflect more recent planting history and that we should not be--we should not have base acres that have not been farmed for years that still have bases and receiving payments, and I think there are some examples where that happens. I think this would be a real dollar saver, it would be more efficient, and I think it would be a better farm policy. So I hope your organizations will take a look at it and give us some feedback. Thank you. Chairman Roberts. Thank you, Senator Thune. Senator Thune is the foreman of our legislative efforts to do more with less, and thank you for your suggestions on all three pieces of legislation that you have introduced. Senator Stabenow. Senator Stabenow. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you again to each of you. Just an FYI. There is a broader discussion that Senator Thune raised that is an important discussion, but as we look at what was done in Appropriations for cotton and dairy, the generic base essentially is being used to offset that, and so that piece of it essentially will no longer be relevant, assuming that appropriations bill goes through on generic base. So we will have to talk about that more, but that is part of the proposal to help cotton and to help dairy. So I would like to start with just a general comment from each of you on the budget. This spring we had over 500 groups, including every major commodity group, that came together to say--to write a letter to us opposing any cuts to funding in the farm bill. We know the administration proposed major cuts that would have made it impossible to write a farm bill. Fortunately, that is not going to embrace my either Appropriations Committee--although there is a small cut in the House, as I understand it--but in the Senate we did the opposite. The Appropriations Committee actually added $1 billion to the farm bill commodity programs to help cotton and dairy. So just for the record, I would like each of you just to say yes or no if you continue to hold the position that there should not be cuts in the farm bill funding. Mr. Rohwer? Mr. Rohwer. We do not feel there should be cuts to the farm bill funding. Senator Stabenow. Thank you. Mr. Scott? Mr. Scott. Yes. We also feel the same. Senator Stabenow. Okay. Mr. Scott. Thank you. Senator Stabenow. Mr. Schemm? Mr. Schemm. I would concur. We support not cutting any. Senator Stabenow. Thank you. Mr. McMichen? Mr. McMichen. The cotton industry is in the same position. Senator Stabenow. Thank you. Mrs. James. USA Rice supports not cutting any funding. Senator Stabenow. Thank you very much. Well, it is going to be important that we continue to all work together to make sure that we have the resources that we need for agriculture, so thank you. A little bit more on crop insurance, and Bruce Rohwer, let me ask you, and then anyone else from the panel as well. Again, when we are debating and we know we will see, I am sure, amendments on the floor as well, as we do every year, as we go through this process on the farm bill, but in addition to the administration proposing a $29 billion cut for crop insurance, I am concerned that there are people, both in the Office of Management and Budget--when I met with the Director and then the Deputy Director nominee that supporting cuts to crop insurance. But we now have also a nominee that will come before us for a position at USDA who has actually questioned the constitutionality of crop insurance, and on a separate occasion suggested the entire crop insurance system be eliminated since 9 out of 10 farmers in Iowa do not want it. Well, we have a farmer from Iowa here, if you would like to speak, Mr. Rohwer, and respond to that kind of comment regarding crop insurance or any proposed cuts. I wonder what you would like to say on behalf of Iowa farmers. Mr. Rohwer. Based on the surveys that Iowa Corn Growers and National Corn Growers have done, crop insurance remains the number one risk management tool in the tools available to us. It is strongly supported by our membership and I am not sure where that statistic comes from but it is not reflected in any of the studies that we have conducted. We would look forward to the strong support that we have here on the Hill from the House and Senate to crop insurance, because it is absolutely crucial to the future of farming and for bringing in the next generation. Senator Stabenow. Thank you very much. Does anyone else want to respond as well, in terms of crop insurance and why it is critical that we continue it and not see cuts? Does anyone want to respond to the constitutionality of crop insurance? We might have a debate here with any attorneys. Chairman Roberts. I would like to respond, if I might. Senator Stabenow. Yes. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, you are on the panel. Chairman Roberts. I understand your concern with regards to crop insurance. Everybody here has asked a question about crop insurance. If there is some nominee coming before this Committee who says crop insurance is constitutional---- Senator Stabenow. Unconstitutional. Chairman Roberts. --they might as well not even show up. Senator Stabenow. Okay. Well, I am with you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Roberts. All right. Senator Stabenow. I am with you, actually. Chairman Roberts. I mean, the President has assured me, personally, that crop insurance will not be cut, and so I take him at that word, as far as that budget is concerned. Obviously, if the House budget is different then we do not know what our budget will be until later. But that dog is not going to hunt. Senator Thune. Mr. Chairman---- Senator Stabenow. I am with you as well. Senator Thune. --were you not here when they wrote the Constitution? Chairman Roberts. Pardon me? Senator Thune. Were you not here when they wrote the Constitution? Chairman Roberts. Of course. [Laughter.] Senator Stabenow. He has given me blow by blow of the debate that occurred at the time, and so--but I do think--and I wanted to just ask one other question--I do think it is important, though, to raise this in the context of comments that have been made, because my fear is that those comments will be pulled out by those not supporting crop insurance, and we will hear those again. So I think it is important that we continue to hear your voices about the importance of this risk management tool. One other just real quick, on the ARC program. I know you have suggested some changes, Mr. Rohwer, Mr. Scott, Mr. Schemm, as it relates to getting the right yield data and so on. Assuming we can provide the tweaks and so on, does the ARC program deserve to continue? Mr. Rohwer. The surveys of our members have shown that the preference in Title 1 programs is for a revenue-based program. Any improvements that can be made will be greatly appreciated and will merely make it a more effective program. Senator Stabenow. Thank you. Mr. Scott? Mr. Scott. Our members would reflect the same as Bruce has said. We like ARC. Currently, with our low commodity prices, it has not benefitted us on the soybean side in the last few years, and it probably will not benefit us as much as it had in the past. So we would like some tweaks there, but otherwise very effective program. Senator Stabenow. Thank you. Mr. Schemm. Ranking Member, yeah, we have heard very clearly from our members, with wheat grown in 42 states in very diverse growing regions, that they want that choice. They want an effective ARC program for the producers that are sensitive to that yield component, but there are areas where they are much more sensitive to the price component, and that works for the PLC. So we have heard very loud and clear that they want that choice in the future. Senator Stabenow. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Roberts. Senator Thune, I think I have to correct the record. I did not work on the Constitution. I did do a lot of advice and counsel on the Bill of Rights---- [Laughter.] Chairman Roberts. --which affects all of these people here, in terms of their testimony. Thank you. Senator Donnelly. Senator Donnelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Schemm, I have noticed you have a very notable goatee, and I was wondering if our colleague from Kansas, if you could consult with him and possibly he may start to grow a goatee as well. Any help you could give in that effort we would really appreciate it around here. Mr. Schemm. I will work on that. Senator Donnelly. Thank you. Mrs. James, you testified about the importance of several conservation programs--the Regional Conservation Partnership Program, the Conservation Stewardship Program, and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program. You also mentioned how your farm has provided for four, and soon five generations. I think those two points are important together. You are an advocate for conservation because your farm has been handed down for generations. Your family has been there. Nobody wants to make sure that land is handled better, that water nearby is cleaner than your family who has been given the stewardship of that land for hundreds of years. Can you talk about how USDA's conservation programs can help farmers like you, who want to make sure you can offer the next generation of your family a farm in even better shape than was given to you? Mrs. James. Thank you, Senator, and you are exactly right. Raising my son on that farm, and of course I want the environment to be clean and safe, the water that we drink safe, and the food that we provide to U.S. consumers and the rest of the word to be safe as well, and so it is extremely important, and conservation is extremely important to the rice industry. The programs that NRCS provides have allowed us to continue to improve in our water conservation efforts, and soil conservation efforts, and it has been a valuable tool to the rice farmer. In fact, when you speak of the waterfowl, migratory birds, it is a very important habitat that the rice industry does provide in this country. In fact, if you were to have to pay to replace that habitat it would be about $3.5 billion, and to maintain it year to year would be about $73 million a year to maintain what we are already providing in that habitat. So they are very important programs. Senator Donnelly. Thank you, and this is just to the panel and to all of us to follow up on the crop insurance comments. Obviously, in Indiana, it is critically important. I just wanted to say, at my first hearing as a member of the Ag Committee, Angie Steinbarger, a Hoosier farmer, testified about the critical nature of crop insurance, and essential to maintaining her family farm through a devastating drought that we had in 2012, with no rain, with 100-degree-plus days, day after day. I was at the farm of a friend of mine in Columbus, Indiana. It was 106 degrees the day I was there, all of this extraordinarily abnormal for Indiana. We were sitting under the only shade, a big oak tree, and the fields we were looking at, the projected yield was going to be five bushels per acre for corn that year--five bushels. So we are now in a position, of course, with too much rain, and having to have replanted. So I just want to say that regardless of the type of disaster, crop insurance is a critical backstop for family farms, and we will continue to fight to make sure that is included in any farm bill, moving forward. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Roberts. It would appear that we have no further questions for the panel. Thank you so much for taking the time to come and presenting excellent testimony. Thank you very much. You are excused and the next panel is urged to quickly come forward. [Pause.] Chairman Roberts. I would now like to welcome the second panel of witnesses. First we have Mr. Dan Atkisson, a graduate of Kansas State University, home of the ever-optimistic and fighting Wildcats, hailing from Stockton, Kansas. He and his family grow grain and forage sorghum, wheat, and other forage crops. They also raise commercial and registered Angus cattle. He serves as Vice Chairman of the National Sorghum Producers and Chair of their Legislative Committee. Dan, thank you so much for coming today. I look forward to your testimony. Senator Perdue was to introduce our next witness. I do not see Senator Perdue, so Ms. Meredith Rogers is with us this morning from Camilla, Georgia. Ms. Rogers farms in partnership with her husband, parents, and siblings--something Senator Grassley ought to take note of in his payment limitation lecture. They grow peanuts, wheat corn, cotton, and field corn. Their family also runs two peanut-buying points that handle around 30,000 tons of peanuts a year. Meredith, we look forward to your testimony. Mr. Robert Rynning joins us today from Kennedy, Minnesota, where he resides with his wife and two sons, a fifth-generation farmer. He works with his brother and nephew to produce canola, barley, wheat, and soybeans. Mr. Rynning is President of the U.S. Canola Association. Robert, we are certainly glad that you are here today. I now turn to Senator Daines to introduce our next witness. Senator Daines. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is my honor to take this opportunity to introduce a fellow Montanan, and welcome to Washington, DC, Ervin Schlemmer, his wife, Julie, who is just behind him. Thanks for making the trip out here for this important hearing. Ervin is a third- generation farmer, partners with his son, Greg, to run his operation in Joliet, Montana. He produces sugar beets, malt barley, alfalfa, hay, and corn, as well as operates a 20,000- head cattle feed yard. That is a lot of cows. Ervin has also been active within the American Sugar Beet Growers Association and the Southern Montana Sugar Beet Growers Association for decades, and I want to thank him for taking time out of his very busy schedule, at a very dry time of year in Montana, to come out to D.C., and I look forward to his testimony. Chairman Roberts. Thank you, Senator. We now turn to Senator Stabenow to introduce Mr. Nobis. Senator Stabenow. Well, thank you so much. I am very pleased to introduce my friend, Ken Nobis, who is President of the Michigan Milk Producers Association and a dairy farmer from St. Johns, Michigan. Mr. Nobis operates a 1,000-cow dairy farm with his brother in St. Johns, and farms 3,000 acres. Mr. Nobis has been an active leader in the dairy industry for many years, and serves as First Vice-Chairman of the National Milk Producers Federation. In 2015, his farm received an Outstanding Dairy Farm Sustainability Award, and earlier this year Ken became an honorary alumnus of Michigan State University's College of Agriculture for his dedication to Michigan Agriculture and his work with MSU researchers on his farm. Welcome. Chairman Roberts. Dan, why don't you start this off. STATEMENT OF DAN ATKISSON, OWNER/OPERATOR, ATKISSON LAND & CATTLE, STOCKTON, KANSAS Mr. Atkisson. Thank you, Chairman. Chairman Roberts, Ranking Member Stabenow, and members of the Committee, thank you for this opportunity to come before you and present the views of the National Sorghum Producers regarding Title 1 crop insurance in our next farm bill. My name is Dan Atkisson and I farm near Stockton, Kansas. I am a true family farmer, working alongside my father, my wife, Amanda, and my four-year-old son, Eli. We grow wheat, sorghum, and forages to support our herds of Angus cattle. I am honored to serve as the Chairman of the National Sorghum Producers Legislative Committee. Mr. Chairman, I would also like to say how honored I am to be here on a personal level. As a Kansas farmer, I was raised to admire and respect the tremendous work of our champion in our nation's capital, the Honorable Pat Roberts. We know that it is often difficult to relate the unique challenges that the farm and ranch communities face to more urban constituencies. I want to say how appreciative we are to all members of the Committee who work so hard to understand our issues and to do this difficult work where it matters most. I give an overview of several positive trends within the sorghum industry in my written testimony, from increasing productivity to expanding markets within the food sector. These are exciting, big-picture developments for sorghum, but any positive developments for the long term are completely overshadowed by the current state of our ag economy. Since passage of the 2014 Farm Bill, prices for sorghum have plummeted from a benchmark of $5.10 to just $2.69 per bushel of for the 2016 crop, 53 percent of the benchmark. Today in farming, it is not a question of how to make a profit but simply minimize our losses to survive. Virtually all commodity crops have faced similar decline in prices but unique to sorghum is an emerging pest, the sugarcane aphid, which is driving up cost of production and adding a burden of $430 million to the 2016 growing season alone. The National Sorghum Producers believe in the need for a strong and reliable Title 1 safety net that is balanced and provides assistance when needed. One very real problem with the current policy is the timing of the payments and its impact on cash flow. The National Sorghum Producers asks, do you consider moving up farm bill timing assistance or even making marketing loan rates more relevant to help with these cash flows? Regarding ARC and PLC, clearly, with the 20/20 vision that hindsight offers, PLC has been the better safety net for our sorghum farmers. PLC was very conservative up front when prices were still above $4.00 per bushel. In contrast, ARC assistance was a virtual certainty when farmer elections were being made. With a target county revenue generated at $5.10 per bushel, the logic was to take a bird in the hand and put it to use. Unfortunately for farmers, markets have not rebounded as hoped. Going forward, we are open to the idea that the ARC model could be improved. We believe that PLC could also be improved and we generally favor this model, coupled with a strong crop insurance program. However, NSP pledges to work with you in a constructive manner to ensure that a proper balance is struck and an adequate safety net is crafted. Before moving to crop insurance, I would like to urge caution in thinking about how policies affect plantings of commodities and urge more thoughtful approaches to CRP going forward. Crop insurance is indispensable for sorghum farmers, but that does not mean it cannot also be improved. For sorghum, particularly, participation rates and coverage levels are low when compared to other crops. A full 19 percent of sorghum acres are left uninsured, and this lower participation rate owes primarily to the cost of sorghum insurance. Despite a 10- year loss ratio of 0.88, sorghum rates remain high and need to be lowered. Another area of concern is the regularity at which new and innovative tools, which even EPA deems safe, are challenged in our courts. In recent years, it seems that each time a product is improved by the EPA under Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodencide Act, or FIFRA, it is challenged by the Endangered Species Act. Only the attorneys win in this situation while farmers face a smaller and smaller toolbox. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I want to say again how much we as farmer members of the National Sorghum Producers appreciate the task that you have before you and for being such a champion for agriculture. We consider the farm bill to be critical, but tough economic times cause us to focus, and Title 1 and crop insurance rightly take center stage. NSP appreciate your attention to these important policies and we stand ready to work with you to make this policies work even better. [The prepared statement of Mr. Atkisson can be found on page 73 in the appendix.] Chairman Roberts. Dan, thank you so much for your very kind comments, and I only wish Senator Thune could have been here to hear them. Ms. Rogers. STATEMENT OF MEREDITH ROGERS, FARMER, FAMILY FARM PARTNERS, CAMILLA, GEORGIA Ms. Rogers. Good morning, Chairman Roberts, Ranking Member Stabenow, and members of the Committee. My name is Meredith McNair Rogers. I have been farming with my family in Southwest Georgia for over 20 years. This year we are farming peanuts, fresh sweet corn, cotton, and corn. I am the first woman to be included in the Peanut Leadership Academy, which is a program for young leaders involved in the peanut industry. I am testifying today on behalf of the Southern Peanut Farmers Federation, the largest peanut grower organization in the United States. I want to be clear today that the peanut provisions of the 2014 Farm Bill have worked as a safety net for peanut producers. If the Price Loss Coverage, the PLC, program had not been in place, I am afraid many farms in the Southeast would no longer exist because of the downturn in the farm economy, which has plagued us for the past three years. The Federation supports maintaining the current PLC program in the 2014 Farm Bill, including these key provisions: the current reference price for peanuts; a separate peanut payment limit, as established in the 2002 Farm Bill; and storage and handling provisions. The PLC program has worked but peanuts are not sufficient to carry an entire farming operation. Corn and cotton prices have been depressed and with the lack of a cotton PLC program more pressure has been placed on growers to plant peanuts, by lenders and others. Peanut growers know that crop rotation is critical for their cropping systems. However, during this period of a severely depressed farm economy, many farmers modified their crop rotations in order to survive. Although the increased peanut acreage has impacted yields and cost of production, peanut acreage during the life of the 2014 Farm Bill is not out of line. During the life of the 2014 Farm Bill, average planted acres were only 16 percent more than average acres planted during the 2002 to 2013 years. What about the demand for peanuts? It is very important for this discussion to note that demand has kept pace with the supply of peanuts. Domestic demand and export demand have grown significantly in the past few years. The number of peanuts used for peanut butter has grown 64.4 percent since 2002, and 10 percent since 2014. When we take a closer look at USDA's Foreign Agricultural Services export data, comparing the average exports of peanuts and peanut butter during the 2008 Farm Bill relative to the 2014 Farm Bill, we see strong growth. Peanut exports increased approximately 71 percent. What about the supply of peanuts in the U.S.? In the current market, demand exceeds supply. Given this economic situation, early contract prices for the 2017 crop have been reported in the $475 to $550 per ton range. In addition, peanuts have not seen significant forfeitures at the USDA. From the evidence we see in the marketplace, there is not an oversupply of peanuts. According to the University of Georgia, the peanut program in the 2014 Farm Bill has not led to excessive peanut acreage. In conclusion, the Federation supports the peanut provisions in the 2014 Farm Bill and appreciates the opportunity to work with you as we move forward with the next farm bill. Thank you for allowing me to testify today. [The prepared statement of Ms. Rogers can be found on page 170 in the appendix.] Chairman Roberts. Thank you for your testimony. The distinguished Ranking Member has told me that she certainly enjoys peanut butter, and I join her in that respect. I also learned that exports to China seem to be on the move, and that is certainly a good indication for a lot of other crops as well. Mr. Rynning, you have already been introduced by Senator Klobuchar, but why don't you go ahead, sir. STATEMENT OF ROBERT RYNNING, OWNER/OPERATOR, ROBERT RYNNING FARMS, KENNEDY, MINNESOTA Mr. Rynning. All right. Thank you very much. On behalf of the U.S. Canola Association I want to thank Chairman Roberts, Ranking Member Stabenow, and the members of the Committee for inviting me to testify today. I am Robert Rynning, President of the U.S. Canola Association, and I am also a Board Member for the National Barley Growers Association. While not a large crop acreage- wise, canola is grown in diverse regions of the country, and although the Northern Plans account for the major of the U.S. canola production, winter canola varieties have been successfully introduced in the Southern Great Plains, and it has the potential to become another major U.S. production area. Winter canola production can also be found in the mid-south states, with much of this acreage supporting double cropping of soybeans or other spring-seeded crops. A fourth production area is in the Pacific Northwest, which produces both winter and spring canola varieties. In 2016, the U.S. produced a record 3 billion pounds of canola seed, but for the coming year the U.S. will still need to import 68 percent of our expected canola oil consumption, and 75 percent of our expected canola meal consumption. For 2017, growers increased canola acreage in all regions, planting over two million acres, up from the previous five-year average of 1.7 million acres. However, the drought in western North Dakota and eastern Montana will keep actual production from expanding this. Commodity title--for us, the canola growers, it is generally--we are generally pleased with the performance of Title 1. Although at 97 percent of the canola base acres were entered into the PLC program, USCA supports the continuation of both the PLC and the ARC-County programs as well as the ARC individual coverage option, allowing producers a one-time choice among the three options at the start of the next farm bill. Canola is grown as a rotational crop with other crops and many producers chose the ARC program for those other crops they produce on their farms. With regards to the problems of wide-ranging ARC-County yields between adjoining counties, USCA suggests requiring the use of RMA yields as the first option in the cascade rather than the NASS yields. USCA also believes all support payments for PLC and ARC should be paid on historic bases rather than planted acres, to ensure the farmers' decision is based on their actual growing--crops that they are growing. USCA also supports providing an option to reallocate or update crop acreage bases as well as program yields, as was the case in the last farm bill. When it comes to crop insurance, the USCA strongly supports the program as currently authorized. Without the risk management tool, many producers would have difficulty in obtaining operating loans. The proposed cuts in the administration's '18 budget would completely undermine the actual soundness of the program and would lead to its failure. While premium discounts producers receive are a major cost of the program, the net premiums paid by producers are still substantial. The proposed $40,000 limit would hit numerous family-sized farms across the country. In the conservation title, USCA supports providing an incentive to include canola and/or sunflowers in a cropping rotation to provide habitat for honeybees and other pollinators. Honeybees support $15 billion of agricultural production in the U.S. through pollinator services, but a major decline in honeybee health in recent years has put these benefits at risk. This decline in bee health has been linked to a variety of factors, including the lack of suitable habitat due to increased agricultural monocultures and declining wild spaces. Canola and sunflowers provide an ideal habitat for honeybees. Canola fields bloom for a very long period of time, up to a month or even longer under perfect conditions. Maintaining the acreage of cropland planted annually to these two crops is essential. Thank you very much for your time and attention. I would be happy to answer any questions the Committee may have. [The prepared statement of Mr. Rynning can be found on page 191 in the appendix.] Chairman Roberts. Thank you, sir. Ervin, thank you so much for coming all the way from Big Sky Country, and you are invited to give your testimony, sir. STATEMENT OF ERVIN SCHLEMMER, OWNER/OPERATOR, SCHLEMMER FARMS, JOLIET, MONTANA Mr. Schlemmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. American sugar farmers are facing a very difficult time. For the past five years, refined sugar prices have been depressed as a result of Mexico dumping subsidized sugar into the U.S. market. These unfair trade practices have cost our farmers more than $4 billion in lost revenues and cost taxpayers $259 million. The U.S. government found Mexico guilty of subsidizing, dumping, and harming the American sugar industry. Rather than imposing huge duties, the U.S. and Mexican governments negotiated agreements to suspend the duties and allow continued duty-free sugar trade. But those agreements did not work and the industry continued to be harmed. We thank Commerce Secretary Ross and Agricultural Secretary Perdue for negotiating recent amendments to the suspension agreements, and we thank members of this Committee who supported this difficult process. We are optimistic that the amended agreements will be effective, but only with strict monitoring and enforcement. We will work closely with the administration on implementation and we will keep this Committee informed of any problems. Mexico's subsidies and dumping are not the anomaly in the world of sugar. They are the norm. Foreign governments around the world subsidize overproduction that drives world market prices well below average production costs. These distorted low prices threaten efficient U.S. producers. Senators from states that produce steel, aluminum, and lumber fully understand harm from predatory foreign dumping. We must respond to these damaging trade practices through our farm and trade policies or we will die. American sugar farmers are among the most efficient in the world. We would gladly compete against foreign producers if their governments did not intervene in their markets. We can compete against foreign farmers but not against foreign treasuries. It is important to note that the U.S. is the world's third-largest sugar importer, providing duty-free access to 41 countries. Sugar farmers derive all of our revenue from the marketplace. There is no government checks, no payments, or revenue insurance products to manage our risk. We must have full access to CCC loans on the sugar that we store for our customers throughout the year. Crop insurance, too, is essential for risk management. It must be both affordable and effective for farmers to meet the requirements of our bankers. Sugar and sugarcane farmers are working with RMA to make program improvements. The multi-year nature of cane cropping cycles poses a particular challenge. Research is the future of American agriculture. We implore this committee to make research funding a priority--I repeat, a priority--so that we can reduce costs and improve yields and do so in sustainable ways. So, in conclusion, U.S. policy is a success. It enables our industry to survive in a world of sugar subsidies and predatory dumping. It defends 142,000 good American jobs in 22 states. It provides American food manufacturers and consumers with high- quality, responsibly produced sugar at prices among the lowest in the world, and U.S. sugar prices achieve all of these goals at zero cost to American taxpayers. We look forward to working with you on the 2018 Farm Bill. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Schlemmer can be found on page 205 in the appendix.] Senator Stabenow. [Presiding.] Thank you very much. The Chairman will return in just a moment. We will go on to Mr. Nobis. Welcome. STATEMENT OF KEN NOBIS, OWNER/OPERATOR, NOBIS DAIRY FARM, NOVI, MICHIGAN Mr. Nobis. Thank you, Ranking Member Stabenow. Members of the Committee, my name is Ken Nobis, as the Senator introduced me. In my role as the President of Michigan Milk Producers Association--it is an association that covers the states of Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Wisconsin--we represent about 1,700 dairy farmers. Over the last decade, the U.S. dairy industry has endured a tremendous amount of volatility in milk prices. National milk producers and other dairy leaders have spent years working with members of Congress to develop a program to ensure dairy farmers had a more stable safety net. However, during the legislative process, Congress made changes to that proposed dairy program, fundamentally altering the version National Milk Producers Federation and other dairy leaders had spent years developing. As a direct result of these changes, the margin protection program, or MPP, safety net has failed to deliver the appropriate protection for dairy farmers like me. Many dairy farmers, including MMPA members, originally supported the MPP because they felt it would finally give their farm a risk management tool to deal with the daily unpredictability of milk prices and feed costs. However, we have found the program simply has not done anything to help farms during the last two years of sub-par margins. The changes Congress made to the MPP as the 2014 Farm Bill was finalized rendered it ineffective when dairy farmers needed it most. I still believe the MPP is the right program for the future of our industry, but changes must be made to prevent more dairy farms from shutting down entirely. Among the concerns we have with the program, the proposed feed formula, though deemed accurate, was cut by 10 percent to address other broader budget concerns. Based on the over $100 million government profit made from the program, concerns about the budget that led to the 10 percent cut were misplaced. Also due to congressional mandated restrictions in the MPP, a producer had to decide, at the beginning of the farm bill, to cover their milk under either Livestock Gross Margin program or the MPP. Almost every other commodity can utilize both risk management agency and Title 1 programs without restrictions. This leaves dairy farmers without the tools that other commodity producers have in their arsenal when it comes to federal support for their operations. I want to stress that dairy farmers are not asking for a program that guarantees a profit or incentivizes excess production. All we are asking for is a program that provides a meaningful safety net for dairy farmers when they need it most. As you are aware, the Senate Appropriations Committee recently marked up a bill for fiscal year 2018 that included important changes to the MPP. We appreciate the leadership of Senators Cochran and Leahy, Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, to address some of the problems with the current safety net. We also greatly appreciate the efforts of Ranking Member Stabenow for urging all farmers to be considered when making significant changes to farm bill programs and ensuring interim improvements are made to strengthen the dairy safety net. The changes made through the Appropriations Bill are a step in the right direction and we are open to other ways the MPP program can be improved. More work is needed and the only way to accomplish that is through a new farm bill. Making the MPP program more attractive for dairy farmers is vital to ensuring participation in the program and the safety of America's dairy industry. In addition to the challenges we face with the MPP, we are greatly concerned over challenges to our export markets and a need for immigration reform. Child nutrition also is an important key issue for our industry. Reintroducing one percent flavored milk back into the schools will help ensure that children have access to the nine essential nutrients and vitamins that milk provides. Milk also played a big role last year to help the residents of Flint, Michigan, during a crisis in which they were susceptible to lead poisoning from contaminated water. MMPA partnered with the Kroger Company to donate approximately 590,000 servings of milk to the Flint residents after we learned that calcium and iron found in dairy products can help mitigate health risks of lead contamination. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Stabenow, and Committee members, the U.S. dairy industry looks forward to working with you to improve federal policies that impact those that produce our country's food. I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today and I thank you for your support of agriculture. I would be happy to try to answer any questions you might have. [The prepared statement of Mr. Nobis can be found on page 161 in the appendix.] Senator Stabenow. Well, thank you to all of you, and Mr. Nobis, let me also reiterate thanks on behalf of the families of Flint, because Michigan Milk Producers stepped up right away to help, and it was terrific to see, and we have had other commodity groups and farmers in Michigan do the same, but Michigan Milk Producers really took the lead on that, so it was great. Let me ask just a brief yes or no for each of you, just to get on the record again as I did with our first panel. We have had over 500 organizations go on the record saying they do not support cuts to the farm bill. I think it is important to just ask each of you again if you still hold that position, if your organization still holds the position of no cuts in the farm bill. Mr. Atkisson? Mr. Atkisson. The National Sorghum Producers does not support cuts to the farm bill. Senator Stabenow. Thank you. Ms. Rogers. We do not support cuts to the farm bill. Senator Stabenow. Thank you. Mr. Rynning. Yes. U.S. Canola Association very strongly feels that there should be no cuts. Senator Stabenow. Thank you. Mr. Schlemmer. No cuts. Senator Stabenow. Thank you. Mr. Nobis. No cuts for dairy. Senator Stabenow. Thank you. Well, and let me ask, Mr. Nobis, you have talked about the, of course, dairy farmers are interested in the handout. You are not interested in anything that causes oversupply, but you need an effective safety net. So I wondered the other witnesses we are hearing from can have both federal crop insurance and Farm Service Agency safety nets. Dairy farmers, as you said, cannot, which has put you at a real disadvantage, and I wondered if you might discuss the efforts to improve both parts of the safety net and the proposal that the Farm Bureau and National Farmers Union and National Milk have come forward with as it relates to having the opportunity to have crop insurance for milk producers. Mr. Nobis. Well, we think it is a great move forward. The Senate Appropriations bill, it is a step forward, definitely. But the inclusion of crop insurance type program for dairy is very important to us all. So it is something we do not have available to us today. In my association, we are doing member meetings. We started doing that a year ago. We are in our third iteration right now. Because of the turmoil in the dairy economy today we find it important to meet with our members face to face, to help explain what is going on and for them to get their questions answered. At every one of those meetings, the safety net issue comes up, and we have been with our members and they have been asking about the possibility of a crop insurance type program. It would find a great deal of support in the countryside. Senator Stabenow. Thank you. I would like to ask each of you about how we continue to support beginning farmers, which we know is so important, in each of our commodity areas and each region of the country. We know there are barriers, and particularly if someone wants to go into farming without a family history of farming, that is a particular challenge. But I wondered if each of you would talk about the challenges for beginning farmers, or describe a challenge that faces producers in your industry, and ways that you and your organizations are working to support our beginning farmers. What should we be aware of? Mr. Atkisson? Mr. Atkisson. In today's farm economy, it takes a tremendous amount of capital and a tremendous amount of overhead to operate and to have a farm of any scale, especially within the sorghum industry and in my part of Kansas. My own personal experience, through USDA loans, I have never taken one out. It had a bad reputation within our community, there were too many hoops to jump through, and there were too many red- tape items to follow through with to get that loan. So when I came out of college and moved home, I did not use those programs, just because there was so much red tape involved. So I would like to see more young farmers take advantage of those. I think the low interest rates make them a very attractive option. However, when I moved home from college as a young farmer I did not access those. Senator Stabenow. Thank you. Ms. Rogers. Ms. Rogers. I think it is very important to look at all-- like you are doing, all the farm programs and keep the ones that work. The PLC program has worked for the peanut farmer, and we would like to maintain that. I think that helps give the lenders some security, a safety net, when it comes to young farmers and helps them feel more comfortable lending to them because they have that safety net. I think crop insurance does the same thing. It gives them a safety net so that they feel better loaning to the young farmer. Senator Stabenow. Thank you. Mr. Rynning. Yes, I would reiterate much of what has just been said. I have a nephew that just started farming within this last year, with my brother and I, and in the same type of thing the USDA loan system is very good. It is highly used. But he decided not to go that route because of the complications and the red tape and the things involved. But supporting him even more, I think, because of that, is the crop insurance system and the PLC and ARC. They become extremely important at that point. Senator Stabenow. Thank you. Mr. Schlemmer. Being a sugar farmer, we are a little more unique than probably some of the other commodities, even though we grow other commodities also. But we plant the sugar in the spring; we harvest in the fall. We get all that money into our crop, but it is a full year before we get our final payment on our sugar. In the meantime, we borrow money from the CCC, and that enables us to pay our bills as soon as we maybe harvest a grain crop. We start preparing our ground next year, the next year for beets, and we are already putting these dollars into it. So come fall, we cannot just sell our crop. We put it in a pile, it takes six months to process it, and then we have got to sell it throughout the year. Our customers are not going to pay us for that sugar until it is delivered, so the CCC loans are just imperative to the sugar farmer and to a younger farmer. There is no way that they could ever get into it without. The bankers would just not loan that much money that far out. Senator Stabenow. Thank you. Mr. Nobis? Mr. Nobis. I just had conversations with two young couples this past week. One of them was a first-generation dairy farmer. The other one was taking over the family farm. Young couples. In both cases they had everything figured out except for the prolonged drought in dairy revenue, so the safety net was what was--repairing the safety net, making it more effective--was what they were most interested in having done. Senator Stabenow. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Roberts. [Presiding.] Thank you, Senator. Let us see here. Dan, I heard a lot of concerns and frustrations from sorghum growers about a new pest, the sugarcane aphid. So from the prospective of the farm bill, and pest management in general, what can we do to help fight this pest that is already increasing cost and impacting so much, or how much sorghum is planted across the country? Mr. Atkisson. Well, as you may know, sorghum acres are down over 35 percent since the introduction of the aphid, and we have lost close to $430 million alone in the 2016 growing season. So with the size of our industry, it is a very sizeable pest and it has caused a very sizeable problem. Specifically within the farm bill, I think that the research title is where we can find the most good in helping sorghum farmers combat the sugarcane aphid. If we can get research dollars within the farm bill, it would greatly help. We have already invested a great amount of producer dollars to combat the problem, but within the farm bill anything that we can get for research dollars is going to give us, as farmers, a great advantage. Chairman Roberts. Are you aware of any specific research being conducted? Mr. Atkisson. There is research at all the different ARS stations---- Chairman Roberts. Right. Mr. Atkisson. --and there is also good research going on at great universities such as Kansas State University, that are going to greatly benefit us very soon, as farmers in the field. Chairman Roberts. I appreciate that. Senator Hoeven. Oh, I am sorry. Senator Heitkamp. Senator Heitkamp. Okay. I will go next. One of the things that we have been concerned about in the downturn in commodity prices and the additional challenge is access to credit. So far it has been--I serve on the Banking Committee and so I frequently have conversations with bankers in my state, and we are very concerned about regulators becoming unaware of what it is like to be in a cycle like we are in and whether, in fact, we are going to see real challenges, both in terms of repayment but also in terms of securing additional operating loans. I want to hear from anyone or all of you in terms of what you see right now in trends in your state and whether you share that concern. Let us start with Mr. Atkisson. Mr. Atkisson. Access to capital is extremely important, no matter what commodity you raise or what sector of agriculture you are in. Whether those are private lending institutions or whether those are USDA loans, access to capital is just crucially important. Within the sorghum industry, we are in a much more arid region and so generally when we have a downturn in, agriculture economy, we are hit very hard, very early. Luckily, we have had some very bumper crops in our area and we have not seen as much of those problems yet. If we do not see a turnaround in some of these commodity prices, we could see a very real crisis. Senator Heitkamp. So as of yet you have not heard from any of the producers that they are having trouble accessing credit. Mr. Atkisson. In our direct area, no, I have not. Senator Heitkamp. Okay. Mr. Atkisson. Within other areas, I have. Senator Heitkamp. Great. Ms. Rogers. Yes, it is quite a challenge in this industry, too. Most peanut producers are also cotton producers and corn producers as well, and those prices have been very depressed. It has made peanut producers--some lenders are requiring peanut producers to grow more peanuts and messing up our rotations to an extent, because that is the only crop with somewhat of a---- Senator Heitkamp. So now we have bankers farming. Ms. Rogers. Right. Because it is very important the PLC, the safety net that the PLC provides, as well as some of the marketing loan programs become very important with your relationship with your banker. Senator Heitkamp. I think the other point that we all want to make is that without a strong crop insurance program, without a strong Title 1, access to credit is going to be very, very difficult. Ms. Rogers. Almost impossible. Senator Heitkamp. Right. These are interlinked. Mr. Rynning? Mr. Rynning. Yes, I think in my region of the northwest Minnesota there certainly has been an issue with obtaining credit. Many farmers have gone on to a higher loan bracket, or interest bracket in their loans, in the private loans. The USDA money gets eaten up rather quickly. So there are big concerns. There has even been some declining of loans to certain farmers, with some terrible consequences, as bad as suicides, and a very critical situation, actually. That is under good crops. That is under good yields, but poor pricing. I cannot imagine what would happen if pricing got worse. Senator Heitkamp. Well, we are going to find out in North Dakota with bad crops this year. Mr. Rynning. Yes. Senator Heitkamp. Any other comments? Yes, go ahead. Mr. Schlemmer. Sugar farming takes a lot of money. We get between $900 and $1,000 in a crop before it is harvested. Younger growers are having a tough time. I know three bankers personally, they are good friends of mine, and they are very concerned about their younger growers, and I guess I cannot reiterate enough of just about how important it is to keep this younger generation in farming. They are the future of agriculture. Another thing, when you talk about credit, I mentioned before about the CCC loans. Without that it just complicates the problem, and we need to keep not only ourselves in business but these younger growers coming up. Senator Heitkamp. Mr. Nobis? Mr. Nobis. After two years of sub-par margins, it is starting to pinch seriously. Some people cannot get credit. I have a neighbor who is milking 1,000 cows and farming 5,000 acres. There are no cows left there. He went through bankruptcy because he could not get the credit. I am sure there are extenuating circumstances. I have talked to other people who they have traditionally had a line of credit. They have maxed out their line of credit, and because of the prices they just have not been able to repay it so they have had to term out some loans. They were in a strong position before it hit, but the deeper we get into this, the more critical it becomes. But the one thing we have noticed with the bank regulations the way they are today, the bankers are requiring a lot more information than they used to require. In our own case, they are requiring annual---- Senator Heitkamp. Yes. Mr. Nobis. --in some farmers' cases, annual appraisals, which the farmer then has to pay, which is kind of double-edged sword. Senator Heitkamp. If you can find an appraiser. I just wanted to make the point, Mr. Chairman, that we do not stand alone in securing credit and providing a safety net. We have got to work with the bankers and the bankers have to know that we have a strong safety net, in order to keep these producers in business during tough times. Chairman Roberts. I appreciate that. Thank you, Senator, and Mr. Nobis, thank you for those comments, more especially with the regulatory reform that we need all throughout the banking community as well, and all lenders. Senator Ernst. Senator Ernst. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Atkisson, in your testimony you mentioned that by putting land out of production for extended periods, CRP can cause communities and infrastructure to suffer as a result of less economic activity. Many of the counties in Iowa, with the highest poverty rates, are also the counties with the most land enrolled in CRP. Decatur County, for instance, has a 22 percent poverty rate and has 26.6 percent of its cropland enrolled in CRP. At a time in which rural population growth is stagnant and unemployment and poverty rates are higher in rural areas than urban areas, would it be better for us to focus more on targeted working lands conservation programs instead of land retirement programs like CRP? Mr. Atkisson. I think we can all agree, as farmers, that CRP does have a place and CRP is important to conservation. We are no different in western Kansas. We have areas where a lot of land went into CRP and much of what you said is very true. When you take land out of production, people do not spend as much money in town. They do not have to buy as much seed, as much fertilizer, or as many groceries because they do not have as many people working the land, so the community falls backwards. The National Sorghum Producers does greatly support working lands programs. Programs such as EQIP and CSP have been highly adopted by sorghum farmers, and there is something--those programs we support a great deal to incentivize conservation instead of just taking land out of production. Senator Ernst. Yes. I think that is really important. We hear that all the time from young farmers out there, as they are concerned that land availability is not there, and so those young farmers are not engaging in farmers. They are not raising their families. They are not sending them to school in our rural communities. So it is a problem that we do have to address. Also, in your testimony, you mentioned how greater flexibility in CRP might help farming communities in times of economic hardship. Can you elaborate a little bit more on what we have been talking about as well as your stated concerns about, especially, about over-regulation from the Federal Government and how that is impacting farmers? Mr. Atkisson. Absolutely. To go ahead and then talk a little bit about the Endangered Species Act we feel that the Endangered Species Act has really hamstrung a lot of the tools that farmers can get into the field these days. Just like the sugarcane aphid, there are all kinds of different problems that pop up quickly for farmers, and whether that is insect problems, fungus problems, or whatever those problems may be, sometimes those pop up very quickly and it takes a long time to work through a registration process to get the tool to the farmers that they need desperately right now. So a lot of times that Endangered Species Act can pop up. A lot of times that can really hamstring farmers in using the tools that even EPA has deemed safe. It will keep the farmer from using that tool and then hurt farmers at the farm gate. Senator Ernst. Yes, too true. We need to work through some of that over-regulation and be a little bit more responsive for our farmers. Mr. Nobis, just in the last minute and a half that I have here, I do appreciate you mentioning, in your testimony, the challenges the dairy industry has in finding enough employees to care for the cows every single day of the year. I regularly hear this from livestock producers across Iowa, as we are really suffering from those same decrease in numbers of the farm kids, and I am sure you are seeing that in Michigan as well. What do you think we can do to help keep our young folks in our farming communities and attract newcomers into our rural areas? Mr. Nobis. We have been trying to do that for many, many years. Obviously, a viable dairy economy, a viable agricultural economy is going to keep more people at home. We have seen, in the last 10 years or so, in my state, anyway, an increase in the number of young people that we see on the farm. Going through the troubling times we are right now, with the economy, they are starting to question why they came back to the farm. I think it is the volatility in agriculture. If we can remove more of the volatility, which means an adequate safety net, I think that is going to help keep people involved in agriculture. They love it. They come back because they like it, but if you cannot provide an adequate income lifestyle for your family, it does not last. Senator Ernst. Certainly. I appreciate your input. Thanks to all the panelists. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Chairman Roberts. Thank you, Senator. Senator Casey, if you could hold for a moment I am going to recognize the leader. Leader McConnell is going to introduce this panel's first witness, ``this panel'' meaning the next panel. Senator, would you proceed please. Senator McConnell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you taking me out of order here. One of my old and dearest friends will be testifying on your next panel, and it is my privilege to be here today to represent--to introduce the President of the Kentucky Farm Bureau Federation, Mark Haney, of Pulaski County, Kentucky. Mark is a proud Kentucky farmer. It runs in the family. He and his brother, Don, grow apples and peaches and raise cattle on their farm near Nancy. First elected as President of the Kentucky Farm Bureau in 2008, Mark has proven--has a proven record of advocating on behalf of our farmers, farm families, on both state and national issues. As a member of the American Farm Bureau Federation Board of Directors, Mark is here today not only representing farmers from Kentucky but also as an advocate on behalf of millions of farm families across our country. Representing nearly every part of the agricultural economy, the American Farm Bureau Federation can share important information with us as we continue our work on the 2018 Farm Bill. I am thankful to have a fellow Kentuckian in a leadership role at AFBF, ensuring that Kentucky's priorities are always a part of the national agriculture conversation. Knowing Mark personally for many years, he has shown himself to be a strong leader in Kentucky's robust farming sector. Like most of the home states of members of this Committee, Kentucky has a vibrant farming community that deserves our support. We also are a state that produces a diverse array of agricultural commodities--horses, cattle, corn, soybeans, and tobacco, just to name a few. Kentucky has a long history of supporting family farmers who are impacted by an array of programs under the farm bill. When I first entered the Senate, I knew I wanted to sit on this Committee, to be Kentucky's voice on our nation's agricultural policies, a position that I am honored to still hold today. Through the years, Mark and the Kentucky Farm Bureau have provided valuable insight, to me, as a member of this Committee, and I want to thank Mark again for all of his support over the years. This morning he will continue to aid our work, highlighting the priorities for farmers in Kentucky and across the nation. His testimony will provide useful insights into the challenges facing American farm families and how Congress can help. So thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to introduce Mark this morning, and I look forward to working with all of us together as we move toward writing a new farm bill in 2018. Thank you so much. Chairman Roberts. Leader, if I might suggest '17 might be a better number. I know we are busy in the fall but as I have said to you before, I think this Committee and the last effort that Senator Stabenow and I had, we marked the bill up one morning and took only two days on the floor. If we can do that again and have an agreement, I will be knocking on your door. Senator McConnell. The sooner the better. Thanks a lot. Chairman Roberts. Senator Casey. Senator Casey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the panel for your testimony, your presence here. I am going to focus, I think, most of my questions to you, Mr. Nobis, just to focus on dairy for a couple of minutes. I come from a state where, like a lot of states, it has been more difficult, and in some cases a lot worse, when it comes to dairy farming than bright days. So it has been a difficult number of years for these families, as you know. I guess the first question I have is a concern about perception. In your testimony you said that your members are frustrated and have lost faith in the Margin Protection Program, and I hear that same sentiment expressed across Pennsylvania. So I guess the first question is that perception question. Because that is the perception, if not the reality, of the program, for those farmers and their families, do you think that perception is so poisoned that farmers may be reluctant to embrace the program in any fashion, even with improvements? Mr. Nobis. No, I do not think so. It is a hurdle, there is no question about it, but if we can work together and present something that will work, I think the producers will see that and they will accept it. I do not think it is unfixable. I think we can do it, we can work together. Senator Casey. Yes. You also talk, in your testimony, about the--both feed costs and feed formula calculations included in the Margin Protection Program, and as we look to that set of improvements that you are referring to, do you think feed formula is where we ought to focus in the work that we do, in terms of attention and funding, as opposed to reducing premiums? Mr. Nobis. I know there is always a money issue, but we spent a lot of time, and I was on the committee at National Milk that worked on that program prior to the 2014 Farm Bill, and there was a lot of effort went into coming up with the right formula to gauge the feed cost on the farm, because it is one thing that producers see through. So if we do not fix that, I am not sure but what we are going to have problems down the road with perception again. Senator Casey. Yes. Mr. Nobis. I mean, you can do it either way. I get that. But producers look at that feed cost and if it is not accurate they are going to say, ``Well, that is not my feed cost,'' and they are maybe not going to trust the program. Senator Casey. I know that you and your members have been working at this for a good while, and I just want to ask about, in terms of your own discussions. Have you discussed any type of either farmer-led or industry led inventory management program? Mr. Nobis. Ad nauseam, to be honest. But you know farmers very well, and I think you know what the answer is. We are so independent that we do not want to do anything like that, and that is what we always end up with. I have thought about it an awful lot. Maybe from the pricing angle we send the wrong signals. We do not send the right signal quick enough when we have got more milk than what we need. But we look at it--in my co-op we look at just what Michigan Milk could do, and we could do an inventory management program. There is no question about it. But within the state borders of Michigan, we produce-- market about 43 percent of the milk. Even if we do something within our own co-op, it is not going to have an effect on milk prices, and we go through a chart and explain it to our members. The only thing that is going to change here is maybe the out-of-state transportation cost. The price of milk is still going to be basically the same. So even if you do it on the state level, the state of Michigan, for example, produces 5 percent of the nation's milk supply. So even that is not going to have an effect, and besides which we cannot get together as co-ops and have a combined supply management program because that would be collusion--we cannot do that. It is really an international issue. I mean, we have gotten so good in agriculture, everything we do, and it is not isolated to one area of the globe. The information is there. It can be used wherever weather conditions, the geography allows it. So it is a bigger problem than what we can solve within the United States. As far as supply management, it is an international issue, but even then we have to deal with the weather. So we do something and set a supply management program and then one area of the globe has a huge weather impact issue and now we are under the gun because we shorted the food supply. If it were simple we would do it, I guess. Senator Casey. Thanks very much. I appreciate your testimony. Chairman Roberts. I want to thank all the panel. You are excused and we welcome the next panel to come forward. Thank you so much. [Pause.] Chairman Roberts. We welcome the final panel. Mr. Haney, you have already been introduced by the Majority Leader of the United States Senate. I cannot top that, but we welcome you to the panel. Mr. Roger Johnson has served as the President of the National Farmers Union since 2009. He is a third-generation family farmer from Turtle Lake, North Dakota. Previously, he served as the North Dakota Agricultural Commissioner and the President of the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture. Roger, thank you so much for joining us today. I now turn to Senator Stabenow to introduce our next witness. Senator Stabenow. Well, thank you so much. I know that Senator Gillibrand had hoped to be here. We are all, unfortunately, trying to juggle many committees this morning, so she may be able to join us. But I am very pleased to introduce Ms. Lindsey Shute, the Executive Director and Co- Founder of the National Young Farmers Coalition. Originally from Ohio, Mrs. Shute and her husband, Ben, own and operate Hearty Roots Community Farm, a 900-member CSA in the Hudson Valley of New York. As her role as Executive Director, Ms. Shute has grown the coalition from a few volunteer farmers to a grassroots base of over 120,000 members from 26 different states. Very impressive. In 2014, Ms. Shute was recognized by President Obama as a champion of change in agriculture. Ms. Shute is a graduate of New York University and Bard College, where she recently delivered the Distinguished Alumni Lecture. Welcome. Chairman Roberts. Senator Cochran wanted to introduce you, Mr. Cole, and so I am going to stand in for him in that he has other duties that he has to perform at the present time. Mr. William Cole, from Batesville, Mississippi, is a life- long resident of the Delta. Mr. Cole has been serving farmers as a crop insurance agent for 22 years. Thank you for that. He also raises cattle and quarter horses with his family. He is the current President of the Crop Insurance Professional Association. Thank you for your dedication to crop insurance and to producers. I look forward to your remarks. Senator Ernst and Senator Grassley were going to introduce our next witness. Ron Rutledge, from West Des Moines, Iowa, where he currently serves as President and CEO of Farmers Mutual Hail Insurance Company. Mr. Rutledge also serves on the Board of Directors for the National Crop Insurance Services and is Chairman of the Board of the Crop Insurance Research Bureau. Thank you, sir, for your continued work to improve and defend crop insurance. We look forward to your testimony. I now turn to Senator Stabenow to introduce our next witness. Senator Stabenow. Thank you so much. With us today is Ms. Mandy Minick, the Washington State President for Northwest Farm Credit Services. Ms. Minick grew up in Snohomish, Washington, on a small farm, and attended Cal Poly Pomona, where she studied agricultural business management. In her 24 years with Northwest Farm Credit she has served as a credit officer and a branch manager with a portfolio of mainly dairy and wine grapes. Ms. Minick now oversees the lending and insurance services team in Washington State as President, so thank you for being here. Chairman Roberts. Our next witness, wrapping up what obviously is an excellent panel. Mrs. Brenda Kluesner is from outside of Bloomington, Wisconsin. Mrs. Kluesner is a loan officer and crop insurance manager with Royal Bank, a locally owned and operated community bank serving central and southwestern Wisconsin. She has over 20 years of experience working with farm service agency programs, both as a lender and also as the owner of a cow-calf operation along with her husband. Mrs. Kluesner, thank you so much for joining us today, especially from your perspective as a producer and as a loan officer. We have had a lot of talk about this and you can add to this, I am sure. Mr. Haney, please proceed. STATEMENT OF MARK HANEY, PRESIDENT, KENTUCKY FARM BUREAU FEDERATION, LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY Mr. Haney. Thank you, sir, and thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member Stabenow, and members of the Committee. Thank you for allowing us to be here. I represent a fifth generation on our family farm in Nancy, Kentucky. My brother and I produce apples, peaches, and beef cattle. We also have a Farm Bureau roadside farm market, where we sell produce from our farm, as well as cider, jelly, jams, all other baked products at the farm level. The farm bill is one of the most important pieces of legislation related to agriculture, and what is most important to our farm families is the ability to stay on the farms in Kentucky and across the country. But in doing so, we must face down challenges, such as financing for our young farmers and farm families, who want to continue the legacy of rural America; regulations that threaten to make certain ag sectors extinct; and conservation issues, such as adequate water resources for agricultural uses. I want to draw your attention to the two charts included in my testimony, as they do highlight the realities of the situation farmers and ranchers are facing in today's agriculture economy. The farm sector debt-to-income ratio is at a concerning level, and depending on what happens with the crops this year it could be even higher as we begin 2018. The second chart shows how quickly working capital has fallen over the last five years, but if low prices persist, for many commodities, farmers will have gone through their working capital pretty soon. I draw your attention to these two charts because they provide a good visual of the need for a strong safety net in the upcoming farm bill. The American Farm Bureau Board of Directors met two weeks ago to discuss our recommendations for the farm bill. Our recommendations are not set in stone. Rather, they are designed to provide the necessary flexibility to ensure that Farm Bureau is prepared to work with you in achieving the best possible farm bill that meets our key farm policy objectives while assisting you in meeting the challenges this important legislature will endure. Farm Bureau recommends the following provisions, in particular, for your consideration. Our farmers strongly support continuation of the Price Loss Coverage program and the Agriculture Risk Coverage program. They want a choice of which risk management program works best for their operation. They want both programs to work so that the decision is truly a choice. Our farmers support the opportunity for all farmers to re-elect and/or re-enroll in Title 1 programs and believe that all Title 1 payments should be made on historic rather than planted acres. We have all heard about the discrepancy in ARC payments across county lines, and we believe that this can be remedied by allowing farmers to select the higher of the five-year Olympic Average or 10-year yield for the 10-year average yield. In addition, the reference price used as the floor for the ARC- County programs should be increased 5 percent for corn, soybeans, wheat, sorghum, and other minor crops. We support a cotton lint program and/or designated cotton seed as another ``another oilseed'' to make cotton eligible for Title 1 commodity support payments. The Dairy Margin Protection Program must be improved and we have a suggested package of reforms that continues a two-tiered approach to providing a safety net for dairy, and that increases the feed ration formula by 10 percent. The increase in costs to do with this are offset by adjusting the premium rates and by increasing the administrative fee for cap coverage. We want to increase the $20 million annual cap on livestock insurance products to $75 million annually. This will allow dairy, beef, swine, and sheep producers to have more opportunity to insure their risk. The Conservation Reserve Program has been a huge topic within our membership. It is critical that USDA be required to update rental rate data for the Conservation Reserve Program every year rather than every other year. It is also important that the pollinator rental rate be capped at the lower of $300 per acre or 90 percent of the average county cash rent for the type of land that is entered into the pollinator program. We will likely have more recommendations on rental rates in a few weeks. Suffice it to say, we have had many members express concerns about CRP rental rates exceeding land rental rates and making it exceeding difficult, especially for beginning farmers, to be able to rent land. We do not support increasing the cap on CRP above the current 24 million acre cap. We would also like to make parcels of land that been enrolled in the general CRP for two contracts being eligible for re-enrollment. I want to thank you for allowing me to participate this morning. I would be happy to respond to questions later. Thank you very much. [The prepared statement of Mr. Haney can be found on page 97 in the appendix.] Chairman Roberts. Thank you, Mr. Haney. Roger, you are up to bat. STATEMENT OF ROGER JOHNSON, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL FARMERS UNION, WASHINGTON, DC Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Chairman Roberts and members of the Committee. Thanks for the opportunity to testify today and the work this Committee is doing to understand the challenges that face agriculture. I serve as the President of the National Farmers Union. We represent about 200,000 family farmers, ranchers, and rural members, and we work to improve the well-being and quality of life for these folks by advocating for grassroots-driven policy adopted annually by our membership. Commodity programs, access to credit and crop insurance will be key components of the 2017 farm bill, if it is possible. This rings especially true as we continue to witness pressure in the countryside as commodity prices remain low and farmers and ranchers struggle to adjust. We are three years into this downturn. Forecasts by USDA point to a prolonged period of depressed prices. Given this scenario, Farmers Union believes that the farm bill safety net should provide meaningful assistance in two fundamental circumstances--when disaster strikes and when prices are low and remain below the cost of production for extended periods of time. These two scenarios have separate solutions. The first is crop insurance and the second is commodity programs. Our current environment has negative implications for producers' access to credit. During fiscal year 6, FSA set a new record across its loan portfolio. Obligations of direct and guaranteed operating and farm ownership loans reached $6.3 billion, highest in FSA's history. At the same time, servicing metrics associated with the programs got worse, as delinquencies rose and debt restructuring increased among private sector lending. Confidence is down and stress on portfolios are up, according to both public and private reports. Nearly 90 percent of agricultural lenders report an overall decline in farm profitability in the last 12 months. To combat periods of prolonged low prices, our members believe a strong safety net is required. Much discussion and debate has centered on programs that fit the budget. Using the budget as a starting and ending point for the nation's agriculture safety net is problematic from our perspective. Feeding the nation is a national security priority and should be treated as such. As recently as April, the President reaffirmed this belief--we must maintain farm programs that help offset low prices until favorable prices return. To that end, we urge this Committee to raise reference prices under the PLC, improve operability of ARC, return cotton as a covered commodity, and rework the dairy safety net. It is important to note that last week the Senate Appropriations Committee took important steps related to cotton and dairy, but I would urge you to use this as a starting point, not a final solution. We must ensure that the next farm bill provides a meaningful backstop for dairy and cotton operations. While we encourage alterations to ARC, PLC, and MPP programs, our members are concerned that the costs of improvements to one program will come at the expense of another. NFU urges this Committee to add money where needed in order to improve these programs. The assistance that Title 1 programs are providing is complemented by the role of crop insurance, which provides an essential risk management tool to farmers. Crop insurance changes contained in the 2014 Farm Bill pertaining to policies such as NAP and the Whole-Farm Revenue Protection program have proven an important springboard for farmers, especially beginning farmers, into crop insurance. While both NAP and WFRP have a long way to go in the eyes of these populations, they are an important introduction. Farmers Union urges this Committee to look further at these programs, specifically expanding beginning farmer discounts from 5 to 10 years, reducing the record-keeping burdens that have created a barrier to use, removing livestock operations from being counted towards the livestock insurance cap, and reworking the $1 million livestock liability limit on this program. Diversity on the farm leads to less risk. We should encourage farmers to seek that additional diversity. Farmers Union believes there are minor changes that can be made within the federal crop insurance program that incentive rather than punish producers seeking additional conservation benefits. There are many challenges facing agriculture today. This Committee faces a challenging task ahead as it begins to grapple with these problems. Farm bill safety net needs to be improved, crop insurance needs to be protected, and access to credit needs to be increased, all for the benefit of family farmers. Our collective is to continue working to provide help when and where needed, and encourage the continued growth and success of our most vital industry--agriculture. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson can be found on page 125 in the appendix.] Chairman Roberts. We thank you for your testimony. We turn now to Ms. Shute. STATEMENT OF LINDSEY LUSHER SHUTE, HEARTY ROOTS COMMUNITY FARM AND CO-FOUNDER AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL YOUNG FARMERS COALITION, HUDSON, NEW YORK Ms. Shute. Chairman Roberts, Ranking Member Stabenow--thank you for the introduction--members of Committee, my name is Lindsey Lusher Shute and it is a distinct honor to be here with you today. Our country needs farmers. The generation of men and women who have stewarded our land, who have grown food for the nation are aging, and there are simply not enough young people ready to step up and take their place. Between 2007 and 2012, our nation lost 90,000 principal operators. Farmers over the age of 65 now outnumber farmers under the age of 35 by a margin of 6- to-1. Two-thirds of farmland is managed by someone aged 55 or older. Then in the next five years, the span of the next farm bill, we expect that 100 million acres of U.S. farmland will need a new farmer. The only way to bring young people back to agriculture is to prove to them that it is a career worth pursuing. We must prove to them that you can still start farming in your 20s, when you have a good back, good knees, lots of energy. We must prove to them that farming can support you through all stages of life--through having children, through retirement, through hardship. The only way that we are going to be able to prove all of these things is to ensure that people who are young and who are farming today, we have to make sure that they make it, and that is why I am here. Young Americans are farming, and many more are getting trained. In the last Census of Agriculture, in fact, we saw the first increase in the number of young people farming under 35 years old, the second time we have seen this in the last century, so that is significant. If these farmers make it, I believe more will follow. These millennials, multi-generational farmers, first-generation farmers, veterans, former farm workers, they are entrepreneurial and tough, but far too many are finding that is just not enough. Young farmers and ranchers struggle with finding farmland, managing student debt, affording health care, as well as deep biases that disadvantage women and people of color who are farming. Land access is dire. Over the past 15 years, farmland real estate prices have gone up by 150 percent, and as farmland prices rise faster than farm incomes, farmland ownership, that foundation of a successful family farm, grows further out of reach. Serving young farmers will require new ways of doing things and working together to protect opportunity for all growers. There are certainly changes that young farmers need in the next farm bill and from USDA, but I want you to know that actions by this Committee and USDA are making a difference, and we need to build on this progress in the next farm bill. FSA's microloans are essential. FSA's new beginning farmer regional coordinators, and its cooperative agreements with organizations like ours, are bringing these programs to more farmers. We urge FSA and USDA to finally modernize its services and put them online. To address farmland prices, we need to address the direct farm ownership loan limit up and pre-approve farmers for loans so they can actually compete on the real estate market with an FSA loan. Farmland conservation funding must also be increased to keep prices in check and, of course, to protect our land. Farm safety net programs are critical and new products like Whole-Farm Revenue Protection, NAP discounts for beginners, and NAP buy-up are covering more growers and they should be fully supported. But business models that young farmers are turning to, like community-supported agriculture, CSA, like my farm, they still do not fit these programs and many of them have no insurance whatsoever. We urge you to further strengthen the safety net and help farmers to save for tough time through tax-deferred or tax-free farmer savings accounts. These savings accounts could also help young growers save for future farm needs. We also encourage this Committee to address student debt. Chairman Roberts, we are grateful for your efforts to expand GI Bill benefits for veterans pursuing careers in agriculture. That is tremendous. This is the right direction. We encourage the Committee to explore ways that all young farmers pursuing farm careers could manage student debt, because it is, frankly, interfering with their ability to secure additional credit. Farming is a career that is easy to love, but to recruit the next generation of farmers it must also provide a decent living. We look forward to working with the Committee to make that possible. On behalf of the National Young Farmers Coalition's 36 farmer-led chapters, thank you for this opportunity. [The prepared statement of Ms. Shute can be found on page 224 in the appendix.] Chairman Roberts. Ms. Shute, thank you so much for that very excellent testimony regarding when and where the next generation of farmers can come aboard. Mr. Cole. STATEMENT OF WILLIAM COLE, STONE CORNER FARMS AND CHAIRMAN, CROP INSURANCE PROFESSIONALS ASSOCIATION, BATESVILLE, MISSISSIPPI Mr. Cole. Chairman Roberts, Ranking Member Stabenow, thank you for the privilege to testify today. My name is William Cole and I am a crop insurance agent from Batesville, Mississippi. Speaking before this Committee is a little surreal. After all, Chairman Roberts and many members of this Committee have been the driving forces behind legislation that built the framework for crop insurance to become what it is. Today, farmers willingly pay $4 billion out of pocket each year and insure more than 130 different crops on 90 percent of all U.S. acres, 290 million acres in all, covering some $100 billion worth of liability. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and all the members of this Committee for all you have done to ensure American farmers and ranchers have something as basic as insurance. I am the Chairman of the Crop Insurance Professional Association. CIPA agents sell in insurance just about every state, serving the risk management needs of our producer customers, so I greatly appreciate that mitigating risks is the focus of today's hearing. Crop insurance helps farmers secure credit, invest in better equipment and technology, and better market their crops. It also stabilize the economies of our rural communities, especially in natural disasters. But it was not always this way. In my written testimony, I spent considerable time on the 80-year history of crop insurance, and especially the watershed laws of 1980, 1994, and 2000, that moved us to private delivery and laid the firm foundation for the meteoric rise in both participation and coverage levels over the last 20 years. It is this growth that finally put an end to costly unbudgeted, ad hoc crop loss disaster programs, and crop insurance has served taxpayers and farmers well in other ways too, consistently coming in under budget. Since the 2008 Farm Bill, crop insurance has yielded some $17 billion in savings. According to the June 2017 CBO update, we are now on target to save taxpayers another $6.7 billion over the next 10 years. Despite these great advances, there is still much room for improvement. We believe it should be the goal of all crops and regions to have access to high-quality, affordable options. Certain changes made in the 2014 Farm Bill have helped. The yield exclusion, expansion of enterprise units, whole-farm insurance, and beginning farmer provisions have been very successful. But there are a few provisions that have not performed as well. Linkage of conservation compliance to crop insurance is an example of where we have gained little in exchange for a lot of effort, and some tragic stories of lost coverage in the wake. Area plans of insurance, including SCO and STAX for cotton, have also underperformed, we believe due to producer weariness toward paying money for coverage that is not tailored to the risk on their farm. Looking forward to the 2018 Farm Bill, we believe that Congress should consider the three following principles: that the current farm bill is, in fact, below budget; that crop insurance is critical and gives taxpayers a big bang for the buck; and that farmers need a strong Title 1 for times of depressed markets like these, and based on this, Congress should proceed to enact a strong new farm bill. We have to acknowledge that while crop insurance is working, the critics have set it up as their big target. Legislation backed by the Heritage Foundation and EWG would do irreparable harm to farmers and ranchers. Dr. Art Barnaby of Kansas State University sums it up this way: ``If all these crop insurance changes were to pass, it would kill crop insurance, and if just one of them were to pass, it would upset the equilibrium and start the death spiral.'' What are they proposing and what would it impact? Well, arbitrary limits on coverage and on premium discounts and an AGI means test would damage the risk pool. Further cuts to A&O and company rate of return would kill the private delivery, and the publication of insurance contracts would be used to distort information against farmers. At bottom, these proposals would unravel the work Chairman Roberts did 17 years ago, and the work of Senator Leahy 23 years ago, and return us to an annual need for unbudgeted, ad hoc crop loss disaster programs. We would strongly urge you to reject these proposals that are not designed to reform but destroy. Finally, I want to say a word about program integrity, the reason CIPA was created 20 years ago. While any form of insurance has its bad actors, the universe in crop insurance is small. In most years, the farmer writes a check rather than the insurance company. In 2016, only 19 percent of all policies received an indemnity. Moreover, the improper payment rate was just 2.02 percent, roughly half of the government-wide average. So this is a good story but we can do even better, just as working together we can enact a strong new farm bill, on time, that fully protects federal crop insurance. CIPA stands ready to help. Thank you once again for the privilege of testifying today. [The prepared statement of Mr. Cole can be found on page 85 in the appendix.] Chairman Roberts. Mr. Cole, thank you for an excellent statement. Mr. Rutledge. STATEMENT OF RON RUTLEDGE, PRESIDENT AND CEO, FARMERS MUTUAL HAIL INSURANCE COMPANY OF IOWA, WEST DES MOINES, IOWA Mr. Rutledge. Good morning, Chairman Roberts, Ranking Member Stabenow, and distinguished members of the Senate Ag Committee. I would like to thank you for having me here today to testify about crop insurance and the vital role it plays in providing risk management to farmers across the country. I would also like to thank this Committee for all of the support for crop insurance. My name is Ron Rutledge and I am President and CEO of Farmers Mutual Hail Insurance Company of Iowa, one of the 16 Approved Insurance Providers that sells crop insurance policies to farmers and ranchers across the country. Farmers Mutual Hail was founded by my great-grandfather in Iowa in 1893, and we have been providing crop insurance to farmers for 125 years. I am also Chairman of the Crop Insurance and Reinsurance Bureau, and I am a Board member on the National Crop Insurance Services. As an Approved Insurance Provider, we underwrite crop insurance policies, which means we share in bearing the risk of policies so a taxpayer is not entirely on the hook for any loss. We hire agents to sell policies and adjusters to assess and confirm losses. We invest in technology, training, and services to ensure the highest integrity of the program. As an industry, we are proud to sell crop insurance in all 50 states and to all types of farmers. Our industry covers farms of all sizes and covers more than 100 different commodities, including a significant number of specialty crops. For those crops without specific coverage, whole-farm revenue insurance is available. Crop insurance is continuously evolving and recent advances have included improvements in organic policies and additional benefits for beginning ranchers and farmers. I cannot stress enough the breadth and depth of the protection that is provided by crop insurance. Crop insurance protects farmers and ranchers in every single state represented in this room today. Crop insurance was purchased on almost 280 million acres of farmland in 2016, well over 90 percent of the 300 million acres available in the United States. Crop insurance policies protected $95 billion worth of liabilities in 2016. Crop insurance protected more than $18 billion in liabilities for specialty crops alone, a number that has increased significantly in recent years. As you all know, crop insurance policies must be purchased by farmers and only pay an indemnity when producers face a verifiable loss above and beyond their deductible. Last year, losses from drought were concentrated in the Northeast, with New Hampshire and New York and Rhode Island all having losses that exceeded the premiums for the year. Arkansas, Louisiana, and North Carolina also had difficult years, with loss ratios well over 100 percent. This year, crop insurance will come to the assistance of farmers in the Dakotas and Montana that are facing a devastating drought; farmers in Alabama for losses from Tropical Storm Cindy; farmers in Michigan for losses from the double-whammy of a late spring freeze and flooding; and farmers in Kansas who endured both prairie fires and late-season snowstorms, and that is just so far. There is a lot of growing season left. Yet despite the critical role crop insurance plays in providing fiscally responsible protection to farmers, we know crop insurance will face attacks during the 2018 Farm Bill process. I believe many of these attacks are fueled by misinformation, which is covered in my written testimony but we simply do not have time to cover it today. I would like to point out, however, that on average, over the last five years, 54 percent of Farmers Mutual Hail customers paid premiums out of their own pockets and received zero indemnity payments. That is not an investment looking to earn a return; that is how insurance is supposed to work. Today I would like to ask this Committee to continue your support for the private sector delivery of crop insurance, as well as for affordable and effective crop insurance for producers of all sizes, crops, and regions. I ask that you oppose efforts to harm crop insurance during the 2018 Farm Bill, and specifically, I urge you to oppose the policies put forward in the AFFIRM Act, or S. 1025. This bill includes harmful policies such as cuts to the private sector delivery of crop insurance, cuts to the premium discounts provided to America's farmers and ranchers who purchase crop insurance, and multiple forms of means testing. Again, I thank you for having me here today and for your continued support. I look forward to answering any questions you have, and I am happy to be a continuous resource for you during the farm bill process. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Rutledge can be found on page 180 in the appendix.] Chairman Roberts. Well, thank you, Mr. Rutledge. I am going to mark you and Mr. Cole down as being in favor of crop insurance. [Laughter.] Chairman Roberts. Mrs. Minick. STATEMENT OF MANDY MINICK, WASHINGTON STATE PRESIDENT, NORTHWEST FARM CREDIT SERVICES, PASCO, WASHINGTON Mrs. Minick. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Stabenow, and members of the Committee, thank you for allowing me to testify today on behalf of the farm credit system. My name is Mandy Minick and I am the Washington President of Northwest Farm Credit Services. We provide financing, crop insurance, and related services to farmers, ranchers, agribusinesses, commercial fisherman, timber producers, and rural homeowners in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, and Alaska. Northwest is part of the nationwide farm credit system. Farm Credit's mission is to support rural communities and agriculture with reliable, consistent credit and financial services. We are here today to talk and advocate for a strong farm bill. Farm income has fallen, along with commodity prices, over the past several years. Similar to the producers we serve, Farm Credit built financial strength in anticipation of this challenging economic cycle. Like most, we could not predict when this cycle would begin or end, but experience told us it was coming and our institutions prepared for it. We built capital, we loaned conservatively. Today, Farm Credit is financially stronger than it has ever been, and is prepared to use those strengths to support our customer-owners and continue to fulfill our mission. Our philosophy on credit today is this: we know our customers well, understand, and respond to their needs, and work cooperatively with them to analyze and structure transactions to provide them with the best chance to succeed. The current cycle in agriculture makes this Committee's work on the next farm bill crucial. We need a strong farm bill to provide a safety net against sustained market downturns. We strongly support maintaining and improving federal crop insurance programs, along with agriculture risk coverage and Price Loss Coverage programs. This is the heart of a strong farm bill. Whole-Farm Revenue Protection has expanded options for specialty crop, organic, and diversified crop producers, allowing them to insure all their crops at once instead of one commodity at a time. A viable federal crop insurance program, including WFRP, is vital to the flow of credit to farmers and ranchers, particularly those that are young and beginning, who typically have less collateral and equity. Without the risk protections provided by crop insurance, agricultural lenders would have to tighten underwriting standards, making it more difficult for farmers to plant crops and replace capital assets. Economic growth would slow and rural communities would suffer. As the farm economy continues to soften, Farm Service Agency guaranteed and direct loans are even more important, particularly for young and beginning producers. We are grateful for the leadership of Senator Hoeven on this issue, as I understand he is working to enhance the current FSA guarantee limit. FSA guarantees provide Farm Credit institutions additional flexibility to help customers survive a potentially extended economic downturn. Infrastructure that supports rural communities and links them to global markets has helped make the U.S. the unquestionable leader in agricultural production. However, our deteriorating infrastructure threatens this leadership position. We hope that the Committee will urge the Farm Credit Administration to re-establish a program that facilities partnerships between Farm Credit, commercial banks, and USDA to build community facilities in rural areas. The lack of a reliable, stable, and legal workforce threatens the economic health of our farmers. The labor shortage negatively impacts our economic competitiveness, local economies, and jobs. We need an appropriate reform to address the agricultural labor shortage. Thank you again for allowing me to testify, and we look forward to working with the Committee to pass the farm bill. [The prepared statement of Mrs. Minick can be found on page 151 in the appendix.] Chairman Roberts. We thank you very much for your testimony. Mrs. Kluesner. STATEMENT OF BRENDA KLUESNER, LOAN OFFICER AND CROP INSURANCE MANAGER, ROYAL BANK, CASSVILLE, WISCONSIN. Mrs. Kluesner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Brenda Kluesner, Loan Officer and Crop Insurance Manager at Royal Bank, Cassville, Wisconsin, testifying on behalf of ICBA. Royal Bank is a $400 million community bank, serving 19 Wisconsin locations, with over $90 million in ag loans, and providing crop insurance for over 20,000 acres. Our nation's 5,800 community banks are vital to agriculture. Passing the new farm bill next fall will be helpful, and a five-year time frame will provide certainty for farmers and their lenders making business planning decisions. My testimony suggests five principles for the next farm bill: provide adequate funding to weather a potential farm income or farm credit crisis; consider any program changes that could help producers and the banks that serve them; require agencies to reduce regulatory burdens; ensure no regulations be adopted not based on specific statutes or which add regulatory burdens; require agencies to treat program participants equally; direct government loan programs should complement, not subtract, from private sector lending. Community banks have been lending at historically low interest rates. After four years of declining farm income, USDA projects net farm income at one half of the levels of 2013. The decline in farm income has stressed the abilities of money borrowers to cash flow. Many farmers have strong equity but not enough working capital or positive cash flow. Demand for debt restructuring will increase. Bankers are concerned regulators may overreact, classifying loans with negative cash flows despite strong land equity. Following are recommendations from ICBA ag bankers. Provide adequate funding. USDA guaranteed loan programs run out of money in times like these. We need flexibility so USDA can transfer unused surplus funds between programs or from CCC. We suggest permanent legislative authority. Similar authority could be in place for direct loans and the business and industry loan program. Raise loan volume caps. Loan limits on USDA farm loans are too low. Higher loan limits are warranted given dramatic increases in cost of inputs and farmland. The guaranteed ownership program is self-funding, and the operating program is very low cost, providing billions of dollars of credit to farmers unable to obtain credit. Minimize origination fees, which discourage use. Minimize paperwork. Remove USDA's 12-to 24-month waiting period to refinance from FSA guaranteed loans when there has been any type of ground disturbance. Provide flexibility when financing loans across state lines, as USDA requirements often differ among states. Increase USDA staffing levels to quicken approval times and update USDA software. Allow banks to choose which USDA-FSA office to work with to ensure a timely loan approval process. Support Farmer Mac's technical changes. Regulators classify farm loans if farmers miss an occasional payment, even if farmers have strong equity. With a 90 percent USDA guarantee, the loan amount of a classified loan is reduced 90 percent. A $1 million loan would only have $100,000 classified. This helps banks keep farmers in business without the bank being under regulator-imposed enforcement action. We need a strong farm safety net with a strong farm bill and crop insurance program, both vital to producers and lenders. We also need a very robust USDA guarantee loan program which can help thousand of farmers farming in the potentially stressful times ahead. We look forward to working with you. [The prepared statement of Mrs. Kluesner can be found on page 131 in the appendix.] Chairman Roberts. Thank you very much for your testimony. For Mr. Cole and Mr. Rutledge, thank you for the work that you do to provide crop insurance to farmers and ranchers. We had a change back in the 2014 Farm Bill, which I deem as unneeded, costly, burdensome, and that was the addition of conservation compliance to crop insurance. As the Department implemented this additional requirement, what issues have producers, agents, and companies encountered with conservation compliance? Mr. Cole. I will start, Mr. Chairman. As you well know, the intention was to bring more farmers into compliance and not go the other way, where they lose coverage. It is so punitive especially for our friends that have specialty crops in the Northwest where they might not have ever been in a program and they do not really know that they are out of compliance, and then they miss a date, and they receive harsh penalties. So if conservation compliance stays in place then we have got to simplify these rules without the punitive penalties where they lose coverage. Chairman Roberts. Mr. Rutledge, anything? Mr. Rutledge. Certainly. We had our challenges too. Obviously it is a lot of work any time those kinds of changes are put in, in terms of updating IT, and getting the processes in place. There were some data issues and some unintended consequences, I think, from it. I do have to acknowledge, if I may, the AIPs and agents like Mr. Cole, who all worked very hard together to get out and contact the producers who were not in compliance and get them in compliance before the compliance dates passed. There were some exceptions and hopefully we can avoid those in the future. Chairman Roberts. Mrs. Minick, on page 7 of your testimony, paragraph 4, ``Farm Credit helped organize Rebuild Rural, a coalition of more than 200 organizations representing ag producers, rural businesses, rural communities, rural families to advocate for aggressive efforts to meet the unique infrastructure needs of rural communities and agriculture.'' You have apparently asked the President to specifically address rural infrastructure needs as part of his administration's comprehensive infrastructure renewal efforts, and you have been encouraged, as you have indicated here. Talk to us a little bit about Rebuild Rural. Mrs. Minick. Sure. So as we talked before, the rural communities need to be strong, for lots of reasons, to have a strong farm economy, to attract young folks back and want to join in on that. So a lot of that revolves around the services that are provided there--medical, personal health, Internet-- all those kinds of things that attract folks that want--they want the same services that they have there in urban areas to be in rural areas. Very important for our young and beginning. Also, that infrastructure is so important to make sure that we maintain our leadership role in the long run in the world markets, and being able to get products easily and efficiently from where they are produced, from the farm gate to the ports, is so important. So that is why we feel that we need to make sure that as we go forward building infrastructure that it is not only in the urban areas but in the rural areas as well. Chairman Roberts. I appreciate that very much. Mrs. Kluesner, I am looking through your entire statement here, but you were mentioning the role of the regulator, and obviously we have to have regulators. But I remember back in the 2008 days, where regulators were coming in, and instead of going mark to market they were going to mark to whatever they determined, and in my view made the situation much worse. What do you see out there right now, given the situation we are in and the rough patch we are going through, on the part of the regulators, and how--I am not trying to have you single anybody out, but just where do you see this going right now? Mrs. Kluesner. Well, right now we are not as dire as what I believe it is going to be this fall, with commodity prices. You know, with utilizing the USDA guaranteed loan programs, any problem loans only count as 10 percent of the bank's capital if the loan is classified, so it is just going to help us by utilizing the USDA guaranteed loans. It will help satisfy regulator. But regulators need to work with the banks and not overreact. Chairman Roberts. For anybody on the panel, if you can mention one thing that we need to do, on the Committee, and for that matter, with regards to our farm program policy, to see some price recovery, what would it be? I will give you a hint-- I am aiming at exports. But, anyway, go ahead, Mr. Haney. Mr. Haney. Yes, sir. We are certainly a free trade organization and we understand exports is at the top of the list. Certainly labor is going to be a big issue for our industry as well, and how we deal with that labor issue. Chairman Roberts. Roger? Mr. Johnson. Well, sir, we agree that exports are very important. We are in a challenging environment right now with an administration that, while we agree with much of what he says, in terms of trade philosophy, I think most of us would disagree with some of the tactics. Words matter, and the ability to lose export markets, they are pretty fragile. When countries are offended they look elsewhere, and we are seeing some of that. So certainly with respect to exports, I think there are some different approaches we could take. I do think it is really important that, to your base question, we have a safety net that really works, and in our view, you need a safety net really in two fundamental circumstances--when market prices are bad, below cost of production, and when disasters strike, and I talk about that quite a bit in my testimony. I guess that is what I would urge the Committee to really focus on. Thank you. Chairman Roberts. Ms. Shute? Ms. Shute. Our farmers are focused on the direct market, selling direct to consumer, typically domestically, and their foundation of profitability really depends on their land--how much they are paying in rent and mortgage payment, if applicable. So land access is the single most difficult issue for young and beginning farmers. So if I were to say if there was any issue you should focus on in the next farm bill it is figuring out how we can make sure that land is transferred from the existing generation of farmers to the next, in a way that is affordable and really supports a family-scale farm. Within that, we need to improve FSA services. As I said, we need preapproval, we need to increase direct farm ownership loan limits. We also need to consider tax incentives that would actually encourage farmers, enable some farmers to pass their land down to the next generation and also encourage farmers to sell to the next generation of working farmers. Chairman Roberts. We will mark you down on behalf of estate tax reform, and I hope we get to tax reform. I will just leave it at that. Mr. Cole. Mr. Cole. Yes, sir. At CIPA we are continuously working to improve crop insurance protection, not only on the yield side but we also keep working to expand it to other crops and also to provide more support when prices fall, where farmers are not just looking at PLC or ARC, but they also have crop insurance to step in and help fill the gap as well. Chairman Roberts. Mr. Rutledge. Mr. Rutledge. I guess I would just say, do not throw the baby out with the bath water. The 2014 Farm Bill was a very solid bill--job well done--and a few tweaks to some of the programs now will serve us just fine. Chairman Roberts. I think I can speak on behalf of Senator Stabenow and myself that this is no time for revolutionary ideas. Stability and predictability, I think, are the two key words. Mrs. Minick. Mrs. Minick. Yes, on that stability as far as keeping families on the farms, being able to pass them on to the next generation, so keeping the programs that give that safety net a strong farm crop insurance program and then the ability for private institutions to work with FSA to help out even in some of these cycles are very important. Chairman Roberts. Ms. Kluesner. Mrs. Kluesner. A five-year time frame will allow long-term business planning for farmers. A strong commodity safety net allows us to make the long-term price projections and work with the farmers. It is very important not only for today's farmers but it also helps us prepare the way for the next generation. Chairman Roberts. I thank you all for your testimony. That will conclude our hearing today, with the exception of the comments by the distinguished Ranking Member. Almost forgot you. Senator Stabenow. That is right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all of you. I think, Mrs. Kluesner, at the end you were talking about, you mentioned five-year farm bill, and I think it is so important that we stress that we are not limping along year to year to year, that the fact that this is a five-year economic development strategy is very important. It should be at least five years. Actually, the stability the Chairman talked about was so very important when you are trying to plan, and our farmers are trying to do this. It is risky enough without having us add to it. So I do want to start with one thing, Mr. Cole, because you were talking about conservation compliance, and I just want to follow up on that, because conservation compliance actually is not a new idea for the majority of farmers. It has been around for 30 years. The USDA testified in front of our Committee just last month that 99 percent of producers are meeting the new conservation compliance requirements established in the 2000 Farm Bill. For those who are new, the Department provides several exemptions to reduce the number of farmers who may lose premium insurance. So I wondered--I am just a little confused and I want to clarify your statements, because--can you tell me if anyone that you serve or personally know has actually lost the federal premium support due to these provisions? Mr. Cole. I do not personally, because most of our producers in the South have produced program crops for years. But now, the biggest problem is timing. We are not saying that conservation compliance is not a very good thing. Our producers need to be in compliance. But I think it is more of a regulatory issue, including the timing aspect of it, such as when farmers get the paperwork filed with their farm service agency, if they miss something, or if they change their operation, or have a death in the family. There needs to be some exemptions. We have had to work with our customers and help, through CIPA, to try and find a way that we can get them back into compliance. So it is a good thing. We have just got to simplify it, where the producers do not have such a problem and possibly do miss out on these benefits. Senator Stabenow. Okay. Well, that is important clarification. You are talking about specialty crops as well, which I represent---- Mr. Cole. Yes, ma'am. Senator Stabenow. --a lot of in Michigan. I have not heard specific concerns at this point about that, when we did the hearing in Michigan. Mr. Rutledge, the same question. Do you know of anyone in Iowa who has actually lost their federal premium support? Mr. Rutledge. We had one situation where a beginning producer missed the filing date, and it took some time to straighten out. I think it was, in the end. But that is the biggest problem we had, and is, I think, similar to some of the problems Mr. Cole ran into. If you did not hit the right date or had an entity change or land change past the date, there was no way to get in compliance for the current year. I do believe RMA has straightened that out with their latest bulletin. Senator Stabenow. Okay. Good. Thank you. Mr. Johnson, Mr. Haney, the Farm Bureau, the Farmers Union, the National Milk Producers had proposed in the spring I think an innovative idea to improve dairy insurance options administratively, and I know that Mr. Nobis talked about that on the first panel, and it makes sense to me. I wonder if you could each briefly expand on that, and do you support expanding the benefits of crop insurance for dairy? Mr. Haney. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. We certainly--this gives me an opportunity to talk about the work that our staff has done at American Farm Bureau on working with industry and being able to really help produce another tool in the toolbox, I would say. Maybe not the answer to everything but certainly an insurance product that would allow a producer to have skin in the game and certainly purchase more coverage, we think, is probably the right way to go. Senator Stabenow. Thank you. Mr. Johnson. Mr. Johnson. Well, yes, thank you, Senator Stabenow, for the question. You know, fundamentally this is probably a question about the money, and I know that is an issue that you all struggle with mightily as you try to write a farm bill within the confines of a budget. One of the, I think the innovative ideas around this is if it can be funded through the risk management, crop insurance angle, then the budgetary implications are significantly different. So to the degree that you can figure out how to finesse that, that would be a very good thing. The reason I think this idea emerged is because we had a dairy task force that was put together a year or more ago from among our membership, and reached out to others in the industry as well. There was, as you know, an enormous amount of concern about the economic problems facing the dairy sector, and there just is not enough budget authority to do justice to a dairy title, to try and fix this problem. So one of the things that we learned in that process was there are a lot of folks that talked about the LGM program, which, of course, is this very restrictive limit on crop insurance, dairy program, and so the argument was made, if you can sort of define milk as something different than cattle then maybe you can do this through RMA, and we would encourage you to pursue that approach. It may be a way to get some more resources into an industry that direly needs some support. Senator Stabenow. Thank you. Well, we did give authority to the Secretary to designate and to a crop insurance board to be able to expand crop insurance. That is how we did it---- Mr. Johnson. Yes. We appreciate that. Senator Stabenow. --within the 2014 Farm Bill. So it is certainly something that can be done under existing authority. Mr. Johnson. Yes. Senator Stabenow. Just as a follow-up, Mr. Rutledge, Mr. Cole, from a crop insurance perspective, would you support and see benefits from expanding the crop insurance options available to dairy farmers? Mr. Rutledge. Certainly we would and we would like to see a policy similar to what is in place now that is actuarially sound. I am sure we could deliver one. Senator Stabenow. Mr. Cole. Mr. Cole. Milk and dairy are not my areas of expertise but I do know that milk does not need to be classified as livestock and should be taken out from under the cap so dairy farmers can actually get a crop insurance policy. Senator Stabenow. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Roberts. Senator Van Hollen, I am delighted to recognize you now, sir. You have been waiting a long time. You were first in the Committee room, so I am delighted to recognize you. Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am sorry I was not able to make the entire hearing in and out, but I understand that you have covered some of the questions I intended to ask, so I will try and keep this brief. But I did have a question, Mrs. Minick, especially with respect to using farm credit to help expand and develop infrastructure in rural areas, including energy infrastructure but also specifically broadband. Is there a role for farm credit in bringing greater access to broadband, and exactly what have we done so far? Mrs. Minick. I will speak to that a little bit and then our banking partners, which are CoBank and AgriBank, they are charted differently than some of the farm credit associations, and so they have the ability to do some of that infrastructure that the associations themselves do not. Senator Van Hollen. Okay. Mrs. Minick. So to answer your question, yes, we have a very vested interest in making sure that rural infrastructure is there, for lots of different reasons--for a strong farm economy, for vital rural communities, for attracting folks and making them want to live there, and to be able to have a viable businesses. So all of those infrastructure points are very important to us. Senator Van Hollen. Anybody else care to comment on whether or not we have been able to use access to this farm credit for the kind of infrastructure I am referring to--broadband and that kind of thing? Is there--so we have not been successful in using farm credit to build out that kind of infrastructure so far. Is that right? [No audible response.] Senator Van Hollen. Does anybody know? Okay. Mr. Haney. I am sorry. There has certainly been an effort to build up broadband, various means, but whether it was farm credit---- Senator Van Hollen. I got it. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Haney. --we do not know. Senator Van Hollen. Can I--so in Maryland we have a great rural agriculture sector. We also have a rising interest in urban agriculture. Can you tell me whether any of the programs you are talking about, especially farm credit programs, how they are currently being applied, if they are being applied in the area of urban agriculture? Obviously totally different profiles and so I am just curious. Mrs. Minick. Sure. Sure. I will talk a little bit, when you are saying farm credit I think you are meaning the farm credit system but also then credit available to farmers. Right? So both of those. Senator Van Hollen. Yes. Mrs. Minick. So I will talk to the farm credit system piece of that and then someone else can address the other part. In Northwest Farm Credit we have a lot of folks that participate in the CSAs and those kinds of things as well, especially our urban areas around Seattle and that kind of thing. We have some great young and beginning programs. We call that Ag Vision. It really helps with the capital needed for that. Not only is their interest rate rebates in there for people that are just getting started but also that program is really hinged on education, so we offer a lot of educational programs for folks to come to, all the way from filling out your basic financial statement to succession planning and a lot of different things that go in there. I think we heard earlier today that oftentimes, for young and beginning farmers, they enjoy and they can understand the farm side of things, but getting the financial and the business side of it down is a little bit harder. At Northwest Farm Credit, our Board, who are also farmers, they challenge us to grow that Ag Vision program by 15 percent a year, so that is really part of the initiative, and we are seeing that not only in our very rural areas but help in the urban areas. I think it is really important to make sure that consumer has a great tie to where their food is coming from, and that is really important for agriculture in the long run. Mr. Haney. May I address, again, the broadband question from a personal angle just a little bit? We are certainly, in the fruit business, have a retail market on the farm. Broadband build-out is more important now than ever. As we go through this local food transition across the nation, we have to be able to really conduct commerce at the farm, not at the marketplace but at the farm level now, everything from being able to swipe a credit card to being able to market the most effective way we market from our products anymore, and that is through social media and online advertising. So the importance of being able to connect the United States certainly to us and to farmers is more important now than ever. Senator Van Hollen. I appreciate that. I think it would be integral to people's efforts these days, and that is why I was wondering if we sort of expanded the reach of some of these programs to provide for broadband. But I look forward to following up with all of you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Roberts. Senator, thank you for an excellent question. This is going to conclude our hearing today. I want to thank each of our witnesses for taking time to share your view on risk management tools, including the commodities, credit, and crop insurance programs. The testimonies and conversations are invaluable for the committee to hear first-hand. They will not collect dust. While we have much more work ahead of us, we now have held hearings and gathered support related to eight of the farm bill titles. Please go to ag.senate.gov and click on the Farm Bill Hearing box on the left-hand side of your screen, not the right but the left. That link will be open for five business days following today's hearing. To my fellow members, we would ask that any additional questions you may have for the record be submitted to the Committee Clerk five business days from today, or by 5 p.m. next Tuesday, August 1st. The Committee stands adjourned. [Whereupon, at 12:23 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] ======================================================================= A P P E N D I X JULY 25, 2017 ======================================================================= [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] ======================================================================= DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD JULY 25, 2017 ======================================================================= [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] ======================================================================= QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS JULY 25, 2017 ======================================================================= [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] [all]