    [Senate Hearing 116-129]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 116-129

                               CLIMATE CHANGE AND
                             THE AGRICULTURE SECTOR

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                           COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,
                            NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                         ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                  MAY 21, 2019

                                   __________

                           Printed for the use of the
               Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

           Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov/

                                  __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    38-311 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2020

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

               COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

                         PAT ROBERTS, Kansas, Chairman
    MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky            DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan
    JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas               PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
    JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota            SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
    JONI ERNST, Iowa                     AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
    CINDY HYDE-SMITH, Mississippi        MICHAEL BENNET, Colorado
    MIKE BRAUN, Indiana                  KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York
    DAVID PERDUE, Georgia                ROBERT P. CASEY, Jr., Pennsylvania
    CHARLES GRASSLEY, Iowa               TINA SMITH, Minnesota
    JOHN THUNE, South Dakota             RICHARD DURBIN, Illinois
    DEB FISCHER, Nebraska

                 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

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                             Tuesday, May 21, 2019

                                                                       Page

    Hearing:

    Climate Change and the Agriculture Sector........................     1

                                  ----------

                        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

                                   WITNESSES

    Lyons-Blythe, Debbie, Blythe Family Farms, White City, Kansas....     5
    Mitloehner, Frank, Ph.D., Professor, Department of Animal
      Science, University of California, Davis, Davis, California....     7
    Rezac, Matthew, Rezac Farms, Weston, Nebraska....................     9
    Vilsack, Hon. Thomas J., President and Chief Executive Officer,
      U.S. Dairy Export Council, Arlington, Virginia.................    12

                                  ----------

                                    APPENDIX

    Prepared Statements:
        Lyons-Blythe, Debbie.........................................    38
        Mitloehner, Frank............................................    43
        Rezac, Matthew...............................................    50
        Vilsack, Hon. Thomas J.......................................    54

    Document(s) Submitted for the Record:
    Stabenow, Hon. Debbie:
        Climate Change and the Agriculture Sector, American Coalition
          for Ethanol................................................    62
        John Larson, Senior Vice President, American Farmland Trust..    64
        Earth Justice................................................    67
        Paul T. Dacier, Executive Vice President and General Counsel,
          Indigo Agriculture, Inc....................................    70
        The National Young Farmers Coalition.........................    78
        The Plant Based Products Council.............................    80
        National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition...................    81
        Abby Youngblood, Executive Director, National Organic
          Coalition..................................................    84
        Roger Johnson, President, National Farmers Union.............    88
    Robert, Hon. Casey P., Jr.:
        U.S. Policy Roadmap, Center for Strategic and International
          Studies....................................................    96

    Question and Answer:
    Lyons-Blythe, Debbie:
        Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts..........   108
        Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow......   110
    Mitloehner, Frank:
        Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts..........   113
        Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow......   118
    Rezac, Matthew:
        Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts..........   121
        Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow......   122
    Vilsack, Hon. Thomas J.:
        Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts..........   124
        Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow......   125

                   CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE AGRICULTURE SECTOR

                                  ----------

                             TUESDAY, MAY 21, 2019

                                           U.S. Senate,
             Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m., in
    room 328A, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Pat Roberts,
    Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
        Present or submitting a statement: Senators Roberts,
    Boozman, Ernst, Braun, Perdue, Thune, Fischer, Stabenow, Brown,
    Klobuchar, Bennet, Casey, Smith and Durbin.

     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 hearing of the
    Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry to
    order. Today we will hear from a most knowledgeable panel on
    climate change and the agriculture sector.
        Maintaining the health of our planet for future generations
    is, of course, of paramount importance, but so is feeding the
    billions of people that populate the earth today and in the
    years ahead. These topics and how they interact is complex and
    we are pleased to have this discussion at the Agriculture
    Committee, whose constituency plays an important role in
    meeting those challenges.
        America's farmers and ranchers are continually learning and
    evolving in order to improve agriculture production
    efficiencies and to conserve natural resources, increase
    resiliency to Mother Nature, and to maintain a profitable
    business.
        Today, obviously, farmers do not produce food in the same
    manner as previous generations over time. Advancements in
    science and technology have provided farmers the ability to
    produce more food, feed, and fiber while using less inputs and
    resources. Farming practices from a generation ago were not
    sustainable to produce food at the scope and scale needed to
    feed today's growing and hungry population around the globe.
        The U.S. agriculture sector should be proud of the
    accomplishments that have been made through voluntary efforts
    to address environmental sustainability. I will say that
    again--voluntary efforts, including efforts for which they are
    not compensated.
        It is important to note there has been no single silver-
    bullet solution that has brought about advancements the U.S.
    agriculture sector has made in recent decades to improve
    environmental sustainability. Instead, advancements have been
    made due to the adoption of a range of technologies and
    practices, and realizing efficiencies. When combined, all of
    those separate parts tell us a much greater story that
    demonstrates how American farmers are able to increase
    productivity, while at the same time, reduce greenhouse gas
    emissions, and minimize the impact on the environment. I wish
    everybody could understand this.
        Rather than a silver bullet, it is like a recipe that
    includes many ingredients--biotechnology, precision
    agriculture, voluntary conservation practices such as no-till
    farming, veterinary care, livestock nutrition, and genetics,
    all of which help our U.S. producers improve environmental
    sustainability.
        Importantly, these efforts have been self-initiated and
    largely self-funded by America's farmers and ranchers.
    Obviously, climate change is a complex and global issue. We
    must be thoughtful, informed, and deliberate in considering
    potential responses and consequences. If farmers are hindered
    from utilizing existing technologies and research, or if
    unsound regulatory decisions are made today on emerging
    technologies such as genome editing, we can expect an economic
    result that is, at the least, more costly and, worse,
    unsustainable for our farmers and ranchers.
        The reality is the agriculture and food value chain is
    complex. It is made of growers, input suppliers, processors,
    handlers, and consumers, and it is impacted by production
    cycles that can span several years, weather, disease,
    perishability, and other factors beyond our human control.
        Agriculture is an open system, and we must understand and
    ensure that American family farms must stay in business.
    Alternatively, a likely result includes food and fiber
    production being shifted to countries that do not have the same
    conservation-minded producers that we have here in the United
    States, countries that are unable to produce food at the scale
    of our farmers, ranchers and growers.
        I believe agriculture and American farmers and ranchers who
    live by the concept of continuous improvement and voluntary-
    based conservation can be a model for other industries and
    other countries on how to address problems like changes in the
    climate in a practical, local, and individual way.
        I look forward to hearing from the panel on producer
    perspectives of global climate change and the responses that
    have already, or are already underway in the agriculture sector
    to address this challenge. This should be a good learning
    opportunity for all on the Ag Committee.
        With that I recognize the distinguished Senator from
    Michigan, my buddy----
        Senator Stabenow. Thank you.
        Chairman Roberts [continuing]. my pal----
        Senator Stabenow. That sounds like a song, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Roberts [continuing]. stagecoach rider, Senator
    Stabenow, for any remarks she may have.

    STATEMENT OF HON. DEBBIE STABENOW, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE
                              OF MICHIGAN

        Senator Stabenow. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
    holding a very important hearing today on climate change and
    the solutions that can come from agriculture. That is what we
    want to talk about today.
        I would first note that we've received a lot of statements
    from organizations that would love to share their views from
    groups such as the National Young Farmers Coalition, to
    National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, and others. Without
    objection, I would ask to put these statements into the record.
        Chairman Roberts. Without objection.
        Senator Stabenow. Thank you.

        [The following documents can be found on pages 62-95 in the
    appendix.]

        Senator Stabenow. Thank you very much.
        I believe there is no greater challenge that will affect
    the future of the planet, our agricultural economy, and our
    ability to feed a growing population other than the one we are
    talking about today. Really, it is the biggest challenge that
    we have.
        My goal today is not to debate the science of climate
    change--the science is sound. I believe in science. We all do.
    Sound science has helped our farmers grow the safest, most
    productive food supply in the world, and we will continue to do
    so. That same sound science is telling us that climate change
    from carbon pollution is an urgent challenge. That same science
    is giving us the tools to confront and address it.
        No one understands the stakes and the potential solutions
    better than our farmers and ranchers. Right now in Michigan, we
    have seen bomb cyclones, flooding, tornadoes, and other extreme
    weather events. We are also seeing unusually cold and rainy
    weather that has kept farmers from getting into their fields,
    likely lowering yields as we move past the ideal planting
    window.
        Across the country, we have seen a growing and alarming
    number of extreme natural disasters, wreaking havoc in
    communities and on farms. According to the nonpartisan
    Government Accountability Office, climate change could result
    in crop losses costing up to $53 billion every year for our
    children and grandchildren.
        While our agriculture industry is uniquely affected by
    climate change, our farmers and food businesses are also
    uniquely positioned to address the root causes. With the right
    support, our producers can cut down on their emissions and
    profit from the adoption of practices to store more carbon in
    soil and trees. These solutions are good for the environment
    and good for our farmers' bottom line.
        The good news is that many farmers and ranchers are already
    rising to this challenge, all while continuing to meet the
    growing global demand for food. The other good news is that our
    2018 Farm Bill provides funding support for many of the
    solutions that are needed.
        Producers like the corn growers are partnering with
    conservation groups to establish innovative organizations like
    the Soil Health Partnership, the Midwest Row Crop
    Collaborative, and many others. Food companies are forming
    sustainability alliances and taking additional actions to
    reduce their carbon footprint.
        For decades, farmers have been adopting voluntary, climate
    conservation practices like cover cropping, no-till farming,
    and adding more trees as windbreaks and buffers.
        Currently, there are 140 million acres of farmland using
    USDA conservation programs. Since 2012, we have seen the number
    of farms installing renewable energy systems like solar panels
    and anaerobic digesters double. Actions resulting in all of
    them cutting their energy consumption, their costs, and their
    emissions. Now, through landmark investments, producers have
    had more opportunities to grow the next generation of biofuels,
    and to make money in voluntary carbon markets from grassland
    conservation in North Dakota to sustainable rice cultivation in
    Arkansas.
        With many farmers and ranchers already implementing these
    practices, our challenge going forward, I believe, is how to
    scale up and support these efforts. The 2018 Farm Bill is the
    starting point. This law enacted the most ambitious- and
    bipartisan-climate-smart agricultural policies to date, with
    the support of 87 Senators. Changes to crop insurance, working
    lands conservation programs, and forest health initiatives are
    helping producers sequester carbon and improve sustainability.
        Looking forward, we need to expand the good work that's
    already happening, all while providing farmers with economic
    opportunities so they can continue to grow the food that feeds
    the world. No farmer wants the government telling them how to
    farm their land. That is not what this is about. We should be
    strengthening the ways that farmers can benefit from building
    on the positive steps they are already taking.
        In the past, we have risen to face challenges of this
    magnitude. During the 1930's, our farmers experienced an
    unprecedented catastrophe during the Dust Bowl. Dust storms
    buried homes and darkened cities. Crops and livestock were
    decimated. Children died of pneumonia. Thankfully, our Nation's
    response matched the challenge. We created thousands of locally
    led conservation districts, established the Soil Conservation
    Service at the USDA, and planted over 3.5 billion trees on
    barren land.
        While the problem at hand might be different, the urgency
    is the same. Proposals to confront this problem must be
    bipartisan and must meet two goals, in my judgment. They must
    increase global agricultural production to feed the billions of
    people who need food, and they must support modern farming,
    ranching, and forestry practices that reduce greenhouse gas
    emissions and keep more carbon in our soils and trees.
        I believe this Committee has a strong bipartisan framework
    to accomplish these goals and I am anxious to move forward.
    Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Roberts. I thank the Senator from Michigan for her
    very comprehensive statement and also outlining some of the
    things that we both worked on very hard on a bipartisan basis
    with regard to conservation, crop insurance, and certainly
    other important items.
        We now will hear from the panel. Our first panelist is Mrs.
    Debbie Lyons-Blythe, a rancher from White City, Kansas. Debbie
    Lyons-Blythe is the owner and operator of the Blythe Family
    Farms, a multigenerational ranch near White City, Kansas.
    Debbie's ranch includes more than 5,000 acres of native
    grassland, crop ground, and a seed stock herd of 500 registered
    Angus cattle.
        Debbie has held leadership positions in the Kansas
    Livestock Association, the National Cattlemen's Beef
    Association, and is a founding member of the U.S. Roundtable
    for Sustainable Beef. Debbie is a vocal advocate for the U.S.
    cattle and beef industries and she is passionate about engaging
    and educating consumers about the positive story of cattle and
    beef production through her blog, Facebook, and consumer
    conferences.
        She received degrees in agriculture communications and
    journalism from Kansas State University, home of the ever-
    optimistic Fighting Wildcats. Debbie and her husband are
    parents to five children who also are involved in the family
    ranching business. Thanks for being here today, Debbie. Please
    proceed.

     STATEMENT OF DEBBIE LYONS-BLYTHE, BLYTHE FAMILY FARMS, WHITE
                              CITY, KANSAS

        Ms. Lyons-Blythe. Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Roberts
    and Ranking Member Stabenow, for inviting me to testify today.
    I am proud to be here representing farmers and ranchers in the
    conversation about climate change, and I must offer a quick
    shout-out to all those that are actually at home caring for the
    livestock today so that I can be here and be their voice.
        I know you've all heard the often-quoted statistic that
    less than two percent of the American population is directly
    involved in agriculture today, but do you know why that is? It
    is because in American agriculture we are so good at what we do
    that the rest of the population does not have to work daily to
    grow their own food. By our improved efficiencies and
    technologies other people are free to become scientists,
    clothing designers, and teachers, and doctors, and data
    processors, and heck, maybe even legislators.
        The beef cattle industry has a great story to tell in the
    climate conversation. According to the U.S. Environmental
    Protection Agency, direct emissions from beef cattle only
    represent two percent of all greenhouse gas emissions in this
    country, and a recent study published by the U.S. Department of
    Agriculture found that emissions from cattle ``were not a
    significant contributor to long-term global warming.'' That is
    because American agriculture produces agricultural products
    more efficiently than the rest of the world, and those
    efficiencies mean real reductions in climate emissions.
        Various technologies are helping us produce a safer product
    that has a small footprint on the environment. One of the
    technologies that we use at our ranch is genetic testing to
    identify the best bulls to breed. With a small DNA sample, we
    can select for those with the best feed efficiency, carcass
    quality and growth, as well as other important traits. The
    efficiency traits directly affects sustainability. An animal
    who will reach harvest faster and still produce a high-quality
    product will impact the environment for a shorter period of
    time.
        Antibiotics are another technology we utilize to maintain
    cattle health and which, in turn, allows our cattle to utilize
    food and water more efficiently. Hey, it is pretty simple. A
    sick animal takes longer to gain weight and reproduce, and that
    results in a larger environmental footprint.
        These technologies, or some like them, allow cattle
    ranchers to produce the same amount of beef today that we were
    producing in the 1970's with 33 percent fewer animals.
        Along with lowering emissions, ranchers have many ways we
    improve carbon sequestration. For example, the native grass in
    the Kansas Flint Hills can grow up to 6 feet tall with root
    systems more than 20 feet deep. Those deep roots are excellent
    at sequestering carbon in the soil, effectively pulling it out
    of our atmosphere. It is vital that we maintain and improve the
    existing grasslands to keep out urban encroachment. Cattle are
    the best way to utilize, maintain, and improve those
    grasslands, and ranchers like me are the reason that they exist
    today.
        We also grow crops on our ranch, to feed our livestock, and
    we use cover crops and low-tillage methods to keep plant
    material growing in the fields throughout the year. These
    practices are proven to increase carbon sequestration.
        We do it, though, because it's the right thing to do and
    because it improves our operation, not because we're required
    by the government. In addition, Blythe Family Farms is a
    founding member of the U.S. Roundtable for Sustainable Beef,
    and this organization brought together all segments of the beef
    supply chain, along with allied partners and many conservation
    organizations to demonstrate and improve beef sustainability.
        Hey, I am not here today to tell you that ranchers across
    America wake up and say, ``How can I improve carbon
    sequestration?'' or ``How can I impact sustainability?'' Yes,
    those are buzzwords. They do not mean very much in the country.
    As ranchers, we have always been focused on conservation,
    animal welfare, being more efficient, and ensuring that our
    children and grandchildren will be able to continue that
    legacy. As my grandpa used to say, ``Leave the land better than
    you found it.'' Farmers and ranchers are truly the original
    environmentalists.
        In closing, let us talk about climate change policies. We
    have a simple request to you. Do not support legislation or
    policies that unfairly target cattle producers. Cattle have a
    positive role to tell in a healthy, sustainable food system.
    Cattle ranchers are proud of our history as stewards of our
    nation's natural resources. The industry takes very seriously
    its obligation to protect the environment while providing
    people with a safe and affordable food supply. Thank you.

        [The prepared statement of Ms. Lyons-Blythe can be found on
    page 38 in the appendix.]

        Chairman Roberts. We thank you, Debbie.
        Our next witness is Dr. Frank Mitloehner. He is a Professor
    and Air Quality Extension Specialist in the Department of
    Animal Science at the University of California, Davis. He is a
    globally recognized expert on the subjects of climate change,
    the livestock industry's role in addressing this challenge, and
    understanding and mitigating air emissions from livestock
    operations.
        Dr. Mitloehner was appointed to the President's Council on
    Science and Technology by President Obama. He is a past
    Chairman of the United Nations Food and Agriculture
    Organization partnership project to benchmark the environmental
    footprint of livestock production, and has served on committees
    of the National Academy of Science Institute of Medicine.
        Dr. Mitloehner received a Master of Science degree in
    animal science and agriculture engineering from the University
    of Leipzig, in Germany, and a doctoral degree in animal science
    from Texas Tech, home of the ever-fighting Red Raiders.
        I look forward to your testimony, Doctor. Thank you very
    much for coming.

    STATEMENT OF FRANK MITLOEHNER, PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL
      SCIENCE, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS, DAVIS, CALIFORNIA

        Mr. Mitloehner. Thank you and good morning, Chairman
    Roberts, Ranking Member Stabenow, and members of the Committee
    for inviting me today to discuss the relationship between
    livestock and climate change.
        I am a professor of animal science and air quality
    specialist in cooperative extension at the University of
    California, Davis, where much of my work revolves around
    studying the emissions of livestock in order to determine their
    contribution to air pollution and climate change. I also spend
    a good deal of time dispelling the notion that globally,
    livestock is responsible for more greenhouses gases leading to
    climate change than the entire transportation sector. This myth
    is one of the chief reasons we are advised to eat less meat, to
    protect us from global warming.
        According to the U.S. EPA, those sectors of our society
    consuming fossil fuels such as transportation, electricity, and
    industry contribute to 80 percent of all greenhouses gases. In
    contrast, all of animal agriculture combined contributes to 3.9
    percent, yet livestock, and therefore our consumption of animal
    protein, often bears the brunt of the blame for climate change.
        So why the misconception? In 2006, the United Nations Food
    and Agriculture Organization, FAO, published a global study
    titled ``Livestock's Long Shadow.'' It stated that 18 percent
    of the world's greenhouse gas emissions were the result of
    livestock and that globally, livestock was emitting more
    greenhouse gases than all modes of transportation combined. The
    claim, incorrect by a long shot, was the result of a
    methodological error. Whereas FAO used a comprehensive life-
    cycle assessment when depicting livestock greenhouse gases, it
    employed a different and simplified method of direct emissions
    only for transportation. I pointed out the flaw and the FAO
    owned up to the mistake, but FAO's claim that livestock was
    responsible for the lion's share of greenhouse gases was the
    shot heard around the world. To this day, we struggle to un-
    ring the bell.
        It is staggering how many people think that merely us
    giving up meat, even once a week, will make a significant
    impact on their individual carbon footprints. A study published
    in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, PNAS,
    demonstrates that it cannot.
        The study titled ``Nutritional and Greenhouse Gas Impacts
    of Removing Animals from U.S. Agriculture'' demonstrated that
    even if all Americans were to give up meat, such a scenario
    would reduce greenhouse gases in the U.S. by only 2.6 percent.
    If every American subscribes to Meatless Mondays, it would only
    reduce our carbon footprint by 0.3 percent. This is due, at
    least in part, to the efficiency of U.S. agriculture.
        U.S. livestock has shown astonishing progress, economically
    and ecologically, in past decades. According to the FAO, total
    direct greenhouse gas emissions from U.S. livestock have
    declined by 11.3 percent since 1961, while livestock production
    has more than doubled. This massive increase in efficiency and
    decrease in emissions has been made possible by the
    technological, genetic, and management changes in U.S.
    agriculture since World War II.
        Consider that animal herds are at an historic low in the
    United States without a corresponding decrease in output. In
    1950, there were 25 million dairy cows in the United States.
    Today there are only 9 million dairy cows. They produce 60
    percent more milk than their ancestors did. The carbon
    footprint of a glass of milk is two-thirds smaller today than
    it was 70 years ago. It is a similar story for beef, swine, and
    poultry, making U.S. agriculture the envy of the world. We have
    improved the outputs by holding inputs steady.
        Yet we still meet with criticism. I often get asked if U.S.
    cattle are causing an increase, a report--I repeat, an
    increase--in global warming. The simple answer is no. Cattle
    temporarily convert photosynthetic carbon, contained is grasses
    they consume, into methane. After only one decade, methane is
    oxidized into atmospheric CO\2\ which is then assimilated by
    plants that are eaten by animals. It is a natural carbon cycle.
        As a result, constant cattle herds do not increase
    atmospheric methane and therefore do not increase global
    warming. In the U.S., livestock herds have not only been
    constant but they have been significantly decreased over the
    last half century, meaning that the related methane has
    actually decreased as well.
        I further submit that livestock allows us to value-add
    plant agriculture, both in terms of nutritional and economic
    value. That is, we can make use of marginal land, which is two-
    thirds of our agricultural land in both the U.S. and worldwide,
    to raise ruminant livestock that is able to feed on plants
    inedible by humans and upcycle them into high-quality animal-
    based foods. Furthermore, according to the PNAS article
    mentioned above, removing animals from U.S. agriculture would
    result in a food supply incapable of supporting U.S.
    populations.
        Of course, we would likely produce more pounds of food and
    more calories per person if we raised only plants, but food
    security is more than calories. Micro- and macro-nutrients are
    essential and highly abundant in animal-sourced foods.
        In closing, the global population is trending toward nearly
    10 billion by 2050, representing an enormous food security and
    natural resource challenge. Meeting that challenge will require
    the world to produce both plant- and animal-based foods and to
    produce them more efficiently, while making the best use of
    agricultural land, including those considered marginal. First,
    we need to examine the facts and not engage in hyperbole.
        Thank you very much for your attention.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Mitloehner can be found on
    page 43 in the appendix.]

        Chairman Roberts. We thank you, Doctor, for your testimony.
    Senator Fischer has the privilege of introducing Matt Rezac.
        Senator Fischer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today I want to
    welcome Matt Rezac from Weston, Nebraska to the Committee. I
    also would like to welcome his wife, Tina, and his sons, Jacob
    and Chase. We are happy to have all of you here today.
        Mr. Rezac is a fourth-generation farmer who manages Rezac
    Farms, a 2,500-acre family farm consisting of corn and soybean
    production in eastern Nebraska. Matt is a member of Frontier
    Cooperative where he is involved with the Ultimate Acre Grower
    Panel.
        In 2017, Rezac Farms was awarded the Conservation Agronomy
    Award for Outstanding Sustainability by Land O'Lakes SUSTAIN
    Initiative. Nominees were judged for air quality and greenhouse
    gas emissions, steps to maintain soil health, and improvement
    of water quality, among other factors.
        Properly managing our environment is important, and
    Nebraska's agriculture producers who feed and fuel our world
    know better than anyone about conservation and stewardship.
    Matt's hard work day in and day out is a testament to that.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today's hearing. I
    look forward to discussing the good work Matt and many of our
    hard-working producers across the country are doing to conserve
    our natural resources.
        Matt, thank you for your testimony and we are happy to have
    you here today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

       STATEMENT OF MATTHEW REZAC, REZAC FARMS, WESTON, NEBRASKA

        Mr. Rezac. Thank you for the introduction, Senator Fischer.
    Members of the Committee, thank you for having me.
        Chairman Roberts, Ranking Member Stabenow and Distinguished
    Members of the Committee, I am Matt Rezac. I'm a 4th generation
    farmer from Weston, Nebraska. My wife Tina and I farm about
    2500 acres in a corn and soybean rotation. Some of the land in
    our operation has been in the family for close to 140 years. My
    sons, Jacob and Chase, are also here today.
        When we talk about stewardship of the land, and doing what
    is right for the land, there is no one better than the American
    farmer. Most of the farmers I know do it for the next
    generation. On my farm we have always been conscious of what we
    are doing to the land.
        About 20 years ago, I knew I had to do something different.
    If I was going to stay in business, I knew I had to find a way
    to be profitable, and I knew I had to take full advantage of
    technology. I wanted to break outside the box of how we had
    been farming. I looked at everything we could do and I soon
    figured out the key was going to be all about soil health.
        First thing I noticed was that we had a serious soil
    compaction problem on the farm, and that once we started really
    concentrating on the soil, we saw that soil come back to life.
    Instead of just treating the symptoms of poor soil health, we
    diagnosed the root cause and the world opened up.
        Since then, we have always focused on how we can do the
    right things for our farm. As we think about stewardship and
    climate today, I would like to share some key points with the
    Committee on this important topic.
        First, technology is critical, and the future of
    agricultural conservation is precision. Just as I use precision
    agricultural tools to optimize my production and minimize
    inefficiency, precision conservation tools and planning help me
    reduce waste in my production system. In this case, waste means
    lost top soil and misplaced crop inputs.
        On our farm we use variable rate technology and moisture
    probes in the soil to manage water. We are extremely precise
    about our nutrient management, making adjustments in season. We
    use tissue sampling during the growing season to know exactly
    what the plant needs. Most people do not understand this, but
    giving a plant too much of a certain nutrient, such as
    nitrogen, is just as bad as giving it too little, and it just
    adds to waste.
        Precision conservation tools like Land O'Lakes SUSTAIN's
    Truterra Insights Engine highlight the financial opportunities
    for different field management systems. The most effective
    conservation practices are those that have an economic benefit
    to the farm, either by increasing yield and revenue, or by
    eliminating waste. Often where a crop field is not profitable,
    there is a portion of that field experiencing poor soil health
    due to topsoil erosion or nutrient losses. By using precision
    conservation tools, we can see how an unprofitable part of the
    field might be better in a conservation program. By focusing on
    net profitability, these precision tools can help farmers
    achieve their business goals while also improving their
    stewardship of natural resources.
        Second, crucially, no one farmer, entity, or sector has all
    the answers and capabilities to accomplish alone what is
    needed. It takes all of us working together--farmers, the
    government, and the private sector--to deliver climate
    solutions.
        My stewardship journey is a one of relationships and
    collaboration. We could not have accomplished what we did on my
    farm without my District Conservationist and my local NRCS
    office. NRCS has worked with me to tailor conservation
    solutions to my own farm. Unfortunately, my local NRCS office
    is overworked, and truthfully, overwhelmed. The time it takes
    to really sit down with a farmer and tailor conservation
    solutions is enormous.
        To fill some of that void, I turned to my local co-op,
    Frontier Cooperative. Frontier has been a leader in
    sustainability and they joined the Land O'Lakes SUSTAIN program
    when it launched in 2016. Frontier embraced bringing
    agronomists out to the farm, educating farmers about being more
    efficient. The availability of robust data, analytics, and
    insights allows me to work with my agricultural retailer to
    employ practices in a far more targeted and impactful way than
    ever before.
        The bottom line is this: on-farm conservation is not just
    good for the environment. It also supports a stronger rural
    economy through increased resiliency and profitability for
    farmers like me. To maximize both environmental benefits and
    economic benefits, it takes everyone working together.
        We might not always see it or talk about it as a climate
    issue. I know the weather is changing, but I try to control
    what I can control. That is why you will hear us talk about
    things like maintaining soil health, protecting water quality,
    and controlling erosion. The practices that achieve those goals
    also help provide climate solutions. For example, I know what
    we are doing with soil health can help with weather variability
    and make my farm more resilient at the same time.
        In closing, I want to emphasize the importance of farm
    economics. It is critical that climate solutions make economic
    sense for farmers. Providing market and policy incentives that
    complement the goals I have discussed will be vitally
    important.
        In today's farm economy, we are not farming to rake in a
    profit. We are not making money, and we are farming to lose as
    little as possible. My top priority is to make sure my farm is
    healthy and strong when Jacob and Chase are grown up. I know
    focusing on stewardship makes economic sense.
        Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for
    the opportunity to testify on this important issue. I look
    forward to answering any questions.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Rezac can be found on page
    50 in the appendix.]

        Chairman Roberts. Well, thank you, Matt. I am going to
    suggest, if you will, please, have your wife Tina and your two
    sons, Jacob and Chase, stand up if you would.
        [Applause.]
        Chairman Roberts. I think that young man looks like a
    future farmer for sure.
        Our next witness will be introduced, at length----
        Senator Stabenow. At length?
        Chairman Roberts [continuing]. if she chooses to go down
    all of the honors that this next witness certainly deserves. He
    is no stranger to our Committee or, for that matter, any
    committee in the Congress. He is a recognized leader and
    champion for agriculture. We are very privileged have back to
    the Committee a former Secretary but now President--has a ring
    to it, doesn't it?--President of the U.S. Dairy Export Council
    in Arlington, the Honorable Thomas Vilsack, who will now be
    introduced by Senator Stabenow.
        Senator Stabenow. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think
    you have done a great job of it already, but we do want to
    welcome Secretary Tom Vilsack back to the Committee. Obviously
    this is not his first time at the witness table. Today he joins
    us as the President and CEO of the U.S. Dairy Export Council,
    where he is leading its mission to strengthen the dairy
    industry through increased exports and innovation.
        Secretary Vilsack joined the U.S. Dairy Export Council in
    January 2017, after serving 8 years as the Nation's 30th
    Secretary of Agriculture and the longest-serving member of
    President Obama's Cabinet. While at the Department, he worked
    to strengthen the American agricultural economy, invest in the
    future of rural America, and conserve our land and water. There
    has been no better spokesperson for rural America than
    Secretary Vilsack.
        Prior to his appointment, he served two terms as Governor
    of Iowa, in the Iowa State Senate, and as the mayor of Mt.
    Pleasant, Iowa. So we are so pleased to have you back with us
    to talk about the important work that you are in involved in.
    Welcome.

      STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE THOMAS J. VILSACK, PRESIDENT AND
    CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, U.S. DAIRY EXPORT COUNCIL, ARLINGTON,
                                VIRGINIA

        Mr. Vilsack. Thank you very much, Senator, and Mr.
    Chairman, thank you very much for the opportunity to be here
    today, and I am certainly honored to be with the other
    panelists.
        I want to express appreciation for this hearing on behalf
    of the 39,000 family farmers who are in the dairy business.
    They operate farms across the country and they help to employ
    nearly 3 million people who are involved in the dairy industry
    across the country.
        You have heard many sound climate environmental reasons for
    conducting this hearing, but I would like to focus on a
    competitiveness concern, and I think that is a reason for
    having this hearing. Domestic and international consumers and
    customers are increasingly demanding that dairy products and
    all food products be sustainably produced. It puts us at a
    competitive advantage if we can make the case.
        The dairy industry has a good story to tell but it is
    challenging itself to tell an even better story in the future,
    but it needs willing partners from the government and the
    private sector.
        In 2009, the dairy industry made a commitment to reduce
    across the supply chain 25 percent of their emissions by 2020,
    based on intensity. The dairy farmers across the country
    employed a variety of technologies and techniques. You have
    heard of some of them already this morning. Soil health
    improvements with no-till and cover crops, better grassland
    management with rotational grazing, improved feed efficiency,
    exercising the four R's with reference to nutrient management--
    the rate, amount, place, and time--adopting methods of
    capturing methane and converting it into fuel and energy to
    provide power for their operations, and along with processors,
    support of the development of an innovation center for the U.S.
    dairy industry and started a company called Newtrient that is
    looking at creative ways of dealing with manure management.
        The FAO recently reported that producers in North America,
    dairy producers in North America, were the only dairy producers
    across the country and the world that actually reduced their
    emissions, with a five percent reduction overall. The industry
    has basically reduced their emissions by close to 20 percent,
    very well on pace for their 25 percent goal by 2020.
        We are simply not satisfied with simply reducing emissions.
    I think the time has come for the dairy industry, specifically,
    and agriculture, generally, to look at creative ways to get to
    a net zero emission operation. That is a tall order, but I
    think there are a number of steps that could motivate and
    accelerate that effort.
        First, establishing a series of pilot farms that could
    aggregate all of the existing technologies and techniques that
    are currently being used. This would allow us to measure and
    verify the conservation and emission results. It would also
    allow us to identify the costs associated with this type of
    farm and assist all of you in determining the financial
    incentives and policies that would accelerate adoption.
        It is no surprise to this Committee, nor to the members of
    this panel, that dairy farms, along with other farms, have had
    some challenging economic times. So it is important and
    necessary that we look for financial incentives and financial
    inducements to get to net zero. I think we can continue to
    expand significantly the development of ecosystem markets that
    will help generate the revenue necessary to adopt these
    technologies.
        We need to promote new technologies in seed genetics. I had
    a recent conversation with Dr. Chory out at the Salk Institute.
    She is working on research that will eventually, in her view,
    lead to corn and soybeans and the root systems for those two
    commodity crops being able to significantly increase carbon
    sequestration.
        Developing better sensors so we have a better understanding
    of the amount of carbon that is being sequestered in our soil.
    Feed additives that can reduce methane currently exist but are
    going through a regulatory process that is very time-consuming.
    Improved manure management. There are literally thousands of
    ways in which we can use the fiber, the water, the chemicals,
    the materials from manure to create new opportunities and new
    business opportunities in rural America.
        This is going to require an increase in focus of research
    dollars in the public sector, a modernization of our regulatory
    systems designed to keep pace with this incredible pace of
    change, and financial incentives to encourage farmers to adopt
    these technologies and techniques.
        This is a climate imperative but it is also, I would
    suggest, a marketed imperative. That is why this hearing is
    incredibly important. I want to take this opportunity, as a
    citizen of this country, just simply to thank this Committee
    for the fact that you are approaching this in a bipartisan way.
    I suspect that there are many out in the countryside that
    appreciate this Committee's approach toward problem-solving,
    and it is a pleasure and honor to be here this morning.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Vilsack can be found on page
    54 in the appendix.]

        Chairman Roberts. Tom, thank you so much for coming back
    and thank you for all that you have done on behalf of
    agriculture.
        Debbie, many of the initiatives you described in your
    testimony are self-initiated and self-funded. You emphasized
    that. Can you describe some of the tools that the beef industry
    has at their disposal to expand their knowledge and efforts on
    issues like environmental sustainability?
        Ms. Lyons-Blythe. So, you know, there are many different
    tools that we can utilize specifically for research and other
    information. I will tell you that I rely very heavily upon
    Kansas State University and other university information as far
    as research, and I really feel that that is a tremendous
    outreach for education and opportunity.
        In addition, cattle ranchers have funded the Beef Checkoff,
    and through the Beef Checkoff we have done a lifecycle
    assessment. That study has really highlighted a lot of the
    practices that we have been using through the last 30 years,
    and the improvements that we have made already. It is a very
    comprehensive--and I think Dr. Mitloehner can probably speak to
    that more than I can--but a very comprehensive study that
    really, truly looks at the sustainability of beef. We are very
    proud of the role that beef does play in sustainability.
        Chairman Roberts. I thank you for that. Matt, your
    testimony provides a compelling story about the technology and
    voluntary conservation practices that you and, of course,
    farmers across the country install on your operation.
        Your testimony also highlights that many producers like
    yourself implement sustainable conservation practices on their
    farms, not only through government assistance but willingly out
    of their own pocket. Can you expand upon the conservation work
    and practices that farmers like yourself voluntary incorporate
    which are not compensated by the Federal Government, and how do
    these efforts generate both a return on investment and an
    environmental benefit?
        Mr. Rezac. I think that any time you look at improving your
    soil health, whether it is out of your own pocket or doing it
    through a government program like a CSP or an EQIP program,
    which you guys have worked hard on, any time you can create
    soil health and make it better people are going to see a return
    on that.
        So I do not--you know, they are willing to take it out of
    their own pocket in order to help on topsoil erosion and stuff
    like that. To be quite honest with you, a lot of people, I
    think, have a hard time even finding these programs. You know,
    they do not know that they are really out there unless you
    really look for them and dig into it. I think that is probably
    one of the biggest problems. These people cannot--they just do
    not know those programs are available to them. You know,
    without having a good NRCS person that can really reach out to
    you and show you what is available, they have a tough time with
    that.
        Chairman Roberts. I really appreciate that. Thank you for
    bringing it up. That gets back to what Senator Stabenow and I
    have always talked about, and that is access and information.
    So we will take a more direct look at that. Dr. Mitloehner,
    U.S. farmers and ranchers are small businesses. They face tight
    margins and very limited budgets. The operators of those farms
    must generate a profit to stay in business. We all know the
    competitive nature of food production. What suggestions or
    cautions would you provide to the Committee on how best to
    balance the need to preserve the health of our planet as well
    as grow food for a global population in a manner that is
    environmentally sustainable and economically competitive for
    U.S. farmers and ranchers in the world market? I might add, in
    rereading this question it is a lot like discussing U.S.
    history since 1865, but why don't you give it a shot.
        Mr. Mitloehner. Yes. Well, thank you for the question. Now
    I live and work in California and our farmers are among the
    most productive ones in the world. We also have a lot of
    pressures on those farmers, for example, regulatory pressures.
    For example, our livestock industry is supposed to reduce
    greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent within the next 11
    years. That is 4-0. So that is a tall order. Some of our
    farmers say ``We have enough. We are leaving California. We go
    elsewhere.''
        Recently--I tell you a story--recently a farmer from
    Hanford came to me. He runs a 1,000-head dairy in Hanford. He
    said, ``I have enough. I am leaving California. I am going to
    Texas. I made a trip the other day to West Texas and I met with
    the planning commission, with the local planning commission,
    and they asked me what I want to do, and I said, I want to
    start a dairy here. They asked me how many cows'' and he said,
    ``I want to have 3,000 cows.'' The Texan asked him, ``Well, why
    do you want to limit yourself to 3,000?'' He looked at me and
    said, ``Can you imagine that happening in California?''
        The reason why I am telling you this is because if
    increased pressures make farmers move, then that leads to
    leakage. Leakage means that they take emissions with them. We
    will not reduce emissions through these kind of regulatory
    pressures but we increase them. This is something that I really
    want to caution the Committee about, because this is something
    that happens more and more frequently.
        Chairman Roberts. I truly appreciate that. I beg the
    indulgence of my colleagues here. I am going to wrap this up
    pretty quick.
        Tom, you discussed some of the voluntary initiatives that
    the U.S. dairy industry has undertaken, like the Net Zero
    Project. As part of the U.S. Dairy Export Council, what has
    been your experience with the international dairy sector's
    efforts to improve production efficiencies and utilize
    technology?
        Mr. Vilsack. Let me give you one example. I mentioned the
    fact that there is a feed additive that can reduce methane from
    the front end of the cow by 30 percent. The Europeans and the
    New Zealanders who we compete with on the global stage are in
    the process of getting regulatory approval for the use of that
    feed additive, and they will likely get it within a year to a
    year and a half. We will probably be two, three, 4 years down
    the road, based on our regulatory system and structure, to get
    approval for the use of that feed additive.
        That puts us at a competitive disadvantage in terms of the
    global market. As I said earlier, people are very interested in
    making sure that their food is sustainably produced, and that
    is a market advantage. I will tell you, our international
    competitors are looking at ways in which their systems can be
    streamlined to the point that they get these new technologies
    in the marketplace more quickly and, therefore, in a position
    to market more effectively in the global market.
        Chairman Roberts. Thank you for that. I had another
    question but I think we will just put that aside for the time
    being.
        Senator Stabenow.
        Senator Stabenow. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to
    all of you. We know that our farmers and ranchers are on the
    front lines and have more at stake for healthy soil and clean
    water than anyone, and we all have a stake, a huge stake in
    this. Thank you for what you do.
        Let me start with Secretary Vilsack first, regarding carbon
    markets. Secretary Perdue has talked about his interest in
    carbon markets, and Secretary Vilsack, your USDA helped farmers
    increase their revenue through several pilot carbon market
    projects. I mentioned before grasslands management in North
    Dakota and rice cultivation in Arkansas. It seems like there is
    so much more that we could do in this area. I am sure that
    there is. So what can Congress and USDA do to help farmers and
    ranchers create new revenue streams through voluntary carbon
    markets?
        Mr. Vilsack. Well, first of all, it is to make sure that
    you continue to fund and support the Conservation Innovation
    Grant program, which provided assistance and help in setting up
    these markets, and second, working with the land-grant
    university system to create better measuring, certification,
    and verification systems so that--the reality is if you can
    quantify, measure, and verify a conservation result you can
    market it. The challenge is for us to have accurate
    measurements.
        That is why it is important, from my perspective, as we
    create these pilot farms, that allow us to basically create the
    environment in which, with land-grant university partnerships
    and outside resources, we can measure and quantify and verify
    what specific conservation activities will do, and then
    basically use that as a basis for creating a large-scale
    ecosystem market. You cannot ask farmers to do this on their
    own. They simply do not have the resources. They have the will
    but not the resources. So there needs to be a partnership. The
    government needs to be part of it, and I think the private
    foundation world needs to be part of it as well. So that would
    be one thing, in support for the Conservation Innovation Grant
    program and making sure that land-grant universities are
    involved, intimately involved in the measurement and
    certification of ecosystem markets.
        Senator Stabenow. Thank you. To me, this is a very
    important opportunity on a number of fronts--both in terms of
    revenue stream for farmers and ranchers, but also on where we
    need to go in terms of managing and sequestering carbon.
        Mr. Vilsack. I would just add one additional point and that
    is that there are--and I am not exaggerating here--there are
    literally thousands of business opportunities in terms of
    agricultural waste being converted into chemicals, materials,
    fabrics, fibers, fuel, and energy. We ought to be committed, as
    a country, to creating this bioeconomy, which would create a
    multitude of new revenue streams for farms and ranches across
    the country. Again, there are a variety of programs within USDA
    that could be supportive of this. I think they all need to be
    brought to bear so we can showcase and provide an example for
    folks to see that it is possible.
        Senator Stabenow. I agree. Thank you.
        Mr. Rezac, welcome to you and your family. You are clearly
    an industry leader in this whole area, and I appreciate your
    emphasis on precision agricultural tools and how they can
    minimize inputs, save money, and ultimately help the
    environment.
        Can you talk about some of the barriers to entry--you
    mentioned NRCS--and what needs to happen there? I share your
    concern about making sure NRCS field staff are available and so
    on. What are some of the barriers to entry for producers who
    want to start using precision agriculture tools? How do we take
    what you are doing and increase adoption so that every one of
    your neighbors and those around the country are taking the
    impressive steps that you have been taking?
        Mr. Rezac. Well I think, first off, to really answer that
    correctly is I do not want to put myself up here above
    everybody else, because there is a high percentage of farmers
    out there who are doing great things like this. It is not just
    me sitting up here trying to do it. There are a multitude of
    farmers that are doing phenomenal things right now on their
    farms, and they are really looking at things like soil health,
    taking advantage of precision tools.
        As far as on the side of the NRCS and really trying to
    break barriers there and trying to help them out, I think for
    them the main thing to do--we need the government assistance
    programs. That is huge for us. It helps people look at that in
    a way that, okay, well, if I can bring in extra income to start
    using some of these conservation programs, I am all about it.
    There are a lot of people out there that say, I cannot afford
    to take any more cost and put it into my ground, because we are
    already to the point where we are just bleeding. You know,
    people do not want to take any more money out of their pocket,
    trying to do something that is going to be good for their farm
    but they cannot afford to do that anymore.
        So I think the biggest thing that they could as well is
    start working with your private sectors, your Land O'Lakes,
    your Frontier Co-op. It is such an outreach that you can get to
    a multitude of farmers so much faster than just you guys alone
    trying to push out there and reach out.
        We talked about programs earlier and trying to get people
    to see that. That would be one way to help get them programs
    out there faster.
        Senator Stabenow. Thank you. I have a number of other
    questions. I will wait. I did want to ask one other thing of
    Secretary Vilsack, and that is, exactly what do we need to do,
    from the Federal Government side and the private sector, to
    make your vision a reality for the Net Zero project in the
    dairy industry?
        Mr. Vilsack. I think encouraging the Department of
    Agriculture to make this a focus, creating the opportunity to
    take the existing programs that are already funded, for which
    there are resources, and target those resources in creating a
    series of pilots that take all of the technologies, all of the
    various things that farmers are doing individually, and put
    them in a central location, measure and verify and quantify the
    results, create an ecosystem market that supports this, and
    then develop a series of revenue opportunities from products
    that could be made. Again, when you separate the water from the
    solids and manure you have a variety of new business
    opportunities that could be created, using USDA programs to
    support that new business and incorporating the land-grant
    university system.
        We have got a showcase. We have to show people what is
    possible. In doing so you will also be able to evaluate the
    costs. There is just no question farmers cannot do this on
    their own. There needs to be a significant partnership, not
    just with government but with the private sector as well. I
    think if we establish ecosystem markets, if we establish new
    business opportunities, then I think you will see a tremendous
    adoption on the part of American farmers. They are interested
    in doing this. They want to do it. They just have to have
    partnerships to be able to do it.
        Senator Stabenow. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Roberts. Senator Ernst.
        Senator Ernst. Thank you, Mr. Chair, very much, and thanks
    to our panelists for being here today as well. It has been very
    enlightening, and Secretary Vilsack, it is always good to have
    an Iowan testifying in front of us today as well.
        While working on the 2018 Farm Bill I supported a number of
    initiatives to increase support for conservation activities
    that benefit soil health, including cover crops resource,
    conserving crop rotation, and advanced grazing management. I
    worked on a number of these with our Ranking Member.
        These improvements to increase adoption of the most
    impactful conservation activities for soil health as well as
    increasing access to land and conservation support for young
    and beginning farmers will play a critical role in supporting
    our farmers and ranchers, especially in Iowa, who continue to
    face devastating storms and, of course, extreme weather events
    as they work to build soil health, productivity, and resiliency
    in the face of all of those various challenges.
        Mr. Mitloehner, I would like to start with you. You had
    stated the primary greenhouse gas of concern for ag, and
    especially for livestock is methane, and you did describe that
    a little bit. Can you further describe the gas and then, again,
    how it interacts in the atmosphere compared to other various
    types of greenhouse gases?
        Mr. Mitloehner. Yes. There are three main greenhouse
    gases--CO\2\, carbon dioxide; nitrous oxide; and methane. The
    first two are long-lived climate pollutants. For example, CO\2\
    lives for 1,000 years. Once we emit CO\2\ with our vehicles,
    let's say, it stays there for 1,000 years.
        Same for nitrous oxide, but methane is very different.
    Methane has a lifespan of only 10 years. What that really means
    is that if, let's say, a dairy that has 1,000 cows had been in
    existence for, let's say, 50 years, then it added new methane
    for the first 10 years, after which new methane that is
    generated is emitted at the same amount as methane that is
    destroyed, because methane is different from the other gases
    insofar that it is not just emitted but also destroyed
    globally, at the same level. So there is a destruction process
    called hydroxyl oxidation and that occurs constantly.
        So any kind of discussions that I am part of is a
    discussion where that fact is left out, and it should not be
    left out because it is critical.
        Senator Ernst. Yes. I think some of us are pretty struck
    today because we have heard that methane is horrible, we need
    to reduce our livestock herds, and we should have Meatless
    Mondays. We have heard that time and time again. It's been done
    in various Federal agencies in past administrations. You are
    saying, overall, the risk with methane for climate change is
    very, very small.
        Mr. Mitloehner. No, I am not saying that. Methane is an
    important climate pollutant. It is almost 30 times more potent
    than CO\2\. What I am saying is that if we maintain constant
    herds, livestock herds and flocks, then we are not increasing
    methane, and therefore we are not increasing global warming as
    a result of that methane.
        Senator Ernst. Okay. There are ways to mitigate that as
    well.
        Mr. Mitloehner. If we mitigate--and if we mitigate--then we
    are counteracting global warming, because that is a very
    effective tool, and we are using that.
        Senator Ernst. Okay. That is really interesting. I think it
    is, again, pretty enlightening to all of us.
        Secretary Vilsack, one of the Green New Deal's goals is to
    remove greenhouse gas emissions from the ag sector,
    specifically the ag sector. This would impact everything from
    the fuels that power farm equipment to dairy cows that are also
    a source of emissions. How can the businesses and the producers
    that you represent coexist in a world where the Green New Deal
    would be implemented within 10 years?
        Mr. Vilsack. Well, Senator, I think it is--I look at this
    from the opportunity standpoint. We talked just about methane,
    for example. I found out recently that you can--if you capture
    methane, potentially you can use methane as a substitute for
    water in the development of concrete. I mean, there is a whole
    new bio-based opportunity out there that would allow
    agriculture to be a leading indicator on this issue of climate
    and create more jobs and particularly jobs in rural areas.
        So it seems to me that what we want to be able to do is not
    necessarily focus on whether we should eliminate industries but
    whether we can figure out ways in which those industries can
    create new opportunities, and I think agriculture, in
    particular, has a unique role to play. That is why I am urging
    the government, at every level, to support the establishment of
    these pilot farms where we can prove the case that you can get
    to net zero emissions, and then prove the case of additional
    business opportunities and additional revenue streams that can
    be created that will make it easier for farmers to do what they
    already want to do, and are, in some cases, already doing at
    their own cost.
        Senator Ernst. Mm-hmm.
        Mr. Vilsack. This is a brave, new world out there, and this
    is just an incredibly important hearing today because it raises
    the awareness of people that there is an opportunity side to
    this discussion. It is not a situation where it is all
    negative. There are a lot of positive opportunities here.
        Senator Ernst. Thank you for that. I think there is a lot
    of tremendous opportunity as well. What I would hate to see is
    us going down the road of heavy-handed government mandates and
    regulation when we truly are at a point where so many of our
    farmers and ranchers are doing this on their own. We do have
    businesses that are looking at ways of converting other waste-
    type products into productive materials.
        I would say Iowa is a true leader in a number of those
    initiatives and we have not done it because the Federal
    Government forced us to do it. We are doing it because we want
    to be stewards of the environment.
        So I do think it is a great opportunity but I would just
    caution that I think we can do this well on our own without the
    Federal Government mandating to our farmers and ranchers
    something that they well cannot afford, without significant
    help from the Federal Government.
        Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
        Chairman Roberts. Senator Bennet.
        Senator Bennet. Thank you. Just to jump off that comment,
    Mr. Rezac, could you talk a little bit about the way the
    incentives and disincentives work for things like no-till and
    cover crops? You talked about not being able to put one more
    dollar in the ground. What is it we could do, or the country
    could do, to incentivize these kinds of sustainable efforts
    more broadly, in your view, when you get to the point of view
    of the farmer or rancher on their piece of land?
        Mr. Rezac. Well, I think, you know, the CSP program,
    Conservation Stewardship Program, I mean, that is a great spot
    to be at. It is just getting it out there to let people see it
    and know how to take advantage of that. That is our number one
    thing right now, because, you know, no-till has a lot to do
    with that, split application of nitrogen. There are a multitude
    of deals there. You might have a spot on that farm that it's
    extremely poor and you never really raise anything on it, but
    yet what do we do as farmers? We do what we do every year--we
    plant it. Even though it has never done anything for us, we
    still plant it.
        Well, why are we planting a piece and throwing so much
    money into it when it is never bringing us any return? Why
    don't we put it into a conservation program and bring--maybe we
    break even. Maybe we do not lose as much money that way.
        Senator Bennet. Are there things that we could do to change
    the conservation programs and make them more useful, more
    flexible, or more helpful?
        Mr. Rezac. I do not mind where they are at now. I think any
    time that you can make it a little bit easier to use, more
    access, not as much paperwork, to go through. The reason I say
    that is because you have got Land O'Lakes and Jason Weller, who
    built that Truterra program. He has made that in a way that we
    can really see that visually, what some of these programs can
    do for us on our farm and profitability wise. That right there
    is the right direction, in my opinion.
        Senator Bennet. Mr. Secretary, it is nice to see you and it
    will not surprise you, you know I have a question for you about
    the role that forests can play in all this. Do you want to say
    a word about that?
        Mr. Vilsack. Well, clearly, to the extent that we have got
    better forest health, we are going to have greater carbon
    sequestration, we are going to have fewer fires, which emits
    the carbon back into the atmosphere. Again, Senator, I am going
    to take this in the same direction I took the earlier
    questions. Let us look at the opportunity side. We have got a
    lot of diseased wood out there that could potentially be
    hazardous fuel for fires. What could we do with it that would
    retain that carbon?
        Well, we could create a construction opportunity for high-
    rise buildings out of that diseased wood. There are a number of
    multi-story buildings that are now being constructed with wood
    as being the sort of the structural foundation. That creates a
    new business opportunity. It creates a new opportunity for
    mills. It creates new rural development. Focusing and providing
    resources from the Federal Government to help create those
    kinds of businesses could go a long way to improving forest
    health, maintaining the carbon sequestration capacity of the
    forest, and create better-paying jobs, particularly in rural
    areas, which even with this economy today are still needed.
        Senator Bennet. The Secretary makes an excellent point. I
    would just say to the Chairman in addition to that, the ability
    to move with speed, you know, when you have something like the
    issues that we have had in the West, in Colorado, with bark
    beetle, the longer these trees stay up there the less valuable
    they are. If you cannot harvest them now because of rules and
    regulations, the value of them dissipates. So that is another
    issue that we can fund.
        Thank you to the panel. I want to thank the Chair for
    holding this hearing. I think it is incredibly important, this
    pathway to creating value in rural America through the climate
    change issues that we face. I think it is enormously important,
    so thank you
        Chairman Roberts. Thank you, Senator Bennet.
        Senator Fischer.
        Senator Fischer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Matt, you mention several production practices that you
    have begun to implement in your operation, and I know farmers
    and ranchers all across our state, all across this country do
    that as well.
        I am a cattle rancher as well, Debbie, and we began, in the
    mid 1980's, to use holistic resource management on our ranch,
    because, first of all, the improvement to the ground, the
    improvement to the livestock, the improvement for family life.
    Most people think of that as a planned grazing system when, in
    reality, it is a goal-setting system. You alluded to that when
    you said you are looking at practices. So you are going to have
    a farm that your kids are going to be able to use.
        We look at goals we want to see on our land in the next 50
    to 100 years, what we want that land to look like, and I would
    propose that that is not unusual for people in agriculture at
    all.
        You talk about a number of those inputs where you can
    conserve natural resources and you can produce crops more
    efficiently. Can you explain, in a little bit of detail, to the
    benefit of this Committee, on what a variable rate
    fertilization system is? How you use soil moisture probes to
    conserve irrigation water, and why tissue sampling helps you
    maximize both of those efforts?
        You know, here we all talk about no-till, and we act like
    that is the only thing out there. As the Secretary said, there
    are a lot of opportunities out there for people in agriculture.
    Can you tell us about them?
        Mr. Rezac. When you talk about no-till, for me that is like
    old history. That is 40 years ago, if you ask me. When you get
    into some of the stuff you are talking about there with the
    moisture probes, what we do is we use the moisture probes to
    actually monitor the amount of water that is in our soils and
    how fast our crop is actually taking up that water. So when it
    is at a high usage rate, we can go ahead and kick the
    irrigation on and we can see, first-hand, exactly how much
    water we need to raise that crop. If it is not using it, we do
    not have to be running the irrigation. That is one of the ways.
        Variable rate technology, on the fertilizer side of things,
    if we have got an area in that field that does not need as much
    fertilizer, why should we be putting the same amount there as
    we would in another spot that might need more? So that is how
    all that works as far as the variable rate technology side of
    things.
        Getting on the soil sample side and tissue samples, what we
    like to do is tissue samples in season. We will actually sample
    every Monday throughout the growing season, we do tissue
    samples. We get them back and then we can monitor exactly where
    that plant is, what it needs for nutrients, what it is lacking,
    or what it might have too much of, and then we can adjust, on
    the fly, in-season, as we go to raise our crop that way.
        Senator Fischer. I know, Mr. Secretary, you talked about
    the establishment of pilot farms. I worry about that, because I
    think we live in the real world, and we have to make sure that
    the practices that we do, as ag producers, that they work in
    the real world and we have to look at the cost of those too.
        So I guess my comment to you on that would be I would hope
    we could look at those opportunities, but instead of having
    government set up pilot farms, work instead with producers on
    their land and meet their economic challenges that they have as
    well.
        Mr. Vilsack. I am not suggesting that the government own
    these farms or that they control them. What I am suggesting is
    that you take a partnership with a landowner, a farmer, and
    basically say what would it take for you to incorporate all of
    the technologies that are out there, and allow us to see what
    that result, the cumulative result would be from such a pilot?
    So that would be basically providing the farmer the resources
    to be able to utilize all of these technologies, and then take
    that information and say these technologies, working together,
    do the following. Let's figure out a way in which we can have
    policies and incentives that encourage farmers to do more of
    this. We have to showcase this, right?
        Senator Fischer. Right.
        Mr. Vilsack. We have to elevate it and showcase it. That is
    what I am talking about.
        Senator Fischer. Right. That is--I would love to work with
    you on that. Debbie, my apologies for not wearing my pin today.
    I am glad you did.
        When we look at EPA and some of the regulations there, I
    have concerns, as a rancher. The House Appropriations
    Committee, they released their EPA Appropriations Bill and it
    is aiming to subject livestock producers throughout the country
    to greenhouse gas reporting requirements. They did so by
    omitting a provision that has long been included in the bill
    text. It is obvious, based on the research, that livestock
    simply are not the significant contributor to climate change. I
    thank you for your testimony on that.
        You know, last year I championed a bipartisan bill. We had
    24 Republicans, we had 15 Democrats, where we changed a law
    that would have required farmers and ranchers to report
    emissions under CERCLA. I hate to see us turn back there after
    we had such a bipartisan effort.
        Can you tell us, are cattle producers prepared to report
    greenhouse gases to the Federal Government, and will this in
    any way contribute to solving climate change?
        Ms. Lyons-Blythe. I think that is exactly the point that I
    would like to make is, is that really, truly going to help to
    have farmers and ranchers filling out more paperwork about the
    emissions rather than actually doing the work?
        We are out there doing the work already and helping us fill
    out more paperwork is not going to assist at all.
        Senator Fischer. Okay. Thank you, Debbie, and Matt, Mr.
    Secretary, thank you for the information, and you, Doctor, as
    well. Excellent testimony, Doctor.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Roberts. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Smith.
        Senator Smith. Thank you, Chair Roberts and Ranking Member
    Stabenow. This is a very interesting conversation, as others
    have said, and, you know, I have learned, in Minnesota, that
    when you talk about the impacts of climate change it is true
    that you can address climate change and that can be good for
    our planet, it can be good for our health, and it can also be
    good for our economy. What I hear, really, all of you in
    different ways saying is that we can--if we do this well that
    we can accomplish that. So I want to sort of stay on that
    opportunity message that Secretary Vilsack is suggesting here.
        So, you know, in the 2018 Farm Bill, it included several
    provisions that helped farmers improve soil health and carbon
    sequestration on working lands. It sounds like Mr. Rezac, that
    is a lot of what you have been talking about. I actually worked
    with Senator Ernst to make sure that the farm bill included
    increased incentive payments within the Conservation
    Stewardship Program that will help to achieve these goals.
        In Minnesota, CSP is incredibly popular and important. We
    have nearly 7,000 CSP contracts that have been awarded to
    Minnesota farmers and ranchers, so it is really important.
        So let me just ask, Mr. Rezac, if you could just--from your
    testimony you have talked a lot about this and how these
    conservation programs on working lands really help you, kind of
    help to align the incentives that make sense for you and your
    farm. Could you just talk a little bit more about that, and
    what we need to do on the Federal Government side to make sure
    that those efforts kind of align with what you are trying to
    accomplish on your farm?
        Mr. Rezac. I think one of the main things--there are so
    many different ways we could go with this, because there are
    just so many different opportunities and stuff you can take
    advantage of there. One of the main things I think people need
    to realize when they hear ``Conservation Stewardship Program''
    is--and you hear about, conservation, in general, people always
    have green on their mind right away, right? It is planting
    cover crops, it is doing all that stuff. I am not going to ever
    say that cover crops are not a good thing. Just sometimes it is
    not a reality for us.
        Last fall, for instance, by the time we got done
    harvesting, it was so wet we had to wait for farms to actually
    freeze so we could get in there to get that crop out. How are
    we going to plant cover crops in frozen ground? That does not
    work.
        So it is not for everybody. I am not saying there is not
    certain areas, and if you manage properly that you cannot take
    advantage of them, but it is not always about cover crops. You
    can get into other things, as far as buffer strips around creek
    lines. Like I said, I kind of talked about it earlier, if you
    have a poorer spot in that farm or that field, maybe you could
    go to like a butterfly habitat or something like that. I know
    that sounds really out there for a farmer, but it pays really
    well. So it is something to look into, you know.
        Senator Smith. Yes. Well, you know, as you are saying,
    every farmer knows that you farm in reality, not in the
    abstract, and so that is why I think it is so important to
    listen to ranchers and producers and growers about what is
    going to work, as we try to get these incentives aligned the
    way we need to get them aligned.
        Mr. Rezac. Yep.
        Senator Smith. I remember the time that I heard a farmer
    say to me, for the first time, ``I am really in the business of
    growing soil.'' I was like, ``What the heck are you talking
    about?'' I understand it so much better now.
        Secretary Vilsack, you and I had a chance to talk a week or
    so--several weeks ago, I guess it was now, about the incredible
    challenges that we are seeing in dairy around the country, and
    certainly in Minnesota. You know, and when I look into the eyes
    of Minnesota dairy--a Minnesota dairy farmer who tells me for
    the first time in 114 years they are not milking a cow on the
    dairy because of the weather challenge and the price challenges
    and so forth. Yet you have such an optimistic message about
    how, if we think about all of the opportunities for creating
    new revenue streams, what a difference it can make.
        Could you just talk a little bit about--because I know you
    understand this so well--the kind of how we think about this
    opportunity in a time of such intense challenge, in dairy,
    especially?
        Mr. Vilsack. Well, 30 percent of all the agricultural
    production in this country gets exported, and I think we have
    to understand that customers around the world are going to be
    demanding more sustainable practices, and they are going to
    want to know more about how the food that they are purchasing
    was produced. So there is a business case to be made to assist
    farmers in making sure that they are the most sustainably--the
    most sustainable stewards they can possibly be.
        You know, I think it is government's responsibility not
    only to provide the resources but also to create ways in which
    those resources can be leveraged. The CSP program and so forth
    is all great but are there ways in which we can take the
    results from that investment and then market that result to a
    corporation or an entity that is interested in that result, to
    satisfy some regulation that they have or just because they
    want to be able to show that they are socially conscious?
        That is why I think it is important for us to accurately
    measure and quantify and verify what is being done on these
    farms, and then basically say to the financial markets, this is
    a result that can be marketed, that can be sold, that can be
    invested in. That brings resources to that farm that is not
    relying on the farmer. It leverages those resources.
        Then if you can take the waste product from that production
    process and you can figure out all of the different
    opportunities that could be created, all the business
    opportunities, the processing opportunities that could be
    created very close to where that biomass is being created, and
    you have a regulatory system that acknowledges and rewards
    that--I mean, we have got a lifecycle analysis now at EPA on
    biomass that does not necessarily encourage the development--
    and you continue to provide resources like the REAP program and
    all the other programs we have talked about today, I think you
    essentially create a multitude of opportunities and a multitude
    of revenue streams for that farmer, so that you commoditize, if
    you will, all of these opportunities.
        That is why I just think, for the dairy industry, in
    particular, they are primed and ready to do this. They just
    need partners.
        Senator Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am proud of the work
    that General Mills in Minnesota is doing, and Land O'Lakes, and
    Cargill and others, in this--it is a demonstration that it is
    government, private sector, and farmers and ranchers making it
    happen.
        Chairman Roberts. We thank you, Senator.
        Senator Boozman.
        Senator Boozman. Thank you, Senator Roberts and Senator
    Stabenow for bringing you all to testify. We have such a
    distinguished panel that represents a variety of sectors within
    the agriculture industry and is working hard to improve it.
        Matt, you mentioned, in your testimony, that ``we fall into
    the trap of that is how we have always done it.'' It is
    interesting because that is certainly true in the Senate, as we
    deal with our problems. In doing so, you have implemented so
    many different practices that you outlined, and I am so excited
    about the technology. I used to have a bunch of cows, and the
    way that things have come so far, in a relatively short period
    of time, really is exciting.
        You have done a good job of embracing the technology and
    things. Tell me about your neighbors. Are they doing the same
    thing?
        Mr. Rezac. We definitely have quite a few of them. Like I
    said earlier, there is a high percentage of farmers out there
    that are doing things correctly and taking advantage of
    technology. With that being said, what is the average age of
    farmers nowadays?
        Senator Boozman. It is 59, 60.
        Mr. Rezac. When it comes to technology, I mean, nothing
    against that but that is tougher for them to take on. You know,
    when our younger generation, we are all taking advantage of it
    and moving forwards. I mean, we love it. It is the best thing
    that is out there right now and just keep it coming, you know.
    When it does not work it is the worst thing in the world,
    right, but when it is working there is nothing better.
        Senator Boozman. Right.
        Mr. Rezac. It is hard for some of them that have done it
    the correct--or the way that they have always done it their
    entire life. It is hard for them to make that change.
        Senator Boozman. All of you mentioned, which I think is so
    important, the idea of incentives versus unfunded mandates, and
    certainly the unfunded mandate approach would not be good for
    farmers to take it up at all.
        Are there any particular things that you have found on the
    farm that were more beneficial than others? What have been a
    couple of things that have really made a difference?
        Mr. Rezac. I would say a couple--you know, some of the most
    eye-opening things on the technology side would have probably
    been when we went to variable rate technology, you know, and
    even on the seeding side of things just being able to have
    individual row shutoffs, stuff like that, which was quite a few
    years ago, but we have seen a huge difference in that very
    first year and a huge payback. It costs to get started in it,
    quite a bit, but we did see a huge payback immediately.
        Senator Boozman. Secretary Vilsack, we appreciate you being
    here and appreciate again all of your efforts in the past. In
    Arkansas, we have less than 100 dairy farms left in the state,
    and in my particular county, not too many years ago, we
    probably had over 200 just in the one county. It really is
    remarkable.
        You mentioned, trying to get new products on the market.
    You have been around a long time in a variety of different ways
    of serving, including serving as the Secretary. What can we do
    as a Committee? How can we help you? How can we help the farm
    community move things forward so that we can be competitive
    with our European friends and the rest of the world?
        Mr. Vilsack. Senator, I will try to answer that very
    quickly. Number one, I think you need to continue to be
    champions of research. Certainly this Committee has been, but
    we need to invest more in food and agricultural research than
    we have, number one. Number two, I think there is an
    opportunity to review the regulatory systems and the amount of
    time it takes for regulatory systems to approve new
    technologies.
        I mean, you have got seed genetics, you have got the feed
    attitudes, you have got improved manure management techniques
    that all may require regulatory approval in order to be able to
    get into the field and get into and be providing positive
    benefits. It takes a long time--too long, too long--in this day
    and age of massive change and rapid change. We need to
    streamline the process without sacrificing the quality of their
    review. I think it can be done.
        When I was Secretary, we looked at biotechnology. It took
    90 months, when I became Secretary, it took 90 months to get
    approval of a biotech trait, and we had a goal to try to get it
    down to 12 months. I think when I left it was 18 months. That
    was just simply taking a look at the decision tree and saying
    why are all these people having to be involved in this process?
        So those would be several suggestions I would make, and
    then, finally, making sure that you continue to fund these
    programs that are working--CSP, REAP, EQIP--and not use them
    when you are facing some financial difficulties to balance the
    books.
        Senator Boozman. Very quickly, because we are out of time,
    you mentioned, you know, the importance of finding new markets.
    Forty percent of the ag product in Arkansas is exported. We
    simply have to do this in an effort to compete.
        Mr. Vilsack. There is no question about that, and our
    competitors are----
        Senator Boozman. Again, solve our problems with excess
    capacity by buying into the idea that we have one customer here
    and dozens overseas.
        Mr. Vilsack. We represent five percent of the world's
    consuming population, the 95 percent that lives outside of the
    U.S.
        Senator Boozman. Right. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Chairman Roberts. We thank you, Senator Boozman.
        Senator Klobuchar, it is good to see you.
        Senator Klobuchar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
    holding this important hearing and thank you to our witnesses.
        We have seen several recent administrative actions related
    to the renewable fuel standard that have greatly concerned both
    farmers and the renewable fuel industry. Actions like the EPA's
    continued use of small refinery hardship waivers that are
    concerning, not just because thy are hurting our farmers but
    also because every gallon of biofuels we use displaces a gallon
    of oil that reduces emissions, as we talk about climate change.
    In fact, a recent USDA study showed that first-generation
    biofuels reduce greenhouse gas emissions by between 39 and 43
    percent.
        Secretary Vilsack, do you agree that the misuse of small
    refinery waivers can be considered what we will call demand
    destruction?
        Mr. Vilsack. I think, Senator, there are two things that
    need to happen, from my perspective, on the biofuels side. One
    is year-round E15, which would certainly be helpful. You cannot
    undercut that decision to go to year-round E15 with waivers
    that basically reduce the amount of biofuel that is being
    produced. These waivers, I understand the importance of them
    for small refineries, but periodically they have been given to
    refineries that are owned by Exxon and Chevron, fairly large
    companies, which clearly are not financially struggling.
        So, you know, I think it would be certainly helpful if we
    saw fewer of those waivers and more year-round E15.
        Senator Klobuchar. Okay. Thank you.
        Mr. Rezac, can you tell us how important data measurement
    and verification is to demonstrating the good work that ag is
    doing on the ground? How do you think USDA could do a better
    job of collecting that conservation data?
        Mr. Rezac. I am not too sure how to get into that answer
    exactly, but in order to collect all that data and moving
    forward, I think something like the--are you looking at
    something along the lines of like the Truterra program, or----
        Senator Klobuchar. Well, Senator Thune and I had this
    Agriculture Data Act, because we wanted to--because USDA
    currently manages and stores producer conservation data, but
    the study--what we are trying to do is get it out there so
    people like you can have it, so you learn best practices and
    things like that.
        Mr. Rezac. Gotcha.
        Senator Klobuchar. Mm-hmm.
        Mr. Rezac. So I think right away we are going right back to
    the Truterra program and how he had come out with that program
    and showed us what is available out there.
        Senator Klobuchar. Mm-hmm.
        Mr. Rezac. You know, I think that is one of the main ways
    to get it to us.
        Senator Klobuchar. Okay. REAP, the Rural Energy for America
    Program, specifically supports nearly every form of renewable
    energy as well as energy efficiency on farms and ranches.
    Secretary Vilsack, what can we do to make sure that the REAP
    program reaches more farmers and ag producers so they can
    benefit from energy efficiency, renewable energy investment?
        Mr. Vilsack. I think maintain funding and not reduce it,
    and making sure that, in the context of what I have discussed
    here today about a pilot, to the extent that you could use the
    pilot to upgrade an understanding of how REAP could be used for
    methane capture and reuse would be incredibly important.
        I think you also have to combine the REAP efforts with
    looking at EPA and the lifecycle analysis that they are
    currently doing on biomass to make sure that there are other
    opportunities that could be created if that regulatory barrier
    were removed. So it is a combination of things.
        Senator Klobuchar. Thank you. Ms. Lyons-Blythe, you have
    been using innovative approaches to improve soil health and
    grazing practices. What can we learn from innovative ranchers
    who want to both increase productivity while taking care of
    their land and livestock? What do you think are some of the
    most effective ways to increase profit while preserving land
    and livestock?
        Ms. Lyons-Blythe. Yes. So I think one of the things that we
    have been talking about with being farm ground, there is
    really, truly a huge amount of grasslands west of me, Kansas
    and west, except for that very important area in California.
    Truly, it is all about maintaining grassland, keeping the land
    in that pristine prairie and making sure that we can continue
    to farm and ranch--specifically ranch--on those areas.
        You know, one of the things that farmers and ranchers are
    doing, and that I would encourage--each of you have asked about
    what this Committee can do and what government can do to help
    us--I think one of the things is to partner with private
    industries at least in paying attention to the research that is
    already out there. For example, the U.S. Roundtable for
    Sustainable Beef and the lifecycle assessment that has been
    done by the beef industry, we have got a lot of really good
    data showing that we are doing a great job and that beef cattle
    are really doing well.
        Senator Klobuchar. Okay. One last question, Secretary
    Vilsack, on dairy. I know you work with dairy. Is there more we
    can immediately do--this is off of the climate change issue--to
    assist our dairy farmers as we are seeing more and more small
    dairies close down?
        Mr. Vilsack. Well, I think there is a short-term and long-
    term answer to that question and I will give you the short-term
    answer. I think to the extent that there is going to be another
    round of tariff assistance because of the tariffs that there be
    additional resources for export assistance so that we can
    continue to expand significantly where we market U.S. dairy
    products, from an export perspective.
        We have seen exports rise but we obviously need to do a bit
    more of that. That is one thing that could be done. I am sure
    National Milk has got a whole series of ideas that they would
    be happy to share with you.
        Senator Klobuchar. All right. Thank you.
        Chairman Roberts. Senator Brown--Braun. Pardon me.
        Senator Braun. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Ranking Member
    Stabenow, and thank you for--when I came to you with this very
    subject to do it in a subcommittee that I chair that he offered
    to do it on a larger forum.
        It has been a great conversation. I have been involved in
    farming, tree farming and row crops for many, many years. I was
    a turkey farmer for 32 years. I am looking at the value
    equation in farming currently, and I remember, 30 years ago,
    you had hundreds of local suppliers. They are almost all now
    gone, concentrated increasingly into fewer and fewer folks that
    sell the inputs.
        Where is the responsibility--and I address this to Mr.
    Vilsack first--among the corporations that increasingly become
    more concentrated in this whole discussion? You know, we talk
    about farmers who, to me, look hamstrung with the economics and
    the perils of existing at the lower end of the food chain, all
    the things that need to be done to address climate and, more
    importantly, profitability at the production level. What is
    your opinion on how we challenge increasingly fewer and fewer
    that seem to be doing okay and prospering in a generally gloom
    farm economy, when you look at farmers in general?
        Mr. Vilsack. A couple of things, I think, Senator. The
    reason why we are in this situation is because we have moved
    away from publicly financed research, and now the research is
    being privately financed, which means that people expect a
    profit in exchange for the investment that they make in
    research. So one suggestion would be to significantly focus on
    increasing public research opportunities that creates
    information that is available to new entrepreneurial
    enterprises.
        Second, I think you also want to take a look at the patent
    laws. I mean, the reality is the pace of change is so
    accelerated today, the question is whether or not the patent
    laws, in terms of the length of time that you provide
    protection, are reasonable. I think if you look at those two
    things you would spur a lot of innovation, a lot of
    entrepreneurship, and a lot of competition for the farmer
    dollar.
        Senator Braun. Thank you, and I want to ask this question
    to Matt. Your story, in terms of what you are coping with on
    the farm, looking at precision fertilization, you know it needs
    to be done but you have to spend a little money, you know, to
    actually take advantage of it. Many farmers are older. They do
    not embrace the technology.
        What is your feeling, because your livelihood, I know, has
    been--I remember, just recently, 10, 12, 15 years ago, an acre
    of soybeans, $70 to $100 on inputs, corn $140 to $170 per acre,
    now double or triple. When Sonny Perdue was sitting there I
    said, ``When are we going to start to challenge the industry
    itself?'' which I directed that question to Mr. Vilsack a
    moment ago, to get more involved, maybe providing relief to
    farmers, where, again, look at the value equation there, where
    they are selling inputs for two to three times as much as they
    did 10 years ago, and you are paying that much more.
        I liked when you said no-till, grass waterways, riparian
    waterways, CRP, WRP. I have done them all. Those are ways to be
    conservationists, but it still comes down to how do you make
    the investment that farmers have to make in a climate like
    this, where you barely can pay the interest, in some cases?
        Mr. Rezac. I think you just hit everything right on the
    head.
        Senator Braun. Thank you.
        Mr. Rezac. I mean, trying to make money right now, today,
    in the farm economy is virtually impossible. I mean, we are
    doing everything we can to try to do it right, but it is so
    tight that trying to ask somebody to put in any extra money to
    try to make something go in what I would say is the right
    direction is extremely hard for anybody to grasp right now. I
    mean, that is--when you are already, like I said, bleeding, how
    do you ask them to bring--to take more money? You know, it is
    not going to happen. Number one, they cannot.
        There are a lot of bankers that are saying, ``No, you
    cannot spend any more money.'' This is what is right for the
    country. This is what is right for the ground, and moving
    forward, and for conservation and everything else, but it just
    does not matter. If you do not have the money to spend you
    cannot keep moving forward.
        So I think the programs and stuff like that is a huge
    incentive moving forward. If we have programs out there that
    take advantage of and use, and people can see that and say,
    ``okay, if I do this, this, and this, on a sustainable
    platform, I can bring in this much money extra per year for my
    farm.'' That is huge.
        I mean--we talk about--I do not even know if I should get
    into this, but we talked about carbon credits a little bit. I
    get excited when I hear that. I have looked into it, I have
    read about it, and I am like, that is a whole new avenue of
    income, like we have talked about. To get to there you have to
    have a carbon score on your farm. How do you get to a good
    carbon score? You create great solutions and have good soil
    health. You use conservation practices. That gets you to a
    higher number on your sustainability side which will obviously
    create more carbon credits that you can hopefully sell for
    income. It all kind of works together.
        Senator Braun. Thank you for that honest depiction, and I
    challenge the industry, publicly, to maybe look at what they
    can do to help out everything we have been talking about, you
    know, along with doing some things through government. I think
    it is going to be a joint challenge to get through this tough
    stretch. Thank you.
        Chairman Roberts. Thank you, Senator Braun. Well, Coop, you
    made it back.
        Senator Thune. I do not know if you were all waiting just
    to be able to stay here a little longer and answer a few more
    questions, but thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you all
    being here, and I know there are a lot of issues when it comes
    to conservation, the conservation title in the farm bill that
    many of us care deeply about. We know more than anything else
    that farmers and ranchers depend upon their land for their
    livelihood, and so being a good environmental steward is vital
    to their success.
        So I would ask--I would like to maybe ask Mrs. Lyons-Blythe
    and Mr. Rezac, in your testimonies you mentioned that your
    families have implemented conservation practices on your
    operations. Could you take just maybe a quick moment to explain
    the value of these practices and how they have added to your
    operations?
        Ms. Lyons-Blythe. You know, I want to give an example of
    what is happening right now in White City, Kansas. So we have
    been getting a lot of rain, and my family, my father-in-law,
    would have begun no-till and reduced tillage back in the 1960's
    before it was really the thing, and it was very unique back
    then. So we have been doing this for a long time.
        It has been an interesting opportunity to see the fields
    recently, that the erosion that has been happening on those
    fields that are getting tillage practices and are actually
    doing things in a more conventional way. Our fields are
    maintaining water, increasing soil health, keeping the topsoil
    where it needs to be. It is not in the ditches. Specifically
    for our fields that farming is really absolutely paying off. We
    have done that on our own, since the 1960's.
        Senator Thune. Great. Mr. Rezac?
        Mr. Rezac. I mean, I think, probably--I mean, I could talk
    about increased yields, stuff like that, that has happened over
    the time--since we have changed a lot of our practices and
    looking at more at the soil health side of things. I will just
    go to something really quick here. Just the other day, I mean,
    I am in the middle of planting season right now. It is raining
    back home, I believe. It is supposed to be anyway.
        I was just out in the field here the other day and I was
    digging, looking for seed, and this is just going to be, just
    pure life right here. I'm digging along and there are
    earthworms everywhere. You know, and when I see that type of
    stuff it is like, okay, we are doing the right thing here. I
    mean, look at the abundance of earthworms working in this
    ground. I mean, they are just--and that was not there 20 years
    ago. I mean, you find them here--I can remember being a kid. I
    was going to go fishing with Grandpa. We would go dig for
    earthworms. It was tough to find them. Now I can find them
    anywhere I want on my farm.
        Senator Thune. Good. Dr. Mitloehner, in your testimony you
    mentioned that there was a lot of misinformation out there
    regarding livestock production's contribution to carbon
    emissions. Could you speak to livestock production's small
    fraction of overall carbon emissions?
        Mr. Mitloehner. Yes. In the United States, according to the
    Environmental Protection Agency, all livestock species combined
    produced about 3.9 percent of all greenhouse gases. So that is
    one of the lowest numbers in the world today.
        Senator Thune. In terms of the--you mentioned also that
    greenhouse gas emissions from U.S. livestock have declined by
    more than 11 percent since the 1960's, at the same time that
    livestock production has more than doubled. What changes have
    occurred in production, livestock production, to account for
    that increased efficiency?
        Mr. Mitloehner. Well, there are different changes. So first
    of all we have drastically reduced herd sizes. So, for example,
    the dairy industry went from 25 to 9 million cows. The beef
    industry, at its peak, was at 140 million. Today they are at 90
    million. So we have drastically reduced herd sizes but we have,
    at the same time, increased productivity.
        We have installed a veterinary system that prevents animals
    from getting sick or treats them. We have improved reproductive
    rate, we have improved the genetic material, and we have
    learned to feed a well-balanced diet to our animals, and that
    combination has allowed us to optimize performance of animals
    and lower environmental impacts to rates that we have never
    seen before.
        Senator Thune. Okay. You can answer this and maybe Ms.
    Lyons-Blythe as well. In the 2018 Farm Bill, we expanded haying
    and grazing flexibility on CRP-enrolled acres, which should
    make the program a more attractive option for landowners.
        What are the benefits of having cattle graze that rangeland
    as opposed to leaving it ungrazed?
        Ms. Lyons-Blythe. So, you know, I think the very best way
    to maintain grasslands is, of course, to have cattle grazing on
    it, and in the Flint Hills of Kansas that encourages
    biodiversity, it cuts out the opportunity for invasive species.
    So we are able to enhance the grasslands simply by grazing it.
    That is absolutely positive.
        In addition, it also enhances wildlife populations. What is
    good for cows is good for wildlife.
        Senator Thune. Yes, and we like that in South Dakota, for
    pheasants.
        In your testimony you discussed the concept of upcycling.
        Ms. Lyons-Blythe. Yes, sir.
        Senator Thune. I think we have all heard of recycling, but
    upcycling is a relatively new idea. Could you just tell us a
    little bit more about what the benefits are?
        Ms. Lyons-Blythe. Very quickly, upcycling is absolutely a
    superpower that cows have, because cows have a rumen. They have
    four different compartment to their stomach that we do not
    have. They can eat things that would normally go to the trash.
        So the quickest example is that in the ethanol industry the
    corn, it is called wet distiller's grain, that would be left
    over from creating ethanol, used to go to a landfill.
    Researchers have found that cows can eat that. So we now work
    with a nutritionist, because it is important that we know
    exactly how much they eat, and make sure that they have it in a
    balanced diet. We can feed that to cows.
        They do the same things with potato peelings in Idaho and
    chocolate in Pennsylvania, and even leftover pizza crusts from
    the Tony's Pizza plant near Kansas.
        Senator Thune. There you go. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Chairman Roberts. Well, thanks, Coop.
        Senator Casey.
        Senator Casey. Mr. Chairman, thanks very much for
    recognizing me and also for having this hearing. Both you and
    the Ranking Member should be commended for this. I want to
    thank our witnesses.
        As you can notice here, we are all in and out, going to
    different hearings or other meetings, so I am sorry I was back
    and forth. I probably will not get to the whole panel but I
    want to thank you for your testimony, for your presence here,
    and also for helping to teach us things that we need to know.
    In the back-and-forth of today, even in my limited time here, I
    learned a lot, so I appreciate that.
        I want to direct my questions to Secretary Vilsack. I want
    to start with a note about legislation that I worked on for
    years, that we finally got passed in 2016, which is the Global
    Food Security Act. I would not have been the lead Democrat on
    that were it not for Dick Lugar. Dick Lugar, one day we were on
    the Foreign Relations Committee, brought me into it, so I want
    to commend him and we are thinking of him today and his recent
    passing.
        After Dick Lugar left I worked on the bill with Mike
    Johanns, and then Mike Johanns left the Senate and Johnny
    Isakson and I worked together and we finally got it passed.
        What that act will do is codify the Feed the Future
    program, and so it was good that we finally got that over the
    goal line just three years ago.
        I start with that because we know not simply the urgency of
    dealing with food insecurity around the world but also the
    link, as the Director of National Intelligence in 2015,
    reporting the link between food insecurity--or food security
    itself and national security, food insecurity leading to
    greater instability that contributes to the growth of
    extremism, violence, and crime, and frankly, worse.
        So we have made good progress. I am holding in my hand--Mr.
    Chairman, I do not mind if I would ask, at your consent, to
    place in the record a document entitled ``U.S. Policy Road Map:
    A Drive to Transform Global Food and Nutrition Security,'' by
    Kimberly Flowers, January 19, CSIS Briefs. If I could have that
    made part of the record.
        Chairman Roberts. Without objection.

        [The following document can be found on page 96 in the
    appendix.]

        Senator Casey. I will just read one sentence from it. It is
    about eight pages and 38 footnotes. I will not read all of them
    but it said, at the bottom of the first page, from--and I am
    quoting directly--``From 2010 to 2017, U.S. targeted strategies
    and investments in inclusive agricultural growth and nutrition
    programming decreased poverty''--and this is worldwide now--
    ``decreased poverty by 23 percent and stunting by 32 percent in
    areas where Feed the Future operated,'' that great U.S.
    program, stunting meaning the problem that children have when
    they do not have nutrition.
        So that is a huge accomplishment by the American people,
    with American tax dollars, with a government program. So, if
    anything, we want to continue that, and I know there is
    bipartisan support for that.
        That is the long predicate to my question for Secretary
    Vilsack. When you look at Feed the Future, Food for Peace, the
    newly created U.S. Development Finance Corporation, and other
    efforts to provide adequate tools to take action, other than
    that, and maybe even in addition to that, do you think these
    initiatives provide support for resiliency and food security in
    the face of climate-related disasters, which the U.N. is
    telling us right now are undermining a lot of that progress?
        Mr. Vilsack. Senator, I think anything that can provide
    assistance and help to people that have been devastated by
    their communities being flooded out or destroyed when coastal
    waters rise obviously are important. I think it is also
    important for the U.S. to provide leadership in this area,
    which is why I think this hearing is so important. I think we
    have the opportunity to show the world how you can get
    agriculture to become a net zero emitter, the processes, the
    opportunities that can be created.
        We often have conversations about this as if it were a
    barrier or a drag on agriculture, but I think it is an
    opportunity to open up new revenue streams, new market
    opportunities for American agriculture, and allow American
    agriculture to inform and educate agriculture around the world.
    That is what I hope we would be working toward, and it is not
    just government. It is obviously not just the farmers. It is
    also, as has been mentioned, it is the industry, the ag
    industry and the food industry.
        Just so everybody understands the significance of this
    industry, food and agriculture employs, directly or indirectly,
    43 million people. That is 28 percent of the American work
    force. It impacts 20 percent of the American economy. The
    reason we have security in this country, in part, is because we
    are a food-secure nation. We should never, ever, ever take that
    for granted. Many countries, as you mentioned, that are not
    food secure are places where there are high levels of
    unemployment, high levels of poverty, and high levels of
    dissatisfaction.
        So we are absolutely blessed with American agriculture and
    we need to make sure that we find new ways to keep it
    profitable and keep folks on the farm.
        Senator Casey. Well, thank you, Secretary Vilsack and I
    thank the members of the panel. I appreciate the can-do spirit.
    It is very much American to be able to talk about
    opportunities, not just challenges. I will have some more
    questions for the record, Mr. Chairman, but I want to thank you
    and the Ranking Member for doing this.
        Chairman Roberts. I appreciate that, Senator Casey.
        Secretary Vilsack, and, for that matter, anybody on the
    panel, there is a hill about 10 miles west of Dodge City,
    Kansas, and I would invite you all to come out there. It has
    sort of a flat top to it. Rumor has it that is where Marty
    Robbins used to sing before he went down to El Paso and got
    shot in the back, which was truly unfortunate. He should have
    stayed in Kansas.
        At that site there is a plant that uses effluent from Dodge
    City, Kansas, and National Beef, which goes into four lagoons.
    On the fourth lagoon you have water that is available for
    irrigation. Then the rest of that goes into these large
    balloon-like--I do not know what to call them other than just
    they capture all the methane. The methane then goes to another
    process that processes natural gas, which certainly helps out
    with Dodge City and their energy needs, and, for that matter,
    the whole surrounding area.
        I did not even know that was in operation until I went back
    to Dodge and they said, ``You have got to come out and see
    this.'' That was an astounding kind of accomplishment. Tom, you
    spoke of that. All of you have spoken to that. That is the kind
    of thing--and they did it on their own.
        So I was just amazed at how that touches almost every
    environmental challenge that we could think of and ends up in a
    profit.
        So thank you all. This is going to conclude--I am sorry.
        Senator Stabenow. Mr. Chair, I just wanted to add, if I
    might, that rather than agriculture being on the defense, today
    it is about being on the offense and leading. I mean, the
    reality is that agriculture can be leaders in solving this
    pollution crisis that is affecting all of us by creating energy
    independence. This is about opportunity.
        So I would just encourage all of you to be speaking from
    the standpoint of leadership and opportunity, because
    agriculture can make a huge difference right now in solving a
    multiple set of problems, and I appreciate your coming. Thank
    you.
        Chairman Roberts. This is going to conclude our hearing
    today, but I really want to thank each of our witnesses. You
    are carrying the message, and the proper message, by taking
    time to share your perspectives on climate change and ag
    sector's responses to this challenge. I really thank you for
    taking time out of your very valuable schedule.
        To my fellow members, we 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 Wednesday, May
    29th.
        The Committee is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:22 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

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

                                A P P E N D I X

                                  May 21, 2019

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

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

                       DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

                                  May 21, 2019

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

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

                             QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

                                  May 21, 2019

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

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]