[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]





 
                       REGENERATIVE AGRICULTURE:
                       
                      HOW FARMERS AND RANCHERS

                        ARE ESSENTIAL TO SOLVING

                     CLIMATE CHANGE AND INCREASING

                            FOOD PRODUCTION

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                      SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT

                                 OF THE

                   COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                             JULY 19, 2022

                               __________

                           Serial No. 117-93

                               __________
                               
                               
                               

      Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Reform
      
      
      
      
 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
      


                       Available on: govinfo.gov
                           oversight.house.gov
                             docs.house.gov
                             
                             
                              ______                       


             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
 48-224PDF           WASHINGTON : 2022                            
                             
                             
                             
                CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York, Chairwoman

Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of   James Comer, Kentucky, Ranking 
    Columbia                             Minority Member
Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts      Jim Jordan, Ohio
Jim Cooper, Tennessee                Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia         Jody B. Hice, Georgia
Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois        Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin
Jamie Raskin, Maryland               Michael Cloud, Texas
Ro Khanna, California                Bob Gibbs, Ohio
Kweisi Mfume, Maryland               Clay Higgins, Louisiana
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York   Ralph Norman, South Carolina
Rashida Tlaib, Michigan              Pete Sessions, Texas
Katie Porter, California             Fred Keller, Pennsylvania
Cori Bush, Missouri                  Andy Biggs, Arizona
Shontel M. Brown, Ohio               Andrew Clyde, Georgia
Danny K. Davis, Illinois             Nancy Mace, South Carolina
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Florida    Scott Franklin, Florida
Peter Welch, Vermont                 Jake LaTurner, Kansas
Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr.,      Pat Fallon, Texas
    Georgia                          Yvette Herrell, New Mexico
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland           Byron Donalds, Florida
Jackie Speier, California            Mike Flood, Nebraska
Robin L. Kelly, Illinois
Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan
Mark DeSaulnier, California
Jimmy Gomez, California
Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts

                      Russ Anello, Staff Director
               Katie Thomas, Subcommittee Staff Director
                    Amy Stratton, Deputy Chief Clerk

                      Contact Number: 202-225-5051

                  Mark Marin, Minority Staff Director
                                 ------                                

                      Subcommittee on Environment

                    Ro Khanna, California, Chairman
Jim Cooper, Tennessee                Ralph Norman, South Carolina, 
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York       Ranking Minority Member
Rashida Tlaib, Michigan              Bob Gibbs, Ohio
Jimmy Gomez, California              Pat Fallon, Texas
Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois        Yvette Herrell, New Mexico
Cori Bush, Missouri

                         C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Hearing held on July 19, 2022....................................     1

                               Witnesses

Bonnie Haugen, Owner, Springside Farm
Oral Statement...................................................     6
Kara Boyd, President, Association of American Indian Farmers
Oral Statement...................................................     8
Doug Doughty, Missouri Grain Farmer and Cattle Producer
Oral Statement...................................................     9
Dr. Rachel E. Schattman, Assistant Professor of Sustainable 
  Agriculture, University of Maine
Oral Statement...................................................    11
Brian Lacefield, Director, Kentucky Office of Agricultural Policy
Oral Statement...................................................    13

Written opening statements and statements for the witnesses are 
  available on the U.S. House of Representatives Document 
  Repository at: docs.house.gov.

                           Index of Documents

                              ----------                              


  * Citizens Petition on the Rescind Air Consent Agreement; 
  submitted by Rep. Tlaib.

  * Citizens Petition on the Concentrated Animal Feeding 
  Operations; submitted by Rep. Tlaib.

  * Report, ``Well-Fed: A Roadmap to a Sustainable Food System 
  That Works for All''; submitted by Rep. Tlaib.

Documents entered into the record during this hearing and 
  Questions for the Record (QFR's) are available at: 
  docs.house.gov.


                       REGENERATIVE AGRICULTURE:

                        HOW FARMERS AND RANCHERS

                        ARE ESSENTIAL TO SOLVING

                     CLIMATE CHANGE AND INCREASING

                            FOOD PRODUCTION

                              ----------                              


                         Tuesday, July 19, 2022

                   House of Representatives
                Subcommittee on Environment
                          Committee on Oversight and Reform
                                                   Washington, D.C.

    The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:06 p.m., in 
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ro Khanna 
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
    Present: Representatives Khanna, Cooper, Ocasio-Cortez, 
Tlaib, Gomez, Krishnamoorthi, Norman, Gibbs, Fallon, Herrell, 
and Comer.
    Also present: Representative Flood.
    Mr. Khanna. The committee will come to order.
    Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a 
recess of the committee at any time.
    I now recognize myself for an opening statement.
    Climate change poses serious threats to food security. As 
the magnitude and frequency of extreme weather events 
increases, disruption threatens our food supply at home and 
abroad. Elevated temperatures contribute to causing drought, 
which depletes water reserves, worsens crop yields, and 
increases fire risks.
    The United Nations estimates that global food production 
must increase by at least 60 percent to meet the expected rise 
in the Earth's population by 2050. Global yields of maize and 
wheat, by far the world's two most consumed crops, will decline 
significantly due to global warming in the coming decades.
    The resulting higher food prices and food insecurity will 
disproportionately harm low-income communities and communities 
of color.
    Farmers are a key part of the solution. Regenerative 
agriculture is a system for food production that puts more back 
into the ground than it extracts. With regenerative practices, 
farms provide benefits to their environment. Regenerative farms 
improve water and air quality, soil health, and ecosystem 
restoration, all the while increasing productivity. It's driven 
not by Washington, DC. It's driven by the farmers themselves 
and their ingenuity. Regenerative practices can lower carbon 
emissions and provide clean water, clean air, and rebuild farm 
communities.
    It's rooted in millennia of tradition. Our modern 
industrialized food system makes it difficult to practice. The 
market power exercised by agribusiness or family farmers leave 
little flexibility for regenerative practices.
    The top four beef-packing companies control nearly 85 
percent of the market. The top four pork packers control 71 
percent. Just four companies control 90 percent of the entire 
global grain trade. Companies use that market power to dictate 
how farmers must produce livestock, grain, fruits, and 
vegetables. Farmers are often prevented from diversifying 
crops, integrating livestock with crops, or adopting other 
regenerative practices.
    The industrialization of agriculture has had a tough 
impact, a negative impact often on rural economies. 
Consolidation and industrialization have caused nearly 17,000 
cattle ranchers to go out of business every year since 1980. 
Today family farmers earn just 16 cents on every dollar spent 
on food at the grocery store. Financial stress has contributed, 
unfortunately, to a suicide rate among farmers that is six 
times the national average.
    We should support farmers and invest in rural America. 
Farmers providing environmental services through regenerative 
agriculture must be compensated for those services. Pay farmers 
for regenerative agricultures. For example, the Environmental 
Quality Incentives Program and Conservation Stewardship Program 
are two of USDA's primary working lands conservation programs. 
They're underfunded. Listen, just last year, the USDA granted 
27 percent of Environmental Quality Incentives Program's 
eligible applicants and just 35 percent for the Conservation 
Stewardship Program.
    Federal policy supports inherently unsustainable practices. 
By law, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program must spend 
50 percent of its funds to benefit livestock producers. Those 
same companies will control the vast majority of the market 
share. Commodity subsidies and subsidized crop insurance 
primarily go to crops used for livestock feed. The government-
subsidized loan costs primarily benefits the largest producers, 
who often don't use regenerative practices.
    Today I'm introducing legislation to support regenerative 
agriculture. We must fully fund the USDA's conservation 
programs. We must reform them to provide farmers more 
flexibility to do what they think is best, as opposed to being 
dictated by corporate executives, who may have no actual 
experience in farming. We must enable farmers to be 
environmental entrepreneurs on their land. Basically, we must 
listen to farmers themselves. No one knows what's best for the 
land better than those who work on it day in and day out. They 
know better than those of us in D.C. They know better than the 
corporate executives. And the resolution says: Listen to 
farmers and pay farmers for the practices that they think are 
best for their soil.
    In addition to our witnesses here today, I want to thank 
Matt Russell of Iowa for his many years of leadership on this 
issue. Matt Russell really has pioneered listening to farmers. 
Finally, I want to thank Secretary Vilsack for his relentless 
leadership for farmers and rural America and his investment in 
many programs on regenerative agriculture.
    I now recognize Ranking Member Norman--we may sometimes 
disagree, but he is always collegial, and I really respect his 
service--for an opening statement.
    Ranking Member Norman.
    Mr. Norman. Thank you, Chairman Khanna.
    I'll return the compliment to you. You have always been 
open, and we may not agree on many issues, but you're 
congenial, and I really appreciate that.
    I would ask for unanimous consent for Representative Flood 
to waive on for today's hearing.
    Mr. Khanna. Yes. I see no objection. He is on the 
committee.
    Mr. Norman. Great.
    Agribusiness in South Carolina is South Carolina's No. 1 
industry. From corn and cotton to tobacco and turkey, the 
farming industry in South Carolina accounts for a quarter of a 
million jobs and almost $50 billion in direct annual economic 
impact. Farmers and ranchers are the real stewards of the land, 
not left-wing bureaucrats in Washington, DC.
    Since President Biden took office, the agriculture industry 
has fallen under severe attack. Input costs for farmers are 
surging. From May 2021 to May 2022, these costs increased 15 
percent. The cost of fertilizer alone is 77 percent higher 
today than it was the same time last year.
    I had a farmer three months ago, which is planting season, 
tell me: Where can I get fertilizer?
    He could not get fertilizer to fertilize his crops, which 
produce the yield, and as all of you know--and I did research 
your background. All of you are farmers and have experienced it 
firsthand, but he couldn't get fertilizer. That's a direct 
result of a lot of different reasons, but fuel leads the way as 
one of the main culprits.
    Farmers and American people are facing record-high prices 
for gasoline and diesel, and I can assure you tractors, 
combines do not--you cannot plug in. They do not run on solar 
panels. Increased input costs are cutting deeply into the 
farmers' bottom line. Some are not sure if they can even break 
even.
    I was telling Chairman Khanna, my cousin is a pretty good 
size chicken farmer. Guess what he called me about that he 
could not get? Feed for his pullets. He could not get feed for 
the pullets to feed the chickens, and I was telling Ro that 
they supply a lot of the fast-food markets. It's coming pretty 
quick when we will not get be able to get the chicken biscuit 
or they will be severely limited or they will be priced so high 
people won't have it because the trucks cannot afford to get on 
the roads to deliver the feed for his pullets. Eighty-year-old 
company, first time he's ever had this problem.
    The Biden administration's proposed revisions to the Waters 
of the United States, otherwise known as WOTUS, rule, will re-
ignite Obama-era uncertainties, uncertainties that President 
Trump had resolved to benefit America's farmers. The revisions 
would broaden the definition of what a navigable Federal 
waterway. This will lead to nationwide revaluation of Federal 
stream and wetland permits, saddling farmers with additional 
hoops to jump through.
    Just last month, President Biden's EPA proposed a new rule 
that would severely limit the use of Atrazine, one of the most 
popularly used herbicides used by farmers, and I'm anxious to 
get into the debate on the elimination of pesticides and how 
that works. Atrazine, which is safe for humans, it allows 
farmers to produce a large yield of crops while keeping prices 
affordable. President Biden has again put the interests of far-
left environmental groups over farmers, ranchers, and the 
American consumer.
    The Biden administration has not targeted farmers with 
regulations--it has not just targeted farmers with regulations, 
but also with the new tax proposals as well. His proposed 
legislation, the American Families Plan, would cost farmers 
millions of dollars. And God help us if a farmer dies because 
transferring wealth and transferring that farm could be saddled 
with an exorbitant tax bill. When the head of a household dies 
under President Biden's reckless taxation and spending plan, 
they could be forced to sell their farm, which they will have 
to do.
    Ironically, President Biden recently called U.S. farmers 
the backbone of freedom. If that's the case, why do Biden's 
administrative policies continue to harm the livelihood of 
farmers, which is what many of you--most of you testifying 
today do for a living.
    Democrats want to tell farmers they need to lower their 
carbon emissions, but they will allow China to pollute the 
environment more and more every day; coal plants being built 
every week. We need to let farmers farm, not shoulder them with 
burdensome regulations and huge tax bills. As most farmers tell 
me: Get the bureaucracy, get the government out of the way and 
just let them do what they were born to do and, in many cases, 
born with their families to do.
    Last, but not least, this came out today. On top of all of 
the issues we've got: Global supply chain crisis could worsen 
in 2022, the survey shows. Just getting products to the farmers 
to help do what you do is going to be even worse than it is 
today. God help us all.
    Chairman Ro Khanna, thank you so much for the witnesses 
today.
    Mr. Khanna. Thank you.
    I now recognize Ranking Member Comer--good not to see him 
on Squawk Box but here--for an opening statement.
    Mr. Comer. Thank you, Chairman Khanna.
    And, before I get into my opening statement, I too want to 
recognize Congressman Flood of Nebraska to the Oversight 
Committee, and we'll be giving you a formal introduction in a 
full committee hearing tomorrow.
    And I want to thank the witnesses for participating here 
today.
    The U.S. agriculture industry is the best in the world. For 
generations, American farmers have combined technology, 
science, ingenuity, and work ethic to outpace global 
competition. Simply put, American farmers are the best at what 
they do. I understand firsthand what our farmers do for our 
Nation and our world.
    When I served as the Kentucky commissioner of agriculture 
prior to coming to Congress, I worked very closely alongside 
Kentucky farmers. The agriculture industry in Kentucky alone 
provides over 250,000 jobs and is home to more than 74,000 
farms, most of which are small family farms.
    However, the Biden administration's radical environmental 
policies are hurting our farmers. Hours after taking office, 
President Biden shut down the Keystone Pipeline, cutting off a 
huge source of American energy independence. The Biden 
administration held off renewing or approving oil and gas 
leases, contributing to historic gas prices. For the first time 
ever, the national average for gas was over $5 a gallon. 
California's gas prices, Mr. Chairman, reached nearly $10 a 
gallon.
    Further, our supply chains were already struggling to 
recover from COVID shutdowns. Now they're trying to recover 
with skyrocketing energy prices, and that's pretty tough to do. 
Just look at our grocery stores. They are struggling to keep 
the shelves stocked. Meanwhile, we have parents across the 
country having a hard time to feed their babies because of a 
shortage of baby formula. The Energy Index also rose 41.6 
percent over the last year, the largest 12-month increase since 
1980.
    The Biden administration's energy policies have contributed 
to all-time high food prices and historic inflation. It would 
be great to talk to the Biden administration about this, but 
today, once again, the Democrats talk about Federal policies, 
and there isn't a single witness from the Biden administration 
on our panel. Instead, we're going to hear how farmers need to 
use regenerative farming practices. Well, American farmers are 
already doing that. Farmers regularly use sustainable practices 
to create a higher yield and promote efficiency on their lands.
    Unfortunately, Democrats love using this catch-all term as 
an excuse to justify more regulation on farmers. They want to 
claim that if only farmers were forced to use these techniques, 
then climate change would be solved. But we should not and 
cannot wrap up farmers in bureaucratic red tape. Doing so will 
hurt farms, destroy American food supply, and do nothing to 
solve climate change.
    Sadly, the Biden administration continues to burden farmers 
with more regulations that create more costs and uncertainty, 
and these costs are passed on to the American people who are 
struggling to make ends meet due to a 40-year high inflation.
    Take the proposed revisions to the Waters of the United 
States rule, the WOTUS rule, for example. This rulemaking would 
cutoff access to crops on farmers' lands because it gives the 
Federal Government power over any waterways on the land. Now, 
what sense does that make?
    Under President Biden, the EPA is also trying to limit 
useful herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers. These products, 
however, allow farmers to produce high yields and safeguard 
human health. Again, what sense does that make, especially when 
our economy is suffocating from inflation?
    President Biden tells American farmers they should be 
feeding the world, yet he removes the tools and the technology 
they need at every turn. Advances in these technologies keep 
the U.S. No. 1 in agriculture and keeps food on the table for 
America and the world.
    For the sake of American farmers and consumers, the 
government should not have a bigger seat at the table. It needs 
to excuse itself from the table and let American farmers do 
what they do best, and that is succeed.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I yield back.
    Mr. Khanna. Thank you.
    Now I would like to introduce our panel of witnesses.
    Our first witness will be Bonnie Haugen, who is owner of 
Springside Farm in Minnesota.
    Our second witness will be Kara Boyd, who is the president 
of the Association of American Indian Farmers.
    Our third witness will be Doug Doughty, a Missouri grain 
farmer and cattle producer.
    Our fourth witness is Dr. Rachel Schattman, assistant 
professor of sustainable agriculture at the University of 
Maine.
    I recognize Ranking Member Comer to introduce the final 
witness.
    Mr. Comer. Thank you, Chairman Khanna.
    The final witness I'm very pleased to have with us today: 
Mr. Brian Lacefield. He is the director of the Governor's 
Office of Agriculture Policy in Kentucky, a lifelong friend of 
mine from a great farm family in Christian County, Kentucky, 
and, like me, a graduate of Western Kentucky University with a 
degree in agriculture. So very pleased to have Brian Lacefield 
as a witness.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Khanna. Thank you.
    The witnesses will be unmuted so we can swear them in.
    Please raise your right hand.
    Do you swear to affirm that the testimony you are about to 
give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, 
so help you God?
    Ms. Haugen. Yes.
    Ms. Boyd. Yes.
    Mr. Doughty. Yes.
    Ms. Schattman. Yes.
    Mr. Lacefield. Yes.
    Mr. Khanna. Let the record show the witnesses answered in 
the affirmative. Thank you.
    Without objection, your written statements will be made 
part of the record.
    With that, Ms. Haugen, you are recognized for your 
testimony.

       STATEMENT OF BONNIE HAUGEN, OWNER, SPRINGSIDE FARM

    Ms. Haugen. Thank you.
    Chairman Khanna, Ranking Member Norman, and members of the 
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to speak today.
    I am Bonnie Haugen, and I believe that farming is truly 
everybody's bread, butter, and water. I had a raindrop on my 
head this morning. Keep that in mind, and the significance will 
come to that in my last paragraph.
    In southeastern Minnesota, in hilly karst geology, 50 miles 
from the Mississippi River, my family runs a grazing dairy 
business with a seasonal herd of 160 cows. On our 270-acre 
farm, we use rotational grazing, and our cows graze on pasture 
with forages that includes grasses, clover, and more. These 
forages sequester carbon and keep soil from eroding by wind or 
water.
    My passion for farming and environmental stewardship has 
led me to be involved with several different organizations, 
including Land Stewardship Project, Campaign for Family Farms 
and the Environment, and other groups. I'm also a part-time 
Dairy Grazing Apprenticeship, or DGA, education coordinator and 
a certified farm transition coordinator with International Farm 
Transfer Network. But I'm representing myself today.
    Until 2011, I did the management, feeding, and most of the 
milking on our seasonal herd averaging 130 cows. My husband 
worked off the farm and supplied health insurance, which is a 
typical arrangement for farmers today. In 2011, our son, Olaf, 
came home to manage the dairy. Currently, on our farm, I do the 
bookwork and grandchild care when needed. Three of the 
grandkids, ages 8, 6, and 3, want to farm. I want them to have 
the opportunity to farm without being a serf to corporate ag.
    When we bought these acres 29 years ago, there were about 
12 dairy farms within a three-mile radius of us. Now there's 
only one other dairy with approximately 400 cows aside from us. 
What I have seen in my community mirrors national trends. In 
1970, there were about 620,000 dairy farms nationwide, and now 
there's only 32,000 dairies or less, or about 19 percent.
    The pressure of corporate ag and CAFOs, which are 
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, on the dairy sector in 
my community has taken away a fair opportunity from the 
neighbors who wanted to keep or pass on dairy farming.
    Corporate dairy farms also often use management actions 
that threaten the safety of our water and air. These operations 
concentrate millions of gallons of liquid manure in one spot, 
which is risky, especially in this karst area. I really think 
that a moratorium on any new CAFO dairies is a good idea for 
the milk markets and our communities. Please remember that big 
CAFO dairies are not the same as ours. They're like big box 
stores similar to a Walmart building in the middle of one of 
our small towns.
    It's also important that sustainable farming practices are 
supported. Our unique farming methods have helped us survive 
difficult times on the farm and benefit the environment. Our 
cows live outside, walk to the barn for milking, and go back 
out to the paddock to get most of their feed and leave most of 
the mature in the paddock, which is a specified fenced area, 
where it will start to benefit the soil, soil bugs, dung 
beetles, and plant roots right away. The cows get a new paddock 
area after each milking twice a day. Studies, such as Grassland 
2.0 at the University of Wisconsin, show that perennial 
pasture, like the pasture, we have grown, is the best crop for 
carbon sequestration and also increases water infiltration, 
which benefits water and soil quality.
    I'm submitting research studies and some comments from some 
of my colleagues in my written testimony, and please give them 
at least a skim.
    Now, Federal programs such as the Conservation Stewardship 
Program help farmers understand and benefit from implementing 
regenerative practices. I urge you to support increased funding 
for them.
    Now, this summer, whenever you might be caught in a rain 
shower or thunderstorm, I challenge you to remember this: The 
raindrops landing on you may have landed on my cow's back, 
fallen down in the grass, soaked into the ground, followed a 
karst crack in the St. Peter aquifer. Then my neighbor's 
confined cow drank it, passed it on into their slurry store, 
then out to the cornfield, but before it could soak through the 
dry crust, it was carried with a deluge into the stream, the 
creek, the river, the ocean, then evaporated to the sky where 
it connected with other drops while floating in the wind, the 
wind currents being carried over your head, clinging to other 
raindrops and getting too heavy, so it drops on you.
    And there's supposed to be a picture of drops. There we go. 
There it is.
    We are all so interconnected. What I do on my hills truly 
does affect water quality and quantity for all of society, and 
farming truly is everybody's bread, butter, and water.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Khanna. Thank you.
    Ms. Boyd, you are recognized.

  STATEMENT OF KARA BOYD, PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN 
                         INDIAN FARMERS

    Ms. Boyd. Honorable Congressman Khanna, Ranking Member 
Norman, and committee members, it's truly an honor to be 
invited to speak with you here today. Thank you.
    I'm Kara Brewer Boyd, an enrolled member of the Lumbee 
Tribe of North Carolina. My Tribe is the largest Tribe east of 
the Mississippi and the eighth largest in the United States. My 
Tribe is located in southeastern North Carolina down along the 
South Carolina border, and we have been producing agriculture 
for centuries.
    My husband is John Boyd, the founder and president of the 
National Black Farmers Association. My husband and I maintain 
1,500 acres in Southside, Virginia. Our agriculture production 
includes corn, soybeans, wheat, hemp, summer vegetables. Our 
livestock production includes beef cattle, meat and dairy 
goats, chickens, and hogs.
    The Association of American Indian Farmers has about 3,500 
members across the United States in which I serve as their 
founder and president.
    Being an indigenous person here in North America, I highly 
value food security and resiliency. As we have always found 
food to feed our families, travel communities, and others, 
indigenous people understand being a good steward of the land 
includes making decisions with forethought of future 
generations.
    The COVID-19 pandemic, the war in Ukraine, and increasingly 
extreme weather conditions have each contributed to bringing us 
into a farm crisis, which may lead to a food crisis in the very 
near future, and which threatens the longevity of our 
agricultural system as well as our national security and food 
supply.
    Yet, underpinning all of this, playing arguably the biggest 
role in the farm crisis and our collective future, is our soil. 
Regenerative agriculture is a critical solution to the farm 
crisis. Combining indigenous knowledge, holistic, adaptive, and 
cutting-edge science, it puts forth six key principles that 
allow any farmer or rancher to restore sole function.
    The principles are: context, least disturbance, living 
roots, soil armor, increased diversity, and animal integration.
    Regenerative agriculture increases the resilience of our 
land and profitability for producers, but, unfortunately, 
Federal policies, including the farm bill, currently are not 
supporting farmers and ranchers in this transition.
    On behalf of our regenerative farmers, Mr. Chairman, and 
members of the committee, you have the opportunity to foster 
this change. The House Oversight Committee should be aware of 
these problems, profound problems, that are detailed in my 
written testimony, as well as you're hearing from the other 
witnesses, and their root cause, as well as the solution and 
opportunity that lies in regenerating the soil beneath our 
feet.
    We're living in a time like no other, and we need science, 
technology, indigenous wisdom, and holistic thinking, working 
together to move us toward regeneration. Building back soil 
health is the most cost-effective Federal investment we can 
make at this time. From risk mitigation to farmer prosperity, 
to human health to carbon sequestration, it is a win-win for 
all. And this committee can help secure regenerative 
agriculture moves us forward as a critical comprehensive 
solution to the farm crisis.
    Thank you again for this opportunity, and I look forward to 
your questions.
    Mr. Khanna. Thank you, Ms. Boyd.
    Mr. Doughty, you're now recognized.

  STATEMENT OF DOUG DOUGHTY, GRAIN FARMER AND CATTLE PRODUCER

    Mr. Doughty. Chairman Khanna, Ranking Member Norman, and 
members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity to be 
here today.
    I'm Doug Doughty. Barb and I grow corn, soybeans, and hay, 
along with a cow-calf operation in north Missouri. I returned 
to our family farm during the eighties' farm crisis. Little did 
I know another crisis was unfolding and is continuing to gain 
strength today, the proliferation of large-scale, industrial 
CAFOs.
    From where I stand in my 38 years of farming, industrial 
agriculture nutrient pollution, such as nitrogen and 
phosphorous, is increasing due to runoff and leaching of animal 
manure and fertilizer from our fields. And Concentrated Animal 
Feeding Operations, CAFOs, are escalating, both posing 
environmental threats to our rural communities, our urban 
neighbors, and even the Gulf of Mexico.
    There is less soil. There is less topsoil, more carbon in 
the air, and more agriculture-related greenhouse gas emissions 
than yesterday. Overall methane emissions have declined since 
1990, but agriculture-related methane emissions have risen, a 
71-percent increase. EPA ties this growth of emissions to hog 
and dairy factory farms. The sophisticated CAFO industry is 
highly dependent on cheap feed and avoiding environmental 
regulations, pushing Earth, farmers, and animals to their 
limits. Recent state assessments show a laundry list of water 
bodies impaired with bacteria, nitrates, and phosphates.
    We raise cattle. I grew up raising hogs, was a pork 
producer in my early farming years. I understand what is 
involved raising animals for food, but what CAFOs do is 
different than what we do on our farm. Buildings the size of 
football fields concentrate thousands or tens of thousands of 
animals and create massive amounts of manure in quantities 
equivalent to cities, a challenge to be handled responsibly, 
putting surface and groundwater at risk of contamination.
    We need more effective CAFO regulations to counter this 
massive environmental impact. It's past time to regulate the 
waste and air pollution. Let's bring nitrogen and phosphorous 
inputs in line with crop needs, an easy way to improve water 
quality. Let's stop over applying manure and fertilizer, less 
excess to wash away.
    EPA has identified phosphate and nitrogen farm runoff as a 
serious threat to the public's health and call for identifying 
those responsible.
    In 1997, our county enacted a local health ordinance to 
govern CAFOs. The ordinance did not ban CAFOs but was stronger 
than state regulations. The 20 Missouri health ordinances fell 
victim to intense lobbying from corporate agriculture in 2019, 
another domino to fall in a series of laws to deregulate the 
industry.
    We were taking a reasonable approach, but the attack on 
local control takes that tool away, and our state government, 
commandeered by corporate ag, has eroded state protections and 
regulations on CAFOs to near the EPA baseline. Weakening state 
rules are described as coming in line with Federal regulations.
    Shortly after the overturn of our health ordinance, we 
resisted a 10,500 head industrial sow CAFO proposed near the 
6,000-acre Poosey Conservation Area. We knew the impact it 
would have on the neighborhood, dealing with air and water 
pollution, health issues, flies, noise, and truck traffic, plus 
the burden on our deteriorating highways and county roads, and, 
finally, the potential harm to the conservation area, an 
important public land, natural resource destination for 
recreation. This was not opportunity knocking.
    This CAFO was going to produce feeder pigs for JBS, the 
Brazilian multinational, the largest meatpacker in the world. 
How would JBS be held accountable? Other Missouri communities 
deal with pollution issues from industrial CAFOs run by China-
owned Smithfield. China and Brazil get the pork. We get the 
manure and environmental issues.
    The permit was withdrawn for now, but Missouri is 
determined to provide minimal protections. Recently, our DNR 
removed perched water from the definition of groundwater. 
Shallow groundwater had been discovered on the aforementioned 
proposed CAFO site. Often perched groundwater is our only 
source of groundwater that is reasonably available. Curiously, 
the definition change applies to CAFOs, not other industries, 
such as landfills and mines.
    Federal regulations of CAFOs are weak. The EPA doesn't have 
regulations in place to protect us from CAFOs, but EPA is our 
last line of defense.
    In the meantime, our own USDA funds CAFOs to pay for manure 
lagoons and animal mortality facilities. Why is USDA 
underwriting pollution with conservation dollars? Let's direct 
a larger percentage of USDA dollars toward small and midsize 
family farms seeking to implement cover crops, sustainable 
livestock practices, farmers' markers, farmers selling directly 
to consumers, or urban ag projects and neighborhood kitchen and 
grocery initiatives. Let's fund resourceful farming and food 
initiatives that contribute to the public good.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Khanna. Thank you, Mr. Doughty.
    Dr. Schattman, you're recognized.

   STATEMENT OF RACHEL E. SCHATTMAN, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF 
          SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE, UNIVERSITY OF MAINE

    Ms. Schattman. Good afternoon, Chair Khanna, Ranking Member 
Norman, and members of the subcommittee.
    My name is Rachel Schattman, and I serve as an assistant 
professor of sustainable agriculture at the University of 
Maine, an R1 land, sea, and space grant institution.
    Before I begin, I would like to say thank you to 
Representative Khanna for the invitation to testify and to the 
National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, which helped invite 
me here today.
    We're in this hearing because every agricultural sector in 
every region of our country is already being affected by 
climate change in some way, and the impacts are intensifying. 
This is a long-term problem with consequences for us all. Even 
if we were to stop putting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere 
today, we would see temperatures increase throughout the 
country and beyond with cascading effects on precipitation and 
other weather patterns. These weather patterns in turn affect 
the balance of agroecosystems which our communities of plants, 
insects and animals, diseases and, importantly, the 
interactions between all of these.
    Though there are many uncertainties associated with what 
the future holds, because of research that has already been 
conducted, we know enough right now to support farmers as they 
adapt to a changing climate, build resilience into their farms, 
and anchor thriving U.S. agricultural industries so that they 
can provide essential rural jobs and feed our population and 
the world.
    We can do this through unwavering support for sustainable 
regenerative agriculture through evidence-based programs and 
policies that meet farmers where they are and provide what they 
say they need to move forward, which I touch on in my written 
testimony and based on my own research and past work with 
diversified farmers in the Northeast and wheat farmers in 
Kansas.
    To farm sustainably means that we grow food, fiber, and 
fuel in a manner that does not undermine our ability to do so 
in the future. To farm regeneratively is to do this in a way 
that has a positive effect on natural resources. This term is 
often used in the context of sequestering carbon, improving 
soil health, or improving water quality through agriculture 
management activities.
    Specific practices guided by these principles include 
reduced or no-tillage, cover cropping, crop rotation, and 
integration of livestock into cropping systems. These practices 
also have the added climate mitigation co-benefit of 
sequestering carbon in soil when they are implemented over an 
extended period of time.
    Other practices, such as managing manure and amending 
animal feed, alternative wetting and drying of fields in rice 
production, and only using the most efficient irrigation and 
fertilization practices have the benefits of reducing nitrous 
oxide and methane emissions.
    How to increase the use of sustainable regenerative farm 
practices across different agricultural sectors is a question 
for behavioral science. My research on adult education in 
agriculture and forestry specifically related to climate change 
led to a program called the Climate Adaptation Fellowship. This 
program was based at the University of Maine and co-led by the 
USDA Northeast Climate Hub and the Rutgers Climate Change 
Institute. We piloted it last year with vegetable and small 
fruit growers in the region and the agricultural advisers who 
work with them. Together pairs of fellows completed on-farm 
risk assessments and adaptation planning, put key adaptation 
approaches into place, and engaged in peer-to-peer learning. 
And this is just one example of an effort to create learning 
communities where farmers can support one another to pursue 
sustainable and regenerative practices and keep using them.
    Support for farmers to learn and apply adaptation and 
mitigation practices has been provided to a limited degree by 
Federal and state and private programs in the past, but there's 
room to do more. Many past efforts have been piecemeal, and 
they are not universally acceptable to U.S. food, fiber, and 
fuel producers.
    For agriculture to meaningfully contribute to addressing 
climate change, we need a unified approach, supported and 
sustained by Federal policy and investment, and complimentary 
community and state resources. This means heavily investing in 
agricultural research, especially at land grant universities, 
including historically Black colleges and universities and 
Tribal colleges, and expanding education programs, technical 
assistance, and financial assistance for farmers.
    There are many sound evidence-based recommendations in the 
2020 report by the Select Committee on Climate Crisis, which 
are also included in the Agriculture Resilience Act, H.R. 2803, 
put forward by Congressman Pingree of Maine and cosponsored by 
the subcommittee's chairman. Passage and funding of these 
initiatives would accelerate our ability to adapt to and 
mitigate climate change through agriculture.
    We must also ensure that Federal agriculture programs are 
available to all who steward the land. In addition to climate 
change being a matter of science, it's also invariably a 
racial, gender, and economic justice issue as the negative 
effects of climate change will fall disproportionately on those 
who can least afford it.
    To minimize the future harm to our country, we should bring 
Federal policy to bear on extending and expanding how U.S. 
agriculture adapts to and mitigates climate change. The health 
and well-being of our people and the agroecosystems that feed 
us demand it.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Khanna. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Schattman.
    Mr. Lacefield, you are now recognized.

  STATEMENT OF BRIAN LACEFIELD, DIRECTOR, KENTUCKY OFFICE OF 
                      AGRICULTURAL POLICY

    Mr. Lacefield. Good afternoon, Chairman, Ranking Member, 
members of the subcommittee, and other witnesses.
    Throughout my career, I've worked directly with Kentucky 
farmers in multiple capacities. I've worked with the University 
Extension Service, as a banker, as a crop input retailer, and 
most recently as state executive director of the Farm Service 
Agency. Each role has provided me with a unique view of the 
farmer's decision-making process. The topic we are covering 
today is very broad and difficult to find a one-size-fits-all 
solution.
    Regenerative ag and agriculture technology, while newer 
names, are not new concepts. Throughout our history, there has 
been a push for efficiency and sustainability. Our human nature 
has driven us to find new and innovative ways to maximize 
production and limit resources used. This has driven the 
evolution of our agriculture industry.
    The first agriculture technology advancement was possibly a 
simple stick, allowing tilling of the soil, establishing better 
seed-to-soil contact, and establishing the plant where we 
wanted. This has continued to evolve over time with technology 
advancements. As technology advances, the costs must be 
weighed. Practices must be sustainable both economically and 
agronomically. We have learned as our industry evolved that 
there are both short-and long-term costs to production, and we 
must balance production practices with goals of preserving 
resources for the future.
    Kentucky farmers have been pioneers and early adopters of 
conservation and regenerative practices. The land we work has 
driven the need for this. Early work with terrace farming in 
Kentucky was studied during the Dust Bowl. No-till farming was 
started commercially in western Kentucky by a progressive farm 
family working with the University of Kentucky. Today it is a 
widely utilized practice throughout the world, as it balances 
agronomic and economic sustainability.
    Kentucky agriculture had a paradigm shift in 1998 with the 
Tobacco Master Settlement. The individual states had sued the 
tobacco companies for Medicaid health costs related to tobacco 
consumption. At this time, more than half of Kentucky's farmers 
raised tobacco. This was over 48,000 farm families in our 
state. Tobacco receipts accounted for 25 percent of our farm 
gate receipts.
    Agriculture leaders and members of our state legislature 
had the foresight to understand the impact to our producers in 
our rural economy. In 2000, Kentucky's Office of Agricultural 
Policy was created, and half the available funds were dedicated 
to be invested in agriculture. The investment was established 
to provide economic incentives to diversify Kentucky's 
agriculture and to grow our farm income. Twenty-two years 
later, our General Assembly continues to dedicate 50 percent of 
available annual master settlement agreement payments to 
agriculture.
    To date, nearly $700 million have been invested in Kentucky 
agriculture. The majority of these investment dollars have had 
a cost-share component, so well over a billion dollars of 
public-private investment have been made for this purpose in 
Kentucky. The result is Kentucky farm gate receipts have more 
than doubled. Our tobacco dependence has declined from 25 to 4 
percent of income, and we have declined from more than 50 
percent of Kentucky producers raising tobacco to now we're just 
slightly over one percent.
    The most popular program that we currently administer is a 
menu-based cost-share program covering 11 different investment 
areas. Each producer can find items that are based on research 
and best management practices to utilize. There's a producer 
education component required for participation and a 
requirement to have a water quality claim. This program has had 
a very high participation rate across the state and repeat 
annual applications. It is a purely optional plan, and a great 
distinction has been built in to be the economic carrot to best 
management practices and not a subsidy.
    Many of the items available for cost-share participation 
are consistent with several of the principles of regenerative 
agriculture: enhancing and improving soil health, improvement 
of water quality, optimization of resource management.
    The optimization of resource management is of critical 
concern as our producers are facing many challenges in our 
current market. High input prices, global disruption of 
markets, challenges finding labor, and rising interest rates 
are putting intense pressure on our Nation's farmers and 
ranchers.
    As I was preparing for this meeting, I went to the 
University of Kentucky Ag Econ website. The first link was for 
information related to financial and mental stress. Our 
producers need our help as we navigate these challenging times. 
Additional regulations or production mandates would cause 
detrimental stress. I share the examples of my agency as a way 
we can work toward offering elective incentives for practices 
that are proven to be agronomically and economically viable.
    I appreciate the opportunity to visit with you today. I'm 
happy to discuss these points and any additional topics you 
have as questions.
    As we move our industry forward, it will take the 
collective work of a diverse group of stakeholders, and I look 
forward to the discussion. To quote my favorite Kentucky chef, 
Ouita Michel: There is room at the table of agriculture for 
everyone.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Khanna. Thank you, Mr. Lacefield.
    I now recognize myself for five minutes of questioning.
    Farmers know the difference that regenerative agriculture 
makes. Many of the environmental and economic benefits of 
regenerative agriculture are not quantified or taken into 
account in policy decisions. The U.S. Department of Agriculture 
can support rural communities through regenerative agriculture 
and paying farmers for those practices.
    Ms. Haugen, how does regenerative grazing improve water and 
air on your farm?
    Ms. Haugen. Thank you, Chairman Ro Khanna.
    How does regenerative agriculture improve the water and the 
soil on my farm?
    Mr. Khanna. Yes.
    Ms. Haugen. Did I hear that question correct?
    Mr. Khanna. Correct.
    Ms. Haugen. Regenerative agriculture differs a little bit 
from sustainable agriculture. The terms are similar. Yes, many 
things are similar. But I believe when people talk about 
regenerative agriculture, we are focusing on looking and really 
seeing what is happening and being more interactive with our 
thoughts and not just actions.
    So, in regenerative agriculture, we look closer at the soil 
and think more about how the manure acts with the soil. 
Oftentimes the liquid manure that is put on from a CAFO has 
already sat for a long time, and when it comes on as liquid, it 
may run off, just does not have quite the same consistency as 
when a cow drops their cow paddy on the hillside and, because 
of its consistency, it does not run off. It sits there. It 
doesn't take long before the dung beetles come in and start 
acting and the other microbes start acting, and it just starts 
to happen right away. That's a regenerative agriculture type of 
thing that starts rebuilding the soil right away.
    When our soils are rebuilt, we have better water holding 
capacity, which means the water does not run off. It's there, 
and it stays there so we are better prepared for a drought.
    There are reclamation examples of reclaiming desert type of 
places if you look in ``Conquest of the Land Through 7,000 
Years,'' the NRCS publication. Another way is that regenerative 
agriculture, if we don't over concentrate our animals or manure 
in any one spot, my vet once told me years ago, Dilution is the 
solution to pollution. Whether we talk about cow numbers, I 
don't think that's as important as cow density and how we 
handle our land and how we handle the manure. That is really 
more of the issue than my 200 cows versus 10,000 cows, though 
there are plenty of studies where ten 1,000 cows are more 
beneficial to a community than one 10,000-cow dairy. That's----
    Mr. Khanna. Thank you----
    Ms. Haugen [continuing]. Answer that----
    Mr. Khanna. Thank you----
    Ms. Haugen [continuing]. Dr. Rich Levins, Ken Meter, and 
John Ikerd, that have more valuable information on answering 
that question with details than mine.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Khanna. That was a great answer. Thank you, Ms.--thank 
you for that.
    Let me ask a question. Short answer if you could, Dr. 
Schattman. How can farmers help us avoid the worst of the 
climate crisis? And would paying them for regenerative 
practices help?
    Ms. Schattman. I do believe that paying them for good 
stewardship practices would increase use across the landscape. 
I don't think it's the only way to motivate people to use some 
of these practices, but I think it's a powerful tool.
    Mr. Khanna. I appreciate that.
    And let me ask a question of Mr. Lacefield. You know, we 
have a bill that is bipartisan that would give the Department 
of Agriculture a hundred million dollars to boost domestic 
production for fertilizers, the quickest and most sustainable 
fertilizers.
    Would you support something like that?
    Mr. Lacefield. Well, I, obviously, would want to know all 
of the details in the bill. But, from the way you describe 
that, yes, I know the sourcing of inputs has been an incredible 
challenge for producers this year. This for sure in nominal 
terms, and if not real terms, is the most expensive corn crop 
in history established. And I know one of the concerns where we 
have no way to fix things, we have a problem and have to go 
back with different inputs because if we were able to get it, 
we had just enough.
    I've read some of this. I'm not sure how it all works to do 
this because, like we heard in some of our comments about the 
concentration in our livestock processing, we had the same 
issue with the large suppliers of our inputs.
    Mr. Khanna. Thank you.
    I now recognize Ranking Member Norman for five minutes of 
questions.
    Mr. Norman. Thank you, Chairman Khanna.
    Let me ask those of you on the farm that, I guess, make a 
living farming, the regenerative agriculture if it includes in 
your practice no-till farming and the restrictions of 
pesticides.
    Ms. Boyd?
    Ms. Boyd. Yes, it does. I am a no-till farmer, and we've 
reduced the amount of pesticides. We try to only spray and use 
them when we need to. And it's something that is very 
challenging, but we find that with the no-till, we don't have 
as much weeds, but we still have some weeds.
    Mr. Norman. How does the plant get root generation if you 
don't--do you not till at all?
    Ms. Boyd. Right. With the no-till, you're still growing 
that seed. You can set the depth on the no-till grain drill to 
about a half an inch to an inch, so you're still getting----
    Mr. Norman. Is it on top of the weeds that--or do you do--
how do you handle the existing weeds that grow during the year?
    Ms. Boyd. Well, that's the challenge with some of that 
that's in my written testimony because we don't have the 
fencing, and so we----
    Mr. Norman. You don't have the what?
    Ms. Boyd. We don't have perimeter fencing so we can bring 
in our cattle and the livestock integration which would help 
suppress the weeds to----
    Mr. Norman. So you plant seed on top of the ground that has 
not been tilled and get a good root system?
    Ms. Boyd. It hasn't been tilled, but we spray. And that's 
where we want to have more supportive-funded agriculture for 
regeneration where we don't have to do a burndown, a chemical 
burndown, to kill those weeds because we want to cut back on 
the use of those chemicals.
    Mr. Norman. How deep is the soil that you're planting in if 
it hasn't been tilled?
    Ms. Boyd. With our cultivators, the no-till cultivators, 
we're getting our seeds between a half an inch to an inch in 
the ground.
    Mr. Norman. And you're getting a root----
    Ms. Boyd. We get good root, and we get on average----
    Mr. Norman. Do you make your living farming?
    Ms. Boyd. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Norman. OK. Let me ask, Dr. Schattman, have you--I 
guess you're in favor of no-till farming and reduce--the outlaw 
of all pesticides?
    Ms. Schattman. No. No, that's not my perspective at all, 
sir. I think it can be used judiciously and conservatively. And 
I think in sustainable and regenerative agriculture, it's 
important to have all of the tools in our toolbox but to use 
those that we know have negative environmental consequences 
very carefully.
    Mr. Norman. OK. Mr. Lacefield?
    Mr. Lacefield. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Norman. Mr. Lacefield?
    Mr. Lacefield. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Norman. Would you--the no-till conversation and the no 
pesticides, what are your thoughts on that?
    Mr. Lacefield. I think it would be very difficult. That's 
one of the tradeoffs to what we have with no-till is you're 
shifting to a herbicide form of reducing the weeds. So it 
would--you're trading soil disturbance for utilization.
    But I think Dr. Schattman made a very good point about you 
have to have all of the tools in the toolbox and then figure 
out the most efficient way to deploy them. As I mentioned, I've 
been in the crop retail, input retail business, and I can tell 
you producers do not want to use any more than they have to. 
And that's where I think we have opportunities for precision 
agriculture to where we're able to utilize the right product in 
the right place at the right time and, most importantly, at the 
right amount.
    Mr. Norman. OK. Bonnie Haugen?
    Ms. Haugen. Haugen, thank you.
    Yes, I would agree with all of what I've heard so far. To 
do the details of that, my son who is currently managing our 
farm----
    Mr. Norman. Very briefly. Bonnie, very briefly. I'm running 
out of time.
    Ms. Haugen. OK. Refer to my printed testimony.
    Mr. Norman. Ms. Haugen, very briefly, do you agree with the 
no-till farming and the reduction of pesticides?
    Ms. Haugen. Yes, there are better ways than no-till 
farming, and, yes, I agree with it.
    Mr. Norman. OK. I guess my main questions--and I've got 39 
seconds--I've have never--and I don't do this for a living. I'm 
a recreational farmer, but I've never had a root system that 
when you throw the seed on top of the ground that hasn't been 
plowed, I don't understand that. I don't know how you get the 
yield that you're getting. The issues that we have with--facing 
now that I mentioned in my opening testimony, we're going to 
have farmers who are not going to be able to exist anyway. And 
I guess we'll have to grow them in China or let China grow the 
food because, unless we can supply fertilizer, unless we can 
get fuel and other basics to the farmers, they cannot exist. 
That's the information I'm getting back. And when you cannot 
get feed to feed your pullets, in the case of chickens, we've 
got a severe problem.
    Thank you all for your testimony. I yield back.
    Mr. Khanna. Thank you.
    I now recognize Representative Gibbs for five minutes.
    Mr. Gibbs. Thank you.
    First of all, I'm going to tell you I'm from Ohio. I'm 
going to tell you a little bit of how we do things in Ohio.
    I was a full-time farmer before I got this soft job in the 
legislature and Congress.
    First of all, there's some comments made about the CAFOs 
and EPA. When I was in the legislature in Ohio years ago, the 
EPA, the U.S. EPA does have jurisdiction over CAFOs. Usually 
most states go through their state EPA. We changed that and 
made it the Ohio Department of Agriculture. We have a very 
strict regulatory framework in Ohio, and we've actually shut 
down a couple of large CAFO farms in my time in the 
legislature. We had an egg farm that was just a disaster, a 
huge farm. They were producing two percent of the eggs in the 
United States at the time. We shut them down.
    Another misconception I think, Mr. Chairman, is a lot of 
people think CAFOs, large farmers are corporate farms. Well, in 
Ohio, they're really not. They're mostly family farms. And, you 
know, it's all about economics of size. You know, when a 
combine now they tell me costs well over a million dollars, you 
have got to have more base to produce these crops, and the 
machinery, you have to spread that over more acres. And so 
we've got family farms. There might be two or three families 
involved, but they're all family farms for the most part.
    And the question of Ranking Member Ralph Norman talking 
about no-till, I have been growing no-till corn and beans for 
probably 30 years now every year. You've got to watch it. You 
can have a disaster if you're not on top of it, but the no-
till, it does work. You know, the planter goes through there. 
It plants it around about an inch deep, and the coulter goes 
over it and presses it down and makes the seed bed. And you 
cannot grow no-till anything without herbicides and pesticides.
    And I would argue that, with the no-till technology and the 
seed technology, we use less herbicides than we did before, and 
they're safer. You know, one of the problems, years--is what 
you call legacy herbicides that we used back in the fifties and 
sixties and the early seventies. They stayed around. They 
didn't break down the soil. Our herbicides we're using--and 
Roundup being one of them--they're a contact herbicide that 
don't do much on the roots, and they break down the soil, 
microbes that they break down, and it's actually more 
environmentally friendly.
    And there's no way that we can produce enough food in this 
country and also feed the world like we've done in American 
agriculture without commercial-type production. I know some 
people will say factory farms. You know, that's kind of, I 
think, a misnomer. But I would argue too, we have to have farms 
of all sizes. And the smaller farms, you know, the 100-cow 
dairies, or whatever you wanted to say, a lot of them in my 
area, they found niches. They might be organic producing. But 
if we're all trying to produce--I used to raise a bunch of 
hogs. And if we were trying to raise them all out on the open, 
out on the pasture, we wouldn't have been able to have much 
production, and we wouldn't be, you know, feeding the world 
like we need to do.
    Technology has improved yields. Part of this hearing is 
increasing food production. In 1950, the average production for 
corn in the United States was 50 bushels to the acre. When I 
started farming in 1975, our goal was to have a 100-bushel corn 
crop. Now we're 200. And I would argue that we're doing it more 
environmentally safer and protecting the ground and the soil 
because most of it, in my area anyway, is no-till.
    When I first started farming, we couldn't grow beans, 
soybeans, because we have--we're in rolling hills. We have 
highly erodible land. With no-till technology, everybody in our 
area can grow soybeans now. So we've got--and my dairy farm 
operations really impress me. We have large dairies, you know, 
1,000-cow plus dairies, family owned, family run. And they get 
a lot of double cropping because they go in there, and they 
will take off a corn crop or a bean crop in the fall. Then 
they'll plant rye, and they'll take that off. And in the early 
spring, you can get a corn or a soybean crop in. You got double 
crop, and you get that green manure fertilizer. And this notion 
about farmers are putting too much pesticides on, too much 
fertilizer, spreading too much manure is really ridiculous. At 
the price of fertilizer, you think we're just going to go out 
and spread too much? I mean, it just doesn't make sense.
    You know, as farmers, we don't set our prices. You know, we 
try to hedge, and we try to form a contract and do the best we 
can. But, you know, we have to take what we get. And there's so 
much going on in the industry with vertical integration and 
contracting, that's just kind of a natural progression because 
of the cost and the size of the environment, how things go up.
    So I could go on and on, but I wanted to say that I think 
we are protecting the environment. We do it right. And in Ohio 
anyways--I can't speak for the rest of the country. But, in 
Ohio, we have a strong regulatory framework for the CAFOs, 
thousand animal units and larger, and we have a history of 
shutting them down when they don't do what they're supposed to 
do. And they have to really manage that manure, and they're 
really supervised about how they do that and the recordkeeping 
they have to--and they of have to put those records to ODA.
    And I think every state should have their Department of 
Agriculture doing this for their CAFOs and not the EPA because 
the problem--just a second here on my time. The problem we have 
in Ohio, we had the EPA folks coming in there trying to 
regulate CAFOs, and they didn't know anything about it. They 
would walk into a farm, and they'd make--ask questions of 
Congress that they had no clue, and they were the regulators. 
And so when we had the agriculture people--and some people 
might say that was the hem and the haw, you know, the fox in 
the henhouse, but it's not true. You know, we want to make sure 
our that our farmers in our agricultural communities in Ohio 
are doing the right thing because we are a very diverse state, 
a population of 11.3 million people and, you know, we have 
close neighbors, and we have to do the right thing.
    And, you know, to get this done, we have to make sure that 
we're doing a good job, but we do need to have the pesticides, 
herbicides, and the seed technology and the other technology 
that goes with it. And we've increased in our yields, and we 
are drawing a lot more--we have a 14 billion bushel corn crop I 
think in the last couple of years. Years ago, a 10 billion 
bushel crop would be a disaster, and we're doing that in a lot 
less acres than we were doing before as everybody knows. So it 
is sustainable, and I think it is regenerative, and it's 
important to get it done.
    I've gone way over my time, so I yield back. But I want to 
make those points, that the biggest conservationists and 
environmentalists, I believe, is the American farmer because 
they live on that land and they drink that water first. And I 
can attest to that because I've been living on farming for 
almost 50 years now, and I understand that.
    So I yield back.
    Mr. Khanna. Thank you. I want to recognize the Ranking 
Member Comer.
    Mr. Comer. Thank you, Chairman Khanna.
    Mr. Lacefield, as you know, farmers innovate with precision 
agriculture technology with methods that collect and analyze 
large amounts of data to determine the kind and amount of 
inputs like fertilizers, water, pesticides, and what they're 
actually needed for crop management. These methods can include 
using GPS guidance, control systems, sensors, robotics, drones, 
automated hardware and software.
    How have these advances in technology impacted farming 
communities in Kentucky?
    Mr. Lacefield. Thank you, Congressman. Greatly. This has--
we've been talking all day today, it's been about the 
allocation of resources, and this has been the continued 
evolution of our industry. We started off, we used to farm by 
the field and then--then we are now farming by the 2-acre grid 
with precision ag, and we're going to advance to the point 
we're going to be farming by the inch to where we'll be able to 
best utilize these practices.
    This precision technology that we're talking about is the 
ability to select where you're putting the input. So where you 
have a higher productive piece of ground, you're able to 
increase the seed rate there and reduce it in others that are 
not going to produce this. You're able to apply the fertilizer 
at a variable rate so it's not a broadcast across the field. So 
it is more efficient. It returns more to the producer and is 
better overall for the environment.
    Mr. Comer. And it does--that's a good point. It obviously 
helps the environment as well as will make the farmer more 
efficient.
    How can the U.S. Government support precision agriculture?
    Mr. Lacefield. Well, I think the market is going to 
continue to drive this as you're seeing with input prices going 
up. But, from the Federal Government standpoint, it goes back 
to what my comments were earlier. You know, you want to see a 
behavior increased, you create an incentive for that.
    So I think it's to try to be able to get a point for the 
farmer to try that. That's what I like about our programs that 
we're currently running. They give that economic incentive, 
some of them 15 cents on the dollar, 75 cents on the dollar to 
try our practice, and then they usually see it works, and they 
continue it on their own.
    Mr. Comer. Now, Mr. Lacefield, I have to put a plug in for 
the Princeton Kentucky UK Ag Research Center. Your dad was a 
huge part of that, one of the experts in forage research, and I 
know you're very familiar with that as well. Would you agree 
that the availability of pesticides has improved all types of 
farming in the last 50 years?
    Mr. Lacefield. Absolutely. As research, we continue, we're 
evolving, and that's another reason, to piggyback on the last 
question, is continued investment from the Federal level in 
research so we can be able to illustrate this to producers that 
it makes more sense and to utilize these products.
    Mr. Comer. I ask that because there's a lot of concern 
among agriculture, as you know, that this administration and 
this EPA want to ban certain types of pesticides, insecticides, 
fungicides that are crucial to agriculture. And, you know, my 
concern is that we could have a scenario with our food, if we 
let the government step in and dictate pesticide applications, 
insecticide application, like the government stepped in with 
the FDA and shut down that baby formula factory and then walked 
off and left, and we had a 36-percent shortage in baby food 
because that plant produced a third of the baby food--baby 
formula in America. If we tinker with production agriculture, I 
fear that the same thing could happen with our food supply that 
happened with baby formula.
    Let me ask you this, Mr. Lacefield--last question here--
farmers in Kentucky and all over America are outraged because 
of strict climate rules. What policy measures, if any, would 
satisfy a farmer attempting to maximize crop yield efficiency 
and profits but still obviously support the environment? 
Because I agree with what my colleague and former farmer, 
Representative Gibbs, said; I think the farmer is the ultimate 
conservationist. But what policy would satisfy farmers that 
could also hopefully satisfy the Americans who are concerned 
with the environment, like I am?
    Mr. Lacefield. Well, we all are concerned with the 
environment, and I think that's been the consistent message 
from every witness you've heard today is putting the decision 
back on to the producer and the farmer. The greatest source of 
wealth on a producer's balance sheet is going to be their land. 
They're going to protect that asset.
    Mr. Comer. I agree. And I, again, appreciate you and the 
other witnesses for taking time to testify today.
    And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Khanna. Thank you.
    I recognize Representative Fallon.
    Mr. Fallon. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
    I'd like to start by thanking the--all the witnesses for 
coming here today and sharing their insight on a topic 
obviously of great importance to our country.
    You know, when this Nation was founded, you have to look 
back, and as we were rising to prominence on the world stage, 
one of the most critical foundations that we had was 
agriculture, of course. And American farmers and ranchers today 
are helping feed 800 million people; we are the net exporter of 
food, and without us, humanity would be suffering from chronic 
hunger.
    And, according to the United States Agency for 
International Development, our Nation spent $8 billion in 
emergency and development food aid across the globe since 2018, 
I mean just in the last four years. Much of the food was grown 
right here in American soil. As the rural population continues 
to grow and the urban areas spread into arable land, the need 
for food will continue to rise.
    Democrats have cited an academic paper from 2011 that 
anticipates that the global food production must rise at least 
60 percent to feed the world by 2050. I have no doubt that 
American farmers and ranchers will be able to meet the needs of 
our Nation and export their surplus abroad.
    According to the American Farm Bureau, 30 years ago, the 
United States agriculture sector would need--would have needed 
100 million more acres--100 million more acres to meet the 
production levels required for today's food supply. But, 
through innovation, they got there. The reason that our 
ranchers and farmers were able to meet the goals is because of 
sound farming practices and sound grazing practices coupled 
with advanced agriculture technologies, and that can't be 
understated.
    Mr. Biden's so-called American Families Plan would have 
done even more damage to the American farmers and ranchers. 
Democrats attempted to end the like-kind exchanges and the 
step-up in basis and bring back the wealth transfer tax, which 
would've quite literally brought an end to American farms 
across our country.
    Today Democrats are attacking the farmers and ranchers 
calling them the great polluters of the world, blaming them for 
the environmental calamities that the world is facing and 
demanding that we do more to stop climate change. It's a 
dangerous game when D.C. politicians think they know better 
than the folks that are actually putting their hands in the 
dirt.
    Regenerative agriculture practices have applied--have been 
applied by ranchers and farmers across the country for decades. 
They know the land. They know the environment far better than 
us. It's their business and their bottom line. The American 
farmers and ranchers have potential to feed the world--we 
already know that--and we should not be holding them back.
    So I have a question with the time I have remaining. Mr. 
Lacefield, as you know, farming and ranching operations in the 
country are as diverse as the geography on which they operate. 
Certain regions, like the Dakotas, for instance, have barely 
enough moisture to produce their primary crops let alone a 
cover crop.
    Hypothetically, if Democrats began mandating for the sake 
of carbon caps covered crop requirements on all U.S. farming 
operations, how would arid regions be able to accommodate such 
pressures?
    Mr. Lacefield. I think that's the problem. You can't make a 
one-size-fits-all program. The years I served as the state 
director for the Farm Service Agency, I would get phone calls 
all the time about a new policy that we were rolling out about 
how it did not work specifically for one farm in Kentucky. And 
that was the one time in my life I enjoyed being able to use 
the phrase: It is simply an act of Congress to change it.
    So one size does not fit all.
    Mr. Fallon. In your opinion, sir, is it feasible for 
Democrats to mandate cover crops to ban certain EPA-approved 
pesticides or require crop diversity?
    Mr. Lacefield. No, I'm not for any mandate.
    Mr. Fallon. And that's what scares me. What would you--what 
would the primary issue for farmers and ranchers be if mandates 
like this would go into effect, in your opinion?
    Mr. Lacefield. It would be--it'd be increased cost of 
production to--or possibly even feasible to produce.
    Mr. Fallon. Well, I want to, again, Mr. Chairman, thank all 
the witnesses for their testimony. We have to be very careful 
here, tread very lightly. I represent a majority rural 
district, a lot of agriculture and a lot of livestock and 
ranching, and I know these folks work literally harder than any 
other American, and it's a--sometimes it's a very thankless 
job.
    I think one of the things the pandemic did was really open 
our eyes to realizing just how essential and critical our 
farmers and ranchers are. They are literally the backbone of 
the country. That's where everything begins and everything 
ends.
    Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
    Mr. Khanna. Thank you.
    I now want to recognize Representative Flood. Welcome to 
Congress. Welcome to the committee.
    Mr. Flood. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the 
opportunity.
    You know, in the 1930's, Nebraska dairy farmers had over 
800,000 dairy cattle producing 4 million pounds of milk. Today 
we have 60,000 cows in Nebraska producing the exact same amount 
of milk. Dairy producers have become more efficient and 
sustainable over the last 90 years and have significantly 
decreased their impact on the environment.
    Representative Comer's comments about innovation, I think, 
were very important, that we point out that the producers are 
actually leading the way on the issue of sustainability.
    Mr. Lacefield, were you present online when a prior witness 
named Ms. Haugen testified that she had 160 dairy cows on her 
Canton, Minnesota, farm?
    Mr. Lacefield. Yes, sir, I've been here the whole time.
    Mr. Flood. So you're familiar with her testimony. Can you 
tell me how many farmers make a living in the state of Kentucky 
with 160 dairy cows?
    Mr. Lacefield. We only have, I think, 380 dairy farms total 
in the state, and about half of those would be part of our 
Amish and Mennonite community that would probably have 35 to 40 
head dairy, and they have multiple enterprises as well on--with 
the dairy.
    Mr. Flood. So obviously there are differences. You know, in 
our state most of our dairy farms are 800--you know, 500 to 800 
head facilities for the most part.
    Talk about what innovation has done in agriculture, 
specifically how we've mechanized a lot of the different 
processes. I've seen in Nebraska how dairy farmers have 
automated the entire process of milking cows. Talk about 
innovation and sustainability as they go hand in hand in the 
state of Kentucky.
    Mr. Lacefield. Well, it's the evolution of the industry. We 
are constantly forced to do more with less, and as we continue 
to get more regulations, that puts an additional cost burden on 
to the smaller farmer. It--I'll tie it to banking. That's my 
other world. I've been in banking and agriculture my whole 
career. When we went through the banking changes in the late--
early--I guess, 1908, 1909, 1910 Dodd-Frank era, we saw 
regulation increase that really put undue burden on the small 
producers--the small banks that, you know, had to have 
dedicated staff for the regulatory issue. So it forced growth 
to be able to be competing in the market. The same as with our 
agriculture, that if we're not advancing with technology, we're 
unsustainable and unable to be there, unless you do continue to 
count on external income, all farm income to subsidize the 
lifestyle.
    Mr. Flood. Mr. Lacefield, have you seen inflation impact 
the farming economy?
    Mr. Lacefield. Significantly, from inputs. We talked 
earlier about the fuel and how that drives so many of the input 
costs within in the producer's enterprise budget as well as 
labor. Everything in a producer's enterprise budget is tied to 
inflation.
    Mr. Flood. And how is that affecting the producer's bottom 
line?
    Mr. Lacefield. Significantly. It's going to cut into that, 
and ultimately this cost will be passed on to the consumer.
    Mr. Flood. Have you noticed that ag policies under 
President Biden have changed?
    Mr. Lacefield. Yes.
    Mr. Flood. How so?
    Mr. Lacefield. We have seen a rollback from--of course, 
from which administration? You know, the previous 
administration, we were navigating global trade wars and a 
pandemic, and now we're looking at that. But the signals have 
been that it's going to look more toward small producer and 
less tied to production agriculture, and as we're discussing 
today looking at specific practices.
    Mr. Flood. Have you seen the supply chain crisis threaten 
American farmers, those in Kentucky especially?
    Mr. Lacefield. Significantly. Again, the agency I work 
with, we were able to launch a program during the early 2000--
or 2020, right about the pandemic. Folks walked into a grocery 
store and saw empty shelves for the first time realizing what 
the slightest disruption will do. We increased the slaughter 
capacity in Kentucky with a lot of the smaller beef and pork 
and chicken processors, bringing some up to USDA giving farmers 
an opportunity to where they can direct retail their meat to 
consumers.
    Mr. Flood. Thank you, Mr. Lacefield. I yield back.
    Mr. Khanna. Thank you.
    I now want to recognize Representative Ocasio-Cortez.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you so much, Chairman.
    And thank you to all of our witnesses here today for 
sharing your--your testimony.
    You know, I think for a lot of folks the term 
``regenerative agriculture'' is something that is completely 
new to them, and I think it's important that we take a step 
back and really frame this for everyday people and why this 
conversation is so important.
    So let's start with basic food production 101. We grow, 
particularly when it comes to growing crops from our soil. Soil 
is an essential requirement to that. And, Dr. Schattman, I want 
to make sure that we understand what is happening to the soil 
in the United States and frankly across the world such that 
regeneration, this idea of regeneration is necessary? What is 
happening to the current U.S. soil supply, we shall say, we 
shall call it?
    Ms. Schattman. Thank you. It's a great--it's a great 
question. I think one of the main concerns with soil resources 
as an essentially nonrenewable resource is that it is eroding 
and exiting areas where production happens and entering public 
waterways, taking with it some unused fertility nutrients, 
either manures or synthetic and pesticides, and that this is 
having a negative ecological impact.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. So we're seeing with our, in the U.S. 
soil supply that we rely on to grow our crops and to serve as 
part of our food supply, decarbonization, erosion, 
decertification, and chemical pollution, which, as you noted, 
is resulting as well in reduced minerals and nutrients that 
which can be drawn and put into our food supply, correct?
    Ms. Schattman. That is correct. Although it is important to 
remember that not all areas are equally vulnerable to soil 
erosion at the scale that I think you are--you are pointing to. 
We're mostly concerned about areas where rainfall is expected 
to become much more variable and more intense, and we're 
concerned about farming systems that leave soil exposed, such 
as cropping systems with a lot of tillage or a lot of 
mechanical cultivation and in arid regions--regions as well.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. So what does this mean about how long we 
have before we, the United States, literally does not have 
enough arable topsoil to continue feeding the population that 
it's feeding now? What is the timeline that we have on--on how 
much topsoil we have left?
    Ms. Schattman. So there was a widely publicized report that 
came from a scientist at the U.N. FAO that said we have 
approximately 60 years left in crop-producing regions. However, 
I've personally looked into trying to track down the data that 
supports that report, and I haven't been successful in finding 
it.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Ms. Boyd, indigenous farmers have taken 
a regenerative agriculture approach to their relationship with 
the land for millennia, correct?
    Ms. Boyd. Correct.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And let's go through some of these 
practices so that I think folks get a better handle on how we 
can help preserve the supply. They include tactics like 
rotating and diversifying crops, correct?
    Ms. Boyd. Yes.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Integrating livestock and forestry on 
farms?
    Ms. Boyd. Yes.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And that also reduces the need for 
tilling and pesticide use, as Dr. Schattman had just previously 
noted, correct?
    Ms. Boyd. Correct.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And, Dr. Schattman, the Department of 
Agriculture itself has recognized more than 170 other farming 
practices to be regenerative as well. Is that correct?
    Ms. Schattman. I don't know that they are calling them 
regenerative, but there is a lot of overlap between 
regenerative and conservation practices, that is correct.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And we're seeing now that even when you 
look at 50 or 60 years down the line, Dr. Schattman, just in 
2019, farmers--U.S. farmers were unable to plant crops in 19.4 
million acres of land due to record-breaking rainfall, correct?
    Ms. Schattman. That is correct, yes.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And, as recently as this year, small and 
co-op farmers in the Midwest have had to pivot their lands from 
corn crops to others such as sunflowers and soybeans because of 
that record rain, correct?
    Ms. Schattman. Because of rainfall in this year not in 
2019, but, yes, that is correct.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And, finally, Mr. Doughty, am I right to 
understand that on top of contributing to improved water and 
air quality, soil health and ecosystem restoration, 
regenerative practices are also more productive ways to farm?
    Mr. Doughty. Yes, I believe so. I'm a 100 percent no-till 
farmer. My father was an early adapter in the 1970's, and I've 
continued that tradition and improved upon it. We also use 
waterways, crop rotations, field borders, terraces, ponds, and 
our land continues to be--to increase in production.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Wonderful. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Khanna. Thank you.
    Representative Herrell.
    Ms. Herrell. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    And thank you for--for all the witnesses for being here, 
your testimony.
    I want to ask Mr. Lacefield, just kind of talking about 
what has been said in this hearing so far, we know the 
inflation crisis facing our country is having a devastating 
impact on our ag industry. And input costs for ag producers 
like feed, fertilizer, fuel, have exponentially increased in 
the last year, which is having direct impacts on how many 
producers and especially those in New Mexico are operating. 
And, unfortunately, these increased costs are inevitably being 
passed onto every consumer.
    So, Mr. Lacefield, I would want to ask you, what do you 
think Congress should be doing to address the rapidly 
increasing cost of agricultural inputs?
    Mr. Lacefield. Well, I wish there was a simple answer to 
what we can do. I'm very concerned about what we will have to 
do to navigate out of this. We've lived through this before, 
and fighting inflation is very difficult. We watched that in 
the 1970's and the 1980's, and it's a lot like treating cancer 
with the chemo to where you almost will have to kill the 
economy to fix it. It's going to take increased interest rates 
and reduced spending. We're going to have to bring dollars out 
of the economy.
    Ms. Herrell. Right. And I really just want to, I mean, 
thank the farmers, all of them. I mean, this is, you know, 
two--up to two percent of the population feeding 100 percent of 
the world really, and it is not easy, and there are so many 
complexities to it.
    And I appreciate, Mr. Chairman, this hearing. But I've got 
to say that, because this is so important, because I think we 
all can agree that we like to eat, and there's no doubt about 
it, there's not going to be a diminishing of that kind of need 
in our Nation, but I think I also would be remiss if I didn't 
put on record the frustration the producers in my state 
especially are feeling toward the Federal Government, 
specifically the unnecessary bureaucratic red tape coming from 
this administration.
    From rolling back needed reforms to NEPA and ESA, to 
bringing back the Obama-era WOTUS rule, this administration has 
taken many destructive actions that will negatively impact our 
ag operations. In ESA alone, I have constituents who are losing 
cattle every day due to depredations caused by endangered 
wolves or having their herd sizes reduced due tooth endangered 
New Mexico meadow jumping mouse, or having a timber industry 
completely taken off the shelf because of the Mexican spotted 
owl. And pretty soon I fear the only thing that will be 
endangered in America is the American farmer and rancher.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I hope that we can find some 
way to work together, because I fear that we are going to have 
scarcity and shortages in food supply in the next number of 
months and years if we are not thinking about how we can better 
bring lower energy cost to the table and help our producers, 
both with cattle and with produce through this time of crises 
as we're talking about the inflation, et cetera. So thank you 
so much for having this hearing.
    Mr. Khanna. Thank you.
    Ms. Herrell. I yield back.
    Mr. Khanna. Representative Tlaib.
    Ms. Tlaib. Thank you so much, Chairman Khanna, for this 
important hearing. I do--would like to take a moment by 
submitting three items for the record, Mr. Chair, a report from 
the folks at Food & Water Watch called ``Well-Fed: A Roadmap to 
a Sustainable Food System That Works for All'' and petitions 
from advocates to the EPA focused on air and water pollution 
from factory farms.
    Mr. Khanna. Without objection.
    Ms. Tlaib. There are a few industries, as we all know, that 
are essential to our survival as--and as uniquely at risk from 
impacts of climate change as our agricultural sector. At the 
same time, massive consolidation into huge corporate industrial 
agriculture has forced many of our small-and medium-size 
farmers to go out of business.
    According to the Open Markets Institute, Mr. Chair, the 
industrial consolidation of ag has actually cost 17,000 cattle 
farmers in our country to go out of business every year since 
1980. They have been replaced by massive industrial operations 
focused on short-term profits and ignore long-term 
environmental impacts, putting our climate and our food supply 
at risk.
    While family farms struggle, big ag thrives, as we continue 
to see. The biggest four meat packers made a record, Mr. Chair, 
of $13 billion in profit in 2021. JBS, a Brazilian company and 
the largest meat packing company in the world, announced that 
in 2021, and during a pandemic, they earned over $4 billion.
    So let's take a peek at their business practices for a 
moment. Over the past 25 years, JBS gave over $100 million--I 
would say very much in bribes--to more than 1,800 politicians 
in Brazil, where the company is based. The company then turned 
around and used those politicians to secure financing from 
Brazil's state-owned bank in an effort to consolidate the 
American beef market.
    So, Mr. Doughty, you mentioned in your testimony that JBS 
attempted to build 10,500 hog factory farms last year near your 
farm. Can you tell us a little bit more about your experiences 
with this company, JBS, and please, you know, why did you, you 
know, decide to fight this project?
    Mr. Doughty. Well, this was not JBS. This--they--the 
operation would have been contracting with JBS. They would have 
been growing JBS feeder pigs. We--we--we fought that project 
for three things: First was the neighborhood, the potential air 
and water pollution, the noise, the flies; and second, the 
deterioration of our state highways. They are--they're asphalt 
highways. There--there's no shoulders. They're already 
crumbling. This particular CAFO would go back among--back in a 
neighborhood with several--several houses, many families, about 
seven miles, and we were concerned about what we were going to 
do about our roads.
    And then, third, was a--was our Huzzah conservation area, a 
6,000-acre conservation area that's one of over 1,000 public 
lands, 1,000 conservation areas in Missouri, along with our 58 
state parks and 13 national parks. And it is a destination for 
not only hunting and fishing but hiking and biking and nature 
watching and kayaking, and it is funded by public dollars. And 
we were concerned not only about that CAFO, but we were being 
threatened with a proliferation if this CAFO came in.
    Ms. Tlaib. Yes.
    Mr. Doughty. And so that's why we resisted.
    Ms. Tlaib. No, and you should.
    And, Ms. Haugen, can you explain why a small family, you 
know--our small family farmers are unable to compete? I mean, 
you know, you don't get a chance to talk to the American 
people. They don't--you know, the food gets to the table, they 
have no idea what's actually happening and especially to our 
small and family businesses--or farmers in particular. So can 
you talk a little bit about your experience competing with 
these, you know, corporate agribusinesses?
    Ms. Haugen. Yes, they are like David and Goliath. I hear 
some people say, we don't want to have as many regulations. 
Let's have free market. That would be OK if it were a fair 
playing field. It does not stay a fair playing field when we 
have these mega corporate farms. We need something to help keep 
them in control so we have a fair chance at being what we want 
to do and doing what we want to do and doing what we can do. We 
don't like the paperwork and extra regulation, but it's 
necessary to keep it fair so we have a fair chance.
    Ms. Tlaib. No, I think--I really do appreciate you saying 
that. And sometimes those regulations impact you more than the 
ones that are supposed to be the ones being checked.
    Ms. Haugen. Yes.
    Ms. Tlaib. It's unfortunate.
    But, yes, I appreciate this hearing, Mr. Chair, and I 
yield.
    Mr. Khanna. Thank you. Thank you very much. It's been a 
terrific discussion. I want to thank our panelists for their 
remarks.
    I want to thank our staff, Kevin Fox, Katie Thomas, and 
Aria, for their work, particularly Kevin.
    I want to commend my colleagues for participating in this 
important conversation.
    With that, without objection, all members will have five 
legislative days within which to submit additional written 
questions for the witnesses to the chair, which will be 
forwarded to the witnesses for their response. I ask our 
witnesses to please respond as promptly as you are able.
    This hearing is now adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 3:35 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]