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





 
                   TO REVIEW THE STATE OF THE RURAL 
                   ECONOMY WITH AGRICULTURE SECRETARY
                              TOM VILSACK

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                        COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                            JANUARY 20, 2022

                               __________

                           Serial No. 117-26
                           
                           
                           
 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]                          
                           
                           


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


             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
 48-753PDF           WASHINGTON : 2022                         
                         
                         
                         


                        COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE

                     DAVID SCOTT, Georgia, Chairman

JIM COSTA, California                GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania, 
JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts     Ranking Minority Member
FILEMON VELA, Texas                  AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina, Vice  ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, 
Chair                                Arkansas
ABIGAIL DAVIS SPANBERGER, Virginia   SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee
JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut            VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri
ANTONIO DELGADO, New York            DOUG LaMALFA, California
SHONTEL M. BROWN, Ohio               RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois              RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia
CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine               DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina
GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN,      TRENT KELLY, Mississippi
Northern Mariana Islands             DON BACON, Nebraska
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire         DUSTY JOHNSON, South Dakota
CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois               JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana
SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York       JIM HAGEDORN, Minnesota
STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands   CHRIS JACOBS, New York
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona              TROY BALDERSON, Ohio
SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California        MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas
RO KHANNA, California                TRACEY MANN, Kansas
AL LAWSON, Jr., Florida              RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa
J. LUIS CORREA, California           MARY E. MILLER, Illinois
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota               BARRY MOORE, Alabama
JOSH HARDER, California              KAT CAMMACK, Florida
CYNTHIA AXNE, Iowa                   MICHELLE FISCHBACH, Minnesota
KIM SCHRIER, Washington              JULIA LETLOW, Louisiana
JIMMY PANETTA, California
SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia

                                 ______

                      Anne Simmons, Staff Director

                 Parish Braden, Minority Staff Director

                                  (ii)
                                  
                             C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Baird, Hon. James R., a Representative in Congress from Indiana, 
  submitted letter...............................................    84
Brown, Hon. Shontel M., a Representative in Congress from Ohio, 
  prepared statement.............................................     4
Cloud, Hon. Michael, a Representative in Congress from Texas, 
  submitted articles.............................................    87
Hartzler, Hon. Vicky, a Representative in Congress from Missouri, 
  submitted letter...............................................    83
Kuster, Hon. Ann M., a Representative in Congress from New 
  Hampshire, submitted letter....................................    79
Letlow, Hon. Julia, a Representative in Congress from Louisiana, 
  submitted letter...............................................   102
Scott, Hon. David, a Representative in Congress from Georgia, 
  opening statement..............................................     1
    Prepared statement...........................................     2
    Submitted letter.............................................    79
Hon. Glenn Thompson, a Representative in Congress from 
  Pennsylvania, opening statement................................     2

                                Witness

Vilsack, Hon. Thomas ``Tom'' J., Secretary, U.S. Department of 
  Agriculture, Washington, D.C...................................     4
    Prepared statement...........................................     5
    Supplementary material.......................................   126
    Submitted questions..........................................   146

                           Submitted Material

Nussle, Jim, President and Chief Executive Office, Credit Union 
  National Association, submitted letter.........................   129
Ogsbury, James D., Executive Director, Western Governors' 
  Association, submitted letter..................................   130
Turner, Jessica, President, Outdoor Recreation Roundtable, 
  submitted letter...............................................   144


  TO REVIEW THE STATE OF THE RURAL ECONOMY WITH AGRICULTURE SECRETARY



                              TOM VILSACK

                              ----------                              


                       THURSDAY, JANUARY 20, 2022

                          House of Representatives,
                                  Committee on Agriculture,
                                                   Washington, D.C.
    The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:00 a.m., in Room 
1300 of the Longworth House Office Building and via Zoom, Hon. 
David Scott of Georgia [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
    Members present: Representatives David Scott of Georgia, 
Costa, McGovern, Adams, Spanberger, Hayes, Delgado, Brown, 
Rush, Pingree, Kuster, Bustos, Maloney, Plaskett, O'Halleran, 
Carbajal, Khanna, Lawson, Craig, Harder, Axne, Schrier, 
Panetta, Bishop, Thompson, Austin Scott of Georgia, DesJarlais, 
Hartzler, LaMalfa, Davis, Allen, Rouzer, Kelly, Bacon, Johnson, 
Baird, Hagedorn, Jacobs, Balderson, Cloud, Mann, Feenstra, 
Miller, Moore, Cammack, Fischbach, and Letlow.
    Staff present: Lyron Blum-Evitts, Prescott Martin III, Anne 
Simmons, Ashley Smith, Parish Braden, Caleb Crosswhite, Josh 
Maxwell, Patricia Straughn, Jennifer Tiller, and Dana Sandman.

  OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID SCOTT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
                     CONGRESS FROM GEORGIA

    The Chairman. The Committee hearing will come to order.
    I want to welcome everyone, and I want to thank you for 
joining us today to have our hearing, which is entitled, To 
Review the State of the Rural Economy with Agriculture 
Secretary Tom Vilsack. After brief opening remarks, Members 
will receive testimony from our witness today, and then the 
hearing will be open to questions. Without objection, the chair 
may recess the Committee, subject to the call of the chair at 
any point during this hearing.
    And now, I just want to give my brief opening statement. I 
want to welcome everyone who are watching this hearing today, 
and I would like to start by, first of all, extending a warm 
greeting to my dear friend, Secretary Vilsack. And we are 
delighted to have you with us today, Secretary.
    Now, a key function of our House Agriculture Committee is 
to conduct oversight and ensure that the Executive Branch is 
implementing Congressionally authorized programs as they are 
intended. One other thing, the Secretary has a hard stop at 
2:00 p.m., and also, when we return after our work period, we 
will begin to take up the 2023 Farm Bill.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. David Scott follows:]

 Prepared Statement of Hon. David Scott, a Representative in Congress 
                              from Georgia
    Good morning, and welcome to all who are watching the hearing 
today. I would like to start by extending a warm welcome and return to 
my friend and our witness today, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack.
    A key function of our House Agriculture Committee is to conduct 
oversight and ensure that the Executive Branch is implementing 
Congressionally authorized programs as intended. Today, I hope to hear 
critical updates on the implementation of pandemic relief programs, 
including the American Rescue Plan, and the status of disaster 
assistance, as well as updates on the implementation of the 2018 Farm 
Bill.
    With that, I yield to the Ranking Member for any opening remarks he 
may have.

    The Chairman. Secretary, with that, we are going to hear 
from our Ranking Member with any opening remarks he has.

 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GLENN THOMPSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
                   CONGRESS FROM PENNSYLVANIA

    Mr. Thompson. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
    Mr. Secretary, good to see you. Welcome to Capitol Hill. 
Glad to have you here.
    Mr. Chairman, thanks for holding today's hearing and thank 
you, Secretary Vilsack, for traveling to Washington, D.C. to 
join us.
    This Committee is well overdue for a general audience with 
you, and I want to mention in advance that I appreciate your 
willingness to appear before us to respond to each Members' 
questions and concerns.
    Mr. Secretary, I was pleased and hopeful when President 
Biden asked you to join his team. Your experience during 
President Obama's Administration, and quite frankly, the years 
in between was appreciated, and like that of your predecessor, 
would continue to cultivate and execute the policies necessary 
to make rural America thrive.
    As I travel the country, those who produce the food, the 
fiber, and the energy that keeps this country running are 
telling me a different story. Unfortunately, I am also seeing 
it firsthand throughout my home State of Pennsylvania.
    Now, President Biden has fostered an agenda that is kind of 
rife for executive overreach and regulatory uncertainty, and a 
far-left ideology that just doesn't align with the hardworking 
men and women who enrich our nation and our world. Mr. 
Secretary, our constituents want a government that works for 
them as an advocate for their businesses, their products, their 
livelihoods, and I will tell you at this stage, folks do not 
believe this Administration is in their corner.
    Farmers, ranchers, foresters, and consumers are battling 
significant supply chain disruptions and rising energy and 
input costs, increasing inflation, and longstanding labor 
shortages, and these strains exacerbate the ongoing challenges 
of production agriculture.
    As you know, Mr. Secretary, our communities are looking for 
solutions, and they don't need onerous Federal regulatory 
burdens and mounds of new red tape from WOTUS and NEPA to 
controversial livestock rules and other regulatory action. That 
is what they and we are witnessing. Our nation's ability to 
provide its citizens and the world with the safest, most 
affordable, and abundant food and fiber supply is our 
fundamental mandate. I know all of us in both parties realize 
and are motivated by this tremendous responsibility.
    Unfortunately, there remains a disconnect between our 
shared mandate and what is coming out of Washington. In 
Congress, trillions in ideological new spending was 
contemplated and signed into law when instead, we needed 
targeted fixes to supply chain bottlenecks and labor shortages. 
And now, it appears further funding is under discussion that 
fails to address the frail Biden economy, including the massive 
labor shortfalls.
    Under this Administration, we see a Clinton Era Swine 
Inspection Program rolled back, despite being grounded in 
science and designed enhanced processing capacity, efficiency, 
and food safety. We need greater certainty and supply chain 
resiliency for both producers and consumers.
    On other fronts, domestic productivity relative to resource 
use for agriculture is up a whopping 287 percent since the 
1940s--I think that is something we all should be very proud 
of--while the total farm inputs remain mostly unchanged. Our 
producers have spent decades showing the world that they are 
the answer to reducing global greenhouse gas emissions, and 
they are not the problem. Activists with little knowledge of 
production agriculture are winning the day, and I hope this 
Administration and Department rethink their alliance with these 
coalitions and ideologues.
    Mr. Secretary, I want to be your partner. Makeshift 
responses to Congressional inquiries, and in many cases, no 
response at all, have made it extremely challenging for my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle, myself included, to 
maintain a meaningful dialogue with the Department. Policy 
briefings and Administration updates with little to no notice 
for Members further strain our partnership. There is an 
opportunity to work together. I believe that wholeheartedly, 
and we stand ready. A critical part of doing so is beginning 
our 2018 Farm Bill implementation and oversight process and 
working towards the next reauthorization. That is putting 
politics aside. That is what we tend to do here on the 
Agriculture Committee: and beginning an earnest, deliberative 
process of what is working and what is not for producers, rural 
communities, and consumers.
    I look forward to starting that process with our Members 
and with you, Mr. Secretary, but in the meantime, we must 
stabilize our economy and supply chains, improve labor force 
participation, deliver commonsense regulatory action, and 
better understand the needs of our shared constituency. I think 
that starts with this hearing, so I am very appreciative of the 
Chairman for this hearing. And again, I thank the Secretary for 
coming before this Committee, and I look forward to more 
productive and consistent discourse.
    And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Ranking Member.
    The chair would request that other Members submit their 
opening statements for the record so the Secretary may begin 
his testimony, and to ensure that there is ample time for 
questions.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Brown follows:]

   Prepared Statement of Hon. Shontel M. Brown, a Representative in 
                           Congress from Ohio
    Thank you, Chairman Scott and Ranking Member Thompson, for holding 
this hearing. And thank you, Secretary Vilsack for joining us today to 
review the state of the rural economy and the operations of the 
Department of Agriculture.
    As we know too well, COVID-19 has taken a heavy toll on many of our 
communities and deepened the hunger crisis. USDA's Economic Research 
Service found that, while the number of Americans who are food-insecure 
remained level throughout 2020, hunger increased for Black and Latino 
families and the food-insecure household rate was significantly higher 
than the national average--21.7 percent versus 10.5 percent. 
Unfortunately, the pandemic's impact on hunger was felt quite 
inequitably.
    Food insecurity is an unconscionable, crippling reality for far too 
many Americans. Our communities cannot flourish when many of their 
residents, especially our students, still lack basic, regular access to 
nutritious food.
    That is why I introduced the Afterschool Meals Act (H.R. 6357). My 
legislation will alleviate hunger among the most vulnerable students by 
enabling schools to provide healthy and nutritious meals to children in 
afterschool care. I am also a co-lead of Congresswoman Alma Adams' 
coming legislation that seeks to combat college hunger by providing 
enrolled students with access to information about SNAP benefits.

    The Chairman. Our witness today is our 32nd Secretary of 
Agriculture, and a great ally of our nation's farmers and 
ranchers, Secretary Tom Vilsack. We are so pleased to welcome 
you back to our Agriculture Committee, and Mr. Secretary, 
please begin when you are ready.

 STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS ``TOM'' J. VILSACK, SECRETARY, U.S. 
          DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, D.C.

    Secretary Vilsack. Mr. Chairman, thank you very, very much. 
I appreciate the opportunity to be here today, and also to 
Representative Thompson, thank you for the opportunity to 
appear before the Committee, and I thank the Members for this 
opportunity.
    I suppose I could focus on the fact that our farm income is 
as good as it has been in the last 8 years that we have had 
record exports, but I would really like to focus on one phrase 
of my testimony on page four, because I think it explains the 
heart of the challenge that farmers and rural America faces and 
has faced for a considerable period of time.
    I want to focus on the phrase, extraction economy. I make 
this reference on page four of my testimony in order to set the 
stage for discussion, hopefully over the long haul as you begin 
your process of the farm bill reauthorization.
    Our extraction economy is an economy that essentially, we 
take things from the land and off the land, and unfortunately, 
rather than converting them in, value-adding, in and close to 
the rural areas where the natural resource is, they are 
transported long distances where they are value-added in some 
other location where opportunities and jobs are created 
elsewhere. I think it is going to be important for us as we 
look forward to try to develop what is called a circular 
economy, in which the wealth is created and stays in rural 
areas.
    Let me give you a couple of examples of how that could 
happen. There has been a focus on local and regional food 
systems. We learned during the pandemic that our system, our 
food system was not as resilient as we hoped it would be. One 
of the ways of making it more resilient is to create local and 
regional opportunities. That is one of the reasons why we are 
focused on expanding processing capacity, something that I hear 
all the time when I travel around the country. The need for our 
cattle producers, our livestock producers, our hog producers to 
have choice and opportunity for a local processing facility 
that creates local jobs that allows that revenue and wealth 
that is created from processing to stay in the community.
    Another example is obviously the biobased manufacturing. 
Biofuels are one example, but there are a multitude of ways in 
which we can convert agricultural waste product into a wide 
variety of things beyond renewable energy and fuel, to include 
chemicals, materials, fabrics, and fibers, again, creating 
opportunity for farmers, and additional income sources as well 
as rural jobs.
    Climate change creates an opportunity for us. As we look at 
ways in which rural lands can be used to sequester carbon, as 
we embrace climate-smart agricultural practices, it opens up a 
whole new vista of opportunity for farmers to essentially be 
paid for the carbon sequestration that they are currently doing 
and will do in the future.
    These are all examples of a circular economy where the 
wealth basically stays. The opportunity is created. The jobs 
are created in rural areas. We at USDA are focused on trying to 
insert and encourage that type of circular economy to be more 
prevalent in rural areas across the United States.
    Mr. Chairman, I know that there are a variety of questions 
that will be posed today, but I hope as this Committee begins 
its serious work on the farm bill, that you will take some time 
to work with us to take a look at how we might be able to do a 
better job of maintaining and creating wealth in rural 
communities, and making sure that historically underserved 
populations and communities also get a fair amount of 
attention. We at USDA are committed to working with you in 
partnership to use the resources that are available from 
Congress in a way that helps to create those kinds of 
opportunities.
    With that, I will yield back the balance of my time and 
look forward to the questions that you all have.
    [The prepared statement of Secretary Vilsack follows:]

 Prepared Statement of Hon. Thomas ``Tom'' J. Vilsack, Secretary, U.S. 
              Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and Members of the 
Committee, for the opportunity to come before you today to discuss the 
state of the rural economy in the United States. The COVID-19 pandemic 
has been incredibly difficult on Americans in urban, rural, suburban 
and Tribal communities alike. Throughout the nation, the pandemic has 
exposed economic, racial, and geographic disparities that call us to 
action. In rural and Tribal communities especially, COVID-19 has 
exposed decades of underinvestment in the infrastructure and 
institutions that make a rural place a vibrant, thriving community. It 
has also exposed that aspects of both U.S. and international food 
systems are rigid, consolidated, and fragile. Concurrently, drought, 
wildfire, and severe weather have exposed the perils of climate change 
for agriculture, people, and the planet.
    Despite the challenges of the past 2 years, rural and Tribal 
communities, and American farmers, ranchers, and farmworkers have 
remained resilient. Rural businesses, schools, and health care 
providers have harnessed technology in new ways to access new markets, 
educate their children and deliver healthcare. Farmers and ranchers 
have continued to produce and deliver the fruits of their labor and are 
seizing the opportunity that consumer interest in supporting local 
producers and businesses provides. Farmworkers, meat processing 
workers, and grocery workers have risked health and safety on the 
frontlines to keep our communities fed. Producers and communities have 
weathered storms and drought with resourcefulness, creativity, and a 
renewed understanding of the implications of climate change. Amidst the 
tremendous challenges of our time, in rural America there is 
opportunity and there is also a sense of urgency.
    That's why, the past year, the Biden-Harris Administration worked 
with Congress to get the American Rescue Plan passed and deliver 
Pandemic Assistance to help farmers and families recover. And that's 
why President Biden secured bipartisan support for historic investments 
in infrastructure. These investments will rebuild the physical 
infrastructure of our country, grow the economy for decades to come, 
create good-paying, union jobs, and help close the digital divide in 
rural areas--all of which will better position our agriculture and 
rural communities to compete in a global economy. My vision has been--
and will continue to be--to deploy these new resources in ways that 
will enable rural communities to build back better, with increased 
resiliency and equity.
Building Back Better in Rural America
    Small towns and rural communities provide the food, water, energy, 
nature, and culture that benefit people everywhere. Everyone benefits 
when rural communities thrive. Unfortunately, as I imagine many of you 
know well, we continue to see persistent challenges in rural America--
from access to broadband to declining numbers of rural hospitals--that 
have exacerbated the difficulties facing rural residents during the 
pandemic.
    We have a dichotomy in rural America. On one hand, the agriculture 
economy is strong. Net farm income jumped in 2021 by 23% to $116.8 
billion \1\ and after 2 years \2\ of being a net-importer, the United 
States is back to its rightful place as a significant contributor to 
our trade balance by driving exports to record high levels in 2021. The 
United States exported a record $172.2 billion in farm and food 
products in fiscal 2021, up 23 percent from 2020. Preliminary estimates 
of export levels for calendar year 2021 suggest that the United States 
will set an all-time record, and the outlook for 2022 looks optimistic 
for continued growth of agricultural exports. Demand for American 
agricultural products, here and abroad, has rebounded and has remained 
strong and growing. USDA will continue to focus on maintaining and 
expanding access to export markets for American producers through 
rebuilding trust with our partners and also holding them accountable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.ers.usda.gov/media/tzjlfczt/
farmsectorindicators_december2021.xlsx.
    \2\ https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/outlooks/102735/aes-
118.pdf?v=964.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On the other hand, we know that rural communities, including 
farmers and ranchers, still face challenges from the pandemic, many of 
which are seeded in challenges that have existed for far too long. 
COVID-19 exposed a rigid, fragile, and consolidated food system that 
led to bottlenecks and supply constraints. We have witnessed how the 
structure of food systems have resulted in higher consumer prices while 
the value to producers is constrained or even declined in many cases. 
And for decades rural America faced the headwinds of an extraction 
economy. Big businesses and corporate power in our food systems have 
undercut locally owned businesses and family-owned farms leaving little 
opportunity for rural people and places to retain the wealth they 
create and get ahead.
    These are systemic challenges that have failed rural communities 
and the rural economy for decades, resulting in continued population 
decline and a persistent higher rate of poverty overall than metro 
areas since poverty rates were first officially recorded in the 1960s.
    And now, we also see emerging, new and unprecedented challenges 
related to drought, wildfire, and climate change. To truly build back 
better and stronger, we must seize the moment to address these 
challenges across the board rather than simply returning to the way 
things were before the pandemic and economic downturn. The stakes 
couldn't be higher. This is a critical moment to make clear the value 
proposition that rural America provides. We must recognize the full 
contributions of rural communities and harness the innovative nature of 
our farmers and ranchers and our rural communities. Armed with the 
right tools and resources, this is the moment to build back better with 
a more resilient, equitable and circular economy that ensures wealth 
sticks and truly benefits the people and places that create it.
    That's why at USDA we are focused on the following key priorities:

   Creating more and better market opportunities for producers 
        and consumers alike. The food systems of the future needs to be 
        fair, competitive, distributed, and resilient. The success of 
        American agriculture hinges on innovation and the development 
        of new markets.

   Addressing climate change via climate-smart agriculture, 
        forestry and energy. Our comprehensive climate-smart strategy 
        will help position the agricultural sector and rural America as 
        leaders in helping tackle this challenge.

   Advancing racial justice, equity, and opportunity. We are 
        taking bold, historic action to reduce barriers to access and 
        advance opportunity for underserved communities.

   Tackling food and nutrition insecurity. We are focused on 
        ensuring Americans have consistent access to safe, healthy, 
        affordable food essential to optimal health and well-being.
More and Better Markets
    Over this last year, USDA has worked to deploy every resource 
available to help support our rural communities build a better future 
together. We know that the gains we are seeing in the agricultural 
economy have been extremely uneven across the country and across 
commodities. Meanwhile, producers are navigating supply chain 
disruptions as well as short- and long-term challenges with access to 
markets for their products. That's why we worked hard to address gaps 
and disparities in the assistance that the Administration provided 
producers. A year ago, we briefly paused implementation of the prior 
Administration's CARES and CAA programming so that we could evaluate 
what types of commodities and which types of agricultural producers had 
received significant support and who had been left out. We then created 
the Pandemic Assistance Initiative to ensure that USDA support would 
reach a broader set of producers, workers, and businesses. Over the 
course of the year, we've made over $13 billion available in Pandemic 
Assistance, of which almost $9 billion has been outlaid, in ways that 
align with on-the-ground needs of producers of all stripes.
    Additionally, we've committed more than $4 billion in American 
Rescue Plan funds towards our Build Back Better food system 
transformation effort. This funding will help build a food system of 
the future that is fair, competitive, distributed, and resilient; 
supports health with access to healthy, affordable food; ensures 
growers and workers receive a greater share of the food dollar; and 
advances equity as well as climate resilience and mitigation.
    Through Pandemic Assistance and our Build Back Better Food System 
Transformation Initiative we have aided in the historic economic 
recovery from the pandemic, helped families put food on the table, and 
are ensuring producers and rural businesses have the resources and 
tools to thrive longer-term. We are ensuring American agriculture is 
part of addressing food and nutrition insecurity and building strong 
rural economies, including by standing up cooperative agreements with 
state and Tribal governments to procure and distribute local and 
regional foods and by supporting the purchases of agricultural 
commodities to help schools across the country make sure students have 
access to healthy meals.
    The pandemic exposed a food system that is rigid, consolidated, and 
fragile. The reduction in meat processing capacities is just one 
example of the systemic failures that hurt producers and consumers 
alike. Fifty years ago, ranchers received over 60 of every dollar a 
consumer spent on beef, compared to about 39 today. Hog farmers got 
40 to 60 on each dollar spent 50 years ago, down to about 19 today. 
Producers all across the country for too long have faced a marketplace 
that benefits a few large companies over those who are growing, 
harvesting, and processing our food. With more capacity and 
competition, we can level the playing field for producers.
    Thanks to the funding provided by Congress and this Committee, 
particularly in the American Rescue Plan Act, as part of the Build Back 
Better Food System Transformation Initiative, USDA is making important 
investments in U.S. food systems that will allow us to create more and 
better markets for producers and consumers alike. The investment of $1 
billion in American Rescue Plan funds we announced earlier this month 
to expand independent processing capacity will help move us towards a 
fairer, more competitive, and more resilient meat and poultry supply 
chain.
    We are also working closely with the Department of Justice and the 
White House to strengthen the rules that protect farmers, ranchers, and 
consumers. USDA will issue new, stronger rules under the Packers and 
Stockyards Act that will seek to increase competition and strengthen 
the fairness and resiliency of livestock and poultry markets on behalf 
of farmers, ranchers, and growers.
    I look forward to working with Congress on these important issues 
as you look for additional ways to ensure that our farmers and ranchers 
have better access to processing capacity and consumers have more 
choices in the marketplace.
Climate-Smart Agriculture and Forestry
    As this panel is keenly aware, our farmers, ranchers, and foresters 
are on the front lines when it comes to dealing with the impacts of 
climate change. We've seen unprecedented droughts, wildfires, and other 
weather-related challenges increase in recent years and USDA has 
provided much-needed relief to those affected by these disasters. 
However, while agriculture is uniquely vulnerable to a warming climate, 
the sector is also uniquely positioned to help address the problem. 
Policies that drive climate solutions across the agricultural sector 
and rural America can both help tackle this challenge, while also 
creating new revenue opportunities for producers and rural communities. 
That approach, where rural communities can be leaders in clean energy, 
and where farmers, ranchers, and foresters can access new market 
opportunities, while also doing right by the climate, is the approach 
of the Biden-Harris Administration.
    We expect that markets in both the U.S. and around the world are 
continually going to demand more climate-smart commodities. USDA has a 
long history of market facilitation and development for agricultural 
and forestry producers and climate-smart commodities represent a new 
and potentially growing market opportunity. At USDA, we are on the cusp 
of providing significant help to encourage the growth of these 
commodities through the Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities 
Program. With this approach, we will fund pilots and demonstration 
projects that will encourage farmers to come together, deploy climate-
smart practices, and produce climate-smart commodities. This approach 
will be voluntary, incentive based and available to producers of all 
sizes, all methods, all locations, and all types of production. 
Importantly, our work through this program will complement and build on 
activities and transactions that are already starting to occur in the 
private marketplace, making those opportunities to add value and create 
new revenue streams available to more American producers. Of course, at 
the same time we will also work with our research mission area, land-
grant universities, and others to measure, quantify, and verify the 
climate benefits of the program based on sound, peer-reviewed science. 
At the end of the day, this new commodity program is about creating new 
revenue streams for farmers while helping to combat climate change. 
It's an exciting opportunity and over the course of the next several 
months we're looking forward to sharing additional details surrounding 
this effort.
    USDA is also focused on how we can drive tangible benefits to those 
communities disproportionately impacted by climate change, including 
underserved communities. To achieve this, we will prioritize equitable 
access to the assistance and incentives intended to help producers and 
land managers address the causes and consequences of climate change. 
Additionally, USDA agencies are working to find new ways to prioritize 
investments in forestry, clean energy, energy efficiency, and 
infrastructure in underserved communities that will mitigate against 
climate change, increase climate resilience, and to measure and track 
the benefits those vital investments provide. We're also redoubling our 
efforts to protect rural communities from the ravages of climate-driven 
wildfires. Earlier this week I rolled out a new comprehensive strategy 
to mitigate wildfire risk to communities and infrastructure, a 
significant paradigm shift in forest management that I look forward to 
working with you all to implement in the coming years.
    I would also like to extend my appreciation for the resources that 
the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act is making available to USDA 
for wildfire risk reduction and watershed protection and 
rehabilitation, and reforming wildland firefighter compensation, among 
other important programs. As I have stated before, however, we cannot 
comprehensively and effectively reduce the serious risk that 
catastrophic wildfires pose to many communities around our nation 
without substantial additional funds. The Infrastructure Investment and 
Jobs Act provides an important down payment on these resources and the 
Build Back Better Act includes transformative investments that would do 
even more to help us address this crisis and enable our long-standing 
conservation programs to do double duty in service of combating climate 
change, which poses an existential threat to our farmers and ranchers, 
and to all of us.
Food and Nutrition Insecurity
    As USDA builds back better and with a recognition that food and 
health are inherently intertwined, we are focused on ensuring Americans 
have consistent access to the safe, healthy, affordable food essential 
to optimal health and well-being.
    While keeping the food supply safe, as USDA does each day, we must 
also tackle both food insecurity and nutrition insecurity. USDA's 
nutrition programs are the most far-reaching tools available to ensure 
all Americans have access to healthy, affordable food. Over the past 
year, USDA has taken steps to support the millions of families who have 
struggled to make ends meet and keep food on the table during the 
pandemic with increased benefits through the host of programs available 
to assist those in need, expanded access to those programs, and 
outreach to those that have been historically underserved.
    In the coming year, we will build on the innovation required by our 
COVID-19 pandemic response, as well as the historic investments in 
nutrition and food assistance we made this previous year, which helped 
to reduce the prevalence of hunger nationwide. The number of households 
reporting that they sometimes or often did not have enough food dropped 
by 32 percent in 2021 and experts estimate the U.S. had the lowest 
child poverty rate ever in 2021. This is profound progress that we will 
build upon as we invest in bold solutions that enhance food safety, 
reduce both food and nutrition insecurity and, ultimately, improve 
health and well-being.
Recommitting Ourselves to Equity and Inclusion
    For much of the history of USDA, policy design and implementations 
have rewarded those who own land, who have collateral, who have greater 
access to USDA programs, and communities with more resources to 
leverage, while others have faced discrimination and inequities.
    Over the last year, USDA has worked tirelessly to address 
historical inequities in how we deliver programs across the board for 
rural communities and how we promote diversity and inclusion within our 
own workforce. The Department has taken bold and historic actions to 
reduce barriers to access to USDA's programs, advance opportunity for 
underserved communities, and root out generations of systemic racism 
and discrimination. To further bolster this work, USDA is focused on 
delivering on the Justice40 Initiative and ensuring that underserved 
communities can equitably benefit from USDA resources and funding.
    Soon, USDA will also announce the members of USDA's new Equity 
Commission, which will hold its first meeting in February. This 
Commission, which was authorized by Congress as part of the American 
Rescue Plan Act, offers an historic opportunity to root out barriers to 
access and improve the Department for the benefit of underserved 
communities, the overall American farm and agriculture sector, and our 
economy. The Equity Commission is tasked with providing USDA with 
recommendations on policies, programs, and actions needed to advance 
equity and address racial equity issues within the Department of 
Agriculture and its programs, including strengthening accountability at 
the Department. The Equity Commission will play a key role in 
identifying the root causes--systemic and systematic--of existing 
inequities and will assist USDA in centering equity and justice as it 
develops and strengthens policies and approaches to truly serve all 
people regardless of their background or experience. I know that the 
work of the Equity Commission will also prove invaluable to this 
Committee as you consider ways to remove barriers to our programs and 
ensure equal opportunity to individuals and communities.
    I want you to know that we are doing everything we can to ensure 
that all farmers and communities can benefit from USDA investments and 
that we are working to ensure equity is at the center of our 
programming in rural communities and across the Department. I 
particularly want to thank the Chairman and other Members of this 
Committee for their steadfast commitment on this issue and for the 
input many of you have provided to me on how we can work to ensure that 
all programing is equitable and how USDA can better represent the 
diversity of America.
Conclusion
    Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and Members of the Committee, thank 
you for the opportunity to speak to you today about the current state 
of the ag and rural economy in the United States and this 
Administration's commitment to a prosperous rural America. Throughout 
the course of this past year, I've had the opportunity to travel across 
this great country and meet with many of the people we serve. I've 
visited states in every region of the country. I've been to many of 
your districts and met with your constituents. I've met with farmers, 
ranchers, farm workers, processors, foresters, and families living in 
our rural communities. I have been able to hear their concerns and 
their optimism about the future. I too am optimistic about the future, 
especially today as we celebrate this first year of the Biden-Harris 
Administration and look ahead to continuing to fight for rural 
communities, and the farmers, ranchers, and foresters, who sustain 
them.
    At the end of the day, my vision for rural America is a place where 
people want to stay and raise their children because they have access 
to good-paying jobs, or they have enough revenue coming in to make a 
decent living on the farm--no matter the size--without having to work 
other jobs. It's where families have access to quality healthcare and 
education, clean drinking water, broadband internet and the 
infrastructure needed to build and maintain vibrant communities. We 
must seize this moment to reimagine and rebuild an economy that invests 
in rural America and works for our rural families. It is not acceptable 
for us to fail our rural communities. We have a responsibility to work 
together, across the aisle to address these challenges. The Biden-
Harris Administration has been working hard to build back better, 
stronger, and more resilient and equitably than ever before. I look 
forward to working with this Committee on this mission.

    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your important 
testimony.
    At this time, Members will be recognized for questions in 
order of seniority, alternating between Majority and Minority 
Members, and you will be recognized for 5 minutes in order to 
allow us to get to as many questions as possible. And, I will 
certainly hold each Member to that strict 5 minutes, because I 
want to be able to make sure every Member has a chance to ask 
the Secretary questions. Please keep your microphones muted 
until you are recognized in order to minimize any background 
noise.
    And now, I recognize myself for my questions.
    Mr. Secretary, as you may know, our cotton industry is 
suffering in a very particular area with our cotton 
merchandisers, and they have had great impact and effect from 
our COVID-19 crisis. As you may recall, I wrote you a letter 
and asked for your help, and what we could do to help our 
cotton merchandisers, because Mr. Secretary, they are very 
critical to the risk management and liquidity for our cotton 
farmers.
    So, Mr. Secretary, I want to help them. I know you do, too. 
And so, what can we do? Can we use some of your authority with 
the COVID-19 funds to be able to get help to them? What can we 
do to help our cotton merchandisers?
    Secretary Vilsack. Mr. Chairman, we have been in 
consultation with a number of representatives of the cotton 
industry and cotton and textile user industry in an effort to 
try to determine how best to help. The FSA is, in part, 
drafting a notice of funds availability that we hope to be able 
to make available sometime in the early spring that would 
provide some additional resources, and we are trying to 
structure this in a way based on our conversations with the 
industry to be able to provide some assistance and help to the 
industry.
    This is one of many programs that we have inserted and 
adopted as a result of the resources that have been made 
available under the American Rescue Plan (Pub. L. 117-2) and 
under the CARES Act (Pub. L. 116-136), and a variety of 
pandemic assistance programs designed to make sure that we have 
a significant amount of effort at USDA to provide assistance 
and help to those who were not adequately helped in the 
previous Administration with these resources.
    The Chairman. Thank you for that.
    And now, I would like to recognize the Ranking Member for 
his questions.
    Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Secretary, thanks again. I really appreciate you being 
here. Mr. Secretary, as you know, and I know this is an issue 
important to you--dairy. Dairy has long been a priority of 
mine, and it is also our largest commodity in Pennsylvania. 
And, as I talk with dairy farmers actually all across this 
country, I know it is important throughout our dairy states. I 
am glad that dairy stakeholders are having serious discussions 
about the potential reforms to the Federal Milk Marketing Order 
system, and I think the system has long needed some 
improvements for dairy farmers. I don't think we can keep doing 
what we have been doing and expect different results when you 
look at the attrition, the loss of dairy farms.
    But the COVID-19 pandemic has really put a spotlight on 
some of those deficiencies. Conversations are still going on 
within the industry to reach consensus, which I think is 
critically important. But can you comment or commit that your 
Department will work with us and the dairy sector to help this 
process along?
    Secretary Vilsack. Representative, thanks very much for the 
question, and certainly, I hear, as you have heard, concerns 
about the Marketing Order. And I think it is important and 
necessary for the dairy industry to develop a consensus 
opinion. I think as you travel around the country and as I do, 
what you hear in Pennsylvania may be a little different than 
what you hear in Vermont, maybe a little different than what 
you hear in Idaho, maybe a little bit different in New Mexico, 
and certainly different from what you hear in California in 
terms of the needs of this industry.
    But I think the industry is serious about this effort, and 
we will work collaboratively with the industry to try to 
improve. That is one of the reasons why we recently announced 
the Supplemental Dairy Margin Assistance, the dairy payment 
through the Pandemic Market Volatility Assistance Program, and 
why we created the Dairy Donation Program. We are trying to 
find ways to use existing tools to provide help to this 
industry.
    Mr. Thompson. I do think the consensus is out there, maybe 
not on exactly what to do, but there is a need for change, and 
that is helpful to be able to bring people together. And so, I 
look forward to working with you in that arena.
    Mr. Secretary, in March of 2021, you made reference in a 
press release to gaps and disparities at USDA concerning COVID 
relief, and in statements with the press since then, you have 
implied that funding in many program areas has been 
disproportionate or skewed by race, and that same phrase, gaps 
and disparities, was in your written testimony today.
    Now, following your initial press statement last year, my 
staff reached out to USDA numerous times requesting to see the 
data that supports that comment, that consistent comment you 
have used. And after no response, I wrote to you personally 
asking for a response to these inquiries. This week, 9 months 
after first engaging on this issue, my office received a letter 
acknowledging this request. The response I received, though, 
was merely a regurgitation of preexisting USDA press releases 
that I already had on hand, and not the data I sought, which 
was disappointing. The timeline of the response is equally 
disappointing.
    So, Mr. Secretary, I know that we both agree that this 
plague has been devastating to all stakeholders and 
communities, and this Committee has a responsibility to meet 
the needs of all producers that require us to work together, 
and that does require us to work together. I look forward to us 
doing better. So, I believe this also highlights the need for 
increased oversight, Mr. Chairman, from this Committee, not 
only on the farm bill implementation, but also the COVID 
relief, and I hope to see a greater responsiveness from our 
USDA partners. I think we are all part of a great farm team, 
and when we are working together, every American family 
benefits, and the rural economy benefits.
    And so, I am just hopeful that we can work in a more 
responsive, and just a better way going forward.
    Secretary Vilsack. Well, Congressman, I think what I said 
and what I intended was to focus on the fact that the existing 
assistance under the Trump Administration was focused in a 
number of geographic areas and a number of commodities. And I 
think a recent GAO study suggested exactly that, and that is 
one of the reasons why we used the resources under the CARES 
Act and under the pandemic assistance resources to spread out 
and to try to provide help and assistance to those who hadn't 
received as much help. Dairy was one area; biofuels industry is 
another area. The spot market for hogs, the folks who were 
selling hogs on a cash market, that is another area. The 
pandemic needs of specialty crops, that is another area. So, we 
have made an effort to try to make sure that we were providing 
assistance and help in a comprehensive way as opposed to 
focusing in on a specific geographic commodity, or specific 
area.
    Mr. Thompson. Right. I think that data would just be 
helpful to----
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
    The gentleman from California, Mr. Costa, who is also the 
Chairman of the Subcommittee on Livestock and Foreign 
Agriculture, is now recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Costa. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for bringing 
us together and support and the opportunity to have a 
conversation with our Secretary of Agriculture. It is good to 
see you back, Mr. Secretary.
    We could spend the whole day talking about the rural 
economy and the challenges we face across the country 
regionally and the different impacts this pandemic has had in 
terms of closing restaurants and schools, and impacting our 
food supply chain in ways that we could never imagine. And 
obviously, we are still working on that effort with our ports 
in Long Beach and Los Angeles.
    But I would like to focus on a couple of areas, and 
continue this effort as we set the table for the farm bill next 
year that I know the Chairman and all of us are very interested 
in doing.
    We touched upon the effort of the challenges regionally of 
milk production, by the way, I want to commend you and 
Ambassador Tai on that resolution with Canada on the recent 
decision that was made. That is helpful, I believe, to ensure 
we have a level playing field with our neighbors to the north. 
But that limitation on the program, the Pandemic Market 
Volatility Assistance Program that you implemented to reimburse 
dairy farmers for their losses obviously impacts producers 
differently around the country, and the limitation that 5 
million pounds per producer obviously doesn't reflect one-size-
fits-all. I am wondering, we are trying to figure out in areas 
of the country where it doesn't, how we might provide an effort 
to cover the losses that they sustained during that time.
    Mr. Secretary, do you care to comment?
    Secretary Vilsack. Congressman, the reason why we 
established that limitation was the fact that during the course 
of the previous Administration, the way in which COVID relief 
was provided and helped as it relates to the food box program 
resulted in somewhat of a distortion in the market that created 
a situation where there was a significant difference between 
Class I and Class III. Now, many producers, many small 
producers were hurt, and so, this was designed to provide 
assistance and help to the small producers that were hurt 
because of that circumstance.
    I am happy to work, and we did work and are working on a 
variety of other ways to help the dairy industry across the 
board, and would be happy to work with you on any ideas or 
thoughts that you have to provide assistance and help to the 
dairy industry.
    Mr. Costa. Good. We will follow up on that.
    The trade issue that has been discussed before is critical 
to American agriculture, as well as California agriculture, the 
number one ag state in the nation. Forty-four percent of 
California's agricultural production is exported, and I am 
wondering as we look to having a level playing field not only 
with our consumers that we export to: Asia, but also to Europe 
as well. And I am wondering what kind of oversight the 
Department intends to follow with in regards to the new 
agreement we have with the U.S.-Mexico-Canada agreement?
    Secretary Vilsack. Well, you alluded to the fact that we 
supported the U.S. Trade Representative's Office in connection 
with the Canadian dairy situation. Certainly pleased to see 
that that tariff rate quota will be implemented the way in 
which it was intended. We are working with our colleagues and 
our friends in Mexico on a variety of issues, not the least of 
which is glyphosate, biotech approvals for corn--the ability 
for us to be able to continue to sell corn for feed into 
Mexico. We received assurances from the Mexican Secretary 
Villalobos that that, in fact, will continue to take place.
    So, there are ongoing conversations. I probably have spoken 
to the Secretary in Mexico at least six times, seven times 
since I took office, and I have had a number of responses and 
communications with my Canadian counterpart as well. So, there 
is a constant effort to ensure enforcing, and this is really 
designed to create a sense of trust about trade agreements, not 
just in Mexico and Canada, but also in China. We obviously have 
some unfinished business with reference to Phase 1, and we 
continue to press China to increase their purchases, and also 
to address many of the important----
    Mr. Costa. Do you believe China has kept their commitments 
under the previous agreement?
    Secretary Vilsack. No. They are $13 billion short on 
purchases, and there are seven key areas where they have yet to 
perform. Biotech approvals, DDG sales, tariffs on ethanol, a 
variety of other sort----
    Mr. Costa. We will follow up on that, Mr. Secretary. My 
time is running down. I just want to commend your efforts, 
because you and I have talked about it on forestry and the 
horrific fires and our ability to manage our forests the way 
that really we have been neglecting. And we want to support 
your efforts there. There is a lot to be done. This 10 year 
program that you unveiled earlier this week is something that 
we want to work with you on.
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
    The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Austin Scott, is recognized 
now for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Secretary Vilsack, I have talked with some of my chemical 
distributors about the crop protection products. They are 
telling me that the raw materials are in the country, but the 
labor shortage is what is creating the backup and the 
challenges with actually getting the product to the warehouses 
for the farms. Is that consistent with what you are hearing 
from the people at USDA?
    Secretary Vilsack. Well, we are certainly concerned about 
the lack of truck drivers, which is why we are working with the 
Department of Labor and are encouraged by their efforts to 
create an apprenticeship program and to speed up the process to 
get people behind the wheel, and to work with states to issue 
CDL licenses as quickly as possible. So, it is an area that we 
are concerned about.
    Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. I think they are talking about 
shortages in labor at the manufacturers as well as trucking 
shortages and other things.
    It does concern me that in many cases, I feel like people 
don't recognize how important the timeliness is with regard to 
the application of crop protection and crop promotion, 
fertilizer products to get the yields that our farmers depend 
on and we all depend on for our food supply in this country. 
And so, I hope you and USDA will stay on the Department of 
Transportation and the Department of Labor, making sure they 
understand that when we have to have these crop protection 
products in the field, putting it on 2 or 3 weeks late doesn't 
work.
    You were given an additional $10 billion this past fall for 
disaster assistance for extreme weather in 2020 and 2021. Can 
you give us an update or any details on where the distribution 
of those funds stands?
    Secretary Vilsack. Yes. Let's talk about the $750 million 
that was allocated for the livestock industry. We are going to 
take a look at a process by which we can use existing data from 
the Livestock Forage Program to facilitate payments, and the 
hope is that those payments will be made to livestock producers 
sometime this spring. The expectation is that there may be 
additional need, a second tranche of resources that will be 
made available with a more detailed application, but we are 
trying to simplify the process so we can get resources to these 
farmers as quickly as possible.
    On the grain side, we hope to use NAP data and RMA crop 
insurance data to essentially create a pre-filled out 
application which will speed up the process of a first tranche 
of resources to those producers, and then a second tranche for 
shallow losses in areas that weren't covered, folks who didn't 
have NAP coverage or who didn't have crop insurance coverage.
    So, the goal here is to try to get these payments out this 
spring.
    Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. This spring. So, hopefully by 
the end of April then?
    Secretary Vilsack. April, May, sometime in that timeframe. 
The key here, Representative, is to make sure that we get it 
done as quickly as possible, which is why we are simplifying 
the process and trying to use existing data to speed up the 
process.
    Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Okay. One last question. The 
Commodity Credit Corporation. I know there is a tremendous 
amount of discussion about climate-smart agriculture and the 
Commodity Credit Corporation. It is my understanding that $1 
billion in CCC funds are being used for climate-smart 
agriculture and forestry. How does this fit under the pretty 
specific enumerated purposes of the CCC? What specific 
authority in the Charter Act will be used, and can you give us 
more details on this initiative?
    Secretary Vilsack. As you well know, the Commodity Credit 
Corporation in part is designed to provide for the promotion of 
commodities. And what we are hearing and seeing from the 
industry is, the food industry is the need for climate-smart 
commodities for sustainably produced commodities in which they 
can ensure their consumers that what they are purchasing is not 
harmful to the environment.
    So, we want to be able to help producers create those 
climate-smart commodities. It falls under, it is either Section 
4 or Section 5 of the CCC, and we are very confident that we 
have the capacity and ability to use this without jeopardizing 
any of the other needs or reasons for the CCC. This will give, 
and actually farm groups and food groups have basically 
proposed and suggested this, and the Food and Farm Alliance 
document on climate-smart agriculture suggesting the need for 
demonstration and pilot projects funded through the CCC, and we 
are following the prescription of groups like the American Farm 
Bureau in their advocacy for this.
    So, we feel very confident we have the legal grounds based 
on the fact that we will be promoting climate-smart 
commodities.
    Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, my time has 
expired.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    The gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. McGovern, who is also 
the Chairman of our House Committee on Rules, is recognized for 
5 minutes.
    Mr. McGovern. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you 
for your leadership. I want to thank Secretary Vilsack for his 
service and for his team at USDA. I have found them always to 
be very responsive, and I appreciate that.
    I want to start off by saying that I am currently working 
with Congressman Grijalva to organize a roundtable on Tribal 
farming and indigenous food systems. And while we all must do 
more to honor and learn from the experiences of indigenous 
people, I want to thank you, Mr. Secretary, and your team at 
USDA for all the work that you have done so far in this space.
    As I have pushed for a White House Conference on Food, 
Nutrition, Health, and Hunger, I have had the opportunity to 
see a wide range of places that are working to ensure access to 
culturally appropriate foods for people. For example, I was in 
New York City recently at a place called the Met Council that 
focuses on providing access to kosher and Halal foods for those 
who would otherwise be forced to choose between their faith and 
having food on the table. Many of the programs that I saw when 
I was in San Francisco specialize in providing culturally 
appropriate foods for Asian and Latinx communities. At the St. 
Mary's Food Bank in Phoenix, Arizona, which is the oldest food 
bank in America, they have made it a mission to provide 
culturally appropriate native foods for elders to eat.
    And so, as we discuss more at the upcoming roundtable, 
indigenous people know the power of sovereignty and the power 
of making decisions that encompass your own values on behalf of 
your people. And we will hear about how self-government means 
very clearly being able to feed your people.
    The U.S. Federal Government has much to learn from the 
indigenous peoples of this land, and that priority of feeding 
your own people is one that I know I will certainly carry with 
me.
    My questions are, with that, Mr. Secretary, I would like to 
know more about what USDA is doing to ensure access to 
culturally appropriate foods, and what do you need from 
Congress to ensure that our food programs are meeting the needs 
of all who use them? And then second, can you tell me a little 
bit more about the efforts to incorporate regional purchasing 
in the Food Distribution on Indian Reservations Program?
    Secretary Vilsack. Congressman, several points here. We 
have entered into eight demonstration projects with eight 
Tribes through our Office of Tribal Relations to begin to 
incorporate more fully indigenous foods into the foods that are 
available under the Federal food program for Tribes and under 
our SNAP Program. We are trying to figure out ways in which we 
can incorporate more fully and completely the availability of 
indigenous foods. It is not just the ability of meeting the 
food security and cultural needs of populations, it is also 
about creating opportunity and economic opportunity. And to the 
extent that you create a local and regional food system, one 
that is designed to produce those culturally appropriate foods, 
you are also creating jobs and you are creating what I referred 
to earlier as that circular economy. We are continuing to work 
with Tribes to try to do more of this.
    I would say one of the challenges in this space we are also 
trying to address, and that is the fractionated ownership of 
land, particularly in Tribal areas, as well as African American 
farmers, and this is an issue we are trying to address with the 
Heirs Property Rule that we instituted. There is roughly $120 
million that is going to be made available for sort of a 
revolving loan fund that will create the opportunity for people 
to consolidate land title, which in turn will allow them to 
exercise and to be able to access resources from USDA. And so, 
these are integrated parts.
    In terms of what Congress can do, obviously one thing you 
can do is to have a budget. That is the first thing we would 
like to see, because that would allow us the ability to have 
sufficient resources to be able to provide the technical 
assistance that is needed to institute many of these programs.
    Mr. McGovern. And a general question about access to more 
culturally appropriate foods, which seems to be an issue that I 
hear a lot about, as I mentioned my visit to New York City with 
the Met Council. Is the USDA doing anything to try to address 
that issue?
    Secretary Vilsack. Well, one of the things we are trying to 
do is to make sure that we have available processing capacity 
that creates that culturally appropriate food. And as we look 
at the various programs that we have announced recently to try 
to expand capacity and expand competition, bear in mind that 
part of those resources need to be done to make sure that the 
kosher and Halal foods are available, and that they are 
produced and processed in the appropriate way.
    Mr. McGovern. Well thank you, and I look forward to working 
with you.
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
    The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. DesJarlais, is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
    Mr. DesJarlais. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Secretary Vilsack, it is great to see you here again. Last 
time we spoke, I introduced you to the issue of the black 
vultures, which apparently, we are going to be talking about 
some more again this year, because it is getting worse again. 
But that is not what I want to focus on today.
    Obviously, protecting the health and safety of USDA 
employees and farmers, customers, is of critical importance. 
However, as it stands today, farmers are not getting an 
acceptable level of service from FSA field offices that they 
deserve. Before COVID, farmers were able to come to the office 
at a time convenient for them on their often strict schedules, 
but now they are having a hard time getting an appointment at 
all. Meanwhile, signup for crop year 2022 programs is imminent. 
When do you expect USDA field offices to return to normal 
operating levels?
    Secretary Vilsack. Congressman, you and I have obviously a 
difference of opinion on this, because we keep track of the 
level of work that is being done at Farm Service Agency offices 
to try to see whether or not the pandemic has negatively 
impacted the ability to get work done. And in fact, as we see, 
we are continuing to work at pre-pandemic levels.
    Let me give you a sense of this. In Fiscal Year 2021, those 
folks at the Farm Service Agency did 21,833 direct loans, 7,218 
guaranteed loans, 12,244 ownership loans, 12,528 operating 
loans, and 4,270 micro loans. I mean, there was a lot of work 
done in addition to CRP, in addition to over $7 billion of 
pandemic assistance provided.
    So, the work is getting done, and it is getting done 
because folks are working online. They are working with email. 
They are working on the phones, and they are working in 
offices.
    Mr. DesJarlais. Well, I will just say that----
    Secretary Vilsack. We are going to be----
    Mr. DesJarlais.--we have the largest Farm Bureau office in 
the country in my district in Columbia, Tennessee, and this 
question came directly from them. So, maybe I will have someone 
from your staff, if you don't mind, get in touch Tennessee Farm 
Bureau, because they are saying that people don't have access 
to the FSA office, and a lot of it is staffing issues due to 
the COVID restrictions and vaccination mandates. I think 
supposedly there is about 80+ percent compliance, 88 percent 
compliance, but those were people who had gotten one vaccine. 
What is the current status? Are people going to still be 
restricted from going to work if they are not fully vaccinated? 
Even the CDC, I think yesterday, said that natural immunity was 
more effective against Delta than the vaccine. So, we are in a 
changing process, this whole process of the vaccine has kind of 
mutated as we have gone along, and I think we need to get up 
with the times. Main street businesses are getting back and 
running. You are saying the work is getting done, but that is 
not what we are seeing in Tennessee.
    Secretary Vilsack. Well, there are a lot of loans and a lot 
of activities done.
    Let me just simply say that 88 percent, almost 89 percent 
of our employees are vaccinated, and that compliance rate----
    Mr. DesJarlais. With one vaccine though, correct?
    Secretary Vilsack. I am answering your question, sir. 
Ninety-seven percent of the workforce actually is either 
vaccinated or has requested an accommodation, and we are 
working through those accommodations. If they continue to work 
when they request an accommodation, they just simply have to be 
masked. They have to have social distancing and things of that 
nature. So, 97 percent of the workforce is currently covered, 
and we are working through the remainder of the workforce, 
encouraging them to either get vaccinated or to request 
accommodation, and they still have time to do that.
    Mr. DesJarlais. Okay. Well, my understanding was that USDA 
had the highest number of exemption requests in all the 
agencies, but that those won't be available. So, I am getting 
double information here from what you are telling me. You are 
saying that is not the case?
    Secretary Vilsack. That is not the case.
    Mr. DesJarlais. Okay. Well, that is good to know because 
the main thing is, at least in Tennessee, I don't know about my 
colleagues, but they are having issues getting appointments 
with FSA. So, we would hope that could be addressed.
    Let me finish. The farmers and ranchers feel like the EPA 
and this Administration are attacking them. From not defending 
the Trump WOTUS definition to revoking tolerances of approved 
crop protection tools, and skyrocketing input costs, I 
certainly understand why they have these concerns, Mr. 
Secretary. Can you tell me how you are serving as an advocate 
for production agriculture and defending agriculture throughout 
the Biden Administration?
    You have 45 seconds. You can have them all.
    Secretary Vilsack. Thank you.
    Encouraging the EPA to do what they are currently doing, 
which is to reach out to farm groups and farmers across the 
country to listen to concerns that they may have about the 
implementation and formation of the rule, and I appreciate the 
relationship that I have with Administrator Regan on that 
score.
    We are also taking a look at ways in which we at USDA can 
provide help and assistance once the rules are determined, in 
terms of providing assistance and help through our conservation 
programs to make sure that folks are in compliance. Those are 
our two principal responsibilities, I think is to encourage 
outreach and to make sure we are using all the tools to help 
farmers implement as accurately as possible.
    Mr. DesJarlais. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
    The gentlewoman from North Carolina, Ms. Adams, who is also 
the Vice Chair of the Committee on Agriculture, is now 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Adams. Thank you, Chairman Scott and Ranking Member 
Thompson for hosting the hearing today, and Secretary Vilsack, 
good to see you again.
    Rural communities continue to face unique challenges that 
must be addressed to achieve growth. Our farmers need key 
resources to be successful and our socially disadvantaged and 
small- to mid-size farmers must receive special attention, 
because they are more vulnerable to outside factors. Farmers 
continue to experience challenges presented by COVID-19, supply 
chains, labor market shortages, access to resources, et cetera.
    At the same time, issues with climate change and the 
management of carbon on farms must be considered. So, as co-
chair of the bipartisan HBCU Caucus, I have to note that our 
1890 land-grant institutions play an important role to 
contribute to research and extension and teaching in food and 
agricultural sciences. These institutions do extensive work 
that supports their surrounding communities, including those 
located in hard-to-reach areas. But as you know, Mr. Secretary, 
these institutions can work more closely with USDA across the 
entire Department. So, can you speak to any collaboration on 
rural development, rural health, climate change, and nutrition 
programs like WIC where USDA can better support the work and 
contributions of land-grant institutions to their communities 
and our country?
    Secretary Vilsack. I appreciate the question. I had a great 
meeting with the Council of Presidents representing all the 
HBCUs a month or so ago, and we talked about the opportunities 
within Rural Development.
    First order of business is to make sure that there is an 
understanding in the HBCUs of the extraordinary scope of the 
programs that we have at USDA, and to encourage greater 
collaboration. We are already beginning to see a number of 
projects, additional resources being provided, $21.8 million 
provided to HBCUs on 58 projects to try to expand their reach 
into the community. We will continue to look at Sec. 2501 
funding. We continue to look at ways in which we can encourage 
both HBCUs and other cooperators to be able to provide the 
technical assistance and connection between underserved 
communities and underserved producers and USDA.
    We recently announced $75 million of resources under the 
American Rescue Plan to create that bridge, that connection 
between producers and the USDA, and we look for expansion of 
that cooperative effort. Our NRCS just recently announced a $50 
million initiative with over 118 cooperators now being 
contracted to provide information and assistance in terms of 
conservation programs. Our RMA is spending several million 
dollars to expand outreach so people understand the wide range 
of crop insurance tools that are available.
    So, there is a concerted effort here to make sure that we 
are doing a better job of connecting, and certainly HBCUs are 
at the center of it.
    Ms. Adams. Thank you, sir.
    I helped sponsor the Centers for Excellence in the 2018 
Farm Bill. It is important that we work to ensure their 
success, but broadly speaking, how can NIFA better support 
land-grant institutions as it relates to the Centers of 
Excellence?
    Secretary Vilsack. We recently announced an Ag Center of 
Excellence, Ag Business Innovation Center, $2 million 
commitment for that purpose, and we are also seeing additional 
resources requested in the budget to be able to expand Centers 
of Excellence at HBCUs. So, that work continues. It is somewhat 
dependent on our ability to get the 2022 budget through the 
process.
    Ms. Adams. Great, thank you.
    As you know, many of our states where the 1890 land-grant 
institutions are located do not receive their 1:1 matching 
grant. We have had some issues here in my State of North 
Carolina. So, what steps could USDA take to ensure that states 
provide 1:1 matching funds for these institutions?
    Secretary Vilsack. Continued advocacy with governors, and 
making sure that they are fully aware and appreciate the 
opportunities in their communities, in their states, from 
having an active and engaged HBCU, the Federal resources that 
can be leveraged.
    I would also say that I think it is important for us to 
continue to work--this is a little bit afield of your 
question--but the need for us to do a better job of connecting 
with minority-serving institutions across the board to 
encourage more internships, fellowships, and scholarships so 
that we, again, create a closer connection. And the reason for 
this is simple. Eight percent of the workforce at USDA is under 
the age of 35, and so, we are going to face a significant 
workforce shortage at some point in time in the near future. We 
have to make sure we have the brightest and best coming to 
USDA.
    Ms. Adams. Thank you, Secretary Vilsack. That was going to 
be my next question about supporting Centers of Excellence in 
the 2023 Farm Bill. Based on what you said, you are in support 
of that.
    Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I am going to yield 
back. My time is up.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady from Missouri, Mrs. Hartzler, 
is now recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Hartzler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and it is good to 
see you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you for all that you do for 
agriculture. I am very excited and appreciative of what you are 
doing to try to promote more meat processing plants nearby in 
our rural communities, and I know that has been a focus of 
yours.
    I did send a letter last July asking for some clarification 
of what the criteria was going to be for distribution of that 
first $375 million for independent processors. So, could you 
give me an update on the criteria for those monies, and more 
specifically, will processors who began operating or conducted 
any expansions since or during the beginning of COVID be able 
to qualify for these monies?
    Secretary Vilsack. We provided some additional resources 
for existing facilities to expand under our Food Supply Chain 
Guaranteed Loan Program that was announced several weeks ago. 
In addition, as you mentioned, the grant program is going to be 
broken down into two tranches. The first $150 million is going 
to be made available. We hope the framework of that and the 
structure of that will be disclosed in the next few weeks, and 
it is designed primarily to jumpstart projects that are ready 
to go, that are shovel ready. They just need a little 
encouragement. They could be an expansion of an existing 
facility, or they could be new construction. Either one will 
qualify. And the hope is that we get 10, 15, 20 projects that 
are funded through that process, and then in the summer, 
another $225 million of grant resources and $275 million of 
additional low interest financing will become available. That 
will also be available for both existing facilities wishing to 
expand, and for new facilities.
    And the goal here is to make sure that we are addressing 
the wide array and range of needs from very, very small 
processing operations to mid-size operations. We are hopeful 
that we see farmer-owned cooperatives take a look at the 
possibility of accessing some of these resources so that we 
expand capacity and obviously competition, and the belief is 
that when we do that, producers will benefit and so will 
consumers.
    Mrs. Hartzler. Sure. Well, there are some entities that 
stood up because they saw a need, and they went in debt. And 
now they can't qualify because they are already up and running. 
They are not expanding, they started from fresh, but I would 
encourage you, maybe we could talk offline, to not forget those 
people who put everything on the line and went to the bank and 
mortgaged everything in order to set up a plant, but now they 
don't qualify just because of the timing.
    Anyway, I would appreciate if we could talk further about 
that, and we don't leave anybody out who has stood up and 
really tried to help in that regard.
    There also is some recent news regarding, and it is 
exciting, there was a successful transplant of a heart of a 
genetically engineered pig into a human, and that is something 
certainly in advancements that we can be pleased about of 
biotechnology. But unfortunately, it is also a stark reminder 
of the lack of a clear path to commercialization for animal 
biotechnology products intended for agriculture rather than 
medical purposes. For example, the University of Missouri in my 
district has been a leader in developing PRRS-resistant hogs, 
and because of the current process and jurisdictional mayhem 
between USDA and FDA, this technology is not yet available for 
producers, and yet, China and other countries are moving 
forward very rapidly to get to this point, but we already have 
that technology.
    Mr. Secretary, as we move closer to having a confirmed FDA 
Commissioner, how do you plan to engage with your counterparts 
at HHS to finalize the work started on the advanced notice of 
proposed rulemaking and MOU on the genetically engineered 
animals?
    Secretary Vilsack. Well, Congresswoman, we actually thought 
we had done that work with the assigned MOU, but there is some 
indication from the FDA and Department of Health and Human 
Services that they don't believe that there was authority for 
the folks who signed that on behalf of FDA. So, we obviously 
would, as soon as the FDA Commissioner is confirmed, we will 
work very closely with that individual to make sure that there 
are ongoing discussions and negotiations to complete that MOU. 
We understand and appreciate the necessity of having clarity, 
and we are anxious to have that.
    Mrs. Hartzler. That is good. That would be great.
    Reuters reported that the Biden Administration is 
considering lowering the 2022 ethanol blender mandate, below 
the proposed 15 billion gallons potentially hamstringing the 
biofuels industry. Are you aware of these reports, and do you 
agree that cutting biofuel blended would only serve to hurt 
rural communities?
    The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired. Mr. 
Secretary, you may follow up on that.
    Secretary Vilsack. I would just mention, the biofuel levels 
for 2021, 2022 are the highest in the history of the program, 
which indicates a projected growth. And in addition, the 
Department of Agriculture is providing $700 million of 
additional assistance to the biofuel industry to encourage it 
to get it through the pandemic situation, as well as $100 
[million] to expand access to higher blends. So, I think I can 
make the case that the Administration is supporting this 
industry. Sixty-five waivers that were denied by the EPA that 
might very well have been granted during the previous 
Administration.
    [The information referred to is located on p. 126.]
    The Chairman. The gentlewoman from Connecticut, Mrs. Hayes, 
who is also the Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Nutrition, 
Oversight, and Department Operations is recognized now for 5 
minutes.
    Mrs. Hayes. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, 
Secretary Vilsack for being here today.
    The first thing I would like to discuss is food access in 
rural areas through the SNAP Online Purchasing Pilot. Since the 
creation of the pilot program in 2019 and the onset of the 
COVID-19 pandemic, SNAP online purchasing has expanded into 48 
states and over 75 SNAP retailers. In Connecticut, SNAP 
recipients can buy groceries online through five different 
grocery stores, though none are small, independent businesses. 
However, the eligibility to actually utilize the program is not 
equitable across the country. Although most states have SNAP 
online purchasing retailers, the retailers do not always serve 
all ZIP Codes within a state. According to a 2019 study, online 
purchasing and delivery services were available to only 31 
percent of Census tracks considered in rural food deserts. In 
comparison, online food purchasing and delivery services were 
available in 94 percent of Census tracks considered urban food 
deserts.
    Secretary Vilsack, Congress has provided $30 million for 
the USDA to invest in SNAP online purchasing and other SNAP 
technological modernizations throughout the pandemic. How has 
the USDA used the funds Congress has provided to make SNAP 
online purchasing a reality in all rural areas, and how can 
Congress assist the USDA in making the programs more accessible 
in these areas?
    Secretary Vilsack. Well Congresswoman, the information that 
I have is that today, 97 percent of households have the 
opportunity for online purchasing. Obviously, I will be happy 
to go back and make sure those numbers are accurate.
    But to the extent that there is a need for a continued 
focus on rural remote areas, I would say a couple of things. 
First of all, we are looking forward at some point in time 
early in 2022 in announcing a Healthy Food Financing Initiative 
by using resources from the American Rescue Plan to begin 
aggressively addressing the issue of food deserts. Part of the 
issue here is not just the access to online, but also the 
ability of having facilities to basically provide the food to 
folks, so that is one thing that we expect to do, and a focus 
of that effort will obviously be on rural and remote areas.
    Second, we are also making sure that we are helping food 
banks who also help to service those same individuals be able 
to have access to resources to be able to figure out ways in 
which they can more easily and more completely----
    Mrs. Hayes. I can't hear anymore. Stop the timer.
    Staff. We will address the technical issue. Please bear 
with us. Thank you.
    Mrs. Hayes. Thank you.
    The Chairman. We have three engineers on the way up, and 
so, we will pause until they can get here.
    I think you are on. Bravo. Please continue.
    Secretary Vilsack. Mr. Chairman, let me, if I could finish 
the last comment, and it has to do with the role of the food 
banks in trying to respond to rural and remote food needs.
    We have also provided $100 million of what we refer to as 
reach and resiliency resources for food banks across the 
country, encouraging them to look for ways that they can 
address the need for food security in rural and remote areas, 
and also to have the infrastructure that will allow them to 
store fresh produce, dairy products, and so forth, 
refrigeration and storage capacity. So, hopefully we are 
addressing in a multitude of ways the need for access to food 
in those rural remote areas.
    Mrs. Hayes. Thank you. I appreciate that answer.
    My second comment is that Members of the NODO Subcommittee 
have been working diligently to address veteran hunger. The 
USDA's Economic Research Service released a report last year 
finding that more than 11 percent of working age veterans lived 
in food-insecure households, and that veterans have a 7.4 
percent greater risk of food insecurity than the general 
population.
    To address this deeply concerning reality, how is the USDA 
working with the VA to target food assistance to veterans, and 
how is the USDA working to ensure eligible veterans know about 
their eligibility to take advantage of these types of programs?
    Secretary Vilsack. We are working with Veterans Affairs to 
make sure that as individuals leave service--and Department of 
Defense, as they leave service, that they are fully and 
completely aware of the resources that are available to them, 
including the ability to access SNAP benefits. We will continue 
to work with both the VA and the Defense Department to make 
sure that we are doing the very best job we possibly can to 
make sure that those resources are available.
    This is a sad state of affairs that folks who have served 
our country are in need of this kind of assistance, and we need 
to make sure that they get it.
    Mrs. Hayes. Thank you, Secretary Vilsack. We had a hearing 
in our subcommittee and heard from veterans, and it is tragic 
that this is happening here in this country, and we have a 
responsibility to do better. So, I look forward to working with 
you to make sure that we close those gaps and support our 
veterans.
    I am coming to the end of my time, and I will leave you 
with one last question that perhaps if you don't have time, you 
can follow up on.
    Between 2016 and 2020, the number of full-time employees at 
the USDA decreased from nearly 94,900 to approximately 86,400. 
Has this decrease affected USDA's ability to communicate with 
states and producers about new programs and the process to 
participate in them, and how can Congress assist USDA in 
ensuring you have adequate staffing levels that you need to 
take on the responsibilities we have tasked you with, 
especially as we work towards this upcoming farm bill?
    Secretary Vilsack. I think one of the areas where we have 
dealt with the decline of workforce is in the Natural Resources 
Conservation Service and in our Forest Service, and in our 
ability to maintain----
    [The information referred to is located on p. 126.]
    The Chairman. The lady's time has expired.
    The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Davis, is now recognized 
for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Davis. Thank you, Chairman Scott and Ranking Member 
Thompson for holding this hearing, and also to my friend, 
Secretary Vilsack, for coming to testify again today. It is 
great to see you. I get to ask questions a little sooner than 
when we first met a few years ago when you were sitting at that 
same table.
    Mr. Secretary, back in November we held a hearing on the 
supply chain crisis, and the consensus was that every sector is 
actually being crushed by this Administration's rampant 
spending agenda that is really driving high costs and 
inflation. These impacts are being felt by our constituents 
everywhere. They see it in the empty grocery store shelves, 
they pay more at the pump, and at their local businesses, and 
as you just mentioned, in USDA's case, struggling to find 
employees. There are approximately 11 million work ready adults 
certified by their state workforce agencies that are receiving 
SNAP benefits but could start working immediately to fill the 
approximately 10.6 million open jobs that we have. We have an 
entire intact workforce that could be moving products, stocking 
shelves, and filling jobs. But that is if we prioritize 
employment and training programs to train these individuals. We 
could immediately solve a huge piece of the puzzle of our 
supply chain crisis.
    Mr. Secretary, I know the Administration has issued several 
funding announcements to address the supply chain crisis, but 
how can we get America back to work after 2 years of paying 
people to stay home?
    Secretary Vilsack. I had a little hard time understanding 
the question, but I think I will try to respond to it.
    One of the things that we are doing is obviously individual 
states have the ability to make decisions concerning the 
administration of SNAP and the ability to encourage folks who 
are able-bodied to get back into the workforce. Some states 
have exercised that power; other states are still in the 
process of deciding whether to exercise that power. So, part of 
this is that it is important for states to analyze their 
current circumstance and make a decision about what to do.
    In the meantime, I think we are looking at ways in which we 
can provide help and assistance at USDA. One of the areas that 
we are concerned about, frankly, is the fact that there are 
agricultural products that are available and ready for export, 
but for whatever reason, there are empty containers that are 
leaving our ports because shippers are making the decision that 
it is more profitable for them to have empty containers moved 
back to Asia than it is to fill them with agricultural 
products. So, we are looking for ways in which we can utilize 
resources to fill those containers. Now, as we do, I think that 
is going to create opportunities not only for agriculture, but 
potentially for additional job efforts.
    Nobody anticipated, I don't think, Congressman, the number 
of people who made the life decision to retire. This obviously 
is a challenge, and it is one that we are going to have to take 
a look at creatively to try to address.
    Mr. Davis. It is a challenge, and I agree, but I also think 
there may be some ways to utilize the SNAP Education and 
Training program to get our SNAP beneficiaries the training 
that they need to go fill jobs that are available to replace 
those who retired. So, I would urge you----
    Secretary Vilsack. I am sorry. We just finished a rule on 
improving the employment and training under the SNAP Program, 
and it is important to talk about this because, again, it is 
the state's responsibility to take the resources we are 
providing them, millions of dollars. In many cases, states 
don't spend those resources, and that is unfortunate, and in 
many cases, they don't do a particularly good job. They know 
who the SNAP beneficiaries are, and they know where the 
workforce needs are, because they have workforce development 
offices. And what this new rule is requiring states to do is to 
do a better job of marrying that information and data so that 
they can create the opportunities for folks to be gainfully 
employed.
    So, hopefully this new rule will address some of the 
concerns that you are raising.
    Mr. Davis. Great. That is great. I would love to continue 
to work with you and the agency on ensuring that our states do 
the right thing and use the program to their benefit.
    I don't have a lot of time left, Mr. Secretary. I do want 
to make sure, obviously prioritizing higher blends of ethanol 
and biodiesel fuels we believe are going to help reduce 
emissions and help lower prices at the pump. I just wanted to 
get your response on USDA's Higher Blends Infrastructure 
Incentive Program. It has been successful at increasing the 
availability. Do you have any further plans to bolster the 
HBIIP Program?
    Secretary Vilsack. I think we just announced about $100 
million to encourage expansion of higher blended fuels. I would 
point out in the 9 seconds left that there is also a tremendous 
opportunity in aviation fuel. The grand challenge that was 
recently announced creates a tremendous opportunity for the 
biofuel industry for expansion.
    Mr. Davis. Great.
    The Chairman. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Delgado, who 
is Chairman of the Subcommittee on Commodity Exchanges, Energy, 
and Credit, is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Delgado. Thank you, Chairman Scott, for holding this 
hearing, and I want to thank Secretary Vilsack for testifying 
before the Committee today.
    Secretary Vilsack, one issue I have to raise relates to 
milk consumption, a priority that I know you and I both share, 
as we have spoken about it previously. Including when you came 
to my district and met with my in-district Agriculture Advisory 
Committee.
    Ranking Member Thompson and I have offered bipartisan 
legislation to allow schools to serve all varieties of milk, 
including whole milk. I know that we are limited by current law 
which stipulates that milk offerings in schools must align with 
the most recent Dietary Guidelines, but I am concerned that 
when the guidelines were last updated in 2020, the Dietary 
Guideline Advisory Committee, DGAC, didn't appear to consider 
some recent science that pointed toward positive or neutral 
effects of dairy fat. With the whole milk being the preferred 
choice when compared to skim or low-fat milk options, we know 
it has a clear track record for improving milk consumption. We 
also know that the DGAC wants to increase milk consumption. So, 
accordingly, I do hope the next go-round the DGAC will at least 
more carefully consider the full body of science.
    I also appreciate that when you visited my district last 
summer, you spoke about examining ways to encourage whole milk 
in schools, possibly even through a pilot program, and I would 
love to have you, if possible, elaborate on what specific 
actions your Department is considering and what we can do on 
our end to help make that happen?
    Secretary Vilsack. Well, Congressman, one of the key 
problems with the issue of whole milk is cost. If you talk to 
school nutrition folks out there in the countryside, they 
operate on a very difficult and tight budget, and part of the 
issue is cost.
    One thing we can do in terms of additional consumption of 
milk is to take a look at ways in which the current supply of 
milk is being made available, and whether or not it is a 
barrier to consumption. If you look at the research, you are 
going to find that the containers that are used in schools are 
a barrier. They are difficult to open and so, kids oftentimes 
just pass on the milk. Oftentimes the temperature of the milk 
is not what it needs to be. So, we are looking at ways in which 
we can provide resources to schools to basically create a way 
in which the milk can be distributed at a very cold 
temperature, and in containers that are less cumbersome as a 
way of increasing milk consumption.
    I would point out that while milk consumption is down in 
this country, dairy consumption is not down. It is actually up. 
We may not drink as much as we used to, but we certainly eat 
more than we used to in terms of cheese and yogurt and things 
of that nature, and we have instituted those products into the 
school lunch and school breakfast programs.
    Mr. Delgado. I appreciate that.
    I do have one other question, but just to follow up in 
terms of the cost. I know you mentioned the manner in which the 
containers are presented could be helpful, but is there any 
thought being done or any thought being given to the ways costs 
can be addressed from the agency?
    Secretary Vilsack. Well, you all have the opportunity to 
make a determination and to provide the budget and resources 
that would enable the reimbursement rate and the resources 
available to schools could be increased to provide additional 
resources.
    Right now as a result of the pandemic, we are doing what we 
can to increase access to resources, as school districts are 
faced with some serious challenges. One of the reasons there is 
a challenge is that not only--food is--we are changing the way 
in which and where we eat food, about ten percent more in-home 
consumption today than pre-pandemic, and that has created a 
need for a shift away from supplying to restaurants versus 
supplying it to a grocery store. Different packaging, different 
sized containers, et cetera, all of which the supply chain is 
working through as we hopefully, at some point in time, return 
to whatever the new normal is.
    Mr. Delgado. I appreciate that. I see that I am bumped up 
against my 5 minutes, so I will circle back to you at a later 
date. But I will yield back the rest of my time.
    Thank you.
    The Chairman. The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Allen, is 
recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. Allen, you may want to unmute.
    Mr. Allen. There we go. Can you hear me okay?
    The Chairman. Yes, I can.
    Mr. Allen. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, 
Mr. Secretary. We have been wanting to hear from you. We are 
almost 1 year into this Administration, and we have been 
wanting to hear from you, particularly now, we are a nation in 
crisis. You go to the gas pump. You may get gas, you may not. 
But, we have a war on fossil fuel. We also seem to have a war 
on agriculture. In my district, we have farmers trying to 
export cotton, peanuts, pecans, you name it, and we can't get 
containers loaded for whatever reason. China and their 
situation, containers are going back empty. So, we have just 
crisis after crisis after crisis on the supply chain issue, and 
I am sure you are going to hear a lot more about that.
    One issue that is specific to my district is, as you are 
aware, the EPA banned the food tolerance of a critical 
pesticide, chlorpyrifos, and right now, EPA's decision is in 
conflict with actually what USDA pointed out that our science 
supports the continued safe use of this chemical. Typically in 
these situations, USDA would go to OMB and there would be some 
kind of ruling there. Where are we with the situation on this 
particular chemical, and what are you doing about it?
    Secretary Vilsack. That is a good question, Congressman, 
and I will tell you that we have ongoing conversations and 
discussions with EPA. I don't know that we have necessarily 
reached a consensus, but those discussions are ongoing.
    Mr. Allen. Well, we are getting close to planting season 
here, so there is a sense of urgency as you might understand.
    As far as the situation with the cost of food at the 
grocery store, I am getting hammered with that in the district. 
Where are we with that, and what are you doing as far as 
investigative work, and what might happen to relieve some of 
that pressure?
    Secretary Vilsack. Well, I think there are a couple, first 
of all, there has been, in some of the areas where we have seen 
increased prices, the good news is there has been some 
deceleration in the last couple of months. Hopefully that 
continues. Meat in particular has gone down just a bit.
    This is basically strong demand, and as I indicated 
earlier, strong demand globally and nationally, and 
essentially, we are changing our patterns of how we eat and 
where we eat, and the supply chain is in the process of 
adjusting to the fact we are eating more at home and less out 
at restaurants. We are trying to address the issue of ports by 
encouraging longer hours at the ports. I mentioned the efforts 
to try to get more drivers in trucks with apprenticeship 
programs and CDL licenses being issued. We have popup ports 
that are being encouraged to create movement of those 
containers and getting them into the stream of commerce. We are 
continuing to look for ways in which we can provide help and 
assistance to families that are struggling. That is why we have 
the SNAP Program and the review of the Thrifty Food Program. 
That is why we provided additional assistance to schools in the 
form of additional cash as well as additional food products 
that we are purchasing. We have the summer EBT Program and 
encouraging states to, again, apply for or to provide their 
plans. So, there are a variety of things we are doing to try to 
help folks through this difficult period, while we are trying 
to balance supply and demand.
    Mr. Allen. Also, recent attacks on our packaging 
industries--of course, we talked--you are taking action as far 
as the meat industry, but our chicken folks are very concerned 
about production as far as line speeds and things like that. 
Obviously, have you been on the front lines and talked to these 
folks about the issues they are dealing with, obviously 
workforce? I mean, we got workforce problems in agriculture.
    I have about 18 seconds. Tell me what you are doing there.
    Secretary Vilsack. Well, we are working through on the pork 
side a Federal case that basically denied our rule. We are 
working with nine entities, nine businesses. Five have applied 
for a waiver. We are in the process of reviewing those waivers. 
We have created a waiver system.
    On the poultry side, we have asked for the court to remand 
the litigation back to USDA so we can try to create a similar 
waiver process in the poultry area. So, we are focused on that.
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
    The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Rush, is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Rush. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this 
hearing.
    Secretary Vilsack, I am so delighted that you once again 
are with us here today before this Committee, and I want you to 
know that I really appreciate your continued commitment to 
working with me and the other Members of this Committee.
    Mr. Secretary, we really want to work with you. We really 
do, and I am delighted that this feeling is mutually felt.
    I recently mentioned to you there is too much potential 
agriculturally in my City of Chicago, and its immediately 
surrounding areas. Chicago was at one time and still is a hub 
for railroads that connect our nation to more purposes of 
agriculture. It is indeed a place where there are a lot of 
bigger companies, bigger land that can be used specifically for 
vertical farming.
    Mr. Secretary, I think I might have shared with you that 
for decades, Chicago was the nation's flower capital, the 
pickle capital, and the lettuce capital for our nation, and 
celery capital for our nation. And I think the one thing that 
Chicago has the potential to be significant in the agricultural 
sector.
    With that said, Mr. Secretary, I want to discuss the 
prognosis for Black farmers under your leadership. As you well 
know, our nation's Black farmers are in desperate need of 
assistance. In 1920, there was almost one million Black 
farmers, of which my grandfather was one, accounting for 14 
percent of farmers at that particular time. In 2017, there were 
less than 50,000 Black farmers, making up only 1.4 percent of 
the farming population.
    Mr. Secretary, without action, this situation will only get 
worse. It was recently reported that direct loan applications 
are significantly more likely to be rejected for Black farmers 
than for White farmers, and even when approved, the loans for 
the Black farmers are far less than loans for White farmers. 
Moreover, Black farmers all too often still feel as though they 
are unwelcome in these local USDA field offices.
    I know that you are working hard, your Department is 
working hard at your direction to reverse the injustice once 
and for all. And my question to you, Mr. Secretary, is will you 
please outline exactly how USDA is working to help minority 
farmers and particularly Black farmers?
    Secretary Vilsack. Congressman, thank you very much for the 
question.
    When I saw the statistics concerning the declining rate of 
African American farmer applications, I asked the team to take 
an in depth look at the reason. And what we found was that it 
oftentimes in some cases the application was withdrawn. In some 
cases, the application was incomplete. In some cases, the 
application just simply didn't have the cash flow that made 
sense. A lot of different reasons. But I think the fundamental 
concern and the fundamental challenge is that folks do not have 
the technical assistance to be able to understand precisely how 
to access USDA programs.
    And for that reason, under the American Rescue Plan, we are 
using resources to provide assistance to create cooperating 
groups that can connect with those African American farmers, 
those Black farmers, to provide the technical assistance, the 
financial planning, the business planning, the development of 
applications so that there is more success.
    So, the first order of business here is to get folks the 
kind of technical assistance they need, and the USDA has 
expanded significantly efforts in that regard, and we are going 
to continue to expand efforts. There is a lot more I can say, 
but I see my time is up.
    The Chairman. The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. 
Rouzer, is recognized now for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Rouzer. Well, thank you, Chairman Scott, and Mr. 
Secretary, always good to see you. I appreciate you being here 
today.
    I want to follow up on this inflation aspect. Certainly, 
supply and demand is obviously a key component, but government 
policy, particularly bad government policy, affects supply and 
demand. Lack of labor is a big issue. When you pay folks not to 
work, that exacerbates that problem. Excessive spending that is 
not needed, you got too many dollars facing too few goods. The 
easy money policies of the Fed, your restriction of oil and 
natural gas development in this country, all that plays a part 
in this inflation crisis that we are seeing.
    I note that the Administration and you went after the meat 
and poultry industry pretty strong not long ago, and I know 
also that the Administration is pursuing additional GIPSA rules 
on these industries, which will only further drive risk, which 
increases cost, which increases inflation for consumers. And 
so, I just really push back on these new GIPSA rules as 
strongly as I possibly can, and note that multiple Congresses 
have rejected these proposals in the past. Are you still intent 
on moving forward with these, given the inflation crisis that 
we have in this country?
    Secretary Vilsack. Well, Congressman, I don't think the 
GIPSA rules are connected to inflation. I think the strong 
demand that we are seeing and a growing economy and an economy 
that is growing at a record rate is in part a response.
    Let me just simply say about GIPSA. Farmers deserve a fair 
shake in the marketplace, and they don't get a fair shake. They 
do not get a fair shake in the marketplace. Poultry producers 
are not given a fair shake in the tournament system. It is not 
transparent. They have very little rights. They have the rug 
pulled out from them on multiple occasions, terrible stories of 
investments they make only to find that the integrator 
basically pulls business from them. So, this is about 
fundamental fairness. It is about giving farmers a fair shake, 
and you know what, I think that is the Department's business. 
That is our role is to make sure that we are giving farmers a 
fair shake, number one. Number two, it is important to expand 
capacity. When 85 percent of beef processing is in the hands of 
four companies, when 70 percent of pork processing is in the 
hands of four companies, when over 50 percent of poultry 
processing is in the hands of four companies, it is simply too 
concentrated. There is not enough capacity and there is not 
enough competition. And frankly, if we had more competition, we 
would give consumers choice. And if consumers have choice, I 
guarantee that is also going to impact and effect price in a 
positive way. So, we are going to continue to do this.
    Mr. Rouzer. Mr. Secretary, new rules and regulations only 
add to cost and drive further consolidation.
    Secretary Vilsack. It is about fairness.
    Mr. Rouzer. Moving forward here.
    As you probably know--I hope that you know--Appropriations 
Subcommittee Chairwoman DeLauro has included a provision in the 
House-passed Fiscal Year 2022 approps bill to reduce line 
speeds in poultry plants, which all that is going to do is 
reduce supply. You reduce supply and you have high demand, you 
are driving up costs. What are we going to do about that?
    Secretary Vilsack. Well, I think it is important for us to 
understand that there are three dynamics here. There is a need 
for continued farmer productivity and profit; there is a need 
for worker safety; and there is a need for the processors as 
well. And the goal here is not necessarily to pit worker safety 
against farmer profits, or farmer profits against processor. 
The goal here is to try to figure out how to balance.
    I think there is a way forward. I think we found this with 
a pilot program that we have in the pork industry where we are 
encouraging folks to look at worker safety and also to look at 
line speed, and I think there is a way to find a common ground 
here. And that is what we are going to try to continue to try 
to do at USDA. I am encouraged by the fact that five of the 
nine pork processors are looking for a line speed waiver so 
that they can have a higher line speed, but at the same time, 
protecting their workers. That seems to me to be the way we 
ought to approach this.
    Mr. Rouzer. Mr. Secretary, I only have about 20 seconds 
left.
    Real quickly switching gears. African Swine Fever, I know 
you are concerned about that and I am sure the Department is 
doing everything possible to keep it out of this country. Can 
you provide us a quick update on that front?
    Secretary Vilsack. Significant investment of time and 
resources in the Dominican Republic, working with them to put 
together a plan. Dr. Shere has spent literally weeks in the 
Dominican Republic----
    [The information referred to is located on p. 127.]
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
    And now, I recognize the gentlewoman from Ohio, Ms. Brown, 
for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Brown. Thank you, Chairman Scott and Ranking Member 
Thompson, for holding this hearing, and thank you, Secretary 
Vilsack for joining us today to review the state of the rural 
economy and operations of the Department of Ag.
    As we know too well, COVID-19 has taken a heavy toll on 
many of our communities, and deepened the hunger crisis. USDA's 
Economic Research Service found that while the number of 
Americans who are food-insecure remained level through 2020, 
hunger increased for Black and Latino families, and the food-
insecure household rate was significantly higher than the 
national average, 21.7 percent versus 10.5. Unfortunately, the 
pandemic's impact on hunger was felt quite inequitably.
    Food insecurity is an unconscionable, crippling reality for 
far too many Americans, and our communities cannot flourish 
when so many people, especially our students, still lack basic 
regular access to nutritious food.
    That is why I introduced the Afterschool Meals Act (H.R. 
6357). My legislation will alleviate hunger amongst the most 
vulnerable students by enabling schools to provide healthy and 
nutritious meals to children in afterschool care. I am also a 
co-lead of Congresswoman Alma Adams' coming legislation that 
seeks to combat college hunger by providing enrolled students 
with access to information about SNAP benefits.
    My first question is on September 16, 2015, the Federal 
Government announced the U.S. 2030 Food Loss and Waste 
Reduction Goal, the first Federal goal of its kind that seeks 
to cut food loss and waste in half by the year 2030. What is 
the USDA doing to advance the United States 2030 Food Loss and 
Waste Reduction Goal?
    Secretary Vilsack. We are working with what we refer to as 
champions, an extended group of industry leaders that are 
working with us to try to identify ways in which food waste can 
be reduced. We are working with schools, we are working with 
universities, we are working with the food industry, we are 
working with grocery stores, we are working with restaurants, 
we are working with food processing companies, all designed to 
find creative ways to deal with the issue of food waste.
    Roughly 30 percent of what we grow and raise in this 
country is wasted, and it is an unfortunate circumstance and 
one in which we are very serious about reducing. We are looking 
for a set of conferences and webinars in 2022 to raise the 
awareness of this issue. We are going to take a look at what 
other countries are doing. I know that there are some 
innovative and creative opportunities for food waste reduction 
in Asian countries in particular, so there is an opportunity 
for us to learn from that as well.
    Portion sizes are critically important, and we are 
obviously encouraging folks, especially in restaurants, to 
think about that and to give people choices in terms of portion 
sizes.
    Ms. Brown. Thank you so much.
    My second question is as mandated by the 2018 Farm Bill, in 
December 2021, USDA completed a report that assesses the 
progress of food loss and waste efforts. The report concludes 
that there is a lack of overall funding for these programs. Can 
you outline these programs for us?
    Secretary Vilsack. I am sorry, Congresswoman, which 
programs?
    Ms. Brown. In the farm bill, the USDA completed a report of 
the progress of food loss and waste efforts. There is a lack of 
overall funding, I understand. Can you outline the issues 
around the funding for these programs?
    Secretary Vilsack. Well, I will have a better understanding 
of that when we utilize a portion of the American Rescue Plan 
resources to create more incentives and more resources 
available for food waste efforts.
    One of the things that we are doing with reference to urban 
agriculture is expanding the compost opportunity with grants, 
and there is a potential opportunity for us to significantly 
increase our investment in compost, which obviously would begin 
to address food waste.
    One additional way is to encourage, obviously, I mentioned 
portion size reduction, and then, of course, there is the issue 
of recycling as well. So, there are a multitude of strategies, 
and with additional resources from the American Rescue Plan, we 
should be able to provide additional incentives to advance 
those strategies so that people become more aware of them.
    Ms. Brown. Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
    The Chairman. The gentleman from South Dakota, Mr. Johnson, 
is now recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. 
Secretary.
    We have talked a lot about livestock issues in the past 
year, sir. Obviously a great source of interest to you and me. 
I mean, the Administration has had some rhetoric suggesting a 
fair amount of wrongdoing or perhaps anti-competitive behavior 
among the large four, and there is so much frustration out in 
cattle country about these DOJ investigations or about Packers 
and Stockyards activity that takes place, and we don't really 
get any resolution. And I understand there are some reasons for 
that, but I just wanted to pick your brain, sir. I mean, if we 
have concerns about the marketplace and we announce an 
investigation seemingly every year and we never drive to a 
conclusion, does that actually benefit the marketplace at all? 
Your thoughts?
    Secretary Vilsack. Well, I think there is action by the 
Department of Justice on a number of cases that are going 
through the process, and so, you have to let them go through 
the process before you can make a determination of whether or 
not they were legitimate or not. We recently announced a joint 
effort between the Department of Justice and USDA providing an 
area and an opportunity for people to report anti-competitive 
activities so that we can learn more of what is going on, on 
the ground. In the meantime, obviously what we are doing at 
USDA is to try to focus on three things: first, creating more 
competition and capacity; second, creating more price discovery 
to the extent that we can get more information on cash sales 
and more studies to do that--we are obviously interested in 
that so we have a better understanding of what the market is; 
and third, making sure that farmers get a fair shake and that 
they have the ability if they are not being treated fairly to 
basically raise issues, and that goes to the Packers and 
Stockyards.
    And finally, we also want to make sure that consumers get 
the right information on the country of origin in the grocery 
store. If there is a label on ground beef, a pound of ground 
beef that says, ``Product of the U.S.,'' we want to make sure 
that consumers understand precisely what that means. So, we are 
in the process of doing a fairly extensive survey to find out 
if consumers understand what that means, and whether they place 
value on it.
    Mr. Johnson. Well, I think all of that is very well said, 
and I applaud your efforts in many of those areas. And I would 
agree. The current ``Product of the USA'' label, right now, I 
think it is misleading. I think it provides inaccurate 
information to consumers, and we have had, listen. I am not 
going to hold you fully accountable or accountable at all for 
promises the last guy made, but we have heard for years now 
that we were going to reform the ``Product of the USA,'' and I 
hope you can get it done, sir, in a way that maybe others 
couldn't.
    I want to get back to these investigations, though. You are 
right. We need to let them run their course, but we had USDA 
conduct an investigation that really some sort of an interim 
report long after the Holcomb fire, but it didn't really drive 
to ground some of these accusations about anti-competitive 
behavior. Can we expect an update, or what is the status of 
that investigation?
    Secretary Vilsack. I will have to get back to you on that, 
Congressman, because I am not prepared today to tell you 
exactly what the status of that is. I would be happy to get 
back, our staff will get back to your staff on that.
    I would say that I have talked to the Attorney General. He 
and his team is very sincere about this. They want to make sure 
that the playing field is level, and I think we should all be 
in for that.
    [The information referred to is located on p. 128.]
    Mr. Johnson. You mentioned price discovery is critically 
important to a functioning marketplace, and I think you are 
most certainly aware that last month the House passed out 410 
yes votes to 11 no votes, the Cattle Contract Library. I think 
the White House has done a good job of calling out support for 
a number of different legislative proposals. Are there any 
discussions internally with your team, sir, with the White 
House about doing what you can to see that the Cattle Contract 
Library (H.R. 5609) also gets through the Senate? It would 
provide the much-needed transparency you talked about.
    Secretary Vilsack. We are very supportive of that effort, 
and very supportive of trying to get information so people know 
what a legitimate contract is, and what reasonable contract 
provisions are.
    Mr. Johnson. And then finally, sir, I know that there are 
concerns about confidentiality with the data that is released 
currently. I think there is some belief that maybe 
confidentiality issues stand in the way of price discovery, can 
there be some flexibility in those provisions, going forward?
    Secretary Vilsack. You have to--smart enough people ought 
to be able to figure this out. To be able to get the kind of 
information you need to make sure that your market is fair, 
while at the same time making sure that you are not going 
overboard, and that is the goal here. We will certainly work 
towards that goal.
    Mr. Johnson. Looking forward to working with you.
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Johnson. And with that, I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentlewoman from Maine, Ms. Pingree, is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you 
for holding this hearing. Secretary Vilsack, it is wonderful to 
have you in front of us, and great to hear your answers to all 
of our questions today.
    I want to particularly commend you on speaking as favorably 
as you did around the issues related to GIPSA, the lack of 
fairness in the tournament system, line speeds. These are just 
such critically important issues to address, both for our 
farmers, and also the health and safety of people who work in 
our production facilities. So, thank you for that.
    I will get on to my questions. You know all too well that 
Danone recently announced that they will be pulling out of the 
Northeast, terminating the contracts of 89 organic dairy farms 
in the region, including, unfortunately, 14 farms in Maine. So, 
in response to this, there has been a stakeholder taskforce 
that was convened, and they have submitted a list of over 30 
recommendations to you last month, to both support the farms 
who are losing their contracts, and to ensure the long-term 
success of the organic dairy sector in our region, which has 
been so important to our dairy farms.
    These recommendations encompass everything from building 
more regional processing capacity to developing new markets, 
addressing transportation and distribution challenges, a lot of 
things that could be done.
    So, could you talk to me a little bit about the steps that 
the USDA is taking to evaluate and act on those 
recommendations?
    Secretary Vilsack. Well, immediately following Danone's 
announcement, we basically put together a meeting of 
commissioners and secretaries of agriculture, and encouraged 
the development of that report. I am certainly pleased to see 
the comprehensive nature of it addressing a multitude of 
issues, issues that not only does the Federal Government have 
to be serious about, but also state governments as well, and 
also the dairy industry. Certainly glad to see that Stonyfield 
has stepped forward and made a commitment to provide help and 
assistance, and that Danone has also extended the deadline, if 
you will.
    I have seen the report. I have seen the recommendations. I 
asked for a meeting of our team so that we can go through those 
recommendations and find out what we can essentially do in 
terms of providing help and assistance. I think we will be able 
to help on some of the recommendations. I think other 
recommendations are probably more appropriately done at the 
state and local level and the industry level, but we will be 
getting a response back to the task force in the very near 
future with what we think we are able to do. And the good news 
is I think we have some resources that we can bring to bear to 
provide help and assistance, as we are deeply concerned about 
that, and it is reflective, frankly, of some of the challenges 
that we have in other regions of the country.
    Ms. Pingree. Well, thank you for that. I am pleased to hear 
that you are going to come out with some of those responses 
soon, and I do agree that some of the money that has been made 
available to deal with the issues that we are dealing with in 
the supply chain and with farmers around the country should be 
helpful to this.
    And I just want to reiterate, since I know you have made 
both climate change and the issues related to consolidation in 
agriculture top of mind, and an important priority for the 
Department. The importance of protecting organic farms when we 
are thinking about issues related to climate change is so 
critically important. We do not want to lose that capacity, so 
keeping them operating is a high, high priority for our New 
England delegation.
    I also wanted to ask you about climate-smart agriculture. I 
really appreciated your comments in the testimony about 
ensuring that the USDA's climate-smart agriculture and forestry 
partnerships will be available to producers of all size, all 
methods, all locations, and all types of production, which we 
care deeply about.
    So, even though I know you are working out some of the 
details, can you help us understand how you will structure the 
program to ensure this commitment is met?
    Secretary Vilsack. The goal here, obviously, and hopefully 
soon, is to announce the framework and the application process. 
And the hope is that we are able to make some decisions on 
applications in mid-2022. And again, I think we are structuring 
this in a way that small-sized operators, different types of 
operations, different production methods will be respected. 
Different geographic challenges will also be addressed, and so, 
it is going to be a concerted effort here to try to respond to 
all of agriculture's need to participate in this effort and to 
take full advantage of the resources that are available. And we 
are going to make sure that underserved producers and 
underserved communities are also not forgotten in this process. 
That is the commitment, and I can guarantee to you that we will 
make sure that we live up to that commitment.
    Ms. Pingree. Great. Well, I really do appreciate the 
commitment. I know from dealing with so many programs it is one 
of the biggest issues we hear from our region to make sure that 
as we implement these programs, they meet the needs of our 
farmers.
    I am out of time, but I greatly appreciate your time here, 
and I will submit a couple other questions for the record. 
Thank you.
    The Chairman. The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Baird, is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Baird. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and you and the Ranking 
Member for holding this hearing today. And I want to 
congratulate the Secretary for serving once again as our 
Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and I really 
appreciate him being here today.
    I will say to you, Mr. Secretary, the first part of my 
comments you can take a brief breather, because you have 
already answered the question, but I wanted to comment just to 
reinforce that. And that deals with biotechnology, because I 
really think it is going to play a major role in our ability in 
agriculture to be able to feed the number of growing 
populations around the world.
    Even last fall, Representative Plaskett and I sent a 
bipartisan letter that was signed by 37 Members of the 
Committee to you and the FDA acting Administrator, Janet 
Woodcock, urging the Administration to make progress on 
implementing a more efficient science and risk-based regulatory 
system that will allow a path to the market for animal 
biotechnology products. I was really glad to hear that you are 
working on an MOU, Memorandum of Understanding.
    And to emphasize the importance of biotechnology, the pig's 
heart that Representative Hartzler mentioned that was going 
into a human being was somewhat genetically modified to make it 
less resistant by human bodies.
    I just think that we think that the USDA needs to take a 
lead in developing a regulatory framework for animal 
biotechnology, that encourages agriculture innovation and 
provides access to valuable new technologies. One of the things 
I am thinking about there, for example, is that we have feed 
ingredients that we can reduce the methane from cattle by 36 
percent, but yet, that has to go through an FDA process rather 
than USDA. So, that part of my question period deals with 
reinforcing that idea and so on. If you have comments, you are 
welcome to make those at this time, and then I do have a 
question after that.
    Secretary Vilsack. Let me just respond to the feed issue 
that you just raised.
    I agree with you. I think we do need to modernize our 
regulatory process as it relates to those kinds of feed 
additives so that we don't treat them necessarily as 
pharmaceutical products and having to go through a very 
extensive and very expensive process when other nations are 
getting the feed additive into their dairy industry, for 
example, and allowing them to essentially get a market 
advantage by suggesting that their dairy products, for example, 
are more sustainably produced. So, I agree. I do think we need 
to have a modernized approach here.
    Mr. Baird. Thank you very much. I appreciate that answer 
very much.
    My question now gets down to the pandemic. It has been 
tough on the entire economy, as you well know, and especially 
on farmers and ranchers. And so, the question comes up, the 
Spot Market Hog Pandemic Program. I have producers telling me 
that they have had difficulty in accessing those funds, and so, 
I am asking you what the current status is and how soon we 
think we can get that kind of support to our pork producers.
    Secretary Vilsack. Well, we published a Notice of Funding 
Availability in December, December 14. We created a signup 
period from December 15 to February 25, so we are obviously, we 
initially set it up. As we set it up, we realized that there 
were some issues relative to the eligibility requirements that 
created some challenges, so we are in the process of revising 
our application process. We hope to get that done very soon, 
and the expectation is once we do, we hope to be able to see 
payments made sometime in hopefully the March timeframe.
    Mr. Baird. Well, thank you. We really appreciate that 
effort and want to reemphasize how important it is to some of 
the pork producers and the problems they have endured during 
this pandemic.
    So, thank you very much, and thank you very much for being 
here. I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentlewoman from New Hampshire, Ms. 
Kuster, is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Kuster. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to 
Secretary Vilsack. Great to be with you. We appreciate you 
being here today.
    For nearly 2 years, our country has been grappling with the 
COVID-19 pandemic, not only the staggering death toll it has 
caused, but also the devastating impact that it has had on our 
economy. In rural communities, hospitals and healthcare centers 
in my district and across this country have been pushed to the 
brink. Farmers and producers have faced numerous supply chain 
challenges, and many families have struggled to work and learn 
from home with insufficient broadband connectivity.
    The good news is provisions in the American Rescue Plan and 
the bipartisan infrastructure package, as well as the 
widespread availability of vaccines and booster shots are 
starting to make a tremendous difference. But as the omicron 
variant continues to rage, there is no doubt we still have a 
long way to go toward recovery.
    Mr. Secretary, there is no lack of ground to cover, so 
let's dive right in. Last May, I joined 49 other Democratic 
Members in signing a letter to you calling for USDA to dedicate 
$300 million in relief funding for one-on-one business 
technical assistance for farms and food businesses. Business 
technical assistance includes customized coaching for business 
and marketing planning, financial and labor management, and 
succession planning. These skills are essential to the success 
of small- and mid-sized farms like those in my district, and 
their long-term viability.
    The Administration seems to have focused technical 
assistance on the middle of the supply chain on underserved 
communities and on USDA programming. All of this is important, 
but there is a much broader need for business technical 
assistance for farm and food businesses across the nation. Can 
you share your progress on this request that my colleagues and 
I submitted to you?
    Secretary Vilsack. We are in the process of expanding our 
efforts. In terms of the cooperators I mentioned earlier, we 
provided $75 million to 20 entities to basically provide 
additional assistance and help. We expect and anticipate that 
there is going to be another request for applications that will 
expand that number significantly, and expand the reach of our 
collaborative efforts significantly. So, hopefully that will be 
in part responding to the concern that you have.
    We are also----
    Ms. Kuster. Thank you. I am just going to keep moving 
along, if you don't mind. I will look forward to those results. 
I know it is a very successful program.
    I also wanted to talk with you about how we can continue to 
decarbonize the agricultural sector, recognizing farmers for 
the steps they have already taken and incentivizing further 
progress. Your USDA Building Blocks for Climate-Smart 
Agriculture and Forestry found that on-farm renewable energy 
technologies and improved energy efficiency offer the biggest 
opportunity for reducing greenhouse gases.
    I agree, but I have heard from constituents that the 
ceiling for the Rural Energy for America Program, REAP, needs 
to be higher and we need to prioritize small farm projects. 
With that in mind, how can USDA and its partners in the Federal 
Government help expand on-farm renewable energy use?
    Secretary Vilsack. We would certainly like to see more 
resources in the REAP Program. It would be interesting to take 
a look at the data in terms of who has benefitted from REAP. I 
think you are going to find that several thousand of those 
grants went to small- and mid-size farming operations to 
embrace renewable energy and energy efficiency.
    We are going to continue to work, and obviously, the 
passing of a budget would be helpful, because then we would 
have a certain amount of funding that we could be sort of 
assured of getting and resources and personnel to be able to 
appropriately administer those programs.
    I think the Climate-Smart Agriculture and Forestry 
Partnership Initiative is also an opportunity as well for 
significant pilots and demonstration projects to lift up the 
decarbonization efforts. So, I think there are a multitude of 
ways in which we can provide help and assistance.
    Ms. Kuster. Great, and in my final moments here. Shifting 
gears to dairy. In just a couple of months, schools will start 
contracting for their milk supplies for the upcoming school 
year, 2022-2023. There is a long-running discussion about 
whether schools should be able to offer low-fat flavored milk. 
Congress has been passing year-to-year riders in appropriations 
bills to allow low-fat flavored milk, but schools really need 
the predictability and certainty of knowing what the rules are 
going to be.
    I understand your Department has submitted a rule to OMB 
that covers the next 2 school years, which is much appreciated. 
Could you commit to quickly finalizing regulations that provide 
schools with the certainty that they need?
    Secretary Vilsack. Yes.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired, but Mr. 
Secretary, you may answer.
    Secretary Vilsack. Yes.
    Ms. Kuster. Thank you, and I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Balderson, is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Balderson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you 
Secretary Vilsack, for taking time today to come to the 
Committee.
    So many people in my district across Ohio and throughout 
rural America still don't have reliable broadband access. I 
think we all can agree here that what matters most is making 
sure that we get to a point where every American is connected.
    That being said, my primary concern is that USDA is not 
using the funds at its disposal efficiently and in a targeted 
manner. Last week, Lisa Hone, an expert on the broadband policy 
at the White House briefed Administration staff and rural 
stakeholders saying that the USDA's ReConnect Program is 
focusing on very rural areas. ReConnect was created to target 
those areas, and for the most part, it always has. However, 
this assurance from Ms. Hone seems to be at odds with the 
USDA's recent changes to the program. In ReConnect round 3, the 
definition of underserved was changed from 25 megabytes per 
second download speeds and 3 megabits per second upload speeds 
to 100 down, 20 up. Sorry for the confusing numbers there. This 
was done solely at the discretion of the USDA.
    This only brings up overbuilding concerns for areas that 
already have access to 25 down, 3 up, but also concerns that 
the USDA will be spending more money upgrading networks in 
areas where people already had, or at least had some sort of 
high-speed broadband service, rather than in very rural areas 
where many households completely lack broadband. To me, it 
looks like USDA purposely made round 3 less targeted towards 
these very rural households. Can you explain why this change 
was made, and how are you making sure that the third round of 
ReConnect funding will be continued to target households that 
have no internet access, rather than overbuilding private 
capital or upgrading networks that already exist?
    Thank you.
    Secretary Vilsack. The reason for doing this is because we 
learned from the pandemic that 25/3 isn't sufficient when you 
are dealing with distance learning, telemedicine, expanded 
access to market for small business, precision agriculture on 
the farm. There is a need for additional capacity, which we 
learned during the course of the pandemic. So, it is equipping 
rural America to basically have the kind of broadband access 
that is meaningful and that actually can make a difference.
    At the same time, the structure of the program does, in 
fact, prioritize 25/3. So, to your point, I think there are 
additional points for rural remote areas. There are additional 
points for cooperatives and for nonprofits basically applying 
for these resources. So, the structure of the program will 
result in a significant improvement of access to meaningful 
broadband, and at the same time, providing resources to those 
unserved and underserved areas that you are concerned about, 
because of the way the points system is structured.
    Mr. Balderson. Okay. Thank you very much for the answer.
    My next question, Mr. Secretary, the Infrastructure 
Investment and Jobs Act (Pub. L. 117-58) redefined eligible 
service areas for the ReConnect Program from 90 percent of 
households underserved to 50 percent, effectively reducing how 
targeted the program is towards very rural areas.
    To that end, are you concerned this reduced threshold will 
cause ReConnect to be less targeted and create overbuilding of 
broadband networks in areas that are already receiving funds 
from other Federal broadband programs? A follow up to that 
would be--go ahead, sir.
    Secretary Vilsack. I am not, because I think the way in 
which you can structure the points system that is used to 
evaluate applications can allow you to ensure that you are 
directing the program where it is needed most, and also to the 
fact that there was, as well, a waiver of the match 
requirement, which I suspect will also encourage and will see 
applications from areas that have been historically 
underserved.
    I am not as concerned about the lowering of that threshold 
as you might be.
    Mr. Balderson. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back my remaining time.
    The Chairman. The gentleman from Illinois--gentlelady, I am 
sorry, Mrs. Bustos, who is also Chair of the Subcommittee on 
General Farm Commodities and Risk Management, for 5 minutes. 
Thank you.
    Mrs. Bustos. All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Secretary, great to see you, and let me start out by 
just saying thank you so much for taking the time just late 
last year when you came to our Congressional district, visited 
Arsenal Island between your home state and mine, and we had an 
opportunity to host you at our lock and dam there, which is 
Lock and Dam 15. And we took a little time that day to talk 
about the importance of inland waterway infrastructure. And 
then just yesterday, I think the Biden Administration can take 
a victory lap, as can you, with the announcement that we have 
$829 million that are flowing through the Navigation and 
Ecosystem Sustainability Program, which we call NESP. That will 
be used to modernize the locks and dams along the upper 
Mississippi River.
    If you could take just a little bit of time to talk about 
the impact that modernizing our inland waterways like those on 
the upper Mississippi River will have on the rural agricultural 
economy?
    Secretary Vilsack. That was a great trip, and I appreciate 
you arranging it.
    I learned during that trip that we can cut literally in 
half the time it takes for a barge with soybeans to travel the 
Mississippi River by improving the lock and dam system.
    What does that mean? It means that we get that product to 
port more quickly, less expensively, and as a result, we can 
price that product for export at a very competitive price. When 
30 percent of what we grow and raise is exported, our ability 
to compete in a very competitive circumstance for agriculture 
exports is absolutely directly connected to our advantage of 
our transportation system, and because of the Infrastructure 
Investment and Jobs Act, we will now be in a position to 
continue to maintain that competitive edge and advantage. And I 
think that allows us to be confident that we are going to 
continue to do a lot in exports. I am pleased that we had a 
record year in agricultural exports last year, and that is one 
of the reasons why farm income is up, and we expect and 
anticipate that we are going to surpass that record this year.
    But long-term, our ability to maintain that competitive 
edge is directly connected to those improvements, and so, it is 
a very big deal for American agriculture that those resources 
are going to go to improve the lock and dam systems.
    Mrs. Bustos. I agree. We could not have been more excited 
with this announcement, and we are so grateful to you and to 
the whole Biden Administration for seeing that this investment 
is so important, especially in the upper Mississippi.
    You talked a little bit earlier with Congresswoman 
Hartzler's questions about the EPA releasing new renewable 
volume obligations. So, I want to drill down just a little bit 
deeper there.
    It sets standards for how much renewable fuel, like 
ethanol, so important to a region like the one I represent, and 
how that will be required to be blended with gasoline going 
forth.
    I was very, very happy to see that the 2022 Renewable Fuel 
Standard was set at what we would consider back on track as 
President Biden promised, with a $15 billion--I am sorry, 15 
billion gallon mandate. Can you talk, Mr. Secretary, a little 
bit to the importance of this higher number for our family 
farmers in rural America?
    Secretary Vilsack. Well, it is an industry that does three 
things. One, it supports stability in farm income for those who 
are producing corn and for biodiesel soybeans. It increases job 
opportunities in rural areas, and it provides consumers choice 
and less expensive gas, and it is also beneficial to the 
environment. So, actually, there are four benefits to this 
industry.
    That is why it is important in the industry to have 
stability, and the stability comes not just in setting a 
number, but in making sure that that number is real. And when 
you have waivers as was granted in the previous Administration, 
that number that was given by the previous Administration was 
never real, because you were seeing it dissipated by the 
granting of waivers. This EPA basically said 65 waivers, not 
going to grant them, not going to approve them. The number we 
are giving you is a real number and you can count on it, and I 
think the stability is going to be very helpful to this 
industry.
    Mrs. Bustos. Yes, those waivers, we like to characterize it 
as giving out candy on Halloween. They were just given out so 
indiscriminately, it was so harmful to those who were in the 
ethanol business. So, thank you for getting that back on track.
    I had one more question. I will go ahead and hold off on 
that in honor of the time that we have left. Thank you so much, 
Mr. Secretary. Again, we really appreciate you being here, and 
Mr. Chairman, I will yield back the 22 seconds I have left. 
Thank you.
    The Chairman. The gentlewoman from Washington, Ms. Schrier, 
is recognized for 5 minutes. Ms. Schrier, you may want to 
unmute.
    Ms. Schrier. Thank you. Well, thank you very much, Mr. 
Chairman, and welcome back, Mr. Secretary.
    I want to mostly focus on the state of the tree fruit 
industry today. As you know, Washington State is the nation's 
top producing state for apples, pears, and cherries, many of 
which are grown in my district, the 8th Congressional District. 
I have heard from a lot of growers in my district lately about 
really the precarious state of the industry right now. Trade 
wars and the resulting retaliatory tariffs in India and China 
continue to harm Washington apple growers who export \1/3\ of 
their crop.
    For example, India was a $120 million market for 
Washington, and last year, that fell 83 percent to just $20 
million. So, growers really risk permanently losing access to 
these markets if our trade partners move on.
    So, I guess my first just request, it is not even a 
question for you, is just to continue to work on supply chains 
and on trade so that they can keep these export markets.
    Also, growers in my district know firsthand the challenges 
of navigating climate change, and they had record heat this 
last summer, and tree fruit is a perennial crop. So, trees 
always sequester carbon, and tillage is not an issue after 
initial planting. Cover crops, you can't always use them, 
particularly with cherry trees because they can spread little 
cherry disease. And so, a lot of the traditional climate-
friendly practices, they just don't apply to orchards.
    And so, while orchardists in my district would love to 
participate and really take advantage of these climate 
friendly, climate-supportive programs, current policy 
discussions focused on carbon markets and conservation programs 
may fall short of what is needed to really help them adopt 
fairly costly practices that will further reduce the industry's 
carbon footprint.
    My first question, Secretary Vilsack, is just as you are 
thinking about different types of farms and having the farmers 
at the table, what specific steps is USDA taking to ensure 
perennial crops, orchards, are not left behind in these 
efforts?
    Secretary Vilsack. In the Climate-Smart Agriculture and 
Forestry Initiative that we are working on, we are essentially 
reaching out to producers of all types and basically saying 
come to us with a pilot. Come to us with a demonstration 
project that you believe will make an impact in terms of the 
industry and in terms of climate, and let us figure out how we 
can help finance that activity on the farm with a large enough 
group of farmers that we can get data and information that 
would allow us to create that climate-smart commodity I 
referred to earlier.
    There is nothing restricting the ability of the tree fruit 
industry from coming together with a program that is 
specifically designed to meet their needs to do what they can 
do in terms of their carbon footprint, and come to us with an 
application for resources to be able to fund that, and then we 
would partner with a land-grant university or other entity that 
would allow us to collect the data, the information that would 
establish the standards so that when they begin to export or 
when they begin to sell domestically, they are in a position to 
be able to say to their customer, ``This is a sustainably 
produced product, and here is the proof and the reason for 
it.''
    So, I would encourage them to apply.
    Ms. Schrier. If you don't mind, I would love to just 
highlight the supply chain. I talked about getting our goods 
overseas, but I was just at Krainick Dairy in Enumclaw in my 
district, and they are actually having a lot of trouble getting 
penicillin and other medications to treat mastitis in their 
cows, and so, I wanted to point out the supply chain in the 
other direction and having a diversified source for things like 
the medications that dairy farmers need for their cows.
    And then I have just a few seconds remaining, but I wanted 
to note I have heard a lot from my colleagues about the lack of 
people in jobs and attributing blame. I will tell you that I 
spent a lot of time with the business community and the farming 
community, and I have heard loud and clear from both that we 
need to take a look at our immigration policy, and that they 
attribute a lot of their inability to find workers to the lack 
of immigration.
    So, thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. I yield back.
    Secretary Vilsack. I couldn't agree more on the immigration 
issue. Fix the system.
    The Chairman. The gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Feenstra, is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Feenstra. Thank you, Chairman Scott, Ranking Member 
Thompson, and thank you, Secretary Vilsack. It is always great 
to see an Iowan in your position.
    I just got a couple questions. Earlier this month, the USDA 
announced its action plan for a fair, more competitive meat 
supply chain. Of the four core strategies, the action plan 
includes increasing transparency in the cattle market. Mr. 
Secretary, can you expound on this core strategy and what we 
may expect from the Administration?
    Secretary Vilsack. I think it has to do, as you well know, 
with transparency, more transparency in terms of the market 
itself. We have too few cash transactions in the market, so it 
is very difficult to determine when you have a cash transaction 
whether you are getting a fair price or not. So, to the extent 
that we can get more data, more transparency, that is 
incredibly important.
    The other aspect of transparency is when there is a 
contracting relationship between a producer and a processor, 
that there is a very specific understanding of exactly what 
this agreement calls for, and what it requires. That is one of 
the reasons why we are looking at ways in which we can create 
more transparency in contracting terms so that people 
understand and appreciate what is a fair contract and what may 
not be quite fair to the producer.
    Mr. Feenstra. Good. I am glad to hear that. I would love to 
work with you on that.
    Pivoting to broadband, I have a question about the 
ReConnect Program. As you know, Iowa has the most community-
based broadband providers of any state in the country, and they 
have been working tirelessly to ensure Iowa has a robust fiber 
broadband connection. However, it is my understanding that the 
scoring criteria for the third round of ReConnect Program puts 
the providers at a 15 point disadvantage on grant applications 
because their companies aren't local governments, nonprofits, 
and cooperatives. I find that really concerning.
    Mr. Secretary, these are local, family-owned commercial 
companies that are providing a service to rural Iowa. Based on 
your track record and serving rural America, will you look into 
this concern and consider revising this new policy at RUS?
    Secretary Vilsack. I am happy to look into it, Congressman, 
but I would say that there are a number of criteria here that 
would potentially play to the advantage of the companies you 
mentioned: the rural location of the company, the economic need 
of a particular area of Iowa, the fact that affordable service, 
the price that is being paid, the opportunity to serve 
vulnerable populations with the senior population in Iowa being 
fairly significant. So, I think there are ways to offset what 
you may perceive to be a disadvantage with one criteria with 
advantages that play to the strengths of Iowa.
    Mr. Feenstra. Thank you, Secretary. I would just simply say 
this, is that you have private-sector companies now competing 
with government, and I think that is very wrong. I mean, these 
private-sector companies want to do a great job, but yet, they 
are getting pushed out by government entities.
    Secretary Vilsack. Wait a minute. What about cooperatives? 
You don't want us to do this for them?
    Mr. Feenstra. Cooperatives do play a part. I tend to agree.
    Quick question for you. Two months ago, the FSIS announced 
a trial program for a New Swine Inspection System, the NSIS 
processing facilities to increase their line speeds. Why has 
FSIS not approved any applications yet? The longer FSIS waits, 
the more harm is caused to industry. Can you expound on that?
    Secretary Vilsack. They are in the process of making sure 
that working with our partners at OSHA that the worker safety 
requirements of that waiver are valid and strong enough, and 
that there is a way of providing appropriate oversight, because 
we want that balance, as I said earlier, between worker safety, 
the ability to process a number of hogs, and the profit for 
producers. I don't think we should have to pit one against the 
other. I think we have to figure out a way to have all three. 
And I think this waiver process allows all three to take place, 
so I am encouraged that we are going to see progress there.
    Mr. Feenstra. Okay. Just pivoting to trade a minute, Mr. 
Secretary.
    What is USDA doing to encourage the pursuit of new trade 
negotiations, particularly across Asia, to remove trade 
barriers in the U.S.? Currently, we do not have an Under 
Secretary, and I am just wondering two-fold, what are we doing 
in Asia, and are we going to hire an Under Secretary of Trade?
    Secretary Vilsack. There is an individual that is going 
through the vetting process right now, and I am hopeful that 
that concludes very soon.
    In the meantime, we have a crack team that is working and 
operating on trade. We have had some progress and some efforts 
here. Mention was made to the dairy industry and the Canadian 
decision, India opening up pork opportunities, Vietnam reducing 
their tariffs.
    We are trying to reestablish trust within trade and for 
trade and about trade in America. I think there are a lot of 
folks out there that feel that trade has disadvantaged the 
United States. We are beginning to build trust by focusing on 
enforcement of any trade agreement. That is why we are putting 
pressure on China to live up to its Phase 1 trade agreements as 
well.
    Mr. Feenstra. Thank you, and I yield back. Thank you.
    The Chairman. The gentlewoman from the U.S. Virgin Islands, 
Ms. Plaskett, who is also Chair of the Subcommittee on 
Biotechnology, Horticulture, and Research, is now recognized 
for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Plaskett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for providing this 
venue for us to have discussion with the Secretary of 
Agriculture. I believe this is so timely as we move into 
hearings regarding the farm bill, and thank you Mr. Secretary 
for your support of farmers, ranchers, and food systems in the 
United States.
    I wanted to ask you, you have mentioned quite often in your 
discussion in your testimony three phrases that you have 
discussed: rigid, consolidated, and fragile. Of course, we 
understand the fragile portion of that, and you have also given 
us some highlights about the consolidation that is occurring 
with big business. But could you elaborate a little, just for 
my own edification? I was really intrigued by those three words 
and descriptions of the Agriculture Department, and what you 
meant by rigid?
    Secretary Vilsack. Well, there is, and I mentioned earlier 
that there is a shift in consumption patterns in the United 
States post-pandemic. Pre-pandemic 50 percent of our food was 
consumed outside the home, 50 percent in the home. And we are 
actually now seeing about a 60/40 split, between 40 percent 
restaurants, 60 percent at home. The rigid nature of packaging, 
of the way in which the food processing industry had basically 
gotten comfortable with that ratio, gotten comfortable with the 
supply chains that fed that ratio, and now, there is a bit of 
disruption. The same thing is happening also in schools, where 
individual companies that were distributing to schools for 
whatever reason believe there is better opportunity someplace 
else, and now they are beginning to shift, and that shift has 
created a great deal of frustration and stress on the part of 
nutrition officials in schools. So, it is the rigidity, the 
ability to transition from one consumption pattern to another 
consumption pattern, it is not easy. The transition has not 
been easy, and that is the reason why we have some of the 
challenges we have today. We are going to work through them.
    Ms. Plaskett. Thank you.
    Secretary Vilsack. We are going to try to provide more 
flexibility in our system.
    Ms. Plaskett. Thank you.
    Secretary Vilsack. I am sorry. Part of it is having a local 
and regional food system that complements that more rigid 
national distribution, a complementary system is necessary.
    Ms. Plaskett. Thank you.
    I wanted to move on to the Micro-Grants for Food Security 
Programs in U.S. Territories. As you heard, I represent the 
Virgin Islands, and of course, you are aware that the non-
contiguous United States, that is, U.S. Territories along with 
Hawaii and Alaska, have been provided through the Agriculture 
Improvement Act of 2018, a new program to provide micro grants 
through small scale gardening, herding, and livestock 
operations. Can you speak to the success of this program as we 
approach the next farm bill? Has the program been successful at 
reducing food insecurity and developing local food systems in 
these communities? Is there an increase in authorization 
amount, currently at $10 million across all ten eligible 
jurisdictions, warranted as we consider the next farm bill?
    Secretary Vilsack. I think anything and everything we can 
do to create the capacity of local and regional food systems to 
be structured and created is beneficial. It is beneficial in 
terms of addressing food insecurity and nutrition insecurity. 
It is beneficial in terms of job creation. It is beneficial in 
terms of a sense of community and a connection that people have 
with their food supply, and an appreciation for those who 
produce it. So, anything we can do to help create that 
structure, because in addition, by doing it, you create a much 
more resilient and less rigid food system than we have in the 
country today.
    Ms. Plaskett. Now, that is the intent of the program, but 
if you could have your staff get back to me as to whether or 
not they have seen any quantifiable difference in the food 
security and issues that those territories have, I would 
appreciate it.
    And in my last remaining time, the renewable energy in the 
Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico. As you know, the viability and 
sustainability of energy in U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico 
is of utmost importance to the well-being of our rural 
communities. So much of our area is, in fact, rural. Energy 
costs on our islands are higher than anywhere in the country, 
and our geographic locations leave us vulnerable to climate 
change, but also provide opportunities for adaptation and 
innovation in resources. Congressman Ted Lieu and I have 
introduced the renewable energy for those islands to create a 
small new grant program within the Agriculture Department in 
which grants may be awarded to nonprofits to facilitate 
projects. Can you provide any perspective on the soundness of a 
small----
    The Chairman. The lady's time has expired; however, Mr. 
Secretary, you may respond.
    Secretary Vilsack. I will have our staff reach back out to 
the Congresswoman's staff to provide any additional information 
and response to that question.
    Ms. Plaskett. Thank you very much.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady from Illinois, Mrs. Miller, is 
now recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Miller. Thank you.
    Mr. Secretary, a consistent concern for my fellow farmers 
has to do with the skyrocketing costs of critical inputs like 
fertilizer. We have seen a dramatic growth in fertilizer 
prices. Nitrogen fertilizer has doubled in price, anhydrous 
rose 131 percent, and pot ash is up 120 percent. Fertilizer is 
an essential input for farmers. Without fertilizer, crop yields 
and productivity would be significantly reduced.
    My constituents don't want to see yield loss at a time when 
commodity prices are high. Could you please tell me what the 
USDA is doing to address these issues that threaten farmers, 
especially small family farms?
    Secretary Vilsack. Well, it is a challenge because of the 
nature of what is causing this disruption. Part of it has to do 
with global demand. Part of it has to do with decisions made by 
other countries to prevent resources from coming to the U.S. I 
think first and foremost, we need to expand our own capacity. 
Second, we need to make sure that we are using fertilizer 
appropriately and wisely.
    I was recently at Iowa State University where farmers were 
working with the university, and with a sensor program, they 
have determined that potentially 30 percent of the corn acres 
currently in Iowa that are utilizing fertilizer probably don't 
need as much or any fertilizer. So, I think encouraging 
additional precision agriculture so that our inputs are wisely 
done, and finally, figuring out ways in which we can create 
vehicles that will compensate farmers if, in fact, they decide 
to apply less. So, we have this split nitrogen crop insurance 
program now that essentially says that if you only apply 
nitrogen once during the year as opposed to twice, if you have 
a crop reduction, then there is crop insurance that can protect 
you against that reduction.
    So, I think there a multitude of strategies here to try to 
address the longer-term issue. In the short-term, I think we 
are going to try to focus on precision agriculture and making 
sure that we use what resources we have wisely.
    Mrs. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I can tell you that 
time is of the essence here, and we do need to address the root 
causes of the supply chain crisis, and the energy crisis 
created by the Biden Administration.
    Mr. Secretary, my constituents are also concerned the Biden 
Administration is turning its back on farmers and the biofuels 
industry. After pushing the Green New Deal policies that 
promote electric vehicles with batteries made in China, I am 
concerned that President Biden is not supporting renewable 
fuels like ethanol.
    So, my question for you is, will you commit to supporting 
biofuels like ethanol, which are crucial to corn growers in 
rural America?
    Secretary Vilsack. Congresswoman, I don't have to commit. 
We are doing that, and the reality is, I have 800 million 
reasons why we are doing that: $800 million provided to biofuel 
industry in terms of support during the pandemic, as well as 
$100 million to expand access to higher blends, the ability to 
have consumers have access to higher blends, 65 waivers that 
might have been granted in the Trump Administration that were 
denied by this EPA, a record amount of volume for 2022 under 
the RFS, the grand challenge in aviation fuel to create a 36 
billion gallon industry of 100 percent drop in it of biofuel 
for our aviation industry has been launched by this 
Administration. So, I think it is very unfair to suggest that 
this Administration has not been supportive of the biofuel 
industry.
    Mrs. Miller. Well, the Biden Administration's effort to 
push electric vehicles with batteries made in China is 
extremely concerning to me and my constituents.
    Mr. Secretary, I recently introduced a bill, the National 
Security Moratorium on Foreign Purchases of U.S. Land (H.R. 
6383), which would prohibit China and other adversarial nations 
from buying American farmland. Right now, there are over 
500,000 acres of farmland in Illinois totaling $4.1 billion 
that are foreign-owned. This is a substantial national security 
and economic issue for our nation. Could you please tell me 
your position on the Chinese Communist Party buying U.S. 
farmland?
    Secretary Vilsack. Well, I am happy to take a look at what 
you are proposing, and I also know that there are many state 
statutes that prevent foreign ownership of land. Obviously, my 
goal here in the United States is to make sure that we make 
land access available to our own citizens, and that our own 
citizens are able to afford and purchase land. We have a fairly 
significant issue in terms of land access for a lot of farmers, 
and we want to make sure we address that issue in a very 
positive way.
    Mrs. Miller. Excuse me. China is seeking to disrupt our 
food supply and prolong the supply chain crisis we are facing, 
so are you saying you are going to commit to doing everything 
in your power to prevent adversarial nations from dominating 
our supply chain?
    The Chairman. The lady's time has expired; however, Mr. 
Secretary, you can briefly answer.
    Secretary Vilsack. Sure. Obviously, we are going to make 
sure that we are going to protect Americans' capacity to own 
farmland. We are also going to make sure that we continue to 
figure out ways to walk the fine line with folks in China, 
given the fact that they are our number one customer for 
agricultural products. The exports to China, when they were 
disrupted during the Trump trade war, caused significant 
decline in commodity prices. We have seen better commodity 
prices in the last year, which is good news for farmers.
    Mrs. Miller. Thank you.
    The Chairman. The gentleman from California, Mr. Khanna, is 
now recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Khanna. Thank you, Chairman Scott. Thank you, Secretary 
Vilsack, for your leadership. I have said to the White House 
and to many of my colleague that I believe there is no one, 
frankly, in our party or in our country who cares more or knows 
more about rural America, and your voice is sorely needed in 
many of our current debates in Congress.
    Let me ask you this. Administration after Administration 
comes and says we are going to get high-speed internet to rural 
America. It seems like we actually finally have done something 
about it, passing the bipartisan infrastructure bill. Could you 
talk about what that means and USDA's role, and how you see 
this being transformational in actually getting high-speed 
internet to places that don't have it?
    Secretary Vilsack. Well, Congressman, I think you are 
absolutely right. The infrastructure bill basically provided a 
significant amount of resources for the expansion of broadband 
and meaningful broadband access. And so, our focus at USDA is 
on meaningful access. Why is that important? It is important to 
farmers because they are going to continue to embrace precision 
agriculture. Every acre of ground is going to be analyzed. Data 
is going to be collected. You need high-speed internet to do 
that. Schools have learned during the pandemic of the 
importance of remote learning and expanded distance learning. 
That requires broadband. The medical community has absolutely 
determined the need for telemedicine. I have been to clinics; I 
have been to hospitals who absolutely need these in rural areas 
to be able to access expert assistance and help for their 
patients. That requires rural broadband. Small business wants 
to expand their market opportunities beyond maybe the community 
that they are located in, to the world. That requires high-
speed broadband access. And so, there are multiple reasons why 
this is incredibly important for rural America. We cannot let 
rural America be left behind here. I think with the resources 
that you all have provided with the Department of Commerce, the 
FCC, and us, that we are going to be committed to making sure 
that these resources are put to use, and so that folks, 
regardless of where they live, regardless of their ZIP Code, 
have access to this important technology.
    Mr. Khanna. That is wonderful to hear.
    Could you also talk a little bit, I know we had a question 
about biofuels, and I know you have long championed a vision of 
biomanufacturing and all of the prospects of that, it can mean 
for jobs in rural communities and in states across the Midwest. 
Can you speak a little bit about what the Department of 
Agriculture is doing and what more Congress can do to support 
biomanufacturing?
    Secretary Vilsack. One of the most important appropriations 
in that infrastructure bill, which is a really, really small 
amount in the scheme of things, might have a profound impact on 
rural America, which is the money that you provided to 
Department of Agriculture to look at this issue of biobased 
manufacturing.
    What is that? It is basically the conversion of 
agricultural waste into a variety of products. The ability to 
convert agricultural waste, not just into fuel, but also into 
chemicals and materials and fabrics and fibers and energy, all 
of which creates that circular economy, creates new income 
sources for farmers. It creates the ability to avoid some of 
the environmental challenges that we have with some of our 
industries. I think there is a day when the issue of lagoons 
will be something that we talk about as having been in the 
past. That manure can be converted into a multitude of 
products. Processing, manufacturing jobs can be created in 
rural places. Additional income for farmers, more jobs, good 
paying jobs in rural areas, reviving the rural economy and 
creating a circular economy, and reducing the environmental 
impact of agriculture and industry. It is an unlimited 
potential here, and rural America is ripe for this opportunity 
and those resources, albeit small, I think can create the 
template for how communities might be and states might be 
willing to embrace this and the farm policy might be able to 
encourage it.
    Mr. Khanna. Thank you. My final question for you, Secretary 
Vilsack, is not as much in your role as Secretary, but as 
someone who has dedicated your life to public service and the 
country.
    You have seen firsthand how divided we are in this country, 
along party lines, between rural communities and urban centers. 
It is no secret that one party is winning in one area, other 
parties doing better in other areas. How do you think we can 
start to overcome some of the divides in this country and do 
what President Biden had aspired to do and start to heal this 
country and bring it together?
    Secretary Vilsack. That is a really profound question, and 
I wish I had a simple and profound answer. But I think it is 
community. I think it is understanding that the challenges that 
we face as a country cannot be decided by a single individual 
or a single group. The challenges are so large, it requires a 
committed, united communal effort, and that is why it is 
unfortunate to see the division that is making it harder to do 
that.
    The Chairman. The gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bacon, is 
now recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Bacon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am sorry for 
having to step out for votes, so I missed a few of these 
questions. Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here.
    My first question deals with the foot-and-mouth disease 
vaccine bank. I was the lead advocate for that in the 115th 
Congress. We were able to get it in the farm bill. We were 
given an approximately 3 year timeline to make it operational. 
So, I would love to have your update on how we are doing with 
the foot-and-mouth disease vaccine bank, and hopefully you have 
good news. Thank you.
    Secretary Vilsack. Significant progress. Over $27 million 
has been invested, and we will continue to provide investments 
into that very, very important vaccine. I would say that that 
is not the only important vaccine that we are working on. We 
are also working on a vaccine for African Swine Fever. Those 
two vaccines are incredibly important in order to protect our 
livestock industry.
    Mr. Bacon. Well, 3 years ago we wouldn't have been able to 
respond well to a foot-and-mouth disease outbreak. Would you 
say that today we would be able to respond with the addition of 
this vaccine bank?
    Secretary Vilsack. I think we are in better shape today 
than we were a year ago. I think we are in better shape than we 
were 2 years ago. The reality is, I think we will be in better 
shape next year than we are today.
    Mr. Bacon. Okay, thank you.
    As you mentioned the African Swine Fever, I read a report 
that there were indications of African Swine Fever in Europe 
this past week. Where are we at with our vaccine development? 
Do you think we are 50 percent there, 60? I mean, hopefully we 
are. I know it is a more complicated disease, but obviously it 
would be a problem if it ever gets here.
    Secretary Vilsack. Well, there are four or five patented 
vaccines that have been developed today in our facilities, and 
there are a couple of vaccines that are incredibly promising. I 
believe that there is some consideration to the possibility of 
having some pilots in some Asian countries that have been 
suffering from African Swine Fever to determine the 
effectiveness of these vaccines. I think we have made progress.
    Having said that, the reality is we haven't figured it out 
yet. We haven't solved it yet, and so, we have to make sure it 
doesn't get into this country. And so, as a result of the 
Haitian and Dominican Republic situation, we are aggressively 
promoting activities down in that part of the world to 
basically contain the situation and hopefully, over time, 
correct it, making sure that we do everything we can in Puerto 
Rico and elsewhere to prevent anything from coming into the 
mainland, working with Customs to make sure that the right 
questions are being asked at the border, increasing 
communication in Puerto Rico and areas where there may be 
potential issues in terms of folks coming in to the mainland 
from those areas, making sure they are sensitive to all this. 
So, we are doing everything we possibly can under the 
circumstances to try to address this as aggressively as we can, 
but it is not easy.
    Mr. Bacon. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, and I want to 
transition to trade, if I may.
    Nebraska is an export state, much like Iowa, and we didn't 
really hear much from President Biden until about November, or 
from the Administration, on trade. We are starting to hear a 
little more, but I sure hope it is a priority for this 
Administration. Obviously, it is huge for the Midwest, corn, 
soybeans, pork, beef. It is our bread and butter, really, 
financially to our economic health of both of our states.
    First, I just want your assurance that the Administration 
is pushing trade; and second, can we have feedback on how China 
is doing with their Phase 1 agreement that we had from 2 years 
ago?
    Secretary Vilsack. Well, there is a commitment to trade, 
and it starts with enforcing the trade agreements we have so 
that people can rebuild the trust in the concept of trade and 
trading relationships.
    Let's talk about China. They are $16 billion short of their 
Phase 1 trade responsibilities from a purchasing perspective, 
$13 billion in the first year, $3 billion last year. We are yet 
to see where things will be in 2022. There are seven major 
issues on the phytosanitary and sanitary side of the equation. 
Biotech approvals, DDGs, ethanol, ractopamine and pork, issues 
with hormones in beef that have not yet been resolved to the 
complete satisfaction of the agreement. We are pushing on both 
of those aspects, more purchases, completing the phytosanitary 
and sanitary requirements of that agreement.
    Mr. Bacon. Sorry. I yield back the balance of my time, and 
thank you for the answers to the questions there, Mr. 
Secretary. Thank you.
    The Chairman. The gentleman from California, Mr. Carbajal, 
is now recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Secretary 
Vilsack.
    As you know, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo Counties are 
home to a wide array of specialty crop production. Shipping 
delays and continuing labor shortages have caused supply chain 
disruptions, which are amplified by the perishable nature of 
our fresh fruits and vegetables grown in my district. The 
pandemic has also shown us the high demand for getting fresh 
and nutritious produce to hungry Americans.
    Secretary Vilsack, is the USDA taking any steps to ensure 
its Agricultural Marketing Service, AMS, commodity purchases 
for domestic food programs include an increased amount of fresh 
fruits and vegetables in an effort to meet broader USDA 
nutritional guidelines?
    Secretary Vilsack. The answer to that question is yes. In 
the recently announced flexible Temporary Emergency Food 
Assistance Program, TEFAP, we allocated $400 million for 
purchases from local and regional food distributors with the 
understanding that they were to provide an opportunity for 
fresh fruit and produce to be part of those purchases.
    We have also provided school districts with additional 
resources with the same directive and the same opportunity for 
using those additional resources for purchasing a specialty 
crop. So, that is absolutely one of the priorities and one of 
the areas that we are focused on.
    Mr. Carbajal. Thank you.
    As you know, labor shortages have continued to be an issue 
and at the forefront of many of our discussions regarding 
agriculture. I have met with many stakeholders in my district 
and had this very same discussion about labor. That is why I 
was part of a bipartisan group of Members that worked to pass 
the Farm Workforce Modernization Act of 2021 (H.R. 1603) last 
March, which is currently pending action in the Senate. Can you 
touch on what the Biden Administration is doing to help advance 
this important legislation, and on a related note, could you 
elaborate on the USDA's efforts to conduct research on 
mechanization technologies, which could also help alleviate 
labor shortages for specialty crop growers, and at the same 
time, improve conditions for farmworkers?
    Secretary Vilsack. Well, I know that there is research at 
land-grant universities that we are funding in terms of 
robotics and the ability of the capacity of the robotics to be 
able to sense when food is ready to be picked and harvested.
    I will tell you that, I am disappointed obviously in the 
fact that the Parliamentarian in the Senate did not allow for 
the inclusion of the Farm Worker Modernization Act in the Build 
Back Better legislation that is currently before the Senate. I 
think there is still an opportunity and a hope that there is 
enough bipartisan support to get this passed. It is absolutely 
vital. It is absolutely essential, and I would say it is going 
to require some political encouragement on the part of folks to 
stand up to those who want to use immigration as a political 
wedge issue. The time for that is over. The time for--
especially with labor shortages. I have heard it here today. 
One of the answers to labor shortages is having a working 
immigration system, and it requires a bipartisan effort and 
hopefully there are enough people of courage and conviction in 
the United States Senate to get this done. It is long overdue.
    Mr. Carbajal. Well said. Thank you.
    The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (Pub. L. 116-
260) included important language extending SNAP eligibility to 
college students who are eligible for work study, and those who 
have an expected family contribution of $0. However, this 
flexibility is not permanent, and I am concerned about the 
looming hunger cliff that participating college students may 
ultimately face. How will the end of this provision impact food 
security among college students?
    Secretary Vilsack. Well, at the present time because of the 
extension of the Public Health Emergency, that opportunity 
still exists for college students.
    But, Congressman, I think one of the things we have to do 
is I think we have to begin educating people around the country 
who these college students are and why they may be slightly 
different than the college students of a time when I went to 
school, and perhaps when you went to school. There is a 
significant difference in the population of people going to 
school with a significant amount of individual challenges that 
create food insecurity among those young people. And that is 
one of the reasons why looking at the SNAP Program and 
adjustments to the SNAP Program may make some sense, given the 
nature and the breakdown of college students today, which is 
really different. There are single parents, there are young 
people who are sort of disconnected from families. There is a 
variety of challenges these young people face, and I think we 
have to do a better job of educating folks about precisely who 
these people are.
    Mr. Carbajal. Thank you very much. My time is up. I yield 
back.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady from Florida, Mrs. Cammack, is 
now recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Cammack. Well, thank you, Chairman Scott. Thank you to 
Secretary Vilsack. I appreciate your time here today. I have a 
litany of questions, so I am just going to jump right into 
them.
    Mr. Secretary, as you know, Florida is a heavy fluid milk 
state. Our farms are much larger than many areas of the 
country, very strong Class I production. Now, this is in regard 
to the Pandemic Market Volatility Assistance Program. Now, when 
the program was instituted, it was very welcome help and much 
appreciated, but the 5 million pound per producer cap, which 
was instituted solely at the discretion of the Administration, 
will have the effect of significantly limiting reimbursements 
to many of my producers. Keep in mind, these are family 
operations by and large.
    Now, my colleague, Representative Lawson and I, we are 
working in a bipartisan way to try to solve this problem to 
secure additional funding for this program. We actually sent 
you a letter back in October and have not received a response.
    So, this is a really important issue, I know, to many of 
our producers across the State of Florida, but I know this is 
important to you as well. So, I would like to just first ask as 
we work through this, will you commit to working with us to 
make sure that this funding helps to close the gap for many of 
our producers who were hit very badly by the 2020 losses?
    Secretary Vilsack. Well, I am happy to work on this issue. 
I think we structured the program so that it provided the help 
to the farmers who were most disadvantaged by the way in which 
the market was adjusted and adapted to, the Food Box Program 
and other challenges during the pandemic. We are obviously 
looking for ways in which we can provide help and assistance, 
but I am not going to be--I am not going to apologize, if you 
will, for the 5 million pound threshold because it was designed 
for those very small- and mid-sized dairy operations to 
benefit. We have other things that provided help and assistance 
to the dairy industry, not the least of which is the 
supplemental Margin Protection Program for Dairy and the 
structuring of that was pretty important to the dairy industry 
as well.
    Mrs. Cammack. And well, Mr. Secretary, I understand. I 
mean, I understand where it was targeted at. We sustained 
millions, millions in losses, and again, these are family 
operations. These aren't major corporate entities. Florida, 
given the Class I milk market that we are in, we sustained a 
unique situation in Florida. But I do look forward to working 
with you on it.
    I am going to redirect here now to another topic that I 
think is really important to highlight, and that is broadband. 
Obviously, we would like to see some better coordination to 
make sure that there is not overbuilding, because we have 
several areas of rural America that programs like ReConnect 
would be beneficial in, but because of the multiple programs 
through FCC as well as USDA and others, we are seeing 
overbuilding as a real issue.
    But one of the topics that hasn't been touched on here 
today is, I would think that USDA would want to encourage as 
many broadband providers as possible to participate in USDA 
programs, but some of the scoring preferences for round 3 of 
the ReConnect Program seem to work against that goal.
    Now, for example, providers are awarded points in the 
application process for a commitment to net neutrality. That is 
actually the language in the program.
    Now, Mr. Secretary, you are fully aware that the net 
neutrality rules were repealed by the FCC in 2018, correct?
    Secretary Vilsack. Well, I am also aware of the fact that 
we want to make sure that folks have access to as much capacity 
and as much opportunity to use the internet as possible, and 
that they shouldn't necessarily be restricted or confined to 
choices that the provider provides, and that is the reason here 
is to make sure that folks have the full range of capacities 
available with the internet.
    Mrs. Cammack. So, what does the Department plan to do to 
police the net neutrality, because this is USDA, not FCC, if 
the provider is not living up to the obligations to commit to 
net neutrality? How does that benefit the deployment of a 
variety of different services and providers in rural America?
    Secretary Vilsack. Well, the point of this is to make sure 
in the application that there is a process and a mechanism by 
which we can assure performance, and obviously, there are 
resources being provided over a period of time. And if it turns 
out that the services are not what people were promised, well 
then their recourse is to basically suggest a repayment of 
those resources.
    And so, at the end of the day, it is financially beneficial 
for folks to try to see if they can live up to the 
responsibilities in their application. If they don't want to 
use that, if they don't want to make the commitment----
    Mrs. Cammack. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I am so sorry. I 
have to reclaim my time. I only have a few seconds left.
    So, at this point, I would like to request a step-by-step 
plan from the Department on its enforcement, how you define 
that neutrality, how that is contradictory to FCC rules that 
were repealed in 2018, and I would certainly appreciate a 
follow up from you, Mr. Secretary.
    And with that, I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    The gentleman from California, Mr. Harder, is now 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Harder. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, 
Mr. Secretary, for joining us this afternoon.
    I really appreciated your chance to connect and come to our 
district even virtually last year. One of the topics that we 
spent a lot of time discussing was wildfires, and especially 
what the Department's plan is going to be, and I appreciate the 
rollout this week of how the bipartisan infrastructure deal is 
going to inform some of the investments the Department is going 
to make to make sure that we hopefully can prevent some of 
these terrible fires we have seen over the last couple years 
across the West.
    One of the challenges there are the reimbursements, 
especially for our local fire departments. I was talking to one 
of the fire chiefs in our City of Patterson recently, and he 
let me know that he had to wait over a year before he could get 
reimbursement from the Forest Service for one of the fires that 
they actually helped support. And this is becoming more and 
more common as these fires are getting bigger. We are having 
more local fire departments spend weeks, even months on this 
Federal land helping support the Forest Service. And it is not 
just the timing of the reimbursements that is often so long, it 
is the clarity of what exactly they are getting. I have talked 
to some of our fire departments who have told me that one 
document will say one amount and another document will say 
another, and it is really hard for them to understand how much 
they are actually being reimbursed. I know there are cost-
sharing agreements that govern this, but the GAO recently 
published a report that noted all the ways in which this seems 
to be falling short, and some of the challenges that it 
inflicts on our local fire departments.
    Can you talk about what the Department is planning to do to 
address the GAO's concerns on reimbursement for these wildfires 
to our local fire departments?
    Secretary Vilsack. We are going to try to simplify the 
process a bit, but I would say that oftentimes the challenge is 
actually getting information, and especially in California, 
getting information back from the local communities in terms of 
what they are seeking reimbursement for. So, I think it is a 
two-way street here in terms of transparency and cooperation.
    But I do understand and appreciate that we need to speed up 
the process, and I think we are committed to doing that, if we 
are able to get the same level of cooperation from the local 
folks.
    Mr. Harder. Well, that is great to hear.
    It just puts folks in a really tough spot, especially when 
we have very small fire departments or even volunteer fire 
departments to have a huge portion of their budget be very 
unclear for months, even up to a year or longer.
    I will be introducing legislation soon that suggests a 
couple fixes to addressing this. I would love to get any 
comments from the Department and you and your team, if there 
are things that we could be doing at a legislative level to 
support. Can I count on your support of that legislation to try 
to do what we can to address this issue?
    Secretary Vilsack. We will be happy to provide you the 
technical assistance you need, Congressman.
    Mr. Harder. Thank you. I appreciate it.
    I also wanted to ask another question about the wildfire 
plan that came out this week based on the bipartisan 
infrastructure investments that we passed last year. One of the 
things that this plan is intending to do is to triple the 
number of acres, up to 75 million acres over the next 10 years 
is my understanding, of trying to do more reduction of fuels to 
try to make sure that these fires don't continue to be as bad 
as they are.
    What further investments, if any, do you think are 
necessary to try to get this wildfire challenge under control?
    Secretary Vilsack. Well, I would say that consistency in 
funding is necessary. I think what you all have provided in the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which the President 
supported and pushed, is sufficient resources for the next 
couple of years. The question is whether or not we are in a 
position to have that same level of funding and support for 
years 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, because it is going to take a 
while for us to get the hazardous fuel reduction. It is going 
to take us a while to do the reforestation and the restoration 
work that needs to be done in areas that have already been 
impacted by fire. So, I think consistency in funding would be 
how I would respond to your question, but it is great that we 
have these resources. I know the Forest Service and the 
Department of the Interior are going to work very 
collaboratively with state and local folks to do as much work 
as possible. It is a 350 percent increase in the level of 
commitment and funding for hazardous fuel reduction, and it is 
going to be focused on the areas of highest risk to 
communities. So, hopefully over time, people will begin to see 
fewer catastrophic fires and certainly less risk to people and 
property and to key forest areas.
    Mr. Harder. Wonderful. Thank you so much.
    The Chairman. The gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Moore, is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Moore. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Earlier in your response to Mr. Allen, you mentioned a 
court case regarding poultry line speeds and the potential for 
a pilot program similar to the one announced for pork plants in 
November. In responding to Mr. Rouzer, you touted the pork 
pilot program as successful and a positive path forward.
    I completely disagree. The affected pork plants were 
already operating at safe and at higher speeds before this 
Administration failed to defend the NSIS Program. And since the 
new pilot program was announced in November, none of the plants 
have been approved to participate. Can you elaborate, Mr. 
Secretary, on what you are referring to regarding the poultry 
program, and second, when can we expect the pork program trials 
to actually begin?
    Secretary Vilsack. Well, we are anxious to approve those 
five companies that have made a request and making sure that it 
is consistent with the promise and commitment that we have made 
to try to balance worker safety, plant speeds, and profits for 
farmers.
    A Federal judge in Minneapolis basically ended the line 
speed effort in pork, and it did for one reason and one reason 
only. The Trump Administration did not include any 
consideration during the course of the calculation of that rule 
about worker safety. They had data. They had information. They 
decided not to include it, and it was a significant problem 
from a litigative standpoint.
    So, there was no recourse here. So, the recourse is what do 
you do in the face of a Federal judge that basically strikes 
the rule? You go back to the companies in the industry and say 
how can we work through this, and that is what we did. And I 
think we are going to see these approvals in the very near 
future.
    On the poultry side, we have an existing case and we are 
asking the court to give us the opportunity to sort of remand 
the case back to the USDA so that the USDA is in a position to 
try to create the same kind of opportunity on the poultry side 
as on the pork side. And the point of this is to make sure that 
we do a better job of balancing safety, profits, and processing 
line speeds.
    Mr. Moore. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Let me add a comment. 
I have to go. I am out of time; but, I have toured a ton of 
poultry plants in my lifetime. That is my background. That is 
my degree. And 91 to 93 birds per minute is what we were 
producing, and we were doing that safely.
    With empty shelves in grocery stores and slowing production 
down and starting to inhibit it, I think we are going to 
continue to see the American consumer look for protein products 
on shelves. And so, I just want to say, we need to be careful 
sometimes. We overregulate stuff and it slows down the process. 
I have seen these plants. They seem to work fairly safely, and 
the American consumer right now needs food on shelves, and we 
don't need more regulations.
    Thank you, and my time is up.
    The Chairman. The gentlewoman from Iowa, Mrs. Axne, is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Axne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, 
Secretary Vilsack for being here. It is always good to be here 
with my former boss from the State of Iowa, and my current 
constituent. So, thank you so much, Secretary, for all the work 
that you are doing. And I also want to thank you and President 
Biden for the announcement this month on increasing competition 
and resiliency in our cattle markets.
    As you know, the lack of competition and transparency is 
critically impacting Iowa's independent cattle producers, and 
the funds announced by the USDA will go a heck of a long way to 
expand processing options for those folks.
    So, my first question is in regard to the announcement, it 
also referenced my legislation, the Cattle Price Discovery and 
Transparency Act of 2021 (H.R. 5992), bipartisan legislation 
that will help facilitate actual negotiations of pricing 
between producers and packers through establishing a regional 
minimum for the cash market. And the bill led in the Senate (S. 
3229) by my fellow Iowan, Senator Grassley, would help improve 
price discovery and market fairness for cattle producers.
    Mr. Secretary, my question: Will giving producers more 
leverage and market information help address some of the issues 
that we are seeing in our cattle markets?
    Secretary Vilsack. Absolutely, Congresswoman, because if 
you have greater transparency, then you have greater confidence 
that the market price that you are receiving at a particular 
point in time is a fair price. And I think there are many, 
many, many producers out there that feel that they are not 
currently getting a fair price.
    Mrs. Axne. Well, thank you for helping us make that 
transparent for our Iowa producers.
    Another issue, and I am sure you have been hearing this, 
but I have been hearing this as of late is that Iowan farmers 
are concerned about the high cost of fertilizer this season, in 
particular, of course, with our corn producers. They have seen 
the highest cost of fertilizer per acre for any commodity out 
there, and some farmers unfortunately are considering planting 
less this spring due to this increased cost.
    I know you have been watching this closely, Mr. Secretary, 
so I am curious to see what you think the reasons are for this 
volatility, and what steps the USDA and Congress can take to 
address this issue?
    Secretary Vilsack. Part of the reason is strong global 
demand and domestic demand. Part of the reason is that we are 
reliant on outside sources for some of the fertilizer that we 
use, and those outside sources have made the decision to impose 
export controls, which makes it difficult to get the supply 
into the U.S. Part of the reason I think is that we need to 
continue to accelerate significantly our efforts in precision 
agriculture so that the application of fertilizer is strategic 
and thoughtful.
    Iowa State--I mentioned this earlier. Iowa State has 
research that suggests that maybe as much as 30 percent of corn 
acres today may not require any fertilizer at all. If we can 
provide producers with sensor materials and sensor information 
and technology that will allow them to more accurately 
understand precisely where and how to utilize fertilizer, we 
could potentially lower those input costs.
    And finally, I think it is important for people to take 
advantage of the program that we just recently announced, the 
``split-apply'' nitrogen program (Post Application Coverage 
Endorsement), at Risk Management Agency. The opportunity 
potentially to obtain some protection if you make the decision 
to split your nitrogen and apply it only once a year as opposed 
to twice a year. If there are crop reductions, maybe there is a 
way in which you can be compensated for those reductions. So, I 
think there are a multitude of things we need to be doing in 
the long-term, and in the short-term, folks need to take 
advantage of the tools that are available.
    Mrs. Axne. I absolutely appreciate that, and as we continue 
to discuss this and further down the road, I definitely want to 
talk more on precision agriculture as we roll out broadband as 
part of our infrastructure bill. But this idea, as you 
mentioned, to ensure that those farmers actually have access to 
that precision agriculture, get the connectivity, but make sure 
that they got what they need to use that. So, thank you for 
addressing that.
    One last question. I have lots of questions for you, 
Secretary, but I want to end on cover crops, and thank you for 
the focus that you have in the USDA on cover crops.
    The creation of the Pandemic Cover Crop Program in 2021 
provided a first step to incentivize broader adoption of soil 
health practices that can help turn agriculture into a greater 
solution to the climate crisis. Can you please elaborate for us 
on the USDA's plan to roll out a 2022 Pandemic Cover Crop 
Program, and could you give us a sense of how many acres would 
be covered by that 2022 program, and how many acres did the 
USDA enroll in the 2021 program as well?
    Secretary Vilsack. The 2021 program was somewhere between 
12 and 14 million acres, maybe as high as 15 million acres. The 
goal here is to get to 30 million acres eventually. That is one 
of the reasons why we were excited about the Soil Health 
Initiative with the Soybean Association and a number of other 
commodity groups. The Soil Health Institute basically 
committing to working to doubling the level of cover crop acres 
in the United States from roughly 15 million to 30 million by 
2030.
    We continue to look for ways in which we can provide 
incentives. RMA is going to roll out the program for 2022 very 
shortly, and the hope is that we will see ever increasing 
interest in getting a reduction in crop insurance in exchange 
for maintenance of these important cover crops.
    In the meantime, we are also going to look for ways in 
which we can expand market opportunities also for those cover 
crops.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady from Minnesota, Mrs. 
Fischbach, is now recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Fischbach. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Secretary, regarding your agency's most recent 
announcement on the availability of loans and grants for 
additional meat processing capacity, can you give us any 
additional detail regarding the details of the loans that will 
be available? For example, what will the guarantees or the loan 
limit be on those loans?
    Secretary Vilsack. The purpose of the loans is obviously to 
provide low interest financing so that folks who are interested 
in expanding or building new capacity are in a position to be 
able to get the capital necessary. I should also point out that 
we also have a commitment to expanding worker training in this 
area. We need more workers and we are going to try to work with 
community colleges and other partners to try to provide 
additional workforce.
    Mrs. Fischbach. And more directly, the question was about 
the loans and if there was any information.
    My office has been fielding questions regarding the 
application process and timing. Do you have anything to add in 
that regard?
    Secretary Vilsack. The first tranche of the resources will 
be grant resources, $150 million. We hope to be able to get 
that framework out in the next several weeks. The idea being 
those shovel-ready programs and projects that are ready to go 
but just need a push, this will provide that push. Then this 
summer, we hope to put out both the $225 million of additional 
grant money, as well as the $275 million in loans.
    In the meantime, there is also a Food Supply Chain 
Guaranteed Loan Program that is available that we announced 
several months ago that folks might take a look at as well.
    Mrs. Fischbach. Okay, and Mr. Secretary, how will this new 
program differ from the current B&I Program in the terms, and 
offering and administration?
    Secretary Vilsack. Well, that is a Business and Industry 
Loan Program, which is a loan guarantee program. This financing 
could very well be direct loans from USDA, so there is that 
difference. There may be a guaranteed portion of it too. We are 
basically getting input from the industry in terms of how best 
to structure this to meet the needs that are out there.
    Mrs. Fischbach. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, and it 
might be helpful if you kept Congress informed about how that 
is going since we are, kind of, that first direct line for 
constituents to call.
    But switching gears a little bit. You mentioned earlier, I 
believe it was in your opening comments or at least one of the 
very first questions, about keeping dollars in rural areas. So, 
with that in mind, I wanted to just ask about some of the 
renewable fuels.
    Cutting the amount of renewable fuels that are blended 
increases the level of petroleum-based products in the 
marketplace, hampering our efforts to fight climate change. And 
despite the fact that the Administration is considering 
reducing the Renewable Volume Obligation for biofuels in 2020, 
2021, and even 2022, ignoring Congressional intent of the RFS 
implementation, what impacts, particularly economic and climate 
impacts, would reducing biofuel blending have on corn farmers 
and rural communities throughout the U.S.?
    Secretary Vilsack. Well, let's be clear about this, 
Congresswoman. The 2022 number is a record amount, it is a not 
a decrease. It is a record amount, and the 2020 and 2021 
numbers are basically reflecting the reality of the pandemic. 
So, I think it is an honest set of numbers, as opposed to what 
happened in the previous Administration where numbers were said 
and then waivers were granted to undercut those numbers. And 
that was--the announcements were accompanied with 65 waiver 
denials by the EPA. So, I think these numbers are--the 2022 
number, an historic number, puts us on a trajectory of growth. 
And don't forget, the aviation biofuel opportunity, which is 
enormous because it is double the size of the existing biofuel 
industry. A tremendous opportunity here.
    Mrs. Fischbach. Mr. Secretary, reclaiming my time. I just 
have a couple of extra seconds.
    I just wanted to say, Mr. Secretary, I hope that you are 
committed to those biofuels, because they are part of the 
solution for climate change and they have been forgotten in 
this new climate change argument that people are making. And 
so, I want to make sure that people understand that they are 
reducing emissions and that that our USDA Secretary is pushing 
for that for the farmers that are producing that.
    Thank you. With that, I yield back.
    Secretary Vilsack. I am confident that I am one of the most 
ardent proponents of biofuels anywhere in this country, and 
have been for years, decades.
    Mrs. Fischbach. I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back.
    The gentleman from California, Mr. Panetta, is now 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Panetta. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this 
opportunity and appreciate you holding this hearing where we 
get to hear from the Secretary of Agriculture. Secretary 
Vilsack, good to see you, and thank you very much for being 
here today. I truly appreciate you showing up to Capitol Hill, 
showing up out in our communities, and basically enduring this 
long line of questioning--questions that you are getting. So, 
thank you.
    Also, as you may know, I hail from the Central Coast of 
California out there in the Salinas, Pajaro, and San Juan 
Valleys. Please know you have an open invitation to come out 
and see our specialty crop producers. Our farmers and our 
farmworkers would love to hear from you out there, and also 
want to appreciate your considering that going forward.
    As you know, with our specialty crops, mainly our big issue 
is harvesting; therefore, it takes humans. Obviously, you know 
well that no technology is yet able to replace the human 
discernment of when it comes to picking a ripe, safe, clean, 
aesthetically pleasing strawberry and so many other soft fruits 
and vegetables. And unfortunately, the fact that we don't have 
immigration reform makes it very difficult.
    I want to thank you for your personal efforts with the 
Senate to go up there and push forward the Farm Workforce 
Modernization Act. I know you have done that. I know you will 
continue to do that. Hopefully we can get that on some Members, 
especially our Republican Senators' table so that they can also 
be a champion, especially something that will help their states 
going forward, and that is immigration reform for our domestic 
ag workers. So, thank you for your efforts in that.
    But I also--look. Right now, I don't want to ask--talk 
about the lack of immigration reform, but I want to pivot to 
what we are relying on, what our producers are relying on now 
and what they need to rely on in the future. Obviously, our 
domestic workforce is shrinking and it is aging. Therefore, the 
only game in town or one of the few games in town is the H-2A 
Program. My producers are running into a couple of 
difficulties. Don't get me wrong, it has been working okay, but 
there are some difficulties with it. One of them is that they 
are experiencing delays dealing with the DOL. The DOL--I get it 
because of COVID pandemic, people not showing up to work. There 
are a lot of delays in receiving their H-2A visas. There are 
rejections of their petitions for minor errors, and there is 
really late or lacking communication from the DOL.
    My question to you, sir, is have you heard of this? Is the 
USDA engaging with the DOL to make the only game in town, the 
H-2A process, actually work for our producers there on the 
Central Coast?
    Secretary Vilsack. I am cognizant of the concerns that 
people have expressed about H-2A, and happy to work with the 
Department of Labor to underscore the importance and necessity 
of getting the processing of this done quickly and 
expeditiously. It is a serious issue, and we are certainly 
aware of it.
    Mr. Panetta. Thank you.
    Another issue they are starting to experience right now is 
DHS expecting their workers to be vaccinated before coming into 
the country. Is that something you are hearing about? Is that 
something you are willing to work with us to maybe try to find 
a compromise as to what we can do? What we did on the Central 
Coast, we ran our own mass vaccine clinics with federally 
qualified health clinics, our producers, our farmers, and our 
farmworkers basically giving shots in arms to the H-2A workers 
that are coming in.
    Are you willing to work on some sort of compromise when it 
comes to dealing with DHS on that type of mandate?
    Secretary Vilsack. I am happy to work on this issue and 
learn more about it.
    Mr. Panetta. Thank you. Obviously, you have heard from my 
colleagues about mechanization. Please know that myself and 
Rodney Davis were the ones who worked hard to get that language 
into the 2018 Farm Bill to put mechanization under the SCRI and 
AFRI and know that coming up on the next farm bill, you are 
going to hear more from us as well as my other colleagues, 
apparently, when it comes to mechanization, obviously something 
that is needed.
    I want to commend you for your strategy on the wildfire 
crisis. Thank you, thank you, thank you. We not only have a lot 
of bounty; we obviously have a lot of forests out there on the 
Central Coast.
    One of the issues I am hearing about is the lack of 
staffing. As you know, 80 percent of fires there in our 
National Forests are caused by humans. I think a way to do that 
is having more Forest Service personnel on the ground. Is your 
Department working to address the critical staff shortages that 
our National Forests are enduring right now?
    Secretary Vilsack. We are converting temporary workers, 
about 1,000 workers to full-time status. We are also increasing 
the compensation and looking at ways in which we can reclassify 
firefighters to encourage more recruitment. So, all three of 
those things are being done.
    Mr. Panetta. Real quickly, my bill, the REPLANT Act (H.R. 
2049, Repairing Existing Public Land by Adding Necessary Trees) 
was included in the IIJA. It is about reforestation. Do you 
know when we could start to see those investments be 
implemented?
    Secretary Vilsack. I can tell you that Mitch Landrieu wants 
us to get and the President wants us to get those resources in 
the field as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Panetta. Outstanding.
    Secretary Vilsack. On time, on budget, and on task.
    Mr. Panetta. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    The Chairman. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Jacobs, is 
now recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Jacobs. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary, and thank 
you for being here today. It was a pleasure to talk with you a 
couple months ago on the phone.
    I represent, again, western New York between Buffalo and 
the outskirts of Buffalo and the outskirts of Rochester, and I 
know you know that area fairly well, having gone to college out 
this way. Many of the questions I had have already been asked. 
I just wanted to touch on one real quick just to reiterate how 
important in our region, as you know, right on the border of 
Canada, is the dispute resolution ruling in our favor in 
regards to dairy and the tariffs, and that I know you are going 
to work alongside the Trade Rep to make sure Canada now adheres 
to the ruling there so we can finally open up that market that 
we have been trying to get into in Canada for our dairy.
    But I wanted to just ask from your opening remarks, I was 
very interested in the terminology of the circular economy that 
you mentioned. I had not heard it that way, but it is something 
I really thought a lot about in an area like ours where we are 
trying to find ways to continue to have our agriculture sector 
thrive. I have seen a few examples of what I now will call the 
circular economy.
    One, we have one ethanol plant in our area, which is fairly 
rare for our area, and the initiative for that 20 years ago--it 
is outside Medina--it was that many of the corn producers there 
were just not able to survive because of the drop in the market 
prices and other competition and so forth. So, this corn grower 
took it on himself and started an ethanol plant, and that plant 
now is servicing and did actually expand corn growing in that 
area.
    We also in Batavia, New York, the economic development 
folks there filled an old factory with HP Hood where they make 
nondairy creamers and other products, 250 jobs, but also it is 
a source that the raw materials are coming from our dairy 
farmers to supply that.
    So, my question to you is how in articulating this concept 
of the circular economy, what can we do to really make that a 
reality and more commonplace? I would just love your thoughts 
on that because I think it really is critically important that 
we do more of that in regions like mine to assure that farmers 
can have a thriving future moving forward. Thank you.
    Secretary Vilsack. I think a commitment to more and new and 
better markets. Now, that sounds like something simple, but the 
reality is, we have to create different avenues, different ways 
in which farmers can benefit from whatever they do on their 
land. Traditionally they grow crops. In some cases, they feed 
crops to the livestock and then they sell the livestock. The 
question is what can we do to expand beyond those traditional 
ways while preserving them, accessing additional revenue 
opportunities.
    So, to the extent that farmers could be paid for certain 
climate-smart agricultural practices and create climate-smart 
commodities, that is one avenue. To the extent, as your folks 
have figured out, they can convert agricultural products to a 
value-added product, whether it is a creamery that produces ice 
cream or cheese, or whether it is an ethanol production 
facility, that is another opportunity. I think there are 
untapped opportunities in terms of agricultural waste. 
Understanding how you essentially can separate the components 
of agricultural waste.
    Let me give you an example in the dairy industry. There is 
separation capacity now to be able to separate solids from 
liquids to reclaim from the liquids a certain organic material 
that can be used for organic farming, and that is a value-added 
ingredient opportunity that can be sold. You can take the rest 
of the liquids and reclaim it and utilize it in scarce water 
resource areas. That is pretty important. You can take the 
balance, the solids, you can pelletize those solids and 
basically put it in a bag and you can basically ship that 
fertilizer anywhere in the world, or you can break it down even 
further and create component parts that could go into a 
chemical, into a material, into a fabric, into an energy 
project, a wide variety of ways.
    So, we need to fund the research that allows that to 
happen. We need to fund the resources, the capital resources 
that enable those kinds of activities to be located in rural 
communities. So, farmers have additional income opportunities, 
they create new job opportunities in rural areas, that wealth 
stays in the rural community, it doesn't travel 1,000 miles 
away.
    Mr. Jacobs. Thank you. I look forward to working with you 
on this great concept.
    I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Lawson, is 
now recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Lawson. Thank you, Chairman Scott, and thanks for 
having this meeting today.
    Mr. Vilsack, I want to make sure that I understood what you 
were saying to Congresswoman Cammack when we were talking about 
the joint effort that we had on a bipartisan basis concerning 
the dairies and the farmer, and you said you wouldn't apologize 
to the way things are happening. Maybe I didn't quite 
understand you. Could you elaborate on that, please?
    Secretary Vilsack. Well, when the Food Box Program was 
initiated, there was a significant amount of cheese that was 
purchased for the Food Box Program. Some folks made the 
decision as a result of that, as they saw prices go up, they 
made the decision to sort of pull out of the Federal Milk 
Marketing Order, which distorted the market, and the result was 
that smaller producers ended up getting perhaps not the price 
that they thought they would get or the distribution they 
thought they would get because of that disruption.
    And so, what this was designed to do was it was designed to 
provide equity, if you will, by providing some resources to 
reimburse those smaller producers who were disproportionately 
impacted and affected by that different pricing mechanism. And 
so, it is designed to provide that kind of assistance and help, 
and so, we set a threshold of 5 million pounds. That was 
designed to target the resources, target the assistance, target 
the help.
    Mr. Lawson. So, the joint letter we sent in October, you 
all are going to still respond to it and see what more can USDA 
do to help with the disparities that we have. Am I correct?
    Secretary Vilsack. Well, there are other programs that we 
instituted that may very well provide assistance and help the 
larger scale producers. The supplemental Margin Protection 
Program for Dairy, for example, creates an opportunity for 
people to adjust their production levels so that they are able 
to purchase--or get more coverage and get more assistance. To 
the extent that they use high-priced alfalfa as feed, there was 
an adjustment made for that, all of which I think plays to the 
potential for the larger operations. So, it is an effort to try 
to make sure that we are balancing as best we can the help and 
assistance being provided to the people that need it the most.
    Mr. Lawson. Okay, thank you for that answer.
    I want to say that as you know, citrus greening continues 
to devastate farmers across the United States, and especially 
in Florida. Since 2005, my home state has seen a decrease of 51 
percent of its commercial citrus land, and since 2016, an 
estimated $4.6 billion has been lost in the Sunshine State. How 
can we, especially in the next farm bill--and I might say, 
because of this disease, the Animal Plant Health Inspection 
Services, APHIS, has been implemented. How can we--I think we 
asked for about--it was about $50 million that was set aside 
from Congressional appropriations to help with this situation. 
Is that enough money for us to ask for in order for us to do 
something about the citrus greening and the citrus disease?
    Secretary Vilsack. Congressman, I think you need to 
continue to fund research until we figure out how to solve this 
problem, because it is obviously devastating. And I know from 
my previous stint as Secretary, we saw increases in commitment 
over a period of years, and some potential strategies that may 
have merit. But I think you need to continue to fund and 
finance the research necessary to figure this out.
    Mr. Lawson. Okay. One quick question before my time runs 
out.
    Has any progress been made on insurance for timber because 
of the devastation that we have had from hurricanes?
    Secretary Vilsack. Well, let's see. I am not sure I 
understand your question. We are obviously, to the extent that 
there are applications out for additional support and help as a 
result of timber loss, those will be processed. But if you are 
asking about timber harvesting that was impacted by the 
pandemic, those resources have been provided to several 
thousand timber haulers and harvesters.
    Mr. Lawson. Okay. So, a lot of the individual farmers that 
have used this for retirement purposes and so forth, will they 
qualify for any of those funds?
    Secretary Vilsack. I am not sure of that, Congressman. Let 
me check with our team and get back to you.
    [The information referred to is located on p. 128.]
    Mr. Lawson. Okay. With that, I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Cloud, is now 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Cloud. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, 
Secretary, for being with us today. I wanted to start off by 
thanking you for working with our office following the Texas 
freeze to revise the rule to provide an avenue of relief for 
aquaculture, and specifically our redfish farmers. It was much 
appreciated, and so, thank you very much for that.
    As you know, of course, we are facing a number of crises in 
our nation at the moment, and it is certainly affecting our 
rural communities. When I speak with farmers and ranchers in my 
district and throughout Texas, they are concerned, of course, 
about labor shortages, exacerbated in part by the 
unconstitutional vaccine mandates, monetary policy, and supply 
chain breakdown that are leading to massive inflation. As you 
know, costs are going up for parts if you can find them, 
fertilizer and pesticides are expensive and hard to come by, in 
part because of kind of the assault against natural gas that we 
have seen lately. If we don't fix this, it is going to lead to 
even more empty shelves at the grocery store potentially, and 
even higher food prices.
    I haven't yet heard a farmer or rancher ask me if only I 
had an electric tractor, but that is what our hearing was about 
last week. What I do hear is they would like to get parts for 
the tractor that they already do own. But I will say, the 
biggest issue that I hear from farmers and ranchers in south 
Texas by far as what they are concerned about is the border. It 
is border security, and I would like to submit a few articles 
for the record, without objection. Farm Progress, Border 
situation threatens farmers' livelihood; Daily Mail, `This 
needs to stop now': Texas farmer, 75, finds five abandoned 
migrant girls--including a baby--under the age of 7 crying and 
hungry on his land--and warns thousands will die this summer in 
sweltering heat while Biden ignores the border crisis; Fox 
Business, Texas ranchers pummeled by Biden's border crisis 
`fear for their lives,' and Fox News, Texas rancher says he and 
his neighbors find bodies of migrants on their properties.* And 
this is true. It has become a daily thing, really, for the ag 
community in Texas to have to personally carry the burden for 
our border crisis. So, that comes in the way of them paying 
tens of thousands of dollars to repair fences that have been 
run through because of bailouts or they have been cut by human 
traffickers, crops are destroyed or contaminated from foot 
traffic, water sources are compromised, vehicles are stolen. 
Families do fear for their lives on their own property because 
of emboldened cartels and it isn't uncommon to find drugs or, 
tragically, dead migrants on their property. And so, on June 3 
of last year, the American Farm Bureau Federation sent you, 
Secretary Mayorkas, and Secretary Haaland a letter talking 
about this. It was signed from what I can tell by all 50 state 
Farm Bureaus as well. Today, they tell me they haven't received 
a response. And so, can you commit to conveying the concerns of 
the ag community certainly in Texas, but this was signed by 
every state, to convey those concerns to the White House to 
reply to this letter? Would you be able to work with our office 
in seeing what we can do to relieve the burden? Again, they are 
having to personally pay for the burden of what is supposed to 
be a national security issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    * Editor's note: the articles referred to are located on p. 87.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Secretary Vilsack. Congressman, first of all, I have 
personally communicated to 50 state presidents of the Farm 
Bureau about this issue. We did provide a response, and we do 
have roughly $3 million of EQIP resources that are now and have 
been available for some time for producers to be able to be 
compensated or reimbursed for the expenses that they are 
incurring as a result of fence repairs and so forth. So, that 
program has been set up.
    Mr. Cloud. Okay. Well, thank you. I appreciate that, and we 
will follow up then and figure out how to get that to the 
farmers and ranchers, because they are not aware of it in our 
district. So, I will be happy to work with you on that. So, 
thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you.
    One other issue that I do hear a lot about, though, the FSA 
offices and the staffing issues. Again, they are trying to 
apply and they are having trouble finding employees who can 
help them. Sometimes the offices are closed. Sometimes they are 
filling out applications in the parking lot. The staff has said 
that they are working on a program called Jabber when they are 
working remotely and any time they get a call, apparently they 
have to log out and log back in, which is creating some 
inefficiencies. We led a letter from the Oversight and Reform 
Committee that I also serve on to the FSA inquiring about the 
status of reopening and other staffing issues. We haven't 
received a response to that letter, to my knowledge. Can you 
reply to that, but then also, can you speak to how many 
employees, including those in state and in the county USDA 
offices like the Farm Service Agency offices, have been left or 
forced to leave the USDA as a result of vaccine mandates? And 
can you speak to how the USDA is weighing religious and medical 
exemptions from the vaccine mandate?
    Secretary Vilsack. Mr. Chairman, can I respond to that even 
though the time is up?
    The Chairman. Yes, you may.
    Secretary Vilsack. First of all, we track and survey 
activities in our Farm Service Agency offices to make sure that 
the work is getting done, and we compare it to where things 
were relative to pre-pandemic at the same time. I have seen 
that survey, and it has indicated that we are on track to do 
the level of work that was done pre-pandemic. I mentioned 
earlier the tens of thousands of loans, the billions of dollars 
that our Farm Service folks have gotten out from pandemic 
assistance. I will tell you; they have done a remarkable job. 
They have done a remarkable job.
    I can tell you that at this point in time, roughly 600 
people out of roughly 90,000 have failed to indicate whether 
they are vaccinated or requesting an accommodation. The 88, 89 
percent of folks have been vaccinated. The other folks have 
requested an accommodation, and we are going through those 
accommodation processes now. A number of them have been 
granted, and in the meantime, all of those people, all 88 
percent of our workforce and the ten percent of our workforce 
that is requesting accommodation, all of those people are 
working. Those who are requesting accommodations have just 
simply been asked to put a mask on, to socially distance, to 
protect themselves and to protect their coworkers and their 
families and their communities.
    The 600 or so that failed to respond, they have been given 
several letters and opportunities to respond by either getting 
vaccinated or to request an accommodation. I think some of them 
have requested an accommodation and they have moved into that 
process, which is good. We have begun, the first part of 
January, a graduated level of suspension so that folks are 
given multiple opportunities to make a choice whether to seek 
an accommodation either for health reasons or for religious 
reasons, or getting vaccinated. And at the end of the day, the 
work is getting done. I just have nothing but admiration for 
the people that work for the Farm Service Agency and for all 
the people that work at USDA. I think they have done, on 
balance, a remarkable job under very difficult circumstances.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Well said.
    Mr. Cloud. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    The Chairman. The gentleman from Arizona, Mr. O'Halleran, 
is now recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, 
for holding this important hearing today. Secretary Vilsack, it 
was great seeing you once again. It was a pleasure spending 
time with you out in Arizona on Tuesday. I look forward to 
working with you on issues facing Arizonans who are dealing 
with the impacts of wildfires, extreme drought, flooding, cost 
of food, and obviously, making sure our farms in America 
survive the recent issues that they face with the supply chain.
    The 10 year fire announcement is long overdue, and I am 
pleased that USDA and the Forest Service have committed to this 
plan. Unabated wildfire poses an extreme risk to our 
communities, families, and businesses, and I look forward to 
continuing to work closely with you and Chief Moore over the 
coming years to ensure that this remains on track and that 
lives and livelihoods are protected.
    I also want to specifically thank USDA and the Forest 
Service for their commitment to the Four Forest Restoration 
Initiative, or 4FRI. 4FRI has the potential to transform 
northern Arizona's forest ecosystems, protecting the region 
from catastrophic wildfire, while protecting plant and wildlife 
diversity and economic development, along with our water 
resources.
    I also appreciate you visiting a small meat packer in 
Arizona. The issues with rising food costs are ones that every 
family is paying attention to. While I appreciate the 
Administration's efforts to reduce food costs, the 
Administration and this Committee must work with the 
stakeholders to deliver real relief that Americans deserve.
    I do want to make a quick comment about Mr. Panetta's 
[inaudible] the staffing issues. I think that law enforcement 
has to be filled in on one of those areas where staffing is 
needed.
    Now, questions, Secretary Vilsack. I have always been a 
fierce advocate for dedicated funding for broadband in our 
rural and Tribal communities. USDA's ReConnect Program is a key 
part of that strategy. Since the program's inception, Congress 
has dedicated over $4 billion for ReConnect and there clearly 
is bipartisan support for this program.
    In this most recent round of applications, USDA increased 
the eligible areas to include areas that--with service less 
than 100/20 speeds. While fast service is critical for rural 
economies to compete, can you discuss how USDA is continuing to 
prioritize projects in areas without any broadband, like most 
of rural Arizona?
    Secretary Vilsack. Well, the folks who go to the top of the 
list, if you will, from an application perspective, 
Congressman, are those who don't even have 25/3 speed, upload 
and download speeds. So, that is a way of protecting, but it is 
also--the 100/20 effort is really designed to reflect the 
reality that you can have broadband, but if we are only 
satisfied with 25/3, it won't be long before those people don't 
have adequate broadband at all, because they will find that 
they can't have more than one person download something in the 
home, or they won't have the ability to do distance learning, 
or they won't have adequate telemedicine capacity, or they 
won't have precision agriculture available to their farmers. 
So, the key here is to build a system that meets the demand 
today and creates the infrastructure that will allow for 
continued expansion as time goes on. But with the understanding 
that those areas that are currently unserved get, in essence, a 
priority to get to the top of the list.
    So, I think it is an effort to try to balance with these 
resources, and we have had a number of projects, 181 projects, 
about $1.5 billion has already been committed from the various 
programs that you have funded, and we anticipate and expect 
decisions being made very shortly this year on the $1.15 
billion on round 3, and then hopefully round 4 and 5 come after 
that.
    Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you, Secretary.
    As a grandfather myself, it breaks my heart to see kids go 
hungry. As many as 13 million kids don't know where they are 
getting their next meal. We have to do better. I appreciate the 
actions you have taken to address hunger, especially the 
reevaluation of the Thrifty Food Plan, as directed by the 
bipartisan 2018 Farm Bill, which I and many others on this 
Committee passed. Mr. Secretary, can you tell us what impact 
the reevaluation to the Thrifty Food Plan has had in addressing 
hunger, especially among children?
    Secretary Vilsack. Well, it has provided additional 
resources at a time when many families might have been faced 
with a cliff. We are also taking a look at ways in which we can 
continue to provide assistance, and are encouraging states to 
use the opportunities of the Pandemic EBT Program to not only 
provide additional assistance now, but also during the summer. 
That is a very key area, Congressman, the summer EBT Program, 
and hopefully states get their plans on file and we get them 
approved quickly.
    Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you.
    The Chairman. The gentleman from Kansas, Mr. Mann, is now 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Mann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Secretary, thank 
you for being here this morning.
    I appreciated Congressman Cloud's comments and questions 
about the vaccine mandates a couple questions ago and what they 
are doing to our FSA offices in Kansas and their ability to 
deliver services, so thank you for that attention there.
    I represent the big 1st District of Kansas, which is the 
third largest ag producing district in the country, by dollars. 
International trade is the key component of economic growth and 
recovery. Mr. Secretary, just 2 years ago China made a deal 
with the United States, the Phase 1 China trade deal, to import 
$36 billion worth of U.S. ag products in 2020 and 2021. As you 
know, China failed to meet that commitment by close to $7 
billion. That is 20 percent. Again, $7 billion. It feels like 
China sold America a bill of goods and the Biden Administration 
has made no effort to rectify the situation. By refusing to 
hold China accountable, the Biden Administration is hurting all 
American farmers, ranchers, and producers, from wheat farmers 
in Kansas to rice growers in California.
    A few weeks ago, I understand you stood on a stage in a 
room full of producers and acknowledged that China fell short 
on their end of the deal, and in response to our concerns, you 
said, ``But here is the deal with our Chinese friends. They are 
light on what they have committed to purchase, and that is why 
Ambassador Tai, our U.S. Trade Representative, continues to 
converse with China about the necessity of living up totally 
and completely to the Phase 1 trade agreement, making up that 
deficit over the next several years.''
    The next several years was never part of this 2 year deal 
that we are now at the end of. China said they would purchase a 
certain amount of ag products and they didn't. Mr. Secretary, 
my question is, I join farmers and ranchers in their concern 
about this trade deficit with China and with your remarks. What 
should I tell Kansans about how you, Ambassador Tai, and 
President Biden are taking immediate action to hold China 
accountable so they buy our ag products and put upward pressure 
on prices?
    Secretary Vilsack. Well, I think your constituents should 
be reminded that we have a record year in ag exports. A record 
that was set in 2013 when I was Secretary before was surpassed 
this year--or last year in 2021, and it is expected and 
anticipated that that record will be broken again this year. 
So, you can talk about the fact that there have been 2 record 
years of ag exports, which is one of the reasons why commodity 
prices across the board are significantly stronger and higher 
than they were a year ago today.
    Second, you can tell folks and people that there is an 
ongoing negotiation with China. I don't know where your figures 
are coming from, but my figures say that they are $16 billion 
light, and they are also light on seven very important sanitary 
and phytosanitary barriers. And so, we are giving China--we are 
putting them on notice that this is something that we want them 
to live up to the Phase 1 agreement. We want our Mexican 
friends to live up to USMCA. We want our Canadian friends to 
live up to USMCA. We want our trading partners to live up to 
agreements. And so, the first and foremost program and step 
here is to indicate our focus on trade enforcement, and that is 
what we are doing. That is why we took Canada and used the 
USMCA process to raise issues about the tariff rate quotas, and 
they weren't fulfilling the responsibilities of USMCA.
    So, it is not correct to suggest that we haven't done 
anything. It is indeed correct to suggest that we have asked 
the Chinese to increase more, and obviously, if they don't, 
then there are a wide variety of ways in which we can respond 
to that, and no doubt we will.
    Mr. Mann. Yes. Any amount of understanding, the numbers I 
have seen, I think they are $16 billion short on the whole 
deal, $7 billion short on purchasing our ag products. But 
whatever it is, they have been short.
    Secretary Vilsack. No, no. It is $16 billion on the ag 
products.
    Mr. Mann. Okay, okay.
    On the input side, the other big issue that I constantly 
hear from our producers is we have seen a four to five times 
increase in fertilizer costs, dramatically increasing input 
costs for producers here as we are starting to head into the 
spring. I know that you were asked about this earlier, and I 
think the response was that we should tell producers to 
decrease the use of fertilizer. That is not going to cut it for 
my producers who have had plans in place and crop rotations and 
such for years. A lot of this comes down to decreasing import. 
China is no longer exporting fertilizer like they were. What do 
we do there? What should we tell farmers, and how do we improve 
and really decrease input prices, as we are about to see our 
producers get squeezed? Their margins are going to be squeezed 
greatly if we don't do something quickly.
    Secretary Vilsack. Well, we have been historically opposed 
to export controls and will continue to be historically opposed 
to export controls, number one. Number two, I think it is 
important and necessary as farmers understand and learn more 
about precision agriculture, we are going to see farmers 
understand and appreciate the importance and opportunity to 
actually produce more with less. This is not a suggestion where 
you simply eliminate the utilization of fertilizer. This is a 
suggestion where you understand and appreciate where it needs 
to be applied, right place, right time, right amount.
    Mr. Mann. I agree. A lot of my producers have done that for 
a long, long time. They still have to apply fertilizer this 
year.
    The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired.
    The gentlewoman from Minnesota, Ms. Craig, is now 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Craig. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and Secretary 
Vilsack, thank you so much for being with us today to give us 
an update on the rural economy.
    I really appreciated you visiting the 2nd District last 
year, and Under Secretary Torres Small also visited my district 
back in December. So, thank you so much to the USDA for the 
strong, strong partnership.
    I have a brief comment and three quick questions to cover 
with you today, and I don't have a lot of time so I am going to 
move quickly through them.
    First, a comment on risk management and the farm safety 
net. I was extremely glad to see the recent announcement that 
the Risk Management Agency is adding PACE (Post-Application 
Coverage Endorsement) to its crop insurance offerings, which is 
going to help farmers manage risk as they invest in key 
conservation practices. As USDA continues to develop new 
programs, I want to reiterate my support for the farm programs 
that are already in place, including the Federal Crop Insurance 
Program. The farm safety net is critical for producers in my 
district, and I will be working on that in the next farm bill.
    Question one for you, though, Mr. Secretary, first on 
biofuels. I want to thank you for your support of renewable 
fuels over the years. I know we both see the benefit of 
biofuels for family farmers, as well as to meet our carbon 
reduction goals, which is why I am pushing for the year-round 
sales of E15. How do you see the Administration utilizing 
biofuels like ethanol and biodiesel in achieving your 
transportation sector emission reduction goals, and how quickly 
can USDA distribute the recently announced $100 million for 
biofuels infrastructure?
    Secretary Vilsack. Well, that resource is going to be made 
available very, very shortly, as well as the $700 million to 
the biofuel industry. Applications will be received very soon, 
and hopefully by the summer those monies will be distributed.
    In terms of E15, we are working with our partners at EPA. I 
think they announced an effort to try to get input from folks 
in terms of how best to institute a statewide or nationwide, 
rather, E15 mandate or requirement or opportunity, however you 
want to phrase it. And I would say it is going to continue to 
play a critical role. I mean, I realize that people are, there 
is a lot of conversation about electric cars, but the reality 
is we are still going to have for the foreseeable future, 
probably in my lifetime for sure, we are still going to have 
cars that require biofuel. And hopefully over time, we have 
airplanes and ships that require biofuel. And in doing so, we 
will see an expanded biofuel industry. We won't see the 
elimination of this industry; we will see the expansion of it, 
new opportunities, new jobs. So, I am excited about the 
industry and I think the future is bright for the industry.
    Ms. Craig. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I know you have a lot 
of bipartisan support here on this Zoom and in the meeting room 
for your statement there.
    Let's go back to the reason you were in Minnesota here back 
in the summer. A question on drought relief. When the two of us 
spoke in August in Minnesota, it was clear that you were 
thinking about how USDA can be better prepared to support 
farmers and ranchers in the upper Midwest if we have those 
periods of extreme drought like we experienced this last year. 
What program changes is USDA considering to address future 
extreme regional droughts, and will you commit to partnering 
with this Committee to address those solutions in the upcoming 
farm bill? And if you will, about 30 seconds.
    Secretary Vilsack. Well, we are obviously focusing on 
implementing the $10 billion you all provided under WHIP+, and 
trying to do that in a thoughtful and creative way, and a fast 
way. Second, I would suggest as you are putting the farm bill 
together, that you understand the need for flexibility. You 
also need to understand the regional differences as we develop 
programs. I know it is easier to do a nationwide program, but 
the reality is we are so complicated in agriculture that we 
really need to create regional approaches that allow us to have 
some greater flexibility in the application of these programs.
    Ms. Craig. Thank you so much, and finally, quickly, rural 
broadband. Obviously, I am grateful for your continued 
advocacy. The ReConnect Program is a key part of that work, and 
I appreciate your focus on ReConnect.
    After the October announcement about making $1.15 billion 
available through ReConnect, I did hear, though, from a number 
of community-based rural broadband providers. Can you briefly 
describe why USDA decided to deprioritize those community 
providers, and are you open to working with the Committee to 
ensure that we have funding for all rural broadband providers?
    Secretary Vilsack. Well, I think the challenge here with 
these resources is to make sure that we are providing 
opportunity in a balanced way, and that is what we attempted to 
do with our third tranche. And we learn from each application 
process what we need to focus on for the next application 
process. So, this is an ongoing iterative process, and we 
learn, which is why we established some of the criteria for 
round 3. No doubt, some of those criteria will be applied to 
round 4. There may be new criteria. We will listen, we will 
learn, and we will attempt to try to do the very best job of 
making sure these resources provide as much assistance and help 
in expanding as much access to meaningful broadband as 
possible.
    Ms. Craig. Well, Mr. Secretary, thank you very much.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady from Louisiana, Ms. Letlow, is 
now recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Letlow. Thank you, Chairman Scott.
    Mr. Secretary, as I travel throughout the 5th Congressional 
District, I continue to hear concerns from Louisiana farmers 
about the many challenges currently facing the agriculture 
industry. Cost of production is on the rise, and fertilizer 
prices have continued to climb to near-record high levels. This 
is a troublesome trend. Rice is one of the top commodities in 
my district and the state. As you well know, rice is a high 
input cost crop with very particular infrastructure and 
equipment needs, and it has an outsized impact on local 
economies.
    That is why I asked the Agricultural and Food Policy Center 
at Texas A&M University to conduct a study to determine the 
economic impacts of input prices using their 64 representative 
farms, including a grain farm located in my district. Here is a 
copy of this study. This report found that there will be a 
significant impact on the cost of inputs, both on the whole 
farm level and per acre varying by commodity. Rice farms 
experience the highest fertilizer cost increase, averaging 
$62.04 per acre, and our other crops are not far behind.
    Further exacerbating the situation is the fact that rice 
farmers have not seen the increase in commodity price, much 
like other crops. Compared to the 2020 prices recorded by the 
Economic Research Service, the current market price for rice is 
relatively static since the last year, up just four percent. I 
would also point out that traditional farm bill programs are 
not designed to react to these economic challenges.
    Secretary Vilsack, I sent your office a letter with a copy 
of this report enclosed. I ask that you review the analysis in 
its entirety and examine the negative implications of reduced 
net farm income due to increased costs of production.
    Last September, USDA announced a set of investments to 
address the challenges facing America's agriculture producers, 
including $500 million to provide relief from agriculture 
market disruption. As part of this initiative, one area of 
focus included the availability and cost of certain materials. 
However, we have yet to see any outcomes further detailing the 
implementation of these funds. Mr. Secretary, can you provide 
this Committee with an update on the implementation of these 
funds, and any action USDA is taking to help our agriculture 
producers in addressing the impact of increased energy and 
input costs?
    Secretary Vilsack. We are in the process of finalizing the 
opportunity to use a portion of the $500 million that you 
referred to, to assist in dealing with some of the supply chain 
challenges that we face, particularly as it relates to exports, 
and we are looking forward to that.
    I have actually seen the study that you have alluded to. In 
fact, I looked at it last night in preparation for this 
hearing, and it is a challenge. There is no question about it. 
I think there are multiple ways to deal with this. There is no 
short-term solution. We faced a similar situation back in 2014/
2015 with high fertilizer prices. I think one thing we need to 
do is take a look at ways in which we can be less dependent on 
outside sources and resources for these materials so that we 
don't face export controls as we are facing today, which is an 
issue. I think we obviously have to continue to address the 
supply chain challenges that we face to the extent that that is 
contributing to it, additional port hours, truck drivers with 
things we have discussed earlier today. And I think we have to 
continue to equip farmers with information and technology and 
the capacity to produce more with less. I think that is part of 
the challenge as well.
    There is no silver bullet. I wish there were, and if there 
were, we would certainly be on top of it.
    Ms. Letlow. Well, thank you for reviewing the study, and I 
look forward to receiving your formal response to my letter, 
and working with you to help alleviate the lasting effects of 
supply chain disruptions.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back the remainder of my time.
    The Chairman. The gentleman from California, Mr. LaMalfa, 
is now recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the time 
here, and thank you, Secretary, for your extensive time with us 
in this Committee today. I appreciate the efforts. I know you 
get to make a trip out West a little bit later today, so 
hopefully we can find a way to resolve some of California's 
water supply and water storage issues out there on that 
conversation.
    So, let me cover a couple things really fast in the 
beginning here. We have, as has been mentioned by several other 
Members here, but I feel obligated to too, payments that need 
to be getting out to growers here, we are hearing about 
especially in some of our northern California counties. That 
might have something to do with staff issues in some of the 
counties. I don't know if it is COVID related or what have you, 
but the dollars are just not getting out the door of the 
original $10 billion for the wildfire, drought, and other 
natural disasters we have had in the last couple years. It has 
been well over 100 days on that, and so they are wondering why 
isn't it getting out the door? So, please, your attention on 
that, especially with northern California FSA offices.
    And also as an aside to, our ag products that are stuck on 
a dock, stuck in containers. California, many of our nut 
growers are really, really suffering on exports, and so, 
whatever push you as Secretary can do, sir, to get our Trade 
Representatives and enforce our trade agreements we have, China 
and them. When we have empty containers going back or sometimes 
ships with no containers on them, that is a real problem 
because our products need to be going on those ships back and 
have some semblance of a balance of trade. And so, whatever 
push the USDA can have with our Trade Reps would be greatly 
appreciated, because our almond growers, walnut growers are 
just getting killed with this stuff sitting on the docks and in 
storage, and it is going to carry over in the following years 
and just smash the price on those products.
    So, sir, let me shift gears to our forestry issues now. One 
fire, just one fire in my district was right at a million acres 
last year. It was called the Dixie Fire. I want to see if the 
Forest Service, we can press them to up their targets for 
timber work for the coming year. Do you see the agency 
harvesting in 2022 in any fashion a significant increase? How 
important is this, do you think, as far as our timber 
harvesting for the rural economy, obviously, as we still need 
wood and paper products in this country. It is nice to have 
them domestically produced and for forest health. So, what do 
you think about those, sir?
    Secretary Vilsack. Well, I would say that the 10 year plan 
that we announced earlier this week speaks to the opportunity 
for the Forest Service to do a lot more work in a lot of 
different areas across the board to make our forests healthier 
and more resilient. So, I think you can expect to anticipate 
much more work, and we are going to be focusing on as well on 
making sure that we reduce the risk to communities and people 
from these horrific fires. And over time, I think we can reduce 
the risk and the size of these fires. It is going to take some 
time, with these resources from the infrastructure bill, we are 
now in a position to be able to do much, much more.
    Let me just say on the export issue, we are addressing that 
and I think in the very near future we will have at least some 
opportunity to try to resolve this. I think the port of Oakland 
is underutilized out there on the West Coast, and I think there 
is an opportunity there for us to work in concert with that 
port to see if we can do something about those empty 
containers.
    On the WHIP+ Program, as I mentioned earlier, we are trying 
to simplify the process so we can get resources out to folks as 
quickly as possible, using existing NAP and RMA data, and/or 
livestock forage data to get payments to people hopefully in 
the spring and summer of this year.
    Mr. LaMalfa. I appreciate that. It will be good to see if 
some of these dollars can get out there for the forestry we are 
talking about.
    But yes, we do have staffing issues, it seems to come down 
to, whether it is FSA offices, and we have had Forest Service 
offices that don't even bother to open up for months. Simple 
things like Christmas tree permits in some of my counties are 
very difficult to get out the door with that. So, we have to 
look at staffing more, and not have such a clamp down because 
of COVID situations.
    So, on forestry, coming back to that, because it is a big 
deal. I talk about that the most. On the hazardous fuel 
reduction in the wildland urban interface areas, we need 
commercial partners, and in the recent Build Back Acts, they 
were restricted from having commercial partners. Is that 
something that we can be more aggressive on, and having--there 
is not enough Forest Service time or personnel or dollars. 
Commercial users can help do that.
    Secretary Vilsack. A portion of the infrastructure bill 
does provide resources to the state and local governments to be 
able to partner with us and so, obviously there will be 
opportunities there as well.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Not just governments, I am sorry, but with 
actually the logging industry out there.
    Secretary Vilsack. I am sorry, I got the red light. I am 
not sure----
    Mr. LaMalfa. The professional loggers out to the commercial 
industry, they can do much more than the government can do. How 
come we can't partner with them more so?
    Secretary Vilsack. Well, I think they will be engaged and 
have been engaged and will continue to be engaged because of 
the additional resources that are now available. Some of these 
contracts have been pretty expensive, which has limited the 
amount of work that we have been able to do. There is a whole 
other discussion about wood products, and I think there is 
important opportunity there for us to expand significantly the 
use of wood in construction.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Okay. Well, let's see if we can battle 
through, then, on the Build Back Better restriction on that.
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Yes. Before we adjourn today, I want to 
invite our Ranking Member to share any closing comments he may 
have.
    Mr. Thompson. Well, first of all, Mr. Chairman, thank you 
to you for this hearing and extending the invitation to the 
Secretary, and Secretary, thank you for your leadership and 
being with us here today on Capitol Hill and joining us. We 
appreciate your time and look forward to partnering with you on 
the important work ahead. I know it is a full plate when you 
look at the responsibilities of the Department of Agriculture. 
Obviously, food is important, but it is so much more in the 
scope of what you do and what we do on this Committee. And so, 
that partnership is really important.
    I also want to extend my appreciation to your team of 
talented professionals at the Department. I do want to also say 
specifically thank you for FSIS Administrator Paul Kiecker. He 
has been just great. In Pennsylvania alone on this issue of 
protein processing of getting out with his team, and I 
appreciate the visit to Bell and Evans Chicken, that is 
poultry, and appreciate the visit to Nicholas Meats which is on 
the capital side. And so, he has been really hands on and just 
really a great communicator and a great partner.
    In closing, I do want to put a final point on one issue. 
Mr. Secretary, there is a concern in Congress that when any 
Secretary acts unilaterally with the CCC, and in fact, we have 
seen Congress limit your powers of this office when this 
authority is abused. There have been limited details made 
available to us related to the climate program you described, 
and I know you identified two sections specifically. Earlier in 
response to a question from Representative Austin Scott, you 
stated you are very confident in your legal authority, and that 
is an assured statement, given this program seemingly is being 
created unilaterally and out of whole cloth, as we speak. I 
will stress that this Committee remains skeptical of the legal 
authority provided to you and your office under the CCC for 
this program, and looking at the enumerated powers in the Act, 
we think that no amount of mental gymnastics could get you 
there.
    That said, this Committee would like more details from you 
on this program, but we also want to hear specifically from OGC 
on the exact language that provides you the authority under the 
CCC Charter Act, and we want to hear from you prior to any 
funds being obligated. Is that something I can get a commitment 
from?
    Secretary Vilsack. We will be happy to share the details of 
this program with you, Congressman, and also provide you with 
the basis upon which we believe that this is an appropriate use 
of these resources.
    [The information referred to is located on p. 128.]
    Secretary Vilsack. I will tell you, we are not putting 
anything at risk here in terms of our ability to do everything 
else that is important for the CCC, and I think, again, I would 
point out that major farm organizations have called upon us to 
do exactly what we are doing in exactly the form we are doing 
it. And that is, it is the Farm Bureau, it is major commodity 
groups.
    So, we are trying to be responsive to what we are hearing 
on the outside here and look forward to working with you to get 
you to a place where you are a bit more comfortable with this. 
But at the end of the day, we are going to have to do this. We 
are going to have to get engaged in this, and I will tell you 
why we have to get engaged. To the extent we are concerned 
about export markets, my previous stint when I worked for the 
dairy industry, our competitors are absolutely going to make 
this a marketing advantage. We got to get there first.
    Mr. Thompson. Right, and I couldn't agree with you more. I 
encourage you to check out the SUSTAINS Act (H.R. 2606, 
Sponsoring USDA Sustainability Targets in Agriculture to 
Incentivize Natural Solutions Act of 2021), and we want to be 
there right there with you. We have already been working very 
aggressively in this space with bills.
    So, I want to just thank you for that, and thank you for 
your time today, Mr. Secretary, and for the commitment to you 
and the professionals at USDA to be ready to work together on 
continued oversight in preparation for the next farm bill.
    Once again, Mr. Chairman, thanks for holding this hearing. 
I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    As I bring this great and very informative hearing to a 
close today, I first want to thank you, Secretary Vilsack. Your 
testimony was brilliant. It truly was. It was well-prepared and 
well-received on our end. And we thank you for that. This has 
been a 4 hour hearing, and we appreciate your time and your 
commitment. And I am just looking forward to continuing to work 
with you and the USDA on all of the things that we have worked 
on, and so, thank you again, and God bless you.
    Secretary Vilsack. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Under the Rules of the Committee, the record 
of today's hearing will remain open for 10 calendar days to 
receive additional material and supplementary written responses 
from the witness to any questions posed by a Member.
    This hearing of the Committee on Agriculture is now 
adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 1:01 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
    [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Submitted Letter by Hon. David Scott, a Representative in Congress from 
                                Georgia
December 9, 2021

  Hon. Thomas ``Tom'' J. Vilsack,
  Secretary,
  United States Department of Agriculture,
  Washington, D.C.

    Dear Secretary Vilsack,

    Thank you for your proactive efforts addressing our supply chain 
challenges and your September announcement of $3 billion in investments 
for drought resilience, animal disease prevention, and market 
disruption relief.
    I am writing this personal letter to you to ask: if you would be 
kind enough to please use a portion of the $500 million you have 
dedicated to providing relief from agricultural market disruptions, to 
provide critical financial assistance to help our merchandisers of U.S. 
cotton.
    Mr. Secretary, our nation's cotton industry is experiencing 
unprecedented supply chain disruptions. And, our nation's cotton 
merchandisers are being significantly impacted by COVID-related demand 
erosion and by supply chain disruptions. And, this has now created 
unparalleled costs and losses impacting our merchandisers of U.S. 
cotton.
    And, as Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, I stand ready 
to work together with you, as a partner, in bringing this very much 
needed financial help to our merchandisers of U.S. cotton. And, Mr. 
Secretary, my request to you is very important to me and, most 
certainly, to the cotton industry because of the important role that 
our cotton merchandisers play in providing the liquidity and the risk 
management for all our U.S. cotton producers and farmers.
    Secretary Vilsack, I deeply and personally appreciate your help 
with my request for you to use a portion of the $500 million funding 
for agriculture market disruption to provide financial relief for our 
merchandisers of U.S. cotton. Thank you, and God bless you.
            Your friend,
            
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
            
David Scott,
Chairman, House Committee on Agriculture.
                                 ______
                                 
 Submitted Letter by Hon. Ann M. Kuster, a Representative in Congress 
                           from New Hampshire
May 24, 2021

  Hon. Thomas ``Tom'' J. Vilsack,
  Secretary,
  United States Department of Agriculture,
  Washington, D.C.

    Dear Secretary Vilsack,

    The coronavirus pandemic has had substantial impacts on farm and 
food businesses across the nation, from farms and ranches to food hubs 
and processing facilities. Some businesses saw their markets disappear 
overnight, requiring a rapid course shift to reach new customers, while 
others saw demand skyrocket beyond existing capacity. The pandemic has 
underscored the need to better equip these businesses--especially those 
serving local and regional markets--with the tools needed to capitalize 
on new opportunities, create jobs, and achieve a more resilient food 
system.
    Given this critical need, we are writing to urge the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture (USDA) to allocate at least $300 million from 
within existing pandemic response authorities, including stimulus 
funding enacted in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, and the 
American Rescue Plan Act, to dramatically increase one-on-one business 
technical assistance targeting small- and mid-sized farm and food 
businesses. This type of investment in the future has a proven track 
record of improving regional supply chain resiliency. It will also 
translate into new capital and opportunities, particularly for 
communities that the Biden Administration has identified as 
underserved, including socially disadvantaged populations and low-
income rural areas.
    Farmers and ranchers are entrepreneurs, not just agricultural 
producers. This past year has demonstrated that improved business 
skills and financial literacy are essential to enabling these 
businesses to survive unforeseen market disruptions. Many small- and 
mid-sized operations did not have the adequate financial recordkeeping 
needed to access coronavirus relief through Federal opportunities. 
Providing customized support in the form of one-to-one technical 
assistance--for financial literacy, business planning, market 
development, succession planning, and accessing land and capital--will 
help create new jobs and increase sustainability for both the current 
and next generation. One state program found that 2 years of tailored, 
in-depth business planning support generated on average a 62 percent 
increase in net income for farm and food businesses, and helped 
businesses gain jobs at a rate three times that of the sector on 
average.\1\ This is just one example of what can be achieved 
nationally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ 2017 VT Farm & Forest Viability Program Annual Report to the 
Legislature, Vermont Housing & Conservation Board, January 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We are encouraged by your announcement on March 24 that the USDA 
will dedicate at least $6 billion in discretionary funding previously 
enacted by Congress for a new Pandemic Assistance for Producers 
initiative to support producers who were underserved by the previous 
Administration's relief measures. Through the American Rescue Plan Act, 
Congress provided an additional $3.6 billion in funding to improve 
supply chain resiliency and help producers as well as small- and mid-
sized processors respond to the pandemic. Dedicating a portion of these 
funds to one-on-one business technical assistance is critical to 
meeting these goals. Currently, support for this assistance is being 
provided on a piecemeal basis across the country by public and NGO 
service providers who rely on inconsistent government and philanthropic 
funding sources. While the recent supplemental funding for USDA's Local 
Agriculture Market Program (LAMP) and Farming Opportunities Training 
and Outreach (FOTO) represent critical investments in small- and mid-
sized farm and food businesses, these programs have a wide range of 
uses and are not specifically designed to support in-depth and 
sustained business technical assistance. In fact, a dedicated 
investment in business technical assistance will help ensure the impact 
and longevity of these LAMP and FOTO investments. Therefore, we urge 
the USDA to dedicate at least $300 million for business technical 
assistance, delivered in the form of multi-year grants to public and 
NGO agricultural service providers with a history of providing this 
type of assistance and a track record of increasing business skills, 
profitability, and access to land and capital.
    Thank you for your continued support of the nation's agriculture 
producers. We know you share our concern about future viability and 
sustainability within the industry. We are grateful for the work you 
and the Department have done to support farms, ranches, and other food 
businesses as the pandemic continues, and look forward to working with 
you to advance support for these businesses.
            Sincerly, 
            
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
            

 
 
 
Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,               Hon. Antonio Delgado,
United States Senator                Member of Congress
 
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
                                     

 
 
 
Hon. Cory A. Booker,                 Hon. Chellie Pingree,
United States Senator                Member of Congress
 

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
                                     

 
 
 
Hon. Sherrod Brown,                  Hon. Cynthia Axne,
United States Senator                Member of Congress
 


                                     

 
 
 
Hon. Robert P. Casey, Jr.,           Hon. Sanford D. Bishop, Jr.,
United States Senator                Member of Congress
 


                                     

 
 
 
Hon. Richard J. Durbin,              Hon. Suzanne Bonamici,
United States Senator                Member of Congress
 


                                     

 
 
 
Hon. Kirsten E. Gillibrand,          Hon. Cheri Bustos,
United States Senator                Member of Congress
 


                                     

 
 
 
Hon. Mazie K. Hirano,                Hon. Ed Case,
United States Senator                Member of Congress
 


                                     

 
 
 
Hon. Angus S. King, Jr.,             Hon. Jim Costa,
United States Senator                Member of Congress
 


                                     

 
 
 
Hon. Amy Klobuchar,                  Hon. Joe Courtney,
United States Senator                Member of Congress
 


                                     

 
 
 
Hon. Ben Ray Lujan,                  Hon. Angie Craig,
United States Senator                Member of Congress
 

 
                                     

 
 
 
Hon. Edward J. Markey,               Hon. Rosa L. DeLauro,
United States Senator                Member of Congress
 


                                     

 
 
 
Hon. Jeff Merkley,                   Hon. Jahanna Hayes,
United States Senator                Member of Congress
 


                                     

 
 
 
Hon. Christopher Murphy,             Hon. James A. Himes,
United States Senator                Member of Congress
 


                                     

 
 
 
Hon. Jack Reed,                      Hon. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson,
                                      Jr.,
United States Senator                Member of Congress
 


                                     

 
 
 
Hon. Bernard Sanders,                Hon. Marcy Kaptur,
United States Senator                Member of Congress
 


                                     

 
 
 
Hon. Brian Schatz,                   Hon. Ann M. Kuster,
United States Senator                Member of Congress
 


                                     

 
 
 
Hon. Charles E. Schumer,             Hon. James R. Langevin,
United States Senator                Member of Congress
 


                                     

 
 
 
Hon. Jeanne Shaheen,                 Hon. Sean Patrick Maloney,
United States Senator                Member of Congress
 

                                     

 
 
 
Hon. Tina Smith,                     Hon. James P. McGovern,
United States Senator                Member of Congress
 


                                     

 
 
 
Hon. Debbie Stabenow,                Hon. Stacey E. Plaskett,
United States Senator                Member of Congress
 

 
                                     

 
 
 
Hon. Chris Van Hollen,               Hon. Mark Pocan,
United States Senator                Member of Congress
 


                                     

 
 
 
Hon. Sheldon Whitehouse,             Hon. C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger,
United States Senator                Member of Congress
 


                                     

 
 
 
                                     Hon. Bobby L. Rush,
                                     Member of Congress
 

 
                                     

 
 
 
                                     Hon. Kim Schrier,
                                     Member of Congress
 


 
 
 
                                     Hon. Abigail Davis Spanberger,
                                     Member of Congress
 

 
                                     

 
 
 
                                     Hon. Paul Tonko,
                                     Member of Congress
 

 
                                     

 
 
 
                                     Hon. David J. Trone,
                                     Member of Congress
 

 
                                     

 
 
 
                                     Hon. Peter Welch,
                                     Member of Congress
 

                                 ______
                                 
 Submitted Letter by Hon. Vicky Hartzler, a Representative in Congress 
                             from Missouri
July 30, 2021

  Hon. Thomas ``Tom'' J. Vilsack,
  Secretary,
  United States Department of Agriculture,
  Washington, D.C.

    Dear Secretary Vilsack,

    Thank you for your recent announcement of plans to invest in our 
nation's meat processing capacity. As you know, the industry has 
experienced several disruptions in recent months and small processors 
were crucial in supporting the supply chain across Missouri and the 
nation.
    As your team seeks input on the strategy for the $500 million from 
the American Rescue Plan to support new competitive entrants in meat 
and poultry processing, I want to highlight the need for processors who 
stood up or made expansions during the COVID-19 pandemic to be eligible 
for these investments.
    According to Rabobank Research, adding packing capacity could 
result in more balanced profitability throughout the supply chain and 
suggests that an additional 5,000 to 6,000 head of daily beef packing 
capacity would help achieve this. The estimated cost for building a 
small 20 head per week processing facility, which is the average for 
Missouri plants, is $1.2 million for all the construction, permits, 
equipment, etc. With the need for processors to shell out this amount 
of capital, reserving a portion of the $500 million to invest in 
processors who opened their doors or made expansions during the COVID-
19 pandemic would be a wise use of taxpayer dollars.
    These small businesses stepped up in a desperate time of need and 
took on substantial risk--and debt--to help stabilize the supply chain 
and provide local options for both producers and consumers. These 
processors should not be penalized for rising to meet local need amid a 
global pandemic. In an effort to help ensure the long-time viability of 
these processors, I request a portion of this funding be made available 
in the form of grants to processors who began operating or conducted 
any expansion since the COVID-19 pandemic designation.
    This request will be submitted through the Federal Register comment 
page as well. Thank you for your consideration and please do not 
hesitate to contact me if I may be of any service to you during this 
process or in the future.
            Sincerely,
 
            
Hon. Vicky Hartzler,
Member of Congress.
                                 ______
                                 
 Submitted Letter by Hon. James R. Baird, a Representative in Congress 
                              from Indiana
October 7, 2021

 
 
 
Hon. Thomas ``Tom'' J. Vilsack,      Hon. Janet Woodcock,
Secretary,                           Acting Commissioner,
U.S. Department of Agriculture,      U.S. Food and Drug Administration,
Washington, D.C.;                    Washington, D.C.
 

    Dear Secretary Vilsack and Acting Commissioner Woodcock,

    As you know, several challenges facing the agriculture industry and 
our communities have emerged or intensified in recent years. Zoonotic 
disease, climate change, and a growing global population require us to 
consider new solutions to protect our food supply and sustainably meet 
demand. Ongoing research and existing innovations in animal genetics 
show great promise in addressing these challenges. However, an 
efficient, risk and science-based regulatory system that can create a 
safe, predictable path to market is imperative to capitalizing on these 
solutions. We believe the existing U.S. regulatory process for the 
review of animals developed or improved through biotechnology requires 
significant improvement to meet that standard, and we encourage the 
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Food & Drug Administration 
(FDA) to continue working with each other and with other relevant 
Federal partners to appropriately modernize this important process.
    For thousands of years, genetic improvements have been a hallmark 
of agriculture. Over the last century, organized research and formal 
plant and animal breeding programs have rapidly advanced the success 
and sustainability of agricultural production. Since the 1950s, milk 
production \1\ in the United States has nearly doubled while using half 
the number of cows, reducing both the environmental footprint and costs 
of production. However, many of the challenges we face today will not 
afford us another 70 years to make similar incremental improvements. 
Zoonotic disease risks like SARS-CoV-2 or recent avian influenza spread 
to humans in Asia,\2\ could be greatly mitigated by disease-resistant 
livestock.\3\ Animals improved to reduce methane emissions \4\ or 
improve heat tolerance \5\ could play an important role in our efforts 
to address climate change and achieve more resilient supply chains.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.wpr.org/how-we-produce-more-milk-fewer-cows.
    \2\ https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/21/science/bird-flu-
pandemic.html.
    \3\ https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/06/190604084855.htm.
    \4\ https://www.newscientist.com/article/2208449-we-could-breed-
climate-friendly-cows-that-belch-less-methane/.
    \5\ https://www.researchgate.net/publication/
313956642_BREEDING_AND_GENETICS_
SYMPOSIUMBreeding_heat_tolerant_dairy_cattle_the_case_for_introgression_
of_the_slick_
prolactin_receptor_variant_ into_dairy_breeds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Unfortunately, the existing regulatory system is not conducive to 
the timely adoption of these sorts of innovations. In the past 25 
years, only two animals intended for agricultural purposes have been 
approved for use domestically by FDA. One of these innovations is 
primarily intended for biomedical applications,\6\ and both took 
decades to achieve regulatory approval. A costly, protracted regulatory 
system will continue to stifle important agricultural innovations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ https://www.statnews.com/2020/12/14/fda-approves-genetically-
altering-pigs/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Efforts to modernize the regulatory environment for products of 
biotechnology have transcended Administrations and party lines--a 
tradition we hope to see continued. In 2015, President Obama's 
Executive Office of the President (EOP) issued a memo \7\ initiating a 
process to modernize the Federal regulatory system for products of 
biotechnology with the objective of ensuring public confidence, 
preventing unnecessary barriers to future innovation, and continuing to 
protect health and the environment. These are sound objectives, and we 
support efforts to continue exploring improvements in our regulatory 
system, such as USDA's publication of an Advance Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (ANPR) regarding whether to establish regulations for the 
movement of certain animals modified or developed using genetic 
engineering. We were heartened by the decision to extend the ANPR's 
comment period to ensure ample opportunity for thoughtful input from 
the public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/
microsites/ostp/modernizing_the_
reg_system_for_biotech_products_memo_final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    With the ANPR comment period now closed--and as the Administration 
decides how to best navigate this vital modernization effort--we 
encourage USDA and FDA to carefully consider the feedback provided by 
stakeholders. The challenges facing our food supply and society demand 
an improved regulatory approach, and we are hopeful that this 
Administration will rise to the occasion and empower agriculture with 
the tools necessary to be a part of the solution.
            Sincerely,

            

 
 
 
Hon. Stacey E. Plaskett,             Hon. James R. Baird,
Member of Congress                   Member of Congress
 

 
                                     

 
 
 
Hon. David Scott,                    Hon. Glenn Thompson,
Chairman,                            Ranking Minority Member,
House Committee on Agriculture       House Committee of Agriculture
 


                                     

 
 
 
Hon. Alma S. Adams,                  Hon. Cynthia Axne,
Member of Congress                   Member of Congress
 

 
                                     

 
 
 
Hon. Troy Balderson,                 Hon. Sanford D. Bishop, Jr.,
Member of Congress                   Member of Congress
 


                                     

 
 
 
Hon. Cheri Bustos,                   Hon. Salud O. Carbajal,
Member of Congress                   Member of Congress
 


                                     

 
 
 
Hon. J. Luis Correa,                 Hon. Jim Costa,
Member of Congress                   Member of Congress
 


                                     

 
 
 
Hon. Angie Craig,                    Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford,
Member of Congress                   Member of Congress
 


                                     

 
 
 
Hon. Rodney Davis,                   Hon. Antonio Delgado,
Member of Congress                   Member of Congress
 

 
                                     

 
 
 
Hon. Randy Feenstra,                 Hon. Michelle Fischbach,
Member of Congress                   Member of Congress
 


                                     

 
 
 
Hon. Jim Hagedorn,                   Hon. Vicky Hartzler,
Member of Congress                   Member of Congress
 


                                     

 
 
 
Hon. Jahana Hayes,                   Hon. Chris Jacobs,
Member of Congress                   Member of Congress
 

                                     
                                     

 
 
 
Hon. Dusty Johnson,                  Hon. Trent Kelly,
Member of Congress                   Member of Congress
 

                                     
                                     

 
 
 
Hon. Ann Kirkpatrick,                Hon. Ann M. Kuster,
Member of Congress                   Member of Congress
 

                                     
                                     

 
 
 
Hon. Doug LaMalfa,                   Hon. Al Lawson, Jr.,
Member of Congress                   Member of Congress
 

                                     
                                     

 
 
 
Hon. Julia Letlow,                   Hon. Barry Moore,
Member of Congress                   Member of Congress
 

                                     
                                     

 
 
 
Hon. Tom O'Halleran,                 Hon. Jimmy Panetta,
Member of Congress                   Member of Congress
 

                                     
                                     

 
 
 
Hon. David Rouzer,                   Hon. Bobby L. Rush,
Member of Congress                   Member of Congress
 

                                     
                                     

 
 
 
Hon. Kim Schrier,                    Hon. Austin Scott,
Member of Congress                   Member of Congress
 

                                     
                                     

 
 
 
Hon. Abigail Davis Spanberger,
Member of Congress
 

                                 ______
                                 
Submitted Articles by Hon. Michael Cloud, a Representative in Congress 
                               from Texas
                               Article 1


[https://www.farmprogress.com/farm-policy/border-situation-threatens-
farmers-livelihood]
Border situation threatens farmers' livelihood


          Worsening Border Situation: Texas rancher Katie Hobbs' 
        husband found five girls dumped by a river on the Texas-Mexico 
        border.

          Ranching families on the border faced with bailouts, 
        unfriendly visitors and high costs to rebuild.

Jacqui Fatka \1\ D Jun. 29, 2021
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.farmprogress.com/author/Jacqui-Fatka.

    As the border situation continues to grab headlines and even a 
recent visit from Vice President Kamala Harris, those farmers and 
ranchers along the border are seeing the situation getting worse every 
day.
    The new reality for many farmers in Southern states are 
``bailouts,'' where smugglers driving vehicles crowded with immigrants 
entering the U.S. illegally are in a police pursuit. As everyone bails 
out of the vehicle, the smugglers crash through fences, dump clothes 
and backpacks, and leave children to fend for themselves.
    ``There is a crisis going on along the border, not just the Texas 
border. Unless you have been here and live here, you have no idea how 
bad it is. No idea until you live it,'' says Stephanie Crisp-Canales.
    Crisp-Canales was born and raised in LaSalle County, Texas, about 
56 miles from the Mexican border. When she was a child growing up on 
the family ranch, many immigrants crossed the border illegally, looking 
for a better life.


          Editor's note: the video is retained in Committee file; and 
        is available at https://player.vimeo.com/video/542720896.

    ``They didn't steal. They didn't try to break into your house. They 
came to the door, rang the doorbell and just wanted something to eat. 
Most of them offered to do something in return for food and wanted to 
do something to repay the kindness you showed them,'' Crisp-Canales 
shares.
    When she was 14 or 15 years old, she had her first experience of 
those trying to do harm against her. ``At that point I started to see a 
change, and it no longer became as safe to go outside,'' she recalls.
    ``It has slowly gotten worse and worse and worse until where we are 
today. We have multiple bailouts a day,'' she explains.
    The American Farm Bureau Federation joined all 50 state Farm 
Bureaus and Puerto Rico Farm Bureau in sending a letter in early June 
urging the Biden Administration to address the surge of undocumented 
immigrants entering the United States. The letter points out that local 
and state border security resources have been exhausted, leaving little 
help for farmers and ranchers. It highlights the problem of human 
smugglers, known as Coyotes, explaining that landowners live in fear 
while Coyotes reap a windfall from leaving people destitute.
    ``Human smugglers (Coyotes) are making false promises and doing 
whatever it takes to get paid and get away, including jeopardizing 
lives and property,'' the letter continues. ``In their desperation to 
evade law enforcement, Coyotes abandon people, steal vehicles, 
vandalize property and threaten the safety and livelihoods of farmers 
and ranchers. They are often criminals who smuggle drugs and firearms 
into the country, frequently leaving them on farmers' and ranchers' 
property, causing unrest for farm and ranch families.''
    Crisp-Canales explains previously when a bailout occurred on your 
property, the landowner could claim that vehicle. The salvaged vehicle 
could then be used to pay for repair costs and offset the costs from 
the bailouts of the coyote drivers who unload immigrants across the 
terrain if there's a threat of being caught. Now the laws require the 
vehicle to be sold at auction and the landowner isn't compensated at 
all.
    ``We have to pay to fix our fences and replace gates when it's 
happening multiple times per day. It is costly. It sucks. It's just 
awful,'' she laments.
    Fellow Texas rancher Dale Smith shares the current scenario is 
``dramatically different than what we've seen in the past.'' 
Previously, he would see families or people who were friendly. Now it 
is individuals with camouflaged backpacks cutting fences and people on 
the highway carrying firearms and drugs along with a dozen people 
crammed into a vehicle.
    Texas rancher Brian King says over the last 6 years he went from 
having just two bailout incidents on his farm to a now weekly 
occurrence over the last 4 months.


    Bill Martin, who farms in Dimmit County, Texas, has been ranching 
all his life. ``This is just about the worse I've ever seen traffic 
coming in across the border,'' he states. Prior to this year he went 2 
years without seeing a single illegal. Now he's picking up 50 pounds of 
leftover backpacks and clothes just dumped on his property for those 
who don't need it for the next stage.
    He recently found the water line left running. ``If I hadn't found 
it, it would cost me $1,500 and the cattle wouldn't have had water.''
    Marcus Canales of LaSalle County says everybody knows south Texas 
has always had its issues with those crossing the border. But the surge 
coming in continues to create headaches. In his location near 
Interstate 35, one of his biggest fears is if a bailout opens up a 
fence and a cow gets out on the interstate, he can get sued.
    Jim Chilton is a fifth-generation Arizona rancher and has land with 
14 miles exposed to the Mexico border. When he started farming at the 
location west of Tucson in 1987, there was no real issue at the border. 
In the mid-1990s to 2008, waves of people were coming in and mainly 
headed to California, Illinois and the coasts to work until the 
recession hit and the traffic stopped.
    After that, Chilton says the drug cartels took over all the truck 
trails on his ranch, and he believed the traffic changed to drug 
packers. The drug packers and cartel now use people who do want to seek 
asylum as decoys and once border control's attention is diverted to 
those individuals, the cartel knows they can run the drugs up without 
fear of apprehension.
    ``We need to secure the border because the people coming across our 
ranch aren't asylum seekers; these are bad guys,'' Chilton shares.
    For more stories on the border impact on farmers, visit https://
texasfarmbureau.org/border-crisis-impacts.
                               Article 2


[https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9566251/Texas-farmer-finds-
five-abandoned-migrant-girls-7-land-border-crisis-worsens.html]
`This needs to stop now': Texas farmer, 75, finds five abandoned 
        migrant girls--including a baby--under the age of 7 crying and 
        hungry on his land--and warns thousands will die this summer in 
        sweltering heat while Biden ignores the border crisis
   Farmer Jimmy Hobbs, 75, says he found the five little girls 
        on Sunday at 8.30am while doing a round of his land in Quemado, 
        Texas

   The girls were all hungry and crying; one was naked and 
        crawling because she is too young to walk

   Three were from Honduras--they are 7, 3, and 2

   Two are from Guatemala and are aged 5 years old, and 11 
        months old

   The farmer said he gave them food, water and shade until CBP 
        arrived 3 hours later

   He said the current border crisis is the worst he's seen in 
        the 75 years he has lived on the farm

   It's unclear what will now happen to the girls--Customs 
        Border Patrol hasn't indicated where they are, or if they can 
        stay in the U.S.

   Hobbs and his wife Katie begged Biden to tighten the rules 
        or come to the border to see the crisis for himself

   They said that as summer approaches, many will die trying to 
        get into the country in sweltering heat

   The number of migrant children being held in CBP detention 
        centers has doubled over the last month--there are now more 
        than 21,000

By Jennifer Smith for DailyMail.com \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/
search.html?s=&authornamef=Jennifer+Smith+For+
Dailymail.com.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Published: 08:16 EST, 11 May 2021 D Updated: 13:17 EST, 11 May 2021

    Five abandoned girls from Honduras and Guatemala were found on 
Sunday on the land of a Texas \2\ farmer, hungry and crying after being 
left by their families to try to get into the country alone in another 
example of the worsening border crisis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/texas/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Three of the girls are from Honduras. They are 7, 3, and 2. The 
other two are from Guatemala and are aged 5 and 11 months old.
    They are now at Uvalde Station, where they'll be processed, before 
being given to Health and Human Services.
    Jimmy Hobbs, the 75-year old farmer and his wife Katie gave an 
interview to Texas Congressman Tony Gonzales which was posted on 
Twitter \3\ after the pair submitted photos and videos to social media 
groups that campaign for tighter border control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/twitter/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Gonzalez also shared a gut-wrenching image of the girls lying in 
dirt. In one of the videos she shared, Katie fumed in the background: 
`These children dumped out on the side of the river here on our farm.
    `If this doesn't make you mad and make you want to take to the 
streets, I don't know what will. They have no mother, no father, no 
nothing. This is one of our workers' wives right here taking care of 
this tiny one. No one with these children.'
    Hobbs is an onion and watermelon farmer who has lived on the land 
he owns his entire life. The farm is in Quemado, Texas, which sits on 
the border with the Mexican state of Coahuila.
    He said that he believes the girls would have died if he hadn't 
found them, and that the situation at the border is the worst it has 
been in the 75 years he has lived on the farm.
    He and his wife warned that there will be `thousands more' who get 
into perilous danger and die this summer trying to illegally cross the 
border as temperatures rise and President Biden continues to shrug off 
the crisis and leave it to Vice President Kamala Harris to handle 
instead.
    Since Biden took office, there has been a rush of people trying to 
illegally get into the country and the number of kids in detention 
centers has doubled over the last 2 months. Now, there are 21,000 in 
U.S. custody. Neither the President nor the Vice President has visited 
the border.


          Five girls from Honduras, Guatemala and Mexico were found on 
        Sunday by Texas onion and watermelon farmer Jimmy Hobbs on his 
        property in the border town of Quemado, across from the Mexican 
        state of Coahuila. The photo was posted on Twitter by 
        Congressman Tony Gonzalez on Sunday after first being shared on 
        border Facebook groups.
        
        
          Editor's note: the video is retained in Committee file; and 
        is available at https://www.dailymail.co.uk/embed/video/
        2416996.html.
        
        
          On Sunday morning, Katie Hobbs and her husband Jimmy Hobbs 
        discovered five migrant girls near a river on their farm in 
        Quemado, Texas, which borders with the northeastern Mexican 
        state of Coahuila.
        
        
          The farmer and his wife gave the girls food, water and sat 
        them in shade while they waited for CBP to arrive at the scene.
        
        
          The youngest of the girls is so little she can't walk yet. 
        She was naked when the farmer arrived and the girls didn't have 
        any diapers for her either. She is shown being cradled by one 
        of the farm workers' wives.
        
        
          They also called on the wife of one of their workers, who 
        speaks Spanish, to comfort the girls. They are now in CBP 
        custody, along with 21,000 other kids.

    The farmer and his wife spoke to Republican Congressman Tony 
Gonzalez about what they found. Gonzalez posted a video of their 
comments on Twitter.
    `I was making a round on the farm and about 8.30 in the morning, I 
was just driving along and all of a sudden I see them.
    `Five little baby girls, all by themselves, hungry crying. One 
didn't have any clothes on.
    `Immediately, I called border patrol but they're snowed under, they 
don't have any help either.
    `I waited for a while then I called one of my workers and asked his 
wife to go up to the house and bring some food and water,' the farmer 
said.
    The farmer brought the girls into shade and gave them food and 
water for `two and a half hours' before police arrived.
    `It was really hot. I don't think they would have made it if I 
hadn't found them,' he said.
    The farmer's wife added: `It needs to stop right now.
    `There's going to be thousands. This is just 5 miles of the Rio 
Grande. That's a huge border, this is happening all up and down it.
    `It can't go on. It's going to be too hot. There are going to be a 
lot of deaths, a lot of suffering this summer.'
    The farmer added a plea to President Biden--tighten the rules to 
prevent people from flooding the border or come and see the crisis for 
yourself. 


          Editor's note: the video is retained in Committee file; and 
        is available at https://www.dailymail.co.uk/embed/video/
        2416888.html.
        
        
          https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9566251/Texas-
        farmer-finds-five-abandoned-migrant-girls-7-land-border-crisis-
        worsens.html#i-7fa779c46412539e
          Republican Congressman Tony Gonzalez shared the photo on 
        Twitter and said it was another indicator of the escalating 
        crisis

    `We're talking about how the United States is a humane country--
this is not humane anymore and it all started under [him].
    `He either needs to come down here and look at this himself or 
change it back,' he said.
    His wife added that Trump's presidency was the first time they'd 
felt safe in 30 years because it stopped migrants from rushing to the 
border to try to get in.
    `Change it back under Trump's Administration. For the first time in 
30 years we felt secure here.
    `It was working and it was working well. They stayed in Mexico.
    
    
          Biden has shrugged off the crisis, refusing to even call it 
        one, for months.

    `A lot of people are going to die this summer and we're going to be 
witness to it.'
    Customs and Border Patrol called the situation `heartbreaking'.
    `It is heartbreaking to find such small children fending for 
themselves in the middle of nowhere.
    `Unfortunately this happens far too often now.
    `If not for our community and law enforcement partners, these 
little girls could have faced the more than 100 temperatures with no 
help,' said Del Rio Sector Chief Patrol Agent Austin L. Skero II in a 
press release.
    The number of migrant children being held in CBP detention centers 
has doubled over the last month--there are now more than 21,000.
    One facility in Fort Bliss, Texas, has more than 4,500 kids in 
custody.
    Attorneys, advocates and mental health experts say that while some 
shelters are safe and provide adequate care, others are endangering 
children's health and safety.
    `It's almost like Groundhog Day,' said Southern Poverty Law Center 
attorney Luz Lopez.
    `Here we are back to a point almost where we started, where the 
government is using taxpayer money to build large holding facilities . 
. . for children instead of using that money to find ways to more 
quickly reunite children with their sponsors.' 


          The farm is in Quemado, Texas, which sits on the border with 
        the Mexican state of Coahuila.
                               Article 3


[https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/texas-ranchers-pummeled-by-
bidens-border-crisis-fear-for-their-lives]

Published October 13, [2021]
Texas ranchers pummeled by Biden's border crisis 'fear for their lives'
Border crisis cripples Texas couples' daily lives
By Alicia Warren \1\ FOXBusiness \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.foxbusiness.com/person/w/alicia-warren.
    \2\ http://www.foxbusiness.com/.
    
    
          Editor's note: the video is retained in Committee file; and 
        is available at http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/6276926350001.
          Texas ranchers pummeled by President Biden's border crisis 
        'fear for their lives'
          John Paul and Donna Schuster detail the impact the border 
        crisis has had on their daily lives.

    John Paul and Donna Schuster have experienced firsthand the 
damaging effects of the uncontrollable migrant surge \3\ wreaking havoc 
on the U.S. southern border.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ https://www.foxnews.com/category/us/immigration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The crisis has crippled the couple's daily lives and they even 
admitted to living in ``fear'' as they grapple with the consequences of 
Biden's \4\ ``open border'' policies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ https://www.foxbusiness.com/category/joe-biden.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Texas \5\ ranchers discussed the devastation they've endured 
during an emotional interview with ``Mornings with Maria'' \6\ host 
Maria Bartiromo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ https://www.foxnews.com/category/us/us-regions/southwest/texas.
    \6\ https://www.foxbusiness.com/shows/mornings-with-maria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ``You've got to look around like, is somebody out there? You just 
don't know who's watching you,'' Donna Schuster told the FOX Business 
host. ``There's some kind of sign that someone has been there since the 
last time I was there the day before. It's either trash, footprints, 
gate left open, fence cut, water line broken, float broken for a trough 
that waters the livestock. It's something every single day,'' she said.
    The Schuster's reside in Kinney County, approximately 28 miles from 
the U.S., Mexico border. Their ranch has become an undeclared hideaway 
for runaway migrants trying to avoid apprehension and enter the U.S. 
illegally. 


          Migrants, many from Haiti, are seen at an encampment along 
        the Del Rio International Bridge near the Rio Grande in Del 
        Rio, Texas. (AP Photo/Julio Cortez, File) (AP Newsroom).

    ``By the time they show up at our house or they show up at our 
ranch. They've called a ride or they've been walking for several 
days,'' John Paul Schuster told Bartiromo.
    The migrants trespassing on the couple's property has become a 
norm. The ranchers have had to take matters into their own hands to 
protect themselves, hiding pistols in their home, installing alarm 
systems and even purchased a dog.
    Donna Schuster started carrying a gun regularly after confronting 
migrants walking towards her property in April. Her husband was tending 
to machinery on the ranch.


          Editor's note: the video is retained in Committee file; and 
        is available at http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/6276907947001.
          Texas ranchers impacted by border crisis share emotional 
        story
          Texas ranchers John Paul and Donna Schuster discuss the 
        overwhelming migrant surge, damage done to their property and 
        why they started carrying guns during an emotional interview 
        with FOX Business' Maria Bartiromo.

    The border crisis has worsened since the Biden Administration took 
office in January 2020. After dismantling Trump-era immigration 
policies, the U.S. has dealt with record-breaking \7\ border 
apprehensions \8\ as the migrant influx persists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ https://www.foxnews.com/us/migrant-crisis-us-mexico-border-
guatemalan-activist.
    \8\ https://www.foxnews.com/category/us/immigration/border-
security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ``The way this whole thing is shaking down and geared up from this 
Administration is we're the victims,'' John Paul Schuster said 
emotionally. ``It's bulls**t,'' he continued.
    The Schuster's have even extended to help migrants seeking asylum 
by offering them a job \9\ and working with them until their court date 
arrives. Their offers were rejected every time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ https://www.foxbusiness.com/category/jobs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ``We understand that there's people coming in that want a better 
life, but there's a better way to do it than the way that it's 
happening down here,'' Donna Schuster explained.
    ``We shouldn't be afraid in our own homes.\10\''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ https://www.foxbusiness.com/real-estate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Article 4


[https://www.foxnews.com/us/texas-rancher-bodies-dead-migrants-
properties]

Published April 8, [2021]
Texas rancher says he and his neighbors find bodies of migrants on 
        their properties
`There is a sense of fear that exists down here all the time,' Whit 
        Jones says
By Talia Kaplan \1\ D Fox News \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.foxnews.com/person/k/talia-kaplan.
    \2\ https://www.foxnews.com/.
    
    
          Editor's note: the video is retained in Committee file; and 
        is available at http://video.foxnews.com/v/6247469972001.
          Texas rancher says he, neighbors find bodies of migrants on 
        property
          Texas rancher Whit Jones explains what he has been 
        experiencing amid the migrant surge at the southern border.

    Texas \3\ rancher Whit Jones told ``Fox & Friends'' \4\ on Thursday 
that he and his neighbors have found bodies of migrants \5\ on their 
properties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ https://www.foxnews.com/category/us/us-regions/southwest/texas.
    \4\ https://www.foxnews.com/shows/fox-and-friends.
    \5\ https://www.foxnews.com/category/us/immigration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Jones, who lives in Hebbronville, Texas, said that while he has 
found about two to three bodies a year, ``a neighbor of mine has been 
finding close to ten a year for the last 10 years.''
    He noted that currently, he has found mostly adult males who would 
not qualify for asylum, on his property.
    ``Right now we're seeing hardly any children or women because of 
everything that's going on on the river,'' Jones explained. ``Those 
people aren't having to make this journey.''
    He noted that women and children can claim asylum and are ``being 
bused places,'' which leads to more ``single men coming up'' and 
results in ``a little bit more of a dangerous situation.''
    ``There is a sense of fear that exists down here all the time,'' 
Jones told host Brian Kilmeade.\6\ ``It's a terrible situation.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ https://www.foxnews.com/person/k/brian-kilmeade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., said last month that similar issues 
have been reported by ranchers in Arizona.
    ``I spoke with John Ladd, a local rancher in Cochise County, who 
told me in the past 30 years he's had over a dozen dead illegal 
immigrants on his ranch,'' Blackburn tweeted.


          https://twitter.com/MarshaBlackburn/status/
        1373743724497235972.

    President Biden \7\ has scrapped a number of former President 
Trump's immigration policies, which included wall construction and 
having asylum seekers remain in Mexico instead of staying in the U.S. 
while they wait for their cases to be heard. The moves have led to a 
record surge in migrants,\8\ including unaccompanied minors, that has 
strained capacity at immigration facilities in recent weeks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ https://www.foxnews.com/category/person/joe-biden.
    \8\ https://www.foxnews.com/politics/migrants-released-without-
court-dates-border-surge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Jones explained that he lives a little north of the border with 
Mexico.
    ``Typically what we hear about on the news is people crossing that 
border,'' he explained. ``But essentially there's another border that 
is about 50 miles to the north and we call it the 'interior check 
system' or the `interior checkpoint.' ''
    ``So once all these people get across the river, they then now have 
to make another journey across to this next,'' he continued.
    Jones said he is hoping to get a state law passed that would help 
``penalize smugglers'' and provide protection for migrants.
    He noted that the law would ``strengthen the penalty on trespassing 
from a state level'' and would allow ``our local law enforcement the 
ability to do more with the situation.''

          Talia Kaplan is a reporter for FoxNews.com. Follow her on 
        Twitter @taliakaplan.
                                 ______
                                 
  Submitted Letter by Hon. Julia Letlow, a Representative in Congress 
                             from Louisiana
January 19, 2022

  Hon. Thomas ``Tom'' J. Vilsack,
  Secretary,
  U.S. Department of Agriculture,
  Washington, D.C.

    Dear Secretary Vilsack:

    As our nation is presented with on-going disruptions to the supply-
chain, I continue to hear the concerns of Louisiana farmers about the 
challenges of rapidly rising costs of production, specifically the 
alarming rate of increased fertilizer prices. Higher input costs are 
not only a direct hit on the farm, but a compounding issue that 
consumers will ultimately absorb for years to come. The reality of an 
already weakened supply-chain is that the situation could get much 
worse if the Federal Government doesn't act immediately to adequately 
address the needs of our farmers who fuel local economies and provide 
for our nation's food security. True market distortion will have a 
crippling effect on the equity of American farms, endangering the 
future of our domestic energy and food production.
    That is why I asked the Agricultural and Food Policy Center (AFPC) 
at Texas A&M University to conduct a study to determine the economic 
impacts of input prices using their 64 representative farms, including 
the grain farm located in my district. As you know, AFPC has a trusted 
expertise in analyzing the effects of farm policies by applying their 
model of farms located in different regions of the United States and 
cultivating a variety of crops. Additionally, I asked AFPC for their 
recommendations on what actions Congress and the Administration could 
take to alleviate these challenges as farmers gear up for the 2022 
Spring planting season.
    I write to request that you review in its entirety the enclosed 
report, authored by Dr. Joe Outlaw, that AFPC recently published in 
response to my request. This analysis found that there will be a 
significant impact on the costs of input both on the whole-farm level 
and per-acre varying by commodity, therefore resulting in lower cash 
receipts for 2022. Reflecting the findings of this report, I ask that 
you examine the negative implications of reduced net farm income due to 
increased cost of production and determine the need to assist our 
farmers.
    As part of a comprehensive announcement last September, USDA 
announced $500 million in investments to provide relief from 
agriculture market disruption. However, we have yet to see any outcomes 
further detailing the implementation of these funds. One area of focus 
highlighted in the announcement included the availability and cost of 
certain materials, which is a purposeful fit to respond to the current 
challenges presented by high fertilizer prices. I request that you 
carefully consider the real-time impact to farmers when developing and 
deploying this initiative.
    Congress and the Administration acted swiftly to provide much 
needed assistance to the agriculture industry in the onset of COVID-19, 
and I stand ready to work with you now in finding a solution to address 
these lasting effects of supply-chain disruptions impacting American 
agriculture.
    Thank you for your consideration of this request. Please don't 
hesitate to contact my office at [Redacted] if you have any questions 
or if I can provide further assistance.
            Sincerely,
            
            
Hon. Julia Letlow,
Member of Congress.
                               attachment
Economic Impact of Higher Fertilizer Prices on AFPC's Representative 
        Crop Farms
Agricultural and Food Policy Center, Texas A&M University

January 2022


          Photos courtesy USDA.
        
        

 
 
 
Department of Agricultural Economics  College Station, Texas 77843-2124
             Texas AgriLife Research  Telephone: (979) 845-5913
             Texas AgriLife Extension ServFax: (979) 845-3140
   Texas A&M University               http://www.afpc.tamu.edu D
                                                    @AFPCTAMU
 

2022 by the Agricultural and Food Policy Center

Briefing Paper 22-01

Joe L. Outlaw, Henry L. Bryant, J. Marc Raulston, George M. Knapek, 
Brian K. Herbst, Bart L. Fischer
Introduction
    This report analyzes the economic impacts of higher fertilizer 
prices on the Agricultural and Food Policy Center's (AFPC's) 64 
representative crop farms. The analysis was requested by U.S. 
Representative Julia Letlow from the 5th District of Louisiana. The 
results are presented relative to the August 2021 FAPRI Baseline 
analysis. Additional detail is presented for the Louisiana 
representative grain farm that is located in her Congressional 
district.
Background
    According to USDA, fertilizer use by U.S. producers peaked in 1981 
at 23.7 million tons.\1\ Since that time, fertilizer use has 
experienced annual volatility with no persistent trend. Of the three 
primary types of commercial fertilizer--nitrogen, phosphorus, and 
potassium (NPK)--nitrogen accounts for more than 50 percent of total 
use by weight. Recent fertilizer price increases across all three 
primary nutrients have caused significant concern among producers. For 
the 2022 crop, producers are experiencing sticker shock as well as 
product shortages (Figure 1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/fertilizer-use-and-
price/summary-of-findings/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 1: Monthly Average Fertilizer Nutrient Prices, January 1995 to 
        October 2021.
        
        
          Source: Compiled from DTN spot market price data for the last 
        trading day of each month. The markets include New Orleans, 
        Corn Belt, Southern Plains, South Central, Southeast and 
        Florida. The phosphorous price is specifically for diammonium 
        phosphate (DAP).
Data and Methods
Model
    For over 30 years, AFPC has maintained a farm-level policy 
simulation model (FLIPSIM) developed by Richardson and Nixon (1986) for 
analyzing the impact of proposed policy changes on U.S. farms and 
ranches. AFPC currently uses a next generation simulation model--Farm 
Economics and Solvency Projector (FarmESP)--developed by Dr. Henry 
Bryant, that moves to the Python platform and includes all of the 
previous generation's policy and tax capabilities with a significant 
upgrade in terms of crop insurance capabilities.
Data
    The data to simulate farming operations in FarmESP comes primarily 
from AFPC's database of representative farms. Information to describe 
and simulate these farms comes from panels of farmers (typically 4-6 
producers per location) located in major production regions in 21 
states across the United States. The farm panels are reconvened 
frequently to update the representative farm data. The representative 
farms are categorized by their primary source of receipts--for example, 
feedgrain, wheat, cotton and rice. The representative farm database has 
been used for policy analysis for over 30 years analyzing the impacts 
of proposed policies on the past seven farm bills. As noted above, this 
report focuses on AFPC's 64 representative crop farms (Figure 2).
Figure 2: Location of AFPC Representative Crop Farms by Type.



                       Table 1: FAPRI August 2021 Baseline Update Crop Prices, 2019-2026.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Crop Prices                  2019     2020     2021     2022     2023     2024     2025     2026
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corn ($/bu.)                               3.56     4.40     5.34     4.55     4.45     4.37     4.26     4.18
Wheat ($/bu.)                              4.58     5.05     6.31     5.67     5.79     5.64     5.61     5.55
Upland Cotton Lint ($/lb.)                 0.5960   0.6650   0.7902   0.7133   0.7203   0.7273   0.7280   0.7287
Sorghum ($/bu.)                            3.34     5.00     5.88     5.01     4.93     4.85     4.73     4.66
Soybeans ($/bu.)                           8.57    10.90    13.18    12.01    11.75    11.42    11.22    11.09
Barley ($/bu.)                             4.69     4.75     5.66     5.29     5.06     4.89     4.82     4.76
Oats ($/bu.)                               2.82     2.77     3.52     3.39     3.30     3.22     3.19     3.17
All Rice ($/cwt.)                         13.60    13.90    14.26    14.43    14.46    14.46    14.47    14.68
Soybean Meal ($/ton)                      285.67   376.75   357.76   319.84   316.11   308.58   304.42   299.87
All Hay ($/ton)                           163.00   159.00   182.73   170.45   163.05   160.43   158.40   157.48
Peanuts ($/ton)                           410.00   420.00   413.64   417.00   412.06   406.57   403.37   402.44
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI) at the University of Missouri-Columbia.


  Table 2: FAPRI August 2021 Baseline Update Assumed Rates of Change in Input Prices and Annual Changes in Land
                                               Values, 2020-2026.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    2020      2021     2022     2023     2024     2025     2026
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Rate of Change for Input Prices Paid:
  Seed Prices (%)                                    ^2.24    ^0.24     3.30     3.32     2.45     1.75     1.27
  Nitrogen Fertilizer Prices (%)                     ^3.22    17.29     9.94    ^1.21    ^3.33    ^1.63    ^0.97
  Potash and Phos. Fertilizer Prices (%)             ^0.79    25.96    13.61    ^1.48    ^2.25    ^1.99    ^1.32
  Herbicide Prices (%)                               ^2.55    ^3.13     2.92     1.37     1.54     1.58     1.64
  Insecticide Prices (%)                             ^6.05    ^0.15     2.60     1.68     1.85     1.90     1.93
  Fuel and Lube Prices (%)                          ^15.63     2.00    13.87    ^0.18     0.64     1.06     1.20
  Machinery Prices (%)                               ^0.81     4.72     6.00    ^3.18     0.37     0.89     1.17
  Wages (%)                                           2.63     4.88     3.90     3.64     3.26     3.08     2.99
  Supplies (%)                                        1.65     7.50     0.54     1.73     1.89     2.09     2.10
  Repairs (%)                                         1.57     5.62     1.12     2.10     2.31     2.52     2.55
  Services (%)                                       ^0.17     3.51     5.70     1.01     2.16     2.13     2.14
  Taxes (%)                                           0.68     2.10     2.67     6.26     5.68     1.57     1.48
  PPI Items (%)                                      ^1.96     5.81     4.78     0.01     0.99     1.07     0.98
  PPI Total (%)                                      ^1.64     5.41     4.53     0.69     1.48     1.38     1.30
Annual Change in Consumer Price Index (%)             1.25     3.66     2.41     2.07     2.09     2.12     2.15
Annual Rate of Change for U.S. Land Prices (%)        0.00     6.96     5.60    ^1.87    ^2.06    ^0.60    ^0.27
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI) at the University of Missouri-Columbia.

    Projected commodity prices, policy variables, and input inflation 
rates are from the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute 
(FAPRI) August 2021 Baseline (Tables 1 and 2). Each representative farm 
is simulated using the FarmESP model assuming FAPRI's projected prices 
and annual inflation rates through 2022 for the Baseline Scenario. 
AFPC's representative farms are all assumed to be full-time, 
commercial-scale family operations. As indicated in Table 1, most 
commodities are expected to continue to see better than average prices 
over the next year.
Model Modifications
    The inflation rates for fertilizer nutrient prices obtained from 
FAPRI in Table 2 were evaluated and determined to be quite low relative 
to current market conditions. Spot market data obtained from DTN was 
evaluated and the cost indices for both fertilizer categories in Table 
2 were adjusted for the higher prices experienced thus far in 2021 that 
are assumed for 2022. The FarmESP model assumes all fertilizer used for 
the 2022 crop is purchased in 2022 rather than some in the Fall of 2021 
and the rest during 2022.

 Table 3: Fertilizer Nutrient Inflation from the FAPRI Baseline and High
                      Fertilizer Scenario for 2022.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           FAPRI August Baseline      High Fertilizer
        Nutrient                   2022                Scenario 2022
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Nitrogen (AA)                     9.94%                  55.43%
Potash and Phosphorous               13.61%                  50.84%
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scenarios Analyzed
    The following two scenarios were analyzed for each of the 64 
representative crop farms:

   Baseline Scenario. Each farm is analyzed assuming FAPRI 
        November Baseline commodity prices and inflation rates (Tables 
        1 and 2).

   High Fertilizer Scenario. Same as the Baseline Scenario with 
        fertilizer nutrient inflation for 2022 from Table 3.
Results
    In the results tables that follow, the first two letters of a farm 
name reflect the state abbreviation followed by letters (in many cases) 
describing geographic location and type of farm (e.g., G for feedgrain, 
W for wheat, etc.). Some locations have both a moderate and large-sized 
farm, while others have only one farm size of that type in the region. 
The number in a farm's name indicates the total acres on the farm. 
Appendix A provides an overview of the characteristics of AFPC's 
representative farms. Appendix B provides the names of producers, land-
grant faculty, and industry leaders who cooperated in the panel 
interview process to develop the representative farms. Additional 
information about the representative farms can be found in AFPC Working 
Paper 21-1 by Outlaw, et al., March 2021. The breakdown of the 64 crop 
farms by type is as follows:

   Feedgrain: 25

   Wheat: 11

   Cotton: 13

   Rice: 15

    Tables 4-7 contain the simulation results for each of the 
representative crop farms. The primary economic variable being 
evaluated is ending cash at the end of 2022 under the Baseline Scenario 
and the High Fertilizer Scenario labeled Alternative. As would be 
expected with only fertilizer costs increasing, the difference in 
ending cash is negative for all farms. That difference averages $94,000 
for the feedgrain farms, $68,000 for the wheat farms, $87,000 for the 
cotton farms and $98,000 for the rice farms. These numbers differ by 
farm for a number of reasons, including the amount and type of products 
used and number of acres planted.

                                 Table 4: Representative Feedgrain Farm Results.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Ending                                 NPK
                 Planted     Cash     Ending Cash  Ending Cash    Costs     NPK Costs    NPK Costs    NPK Costs
     Farm          Area      Base     Alternative   Difference    Base     Alternative   Difference   Difference
                 (Acres)    (1,000)     (1,000)      (1,000)     (1,000)     (1,000)      (1,000)      ($/Acre)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     IAG1350       1,350     ^266.6      ^313.6          ^47         169         231           62        45.73
     IAG3400       3,400      513.4       416.9          ^97         367         500          133        39.11
     NEG2400       2,400    1,401.4     1,309.9          ^92         341         469          128        53.22
     NEG4500       4,300      690.5       533.4         ^157         547         748          201        46.83
     NDG3000       3,000      687.7       630.1          ^58         227         310           82        27.49
     NDG9000       9,000    4,112.1     3,938.8         ^173         674         913          240        26.62
     ING1000       1,050      249.9       226.1          ^24         106         143           38        35.98
     ING3500       3,500    1,148.2     1,049.3          ^99         412         560          148        42.23
      OHG700         700      194.7       182.9          ^12          46          63           17        24.27
     OHG1500       1,500      942.8       902.1          ^41         170         231           61        40.73
    MOCG2300       2,300      983.6       946.7          ^37         160         219           59        25.63
    MOCG4200       4,200    2,548.9     2,479.7          ^69         296         408          111        26.49
    MONG2300       2,300      521.8       481.8          ^40         180         244           65        28.20
            LANG2502,500      485.6       402.1          ^84         278         383          105        42.13
     TNG2500       2,875      568.9       462.5         ^106         387         524          138        47.85
     TNG5000       5,500    2,207.5     1,981.4         ^226         880       1,196          316        57.47
    NCSP2000       2,000     ^252.5      ^344.5          ^92         309         422          113        56.51
     NCC2030       1,600      787.4         763          ^24         107         146           39        24.58
     SCC2000       2,000      264.9       168.2          ^97         336         461          124        62.15
     SCG3500       3,500    1,198.9     1,036.8         ^162         615         841          225        64.37
    TXNP3450       3,192    1,669.5     1,575.9          ^94         342         475          134        41.84
   TXNP10880      10,180    6,942.9     6,592.9         ^350       1,270       1,740          471        46.23
    TXPG2500       2,500      818.4       743.3          ^75         222         308           85        34.13
    TXHG3000       3,000        377       303.2          ^74         216         298           82        27.27
    TXWG1600       1,600        2.4       ^29.3          ^32          91         125           35        21.73
               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Average.....     3,178      1,152       1,058          ^94         350         478          128        39.55
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                   Table 5: Representative Wheat Farm Results.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Ending                                 NPK
                 Planted     Cash     Ending Cash  Ending Cash    Costs     NPK Costs    NPK Costs    NPK Costs
     Farm          Area      Base     Alternative   Difference    Base     Alternative   Difference   Difference
                 (Acres)    (1,000)     (1,000)      (1,000)     (1,000)     (1,000)      (1,000)      ($/Acre)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     WAW2800       2,640      591.1       530.3          ^61         216         299           83        31.62
    WAW10000       8,500      1,836     1,642.7         ^193         652         898          246        29.00
    WAAW5500       2,600     ^312.7      ^348.7          ^36         101         141           40        15.33
     ORW4500       2,250      ^63.9       ^79.9          ^16          50          70           20         8.68
     MTW9500       5,301    1,025.7       949.6          ^76         320         438          119        22.41
    KSCW2000       2,600      760.8       737.3          ^24         104         143           40        15.23
    KSCW5300       7,327    2,213.6     2,137.8          ^76         311         427          117        15.92
    KSNW4000       3,000       87.7        36.8          ^51         177         243           66        21.94
    KSNW8000       7,600    2,613.5     2,471.5         ^142         595         818          223        29.37
     COW3000       1,688       63.5        51.3          ^12          46          65           18        10.69
     COW6000       4,000     ^767.9      ^827.8          ^60         165         229           63        15.87
               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Average.....     4,319        732         664          ^68         249         343           94        19.64
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                  Table 6: Representative Cotton Farm Results.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Ending                                 NPK
                 Planted     Cash     Ending Cash  Ending Cash    Costs     NPK Costs    NPK Costs    NPK Costs
     Farm          Area      Base     Alternative   Difference    Base     Alternative   Difference   Difference
                 (Acres)    (1,000)     (1,000)      (1,000)     (1,000)     (1,000)      (1,000)      ($/Acre)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    TXSP4500       4,500      643.4       574.9          ^69         208         287           79        17.62
    TXEC5000       5,000    1,325.1     1,287.5          ^38         124         171           47         9.41
    TXRP3000       3,000       ^272      ^292.3          ^20          62          85           23         7.74
    TXMC2500       2,410        497       426.4          ^71         212         292           81        33.42
    TXCB4000       4,000      759.9       677.1          ^83         245         339           94        23.48
   TXCB10000      10,000    3,430.2       3,256         ^174         551         764          214        21.37
    TXVC5500       5,100    2,387.4     2,285.7         ^102         337         471          134        26.27
    ARNC5000       5,000    3,229.1     3,120.5         ^109         441         607          166        33.23
     TNC3000       3,000    1,958.4       1,873          ^85         336         460          124        41.20
     TNC4000       4,100    1,405.3     1,274.8         ^131         452         617          165        40.12
           ALC3500 4,375    2,773.2     2,691.1          ^82         358         490          131        30.04
     GAC2500       2,500    1,388.2     1,275.7         ^113         440         600          160        63.83
    NCNP1600       1,600     ^206.3      ^260.6          ^54         174         236           62        38.63
               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Average.....     4,199      1,486       1,399          ^87         303         417          114        29.72
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                   Table 7: Representative Rice Farm Results.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Ending                                 NPK
                 Planted     Cash     Ending Cash  Ending Cash    Costs     NPK Costs    NPK Costs    NPK Costs
     Farm          Area      Base     Alternative   Difference    Base     Alternative   Difference   Difference
                 (Acres)    (1,000)     (1,000)      (1,000)     (1,000)     (1,000)      (1,000)      ($/Acre)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     CAR1200       1,200      782.7       737.8          ^45         194         267           73        60.70
     CAR3000       3,000       24.4      ^224.5         ^249         723         999          276        91.96
     CABR800         800      252.1       196.4          ^56         165         229           64        79.94
     CACR800         800     ^456.2      ^525.7          ^70         197         272           75        93.84
     TXR1500         600     ^241.7      ^282.7          ^41         118         164           45        75.73
     TXR3000       1,500      375.1       288.1          ^87         272         376          105        69.74
    TXBR1800         600      218.3         172          ^46         142         199           57        94.31
    TXER2500       2,500      728.8       609.3         ^120         422         583          161        64.28
            LASR2001,200       89.6        16.3          ^73         246         337           91        76.10
    ARMR6500       6,500      2,836     2,628.4         ^208         819       1,113          295        45.34
    ARSR3240       3,240    1,136.8     1,030.3         ^107         411         560          149        45.88
    ARWR2500       2,500        ^63      ^128.1          ^65         253         345           92        36.90
    ARHR4000       4,240      136.7         6.6         ^130         456         626          170        40.13
    MSDR5000       5,000    2,156.9     2,108.3          ^49         193         267           74        14.86
    MOBR4000       4,000      673.9       540.7         ^133         449         613          163        40.84
               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Average.....     2,512        577         478          ^98         337         463          126        62.04
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nutrient (NPK) Costs for the farm are also evaluated for the 
Baseline Scenario and High Fertilizer Scenario (Alternative). Across 
all farm types, the increase under the Alternative varies from a low of 
$94,000 for the wheat farms to $128,000 for the feedgrain farms. This 
result provides an indication of the increased amount of financing that 
is currently needed to plant the 2022 crops. The last column of each 
table contains the increase in cost per acre due to the higher 
fertilizer costs. As expected, the wheat farms have the lowest increase 
at $19.64 per acre due to lower application rates. Wheat is followed by 
the cotton farms at $29.72 per acre, the feedgrain farms at $39.55 per 
acre and finally the rice farms at $62.04 per acre.

                                                        Table 8: LANG2500 Feedgrain Farm Results.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 Expected        Base        Alternative     Fertilizer
                             Planted                 Base PK    Alternative N  Alternative PK     Yield       Fertilizer     Fertilizer       Expense
           Crop               Area     Base N ($)      ($)           ($)             ($)         (Units/     Expenses ($/   Expenses ($/     Change ($/
                             (Acres)                                                              Acre)      Yield Unit)     Yield Unit)    Yield Unit)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Irrigated Corn (bu)           750      77,987      47,577       110,253          63,165           175        0.9567          1.3213           0.36
Irrigated Soybeans (bu)        656.2           0      25,808             0          34,264            55        0.7151          0.9494           0.23
Non-irrigated Soybeans         218.8           0       4,858             0           6,450            30        0.7401          0.9826           0.24
                   (bu)
                      Long Grain 500e (lbs59,990      18,178        84,810          24,134         7,000        0.0223          0.0311         0.0088
Irrigated Cotton (lbs)         281.2      20,997      11,595        29,684          15,394         1,100        0.1054          0.1457         0.0404
  Non-irrigated Cotton          93.8       7,004       3,868         9,902           5,135           900        0.1288          0.1781         0.0493
                  (lbs)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Results for the North Louisiana Feedgrain Farm (LANG2500)
    This diversified farm is categorized as a feedgrain farm in our 
database because the majority of income tends to come from corn and 
soybeans (1,625 acres); however, the farm also has significant rice 
(500) and cotton (375) acreage. Looking at the farm as a whole in Table 
4, the farm has an $84,000 lower ending cash balance in 2022 due to the 
higher fertilizer costs. Across all acres, fertilizer costs are $42.13 
per acre higher for the High Fertilizer Scenario relative to the 
Baseline Scenario.
    Table 8 highlights the differences in individual nutrient costs for 
the Baseline Scenario and Higher Fertilizer Scenario (Alternative) for 
each of the crops planted. The change in fertilizer expense between the 
two scenarios is summarized by dollars per yield unit to provide some 
context regarding the impact relative to commodity prices. For example, 
irrigated corn would need an additional $0.36 per bushel to be as well 
off as under the baseline scenario. The other crops range from $0.23 
and $0.24 per bushel for irrigated and nonirrigated soybeans, 
respectively, to $0.0088 per pound (or $0.88 per hundredweight) for 
long-grain rice, to $0.0404 and $0.0493 per pound for irrigated and 
non-irrigated cotton, respectively.
Discussion
    AFPC was asked about actions Congress or the Administration could 
take to help alleviate some of the concerns raised in this report. In 
response, we offer two key observations.
    First, the farm safety net is designed primarily to address price 
and yield risk or a combination of the two (i.e., revenue volatility). 
It is not designed to account for reductions in net farm income due to 
increased costs of production. In other words, the farm safety net does 
little to provide assistance to producers in the circumstances they are 
currently facing. While there may be other factors at play in the case 
of rising fertilizer costs, COVID-induced supply chain disruptions are 
certainly partly to blame. Regardless of the factors driving the 
increase in costs, the reality on the ground--as highlighted clearly in 
this report--is that producers are facing the prospect of a huge 
increase in costs going into the 2022 Spring planting season.
    Second, whether through the Coronavirus Food Assistance Program 
(CFAP) or the Pandemic Assistance for Producers initiative, Congress 
and the Administration have a solid roadmap for addressing COVID-
related strains in the farm economy. The situation currently facing 
producers would certainly seem to fit that mold.
Summary and Conclusions
    As the nation struggles to recover from the COVID-19 pandemic, a 
number of supply chain disruptions continue to wreak havoc on 
agricultural input markets, both in terms of availability and cost of 
inputs. In the case of fertilizer, prices have exploded over the past 
year. Under FAPRI's August 2021 baseline outlook, nitrogen prices were 
expected to increase about 10% in 2022. Based on current spot market 
prices, it appears as though fertilizer prices will increase in excess 
of 80% for the 2022 planting season (relative to 2021).
    The purpose of this report was to analyze the impact that increased 
fertilizer prices would have on AFPC's 64 representative farms. The 
report found that the largest whole-farm impact would fall on AFPC's 
feedgrain farms at an average of $128,000 per farm and the largest per-
acre impact would fall on AFPC's rice farms at $62.04 per acre. Given 
the farm safety net is not designed to address rapidly rising costs of 
production, there are growing concerns in the countryside about the 
need for additional assistance.

 
 
 
                               References
 
    FAPRI-MU. (2021, September). Baseline Update for U.S. Agricultural
 Markets (Report #04-21). Food and Agricultural Policy Research
 Institute (FAPRI) at the University of Missouri. Available at: https://
 www.fapri.missouri.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/August-2021-Baseline-
 Outlook-Update.pdf.
    Outlaw, J.L., B.L. Fischer, G.M. Knapek, B.K. Herbst, J.M. Raulston,
 H.L. Bryant, D.P. Anderson, S.L. Klose and P. Zimmel. Representative
 Farms Economic Outlook For The January 2021 FAPRI/AFPC Baseline.
 Agricultural and Food Policy Center, Texas A&M University, College
 Station, Texas, AFPC Working Paper 21-1, March 2021. Available at:
 https://www.afpc.tamu.edu/research/publications/files/707/WP-21-01.pdf.
    Richardson, James W. and Clair J. Nixon. (1986). Description of
 FLIPSIM V: a General Firm Level Policy Simulation Model. Texas
 Agricultural Experiment Station. Available at: https://
 oaktrust.library.tamu.edu/handle/1969.1/129137.
 

Appendix A--Representative Farm Characteristics

 2020 Characteristics of Panel Farms Producing Feed Grains and Oilseeds
 
 
 
             IAG1350     IAG1350 is a 1,350 acre northwestern Iowa
                       (Webster County) grain farm. The farm is moderate
                       sized for the region and plants 810 acres of corn
                       and 540 acres of soybeans annually. Sixty-one
                       percent of this farm's 2020 receipts come from
                       corn production.
             IAG3400     This 3,400 acre large-sized grain farm is
                       located in northwestern Iowa (Webster County). It
                       plants 2,040 acres of corn and 1,360 acres of
                       soybeans each year, realizing 61 percent of
                       receipts from corn production.
             NEG2400     South-central Nebraska (Dawson County) is home
                       to this 2,400 acre grain farm. This farm plants
                       1,600 acres to corn and 800 acres to soybeans.
                       The farm splits its corn acres evenly between
                       yellow and white food-grade corn. Sixty-six
                       percent of gross receipts are derived from corn
                       sales.
             NEG4500     This is a 4,500 acre grain farm located in
                       south-central Nebraska (Dawson County). This
                       operation plants 3,000 acres of corn and 1,000
                       acres of soybeans each year. Remaining acres are
                       planted to alfalfa. A portion (25 percent) of the
                       corn acreage is food-grade corn. In 2020, 69
                       percent of total receipts were generated from
                       corn production.
             NDG3000     NDG3000 is a 3,000 acre, moderate-sized, south
                       central North Dakota (Barnes County) grain farm
                       that plants 500 acres of wheat, 1,000 acres of
                       corn, and 1,500 acres of soybeans. One hundred
                       acres are enrolled in the Conservation Reserve
                       Program. The farm generated 36 percent of 2020
                       receipts from soybean sales and 42 percent from
                       corn sales.
             NDG9000     This is an 9,000 acre, large-sized grain farm
                       in south central North Dakota (Barnes County)
                       that grows 4,500 acres of soybeans, 2,500 acres
                       of corn, 1,250 acres of wheat, and 500 acres of
                       barley annually. The remaining acreage is
                       enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program.
                       Soybean and corn sales accounted for 75 percent
                       of 2020 receipts.
             ING1000     Shelby County, Indiana, is home to this 1,000
                       acre moderate-sized feedgrain farm. This farm
                       annually plants 475 acres of corn, 525 acres of
                       soybeans, and 50 acres of wheat that is double
                       cropped with soybeans. Due to this farm's
                       proximity to Indianapolis, land development
                       pressures will likely constrain further expansion
                       of this operation. Forty-seven percent of 2020
                       receipts came from corn sales.
             ING3500     ING3500 is a large-sized grain farm located in
                       east central Indiana (Shelby County). This farm
                       plants 1,750 acres to corn and 1,750 acres to
                       soybeans each year. In 2020, 53 percent of gross
                       receipts were generated by corn sales.
              OHG700     This is a 700 acre, moderate sized grain farm
                       in north western Ohio (Henry County). This farm
                       planted 105 acres of corn and 280 acres of
                       soybeans in 2020. Because of the wet spring there
                       were 315 acres that were not planted and was
                       taken as preventive planting insurance. Normally
                       would be 350 acres each of corn and soybeans.
                       Twenty-nine percent of 2020 receipts were
                       generated by corn sales.
             OHG1500     This is a 1,500 acre, large-sized grain farm in
                       north western Ohio (Henry County). This farm
                       planted 202 acres of corn, 304 acres of soybeans,
                       and 150 acres of wheat in 2020. Because of the
                       wet spring there were 844 acres that were not
                       planted and was taken as preventive planting
                       insurance. Normally would be 675 acres each of
                       corn and soybeans plus the 150 acres of wheat.
                       Thirty-six percent of 2020 receipts were
                       generated by corn sales.
 


                    Appendix Table A1. Characteristics of Panel Farms Producing Feed Grains.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   IAG1350   IAG3400   NEG2400   NEG4500   NDG3000   NDG9000  ING1000  ING3500   OHG700  OHG1500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
County             Webster   Webster   Dawson    Dawson    Barnes    Barnes    Shelby   Shelby   Henry    Henry
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Total Cropland   1,350.00  3,400.00  2,400.00  4,500.00  3,000.00  9,000.00  1,000.0  3,500.0   700.00  1,500.0
                                                                                    0        0                 0
    Acres Owned     250.00    850.00    600.00  2,150.00    720.00  4,000.00   350.00  1,225.0   350.00   375.00
                                                                                             0
         Acres Lea1,100.00  2,550.00  1,800.00  2,350.00  2,280.00  5,000.00   650.00  2,275.0   350.00  1,125.0
                                                                                             0                 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Assets ($1,000)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total   3,333.00  10,626.0  6,433.00  19,239.0  4,274.00  21,435.0  3,803.0  12,035.  3,337.0  4,273.0
                                   0                   0                   0        0       00        0        0
    Real Estate   2,650.00  8,500.00  4,231.00  15,273.0  3,011.00  15,114.0  3,195.0  10,276.  2,927.0  2,927.0
                                                       0                   0        0       00        0        0
      Machinery     683.00  2,126.00  1,615.00  3,881.00    942.00  4,362.00   554.00  1,379.0   345.00   940.00
                                                                                             0
        Other &       0.00      0.00    587.00     86.00    321.00  1,960.00    54.00   380.00    64.00   405.00
                Livestock
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Debt/Asset Ratios
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total       0.27      0.19      0.17      0.18      0.14      0.17     0.18     0.18     0.18     0.17
   Intermediate       0.11      0.20      0.24      0.19      0.07      0.26     0.24     0.24     0.11     0.16
               Long Ru0.17      0.17      0.17      0.17      0.17      0.17     0.18     0.18     0.19     0.19
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         2020 Gross Receipts ($1,000) *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total   1,006.90  2,212.80  2,750.10  4,705.50  1,578.90  4,917.30   776.10  2,907.8   295.50   514.00
                                                                                             0
           Corn     616.10  1,340.90  1,808.20  3,233.30    663.60  1,716.00   365.90  1,534.6    84.70   187.00
                                                                                             0
                      0.61      0.61      0.66      0.69      0.42      0.35     0.47     0.53     0.29     0.36
          Wheat       0.00      0.00      0.00      0.00    172.20    524.60    18.10     0.00     2.40    89.10
                      0.00      0.00      0.00      0.00      0.11      0.11     0.02     0.00     0.01     0.17
       Soybeans     269.40    597.00    672.10    754.70    575.30  1,949.30   309.10  1,089.8   173.00   181.50
                                                                                             0
                      0.27      0.27      0.24      0.16      0.36      0.40     0.40     0.38     0.59     0.35
         Barley       0.00      0.00      0.00      0.00      0.00    212.10     0.00     0.00     0.00     0.00
                      0.00      0.00      0.00      0.00      0.00      0.04     0.00     0.00     0.00     0.00
            Hay       0.00      0.00      0.00    274.70      0.00      0.00     0.00     0.00     0.00     0.00
                      0.00      0.00      0.00      0.06      0.00      0.00     0.00     0.00     0.00     0.00
          Other     121.40    274.90    269.80    442.80    167.80    515.20    82.90   283.50    35.40    56.40
                      0.12      0.12      0.10      0.09      0.11      0.11     0.11     0.10     0.12     0.11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              2020 Planted Acres **
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total   1,350.00  3,400.00  2,400.00  4,300.00  3,100.00  9,000.00  1,050.0  3,500.0   385.00   656.20
                                                                                    0        0
           Corn     810.00  2,040.00  1,600.00  3,000.00  1,000.00  2,500.00   475.00  1,750.0   105.00   202.50
                                                                                             0
                      0.60      0.60      0.67      0.70      0.32      0.28     0.45     0.50     0.27     0.31
          Wheat       0.00      0.00      0.00      0.00    500.00  1,250.00    50.00     0.00     0.00   150.00
                      0.00      0.00      0.00      0.00      0.16      0.14     0.05     0.00     0.00     0.23
       Soybeans     540.00  1,360.00    800.00  1,000.00  1,500.00  4,500.00   525.00  1,750.0   280.00   303.80
                                                                                             0
                      0.40      0.40      0.33      0.23      0.48      0.50     0.50     0.50     0.73     0.46
         Barley       0.00      0.00      0.00      0.00      0.00    500.00     0.00     0.00     0.00     0.00
                      0.00      0.00      0.00      0.00      0.00      0.06     0.00     0.00     0.00     0.00
            Hay       0.00      0.00      0.00    300.00      0.00      0.00     0.00     0.00     0.00     0.00
                      0.00      0.00      0.00      0.07      0.00      0.00     0.00     0.00     0.00     0.00
            CRP       0.00      0.00      0.00      0.00    100.00    250.00     0.00     0.00     0.00     0.00
                      0.00      0.00      0.00      0.00      0.03      0.03     0.00     0.00     0.00     0.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Receipts for 2020 are included to indicate the relative importance of each enterprise to the farm. Percents
  indicate the percentage of the total receipts accounted for by the livestock categories and the crops.
** Acreages for 2020 are included to indicate the relative importance of each enterprise to the farm. Total
  planted acreage may exceed total cropland available due to double cropping. Percents indicate the percentage
  of total planted acreage accounted for by the crop.


           2020 Panel Farms Producing Feed Grains and Oilseeds
 
 
 
            MOCG2300     MOCG2300 is a 2,300 acre grain farm located in
                       central Missouri (Carroll County) and plants
                       1,150 acres of corn and 1,150 acres of soybeans
                       annually. This farm is located in the Missouri
                       River bottom, an area with a large concentration
                       of livestock production. This farm generated 54
                       percent of its total revenue from corn and 36
                       percent from soybeans during 2020.
            MOCG4200     This is a 4,200 acre central Missouri (Carroll
                       County) grain farm with 2,310 acres of corn and
                       1,890 acres of soybeans. This farm is located in
                       the Missouri River bottom, an area with a large
                       concentration of livestock production. Corn sales
                       accounted for 61 percent of farm receipts and
                       soybeans accounted for 30 percent in 2020.
            MONG2300     MONG2300 is a 2,300 acre diversified northwest
                       Missouri grain farm centered in Nodaway County.
                       MONG2300 plants 1,125 acres of corn, 1,125 acres
                       of soybeans, and 50 acres of hay annually. The
                       farm also has a 300 head cow-calf herd. Proximity
                       to the Missouri River increases marketing options
                       for area grain farmers due to easily accessible
                       river grain terminals. In 2020, 48 percent of the
                       farm's total receipts were from corn, 40 percent
                       from soybeans, and ten percent from cattle sales.
                    LANG2This is a 2,500 acre northeast Louisiana
                       (Madison Parish) diversified grain farm. This
                       farm harvests 500 acres of rice, 875 acres of
                       soybeans, 375 acres of cotton, and 750 acres of
                       corn. For 2020, 49 percent of farm receipts came
                       from corn and soybean sales.
             TNG2500     This is a 2,500 acre, moderate-sized grain farm
                       in West Tennessee (Gibson County). Annually, this
                       farm plants 1,025 acres of corn, 1,475 acres of
                       soybeans, and 375 acres of wheat (planted before
                       soybeans) in a region of Tennessee recognized for
                       the high level of implementation of conservation
                       practices by farmers. For 2020, 41 percent of
                       farm receipts were from sales of corn and 41
                       percent from soybeans.
             TNG5000     West Tennessee (Gibson County) is home to this
                       5,000 acre, large-sized grain farm. Farmers in
                       this part of Tennessee are known for their early
                       and continued adoption of conservation practices,
                       including no-till farming. TNG5000 plants 2,500
                       acres of corn, 500 acres of wheat, 2,500 acres of
                       soybeans (500 of which are double-cropped after
                       wheat). The farm generated 52 percent of its 2020
                       gross receipts from sales of corn and 33 percent
                       from soybeans.
            NCSP2000     A 2,000 acre diversified farm located in
                       southern North Carolina (Bladen County). NCSP2000
                       plants 400 acres of peanuts, 1,100 acres of corn,
                       and 500 acres of soybeans. Sixty-three percent of
                       receipts for this farm came from corn and soybean
                       sales in 2020; thirty percent of receipts came
                       from peanut sales.
             NCC2030     This is a 2,000 acre grain farm located on the
                       upper coastal plain of North Carolina (Wayne
                       County). NCC2030 plants 400 acres of corn, 200
                       acres of wheat, and 1,000 acres of soybeans
                       annually. Corn accounted for 25 percent of this
                       farm's 2020 receipts, while soybeans accounted
                       for 34 percent.
             SCC2000     SCC2000 is a moderate-sized, 2,000 acre grain
                       farm in South Carolina (Orangeburg County)
                       consisting of 800 acres of corn, 550 acres of
                       cotton, 250 acres of peanuts, and 400 acres of
                       soybeans. Forty-one percent of the farm's
                       receipts were from corn sales during 2020.
             SCG3500     A 3,500 acre, large-sized South Carolina
                       (Clarendon County) grain farm with 1,800 acres of
                       corn, 750 acres of cotton, 600 acres of peanuts,
                       and 350 acres of soybeans. The farm generated 47
                       percent of 2020 receipts from corn sales and 4
                       percent from soybean sales.
 


                    Appendix Table A2. Characteristics of Panel Farms Producing Feed Grains.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   MOCG2300  MOCG4200  MONG2300  LANG2500  TNG2500  TNG5000  NCSP2000  NCC2030  SCC2000  SCG3500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
County             Carroll    Carroll   Nodaway   Madison   Gibson   Gibson   Bladen    Wayne   Clarend  Clarend
                                                                                                   on       on
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Total Cropland   2,300.00   4,200.00  2,300.00  2,500.00  2,500.0  5,000.0  2,000.00  2,000.0  2,000.0  3,500.0
                                                                 0        0                  0        0        0
    Acres Owned   1,380.00   1,800.00  1,610.00    500.00   625.00  1,375.0    700.00   225.00   550.00  1,400.0
                                                                          0                                    0
         Acres Lease920.00   2,400.00    690.00  2,000.00  1,875.0  3,625.0  1,300.00  1,775.0  1,450.0  2,100.0
                                                                 0        0                  0        0        0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Assets ($1,000)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total   12,432.00  18,091.0  12,950.0  3,929.00  5,395.0  12,016.  5,074.00  2,560.0  3,487.0  7,700.0
                                    0         0                  0       00                  0        0        0
    Real Estate   10,755.00  14,943.0  11,792.0  2,158.00  3,803.0  8,539.0  3,474.00  1,445.0  2,274.0  5,099.0
                                    0         0                  0        0                  0        0        0
      Machinery   1,246.00   1,920.00    978.00  1,595.00  1,429.0  2,442.0  1,599.00   863.00  1,122.0  2,061.0
                                                                 0        0                           0        0
        Other &     432.00   1,227.00    180.00    176.00   163.00  1,035.0      2.00   253.00    90.00   540.00
                Livestock                                                 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Debt/Asset Ratios
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total       0.17       0.16      0.16      0.18     0.19     0.15      0.25     0.15     0.16     0.16
   Intermediate       0.21       0.11      0.23      0.21     0.28     0.21      0.20     0.33     0.11     0.14
               Long Ru0.18       0.18      0.16      0.17     0.16     0.16      0.18     0.07     0.18     0.18
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         2020 Gross Receipts ($1,000) *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total   1,681.80   3,039.10  1,855.80  2,191.90  1,781.5  3,877.8  1,764.20  1,357.0  1,690.7  3,574.4
                                                                 0        0                  0        0        0
           Corn     914.40   1,841.60    892.40    638.20   735.70  2,003.0    876.90   333.60   694.20  1,676.3
                                                                          0                                    0
                      0.54       0.61      0.48      0.29     0.41     0.52      0.50     0.25     0.41     0.47
          Wheat       0.00       0.00      0.00      0.00   136.70   214.40      0.00    81.40     5.50    15.50
                      0.00       0.00      0.00      0.00     0.08     0.06      0.00     0.06     0.00     0.00
       Soybeans     603.30     900.70    743.10    443.40   728.50  1,262.3    228.20   457.60   148.00   157.20
                                                                          0
                      0.36       0.30      0.40      0.20     0.41     0.33      0.13     0.34     0.09     0.04
         Cotton       0.00       0.00      0.00    316.60     0.00     0.00      0.00     0.00   401.70   634.50
                      0.00       0.00      0.00      0.14     0.00     0.00      0.00     0.00     0.24     0.18
        Peanuts       0.00       0.00      0.00      0.00     0.00     0.00    535.10     0.00   232.90   685.70
                      0.00       0.00      0.00      0.00     0.00     0.00      0.30     0.00     0.14     0.19
           Rice       0.00       0.00      0.00    469.50     0.00     0.00      0.00     0.00     0.00     0.00
                      0.00       0.00      0.00      0.21     0.00     0.00      0.00     0.00     0.00     0.00
            Hay       0.00       0.00     31.00      0.00     0.00     0.00      0.00     0.00     0.00     0.00
                      0.00       0.00      0.02      0.00     0.00     0.00      0.00     0.00     0.00     0.00
          Other     164.10     296.80    189.30    324.20   180.60   398.10    124.00   484.40   208.40   405.30
                      0.10       0.10      0.10      0.15     0.10     0.10      0.07     0.36     0.12     0.11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              2020 Planted Acres **
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total   2,300.00   4,200.00  2,750.00  2,500.00  2,875.0  5,500.0  2,000.00  1,600.0  2,000.0  3,500.0
                                                                 0        0                  0        0        0
           Corn   1,150.00   2,310.00  1,125.00    750.00  1,025.0  2,500.0  1,100.00   400.00   800.00  1,800.0
                                                                 0        0                                    0
                      0.50       0.55      0.41      0.30     0.36     0.46      0.55     0.25     0.40     0.51
          Wheat       0.00       0.00      0.00      0.00   375.00   500.00      0.00   200.00     0.00     0.00
                      0.00       0.00      0.00      0.00     0.13     0.09      0.00     0.13     0.00     0.00
       Soybeans   1,150.00   1,890.00  1,125.00    875.00  1,475.0  2,500.0    500.00  1,000.0   400.00   350.00
                                                                 0        0                  0
                      0.50       0.45      0.41      0.35     0.51     0.46      0.25     0.63     0.20     0.10
         Cotton       0.00       0.00      0.00    375.00     0.00     0.00      0.00     0.00   550.00   750.00
                      0.00       0.00      0.00      0.15     0.00     0.00      0.00     0.00     0.28     0.21
        Peanuts       0.00       0.00      0.00      0.00     0.00     0.00    400.00     0.00   250.00   600.00
                      0.00       0.00      0.00      0.00     0.00     0.00      0.20     0.00     0.13     0.17
           Rice       0.00       0.00      0.00    500.00     0.00     0.00      0.00     0.00     0.00     0.00
                      0.00       0.00      0.00      0.20     0.00     0.00      0.00     0.00     0.00     0.00
            Hay       0.00       0.00     50.00      0.00     0.00     0.00      0.00     0.00     0.00     0.00
                      0.00       0.00      0.02      0.00     0.00     0.00      0.00     0.00     0.00     0.00
            CRP       0.00       0.00     20.00      0.00     0.00     0.00      0.00     0.00     0.00     0.00
                      0.00       0.00      0.01      0.00     0.00     0.00      0.00     0.00     0.00     0.00
        Pasture       0.00       0.00    430.00      0.00     0.00     0.00      0.00     0.00     0.00     0.00
                      0.00       0.00      0.16      0.00     0.00     0.00      0.00     0.00     0.00     0.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Receipts for 2020 are included to indicate the relative importance of each enterprise to the farm. Percents
  indicate the percentage of the total receipts accounted for by the livestock categories and the crops.
** Acreages for 2020 are included to indicate the relative importance of each enterprise to the farm. Total
  planted acreage may exceed total cropland available due to double cropping. Percents indicate the percentage
  of total planted acreage accounted for by the crop.


           2020 Panel Farms Producing Feed Grains and Oilseeds
 
 
 
            TXNP3450     This is a 3,450 acre diversified grain farm
                       located on the northern High Plains of Texas
                       (Moore County). This farm plants 1206 acres of
                       cotton, 1,294 acres of irrigated corn, 260 acres
                       of irrigated sorghum for seed production, and 432
                       acres of irrigated wheat annually. Forty-seven
                       percent of total receipts are generated from corn
                       sales.
           TXNP10880     TXNP10880 is a large-sized diversified grain
                       farm located in the Texas Panhandle (Moore
                       County). This farm annually plants 4,454 acres of
                       cotton (3,962 irrigated/492 dryland); 3,962 acres
                       of irrigated corn; 1,272 acres of grain sorghum
                       (530 irrigated for seed production/492 dryland/
                       250 irrigated for commercial use); and 492 acres
                       of dryland winter wheat. Forty percent of 2020
                       cash receipts were derived from corn sales.
            TXPG2500     The Texas Panhandle is home to this 2,500 acre
                       farm (Deaf Smith County). Annually, wheat is
                       planted on 534 acres (350 irrigated and 184
                       dryland), 1,000 acres planted to irrigated corn,
                       783 acres are planted to cotton (600 irrigated
                       and 183 dryland), and grain sorghum is planted on
                       183 dryland acres. Fifty-four percent of 2020
                       cash receipts were generated by corn sales.
            TXHG3000     This 3,000 acre grain farm is located on the
                       Blackland Prairie of Texas (Hill County). On this
                       farm, 2,000 acres of corn, 500 acres of cotton,
                       and 500 acres of wheat are planted annually.
                       Grain sales accounted for 67 percent of 2020
                       receipts with cotton accounting for nineteen
                       percent of sales. Forty beef cows live on 300
                       acres of improved pasture and contribute
                       approximately two percent of total receipts.
            TXWG1600     This 1,600 acre farm is located on the
                       Blackland Prairie of Texas (Williamson County).
                       TXWG1600 plants 800 acres of corn, 300 acres of
                       sorghum, 400 acres of cotton, and 100 acres of
                       winter wheat annually. Additionally, this farm
                       has a 40 head beef cow herd that is pastured on
                       rented ground that cannot be farmed. Grain sales
                       accounted for 55 percent of 2020 receipts with
                       cotton accounting for 28 percent of sales.
 


Appendix Table A3. Characteristics of Panel Farms Producing Feed Grains.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   TXNP3450   TXNP10880   TXPG2500   TXHG3000   TXWG1600
------------------------------------------------------------------------
County              Moore       Moore       Deaf       Hill    Williamso
                                           Smith                   n
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Total Cropland   3,450.00   10,880.00   2,500.00   3,000.00   1,600.00
    Acres Owned   2,588.00    4,160.00   1,875.00     450.00     150.00
         Acres Lease862.00    6,720.00     625.00   2,550.00   1,450.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Assets ($1,000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total   8,573.00   21,181.00   6,122.00   2,571.00   1,886.00
    Real Estate   6,452.00   12,091.00   3,735.00   1,208.00   1,299.00
      Machinery   1,315.00    5,207.00   1,939.00   1,144.00     498.00
        Other &     806.00    3,883.00     448.00     220.00      89.00
                Livestock
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Debt/Asset Ratios
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total       0.14        0.14       0.18       0.19       0.18
   Intermediate       0.18        0.20       0.24       0.25       0.18
               Long Ru0.15        0.15       0.17       0.18       0.17
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     2020 Gross Receipts ($1,000) *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total   3,223.80   10,273.00   2,309.00   1,376.80     737.90
           Corn   1,509.50    4,091.00   1,250.10     750.40     276.30
                      0.47        0.40       0.54       0.55       0.37
          Wheat     140.60      113.50     147.10     114.60      27.80
                      0.04        0.01       0.06       0.08       0.04
         Cotton   1,026.50    3,835.90     546.70     254.60     206.10
                      0.32        0.37       0.24       0.19       0.28
  Grain Sorghum     186.10    1,084.00      28.50      51.80     103.90
                      0.06        0.11       0.01       0.04       0.14
         Cattle       0.00        0.00       0.00      25.50       0.00
                      0.00        0.00       0.00       0.02       0.00
          Other     361.20    1,148.70     336.50     179.90     123.80
                      0.11        0.11       0.15       0.13       0.17
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          2020 Planted Acres **
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total   3,192.00   10,180.00   2,500.00   3,300.00   1,600.00
           Corn   1,294.00    3,962.00   1,000.00   2,000.00     800.00
                      0.41        0.39       0.40       0.61       0.50
          Wheat     432.00      492.00     534.00     500.00     100.00
                      0.14        0.05       0.21       0.15       0.06
         Cotton   1,206.00    4,454.00     783.00     500.00     400.00
                      0.38        0.44       0.31       0.15       0.25
  Grain Sorghum     260.00    1,272.00     183.00       0.00     300.00
                      0.08        0.13       0.07       0.00       0.19
        Pasture       0.00        0.00       0.00     300.00       0.00
                      0.00        0.00       0.00       0.09       0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Receipts for 2020 are included to indicate the relative importance of
  each enterprise to the farm. Percents indicate the percentage of the
  total receipts accounted for by the livestock categories and the
  crops.
** Acreages for 2020 are included to indicate the relative importance of
  each enterprise to the farm. Total planted acreage may exceed total
  cropland available due to double cropping. Percents indicate the
  percentage of total planted acreage accounted for by the crop.


           2020 Characteristics of Panel Farms Producing Wheat
 
 
 
             WAW2800     This is a 2,800 acre moderate-sized grain farm
                       in the Palouse of southeastern Washington
                       (Whitman County). It plants 1,840 acres of wheat
                       and 800 acres of dry peas. Disease concerns
                       dictate rotating a minimum acreage of peas to
                       maintain wheat yields. This farm generated 63
                       percent of 2020 receipts from wheat.
            WAW10000     A 10,000 acre, large-sized grain farm in the
                       Palouse of southeastern Washington (Whitman
                       County). Annually, this farm allocates 5,800
                       acres to wheat and 2,700 acres to dry peas.
                       Diseases that inhibit wheat yield dictate the
                       rotation of a minimum acreage of peas. Wheat
                       sales accounted for 61 percent of 2020 receipts.
            WAAW5500     South-central Washington (Adams County) is home
                       to this 5,500 acre, large-sized wheat farm.
                       Annually, this farm plants 2,600 acres of wheat
                       in a wheat-fallow rotation. Additionally, 300
                       acres are enrolled in CRP. In 2020, 91 percent of
                       the farm's income came from wheat.
             ORW4500     ORW4500 is a 4,500 acre large-sized grain farm
                       located in northeastern Oregon (Morrow County).
                       This farm plants 2,250 acres annually in a wheat-
                       fallow rotation. Eighty-six percent of this
                       farm's 2020 total receipts came from wheat sales.
             MTW8000     North-central Montana (Chouteau County) is home
                       to this 9,500 acre farm on which 3,500 acres of
                       wheat (1,920 acres of winter wheat, 1,344 acres
                       of spring wheat, and 544 acres of Durham), 590
                       acres of barley, and 1200 acres of dry peas are
                       planted each year. MTW8000 uses no-till
                       production practices. In 2020, 50 percent of
                       receipts came from wheat.
            KSCW2000     South central Kansas (Sumner County) is home to
                       this 2,000 acre, moderate-sized grain farm.
                       KSCW2000 plants 800 acres of winter wheat, 1,100
                       acres of soybeans, 200 acres of cotton, and 500
                       acres of corn each year. For 2020, 19 percent of
                       gross receipts came from wheat.
            KSCW5300     A 5,300 acre, large-sized grain farm in south
                       central Kansas (Sumner County) that plants 2,385
                       acres of winter wheat, 1,590 acres of corn, and
                       3,352 acres of soybeans. Twenty-two percent of
                       this farm's 2020 total receipts were generated
                       from sales of winter wheat.
            KSNW4000     This is a 4,000 acre, moderate-sized northwest
                       Kansas (Thomas County) grain farm. This farm
                       plants 1,200 acres of winter wheat (wheat-fallow
                       rotation), 1,200 acres of corn, and 600 acres of
                       sorghum. This farm generated 26 percent of 2020
                       receipts from wheat and 62 percent of its
                       receipts from feed grains.
            KSNW8000     KSNW8000 is a 8,000 acre, large-sized northwest
                       Kansas (Thomas County) grain farm that annually
                       plants 1,200 acres of winter wheat, 5,470 acres
                       of corn, 800 acres of sorghum, and 130 acres of
                       soybeans. The farm generated 8 percent of
                       receipts from wheat and 79 percent from feed
                       grains during 2020.
             COW3000     A 3,000 acre northeast Colorado (Washington
                       County), moderate-sized farm that plants 1,012
                       acres of winter wheat and 675 acres of corn each
                       year. COW3000 has adopted minimum tillage
                       practices on most of its acres. This farm
                       generated 54 percent of its receipts from wheat
                       and 35 percent from corn.
             COW6000     A 6,000 acre, large-sized northeast Colorado
                       (Washington County) wheat farm. It plants 2,000
                       acres of wheat, 1,000 acres of millet, and 1,000
                       acres of corn. During 2020, 50 percent of gross
                       receipts came from wheat sales and 24 percent
                       came from corn sales.
 


                                           Appendix Table A4. Characteristics of Panel Farms Producing Wheat.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    WAW2800    WAW10000    WAAW5500    ORW4500    MTW9500    KSCW2000    KSCW5300    KSNW4000    KSNW8000      COW3000        COW6000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
County              Whitman     Whitman      Adams      Morrow    Chouteau    Sumner      Sumner      Thomas      Thomas      Washington     Washington
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Crop-    2,800.00   10,000.00   5,500.00    4,500.00   9,500.00   2,000.00    5,300.00    4,000.00    8,000.00        3,000.00       6,000.00
           land
    Acres Owned      800.00   2,500.00    2,500.00    2,000.00   5,000.00     700.00    1,325.00      600.00    2,100.00        2,100.00       3,000.00
         Acres Leas2,000.00   7,500.00    3,000.00    2,500.00   4,500.00   1,300.00    3,975.00    3,400.00    5,900.00          900.00       3,000.00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Assets ($1,000)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total    3,352.00   11,380.00   2,396.00    1,945.00   9,201.00   2,901.00    6,611.00    4,315.00    9,280.00        4,443.00       6,855.00
    Real Estate    2,526.00   7,810.00    1,788.00    1,407.00   6,527.00   2,000.00    4,032.00    3,233.00    6,066.00        4,128.00       5,536.00
      Machinery      500.00   2,490.00      601.00      516.00   2,027.00     538.00    1,506.00    1,083.00    2,172.00          282.00       1,319.00
       Other & Live- 326.00   1,081.00        8.00       22.00     647.00     363.00    1,073.00        0.00    1,041.00           33.00           0.00
          stock
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Debt/Asset Ratios
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total        0.14       0.15        0.23        0.18       0.18       0.12        0.14        0.23        0.16            0.16           0.20
   Intermediate        0.07       0.21        0.07        0.12       0.23       0.04        0.16        0.29        0.17            0.09           0.13
               Long Run0.17       0.15        0.18        0.16       0.19       0.17        0.17        0.19        0.18            0.16           0.15
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             2020 Gross Receipts ($1,000) *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total    1,448.20   4,811.70      736.70      558.90   2,324.00   1,031.70    2,585.90      897.50    2,647.50          475.90       1,022.10
           Corn        0.00       0.00        0.00        0.00       0.00     239.30      775.40      385.00    1,745.20          167.60         241.80
                       0.00       0.00        0.00        0.00       0.00       0.23        0.30        0.43        0.66            0.35           0.24
          Wheat      908.40   2,928.10      669.40      481.20   1,170.10     191.50      569.90      230.50      222.10          256.00         508.20
                       0.63       0.61        0.91        0.86       0.50       0.19        0.22        0.26        0.08            0.54           0.50
       Soybeans        0.00       0.00        0.00        0.00       0.00     290.10      965.10        0.00       74.60            0.00           0.00
                       0.00       0.00        0.00        0.00       0.00       0.28        0.37        0.00        0.03            0.00           0.00
         Cotton        0.00       0.00        0.00        0.00       0.00     195.70        0.00        0.00        0.00            0.00           0.00
                       0.00       0.00        0.00        0.00       0.00       0.19        0.00        0.00        0.00            0.00           0.00
     Grain Sor-        0.00       0.00        0.00        0.00       0.00       4.50       15.50      172.00      275.20            0.00           0.00
           ghum
                       0.00       0.00        0.00        0.00       0.00       0.00        0.01        0.19        0.10            0.00           0.00
         Barley        4.00      37.30        2.00        0.00     207.50       0.00        0.00        0.00        0.00            0.00           0.00
                       0.00       0.01        0.00        0.00       0.09       0.00        0.00        0.00        0.00            0.00           0.00
         Millet        0.00       0.00        0.00        0.00       0.00       0.00        0.00        0.00        0.00            0.00         174.50
                       0.00       0.00        0.00        0.00       0.00       0.00        0.00        0.00        0.00            0.00           0.17
       Dry Peas      340.40   1,233.10        0.00        0.00     521.50       0.00        0.00        0.00        0.00            0.00           0.00
                       0.24       0.26        0.00        0.00       0.22       0.00        0.00        0.00        0.00            0.00           0.00
          Other      195.40     613.30       65.30       77.70     424.90     110.60      260.00      110.10      330.50           52.30          97.50
                       0.14       0.13        0.09        0.14       0.18       0.11        0.10        0.12        0.13            0.11           0.10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  2020 Planted Acres **
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total    2,640.00   8,700.00    2,900.00    2,250.00   5,301.00   2,600.00    7,327.00    3,000.00    7,600.00        1,987.50       4,000.00
           Corn        0.00       0.00        0.00        0.00       0.00     500.00    1,590.00    1,200.00    5,470.00          675.00       1,000.00
                       0.00       0.00        0.00        0.00       0.00       0.19        0.22        0.40        0.72            0.34           0.25
          Wheat    1,840.00   5,800.00    2,600.00    2,250.00   3,534.00     800.00    2,385.00    1,200.00    1,200.00        1,012.50       2,000.00
                       0.70       0.67        0.90        1.00       0.67       0.31        0.33        0.40        0.16            0.51           0.50
       Soybeans        0.00       0.00        0.00        0.00       0.00   1,100.00    3,352.00        0.00      130.00            0.00           0.00
                       0.00       0.00        0.00        0.00       0.00       0.42        0.46        0.00        0.02            0.00           0.00
         Cotton        0.00       0.00        0.00        0.00       0.00     200.00        0.00        0.00        0.00            0.00           0.00
                       0.00       0.00        0.00        0.00       0.00       0.08        0.00        0.00        0.00            0.00           0.00
     Grain Sor-        0.00       0.00        0.00        0.00       0.00       0.00        0.00      600.00      800.00            0.00           0.00
           ghum
                       0.00       0.00        0.00        0.00       0.00       0.00        0.00        0.20        0.11            0.00           0.00
         Barley        0.00       0.00        0.00        0.00     589.00       0.00        0.00        0.00        0.00            0.00           0.00
                       0.00       0.00        0.00        0.00       0.11       0.00        0.00        0.00        0.00            0.00           0.00
         Millet        0.00       0.00        0.00        0.00       0.00       0.00        0.00        0.00        0.00            0.00       1,000.00
                       0.00       0.00        0.00        0.00       0.00       0.00        0.00        0.00        0.00            0.00           0.25
       Dry Peas      800.00   2,700.00        0.00        0.00   1,178.00       0.00        0.00        0.00        0.00            0.00           0.00
                       0.30       0.31        0.00        0.00       0.22       0.00        0.00        0.00        0.00            0.00           0.00
            CRP        0.00     200.00      300.00        0.00       0.00       0.00        0.00        0.00        0.00          300.00           0.00
                       0.00       0.02        0.10        0.00       0.00       0.00        0.00        0.00        0.00            0.15           0.00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Receipts for 2020 are included to indicate the relative importance of each enterprise to the farm. Percents indicate the percentage of the total
  receipts accounted for by the livestock categories and the crops.
** Acreages for 2020 are included to indicate the relative importance of each enterprise to the farm. Total planted acreage may exceed total cropland
  available due to double cropping. Percents indicate the percentage of total planted acreage accounted for by the crop.


          2020 Characteristics of Panel Farms Producing Cotton
 
 
 
            TXSP4500     The Texas South Plains (Dawson County) is home
                       to this 4,500 acre, large-sized cotton farm that
                       grows 4,380 acres of cotton (2,880 dryland, 1,500
                       irrigated), and 120 irrigated acres of peanuts.
                       Cotton sales comprised 75 percent of 2020
                       receipts.
            TXEC5000     This 5,000 acre farm is located on the Eastern
                       Caprock of the Texas South Plains (Crosby
                       County). Annually, 4,700 acres are planted to
                       cotton (2,230 irrigated and 2,470 dryland) and
                       300 acres to dryland wheat. In 2020, cotton sales
                       accounted for 74 percent of gross receipts.
            TXRP3000     TXRP3000 is a 3,000 acre cotton farm located in
                       the Rolling Plains of Texas (Jones County). This
                       farm plants 1,800 acres of cotton and 1,200 acres
                       of winter wheat each year. The area is limited by
                       rainfall, and the farm uses a conservative level
                       of inputs. Sixty-three percent of 2020 farm
                       receipts came from cotton sales. Fifty head of
                       beef cows generated three percent of farm
                       receipts.
            TXMC2500     This 2,500 acre cotton farm is located on the
                       Coastal Plain of southeast Texas (Wharton
                       County). TXMC2500 farms 300 acres of sorghum,
                       1,455 acres of cotton, and 655 acres of corn. In
                       2020, cotton sales comprised 55 percent of total
                       cash receipts on this operation.
            TXCB4000     A 4,000 acre cotton farm located on the Texas
                       Coastal Bend (San Patricio County) that farms
                       2000 acres of cotton, 1,600 acres of sorghum, and
                       400 acres of corn annually. Sixty percent of 2020
                       cash receipts were generated by cotton.
           TXCB10000     Nueces County, Texas is home to this 10,000
                       acre farm. Annually, 5,000 acres are planted to
                       cotton, 4,500 acres to sorghum, and 500 acres of
                       corn. Cotton sales accounted for 63 percent of
                       2020 receipts.
            TXVC5500     This 5,500 acre farm is located in the lower
                       Rio Grande Valley of Texas (Willacy County) and
                       plants 2,550 acres to cotton (425 irrigated and
                       2,125 acres dryland), 2,295 acres to sorghum (170
                       irrigated and 2,125 dryland), and 255 acres of
                       corn. In 2020, 40 percent of TXVC5500's cash
                       receipts were generated by cotton sales.
            ARNC5000     This 5,000 acre farm is located in northern
                       Arkansas (Mississippi County) and plants 2,500
                       acres to cotton, 500 acres to corn, 1,000 acres
                       of soybeans, and 1,000 acres to peanuts. In 2020,
                       44 percent of ARNC5000's cash receipts were
                       generated by cotton sales.
             TNC3000     A 3,000 acre, moderate-sized west Tennessee
                       (Fayette County) cotton farm. TNC3000 consists of
                       825 acres of cotton, 1,375 acres of soybeans, and
                       800 acres of corn. Cotton accounted for 30
                       percent of 2020 gross receipts, with corn and
                       soybeans contributing 25 percent and 27 percent,
                       respectively.
             TNC4000     TNC4000 is a 4,000 acre, large-sized West
                       Tennessee (Haywood County) cotton farm. This farm
                       plants 1,000 acres of cotton, 2,000 acres of
                       soybeans, 700 acres of corn, and 400 acres of
                       wheat each year. During 2020, cotton sales
                       generated 30 percent of gross receipts.
 


                                           Appendix Table A5. Characteristics of Panel Farms Producing Cotton.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       TXSP4500      TXEC5000      TXRP3000      TXMC2500      TXCB4000     TXCB10000     TXVC5500     ARNC5000     TNC3000     TNC4000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
County                  Dawson        Crosby         Jones        Wharton        San         Nueces       Willacy    Mississippi    Fayette     Haywood
                                                                               Patricio
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Total Cropland       4,500.00      5,000.00      3,000.00      2,500.00     4,000.00     10,000.00     5,500.00     5,000.00     3,000.00    4,000.00
     Acres Owned         500.00      1,250.00        875.00        180.00       600.00      1,500.00     1,750.00     1,000.00       300.00      400.00
          Acres Leased 4,000.00      3,750.00      2,125.00      2,320.00     3,400.00      8,500.00     3,750.00     4,000.00     2,700.00    3,600.00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Assets ($1,000)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Total       3,110.00      4,456.00      1,787.00      2,551.00     3,537.00     10,453.00     8,346.00    12,570.00     3,716.00    5,625.00
     Real Estate         690.00      1,751.00      1,402.00        864.00     1,662.00      4,835.00     5,264.00     6,287.00     1,202.00    2,338.00
       Machinery       2,040.00      1,918.00        344.00      1,268.00     1,467.00      3,832.00     1,796.00     4,424.00     1,387.00    2,419.00
        Other & Livestock380.00        787.00         41.00        419.00       407.00      1,785.00     1,286.00     1,859.00     1,128.00      869.00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Debt/Asset Ratios
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Total           0.18          0.11          0.43          0.19         0.21          0.20         0.18         0.15         0.13        0.14
    Intermediate           0.21          0.09          0.20          0.24         0.28          0.31         0.29         0.22         0.19        0.15
                Long Run   0.17          0.18          0.34          0.17         0.20          0.18         0.19         0.15         0.18        0.18
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             2020 Gross Receipts ($1,000) *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Total       2,531.50      2,885.40        817.00      1,788.80     2,605.70      6,853.00     4,412.10     5,092.40     2,467.60    3,184.90
            Corn           0.00          0.00          0.00        327.20       113.60         95.10       159.20       417.50       610.20      499.30
                           0.00          0.00          0.00          0.18         0.04          0.01         0.04         0.08         0.25        0.16
           Wheat           0.00          0.00        106.60          0.00         0.00          0.00         0.00         0.00         0.00      142.90
                           0.00          0.00          0.13          0.00         0.00          0.00         0.00         0.00         0.00        0.05
        Soybeans           0.00          0.00          0.00          0.00         0.00          0.00         0.00       569.00       655.70      934.00
                           0.00          0.00          0.00          0.00         0.00          0.00         0.00         0.11         0.27        0.29
          Cotton       1,891.70      2,139.20        518.10        988.40     1,565.30      4,314.50     1,779.50     2,219.30       739.20      966.60
                           0.75          0.74          0.63          0.55         0.60          0.63         0.40         0.44         0.30        0.30
   Grain Sorghum           0.00         16.30          0.00        144.20       418.10      1,332.30       884.00         0.00         0.00        0.00
                           0.00          0.01          0.00          0.08         0.16          0.19         0.20         0.00         0.00        0.00
         Peanuts         101.40          0.00          0.00          0.00         0.00          0.00         0.00       996.90         0.00        0.00
                           0.04          0.00          0.00          0.00         0.00          0.00         0.00         0.20         0.00        0.00
            Rice           0.00          0.00          0.00          1.60         0.00          0.00         0.00         0.00         0.00        0.00
                           0.00          0.00          0.00          0.00         0.00          0.00         0.00         0.00         0.00        0.00
          Cattle           0.00          0.00         27.00          0.00         0.00          0.00         0.00         0.00         0.00        0.00
                           0.00          0.00          0.03          0.00         0.00          0.00         0.00         0.00         0.00        0.00
           Other         538.40        730.00        165.40        327.50       508.80      1,111.10     1,589.40       889.70       462.60      642.10
                           0.21          0.25          0.20          0.18         0.20          0.16         0.36         0.18         0.19        0.20
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  2020 Planted Acres **
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Total       4,500.00      5,000.00      3,000.00      2,410.00     4,000.00     10,000.00     5,100.00     5,000.00     3,000.00    4,100.00
            Corn           0.00          0.00          0.00        655.00       400.00        500.00       255.00       500.00       800.00      700.00
                           0.00          0.00          0.00          0.27         0.10          0.05         0.05         0.10         0.27        0.17
           Wheat           0.00        300.00      1,200.00          0.00         0.00          0.00         0.00         0.00         0.00      400.00
                           0.00          0.06          0.40          0.00         0.00          0.00         0.00         0.00         0.00        0.10
        Soybeans           0.00          0.00          0.00          0.00         0.00          0.00         0.00     1,000.00     1,375.00    2,000.00
                           0.00          0.00          0.00          0.00         0.00          0.00         0.00         0.20         0.46        0.49
          Cotton       4,380.00      4,700.00      1,800.00      1,455.00     2,000.00      5,000.00     2,550.00     2,500.00       825.00    1,000.00
                           0.97          0.94          0.60          0.60         0.50          0.50         0.50         0.50         0.28        0.24
   Grain Sorghum           0.00          0.00          0.00        300.00     1,600.00      4,500.00     2,295.00         0.00         0.00        0.00
                           0.00          0.00          0.00          0.12         0.40          0.45         0.45         0.00         0.00        0.00
         Peanuts         120.00          0.00          0.00          0.00         0.00          0.00         0.00     1,000.00         0.00        0.00
                           0.03          0.00          0.00          0.00         0.00          0.00         0.00         0.20         0.00        0.00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Receipts for 2020 are included to indicate the relative importance of each enterprise to the farm. Percents indicate the percentage of the total
  receipts accounted for by the livestock categories and the crops.
** Acreages for 2020 are included to indicate the relative importance of each enterprise to the farm. Total planted acreage may exceed total cropland
  available due to double cropping. Percents indicate the percentage of total planted acreage accounted for by the crop.


          2020 Characteristics of Panel Farms Producing Cotton
 
 
 
                   ALC350A 3,500 acre cotton farm located in northern
                       Alabama (Lawrence County) that plants 1,050 acres
                       to cotton, 1,050 acres to corn, 1,400 acres of
                       soybeans and 875 acres to wheat (double cropped
                       with soybeans) annually. This farm was early to
                       adopt no-till cropping practices. Cotton sales
                       accounted for 26 percent of total farm receipts
                       during 2020.
             GAC2500     Southwest Georgia (Decatur County) is home to a
                       2,500 acre cotton farm that plants 1,250 acres to
                       cotton, 800 acres to peanuts, and 450 acres to
                       corn. In 2020, farm receipts were comprised of
                       cotton sales (35 percent), corn (16 percent), and
                       peanut sales (33 percent). The farm also runs a
                       125 head beef cow herd, generating 3 percent of
                       2020 receipts.
            NCNP1600     A 1,600 acre diversified farm located in
                       northern North Carolina (Edgecombe County).
                       NCNP1600 plants 320 acres of peanuts, 240 acres
                       of corn, 640 acres of cotton, and 400 acres of
                       soybeans. Twenty-three percent of receipts for
                       this farm came from peanut sales in 2020, 37
                       percent from cotton sales and 24 percent came
                       from corn and soybean sales.
 


   Appendix Table A6. Characteristics of Panel Farms Producing Cotton.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             ALC3500         GAC2500         NCNP1600
------------------------------------------------------------------------
County                      Lawrence         Decatur        Edgecombe
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Cropland          3,500.00        1,250.00        1,600.00
       Acres Owned            350.00        1,250.00          600.00
            Acres Leased    3,150.00            0.00        1,000.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Assets ($1,000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Total          6,127.00       10,860.00        3,834.00
       Real Estate          2,808.00        8,416.00        2,572.00
         Machinery          1,840.00        1,499.00        1,260.00
          Other & Livestock 1,479.00          945.00            2.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Debt/Asset Ratios
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Total              0.16            0.17            0.20
      Intermediate              0.27            0.21            0.18
                  Long Run      0.18            0.18            0.16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     2020 Gross Receipts ($1,000) *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Total          3,235.70        3,528.70        1,339.90
              Corn            746.60          549.00          141.60
                                0.23            0.16            0.11
             Wheat            462.00            0.00            0.00
                                0.14            0.00            0.00
          Soybeans            624.70            0.00          173.50
                                0.19            0.00            0.13
            Cotton            833.50        1,239.50          491.60
                                0.26            0.35            0.37
           Peanuts              0.00        1,162.00          305.10
                                0.00            0.33            0.23
            Cattle              0.00           91.70            0.00
                                0.00            0.03            0.00
             Other            568.90          486.50          228.10
                                0.18            0.14            0.17
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          2020 Planted Acres **
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Total          4,375.00        2,750.00        1,600.00
              Corn          1,050.00          450.00          240.00
                                0.24            0.16            0.15
             Wheat            875.00            0.00            0.00
                                0.20            0.00            0.00
          Soybeans          1,400.00            0.00          400.00
                                0.32            0.00            0.25
            Cotton          1,050.00        1,250.00          640.00
                                0.24            0.46            0.40
           Peanuts              0.00          800.00          320.00
                                0.00            0.29            0.20
           Pasture              0.00          250.00            0.00
                                0.00            0.09            0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Receipts for 2020 are included to indicate the relative importance of
  each enterprise to the farm. Percents indicate the percentage of the
  total receipts accounted for by the livestock categories and the
  crops.
** Acreages for 2020 are included to indicate the relative importance of
  each enterprise to the farm. Total planted acreage may exceed total
  cropland available due to double cropping. Percents indicate the
  percentage of total planted acreage accounted for by the crop.


           2020 Characteristics of Panel Farms Producing Rice
 
 
 
             CAR1200     CAR1200 is a 1,200 acre moderate-sized rice
                       farm in the Sacramento Valley of California
                       (Sutter and Yuba Counties) that plants 1,200
                       acres of rice annually. This farm generated 99
                       percent of 2020 gross receipts from rice sales.
             CAR3000     This is a 3,000 acre rice farm located in the
                       Sacramento Valley of California (Sutter and Yuba
                       Counties) that is large-sized for the region.
                       CAR3000 plants 3,000 acres of rice annually. In
                       2020, 99 percent of gross receipts were generated
                       from rice sales.
             CABR800     The Sacramento Valley (Butte County) is home to
                       CABR800, a 800 acre rice farm. CABR800 harvests
                       800 acres of rice annually, generating 99 percent
                       of 2020 farm receipts from rice sales.
             CACR800     CACR800 is an 800 acre rice farm located in the
                       Sacramento Valley of California (Colusa County).
                       This farm harvests 800 acres of rice each year.
                       During 2020, 99 percent of farm receipts were
                       realized from rice sales.
             TXR1500     This 1,500 acre rice farm located west of
                       Houston, Texas (Colorado County) is moderate-
                       sized for the region. TXR1500 harvests 600 acres
                       of rice. The farm generated 97 percent of its
                       receipts from rice during 2020.
             TXR3000     TXR3000 is a 3,000 acre, large-sized rice farm
                       located west of Houston, Texas (Colorado County).
                       This farm harvests 1,500 acres of rice annually.
                       TXR3000 realized 98 percent of 2020 gross
                       receipts from rice sales.
            TXBR1800     The Texas Gulf Coast (Matagorda County) is home
                       to this 1,800 acre rice farm. TXBR1800 generally
                       plants a third of its acres to rice annually and
                       fallows the remainder. The farm generated 98
                       percent of its receipts from rice during 2020.
            TXER2500     This 2,500 acre rice farm is located in the
                       Texas Gulf Coast (Wharton County). TXER2500
                       harvests 1,250 acres of rice each year. The farm
                       also grows 1,250 acres of corn. Seventy-four
                       percent of 2020 receipts came from rice sales.
                    LASR2A 2,000 acre southwest Louisiana (Acadia, Jeff
                       Davis, and Vermilion parishes) rice farm,
                       LASR2000 is moderate-sized for the area. This
                       farm harvests 1,000 acres of rice and 200 acres
                       of soybeans. During 2020, 60 percent of gross
                       receipts were generated from rice sales.
            ARMR6500     ARMR6500 is a 6,500 acre diversified rice farm
                       in southeast Arkansas (Desha County) that plants
                       650 acres of rice, 3,900 acres of soybeans, and
                       1,950 acres of corn. For 2020, 11 percent of
                       gross receipts came from rice sales, 29 percent
                       from corn sales, and 48 percent from soybean
                       sales.
 


                        Appendix Table A7. Characteristics of Panel Farms Producing Rice.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   CAR1200   CAR3000  CABR800  CACR800  TXR1500  TXR3000  TXBR1800  TXER2500  LASR2000  ARMR6500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
County             Sutter    Sutter    Butte    Colusa  Colorad  Colorad  Matagord   Wharton   Acadia     Desha
                                                           o        o         a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Total Cropland   1,200.00  3,000.00   800.00   800.00  1,500.0  3,000.0  1,800.00  2,500.00  2,000.00  6,500.00
                                                              0        0
    Acres Owned     360.00    900.00   320.00   240.00   405.00     0.00      0.00      0.00    200.00  1,200.00
         Acres Lease840.00  2,100.00   480.00   560.00  1,095.0  3,000.0  1,800.00  2,500.00  1,800.00  5,300.00
                                                              0        0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Assets ($1,000)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total   4,003.00  14,894.0  5,580.0  4,420.0  2,530.0  1,887.0  1,211.00  1,368.00  2,736.00  10,079.0
                                   0        0        0        0        0                                       0
    Real Estate   2,525.00  10,650.0  4,100.0  3,990.0  1,408.0   107.00    143.00     98.00  1,533.00  5,938.00
                                   0        0        0        0
      Machinery     894.00  3,616.00  1,265.0   430.00  1,114.0  1,546.0    903.00  1,017.00  1,119.00  2,836.00
                                            0                 0        0
        Other &     584.00    628.00   216.00     0.00     8.00   234.00    164.00    252.00     83.00  1,305.00
                Livestock
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Debt/Asset Ratios
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total       0.12      0.19     0.17     0.20     0.25     0.27      0.21      0.10      0.18      0.16
   Intermediate       0.05      0.22     0.15     0.05     0.20     0.29      0.24      0.12      0.16      0.22
               Long Ru0.18      0.18     0.18     0.18     0.17     0.18      0.19      0.18      0.18      0.15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         2020 Gross Receipts ($1,000) *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total   2,401.20  6,121.20  1,667.5  1,572.4   897.60  2,004.4  1,127.80  2,667.20  1,504.20  6,006.80
                                            0        0                 0
           Corn       0.00      0.00     0.00     0.00     0.00     0.00      0.00    571.60      0.00  1,710.90
                      0.00      0.00     0.00     0.00     0.00     0.00      0.00      0.21      0.00      0.29
       Soybeans       0.00      0.00     0.00     0.00     0.00     0.00      0.00      0.00     70.10  2,886.70
                      0.00      0.00     0.00     0.00     0.00     0.00      0.00      0.00      0.05      0.48
           Rice   2,368.90  6,065.70  1,645.8  1,552.8   871.80  1,962.5  1,101.30  1,961.80    903.20    643.40
                                            0        0                 0
                      0.99      0.99     0.99     0.99     0.97     0.98      0.98      0.74      0.60      0.11
          Other      32.30     55.60    21.70    19.60    25.80    41.90     26.50    133.80    530.90    765.80
                      0.01      0.01     0.01     0.01     0.03     0.02      0.02      0.05      0.35      0.13
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              2020 Planted Acres **
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total   1,200.00  3,000.00   800.00   800.00   600.00  1,500.0    600.00  2,500.00  1,200.00  6,500.00
                                                                       0
           Corn       0.00      0.00     0.00     0.00     0.00     0.00      0.00  1,250.00      0.00  1,950.00
                      0.00      0.00     0.00     0.00     0.00     0.00      0.00      0.50      0.00      0.30
       Soybeans       0.00      0.00     0.00     0.00     0.00     0.00      0.00      0.00    200.00  3,900.00
                      0.00      0.00     0.00     0.00     0.00     0.00      0.00      0.00      0.17      0.60
           Rice   1,200.00  3,000.00   800.00   800.00   600.00  1,500.0    600.00  1,250.00  1,000.00    650.00
                                                                       0
                      1.00      1.00     1.00     1.00     1.00     1.00      1.00      0.50      0.83      0.10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Receipts for 2020 are included to indicate the relative importance of each enterprise to the farm. Percents
  indicate the percentage of the total receipts accounted for by the livestock categories and the crops.
** Acreages for 2020 are included to indicate the relative importance of each enterprise to the farm. Total
  planted acreage may exceed total cropland available due to double cropping. Percents indicate the percentage
  of total planted acreage accounted for by the crop.


           2020 Characteristics of Panel Farms Producing Rice
 
 
 
            ARSR3240     ARSR3240 is a 3,240 acre, large-sized Arkansas
                       (Arkansas County) rice farm that harvests 1,458
                       acres of rice, 1,458 acres of soybeans, and 324
                       acres of corn each year. Fifty-seven percent of
                       this farm's 2020 receipts came from rice sales.
            ARWR2500     East central Arkansas (Cross County) is home to
                       this 2,500 acre rice farm. Moderate-sized for the
                       region, ARWR2500 annually plants 1,250 acres each
                       to rice and soybeans. During 2020, rice sales
                       generated 62 percent of gross receipts.
            ARHR4000     ARHR4000 is a 4,000 acre large-sized northeast
                       Arkansas (Lawrence County) rice farm that
                       annually harvests 2,400 acres of rice, 1,400
                       acres of soybeans, and 200 acres of corn. Rice
                       sales accounted for 74 percent of 2020 farm
                       receipts.
            MSDR5000     MSDR5000 is a 5,000 acre Mississippi Delta
                       (Bolivar County) rice farm that annually harvests
                       1,667 acres of rice and 3,333 acres of soybeans.
                       Rice sales accounted for 42 percent of 2020 farm
                       receipts. Soybeans account for 51 percent of
                       receipts.
            MOBR4000     MOBR4000 is a 4,000 acre Missouri Bootheal
                       (Pemiscot County) rice farm. The farm annually
                       harvests 1,320 acres of rice, 1,800 acres of
                       soybeans and 880 acres of corn. Rice sales
                       accounted for 45 percent of farm receipts in
                       2020.
 


    Appendix Table A8. Characteristics of Panel Farms Producing Rice.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    ARSR3240   ARWR2500   ARHR4000   MSDR5000   MOBR4000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
County              Arkansas    Cross     Lawrence   Bolivar    Pemiscot
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Total Cropland    3,240.00   2,500.00   4,000.00   5,000.00   4,000.00
    Acres Owned      648.00   1,250.00   1,000.00   3,000.00   1,000.00
         Acres Leas2,592.00   1,250.00   3,000.00   2,000.00   3,000.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Assets ($1,000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total    6,088.00   7,873.00   9,107.00   18,981.00  10,186.00
    Real Estate    3,749.00   6,295.00   5,987.00   14,540.00  6,921.00
      Machinery    1,677.00   1,517.00   3,023.00   3,497.00   2,987.00
       Other & Livest662.00      61.00      97.00     944.00     278.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Debt/Asset Ratios
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total        0.16       0.14       0.17       0.18       0.19
   Intermediate        0.19       0.10       0.13       0.24       0.22
               Long Run0.17       0.13       0.18       0.17       0.18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     2020 Gross Receipts ($1,000) *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total    2,785.30   1,939.30   3,462.30   4,050.30   2,781.00
           Corn      277.10       0.00     149.50       0.00     574.80
                       0.10       0.00       0.04       0.00       0.21
          Wheat        9.60       0.00       0.00       0.00       0.00
                       0.00       0.00       0.00       0.00       0.00
       Soybeans      761.30     629.10     599.50   2,082.90     740.20
                       0.27       0.32       0.17       0.51       0.27
           Rice    1,580.70   1,206.00   2,570.50   1,683.90   1,262.20
                       0.57       0.62       0.74       0.42       0.45
          Other      156.60     104.20     142.80     283.50     203.90
                       0.06       0.05       0.04       0.07       0.07
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          2020 Planted Acres **
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total    3,240.00   2,500.00   4,240.00   5,000.00   4,000.00
           Corn      324.00       0.00     200.00       0.00     880.00
                       0.10       0.00       0.05       0.00       0.22
       Soybeans    1,458.00   1,250.00   1,400.00   3,333.00   1,800.00
                       0.45       0.50       0.33       0.67       0.45
           Rice    1,458.00   1,250.00   2,640.00   1,667.00   1,320.00
                       0.45       0.50       0.62       0.33       0.33
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Receipts for 2020 are included to indicate the relative importance of
  each enterprise to the farm. Percents indicate the percentage of the
  total receipts accounted for by the livestock categories and the
  crops.
** Acreages for 2020 are included to indicate the relative importance of
  each enterprise to the farm. Total planted acreage may exceed total
  cropland available due to double cropping. Percents indicate the
  percentage of total planted acreage accounted for by the crop.

Appendix B--Representative Farm Panel Members and Facilitators

                            Feed Grain Farms
 
 
 
                                 Indiana
Facilitators
 
  Mr. Scott Gabbard--Extension Educator, Shelby County, Purdue
 Cooperative Extension
 
Panel Participants
 
Mr. David Brown                      Mr. Kevin Carson
Mr. Gary Everhart                    Mr. Andy Fix
Mr. Jason & Dan Foltz                Ms. Carmen Hawk
Mr. Darrell Linville                 Mr. Gary Robards
Mr. Ken Simpson                      Ms. Angie Steinbarger
Mr. Doug Theobald                    Mr. Jeremy Weaver
 
                                  Iowa
Facilitators
 
  Mr. Jerry Chizek--County Extension Director, Webster County
 
Panel Participants
 
Mr. Doug Adams                       Mr. Brad Black
Mr. Dean Black                       Mr. Perry Black
Mr. A.J. Blair                       Mr. Gregg Hora
Mr. Tyler Lane                       Mr. Jay Lynch
Mr. Steve Peterson                   Mr. Doug Stanek
Mr. Jason Stanek                     Mr. Brent Wells
Mr. Kent Wuebker                     Mr. Loren Wuebker
 
                            Missouri--Central
Facilitators
 
  Mr. Parman Green
 
Panel Participants
 
Mr. Joe Brockmeier                   Mr. Michael Brockmeier
Mr. Kevin Casner                     Mr. Mark Casner
Mr. Kyle Durham                      Mr. Dennis Germann
Mr. Todd Gibson                      Mr. Dale Griffith
Mr. Jack Harriman                    Mr. Todd Hensiek
Mr. Mike Hisle                       Mr. Preston Hisle
Mr. Glenn Kaiser                     Mr. Marc Kaiser
Mr. David Kipping                    Mr. Robert Kipping
Mr. Craig Linneman                   Mr. Mike Ritchhart
Mr. James Wheeler
 
                           Missouri--Northwest
Facilitators
 
  Mr. Peter Zimmel--FAPRI, University of Missouri
 
Panel Participants
 
Mr. Terry Ecker                      Mr. Curtis Lewis
Mr. Russell Miller                   Mr. Matt Rosenbohm
Mr. Nick Rosenbohm                   Mr. Andrew Stoll
 
                            Nebraska--Central
Facilitators
 
  Ms. Sarah Sivits
  Mr. Bruce Treffer--Extension Educator, Dawson County
 
Panel Participants
 
Mr. Jim Aden                         Mr. Rob Anderson
Mr. Bart Beattie                     Mr. Greg Hueftle
Mr. Pat Luther                       Mr. Tim Maline
Mr. Clark McPheeters                 Mr. Scott McPheeters
Mr. Cody Peden                       Mr. Rod Reynolds
Mr. Dave Rowe                        Mr. Paul Stieb
Mr. Dan Strauss
 
                              North Dakota
Facilitators
 
  Mr. Randy Grueneich--County Extension Agent, North Dakota State
 University
  Dr. Bryon Parman--Extension Associate--Farm Management, North Dakota
 State University
 
Panel Participants
 
Mr. John Robert Anderson             Mr. Eric Broten
Mr. Jim Broten                       Mr. Wade Bruns
Mr. Mike Clemens                     Mr. Mark Formo
Mr. Leland Guscette                  Mr. Rob Hanson
Mr. Jason Haugen                     Mr. Charlie Kreidelcamp
Mr. Greg Shanenko                    Mr. Anthony Thilmony
 
                                  Ohio
Facilitators
 
  Mr. Ben Brown--Assistant Professor
 
Panel Participants
 
Mr. Dean Bixel                       Mr. Scott Conrad
Mr. Mark Drewes                      Mr. Matt Eggers
Mr. Todd Hesterman                   Mr. Tim Holbrook
Mr. Eric Johnson                     Mr. Jeremy Tedrow
Mr. Kevin Thierry
 
                             Ohio--Napoleon
Facilitators
 
  Mr. Ben Brown--Assistant Professor
 
Panel Participants
 
Mr. Dean Bixel                       Mr. Scott Conrad
Mr. Mark Drewes                      Mr. Matt Eggers
Mr. Todd Hesterman                   Mr. Tim Holbrook
Mr. Eric Johnson                     Mr. Jeremy Tedrow
Mr. Kevin Thierry
 
                             South Carolina
Facilitators
 
  Mr. Scott Mickey
  Dr. Nathan Smith
 
Panel Participants
 
Mr. Neal Baxley                      Ms. Vikki Brogdon
Mr. Chris Cogdill                    Mr. Harry DuRant
Mr. Sam DuRant                       Mr. Jason Gamble
Mr. Steven Gamble                    Mr. Barry Hutto
Mr. Tommy Lee                        Mr. Joe McKeower
Mr. John Michael Parimuha
 
                           Tennessee--Trenton
Facilitators
 
  Mr. Jeff Lannom--Extension Agent & County Director, Weakley County
  Mr. Chris Narayanan
  Mr. Philip Shelby--Extension Agent, Gibson County
  Mr. Tim Smith--County Extension Agent, Obion County
 
Panel Participants
 
Mr. Steven Agee                      Mr. Brent Baier
Mr. Kenneth Barnes                   Mr. Randy Boals
Mr. Mike Brundige                    Mr. John Chester
Mr. Kaleb Dinwiddie                  Mr. Mike Freeman
Mr. Bobby Garner                     Mr. Derek Griffin
Mr. Brent Griggs                     Mr. Gary Hall
Mr. Rob Holman                       Mr. Josh Little
Mr. Todd Littleton                   Mr. Jason Luckey
Mr. Ben Moore                        Mr. Scotty Ogg
Mr. David Oliver                     Mr. Eric Owen
Mr. John Parrish                     Mr. Eric Partee
Mr. Hedrick Shoaf                    Mr. Kevin Smethwick
Mr. Keith Steele                     Mr. Seth Taylor
Mr. James Wall                       Mr. Jody Wright
Mr. Jay Yeargin
 
                    Texas--Northern Blackland Prairie
Facilitators
 
  Mr. Zach Davis--County Extension Agent, Hill County
 
Panel Participants
 
Mr. Chad Kaska                       Mr. Todd Kimbrell, Jr.
Mr. Chad Radke                       Mr. John Sawyer
 
                       Texas--Northern High Plains
Facilitators
 
  Mr. Marcel Fischbacher--County Extension Agent, Moore County
 
Panel Participants
 
Mr. Tommy Cartrite                   Mr. Brent Clark
Mr. Justin Garrett                   Mr. Kelly Hays
Mr. Casey Kimbrell                   Mr. Tom Moore
Mr. Chandler Preston                 Mr. Jon Reznik
Mr. Stan Spain                       Mr. Darren Stallwitz
Mr. Dee Vaughan                      Ms. Linda Williams
 
                            Texas--Panhandle
Facilitators
 
  Mr. Rick Auckerman--County Extension Agent, Texas Cooperative
 Extension
 
Panel Participants
 
Mr. Michael Carlson                  Mr. Roy Carlson
Mr. Greg Chavez                      Mr. Steve Hoffman
Mr. Bob Meyer                        Mr. Tom Schlabs
 
                    Texas--Southern Blackland Prairie
Facilitators
 
  Mr. Cooper Terrill--County Extension Agent, Williamson County
 
Panel Participants
 
Mr. Terry Pekar                      Mr. Herbert Raesz
Mr. Ken Seggern
 
                            Texas--Southwest
Facilitators
 
  M[s]. Samantha Korzekwa--County Extension Agent, Uvalde County
 
Panel Participants
 
Mr. Jimmy Carnes                     Mr. Ralph Hesse
Mr. Mark Landry                      Mr. Danny Parker
 


                               Wheat Farms
 
 
 
                                Colorado
Facilitators
 
  Mr. John Deering--Ag Business Agent, North Star Bank
  Mr. Dennis Kaan--Director, Golden Plains Area Extension, Colorado
 State University
 
Panel Participants
 
Mr. Rollie Deering                   Mr. Ward Deering
Mr. David Foy                        Mr. Dale Hansen
Mr. William Harman                   Mr. Barry Hinkhouse
Mr. Terry Kuntz                      Mr. Shane Leoffler
Mr. Dave Lillich                     Mr. Max Olsen
Ms. Sara Olsen                       Mr. Ken Remington
Mr. Craig Saxton                     Mr. Calvin Schaffert
Mr. Harlan Schaffert                 Mr. Dave Wagers
Mr. John Wright
 
                            Kansas--Northwest
Facilitators
 
  Dr. Dan O'Brien--Area Extension Director, Kansas State University
  Mr. Mark Wood--Extension Agricultural Economist, Kansas Farm Mgmt.
 Association
 
Panel Participants
 
Mr. Tanner Brown                     Mr. Craig Busse
Mr. Steve Busse                      Mr. Rich Calliham
Mr. Sam Crouse                       Mr. Aaron Horinek
Mr. Lee Juenemann                    Mr. Daniel Leebrick
Mr. Kenan Reeh                       Mr. Tyler Roe
Mr. Steve Schertz
 
                          Kansas--South Central
Facilitators
 
  Mr. Randy Hein--County Extension Agent, Sumner County
  Mr. Zach Simon--County Extension Agent, Sedgwick County
 
Panel Participants
 
Mr. Colton Day                       Mr. Dennis Gruenbacher
Mr. Doug Hisken                      Mr. Aaron Lange
Mr. Kent Ott                         Mr. Steve Schmidt
Mr. Mike Slack                       Mr. Nick Steffen
Troy & Julia Strnad                  Mr. Tim Turek
Mr. Robert White
 
                         Montana--North Central
Facilitators
 
  Mr. Lochiel Edwards
 
Panel Participants
 
Mr. Darin Arganbright                Mr. Steve Bahnmiller
Mr. Duane Beirwagen                  Mr. Will Roehm
Mr. Dan Works
 
                          Oregon--North Central
Facilitators
 
  Jon Farquharson
 
Panel Participants
 
Mr. Dana Heideman                    Mr. Bill Jepsen
Mr. Joe McElligott                   Mr. Craig Miles
Mr. Eric Orem                        Mrs. Shannon Rust
Mr. Tim and Shannon Rust
 
                               Washington
Facilitators
 
  Mr. Aaron Esser--County Director, WSU Extension
 
Panel Participants
 
Mr. Trevor Jantz                     Mr. Ron Jirava
Mr. Mike Miller                      Mr. Justin Simonson
Mr. Travis Simonson                  Mr. Tim Smith
Mr. Traven Smith                     Mr. Steve Taylor
 
                           Washington--Palouse
Facilitators
 
  Dr. Janet Schmidt--Extension Faculty, Washington State University
  Mr. Steve Van Vleet--Extension Agronomist, Washington State University
 
Panel Participants
 
Mr. Ben Barstow                      Mr. Asa Clark
Mr. Gavin Clark                      Mr. Scot Cocking
Mr. Aaron Gfeller                    Mr. David Harlow
Ms. Kenda Hergert                    Mr. Dean Kinzer
Ms. Heidi Kopf                       Mr. Brian Largent
Mr. Gary Largent                     Mr. Michael Largent
Mr. Steve Mader                      Ms. Amy McKay
Mr. Clark Miller                     Mr. Bruce Nelson
Mr. Chris Schultheis                 Mr. David Swannack
Mr. Steve Teade                      Mr. Jon Whitman
 


                              Cotton Farms
 
 
 
                                 Alabama
Panel Participants
 
Mr. James Blythe                     Mr. Paul Clark
Mr. Jarred Darnell                   Dr. Steve Ford
Mr. William Lee                      Ms. Larkin Martin
 
                                Arkansas
Facilitators
 
  Mr. Ray Benson
  Mr. Ronnie Kennett
  Dr. Brad Watkins--Research Assistant Professor, U. of Arkansas
 Cooperative Extension
 
Panel Participants
 
Mr. Chad Costner                     Mr. Heath Donner
Mr. Todd Edwards                     Mr. Cole Hawkins
Mr. Justin Hawkins                   Mr. Kenny Jackson
Mr. David Wildy
 
                           Georgia--Southwest
Facilitators
 
  Ms. Nan Bostick--County Extension Coordinator, Decatur County
  Mr. Cody Powell
  Dr. Adam Rabinowitz
 
Panel Participants
 
Mr. Andy Bell                        Mr. Jerry Jones
Mr. Greg Mims                        Mr. Willard Mims
Mr. Brad Thompson                    Mr. Raymond Thompson
 
                             North Carolina
Facilitators
 
  Mr. Daryl Anderson--County Extension Agent
  Dr. Blake Brown
  Mr. Gary Bullen
  Mr. Kevin Johnson--County Extension Director, Wayne County
 
Panel Participants
 
Mr. Landis Brantham, Jr.             Mr. Michael Gray
Mr. Willie Howell                    Mr. David B. Mitchell, Sr.
Mr. Danny C. Pierce                  Mr. Craig West
Mr. Bryant Worley
 
                             South Carolina
Facilitators
 
  Mr. Jonathan Croft
  Mr. Scott Mickey
  Dr. Nathan Smith
 
Panel Participants
 
Mr. Jimmie Griner                    Mr. Dean Hutto
Mr. John McLaurin                    Mr. David Tindal
Mr. Landrum Weathers
 
                                Tennessee
Facilitators
 
  Mr. Walter Battle--Co-Director, Haywood County Extension
  Mr. Chris Narayanan
  Ms. Lindsay Stephenson
  Mr. Jeff Via--County Extension Director, Fayette County
 
Panel Participants
 
Mr. Alex Armour                      Mr. Link Carlton
Mr. Chuck Dacus                      Mr. Willie German
Mr. Lee Graves                       Mr. Ed Karcher
Mr. Rob Karcher                      Mr. Allen King
Mr. John King                        Mr. Kinney McRae
Mr. Hassell Smith
 
                           Texas--Coastal Bend
Facilitators
 
  Mr. Bobby McCool--County Extension Agent, San Patricio County and
 Aransas County
  Mr. Mark Miller--Chief Operations Officer, Texas AgFinance
  Mr. Jeff Nunley--Executive Director, South Texas Cotton & Grain
 Association
  Mr. Jason Ott--County Extension Agent, Nueces County
  Mr. John Parker--Vice President, Texas AgFinance
 
Panel Participants
 
Mr. Travis Adams                     Mr. Marvin Beyer, Jr.
Mr. Colin Chopelas                   Mr. Jimmy Dodson
Mr. Jon Gwynn                        Mr. Darrell Lawhon
Mr. Larry McNair                     Mr. Andrew Miller
Mr. Toby Robertson                   Mr. Darby Salge
Mr. David Weaver                     Mr. Jon Whatley
 
                         Texas--Eastern Caprock
Facilitators
 
  Ms. Caitlin Jackson
 
Panel Participants
 
Mr. Lloyd Arthur                     Mr. Brooks Ellison
Mr. Mark Schoepf                     Mr. Conner Wilmeth
 
                            Texas--Mid Coast
Facilitators
 
  Mr. Jeff Nunley--Executive Director, South Texas Cotton & Grain
 Association
  Mr. Jimmy Roppolo--General Manager, United Ag
 
Panel Participants
 
Mr. Daniel Gavranovic                Mr. Duane Lutringer
Mr. Cedric Popp                      Mr. Michael Popp
Mr. Darrell Schoeneberg              Mr. Mike Watz
 
                        Texas--Rio Grande Valley
Facilitators
 
  Mr. Matthew Rodriguez--County Extension Agent
 
Panel Participants
 
Mr. Jerry Chappell                   Mr. Joe Pennington
Mr. Spence Pennington                Mr. Ivan Salazar
Mr. Zachary Swanberg                 Mr. Mark Willis
 
                          Texas--Rolling Plains
Facilitators
 
  Mr. Steven Estes--County Extension Agent, Texas AgriLife Extension
 
Panel Participants
 
Mr. Larry Lytle                      Mr. Michael McLellan
Mr. Cody Roberts                     Mr. Brian Sandbothe
Mr. Mike Sloan                       Mr. Dale Spurgin
Mr. Rick Vickers                     Mr. Ferdie Walker
Mr. Terry White
 
                       Texas--Southern High Plains
Facilitators
 
  Mr. Gary Roschetzky--County Extension Agent, Dawson County
 
Panel Participants
 
Mr. Terry Coleman                    Mr. Will Cozart
Mr. Kirk Tidwell                     Mr. Johnny Ray Todd
Mr. Donald Vogler                    Mr. David Warren
 


                               Rice Farms
 
 
 
                                Arkansas
Facilitators
 
  Mr. Chuck Capps
  Mr. Steve Kelley
  Mr. Steven Stone
  Dr. Brad Watkins--Research Assistant Professor, U. of Arkansas
 Cooperative Extension
  Mr. Gus Wilson
 
Panel Participants
 
Mr. John Gates                       Mr. Andrew Gill
Mr. Andy Gill                        Mr. Tad Keller
Mr. Joe Mencer                       Mr. Matt Miles
Mr. Jim Whitaker                     Mr. Sam Whitaker
 
                 Arkansas--East Central-Arkansas County
Facilitators
 
  Mr. Bill Free--Riceland Foods, Inc.
  Dr. Brad Watkins--Research Assistant Professor, U. of Arkansas
 Cooperative Extension
 
Panel Participants
 
Mr. Brandon Bauman                   Mr. Derek Bohanan
Mr. Monty Bohanan                    Mr. Dusty Hoskyn
Mr. Stephen Hoskyn                   Mr. David Jessup
Mr. Garth Jessup
 
                   Arkansas--East Central-Cross County
Facilitators
 
  Dr. Brad Watkins--Research Assistant Professor, U. of Arkansas
 Cooperative Extension
  Mr. Rick Wimberley--County Extension Agent--Staff Chair, U. of
 Arkansas Cooperative
 
Panel Participants
 
Mr. Corbin Brown                     Mr. John Cooper
Mr. Byron Holmes, Jr.                Mr. Bryan Moery
Mr. Roger Pohlner
 
                   Arkansas--Northeast-Lawrence County
Facilitators
 
  Mr. Michael Andrews
  Mr. Bryce Baldridge
  Ms. Courtney Sisk
  Dr. Brad Watkins--Research Assistant Professor, U. of Arkansas
 Cooperative Extension
 
Panel Participants
 
Mr. Greg Baltz                       Mr. Jeremy Baltz
Mr. Ricky Burris                     Mr. Ronald Cavenaugh
Mr. Doug Cox                         Mr. Bruce Manning
Mr. Joe Richardson                   Mr. Vic Stone
 
                        California--Butte County
Facilitators
 
  Dr. Luis Espino
  Mr. Tim Johnson--President and CEO, California Rice Commission
 
Panel Participants
 
Mr. Seth Fiack                       Mr. Imran Khan
Mr. Peter Rystrom                    Mr. Josh Sheppard
Mr. Derek Sohnrey
 
                        California--Colusa County
Facilitators
 
  Dr. Luis Espino
  Mr. Tim Johnson--President and CEO, California Rice Commission
 
Panel Participants
 
Mr. Don Bransford                    Ms. Kim Gallagher
Mr. Leo LaGrande                     Mr. Charles Marsh
Mr. Alex Struckmeyer
 
                        California--Sutter County
Facilitators
 
  Ms. Whitney Brim-DeForest--UCCE Farm Advisor
  Mr. Tim Johnson
 
Panel Participants
 
Mr. Bard Anderson                    Mr. Paul Baggett
Mr. Tom Butler                       Mr. Mike DeWit
Mr. Ned Lemenager                    Mr. Charley Mathews
Mr. Jon Munger                       Mr. Rick Nelson
Mr. Michael Rue                      Mr. Don Traynham
Mr. Rob Van Dyke                     Ms. Nicole Van Vleck
 
                          Louisiana--Northeast
Facilitators
 
  Mr. Scott Franklin
 
Panel Participants
 
Mr. Ed Greer                         Mr. Heath Herring
Mr. John Owen                        Mr. Russ Ratcliff
 
                      Louisiana--Southwest-Acadiana
Panel Participants
 
Mr. Al Cramer                        Mr. Tommy Faulk
Mr. David Lacour                     Mr. Alan Lawson
Mr. Jackie Loewer                    Mr. Micah Loewer
Mr. Christian Richard                Mr. Fred Zaunbrecher
 
                         Mississippi--Cleveland
Facilitators
 
  Dr. Larry Falconer--Extension Professor
  Mr. Craig Hankins--Extension Agent
 
Panel Participants
 
Mr. Michael Aguzzi                   Mr. Austin Davis
Mr. Gary Fioranelli                  Mr. Randy Howarth
Mr. Kirk Satterfield
 
                                Missouri
Facilitators
 
  Mr. Trent Haggard--Director, Fisher Delta Research Center
 
Panel Participants
 
Mr. John Anderson                    Mr. Alex Clark
Mr. Rance Daniels                    Mr. Russ Hoggard
Mr. Jim Priggel                      Mr. Will Spargo
 
                    Texas--Bay City-Matagorda County
Panel Participants
 
Mr. Dillon Berglund                  Mr. Barrett Franz
Mr. Coleman Franz                    Mr. Joey Sliva
Mr. Paul Sliva
 
                    Texas--Eagle Lake-Colorado County
Panel Participants
 
Mr. Allen Anderson                   Mr. Andy Anderson
Mr. Kenneth Danklefs                 Mr. Craig Guthman
Mr. W.A. ``Billy'' Hefner III        Mr. Ira Lapham
Mr. Patrick Pavlu                    Mr. Bryan Wiese
 
                     Texas--El Campo-Wharton County
Panel Participants
 
Mr. Daniel Berglund                  Mr. Timothy Gertson
Mr. Mark Rasmussen                   Mr. L.G. Raun
Mr. Glen Rod                         Mr. Tommy Turner
 


                              Peanut Farms
 
 
 
                         North Carolina--Conway
Facilitators
 
  Dr. Blake Brown
  Mr. Gary Bullen
  Mr. Bob Sutter
 
Panel Participants
 
Mr. Clarke Fox                       Mr. Ray Garner
Mr. Wayne Harrell                    Mr. Donny Lassiter
Mr. Brad West                        Mr. Donnie White
 
                      North Carolina--Elizabethtown
Facilitators
 
  Dr. Blake Brown
  Mr. Gary Bullen
  Mr. Matthew Strickland
  Mr. Bob Sutter
 
Panel Participants
 
Mr. Robert Byrd                      Mr. Wade Byrd
Mr. Jart Hudson                      Mr. Alex Jordan
Mr. Dan McDuffie                     Mr. Sean Morris
Mr. Dan Ward                         Mr. Wilbur Ward
 

                                 ______
                                 
   Supplementary Material Submitted Hon. Thomas ``Tom'' J. Vilsack, 
               Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Insert 1
          Mrs. Hartzler. That is good. That would be great.
          Reuters reported that the Biden Administration is considering 
        lowering the 2022 ethanol blender mandate, below the proposed 
        15 billion gallons potentially hamstringing the biofuels 
        industry. Are you aware of these reports, and do you agree that 
        cutting biofuel blended would only serve to hurt rural 
        communities?
          The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired. Mr. 
        Secretary, you may follow up on that.
          Secretary Vilsack. I would just mention, the biofuel levels 
        for 2021, 2022 are the highest in the history of the program, 
        which indicates a projected growth. And in addition, the 
        Department of Agriculture is providing $700 million of 
        additional assistance to the biofuel industry to encourage it 
        to get it through the pandemic situation, as well as $100 
        [million] to expand access to higher blends. So, I think I can 
        make the case that the Administration is supporting this 
        industry. Sixty-five waivers that were denied by the EPA that 
        might very well have been granted during the previous 
        Administration.

    Implementation of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) falls under the 
jurisdiction of EPA.
Insert 2
          Mrs. Hayes. . . .
          I am coming to the end of my time, and I will leave you with 
        one last question that perhaps if you don't have time, you can 
        follow up on.
          Between 2016 and 2020, the number of full-time employees at 
        the USDA decreased from nearly 94,900 to approximately 86,400. 
        Has this decrease affected USDA's ability to communicate with 
        states and producers about new programs and the process to 
        participate in them, and how can Congress assist USDA in 
        ensuring you have adequate staffing levels that you need to 
        take on the responsibilities we have tasked you with, 
        especially as we work towards this upcoming farm bill?
          Secretary Vilsack. I think one of the areas where we have 
        dealt with the decline of workforce is in the Natural Resources 
        Conservation Service and in our Forest Service, and in our 
        ability to maintain----

    As the current Administration implements new programs and increases 
opportunities, especially in rural communities with underserved 
populations, USDA needs the support of this Committee and Congress to 
reinvest in USDA's long overlooked workforce and build it back through 
investments in staff and technology. The USDA will continue to hire 
based on hiring needs of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, and American Rescue Plan Act.
    USDA is committed to continuing to deliver services to our 
customers, but we need Congress to assist by ensuring sustained 
resources are available to acquire and retain staff to support these 
important initiatives. While USDA's overall attrition rate has remained 
fairly stable over the last 10 years, we have critical shortages across 
the Department in the areas of wildfire management, conservation, rural 
development, and in our food and nutrition areas. USDA is focused on 
continuity planning, considering attrition as part of our succession 
management process.
    Building a better America means bringing people of all backgrounds 
and lived experiences to be a part of a healthy, safe, and inclusive 
workplace--from ensuring we are recruiting the best and the brightest 
across our great country to investing in our employees. We have 
prioritized creating a diverse, inclusive, equitable and accessible 
workplace; engaging and supporting our employees in meaningful ways; 
recruiting the next generation of USDA staff and leaders. All of this 
is great work. Yet, to ensure the efficacy of the staff who are leading 
the programs and engaging with state customers, we need consistent 
committed stable funding to sustain all the operational components 
necessary to support the critical programmatic requirements and ensure 
mission delivery is not impacted.
Insert 3
          Mr. Rouzer. Mr. Secretary, I only have about 20 seconds left.
          Real quickly switching gears. African Swine Fever, I know you 
        are concerned about that and I am sure the Department is doing 
        everything possible to keep it out of this country. Can you 
        provide us a quick update on that front?
          Secretary Vilsack. Significant investment of time and 
        resources in the Dominican Republic, working with them to put 
        together a plan. Dr. Shere has spent literally weeks in the 
        Dominican Republic----

    When an existing cooperative disease surveillance program 
identified the virus in pigs last year in the Dominican Republic and 
later in Haiti, APHIS took swift action to harden our defenses. We 
already have a strong system of overlapping safeguards in place, 
including restrictions against imports of animals or pork products from 
ASF-affected countries. We looked closely at potential pathways of the 
virus and worked with our partners to close them. For example, our U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection colleagues enhanced inspections of 
passengers coming from the region and are closely monitoring the 
handling of regulated garbage from airplanes. We worked with the Coast 
Guard to identify boat traffic coming from the islands to Puerto Rico 
whose passengers could unintentionally carry the virus and have 
conducted appropriate disease surveillance where the boats were 
detected.
    Most notably, we established a protection zone around Puerto Rico 
and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Since those are U.S. territories, any 
incursion of ASF onto those islands could trigger trading partners to 
cut off trade from the mainland. The World Organisation for Animal 
Health permits the establishment of a protection zone within an area 
free of disease, as a temporary measure in response to an increased 
risk from a neighboring country or zone of different animal health 
status. The protection zone we created allows the continental U.S. to 
retain its disease freedom status and continue our international trade, 
even if there is an ASF detection in Puerto Rico or the U.S. Virgin 
Islands. It also allows APHIS to enhance surveillance and create 
additional rules for movement restrictions of live swine and products 
out of the protection zone, protecting the islands from the virus and 
enhancing protections for the U.S. livestock industry.
    Beyond establishing the protection zone, we are focusing additional 
resources on Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Our Wildlife 
Services program is looking for and removing feral swine in Puerto Rico 
and the U.S. Virgin Islands because feral swine are a natural reservoir 
for the disease and could help the virus spread quickly if it moved to 
those territories. We have also made improvements to the diagnostic 
laboratory in Puerto Rico, providing resources and technical assistance 
to increase that lab's capabilities to run important diagnostic tests. 
We have enhanced inspections of passengers traveling to and through the 
territories. We have run a bilingual public education campaign in those 
territories and the region to education the public, veterinarians, and 
producers about the risks of ASF and how they can help stop the spread 
of the virus.
    Using the emergency transfer authority under the Animal Health 
Protection Act, I transferred $500 million to APHIS for these and other 
enhanced ASF mitigation and response activities and to ensure our 
domestic preparedness. APHIS has used that funding to strengthen its 
response activities and has placed teams of veterinarians and animal 
health officials in the region. APHIS officials are working closely 
with the Dominican Republic, providing technical and financial 
assistance for a plan to eradicate the disease from the country, 
thereby strengthening the animal health security of our domestic 
producers. In Haiti, APHIS is focused on providing supplies and remote 
technical laboratory support to agricultural officials and is working 
with them on long-range plans. We will continue to work with animal 
health officials in the region in further developing those plans and do 
everything we can to keep this high consequence disease out of the 
country.
Insert 4
          Mr. Johnson. . . .
          I want to get back to these investigations, though. You are 
        right. We need to let them run their course, but we had USDA 
        conduct an investigation that really some sort of an interim 
        report long after the Holcomb fire, but it didn't really drive 
        to ground some of these accusations about anti-competitive 
        behavior. Can we expect an update, or what is the status of 
        that investigation?
          Secretary Vilsack. I will have to get back to you on that, 
        Congressman, because I am not prepared today to tell you 
        exactly what the status of that is. I would be happy to get 
        back, our staff will get back to your staff on that.
          I would say that I have talked to the Attorney General. He 
        and his team is very sincere about this. They want to make sure 
        that the playing field is level, and I think we should all be 
        in for that.

    USDA's investigation remains outstanding. In particular, we are 
closely coordinating with the Department of Justice around issues of 
concern in the cattle and beef markets.
Insert 5
          Mr. Lawson. . . .
          Has any progress been made on insurance for timber because of 
        the devastation that we have had from hurricanes?
          Secretary Vilsack. Well, let's see. I am not sure I 
        understand your question. We are obviously, to the extent that 
        there are applications out for additional support and help as a 
        result of timber loss, those will be processed. But if you are 
        asking about timber harvesting that was impacted by the 
        pandemic, those resources have been provided to several 
        thousand timber haulers and harvesters.
          Mr. Lawson. Okay. So, a lot of the individual farmers that 
        have used this for retirement purposes and so forth, will they 
        qualify for any of those funds?
          Secretary Vilsack. I am not sure of that, Congressman. Let me 
        check with our team and get back to you.

    RMA is not allowed to compete with private insurance, so the 
availability of private timber insurance limits RMA's ability to offer 
timber insurance. Moreover, timber is challenging to insure due to the 
multiyear process of growth. Although RMA has some experience with tree 
insurance, it is a bit different because the primary indemnification is 
replanting a tree and/or the lost value of fruit or nut production. 
Trying to understand value over time and the associated risk of that 
would require additional study. Additionally, timber insurance would 
likely require a costly and time-consuming inventory as a condition of 
insurance, which would require specialized experience to administer. 
Even with these challenges, RMA remains open to researching potential 
ways to provide more risk management options for timber producers.
Insert 6
          Mr. Thompson. . . .
          In closing, I do want to put a final point on one issue. Mr. 
        Secretary, there is a concern in Congress that when any 
        Secretary acts unilaterally with the CCC, and in fact, we have 
        seen Congress limit your powers of this office when this 
        authority is abused. There have been limited details made 
        available to us related to the climate program you described, 
        and I know you identified two sections specifically. Earlier in 
        response to a question from Representative Austin Scott, you 
        stated you are very confident in your legal authority, and that 
        is an assured statement, given this program seemingly is being 
        created unilaterally and out of whole cloth, as we speak. I 
        will stress that this Committee remains skeptical of the legal 
        authority provided to you and your office under the CCC for 
        this program, and looking at the enumerated powers in the Act, 
        we think that no amount of mental gymnastics could get you 
        there.
          That said, this Committee would like more details from you on 
        this program, but we also want to hear specifically from OGC on 
        the exact language that provides you the authority under the 
        CCC Charter Act, and we want to hear from you prior to any 
        funds being obligated. Is that something I can get a commitment 
        from?
          Secretary Vilsack. We will be happy to share the details of 
        this program with you, Congressman, and also provide you with 
        the basis upon which we believe that this is an appropriate use 
        of these resources.

    Section 5 of the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter provides 
authorities to ``make available materials and facilities required in 
connection with the production and marketing of agricultural 
commodities (other than tobacco)'' and ``increase the domestic 
consumption of agricultural commodities (other than tobacco) by 
expanding or aiding in the expansion of domestic markets or by 
developing or aiding in the development of new and additional markets, 
marketing facilities, and uses for such commodities.''
                                 ______
                                 
 Submitted Letter by Jim Nussle, President and Chief Executive Office, 
                   Credit Union National Association
January 20, 2022

 
 
 
Hon. David Scott,                    Hon. Glenn Thompson,
Chairman,                            Ranking Minority Member,
House Committee on Agriculture,      House Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.;                    Washington, D.C.
 

    Chairman Scott and Ranking Member Thompson,

    On behalf of America's credit unions, I am writing in regard to the 
hearing entitled, ``Review the State of the Rural Economy with 
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack.'' CUNA represents America's credit 
unions and their 120 million members.
    Credit unions are not-for-profit financial institutions dedicated 
to serving their members, regardless of location or socioeconomic 
background. As of June 2019, almost \1/4\ of all credit unions are 
headquartered in rural areas, making them uniquely positioned to serve 
rural communities by providing capital infusions, loans for farmers and 
ranchers and small businesses as well as loans for education, and 
trusted advice.
    Since the Great Recession, the number of bank branches has declined 
by over 11,000 and according to the National Community Reinvestment 
Coalition, nearly 90 banking deserts have been created as a result of 
bank closures and failures. Yet, rural credit union membership has 
grown rapidly--more than 15 percent since 2013.
    Credit unions invest in the rural communities they serve by 
providing affordable financial services options targeted to the unique 
needs of their consumers. Rural credit unions serve 9.7 million 
members--over \1/5\ of the nation's rural population.
    One of the most important things that Congress could do is empower 
rural communities through financial inclusion. That means ensuring that 
Federal law permits all Federal credit unions to serve rural 
communities, banking deserts, and all underserved areas. Given the 
unprecedented economic disruption caused by COVID-19, it is important 
now more than ever that rural communities have access to a trusted, 
local financial partner. Credit unions are eager to be that partner, 
but archaic charter and field of membership restrictions prevent most 
from expanding more broadly to help those who are most in need.
    The Expanding Financial Access for Underserved Communities Act 
would address the epidemic of the unbanked and underbanked in the 
United States by making it easier for consumers in areas without 
sufficient financial services providers to access credit unions. We 
strongly support this legislation, which would make three changes to 
the Federal Credit Union Act to enable and encourage credit unions to 
serve underserved and abandoned communities and promote financial 
inclusion to all at no cost to the taxpayer.
    First, the legislation would allow all Federal credit unions to add 
underserved areas to their field of membership. Under current law, only 
multiple common bond credit unions can add underserved communities. 
Multiple common bond credit unions serve groups that have a definable 
common bond of association or occupation. Second, the legislation 
exempts business loans made by credit unions to businesses in 
underserved areas from the credit union member business lending cap. 
Finally, the legislation expands the definition of an underserved area 
to include any area that is more than 10 miles from the nearest branch 
of a financial institution. Currently, there are two other ways that an 
area can qualify as underserved: (1) Community Development Financial 
Institution (CDFI) Area or (2) New Markets Tax Credit Area. Adding this 
third path for an area to be designated underserved is designed to 
address the epidemic of rural banking deserts and ensure the 
availability of cooperative financial services for all.
    Allowing credit unions to expand into rural communities and other 
underserved areas would advance communities throughout the nation by 
giving tens of millions of consumers access to member-owned financial 
services. CUNA conservatively estimates that this modest but meaningful 
reform of field of membership rules would produce first-year benefits 
for over one million consumers who now have no realistic, affordable 
options in the financial marketplace.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Assuming first-year membership growth of 5% among credit unions 
with restricted fields of membership that are not currently operating 
in underserved areas and 2.5% growth among community-charted credit 
unions not currently in underserved areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We hope the Committee will consider legislation that expands the 
opportunity to serve rural and other underserved communities to all 
Federal credit unions to ensure access to affordable financial services 
for all.
    On behalf of America's credit unions and their more than 120 
million members, thank you for the opportunity to share our views.
            Sincerely,
            
            
Jim Nussle,
President & CEO.
                                 ______
                                 
   Submitted Letter by James D. Ogsbury, Executive Director, Western 
                         Governors' Association
January 19, 2022

 
 
 
Hon. David Scott,                    Hon. Glenn Thompson,
Chairman,                            Ranking Minority Member,
House Committee on Agriculture,      House Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.;                    Washington, D.C.
 

    Dear Chairman Scott and Ranking Member Thompson:

    In advance of the Committee's January 20, 2022, hearing on the 
State of the Rural Economy, attached please find four Western 
Governors' Association (WGA) policy resolutions:

   WGA Policy Resolution 2020-07, Rural Development;

   WGA policy Resolution 2020-06, Western Agriculture;

   WGA Policy Resolution 2021-06, Disaster Preparedness and 
        Response; and

   WGA Policy Resolution 2020-08, Broadband Connectivity.

    I request that you include this document in the permanent record of 
the hearing, as it articulates Western Governors' policy positions and 
recommendations on rural economic health and development and related 
matters.
    Thank you for your consideration of this request and your attention 
to this subject. Please contact me if you have any questions or require 
further information. In the meantime, with warm regards and best 
wishes, I am
            Respectfully,
            
            
James D. Ogsbury,
Executive Director.
                              attachment 1
Policy Resolution 2020-07, Rural Development
A. Background
  1.  Vibrant and prosperous rural communities are essential components 
            of western states and the nation. Rural communities in the 
            West grow and supply food, steward natural resources, 
            contribute disproportionately to the armed services, and 
            are critical to state economies.

  2.  Rural communities in the West are richly diverse and face varying 
            threats and opportunities. They do, however, share common 
            characteristics, such as low population density and 
            distance from urban centers, that create challenges for 
            economic development.

  3.  Nationally, the rural population is increasing slowly after a 
            period of decline from 2010-2017, although there is great 
            variation in demographic trends at the county level. Many 
            rural western counties are experiencing population growth 
            due to net migration of retirees as well as people seeking 
            quality of life and amenities.

  4.  Most rural communities have a higher proportion of older 
            residents than urban and suburban communities. Rural 
            communities are preparing for an anticipated wave of 
            retirements, leading to a reduction in skilled workforce 
            and potential closure of local businesses.

  5.  Western states have many of the highest per-capita veteran 
            populations in the nation. It is estimated that 
            approximately 25 percent of all veterans live in rural 
            areas. These veterans have lower rates of employment 
            compared to veterans living in urban areas and to their 
            non-veteran rural colleagues.

  6.  Most rural communities have experienced slower economic and job 
            growth than their urban counterparts and have not yet fully 
            recovered from the 2008 recession. Many rural economies 
            rely heavily on a few industries. This makes these 
            communities more sensitive to trends affecting those 
            industries and can make it more difficult to recover from 
            disruptions. Rural communities have also been significantly 
            affected by the COVID-19 public health threat and will 
            suffer distress from any associated economic downturn.

  7.  Federal programs for rural development are spread across multiple 
            agencies. Some agencies are responsible for rural 
            infrastructure investments while others focus on economic 
            development. The multiplicity of administrating entities 
            and the lack of consistency across agencies: renders it 
            difficult for rural stakeholders to navigate Federal 
            programs; compounds time and expense needed to apply for 
            funding opportunities; and creates inefficiencies in the 
            distribution of resources.

  8.  The vast majority of Federal loan and grant programs for rural 
            communities are targeted to physical infrastructure. Little 
            funding exists to support development of local capacity, 
            including strengthening community organizations, nonprofit 
            entities, and other groups serving rural communities.

  9.  By offering opportunity, connectivity, and quality of life, rural 
            communities can thrive and prosper while improving economic 
            stability and protecting the rural character and natural 
            resources that draw people to these areas.

  10. Small businesses, including farming and ranching, are the 
            foundation of rural economies, generating tax revenue, 
            creating jobs, providing essential goods and services, and 
            contributing to the culture and character of small towns. 
            Building a successful business in a rural community is 
            particularly challenging due to limited access to capital, 
            available workforce and smaller customer bases. Many 
            successful rural businesses operate on thin margins and if 
            they close, are extremely difficult to replace.

  11. High-speed internet, commonly referred to as ``broadband,'' \1\ 
            is the critical infrastructure of the 21st century and a 
            modern-day necessity for individuals, businesses, schools 
            and government. Many rural western communities lack the 
            business case for private broadband investment due to the 
            high cost of infrastructure and the low number of customers 
            in potential service areas. This has left many rural 
            businesses and citizens at a competitive disadvantage 
            compared to urban and suburban areas with robust broadband 
            access.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The Federal Communications Commission defines fixed 
``broadband'' as service offering minimum speeds of 25 Megabits per 
second (Mbps) down and 3 Mbps up.

  12. Transportation connectivity is critical to strengthening 
            economies and improving quality of life. Air service is 
            particularly important to connect remote western 
            communities to urban hubs. Pilot shortages, infrastructure 
            constraints, and airline consolidation have negatively 
            impacted rural air connectivity. The airline industry has 
            been significantly impacted by COVID-19 and rural service, 
            which is typically the least profitable, has been reduced.
B. Governors' Policy Statement
  1.  Western Governors believe that strengthening social 
            infrastructure in rural communities is the best strategy to 
            ensure rural quality of life and prosperity. Congress and 
            Federal agencies should increase the proportion of rural 
            economic development and infrastructure funding that goes 
            toward capacity-building. Accordingly, Western Governors 
            call for ample and consistent Federal funding for 
            institutions, training, and technical assistance. Robust 
            social infrastructure is fundamental to economic and 
            community development and maximizes the impact of state and 
            Federal resources.

  2.  Social infrastructure is especially critical during disasters or 
            crises. The COVID-19 pandemic and associated economic 
            crisis have illustrated the challenge of rapidly deploying 
            resources to the most urgent needs. Western Governors are 
            committed to strengthening the resilience of rural 
            communities by helping to foster local leadership and 
            strengthen networks and connections within and among rural 
            communities across the West.

  3.  Western Governors believe that many Federal programs for rural 
            development and distressed communities include unintended 
            barriers for rural individuals and entities that need 
            assistance most. Western Governors urge Federal agencies to 
            work with states to: thoroughly evaluate program 
            requirements; identify barriers for rural applicants; and 
            revise onerous requirements in a manner that recognizes the 
            limited resources and capacity of rural applicants. In 
            particular, Western Governors are concerned by:

      a.  Scoring criteria that relate to numerical size and impact, 
            such as the 
                number of jobs created or the number of people served, 
            which disadvan-
                tage small and isolated communities;

      b.  Requirements that applicants partner with other institutions 
            like commu-
                nity colleges or foundations, which may not operate in 
            the rural commu-
                nity seeking assistance;

      c.  Financial match or cash-on-hand requirements that rural 
            organizations 
                cannot meet; and

      d.  Overly complicated or technical applications that deter rural 
            customers 
                from applying.

  4.  Western Governors also urge Federal agencies to use state data 
            for eligibility determinations when requested by states. 
            States often have more up-to-date and granular data for 
            rural communities than Federal sources.

  5.  Western Governors recognize and support efforts at the Federal 
            and state level to coordinate the deployment of resources, 
            leverage funding, and create one-stop application processes 
            for rural customers. Western Governors are interested in 
            exploring strategies to expand those models to include more 
            funders and further enhance coordination between agencies 
            and between states and the Federal Government.

  6.  Western Governors believe that changes in our economy, labor 
            force, and technological innovations require fundamental 
            changes in economic development strategies. Western 
            Governors promote rural development policies that focus on 
            quality of life and the support of small businesses and 
            entrepreneurs. This will develop rural communities that are 
            attractive places to live and work while protecting their 
            rural character, natural resource-based industries, and 
            natural areas.

  7.  In the wake of disasters in rural communities, including the 
            COVID-19 pandemic, providing small businesses with the 
            tools and resources to survive disruption and prosper again 
            is critical for economic recovery and social stability. The 
            impacts of COVID-19 mitigation measures have illustrated 
            the urgent need for working capital to stabilize rural 
            businesses and ensure their continued viability during 
            periods of prolonged disruption related to disasters and 
            emergencies. The Federal response to declared disasters 
            must include sufficient and accessible business 
            stabilization funds, including grants and long-term, 
            forgivable loans. Congress should also examine how such 
            funds are distributed by the Small Business Administration 
            (SBA), U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Development 
            (USDA RD), and the Economic Development Administration 
            (EDA) to ensure that adequate systems are in place to 
            handle demand during widespread emergencies.

  8.  During COVID-19 response, many small lenders could not access 
            Federal funds to support their communities because they did 
            not meet program thresholds or were unable to compete 
            against large banks. Small lenders, including community 
            development financial institutions (CDFIs), community 
            banks, and credit unions, are often the only lender serving 
            rural and Tribal communities. In the ongoing response to 
            the economic impacts of COVID-19, Western Governors 
            encourage Congress to set aside emergency relief funds for 
            small lenders and consider program requirements that allow 
            those entities to participate through a streamlined process 
            to rapidly distribute resources while maintaining fiscal 
            accountability.

  9.  Western Governors are eager to work with public universities, 
            community colleges, and the business community to expand 
            opportunities for young people to stay in their rural 
            communities. There is a high demand for skilled workers in 
            rural communities and states should work together on 
            regional solutions that provide the appropriate training 
            and skills for the jobs that are available in rural 
            communities where possible. Western Governors are also 
            committed to increasing employment among veterans and the 
            disabled community in the rural West.

  10. Western Governors encourage increased flexibility in the use of 
            Federal economic development resources (particularly EDA 
            funds) to facilitate investments in quality of life and 
            amenities in rural communities. Governors believe that 
            metrics based solely on the absolute number of jobs created 
            do not reflect the important economic benefits of 
            investments in community assets that make rural communities 
            attractive places to live. Nor do they account for the 
            relative impact of job creation in less populated rural 
            communities or areas with high unemployment or poverty 
            rates.

  11. Western Governors strongly support improving and increasing 
            broadband connectivity in the rural West through 
            significant Federal investments in mapping, deployment, and 
            adoption. The Governors have highlighted substantive policy 
            recommendations in the Western Governors' Association 
            policy resolution addressing broadband connectivity.

  12. Western Governors have developed robust policies addressing the 
            challenge of providing services and maintaining 
            infrastructure essential to communities across the vast 
            expanse of the rural West. These policies address broadband 
            access, healthcare, surface transportation and water 
            quality. Western Governors are committed to working with 
            Congress and Federal agencies to improve the efficacy of 
            Federal and state programs to support critical 
            infrastructure in the rural West.

  13. Western Governors recommend further changes in approach to 
            supporting water and wastewater infrastructure in the West:

      a.  Funding for communities not served by water systems is 
            critically need-
                ed. Western Governors recommend set-asides to develop 
            innovative solu-
                tions for communities and Tribes that cannot be served 
            by traditional 
                systems.

      b.  Western Governors are concerned about shortages of certified 
            water sys-
                tem operators and request a coordinated effort to 
            increase training oppor-
                tunities through the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 
            U.S. Environmental 
                Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Labor and college 
            and university 
                programs that develop these skilled workers to ensure 
            that existing water 
                access in rural communities can be maintained.

  14. Western Governors emphasize that air service is a necessity in 
            many rural communities. As the airline industry recovers 
            from the economic impacts of COVID-19, Western Governors 
            urge Congress to consider measures to address challenges in 
            rural air connectivity, including funding for 
            infrastructure and service subsidies.

  15. Western Governors support the use of cooperative business models 
            to preserve rural businesses and fill community needs for 
            childcare, homecare, main street businesses, housing, and 
            more. Western Governors recognize the need for substantial 
            technical assistance and education in developing new 
            cooperative businesses and support Federal funding of such 
            efforts.

  16. Western Governors are concerned by food security challenges in 
            rural communities. Rural grocery store closures jeopardize 
            livability and community health. Western Governors are 
            interested in exploring strategies to ensure rural food 
            security by strengthening local agricultural economies and 
            developing regional approaches to rural food supply chains.

  17. Housing remains a critical challenge in rural communities across 
            the West. Western Governors are committed to working 
            together to share best practices and effective solutions 
            for housing preservation and development in the rural West.

  18. The Cooperative Extension System, which serves every county in 
            western states, is an important asset for rural 
            development. Western Governors believe that Cooperative 
            Extension can play a more meaningful role in economic 
            development efforts in distressed communities and support 
            continued investment in the system as it responds to the 
            changing needs of rural communities. Western Governors are 
            committed to maximizing the efficacy of Cooperative 
            Extension in their states.
C. Governors' Management Directive
  1.  The Governors direct WGA staff to work with Congressional 
            committees of jurisdiction, the Executive Branch, and other 
            entities, where appropriate, to achieve the objectives of 
            this resolution.

  2.  Furthermore, the Governors direct WGA staff to consult with the 
            Staff Advisory Council regarding its efforts to realize the 
            objectives of this resolution and to keep the Governors 
            apprised of its progress in this regard.

          Western Governors enact new policy resolutions and amend 
        existing resolutions on a bi-annual basis. Please consult 
        www.westgov.org/resolutions for the most current copy of a 
        resolution and a list of all current WGA policy resolutions.
                              attachment 2
Policy Resolution 2020-06, Western Agriculture
A. Background
  1.  Agriculture in the western states and territories is 
            significantly different from that in other regions of the 
            country. The West has greater variations in soil, climate, 
            terrain, commodities, production practices and water 
            availability. That difference is even greater for Alaska, 
            Hawai'i and the U.S. territories.

  2.  Farms and ranches are important contributors to the economies and 
            quality of life of western states. Among other important 
            values, western agricultural lands are primary sources of 
            open space, wildlife habitat, water supplies, and diverse 
            rural economic opportunities in the recreation, food, 
            fiber, energy and biobased product industries.

  3.  Agriculture and food industry members support vibrant local 
            economies and robust and stable food security systems 
            across the West.

  4.  The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), through the National 
            Agricultural Statistics Service, conducts the Census of 
            Agriculture every 5 years. Census of Agriculture data 
            provides valuable insights on the average age of producers, 
            new and young entrants to the agriculture sector, net cash 
            income, crop insurance payments, specialty crop production 
            and other useful metrics. State-acquired data must also be 
            considered when evaluating industry metrics.

  5.  The 2017 Census of Agriculture includes many useful findings 
            regarding the agricultural workforce in western states. 
            Notably, only six percent of primary producers are age 35 
            or younger, while over 25 percent are between 65 and 74 
            years old. Additionally, approximately 14 percent of 
            primary producers in western states have served or serve in 
            the U.S. military. Women's role in agriculture has grown 
            substantially as well, constituting over 38 percent of the 
            agricultural workforce in 2017, versus under 33 percent in 
            2012. Minority communities and seasonal and temporary 
            workers also make significant contributions to agricultural 
            production and distribution across the West.

  6.  The 2017 Census of Agriculture illustrates the importance of 
            specialty and high-value crop production in western states. 
            In terms of total cash value of agricultural production, 
            the top ten producing counties are all located in western 
            states.

  7.  Trade promotion plays an important role in ensuring that western 
            agricultural products have an opportunity to compete with 
            products produced and subsidized internationally. The 
            United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement and programs offered 
            by USDA and the Small Business Administration (SBA) all 
            help improve international market opportunities for 
            American growers and value-added product manufacturers.

  8.  The West's network of land-grant universities and colleges, as 
            well as Cooperative Extension Service programs and 
            Agricultural Experiment Stations, provide national 
            leadership in research to develop more resilient seeds and 
            crops, manage soil health, improve the health of public 
            lands, advance technology deployment in the biobased 
            economy and conduct on-farm experiments that help farmers 
            and ranchers be more effective and efficient.

  9.  Precision agriculture technologies are helping deliver increased 
            crop yields and farm productivity while reducing the use of 
            water, fertilizer, pesticides and other agricultural 
            inputs. Certain advanced agriculture technologies require 
            fixed or mobile broadband connectivity while others utilize 
            Global Positioning System tools.

  10. Proper integration of many advanced agriculture technologies 
            requires producers to have robust broadband connectivity at 
            both their residences and across their operating areas. 
            Wireless technologies and access to wireless spectrum can 
            help support cost-effective technology adoption by 
            agricultural producers. USDA and the Federal Communications 
            Commission (FCC) have recently launched efforts to promote 
            on-farm connectivity and the growth of the precision 
            agriculture sector.

  11. Beyond the integration of advanced technologies, broadband access 
            allows producers to conduct necessary agricultural business 
            functions like online advertising and livestock auctions.

  12. Western agricultural cooperatives perform many important 
            functions for their members and rural communities. These 
            include provision of seed, feed and fertilizer to growers; 
            product storage, processing and transportation; trade and 
            market promotion; and education and technical assistance.

  13. Western Governors recognize that nutrition assistance programs 
            are necessary to meet the needs of children and the most 
            vulnerable, while creating economic opportunity across the 
            agriculture supply chain--from the store where food is 
            purchased, all the way back to the farm.

  14. Agricultural production throughout the West requires integrated 
            water management and robust state, Federal, and private 
            cooperation and investment in water delivery 
            infrastructure, predictive and adaptive capabilities for 
            extreme weather variability, and data relating to water 
            resource availability.

  15. The COVID-19 pandemic has created significant issues across food 
            supply and distribution networks. Growers, value-added 
            businesses, processing facilities, distribution companies 
            and food retailers, including farmers markets, have all 
            faced costly disruptions to their standard operations.

  16. Without governmental action, the economic effects of the COVID-19 
            pandemic on growers, farmworkers, manufacturers, delivery 
            networks, and other agricultural entities are likely to be 
            long-lasting and severe. Circumstances that are likely to 
            affect the economic viability of producers, farmworkers and 
            agricultural businesses include: restaurant, hotel and 
            school closures; reduced consumer spending; seasonal and 
            migratory workforce disruptions; and disease outbreaks 
            within the agricultural community.

  17. The COVID-19 pandemic is stressing state departments of 
            agriculture and the Cooperative Extension Services and 
            Agricultural Experiment Station networks. Many state 
            agricultural and food programs which are relied upon for 
            food safety and market development are likely to be 
            disrupted or canceled due to COVID-related challenges. The 
            Cooperative Extension Services and Agricultural Experiment 
            Station Networks are facing similar impediments to 
            important agricultural and food network research projects 
            due to data collection interruptions, personnel changes and 
            other issues associated with the COVID-19 pandemic.

  18. USDA launched the Coronavirus Food Assistance Program and Farmers 
            to Families Food Box Program in order to address challenges 
            facing producers, agricultural businesses, and food 
            insecure families as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

  19. As western communities struggle to cope with disruptions to our 
            food supply chains and historic job losses due to COVID-19, 
            Governors continue to pursue solutions to connect surplus 
            agricultural products with the growing number of food 
            insecure families in our states. State and local leaders 
            are best positioned to strategically direct food purchasing 
            and distribution due to their understanding of unique 
            challenges facing farmers and food assistance providers in 
            their communities.

  20. Local communities and food banks can face capacity issues, such 
            as staffing shortages and refrigeration and storage 
            challenges, while managing the preparation and distribution 
            of emergency food supplies. Many are also adjusting to new 
            packaging and distribution strategies, including grab-and-
            go meals and home deliveries.
B. Governors' Policy Statement
  1.  Western Governors support funding for the USDA Market Access and 
            Foreign Market Development Programs and SBA State Trade 
            Expansion Program to promote opportunities for western 
            producers to increase export revenues and encourage trade 
            agreements that maximize benefits for the West's farmers 
            and ranchers. Western Governors appreciate the increased 
            alignment between USDA and SBA agricultural trade promotion 
            programs.

  2.  Western Governors support adequate funding for the USDA Specialty 
            Crop Block Grant Program, which provides critical research, 
            education, and promotion tools to fruit and vegetable 
            producers with an annual re-evaluation of funding formulas 
            and eligible crops.

  3.  Western states have experienced sharp declines in farm income and 
            farm prices since their peaks in 2013. Western Governors 
            support a farm safety net that recognizes past deficit 
            reduction contributions of the agricultural sector and 
            maintains funding for other key commodity, conservation, 
            crop insurance, research, energy, and export promotion 
            programs.

  4.  Western Governors encourage the expansion of programs that can 
            meet the unique educational, training, technical and 
            financial needs of new, beginning and veteran farmers and 
            ranchers and other USDA programming that can help returning 
            veterans develop and expand business opportunities in rural 
            communities.

  5.  Western Governors emphasize that the agriculture industry has a 
            growing need for workers with science, technology, 
            engineering and math (STEM) skills. We support efforts to 
            develop a diverse and skilled agricultural workforce, by 
            increasing awareness of career opportunities, expanding 
            education and training programs, and other means, in order 
            to meet the needs of this increasingly high-tech industry.

  6.  Western Governors support the expansion of research and 
            implementation funding to address drought, a changing 
            climate and extreme weather risks facing western producers.

  7.  Western Governors encourage the effective use of Cooperative 
            Extension Services, Agricultural Experiment Stations and 
            other partnerships to deliver practical tools, technologies 
            and information to farmers, ranchers and forest landowners. 
            We support Congressional and Administrative efforts that 
            provide support to the Cooperative Extension Services and 
            Agricultural Experiments Station networks as they address 
            research, staff capacity, and agricultural and food system 
            challenges associated with the COVID-19 pandemic.

  8.  Western Governors emphasize the importance of supporting the 
            growth of the precision agriculture sector and highlight 
            the substantive policy recommendations contained in our 
            policy resolution addressing broadband connectivity issues.

  9.  Western Governors support funding for Federal programs that 
            provide assistance to agricultural cooperatives across the 
            West. These include USDA Rural Cooperative Development 
            Grants and Value-Added Producer Grants, and programs 
            administered by USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service and 
            National Institute of Food & Agriculture.

  10. Nutrition assistance programs should continue to provide 
            flexibility for states to respond to unique economic 
            conditions, serve all eligible participants without 
            drastically reducing benefits, and encourage continued 
            pursuit of transparency, efficiency, and accountability in 
            program administration.

  11. Existing Federal assistance options that help build connections 
            between growers with surplus products and food insecure 
            families lack the flexibility to nimbly address needs in 
            many western communities. Western Governors support 
            Congressional and Administrative efforts to provide states 
            with emergency funding to purchase goods from local 
            producers who lack a market for their surplus crops, and 
            provide them to food banks and nutrition assistance 
            programs who are facing unprecedented demands.

  12. Western Governors encourage USDA to coordinate with state 
            departments of agriculture and local governments in the 
            delivery of the Farmers to Families Food Box Program and 
            other Federal efforts focused on addressing food insecurity 
            challenges related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Strong 
            partnerships across Federal, state and local agencies can 
            help ensure that food is not wasted due to logistical and 
            capacity constraints at local food banks.

  13. Western Governors support legislative measures that provide 
            states with access to flexible funding to respond to urgent 
            and emerging issues in the agricultural economy and food 
            supply chain. Additionally, we support legislative efforts 
            that address agricultural supply chain disruptions; 
            increase food banks and nonprofits' capacity to address 
            growing nutrition demands; provide personal protective 
            equipment and COVID-19 testing capacity to producers and 
            processing facility employees; and promote the ability of 
            producer and business cooperatives, state departments of 
            agriculture, and Cooperative Extension Services to 
            strengthen local food networks.

  14. Western Governors recognize that the farm bill includes titles 
            and issues not contemplated in this resolution. We 
            encourage Congressional committees, Federal agencies and 
            the Executive Branch to review Governors' existing policy 
            resolutions addressing National Forest and rangeland 
            management; species conservation; voluntary conservation 
            programs; biosecurity and invasive species management; 
            rural development; and broadband connectivity.
C. Governors' Management Directive
  1.  The Governors direct WGA staff to work with Congressional 
            committees of jurisdiction, the Executive Branch, and other 
            entities, where appropriate, to achieve the objectives of 
            this resolution.

  2.  Furthermore, the Governors direct WGA staff to consult with the 
            Staff Advisory Council regarding its efforts to realize the 
            objectives of this resolution and to keep the Governors 
            apprised of its progress in this regard.

          Western Governors enact new policy resolutions and amend 
        existing resolutions on a bi-annual basis. Please consult 
        www.westgov.org/resolutions for the most current copy of a 
        resolution and a list of all current WGA policy resolutions.
                              attachment 3
Policy Resolution 2021-06, Disaster Preparedness and Response
A. Background
  1.  Major disasters, emergencies and extreme weather events are 
            devastating to the people, property, economy, and natural 
            environment of the communities in which they occur. The 
            outcomes of disasters and emergencies can often be far-
            reaching, with effects on the national economy, 
            infrastructure, and the import and export of commodities.

  2.  In the United States, disasters and emergencies and their 
            economic and public costs have increased significantly in 
            recent years. Federal disaster declarations (including 
            emergency declarations, major disaster declarations, and 
            fire management assistance grants) have surged since they 
            were first utilized in 1953. From 1953 to 1989, the average 
            number of annual Federal disaster declarations was 27.8. 
            That number escalated to an annual average of 108.7 from 
            1990 to 2016. The year 2020 saw a record 308 disaster 
            declarations by the Federal Government. Of these 
            declarations, 230 were for emergencies or major disasters, 
            surpassing the previous record of 128 dating back to 2011.

  3.  The Federal Government plays a critical role in disaster and 
            emergency response and long-term recovery efforts. 
            Accompanying the greater number of disasters has been an 
            increasing level of Federal disaster aid. From 1980 to 
            2009, the number of federally declared disasters which 
            resulted in costs exceeding $1 billion averaged 
            approximately 4.5, annually. That number has surged. From 
            2016 to 2020, the numbers rose with an average 16.2 
            disasters exceeding $1 billion in costs each year. In 2020, 
            there were a record-setting 22 disasters that exceeded $1 
            billion in costs.

  4.  Proactive emergency management efforts, such as hazard mitigation 
            and risk reduction activities, have an incredible return on 
            investment. Research has shown that actions taken before a 
            disaster to reduce hazards save, on average, $6 in future 
            response and recovery costs for every dollar spent on 
            hazard mitigation. At a time when state budgets are 
            struggling to keep up with more frequent and costly 
            disasters, investing in hazard mitigation could have a 
            profoundly positive effect on state and local budgets.

  5.  Certain types of disasters pose unique threats to western states 
            and have occurred with greater frequency in recent decades. 
            These include floods, droughts, tornadoes, mudslides, 
            earthquakes, hurricanes, and, particularly, wildfires. 
            Wildfires consumed approximately 3 million acres nationwide 
            in 1960. In 3 of the past 6 years, over 10 million acres 
            have burned annually. 2020 saw 10.1 million acres affected 
            by wildfire, of which nearly ninety-five percent were in 
            western states. Federal agencies' wildfire suppression 
            costs have increased from less than $240 million in 1985 to 
            over $2.2 billion in 2020. Experts project that wildfires 
            will continue to worsen, in terms of acreage burned and in 
            economic effects.

  6.  Disasters and emergencies have disproportionate effects on 
            different populations and communities. Race and ethnicity, 
            language, education and economic barriers, and immigration 
            status can negatively affect the outcomes of those 
            experiencing an emergency or disaster. These factors have 
            effects beyond the initial response and extend to recovery, 
            risk reduction, and preparedness program accessibility and 
            equity.

  7.  The National Response Framework and National Disaster Recovery 
            Framework describe how the Federal Government, states, 
            territories, localities, Tribes, and other public and 
            private sector institutions should respond to and recover 
            from disasters and emergencies. Local emergency agencies--
            police, firefighters, and medical teams--are to be the 
            first responders in a disaster or emergency. State, 
            territorial, local, and Tribal governments have the lead 
            roles in disaster response and recovery. Federal agencies 
            can become involved in disaster and emergency response when 
            resource capacity or effective emergency management is 
            beyond the capabilities of a state, territory or Tribe. 
            These Federal efforts are primarily directed through the 
            Department of Homeland Security's Federal Emergency 
            Management Agency (FEMA).

  8.  Governors have a key role in managing emergency response. 
            Governors typically are the state or territorial elected 
            official responsible for making a state disaster 
            declaration and directing disaster response in their 
            jurisdiction. Governors are also responsible for deploying 
            their state National Guard in emergency situations. 
            Governors hold the sole authority to request Federal 
            assistance when a disaster overwhelms state and local 
            capabilities, and are responsible for negotiating and 
            implementing interstate mutual aid agreements.

  9.  Disaster and emergency response and long-term recovery create a 
            significant financial burden. When authorized by FEMA, the 
            Public Assistance, Individual Assistance, and Hazard 
            Mitigation programs provide Federal funding which can 
            alleviate this strain. Affected homeowners may seek 
            Individual Assistance; state and local governments may seek 
            Public Assistance to reimburse for costs incurred from 
            debris removal, emergency protective measures during the 
            response, and permanent repair of damaged public 
            infrastructure; and Hazard Mitigation funds can help 
            communities rebuild and become more resilient against 
            future disasters. Other Federal agencies, such as the Small 
            Business Administration, Department of Agriculture (USDA), 
            Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and 
            Federal Highway Administration also have programs designed 
            to assist in disaster and emergency recovery efforts. For 
            example, the USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service 
            (NRCS) Emergency Watershed Protection Program is designed 
            to protect people and properties from flooding that often 
            follows wildfire events.

  10. In recent years, some petitions for long-term Federal recovery 
            aid have been denied. This has been most apparent in 
            petitions for Individual Assistance to counties affected by 
            disasters and emergencies, but has also occurred in 
            connection with state requests for Public Assistance. A 
            denial of Federal aid compounds problems for affected 
            communities struggling to recover from the devastation of a 
            disaster or emergency and slows recovery efforts in many 
            western states.

  11. While most disasters affect a specific local area, the COVID-19 
            public health emergency was national in scope. The COVID-19 
            pandemic has highlighted the need for close coordination 
            between Federal, state, territorial, local and Tribal 
            governments in emergency management. The pandemic continues 
            to cause significant disruption across the world, requiring 
            ongoing attention from Governors and emergency management 
            and public health officials, affecting the lives of all 
            Americans, and complicating the flow of goods and services 
            across international borders.
B. Governors' Policy Statement
  1.  Governors need maximum flexibility to respond to disaster and 
            emergency circumstances that may evolve quickly over the 
            course of a disaster through the initiation of recovery. 
            Therefore, we should expeditiously remove any barriers 
            limiting a Governor and their executive branch agencies' 
            ability to save taxpayer money and expedite response and 
            recovery efforts while safeguarding lives, property and the 
            environment. Western Governors recognize that planning 
            processes and disaster and emergency protocols are 
            important aspects of emergency management, but that 
            Governors also need significant freedom to adapt those 
            plans to changing circumstances during the evolution of a 
            disaster or emergency.

  2.  Federal, state, territorial and Tribal efforts to prepare for, 
            mitigate against, respond to, and recover from emergencies 
            and disasters must ensure programs and response efforts are 
            inclusive, equitable, and accessible and representative and 
            reflective of the affected communities. Concepts of 
            inclusivity, diversity, equity and accessibility must be 
            included from initial development of programs, policies and 
            procedures to reduce risk in our communities and address 
            post-disaster survivor needs.

  3.  Western Governors recognize that community resilience is key to 
            ameliorating the effect of many disasters and emergencies. 
            Hazard mitigation and risk reduction are the most cost-
            effective ways to protect lives, property, infrastructure 
            and the environment from the effects of natural and human-
            caused hazards. Effective risk reduction strategy 
            development and implementation leverage broad stakeholder 
            input across multiple disciplines, sectors and levels of 
            government. Infrastructure planning should include 
            consideration of risk reduction measures for known hazards 
            as well as address the dynamic hazard profile created by a 
            changing climate. We must plan for tomorrow, not yesterday.

  4.  Western Governors encourage Congress and Federal agencies to 
            reassess the structure of disaster mitigation grant 
            programs, which can be too restrictive or narrowly tailored 
            to address community needs. Additionally, establishing 
            consistent administration standards for different Federal 
            grant programs, including the Hazard Mitigation Grant 
            Program, the State Homeland Security Program, and the 
            Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities and 
            Emergency Management Performance Grant programs, would 
            streamline application processes and eliminate confusion at 
            the local level.

  5.  Federal agencies conducting disaster recovery and assistance, as 
            well as the programs which they administer, should receive 
            adequate and consistent funding and allow Governors and 
            their designated executive branch agencies to have critical 
            input on where those funds are needed most. The lack of 
            speed, certainty and consistency in appropriation of 
            Federal disaster funding, such as HUD Community Development 
            Block Grant--Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) funds, are a 
            hinderance to coordinated recovery efforts and effective 
            utilization of public funds. For example, there is no 
            current appropriation (or public consideration) of funding 
            for the 2020 California wildfires, which occurred more than 
            7 months ago. Additionally, the inconsistent incorporation 
            of HUD mitigation resources (CDBG-MIT) is an obstacle to 
            effective coordination of mitigation efforts across program 
            areas.

  6.  Many rural western communities have less concentrated populations 
            than eastern states, making it difficult for western states 
            and territories to qualify for Individual Assistance and 
            Public Assistance declarations. Additionally, certain 
            criteria, such as considering Total Taxable Revenue of the 
            entire state when evaluating whether to provide a major 
            declaration for a localized event, makes it virtually 
            impossible for large states to receive a declaration. 
            Federal processes used to evaluate the need for access to 
            disaster aid programs should be reconsidered. Federal 
            agencies should reexamine the standards used to determine 
            the provision of Individual Assistance to homeowners and 
            the access to Federal aid needed for recovery from 
            disasters and emergencies that affect western states and 
            territories. The historically underfunded USDA NRCS 
            Emergency Watershed Protection Program should be revisited 
            and strengthened.

  7.  Western Governors recognize that as the first responders to a 
            disaster or emergency, states, territories, local 
            governments, and Tribes have better information about local 
            conditions and needs in the response and immediate recovery 
            phases of a disaster or emergency. FEMA and other 
            applicable Federal agencies should work directly with 
            individual states and territories, through Governors or 
            their designees, to jointly identify disaster risks and 
            methods by which such risks may be addressed. In 
            collaboration with Governors or their designees, Federal 
            agencies should reassess the administrative mechanisms to 
            establish the most effective means to determine the 
            necessity and provision of Federal disaster assistance.

  8.  Federal agencies should provide state, territorial, local, and 
            Tribal government officials with accessible and clear 
            information on available Federal resources and programs and 
            the most effective utilization of those resources in 
            disaster recovery. WGA has worked with Federal partners to 
            improve interagency coordination on post-wildfire 
            restoration work, including a roadmap of assistance 
            available to communities affected by wildfire and 
            identification of ``navigators'' to help communities 
            prioritize post-wildfire restoration needs. Western 
            Governors urge the Federal Government to prioritize the 
            funding of these important efforts, as they should have a 
            positive effect on maximizing the value of restoration work 
            and, more importantly, addressing the needs of communities 
            affected by wildfire.

  9.  Western Governors recognize that while aid may be provided 
            following a disaster, the event itself could be avoided or 
            minimized if resources were directed to pre-disaster 
            mitigation efforts. Rebuilding is too-often provided in a 
            delayed fashion or conducted without safeguards necessary 
            to prevent future disaster-related damages. This compounds 
            the vulnerability of western communities and resources in 
            the face of disasters. Federal legislation should 
            reconsider the important role of pre-disaster mitigation 
            that reduces the risk and minimizes the effects of 
            disasters and emergencies. When possible, pre-disaster 
            mitigation should be incentivized at the state and local 
            levels. Additionally, some western and midwestern states 
            are at risk of catastrophic earthquake. Mitigation 
            assistance beyond that currently administered by FEMA is 
            needed. Finally, mitigation funds tied to Fire Management 
            Assistance Grant (FMAG) declarations assist fire-ravaged 
            communities. The FMAG and Hazard Mitigation Grant Program 
            (HMGP) Post Fire Grant programs should be continued.

  10. Western Governors encourage the Administration to consider 
            actions to increase communication between and cohesion of 
            Federal agencies in disaster and emergency response. The 
            Executive Branch should consider placing FEMA in the lead 
            role to coordinate communication between and cohesion of 
            Federal agencies in disaster and emergency response. 
            Strengthening Federal emergency management processes to 
            promote single, comprehensive points of contact would 
            streamline state-Federal coordination and help ensure 
            states and territories can allocate resources where they 
            are most needed. Western Governors support the 
            consideration of a national emergency management strategy 
            to provide consistent lines of communication between 
            Federal, state, territorial, local and Tribal governments.

  11. Federal agencies should seek to eliminate duplicative 
            administrative processes to streamline post-disaster 
            assistance. Multiple agencies requiring overlapping or 
            duplicative reviews for post-disaster assistance adds time 
            and cost to recovery efforts.

  12. Western Governors recognize the need for clear, consistent, 
            truthful and timely communication about the scope and scale 
            of disasters and emergencies, both between all levels of 
            governments and between governments and their constituents. 
            Clearly articulating what is known, and what is not known, 
            about a disaster or emergency is critical to developing and 
            executing an effective response from governments, promoting 
            public confidence in those response actions, and empowering 
            citizens to make informed decisions about their safety and 
            welfare.
C. Governors' Management Directive
  1.  The Governors direct WGA staff to work with Congressional 
            committees of jurisdiction, the Executive Branch, and other 
            entities, where appropriate, to achieve the objectives of 
            this resolution.

  2.  Furthermore, the Governors direct WGA staff to consult with the 
            Staff Advisory Council regarding its efforts to realize the 
            objectives of this resolution and to keep the Governors 
            apprised of its progress in this regard.

          This resolution will expire in June 2024. Western Governors 
        enact new policy resolutions and amend existing resolutions on 
        a semiannual basis. Please consult http://www.westgov.org/
        resolutions for the most current copy of a resolution and a 
        list of all current WGA policy resolutions.
                              attachment 4
Policy Resolution 2020-08, Broadband Connectivity
A. Background
  1.  High-speed internet, commonly referred to as ``broadband,'' \1\ 
            is the critical infrastructure of the 21st century and a 
            modern-day necessity for businesses, individuals, schools 
            and government. Many rural western communities lack the 
            business case for private broadband investment due to the 
            high cost of infrastructure and the low number of customers 
            in potential service areas. This has left many rural 
            businesses and citizens at a competitive disadvantage 
            compared to those urban and suburban areas with robust 
            broadband access.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The Federal Communications Commission defines fixed 
``broadband'' as service offering minimum speeds of 25 Megabits per 
second (Mbps) down and 3 Mbps up.

  2.  Broadband connectivity promotes economic prosperity and 
            diversity. Broadband connectivity is a key element of 
            innovations in precision agriculture, telehealth, remote 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            work and distance learning across the West.

  3.  Many broadband applications that promote rural, economic and 
            community prosperity rely on speeds greater than 25/3 Mbps. 
            This is especially true for functions that upload large 
            amounts of data, such as telehealth, e-learning and 
            business applications.

  4.  Western states have unique factors that make planning, siting and 
            maintaining broadband infrastructure especially challenging 
            and costly. These include vast distances between 
            communities, challenging terrain, sparse middle mile and 
            long-haul fiber-optic cable, and the need to permit and 
            site infrastructure across Federal, state, Tribal and 
            private lands. Alaska, Hawaii, and the U.S. territories 
            face particular broadband deployment challenges due to 
            factors involving distance, cost and applicable 
            technologies.

  5.  Western Governors and states are taking significant action to 
            accelerate broadband deployment in rural communities. These 
            actions include direct investment of state funds, reduction 
            of regulatory hurdles, and promotion of public-private 
            partnerships to deliver digital connectivity to unserved 
            and underserved areas.

  6.  Many western states have sought to expedite broadband 
            infrastructure deployment by adopting ``Dig Once'' 
            policies, granting non-exclusive and non-discriminatory 
            access to rights-of-way and facilitating efficient ``co-
            location'' of new broadband infrastructure on existing 
            structures.

  7.  A number of Federal agencies directly support rural broadband 
            deployment projects and data collection in western states. 
            These include the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), 
            U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), National 
            Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) 
            and Economic Development Administration.

  8.  Federal land management agencies, particularly the U.S. Forest 
            Service (USFS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Bureau 
            of Indian Affairs (BIA), play a crucial role in permitting 
            and siting broadband infrastructure in western states.

  9.  Both the Department of the Interior (DOI) and USFS recently 
            launched online mapping platforms identifying 
            telecommunications infrastructure sites on Federal lands. 
            This information can be used to inform private and public 
            broadband infrastructure investments.

  10. High-quality data is necessary to ensure that public broadband 
            deployment efforts are cost-effective and prioritize areas 
            that either wholly or significantly lack access. Under its 
            current Form 477 reporting protocols, the FCC considers a 
            Census block ``served'' if a single residence in the block 
            has access to broadband. This practice overstates broadband 
            availability in larger, rural Census blocks common in 
            western states. The FCC's use of ``maximum advertised,'' 
            not ``actual,'' speeds when mapping broadband coverage 
            further distorts reporting on the service customers 
            receive.

  11. Whether or not an area is considered ``served'' has significant 
            effects on its eligibility for Federal broadband 
            infrastructure support. Inaccurate or overstated data 
            prevents businesses, local governments, and other entities 
            from applying for and securing Federal funds to assist 
            underserved or unserved communities.

  12. S. 1822, the Broadband Deployment Accuracy and Technological 
            Availability (DATA) Act (Pub. L. 116-130), was enacted in 
            March 2020. This law requires the FCC to change the way 
            broadband data is collected, verified, and reported. 
            Specifically, the FCC must collect and disseminate granular 
            broadband service availability data from wired, fixed-
            wireless, satellite, and mobile broadband providers. The 
            FCC is required to establish the Broadband Serviceable 
            Location Fabric, a dataset of geocoded information for all 
            broadband service locations, atop which broadband maps are 
            overlaid, to report broadband service availability data.

  13. Given the number of Federal agencies and programs involved in 
            supporting rural broadband deployment, it can be 
            challenging for small, rural providers and communities to 
            identify and pursue appropriate deployment opportunities. 
            Businesses, local governments, electric and telephone 
            cooperatives, Tribes and other rural entities can also face 
            burdens in applying for and managing Federal funds. These 
            barriers include areas being incorrectly identified as 
            ``served'' on broadband coverage maps, excessive 
            application and reporting procedures, and significant match 
            or cash-on-hand requirements.

  14. Wireless spectrum is a valuable resource that can help support 
            innovative and cost-effective connectivity solutions in 
            western states.

  15. Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) are vital elements of Internet 
            infrastructure that enable networks to exchange traffic 
            with each other. IXPs help promote low-cost data 
            transmission and improved overall local Internet 
            performance in the areas in which they are located.

  16. Electric and telephone cooperatives have invested in broadband 
            infrastructure across the West. In certain states, these 
            cooperatives are the entities principally providing 
            broadband to rural communities, often at relatively low 
            costs to their members.

  17. The FCC's 2020 Broadband Deployment Report estimates that 27.7 
            percent of Americans residing in Tribal lands lack fixed 
            terrestrial broadband coverage, compared to 22.3 percent of 
            Americans in rural areas and 1.5 percent in urban areas. A 
            2018 Government Accountability Office (GAO) Report \2\ 
            asserts that the FCC overstates broadband coverage on 
            Tribal lands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Government Accountability Office: FCC's Data Overstate Access 
on Tribal Lands. September 2018.

  18. Tribal Nations, the majority of which are in western states, face 
            many barriers to the deployment of communications services. 
            These include rural, remote and rugged terrain; areas that 
            are not connected to a road system; minimal access to 
            middle mile and long-haul fiber-optic cable; and difficulty 
            in obtaining rights-of-way to deploy infrastructure across 
            some Tribal lands. These factors can all increase the cost 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            of installing, maintaining, and upgrading infrastructure.

  19. Tribal Nations also face challenges securing funds through 
            Federal broadband deployment programs. A separate 2018 GAO 
            Report \3\ included a review of four Federal broadband 
            programs (three FCC, one USDA), and found that from 2010 to 
            2017, less than one percent of funding has gone directly to 
            Tribes or Tribally owned providers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Government Accountability Office: Few Partnerships Exist and 
the Rural Utilities Service Needs to Identify and Address Any Funding 
Barriers Tribes Face. September 2018.

  20. Access to wireless spectrum is another crucial issue for Tribal 
            Nations. In February 2020, the FCC opened a priority filing 
            window for rural Tribes to access 2.5 GHz spectrum in 
            advance of an upcoming spectrum auction. This spectrum is 
            well-suited to provide low-cost broadband service in rural 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            areas.

  21. Federal programs often direct broadband infrastructure funding to 
            community anchor institutions such as schools, libraries 
            and health centers. These anchor institutions can help 
            leverage additional public and private investments in 
            surrounding rural areas. Holistic funding approaches that 
            support infrastructure deployment ``to and through'' 
            community anchor institutions can help promote connectivity 
            for students, patients and community members.

  22. Western Governors appreciate USDA Rural Development's efforts to 
            promote broadband connectivity across the rural West. 
            USDA's many offerings, including the ReConnect Program, 
            Community Connect Grants, and Distance Learning and 
            Telemedicine Grants, all help promote prosperity and 
            quality of life in western states.

  23. Western Governors have provided significant feedback on the 
            design of the ReConnect program, launched in December 2018. 
            Notably, Western Governors recommended that the ReConnect 
            Program, ``prioritize communities that either wholly or 
            severely lack access to broadband,'' and, ``reward project 
            applications that will deliver speeds that ensure rural 
            communities can prosper now and into the future as their 
            data transmission needs expand.''

  24. The ReConnect Program contains a requirement that areas 
            designated to receive support through the FCC's Connect 
            America Fund Phase II (CAF-II) can only pursue ReConnect 
            funding through the entity that is receiving CAF-II 
            support. This restriction limits deployment of adequate 
            broadband capability in many rural areas.

  25. The COVID-19 pandemic has amplified the importance of reliable 
            broadband connectivity as businesses, schools and health 
            care systems have transitioned to digital platforms and 
            practices. The transition to digital learning has been 
            particularly difficult for many rural and low-income 
            communities and K-12 schools due to lack of broadband 
            connectivity at home. Western states have employed creative 
            strategies to address student connectivity and ``homework 
            gap'' issues within our communities. These efforts include 
            using parking lots and school and transit buses to launch 
            public WiFi hotspots.
B. Governors' Policy Statement
  1.  Western Governors encourage Congress and Federal agencies to 
            recognize that the current definition of broadband--25/3 
            Mbps--does not correspond with the requisite download and 
            upload speeds necessary to support many business, education 
            and health care applications that promote economic and 
            community prosperity. We support efforts to adopt a higher, 
            scalable standard that more accurately reflects modern 
            innovations and bandwidth demands.

  2.  Regulations affecting broadband infrastructure permitting and 
            siting vary by state and can create additional obstacles to 
            private and public investment. Where possible, Western 
            Governors should work together to minimize this barrier.

  3.  Western Governors recommend the FCC, USDA and other Federal 
            agencies involved in broadband deployment pursue strong 
            partnerships with Governors and state agencies. Improved 
            coordination related to broadband coverage data collection 
            and verification and public investment can help ensure that 
            public funds are directed to areas in most need of 
            assistance.

  4.  Western Governors encourage the BLM, BIA and USFS to pursue 
            strategies to prioritize reviews for broadband 
            infrastructure permits on Federal lands. We support efforts 
            to improve permitting timelines for broadband 
            infrastructure co-located with existing structures and 
            other linear infrastructure, such as roads, transmission 
            lines and pipelines. We encourage improved planning and 
            permitting coordination between public lands management 
            agencies, as telecommunications projects in western states 
            can cross multiple Federal lands jurisdictions. DOI and 
            USFS's online mapping platforms identifying 
            telecommunications infrastructure sites on their lands will 
            be helpful tools to accomplish this goal.

  5.  Western Governors are encouraged that new data and mapping 
            platforms established by the Broadband DATA Act (Pub. L. 
            116-130) incorporate state-level data wherever possible. 
            State broadband offices and representatives can offer 
            invaluable information and on-the-ground perspectives 
            regarding broadband coverage in western states. We 
            encourage Congress to provide the FCC with the necessary 
            funds to implement the Act.

  6.  Western Governors encourage Congress and Federal agencies to 
            address application barriers for businesses, local 
            governments, cooperatives, Tribes and other entities 
            involved with broadband deployment in rural communities.

  7.  Western Governors appreciate the USDA and the FCC's efforts to 
            promote on-farm connectivity and the growth of the 
            precision agriculture sector. We encourage both agencies to 
            engage with Governors' offices, state broadband 
            representatives and state departments of agriculture as 
            they pursue policy and program initiatives to support 
            advanced agriculture technology development and adoption.

  8.  Western Governors recommend that adequate wireless spectrum be 
            allocated to support advanced and emerging agricultural 
            technologies.

  9.  Western Governors emphasize the growing importance of IXPs in 
            promoting cost-effective, reliable broadband service in 
            rural areas. We encourage Congress and Federal agencies to 
            promote investment in rural IXPs via applicable broadband 
            deployment programs, legislative proposals addressing 
            infrastructure, and other methods.

  10. Western Governors encourage Federal agencies to continue 
            expanding the eligibility of electric and telephone 
            cooperatives to pursue USDA and FCC broadband deployment 
            program support, as cooperatives' existing infrastructure 
            and access to rights-of-way can help promote low-cost 
            connectivity solutions for rural communities.

  11. Western Governors urge Federal agencies and Congress to pursue 
            policy, programmatic and fiscal opportunities to improve 
            broadband connectivity on Tribal lands. This includes 
            designing Federal programs in a way that promotes 
            partnerships between Tribes, states and various broadband 
            providers. We recommend that Federal broadband programs 
            allocate a designated portion of their available funding to 
            supporting projects on Tribal lands.

  12. Western Governors encourage Congress and Federal agencies to 
            leverage community anchor institutions in rural communities 
            to spur connectivity to surrounding areas. We support 
            efforts to advance ``to and through'' policies that provide 
            flexibility to incentivize additional private or public 
            broadband infrastructure investment beyond connected 
            community anchor institutions.

  13. Western Governors encourage USDA to address the ReConnect Program 
            eligibility criteria related to areas designated to receive 
            satellite support through the FCC's CAF-II auction. This 
            will enable many communities to pursue ReConnect 
            connectivity solutions that will support increased data 
            transmission needs into the future.

  14. Western Governors request that FCC, USDA and other Federal 
            entities prioritize scalable broadband infrastructure 
            investments that meet communities' increased bandwidth 
            demands into the future. Funds for equipment maintenance 
            and upgrades are essential to ensure Federal broadband 
            investments continue to provide high-quality service.

  15. Western Governors request that Congress and the FCC leverage 
            states' on-the-ground expertise by providing substantial 
            block grant funds to address rural connectivity challenges. 
            We support the use of state block grant funds to address 
            general broadband infrastructure issues and respond to 
            connectivity challenges raised by the COVID-19 pandemic.

  16. Western Governors support efforts to promote flexibility within 
            the FCC's E-Rate Program in order to deliver home 
            connectivity solutions for unserved and underserved 
            students, and respond to connectivity issues associated 
            with the COVID-19 pandemic. We encourage the FCC to support 
            bus WiFi and other creative efforts that seek to address 
            the homework gap.
C. Governors' Management Directive
  1.  The Governors direct WGA staff to work with Congressional 
            committees of jurisdiction, the Executive Branch, and other 
            entities, where appropriate, to achieve the objectives of 
            this resolution.

  2.  Furthermore, the Governors direct WGA staff to consult with the 
            Staff Advisory Council regarding its efforts to realize the 
            objectives of this resolution and to keep the Governors 
            apprised of its progress in this regard.

          Western Governors enact new policy resolutions and amend 
        existing resolutions on a bi-annual basis. Please consult 
        www.westgov.org/resolutions for the most current copy of a 
        resolution and a list of all current WGA policy resolutions.
                                 ______
                                 
   Submitted Letter by Jessica Turner, President, Outdoor Recreation 
                               Roundtable
January 19, 2022

 
 
 
Hon. David Scott,                    Hon. Glenn Thompson,
Chairman,                            Ranking Minority Member,
House Committee on Agriculture,      House Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.;                    Washington, D.C.
 

    Chairman Scott and Ranking Member Thompson,

    On behalf of the Outdoor Recreation Roundtable and our 35 national 
association members, I would like to thank you for convening this 
important hearing on the State of the Rural Economy. Rural economies 
and the outdoor recreation economy are intertwined, and we look forward 
to working with the Committee to identify policies and opportunities to 
help further strengthen both. There is no greater opportunity for 
sustainable rural development than through embracing the outdoors and 
there is no better time for the expansion of outdoor recreation into 
the American fabric than now.
    Outdoor Recreation Roundtable (ORR) is the nation's leading 
coalition of outdoor recreation entities representing more than 110,000 
American outdoor businesses and the full spectrum of outdoor 
activities. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the 
recreation industry generated $689 billion in economic output, 
accounted for 1.8 percent of GDP, and 4.3 million American jobs in 
2020, despite industry slowdowns and access restrictions caused by 
COVID-19. Prior to the pandemic, outdoor recreation was growing faster 
than the economy as a whole.
    Rural economies across the country have been disproportionately 
impacted by large industry shifts, especially within the manufacturing 
and extractive sectors. Many communities dependent on these traditional 
industries and the employment opportunities they provided have already 
been impacted by boom and bust cycles, as well as the 2008 recession. 
Now, the COVID pandemic has put significant pressures on rural 
communities and the economies they rely upon.
    Outdoor recreation is an antidote to these problems in many 
communities. This sustainable and growing sector provides real benefits 
to communities, from the economic boosts of a revitalized main street, 
new entrepreneurship and increased visitation to existing businesses, 
to public health benefits, strengthened communities, and recruitment 
and retention of businesses and workforce. Additionally, outdoor 
recreation creates new jobs in manufacturing, transportation and 
warehousing, finance, insurance, advertising, professional and 
technical services, and supports existing businesses with new clientele 
and increased economic activity.
    We greatly appreciate the work that Congress has done in recent 
years to increase funding for programs in rural communities that 
strengthen recreation infrastructure and expand access to grow local 
economies. The Great American Outdoors Act, the bipartisan 
Infrastructure Bill and the American Rescue Plan unlock funding for 
outdoor recreation projects that will create jobs in gateway 
communities and strengthen rural communities through people connecting 
to safer and healthier outdoor assets[.]
    The development of outdoor recreation economies needs to be part of 
the solution for rural America as we all look to a broader strategy to 
achieve economic diversification and resilience while maintaining 
cultural heritage and landscape character. Rural communities can 
flourish by prioritizing natural and built assets within or adjacent to 
a community that enables outdoor recreation and its associated 
economic, social, health, and environmental benefits. As more people 
turn to outdoor recreation, alignment with rural communities will help 
bring more spending, more jobs, and more growth.
    I would also like to briefly discuss what ORR has been doing to 
help facilitate the industry's growth within rural America.

   We have created the ORR Rural Economic Development 
        Toolkit,\1\ which is a compendium of best practices, case 
        studies, and challenges related to economic development through 
        outdoor recreation. This toolkit was created from interviews 
        with over 60 practitioners across the country and was developed 
        in partnership with the Oregon State University Center for the 
        Outdoor Recreation Economy and the National Governors 
        Association. The response we have seen has been overwhelmingly 
        positive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://recreationroundtable.org/rural-development-toolkit/.
    Editor's note: the Toolkit is retained in Committee file.

   ORR is also stepping up to help rural communities 
        reinvigorate their local economies and create resilient 
        communities through outdoor recreation thanks in large part to 
        support from The VF Foundation. The Recreation Economy for 
        Rural Communities (RERC) assistance program, launched in 2019, 
        is underway and ORR is working with the U.S. Environmental 
        Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest 
        Service and the Northern Border Regional Commission to support 
        implementation grants for communities who have undergone 
        technical assistance. These grants will help make the economic 
        revitalization plans of communities come to life. For instance, 
        the community of John Day, Oregon developed a plan to enhance 
        its outdoor recreation economy amidst the backdrop of the 
        pandemic, and received $5,000 in seed funding from ORR in 
        partnership with the VF Foundation to implement its plan. The 
        small grant from ORR, in combination with technical assistance 
        from RERC, helped unlock millions of dollars in state grants to 
        support long-needed outdoor recreation infrastructure for John 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Day.

    Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, Americans rediscovered their love 
for the outdoors. More people turned to outdoor recreation activities 
like hiking, biking, fishing, camping, climbing, and boating than ever 
before. People found solutions in the outdoors for their physical and 
mental health, as well as opportunities to connect safely with family 
and friends. The past 2 years have introduced millions of people to 
outdoor recreation opportunities both close to home and across the 
country. This trend reflects a long-term shift in the priorities of our 
society, not a short-term trend expected to reverse itself.
    The outdoor recreation industry looks forward to continuing to 
partner with the Department of Agriculture and the Committee to help 
build local outdoor recreation economies. We look forward to working 
with the Committee and the Federal agencies to ensure that the 
appropriate policies are in place to sustain long-term growth in rural 
communities.
            Sincerely,
            
            
Jessica Turner,
President.
                                 ______
                                 
                          Submitted Questions
Response from Hon. Thomas ``Tom'' J. Vilsack, Secretary, U.S. 
        Department of Agriculture
Question Submitted by Hon. David Scott, a Representative in Congress 
        from Georgia
    Question. How many projects have been awarded or obligated annually 
under the Biorefinery, Renewable Chemical, and Biobased Product 
Manufacturing Assistance program over the past 5 years? How does that 
compare to the number of applications that have been submitted for 
Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the application? Please provide a list of the 
award amount, awardees, and award status.
    Answer. The 9003 program can provide loan guarantees of up to $250 
Million for plants and projects in the advanced biofuels, renewable 
chemicals, or biobased products space. Over the past 5 years, forty-two 
entities applied for funding, thirty-six of which were invited to 
participate in Phase II. Of those, three projects were approved, 
obligated, and funded with loan guarantees of $416 Million. Another 
nine were deobligated after approval. The three funded projects are as 
follows, and all are closed and under construction, except Ryze 
Renewables Las Vegas, which is in settlement negotiations.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Feedstock  Product
                                             Deployed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017        Ryze           $112,580,000  Isotherm         Non-edible
             Renewables                   Hydroprocessin   Distillers
             Reno                         g                Corn Oil 
                                                           Biodiesel
2017        Ryze           $198,000,000  Isotherm         Non-edible
             Renewables                   Hydroprocessin   Distillers
             Las Vegas                    g                Corn Oil 
                                                           Biodiesel
2021        BC Organics    $100,000,000  Aneorobic        Dairy Manure &
                                          Digestion        Food Wastes
                                                           
                                                           Natural Gas
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Questions Submitted by Hon. Alma S. Adams, a Representative in Congress 
        from North Carolina
1890 Land-Grant Institutions
    Question 1. Does USDA tracking and reporting on state funding 
support for the 1862 Universities include total support for the state? 
I'm told in some states the disparity is 10:1 or even 20:1.
    Answer. USDA tracks and provides the data on capacity funding 
allocations and matching provided to the 1862 and 1890 land-grant 
universities. The FY 2020 data is the most current information, with FY 
2021 data expected to be publicly posted soon (https://
www.nifa.usda.gov/grants/programs/capacity-grants) under Allocations 
and Matching.

    Question 2. We anticipate in the next farm bill that we will look 
to expand and provide sustainable support for the 1890 Scholarships and 
the 1890 Centers of Excellence. Will the Administration support the 
expansion of the 1890 Scholarship program and the Centers of Excellence 
in the 2023 Farm Bill?
    Answer. USDA has a long history of investing in and supporting our 
nation's 1890 land-grant institutions and their students. The 1890s 
have played a crucial role in building STEM programming for our 
nation's youth, strengthening research, extension and teaching in the 
food and agricultural sciences, and expanding the number of students 
attracted to careers in agriculture, food, natural resources, and human 
sciences. USDA looks forward to working with you and your Committee to 
advance the goals of equity to better serve the needs of traditionally 
underserved institutions and communities.
Socially Disadvantaged Farmers
    Question 3. A recent OIG report found that, under the Trump 
Administration, the USDA did not handle civil rights complaints in a 
timely manner, averaging 799 days to process complaints, which is more 
than four times the 180 day standard. What has been the USDA's progress 
on getting caught up on these complaints, and what is the current turn 
around, under the Biden Administration?
    Answer. OASCR has demonstrated significant progress. In FY 2019, 
the average processing time was 799 days. In FY 2021, the average 
processing time was 491 days; it is currently 478 days. To further 
ensure timely processing, OASCR intends to make the 365 day timeline 
the benchmark for program complaints effective in FY 2023. OASCR 
reports that the current inventory of program complaints is 225.
    Because 365 days is still a long time for a review process, 
however, OASCR is continuing to assess ways to further reduce the 
program complaint processing timeline so long as we maintain a high-
quality investigative process. This issue will also continue to be 
closely examined by USDA's senior leaders. Based on OASCR experiences 
and feedback from stakeholders, the timing of program complaint 
processing is impacted by a variety of factors: the timely submission 
of details from complainants, the complexity of a complaint, the 
particular USDA program involved, and resources available to 
investigate and respond to the complaint from the field and USDA's sub-
component agencies. Currently, OASCR's main focus is on building its 
capacity to achieve a 365 day timeline and publish updated policies on 
its website by FY 2023.
    With the additional appropriations, Congress provided in FY 2022, 
OASCR will prioritize filling critical vacancies, train staff, and 
improve OASCR's ability to reduce program complaint processing. This 
will ensure complaints are processed in an improved manner from recent 
years and will allow USDA to engage in proactive resolution efforts to 
solve problems and better assist complainants.

    Question 4. According to an OIG report, under the Trump 
Administration, the Office of Partnerships and Public Engagement 
mismanaged outreach and assistance for the Socially Disadvantaged 
Farmers and Ranchers and the Veteran Farmers and Ranchers Program. What 
steps is the USDA taking to address these issues and ensure that these 
farmers receive the support they are entitled to?
    Answer. In response to OIG Audit 91601-0001-21, on November 15, 
2021, management accepted 16 recommendations and developed corrective 
action milestone for these recommendations designed to prevent further 
mismanagement within the Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers 
and the Veteran Farmers and Ranchers Program. To date, 12 of the 
corrective actions have been completed and are awaiting closure. The 
remaining four recommendations are underway and are expected to be 
completed by June 30, 2023. OPPE can provide the full list of 
recommendations and corrective actions, if needed.
Broadband
    Question 5. USDA's ReConnect Program has provided loans and grants 
to assist with facility construction or improvement needed for 
broadband connectivity in rural areas, and although the 2018 Farm Bill 
authorized the Rural Broadband Program to offer similar grants, funding 
has not been appropriated for this purpose. Can you share with us why 
the Rural Broadband Program has not provided this grant funding?
    Answer. The current program levels have limited the agency's 
ability to offer grants.

    Question 6. What is the USDA's timeline for providing robust 
broadband in all rural areas?
    Answer. USDA has announced more than $1.5 billion in awards through 
our ReConnect Program under the first two funding windows and expects 
to obligate at least $1.15 billion in awards under its third funding 
window. Additionally, the agency announced the next ReConnect funding 
window will offer more than an $1 billion. The application window for 
Round 4 will open September 6, 2022. Through these opportunities the 
USDA continues to invest in robust high-speed broadband networks.
Climate
    Question 7. Secretary Vilsack's January 18, 2022 statement on 
combating climate change mentioned USDA's continued efforts to support 
reforestation and climate change resilience while increasing carbon 
uptake and storage. Farmers across the U.S. can utilize crop rotation 
and plant cover crops to decrease the release of carbon through soil, 
yet according to a 2021 USDA report on cover crop trends, the cover 
crop adoption rate is still only 5.1%. How will your announced changes 
to EQIP increase the planting and use of cover crops to save topsoil 
and decrease the release of carbon on farms?
    Answer. Utilizing available funding, NRCS offered targeted cover 
crop sign-ups through EQIP to target and streamline enrollment, 
expediting the sign-up process for cover crops to improve access. This 
approach allows the Agency to set an eligibility threshold to decrease 
the time a producer needs to wait to know whether they are eligible or 
not, thus increasing the attractiveness of enrollment. NRCS is also 
increasing outreach to producers who have previously not worked with 
the Agency to increase access to conservation assistance, including for 
climate-smart practices like cover crops. Partnerships are also a key 
component of NRCS's outreach strategy to increase adoption of climate-
smart practices, including equity conservation cooperative agreements, 
as well as a partnership with commodity groups through Farmers for Soil 
Health. These partners work with NRCS across the country to support 
promotion of NRCS conservation programs and support for climate-smart 
practices like cover crops.
Other Question(s)
    Question 8. Funding has been made available for farmers through 
legislation and programs like the farm bill and the Local Food Purchase 
Assistance Cooperative Agreement Program (LFPA). It is important to 
consider equity and access in the distribution of this funding. How 
does the USDA make sure small, independent, and socially disadvantaged 
farmers learn about these funding opportunities and what types of 
technical assistance and support is available to help farmers apply for 
funding?
    Answer. A key goal of LFPA is to support underserved producers as 
well as communities in need of food assistance. Each state, territory, 
and Tribal applicant is asked to respond to the following questions as 
part of their project narratives.

   How will the funds increase local food consumption and help 
        build and expand economic opportunity for local, regional 
        farmers/producers and for socially disadvantaged farmers/
        producers?

   How will the distribution of food target underserved 
        communities and those communities not normally served through 
        traditional food distribution networks?

    Additionally, AMS announces all funding awards through publication 
on its website, as well as announcing all grant funding to the public 
through Grants.Gov, and shares announcements through email GovDelivery 
notices. In addition, AMS commonly distributes announcements to groups 
representing small farm stakeholders, local and regional food 
producers, and historically underserved producers. USDA's Office of 
Partnerships and Public Education conducts additional outreach to these 
groups to promote awareness of programs and funding opportunities. 
USDA's Office of Tribal Relations works with the Inter-Tribal 
Agriculture Council and other Tribal stakeholders to provide assistance 
to Indian Country in applying for grant opportunities. AMS hosts 
webinars and open office hours, to provide more information about 
funding opportunities such as LFPA and to answer questions about the 
various programs.
    In Fiscal Year 21, AMS entered into cooperative agreements with two 
HBCUs: the University of Maryland Eastern Shore and Florida A&M 
University, to build back trust and confidence between underserved 
communities, including to between Black, Indigenous, People of Color, 
and rural, and the USDA. Through this initiative, USDA is taking action 
to improve access to AMS grant programs through targeted outreach, 
training, and technical assistance. This project conducts listening 
sessions with communities in cooperation with a nationwide network of 
universities, community organizations, and food system practitioners.
    USDA has also launched the Meat and Poultry Processing Capacity--
Technical Assistance Program (MPPTA), to provide specific technical 
assistance to meat and poultry processors across a range of needs 
including Federal grant applicant management, plant operations, and 
supply chain management. Through six cooperative agreements with 
organizations who have strong connections to diverse populations, the 
MPPTA Program is focused on outreach to small, rural, minority-owned, 
Native American, and Tribal-owned businesses, and other underserved 
groups seeking to build or expand local and regional meat and poultry 
supply chain capacity.
    USDA also expects to invest $400 million through Regional Food 
Business Centers imminently, Centers will be designed to target support 
to underserved communities in a particular region as identified by the 
applicant.
Questions submitted by Hon. Antonio Delgado, a Representative in 
        Congress from New York
    Question 1. Secretary Vilsack, as you know, we are in the midst of 
a generational transition where more than 40 percent of farmland in 
this country is likely to change hands.\1\ Keeping farmland in the 
hands of working farmers is essential to ensuring the health of rural 
economies and thus rural communities. We must pursue an equitable 
transition of these 370+ million acres of farmland. With the future of 
the Build Back Better Act in question, what resources may be available 
to pilot ways we can ensure this land transitions to the next 
generation of young farmers?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ According to AFT's 2020 Farms Under Threat report, (Attachment 
1) ``Including nonoperator landlords, seniors aged 65 and older own 
more than 40 percent of the agricultural land in the United States. 
This suggests an impending transfer of more than 370 million acres of 
farmland.'' Source: Freedgood, et al., Farms Under Threat, 2020.

    Question 2. As you know, it is crucial that we provide strong 
support for our dairy producers. I was pleased to see that after 
leading 24 of my colleagues in a letter to the President calling for 
reimbursements to dairy producers impacted by Class I mover-related 
losses, USDA announced the Pandemic Market Volatility Assistance 
Program. This program will provide $350 million in pandemic assistance 
payments to dairy farmers who received a lower value for their products 
due to market abnormalities caused by the pandemic. Can you tell us 
when those reimbursements will be distributed?
    Answer 1-2. USDA began disbursing money to handlers in January 
2022. To date, approximately 99 percent of eligible producers have been 
paid and USDA is diligently working to disburse monies to the remaining 
producers.

    Question 3. In May 2021, I led 49 other Democratic Members of 
Congress in signing a letter \2\ calling for USDA to dedicate $300 
million in relief funding for one on one business technical assistance 
for farms and food businesses. Business technical assistance includes 
customized coaching for business and marketing planning, financial and 
labor management, transfer and succession, and other services essential 
to the success of small- and mid-sized operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MSA4-
pe6pBx8tf6wMT3dEZFZvbHK_Mt5/view (Attachment 2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In your response to a question on this topic as part of the January 
20, 2022 House Agriculture Committee hearing, you mentioned USDA's 
recent announcement \3\ of technical assistance support for underserved 
communities. We applaud this announcement as a critical step in helping 
marginalized producers and entrepreneurs better access USDA 
programming. There also remains a significant need for business 
technical assistance for farm and food businesses across the nation, 
going beyond improving producer access to USDA programs and working on 
customized technical assistance for small- and mid-sized farms to 
support farm viability. This need is especially acute in the region I 
represent, given supply chain disruptions. The challenges specifically 
facing smaller dairy producers in my region are emblematic of the 
challenges facing producers and farm businesses across the country. 
Customized assistance to these operations is needed now to help them 
identify opportunities to diversify products and markets, improve 
efficiency, and sustain their operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2021/11/24/usda-
announces-american-rescue-plan-technical-assistance (Attachment 3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Can you share your progress and timetable on the May 2021 request 
to dedicate significant relief funding for business technical 
assistance? Does USDA intend to meet this need through proposed 
Regional Food Enterprise Centers? If so, will this support be provided 
as requested for both farm operations as well as food businesses?
    Answer. USDA intends to meet this need through the USDA Regional 
Food Business Centers. With an investment of up to $400M, the Regional 
Food Business Centers will provide coordination, technical assistance, 
and capacity building support to small- and mid-size food and farm 
businesses, particularly focused on product diversification, 
processing, distribution and aggregation, and market access challenges. 
The Regional Food Business Centers will target support to underserved 
communities in a particular region as identified by the applicant. Food 
and farm businesses will be beneficiaries of this program. The 
Department plans to publish a Request for Applications in the near 
future.
Question Submitted by Hon. Shontel M. Brown, a Representative in 
        Congress from Ohio
    Question. As mandated by the 2018 Farm Bill, in December 2021 USDA 
completed a report that assesses the progress of food loss and waste 
efforts. The report concludes that there is a lack of overall funding 
for these programs. Can you outline these programs for us?
    Answer. A broad range of food loss and waste reduction activities 
take place across USDA agencies, Mission Areas, and Offices,
    The USDA Food Loss and Waste Liaison, in the Office of the Chief 
Economist leads Department-wide initiatives on food loss and waste 
including coordinating USDA's role on the Federal interagency 
collaborations. Other USDA agencies and offices develop educational 
resources or best practices and conduct outreach, invest in research on 
food loss and waste reducing technologies, and fund stakeholder 
initiatives that directly or indirectly support food loss and waste 
reduction.
    Historically, relatively few USDA or other agency resources have 
been targeted specifically at food loss and waste (FLW) reduction, 
though there is a broad array of efforts across the USDA that touch on 
FLW. Many of these were outlined in the December 2021 Report to 
Congress on USDA Food Loss and Waste Activities, Results, and New 
Estimates. For example:

   The Agricultural Research Service's National Program on 
        Product Quality and New Uses conducts research on new 
        technologies, some of which reduce spoilage of fresh foods, and 
        develops new products from food processing byproducts and 
        wasted materials.

   The National Institute of Food and Agriculture's competitive 
        and noncompetitive grant programs, including the Agriculture 
        and Food Research Initiative, fund research that has led to 
        development of innovative technologies to reduce food loss and 
        waste or addressed other aspects of food loss and waste issues.

   In 2020, USDA's Office of Urban Agriculture and Innovative 
        Production (OUAIP) competed and awarded ``Community Compost and 
        Food Waste Reduction'' Pilot Project grants and agreements. 
        Approximately $1.09 million was invested in 13 pilot projects 
        that developed and tested strategies for planning and 
        implementing municipal compost plans and food waste reduction.

   USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) offers funding 
        opportunities that support a variety of agricultural 
        activities. Grants may be used for projects that reduce waste 
        through increased market efficiency, better storage, and 
        improved transportation. These grant lines include the 
        Farmers['] Market Promotion Program and Local Food Promotion 
        Program, and the Specialty Crop Multi-State Program. In August 
        2021, AMS announced the establishment of a $400 million Dairy 
        Donation Program (DDP). The DDP, established in accordance with 
        the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021, aims to facilitate 
        timely dairy product donations while reducing food waste.

   Rural Development's Solid Waste Management Grant Program, 
        among other goals, funds projects that provide technical 
        assistance or training to help communities reduce the amount of 
        solid waste coming into a landfill. In FY19, grants with a food 
        waste component totaled over $3.5 million in funding and around 
        $3 million in FY20. RD has other loan and grant programs that 
        could incorporate funding, investment, and outreach initiatives 
        for FLW reduction, reuse and composting techniques.

   The Farm Service Agency offers the Farm Storage Facility 
        Loan Program. This program provides low-interest financing to 
        help producers build or upgrade storage facilities. Appropriate 
        food storage can extend the storage life of foods and commodity 
        crops.

   The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) administers The 
        Emergency Food Assistance Program, which funds projects to 
        reduce food waste at the agricultural production, processing, 
        or distribution level through the donation of food, and provide 
        food to individuals in need. FNS also provides guidance to 
        school foodservice managers with best practices to reduce food 
        waste (and total meal costs) while serving nutritious meals, as 
        well as educational materials for children and school 
        officials. FNS also conducts studies on plate waste to build 
        evidence about strategies that can reduce food waste.

   The Food Safety and Inspection Service provides guidance on 
        food product labeling, as well as guidelines to assist with the 
        donation of eligible meat and poultry products to nonprofit 
        organizations.

    Most recently, in June 2022, USDA announced an investment of up to 
$90 million to prevent and reduce food loss and waste using American 
Rescue Plan Act funds. Of this amount, around $30 million was used to 
plus up the OUAIP's Composting and Food Waste Reduction cooperative 
agreements over 3 years to assist local, municipal, and Tribal 
governments, and/or school districts with projects to develop and test 
strategies for planning and implementing compost plans and food waste 
reduction plans.
    Addressing FLW is a key component in improving supply chain 
resiliency. Treating uneaten food as a valuable resource can lead to 
new economic opportunities, including building local supply chain 
networks that enable excess food to be used as inputs in other products 
and/or directed into new markets. Furthermore, reducing FLW and its 
associated emissions can reduce climate change, which negatively 
impacts agriculture and can disrupt food supply chains.
    USDA continues to explore new strategies to bolster food loss and 
waste reduction to meet the U.S. goal to cut food loss and waste in 
half by 2030.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Cheri Bustos, a Representative in Congress 
        from Illinois
    Question 1. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has so many great 
tools to build a climate friendly economy through renewables. The farm 
bill's energy title programs stand out in this regard. How are you 
thinking about utilizing the Biorefinery Assistance Program (Section 
9003) to continue toward that goal?
    Answer. The 9003 program can be a catalyst for new investments in 
advanced biofuels, renewable chemicals, and biobased product. This 
program is an important tool as we grow the bioeconomy and expand 
market opportunities for feedstocks, like soybeans and food wastes. 
Additionally, we are already seeing the program used to support the 
production of sustainable aviation fuel. With opportunities in the 
aviation industry expected to more than double current demand for these 
biofuels, this is a significant opportunity for the 9003 program to 
contribute to the Administration's goals regarding greenhouse gas 
emissions reduction.

    Question 2. The Biden Administration set an aggressive target for 
the commercial production of 3 billion gallons of sustainable aviation 
fuel (SAF) to operate U.S. aircraft by 2030, and 35 billion gallons by 
2050. This will require significant investment by the renewable fuels 
industry to achieve these results. Can these targets be achieved 
without corn-based ethanol and soybean oil, which are key agricultural 
feedstocks for SAF?
    Answer. Thanks to the growth of U.S. production of sustainable 
aviation fuel (SAF), airlines can help address climate change and 
create rural jobs by using this fuel option. That's why USDA, the 
Department of Transportation, and the Department of Energy announced a 
``Grand Challenge'' to support the production of 35 billion gallons of 
Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) per year by 2050. USDA has a crucial 
role in SAF research and this government-wide effort to reduce costs, 
enhance sustainability, and expand production and use of SAF. USDA is 
investing in research to support the expansion of near-term feedstocks 
from lipids (fats, oils, greases, and vegetable oil) that will include 
soybean oil which is currently processed into renewable diesel. The 
production of SAF from corn oil and corn-based ethanol is limited near-
term, but the alcohol to jet pathway for SAF is not yet commercial. 
Corn-based ethanol as a SAF feedstock will come into greater play as we 
move into the next decade with improvements in the sustainability of 
corn production and the continued growth in the electrification of 
light duty vehicles expected to release ethanol as a ground 
transportation fuel and shunt it toward SAF production. Similarly, 
pyrolysis processing of woody biomass and municipal solid waste are 
expected to come on-line late in this decade. The SAF Grand Challenge 
Roadmap proposes workstreams to identify additional lipid resources for 
producing SAF, improving the sustainability of corn, soybean and canola 
to meet international standards, and work on developing and 
demonstrating avenues to SAF from the other feedstocks such as energy 
cane, short-rotation woody crops, oilseeds and dedicated biomass crops 
like perennial grasses. These crops can be used as cover to improve 
soil quality, as buffer strips to reduce nutrient runoff into 
watersheds, or as byproducts for animal feed. Additionally, biomass 
supply chains and biorefineries centered around regional feedstocks 
create jobs in rural communities.

    Question 3. I applaud Secretary Vilsack and the Department for 
their focus on cover cropping. Cover crops rebuild resiliency, promote 
long term productivity and regenerate soils. However, less than seven 
percent of American cropland uses cover crops. Creation of the Pandemic 
Cover Crop Program (PCCP) in 2021 provided a key first step for 
incentivizing the broader adoption of soil health practices that can 
turn food and agriculture into a solution to the climate crisis. When 
programs like crop insurance invest in cover crops, everyone stands to 
benefit.
    How do cover cropping and conservation practices promote economic 
stability for the rural economy?
    Answer. Conservation practices that sustain our soil and protect 
our water are important to the economic vitality of Rural America in 
many ways. Agriculture depends on healthy, productive soils, so 
anything we can do to not only prevent soil erosion by wind and water, 
but also improve soil health can have tremendous benefits to the 
productivity of our farmers. Keeping living plants in the ground for 
longer stretches of time not only helps prevent soil erosion, but it 
also improves the health of the soil. In those places where outdoor 
recreation might depend on water quality for fishing, boating, 
canoeing, swimming, or other activities, cover crops can help by 
keeping phosphorus and nitrogen in the soil where they help 
agricultural productivity, and out of the water where they can lead to 
impaired water quality.

    Question 3a. Please elaborate on USDA's plans to roll out a 2022 
Pandemic Cover Crop Program--how many acres could be covered by the 
2022 program?
    Answer. RMA rolled out the 2022 program successfully. With another 
year of experience and more time to report, producers, agents, 
insurance companies, and FSA county offices all were more prepared to 
fill proper paperwork and reflect benefits on bills correct. The 2022 
program also expanded eligibility for fall-planted insured crops and 
Whole Farm Revenue Protection policies, as well as adding a matching 
benefit for any state-funded cover crop programs. RMA expects over 11 
million acres of insured crops to receive benefits as part of the 
program. This is down slightly from 2021 due to weather patterns that 
led to fewer cover crops being planted across the county for the 2022 
crop year.

    Question 3b. How many acres did USDA enroll in the 2021 program?
    Answer. USDA paid approximately 12.2 million acres of insured crops 
in 2021.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Ann M. Kuster, a Representative in Congress 
        from New Hampshire
    Question 1. In May 2021, I joined 49 other Democratic Members of 
Congress in signing a letter calling for USDA to dedicate $300 million 
in relief funding for one on one business technical assistance for 
farms as well as food businesses. Business technical assistance 
includes customized coaching for business and marketing planning, 
financial and labor management, transfer and succession, and other 
services essential to the success of small- and mid-sized operations.
    In your response to a question on this topic as part of today's 
hearing, you mentioned USDA's recent announcement of technical 
assistance support for underserved communities. We applaud this 
announcement as a critical step in helping marginalized producers and 
entrepreneurs better access USDA programming. However, this funding 
supported a small number of service providers, when there is much 
broader need for business technical assistance for farm and food 
businesses across the nation. Also, this funding is targeted to 
improving producer access to USDA programs. While helpful, it does not 
address what we noted as the primary value of business technical 
assistance in our letter to you; namely, customized technical 
assistance for small- and mid-sized farms to support farm viability. We 
see this need as especially acute in our region, given supply chain 
disruptions. The challenges specifically facing smaller dairy producers 
in my region are emblematic of the challenges facing producers and farm 
businesses across the country. Customized assistance to these 
operations is needed now to help them identify opportunities to 
diversify products and markets, improve efficiency, and sustain their 
operations.
    Can you share your progress and timetable on the May 2021 request 
to dedicate significant relief funding for business technical 
assistance? Does USDA intend to meet this need through proposed 
Regional Food Enterprise Centers? If so, will this support be provided 
as requested for both farm operations as well as food businesses?
    Answer. USDA intends to meet this need through the USDA Regional 
Food Business Centers. With an investment of up to $400M, the Regional 
Food Business Centers will provide coordination, technical assistance, 
and capacity building support to small- and mid-size food and farm 
businesses, particularly focused on product diversification, 
processing, distribution and aggregation, and market access challenges. 
The Regional Food Business Centers will target support to underserved 
communities in a particular region as identified by the applicant. Food 
and farm businesses will be beneficiaries of this program. The 
Department plans to publish a Request for Applications in the near 
future.

    Question 2. I am alarmed by allegations concerning weak enforcement 
of the Animal Welfare Act. The problem seems not to lie with 
inspectors, who are doing their jobs documenting repeated violations by 
license holders, but rather the problem seems to lie further up the 
chain. We've seen recent examples of individuals facing dozens of 
reports and hundreds of pages of violations before their licenses are 
revoked. I am concerned that the licensing change USDA put in place in 
2020 will not put an end to such cruelty without improvements regarding 
how the Department views its Animal Welfare Act responsibilities. What 
can USDA do more aggressively enforce the Animal Welfare Act and revoke 
licenses before without the necessity of having a mountain of 
documented infractions pile up first?
    Answer. I can assure you that the welfare of animals is important 
to the Department and to me personally. Over the last few years, I know 
the enforcement numbers were down. Some of that was due to the 
pandemic. Some of that was over pending litigation with respect to 
administrative law judges and the extent of their enforcement powers. 
We have taken steps to bring those numbers back up, and the number of 
enforcement actions the agency takes has increased dramatically and is 
line with pre-pandemic numbers. Further, APHIS has begun working 
closely with counterparts in the Department of Justice to partner on 
animal welfare cases and using the full extent of Federal authority to 
take action against dog breeders and others who have put animals in 
harm. We will continue to explore that relationship and other tools to 
protect vulnerable animals.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Chellie Pingree, a Representative in 
        Congress from Maine
    Question 1. In May 2021, I joined many of my colleagues on a letter 
in support of dedicating $300 million in COVID relief funds to business 
technical assistance for small- and mid-sized farms and food businesses 
to support farm viability. I appreciated your remarks during the 
hearing about USDA's $75 million investment in technical assistance for 
underserved producers, but this should only be a first step. What 
progress has USDA made on the request to dedicate additional funding 
for business technical assistance in line with the May 2021 letter? 
Will both farm operations and food businesses be eligible for this 
support, as requested?
    Answer. USDA intends to meet this need through the USDA Regional 
Food Business Centers. With an investment of up to $400M, the Regional 
Food Business Centers will provide coordination, technical assistance, 
and capacity building support to small- and mid-size food and farm 
businesses, particularly focused on product diversification, 
processing, distribution and aggregation, and market access challenges. 
The Regional Food Business Centers will target support to underserved 
communities in a particular region as identified by the applicant. Food 
and farm businesses will be beneficiaries of this program. The 
Department plans to publish a Request for Applications in the near 
future.

    Question 2. There are several small communities in Maine that have 
received ReConnect awards but are still struggling to move forward 
several years later due to the program's onerous rules and 
requirements. In comparison, broadband projects funded through state-
allocated funding from the CARES Act are completing their work in 8-12 
months in Maine. I am very concerned that the program's requirements 
may be eliminating ReConnect as a viable option to connect hard-to-
reach rural communities in my state--precisely the type of communities 
Congress intended this program to serve.
    To date, how many ReConnect awardees have subsequently declined 
their award? Please provide a breakdown identifying the funding round, 
type of project (100% grant, combination loan/grant, or 100% loan), and 
type of eligible entity (e.g., corporation, state or local government, 
cooperative, etc.).
    Answer.

               ReConnect awardees who declined their award
 
                                                             Count of
          Entity Type by Funding Round and Type             Entity Type
 
Round 1.................................................               9
100% Grant..............................................               2
  Cooperative or mutual organizations...................               2
100% Loan...............................................               4
  Cooperative or mutual organizations...................               2
  For-profit corporations...............................               1
  Limited Liability Company or Limited Liability                       1
   Partnership..........................................
50% Loan/50% Grant......................................               3
  Cooperative or mutual organizations...................               1
  For-profit corporations...............................               2
Round 2.................................................               8
100% Grant..............................................               4
  For-profit corporations...............................               2
  Limited Liability Company or Limited Liability                       2
   Partnership..........................................
100% Loan...............................................               1
  For-profit corporations...............................               1
50% Loan/50% Grant......................................               3
  Cooperative or mutual organizations...................               1
  For-profit corporations...............................               2
Round 3.................................................               1
100% Grant..............................................               1
  For-profit corporations...............................               1
                                                         ---------------
    Grand Total.........................................              18
 


    Question 2a. To date, what is the total amount of ReConnect funding 
that has been deobligated as a result of awardees deciding not to move 
forward with their projects?
    Answer. $109,426,305

    Question 2b. To date, how many ReConnect projects have been fully 
completed? Please provide a breakdown identifying the funding round, 
type of project (100% grant, combination loan/grant, or 100% loan), and 
type of eligible entity (e.g., corporation, state or local government, 
cooperative, etc.).
    Answer.

 
                                                           Construction
          Entity Type by Funding Round and Type              Completed
 
Round 1.................................................              11
100% Grant..............................................               3
  For-profit corporations...............................               3
100% Loan...............................................               2
  Cooperative or mutual organizations...................               1
  Limited Liability Company or Limited Liability                       1
   Partnership..........................................
50% Loan/50% Grant......................................               6
  Cooperative or mutual organizations...................               1
  For-profit corporations...............................               4
  Limited Liability Company or Limited Liability                       1
   Partnership..........................................
                                                         ---------------
    Grand Total.........................................              11
 


    Question 2c. USDA personnel have suggested that awardees must hire 
full-time staff to administer and oversee their ReConnect award, but 
many rural communities and small ISPs do not have the capacity and 
resources to do so. What additional support can USDA Rural Development 
provide to existing ReConnect awardees to help them navigate the 
program's requirements?
    Answer. The ReConnect program does not require that awardees hire 
full-time staff to administer or oversee the ReConnect award. 
Additionally, applicants and awardees have the opportunity to submit 
questions and requests for technical assistance to Rural Utilities 
Service (RUS) at any time using the ``Contact Us'' form on the 
ReConnect website. Dedicated RUS staff respond to each question and 
respond directly to the applicant or awardee.

    Question 2d. What flexibility can USDA Rural Development provide to 
existing ReConnect awardees who may be struggling? Will USDA consider 
waiving or modifying any program requirements to help advance these 
projects, particularly for smaller projects where the one-size-fits-all 
requirements may not be commensurate with the size of the award?
    Answer. There are multiple program requirements, and depending on 
the particular requirement, the program has some flexibilities to 
assist awardees. Regulatory requirements cannot be waived unless by 
statute, or if the regulation's language provides for a waiver.
    An example of a non-waiver requirement is included in ReConnect's 
Round 4, which was funded through the Infrastructure Investment and 
Jobs Act, and mandates that 50% or more of the homes in Proposed Funded 
Service Area be unserved (while the regulation normally requires that 
threshold to be 90%). This requirement will revert to 90% in future 
rounds of funding unless other legislation is adopted, or the 
regulation undergoes a revision.
    Other requirements may be ones that the Agency can provide some 
flexibility on, and we always want to work with our awardees. The 
Agency has always offered to review issue and has provided waivers on 
some requirements, but this is done on a case-by-case basis and must be 
related to topics which we have the ability to offer waivers.

    Question 2e. I have heard concerns that the program's processes are 
outdated and heavily paper-based. What steps is USDA taking to 
modernize the program and allow for electronic correspondence and 
submission of documents?
    Answer. The ReConnect program's application and reporting process 
is conducted 100 percent online. In fact, ReConnect applicants are 
required to submit their application online using the online 
application portal. The RUS utilizes Salesforce, a Customer 
Relationship Management (CRM) tool to administer the ReConnect 
program's application and reporting portals. This allows applicants 
more flexibility and ease of application and report submission.
    Additionally, applicants have the ability to submit questions 
directly to RUS staff electronically through the ReConnect ``Contact 
Us'' portal.

    Question 2f. I have heard frustrations that ReConnect awardees are 
not receiving timely responses to their inquiries, with questions 
sometimes going unanswered for several months. What steps are being 
taken to ensure stakeholders are receiving timely responses? If USDA 
requires additional staff to improve response times, will this be 
reflected in the FY23 budget request?
    Answer. Questions can come to the Agency several ways. For the 
``Contact Us'' link offered on the ReConnect Program's site and inside 
the Program's application portal (when an application window is open), 
the Agency has a dedicated team in the National Office that respond to 
questions during normal business hours. That team has additional 
staffers who are considered subject matter experts as well as higher-
level leaders who can offer information and guidance if a more complex 
answer is needed. Most questions are answered within 48 business hours.
    There are some questions needing more time to research or, in the 
case of IT issues, more time to troubleshoot the problem the author is 
inquiring about. When these questions come in, an initial response is 
sent informing the customer that additional time is needed, and staff 
are assigned those questions to allow for focused attention ensuring an 
answer is eventually given.
    Some of these questions also include staff contacting the author of 
the question outside of the system we use for ``Contact Us''. While 
scheduled as quickly as possible, most do not wait more than 1-2 
business days to occur.
    Other questions could come to other offices and our staff work to 
answer them as soon as possible. We are unaware of any questions going 
months without being answered and strongly urge people to use the 
``Contact Us'' portal when submitting questions because of our ability 
to track those inquiries.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Angie Craig, a Representative in Congress 
        from Minnesota
    Question 1. Mr. Secretary, thank you for considering the following 
questions, which I was not able to ask during the hearing on January 
20, 2022, but which I hope you may still be able to address.
    Field veterinarians are critical to APHIS' ability to handle an 
animal disease emergency and need to be in place as part of their 
critical infrastructure. It is my understanding that the emergency 
funds made available for the ASF outbreak in the Dominican Republic and 
Haiti cannot be used to hire permanent employees. As you prepare the 
Department's upcoming fiscal budget request, are you considering 
including any requests for additional funds to better prepare APHIS' 
veterinary field force to respond to an animal health emergency here in 
the United States?
    Answer. Veterinarians are critical to our ability to execute APHIS' 
animal health mission. In addition to daily animal health work, APHIS 
veterinarians are trained for responding to animal disease emergencies. 
The types of animal health emergencies the agency has faced and the 
pace of emergency responses stretches the agency's ability to fully 
deliver support to state and industry stakeholders. APHIS is exploring 
recruitment and hiring approaches to fill critical vacancies quickly 
while building a sustainable pipeline of veterinarians for the future. 
USDA does have a lot of flexibilities in the event of an animal health 
emergency, as we recently saw with the outbreak of highly pathogenic 
avian influenza. I have the authority to transfer funds from other 
accounts to fund the full emergency response, which can include 
bringing on additional workers. Additionally, in this latest response, 
APHIS mobilized its Agency-wide workforce to bring additional help to 
the emergency response.

    Question 2. Thank you for your work to ensure robust export markets 
for producers in Minnesota and across the country. Given your 
acknowledgement that USMCA enforcement is critical, is USDA working 
with Ambassador Tai and USTR to prepare for an enforcement case under 
USMCA if Mexico does not reverse course and abide by the biotechnology 
provisions in USMCA?
    Answer. USDA continues to explore all possible avenues toward 
satisfactory resolution of our concerns regarding Mexico's treatment of 
agricultural biotechnology. I am grateful for the strong partnership of 
Ambassador Tai and the close coordination between our staffs on this 
critical issue.

    Question 3. The EU has been successful in other countries around 
the world by negotiating protections for Geographical Indications (GIs) 
in trade agreements. These GI registrations for common food names 
serves as a nontariff barrier to trade, forcing American exporters to 
relabel to keep selling their products. In 2020, I and several other 
Committee Members urged the U.S. Government to take a more forward-
leaning approach to dealing with this by securing direct market access 
protections for the use of these terms in export markets. Can you 
explain what USDA is doing to help work with USTR to protect common 
names more proactively with our key trading partners?
    Answer. In response to the EU's promotion of its exclusionary GI 
policies, the United States continues intensive engagement to promote 
and protect access to foreign markets for U.S. exporters of products 
that are identified by common names. USDA and USTR are engaging 
bilaterally with other countries to address concerns resulting from the 
GI provisions in existing EU trade agreements, agreements under 
negotiation, and other initiatives. USDA and USTR have engaged with the 
governments of Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, 
Ecuador, Indonesia, Japan, Kenya, Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, Moldova, 
Morocco, New Zealand, Paraguay, the Philippines, Singapore, Tunisia, 
Uruguay, and Vietnam, among others. I have emphasized the importance of 
protections for common names in my meetings with foreign counterparts, 
most recently with the Chilean Minister of Agriculture. In addition, 
USDA and USTR are advancing their objectives in international fora, 
including the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, World Intellectual 
Property Organization, and World Trade Organization.

    Question 4. The Office of Pest Management Policy has a long and 
important history of working with EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs 
through pesticide product registrations and re-registrations. What is 
your view on encouraging and supporting OPMP's role and emphasizing the 
importance of pesticide tools in achieving climate-friendly 
conservation practices, when appropriate?
    Answer. USDA supports OPMP's role in collaborating and sharing 
information with EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs in the interest of 
ensuring growers' voices are at the table in conversations around 
pesticide policy and specific pesticide mitigations. Specifically, we 
are aware that some of EPA's recently proposed decisions may have 
inadvertent adverse effects on climate friendly conservation practices. 
OPMP is working to ensure EPA more broadly considers the impacts of 
pesticide regulatory policies by providing substantiated information on 
the impacts of pesticide mitigation on climate-friendly and other 
conservation practices, and OPMP is working with colleagues across USDA 
to research this specific topic. OPMP believes all costs and benefits 
of pesticides should be considered in EPA's decision-making processes.

    Question 5. During his confirmation hearing last summer, Under 
Secretary Bonnie was asked about the Conservation Reserve Program, and 
he answered ``It's vitally important that we get the right lands in the 
program. We don't want to take highly productive lands into the 
program.'' How is USDA approaching this issue, and are there additional 
tools USDA needs to achieve the shared goal of promoting CRP and 
ensuring the continued use of highly productive land?
    Answer. CRP is an important tool in protecting soil from erosion, 
providing habitat, and contributing to cleaner water. When commodity 
prices are lower, it has been more attractive to producers to put 
marginal field into the program. With current prices relatively high, 
we have seen some producers choose to not renew expiring contracts. 
USDA has taken several steps to help farmers address global food supply 
issues. We have expanded the ability for farmers to insure a second 
crop, usually soybeans or grain sorghum, following a winter wheat or 
small grain crop. We also allowed producers with CRP contracts set to 
expire at the end of this fiscal year the ability to prepare those 
acres for a 2023 crop following the primary nesting season to provide 
more flexibility to grow more food in 2023. We have also worked to 
expand working lands conservation through CRP Grasslands. This allows 
farmers and rancher to graze ground that may not be ideal for row 
crops.
    It is also very important to note that the acres that CRP targets 
are marginal and highly erodible cropland, and a considerable 
proportion of currently enrolled acres are in areas experiencing 
drought. For these reasons, production on those acres is typically 
marginal, and CRP enrollment causes minimal impacts to supply and 
subsequent impacts in global markets. While some stakeholders have 
pointed to changes in CRP as potential solutions to commodity supply 
constraints, allowing production on CRP acres will not have a 
significant impact on supply.

    Question 6. The 2018 Farm Bill made several changes to the 
Technical Service Provider Program (TSP), including streamlining the 
certification process for becoming a TSP. The TSP Program has the 
potential to add valuable on the ground technical capacity to help 
deliver farm bill conservation programs. Can you provide an update on 
what the Department is doing to implement these changes and make the 
program more accessible?
    Answer. Since the 2019 Farm Bill NRCS has implemented the following 
changes and improvements to the TSP Certification program[:]

   Streamlined application review process resulting in zero 
        applications being outside regulatory timelines for over 2 
        years running (60 day review period)

   Reorganized practices and conservation activities and plans 
        to focus on clarity for TSP implementation

   Implemented NRCS Registry system which automated workflows 
        for certification and allows TSPs the ability to manage their 
        own certification.

   Worked with the Department to Eliminate or streamlined 
        barriers within the IT systems which created confusion and 
        delay for TSPs

   Implemented third party certification recognition and 
        expanding opportunities for third party certification

   Reevaluated Certification Requirements for clarity and 
        consistency

   Developed Conservation Evaluation and Monitoring Activities 
        (CEMA) to expand opportunities for TSPs to provide valuable 
        technical knowledge

   Exploring expanded use of TSPs outside of the EQIP program 
        to include CSP and CRP

   In the process of updating online training available to 
        Technical Service Providers

   Reevaluating staffing and organization of the program to 
        improve service, outreach, and training opportunities

    Question 7. During the hearing, when I asked community-based 
broadband providers in ReConnect Round 3, you shared with the Committee 
that USDA learned things from previous rounds that led to the structure 
of the Round 3 prioritizations. What did USDA learn in prior rounds 
that led to the decision to provide cooperatives, nonprofits, and 
governmental entities an additional 15 points in the Round 3 scoring? 
And how does USDA plan to approach future rounds of ReConnect funding? 
I ask on behalf of community-based broadband providers in my district 
who have a proven track record of deploying networks and delivering 
high-quality service as a small business in their communities.
    Answer. The points for cooperative, nonprofits and government 
entities encourage these entities to submit an application. These types 
of entities take the earnings from the operation and put it back into 
broadband facilities that further expands broadband service into the 
rural areas. The scoring criteria can be modified anytime that a 
funding announcement is published. For each additional funding round, 
the Agency will evaluate the effectiveness of the criteria.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Glenn Thompson, a Representative in 
        Congress from Pennsylvania
    Question 1. The 2018 Farm Bill created the Agriculture Advanced 
Research and Development Authority, known as AGARDA, to conduct 
advanced research and development in the areas of veterinary 
countermeasures to biological threats, plant disease and plant pest 
recovery countermeasures, and mechanization in the specialty crop 
industry. The 2018 Farm Bill required USDA to make a strategic plan for 
AGARDA publicly available within a year of enactment; however, there is 
still no strategic plan publicly available. Report language in the 
Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 also directed USDA to submit 
the plan within 180 days of enactment yet there is still no strategic 
plan.
    The most recent iteration of the Biden Administration's tax and 
spending bill would provide $30 million for AGARDA without ever seeing 
a strategic plan from USDA. Mr. Secretary, can you provide the 
Committee with an update on when a strategic plan for AGARDA will be 
available?
    Answer. The Agriculture Advanced Research and Development Authority 
(AgARDA), as authorized in the Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018, 
would allow USDA to develop technologies, research tools, and products 
through advanced research on long-term and high-risk challenges for 
food and agriculture. Through AgARDA, USDA can enable the research 
necessary for engendering transformative impacts and the development of 
new industries and partnerships, ensuring the United States maintains 
its position as leader in global agricultural research and development. 
USDA has been exploring options to implement this program, including 
potential partnerships. USDA looks forward to working with the Congress 
to ensure AgARDA's implementation meets Congressional expectations.

    Question 2. Mr. Secretary: Given the challenge of climate change, 
it seems that a clear path forward is for the public-sector to work 
collaboratively with private enterprise. Private companies have made 
major climate commitments, and many have significant financial 
resources, but oftentimes are struggling to find ways to achieve their 
goals. At the same time, USDA conservation programs are oversubscribed, 
and agricultural producers have difficulty accessing these vital 
programs. Do you support the SUSTAINS Act introduced by Ranking Member 
Thompson which would allow USDA to accept and match private funds to 
stretch the Federal dollar and accelerate the implementation of 
climate-smart practices?
    Answer. The private-sector has a significant role to play in 
helping farmers, ranchers and forest landowners implement climate-smart 
practices. USDA programs such as the Regional Conservation Partnership 
Program and the Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities offer 
opportunities for private sector to invest in on-farm conservation and 
participate in projects that can help achieve climate commitments. USDA 
has provided technical assistance to the Committee on the SUSTAINS Act 
as it relates to NRCS's existing contribution authority and will 
continue to provide this assistance as requested.

    Question 3. In August 2021, President Biden and the Department 
unilaterally increased Supplemental Nutrition Assistance (SNAP) 
benefits by nearly 25 percent, the largest single and permanent 
increase in nutrition benefits this nation has ever seen. I am of the 
opinion this process lacked transparency, eroded public trust, and 
disparaged Congressional intent. Adding insult to injury, it appears 
the Department cherry-picked who would clear such an action.
    For example, a recently released FOIA request stated that the 
Office of the Chief Economist (OCE) was not asked to review any 
information related to the update. Is this true?
    Can you tell me why the Office that serves as ``the focal point for 
economic and policy-related research and analysis'' would not be 
consulted on a more than $20 billion per year benefit decision?
    Answer. No, that is not correct. The FNS team met with the Office 
of the Chief Economist (OCE) to discuss the overall process, 
optimization model, and timeline for the TFP reevaluation in June. FNS 
subsequently shared a draft of the Methods chapter of the TFP Report 
with OCE. In addition, the teams met twice in August to discuss the 
process and methodology, and FNS provided a briefing to Federal 
stakeholders--including OCE--prior to the release of the update.

    Question 4. Based on the most recent available data publicized by 
the Department, some states are seeing declines in SNAP enrollment, 
while other states continue to see growth in the program. Mr. 
Secretary, to what do you attribute the significant variation in 
enrollment trends between states? Is this a matter of policy choices or 
operations? Or something else?
    Answer. As it is designed to do, in response to the economic 
hardship resulting from the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency, SNAP 
participation grew rapidly across the country. As the nation continues 
to recover from the pandemic, shifts in participation trends are 
expected as state economic conditions change. A growing number of 
states have begun to end state emergency declarations and transition 
off program flexibilities available under such declarations. USDA 
remains committed to assisting states with administering SNAP and 
ensuring program integrity throughout the pandemic and as we continue 
to transition through recovery to ensure access among eligible 
populations.

    Question 5. The current Food and Nutrition Service Deputy Under 
Secretary is a former (and frankly, current) high-profile advocate for 
SNAP expansion, appearing before Congress on many occasions to advocate 
for increased participation and lax oversight rules. As an example, Ms. 
Dean called the Program's statutory work requirement for childless 
adults one of the ``harshest rules'' of the program. It appears her 
leadership has led to an Agency that also denies that fraud exists and 
devotes as little funding and programming as possible (about \1/20\ of 
1 percent) to maintain the Program's integrity. Mr. Secretary, what is 
being done to ensure that any policies advocated for by the current 
Deputy Under Secretary, stakeholders, and this Administration are 
carefully reviewed to protect taxpayer investment? What type of 
internal controls exist when advising states or making policy 
decisions? Lastly, has President Biden worked with you on formalizing a 
nominee for this open Under Secretary position?
    Answer. Integrity and payment accuracy are critical ongoing 
priorities for USDA. SNAP state agencies are responsible for 
identifying and holding accountable SNAP recipients who break the 
rules, and USDA has numerous initiatives and resources focused on 
strengthening the integrity of SNAP and improving payment accuracy. To 
support state efforts, USDA provides policy guidance, regulations, and 
technical assistance to strengthen states' ability to prevent, detect, 
and investigate recipient fraud. Accurate payments mean better customer 
service for SNAP clients, and USDA is committed to maintaining program 
integrity as stewards of taxpayer dollars. In addition to the standard 
statutory and regulatory tools usually deployed, USDA has also 
initiated the following projects aimed at strengthening program 
integrity.
    Income Verification Pilot Program--In FY22, USDA awarded grants to 
16 states to evaluate their use of third-party databases to verify 
earned income (such as Equifax's The Work Number). Preliminary results 
suggest this project may have a positive impact on payment accuracy. 
USDA is using the information from grantees to pursue a national-level 
contract that will allow all states to use this product for earned 
income verification.
    Understanding Risk Assessment in SNAP Payment Accuracy and 
Employing Model Programs to States--USDA is conducting a study into how 
state SNAP agencies use analytic risk assessment tools and what makes 
the tools more or less effective. Concurrently, USDA is developing its 
own risk assessment model that can easily be deployed to any state and 
aims to identify characteristics of cases that are prone to payment 
errors so state SNAP eligibility staff can provide extra layers of 
review during the certification process to ensure households only 
receive the benefits to which they are entitled. This model contains 
safeguards to ensure the protection of protected classes.
    SNAP Fraud Framework--For the last few years, the SNAP Fraud 
Framework (SFF) has served as a cornerstone of recipient integrity 
efforts, and USDA seeks to enhance the SFF as new technology and best 
practices emerge. The SFF and its supporting documents are designed to 
support states as they develop and improve efforts to prevent, detect, 
and investigate fraud. In 2019, USDA established the SNAP Fraud 
Framework Implementation Grant program. These grants aim to improve 
state agencies' recipient fraud prevention, detection, and 
investigation efforts, using principles from the SFF. Since 2019, USDA 
has funded 23 awards totaling over $12 million dollars under this grant 
program. New awards for FY 2022 will be announced soon.
    Proposed Rulemaking to Strengthen Improper Payment Measurement 
Process and Tools--USDA is working to issue proposed rulemaking to 
strengthen the integrity of SNAP's payment accuracy measurement system. 
These proposed changes will be published in April 2023 for notice and 
comment.
    Investments in IT Resources to Improve Improper Payment Measurement 
and Analysis--USDA is developing a new computer system that will 
provide a suite of tools and process efficiencies for state and Federal 
reviewers conducting improper payment reviews. This system will also 
provide better data analysis tools, allowing administrators at all 
levels of the Program to make more informed decisions about how to 
ensure the integrity of SNAP. USDA is adding additional data analytic 
tools that will go beyond the improper payment data to integrate 
multiple data sources, allowing for a more nuanced examination of the 
causes for payment errors and how they can be addressed.
    Statutory and Regulatory Ongoing Compliance Activities--USDA 
continues to conduct management evaluations on state recipient 
integrity and payment accuracy activities to ensure states are 
following the law and regulations, as well as implementing the most 
effective strategies to administer and oversee integrity 
responsibilities. For states that are found to have deficiencies, USDA 
works to establish corrective actions with the state to improve program 
performance and payment accuracy. With the implementation of the 
National Accuracy Clearinghouse regulations and system in 2023, FNS is 
providing state agencies with a tool to prevent individuals from 
receiving SNAP benefits in more than one state at the same time and 
enable a timely response to minimize improper payments when duplicate 
participation is discovered.
    When issuing guidance or making policy changes, USDA strives to be 
responsive to state requests, within the bounds of what is permissible 
under current law and regulations. USDA also offers technical 
assistance to present states with additional permissible options or 
strategies to achieve state goals that may be more efficient or 
effective based on experience in other locations.
    USDA routinely utilizes Quality Control (QC) data, which, in 
addition to measuring improper payments, also collects information 
about program performance, to inform Program and policy decisions. For 
instance, when considering state requests for SNAP demonstration 
projects or waivers, USDA will review QC data as part of its assessment 
to determine whether approval is appropriate. Additionally, there are 
statutory and regulatory requirements to ensure taxpayer dollars are 
safeguarded and that improvements are regularly made in administering 
states. For example, states are financially held accountable for 
improper payments, overpayments found in QC must be sent to state 
claims offices, and USDA regularly works with states to proactively 
target areas for program improvement to prevent future improper 
payments, regardless of who USDA's political appointees are.
    USDA also updates our practices as technology evolves. For example, 
as USDA continues to implement the SNAP online purchasing pilot, 
vigorous vetting and testing processes are followed to ensure that the 
online shopping and payment experience is secure, private, easy to use, 
and provides similar support to that found for SNAP transactions in a 
retail store. USDA has added new reports and analysis tools to the 
Agency's fraud detection system to assist in the monitoring of online 
transactions.

    Question 6. Mr. Secretary, colleagues and I have heard that as 
states are trying to engage recipients in work-related programming 
through the statutory general work requirements, they are receiving 
guidance from FNS regional offices to not do so. Please share the 
Department's guidance and/or position responsible for this action.
    Answer. FNS has not provided guidance that discourages states from 
engaging SNAP participants in work-related programming. USDA is 
committed to helping state SNAP agencies increase the ability of SNAP 
participants to obtain and retain good jobs and meet the skilled 
workforce needs of employers. USDA is also committed to ensuring that 
all states comply with all requirements of the Food and Nutrition Act 
of 2008 (as amended through P.L. 115-334). Any guidance provided to 
state agencies is for the purposes of ensuring compliance with Federal 
law.

    Question 7. Mr. Secretary, do you think SNAP and other nutrition-
related funding and programs have perpetuated the business of poverty? 
Organizations reap billions in Department aid and only seem to ask for 
more money at every turn. Do you think it is time to rethink how we 
help people, who we partner with, and how we measure success?
    Answer. SNAP is the most far-reaching, powerful tool available to 
ensure that all Americans can afford healthy food--it's a lifeline for 
tens of millions of Americans in every part of the country. It reduces 
poverty and food hardship, and participation by young children has been 
linked to better long-term health, education, and employment outcomes. 
SNAP also helps to stabilize the economy and respond to increased need 
during downturns. Every additional $1 in SNAP benefits can create at 
least $1.50 in economic activity. FNS is continuously working to 
improve the effectiveness and efficiency of nutrition assistance 
programs, and we welcome the opportunity to work with Congress to do 
the same.
    The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and 
Children (WIC) is one of the nation's most successful and cost-
effective nutrition intervention programs, as proven by the results of 
studies conducted by FNS and other non-government entities. Since its 
beginning in 1974, the WIC Program has earned the reputation of being 
one of the most successful federally-funded nutrition programs in the 
United States. Collective findings of studies, reviews and reports 
demonstrate that the WIC Program is cost effective in protecting or 
improving the health and nutritional status of low-income women, 
infants and children.
    Additionally, USDA's school meals programs provide critical 
nutrition to tens of millions of children every school day. For many 
children, the food they receive from school breakfast and lunch makes 
up about half their dietary intake each school day. Students' success 
in the classroom is connected to their ability to access healthy and 
nutritious meals--and a study published in the Journal of the American 
Medicine Association in 2021 found that school meals are the healthiest 
meal kids receive each day. Research also shows kids who ate lunches 
from school were more likely to consume milk, fruits, and vegetables 
and less likely to consume desserts, snack items, and non-milk 
beverages than kids who brought food from home. Strong school nutrition 
programs are proven to work for schools and families.

    Question 8. The 2015 Waters of the U.S. rule was a dramatic 
expansion of the Clean Water Act beyond its historical reach and would 
have been a disaster for farmers, ranchers, and rural America. Although 
the 2020 Navigable Waters rule finally provided certainty and a 
workable solution for agriculture, EPA is again creating great 
confusion and concern among producers by attempting to again write a 
new regulation. Given the great importance of WOTUS to farmers and 
ranchers, how is USDA engaging with EPA on this rewrite? How do you 
believe that agriculture will be treated under this new regulation and 
how might it differ from the 2020 rule?
    Answer. On June 8, 2021, EPA and the Army Corps announced their 
intent to revise the definition of WOTUS to better protect our nation's 
vital water resources that support public health, environmental 
protection, agricultural activity, and economic growth. The agencies 
have continued to engage with a variety of stakeholders including the 
agricultural community. USDA continues to encourage EPA and Army Corps 
to ensure that farmers, ranchers and private forest owners are central 
to the engagement and rulemaking process. USDA is continuing to work 
with EPA to ensure agriculture communities are invited and part of the 
stakeholder engagement. We are committed to ensuring that farmers, 
ranchers and private forest owners--those most impacted--are part of 
the process being coordinated by EPA, and EPA shares and has 
demonstrated this commitment as well.

    Question 9. The pending Build Back Better Act contains some $27 
billion for forestry-related activities. Given this significant price 
tag and the prescriptive language on how funding can be used, was USDA 
consulted on these provisions and/or did the Department provide 
technical assistance as the bill was drafted?
    Answer. USDA provided testimony before the Senate Energy and 
Natural Resources Committee on June 24, 2021. A copy of the testimony 
by Chris French, Deputy Chief of the National Forest System (NFS) can 
be found at: https://www.energy.senate.gov/services/files/AAF7DF40-
2A47-4951-ADA4-4B124AD3894F.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Editor's note: the testimony referred to is retained in 
Committee file.

    Question 10. The Forest Service needs to get closer to, or above, 
its national timber targets for the coming year. How much timber do you 
foresee the agency harvesting in 2022 and beyond?
    Answer. The Forest Service is actively striving to meet its timber 
target for FY22. Currently we have attained 1.79 billion board feet 
with 0.57 billion board feet prepared for or under advertisement. The 
estimated total volume attainment for FY22 is 3.0 billion board feet. 
With the new Bipartisan Infrastructure law and flat normal 
appropriations. Outputs are anticipated to increase over time.

    Question 11. Mr. Secretary, I have several questions on the Forest 
Service's newly announced ``10 Year Strategy to Confront the Wildfire 
Crisis.'' Specifically:

  a.  Can you provide details on how the Forest Service is identifying 
            ``highest priority firesheds''? Is there a profile for each 
            fireshed? If so, does the Forest Service have details on 
            the history of the management of each fireshed and which 
            priority firesheds are located in the wildland-urban 
            interface?

    Answer. The agency prioritized landscapes for initial funding under 
the Wildfire Crisis Strategy (10 year Plan) from an all-lands 
perspective, where Forest Service contribution to exposure was 
relatively high, and where projects already had the groundwork in 
place. Criteria for initial landscape investments included strong 
collaborative and cross-boundary partnerships, alignment with high-risk 
firesheds, meeting the intent of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, 
appropriate analysis under NEPA, and internal capacity and partner 
capacity to initiate work in FY22. Work in these landscapes also had to 
be designed at the scale of the issues or be able to build out to that 
scale.
    For this initial round of BIL investments, we selected landscapes 
where we could have the greatest impact in reducing wildfire risk by 
looking to areas that have plans to accomplish work with a 
collaborative framework to implement quickly. Our focus with the 10 
Year Wildfire Crisis Strategy is to mitigate exposure as much as we can 
to high-risk communities, while also maintaining and creating resilient 
landscapes. In addition to this approach, we have also looked at other 
funding sources like disaster relief funds and regular appropriation 
funds to invest in areas that were not selected in this initial round 
of funding but still need fuels work done both on and off national 
forests.
    We currently do not have a profile for each fireshed but most 
firesheds will have some percentage of land located in the WUI. The 
research publication, ``Planning for future fire: scenario analysis of 
an accelerated fuel reduction plan for the western United States'', 
provides a detailed look at the scientific method used to develop 
structure exposure.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    * Editor's note: the article referred to is retained in Committee 
file and is available at https://www.fs.usda.gov/research/treesearch/
63129.

  b.  Which firesheds or projects are ``shovel ready'' as described in 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            the report? Is there a total acreage of these lands?

    Answer. All 10 Initial Landscapes met the following criteria:

   have projects that are at scale or can be built out to scale 
        (``shovel ready'')

   are outcome driven

   are collaboratively developed with communities and ready for 
        implementation

   allow for investment in underserved communities

   leverage current partner investments

   maximize use of existing authorities

    The table below shows the 10 Landscape Investments including the 
total acreage of these areas.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Editor's note: the following table is excerpted from 
Confronting the Wildfire Crisis Initial Landscape Investments to 
Protect Communities and Improve Resilience in America's Forests, FS-
1187d, dated April 2022. The report is retained in Committee file, and 
is available at https://www.fs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/WCS-
Initial-Landscape-Investments.pdf.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Total FY    Total FY 2022-
                                          Size of       FY 2022        FY 2022      2022-2024         2024
   Landscape Name         State          Landscape      Funding    Accomplishment    Funding     Accomplishment
                                          (Acres)      (Millions)      (Acres)      (Millions)       (Acres)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4FRI                 Arizona               2,400,000        $12.0        100,000        $160.0           300,000
Prescott             Arizona                 401,000       $11.12          8,000         $28.7            87,700
North Yuba           California              313,000         $6.8          4,500         $25.5            16,900
Stanislaus           California              245,000        $21.8          8,500         $55.2            32,500
Colorado Front       Colorado              3,500,000        $18.1         10,000        $170.4            36,100
 Range
Southwest Idaho      Idaho                 1,720,000        $17.4         18,000         $59.5            55,000
Kootenai Complex     Montana                 800,000         $3.6            900         $19.3             7,200
Enchanted Circle     New Mexico            1,500,000         $6.6          9,000         $11.3            32,500
Central Oregon       Oregon                2,600,000         $4.5          5,000         $41.3            50,000
Central Washington   Washington            2,450,000        $24.6         24,000        $102.6           124,000
 Initiative
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
  Total                                                    $131.3        208,000        $673.8          742,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Acreage denotes the size of the landscape, not actual acres to be treated within that landscape. This
  summary table represents total size of landscapes, FY 2022 funding and planned accomplishments, as well as
  total funding and accomplishments for FY 2022-2024. The landscape size does not represent total planned
  treatment acres. Strategic treatment objectives focused on reducing approximately 80 percent of the exposure
  to structures indicate the need to treat 20 to 40 percent of the overall fireshed. The overall size of these
  ten landscapes is 16 million acres, of which 7 million acres are high-risk firesheds. Applying the 20 to 40
  percent treatment objective would indicate the long-term need to treat 1.4 to 2.8 million acres on these
  landscapes.


  c.  How much of the land across the highest priority firesheds is 
            under wilderness, roadless, or other areas thinning is 
            restricted?

    Answer. Firesheds were ranked based on exposure we could treat, 
including the use of mechanical thinning. Exposure from lands that were 
withdrawn from management was not included in the treatment plan or 
ranking.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford, a Representative 
        in Congress from Arkansas
    Question 1. I have heard from several agriculture producers in my 
district asking for any details about WHIP+. Our farmers are currently 
trying to obtain financing for what is looking like a very challenging 
year, and they need to have a better understanding of their financial 
picture as they go through that process. So, are there any details, any 
at all, that you might be able to make public, such as payment rates, 
coverage levels or eligibility criteria, so that even if signup is not 
open farmers have the information about what they can expect as they 
talk with lenders?
    Answer. In May 2022, the Department announced that producers who 
had crop insurance or NAP indemnity payments for 2020 and 2021 losses 
caused by qualifying natural disasters would receive pre-filled 
applications for the Emergency Relief Program (ERP). Those applications 
were sent just before Memorial Day, and as of early August, over $6 
billion in disaster payments have gone to those producers. The 
application and payment process has been streamlined by relying on 
existing crop insurance and NAP data. Many producers received payment 
within 3-5 business days of signing their application in the FSA County 
Office. The ERP process has saved nearly a million hours of FSA county 
office employee time and effort compared to previous disaster payments.

    Question 2. Secretary Vilsack, you have long been a strong advocate 
for free and fair trade. During your stint with the U.S. dairy 
industry, you saw firsthand some of the many impediments we have to 
fair trade, including the dispute taken against Canada's dairy industry 
through USMCA. So you know how important it is to operate on a level 
playing field. India is a major rice and wheat producer and exports 
millions of metric tons of both at prices that our producers can't 
dream of competing with because of their illegal subsidies. Do you 
support efforts taken by the U.S. rice and wheat industries to 
encourage a trade case against India?
    Answer. Thank you for your question regarding India's domestic 
support measures for wheat and rice, and for your continued engagement 
on this important matter. As mentioned in my letter of February 28, 
2022, I share your concerns about India's domestic support policies. 
USDA continues to work closely with USTR to consider all options 
available to ensure U.S. rice and wheat industries can compete in a 
fair, rules-based international trade environment. This includes the 
pending consultations (requested on May 13, 2022) by the United States 
and other WTO Members with India under the Bali Ministerial Decision on 
Public Stockholding for Food Security Purposes. The consultations will 
provide the United States an opportunity to seek additional information 
regarding India's domestic support policies and express U.S. concerns 
directly to India.

    Question 3. Secretary Vilsack, a project started during your second 
term as Secretary was the filing of a request for consultations with 
China on two major World Trade Organization cases because of the way 
China buys and subsidizes rice, wheat, and corn. As a result, the U.S. 
historically won both WTO cases in 2019, but unfortunately, now after 
more than 2 years, we still don't have those cases resolved and China 
has not come into compliance. This results in U.S. commodities being 
less competitive on the world stage and allows China to continue being 
a bad actor, unscathed from losing both cases. Can you commit to 
raising the resolution of this case with your colleagues within the 
Administration?
    Answer. As you noted, in 2019 the United States won two momentous 
WTO dispute settlement cases challenging China's domestic support 
policies and tariff-rate quota practices for grains. These cases were 
taken to create export opportunities for U.S. agriculture, particularly 
for grains in China. China has made some adjustments to its grain 
policy but still has several measures of concern. Over this period we 
have seen record U.S. grain exports to China, thanks in part to this 
WTO action. These matters remain a high priority for USDA, and we 
continue to work closely with USTR to monitor China's implementation of 
the reforms required to comply with its obligations under the WTO and 
commitments undertaken in the Phase One Agreement.

    Question 4. Secretary Vilsack, free trade agreement talks began 
with the UK in mid-2020 and were sidelined when the Administration 
transitioned last year. Since that time, the UK has gone on to sign 
deals with several U.S. competitors and the U.S. is being left behind. 
In addition to a lack of market access openings with the UK, the 
Section 232 retaliatory duties remain in place with the UK and 
agriculture, like U.S. rice, orange juice, cranberries, and distilled 
spirits, further compounding the issue. Can you help champion the need 
for a U.S.-UK Free Trade Agreement within the Administration and press 
for removal of these retaliatory tariffs?
    Answer. USDA is working closely with USTR to support the U.S.-UK 
Food Security dialogue, however with any trade deal we must stand 
vigilant to ensure there is meaningful access and commitments for U.S. 
agriculture. On March 22, 2022, Secretary of Commerce Gina M. Raimondo 
and United States Trade Representative Katherine C. Tai announced a new 
232 tariff agreement with the United Kingdom that removed retaliatory 
tariffs on over $500 million worth of U.S. exports to the UK, including 
American whiskey, corn, sweet corn, rice, kidney beans, orange juice, 
cranberry juice, peanut butter, and tobacco products. The agreement on 
232 tariffs and retaliation serves as another example of President 
Biden's commitment to rebuilding and strengthening relationships with 
our allies and partners.

    Question 5. Secretary Vilsack, the ReConnect Round 3 FOA awards 15 
points to applicants that are local governments, nonprofits, or coops, 
though RUS has worked with for-profit commercial rural telcos for 
decades, and dozens of small, commercial companies have already won 
ReConnect awards in Rounds 1 and 2. Two examples are Yelcot Telephone 
and Mountain View Telephone, both of which are small commercial 
companies that are currently putting ReConnect awards to work to 
improve broadband service in the rural areas of my district, and both 
are interested in pursuing ReConnect awards in the future--including in 
Round 3.
    If a local government and a community-based commercial broadband 
provider both apply for ReConnect Round 3 to serve the same area and 
the only difference between the two is that one provider is a local 
government and the other is a commercial company, wouldn't it be true 
that the local government would win solely because of the preference 
for local governments?
    Answer. The agency's experience in Round 3 was that this 
hypothetical situation never occurred. There were a variety of 
applicants that applied in the same geographic area, but none of those 
overlapping projects were decided based on this singular scoring 
criteria.

    Question 5a. Given their track record, commitment to rural America, 
and history of working with RUS, why put small commercial rural 
broadband providers such as Yelcot Telephone and Mountain View 
Telephone at a disadvantage in competing for ReConnect awards solely 
due to how they are organized?
    Answer. The agency's scoring criteria is intended to encourage best 
practices and is not intended to disadvantage any specific type of 
provider. Commercial for-profit entities have been very successful in 
winning grant funding under the ReConnect Program and we expect that to 
continue.

    Question 5b. Will you commit to making the necessary adjustments, 
both now and in future FOAs, to ensuring that rural broadband providers 
can compete for ReConnect awards on an even playing field, regardless 
of their form of organization or commercial status?
    Answer. The agency encourages all applicants to look at all the 
possible points available in every Funding Opportunity Announcement. 
The scoring matrix adopted by the Rural Utilities Service for the 
fourth round of ReConnect establishes a tiered approach which 
prioritizes funding for service to communities in the greatest need. 
The FOA offers additional points for applications that propose to serve 
the least dense rural areas (25 points), that connect areas without 
access to 25 Mbps downstream and 3 Mbps upstream (25 points), as well 
those that will serve areas with a high economic need (20 points). At 
least 70 out of 175 possible points will go to applications that 
prioritize the most unserved rural communities. Additionally, 
applicants can request points for affordability, serving underserved 
communities, embracing labor standards and more. Scoring design is a 
delicate balance of interest to achieve the highest public good and the 
agency is open to ongoing feedback on this goal.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Vicky Hartzler, a Representative in 
        Congress from Missouri
    Question 1. Unfortunately for consumers and agriculture economies, 
the oil sector won a court case which reestablished an arbitrary EPA 
restriction on selling E15 during the summer months. For the past few 
years, retailers have been able to sell E15 during the driving season, 
providing a healthy economic boost to corn farmers and biofuel 
producers, further decarbonizing the transportation sector, and 
reducing the price at the pump. In fact, E15 saves consumers at least 
5 to 10 a gallon, on average. However, the court decision puts all of 
this at risk moving forward. Given the importance of having low-cost 
fuel options for consumers, what steps are you and the Administration 
taking to restore consumer access to E15 year-round?
    Answer. While the issue of year-round E15 ultimately falls outside 
of the Department's jurisdiction, we will soon make $100 million 
available in grants for higher blends fueling infrastructure to support 
demand for biofuels like E15. Biofuels are positioned to help reduce 
our dependence on foreign oil and bring down the price for consumers at 
the pump while supporting a critical market for commodities. For those 
reasons, USDA has and will continue to support the biofuels industry.

    Question 2. With a final rule on Child Nutrition Temporary 
Standards for Milk, Whole Grains and Sodium currently under OMB/White 
House review, what kind of certainty is going to be provided to schools 
and the school food supply chain that flexibilities that have been in 
place for the past 4-5 School Years will remain in place, particularly 
given all of the supply chain and distributions schools and food 
suppliers are dealing with right now?
    Answer. In February, USDA issued a final rule setting interim 
school meal standards for whole grains, milk, and sodium in the Child 
Nutrition Programs. We are acutely aware of the challenges school food 
professionals are facing, and this ``bridge rule'' set transitional 
standards to give schools stability and time to transition from current 
pandemic operations. And we have issued waivers to make sure that 
schools don't face financial penalties for failing to meal standards 
due to supply chain disruptions. With the transitional standards in 
place, USDA has undertaken extensive stakeholder engagement as we work 
to update the nutrition standards for the long-term, in a way that is 
practical and puts children's health at the forefront.

    Question 3. Mr. Secretary, your Foreign Agriculture Service works 
closely with the U.S. Trade Representative to find us new markets for 
farm products. Expanding market access seems stalled and other 
countries are happy to step into that vacuum while we sit back. How is 
USDA engaging with USTR to find more export opportunities for American 
producers?
    Answer. FAS and USTR enjoy a collaborative and productive 
partnership in expanding the global footprint for American producers 
and continue to work on a number of endeavors. FAS is working closely 
with USTR to identify non-tariff agricultural trade barriers we can 
address through the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework, one of President 
Biden's signature foreign policy initiatives. FAS is also working 
closely with USTR to ensure Mexico follows a transparent and science-
based approach in its treatment of products of agricultural 
biotechnology. FAS and USTR collaboration have yielded valuable 
opportunities recently for American producers including, wrapping up a 
20 year effort to secure full access for U.S. tomatoes to Mexico, 
prosecuting USMCA litigation with Canada on how it is administering its 
dairy TRQ, and securing an agreement with Japan to increase the beef 
safeguard trigger level under the U.S.-Japan Trade Agreement. 
Furthermore, USDA has resumed in-person agribusiness trade missions, 
USA pavilions at international trade shows and continues to creatively 
use virtual trade events targeted at specific products to grow and 
develop new trade opportunities. These efforts are designed to directly 
connect U.S. agriculture and food producers with buyers from around the 
world.

    Question 4. Recently, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
announced a new additional step in the process for evaluating and 
registering new active ingredients (AIs) through the Endangered Species 
Act (ESA). As of January 11, 2022, the EPA will evaluate the potential 
effects of the AI and initiate an ESA consultation with the Services, 
as appropriate, before registration. While I can appreciate that this 
has the potential to diminish legal risks and prevent registration 
vacaturs in the future, I remain concerned about the potential impact 
this action could have on producers.
    On the same day as this announcement, the EPA announced the renewal 
of registrations for Enlist One and Enlist Duo using this new process. 
Enlist is a critical crop protection tool that many producers rely on; 
however, this announcement prohibits the use of these products in 
several counties across the nation, including several in my district. 
The restriction of Enlist One and Enlist Duo in these counties will 
hamper producers' abilities to make economical and efficient crop 
management decisions for their specific operations. Therefore, I ask 
the following questions:
    Was the USDA, specifically the Office of Pest Management Policy, 
consulted by the EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) as OPP was 
developing this new policy?
    Answer. Yes, OPMP was consulted as OPP was developing this new 
policy, and USDA actively commented on pre-release drafts of the 
policy.

    Question 4a. If so, did the USDA share concerns that this 
additional layer of process will hinder growers' access to critical 
crop protection tools?
    Answer. USDA, through OPMP, both shared and is working to address 
concerns that this additional layer will hinder growers' access to 
tools. The concerns were shared during our formal comment process on 
the EPA's workplan, as well as in continuing dialogue with EPA and the 
Services, as USDA is part of the Interagency Working Group on this 
issue. OPMP is working to address this concern by being a voice at the 
table on behalf of growers. OPMP is also working to get early access to 
decision-making and thoughts by strengthening its relationship with EPA 
and providing substantiated, supported information for EPA to consider 
in its ESA decision-making process (e.g., usage, use practices, and 
benefits of products).

    Question 4b. Does the USDA have a role in this new consultation 
process on new active ingredients?
    Answer. USDA is a member of the Interagency Working Group 
established by the 2018 Farm Bill. However, USDA's role in the ESA 
consultation process for any given pesticide is informal. Through OPMP, 
USDA is working to actively participate in conversations around any 
given active ingredient and any actions needed to ensure grower voices 
are at the table.

    Question 4c. Will you press the EPA to incorporate USDA pesticide 
use data when evaluating potential AI effects on federally threatened 
or endangered species?
    Answer. Yes, we commit to pressing EPA to incorporate usage data 
for pesticides with similar uses and target pests, and any available 
projected usage data for new active ingredients to support the approval 
of those registrations.

    Question 4d. Specifically, on the recent announcement regarding 
Enlist One and Enlist Duo, is the USDA coordinating with the EPA to 
ensure producers in the counties impacted by the new restrictions have 
access to alternative crop protection tools?
    Answer. Specifically, on the recent announcement regarding Enlist 
One and Enlist Duo, is the USDA coordinating with the EPA to ensure 
producers in the counties impacted by the new restrictions have access 
to alternative crop protection tools?
    Through OPMP, USDA has and will continue to coordinate with 
affected producers on the need for alternative crop protection tools. 
USDA will assist and support any related efforts by state lead agencies 
or EPA to approve uses of alternative crop protection tools. In 
addition, USDA supports EPA's March 29, 2022, revision to the January 
registration division that restored use of Enlist One and Enlist Due in 
all counties in several states.
    In future decisions, USDA is encouraged that EPA's direction in 
protection endangered species appears to support restrictions in 
geographically specific areas rather than following political 
boundaries. USDA will work to support the additional crop protection 
tools wherever needed.

    Question 4e. Is the USDA working with EPA and the registrant of 
Enlist One and Enlist Duo on any additional studies that would help 
alleviate restrictions on some of the counties currently impacted?
    Answer. USDA is maintaining open lines of communications with both 
EPA and the Enlist One and Duo registrant to understand whether there 
is information that may help to alleviate restrictions. Additionally, 
through the Interagency Working Group and other Federal collaborative 
efforts, OPMP is also working with the Fish and Wildlife Service to 
make connections between FWS and external entities who may have 
resources to help facilitate the updating of species range maps. OPMP 
also has regular conversations with our Federal partners to help 
identify opportunities to refine assessments associated with any 
pesticide regulatory actions.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Doug LaMalfa, a Representative in Congress 
        from California
    Question 1. The forestry provisions in the stalled Build Back 
Better Act contain a variety of restrictions that limit the kinds of 
projects that the Forest Service can do. For example, none of the $4 
billion for hazardous fuels reduction in areas outside of the wildland-
urban interface (WUI) can be used for projects with commercial 
partners. It remains unclear why the drafters of this legislation 
included these restrictive provisions. Was USDA or the Forest Service 
consulted on these provisions? Do you believe that excluding commercial 
activities from forest restoration or hazardous fuels reduction is 
warranted? Would it not make more sense to eliminate these restrictions 
in order to provide the Forest Service with the flexibility necessary 
to do these urgent treatments?
    Answer. The $4B for hazardous fuels reduction outside the wildland 
urban interface referenced in the above question was not included in 
the final enacted version of the ``Inflation Reduction Act'' (H.R. 
5376). Under the wildfire crisis strategy, the Forest Service is 
working with all partners, including existing industry, to reduce 
wildfire exposure in the areas at highest risk. Markets for new and 
existing forest products are (and will continue to be) necessary to 
carry out this work.

    Question 2. In response to the fatally flawed 2015 Cottonwood 
decision, the Obama Administration filed a petition of certiorari that 
stated this new precedent had the potential to ``cripple forest 
management'' and that has certainly been the case--whole forests have 
been shut down and hundreds of projects implicated. In some instances, 
project areas have burned in wildfire while being delayed in the courts 
over this very issue. Furthermore, limited Agency resources are 
diverted to this procedural requirement and responding to frivolous 
lawsuits instead of getting more work done on the ground. Has the 
Cottonwood decision made western communities more vulnerable to 
wildfires? The past four Chiefs of the Forest Service testified in 
support of finding a solution to reverse this decision. Chief Moore has 
committed to work with Congress to address this issue. Will USDA also 
work with this Committee on a solution?
    Answer. The Ninth Circuit's decision in Cottonwood Environmental 
Law Center v. United States Forest Service,\3\ 789 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir. 
2015), in which the court found the Forest Service retains 
discretionary involvement or control over a forest plan after its 
approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Editor's note: the case Cottonwood v. USDA is retained in 
Committee file and is available at https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-
content/uploads/2016/07/15-1387-cert-petition.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Cottonwood Decision remains a source of litigation and 
continues to be an issue of concern for the Agency USDA is committed to 
finding a collaborative, science-based approach to conserving wildlife 
and managing our public lands and forests, and we will continue to work 
with the Department of the Interior and Congress towards a solution.
Question Submitted by Hon. Rick W. Allen, a Representative in Congress 
        from Georgia
    Question 1. Typically, regulatory actions costing $100 million or 
more are required to go to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
for interagency review per Executive Order 12866. Further, a Memorandum 
to Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies and Independent 
Regulatory Agencies on October 12, 1993, states EPA actions making 
pesticide uses more stringent should go to OMB for interagency review.
    The rule from the EPA on chlorpyrifos last August cost more than 
$100 million. Given this fact and the 1993 memo, should the EPA have 
sent the rule to OMB for interagency review?
    Answer. USDA would have welcomed the opportunity to formally review 
the August tolerance revocation rule and will work through OPMP to 
ensure that EPA follows interagency review processes in its rulemaking. 
OPMP did have the opportunity to review the 2015 proposed revocation.

    Question 1a. Should the EPA rescind the final rule on chlorpyrifos 
and send it back to OMB for interagency review?
    Answer. At this point in the process, if EPA were to rescind the 
final rule on chlorpyrifos, USDA would welcome the opportunity to 
provide review.

    Question 1b. Are you aware of more recent guidance from OMB or the 
White House that speaks to the requirements of Executive Order 12866 
applying to tolerances other than the memo from October 12, 1993?
    Answer. USDA would welcome the opportunity to formally review any 
pesticide decisions, including tolerance actions. By building trust, 
OPMP is working to increase collaboration between organizations so that 
OPMP information and input is considered whether or not interagency 
review is formally required.

    Question 1c. Do you believe the EPA should have stood by its 
science, and what I understand was the urging of USDA's Office of Pest 
Management Policy, to retain safe uses and a registration?
    Answer. USDA would have preferred that EPA maintain the uses of 
chlorpyrifos that meet its own safety standard, and our public comments 
and discussions with EPA reflect a consistent position that we believe 
EPA can still safely maintain limited uses.

    Question 1d. Do you believe the EPA should send actions pertaining 
to pesticides, especially those making pesticide tolerances more 
stringent, to OMB for interagency review? Would this provide USDA a 
greater seat at the table to harness EPA on pesticide issues? In the 
aftermath of the EPA's decision on chlorpyrifos, have you and the 
Administrator spoken about how to better coordinate on pesticide 
decisions to ensure the needs agriculture community are being 
represented?
    Answer. USDA would welcome the opportunity to formally review any 
pesticide decisions, including tolerance actions. In OPMP's role as the 
voice of the grower and as a respected, reliable source of information 
on pesticide usage and use practices, OPMP is working to increase 
collaboration between organizations so that USDA input is considered 
whether or not interagency review is formally required.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Dusty Johnson, a Representative in Congress 
        from South Dakota
    Question 1. Mr. Secretary, South Dakota corn growers have recently 
paid up to 300% more for nitrogen fertilizer than they did a year ago. 
Recently, several state corn grower organizations, including, Iowa and 
South Dakota, sponsored a study that examined several factors affecting 
pricing, and it concluded that an import tax levied upon the last unit 
of nitrogen sold in the U.S. market increased the price by that same 
amount for all units sold here, and not just those imported under 
tariff. The study proposed that two possible explanations exist for 
this result--supply constraints and/or market power. Corn acres across 
the country and in South Dakota are not at historic highs. They are 
fairly unchanged compared to a year ago. My constituents also 
understand there are other factors that are potentially affecting 
price, such as supply chain issues, workforce shortages and inflation. 
However, these factors simply do not account for that level of price 
increase; this picture is just not right. Secretary, is market power a 
factor in this price increase? Would you commit to examining this issue 
with my constituents?
    Answer. I share your concern that there may be more to the 
increased prices for fertilizer and other inputs than just supply and 
demand. As USDA indicated in ``Access to Fertilizer: Competition and 
Supply Chain Concerns,'' [https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/
2022/03/17/2022-05670/access-to-fertilizer-competition-and-supply-
chain-concerns] \4\ two companies supply the vast majority of 
fertilizer potash in North America, and four companies supply 75 
percent of U.S. nitrogen fertilizers. These companies' possession of 
scarce resources, often in other countries, and control over critical 
production, transportation, and distribution channels raises heightened 
risks relating to concentration and competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Editor's note: the Federal Register Notice is retained in 
Committee file.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Under Executive Order No. 14036 on Promoting Competition in 
America's Economy and Executive Order No. 14017 on America's Supply 
Chains, USDA takes seriously the implications of these concentrated 
market structures on pricing and market access for producers, as well 
as more broadly on supply chain-related risks. We are conducting a 
review of these market structures and their conduct-related 
implications through a series of initiatives and efforts. Our Request 
for Information, launched in March of this year, yielded 1500 comments, 
which we are currently reviewing carefully. We are also coordinating 
closely with the Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general, 
given their antitrust jurisdiction and interest in these markets.
    In addition to investigating the immediate issues of whether market 
power is being unfairly leveraged to increase profit margins on the 
backs of farmers and ranchers, USDA is making investments to add new 
independent options for producers through a $500 million fertilizer 
capacity grant program expected to open for applications in September. 
This program has the following goals:

   Independent--outside the dominant fertilizer suppliers, 
        increasing competition in a concentrated market;

   Made in America--produced in the United States by domestic 
        companies, creating good-paying jobs at home and reducing the 
        reliance on potentially unstable or inconsistent foreign 
        supplies;

   Innovative--improve upon fertilizer production methods to 
        jump start the next generation of fertilizers;

   Sustainable--reduces the greenhouse gas impact of 
        transportation, production, and use through renewable energy 
        sources, feedstocks, formulations, and incentivizing greater 
        precision in fertilizer use;

   Farmer-focused--like other Commodity Credit Corporation 
        investments, a driving factor will be providing support and 
        opportunities for U.S. agriculture commodity producers.

    Question 2. Mr. Secretary, there has been increased attention on 
the climate and environment worldwide, putting the spotlight on 
agriculture has as a major player to environmental and climate change. 
USDA is in a position to stand up for the positive contributions 
environmental agricultural producers make through their stewardship of 
lands under their control. USDA has a history of helping producers 
accomplish good stewardship through NRCS cost share programs. Funding 
for these programs, such as EQIP, has not reached the level of projects 
proposed. America the Beautiful, or 30 X 30, offers us the opportunity 
to work with producers to employ an army of land managers who truly 
care about and understand the needs of the land to make infrastructure 
improvements that will benefit the environment. History has 
demonstrated that producers are far better equipped to care for the 
land than Federal agencies. Will you commit to making working lands 
conservation a priority of ``America the Beautiful'' instead of 
preservation by providing more funding to existing conservation 
programs?
    Answer. The Biden-Harris Administration has outlined the America 
the Beautiful Initiative, a vision for how the United States can work 
collaboratively to conserve and restore the lands, waters, and wildlife 
that support and sustain our country. Through consultations with 
farmers, ranchers, private landowners, and states and local 
governments, USDA worked with other agencies to draft a report 
outlining a preliminary set of recommendations for a locally led and 
voluntary nationwide conservation goal to conserve 30% of U.S. lands 
and waters by 2030.
    The America the Beautiful Initiative calls for a decade-long effort 
to support locally led and voluntary conservation and restoration 
efforts across public, private, and Tribal lands and waters in order to 
create jobs and strengthen the economy's foundation; tackle the climate 
and nature crises; and address inequitable access to the outdoors. We 
can only reach this goal by working together with producers and other 
private landowners. This will be centered on voluntary, collaborative, 
locally led efforts that will play a critical role in conservation 
across private working lands.
    We believe that this work must support both natural resource 
conservation and the productivity of America's agricultural and private 
forestry operations. We're here to support farmers/ranchers/forest 
landowners/partners through incentivized voluntary conservation 
practices that work for individual landowners and communities and are 
effective, equitable, and enduring. Private working lands will be 
valued--and landowner rights respected--as we collaborate to conserve 
the lands and waters we all depend on.

    Question 3. Mr. Secretary, we were energy independent a year ago, 
but now we are begging OPEC to increase production. The drastic 
increase in energy prices is hurting farmers. That also leads to 
increased fertilizer prices. Phosphorus and Potash prices have doubled 
compared to what we paid for the 2021 crop and liquid nitrogen has 
tripled. The price of everything that has to be processed or 
transported increases when energy prices increase. This is all causing 
tremendous inflation stress on producers and capturing the margin from 
rising prices. What will the Administration do to better utilize our 
own domestic resources to bring down energy and fertilizer prices?
    Answer. Fertilizer prices have more than doubled since last year, 
and we recently announced that USDA will support additional fertilizer 
production for American farmers to address rising costs and spur 
competition. USDA will make available $500 million through a new grant 
program this summer to support independent, innovative and sustainable 
American fertilizer production to supply American farmers. Details on 
the application process will be announced in the summer of 2022, with 
the first awards expected before the end of 2022.

    Question 4. Mr. Secretary, the EPA has thrown out the Navigable 
Waters Protection Rule and appears to be going back to something 
similar to the 2015 WOTUS rule. We are concerned about the process, and 
it appears that very little stakeholder input will be considered as a 
new rule is written. What can you do to help agriculture and small 
business on this issue?
    Answer. On June 8, 2021, EPA and the Army Corps announced their 
intent to revise the definition of WOTUS to better protect our nation's 
vital water resources that support public health, environmental 
protection, agricultural activity, and economic growth. The agencies 
have continued to engage with a variety of stakeholders including the 
agricultural community. USDA continues to encourage EPA and Army Corps 
to ensure that farmers, ranchers and private forest owners are central 
to the engagement and rulemaking process. USDA is continuing to work 
with EPA to ensure agriculture communities are invited and part of the 
stakeholder engagement. We are committed to ensuring that farmers, 
ranchers and private forest owners--those most impacted--are part of 
the process being coordinated by EPA, and EPA shares and has 
demonstrated this commitment as well.

    Question 5. Mr. Secretary, to date, USDA has yet to name a nominee 
for the still-vacant post for the Under Secretary for Trade and Foreign 
Agricultural Affairs. This is a prominent trade position that many are 
eagerly awaiting confirmation. There are potential markets of 
opportunity for ethanol and dried distillers grains in South America 
and Asia, so the biofuels sector is also watching closely on who you 
select for this key position. Are you able to provide a status update 
on where the process stands for that position?
    Answer. USDA is pleased that the President nominated Alexis Taylor 
for this important position. Alexis has dedicated her life to public 
service. Her nomination builds upon USDA's commitment to link U.S. 
agriculture to the world to enhance export opportunities for American 
farmers and producers and increase global food security. She is the 
right person to lead the Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs mission 
area as we continue to address global food security, promote American 
exports across the globe and strengthen trade relationships with our 
global partners. We look forward to her swift confirmation by the 
United States Senate.

    Question 6. Mr. Secretary, recently, I more fully understand how 
much of our animal health and feed industry lies in the hands of China. 
China has efficiently and economically built modern vitamin and trace 
mineral manufacturing utilizing export government subsidies. In fact, 
China manufactures 100% of global vitamin B volume and controls over 
half of the Vitamin D, E, K, and Vitamin C markets. Without vitamin 
supplementation, production of milk, meat and eggs would be slashed by 
at least 20% due to animal health related issues including disease and 
death.
    As part of the President's council on supply chain disruptions and 
as you identify critical supply chain resiliency measures, will you 
speak up for greater government incentives and investment to encourage 
U.S. based manufacturing of vitamins and essential animal nutrients?
    Answer. I will certainly continue to be an advocate for U.S. 
farmers and ranchers and maximizing the health and profitability of 
their industries, both in my role as part of the President's Supply 
Chain Disruptions Task Force and outside of it. President Biden has 
made domestic manufacturing and strengthening domestic supply chains 
key goals of his Administration. As part of that work, the White House 
has released the Biden-Harris Plan to Revitalize American Manufacturing 
and Secure Critical Supply Chains in 2022 which includes highlights of 
efforts happening across the government to support domestic 
manufacturing, including by providing direct funding assistance for 
small businesses through the Department of Treasury and the Small 
Business Administration.
    I am also actively working with my colleagues at the Department of 
Transportation in order to ease shipping related issues, including 
USDA's efforts to support ports exporting US agricultural products. I'd 
also like to thank you and your colleagues for your leadership to pass 
the Ocean Shipping Reform Act that President Biden signed into law 
earlier this year.

    Question 7. Mr. Secretary, as Ranking Member of the House 
Agriculture Committee's Subcommittee on Livestock and Foreign 
Agriculture, I appreciated your comments during the hearing on the need 
for our trading partners to live up to our trade agreements and that 
the first step is enforcement.
    As a supporter of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement 
(USMCA), I am growing concerned about Mexico's failure to honor its 
commitments regarding the treatment of agricultural biotechnology 
products and Mexico's decree to phase out imports of genetically 
modified corn for human consumption. I appreciate the promises Mexico's 
Secretary of Agriculture and Rural Development, Victor Villalobos has 
made to you that this will not disrupt market access for U.S. producers 
to the Mexican feed market, however, this does not change the fact that 
the decree is not based on science and there are more than 25 biotech 
product traits in the queue pending approval.
    Mexico has failed to approve a new biotech product in 3 years. 
Mexico's lack of transparent, timely, and science-based approval 
process is undermining the U.S.'s ability to develop and deploy 
innovative plant biotechnologies and hindering producers access new 
plant technologies.
    Given your acknowledgement that enforcement is critical, is USDA 
working with Ambassador Tai and USTR to prepare for an enforcement case 
under USMCA if Mexico does not reverse course and abide by the 
biotechnology provisions in USMCA?
    Answer. USDA continues to explore all possible avenues toward 
satisfactory resolution of our concerns regarding Mexico's treatment of 
agricultural biotechnology. I am grateful for the strong partnership of 
Ambassador Tai and the close coordination between our staffs on this 
critical issue.

    Question 8. Mr. Secretary, the COVID reconciliation package passed 
in December 2020 contained a provision ``COVID-19 Animal Surveillance'' 
It provided USDA with $300 million to conduct monitoring and 
surveillance of susceptible animals for incidence of SARS-CoV-2. What 
is the status of this program?
    Answer. Since the beginning of the pandemic, APHIS has studied 
SARS-CoV-2 in animals, through surveillance, testing, research, and 
collaboration with partners. We confirmed cases in several animal 
species including cats, dogs, certain zoo animals, mink, white-tailed 
deer, and recently mule deer. The full list of confirmed cases of SARS-
CoV-2 in U.S. animals can be found on our One Health website.
    Developed alongside our One Health partners across the human, 
animal and environmental health communities, APHIS' strategic framework 
for implementing the American Rescue Plan Act outlines how the agency 
is focusing its efforts to prevent, detect, investigate and respond to 
SARS-CoV-2 in animals, as well as other emerging diseases that could 
pose a threat to humans and animals.
    As the organization enhances and expands its capacities to address 
the immediate threat of SARS-CoV-2, specialists at APHIS are building 
critical capacity to address future emerging threats and prevent or 
limit any future pandemics, to protect the health and welfare of the 
nation's animals as it has for more than 50 years.
    APHIS is currently conducting multiple projects under the American 
Rescue Plan Act, including projects partnering with industry and 
academia, aimed at understanding how the SARS-CoV-2 virus behaves in 
different animals, how it moves between animals and people and what it 
can do to interrupt the chain of transmission. For example, we are 
partnering with state agencies and Tribes across the United States to 
collect samples from white-tailed deer to determine how widespread the 
disease is across the United States. This project will also help us 
understand if deer can serve as a reservoir for the virus, which could 
lead to new virus variants that may impact the health of animals and 
humans. APHIS is also partnering with zoos and aquariums across the 
country to identify which species have been exposed to SARS-CoV-2. This 
study will also test free-ranging wildlife on and around facilities. 
Researchers will also assess biosecurity practices and develop best 
practices that zoos and aquariums can adopt to help prevent future 
SARS-CoV-2 infections.
    These are just a few examples of the initiatives APHIS is 
implementing under the American Rescue Plan Act, which are critically 
important given that scientists estimate that three out of every four 
new or emerging infectious diseases in people come from animals. APHIS 
is uniquely positioned for this work because of our scientific 
expertise in animal health and animal diseases, including preparing for 
and responding to foreign animal disease outbreaks.

    Question 8a. I am also told it gives APHIS a great deal of latitude 
on how the program will be implemented. Will it also provide funding 
opportunities for research and vaccination?
    Answer. APHIS recognizes that partnerships and leveraging external 
innovations, tools and capacity are critical to the success of this 
program. APHIS is implementing a multi-pronged approach to support 
SARS-CoV-2 research in animals that includes partnering with industry 
and academia to complete APHIS-led activities, participating in 
existing Federal competitive grant initiatives, and considering other 
ways to provide funding opportunities through the American Rescue Plan 
Act, such as potentially developing a competitive funding opportunity. 
APHIS will provide funding through grants and cooperative agreements, 
promoting inclusive and equitable practices. These funding 
opportunities under the American Rescue Plan Act will help leverage 
both prior and new One Health partnerships while working toward the 
goal of preventing or minimizing the next pandemic.
    APHIS recently announced a funding opportunity under the American 
Rescue Plan Act though a partnership with the National Institute of 
Food and Agriculture (NIFA) via the Food Research Initiative (AFRI), 
and the National Science Foundation (NSF) Ecology and Evolution of 
Infectious Diseases (EEID) program. APHIS will be able to commit up to 
$24 million for external research grants that streamline funding 
critical SARS-CoV-2 research. These funds will make grants available to 
eligible state and Federal agencies, academia, private organizations or 
corporations, and individuals that apply and are selected. These grants 
will support research that directly aligns with APHIS' American Rescue 
Plan strategic framework and will fund key activities to:

   Address gaps in surveillance and investigation activities 
        for SARS-CoV-2 in animals, including farmed animals, captive 
        wildlife, free-ranging wildlife, and companion animals.

   Expand knowledge of susceptibility of species to SARS-CoV-2 
        to improve understanding of potential roles or routes of 
        transmission.

   Develop surveillance tools and strategies for the rapid 
        detection and characterization of emerging and re-emerging 
        pathogens to support an early warning system to prevent or 
        limit future SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks.

   Identify risks, effective interventions, and other measures 
        to prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2 at the human-animal 
        interface and/or impacts to the food supply.

    Question 9. Mr. Secretary, we recently saw a news broadcast about 
dairy co-ops that have full warehouses and nowhere to put milk due to 
export difficulties, noting that cows never stop milking and the 
product has to go somewhere. The coverage made it seem like U.S. 
agriculture is at near crisis levels with the supply chain 
difficulties, especially with dairy. Do you agree with that assessment?
    Answer. U.S. dairy exporters have experienced some of the same 
shipping difficulties that other exporters are facing (container 
availability, shipping and trucking delays, trans-Pacific shipping rate 
increases). Despite those difficulties, dairy exports continue to grow, 
with exports reaching $7.66 billion in calendar year 2021. USDA offers 
export certification services to assist in the exportation of dairy 
products.
    USDA continues to work with industry partners throughout the supply 
chain to relieve the disruption created by the COVID-19 pandemic and 
Russia's war with Ukraine and address the specific challenges 
agricultural producers, including dairy cooperatives, are facing along 
the supply chain. USDA formed partnerships with several ports as part 
of the Biden Administration's Supply Chain Task Force efforts with 
state and local governments. USDA recently announced plans to increase 
capacity for exporting chilled and frozen agricultural commodities at 
the Port of Houston in Houston, Texas, to help improve service for 
shippers of U.S. grown agricultural commodities. USDA is partnering 
with the Port of Houston to lease additional chassis, used to position 
and store containers while waiting for vessels to arrive, enabling the 
port to fully utilize its capacity for refrigerated shipping 
containers. In addition, USDA is exploring expansion opportunities for 
its ongoing partnerships with the Port of Oakland, the Port of Seattle, 
and the Port of Tacoma to set up additional ``pop-up'' sites which will 
make it easier for agricultural companies to fill empty shipping 
containers. In addition, USDA is accepting applications for the 
Commodity Container Assistance Program (CCAP) which provides per-
container payments to help cover additional logistics costs and ensure 
that American-grown products can once again move efficiently through 
supply chains to global markets. CCAP is currently a partnership 
between USDA and the Port of Oakland and Northwest Seaport Alliance, 
which includes the Port of Seattle and the Port of Tacoma in Washington 
State. USDA continues to seek opportunities to partner with additional 
ports or other intermodal container facilities to help American farmers 
and agricultural producers move their product to market and manage the 
short-term challenges. USDA will also continue to partner with other 
Federal agencies and state and local governments to address port 
operation challenges resulting from the ongoing supply chain 
difficulties.

    Question 10. Mr. Secretary, would you be open to adjusting RMA 
policy for a producer to change their agent and/or agency of record by 
the Acreage Reporting Date if at least one of the following criteria 
are met: 1. Agent of record become physically ill, deceased, or unable 
to perform the duties required of an agent, and there is no longer a 
licensed agent within the agency of record to perform the agent duties. 
2. Ownership of policy is transferred to another agent and/or agency 
after the Sales Closing Date. The transfer must be completed by the 
Acreage Reporting Date, and a producer may not change insurance 
company, crops, coverage levels, options, or any elections with a Sales 
Closing Date deadline that was already elected by the Sales Closing 
Date?
    What are the procedures if a crop insurance agent can no longer 
perform the duties required and/or the agency is dissolved after the 
Sales Closing Date?
    Answer. RMA has procedures in place to address extenuating 
circumstances. Our staff is glad to look into more details on these 
particular scenarios.

    Question 11. Mr. Secretary, several disease prevention and 
preparedness programs at USDA continue to be understaffed and under 
resourced, and the emergence of African Swine Fever in our hemisphere 
highlights the gap that can be left when these programs are not 
adequately funded. How is USDA strengthening surveillance capabilities 
to stop the potential introduction of foreign and emerging diseases?
    Answer. Prevention and preparedness are essential to keeping 
foreign animal diseases out of the country and those efforts are 
invaluable to protecting and enhancing markets for U.S. livestock 
producers. The U.S. has the strongest animal disease surveillance in 
the world, and it proved to be invaluable to us during this year's 
outbreak of highly pathogenic avian influenza. The early warning we 
received from the wild bird surveillance sounded the alarm and allowed 
us, working with our state and industry partners, to get the word out 
about the importance of hardening biosecurity on farms. We saw very 
little lateral, farm-to-farm spread because of the increased attention 
to biosecurity and the extra time and attention that wild bird 
surveillance bought us. With respect to African swine fever, it was 
actually our surveillance efforts that identified the disease in the 
Dominican Republic, as part of an existing, international cooperative 
surveillance program. That surveillance has allowed us to take all the 
additional steps we have to protect U.S. producers and to continue to 
keep the deadly disease out of the country.
    Additionally, on July 15, USDA announced updates to our Swine 
Hemorrhagic Fevers: African and Classical Swine Fevers Integrated 
Surveillance Plan to reflect additional measures put in place over the 
last year.
Questions Submitted by Hon. James R. Baird, a Representative in 
        Congress from Indiana
    Question 1. Trade is a critical component of the U.S. Ag economy, 
and foundation of many current agricultural markets. Though, to date, 
President Biden has yet to name a nominee to the still-vacant post for 
the Under Secretary for Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs.
    What is the status of filling this important position?
    Answer. USDA is pleased that the President nominated Alexis Taylor 
for this important position. Alexis has dedicated her life to public 
service. Her nomination builds upon USDA's commitment to link U.S. 
agriculture to the world to enhance export opportunities for American 
farmers and producers and increase global food security. She is the 
right person to lead the Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs mission 
area as we continue to address global food security, promote American 
exports across the globe and strengthen trade relationships with our 
global partners. We look forward to her swift confirmation by the 
United States Senate.

    Question 1a. In the absence of this Under Secretary, what effort is 
the Department making to grow and develop new trade relationships?
    Answer. USDA is working closely with USTR to identify non-tariff 
agricultural trade barriers we can address through the Indo-Pacific 
Economic Framework, one of President Biden's signature foreign policy 
initiatives. Complimenting USDA's work to reduce barriers, USDA has 
resumed in-person agribusiness trade missions, USA pavilions at 
international trade shows and continues to creatively use virtual trade 
events targeted at specific products to grow and develop new trade 
relationships. These efforts are designed to directly connect U.S. 
agriculture and food producers with buyers from around the world.

    Question 1b. How are we doing at enforcing our current agreements 
and improving the trade portion of the supply chain crisis crippling 
our nation?
    Answer. USDA is committed to ensuring our trading partners fulfill 
the obligations they undertake in trade agreements with the United 
States. We engage bilaterally and multilaterally, as appropriate. The 
Foreign Agricultural Service works with regulatory agencies and the 
Office of the Trade Representative to continue to press trading 
partners in key markets to adhere to their World Trade Organization 
commitments based on sound science, international standards, and the 
principal of equivalence to help retain access to key markets around 
the world. USDA efforts have borne fruit; our agricultural exports 
continue to grow. The United States exported a record $176.5 billion of 
agricultural products in 2021, a 27 percent increase from 2016.
    Regarding the supply chain, USDA continues to work with industry 
partners throughout the supply chain to relieve the disruption created 
by the COVID-19 pandemic and address the specific challenges 
agricultural producers are facing along the supply chain. As Secretary, 
I have spoken one-on-one with the executives of five major ocean 
carriers to press them on continuing concerns about service and 
availability raised by agricultural exporters, and I encouraged greater 
cooperation with agricultural export efforts, including committing to 
providing needed empty containers. In addition, USDA formed 
partnerships with several ports as part of the Administration's Supply 
Chain Task Force efforts with state and local governments. USDA 
recently announced plans to increase capacity for exporting chilled and 
frozen agricultural commodities at the Port of Houston in Houston, 
Texas, to help improve service for shippers of U.S. grown agricultural 
commodities. In addition, USDA is exploring expansion opportunities for 
its ongoing partnerships with the Port of Oakland, the Port of Seattle, 
and the Port of Tacoma to set up additional ``pop up'' sites which will 
make it easier for agricultural companies to fill empty shipping 
containers. Furthermore, USDA is accepting applications for the 
Commodity Container Assistance Program (CCAP) which provides per-
container payments to help cover additional logistics costs and ensure 
that American-grown products can once again move efficiently through 
supply chains to global markets.

    Question 2. The pandemic has been tough on the entire U.S. economy, 
and our farmers and ranchers are certainly no exception, which is why 
Congress and the last two Administrations have all worked to develop 
pandemic assistance programs for producers.
    I've heard comments and concerns recently from constituents in 
regard to delays and shortcomings in the pandemic assistance programs 
such as a continual delay in the Spot Market Hog Pandemic Program, and 
payment reductions in programs like the Timber Harvesters and Haulers 
Program, among several others.
    Why have programs like the SMHPP been stalled, and when can my 
constituents expect to receive the support they've been promised?
    Answer. FSA paused SMHPP payments when applications far outpaced 
the estimates that had been used to set up the program. The pause in 
payments allowed the Agency to work with stakeholders to better define 
which sales would constitute spot market sales and qualify for the 
program. On March 18, 2022, USDA published a revised SMHPP NOFA to 
clarify hog eligibility (including expanded direct and third party 
intermediary sales, documentation requirements, and payment factoring. 
Due to producer confusion related to the eligibility of sales and 
related supporting documentation, FSA included a provision requiring 
all producers to provide verifiable or reliable documentation of their 
eligibility of sales to confirm SMHPP payment eligibility and to 
prevent erroneous payments.
    Once FSA County Committees had finished considering SMHPP 
applications, we had to decide whether to apply a payment factor or add 
funding to the original $50 million allotted from Pandemic funding. We 
decided to not factor the payments and producers received the full $54 
payment per hog. The total ended up at $62.8 million.

    Question 2a. For programs like the Timber Harvester and Hauler 
program that have run out of money, how was total demand anticipated? 
Does the Department anticipate making additional funds available for 
this program?
    Answer. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, provided up to 
$200 million for PATHH. FSA collaborated with the U.S. Forest Service 
to assess program subscription and determine eligibility. While 
administering the program, it became evident that subscription far 
exceeded initial estimates on interest and the funding available. 
However, since the $200 million for PATHH was legislatively prescribed 
in the CAA, any subsequent funding would require additional 
appropriations.
    Consistent with Congressional direction and leveraging 
administrative authorities and flexibilities, USDA continues to deliver 
programs and program modifications to fill gaps in previous rounds of 
pandemic assistance and help underserved and small and medium sized 
producers that need support most.

    Question 3. Last fall, Representative Plaskett and I sent a 
bipartisan letter signed by 37 Members of this Committee to you and FDA 
acting administrator Janet Woodcock, urging the Administration to make 
progress on implementing a more efficient, science and risk-based 
regulatory system that will allow a path to market for animal 
biotechnology products.
    Recognizing the connection between human, animal, and environmental 
health, animal biotechnology can help us advance one health objectives 
by mitigating and preventing zoonotic diseases. These technologies can 
help maintain U.S. producers' competitiveness in the global market by 
helping reduce methane emissions from livestock and resilience to 
extreme heat.
    USDA needs to take the lead in developing the regulatory framework 
for animal biotechnology that encourages agricultural innovation, 
provides access to valuable new technologies to American livestock 
producers, and ensures food safety and security for consumers.
    What is the status of USDA's ANPR for animal biotechnology 
regulations?
    Answer. Through extensive stakeholder outreach, including through 
our ANPR in 2021, we learned that all stakeholders seek clarity, 
transparency, and finality regarding oversight of agricultural animal 
biotechnology. USDA continues to engage with our interagency partners 
to ensure that the United States continues to be a leader on this 
important technology.

    Question 3a. What discussions have been had between USDA and FDA 
and within the Administration to create a workable regulatory framework 
for animal biotechnology?
    Answer. USDA staff are working with their counterparts in FDA to 
enhance understanding of each other's regulatory authorities and 
processes. Both USDA and FDA have skills that are relevant for animal 
biotechnology, and we must coordinate effectively regardless of who 
leads. USDA's experts are integral to every aspect of livestock 
production, from research to trade, including protection of herd 
health, animal health, and food safety. We know that all stakeholders 
seek clarity, transparency, and finality regarding oversight of 
agricultural animal biotechnology and we are committed to delivering a 
predictable, transparent, and science-based regulatory process.

    Question 4. Similar to the framework stifling animal biotechnology 
innovation, regulatory hurdles are also preventing FDA's approval of 
innovative feed ingredients with forward leaning environmental 
benefits. As a result, we are falling behind our international 
competitors with access to these technologies. You yourself highlighted 
how beneficial these additives could be in helping to reduce 
agricultural methane emissions when you testified before the House Ag 
Appropriations subcommittee last April. Unfortunately, FDA's current 
policy, which has not been updated since 1998, places an undue approval 
burden on these products preventing companies from seeking approval in 
the U.S.
    How has USDA engaged with FDA to help modernize the agency's 
approval process so that U.S. farmers can have access to these feed 
additives to remain competitive in the global arena and reduce methane 
emissions?
    Answer. Regulatory approval for animal health products in the 
United States is divided between FDA, USDA, and the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA). USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection 
Service, Center for Veterinary Biologics (APHIS CVB) oversees the 
regulation of veterinary biologics; EPA oversees products deemed 
pesticides; FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine (FDA CVM) governs the 
regulation of pharmaceuticals and dietary supplements. USDA is 
available to consult with FDA as it carries out its responsibilities.
    In general, to receive drug approval from FDA CVM, the product's 
sponsor must file information on the drug's chemistry and composition, 
the proposed labeling, and evidence demonstrating three things (Meyer, 
2014).\5\ First, the drug must be effective in doing what it proposes 
to do on its label. Second, the sponsor must be able to consistently 
manufacture the product with good practices. Finally, the drug must be 
safe for the animal, the environment, and people, when used as directed 
on the label.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Editor's note: the origin of the citation is not listed; 
however, it is referenced in the Economic Research Service's report 
ERR-264, The U.S. and EU Animal Pharmaceutical Industries in the Age of 
Antibiotic Resistance (https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/
93179/err-264.pdf?v=961) The full reference (Meyer, S. 2014. ``Animal 
Health Market in the Bric Countries and Comparison of Its Regulatory 
Requirements for Veterinary Medicinal Products with EU Legislation.'' 
Master's Thesis), a master's thesis, is retained in Committee file and 
is available at: https://www.dgra.de/deutsch/studiengang/master-thesis/
2014-56710.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We note that in 2019, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration 
announced the approval of Experior, the first animal drug that when fed 
to beef cattle under specific conditions results in less ammonia gas 
released as a byproduct of their waste.

    Question 4a. If he's confirmed by the Senate, how will you engage 
with Dr. Califf in his role as FDA Commissioner to streamline the 
regulatory process in getting these technologies to market for our 
livestock producers?
    Answer. Where appropriate, USDA will work with FDA to share 
streamlining best practices from the veterinary biologics program and 
to support the consideration of feed additives that could reduce 
methane emissions. Enteric fermentation is a natural digestive process 
in animals where anaerobic microbial populations in the digestive tract 
ferment feed and produce methane. Ruminants have greater rates of 
enteric fermentation because of their unique digestive systems. Energy 
content and quantity of feed also affect the amount of methane 
produced, with lower quality and higher quantities of feed leading to 
greater emissions. Changes to diet composition and the use of feed 
additives can reduce methane emissions from enteric fermentation. In 
particular, increasing dietary fat, providing higher quality forage, 
increasing protein content of feed, increasing dry matter intake, and 
decreasing the forage-to-concentrate ratio can reduce emissions from 
enteric fermentation. Emerging research also is providing evidence that 
feed additives, such as tannins, monensin, and 3-Nitrooxypropanol 
(3NOP) reduce enteric emissions.

    Question 5. We recently learned that growers aren't finding out 
about those endangered Species Act restrictions on certain, specific 
herbicides until after those changes are finalized. By that point, it's 
too late for farmers to adjust because they have already purchased 
their seeds and herbicides for the year. This is obviously a problem.
    Can USDA work with EPA on this to ensure that, when EPA is 
considering new ESA restrictions on the use of certain herbicides, 
farmers are in the loop throughout the process and not kept in the dark 
until it's too late for them to do anything about it?
    Answer. Yes. USDA has, and will continue to, urge EPA to maintain 
early and open lines of communication with growers to ensure that all 
potentially affected stakeholders are aware of pending decisions.
    USDA submitted extensive comments on EPA's recent ESA Workplan to 
this effect and proposed several modifications to the workplan with a 
focus on ensuring that farmers have early and regular opportunities to 
be engaged in any ESA assessments for herbicides and other pesticides.
    In addition, USDA/OPMP will be actively involved in the Federal 
pilot mitigation effort that EPA announced in June. OPMP will provide a 
grower voice at the table and facilitate grower input into that 
process.

    Question 6. In 2020, nearly 25 million acres of dicamba-tolerant 
soybeans and 4\1/2\ million acres of dicamba-tolerant cotton were 
sprayed over the top with low-volatility dicamba formulations. If these 
dicamba formulations were to go off the market for any reason--and 
given the current supply chain pressures facing the herbicide market--
do you have any projections or thoughts on what the economic and 
agronomic impacts could be for farmers?
    Has the Department done any analysis on that?
    Answer. USDA has conducted some rough analyses of potential 
economic impacts from major use restrictions of existing dicamba over-
the-top product registrations, but these analyses are of limited 
utility because of the lack of public availability of reliable seed 
trait adoption data for herbicide-tolerant seeds.

    Question 6a. If not, could you work with us to have the Department 
perform such analysis?
    Answer. USDA would appreciate any support that can be provided to 
facilitate access to reliable and representative seed trait adoption 
data for herbicide-tolerant soybean and corn seeds. The best source of 
these data are the seed companies themselves. This information would 
allow OPMP to refine our rough analyses of potential impacts to U.S. 
agriculture from changes to over-the-top dicamba product registrations.

    Question 7. I share Secretary Vilsack's concern about the impact of 
increased input costs on American farmers and appreciate you discussing 
this concern before the Committee. That said, I've previously seen and 
heard comments you and your Department have made in regard to seed 
price increases as a significant contributor to this impact, and I 
wanted to share some data points that will help to provide some 
perspective to that point.
    First, Texas A&M released a report earlier this month examining how 
higher fertilizer prices will impact growers. In that report, Texas A&M 
found that fertilizer prices increased nearly 26% in 2021 and can be 
expected to increase more than 13.5% this year. This is in stark 
contrast to the findings related to seed prices, which Texas A&M found 
slightly decreased (^0.24%) in 2021 and are projected to increase 3.3% 
this year.
    Additionally, it is worth noting that USDA's own Economic Research 
Service's data shows that seed prices remained fairly stable and 
actually declined slightly from 2014 to 2020.
    With this data in mind, I am curious to know what data the 
Administration is relying upon in forming its conclusions that seed 
prices have substantially increased.
    Additionally, I understand that the Department plans to undertake 
an investigation into seed prices.
    What data the Administration is relying upon in forming its 
conclusions that seed prices have substantially increased?
    Answer. As directed under Executive Order 14036, Promoting 
Competition in America's Economy, issued in July 2021, USDA is 
conducting a study on issues of concern in competition and intellectual 
property, covering seeds and other inputs. To gather information and 
input from the public, USDA published in March 2022 a Request for 
Information (RFI). A wide range of relevant stakeholders, including 
academics, industry participants, plant breeders, and others, have 
submitted comments, and we are currently reviewing those comments. We 
are also carefully reviewing all available academic analysis, including 
from both internal and external sources.

    Question 7a. If it is true that the Department plans undertake this 
investigation, what is the status of that investigation, and what 
methodology does the Department plan to utilize?
    Answer. As indicated above, USDA is conducting a study relying on 
available academic resources and input from the public. We expect to 
produce a published report in the coming months.

    Question 8. The Biden Administration has made clear throughout the 
past year that it prioritizes climate change mitigation as a primary 
objective. As I've said several times as a Member of this Committee, 
that I feel we have a real opportunity to turn climate change 
mitigation into a boon for rural America and our farmers and ranchers 
if we focus on opportunities and innovation instead of restrictions and 
onerous regulation.
    Unfortunately though, I am concerned that actions and statements by 
the Administration in regard to cutting blended biofuels, retroactively 
lowering Renewable Volume Obligations, and heavily subsidizing electric 
vehicles over biofuels that could cut GHG emissions by 46% today, are 
all steps in the wrong direction towards a goal of carbon reduction 
that benefits farmers and Rural America.
    With this in mind, do you think the Administration can expect to 
achieve their GHG reduction targets without increased use of biofuels?
    Answer. While the Administration has made new investments in 
electric vehicles and charging infrastructure, the Department continues 
to support the biofuels industry through its programs. Biofuels are 
important part of our plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For 
example, supporting the production of sustainable aviation has been a 
major priority for this Administration. While electric vehicles are 
also a part of the solution the bioeconomy will remain an essential and 
growing industry in our country.

    Question 8a. Are you aware of reports that the Administration may 
make further cuts to biofuel blending and do you agree that cutting 
biofuel blending would only serve to hurt rural economies, like those 
in my district?
    Answer. Implementation of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) falls 
under the jurisdiction of EPA.

    Question 9. Unfortunately for consumers and rural communities, the 
biofuels industry recently lost a court case which re-established an 
arbitrary EPA restriction on selling E15 during the summer months. For 
the past few years, retailers have been able to sell E15 during the 
driving season, providing a healthy economic boost to farmers and rural 
communities, while reducing emissions and, and lowering prices at the 
pump for consumers by 5-10 per gallon. Unfortunately though, this 
court decision puts all of these benefits at risk moving forward.
    Given the importance of having low-cost fuel options for consumers, 
and considering the investments this and previous Administrations have 
made into E15 infrastructure, what steps are you and the Administration 
taking to restore consumer access to E15 year-round?
    Answer. While the issue of year-round E15 ultimately falls outside 
of the Department's jurisdiction, we will soon make $100 million 
available in grants for higher blends fueling infrastructure to support 
demand for biofuels like E15. Biofuels are positioned to help reduce 
our dependence on foreign oil and bring down the price for consumers at 
the pump while supporting a critical market for commodities. For those 
reasons, USDA has and will continue to support the biofuels industry.

    Question 10. There are so many issues that are facing production 
agriculture and rural America, the supply chain, inflation, trade, 
rising input costs. However, instead of addressing these, you spent a 
significant portion of your testimony focused on a new, unauthorized, 
$1 billion ``pilot'' to build out a climate-smart commodity program. We 
already have many great conservation programs developed with bipartisan 
support, that were debated and authorized by Congress. With that in 
mind, I and others have concern with your efforts to act unilaterally 
on a program your Department has created off the cuff using CCC funds 
that I'm not sure rural America wants or that this Congress would 
authorize.
    Answer. Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities is complementary 
to, through distinct from our existing set of conservation programs and 
tools. Early adopters (those who have already applied some climate-
smart practices) are eligible and encouraged to be part of the pilot 
projects. Federal funds under this funding opportunity may not be used 
to pay for implementation of the same practice on the same land. 
Generally, if a practice has (or had) a Federal contract and is still 
within the project lifespan, then that specific practice on that 
specific land will not be paid for again; however, an enhancement to 
that practice or practices implemented on other areas of the farm are 
acceptable. Payments to further incentivize the climate-smart commodity 
generated are also acceptable.
    Demand for this new program was extremely high and USDA is 
currently reviewing $20 billion worth of proposals for Partnerships for 
Climate-Smart Commodities.
    USDA will continue to support the demand from producers for 
climate-smart agriculture through our existing set of conservation 
programs as well as through Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities.

    Question 10a. My understanding, is that the lawyers at the 
Department have had to spend many hours looking at your CCC authorities 
in this regard. If the lawyers have given you the green light, this 
Committee would like to see that reasoning on paper. If there is any 
question on the matter, then this Committee would like to be made 
abreast of that decision-making prior to you acting on it. Either way, 
we need to hear from you prior to any funds being obligated for these 
alleged purposes.
    Can you please provide this information to the entire Committee, 
and will you commit to sharing similar information with the entire 
Committee in the future?
    Answer. Section 5 of the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter 
provides authorities to ``make available materials and facilities 
required in connection with the production and marketing of 
agricultural commodities (other than tobacco)'' and ``increase the 
domestic consumption of agricultural commodities (other than tobacco) 
by expanding or aiding in the expansion of domestic markets or by 
developing or aiding in the development of new and additional markets, 
marketing facilities, and uses for such commodities.''

    Question 11. The Department has said many times, including in the 
Thrifty Food Plan Report, that the increased benefits would support a 
healthy diet. As a matter of fact, the word healthy appears 108 times 
across the 125 page report. Yet, there seems to be little to no 
research to support such a claim, as learned across briefings and 
correspondence at the staff level.
    How can we ensure that the Food and Nutrition Service conducts 
research--under the funding and authority had through the annual 
Research and Evaluation plan--on whether this increase will lead to 
healthier eating, healthier purchases, and healthier outcomes?
    Answer. The FNS Research and Evaluation Plan for FY 2023 will 
include studies to determine the impact of the TFP reevaluation on SNAP 
participants. Studies under consideration include field tests with SNAP 
participants to assess their understanding of the Dietary Guidelines 
and how they factor into shopping patterns, variations in shopping 
patterns across regions and in urban compared to rural areas, and other 
studies to examine how the TFP market baskets translate into real-life 
shopping experiences for SNAP participants.

    Question 12. Innovations in engineered microorganisms can create 
breakthrough systems to unlock the potential for biology and transform 
all industries.
    In agriculture, it has the power to build a future to make foods 
that are sustainable. For example, legumes, such as soybeans and peas, 
already use bacteria to ``fix'' nitrogen in precisely this way. By 
creating microbes that do the same for major cereal crops like corn, we 
can reduce the need for fertilizer, slashing greenhouse gas emissions 
in the process.
    However, these breakthroughs are dependent on a clear, timely, and 
science-based regulatory approval process that provides a viable path 
to market.
    While the SECURE rule helped streamline the deployment of 
innovative plant technologies, it has created uncertainty for microbial 
technology.
    When will USDA develop and issue guidance for non-plant GE 
organisms potentially subject to regulation under Part 340 and 
establish a regulatory pathway like GE plants under the SECURE rule?
    Answer. We know additional clarity and guidance is important to 
developers. By the end of this fiscal year, we intend to post on our 
website a comprehensive Frequently Asked Questions document that 
answers commonly asked questions from developers who work with modified 
microbes (i.e., microorganisms). During the first part of Fiscal Year 
2022, we plan to post a draft guide for working with modified microbes 
and will solicit feedback from developers on any remaining gaps in the 
guide or areas that require further clarity, and then we will finalize 
the document. With respect to establishing a regulatory review process 
that would allow developers to demonstrate their modified microbes 
should not be subject to regulatory oversight, establishing such a 
process will involve initiating a new rulemaking. We are in the very 
early planning phases and will ensure we engage with developers, as we 
did when developing the SECURE rule, before advancing any proposed 
rule.
    Given the strong interest in modified microbes, USDA routinely 
meets with developers to discuss the regulatory processes that apply to 
current and future products. Additionally, in early 2022, we partnered 
with the Innovative Genomics Institute and the Phytobiomes Alliance to 
lead a workshop on genetically engineered microorganisms, with 
presentations from each regulatory agency with oversight 
responsibilities for these innovative products. As a part of this 
workshop, regulators worked with developers to build case studies to 
help guide developers in navigating the regulatory framework for 
modified microbes.
    In addition, USDA is conducting outreach to assist developers in 
identifying clear pathways to market. For example, USDA partnered with 
the Innovative Genomics Institute and the Phytobiomes Alliance to lead 
a February 2022 workshop on genetically engineered microorganisms, with 
presentations from each regulatory agency with oversight 
responsibilities for these innovative products
Questions Submitted by Hon. Jim Hagedorn, a Representative in Congress 
        from Minnesota
    Question 1. Mr. Secretary, any time USDA is a party in a lawsuit, 
the Office of General Counsel submits a memorandum to the Solicitor 
General the recommended course of action, including whether to appeal a 
decision.
    Were you aware of the General Counsel's memorandum to the Solicitor 
General regarding United Food and Commercial Workers, et al. v. United 
States Department of Agriculture (March 31, 2021)?
    Answer. I am not going to address questions involving discussions 
of legal matters I may or may not have had with the attorneys of the 
Department.

    Question 1a. If you were aware of this memorandum, did you approve 
its recommendation before it was submitted to the Solicitor General?
    Answer. See answer above.

    Question 1b. Did USDA General Counsel recommend to the Solicitor 
General that USDA should not appeal the decision in United Food and 
Commercial Workers, et al. v. United States Department of Agriculture 
(March 31, 2021)?
    Answer. I am not going to address questions involving discussions 
of legal matters between the attorneys of the USDA Office of the 
General Counsel and attorneys of the Department of Justice.

    Question 2. Mr. Secretary, when you appeared before the Committee 
in October 2021, you alluded to a potential time-limited waiver program 
for NSIS-eligible facilities to increase their line speeds. The details 
of such a program were announced in early November 2021, and facilities 
were invited to apply at that time.
    Why has FSIS not approved outstanding applications for processing 
facilities to enroll in the time-limited waiver program?
    Answer. As described in a November 11, 2021, letter from FSIS to 
all New Swine Inspection System (NSIS) establishments, FSIS is 
reviewing the food safety support in each application received and 
coordinating with OSHA for its review of worker safety support.

    Question 2a. Can you explicitly detail the responsibility sharing 
for FSIS and OSHA?
    Answer. FSIS reviews each establishment's application to determine 
if the establishment has: operated under the NSIS for at least 120 days 
and followed all NSIS requirements during that time; demonstrated a 
history of regulatory compliance (i.e., the establishment has not 
received a public health alert for the last 120 days); not had an 
enforcement action as a result of a Food Safety Assessment conducted in 
the last 120 days; not received an enforcement action for humane 
handling in the last 120 days; and not been the subject of a public 
health related enforcement action in the last 120 days. After FSIS 
determines that the establishment meets FSIS' standards for food safety 
and humane handling, a team from OSHA reviews worker safety aspects of 
the application. More specifically, OSHA's team determines whether the 
establishment has received an OSHA citation in the past 3 years, is 
subject to a current OSHA inspection, and is currently contesting any 
OSHA citations. OSHA makes a recommendation regarding whether an 
establishment meets the worker-safety requirements but the ultimate 
decision on whether to grant a ``time-limited trial'' is made by FSIS.

    Question 3. Mr. Secretary, the ReConnect Round 3 Funding 
Opportunity Announcement (FOA) awards 15 points to applicants that are 
local governments, nonprofits, or co-ops, though RUS has worked with 
for-profit commercial rural telcos for decades, and dozens of small, 
commercial companies have already won ReConnect awards in Rounds 1 and 
2. One example is Harmony Telephone Company, a small commercial company 
in my district that is currently putting a ReConnect award to work to 
improve broadband service in southern Minnesota.
    If a local government and a community-based commercial broadband 
provider both apply for ReConnect Round 3 to serve the same area and 
the only difference between the two is that one provider is a local 
government and the other is a commercial company, wouldn't it be true 
that the local government would win solely because of the preference 
for local governments?
    Answer. The agency's experience in Round 3 was that this 
hypothetical situation did not occur. There were a variety of 
applicants that applied in the same geographic area, but none of those 
overlapping projects were decided based on this singular scoring 
criteria. The method for scoring is reviewed each time a new round of 
funding is made available, and the method has seen changes in each 
round of funding. Those changes reflect the Agency's commitment to 
ensuring the Program operates in ways that best serves the needs of 
rural America and brings every potential partner to serve rural 
communities

    Question 3a. Given their track record, commitment to rural America, 
and history of working with RUS, why put small commercial rural 
broadband providers such as Harmony Telephone at a disadvantage in 
competing for ReConnect awards solely due to how they are organized?
    Answer. The ReConnect Program was developed to be fair to all 
applicants. Although some criteria or requirements may favor one entity 
type over another, ReConnect should be considered from a holistic view 
where all aspects of the program are taken into consideration. Once all 
the entities that will be receiving a Round 3 award are announced, the 
Agency will complete an analysis of the entities that received the 
awards against the requirements/scoring of Round 3.

    Question 3b. Will you commit to making the necessary adjustments, 
both now and in future FOAs, to ensuring that rural broadband providers 
can compete for ReConnect awards on an even playing field, regardless 
of their corporate form?
    Answer. The ReConnect program regulation, 7 CFR 1740, outlines 
which entities are eligible to apply for ReConnect funding. 
Additionally, the application scoring criteria and other requirements 
are updated for each round of funding and are outlined in the Funding 
Opportunity Announcement (FOA). At the conclusion of each round, the 
types of entities that received an award, the areas that receive 
funding, and other factors are considered in preparation of the next 
FOA.
    In the fourth round of ReConnect funding, applicants could request 
points if the entity is a local government, nonprofit, cooperative, or 
public-private partnership where the applicant is one of these three 
entities. This scoring criteria is used to encourage these types of 
entities to apply for the program. Applicants are not required to be a 
nonprofit, local government, or cooperative in order to apply for the 
program or receive an award. This is just one of ten ways an applicant 
can receive points in a competitive application. The fourth and current 
round of ReConnect also offers points for applications that propose to 
serve the least dense rural areas (25 points), that connect areas 
without access to 25 Mbps downstream and 3 Mbps upstream (25 points), 
as well those that will serve areas with a high economic need (20 
points). At least 70 out of 175 possible points will go to applications 
that prioritize the most unserved rural communities.

    Question 4. Mr. Secretary, recently the daily pork cutout report--
USDA PK 602--has been extremely volatile, particularly in the ham 
sector. Over the past year, the makeup of the Chicago Mercantile 
Exchange (CME) cash index has gone from being made up of 40% cutout and 
60% cash to the exact opposite.
    Can you explicitly detail how the PK 602 report is being 
calculated?
    Answer. The National Daily Pork Report FOB Plant--Negotiated Sales, 
LM_PK602, is released daily at 3 p.m. CST. This report features 
negotiated sales, meaning the price is determined by seller-buyer 
interaction and agreement, with delivery scheduled for no more than 14 
days for boxed product and 10 days for combo product after the date of 
the agreement. The product represented on the LM_PK602 report is for 
sales in the previous 24 hour period, with delivery in the United 
States or Mexico/Canada.
    The carcass and primal values reported on the LM_PK602 report are 
derived from a series of calculations using the prices of sub-primal 
cuts and industry-average cut yields. In the first step, the sub-primal 
cuts are used to determine a primal value. A value for each component 
is determined by multiplying its individual value by its yield factor. 
This must be done for each of the cutting styles for the primal. Next, 
the overall primal value is calculated by combining the various cutting 
style values based on the volumes reported for the specific day. Once 
the primal value has been calculated, the value is converted from a 
``trimmed'' primal value to an untrimmed, or commodity, primal value. 
Lastly, the untrimmed primal values are combined, along with the four 
individual carcass parts (jowl, hind feet, front feet, and neckbones) 
to create the composite pork carcass cutout value (PCC) for the day. 
The PCC is an estimated value of a standardized pork carcass (55-56% 
lean, 215 lbs.) based upon industry average cut yields and average 
market prices of sub-primal pork cuts.
    For more specific information and detailed examples of the LM_PK602 
calculation, please refer to A User's Guide to USDA's Pork Carcass 
Cutout: https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/
LMRPorkCutoutHandout.pdf.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Editor's note: the referenced documents are retained in 
Committee file.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For more information regarding LMR Pork Reports, please refer to A 
User's Guide to USDA's LMR Pork Reports: https://www.ams.usda.gov/
sites/default/files/media/LMRPorkPriceReportsHandout.pdf.\6\
    As for the ham primal and its recent volatility, this is generally 
due to the large price spread between bone-in and boneless items and 
the volume that is reported for each on a given day. Generally, 
whenever there is a greater volume of bone-in items, the cutout will 
move lower and whenever there is an influx of boneless items, the 
cutout will move higher. This is because boneless items require more 
input costs, such as labor. Bone-in and boneless hams do not always 
trade equitably from day-to-day so a higher percentage of trading of 
either on a given day can pull the cutout in a different direction, 
making it appear volatile. In the past couple of years, plants have 
shifted to more bone-in items, as labor shortages have been prevalent. 
Therefore, boneless items are produced on an infrequent basis and trade 
at a higher price level causing more volatility.
    The CME cash index is regulated by the CME Group. Although our data 
feeds the index, this is a calculation maintained outside of USDA/AMS; 
therefore, we cannot speak to the index and how its components are made 
up. For more information, please refer to the CME Lean Hog Futures 
Rulebook: https://www.cmegroup.com/content/dam/cmegroup/rulebook/CME/
II/150/152/152.pdf and the Overview of CME Lean Hog Index and Lean Hog 
Futures: https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/
AnneKrema_CMELeanHogOverview.pdf.\6\
Questions Submitted by Hon. Troy Balderson, a Representative in 
        Congress from Ohio
    Question 1. The Federal Government already operates many broadband 
connectivity programs through the FCC, NTIA, and Treasury Department. 
Is the USDA collaborating with these agencies to ensure that funds are 
being distributed efficiently and not overlapping with existing 
programs? If so, can you elaborate on that collaboration and areas 
where it can be improved?
    Answer. USDA commits to working with all agencies that have 
broadband programs. This is demonstrated by our interagency agreement 
with NTIA, FCC and Treasury as well as our participation as a managing 
member for the American Broadband Initiative.

    Question 2. Last year, President Biden signed an Executive Order to 
conserve 30 percent of America's land by 2030. When I first joined this 
Committee, I asked an ag economist from the University of Illinois 
about their policy analysis and whether set-aside programs are an 
effective farm policy to help our environment, or if it sends a market 
signal for foreign competitors to plant more and seize U.S. market 
share. He specifically mentioned Brazil, saying: ``If they continue 
burning rainforests to plant soybeans, we have not helped anybody's 
situation much.''
    Does the USDA have any concern that the President's Executive Order 
will make American farmers less competitive, or if any environmental 
benefits will be offset by countries with fewer environmental 
protections increasing production to take over this market?
    Answer. U.S. farmers and ranchers produce agricultural commodities 
with relatively low GHG emission intensity relative to other countries. 
USDA uses an integrated approach that provides agricultural producers 
with financial resources and technical assistance through CSP and EQIP 
to deliver environmental benefits and mitigate GHG emissions, while 
also providing incentives to farmers who remove environmentally 
sensitive lands from agricultural production, improving water quality, 
reducing soil erosion, and increasing habitat for endangered and 
threatened species. Regarding America the Beautiful, we understand that 
efforts must be balanced to support both natural resource conservation 
and the productivity of America's agricultural and private forestry 
operations. We're here to support farmers/ranchers/forest landowners/
partners through incentivized voluntary conservation practices that 
work for individual landowners and communities and are effective, 
equitable, and enduring. We know many people are unsure about ``what 
counts'' as conserved land under this national conservation goal. 
Experts at USDA are part of a larger group working to define and report 
on this. While we have more to learn and share, we can say for sure 
that private working lands will be valued--and landowner rights 
respected--as we collaborate to conserve the lands and waters we all 
depend on.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Tracey Mann, a Representative in Congress 
        from Kansas
    Question 1. As you know, China failed to meet their commitment to 
the U.S. to purchase $73.9 billion in agricultural goods by $7 billion 
in a single year, and by $16 billion over the course of the entire 
agreement. How are you, Ambassador Tai, and President Biden taking 
immediate action to hold China accountable?
    Answer. We continue to engage regularly with our counterparts in 
the People's Republic of China (PRC) to resolve outstanding issues 
related to the Phase 1 Agreement. We note that, while PRC purchases 
fell short of expectations in 2021, it was still a record year for U.S. 
exports of agricultural products to the PRC. We exported nearly $33 
billion in agricultural products to the PRC last year, which is 
significantly more than we exported to any single other country.

    Question 2. How is the Administration working to develop a new, 
comprehensive, realistic deal with China to ensure American 
agricultural goods continue to be open to Chinese markets and that 
China's intentional limitation of their own exports doesn't happen 
again?
    Answer. USDA staff in Washington and in the PRC talk often with PRC 
officials with the goal of resolving outstanding trade issues. While 
concerns about PRC actions to restrict U.S. exports remain, it is 
important to note that the PRC is now the single largest export market 
for U.S. agricultural products. This is a marked turnaround from the 
trade wars of 2018 and 2019, when U.S. agricultural exports to the PRC 
fell to $9.2 billion and $13.9 billion, respectively. Only a couple 
years later, we export between two to three times that much to the PRC, 
which demonstrates that we have made significant progress, even if work 
remains to be done.

    Question 3. American commodity producers are operating at a clear 
disadvantage to not only China, but also to India, where the Indian 
Government is subsidizing more than half of the value of production for 
rice and wheat, instead of the 10% allowable under World Trade 
Organization rules. Last week, I authored a letter with Representative 
Crawford and 26 of our colleagues, urging you and Ambassador Tai to 
take action to reverse the trend of non-compliance by India. Can we 
count on you to initiate a WTO litigation process through a request for 
consultations?
    Answer. Thank you for your question regarding India's domestic 
support measures for wheat and rice, and for your continued engagement 
on this important matter. As mentioned in my letter of February 28, 
2022, I share your concerns about India's domestic support policies. 
USDA continues to work closely with USTR staff to consider all options 
available to ensure U.S. rice and wheat industries can compete in a 
fair, rules-based international trade environment. This includes the 
pending consultations (requested on May 13, 2022) by the United States 
and other WTO Members with India under the Bali Ministerial Decision on 
Public Stockholding for Food Security Purposes. The consultations will 
provide the United States an opportunity to seek additional information 
regarding India's domestic support policies and express U.S. concerns 
directly with India.

    Question 4. As this Committee begins to reauthorize a farm bill, do 
you support an increased investment to the Foreign Market Development 
program and Market Access Program?
    Answer. USDA has not made specific farm bill proposals for Congress 
to consider at this time. We look forward to working with Congress, 
partners, stakeholders, and the public to identify shared priorities 
for the 2023 Farm Bill and to ensure that the programs USDA implements 
will best serve all people. It is through this shared work that USDA 
can best deliver its mission to serve all Americans by providing 
effective, innovative, science-based public policy leadership in 
agriculture, food and nutrition, natural resource protection and 
management, rural development, and market development

    Question 5. In September 2021, you mentioned President Biden was in 
the final stages of vetting and nominating a USDA Under Secretary for 
Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs. What is the status for filling 
that position?
    Answer. USDA is pleased that the President nominated Alexis Taylor 
for this important position. Alexis has dedicated her life to public 
service. Her nomination builds upon USDA's commitment to link U.S. 
agriculture to the world to enhance export opportunities for American 
farmers and producers and increase global food security. She is the 
right person to lead the Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs mission 
area as we continue to address global food security, promote American 
exports across the globe and strengthen trade relationships with our 
global partners. We look forward to her swift confirmation as Under 
Secretary.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Randy Feenstra, a Representative in 
        Congress from Iowa
    Question 1. Mr. Secretary, during my questioning on the RUS 
ReConnect's recent preferential scoring treatment for local governments 
and nonprofits in their latest round of funding, you mentioned that 
other factors such as rurality should help offset any disadvantage 
commercial entities have in the scoring criteria. However, if all other 
scoring factors are considered equal and the only difference is that 
one applicant is a local government and the other is a family-owned, 
community-based broadband provider, wouldn't it be true that the local 
government would win solely because they're not a commercial entity?
    Answer. The agency's experience in Round 3 was that this 
hypothetical situation did not occur. There were a variety of 
applicants that applied in the same geographic area, but none of those 
overlapping projects were decided based on this singular scoring 
criteria. The method for scoring is reviewed each time a new round of 
funding is made available, and the method has seen changes in each 
round of funding. Those changes reflect the Agency's commitment to 
ensuring the Program operates in ways that best serves the needs of 
rural America and brings every potential partner to serve rural 
communities.

    Question 1a. Why has USDA has decided a local government, 
nonprofit, or cooperative is a more worthy recipient (even if only by 
15 points) of these ReConnect funds than any other small, Iowa 
community-based broadband provider with a proven reputation of serving 
their communities with fiber-based, future-proof broadband networks.
    Answer. The ReConnect Program was developed to be fair to all 
applicants. Although some criteria or requirements may favor one entity 
type over another, ReConnect should be considered from a holistic view 
where all aspects of the program are taken into consideration.
    The points for cooperative, nonprofits and government entities 
encourage these entities to submit an application. These types of 
entities take the earnings from the operation and put it back into 
broadband facilities that further expands broadband service into the 
rural areas. The scoring criteria can be modified anytime that a 
funding announcement is published. For each additional funding round, 
the Agency will evaluate the effectiveness of the criteria.

    Question 2. Mr. Secretary, last year your Department announced a 
$10 million initiative to quantify climate benefits of CRP contracts. 
Idling productive farmland sends a market signal to U.S. competitors to 
plant more acres or plant more aggressively and leads to practices 
abroad with negative environmental impacts. For example, on its way to 
becoming the world's largest exporter of soybeans and beef, Brazil's 
farmers have plowed under more than half of the largest savanna on the 
continent (the Cerrado).
    When quantifying climate benefits of land idling programs like CRP, 
are you going to factor in these increased carbon emissions that occur 
as our competitors increase production to seize U.S. market share?
    Answer. The acres that CRP targets are marginal and highly erodible 
cropland, and a considerable proportion of currently enrolled acres are 
in areas experiencing drought. For these reasons, production on those 
acres is typically marginal, and CRP enrollment causes minimal impacts 
to supply and subsequent impacts in global markets. While some 
stakeholders have pointed to changes in CRP as potential solutions to 
commodity supply constraints, allowing production on CRP acres will not 
have a significant impact on supply.
    CRP is an important tool in our nation's effort to reduce the worst 
impacts of climate change facing our farmers, ranchers, and forest 
landowners. In October 2021, USDA announced an investment of $10 
million in a new initiative to sample, measure, and monitor soil carbon 
on Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) acres to better quantify the 
climate outcomes of the program. USDA began implementing this 
initiative in the fall of 2021 with three partners, and that work is 
part of a broader, long-term soil carbon monitoring effort across 
agricultural lands that supports USDA's commitment to deliver climate 
solutions to agricultural producers and rural America through 
voluntary, incentive-based solutions.

    Question 2a. Will the Department similarly undertake an initiative 
to measure the climate benefits of working lands conservation programs 
like CSP and EQIP? Why not prioritize these working lands programs that 
derive environmental benefits while keeping land in production?
    Answer. U.S. farmers and ranchers produce agricultural commodities 
with relatively low GHG emission intensity relative to other countries. 
USDA uses an integrated approach that provides agricultural producers 
with financial resources and technical assistance through CSP and EQIP 
to deliver environmental benefits and mitigate GHG emissions, while 
also providing incentives to farmers who remove environmentally 
sensitive lands from agricultural production, improving water quality, 
reducing soil erosion, and increasing habitat for endangered and 
threatened species.

    Question 3. Mr. Secretary, as you well know sometimes the left hand 
doesn't know what the right hand is doing in government. With respect 
to fertilizer, the International Trade Commission and Department of 
Commerce place duties on nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium (NPK) 
which reduces market competition. Considering a limited supply of 
product, the Department of Justice must now step in to address market 
competition concerns. Is there a way to ensure that one Federal agency 
does not have to undue the unintended consequences of another Federal 
agency?
    Answer. The United States International Trade Commission (USITC) is 
an independent, nonpartisan, quasi-judicial Federal agency that 
coordinates with the Department of Commerce on actions related to anti-
dumping and countervailing duties. Such actions are triggered by 
petitions from the domestic industry. Recent fertilizer related actions 
by the USITC have been mixed, including countervailing duties on 
phosphate fertilizers from Morocco and Russia related to a 2020 
petition by the Mosaic Company (1) and a decision to not impose duties 
on urea ammonium nitrate solutions from Russia and Trinidad and Tobago 
related to a 2021 petition by CF Industries. (2) USDA and the 
Department of Commerce are members of the White House Supply Chain 
Disruptions Task Force, which has included coordination of issues such 
as fertilizer and USDA's efforts to support increased fertilizer 
capacity and assist producers to manage this resource that will 
ultimately help their bottom line. (3)[:] \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Editor's note: the referenced items are retained in Committee 
file.

  1.  https://www.trade.gov/faq/final-determinations-countervailing-
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            duty-investigations-phosphate-fertilizers-morocco-and

  2.  https://www.usitc.gov/press_room/news_release/2022/
            er0718ll1961.htm

  3.  https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/
            2022/05/11/fact-sheet-president-biden-announces-new-
            actions-to-address-putins-price-hike-make-food-more-
            affordable-and-lower-costs-for-farmers/
Questions Submitted by Hon. Mary E. Miller, a Representative in 
        Congress from Illinois
    Question 1. As you mentioned during the hearing, the Administration 
has proposed an increase of renewable fuel blended gallons in 2022. 
However, as you also know, that rule is not final. While they proposed 
an increase in future ethanol blends--which is simply returning them to 
statutory levels--they actually reduced blend requirements for 2021 and 
2022. So, while you may have thought your answer in response to the 
question I asked you in the hearing was clever or acceptable, my 
constituents and I found it deceiving.
    What exactly are you doing to help the President understand how 
misguided his biofuels policies are and how harmful they will be to 
Rural America?
    Answer. USDA has and will continue to make our bioeconomy a 
priority. During the pandemic, we provided $700 Million in relief 
funding to over 100 biofuels producers to ensure their continued 
prosperity, and prosperity of the rural communities who rely on 
biofuels manufacturers. With a record amount of volume in 2022, USDA 
expects continued growth in the sector, with opportunities in the 
aviation industry to more than double current demand for biofuels. 
Biofuels are and will remain an essential industry for rural prosperity 
and our energy infrastructure.

    Question 1a. Year-round ethanol blends of E15 were stopped this 
year, and the Administration has done nothing to make sure E15 year-
round blends continue. That policy will greatly impact the ethanol 
industry this year. So, I will ask you again:
    What exactly are you doing to help the President understand how 
misguided his biofuels policies are and how harmful they will be to 
Rural America?
    Answer. Implementation of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) falls 
under the jurisdiction of EPA.

    Question 2. As you mentioned in your testimony, the 2 year Phase 1 
deal with China--which officially ended on Jan. 1, 2022--included a 
commitment from China to buy an average of $40 billion per year in 
agricultural products. While we saw China vault back to being the No. 1 
customer for U.S. agricultural products, the totals did not hit China's 
commitments. China fell $13 billion below that total for 2020 ($27 
billion), and they will come in $3 billion short for 2021 ($37 
billion).
    Will you commit to encouraging the Administration hold China 
accountable for not meeting their purchasing requirements?
    Answer. Yes. We continue to engage regularly with PRC officials to 
resolve outstanding trade concerns. While work remains to be done, we 
have made significant progress over the last several years. While U.S. 
agricultural exports to the PRC fell to $9.2 billion in 2018 at the 
height of the trade war, they were up to nearly $33 billion in 2021, 
making the PRC our single largest agricultural export market

    Question 2a. What are the Administration's plans for Phase 2?
    Answer. We are still engaged in Phase One negotiations. We plan to 
finish Phase 1 negotiations before proceeding to Phase 2.

    Question 3. As you heard throughout the hearing, many are 
questioning the Biden Administration's efforts on trade, my 
constituents included.
    Why has there still not been an Under Secretary for Trade at USDA 
nominated after a year since the President took office?
    Answer. USDA is pleased that the President nominated Alexis Taylor 
for this important position. Alexis has dedicated her life to public 
service. Her nomination builds upon USDA's commitment to link U.S. 
agriculture to the world to enhance export opportunities for American 
farmers and producers and increase global food security. She is the 
right person to lead the Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs mission 
area as we continue to address global food security, promote American 
exports across the globe and strengthen trade relationships with our 
global partners. We look forward to her swift confirmation as by the 
United States Senate.

    Question 3a. What are you doing to promote the confirmation of a 
Chief Agriculture Negotiator for U.S. Trade Representative?
    Answer. USDA is pleased that the President nominate Doug McKalip 
for this important position. Doug is highly qualified and exceptionally 
capable of serving the American people as Chief Agricultural 
Negotiator. He has served as a key agriculture policy official for 
nearly 3 decades and has worked on every aspect of farming from soil 
conservation, and the supply chain to dealing with sensitive trade and 
national security matters. Doug has been a key member of the USDA team 
and his skills will serve him well as Chief Agricultural Negotiator for 
the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR). We look 
forward to the U.S. Senate confirming him at the earliest possible 
opportunity.

    Question 4. On January 2, 2022, Mexico's Government has issued a 
decree to phase out the use of both glyphosate and genetically modified 
corn for human consumption by 2024. President Andres Manuel Lopez 
Obrador announced that biosecurity authorities would ``revoke and 
refrain from granting permits for the release of genetically modified 
corn seeds into the environment.''
    While a total ban on the herbicide is still 3 years away, Federal 
departments will immediately abstain from ``purchasing, using, 
distributing, promoting and importing glyphosate or agrochemicals that 
contain it as an active ingredient.''
    This is especially concerning to corn growers in my district, as 
Mexico is the top buyer of U.S. corn, accounting for 25% of U.S. corn 
exports.
    Will you demand the Administration prevent Mexico from implementing 
their decree that bans glyphosate and the importation of GMO corn?
    Answer. USDA works every day in close cooperation with others in 
the Administration to ensure fair treatment of U.S. products by trading 
partners. That is especially true of our efforts to ensure Mexico 
follows a transparent and science-based approach in its treatment of 
products of agricultural biotechnology.

    Question 4a. What are you doing to ensure that--when corn is 
finally delivered to Mexico--our agricultural products are accepted by 
the Mexican Government?
    Answer. USDA and interagency partners continue to carefully monitor 
developments in Mexico, including at the border. To that end, we 
maintain frequent communication with stakeholders across the value 
chain and regularly stress to counterparts in Mexico the central 
importance of predictable, transparent trade flows.

    Question 5. I am concerned to hear that broadband funding has been 
used to overbuild existing broadband networks instead of bringing the 
benefits of broadband to unserved communities.
    Do you agree that the priority for broadband funding and programs 
at the USDA needs to be on unserved areas, those currently without 
broadband?
    Answer. USDA understands that unserved and underserved communities 
face hardships and we see both areas as priority. Unserved areas may 
lack service because of the costs associated with expanding service and 
our programs seek to support those financial needs. Underserved areas 
may have some access to broadband, but it could be of lower speeds 
which do not support the level of service families need for work or 
school, to access healthcare, or for communities to seek out economic 
development opportunities. Various laws and regulations require us to 
consider applications submitted through our programs for underserved 
areas just as we must consider those applications from unserved areas. 
Each type of area faces unique challenges and USDA is committed to 
doing all we can for these communities.

    Question 5a. Will you commit to working with the other 13 agencies 
that are responsible for implementing 66 different broadband programs?
    Answer. Yes, USDA commits to working with all agencies that have 
broadband programs. This is demonstrated by our interagency agreement 
with NTIA, FCC and Treasury as well as our participation as a managing 
member for the American Broadband Initiative.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Kat Cammack, a Representative in Congress 
        from Florida
    Question 1. Since the beginning of this Administration and a new 
Congress, there has been a war on work in America like none we've seen 
in our recent history. Policy after policy, not just in the food stamp 
program, but in programs like unemployment, Medicaid, advance child tax 
credit payments, and others--have been paying Americans more to stay 
home than to work a good paying job. Yet there remain over ten million 
open jobs in this country, just waiting for good workers to return. 
Specifically, work requirements for able-bodied adults without 
dependents (ABAWDs), which are required by law to receive food stamp 
benefits, have been suspended entirely since the pandemic began. For 
ABAWDs there is absolutely no excuse for them to not be searching for 
work.
    When President Biden finally decides to end the public health 
emergency, what will you do immediately to reinstate work and tracking 
requirements for ABAWDs?
    Answer. The Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (FNA) limits the time an 
able-bodied adult without dependents (ABAWD) can receive SNAP to 3 
months in any 36 month period unless the ABAWD meets certain work 
requirements or the ABAWD lives in an area in with an active waiver of 
the time limit (an ``ABAWD waiver''). Per statute, states can request 
and receive Federal approval for ABAWD waivers in areas with high 
unemployment or a lack of sufficient jobs. States decide whether to 
request to waive the ABAWD time limit and which geographic areas to 
include in the waiver, if any. States are not required to make a waiver 
request for qualifying areas. USDA reviews all ABAWD waiver requests, 
validates the supporting data, and approves requests for areas that 
meet regulatory standards codified at 7 CFR 273.24(f). USDA evaluates 
whether the data supporting the request meets the objective, 
quantitative regulatory standards.
    The Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA), which was 
enacted in March 2020, temporarily and partially suspended the time 
limit for ABAWDs through the end of the month subsequent to the month 
in which the Federal public health emergency (PHE) declaration based on 
COVID-19 ends. By law, this suspension is effective nationwide while 
the PHE remains active.
    When the PHE ends, ABAWD time limits and work requirements will 
again be in effect in any area without an active ABAWD waiver.
    USDA is actively engaging with state SNAP agencies to help them 
prepare to reinstate ABAWD requirements as required by law when the PHE 
ends. USDA has issued guidance, hosted webinars, and hosted regional 
calls to urge states to prepare as much as possible to reinstate the 
time limits when required. Specifically, USDA has strongly encouraged 
states to continue identifying and tracking ABAWDs, and communicating 
work requirements to ABAWDs, even during the temporary suspension, so 
that states are ready to implement the time limit as soon as the 
suspension ends. In addition, USDA continues to work with state SNAP 
Employment & Training (E&T) programs to connect them to effective 
workforce development practices through initiatives such as SNAP to 
Skills. FNS has worked with more than 27 states to help them improve 
their E&T programs and connect participants to jobs in their 
communities.

    Question 2. Can you please provide me with a detailed plan from the 
Department regarding how USDA plans to enforce a provider's 
``commitment to net neutrality'' based on the conditions for being 
awarded points under Round 3 of ReConnect?
    Answer. Applicants that request and obtain the priority points 
offered through a specific scoring criteria and subsequently receive an 
award, effectively agree to fulfill the obligation incorporated in that 
scoring criteria. USDA makes clear to awardees that breaching the 
requirements of the scoring criteria they selected is a serious 
material breach of their obligations to USDA. In such cases, the Agency 
has the legal option to enforce its covenants with awardees and may 
institute award suspension and debarment proceedings. If a complaint is 
filed with USDA concerning an awardee's violation of its agreement to 
USDA to follow net neutrality principles, the Agency will conduct a 
full investigation into the situation and take appropriate action.
                              attachment 1
Farms Under Threat_The State of America's Farmland


          Cover Image: Farmland and urban sprawl collide in Lompoc, 
        California. Aerial Archives/Alamy Stock Photo.
        
        
        
        
          Above: A new housing development encroaches on farmland. 
        Anywhere, USA.
About the Quotes in this Report
    Farms Under Threat: The State of America's Farmland honors two 
former chiefs of the USDA's Soil Conservation Service (now NRCS): Hugh 
Hammond Bennett, who led the soil conservation movement in the United 
States and was the first head of the agency; and Norm Berg, who worked 
with Bennett and rose through the ranks to serve as chief between 1979 
to 1982. After he retired, Berg served as a senior policy advisor to 
American Farmland Trust and the Soil and Water Conservation Society. To 
learn more about these influential voices, see www.nrcs.usda.gov 
(Bennett) and www.farmlandinfo.org/norm-berg-collection (Berg).

May 9, 2018

          ``Take care of the land and the land will take care of you . 
        . . .''
                  Soil conservation pioneer Hugh Hammond Bennett, 1947.


          A crop of onion grown for seed in Payette County, Idaho. 
        David R. Frazier Photolibrary, Inc./Alamy Stock Photo.
Acknowledgments
    Critical support from USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service 
(NRCS), the Sarah K. deCoizart TENTH Perpetual Trust, and American 
Farmland Trust's members, supporters, and Board of Directors made 
possible this analysis of the past losses of, and future threats to, 
America's farmland and ranchland. NRCS shared data and guidance, 
reviewed reports, and provided financial assistance through an AFT-NRCS 
Contribution Agreement 68-3A75-14-214. We also appreciate the guidance 
offered by our Advisory Committee and other external reviewers. 
Additional investments will help us continue these analyses, broadly 
distribute the results, and act to conserve our agricultural land for 
future generations.
About American Farmland Trust and Conservation Science Partners
    American Farmland Trust (AFT) is a nonprofit conservation 
organization founded in 1980 to protect farmland, promote sound farming 
practices, and keep farmers on the land. For more information, visit 
www.farmland.org/initiatives/farms-under-threat or our technical 
information center at www.farmlandinfo.org.
    Conservation Science Partners (CSP) is a nonprofit scientific 
collective established to meet the analytical and research needs of 
diverse stakeholders in conservation projects. More information is 
available online at www.csp-inc.org.

          Lead authors: A. Ann Sorensen, Julia Freedgood, Jennifer 
        Dempsey and David M. Theobald.
          Suggested citation: Sorensen, A.A., J. Freedgood, J. Dempsey 
        and D.M. Theobald. 2018. Farms Under Threat: The State of 
        America's Farmland. Washington, D.C.: American Farmland Trust.
          2018 American Farmland Trust.
Contents
Executive Summary
Key Findings
Key Recommendations
Introduction
What Is at Risk
Tracking the Status of Agricultural Land
Methods
Findings
Discussion
Recommended Actions
Future Farms Under Threat Releases and Analysis
References
Important Note on Data Revisions
May 2020
    Since releasing this report in May of 2018, new data and refined 
analyses have led American Farmland Trust (AFT) and Conservation 
Science Partners (CSP) to revise the reported estimate of agricultural 
land conversion. This revision only applies to the estimate of urban 
development. The original estimate of conversion to low-density 
residential land use is not being revised.
    The underlying cause of the issue is that one of our foundational 
datasets, the National Land Cover Database, used a different method to 
map roads for 2002 than it had for 1992. Using the raw data, this 
inconsistency would cause a very large overestimate of urban 
conversion. To avoid this, we applied a correction in the analysis 
process. Following this correction, we found that 16.3 million acres of 
agricultural land had been converted to urban development from 1992-
2002 (the first half of the report period). These results were peer 
reviewed before the report was published.
    However, in May of 2019, a key Federal dataset (NLCD 2016) was 
released with updates that enabled a major refinement in this 
correction. Using the new data and enhanced correction method, the 
analysis now shows that urban conversion between 1992 and 2002 was 
probably closer to 6.5 million acres. AFT and CSP wanted to share this 
revision to maintain transparency, even though the results in this 
report were based on the best data available at that time.
    More information on this revision is available in our white paper, 
``Revision to American Farmland Trust's Farms Under Threat: The State 
of America's Farmland: Improved data products enable more accurate 
estimates of urban conversion.'' [i]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \[i]\ https://farmlandinfo.org/publications/revision-to-farms-
under-threat-state-of-americas-farmland/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Our new report, Farms Under Threat: The State of the 
States,[ii] uses the newly released data to map conversion 
of agricultural land from 2001-2016. This timeframe was chosen because 
the underlying datasets were developed using consistent methods for 
both 2001 and 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \[ii]\ https://farmlandinfo.org/publications/farms-under-threat-
the-state-of-the-states/.


          A selection of lettuce varieties at Lane Farms in Santa 
        Barbara, California. Chuck Place/Alamy Stock Photo.
Executive Summary
With Key Findings and Recommendations
    The United States is blessed with a remarkably productive 
agricultural landscape. Cropland, pastureland, rangeland, and woodland 
support a regionally diverse food and farming system capable of 
ensuring domestic food security. Agricultural land contributes to state 
and local economies, supplies lucrative export markets, and bolsters 
the nation's balance of trade. These exceptional natural resources 
sustain valuable wildlife habitat, provide flood control and fire 
suppression, scenic views, and resources for hunting and fishing. This 
land also acts as an enormous carbon sink, drawing down carbon from the 
atmosphere, which helps combat climate change. By 2050, the demands on 
agriculture to provide sufficient food, fiber, and energy are expected 
to be 50 to 70 percent higher than they are now. Given a limited land 
area in the United States and the need to feed and house an increasing 
number of people, it is more important than ever to protect the 
agricultural land and natural resources needed for long-term 
sustainability.


          Beets in Inyo County, California. Inga Spence/Alamy Stock 
        Photo.

    This call for action is documented and reinforced by the findings 
of Farms Under Threat: The State of America's Farmland by American 
Farmland Trust (AFT). The report's research shows that between 1992 and 
2012, almost 31 million acres of agricultural land were irreversibly 
lost to development. That is nearly double the amount of conversion 
previously documented and is equivalent to losing most of Iowa or New 
York. As alarming, this loss included almost 11 million acres of the 
best land for intensive food and crop production. This is land where 
the soils, micro-climates, growing seasons, and water availability 
combine to allow intensive production with the fewest environmental 
impacts. These precious and irreplaceable resources comprise less than 
17 percent of the total land area in the continental United States. 
Their conversion was equivalent to losing most of California's Central 
Valley, an agricultural powerhouse.
U.S. Agriculture Relies on High-Quality Farmland


          Only 17 percent of the land in the continental U.S. is 
        agricultural land with the productivity, versatility, and 
        resiliency (PVR) to produce a wide variety of crops with 
        minimal environmental limitations.

    Over 20 years ago, AFT released the groundbreaking report, Farming 
on the Edge. This compelling study and extensive mapping gained global 
media attention by showing how sprawling development consumed America's 
highest quality farmland in critical regions across the country. Now, 
new threats to the nation's agricultural lands create a pressing need 
to update the old analyses and assess threats to America's agricultural 
land in the 21st century. Improvements in the availability of national 
data and models now enable AFT to more accurately track the scale and 
spatial location of the threat of development to the nation's 
agricultural land.\1\ They also make it possible to assign values to 
measure the land's productivity, versatility, and resilience. These 
advances make it possible for AFT not only to examine past conversion 
patterns but also to forecast future development patterns likely to 
occur without better land use planning and policy intervention.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Farms Under Threat defines agricultural land as cropland, 
pastureland, rangeland, and woodland associated with farms in the 
continental United States (48 states), excluding federally owned 
grazing land. This non-Federal agricultural land is called farmland and 
ranchland by the public. The analysis uses the USDA National Resources 
Inventory (NRI) definitions for cropland, pastureland, rangeland, and 
forestland.

          AFT's goal is to document the threats and offer policy 
        solutions to ensure the long-term protection and conservation 
        of agricultural land in the United States to sustain an 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        expanding population and maximize biodiversity.

    These analyses underpin Farms Under Threat, AFT's multi-year 
initiative to complete the most comprehensive assessment of the loss of 
U.S. farmland and ranchland ever undertaken, both past and future. 
AFT's goal is to document the threats and offer policy solutions to 
ensure the long-term protection and conservation of agricultural land 
in the United States to sustain an expanding population and protect 
biodiversity. This first report, Farms Under Threat: The State of 
America's Farmland, examines the nation's irreversible loss of 
agricultural land to development between 1992 and 2012. A subsequent 
report will analyze state-level data on past farmland conversion and 
the effectiveness of state-level farmland protection policies. In a 
third report, Farms Under Threat will assess a range of future threats, 
forecast potential impacts to 2040 and recommend effective policies 
that help conserve agricultural land.
    Farms Under Threat: The State of America's Farmland significantly 
improves the national inventory of agricultural land in multiple ways: 
(1) It maps and analyzes the extent of low-density residential 
development on agricultural land; (2) It identifies agricultural land 
based on its productivity, versatility, and resiliency to support 
intensive food and crop production (PVR values); (3) It includes a new 
class of agricultural land that estimates woodland associated with farm 
enterprises; (4) It maps grazing on Federal land; and (5) It shows the 
spatial patterns of agricultural land uses and conversion to 
development in a consistent way over time so that people can see the 
patterns of change.


          An Iowa soybean field. Design Pics Inc/Alamy.

    Assigning PVR values to agricultural land helps quantify the 
quality of the agricultural land converted by development. Land with 
lower PVR values has progressively greater limitations that restrict 
how it can be used and whether it can be cultivated. The land best 
suited for intensive food and crop production has much higher PVR 
values and is geographically limited to areas where the nation's soils, 
micro-climates, growing seasons, and water access combine to allow 
production with the fewest environmental impacts.
Key Findings \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ AFT is solely responsible for the conclusions and 
recommendations in this report. Although information from NRCS data 
comprises a major component of this analysis, the conclusions and 
recommendations are AFT's alone.


          New homes replace farmland in Dane County, Wisconsin. Bob 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Nichols/USDA NRCS.

   The U.S. converted almost 31 million acres of agricultural 
        land between 1992 and 2012. By including woodlands associated 
        with farms and low density residential development, this 
        analysis found nearly twice the conversion previously reported. 
        The loss is equivalent to developing most of Iowa or the entire 
        state of New York.

   Overall, development disproportionately occurred on 
        agricultural lands. More than 70 percent of urban development 
        and 62 percent of all development took place on agricultural 
        land. Expanding urban areas accounted for 59 percent of the 
        loss, including the commercial, industrial, transportation, and 
        high-density residential development which reflect the 
        expanding footprint of U.S. cities and towns. Low-density 
        residential development accounted for 41 percent of the loss 
        and included residential areas with houses built on 1 to 20 
        acre parcels and exurban homes on even larger lots that 
        effectively removed these properties from agricultural uses.

   Urban development favored cropland while low-density 
        residential development posed an equal threat to cropland and 
        pastureland. Urban development most frequently converted 
        cropland (41 percent) and lower percentages of pastureland 
        (25.9 percent), rangeland (23.8 percent), and woodland (9.3 
        percent). In contrast, low-density residential development 
        posed an equal threat to cropland and pastureland (34.5 percent 
        each) and favored woodland (19.9 percent) over rangeland (11.1 
        percent). For forestland, low-density residential development 
        presented a greater threat than urban development.

   The impact of these development patterns puts high quality 
        agricultural land at risk. The analysis assigned values to 
        reflect the productivity, versatility, and resiliency (PVR 
        value) of agricultural land for cultivation. As the PVR value 
        increased, fewer acres of land qualified. The analysis found 
        that the median PVR value of agricultural land lost to 
        development was 1.3 times higher than the median PVR value of 
        land that stayed in production. These cumulative and 
        irreversible losses of most productive, versatile, and 
        resilient lands have serious implications for agricultural 
        productivity and domestic food security.

   By 2012, the best land to support intensive food and crop 
        production had dropped to less than 17 percent of the total 
        land area in the continental United States. Only 324.1 million 
        acres of agricultural land had PVR values with the optimal soil 
        characteristics and growing conditions to support intensive 
        food and crop production with minimal environmental 
        limitations. This is slightly more than \1/3\ of agricultural 
        land.

   In less than one generation,\3\ the United States 
        irrevocably developed nearly 11 million acres of its best land 
        for intensive food and crop production. While a 3.2 percent 
        loss does not sound devastating, it is roughly equivalent to 
        losing one of the most productive growing regions in the United 
        States, California's Central Valley.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ A generation is considered to be about 25.5 years in length.

    Beyond food security and economic prosperity, well-managed 
agricultural land provides open space, recreational resources for 
activities like hunting and fishing, and critical ecological services 
such as wildlife habitat, carbon sequestration, groundwater recharge, 
and flood control. This incredible diversity provides the United States 
with invaluable options to help the nation optimize use of agricultural 
resources to sustain future generations.
Farmland Lost to Development, 1992-2012


          All farmland lost: almost 31 million acres (nearly equivalent 
        to the land mass of New York State).
        
        
          Some of our best farmland was irreversibly lost: almost 11 
        million acres (equivalent to 47% of the land mass of Indiana).

    It is time for the United States to recognize the strategic value 
of our agricultural land and step up our efforts to protect it. It is 
critical to balance the growing demands for energy, housing, 
transportation, and water to ensure our best agricultural land remains 
available for food and other crop production. Through thoughtful and 
carefully implemented land use and agricultural policies, the nation 
can protect farmland and strategically direct development away from 
critical agricultural resources while nourishing the land with 
conservation practices and helping the farmers and ranchers who manage 
this landscape to thrive.
Key Recommendations


          Ripe cranberries in Valley Junction, Wisconsin.
          Design Pics Inc./Alamy Stock Photo.

    Based on these national findings, AFT believes a bold and 
comprehensive national strategy is needed to save the land that 
sustains us, including:

   A dramatic increase in Federal investments in agricultural 
        land protection through the USDA Agricultural Conservation 
        Easement Program-Agricultural Land Easements (ACEP-ALE);

   Supporting and fully funding the USDA agencies and their 
        programs that provide unbiased information to help monitor 
        changes to U.S. agricultural resources, including the NRCS' 
        National Resources Inventory (NRI), the National Agricultural 
        Statistics Service's (NASS) Tenure, Ownership and Transfer of 
        Agricultural Land (TOTAL) survey, and the Economic Research 
        Service's (ERS) Major Land Uses reports; and

   Enacting a 21st century Federal agricultural land protection 
        platform to more effectively address the interconnected threats 
        to farmland from development, climate change, agricultural 
        viability, and farm succession.
Introduction


          Blend Images/Alamy Stock Photo

    The precious arable land that sustains life on Earth is a finite 
and irreplaceable resource that is under heavy stress. Less than six 
percent of the Earth's surface is suitable for agriculture and growing 
food. When climate, soils, and topography are factored into the 
equation, just over half of this land can be farmed without any 
physical constraints (FAO 2011). Over ten percent of the world's arable 
acres are in the United States.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Arable land is land capable of being farmed productively (i.e., 
being plowed or cultivated and used to grow crops).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The United States is blessed with a varied and extensive 
agricultural landscape comprised of cropland, pastureland, rangeland 
and woodland associated with farms, making agriculture a significant 
contributor to rural and urban economies. However, agricultural land, 
both domestically and globally, faces unprecedented challenges as the 
world's population continues to expand. By 2050, the demands on 
agriculture to provide the necessary food, fiber, and energy are 
expected to be 50 to 70 percent higher than they are now. To meet these 
demands, all countries must sustainably improve their agricultural 
productivity, protect their natural resources, and deal with changing 
weather patterns and the intensification of natural hazards (FAO 2011; 
FAO 2017).

          By 2050, the demands on agriculture to provide the necessary 
        food, fiber, and energy are expected to be 50 to 70 percent 
        higher than they are now.

    Because the United States is home to such a significant amount of 
the world's arable land, the protection of this resource is a national 
and global concern.

    Since our founding in 1980, AFT has been concerned about the loss 
of agricultural land. Over 20 years ago, AFT released the 
groundbreaking report Farming on the Edge to call attention to the 
sprawling development that consumes America's highest quality farmland 
in every state in the nation (Sorensen, et al., 1997). Farming on the 
Edge was a wake-up call about the impacts of farmland loss and the need 
to act to protect our agricultural land base from poorly planned 
development. The report led to policy action at the Federal, state, and 
local levels. While development slowed significantly during the 
recession from 2007 to 2012, it has rebounded with the strengthened 
economy. Recognizing the need to update AFT's old analyses and assess 
the threats to America's agricultural land in the 21st century, AFT 
launched its Farms Under Threat initiative, the most comprehensive and 
ambitious assessment ever undertaken of the status and threats to U.S. 
farmland and ranchland.


          California pastureland. Gbaldauf/Istockphoto.

    Farms Under Threat is a multi-year initiative to complete the most 
comprehensive assessment ever undertaken of the status and threats to 
U.S. farmland and ranchland. Its analyses underpin AFT's goal to 
document the threats to the nation's agricultural resources and offer 
policy solutions. The goal is to ensure the long-term protection and 
conservation of America's diverse agricultural landscape to support 
farmers and ranchers, sustain an expanding population, and maximize 
biodiversity.
    This report, Farms Under Threat: The State of America's Farmland, 
is the first in a series of analyses of past and future threats to 
America's agricultural land. AFT defines agricultural land as the non-
Federal cropland, pastureland, rangeland, and woodland associated with 
farms that is managed to support agricultural production. For the first 
time, data and models are available to spatially portray the extent, 
diversity, and quality of America's agricultural land and the threat of 
development. These tools make it possible to examine past conversion 
rates and map the scale and location of that development. Future Farms 
Under Threat assessments will analyze farmland conversion at the state 
level and the effectiveness of state policies to address it; study 
demographic shifts and the impending transition of agricultural land 
ownership; and use housing density and climate projections to forecast 
what could happen to the nation's agricultural land by 2040 if no 
actions are taken.
    AFT is working with Conservation Science Partners (CSP) to ensure 
these assessments are grounded in reliable data and strong science. 
This partnership is supported by the USDA's Natural Resources 
Conservation Service (NRCS). Additional guidance was provided by a 
national Advisory Committee, and NRCS shared data and reviewed findings 
and drafts of maps and reports.
What Is at Risk
Food in the Path of Development
          Metropolitan counties and adjacent areas supply the majority 
        of domestically produced:
        
        
    U.S. agricultural land supports state and local economies, 
significant export markets, and the nation's balance of trade. Locally, 
this agricultural land contributes to fiscal balance: as with other 
commercial land uses, the property taxes generated by agricultural land 
typically exceeds the expense of providing it with public services.\5\ 
Collectively, this land supports a regionally diverse food and farming 
system and contributes to a secure food supply. Fifteen percent of U.S. 
counties are classified as farming-dependent (in terms of jobs), and 
nearly 60 percent of the market value of U.S. farm production comes 
from metropolitan counties and adjacent areas.\6\ These counties supply 
91 percent of domestically sourced fruits, tree nuts, and berries; 77 
percent of vegetables and melons; 68 percent of dairy; and 55 percent 
of eggs and poultry. Farms in metropolitan counties often supply local 
and regional markets, making up 81 percent of food sold directly to 
consumers; 76 percent of community-supported-agriculture (CSA) farms; 
and 74 percent of farms selling directly to retail outlets.\7\ Fruits 
and vegetables often require unique soils and microclimates, access to 
water and labor, an existing infrastructure that has built up over time 
(e.g., farm equipment, storage, processing, and packing facilities, 
etc.), and markets to support production and sales (Plattner, et al., 
2014). The difficulty in moving production of these high-value crops 
elsewhere has likely kept producers from expanding production, even 
though domestic demand for fruit and vegetables now exceeds supply by 
203 percent and 164 percent, respectively (White and Hall 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ The median cost to provide public services for each dollar of 
revenue raised is $0.30 for business, $0.37 for agriculture, and $1.16 
for residential (www.farmlandinfo.org/costcommunity-services-studies).
    \6\ Analysis by AFT's Farmland Information Center (FIC) combines 
information from the 2012 Census of Agriculture with 2013 USDA Economic 
Research Service (ERS) Urban Influence Codes (UIC). ERS classifies 
counties into 12 groups. The FIC uses UICs 1-5 to identify the ``most 
urban'' counties. These 1,652 counties comprise 54 percent of U.S. 
counties.
    \7\ See AFT's ``Food in the Path of Development'' fact sheet: 
www.farmlandinfo.org/food-path-development-talking-points.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Agriculture, food and related industries contribute $992 billion 
(5.5 percent) to the U.S. GDP (USDA ERS 2015). Agriculture and its 
related industries provide 11 percent of U.S. employment. Many economic 
sectors rely on agricultural inputs, including forestry, fishing and 
related activities; food, beverages, and tobacco products; textiles, 
apparel, and leather products; food and beverage stores; and food 
service, eating, and drinking establishments. U.S. agricultural exports 
support output, employment, income, and purchasing power in both the 
farm and non-farm sectors, and each dollar of agricultural exports 
stimulates another $1.27 in business activity.
Agricultural Land Provides Benefits Beyond Food


    Agricultural land also plays a significant role in the nation's 
landscape and psyche. Along with food, fiber, and energy, Americans 
highly value the contributions that agricultural land makes to the 
environment and quality of life. Well-managed agricultural land 
provides open space and scenic views; biodiversity and wildlife 
habitat; and critical ecological services like fire suppression, 
floodplain management, and carbon sequestration (Heimlich and Krupa 
1994; Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development 2003; 
Hellerstein, et al., 2002; Farm Foundation 2004; Swinton, et al., 2007; 
Duke 2008; Freedgood and Fydenkez 2017). Agricultural land also 
supports rural lifestyles and recreational opportunities like hunting, 
fishing, and horseback riding. Many of the nation's agricultural 
regions are deeply important to U.S. heritage, such as the glacially 
borne wild blueberry barrens of Down East Maine; the wild rice region 
of the upper Great Lakes; New Mexico's Hatch Valley, known as the 
``chili pepper capital of the world''; and Michigan's Grand Traverse 
cherry region, which produces most of the nation's tart cherries 
(Hilchy 2008).
    As an added benefit, agricultural land can help stabilize and 
reduce future greenhouse gas emissions. Keeping land in agriculture and 
limiting low-density residential development can curb one of the 
largest sources of carbon emissions: transportation. Emerging studies 
show that the average greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from urban land 
uses are orders of magnitude higher than those from cropland 
(approximately 66-70 times higher per unit area) (Culman, et al., 2014; 
Shaffer and Thompson 2015; Arjomand and Haight 2017). In addition, GHG 
emissions from lower density, suburban-style developments account for 
roughly half of the GHG emissions in the United States (Jones and 
Kammen 2013). Although a full accounting of emissions benefits from 
protecting farmland will take more time, intact agricultural landscapes 
provide communities with future opportunities to further reduce 
emissions and sequester carbon in agricultural soils and vegetation 
(Culman, et al., 2014). Farmers and ranchers manage more than 1 billion 
acres of U.S. land, and agricultural practices that sequester carbon 
and improve soil health-increasing soil productivity, resiliency, and 
versatility--are the next frontier of agricultural innovation.

          ``We have been too wasteful too long in this country--indeed, 
        over most of the world. We had so much good land in the 
        beginning we thought the supply was limitless and 
        inexhaustible.''
                                            Hugh Hammond Bennett, 1943.
Tracking the Status of Agricultural Land


          A Colorado ranch during the Dust Bowl. USDA NRCS Archives.

    Since the 1930s, the USDA has closely monitored the conditions and 
threats to the nation's natural resources. The Dust Bowl of the 1930s 
in the Great Plains dramatically called attention to the dangers of 
severe drought and poor land management, leading to the establishment 
of the USDA Soil Conservation Service (SCS) in 1935, now NRCS (USDA 
1992). Since its founding, SCS/NRCS has periodically inventoried the 
nation's land and natural resources and, in 1975, released the 
Potential Cropland Study to examine the loss of the nation's best 
agricultural land to urban development (Schnepf and Flanagan 2016).
    The advent of NRCS' National Resources Inventory (NRI) in 1977 made 
it possible to track the conditions and trends of soil, water, and 
related resources. NRCS conducts this statistical survey of natural 
resource conditions and trends on non-Federal land in cooperation with 
Iowa State University's Center for Survey Statistics and Methodology. 
Among other attributes, the NRI tracks changes in land cover/use, which 
provides critical data on how much farmland is converted and other 
trends affecting the nation's strategic land and natural resources 
(Schnepf and Flanagan 2016). The precision of NRI statistical estimates 
vary with the number of samples involved in a particular inventory 
activity. Based on statistical area sampling, as opposed to full areal 
coverage, it is most applicable for monitoring state and national 
levels of gross land conversion (Lark, et al., 2017). The NRI currently 
releases state-level estimates to the public and is exploring ways to 
achieve statistical reliability for county-level sub-state estimates 
(Schnepf and Flanagan 2016). These periodic inventories remain the 
primary source of information about changes in land use in the United 
States. However, leveraging the NRI by mapping the patterns of land 
cover/use and trends over time provides powerful information to inform 
planning and decision-making at state, county, and municipal levels. 
The planners queried by AFT at the start of Farms Under Threat agreed 
that having access to spatial maps was important for planning purposes.
    The 1977 NRI data also became the primary data source for the 
National Agricultural Lands Study (NALS) undertaken by USDA in 1979 
(USDA and the President's Environmental Council 1981). When the NALS 
opted to use the 1977 NRI data on urban and built-up uses of land, it 
not only focused more national attention on the inventory work by SCS, 
but it also generated considerable controversy in academic circles over 
how much agricultural land was actually being converted to 
nonagricultural uses. This controversy led USDA to establish new 
procedures for identifying and recording urban and built-up areas that 
were incorporated into the 1982 NRI and subsequent sampling (Schnepf 
and Flanagan 2016). The findings in the NALS, along with a 
Congressional report that concluded Federal infrastructure grants and 
mortgage subsidies had led to wasteful farmland conversion (U.S. 
Congress 1980), prompted the passage of the Farmland Protection Policy 
Act (FPPA) as a subtitle in the 1981 Farm Bill.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Federal Farmland Protection: The Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA)
 
    Congress enacted the FPPA as a subtitle of the 1981 Farm Bill to
 minimize the impact that Federal programs have on the unnecessary and
 irreversible conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses. The FPPA
 stipulates that Federal programs be compatible with state, local, and
 private efforts to protect farmland. (For the purposes of the law,
 Federal programs include construction projects--such as highways,
 airports, dams, and Federal buildings--sponsored or financed in whole
 or part by the Federal Government, and the management of Federal land.)
 Federal agencies are required to develop and review their policies and
 procedures to implement the FPPA every 2 years. NRCS is charged with
 oversight of the FPPA (www.farmlandinfo.org/sites/default/files/FPPA_8-
 06_1.pdf).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the NRI, USDA monitors other trends that impact the 
nation's agricultural resources. The USDA Economic Research Service's 
(ERS) major land use estimates and related cropland series provide a 
comprehensive accounting of all major uses of public and private land 
in the United States (www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/major-land-uses). 
Every 5 years, the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service's 
(NASS) Census of Agriculture does a complete count of U.S. farms and 
ranches, providing information about land use and ownership, ownership 
characteristics, production practices, income, and expenditures 
(www.agcensus.usda.gov). In 2014, ERS and NASS completed the Tenure, 
Ownership and Transfer of Agricultural Land (TOTAL) survey, the first 
survey since 1999 to focus solely on the ownership and transfer of 
agricultural land (Bigelow, et al., 2016). TOTAL provided invaluable 
information about agricultural land ownership and otherwise unavailable 
data on agricultural landlords. All of this critical information helps 
USDA evaluate the status of the nation's soil, water, and related 
resources on non-Federal land every 10 years as required by the 1977 
Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act (RCA). RCA appraisals assess 
the capacity of the nation's resources to meet present and future 
demands and play a key role in shaping conservation strategies, but 
they are scheduled to terminate on December 31, 2018 
(www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/rca/national/technical/nra/rca/ida).


          The Sneffels Range in Ridgeway, Colorado. Pat & Chuck 
        Blackley/Alamy Stock Photo.

    Both NRI and RCA appraisals indicate the United States is 
developing its more productive agricultural land at a disproportionate 
rate. AFT identified the same trend when it documented the relationship 
between highly productive farmland, land development trends, and 
farmland loss over 20 years ago (Sorensen, et al., 1997). The need to 
improve the nation's understanding of the scale and spatial location of 
this threat provided the impetus for AFT's Farms Under Threat 
initiative.
    Mapping the quality of agricultural land and tracking its loss is a 
critical step to better understanding the impacts of conversion that 
has already occurred. However, this is not easy to do because the 
various databases and maps available at the national level differ in 
purpose, scope, and how various land categories and uses are defined 
(Nickerson, et al., 2015). The collected data also differs in scale, 
including their extent and spatial resolution, as well as in duration, 
accuracy, update frequency, and timing. As a result, estimates from 
different Federal agencies do not agree on how much agricultural land 
the United States has--let alone how much the nation is losing.

          ``Each day, each year--individually and on a national scale--
        the conversions of cropland to non-agricultural uses may not 
        have been large in proportion to the total national landscape. 
        However, collectively and cumulatively, these land use shifts 
        are seriously reducing the world's supply of important 
        farmlands. Moreover, while these continued losses are 
        `significant' or `rather serious' on a global scale, they may 
        already be critical for individual, local, or regional areas.''
                                                       Norm Berg, 1979.
    To meet the need for more accuracy, AFT and CSP applied advanced 
geospatial and remote sensing analysis to fill in the data gaps and 
create the most comprehensive and most accurate national analysis ever 
undertaken of agricultural land and conversion patterns from urban and 
low-density residential development. Farms Under Threat: The State of 
America's Farmland adds value to the national inventory of agricultural 
land in multiple ways: (1) It includes a new class of agricultural land 
that estimates woodlands associated with farm enterprise; (2) It maps 
grazing on Federal land; (3) It identifies agricultural land based on 
its productivity, versatility and resiliency to support intensive food 
and crop production (PVR values); (4) It maps and analyzes the extent 
of low-density residential development on agricultural land; (5) It 
shows the spatial patterns of agricultural land uses and conversion to 
development in a consistent way over time so that people can see the 
patterns of change.

          ``Productive land is neither limitless nor inexhaustible.''
                                            Hugh Hammond Bennett, 1959.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Federal Farmland Protection: Agricultural Conservation Easement Program
                                 (ACEP)
 
    USDA's NRCS is a key partner for state and local governments,
 private land trusts, and recognized Tribes working to protect farmland
 and ranchland from development. The agency's Agricultural Conservation
 Easement Program (ACEP), authorized in the farm bill, protects
 agricultural land and conserves wetlands. The Agricultural Land
 Easements (ALE) enrollment option provides matching funds to buy
 conservation easements on farmland and ranchland. An agricultural
 conservation easement is a deed restriction that landowners voluntarily
 place on their property to restrict development and keep the land
 available for farming. The funds from selling agricultural conservation
 easements allow farmers to free up capital without having to sell their
 land outright and are most often used to improve or expand the farm
 operation (Esseks and Schilling 2013). Since 1996, NRCS has invested
 about $1.5 billion in agricultural conservation easements through ACEP-
 ALE and its forerunners, leveraging state, local, and private funds to
 contribute to the long-term protection of more than 1.2 million acres
 of agricultural land nationwide. The program has protected agricultural
 land for agriculture, improved agricultural viability, encouraged on-
 farm conservation, and helped farmers gain access to land (Esseks and
 Schilling 2013). Although the demands for the Federal, state, and local
 programs remains very high, the limitations in funding at all levels
 constrains each partner's ability to protect this critical land. For
 more information about the impact of the Federal farmland protection
 program, see www.farmlandinfo.org/impacts-federal-farm-and-ranch-lands-
 protection-program-assessment-based-interviews-participating-1.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Methods


          Dickie Brothers Orchard in Roseland, Virginia. Pat & Chuck 
        Blackley/Alamy Stock Photo.

    CSP analyzed the location, quantity, type, and quality of the 
agricultural land converted to development in the continental United 
States to a 30 meter resolution with mapping units of about 5 to 10 
acres. To achieve this level of precision and inform future 
forecasting, CSP focused on the 20 year time period \8\ between 1992 
and 2012 when there were sufficient databases with the national 
coverage necessary to complete the more detailed spatial mapping. The 
most recent releases of databases with the coverage needed for a 
national assessment are 2011 and 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ CSP initially applied this approach to map conversion over a 30 
year period based on 1982 data from the NRI. However, because many of 
the datasets used to model land cover/use represented conditions in the 
early 1990s, the results were too inconsistent and had too much 
variability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To show the extent of land in agricultural uses, the analysis 
identifies and maps woodland, a new class of agricultural land, and 
also maps grazing on Federal land. To provide greater clarity on the 
extent of agricultural land conversion, it improves on previous efforts 
to spatially map low-density residential development, which extends 
beyond the suburbs into rural parts of counties. The conversion of 
working land to very large lot developments not only diminishes the 
agricultural land base, it also threatens the vitality of rural 
economies. Finally, to more fully understand the quality of the 
agricultural land being converted, it identifies and spatially maps 
agricultural land based on values that denote their productivity, 
versatility, and resiliency (PVR) for cultivation. This complex 
approach significantly advances the understanding of farmland 
conversion.

    Developing the base map.

    CSP started the assessment with the 2011 U.S. Geological Survey 
(USGS) National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD)--a 30 meter resolution 
national database that provides spatial reference and descriptive data 
of land surface characteristics. It adds in critical data from the NRI 
and Soil Survey Geographic Database SSURGO datasets (soil suitability 
and capability classes), the NASS Cropland Data Layer (CDL) and Census 
of Agriculture data (median farm size), the USGS NLCD accuracy 
assessments, National Elevation Dataset (at 10 m) and Protected Areas 
Dataset (PAD-US), and housing data from the U.S. Census Bureau at 
Census block level. It directly incorporates NRI data to generate a 
suitability model that produces maps of land cover/use at 1992 and 2012 
and then applies additional geospatial analyses to quantify change.


          Farmland in the Mohawk Valley, New York. Philip Scalia/Alamy 
        Stock Photo.

    Farms Under Threat adds a new class of agricultural land: woodland 
associated with farms. This is a subset of forestland that CSP mapped 
by approximating the area of woodland reported by operators in the 2012 
Census of Agriculture. To show the total extent of land in agricultural 
uses, it includes Federal land that is grazed based on grazing permits 
issued by the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Bureau of Land 
Management in 2014 and 2015, respectively. It also identifies low-
density residential development as another land cover/use class.\9\ 
Depending on location, once this intensity of residential development 
occurs on agricultural land, the analysis assumes it is no longer 
primarily used for agricultural purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ Farms Under Threat uses the NLCD definition for urbanization: 
areas occupied by urban development or ``built-up'' areas of 
commercial, industrial, transportation, and high-density residential 
(NLDC categories 21-24). Low-density residential includes residential 
areas with more than one housing unit per 1 to 2 acres up to homes on 
10-20 acres as well as exurban homes on even larger lots that 
effectively remove these properties' agricultural uses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The assessment focuses on the continental United States (the 
contiguous 48 states) because of data availability and spatial data 
processing efficiencies. A number of datasets used in the analyses were 
either not available or had limited (less than 25 percent) spatial 
coverage in Alaska and/or Hawaii. For Alaska, the NRCS NRI and SSURGO 
soils databases were very limited; for both Alaska and Hawaii, data are 
not available for the CDL or grazing allotments, and the earliest 
availability of the NLCD is 2001 (not 1992).

    Mapping and assessing irreversible losses due to both urbanization 
and low-density residential development.

    Previous work by the technical mapping team, access to unique 
national data, and a geospatial model enabled CSP to map urbanization 
and the low-density residential development that extends beyond the 
suburbs. CSP started with the NLCD urban land cover/use class. The 
satellite imagery used to create the NLCD dataset detects the high-
density urbanized or built-up areas but misses urban development hidden 
under forested canopies, as well as low-density residential areas. This 
shortcoming became apparent when CSP compared the detailed land use 
observations from the NRI to the NLCD 2011. Roughly 30 percent of the 
area represented by the NRI as urbanized did not fall on urban/built-up 
classes in the NLCD.
    The next step was to figure out how to spatially map low-density 
residential development, especially large-lot development occurring in 
exurban areas. AFT interviewed farmland protection practitioners, 
county planners, and other key stakeholders at the start of the Farms 
Under Threat initiative. In some parts of the country, these 
stakeholders identified exurban development as the principal threat, 
and they urged AFT to investigate the lower-density residential 
development missed by the NRI.


          A crop farmer in Oyster, Virginia. Blend Images/Alamy Stock 
        Photo.

    The NRI urban classification captures residential land areas with 
more than one housing unit per 1 to 2 acres up to homes on 10-20 acres. 
This resulted in another gap between what the NLCD captures and the NRI 
samples. To bridge the gap between NLCD and NRI, CSP sought to map both 
the NRI residential land areas and the nonagricultural development on 
larger lots.
    To do this, CSP created an additional land cover/use category of 
low-density residential. The low-density residential model filled in 
the NRI urban projections up to one house per 10-20 acres. It also 
captured exurban homes on even larger lots that effectively removed 
even more land from agricultural uses. To identify these larger lot 
residences, AFT asked NASS to generate the quartiles of farm size from 
the 2012 Census of Agriculture for each county. The size of a viable 
farm or ranch varies considerably from region to region and from county 
to county. To distinguish between a viable agricultural operation and a 
rural estate (also called a ``farmette'' or ``ranchette''), CSP 
identified the low-end tail (approximately the 10th percentile) of the 
entire distribution of farm sizes in each county by using 50 percent of 
the lowest (25 percent) quartile. Based on feedback from scientists 
involved with the NRI, CDL, and NLCD, this best represents the point 
below which land previously identified as agricultural land is likely 
too small or fragmented to support an agricultural operation. These 
farm-size thresholds (calculated as roughly the 10th percentile of farm 
size in the county) vary widely from county to county and state to 
state and ranged in size from 2 acres (e.g., in parts of the Northeast) 
to 186 acres (e.g., in parts of Great Plains, etc.). This land was then 
re-classified as most likely low-density residential. Then CSP 
harmonized this data with the housing density data from the U.S. Census 
and used housing density to help distinguish large lot, low-density 
residential from agricultural uses.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Limitations of the Data from Farms Under Threat: State of America's
                                Farmland
 
    The Farms Under Threat: State of America's Farmland datasets are
 produced at a resolution of 30 meters (about \1/4\ acre), though the
 minimum mapping unit is 5 to 10 acres, which is useful to inform and
 support sub-county decisions regarding mapped patterns at extents of
 roughly 1,000 acres or greater. Calculating summaries of the data at
 scales finer than this generally is not recommended. To characterize
 broader-scale patterns and trends, the minimum analytical (decision)
 unit should be aggregated to the sub-county level (approximately 10,000
 acres or greater), the equivalent of a Hydrologic Unit Code 12 or HUC12
 level. CSP and AFT recognize that there may be some utility for using
 these data at relatively fine-scales, but caution that the
 interpretation of the results be used appropriately and considered in a
 probabilistic perspective, particularly when using the data for site-
 scale planning exercises. Calculating landscape change is particularly
 challenging, and so we suggest that appropriate scales for calculating
 change or trends with data from Farms Under Threat: State of America's
 Farmland should be done at county, state, and national scales. Fine-
 scale analysis should proceed under advisement of the data developers
 (CSP) on a case-by-case basis. As with any map, there is some level of
 uncertainty associated with the data, and the statistical uncertainty
 associated with our findings has been fully documented.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

 
 
          Fields of squash in Virginia. Lance Cheung/USDA.

    Assigning values to agricultural land based on their productivity, 
versatility, and resilience for long-term cultivation.

    Farmers and ranchers make decisions about how to use their land 
based on soil type, water resources, climate, adjoining land uses, 
proximity to markets and transportation, access to farm equipment, and 
other factors (Olson and Lyson 1999). However, the long-term 
sustainability of keeping the land in cultivation or in other 
agricultural uses depends on the productivity,\10\ versatility \11\ and 
resiliency \12\ (PVR values) of the land base. The research team looked 
for factors that offered reliable national coverage and could act as 
proxies to rank agricultural land nationally based on these key factors 
and chose soil suitability, land cover/land use, and food production to 
assess the land's potential to support long-term cultivation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ Productivity is output per unit of input (often measured as 
crop yield per acre). The highest productivity occurs in coastal areas 
where climate, soil, location, and irrigated conditions favor the 
production of perishable crops (fruits and vegetables) or where 
integrated livestock operations draw from an extended cropping area. 
Unfortunately, productivity can often mask environmental or heath 
components of soil quality (Widbe and Gollehon 2006). The PVR analysis 
considers soils, their limitations, climate, type of production, and 
whether the land can produce commonly cultivated crops and pasture 
plants without deterioration over a long period of time.
    \11\ Versatility is the ability of land to support production and 
management of a wide range of crops. It is mainly assessed in terms of 
soil and land physical characteristics (Bloomer 2011).
    \12\ Resiliency (the land's ability to maintain its potential to 
provide ecosystem services) depends on the same factors that determine 
potential productivity (topography, relatively static soil properties 
and climate (UNEP 2016).

          ``Each acre not retained for use in agriculture, and each 
        acre exceeding the tolerance value in erosion loss, removes 
        flexibility for future decisions and reduces the nation's 
        options for directing our own destiny.''
                                                       Norm Berg, 1981.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
  National Factors Used in the Productivity, Versatility and Resiliency
                             (PVR) Analysis
 
    Soil suitability uses important farmland designations, which
 interpret soil survey information to indicate relative suitability and
 productivity of soils. Important farmland designations are an attribute
 in the NRCS SSURGO database. This factor gets at the capacity of soils
 to support agricultural production (productivity) and provides clues to
 the land's versatility and resiliency to withstand weather extremes. We
 consulted with state soil scientists and included the following
 important farmland designations: prime farmland, prime farmland with
 limitations, unique farmland, farmland of statewide importance, and
 farmland of statewide importance with limitations. We reclassified
 locally important soils in all states except Michigan and Ohio as not
 prime, because states inconsistently define their locally important
 soils and most states identify fewer than 1,000 acres as locally
 important. Working with the NRCS state soil scientist, AFT reclassified
 Michigan locally important soils in counties adjacent to Lake Michigan
 as unique (since these areas support fruit trees or vineyards) and
 reclassified the locally important soils in remaining counties as
 statewide important. For Ohio, we reclassified locally important soils
 as statewide important.
    Broad land cover/use shows where different major types of
 agriculture are conducted. Land cover is the vegetation or other kind
 of material that covers the land surface. Land use is the purpose of
 human activity on the land; it is usually, but not always, related to
 land cover. Continuous production indicates there are relatively fewer
 limitations and environmental consequences. It indicates resiliency
 over time. We mapped land cover/use by combining data from the NRI, the
 USGS National Land Cover Dataset for 2011, and the SSURGO database.
    Food production was included in recognition of the fact that a
 primary goal of agriculture is to feed people. This factor is
 especially important as a proxy for characteristics that support
 production of specialty crops that may require unique soils and
 microclimates. Using data from the USDA NASS Cropland Data Layer, we
 grouped 132 Individual cropland types into five main groups: 1. fruit
 and nut trees; 2. fruits and vegetables grown as row crops; 3. staple
 food crops (e.g., wheat, rice, barley, oats, dry beans, potatoes); 4.
 feed grains, forages, and crops grown for livestock feed and processed
 foods (corn and soybean; hay and alfalfa; oilseeds and sugar beets and
 sugarcane); and 5. non-food crops (i.e., crops used for energy
 production excluding corn, fiber, tobacco, and nursery/greenhouse).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

 
 
          Pumpkin plants in Starlight, Indiana. Daniel Dempster 
        Photography/Alamy Stock Photo.

    Farms Under Threat then used a structured, replicable process to 
elicit feedback from 33 national experts to decide the importance of 
each factor in determining the land's potential. The experts assigned 
the strongest weight to soil suitability (given the value of 1.0), 
followed by food production (= 0.522), and land cover/land use (= 
0.398). For soil suitability, the experts ranked the soil types in the 
following order: prime, unique, prime with limitations,\13\ state 
important, and state important with limitations. For land cover/use, 
types, the ranked order was cropland, pastureland, rangeland, and 
woodland. For food production, the ranked order was fruit and 
vegetables, fruit and nut trees, staple food crops, feed grains, and 
forages and non-food crops. Because fruits, nuts, and vegetables occupy 
only a small percentage of total cropland acres and often depend on 
unique microclimates that limit their range, their ultimate weighting 
within the analysis was higher to reflect their disproportionate value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ Farms Under Threat uses the NRI definitions for the various 
soil types. In this case, limitations denote the conditions that must 
be addressed before the soil qualifies as prime (e.g., prime if 
irrigated, prime if drained, prime if drained and either protected from 
flooding or not frequently flooded, etc.) or statewide important.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Factoring in critical limitations to production and versatility.

    To strengthen the soil suitability analysis, the analysis included 
a secondary factor based on production limitations documented within 
NRCS Land Capability Classes (LCC) (USDA SCS 1961). USDA developed this 
classification to group soils primarily on the basis of their 
capability to produce commonly cultivated crops and pasture plants 
without deteriorating over a long period. The LCC considers management 
hazards (e.g., erosion and runoff, excess water, root zone limitations, 
and climatic limitations). It also helps identify production 
versatility, identifying whether soils can be used for cultivated 
crops, pasture, range, woodland, and/or wildlife food and cover. The 
LCC identifies eight categories with increasing limitations. Land in 
Classes I through IV is suited to cultivation, although Classes II 
through IV have increasing limitations that reduce the choice of plants 
and require the use of progressively more conservation practices. 
Classes V through VIII are not suited to cultivation, and their use is 
limited largely to pastureland, rangeland, woodland, or wildlife food 
and cover. To improve the food production factor, the analysis also 
incorporated information about growing season length that limits 
production in parts of the country but allows almost year-around 
production in some of the southern states and in some coastal regions. 
After completing these refinements, CSP assigned each agricultural land 
mapping unit (5-10 acres) a combined PVR value based on the PVR factors 
and weighting (see Figure 4).


          Cherry Bomb peppers growing in northern Illinois. Jess 
        Merrill/Alamy.

    Identifying the best land for intensive food and crop production.

    After assigning combined PVR values, CSP then applied a scenario 
model to identify the best land for intensive food and crop production 
(includes the production of fruits, vegetables, staple foods, grains, 
and animal feed). The scenario model included soils that are prime, 
unique, or prime with limitations; cropland and pasture; and the 
relevant cropland types. The land with values at or above the resulting 
PVR threshold value has the highest potential for food and crop 
production with the fewest limitations and environmental impacts. This 
subset of agricultural land is the best land for intensive food and 
crop production in terms of its ability to support cultivation.

    Checking the PVR continuum against other classification schemes.

    To help put the PVR value continuum into context with other 
classification schemes, CSP examined the PVR values generated for the 
NRI points. For the NRI points designated as prime, the mean PVR value 
was 0.45. For Land Capability Class designations, the mean PVR value 
for LCC Class I points was 0.53, Class II was 0.49, Class III was 0.40, 
Classes IV and V were 0.29, Class VI was 0.20 and Classes VII and VIII 
were 0.15. Farms Under Threat: State of America's Farmland identifies 
land with a PVR value above 0.43 as best suited for intensive food and 
crop production. In other words, the threshold the scenario model uses 
to identify the best land for intensive food and crop production picked 
up all the prime farmland identified by the NRI points, all the 
agricultural land in LCC Classes I and II, and some of the agricultural 
land in LCC Class III.


          The sun sets over an Iowa cornfield. Larry Lindell/
        Istockphoto.
Findings \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ AFT is solely responsible for the conclusions and 
recommendations in this report. Although information from NRCS data 
comprises a major component of this analysis, the conclusions and 
recommendations are AFT's alone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Between non-Federal and Federal lands, America's farmers and 
        ranchers make use of a diverse agricultural landscape that 
        covers 55 percent of the land area in the continental United 
        States.

    Farms Under Threat land cover/use categories include cropland, 
pastureland, rangeland, and woodland (Table 1) \15\ in the context of 
other major land uses (e.g., urban, low-density residential, forest, 
water, Federal, Federal land used for grazing, other rural land, etc.) 
(Figure 1). The broad extent to which land in the continental United 
States is used by farmers and ranchers becomes apparent when non-
Federal agricultural land and Federal land used for grazing are mapped 
together (Figure 2). Farmers and ranchers use over 1 billion acres in 
the continental United States (Table 2), roughly 55 percent of the land 
area, providing a wide range of benefits and amenities that are valued 
by the public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ Direct comparison of Farms Under Threat with the NRI and other 
agricultural datasets is difficult because of different 
classifications, sources, time periods, and spatial resolution. The 
accuracy of the revised cover types in our resulting map, compared to 
the 800,000 NRI validation data points, is roughly 83 percent overall.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A Note About Land Cover/Use Categories Used in Farms Under Threat
 
    Farms Under Threat defines agricultural land as cropland,
 pastureland, rangeland and woodland associated with farms in the
 continental United States (48 states), excluding federally owned
 grazing land. This non-Federal agricultural land is commonly referred
 to as farmland and ranchland by the public.
    Farms Under Threat uses the NRI definitions for rangeland,
 forestland, cropland and pastureland. ``Woodlands'' is a new class of
 forested cover that is part of a functioning farm. ``Federal (grazed)''
 is a new class compiled from USFS and BLM allotment data. ``Urban'' is
 mapped from the USGS NLCD urban/built-up categories. ``Low-density
 residential'' is a new class calculated from Census block level housing
 statistics. ``Other'' includes locations not classed in other cover/use
 classes (e.g., along rural roads or scattered in areas with little
 vegetation cover such as barren or steeper slopes). ``Water'' includes
 freshwater and some near-shore ocean. Compared to NRI, FUT slightly
 under estimates the total land area of the contiguous United States
 (CONUS). All percentages reported are based on the total CONUS land
 area reported by NRI and will not sum to 100 percent due to rounding
 and other factors described in more detail in the FUT technical report.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Figure 1: The extent and distribution of agricultural land in 2012.


          Agricultural land in the continental United States, shown 
        here in shades of yellow and green, encompass roughly 912 
        million acres of non-Federal land, including cropland, 
        pastureland, rangeland and woodland associated with farms. This 
        agricultural land provides a rich and varied landscape that is 
        part of a larger mosaic of land cover/uses, including 
        forestland, Federal land, Federal land grazed by livestock, and 
        other rural land, as well as urban and low-density residential 
        development.
Table 2. Farms Under Threat agricultural land and Federal land used for 
        livestock grazing in 2012.*
        
        
          See box [A Note About Land Cover/Use Categories Used in Farms 
        Under Threat] for an explanation of land use categories.
Figure 2: The widespread landscape used by farmers and ranchers in 
        2012.
        
        
          Farmers and ranchers use over 1 billion acres, or 55 percent 
        of the land in the continental United States, which includes 
        agricultural land and Federal land used to graze livestock. 
        This map depicts only these land uses to show the broad extent 
        of land used for agricultural production.
Table 2. Farms Under Threat agricultural land and Federal land used for 
        livestock grazing in 2012.*
        
        
          See box [A Note About Land Cover/Use Categories Used in Farms 
        Under Threat] for an explanation of land use categories.

   Agricultural land varies in its potential to be used for 
        food and crop production.

    The PVR land potential model calculates the productivity, 
versatility and resiliency value at each location on the map (Figure 
3). As PVR values decrease, the land has progressively greater 
limitations and usually requires greater inputs to cultivate. Farmers 
may also need to adapt crops and practices and increase their level of 
management to use this land for cultivation. As PVR values increase, 
fewer and fewer acres of land qualify. Land that has high enough PVR 
values has the right soil characteristics and growing conditions to 
support intensive food and crop production with the fewest 
environmental limitations (Figure 5).
Figure 3: Combined productivity, versatility, and resiliency values for 
        agricultural land.
        
        
          The productivity, versatility, and resiliency of agricultural 
        land for long-term cultivation largely depend on the quality of 
        the soils, the farming infrastructure that exists, and climatic 
        conditions, such as the length of the growing season. PVR 
        values are calculated using data of the PVR factors and expert-
        based weights. Lower PVR values are shown by lighter tones, 
        indicating land that has progressively greater limitations, may 
        be more prone to off-farm environmental impacts, and that 
        offers less potential for food and crop production and narrower 
        choices for agricultural production in general.

   Development converted almost 31 million acres of 
        agricultural land in the United States between 1992 and 2012, 
        nearly double the amount previously documented by national 
        datasets.

    Agricultural land use in the United States continually changes--and 
these changes mask the irreversible losses that are taking place. Farms 
Under Threat was able to spatially map the patterns of conversion since 
1992 that the NLCD was unable to distinguish through remote sensing 
(Figure 4). Overall, more than 62 percent of the development that 
occurred was on agricultural land.
    Urban development converted roughly 18 million acres of 
agricultural land (59 percent of conversion), reinforcing the findings 
by the NRI. Farms Under Threat also captures and, for the first time, 
spatially allocates the emerging threat of low-density residential 
development associated with exurban development. Low-density 
residential development converted nearly 13 million acres of additional 
agricultural land (41 percent of conversion). Taken together, the loss 
of agricultural land to development is far more widespread than 
previously documented--nearly double previous estimates.
Figure 4: Conversion of agricultural land to urban and low-density 
        residential development between 1992 and 2012.
        
        
          The development of agricultural land is shown in relationship 
        to the low-to-high continuum of productive, versatile, and 
        resilient values for agricultural land. The conversion of 
        agricultural land to urban and low-density residential uses 
        between 1992 and 2012 is shown as high (dark brown-red, >25% 
        conversion within a 10 kilometer (6.2 miles) radius), moderate 
        (light brown-red, 10-25% conversion) and low (tan, 5-10% 
        conversion). Urban areas are shown in gray.
Table 3. Conversion by land cover/use in thousands of acres between 
        1992 and 2012.
        
        
   Over 70 percent of urban development and about 54 percent of 
        low-density residential development occurred on agricultural 
        land.

    As shown in Table 3, in the context of all land uses, urban 
development occurred more frequently on cropland (28.9 percent) than on 
any other land use type, while low-density residential development was 
more likely occur on forestland (41 percent).
    When urban development occurred on agricultural land, it most 
frequently converted cropland (41 percent) while converting much lower 
percentages of pastureland (25.9 percent), rangeland (23.8 percent) and 
woodland (9.3 percent). In contrast, low-density residential 
development posed an equal threat to cropland and pastureland (34.5 
percent each) and favored woodland (19.9 percent) over rangeland (11.1 
percent).
    After mapping the patterns of development on agricultural land, the 
analysis determined whether the United States was disproportionately 
losing agricultural land with higher PVR values. This was done by 
comparing the PVR values of the agricultural land that was converted by 
urban and low-density residential development between 1992 and 2012 
with the PVR values of the agricultural land that was not developed.

   Development patterns put higher quality agricultural lands 
        at greater risk.

    The analysis found that land with higher PVR values was more at 
risk of being developed. Figure 5 shows the cumulative distribution 
curve of the PVR values of agricultural land in 1992 (335 million 
acres) that remained in agriculture in 2012 contrasted with similar 
cumulative distribution curves of the PVR values of land converted by 
low-density residential (13 million acres) and urban development (18 
million acres). These distribution curves show that urban development 
and, to a lesser extent, low-density residential development occurred 
on land with higher PVR values.
    The median PVR value of agricultural land lost to development 
(0.39) was 1.3 times higher than the median PVR value of land that 
stayed in production (0.31). The contrasting distribution curves also 
show the nation's best land for intensive food and crop production 
(land with PVR values of 0.431 or higher) is disproportionately 
converted by urban and low-density residential development up to a PVR 
value of about 0.51.
    It is interesting to note that above a PVR value of 0.51, the 
distribution curves converge, indicating that conversion is now 
proportional to the amount of agricultural land with these higher PVR 
values (less than 25 percent of agricultural land in 1992). Although 
the losses are no longer disproportional, the land with the highest PVR 
values continues to be converted. All of these cumulative losses could 
have serious implications for agricultural productivity and domestic 
food security in future decades.
Figure 5: Distribution of PVR values for converted agricultural land 
        and land remaining in agriculture.
        
        
          Cumulative distribution curves are shown for the PVR values 
        of agricultural land in 1992 that remained in agriculture (no 
        conversion) in 2012 (335 million acres) and for the 
        agricultural land lost through urban conversion (18 million 
        acres) and low-density residential conversion (13 million 
        acres). Development disproportionately occurred on land with 
        PVR values between 0.1 and 0.51. The distribution curves then 
        converge above a PVR value of 0.51, indicating that conversion 
        is now proportional to the amount of agricultural land with 
        higher values (>0.51). The dotted horizontal line shows the 
        median PVR value of the agricultural land that remained in 
        production was 0.31, whereas agricultural land lost to 
        development had a higher median PVR value of 0.39. A solid 
        vertical line shows the PVR threshold value (0.43) used to 
        identify the best land for intensive food and crop production 
        and represents slightly more than \1/3\ of agricultural land.

   By 2012, the best land to support intensive food and crop 
        production comprised less than 17 percent of the total land 
        area.

    Only 324.1 million acres of agricultural land had PVR values >0.43 
that indicated that the right soil characteristics and growing 
conditions were present and the land could be farmed with the fewest 
environmental limitations (Figure 6). This is slightly more than \1/3\ 
of agricultural land.
Figure 6: Best agricultural land for intensive food and crop production 
        in 2012.
        
        
          Agricultural land with PVR values between 0.43 and 1.0 is the 
        land most suited for the intensive production of fruit and nut 
        trees, vegetables, staple foods, grains, and animal feed with 
        the fewest environmental limitations. This land represented 
        about 36 percent of U.S. agricultural land, or only 16.7 
        percent of the total land area in the continental United States 
        in 2012.
        
        
          Harvesting lettuce in New York State. Cavan Social/Alamy 
        Stock Photo.

   In less than one generation, the United States irreversibly 
        lost nearly 11 million acres of the best land for food and crop 
        production.

    From 1992 to 2012, the United States converted 10.928 million acres 
of land where soils, climate, growing seasons, and access to water 
combine to allow intensive food and crop production with the fewest 
environmental impacts. To put this into perspective, this is equivalent 
to losing 95 percent of California's Central Valley or 47 percent of 
the state of Indiana. This is the land that can help ensure food 
security for future generations, but only if the nation protects it 
from any further conversion, soil erosion, and declines in soil health. 
At this rate of loss (slightly over three percent), the nation would 
lose over 15 percent of its best agricultural land by the end of the 
century just to development--without factoring in any other threats. 
But housing a growing population while losing land to a changing 
climate will likely accelerate this rate of loss and farmers and 
ranchers will have to produce more food, fiber and energy on the 
agricultural lands that remain.


          Harvesting wheat in the Palouse region of Washington State. 
        Rick Dalton--Ag/Alamy Stock Photo.
Discussion


          CSA farmer in Iowa. Preston Keres/USDA.

    U.S. agricultural land supports a regionally diverse food and 
farming system and provides a secure food supply--for now. This land 
also plays a significant role in the U.S. landscape and economy. 
However, it faces unprecedented challenges as the world's population 
continues to expand and the climate continues to change. By 2050, the 
demands on agriculture to provide sufficient food, fiber, and energy 
are expected to be 50 to 70 percent higher than they are now. Given a 
fixed land mass in the United States and the need to feed an increasing 
number of people, it is extremely important to consider land quality, 
land availability, and the maximization of nutrient production per unit 
of total land in the future (White and Hall 2017).
    U.S. agricultural land also provides a wide range of benefits and 
amenities that are valued by the public. Along with producing food and 
crops, agricultural land is highly valued for providing wildlife 
habitat and environmental benefits such as flood water storage, etc. 
Well-managed agricultural land delivers a wide range of amenities that 
motivate communities and land trusts to pay $88 to $124,000 per acre on 
average to preserve this land (Brinkley 2012). These amenities include 
ecosystem services that improve the quality of water, air and soil, 
support wildlife and biodiversity, contribute to viewsheds and quality 
of life, provide recreational opportunities, shape land use, help the 
local economy, provide fresh healthy food, support community health and 
cohesion, and sequester carbon. The more marginal agricultural land 
where food production is rarely an option provide wildlife with the 
food, water, shelter, and space they need (AFT 2017). This includes 
wetlands, woodland, rangeland and pastureland with low-intensity 
management. The permanent habitat interspersed throughout the 
agricultural landscape (in areas like field margins, hedgerows, buffer 
strips, riparian corridors, and wood lots) allow wildlife to travel 
between larger areas of suitable habitat. Although quantifying the wide 
range of benefits offered by agricultural land is still in its infancy 
(Wainger and Ervin 2017), the market value of farmland services extends 
far beyond the local community and should be viewed in a regional 
context (Brinkley 2012). Because agricultural land varies so widely in 
its potential, maintaining this diversity with the philosophy that 
every acre counts provides the nation with options to optimize the 
nation's limited land and agricultural resources to sustain future 
generations.
    Decades of urban and low-density residential development have 
converted almost twice as much agricultural land as previously thought. 
Urbanization and associated land-use dynamics beyond the urban fringe 
encroach on both agricultural land and on natural land that supports 
wildlife habitat (Theobald 2001). Farms Under Threat shows the past 
spatial patterns of agricultural land conversion by exurban development 
for the first time.\16\ This low-density residential development was 
responsible for 41 percent of the conversion of agricultural land by 
development between 1992 and 2012. The pattern of low-density 
residential development expanding well beyond the suburbs represents an 
additional, insidious threat to the nation's agricultural land. These 
scattered single-family houses on large lots remove proportionately 
more land from agricultural production and are not accounted for in 
most national assessments. This pattern of development emerged in the 
1970s, and by 1997, nearly 80 percent of the acreage used for housing 
in the previous 3 years was land outside of urban areas, with 57 
percent on lots of 10 acres or more (Heimlich and Anderson 2001). While 
urban development has become more efficient and compact since then, it 
appears that better land use planning (i.e., ``smart growth'') has not 
yet reached the nation's exurban and rural areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ In this case, suburbs form the ring around the urban core, and 
exurbs (with larger-lot homes) extend beyond the suburbs into rural 
areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Since 1997, large-lot properties have continued to increase in 
number and are often too small for traditional farming, ranching, and 
forestry uses. They no longer contribute to rural economies and lead to 
a loss of open space, a decline in wildlife habitat, water quality 
problems, and a higher demand for public services (Wilkins, et al., 
2003). The added roads, parking lots, and highly compacted lawns also 
increase the risk of flooding and degrade water quality compared to 
concentrating the same number of houses into compact neighborhoods and 
village centers (Flinker 2010). The scattered development is subsidized 
by those living in adjoining municipalities, and for many living in 
these far-flung houses and subdivisions, the emergency response times 
for police, ambulance, and fire fighters exceed national standards 
(Esseks, et al., 1999). The development footprint grew from 10.1 
percent to 13.3 percent from 1980 to 2000, outpacing the population 
growth by 25 percent. By 2020, urban and suburban development is 
forecast to expand by 2.2 percent and exurban development by 14.3 
percent (Theobald 2001; 2005). Based on the past conversion patterns 
shown by this present analysis, much of this forecasted expansion will 
be on land with higher PVR values.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Smart Growth: Balancing Economy, Community, and Environment
 
    The antidote to development that needlessly paves over agricultural
 land is not to halt development but to develop more thoughtfully. Smart
 growth is a system of urban planning that seeks to balance the economic
 benefits of growth with distinctive, attractive communities and the
 protection of natural resources. Principles of smart growth that relate
 to farmland protection include taking advantage of compact building
 design and strengthening and directing development toward existing
 communities. Compact development, and the transportation opportunities
 that this encourages, can also provide greenhouse gas reduction
 benefits. To learn more about smart growth principles, visit
 www.smartgrowth.org.
    Source: www.farmlandinfo.org/sites/default/files/EPA_what_is_smart_
  growth_1.pdf www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/smart-growth-and-climate-change.
------------------------------------------------------------------------



          Farmland along the Connecticut River in South Deerfield, 
        Massachusetts. Norman Eggert/Alamy Stock Photo.

    As agricultural land with higher PVR values is lost, cultivation 
shifts to land with lower PVR values, which problematically can put 
more pressure on water, soils, and biodiversity. Market demands (e.g., 
corn to produce ethanol as a biofuel), rising prices, and water 
availability can accelerate this process, bringing even more of the 
remaining land into cultivation. Land with lower PVR values is much 
more limited in the crops it can support, and cultivation may lead to 
more significant environmental impacts. More inputs (like pesticides 
and fertilizers) and/or acres are required to maintain the same 
production levels, putting even more pressure on water, soil, and 
biodiversity (Verzandvoort, et al., 2009). For example, from 2001 to 
2011, the Midwest lost cropland to urban expansion in the eastern part 
of the region and gained cropland at the expense of rangeland in the 
western part (Wright and Wimberly 2013; Emili and Greene 2014). Keeping 
this new, more marginal cropland in cultivation is dependent on the use 
of irrigation and the High Plains aquifer. Long-term, this trend could 
be detrimental to the economy, the environment, and food security.
    Unfortunately, development is just one of the many threats to the 
nation's agricultural land base. Because development leads to the 
irreversible loss of agricultural land, it commands AFT's immediate 
attention in this analysis. However, several other interrelated factors 
pose additional--and significant--risks that can take agricultural land 
out of production and may result in its permanent loss. The cumulative 
effects of these multiple threats to U.S. agricultural land 
significantly increase the need to recognize the strategic values of 
this land and step up efforts to protect it.
    For example, the changing climate already has caused shifts in food 
and fiber production and is intensifying competition for land with 
available water. Since the late 1970s, climatologists have documented 
weather-related changes that make it riskier to produce crops. These 
include rising temperatures that can reduce crop yields, increases in 
the length of the frost-free period (and corresponding growing season) 
that affect what can be grown where, increases in precipitation and 
heavy downpours, and more frequent extreme weather events: droughts, 
floods, fires, and heat waves (Walsh, et al., 2014). Researchers also 
have documented decreases in accumulated winter-chill units needed to 
grow fruit in some of the nation's fruit growing regions (Baldocchi and 
Wong 2007). A sampling of some of the crop damage in 2017 attributed to 
a changing climate includes the loss of nearly 80 to 90 percent of the 
peach crops in Georgia and South Carolina due to an overly warm winter 
and hard freeze in the early spring. Other effects included damaged 
peaches, blueberries, strawberries, and apples in parts of the 
Southeast; extensive damage to wheat, hay, livestock, and other crops 
in the Northern Plains due to extreme drought; and significant damage 
to Florida's citrus, sugarcane, and vegetable crops due to Hurricane 
Irma. The U.S. Office of Management and Budget and Council of Economic 
Advisors (2016) expects increased extreme heat and drought, more 
intense precipitation and soil erosion, growing stress from disease and 
pests, shifting soil moisture and water availability for irrigation, 
and higher concentrations of ozone, which will continue to reduce crop 
yields and increase uncertainty for producers.


          Hurricane Harvey severely damaged the Bayside-Richardson 
        Cotton Gin facility in Woodsboro, Texas, in 2017. Lance Cheung/
        USDA.
        
        
          U.S. solar panels. Istockphoto.

    The production of energy for domestic use and export introduces a 
new threat that competes for agricultural land. Energy production 
includes nuclear, natural gas, coal, renewables (wind, geothermal, 
solar, hydropower, biomass), oil and biofuels (corn, sugarcane, 
soybean, and cellulose). Researchers predict that, by 2040, the 
domestic production from all energy sources will rise by 27 percent and 
impact more than 197 million additional acres of land, an area greater 
than the state of Texas (Trainor, et al., 2016). Most of this 
production will happen on agricultural land.\17\ This pace of 
development is more than double the historic rate of urban, commercial, 
and residential development, which has been the greatest driver of land 
conversion in the United States since 1970. To further reduce GHG 
emissions, states have also set ambitious goals for increasing the 
generation of renewable energy, which include dramatic increases in 
solar and wind energy. These efforts create opportunities for farmers 
and landowners to reduce their energy expenses and earn new income, but 
also pose threats to farmland and local food systems. For example, flat 
and open farm fields, often the most productive agricultural land, are 
also highly desirable for solar siting due to their ease of access and 
lower costs to clear vegetation and construct facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ Between 2000 and 2012, about 7 million acres were lost to oil 
and gas drilling in 11 central U.S. states and three Canadian 
provinces. About half the acreage was rangeland, 40 percent was 
cropland, ten percent was forestland and a very small amount was 
wetland (Allred, et al., 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The agricultural land base is also vulnerable to demographic and 
land ownership changes. Forty percent of U.S. agricultural land is 
owned by people over the age of 65. According to the 2012 Census of 
Agriculture, there are twice as many principal operators who are 75 and 
older as those under 35. Based on the 2014 TOTAL survey (Bigelow, et 
al., 2016) and data from the 2012 Census of Agriculture, AFT calculates 
that about 370 million acres could change hands nationwide over the 
next 20 years. At the same time, beginning farmers and ranchers face 
major barriers like high start-up costs and difficulty accessing 
capital and affordable land. As a result, the numbers of beginning 
farmers and ranchers have declined steadily since 1982. Between 2007 
and 2012, the number of beginning farmers declined by 20 percent 
(Freedgood and Dempsey 2014). In coming years, how millions of acres of 
agricultural land transfer and to whom--along with the agricultural 
infrastructure and assets associated with them--will fundamentally 
impact the structure of agriculture and rural America for generations 
to come.
    And, if agricultural activities damage, erode, compact, or salinize 
the soil, the long term or permanent damage can also take land out of 
production. The 2011 RCA appraisal reported that about 27 percent of 
cropland acres were losing soil carbon (USDA 2011). Saline soils 
occupied about 5.4 million acres of cropland, and another 76.2 million 
acres were at risk, mostly in the southwestern United States. And 
roughly 20 percent of non-Federal rangeland acres (82 million acres) 
needed additional practices or management to restore rangeland health. 
Even the most productive, versatile, and resilient acres require the 
use of sound management practices to maintain or improve soil quality 
and minimize environmental impacts. However, much higher levels of 
management are necessary to prevent deterioration when soils are 
cultivated on less productive acres (USDA SCS 1961). Some of the most 
environmentally sensitive land (like wetlands and grasslands of 
environmental significance) should not be cultivated at all. About 27 
percent of cropland is highly erodible (USDA 2011) but can be carefully 
cultivated if restrictions and regulations are followed.
    Over the last 2 decades, improved management practices have made it 
possible for producers to reduce soil erosion on cropland by 44 percent 
(USDA 2015), but nutrient losses and greenhouse emissions for 
agriculture still must drop dramatically to restore and maintain clean 
water and stabilize the climate by 2050 (Hunter, et al., 2017). This 
may require a significant increase in the use of conservation practices 
on about 20 percent of U.S. cropland and additional conservation 
practices on about 46 percent to prevent the continuing losses of soil 
and nutrients.\18\ Compounding this challenge, more frequent extreme 
weather events will likely increase both soil erosion and runoff, 
particularly on less productive acres (SWCS 2003; Segura, et al., 
2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ The USDA NRCS Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP) 
quantifies the environmental effects of conservation practices: https:/
/www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/technical/nra/ceap/.

          The best land for intensive food and crop production is 
        critical for food security and the long-term sustainability of 
        the nation. Securing this land may also help stabilize and 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        reduce future GHG emissions.

    Balancing the growing demands for housing, food, energy, and water 
to ensure our best agricultural land remains available for food and 
crop production is critical. Since land with higher PVR values is most 
at risk from development, planners, policy makers, and concerned 
citizens should prioritize its protection before too late. Farms Under 
Threat shows that conversion has already resulted in a disproportionate 
loss of land with PVR values between 0.1 and 0.51. For the higher range 
of PVR values between 0.51 and 1.0, the losses are proportional to the 
shrinking amount of agricultural land existing at those higher PVR 
values but continue to occur. The high productivity and economic 
returns from land with the highest PVR values, along with effective 
farmland protection policies, may be slowing the disproportional losses 
at this point, and AFT will examine this in future analyses. But any 
loss of land with these high PVR values is of great concern, even more 
so if we factor in the cumulative effects of the multiple threats to 
U.S. agricultural land mentioned above. The best land for intensive 
food and crop production is critical for food security and the long-
term sustainability of the nation. Securing this land may also help 
stabilize and reduce future GHG emissions. The detailed mapping 
undertaken by Farms Under Threat, combined with AFT's upcoming 
predictive analyses of the impacts of development and a changing 
climate, can provide the solid foundation that the nation needs to 
protect and conserve these irreplaceable natural resources.


          Spinach pre-harvest in the Coachella Valley of California. 
        Inga Spence/Alamy Stock Photo.

    Now is the time for the United States to recognize the strategic 
value of its agricultural land and step up efforts to protect it. It is 
worth repeating that beyond food security and economic prosperity, 
well-managed agricultural land provides open space, resources for 
hunting and fishing, and critical ecological services such as wildlife 
habitat, carbon sequestration, groundwater recharge, and flood control. 
This incredible diversity provides the nation with options going 
forward that may help optimize the use of agricultural resources to 
sustain future generations. The nation has already lost a significant 
amount of its best land for intensive food and crop production and 
faces the risk of losing even more in the future. However, through 
thoughtful and carefully implemented agricultural, conservation, and 
land use policies, the nation can strategically protect this land from 
further development, nourish it with conservation practices, and help 
the farmers and ranchers who manage this bountiful landscape thrive.
Recommended Actions \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ AFT is solely responsible for the conclusions and 
recommendations in this report. Although data and information from NRCS 
comprises a major component of this analysis, the conclusions and 
recommendations come from AFT alone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          ``From every conceivable angle--economic, social, cultural, 
        public health, national defense--conservation of natural 
        resources is an objective on which all should agree.''
                                              Hugh Hammond Bennet, 1959

          ``As a nation, we will conserve our productive land and use 
        it prudently only if there is sustained public demand for such 
        a course of action . . . .''
                                              Hugh Hammond Bennet, 1959

    The strategic value of U.S. agricultural land is now more important 
than ever, and any further loss of the best land for intensive food and 
crop production is short-sighted at best. When the issue of farmland 
and ranchland loss came to the fore in the 1980s, several Federal 
programs were implemented that we must continue to support and improve. 
But, given the increasing number of threats to farmland and ranchland 
and the even higher than previously known land loss of the last 
decades, we also need a bold, comprehensive, 21st century Federal 
commitment to saving the land that sustains us.
    Additionally, concerted policy efforts at the state and local level 
will be necessary in order to fully address the scope of farmland loss. 
Future Farms Under Threat reports will detail these proposals.
Take Immediate Steps to Strengthen Existing Federal Farmland Protection 
        Policies
  b Double funding for the Federal Agricultural Conservation Easement 
        Program (ACEP) in the 2018 Farm Bill. Congress has an immediate 
        opportunity to strengthen existing Federal farmland protection 
        efforts. Priorities for improving ACEP in the 2018 Farm Bill 
        include:
        
        
          A young farmer harvests fresh vegetables in New York State. 
        Mint Images/Tim Pannell.

     Increase Agricultural Conservation Easement Program 
            funding to at least $500 million annually. Without 
            additional funding, less than seven percent of farmers and 
            ranchers seeking to put agricultural conservation easements 
            on their properties would be able to protect their land.

     Provide entities that have the demonstrated experience and 
            financial stability to achieve certification with greater 
            certainty in using their own deed terms. Improving the 
            current ACEP certification process will allow for faster 
            protection of farmland and ranchland when applicants craft 
            deed terms to fit the broad variety of farmland and 
            ranchland in need of protection. Every acre counts.

  b Support and fully fund the critical programs that help monitor 
        threats to U.S. land resources. Just as important as funding 
        for on-the-ground farmland protection is the funding for 
        agencies and projects that help monitor farmland loss and 
        threats to farmland--and help measure successes in reversing 
        these trends.

     Maintain and strengthen the NRCS National Resources 
            Inventory by restoring staff capacity and continuing to 
            support private-public partnerships. The NRI is the only 
            national land use data collected by Federal agencies and is 
            key to the strategic protection of agricultural land 
            resources.

     Continue critical funding for the USDA National 
            Agricultural Statistics Service and Economic Research 
            Service to deliver objective, timely, and accurate national 
            research and analysis, including sufficient funding for a 
            new 50 state Tenure, Ownership and Transfer of Agricultural 
            Land (TOTAL) survey. This unbiased information provides 
            critical information for the nation's policymakers and 
            industry leaders to make decisions that can ensure future 
            food security and revitalize rural economies.

     Reauthorize and fully fund the 1977 Soil and Water 
            Resources Conservation Act (RCA) and broaden its focus to 
            fully assess the interrelated factors affecting the long-
            term sustainability of the nation's agricultural land as a 
            natural resource.
Enact a Bold and Comprehensive 21st Century Agricultural Land Policy 
        Platform
    As evidenced by these initial findings, current Federal policies 
are inadequate to safeguard America's farmland and ranchland for future 
food security, economic opportunity, and community well-being. In 
particular, since land with higher PVR values is most at risk from 
development, we must prioritize their protection before it is too late.


          A New England farm family. Ted Horowitz/Alamy Stock Photo.

    A new level of Federal commitment is needed to save the land that 
sustains America. A comprehensive 21st century agricultural land policy 
platform might include:

  b Develop a national designation for agricultural lands with high PVR 
        values and afford them special protections;

  b Strengthen the Federal Farmland Protection Policy Act by requiring 
        Federal agencies to avoid farmland conversion;

  b Require a mitigation fee to protect an equivalent amount of 
        farmland when projects that receive Federal funding or 
        incentives result in farmland conversion. Use mitigation fees 
        for Federal farmland protection projects;

  b Dramatically increase ACEP-ALE funding in future farm bills to 
        fully meet demand and to leverage state, local and private 
        investments in farmland protection;

  b Develop climate change solutions that take advantage of the 
        greenhouse gas reduction potential of farmland protection, 
        improved management practices, and smart growth;

  b Enact Federal Tax Code changes that incentivize keeping 
        agricultural land in production and encourage its transfer from 
        one generation of farmers and ranchers to the next;

  b Create tools that link farm business development and resource 
        protection, and tools that enable agricultural landowners to 
        plan for and address succession and retirement needs and 
        transfer their land to the next generation of farmers and 
        ranchers; and

  b Fund new investments in planning to help rural communities address 
        low density residential development and plan more proactively 
        for agricultural economic development and conservation.

    A diverse coalition of farm, conservation, rural development, and 
planning organizations will be needed to shape and move such a Federal 
agricultural land agenda, as well as to advocate for changes at the 
state and local level. AFT welcomes organizations that want to join in 
such an effort. As we face a growing global population and many new 
threats to our agricultural land base, it is ever more urgent that we 
all work together to protect farms and ranches.
Future Farms Under Threat Releases and Analyses


          Blueberries ready for picking. KC Shields/Alamy Stock Photo.

    State-level agricultural land cover/use data and conversion data: A 
forthcoming Farms Under Threat: State of the States report will use 
mapping and analyses to assess conversion of agricultural land at state 
level. It will examine both the quality and quantity of agricultural 
land lost to development within each state and compared with national 
findings. AFT will also release a State Policy Scorecard to demonstrate 
how states have used farmland protection policies to forestall 
agricultural land conversion. By showing solutions as well as threats, 
the State of the States report and State Policy Scorecard will share 
effective policy solutions to galvanize action and encourage states to 
increase and improve their efforts to protect farmland.
    County data and projections to 2040: Going forward, AFT will 
release county-level data and publish findings that include future 
scenarios using housing density and climate projections to forecast 
potential impacts to our agricultural land by 2040 if we fail to take 
action. The Farms Under Threat data and models make it possible to 
spatially locate the agricultural land that may be most at risk from 
development and a changing climate.
    Future analyses: As noted previously, development is not the only 
threat our agricultural land faces over the next few decades. With 
additional time and funding, AFT will map potential conversion due to 
the expansion of energy and transportation infrastructures, identify 
areas where we need to improve our soils and minimize the environmental 
impacts of crop and livestock production, and analyze and map the 
demographic shifts that put agricultural land at risk when it 
transitions from older generation landowners.
    In future analyses, AFT will consider how to strike a sustainable 
balance among land use and land management, a viable agricultural 
economy, and the maintenance of biodiversity to preserve the many 
public benefits provided by the agricultural landscape. To keep track 
of the future findings from Farms Under Threat, see the More 
Information box[.]


          An Oregon vineyard. KC Shields/Alamy Stock Photo.

 
 
 
                               References
 
    Allred, B.W., W.K. Smith, D. Twidwell, J.H. Haggerty, S.W. Running,
 D.E. Naugle and S.D. Fuhlendorf. 2015. ``Ecosystem services lost to oil
 and gas in North America.'' Science 348, Issue 6233. pp. 401-402.
 www.sciencemag.org/content/348/6233/401/suppl/DC1.
    American Farmland Trust. 2017. America's Farms and Ranchlands:
 Charting a Way for Biodiversity, Wildlife and Agricultural Production
 to Co-Exist in the Future. A Farms Under Threat draft white paper. June
 2017. American Farmland Trust, Washington, D.C.
    Arjomand, S. and D. Haight. 2017. Greener Fields: Combating Climate
 Change by Keeping Land in Farming in New York. American Farmland Trust.
 May 2017. 16 pp.
    Baldocchi, D. and S. Wong. 2007. ``Accumulated winter chill is
 decreasing in fruit growing regions of California.'' Climate Change
 (2008) 87 (Suppl 1): S153-S166. DOI 10.1007/s10584-00709357-8.
    Bigelow, D., A. Borchers and T. Hubbs. 2016. U.S. Farmland
 Ownership, Tenure and Transfer. USDA ERS Economic Information Bulletin
 No. 161. August 2016. 53 pp.
    Brinkley, C. 2012. ``Evaluating the benefits of peri-urban
 agriculture.'' J. Plan Lit. 2012 August 27(3): 2590267. Doi:10.1177/
 0885412211435172.
    Blomer, D. 2011. Versatile Soils--Production Land. Report for
 Hawke's Bay Regional Council. New Zealand. June 14, 2011. 37 pp.
    Culman, S.W., V.R. Haden, T. Maxwell, H. Waterhouse and W. Horwath.
 2014. Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Opportunities for California
 Agriculture. Review of California Cropland Emissions and Mitigation
 Potential. NI GGMOCA R 3. Durham, NC: Duke University. February 2014.55
 pp.
    Duke, J.M. 2008. ``Using research on farmland amenity values to
 improve preservation policy.'' Northeast Regional Center for Rural
 Development. Transatlantic Land Use Conference Policy Brief No. 3.
 September 2008. 8 pp.
    Emili, L.A. and R.P. Greene. 2014. ``New cropland on former
 rangeland and lost cropland from urban development: The `replacement
 land' debate.'' Land 2014, 3(3): 658-674.
    Esseks, J.D., H.E. Schmidt and K.L. Sullivan. 1999. Living on the
 Edge: Fiscal costs and public safety risks of low-density residential
 development on farmland. American Farmland Trust Center for Agriculture
 in the Environment. CAE/WP 98-1. January 1, 1999. 76 pp.
    Esseks, J.D. and B.J. Schilling. 2013. Impacts of the Federal Farm
 and Ranch Lands Protection Program: An Assessment Based on Interviews
 with Participating Landowners. American Farmland Trust Farmland
 Information Center, Northampton, MA. June 30, 2013. 126 pp.
    Farm Foundation. 2004. Farmland Preservation: Issue Report. Issue
 One, April 2004. 4 pp.
    Flinker, P. 2010. The Need to Reduce Impervious Cover to Prevent
 Flooding and Protect Water Quality. Ed. S. Miller, Rhode Island
 Department of Environmental Management. May 2010. 20 pp.
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2011. ``The
 state of the world's land and water resources for food and agriculture
 (SOLAW)--Managing systems at risk.'' Food and Agriculture Organization
 of the United Nationals, Rome and Earthscan, London. 308 pp.
 

 
 
          Pumpkins in Connecticut. Lee Hacker/Alamy Stock Photo.

 
 
 
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2017. The
 Future of Food and Agriculture: Trends and Challenges. Rome. February
 2016. 180 pp.
    Freedgood, J. and J. Dempsey. 2014. Cultivating the Next Generation:
 Resources and Policies to Help Beginning Farmers Succeed in
 Agriculture. Northampton, MA: American Farmland Trust. 44 pp. Available
 online at www.farmlandinfo.org/cultivating-next-generation-resources-
 and-policies-help-beginning-farmers-succeed-agriculture.
    Freedgood, J. and J. Fydenkez. 2017. Growing Local: A Community
 Guide to Planning for Agriculture and Food Systems. Northampton, MA:
 American Farmland Trust. 56 pp. Available online at
 www.farmlandinfo.org/growing-local-community-guide-planning-agriculture-
 and-food-systems.
    Heimlich, R.E. and W.D. Anderson. 2001. Development at the Urban
 Fringe and Beyond: Impacts on Agriculture and Rural Land. Economic
 Research Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Economic
 Report No. 803. June 2001. 88 pp.
    Heimlich, R. E. and K.S. Krupa. 1994. ``Changes in land quality
 accompanying urbanization in U.S. fast growth counties.'' J. Soil and
 Water Cons. 49(4): 367-374.
    Hellerstein, D., C. Nickerson, J. Cooper, P. Feather, D. Gadsby, D.
 Mullarkey, A. Tegene and C. Barnard. 2002. Farmland Protection: The
 Role of Public Preferences for Rural Amenities. Agricultural Economics
 Report No. 815. October 2002. 74 pp.
    Hilchy, D. 2008. Gout de Terroir: Exploring the Boundaries of
 Specialty Agricultural Landscapes. pp. 56-70. In: Goetcheus, C. and E.
 MacDonald, Eds. 2008. Exploring the Boundaries of Historic Landscape
 Preservation. Clemson University Digital Press. 208 pp.
    Hunter, M.C., R.G. Smith, M.E. Schipanski, L.W. Atwood, and D.A.
 Mortensen. 2017. ``Agriculture in 2050: recalibrating targets for
 sustainable intensification.'' Bioscience, February 2017.
    Jones, C. and D.M. Kammen. 2013. ``Spatial distribution of U.S.
 household carbon footprint reels suburbanization undermines greenhouse
 gas benefits of urban population density.'' Environ. Sci. Technol. 204,
 48(2), pp. 895-902.
    Lark, T.J., R.M. Mueller, D.M. Johnson and H.K. Gibbs. 2017.
 ``Measuring land-use and land cover change using the U.S. Department of
 Agriculture's cropland data layer: cautions and recommendations.'' Int.
 J. of Appl. Earth Observation and Geoinfo. Vol. 62: 224-235. October
 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2017.06.007.
    Nickerson, C., M. Harper, C.J. Henrie, R. Mayberry, S. Shimmin, B.
 Smith and J.H. Smith. 2015. Land Use and Land Cover Estimates for the
 United States. Report prepared for the Interagency Council on
 Agricultural and Rural Statistics, subcommittee of the Interagency
 Council on Statistical Policy.
    Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development. 2003. What the
 Public Values about Farm and Ranchland: Workshop Proceedings. NERCRD
 Regional Rural Development Paper No. 23. The Pennsylvania State
 University, University Park, PA. 33 pp.
    Olson, Richard K. and Thomas A. Lyson (eds.) 1999. Under the Blade.
 The Conversion of Agricultural Landscapes. Westview Press. Boulder,
 Colorado. 459 pp.
    Plattner, K., A. Perez and S. Thornsbury. 2014. Evolving U.S. Fruit
 Markets and Seasonal Grower Price Patterns. USDA Economic Research
 Service. FTS-357-01. September 2014. 27 pp.
    Schnepf, M. and P. Flanagan. 2016. A History of Natural Resource
 Inventories conducted by the USDA's Soil Conservation Service and
 Natural Resources Conservation Service. July 2016. 32 pp.
    Segura, C., G. Sun, S. McNulty and Y. Zhang. 2014. ``Potential
 impacts of climate change on soil erosion vulnerability across the
 conterminous United States.'' J. Soil and Water Conservation 69(2): 171-
 181. March-April 2014.
    Shaffer, S. and E. Thompson. 2015. A New Comparison of Greenhouse
 Gas Emissions from California Agricultural and Urban Land Uses.
 American Farmland Trust. May 2015. 13 pp.
 

 
 
          A snowy owl on a barn roof in Polson, Montana. Andrew Kandel 
        Stock Photography/Alamy Stock Photo.

 
 
 
    Soil and Water Conservation Society. 2003. Conservation Implications
 of Climate Change: Soil Erosion and Runoff from Cropland. Ankeny, IA:
 Soil and Water Conservation Society. 26 pp.
    Sorensen, A.A., R.P. Greene and K. Russ. 1997. Farming on the Edge.
 American Farmland Trust Center for Agriculture in the Environment.
 Northern Illinois University. DeKalb, Illinois. March 1997. 67 pp.
    Swinton, S.M., F. Lupi, G.P. Robertson and S.K. Hamilton. 2007.
 ``Ecosystem services and agriculture: cultivating agricultural
 ecosystems for diverse benefits.'' Ecological Economics 64 (2007): 245-
 252.
    Theobald, D.M. 2001. ``Land-use dynamics beyond the American urban
 fringe.'' Geographical Review 91(3): 544-564.
    Theobald, D.M. 2005. ``Landscape patterns of exurban growth in the
 USA from 1980 to 2020.'' Ecology and Society 10(1): 32. 34 pp.
 www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss1/art32.
    Trainor, A.M., R.I. McDonald and J. Fargione. 2016. ``Energy sprawl
 is the largest driver of land use change in United States.'' Plos ONE
 11(9): e0162269. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0162269.
    Herrick, J.E., O. Arnalds, B. Bestelmeyer, S. Bringezu, G. Han, M.V.
 Johnson, D. Kimiti, Yihe Lu, L. Montanarella, W. Pengue, G. Toth, J.
 Tukahirwa, M. Velayutham and L. Zhang. United Nations Environment
 Program. 2016. Unlocking the Sustainable Potential of Land Resources:
 Evaluation Systems, Strategies and Tools. A Report of the Working Group
 on Land and Soils of the International Resource Panel. DTI/2002/PA.
 ISBN: 978-92-807-3578-9. 96 pp.
    U.S. Congress. 1980. House Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban
 Affairs. Subcommittee on Cities. Compact Cities: Energy Saving
 Strategies for the Eighties: Report Together with Dissenting Views.
 U.S. Government Printing Office. 1980. 86 pp.
    U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1992. Readings in the History of the
 Soil Conservation Service.
    USDA SCS Economics and Social Sciences Division. Historical Notes
 Number 1. U.S. Government Printing Office: 1992 625-708/60587. 176 pp.
    U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2011. RCA Appraisal: Soil and Water
 Resources Conservation Act. July 2011. 112 pp.
    U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2015. Summary Report: 2012 National
 Resources Inventory. Natural Resources Conservation Service,
 Washington, D.C. and Center for Survey Statistics and Methodology, Iowa
 State University, Ames, Iowa. August 2015. 210 pp.
    U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. 2015.
 Effects of Trade on the U.S. Economy--2015. Agriculture Trade
 Multipliers 2015, Summary of Findings. Available at www.ers.usda.gov/
 data-products/agricultural-trade-multipliers/effects-of-trade-on-the-
 useconomy-2015.
    U.S. Department of Agriculture and President's Council on
 Environmental Quality. 1981. National Agricultural Lands Study.
 Washington, D.C.; National Agricultural Lands Study. 108 pp.
    U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land-
 Capability Classification. Agriculture Handbook No. 210. 25 pp.
    U.S. Office of Management and Budget and Council of Economic
 Advisors. 2016. The Fiscal Risks Facing the Federal Government. A
 Preliminary Assessment. Prepared for U.S. Office of the President.
 November 2016. 34 pp.
    Verzandvoort, S., R. Rietra and M. Hack. 2009. Pressures on Prime
 Agricultural Land in Europe. Alterra, Wageningen, UR. November 2009. 18
 pp.
    Walsh, J.S., D. Wuebbles, K. Hayhoe, J. Kossin, K. Kunel, G.
 Stephens, P. Thorne, R. Vose, M. Wehner, J. Willis, D. Anderson, S.
 Donley, R. Feely, P. Hennon, V. Kharin, T. Knutson, F. Landerer, T.
 Lenton, J. Kennedy and R. Somerville. 2014. ``Chapt. 2: Our Changing
 Climate.'' Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third
 National Climate Assessment, J.M. Melilio, T.C. Richmond and G.W. Yohe,
 Eds. U.S. Global Change Research Program, 19-77. Doi:10.7930/JOKW5CXT.
 

 
 
          A blooming pear orchard in the Hood River Valley, Oregon. 
        Tomas Kaspar/Alamy Stock Photo.

 
 
 
    Wainger, L. and D. Ervin. 2017. Synthesis Chapter--the Valuation of
 Ecosystem Services from Farms and Forests: Informing a systemic
 approach to quantifying benefits of conservation programs. The Council
 on Food, Agricultural and Resource Economics (C-FARE). Report No. 0114-
 301. Washington, D.C. March 2017. 36 pp.
    White, R.R. and M.B. Hall. 2017. ``Nutritional and greenhouse gas
 impacts of removing animals from U.S. agriculture.'' PNAS Early
 Edition. 8 pp. www.pnas/org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1707322114.
    Widbe, K. and N. Gollehon. 2006. Agricultural Resources and
 Environmental Indicators. USDA Economic Research Service. Economic
 Information Bulletin (EIB-16 July 2006). 239 pp. AREI/Land. 1.3: Land
 and Soil Quality, pp. 25-33.
    Wilkins, N., A. Hays, D. Kubenka, D. Steinbach, W. Grant, E.
 Gonzalez, M. Kyelland and J. Shackelford. 2003. Texas Rural Lands:
 Trends and Conservation Implications for the 21st Century. Texas A&M
 Cooperative Extension and American Farmland Trust. March 2003. 28 pp.
    Wright, C.K. and M.C. Wimberly. 2013. ``Recent land use change in
 the Western Corn Belt threatens grasslands and wetlands.'' PNAS
 110(10): 4134-4139. March 2013 www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/
 PMC3593829.
 

 
 
          Crop fields stretch to the horizon in Illinois. Dmathis/
        Istockphoto

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          For More Information
 
    To keep track of Farms Under Threat and make use of reports, data,
 and white papers to build a constituency to protect this land for
 future generations, visit our website at www.farmland.org/initiatives/
 farms-under-threat. For technical questions concerning our analyses,
 contact AFT's Farmland Information Center at www.farmlandinfo.org or
 (800) 370-4879.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

 
 
          A new housing development on farmland in Loudoun County, 
        Virginia. Rob Crandall/Alamy Stock Photo
        
        
          1150 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 600
          Washington, D.C. 20036
          (800) 431-1499  www.farmland.org
          #farmsunderthreat
                              attachment 2
    Editor's note: the letter dated May 24, 2021 was also submitted by 
Mrs. Kuster and is located on p. 79. It is not duplicated here.
                              attachment 3


[https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2021/11/24/usda-announces-
american-rescue-plan-technical-assistance]
USDA Announces American Rescue Plan Technical Assistance Partnerships 
        Focused on Underserved Producers
Release & Contact Info
Press Release
  Release No. 0260.21
  Contact: USDA Press
  Email: [email protected]

    Washington, Nov. 24, 2021--The U.S. Department of Agriculture 
(USDA) is helping to ensure that underserved farmers, ranchers, and 
foresters have the tools, programs and support they need to succeed in 
agriculture. Today, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced USDA 
will provide approximately $75 million in American Rescue Plan funding 
to 20 organizations to provide technical assistance to connect 
underserved producers with USDA programs and services. Organizations 
were selected for their proven track records working with underserved 
producer communities, such as veterans, beginning farmers, limited 
resource producers, and producers living in high-poverty areas. These 
organizations will work with underserved producer communities on 
business and tax planning, financial assistance planning, market 
planning, farmer advocacy, and business curriculum development.
    The cooperative agreements announced today are an initial step in 
deploying American Rescue Plan resources in response to demands for 
more immediate assistance on farm business planning, market development 
and access assistance, tax planning and land access assistance, to help 
underserved producers succeed. This announcement is the latest in a 
series of announcements building momentum around USDA's historic 
commitment to center equity in decision-making and policymaking and 
lower barriers to access USDA programming.
    ``As we build back better than we were before USDA is listening to 
our customers, and we are proud to offer new tools to help address 
inequities for underserved farmers and ranchers through the American 
Rescue Plan,'' said Secretary Vilsack. ``We are committed to making 
each of our programs equitable so all can benefit from the 
opportunities USDA investments and programs help create. Our planned 
work with these important cooperators will help USDA achieve these 
important goals.''
    A full list of cooperators is available at: www.usda.gov/sites/
default/files/documents/section-1006-list-of-cooperative-
agreements.docx (DOCX, 13.9 KB). Cooperators will work with other 
cooperator organizations and USDA to address the needs of underserved 
producer communities. For example:

   The National Black Farmers Association will collaborate with 
        organizations and will provide financial and business 
        assistance and opportunities to receive USDA program technical 
        support.

   The Intertribal Agriculture Council will lead training and 
        technical assistance with Native American farmers, ranchers and 
        forest landowners across the country.

   The Farmer Veteran Coalition will coordinate with other 
        cooperators to focus on the needs of farmer and rancher veteran 
        members.

    To ensure the partnerships announced today and future partnerships 
funded via these American Rescue Plan funds are robust, all recipients 
will work with USDA in intensive training and collaboration activities.
    The American Rescue Plan Section 1006 provides direction and over 
$1 billion in funding for USDA to take action to ensure underserved 
communities have tools, programs and support they need to succeed. The 
Biden-Harris Administration is committed to advancing equity as a key 
priority. With the transformative funds provided by the American Rescue 
Plan, USDA will focus on creating opportunity for underserved producers 
through technical assistance and capacity building, access to land and 
credit, and access to markets and market development. Through Section 
1006, USDA is also standing up an Equity Commission to advise the 
Secretary of Agriculture by identifying USDA programs, policies, 
systems, structures, and practices that contribute to barriers to 
inclusion or access, systemic discrimination, or exacerbate or 
perpetuate racial, economic, health and social disparities. The 
Commission nomination period has been extended to Nov. 30, 2021.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.usda.gov/equity-commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    USDA touches the lives of all Americans each day in so many 
positive ways. In the Biden-Harris Administration, USDA is transforming 
America's food system with a greater focus on more resilient local and 
regional food production, fairer markets for all producers, ensuring 
access to safe, healthy and nutritious food in all communities, 
building new markets and streams of income for farmers and producers 
using climate-smart food and forestry practices, making historic 
investments in infrastructure and clean energy capabilities in rural 
America, and committing to equity across the Department by removing 
systemic barriers and building a workforce more representative of 
America. To learn more, visit 3www.usda.gov.

          USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.