[Senate Hearing 117-508]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                                                        S. Hrg. 117-508

                        MILK PRICING: AREAS FOR
                         IMPROVEMENT AND REFORM

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

                                HEARING

                               before the

                            SUBCOMMITTEE ON
  LIVESTOCK, DAIRY, POULTRY, LOCAL FOOD SYSTEMS, AND FOOD SAFETY AND 
                                SECURITY

                                 of the

                       COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,
                        NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                           SEPTEMBER 15, 2021

                               __________

                       Printed for the use of the
           Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
           
           
           [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
	   
	   
	                       ________
	   
	   
	            U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
	   
47-196 			   WASHINGTON : 2022


                  Available on http://www.govinfo.gov/
           COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY


                 DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan, Chairwoman
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont            JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio                  MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota             JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado          JONI ERNST, Iowa
KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York      CINDY HYDE-SMITH, Mississippi
TINA SMITH, Minnesota                ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois          TOMMY TUBERVILLE, Alabama
CORY BOOKER, New Jersey              CHARLES GRASSLEY, Iowa
BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico            JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
RAPHAEL WARNOCK, Georgia             DEB FISCHER, Nebraska
                                     MIKE BRAUN, Indiana

               Joseph A. Shultz, Majority Staff Director
               Mary Beth Schultz, Majority Chief Counsel
                    Jessica L. Williams, Chief Clerk
               Fitzhugh Elder IV, Minority Staff Director
                 Fred J. Clark, Minority Chief Counsel

                              ----------                              

Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, Poultry, Local Food Systems, and Food 
                          Safety and Security

              KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York, Chairwoman
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont            CINDY HYDE-SMITH, Mississippi
TINA SMITH, Minnesota                JONI ERNST, Iowa
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois          ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas
CORY BOOKER, New Jersey              CHARLES GRASSLEY, Iowa
RAPHAEL WARNOCK, Georgia             DEB FISCHER, Nebraska
                                     JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                     Wednesday, September 15, 2021

                                                                   Page

Subcommittee Hearing:

Milk Pricing: Areas for Improvement and Reform...................     1

                              ----------                              

                    STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY SENATORS

Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont...     1
Boozman, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Arkansas......     2
Gillibrand, Hon. Kirsten E., U.S. Senator from the State of New 
  York...........................................................     4
Cindy, Hon. Hyde-Smith, U.S. Senator from the State of 
  Mississippi....................................................     5
Grassley, Hon. Charles, U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa......     7

                                Panel I

Davenport, Lowell J., Jr., Owner, Tollgate Farm, Member of Hudson 
  Valley Fresh, Ancramdale, NY...................................     8
Zuiderveen, Christina, Managing Partner, Black Soil Dairy LLC, 
  Granville, IA..................................................    10
Ferguson, Mike, Owner, Ferguson Dairy Farm, Senatobia, MS........    12

                                Panel II

de Ronde, Catherine H., Vice President, Economics and Legislative 
  Affairs, Agri-Mark Inc., Andover, MA...........................    27
Wills, Robert, Ph.D., President, Cedar Grove Cheese Inc. and 
  Clock Shadow Creamery, LLC, Plain, WI..........................    28
Wolf, Christopher A., Ph.D., E.V. Baker Professor of Agricultural 
  Economics, Charles H. Dyson School of Applied Economics and 
  Management, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.....................    30
                              ----------                              

                                APPENDIX

Prepared Statements:
    Davenport, Lowell J., Jr.....................................    40
    Zuiderveen, Christina........................................    45
    Ferguson, Mike...............................................    48
    de Ronde, Catherine H........................................    53
    Wills, Robert, Ph.D..........................................    59
    Wolf, Christopher A., Ph.D...................................    69

Document(s) Submitted for the Record:
Leahy, Hon. Patrick:
    Milk Pricing: Areas for Improvement and Reform, prepared 
      statement for the record...................................    76
Grassley, Hon. Charles:
    Milk Pricing: Areas for Improvement and Reform, prepared 
      statement for the record...................................    77

Question and Answer:
Davenport, Lowell J., Jr.:
    Written response to questions from Hon. Raphael Warnock......    80
Zuiderveen, Christina:
    Written response to questions from Hon. Charles Grassley.....    82
Wills, Robert, Ph.D.:
    Written response to questions from Hon. Kirsten Gillibrand...    84
Wolf, Christopher A. Ph.D.:
    Written response to questions from Hon. Kirsten Gillibrand...    87
de Ronde, Catherine H.:
    Written response to questions from Hon. Kirsten Gillibrand...    91

 
             MILK PRICING: AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT AND REFORM

                              ----------                              


                     WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2021

                                       U.S. Senate,
         Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry,
    Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, Poultry, Local Food 
Systems, and Food Safety and Security,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:31 a.m., via 
Webex and in room 301 Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. 
Kirsten Gillibrand, Chairwoman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Gillibrand, Leahy, Smith, Hyde-Smith, 
Ernst, Marshall, Grassley, Fischer, and Boozman.
    Senator Gillibrand. I call this hearing of the Subcommittee 
on Livestock, Dairy, Poultry, Local Food Systems, and Food 
Safety and Security to order.
    Thank you all for joining us this morning as the 
Subcommittee meets to receive testimony on the growing need to 
modernize the Federal Milk Marketing Order System to bring the 
Nation's dairy pricing into the 21st century market. Since this 
is the first Subcommittee hearing of the year, I want to start 
by welcoming Ranking Member Hyde-Smith, for her leadership and 
her work. I look forward to working together to provide our 
Nation's farmers with the tools, support, and resources they 
need.
    To our witnesses, welcome. We have two panels today. Before 
I introduce the panels, I am going to introduce the dean of the 
Democrats to allow for his opening remarks because he has a 
conflict and he has to leave early.
    Senator Leahy, if you would like to provide your opening 
remarks.

STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE 
   OF VERMONT, U.S. COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND 
                            FORESTRY

    Senator Leahy. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I 
appreciate the courtesy of my neighbor from New York. This is 
an important and timely hearing. Only because of a conflict, 
actually, both Senator Durbin and I have, with Judiciary--I 
will not be here.
    I think every Vermonter knows dairy never takes a day off, 
and so I particularly thank our witnesses for being here. I 
just talked with Ms. de Ronde, and I have welcomed her here 
today. She is speaking for Agri-Mark, which is an indispensable 
member of Vermont's dairy community. I would say to her, as I 
said before, I could always count on your predecessor, the late 
Bob Wellington, to provide sound counsel, and I know you are 
going to do the same.
    Dairy is a bedrock industry in Vermont and the Northeast. 
It anchors our rural economies for generations. The years of 
price volatility, consolidation, rising costs have squeezed 
many small-sized farms. Vermont has been losing farms at a 
devastating rate, even before the pandemic. Since 2012, we have 
lost more than 40 percent of our dairies. That is 400 families 
no longer milking cows. That is impacting across our 
communities, our working landscape. Our farmers continue to 
struggle in an economic climate beyond their control.
    Last month, I welcomed Secretary Vilsack to Vermont. 
Together, we announced $350 million in assistance to dairy 
farmers who received lower prices due to market abnormalities 
caused by the pandemic.
    We have got to look forward to solutions and improve the 
resilience and increase transparency, address longstanding 
market inequities. I look forward to their perspectives.
    Senator Gillibrand, I will put my whole statement in the 
record, but thank you for doing this. I know I do not have to 
tell you what dairy farms in the Northeast face. You have been 
a champion of them in your own State of New York. You have 
traveled to those farms. You have talked with the farmers. I 
think there is a lot we can work together on. Thank you very 
much.

    [The prepared statement of Senator Leahy can be found on 
page 76 in the appendix.]

    Senator Gillibrand. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I would also like to recognize the Ranking Member of the Ag 
Committee, Senator Boozman.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BOOZMAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF 
    ARKANSAS, U.S. COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND 
                            FORESTRY

    Senator Boozman. Thank you so much, Madam Chair, and thanks 
to Senator Leahy and to you, for your championship, nobody has 
worked any harder for the dairy industry than you all as the 
years have gone by, and it is certainly such an important 
industry.
    I, too, would like to thank our witnesses for being here 
today, in person and virtually. The time you are spending away 
from your duties on the farm and from your work is not lost on 
us. We greatly appreciate your expertise and your willingness 
to guide us as we do our very best to serve you and American 
agriculture in general.
    Over the August recess, I had the pleasure of visiting 
Helms Dairy in Arkadelphia, Arkansas. This fifth-generation 
farm, which has survived two world wars, major depressions in 
the farm economy, and steadily declining consumption of fluid 
milk and dairy products, is one of the remaining 40 dairies in 
Arkansas, which is truly amazing that we are at that point.
    As Senator Hyde-Smith has shared, the number of dairy farms 
has steadily declined in many southern States. I am deeply 
concerned about this decline and look forward to examining this 
trend and ways to reverse it. While dairy policy may be a part 
of that conversation, the items I hear about most from dairy 
farmers and all farmers are concerns about higher taxes, higher 
input costs, and increasing regulation. Rising to each of those 
concerns is the tax-and-spend legislation that is getting ready 
to be forced through Congress.
    In the last 40 years, the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, 
and Forestry Committee has received budget reconciliation 
instructions 15 times. Between 1980 and this year, five 
committee chairs from both parties provided the leadership to 
ensure that there was some level of bipartisan input into the 
reconciliation process, whether that was a committee hearing, 
an open markup of the legislation, the bipartisan service of 
Agriculture Committee members on a conference committee, or 
legislation that was passed with the bipartisan votes of 
Senators from both parties.
    Consideration of the agriculture provisions of the American 
Rescue Plan of 2021 was the first time in more than 40 years 
that this bipartisan committee tradition was not upheld. No 
hearings were held to listen to the needs of farmers and 
ranchers. No business meeting was held to afford committee 
Republicans and Democrats input into drafting the bill. 
Democrats did not convene a conference committee to consider 
any changes. The final bill passed Congress by a party-line 
vote.
    I am deeply concerned that Democrats are choosing to go 
down this road once again. Without input from the agriculture 
community and without the input of Senators on this Committee, 
Democratic leaders in the House and Senate are preparing a $3.5 
trillion tax-and-spend bill that better reflects White House 
priorities rather than those of the agriculture community.
    Democrats have been saying for months that this legislation 
will spend billions of dollars on conservation programs, yet, 
earlier this week, the House Agriculture Committee approved an 
incomplete bill that included no conservation program spending 
as of yet. Apparently, $28 billion worth of conservation and 
other spending will be added later, perhaps on the House floor.
    The bill did, however, identify something called the 
Civilian Climate Corps, which I think is better described as 
the Climate Police. We have no information on what the Climate 
Police may be, what its purpose is, how it will work, why it is 
needed, or any other answers to the most fundamental questions 
that American taxpayers expect this body to know and deliberate 
on before spending trillions of dollars.
    We do know that President Biden's so-called ``American Jobs 
Plan'' proposes mobilizing the next generation of resilience 
workers to advance environmental justice. We also know that in 
this bill Democrats are directing the Climate Police to operate 
on Federal forest and private land. That is the last thing 
farmers and ranchers need.
    The part that concerns me the most is the impact this 
partisan process will have on consideration of the next farm 
bill. Despite its high final vote tallies, passing the 2018 
Farm Bill was no simple task. It took moderation on both sides 
and months of thoughtful deliberation to craft legislation that 
demonstrated wins for all. By choosing this approach, Democrats 
are shattering the farm bill process and putting our farmers' 
futures in jeopardy. Throughout this process, I and my 
Republican colleagues on this Committee will do everything in 
our power to defend American agriculture from the Democrats' 
reckless tax-and-spending agenda.
    I yield back with that, Madam Chair. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF HON. KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE 
 STATE OF NEW YORK, U.S. COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, 
                          AND FORESTRY

    Senator Gillibrand. Thank you, Mr. Ranking Member.
    I would now like to welcome our witnesses. Welcome. We have 
two panels today. The first panel includes Mr. Jim Davenport, 
Jr., owner of Tollgate Farm and member of Hudson Valley Fresh 
of Ancramdale, New York--welcome; Mrs. Christina Zuiderveen, a 
managing partner of Black Soil Dairy, LLC, of Granville, Iowa, 
and Mr. Mike Ferguson, owner of the Ferguson Dairy Farm, of 
Senatobia, Mississippi.
    Our second panel, we will hear from Ms. Catherine H. de 
Ronde, Vice President of Economics and Legislative Affairs at 
Agri-Mark, Inc., in Andover, Massachusetts; Mr. Robert Wills, 
President of Cedar Grove Cheese, Inc. and Clock Shadow 
Creamery, LLC, of Plain, Wisconsin; and Christopher Wolf, E.V. 
Baker Professor of Agricultural Economics at the Charles H. 
Dyson School of Applied Economics and Management at Cornell 
University, of Ithaca, New York.
    I look forward to hearing from you all and thank you all 
for sharing your time and expertise with us today.
    Milk pricing is rightfully considered one of the most 
complicated economic systems in our Nation. When that system is 
not working for farmers, the ramifications reach from coast to 
coast, including in my home State of New York. New York is the 
fourth largest dairy producing State and the Nation's largest 
producer of yogurt and home to more than 3,000 dairy farms. 
When the milk pricing system leaves those farmers without 
adequate pay, the impacts are felt all across our economy.
    Dairy farmers are facing rising costs of production, and 
current dairy prices are not covering them. Farmers' costs for 
needs like labor and fuel have been increasing for years, and 
the corn and soy used for feed are seeing a historic price 
rally. The consolidation and corporatization of the dairy 
industry has only exacerbated these issues. Large dairy 
operations have driven prices well below the cost of 
production, and family farms cannot compete with the economies 
of scale the mega producers have. Too many farmers across the 
country have been driven to bankruptcy and, in very tragic 
cases, in my own State of New York, suicide. Thousands of 
family farmers have been left with no choice but to leave the 
industry entirely. Between 2003 and 2020, there has been a 55 
percent decrease in the number of dairy farms operating 
nationwide. We are in the midst of a modern-day dairy crisis.
    Those struggles have only been magnified by the fundamental 
change made to the Class I pricing formula in the 2018 Farm 
Bill, which switched from using the higher-of Class III and 
Class IV to the average of the 2 plus 74 cents and an 
applicable differential. The 74-cent addition was based on the 
historic price difference between the two classes, but the 
historically calculated formula has failed to meet the needs of 
the present-day market.
    Any time the price differential between Class III and Class 
IV is larger than $1.48, farmers are losing money. During the 
pandemic, government intervention left the price differential 
magnitudes larger than that. Class III prices skyrocketed while 
Class IV prices increased only slightly. Using the average of 
the two meant the pricing never fully captured the change in 
the market. It left Class I prices as much as $4.57 per 
hundredweight lower under the new formula than the old. That, 
in turn, led to $436 million in revenue lost to pools, record 
amount of milk being depooled, and record low producer price 
differentials. All told, by the summer of this year, the new 
formula had already cost dairy farmers more than $750 million 
in lost income.
    I want to be clear. The pandemic and the economic downturn 
are not the only causes of this problem, but they did 
exacerbate it. The system cannot adapt to market conditions 
and, thus, is not fairly compensating our dairy farmers. The 
2018 formula change is a symptom of the larger problems with 
our Federal Orders. The current Federal Milk Marketing Orders 
(FMMOs) system is confusing, convoluted, and too difficult to 
fully understand. Different Orders have different rules, and 
some parts of the country are not even under Orders.
    The system is inadequate and out of date. We are using an 
almost 100-year-old system, which had its last major reform 
more than 20 years ago, for pricing for an industry where no 
dairy farmer is running their farm the way they would have 100 
years ago. They should not be beholden to a price system that 
operates as if they are.
    We must put the power back in the farmers' hands, help them 
recoup their losses, and build a system that ensures they get 
better prices moving forward so they are not put in this 
position again. To do that, it is going to take the combined 
efforts of farmers, processors, and cooperatives. Today, we 
will be hearing from all three on why the current system is in 
need of reform. I look forward to their testimony, and I look 
forward to working with you, Senator Hyde-Smith, to address 
these issues and much more.
    With that, I want to recognize Senator Hyde-Smith for an 
opening comment.

STATEMENT OF HON. CINDY HYDE-SMITH, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE 
 OF MISSISSIPPI, U.S. COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND 
                            FORESTRY

    Senator Hyde-Smith. Thank you, Senator Gillibrand, for 
holding this hearing today and to discuss milk pricing 
challenges. As a former commissioner of agriculture in my 
State, this is near and dear to me and has been a challenge for 
a very long time.
    Thank you to our witnesses, our dairy farmers, and industry 
experts for taking time away from your very, very busy 
schedules to join us today because I know that is a hardship in 
itself, that you stop and take time to testify, but we 
certainly appreciate you doing this because it is so vital to 
hear from actual producers.
    I am especially pleased to welcome Mr. Mike Ferguson of 
Senatobia, Mississippi. I know him well. He has been in the 
dairy business for over 40 years and runs an operation of 
approximately 150 head in North Mississippi. He has held a 
number of leadership positions in the dairy industry, has been 
very helpful, very vocal, and will bring valuable insight to 
the Subcommittee.
    I thank you for being available today, Mike. You have 
always been so genuine and so concerned and active. You want to 
be part of a solution, and that is exactly the kind of people 
we need.
    Before the pandemic, dairy producers faced multi-year 
period of low milk and dairy commodity prices. I am proud that 
during the 2020 years of COVID my colleagues and I advanced 
bipartisan legislation to support dairy farm families through 
the pandemic. Many dairy farm families are still in business 
today because of the Coronavirus Food Assistance Program 
despite the added price volatility and demand uncertainty 
caused by this unprecedented pandemic.
    A key component of today's discussion will be the 2018 Farm 
Bill change to the Class I milk that has been referenced to 
already, the price formula, and a change that was included at 
the request of the dairy industry stakeholders. However, 
according to estimates by the American Farm Bureau Federation, 
this formula change resulted in millions of dollars of 
shortfalls. It has already been discussed. We know over $750 
million to farmers supplying milk to beverage/milk processors.
    The authors of that provision certainly could not have 
foreseen the severe market challenges that occurred in 2020 nor 
could they have anticipated the unintended economic 
consequences of that 2018 formula change. There are certainly 
options to address the situation facing dairy producers today, 
whether it is another statutory change to the formula or 
changes in the--achieved through administrative processes.
    On another front, the decline in the number of dairy 
farmers in the Southeast is of particular importance to me and 
to Ranking Member Boozman. While Mississippi and Arkansas are 
indeed milk-deficit States, we consume more than we produce, 
and I am interested in examining whether aspects of the Federal 
Milk Marketing Order system make it more difficult for our 
producers to stay in business. The number of Mississippi dairy 
farms and farms across the Southeast has fallen dramatically 
over the last 40 years. I would like to help reverse that trend 
and be a part of seeing this come back. I am glad we are here 
today to discuss challenges facing the industry and potential 
opportunities to improve the Federal dairy policy.
    While today's Subcommittee hearing is about dairy, I would 
like to also express my concerns about a more comprehensive 
topic which will certainly affect the dairy industry, the 
disastrous tax-and-spending packages that are being considered 
right now by our colleagues in the Democratic Party. As we 
speak, the U.S. House of Representatives is crafting 
legislation that aims to spend $135 billion or more just within 
USDA's jurisdiction on programs the Agriculture Committee 
oversees. The price tag of the overall bill is $3.5 trillion. 
This is deficit spending that will be paid for by hiking taxes 
on family farms. I expect this legislation will soon make its 
way to the Senate for consideration.
    I raise these concerns because the Senate Agriculture 
Committee has not held a single hearing to consider any part of 
this bill and I do not anticipate that we will and this 
legislation will be able to pass with a simple majority, 
strictly party lines, harming the American farmer. Let me say 
that again: $135 billion in new spending on agriculture and 
climate programs financed on the back of hardworking family 
farmers, ranchers, and foresters across rural America. 
Unfortunately, the public has not had any input into this 
process. The same can be said about the most members of this 
Committee and Republicans as a whole. This is a product being 
developed by Democratic leadership behind closed doors, a 
reckless tax-and-spend agenda.
    Farmers, ranchers, dairymen, consumers, and everyone in 
between have long benefited from the professional and 
bipartisan manner in which this Committee operates. This is not 
just a feel-good talking point. It is the way that we are 
expected to serve and the way that this Committee has operated 
for many years. I hope my colleagues keep in mind that as they 
contemplate going down a very concerning road for our country, 
our agricultural community, and for this Committee.
    All that said, I am pleased that we are here today to 
discuss ways to help the dairy industry. Perhaps, we can even 
come up with some common-sense amendment ideas to improve the 
partisan package I just mentioned, which at this point, 
unfortunately, does not include any dairy-related provisions.
    To our witnesses, again, thank you for your time, and I 
look forward to your discussion.
    Thank you, Senator Gillibrand, for convening this very 
important hearing.
    Senator Gillibrand. Thank you so much, Senator.
    I would now like to recognize Senate Grassley because he 
has a conflict at 10, for your opening remarks and introduction 
of your witness.

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES GRASSLEY, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE 
OF IOWA, U.S. COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

    Senator Grassley. I have a privilege of introducing a 
witness. Before I do that, I want to put something in the 
record that associates my remarks with what the Ranking Member 
Boozman said about the irresponsible spending in the 
reconciliation bill and the tax policies that are going to be 
very detrimental to farming.
    Welcome, Christina, Ms. Zuiderveen, Managing Partner of 
three dairies: Black Soil Dairy, Granville, Iowa; Mt. Hope 
Dairy, Beresford, South Dakota; Dakota Plains Dairy, 
Centerville, South Dakota.
    On a day-to-day basis, Christina works in bookkeeping and 
HR. Christina is also on the Board of the Iowa State Dairy 
Association. She is also a member of Edge Dairy Farmers 
Cooperative, located in the upper Midwest, and serves on a 
regional milk pricing task force. She has previously served on 
the Central Plains Dairy Expo Board of Directors.
    Christina attended Cornerstone University, received her 
degree in business marketing. She grew up on a dairy farm in 
California before her family took the operation to Michigan 
State. She now resides in Iowa with her husband, Nate, and 
their three children.
    I last saw Christina in a discussion about all these issues 
we are talking about here today, when we had a small dairy 
farmers' meeting while the Iowa State Fair was going on in Des 
Moines. Welcome.
    Ms. Zuiderveen. Thank you.
    Senator Grassley. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Will you put 
this in the record?

    [The prepared statement of Senator Grassley can be found on 
page 77 in the appendix.]

    Senator Gillibrand. Thank you so much, Senator Grassley.
    Then our last witness who has not been introduced is Mr. 
Jim Davenport. He is a dairy farmer from Ancramdale, New York. 
He has been a member of the Agri-Mark Dairy Cooperative since 
he and his wife, Karen, started shipping milk in 1986.
    He is also one of nine farmer owners of the Hudson Valley 
Fresh. This group of farmers owns a bottling plant in Kingston, 
New York, and processes over one million pounds of raw milk 
each month into high-quality fluid milk, yogurt, sour cream, 
and ice cream mix. Hudson Valley Fresh supplies all the dairy 
products used by the United States Military Academy at West 
Point.
    Thank you very much for being here today, Jim.
    We just introduced Christina, and Senator Hyde-Smith 
introduced Mike. Mr. Davenport, you can proceed with your 
testimony.

 STATEMENT OF LOWELL J. DAVENPORT, JR., OWNER, TOLLGATE FARM, 
      MEMBER OF HUDSON VALLEY FRESH, ANCRAMDALE, NEW YORK

    Mr. Davenport. Okay. Thank you. Good morning. I would like 
to thank Senator Gillibrand for asking me down to testify 
today. On our small farm of 64 milking cows, I am over 50 
percent of the hourly labor and over 90 percent of the 
management. Therefore, I am fully aware that there are 168 
hours in a week. Any week that I work less than half of those 
hours is good. Taking time off to be here makes this a good 
week.
    I would like--also like to thank Senator Gillibrand for her 
work on making the current Dairy Margin Coverage (DMC) program 
so responsive to the needs of the small dairy farms during this 
period of sky-high feed prices and inadequate milk prices.
    When we started shipping milk in 1986, there were about 
250,000 licensed dairies in the U.S. At the end of 2020, there 
were under 32,000. In 1986, the average dairy farm was 43 cows. 
Today, it is close to 300. In our Federal Order for a few 
years, we shipped about the daily average production for the 
Order. Lately, it has shot up to over twice what we produce 
each day, and our production has crept up because we are doing 
things more efficiently. Keeping small farms viable is critical 
for our survival.
    As I stated in my written testimony, since its inception, 
the Federal Order system has served us well. Recent COVID-
induced market turmoil, especially in the fluid milk business, 
showed the pricing system needs to be adjusted to reflect the 
current milk product mix in market swings. I know of no large 
independent dairy processors to be vertically integrated. 
Unlike the pork or poultry industry, dairy processors want 
nothing to do with milking cows. All of the vertical 
integration in the fluid milk business comes from the bottom-
up. Dairy farmers are trying to capture a larger share of the 
consumer dollar.
    People in the dairy industry are more knowledgeable than I 
are batting around ideas to reform milk pricing. The process 
the USDA uses to do this will work, just takes some time. We 
just have to be vigilant and keep a watch on what transpires 
and be sure it benefits the ones with the hardest job, the 
producers, the dairy farmers.
    Forty years ago in ag economics class, I learned that 
demand for fluid milk is inelastic, meaning that consumers do 
not buy more when the price is low or less when the price is 
high. I hope that someone comes up with a plan to price fluid 
milk off of something less volatile than the cheese, butter, 
powder markets. If the consumer demand for fluid milk tends to 
be steady, then so should the fluid portion of the dairy 
farmers' price.
    That is my written part of my oral. I see I have 2 minutes 
and 16 seconds left. I will just expound on that a little bit.
    Basically, what we are hearing here today from the folks, 
Senators from in the southern part of the State, and any place 
there is a high fluid usage is it is tough to stay in business 
as a dairy farmer. The advantage they have in the heavily 
cheese-producing States is fluid is a very small portion of the 
milkshed, so it is very easy to serve the fluid processors.
    COVID certainly proved in the Southeast United States a 
whole lot of milk got dumped; it did in the Northeast, too, but 
I think the Southeast wins the prize. It is just a matter of 
getting it so that the fluid milk price really reflects, you 
know, how much it--how hard it is to provide milk to the fluid 
processors.
    We have--with our own brand, we are blessed to be two hours 
north of a whole bunch of people, eight million, nine million, 
Metro New York area, and who appreciate local, who appreciate, 
you know, knowing where their products come from. We have been 
able to capitalize that and do a consolidation in the dairy 
industry. We do school milk bids. We have actually put a price 
that can make our farmers a little bit better money than they 
would get from a regular processor and still have a low bid, 
and that is because of the consolidation in the dairy industry.
    A lot of small plants have closed. In New York State, with 
all the milk that we make, in some of the areas where most of 
the milk is made, a lot of school systems can only get one bid. 
New York City currently is spending 17.5 cents a unit on fluid 
milk for their students' eight-ounce cartons. In the southern 
tier of New York, around Binghamton, some of those schools are 
paying 37 cents because they only get one bid. Whoever is 
bidding decides that, well, if there is only bid, I might as 
well make some money.
    I think the fluid business has--that has to be addressed 
seriously in milk pricing, and I would really like to see them 
decouple the price for fluid milk from the international 
volatile cheese and butter, powder price.
    Thank you for your time and thank you, Senators, for 
staying here and being here. I appreciate it. Appreciate your 
hard work. Thanks.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Davenport can be found on 
page 40 in the appendix.]

    Senator Gillibrand. Thank you, Mr. Davenport.
    Our next speaker is Mrs. Zuiderveen. You are recognized for 
five minutes.

STATEMENT OF CHRISTINA ZUIDERVEEN, MANAGING PARTNER, BLACK SOIL 
                   DAIRY LLC, GRANVILLE, IOWA

    Ms. Zuiderveen. Good morning, it is an honor to be here 
representing the many dairy families in Iowa and across the 
United States. Chairwoman Gillibrand and Ranking Member Hyde-
Smith, thank you for giving me the privilege of taking part in 
our governing process.
    I was born into a California dairy family who chased better 
market conditions into Michigan in the mid-90's. After we were 
married, my husband and I worked on his family's 500-cow dairy 
before taking an opportunity in an emerging dairy market, the 
Central Plains. I live with my husband and our three children 
in Northwest Iowa, but we also work closely with my brother in 
Southeast South Dakota. Together, across three locations, we 
milk 15,000 cows.
    Most milk in the United States is regulated through FMMOs. 
This system was put in place decades ago to prevent dairy 
processors from making one dairy farmer bid against the other. 
In other words, FMMOs promise dairy producers that if their 
milk is as good as their neighbors they will be paid the same 
price. After decades of decline in sales of fluid milk, that 
promise now seems to be broken.
    Although these conditions have benefited me personally in 
the last year, I am advocating for change because I want a fair 
system where everyone can compete on a level playing field. In 
2020, cheese prices were very high. We ship to a cheese 
processor. Our milk check was high, and we were able to pay 
down debt and grow our operations. Meanwhile, some of our 
neighbors were forced to implement cost-cutting measures to 
stay afloat.
    I have spoken to dairy farmers all across Iowa who are 
struggling because they are paid far less for their milk 
because they are not paid solely on that cheese price. Our 
prices are most definitely not uniform. This disparity is not 
unique to my region. I have family in California, Indiana, and 
Michigan with the same problem.
    On the surface, it seems that pooling rules are the 
problem, but the deeper issue is that FMMOs do not provide 
market-based incentives to move milk to the processing plants 
where it is most valuable. For decades, FMMOs encouraged 
overproduction of cheap, nonfat, dry milk powder. When fluid 
sales were high, they subsidized milk powder returns. With 
fluid sales declining, per Federal Order rules, cheesemakers 
are left to subsidize powder through revenue pooling, and they 
declined to do so in 2020. Good intentions to create a system 
with uniform prices has resulted in a distorted system that is 
now coming unglued to the detriment of dairy families, whose 
income depends on the value of a blend of fluid milk, milk 
powder, and butter.
    The Dairy Revenue Protection (DRP) and DMC have reduced the 
cost for producers to hedge against volatility and poor 
margins, but our pricing system must be improved to allow all 
producers to manage their commodity market risk. If dairy 
producers, like my neighbors in Iowa and my relatives in 
Michigan, cannot anticipate what class of milk will participate 
in the pool, they will not know whether their milk checks will 
be based on the cheese price or the butter and powder price, 
and they cannot hedge effectively.
    This happened on my sister's dairy, where I was raised, in 
Michigan. Just like my dairy, they hedged based on the cheese 
price and incurred a loss. However, their milk check took a 
dive along with the Class IV markets, so their loss was 
compounded. Byzantine FMMO rules make it hard to predict how 
her farm's milk revenue will correlate with the main milk price 
benchmarks on the commodity exchange. The combination of 
unpredictable FMMO pooling and ad hoc government bailouts 
creates a moral hazard which further discourages risk 
management.
    I appreciate that the DRP and traditional risk management 
tools are based on free markets. We should be sure to offer the 
same market-based freedoms to processors, who invest immense 
sums in our industry and also face commodity risks. We can 
modernize Federal Order regulations to provide consistent and 
predictable benefits and incentivize processors to react more 
quickly to shifts in market demand by redirecting milk to 
plants that produce the most valuable dairy products. The 
current Federal Order system is necessary and provides a 
safeguard against the market power of large milk buyers, but 
the system should be modernized to stimulate financial 
transparency and promote competition and innovation as opposed 
to consolidation among both processors and producers.
    Promoting competition between processors will give dairy 
families a better milk price and incentivize the development of 
new products and markets. Competition is good for everyone. 
Every day, dairy producers must compete with one another for 
land, labor, livestock, and feed. The wide variance in mailbox 
prices caused by current pricing formulas creates a sense of 
helplessness among producers. While competition is good, it is 
unfortunate that Federal policies create an uneven playing 
field. When some producers receive as much as $9 less for their 
milk than their peers, even the best operator would not be able 
to compete in the long run.
    As a child, my dreams for the future did not include owning 
and operating a dairy. Now that I have had the opportunity, I 
cannot imagine raising my kids in any other environment. They 
get to learn firsthand the value of hard work, where our food 
comes from, and how to care for the land and animals that God 
has asked us to steward. I am currently raising one equine 
enthusiast, one future vet, and one future dairyman. It is 
important to me that we design a system that gives them the 
best chance to accomplish their dreams.
    Thank you again, Chairwoman Gillibrand, Ranking Member 
Hyde-Smith, and the rest of the Committee for your time. It has 
been an honor to be here.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. Zuiderveen can be found on 
page 45 in the appendix.]

    Senator Gillibrand. Thank you, Mrs. Zuiderveen. Appreciate 
you.
    Mr. Ferguson, you are recognized for five minutes. I think 
he is here on Webex, yes. Go ahead.

    STATEMENT OF MIKE FERGUSON, OWNER, FERGUSON DAIRY FARM, 
                     SENATOBIA, MISSISSIPPI

    Mr. Ferguson. Chair Gillibrand, Ranking Member Hyde-Smith, 
and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity 
to testify before you today. My name is Mike Ferguson, and I 
have operated a Holstein milking herd of 150 head in Eastern 
Tate County, Mississippi, for 45 years.
    The dairy industry in Mississippi currently consists of 
about 60 family farms. We are considered a milk-deficit State, 
where we do not produce as much milk as our State consumes, so 
milk must come in from other States. Mississippi is steadily 
and rapidly losing dairy farms. Over the past five years of 
extremely low milk prices, producers have struggled to put food 
on their families' tables while providing it for the rest of 
us. We have lost approximately 26 dairies over this time, from 
86 in 2016 to 60 at the present time, a 30 percent decrease. 
Many of our 60 family farms in the State will not be here in a 
few years if things do not change.
    I would like to focus my brief testimony today on areas of 
improvement that Congress could review to make an impact, to 
reverse this trend of the loss of dairy farms in the Southeast. 
Congress subsequently modified how Class I milk prices were 
calculated in the last farm bill to dairy farmers at the 
request of the industry. Under these new provisions, Class I 
milk is calculated based off the average of advance Class III 
and Class IV prices plus an adjusting factor, which defines the 
Class I mover. Previously, Class I price was based upon the 
higher of Class III or Class IV, considered the higher-of 
method.
    During the initial onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the 
traditional pricing mechanisms of Class I were skewed 
tremendously due to the unprecedented purchases of cheese by 
the Federal Government that set Class III prices significantly 
higher than Class I and created a vast disparity in the true 
value of Class I milk. While dairy farmers were, no doubt, 
grateful for the needed relief through the purchase of cheese 
products during the pandemic, the way it was done had 
significant unintended consequences that no one could have seen 
coming. While dairy farmers are eager to do everything possible 
to help people consumer our products, it should have been done 
in a balanced way to minimize price disruptions.
    I would like to mention a few recommendations to alleviate 
this issue for the future. Congress should consider immediately 
going back to the higher-of until the dairy industry can 
proceed to a national rulemaking process through USDA's dairy 
programs to consider alternative Class I milk pricing rules. A 
more frequent and thorough review of the national adjusting 
factor in the Class I mover calculation could be considered by 
either the transparent rulemaking process or congressional 
action.
    Another potential solution to alleviate the decline of the 
dairy industry in the Southeast is consideration of multiple 
component pricing. In light of the recent economic realities of 
the dairy industry, there has been a renewed interest in the 
Southeast U.S. to consider abandoning the existing pricing 
system, skim fat, in favor of adopting multiple component 
pricing. In the Southeast region's Federal Orders 5, 6, and 7, 
milk is not priced based on all the components of milk. Rather, 
milk is priced on skim and fat alone, ignoring the value-added 
of protein in the milk.
    In the Southeast, the rising value of milk proteins, 
combined with the region's alternative milk pricing scheme, is 
believed to have contributed to the challenges related to milk 
procurement. It is likely that milk proteins will continue to 
be a major nutritional and an economic value-added dairy 
product in both domestic and international markets. 
Implementing a more uniform pricing scheme across large 
portions of the U.S. will help to improve component 
productivity and drive milk to its highest value and best use.
    Multiple component pricing is a very equitable idea. It is 
based on the concept that the regulated price of milk received 
at the farm level should reflect the functional and economic 
value of the milk. Importantly, for farms like mine in the 
Southeast, component pricing could improve the price for the 
milk we receive, and it could facilitate innovation and 
investment in the Southeast dairy industry. This, too, can be 
addressed through a rulemaking process, but I urge the 
Subcommittee to carefully consider this issue in our 
conversations.
    In closing, thank you for the opportunity to testify before 
you today, and I look forward to working with you to reform 
milk pricing for the betterment of all producers and stand 
ready to answer any questions that you have. Thank you.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Ferguson can be found on 
page 48 in the appendix.]

    Senator Gillibrand. Thank you to our witnesses for your 
introductions and your statements.
    I would like to ask the first panel some questions about 
the challenges facing smaller dairies. As I noted in my opening 
remarks, the loss of dairy farms this century has been 
staggering, with many of them being small dairies. Can you 
please share some of the challenges that small farmers face in 
the Federal Order system that larger and mega dairies do not 
have to overcome?
    Mr. Davenport. I guess basically, in our Federal Order 1, 
the smaller dairies, well, they are at an advantage--a 
disadvantage. A lot of them have--just do not have the ability 
to expand due to geographic concerns. I feel that the Order 
system--we get paid fairly through the Order system. I do not 
know that the Order system is responsible for us getting a 
lower price than, you know, our neighbors that make much more 
milk.
    I will say as far as the fluid part of the business I think 
that if we could have a better fluid portion of our milk price 
it would be, you know, very helpful. A lot of small farms, they 
end up serving the fluid market in Federal Order 1, and I think 
it would be beneficial to get a better price.
    I just think it is unfortunate, but I think the last 
secretary of agriculture said something that raised the hackles 
of small farmers. He said something to the effect of: In the 
dairy business, get big or get out. Those of us that choose to 
stay small and nimble and do some value-added stuff are going 
to try to keep in business by doing that. Just do not want to 
expand, and you just try to do a much better job with as few--I 
figure if you can milk as few cows as possible once a day that 
would be ideal. Just try to be very efficient.
    I do not really know. Other than fluid milk price 
discovery, I cannot think of anything the Order could do to 
benefit the small farmers. A lot of the programs we have had--
the DMC is awesome. That has worked really, really well on our 
farm. We feed a high-forage diet, so totally takes care of our 
issues with high grain prices.
    I just--off the top of my head, and hopefully economists 
have some better ideas, I really cannot think of anything that 
the Order could do to benefit small farmers. I think it can do 
things to benefit all dairy farmers and the price of milk, but 
I honestly cannot come up with anything that would be 
reasonable.
    Senator Gillibrand. Do the other two witnesses want to add 
or contribute to that question?
    [No audible response.]
    Senator Gillibrand. Okay, Class I mover modifications. As 
has been noted in the hearing today, because of the unforeseen 
circumstances due to the pandemic and subsequent economic 
downturn, the 2018 Farm Bill change to the Class I mover 
resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars in lost income for 
dairy farmers. There have been various proposals from industry 
stakeholders suggesting modifications such as temporarily 
returning back to the higher-of formula until a new proposal 
that garners consensus can be reached. What changes to the 
Class I mover would you all suggest?
    Mr. Ferguson. Senator, I think that the Class I mover--
there are a couple of things that could be done in my 
estimation. One is that if we go back to the higher-of a 
thorough investigation, or not investigation, but a thorough 
study of it could be done to find out the true effects of where 
we are and the improvement in the adjuster portion of that, a 
more timely review of it. As now, I do not believe there is any 
review of that. If we could look at it on a yearly basis or 
something of that nature, that would be very beneficial for us, 
but the DMC is a huge, huge plus for us. I just want to echo 
that while I have that moment.
    Senator Gillibrand. Thank you.
    Mrs. Zuiderveen?
    Ms. Zuiderveen. Yes. I would just like to say that I am 
opposed to a temporary solution. I think that we need to have a 
committee study this fairly in depth so that we can solve this 
long-term and not have to address it multiple times in the next 
few years.
    Senator Gillibrand. Agreed. Mr. Davenport?
    Mr. Davenport. Yes, I--currently, right now, I think the 
current pricing system we might be making--doing a little 
better than the higher-of than we had before at this current 
time. The only thing I would say is I do not feel that we are 
out of the woods yet on the COVID thing and supply chain 
disruptions, and I personally--as a stop-gap measure, I would 
have no problem going back to the higher-of for now. It may 
upset the processors a little bit, but I hope they made a lot 
of money when our price was not so good, that they could have a 
little cushion to fall back on.
    I do certainly believe that we do need to not get rid of 
the Order system but get it straightened out so that every 
farmer can get a fair price for their milk and it gets to the 
highest and best use, the way that Order was intended.
    Senator Gillibrand. Thank you.
    Senator Hyde-Smith.
    Senator Hyde-Smith. Thank you, Senator Gillibrand.
    Mr. Ferguson, another recommendation you provided was a 
more frequent and thorough review of the national adjusting 
factor in the Class I calculation. What role does the adjusting 
factor play in this process? Could this change, more frequent 
and thorough reviews of the adjusting factor, be done 
administratively through the rulemaking process? Then would 
that be more ideal rather than waiting on the next farm bill?
    Mr. Ferguson. Senator Hyde-Smith, that would be a ``yes'' 
to that. The rulemaking process is where that should occur, and 
it would be advantageous because even through the rulemaking 
process, sometimes that moves along as slow as molasses. As far 
as the next farm bill, if we have another year like we had in 
2020, there will not be that many dairy farmers, especially I 
think in the Southeast, that are going to be in business to 
have the opportunity to take advantage of any changes that 
would be made to have us to be above water as opposed to 
underwater in our operations. In my particular case, it was 
catastrophic. We had a 30 percent loss from month to month on 
how the mover moved in unprecedented ways. Yes, it would; the 
rulemaking process is the route for this.
    Senator Hyde-Smith. In your testimony, you also provided 
some recommendations to what would help alleviate these 
problems, such as going back to the pre-2018 Farm Bill higher-
of price method. Are you looking more at going back to that as 
a temporary, or what are your thoughts on--or your additional 
details that you can give us on--the long-term solution instead 
of going back immediately to the higher-of?
    Mr. Ferguson. I think we need to use that as a temporary 
solution because what we heard on the first, when it came out 
of the farm bill, was that there was not really enough time to 
have an extended study that would come up with the correct 
amount of the adjuster and things of that nature, that--where 
that adjuster actually helps that Class I price find its true 
value. If we have things in place, a study that shows exactly 
what that adjuster should be, how often it should be before we 
review it, that would be very beneficial.
    Senator Hyde-Smith. Thank you.
    Senator Gillibrand. Senator Boozman, would you like to ask 
some questions?
    Senator Boozman. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Again, thank you all for being here. This has been just a 
great hearing with a lot of thoughtful testimony and also some 
answers as to how we move forward.
    According to my colleagues, the justification for the 
reckless tax-and-spending legislation that we are about to 
address, is the climate infrastructure needs of the United 
States. Dairy, livestock, and poultry production accounts for 
nearly half of all agriculture cash receipts at approximately 
$191 billion annually. Yet, at this point, this legislation 
provides no funding for the animal agriculture sector for 
research, climate mitigation, or any other priority. Yet, you 
are going to be on the hook for paying the taxes for it.
    There is millions in the bill for urban agriculture, 
billions for tree equity, whatever that is, but there is not a 
dime directed to assist the dairy industry. The bill does, 
however, include $2.9 trillion in additional taxes.
    As farm groups have continuously shared, if proposed 
changes to stepped-up basis are included, which is still a 
possibility later in this process, it will be devastating to 
family farms. Texas A&M came out with a study, and according to 
the representative farms studied by them, dairy farmers would 
be among the hardest hit.
    In addition, the bill contains changes to estate tax 
provisions that would force many farmers urgently to modify 
their estate plans just to ensure the future of their family 
farm.
    Mr. Ferguson, how would the proposed changes in stepped-up 
basis impact your family business?
    Then the other thing that is included in this is the Green 
New Deal, which would significantly increase your electricity, 
your energy costs, your oil, gas-the things that you rely on an 
everyday basis. How would that affect your bottom line?
    Mr. Ferguson. Senator, anytime you have increase in 
expenses you have got to look at ways to cut in other areas. 
Well, I am telling you the small dairy farmers in the 
Southeast, we do not have those resources where we can cut in 
those other areas. We cannot afford this additional tax burden. 
These farms that have been in the family for generations, they 
will be going by the wayside. Our security net of a safe and 
effective food source for our consuming public would be out the 
window.
    I think it is in someone else's statement earlier; there 
was talk about fresh and local, basically. You would have these 
pockets where all your food would be produced, and some of the 
things that would be produced would have a hard time getting to 
market. We have a huge problem with trucking as it is now.
    I just see no way that we can add anymore tax burden to the 
farm as it is, as a unit now. The thing is we have worked all 
of our lives to establish these farms, and in a lot of cases 
you have got other family members waiting in line.
    On the stepped-up basis, there are farms that have gone up 
three, four-hundred percent in value. How can we possibly tax 
these farms at that rate, adding this extra burden to the local 
farmers? I just--I cannot see the logic in that.
    Senator Boozman. Would anybody else--would you all like to 
share in that also, very briefly, or the Chairwoman is going to 
gavel me down.
    Ms. Zuiderveen. I would like to share that my family--I am 
one of five siblings, and we are currently going through some 
transitioning with those siblings. Talking about what the 
future looks like without stepped-up basis is detrimental to 
our operations. Through this process, my husband and I are also 
doing our own estate planning, and it is very scary to look at 
what that will look like for my children and how they would 
keep our dairy together if the stepped-up basis was taken away.
    Mr. Davenport. My opinion on that whole matter is if a 
family has been in farming for generations and have built 
something up--and a lot of times the value of what they have is 
influenced by local real estate, which may not be, you know, 
farming--I strongly feel that if the farm stays in farming they 
should not be burdened with any extra estate taxes.
    Now if, which I have seen in my neck of the woods way too 
often, a family farm goes out and one sibling wants to stay 
going, the other four see dollar signs and they cash in, at 
that point I feel that they should pay the estate tax because 
it is not producing food anymore. You know? As far as if it is 
going to stay a farm, then I think there is no reason that they 
should be--have extra burden of transition taxes to the next 
generation.
    Senator Boozman. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Senator Gillibrand. Thank you very much, Senator Boozman.
    We have Senator Smith by Webex.
    Senator Smith. Good morning, Madam Chair, and good morning, 
Ranking Member and to all of our panelists. It is great to be 
with you virtually.
    Madam Chair, if I may, I would like to just issue--just to 
clarify something following on the Ranking Member's questions 
about stepped-up basis. I just want to make it clear that the 
budget resolution that the Democrats have passed, and in fact 
the work that we are doing right now on the Build Back Better 
Budget, specifically excludes any changes to the stepped-up 
basis. There has been a lot of talk about this. I have had many 
conversations about this with farmers, family farmers in 
Minnesota. I just wanted to be clear about that issue.
    To the topic at hand, what is going on with dairy farmers 
across the country, I want to start out by talking about 
Minnesota a little bit. Dairy farmers in Minnesota tell me that 
they are squeezed in the marketplace. They would hear the 
stories that you all are telling today and say that they sound 
familiar to them. They find that milk prices are consistently 
below the cost of production for them, and slim to negative 
margins forced many dairy farmers to use up their equity and 
their savings to keep from going out of business over these 
last few years. I think we all know that there are 40,000 fewer 
licensed dairy herds in this country than there were in 2002.
    You all, I think, make the case for the lack of 
transparency and the problems with lack of farmer input into 
the milk pricing system, which has played such a significant 
role for dairy farmers. The reality is that the milk--Federal 
Milk Marketing Order is 80 years old. It is an 80-year-old 
system, and so it is not easy to understand. One statement I 
read really sums this up. It said, so many variables are 
involved that the typical farmer knows what their milk check 
will be worth, but only an economist can explain it.
    It also--the Federal Milk Marketing Orders are regionally 
based. I know that there are discussions around evaluating the 
individual sections of this system. Dairy farmers in Minnesota 
and in the Midwest have said that they need to take an approach 
that evaluates the entire system and that any other way would 
be really counterproductive.
    What I would like to do is hear from the witnesses about 
this question first. How can we modernize the milk pricing 
system in a way that takes into account the differences amongst 
dairy producing regions and ensures that our system matches the 
realities facing dairy farmers and their cooperatives that 
process and market the milk that they produce across regions? I 
would be happy to hear from any of you or all of you. Maybe, 
Mr. Davenport, would you like to start?
    Mr. Davenport. Sure. Thank you for attending virtually. 
Yes, I think basically we have seen the prices of the 
commodities--cheese, butter, and powder--reflect the world 
market, and there is also a futures markets. I think that they 
have become less reliable.
    As I have said before, I think because fluid demand is sort 
of steady we ought to have a steadier price on the fluid and 
find a different way to price fluid milk. I think it would be 
especially beneficial to the higher fluid Orders that do not 
have a lot of options to send their milk--the farmers have no 
options a lot of times to send their milk to another processor 
and get a fair price, trucking, a lot of times being the 
limiting, you know, factor in that.
    I do feel that the Order system can be corrected, and we 
just have to get some ideas and make sure that they are good 
with the farmers and everybody involved in the business.
    Senator Smith. Thank you.
    Would the other panelists like to comment? I would love to 
hear your perspective on how we can account for regional 
differences as we think about reforms.
    Mr. Ferguson. Senator, thank you. This is Mike Ferguson. We 
in the Southeast, we are in a different area than any other 
part of the country. We are in such a--it is such a tremendous 
milk-deficit area, where we--for the whole Southeast, we only 
provide like 45 percent of the fluid that is consumed in the 
Southeast. It is only going to exasperate because our farmers 
are leaving, yet our consumers are growing by leaps and bounds 
if you look at the numbers where the population is growing, and 
one of the biggest problems we have, most of the milk in the 
Southeast is co-op-based.
    I mean, the farmers are members of co-ops. It is on the 
back of the co-ops to bring in this supplemental milk or the 
milk to fill the needs in the market. The cost of transporting 
that milk in is on the backs of the dairy farmers because there 
is no mechanism where we can recoup that cost of bringing that 
milk in, to provide milk for the consumers. If we have 
something and I am sure you are familiar with something like 
milk allowance for transportation or balancing the market--that 
would be very beneficial to our part of the world and would be 
of great help.
    Senator Smith. Thank you very much.
    Madam Chair, I realize I am out of time. I want to just 
thank you for holding this hearing, and I am grateful to be a 
part of it and some good food for thought as we think about 
where we go from here. Thank you very much.
    Senator Gillibrand. Thank you, Senator Smith.
    Our next Senator is Senator Ernst.
    Senator Ernst. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks to all of our 
witnesses for being here today, and a special thank you and 
welcome as well to Christina Zuiderveen, and it is great to 
have you here and representing our home State of Iowa and our 
dairy farmers.
    I would like to ask all of you, but, Christina 
specifically, I will start with you. The pandemic was really 
difficult on so many of us, and I remember many of those days 
sitting in Red Oak, Iowa, on Zoom calls or Skype calls with 
commodity groups and just hearing the stories evolving and 
growing out of the pandemic and the challenges that all of our 
farmers and ranchers, dairy producers were going through.
    If you could maybe explain to us a little bit about some of 
the issues, experiences you had. You talked a little bit about 
the Federal Milk Marketing Orders. From the Iowa dairy 
perspective, can you talk about some of the other issues that 
came out of the pandemic and what should be the greatest 
takeaway that we have?
    Ms. Zuiderveen. One of the biggest issues that was sort of 
exasperated by the pandemic was the ability to hedge. Like I 
said, we ship to a cheese plant. We know that 100 percent of 
our check is going to be based on that cheese price. When you 
ship to a different processor that has some fluid milk or 
softs, different classes of production, their milk check will 
be based on a blended number. So they are--they cannot 
effectively guess from month to month what that percentage is 
going to be and where that number is going to come from, and 
they are effectively out of the option of hedging and 
protecting themselves from losses that come in with market 
volatility. Then obviously, if anyone could have predicted the 
pandemic, we could have predicted our milk price, but that is 
not going to happen. So we need the ability to better predict 
our milk price so that we can protect ourselves with the 
programs that are offered.
    Senator Ernst. Yes, thank you. I did note through some of 
my discussions last year as well that because we had school 
closures and the school lunch milk program they were not using 
those same cartons anymore. Then it became an issue of how do 
you ship milk maybe in a different form, rather than to the 
schools then to our marketplaces. Any thoughts on that as well?
    Ms. Zuiderveen. Absolutely. That is a production line 
issue, which I think we saw in every industry. You cannot just 
take the equipment that is producing those cartons and make it 
a sour cream container. It does not work. That takes building a 
new plant, building a new line, having the employees to do 
that. I think that is one of the biggest things we look at.
    One of our fears right now is that there is not enough 
truckers. What happens when we cannot haul our milk, a 
perishable product, to the facility that can take it? What 
happens when that facility does not have the staffing to take 
it? This is not something we can just put in the freezer and 
use next week.
    Senator Ernst. Absolutely. Any other thoughts from our 
witnesses?
    Mr. Davenport. I agree with Christina. Definitely, that was 
a problem. Just the food chain really got upset a lot. I know 
that it was great; our own little group, we did an awful lot of 
food pantry. One of the good things the former Governor of New 
York did was have the Nourish New York Program, and we were 
paid, you know, a fair price, the price of us processing the 
milk into gallons and sent it to food pantries. It was all--no 
waste happened there. Every bit of it went to people that 
needed it.
    I--you know, I truly feel that the supply chain needs to be 
more robust. We all know, at least in our neck of the woods, 
there are ``help wanted'' signs everywhere. I do not know what 
is keeping people from working, but our Cabot plants in 
Vermont--during the pandemic we had sales staff, you know, 
working double shifts, running the plant. We had demand for 
more cheese, and God knows we had plenty of milk to make the 
cheese, but we had to shut down production on the weekend 
because there was nobody willing to work. It is foreign to me. 
As I said, I tend to work some pretty long hours and much to 
the chagrin of my family, but I am still in business. It is a 
problem, and we have to address it.
    I think one thing that has not been said yet, but I do 
believe whole milk in schools would definitely be a big boon. 
All milk tastes better--no matter who processes it, their 
whole-fat milk always taste better than the low-fat milk.
    In the consolidation industry, a lot of small dairies that 
really care about quality--it is a whole other story, but they 
have not--they have been replaced. They sold out to a large 
dairy. Plants were closed. Like I said, some schools in our 
State are paying over twice what they pay in New York City for 
milk, and they are right by the producers.
    Senator Ernst. Wow.
    Mr. Davenport. That is something that needs to be 
addressed. Kids should be drinking milk. This is a true plant-
based beverage. I mean, that is all our cows--80 percent of our 
diet sometimes is plants for our cows, and they are the natural 
factor that makes the awesome stuff.
    Senator Ernst. Outstanding.
    Mr. Davenport. In your neck of the woods, our neck of the 
woods, we do not do any irrigation. It is all what Mother 
Nature provides.
    Senator Ernst. Yes. Right. Well, I appreciate that. I 
apologize, my time is expired. I do appreciate the input and 
not only as we look at pricing and how we can modernize the 
pricing system but then also those supply chain management 
issues that so many faced over the pandemic.
    Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Senator Gillibrand. Thank you, Senator Ernst.
    I agree with you, Mr. Davenport. I think whole milk in 
schools would be wise. I know my children only will drink whole 
milk. It is better, more delicious, and very healthy. Children 
will feel fuller, so they will eat less junk food. I am in 
favor of that recommendation.
    Our next Senator is Senator Marshall.
    Senator Marshall. Well, thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking 
Member, for doing this. Guess what? I agree with you. I just 
want to be on record today that I think that milk is the most 
delicious, most nutritious drink known to mankind, that mankind 
has never made a drink that could supplant it, and whether you 
are trying to develop an immune system to fight RSV or the 
common flu or COVID-19, that milk is a very important part of 
that nutritious diet, and whole milk especially because it 
helps us absorb fat-soluble vitamins A, D, E, and K.
    That is so important, as an obstetrician, a gynecologist, 
that we have that whole milk and to grow strong bones as well, 
that we now have a generation of men and women who are going to 
have osteopenia and osteoporosis 10 to 15 years younger than 
their predecessors because of a Federal nutrition policy that 
basically disallowed whole milk.
    Whole milk is what gives us the flavor, the taste. That is 
why kids drink it; because it tastes good. I do not like one 
percent milk. I get so mad at my wife when she does not bring 
me some whole milk home. I try to drink it for lunch every day 
here, two cartons of whole milk. We got it back on the diet for 
the Senators. I want you to know that.
    I am excited to talk about dairy because it is personal. My 
dad, his family, had a 30-head Holstein dairy farm 30 years. 
Like Senator Leahy said, did not miss a day of work. Right? You 
do not miss a day of cow. The cows have to be milked twice, now 
three times, a day.
    I am excited to be on this Subcommittee, helping out our 
dairy farmers. I think they have probably been more negatively 
impacted than any other ag sector that I can think of over the 
past four, five years. It just feels like the seven plagues of 
Egypt have hit the dairy industry.
    Madam Chair, I am excited to learn that you are the largest 
producer of yogurt; New York is. I did not know that, so that 
is great to learn.
    Kansas has the fastest growing dairy herd in the Nation as 
well, and we are very proud of that. Additionally, Arizona, 
California, Colorado, New Mexico, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, 
Washington State, and my home of Kansas are responsible for 
about 40 percent of milk production, and all operate in Federal 
Milk Marketing Orders.
    The year 2020 exposed some very significant vulnerabilities 
in the way we price milk in the Federal Milk Marketing Order 
systems. Neighboring dairies producing the same quantity and 
quality often receive different prices based on who they were 
selling their milk to. The difference was not based on sound 
economic principles but was based on the impact of the Federal 
Government opting to mandate the purchase of millions of pounds 
of cheese, providing a milk price windfall to any dairy farmer 
supplying cheese manufacturing.
    I am all in favor of cheese. I love cheese. It is very 
nutritious and so glad we could get more cheese out to folks 
who needed the nutrition help. There is no such price relief 
for those neighboring dairies who supply local bottling plants 
or the butter manufacturers.
    Then the USDA announced last month they would provide some 
mitigation for that 2020 inequity. They put a cap on the relief 
that ensures my dairies in Kansas and throughout the U.S. only 
a tiny fraction of aid on a representative basis. Our policy 
should not pick winners and losers based on the farm size or 
geography.
    As I look out and consider the challenges in the dairy 
industry right now, my biggest concerns are the taxman and 
rules and regulations. I think that several of us have talked 
about stepped-up basis, that that would be the end of the 
family dairy.
    Maybe our witnesses could talk a little bit about just 
concerns about input cost, inflation, Waters of the U.S., how 
those might impact your dairies if those regulations are dialed 
up. Mr. Davenport, any thoughts about inputs and concerns about 
rules and regulations?
    Mr. Davenport. Yes. The input costs have always gone up 
since I have been milking cows. I mean, that is just a fact of 
life. Fortunately, we have gotten more efficient and learned 
how to feed the cows better. We can kind of counteract some of 
that.
    Regarding the Waters of the U.S., I am all for clean water, 
and you know, and trying to keep it clean. I just think that we 
probably ought to not overburden the EPA with rules that they 
cannot possibly enforce. They do not have enough staff to run 
around and check everything.
    I firmly believe that the algae bloom in the Chesapeake, 
the western part of Lake Erie, and the mouth of the Gulf of 
Mexico--I think we can do a better job. I mean, we are all 
cover crops. We do not have any soil that is open. We have 
highly erodible land, which the acronym for that, short of one 
L, but it is a tough farm when it is wet.
    We basically have everything. Our soil stays in place, and 
we do use, you know, a little bit of herbicide. We do no 
tillage to speak of. We--you know. Dairy farmers are all about 
that because it is more profitable. You know? Wasting money on 
fertilizer? If it is not going to grow your crops, why bother? 
I think that is all laudable.
    We just have to make sure that we do not have enforcement 
of rules, you know, sort of like if you have a vendetta against 
somebody you can pull something out of your pocket they cannot 
normally enforce for the whole industry. You know, it is the 
sort of thing where we just--we need sensible water cleanliness 
regulations, and we do not want to go overboard.
    Senator Marshall. Thank you, Mr. Davenport, and thank you 
for sharing that farmers and ranchers are the greatest 
conservationists in the world.
    I am sorry for going over my time, Madam Chair.
    Senator Gillibrand. No worries. Our next Senator is Senator 
Fischer by Webex.
    Senator Fischer. Thank you, Senator Gillibrand, and thank 
you to our panelists today. Appreciate you taking the time to 
be here to give us some information that we find very valuable.
    Mrs. Zuiderveen, in your testimony, you discussed that in 
2020 with your Class III milk you received large gains as Class 
III milk prices increased. Meanwhile, you also mentioned that 
Class I milk prices fell. I appreciate your sentiment that we 
need to ensure a fair dairy pricing system. I have heard from 
producers in Nebraska who received negative producer price 
differentials because of the increase to Class III prices while 
the Class I milk prices fell.
    You mentioned you are a member of a regional milk pricing 
reform committee. Have they discussed what recommendations 
would be most helpful for Congress to consider to ensure a fair 
milk pricing system? In particular, how can we address events 
like what we saw last year during the pandemic with negative 
producer price differentials?
    Ms. Zuiderveen. I will try and address as best I can. You 
did cut out a bit. The negative PPDs are experienced by lots of 
people, in fact, not just those with a blended milk price. We 
saw that on our check within the last couple months. This goes 
back to fundamental shifts in the milk market. We are no longer 
a fluid-based market. That market share has decreased by a lot 
over the last decades, and we really need to focus our 
production and our pricing more on the export market that has 
emerged, which is great for us. That trade and offering that 
market to our farmers is another area we can compete and earn 
more money.
    Senator Fischer. What do you think Congress should do? Is 
there anything that we can do to be able to ensure that we can 
address some of these events, like the pandemic, that would 
help producers?
    Ms. Zuiderveen. While I have been a part of some 
discussions, we do not have any public answers yet. I think 
there are a lot of great ideas out there, and I would love to 
see--some of our academic and processors that are on the next 
panel, I would love to see some of their ideas in this 
department.
    Senator Fischer. Okay. Thank you. You have also mentioned 
the impact that unpredictable pooling can have on producers' 
ability to utilize risk management programs like the Dairy 
Margin Coverage Program. This is a concern I have also heard 
from Nebraskans, who found the fluctuation in price caused by 
depooling made it difficult to use risk management tools like 
the DMC. Could you elaborate on how unpredictable pooling and 
price fluctuations can impact the effectiveness of risk 
management programs?
    Ms. Zuiderveen. Nebraska, I believe, is part of the Central 
Marketing Order, which Iowa is also a part of. The Central and 
Midwest Marketing Orders do not have nearly the fluid 
processing power as someone like the Northeast would have, and 
so they are under different rules. I think it is a lot harder 
to depool in the Northeast. If they had those same regulations 
within the Central and Midwest Marketing Orders, the 
cheesemakers just would not participate and the other 
processors would then have to pass on those negative PPDs to 
their producers.
    Obviously, there needs to be some change in the milk 
pricing system, but it needs to be something that we all work 
on together so that it can benefit both producers and 
processors.
    Senator Fischer. Thank you very much.
    Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Senator Gillibrand. Thank you.
    I have three additional questions that I am going to put 
forward, and each of you can answer them if you have an 
opinion. Over the past years, you have all seen your operation 
costs continually rise, whether those costs be for feed, fuel, 
or labor, and more often than not, the prices you receive for 
your milk hardly ever cover the cost of production. One of the 
pricing reforms that we are looking at is more closely aligning 
milk prices with the cost of production. Could each of you 
briefly explain the disparity between the current prices you 
receive for your milk and what it costs to produce the milk, 
and what are some additional ways that the prices you receive 
could reflect the cost of production?
    Mr. Davenport. Well, for my own operation over the last, 
oh, I do not know, 15 or so years, the price of milk exceeded 
the cost of production like maybe two. Of course there is an 
expression called ``living off depreciation.'' That is a large 
part of it. Most businesses--well, it is a cost. Depreciation 
is a cost. You know, if you have some farm machinery that is 
fully depreciated, it still keeps working. You just got to fix 
it a little more, and it is a little less reliable. As a small 
producer, I do a lot of fixing.
    I think I do not really know how you would align because 
everybody's cost of production is different. I think that any 
artificial subsidies to production anywhere make it hard to try 
to get a level playing field for everyone.
    I sort of keep coming back to decoupling fluid milk price 
from volatile cheese and butter, powder. If we can come up with 
a way to price the most perishable, the least elastic in demand 
product that we produce, so that in the heaviest fluid markets 
they are not going to be hurt by crazy commodity price swings, 
and in the less heavily produced fluid markets that their 
cheese processors will still participate in the pool, I think 
it is just going to have to---somebody much smarter than I 
should come I would endorse a plan if I heard one I liked, but 
so far we have not.
    I think that would be great to be able to do that because 
I--you know, the bottom line is, you know, you want businesses 
to thrive, and you want to be able to produce at a lowest cost 
possible, but the ``too big to fail'' thing I have seen happen 
in very large dairies in the Northeast, where the bank 
basically tells them: No more money. You take it out of your 
vendors, and they are the ones who are going to have to support 
you.
    I have always paid my bills on time. I have a good line of 
credit, and I am not afraid to use it. I know there are some 
large operations that have outrun their ability to manage, that 
are just like a speeding train with no brake. I would like to 
see that, you know, they were not allowed to keep going when I 
have friends that are the same size that are doing really well 
and do just as good a job as I do with the cows and milk 
quality. I just would like to see these large farms that are 
out of control maybe get cutoff a little sooner to sort of 
teach everybody else that expand within your abilities of 
management. That is just something personal that I see.
    Senator Gillibrand. Mrs. Zuiderveen?
    Ms. Zuiderveen. I would like to echo that I do not think 
subsidies based on the cost of production are going to be 
effective. Part of the beauty of living in the United States is 
that we have the freedom to take on things in a way that we 
want to. We can take on as much debt, build and expand to the 
size that works for us, for our families. Even between our 
three locations, we have different sizes of operations, and 
they all have different operating costs. We have different 
loans, different feed costs, and we milk different breeds of 
cattle based on where they are located and how much space they 
need. I would like to maintain that freedom.
    There is no way that I should be told to make a decision 
based on someone else's farm or what someone somewhere else 
wants to happen. That is something I get to do based on each 
individual input in my operation.
    Mr. Ferguson. Senator, from my point of view, I agree with 
the other two that subsidies are not necessarily the solution 
to this. On a going-forth basis, we are going to be looking at 
a lot of changes that have to be made, improvements to protect 
the environment, to become more energy-efficient. I will say 
that grants and loans availability for operations that are 
undergoing these changes, and are doing it even on a voluntary 
basis, are a central part of the future of us maintaining 
viability.
    Senator Gillibrand. The last question is about make 
allowances, processors are credited for some of the cost of 
processing certain dairy products, such as cheese and butter, 
through make allowances. Should future FMMO reforms include a 
make allowance for farmers to credit some of the cost of 
producing milk?
    There has been criticism of the FMMO hearing process 
including the length of time required to request and hold 
hearings and implement changes. What are some changes that can 
be made to make this process more simplified and reactive to 
farmers' needs, if anyone has a thought?
    Ms. Zuiderveen. I do not know a lot about the make 
allowances. I think it is a pretty complicated topic. I do know 
that the changes that we make in the system, I would like to 
see them encourage innovation, and processors should have the 
freedom to expand and discover new markets so that we can 
continue to export, trade our product, and compete for the best 
price for our dairy producers.
    Mr. Davenport. The make allowance--I think that in some 
areas of the country there is a service provided to take extra 
milk and put it into a product that has a longer shelf life and 
can go into international market, providing those containers 
that wait a long--wait around long enough to get on the boat 
full of dairy products and not go back empty, but that is in my 
testimony, written.
    I think that--you know, I think that somehow someone has to 
just keep an eye on make allowances and if there is something 
that is a little bit untoward for the dairy farmer that we can 
adjust them. Just how the mechanism I do not really know.
    The second part of the question was? Sorry.
    Senator Gillibrand. Whether you recommend any changes to 
the length of time required to request and hold hearings and 
implement changes.
    Mr. Davenport. Oh, yes. I think it would be nice to make 
the process move along faster. Never having participated in it 
myself, I probably should leave that to the economists who have 
some ideas on that. I believe that as long as that process has 
the input from all the concerns in the industry, that is very 
important. You know, I would rather see it take a little longer 
and be complete and done well than to be rushed and then have 
to go back and redo the whole process again. Thanks.
    Senator Gillibrand. Mr. Ferguson, any remarks?
    Mr. Ferguson. Yes, Senator. As I think I mentioned earlier, 
as far as make allowances are concerned, it would be very 
beneficial in the Southeast to have a make allowance for help 
with the balance in cost because that is a huge issue in our 
marketing area.
    The rulemaking process, sometimes it is a very tedious 
process. Could there be some efficiencies gained that would 
shorten that process? I would think that any operation that 
tells you that they cannot take--you know, by tightening things 
up, they cannot do just as good or a better job, I think they 
are kind of on the wrong page. I think that the process could 
be a little shorter because it is a very--as it stands now, it 
is a very frustrating process. Yes, I think there could be some 
shortening of the length.
    Senator Gillibrand. Thank you. Thank you to our witnesses. 
Your testimony has been extremely helpful. If you would like to 
add anything additional to your testimony, you may write a 
letter to the Committee. Thank you so much.
    We are now going to introduce our next panel. I will 
introduce them while they get settled. We will hear from Ms. 
Catherine H. de Ronde, Vice President of Economics and 
Legislative Affairs for Agri-Mark. We will hear from Mr. Robert 
Wills, President of Cedar Grove Cheese Inc. and Clock Shadow 
Creamery, and Mr. Christopher Wolf, the Baker Professor of 
Agricultural Economics at the Dyson School of Applied Economics 
at Cornell.
    Catherine de Ronde is the Vice President of Economics and 
Legislative Affairs at Agri-Mark Dairy Cooperative. Catherine 
joined Agri-Mark in 2017 and is responsible for watching dairy 
market trends, forecasting milk prices, working on State and 
Federal legislation affecting Agri-Mark members. Catherine was 
previously employed as an agricultural economist with the 
Massachusetts Department of Agriculture Resources. Catherine 
holds a bachelor's and master's degree in resource economics 
from the University of Connecticut. Thank you for being here, 
Catherine.
    Mr. Bob Wills is owner of Cedar Grove Cheese since 1989, 
founded Clock Shadow Creamery in 2011, and is a Wisconsin 
master cheesemaker. He served on the Board of the American 
Cheese Society and was Chair of the American Cheese Education 
Foundation among numerous other volunteer stints with dairy, 
sustainable agriculture, and community boards. Prior to buying 
the cheese factory, he worked as a research associate and 
instructor in the Department of Agriculture and Economics at 
University of Wisconsin, the Economic Research Services of the 
U.S. Department of Agriculture, and some State and Federal 
legislative staff positions. His academic credentials include a 
B.A. from American University in international relations and 
economics, a Ph.D. in economics, and a J.D. from the University 
of Wisconsin. Thank you, Bob, for being here.
    Then Dr. Christopher Wolf is the E.V. Baker Professor of 
Agricultural Economics in the Dyson School of Applied Economics 
and Management, Cornell University. He moved to Cornell in 2019 
after more than 21 years on the faculty of Michigan State 
University. He conducts research, extension, and teaching 
focusing on dairy market and policy, farm business management, 
risk management, farm animal welfare. Dr. Wolf has published 
widely in academic and industry outlets. His extension program 
stresses the effect of public policy on farm behavior and final 
outcome, aiming to focus on issues of current and future 
importance to policymakers and industry decisionmakers. A 
native of Wisconsin, Dr. Wolf received his bachelor's degree 
from the University of Wisconsin and his Ph.D. from the 
University of California-Davis. Thank you for being here, Dr. 
Wolf.
    Again, I thank all of our witnesses today. As a reminder, 
we ask that you keep your testimony to five minutes each, and 
your written testimony will be submitted for the record, as you 
may hear me tap the gavel should your time expire.
    Ms. de Ronde, you are recognized for five minutes.

     CATHERINE H. DE RONDE, VICE PRESIDENT, ECONOMICS AND 
  LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS, AGRI-MARK INC., ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS

    Ms. de Ronde. Chairwoman Gillibrand, Ranking Member Hyde-
Smith, and members of the Subcommittee, good morning. On behalf 
of the 720 Agri-Mark dairy farmers, thank you so much for 
spearheading this hearing and for the opportunity to testify 
before you today. It is a great honor to share the voices of my 
farmer members.
    Milk pricing is front and center for our farmers, 
particularly with the year we just lived through. We applaud 
you for your continued support of our dairy farmers and 
industry and greatly appreciate your efforts to secure the 
latest Pandemic Market Volatility Assistance Program as well as 
the Dairy Margin Coverage adjustments. Your involvement and 
your leadership is why I am here today and why it was so 
important for Agri-Mark to be a part of this hearing.
    As was mentioned this morning, dairy farmer--dairy farming 
is a 24-7 commitment 365 days a year. Besides the physical 
labor, the mental and financial side can be equally draining. 
As our Nation and global economy have evolved in recent years, 
the issues facing today's dairy farmers are far more complex 
than what was faced by generations of farmers before them. Our 
dairy farmers are resilient, but they are not impervious to 
these compounding forces.
    Today's challenges encompass the impacts that global trade 
has on our markets, labor pressures at all levels of the supply 
chain, and changes in consumer desires. Together, they have 
placed a tremendous amount of stress not only on our dairy 
farmers but supply chains and their cooperative businesses as 
well. Collectively, we must work to ensure that our dairy 
supply chains are strong and viable, starting with our dairy 
farmers. Dairy farmers help feed America, and they are playing 
an increasing role in providing sustainable nutrition to the 
world. Our dairy farmers are critical to our local and regional 
economies, creating jobs, conserving land, and supporting local 
food systems. We must ensure that they have the markets, 
programs, and tools to continue to operate and be sustainable 
for generations to come.
    At Agri-Mark, I engage with our members every day, 
discussing the current marketplace and forecast. Milk pricing 
is something that our farmers are particularly concerned about 
and something that Agri-Mark is actively working on to improve 
on a national level. Our cooperative is a member of the 
National Milk Producers Federation as well as the International 
Dairy Foods Association. I serve on the Economic Policy 
Committee of each organization, both of which are working on 
milk pricing and policy issues. In 2019, both of these 
committees started a deep dive into widespread pricing reform 
conversations until the pandemic put an abrupt halt to those 
efforts.
    Last year's extreme volatility and unique market 
circumstances unveiled underlying flaws in our Federal Order 
system and drew acute attention to three key elements: negative 
producer price differentials or PPDs, depooling, and the Class 
I mover. For farmers, this showed up as unfamiliar milk checks, 
causing a lot of unease, misunderstanding, and many questioning 
if the system was working properly or not, and it gave the 
industry an even greater urgency to revisit the need for 
Federal Order reform.
    The Federal Order system provides significant value and 
safeguards to dairy farmers, cooperatives, and processors. They 
are critical to price discovery, orderly marketing, and ensure 
timely payment to dairy producers. Yet, as we have discussed 
here today, the industry has changed significantly since the 
last Order reform in 2000. Industry growth, increased cost, and 
participation on the export market are all viable reasons to 
thoroughly revisit the Orders and revise them to better reflect 
today's marketplace. We want our Federal Order system to evolve 
and to be supportive of the needs of today's dairy market 
participants, especially those of our farmers.
    As we work to improve Orders, it is critically important 
that we recognize the intersections in milk pricing and how a 
change in one area can have an impact and change another. In 
this context, the current Class I mover has caused significant 
depooling and substantially reduced producer revenue, which was 
not intended. This needs to be addressed.
    While I deeply and personally understand the urgency to 
resolve our challenges, thorough analysis of these 
intersections, considering all perspectives, is essential to 
guaranteeing reform success. Changes should be made through the 
formal rulemaking process to ensure that a comprehensive 
approach is taken and that producer, processor, and consumer 
voices are heard and considered.
    There is much work to be done to evolve this Federal Order 
system, and the industry is on board and hard at work. We must 
continue to strengthen pricing mechanisms, provide aid to all 
farmers when needed, and build consumer trust domestically and 
in emerging markets across the globe. This hearing is an 
important step in the early stages of this dialog. Once again, 
I thank you for your advocacy, investment in our industry, and 
once again, the opportunity to share my thoughts with you 
today.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. de Ronde can be found on 
page 53 in the appendix.]

    Senator Gillibrand. Thank you very much. Mr. Wills, you are 
recognized for five minutes.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT WILLS, PH.D., PRESIDENT, CEDAR GROVE CHEESE 
      INC. AND CLOCK SHADOW CREAMERY LLC, PLAIN, WISCONSIN

    Mr. Wills. Senator Gillibrand, Madam Chair, thank you for 
the opportunity to address the Committee today.
    My two cheese factories are supplied by about 28 farms. Ten 
years ago, when I started Clock Shadow Creamery, the green 
cheese factory in Milwaukee, I decided that we would be 
supplying consumers throughout the State. I have always viewed 
my role as supporting dairy producers who supply milk to our 
factory as well as supporting the health and safety of our 
consumers, but today I fear for the future of the dairy 
industry.
    The subject of today's remarks is tough to condense, but 
let me try in just a few sentences. federally administered milk 
pricing established by Congress now functions opposite of its 
intent. Our Federal Milk Market Orders have features that cause 
higher dairy prices for consumers and create lower milk prices 
for farmers. The Order system responds slowly and inadequately 
to changes in cost and demand shocks, and encourages 
inefficient trucking and location of dairy facilities, and the 
complexity of the system creates opportunities for anti-
competitive behavior and promotes consolidation. Here is the 
thing; the 90-year-old structure of the Orders creates the 
problems I noted below, but the outside pressures today are 
exposing how this system threatens the continuing existence of 
dairy farming in the United States.
    Today, the dairy industry faces increased international 
competition. We face rising costs and uncertainty from climate 
change. We face disruptive bio-culture technologies that 
threaten to produce dairy ingredients from genetically 
engineered microbes. Milk pricing administered in the Federal 
Orders has not been able to evolve to fairly address the 
changing dairy industry, and this old mechanism definitely has 
no tools to address global competition, the need for more 
sustainable production, and disruptive self-cultivated 
replacements. The survival of the dairy industry depends on 
your decision to end the rigidities of the Market Order system 
as soon as possible.
    Originally, Milk Market Orders were intended to get 
nutritious fluid milk to consumers, especially children, 
throughout the country. In practice, the Orders raise the price 
of fluid milk and pay farmers to dump milk, a horrible practice 
that is disrespectful of the animals, hardworking farmers, and 
hungry citizens.
    In the heart of--the heart of the system is milk pricing. 
Milk is priced by class. A pool from the premium added to sales 
of bottled milk is shared among farms that ship to 
manufacturers of yogurt, cheese, and butter, and milk powder. 
Farmers are only better off if that premium on fluid milk 
exceeds the value the loss in value from lower prices in the 
other classes. Plus, inefficiencies are created by the process. 
Precise conditions are required for the monopolistic market 
segmentation to increase the overall value of milk. Although 
the redistribution system makes it appear that all farmers are 
winners, evidence suggests the classified pricing reduces total 
milk--total farm revenues.
    Federal Milk Orders are immensely complicated. Eleven 
different regional Market Orders have different prices and 
rules, and changing a single regulation and Order requires a 
costly hearing process that stretches on for years. Large 
companies and cooperatives unnecessarily transport milk to take 
advantage of price differences among Orders. Order shopping 
gives those large companies a competitive advantage over 
regional processors. Their superior understanding of the 
intricacies of the system and the ability to take advantage of 
regional differences gives big companies a stake in continuing 
the Market Order system.
    The dairy industry has worked around the fossilized 
structure of Federal Orders for decades, but new challenges are 
coming that require efficiency and innovation that the Orders 
prevent. Milk pricing in Federal Orders has zero provisions to 
recognize costs associated with exporting dairy products or the 
ability--or the added cost of developing unique, new products 
tailored to the taste of consumers in other nations.
    The newer challenge facing this old dairy system is 
imitation or clone dairy products. Plant-based milk 
substitutes, such as soy and almond drinks, provide an 
important alternative for people who are unable to consume 
dairy. The sales of these products have grown, but only a small 
amount of consumption has seemed to replace milk.
    The next wave of fermentation-based technologies, using 
genetically altered microbes, to produce specific dairy 
proteins in large tanks--as unnatural as that sounds, business 
startups are attracting large investments from international 
investors. These companies have dabbled in products like 
animal-free ice cream, but the first really large threat they 
pose is large-scale production of mimicked whey protein, the 
by-product from cheesemaking. Without a whey market, cheese 
plants would struggle to make a profit, would have fewer 
dollars to pay dairy farmers, and would face the environmental 
challenge of disposing of perfectly good whey. Beyond 
replicating individual proteins, some entrepreneurs even claim 
to be able to copy milk exactly by using cloned mammary cells.
    None of these challenges to milk sales, including 
international competitors and processors of vegetable analogs 
or biotech replacements are saddled with the burden of 
conforming with Federal Milk Marketing Orders. Our farmers 
should not lose the competition just because they are not 
allowed to compete fairly.

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

    Senator Gillibrand. Dr. Wolf, would you like to give five 
minutes?

 STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER A. WOLF, PH.D., E.V. BAKER PROFESSOR 
 OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS, CHARLES H. DYSON SCHOOL OF APPLIED 
 ECONOMICS AND MANAGEMENT, CORNELL UNIVERSITY, ITHACA, NEW YORK

    Mr. Wolf. Chairwoman Gillibrand, Ranking Member Hyde-Smith, 
and members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to be 
part of this hearing.
    The U.S. dairy industry is diverse in terms of farm size, 
production technology, geography, and markets served. Major 
trends that influenced the industry in recent years include 
changing consumption patterns, the rise of international trade 
as a major outlet for U.S. dairy products, and consolidation at 
all levels of the supply chain.
    Federal Milk Marketing Orders, using multiple component 
pricing, which handle the majority of production in the 
country, pay farmers based on component value plus a producer 
price differential that reflects the pool value in excess of 
the components. In 2020, record negative producer price 
differentials occurred, which were not just abnormal in 
magnitude; they were unpredictable and greatly contributed to 
farm milk price volatility. Recent research found that the 
large declines in producer price differentials were caused by a 
whole host of factors, including trends in utilization, driven 
by consumption trends, trends in milk component production, the 
change in Class I skim milk pricing mover, and depooling of 
milk by Class III processors.
    The impact of each of these factors varied both across 
Federal Milk Marketing Order and over time. The regional 
impacts depended on utilization, processing capacity, and other 
market factors. On average, across Federal Milk Marketing 
Orders, the largest impact contributing to negative producer 
price differentials in 2020 was depooling of milk while another 
significant impact was the aforementioned Class I pricing 
change. Both of these factors were exacerbated by the 
historically wide divergence in Class III and Class IV milk 
prices in 2020 due to the change in consumption from food away 
from home to almost exclusively at home, as well as government 
purchases of dairy products.
    With respect to consumption, beverage milk consumption has 
trended downward on a per capita basis, with the rate of 
decline increasing since 2010. In contrast to beverage 
consumption, cheese, butter, and total dairy product 
consumption have been growing. The rise of exports has 
coincided with increasing U.S. milk production. Since 2005, 
dairy exports have grown from accounting for about five percent 
of milk production to currently accounting for more than 16 
percent. Export markets assist in balancing the production of 
butterfat and milk proteins. There are farm milk price 
implications of growing dairy exports, including the influence 
of international supply and demand factors, as well as the 
political impacts of trade.
    The issues that motivate this hearing relate to farm milk 
pricing under the Federal Milk Marketing Orders. When the 
Orders were created, the majority of milk in those Orders was 
used in fluid products. Shrinking relative share of Class I, or 
fluid consumption milk, means that there is less money in the 
revenue pool. Given the age of the Federal Milk Marketing Order 
system, the length of time since the last major reform, and 
changes in the market from both the production and consumption 
sides, it is likely time to reexamine aspects of the Federal 
Milk Marketing Orders. Issues that are widely regarded as in 
need of attention at this time include the Class I mover and 
make allowances.
    Class I milk pricing methods were changed in the 2018 Farm 
Bill and implemented in 2019 to make the Class I skim milk 
price mover be the average of Class III and Class IV advanced 
skim milk price, plus a fixed 74 cents, rather than the higher 
of those advanced prices. The 74-cent per hundredweight 
differential was chosen to be revenue-neutral. One implication 
of this rule change is that when the difference between Class 
III and Class IV advanced skim milk price exceeds $1.48 per 
hundredweight the resulting Class I price built from this new 
formula is less than it would have been using the higher-of.
    Price differences of this magnitude were not unheard of 
previously, but the pandemic resulted in a wide and prolonged 
divergence in Class III and Class IV prices in 2020. This large 
divergence in butter and cheese prices meant that the Class III 
milk--Class I, excuse me, milk prices were lower than they 
would have been under the former pricing rule and focused 
attention on this aspect.
    Make allowances are the amount of the wholesale dairy 
product price that accounts for the manufacturing costs when 
calculating the component farm value of milk. All else equal, 
increasing the make allowance for a product such as cheese or 
butter means the amount of the wholesale dairy product price 
that is passed on to farmers is lower. If make allowances are 
inadequate, however, processors with higher costs will either 
be driven out or must make up the difference elsewhere.
    The entire supply chain, from farmers to processors, must 
be healthy for a prosperous dairy industry. The current set of 
markets and institutions that we have has evolved around the 
existing Federal Milk Marketing Order system, and the ripple 
effects of reforms should be carefully considered to balance 
the interests of all involved parties, including equity as well 
as economic efficiency.
    Thank you for your time, and I look forward to any 
questions or comments you might have.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Wolf can be found on page 69 
in the appendix.]

    Senator Gillibrand. Thank you, witnesses.
    Ms. de Ronde, I know that Class I is the only milk class 
required to participate in the Federal Milk Market Order pools, 
but the new pricing method and depooling clearly caused 
disorderly marketing conditions for farmers last year. Can you 
talk more about this? How were producer risk management tools 
impacted?
    Ms. de Ronde. Yes, and thank you for the question. I think 
there is really three parts to that. The first one, you asked 
about Class I being the only class that is required to 
participate in the pool. You know, as was mentioned here, our 
Federal Order systems were designed for a fluid marketplace and 
pooling revenue to make sure that every farmer is equal. In 
order for that to work, Class I needs to participate in that 
because traditionally Class I has been the highest price. It is 
absolutely essential for at least how the Orders were designed, 
if we want to have pooling, we need to make sure that Class I 
participates.
    To get to your second question about disorderly marketing, 
disorderly markets caused by the pandemic--Chris, I think you 
just did an excellent job talking about that, but I will just 
sort of echo some of those comments there. When we had an 
extremely fast rise in Class III prices due to the pandemic, 
crashing prices and then the food box program coming in and 
recovering those Class III markets, it was that rapid rise that 
got us into an unfamiliar pricing relationship. It caused the 
Class III price to exceed far beyond what we had ever really 
seen, and the difference between the Class III and Class IV 
became extremely wide and, as was mentioned, was not--was so 
wide that the new pricing mechanism with the Class I had not 
intended for that to happen and did not account for that, and 
producers were not revenue-neutral.
    To your last question about risk management, when this 
takes place, when we have volatility in the marketplace, that 
makes it extremely hard for a producer to make an accurate risk 
management decision. Producers make risk management decisions 
based on what they think the futures markets might do and, you 
know, what traditional relationships may look like. What we saw 
last year was really an anomaly, and producers' risk management 
decisions were not based on the anticipation of a food box 
program or a COVID pandemic happening. Just generally, that 
market volatility was what drove some really significant 
challenges in risk management decisions.
    Senator Gillibrand. Mr. Wills, we know that FMMO pool 
deficits from depooling affected producers. How were different 
processors affected in terms of profit and loss? What would you 
recommendation be for reforming and updating pooling rules?
    Mr. Wills. Well, I think as I indicated, there is no other 
industry that is priced like this, and my recommendation would 
be to eliminate the pooling rules because I do not believe they 
are actually increasing the value of milk overall.
    On the other hand, depooling, the option of depooling is 
absolutely necessary if you are going to keep people in 
business. Depooling is pressure relief when the Market Order 
forces companies or would put companies in the position of 
having to pay a higher price than what they have earned for 
their products.
    Now you know, the bizarre thing, of course, in milk pricing 
is that today or yesterday I learned what the milk cost me that 
I bought August 1st and my producers will find out tomorrow 
when they receive the checks what they got for the milk that 
they produced August 1st. That delay system is what creates the 
negative PPDs and puts people in a position where they both 
cannot make good planning as to where their--as to how to run 
their businesses and how much milk to produce, but also forces 
them to have that option of depooling at times because the 
prices are not reflective of value.
    Senator Gillibrand. Dr. Wolf, based on your years of 
research and analysis of Federal milk pricing what suggestions 
do you have on pricing reform that would help farmers receive a 
fair price for their milk? Given falling prices and volatility, 
how can small dairy farmers survive in this environment? What 
policies could be implemented to help?
    Mr. Wolf. Thanks. Yes, well, I think updating the Federal 
Milk Marketing Orders to reflect some of the current realities 
of the market are very important if we are going to continue to 
have this system be the foundation.
    I think it is important to also consider the fact that the 
farm milk prices built up from several components. The farm 
Milk Marketing Orders--the Federal Milk Marketing Orders, 
excuse me, are a major part of it, but the regional and 
cooperative aspects are another part of it. Part of what has 
been driving the volatility has been kind of the differential 
experiences from the market access and the--what has been going 
on in the different product markets around the country. That 
has been greatly contributing. What we have seen is at the farm 
level there is a pretty wide variation in the price received, 
and you know, 2020 was a particular stark demonstration of that 
as some farms seemed to weather it pretty well and others were 
devastated by the market situation that they had.
    You know, I think the biggest thing that can help the 
smaller farms, to the extent that we want to consider that, is 
to make certain that they continue to have market access, that 
they continue to have bargaining power to the extent that they 
can, and that they have the market information they need to 
make the proper decisions. That is actually one place that I 
would argue that the Federal Milk Marketing Orders are pretty 
important is in providing leveling market information for 
everybody to have.
    Senator Gillibrand. Thank you.
    Senator Boozman.
    Senator Boozman. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Dr. Wolf, did you see the article that Secretary Vilsack 
wrote last week regarding stepped-up basis?
    Mr. Wolf. Yes, sir.
    Senator Boozman. Okay. In that article--and again, correct 
me if I am wrong, but my reading of it was that, he essentially 
said that the only people that would be affected by stepped-up 
basis would just be a handful of corporate farmers and that 
everybody else, it did not matter, and that he felt like they 
should go forward with stepped-up basis. Is that correct?
    Mr. Wolf. Well, if I remember correctly--I am sure that you 
are right. If I remember correctly, I think he said something 
like two percent would be affected.
    Senator Boozman. Exactly.
    Mr. Wolf. That is of the USDA's number of farms.
    Senator Boozman. Exactly. We have asked USDA for that 
information to back that up, and it is silence. The only reason 
I say that is we have had others say today that stepped-up 
basis is over, but you have the Secretary of Agriculture coming 
out as recently as last week saying: No, we need to push 
forward with this.
    According to a study completed by Texas A&M University, on 
the impacts of the proposed changes to stepped-up basis on 
representative farms, Texas A&M found that the Northeast would 
be subject to hundreds of thousands of dollars of increased 
taxes. In your review of farm financial data, can you share 
what impacts these additional tax liabilities, in your opinion, 
would have on dairy farmers in the Northeast?
    Mr. Wolf. Sure, Senator. I am not an expert on this topic. 
I have no reason to distrust the analysis that Texas A&M did, 
and I have not done detailed analysis myself.
    I can tell you from working with farms on farm business 
management that estate planning is--to bring the next 
generation is a very large challenge for--you know, especially 
for commercial farms. Modern agriculture is very capital-
intensive, and farmers do not tend to be overcapitalized 
because it is expensive to be. They do not tend to have more 
capital than they need, but they certainly need enough capital 
to make a living. You know, it is not the same as passing on 
non-business investments. I can see that that would be a 
significant concern for farmers, to make certain that they 
could make the next generation viable.
    Senator Boozman. Right. Dr. Wolf, you are one of the 
leading dairy economists in the country. Have you recently 
provided any academic input to policymakers in the development 
of the $135 billion in agriculture reconciliation provisions 
with regard to what might best address the specific needs of 
dairy producers and the dairy industry?
    Mr. Wolf. No, Senator, I have not.
    Senator Boozman. Okay, which is sad. If you had that 
opportunity--I want to give you that opportunity now. You 
mentioned market access and things. What suggestions--summarize 
for me. This has been such a great hearing. Tell us in your 
opinion some of the most important things, if you could give 
that advice, which you are now. What do we need to be doing to 
make things function better?
    Mr. Wolf. Well, Senator, I think that there are a lot of 
opportunities to help the dairy industry. In particular, the 
issues that they are struggling with right now largely have to 
do with input costs, with the labor situation in particular, 
with feed costs. Market access is a big issue. Then the one 
that is kind of looming that everybody is going to need to deal 
with at some point probably relates to greenhouse gases and 
environmental change. I think that, you know, there are many 
opportunities there too, both in the research side and helping 
at the farm-level side with, you know, making certain that 
farms are resilient and that they are contributing to the 
solution, you know, of the problem because I think U.S. farms 
can be a big part of the solution there.
    Senator Boozman. You mention input costs. With the 
inclusion of the Green New Deal and significantly increasing 
gasoline prices, which again with delivery is such an important 
part of dairy and just operating the farm, rural America, gas 
prices, electricity prices. What would that do to the input of 
our dairy industry?
    Mr. Wolf. Energy costs are very important for the dairy 
farmers because they use a lot of energy, both in milking cows 
but also in producing crops. I also think, if I might add, that 
you know, to the extent that we take advantage of the potential 
gas production from dairy manure and others, that they could be 
benefiting from the energy markets there as well.
    Senator Boozman. Very good. Thank you, sir.
    Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Senator Gillibrand. Thank you.
    I think that is all we have. No. Senator Marshall, you are 
here. Thank you.
    Senator Marshall. Thank you, Madam Chair. I will start with 
Ms. de Ronde. You represent 700 farm families. What would be 
the impact of stepped-up--losing stepped-up basis and cutting 
the death tax limits in half to those families over their 
future?
    Ms. de Ronde. Let me just talk a little bit about what our 
membership looks like. 720 members, very diverse. We range from 
a five-cow Amish farm to--all the way to, you know, over 1,000-
head. One thing that is incredibly important for us as a 
cooperative is sustainability and sustainability of the next 
generation to come. We work incredibly hard to foster 
relationships, provide professional opportunities for our young 
farmers, to make sure that they are ready to be that next 
generation for us. You know, we worry about what opportunities 
they have and what challenges are going to be before them. 
Anything we do that is going to impact their ability to 
continue to farming on the land that their families have been 
on for generations is going to be detrimental to the next 
generation.
    Senator Marshall. Being a fifth-generation farm kid myself, 
I mean, I would suppose if we would lose the stepped-up basis 
we would have to sell a third of our farm to pay the taxes. Is 
that a fair statement, that people would have to sell land in 
order to pay the stepped-up basis and the dairies would be 
getting smaller rather than bigger?
    Ms. de Ronde. We have not looked at in detail what the 
impacts of that would be in terms of how much land we would 
lose, farmers, et cetera, but we do know that it would have a 
massive impact.
    Senator Marshall. Yes. Thank you.
    Mr. Wills, you make cheese, right?
    Mr. Wills. Yes, sir.
    Senator Marshall. I am not sure how many producers you are 
involved with, but I bet there is a place in town where you 
guys go and have coffee together, and maybe when they bring 
their milk to you guys you have a place to share a cup of 
coffee. If those farmers/producers were here today, or when you 
sit down with them, what are their biggest concerns when it 
comes to agriculture going forward?
    Mr. Wills. You know, I think for a lot of my producers they 
tend to be smaller producers, and I think a lot of them are 
concerned about continuing to have access to the market. As the 
buying industry consolidates, that they are--even in Wisconsin, 
where there is more competition probably for dairy than in most 
of the country, there have been incidences where we have had a 
very hard time finding homes for some farmers who have been cut 
loose by the bigger plants. There is a tendency for the big 
plants to only want to pick up milk from places where they can 
get an entire truckload of 50,000 pounds of milk rather than 
from making a lot of stops at small places.
    Now you know, the impact of losing all those producers, we 
have gone from 140,000 dairy farmers in Wisconsin down to fewer 
than 7,000 now, and we are losing about 10 percent a year. That 
just hollows out the communities. When you are talking about 
sitting down and having coffee with the producers, there is not 
a restaurant in town anymore to have a coffee at. You know, we 
have lost our hardware store, our grocery store, and a lot of 
it has to do with the rural communities being hollowed out. You 
know, the ability to maintain and support small farmers is not 
only important for those farmers but also for our communities.
    Senator Marshall. Thanks. Well, certainly as agriculture 
goes, so goes rural America.
    Dr. Wolf, I will probably finish up with you with a 
question. The Federal Milk Marketing programs that have come 
out for the past couple years, just in a broad stroke, what has 
the impact been on small producers versus larger producers, and 
is there fairness there in your opinion as an economist?
    Mr. Wolf. Well, the Dairy Margin Coverage Program is very 
much aimed at the smaller producers, and I think in particular 
with the changes that have been made recently it is much better 
for them. You know, so I kind of look at it as the Dairy Margin 
Coverage Program more aimed at small-sized and dairy revenue 
protection and Livestock Gross Margin Dairy Programs for the 
bigger farms. I think that, you know, with those two programs 
in place we are in a pretty decent situation from a risk 
management point of view although, you know maybe not 
necessarily for what was hopefully a once-in-a-lifetime 
pandemic.
    Senator Marshall. Well, would you agree with me that the 
small producers are much more--been successful from the 
programs and the bigger producers have not had much help 
through these tough times?
    Mr. Wolf. Well, maybe the--certainly, the bigger ones get 
less relative help from like the Dairy Margin Coverage Program, 
but the bigger herd operators are also much more likely to be 
doing their own risk management programs like Dairy RP. If they 
had that in place entering 2020, then they probably did pretty 
well from that.
    Senator Marshall. Okay. Thank you so much, Madam Chair.
    Senator Gillibrand. Does anyone have any additional 
questions and anyone on Webex?
    [No audible response.]
    Senator Gillibrand. Well, I want to thank our panelists for 
your excellent testimony. If you would like to supplement your 
testimony in any way, please just submit it to the Committee. 
With that, our hearing is adjourned.

    [Whereupon, at 11:34 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

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


                            A P P E N D I X

                           September 15, 2021

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

		[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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


                   DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

                           September 15, 2021

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

		[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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


                         QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

                           September 15, 2021

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

		[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



                                 [all]