[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




                                                             
                             MEMBER DAY

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                        COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               ----------                              

                            DECEMBER 6, 2023

                               ----------                              

                           Serial No. 118-18
                           
                           
                    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
       
                           


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

                               MEMBER DAY
                               
                               
                               




                              

 
                               MEMBER DAY

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                        COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                            DECEMBER 6, 2023

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-18
                           
                           
                           
                           
                      [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]      
                           


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

             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
56-008 PDF          WASHINGTON : 2024                 
                         
                         
                         
                         
                         
                         


                        COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE

                 GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania, Chairman

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma             DAVID SCOTT, Georgia, Ranking 
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia, Vice          Minority Member
Chairman                             JIM COSTA, California
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas  JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee          ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina
DOUG LaMALFA, California             ABIGAIL DAVIS SPANBERGER, Virginia
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina         JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut
TRENT KELLY, Mississippi             SHONTEL M. BROWN, Ohio
DON BACON, Nebraska                  SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas
MIKE BOST, Illinois                  ELISSA SLOTKIN, Michigan
DUSTY JOHNSON, South Dakota          YADIRA CARAVEO, Colorado
JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana              ANDREA SALINAS, Oregon
TRACEY MANN, Kansas                  MARIE GLUESENKAMP PEREZ, 
RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa                 Washington
MARY E. MILLER, Illinois             DONALD G. DAVIS, North Carolina, 
BARRY MOORE, Alabama                 Vice Ranking Minority Member
KAT CAMMACK, Florida                 JILL N. TOKUDA, Hawaii
BRAD FINSTAD, Minnesota              NIKKI BUDZINSKI, Illinois
JOHN W. ROSE, Tennessee              ERIC SORENSEN, Illinois
RONNY JACKSON, Texas                 GABE VASQUEZ, New Mexico
MARCUS J. MOLINARO, New York         JASMINE CROCKETT, Texas
MONICA De La CRUZ, Texas             JONATHAN L. JACKSON, Illinois
NICHOLAS A. LANGWORTHY, New York     GREG CASAR, Texas
JOHN S. DUARTE, California           CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
ZACHARY NUNN, Iowa                   SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California
MARK ALFORD, Missouri                ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota
DERRICK VAN ORDEN, Wisconsin         DARREN SOTO, Florida
LORI CHAVEZ-DeREMER, Oregon          SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
MAX L. MILLER, Ohio

                                 ______

                     Parish Braden, Staff Director

                 Anne Simmons, Minority Staff Director

                                  (ii)
                                  
                             C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Davis, Hon. Donald G., a Representative in Congress from North 
  Carolina, opening statement....................................     3
Thompson, Hon. Glenn, a Representative in Congress from 
  Pennsylvania, opening statement................................     1
    Prepared statement...........................................     2

                                Members

Newhouse, Hon. Dan, a Representative in Congress from Washington.     4
    Prepared statement...........................................     6
Fischbach, Hon. Michelle, a Representative in Congress from 
  Minnesota......................................................     7
    Prepared statement...........................................     8
Gonzalez-Colon, Hon. Jenniffer, a Resident Commissioner in 
  Congress from Puerto Rico......................................     9
    Prepared statement...........................................    10
Moylan, Hon. James C., a Delegate in Congress from Guam..........    11
    Prepared statement...........................................    12
Westerman, Hon. Bruce, a Representative in Congress from Arkansas    13
    Prepared statement...........................................    15
Smucker, Hon. Lloyd, a Representative in Congress from 
  Pennsylvania...................................................    17
    Prepared statement...........................................    19
Allen, Hon. Rick W., a Representative in Congress from Georgia...    21
    Prepared statement...........................................    22
Casten, Hon. Sean, a Representative in Congress from Illinois....    24
    Prepared statement...........................................    25
    Submitted articles...........................................    27
Fitzpatrick, Hon. Brian K., a Representative in Congress from 
  Pennsylvania...................................................    37
    Prepared statement...........................................    38
    Submitted letter.............................................    39
    Submitted statement on behalf of Sheriff James Custer, 
      Fayette County Sheriff's Office (PA), Member of the 
      National Sheriff Association Board of Director and Animal 
      Cruelty Committee..........................................    41
Beyer, Jr., Hon. Donald S., a Representative in Congress from 
  Virginia.......................................................    42
    Prepared statement...........................................    43
Ciscomani, Hon. Juan, a Representative in Congress from Arizona..    44
    Prepared statement...........................................    45
Hinson, Hon. Ashley, a Representative in Congress from Iowa......    47
    Prepared statement...........................................    48
Escobar, Hon. Veronica, a Representative in Congress from Texas..    50
    Prepared statement...........................................    51
Williams, Hon. Roger, a Representative in Congress from Texas....    52
    Prepared statement...........................................    53
McClellan, Hon. Jennifer L., a Representative in Congress from 
  Virginia.......................................................    54
    Prepared statement...........................................    55
Kilmer, Hon. Derek, a Representative in Congress from Washington.    56
    Prepared statement...........................................    57
Blumenauer, Hon. Earl, a Representative in Congress from Oregon..    59
    Prepared statement...........................................    60
    Submitted report.............................................    61
Rosendale, Sr., Hon. Matthew M., a Representative in Congress 
  from Montana...................................................   101
    Prepared statement...........................................   102
Spartz, Hon. Victoria, a Representative in Congress from Indiana.   104
    Prepared statement...........................................   105
Carter, Hon. Earl L. ``Buddy,'' a Representative in Congress from 
  Georgia, submitted statement...................................   109
Cartwright, Hon. Matt, a Representative in Congress from 
  Pennsylvania, submitted letter.................................   110
Costa, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from California, 
  submitted statement............................................   111
    Submitted letter.............................................   113
Courtney, Hon. Joe, a Representative in Congress from 
  Connecticut, submitted statement...............................   118
Curtis, Hon. John R., a Representative in Congress from Utah, 
  submitted letter...............................................   119
Emmer, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from Minnesota, 
  submitted statement............................................   119
Evans, Hon. Dwight, a Representative in Congress from 
  Pennsylvania, submitted statement..............................   121
Garcia, Hon. Jesus G. ``Chuy,'' a Representative in Congress from 
  Illinois, submitted statement..................................   122
Houlahan, Hon. Chrissy, a Representative in Congress from 
  Pennsylvania, submitted letter.................................   122
Kuster, Hon. Ann M., a Representative in Congress from New 
  Hampshire, submitted statement.................................   124
McClain, Hon. Lisa C., a Representative in Congress from 
  Michigan, submitted letter.....................................   125
McCollum, Hon. Betty, a Representative in Congress from 
  Minnesota, submitted letter....................................   126
Pettersen, Hon. Brittany, a Representative in Congress from 
  Colorado, submitted statement..................................   127
Pfluger, Hon. August, a Representative in Congress from Texas, 
  submitted letter...............................................   129
Reschenthaler, Hon. Guy, a Representative in Congress from 
  Pennsylvania, submitted letter.................................   130
Schrier, Hon. Kim, a Representative in Congress from Washington, 
  submitted letter...............................................   131
    Submitted endorsements.......................................   133
Wexton, Hon. Jennifer, a Representative in Congress from 
  Virginia, submitted statement..................................   138
Williams, Hon. Nikema, a Representative in Congress from Georgia, 
  submitted letter...............................................   139

                         Submitted Legislation
                             114th Congress

H.R. 6448, Wildlife Corridors Conservation Act of 2016...........   141

                             117th Congress

H.R. 2639, Trillion Trees Act....................................   162
H.R. 4580, American Seasonal and Perishable Crop Support Act.....   268

                             118th Congress

H.R. 2, Secure the Border Act of 2023, Engrossed.................   273
H.R. 200, Forest Information Reform Act (FIR Act)................   281
H.R. 205, SNAP Theft Protection Act of 2023......................   284
H.R. 253, Puerto Rico Nutrition Assistance Fairness Act..........   288
H.R. 636, Forest Litigation Reform Act of 2023...................   296
H.R. 648, Agriculture Export Promotion Act of 2023...............   308
H.R. 655, Disaster Reforestation Act.............................   312
H.R. 679, To amend the Agricultural Research, Extension, and 
  Education Reform Act of 1998 to authorize the Secretary of 
  Agriculture to waive the matching funds requirement under the 
  specialty crop research initiative, and for other purposes.....   316
H.R. 1450, Treating Tribes and Counties as Good Neighbors Act....   318
H.R. 1454, Cacao Tree Health Initiative Act of 2023..............   321
H.R. 1455, Plantain and Banana Plan Health Initiative Act........   324
H.R. 1459, Producing Responsible Energy and Conservation 
  Incentives and Solutions for the Environment Act (PRECISE Act).   327
H.R. 1604, U.S.A. Beef Act.......................................   337
H.R. 1624, Puppy Protection Act of 2023..........................   339
H.R. 1840, Agriculture Resilience Act of 2023....................   346
H.R. 2695, WOlf and Livestock Fairness Act (WOLF Act)............   561
H.R. 2740, To establish an Office of Colonia Affairs within the 
  Department of Agriculture, and for other purposes..............   565
H.R. 2814, Processing Revival and Intrastate Meat Exemption Act 
  (PRIME Act)....................................................   568
H.R. 2939, Pigs In Gestation Stalls Act of 2023 (PIGS Act of 
  2023)..........................................................   571
H.R. 2975, Eliminating Needless Administrative Barriers Lessening 
  Efficiency for Conservation Act of 2023 (ENABLE Conservation 
  Act of 2023)...................................................   577
H.R. 2989, Save Our Sequoias Act.................................   579
H.R. 3174, Invasive Species Prevention and Forest Restoration Act   615
H.R. 3183, Enhance Access To SNAP Act of 2023 (EATS Act of 2023).   631
H.R. 3389, Emergency Wildfire Fighting Technology Act of 2023, 
  Union Cal. No. 150.............................................   634
H.R. 3419, Foreign Animal Disease Prevention, Surveillance, and 
  Rapid Response Act of 2023.....................................   639
H.R. 3424, Forest Conservation Easement Program Act of 2023......   642
H.R. 3475, Save America's Forgotten Equines Act of 2023 (SAFE Act 
  of 2023).......................................................   688
H.R. 3478, Conservation Opportunity and Voluntary Environment 
  Resilience Program Act of 2023 (COVER Act of 2023).............   690
H.R. 3519, Hot Foods Act of 2023.................................   698
H.R. 3755, Industrial Hemp Act of 2023...........................   701
H.R. 3815, Protecting Mushroom Farmers Act.......................   711
H.R. 3856, Mango Plant Health Initiative Act.....................   715
H.R. 3867, Spotted Lanternfly Research and Development Act.......   718
H.R. 3955, Increasing Land Access, Security, and Opportunities 
  Act............................................................   720
H.R. 3972, Flood Resiliency and Land Stewardship Act.............   733
H.R. 3990, Forest Data Modernization Act of 2023.................   735
H.R. 4017, Conservation Reserve Program Improvement Act of 2023..   744
H.R. 4018, Headwaters Protection Act of 2023.....................   748
H.R. 4135, Augmenting Research and Educational Sites to Ensure 
  Agriculture Remains Cutting-edge and Helpful Act (AG RESEARCH 
  Act)...........................................................   758
H.R. 4173, Advancing Automation Research and Development in 
  Agriculture Act................................................   766
H.R. 4185, Expanding Access To Healthy Foods from Local Farmers 
  Act (EAT Healthy Foods from Local Farmers Act).................   774
H.R. 4188, Northern Border Regional Commission Reauthorization 
  Act of 2023....................................................   783
H.R. 4197, Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program 
  Reauthorization Act of 2023....................................   791
H.R. 4288, Agricultural Labeling Uniformity Act..................   795
H.R. 4309, Assisting Seekers in Pursuit of Integration and Rapid 
  Employment Act (ASPIRE Act)....................................   797
H.R. 4327, Converting Our Waste Sustainably (COWS) Act of 2023...   800
H.R. 4417, Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression Act.............   816
H.R. 4456, Overcoming Higher Education Hunger Through the 
  Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Act of 2023 (OHH SNAP 
  Act of 2023)...................................................   820
H.R. 4706, Senior Nutrition Task Force Act of 2023...............   824
H.R. 4713, Rural Hospital Technical Assistance Program Act.......   831
H.R. 4736, Investing in Rural America Act........................   839
H.R. 4856, GusNIP Expansion Act of 2023..........................   842
H.R. 4939, To authorize livestock producers and their employees 
  to take crested caracaras in order to prevent the death of or 
  injury or destruction to livestock, and for other purposes.....   850
H.R. 5041, Better Collaboration, Accountability, and Regulatory 
  Enforcement for Animals Act of 2023 (Better CARE for Animals 
  Act of 2023)...................................................   853
H.R. 5062, To amend the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to 
  direct the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a program 
  under which the Secretary will award grants to specialty crop 
  producers to acquire certain equipment and provide training 
  with respect to the use of such equipment......................   860
H.R. 5113, Rural Economic-development Assistance and Consultation 
  to Help Our Tribes Act (REACH Our Tribes Act)..................   864
H.R. 5136, Supporting Transportation Organization and 
  Refrigeration Expansion Act of 2023 (STORE Act of 2023)........   875
H.R. 5203, Accelerating the Growth of Rural Innovation and 
  Tourism Opportunities to Uphold Rural Industries and 
  Sustainable Marketplaces Act (AGRITOURISM Act).................   880
H.R. 5242, Connecting Our Neighbors to Networks and Ensuring 
  Competitive Telecommunications Act of 2023 (CONNECT Act of 
  2023)..........................................................   886
H.R. 5359, Rural Development Modernization Act...................   902
H.R. 5381, Reforestation, Nurseries, and Genetic Resources 
  Support Act of 2023 (RNGR Support Act of 2023).................   916
H.R. 5643, Streamlining Nutrition Paperwork Act of 2023 (SNP Act 
  of 2023).......................................................   921
H.R. 5698, Assisting Family Farmers through Insurance Reform 
  Measures Act (AFFIRM Act)......................................   923
H.R. 5747, Crop Insurance Transparency Act.......................   933
H.R. 5763, To establish as a permanent program the organic market 
  development grant program of the Department of Agriculture.....   936
H.R. 5973, Continuous Improvement and Accountability in Organic 
  Standards Act (CIAO Act).......................................   946
H.R. 6232, Coordination for Soil Carbon Research and Monitoring 
  Act............................................................   950
H.R. 6441, Ranching Without Red Tape Act of 2023.................   957
H.R. 6497, Healthy Watersheds, Healthy Communities Act of 2023...   963
H.R. 6580, Land And National Defense Act (LAND Act)..............   991


                               MEMBER DAY

                              ----------                              


                      WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 6, 2023

                          House of Representatives,
                                  Committee on Agriculture,
                                                   Washington, D.C.
    The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:00 a.m., in Room 
1300 of the Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Glenn 
Thompson of Pennsylvania [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
    Members present: Thompson, Austin Scott of Georgia, 
Crawford, Miller of Illinois, Molinaro, Chavez-DeRemer, 
McGovern, Adams, Davids of Kansas, Davis of North Carolina, and 
Budzinski.
    Staff present: Parish Braden, Tim Fitzgerald, Josh Maxwell, 
Patricia Straughn, Jennifer Tiller, John Konya, Kate Fink, 
Ashley Smith, Michael Stein, and Dana Sandman.

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

    The Chairman. Well, good morning, everybody. This hearing 
of the Committee on Agriculture will come to order.
    Good morning again, and welcome to the House Committee on 
Agriculture's Member Day hearing, and I appreciate my 
colleagues taking some time to share their priorities and their 
perspectives.
    For nearly 3 years, I have traveled to Iowa. We, Members of 
this Committee, have traveled across the country to hear from 
farmers, ranchers, foresters, rural communities, processors, 
and everyday consumers. Now, these men and women have struggled 
with fractured supply chains, considerable input costs, 
relentless inflation, natural disasters, volatile markets, 
labor shortages, and each consistently worsened by ill-
conceived, half-baked Executive action.
    This Committee has a magnificent mandate to deliver a farm 
bill that protects and enhances the resources needed for 
producers to mitigate risks, increase our great nation's 
position on the world stage, and strengthen agriculture's 
return on investment, and most importantly, safeguard food and 
national security. And while the extension secured in the 
recent stopgap appropriations bill provides immediate 
certainty, it is not and should not be in lieu of a 
comprehensive and thoughtful bipartisan 5 year reauthorization 
of the farm bill.
    We can craft a bipartisan farm bill that aligns with farm 
safety net with needs of producers, expand market access and 
trade promotion opportunities, strengthens program operations 
to demand transparency and accountability to the taxpayer, and 
reinforces not only the importance of helping our neighbors in 
need, but doing so without indiscriminate expansion of our 
nutrition safety net.
    However, significant headwinds exist. These range from the 
stark politics of the 118th Congress to the cost and funding 
constraints across the 12 titles of the farm bill. It will be 
virtually impossible to create a robust and resilient farm 
safety net without significant investment. Over the last 6 
months, I have spent my time with my colleagues on both sides 
of the aisle articulating not only the needs in farm country, 
but how to fund the thousands of priorities shared through the 
Committee's electronic portal and countless listening sessions, 
and I promoted a thoughtful framework of ideas, including the 
repurposing of the Inflation Reduction Act dollars, as well as 
the strengthening of Congress' article I authority through a 
forward-thinking Thrifty Food Plan framework, among others. 
Taken in concert, these funding opportunities would not only 
fine tune the farm safety net, but increase the farm bill's 
baseline through the reinvestment in bipartisan priorities 
across other titles, including conservation, research, and 
nutrition.
    These ideas have been applauded and demonized, but I will 
not relent, and I will not fail our rural communities, many of 
whom have suffered insurmountable loss due to variables beyond 
their control. Our task is to build a responsive framework to 
meet the needs of American agriculture and its vast value 
chain. We do not need a transformational farm bill to do 
better. Strategic investment and good policy will make all the 
difference.
    This Committee has a large jurisdiction, and I have always 
said we can walk and chew gum at the same time. Over the past 
year, we have worked closely with the House Committee on 
Financial Services to craft the Financial Innovation and 
Technology for the 21st Century Act (H.R. 4763), or FIT21, 
which is a comprehensive framework for the digital asset 
market. FIT21 will offer certainty for market participants, 
address regulatory gaps, foster American innovation, and 
implement vital customer protections in the digital asset 
ecosystem. This collaborative effort resulted in FIT21 being 
passed by both committees, Agriculture and Financial Services, 
in a bipartisan manner. Our work continues on this important 
policy priority as we pursue the bill's advancement in the 
House.
    And finally, as we consider additional authorities for the 
Commodity Futures Trading Commission, we must also finally 
reauthorize the Commission. As the Ranking Member and I both 
agree, this is another critical piece of work for the Committee 
to undertake.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Thompson follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Glenn Thompson, a Representative in Congress 
                           from Pennsylvania
    Good morning, and welcome to the House Committee on Agriculture's 
Member Day hearing. I appreciate my colleagues taking some time to 
share their priorities and perspectives.
    For nearly 3 years, I have traveled across the country to hear from 
farmers, ranchers, foresters, rural communities, and everyday 
consumers. These men and women have struggled with fractured supply 
chains, considerable input costs, relentless inflation, natural 
disasters, volatile markets, and labor shortages, each consistently 
worsened by ill-conceived, half-baked Executive action.
    This Committee has a magnificent mandate: to deliver a farm bill 
that protects and enhances the resources needed for producers to 
mitigate risk, increases our great nation's position on the world's 
stage, strengthens agriculture's return on investment, and most 
importantly, safeguards food and national security. And while the 
extension secured in the recent stopgap appropriations bill provides 
immediate certainty, it is not and should not be in lieu of a 
comprehensive and thoughtful bipartisan 5 year reauthorization.
    We can craft a bipartisan farm bill that aligns the farm safety net 
with the needs of producers, expands market access and trade promotion 
opportunities, strengthens program operations to demand transparency 
and accountability to the taxpayer, and reinforces not only the 
importance of helping our neighbors in need, but doing so without 
indiscriminate expansion of our nutrition safety net.
    However, significant headwinds exist. These range from the stark 
politics of the 118th Congress to the costs and funding constraints 
across the 12 titles of the bill. It will be virtually impossible to 
create a robust and resilient farm safety net without significant 
investment.
    Over the last 6 months, I have spent time with my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle, articulating not only the needs in farm 
country, but how to fund the thousands of priorities shared through the 
Committee's electronic portal and countless listening sessions. I have 
promoted a thoughtful framework of ideas, including the repurposing of 
Inflation Reduction Act dollars as well as a strengthening of Congress' 
Article I authority through a forward-thinking Thrifty Food Plan 
framework, among others. Taken in concert, these funding opportunities 
would not only fine tune the farm safety net but increase the farm 
bill's baseline through reinvestment in bipartisan priorities across 
other titles including conservation, research, and nutrition.
    These ideas have been applauded and demonized, but I will not 
relent. I will not fail our rural communities, many of whom have 
suffered insurmountable loss due to variables beyond their control. Our 
task is to build a responsive framework to meet the needs of American 
agriculture and its vast value chain; we do not need a transformational 
farm bill to do better; strategic investment and good policy will make 
all the difference.
    This Committee has a large jurisdiction, and I have always said we 
can walk and chew gum at the same time.
    Over the past year, we worked closely with the House Committee on 
Financial Services to craft the Financial Innovation and Technology for 
the 21st Century Act, or FIT21, a comprehensive framework for the 
digital asset market. FIT21 will offer certainty for market 
participants, address regulatory gaps, foster American innovation, and 
implement vital customer protections in the digital asset ecosystem.
    This collaborative effort resulted in FIT21 being passed out of 
both Committees in a bipartisan manner. Our work continues on this 
important policy priority as we pursue the bill's advancement in the 
House.
    And finally, as we consider additional authorities for the 
Commodity Futures Trading Commission, we must also finally reauthorize 
the Commission. As the Ranking Member and I have both agreed, this is 
another critical piece of work for the Committee to undertake. With 
that, I welcome my colleagues to today's hearing and look forward to 
their testimony.
    I now yield to the distinguished Ranking Member, Mr. Scott.

    The Chairman. With that, I welcome my colleagues to today's 
hearing, and I look forward to their testimony.
    I would now like to welcome the distinguished Member from 
North Carolina who is sitting in on behalf of our Ranking 
Member today, the gentleman from North Carolina. He will be 
recognized for any opening remarks. Thank you, Mr. Davis.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DONALD G. DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
                  CONGRESS FROM NORTH CAROLINA

    Mr. Davis of North Carolina. Thank you, Chairman Thompson.
    Allow me to say what our Ranking Member, Mr. Scott, would 
say and what we all want you to know, and that is we wish you 
the speediest recovery and we are praying for you----
    The Chairman. Thank you. I appreciate it.
    Mr. Davis of North Carolina.--a person that often opens us 
up with prayer, leading us in prayer, we are going to lead 
prayer for you and your family.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Donnie.
    Mr. Davis of North Carolina. With that, I am honored to be 
able to participate in today's Member hearing. I look forward 
to hearing from our colleagues and their thoughts on the farm 
bill.
    The farm bill is a critical piece of legislation that 
touches every Congressional district in America. If you eat 
food, the farm bill matters to you. Interestingly, over 200 
Members of the House have never voted on a farm bill before. I 
hope we will work together in a bipartisan fashion to craft 
this bill. It is too important not to work together. We also 
must build on the success of the conservation programs funded 
by the Inflation Reduction Act, empowering farmers to adopt 
practices that are good for the environment and their bottom 
lines.
    The farm bill must fight food insecurity by ensuring every 
household in America, our children, our grandparents, our 
disabled, and veterans have access to food. It must expand 
opportunities for farmers and rural communities. It must help 
farmers to meet increasing renewable energy demands which will 
help farmers diversify their income streams. And it must expand 
opportunities to all who wish to farm, especially new and 
beginning farmers and farmers of color so that American 
agriculture can remain strong, vibrant, and innovative into the 
future.
    Together, we can achieve these goals with input of the 
witnesses who are here today. I look forward to hearing from 
our colleagues today. And, Mr. Chairman, thank you and will 
yield back.
    The Chairman. Mr. Davis, thank you so much.
    The chair would request that other Members submit their 
opening statements for the record so our colleagues may begin 
their testimony.
    I would like to welcome our colleagues who have joined us 
today to provide testimony on issues important to their 
Congressional districts. We have more than 20 Members on the 
list to testify today, and each Member will be recognized for 5 
minutes.
    And I now recognize the gentleman from Washington State, 
Mr. Newhouse, for 5 minutes.

 STATEMENT OF HON. DAN NEWHOUSE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                       FROM OF WASHINGTON

    Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Chairman Thompson, Mr. Davis, as 
well as all the Members of the Committee.
    As Chairman of the Congressional Western Caucus, a Member 
of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, and 
maybe more importantly, as a third-generation farmer 
representing central Washington, it is certainly a privilege to 
work with Members of this distinguished Committee as we 
continue to address rural policy issues and support our 
farmers, our ranchers, and the agricultural industry. I 
appreciate the opportunity to testify today and want to 
highlight several important provisions as you develop the next 
farm bill.
    The farm bill, as you know, impacts all Americans, and this 
legislation must be carefully crafted to promote American 
agriculture, preserve our premier research institutions, 
improve forest health to prevent catastrophic wildfires, and 
provide a safety net to ensure the long-term success of 
America's agricultural industry.
    Trade continues to be critical for American farmers and 
ranchers, and our agricultural products are a key part of the 
global food supply. The farm bill must ensure that agricultural 
exports are prioritized in market promotion, and that U.S. food 
aid continues to support American producers. It should 
reauthorize and consider expanding the Market Access Program, 
which is the main export promotion program that helps producers 
increase American agricultural product exports.
    Additionally, the Foreign Market Development Program, the 
Emerging Markets Program and Technical Assistance for Specialty 
Crops all play an important role in establishing new 
international markets for our products in foreign countries. My 
bill, the Agriculture Export Promotion Act of 2023, would 
expand extend MAP and FMD programs to ensure that American 
farmers and ranchers have the support they need to grow their 
businesses.
    My district is home to a significant number of organic 
growers, and I am concerned by the lack of urgency and 
collaboration from USDA in updating organic standards. Consumer 
trust in organics relies on strong and consistently updated 
voluntary standards that reflect the latest facts on 
environmental and ecological data, consumer demands, and 
innovative best practices. To address this issue, I, along with 
others on this Committee, with overwhelming support from our 
growers across the country, introduced the Continuous 
Improvement and Accountability in Organic Standards Act. This 
legislation establishes a 5 year repeating process where USDA, 
its advisory board, and stakeholders work together to ensure 
evolving market data is included in modern organic practices.
    For farmers, land managers, and others not in the organic 
space, the ability to produce abundant food, feed, and fiber 
relies on access to safe and effective pesticides. However, 
some states have begun to regulate pesticides in a manner 
counter to the decades of scientific guidance from the EPA. The 
lack of certainty on EPA-approved science-based labels will 
erode access to current and future pesticides. It will threaten 
crops, grower incomes, conservation practices, public health, 
vital infrastructure, and ultimately raise food prices for 
families amidst record high inflation.
    My friend, the distinguished Representative from South 
Dakota, Mr. Johnson, introduced the Agricultural Label 
Uniformity Act to reaffirm Federal pesticide label uniformity 
and prevent state and local governments from adopting 
inconsistent labeling or packaging that disrupts access to 
these vital tools. Growers and users need assurance that while 
states have authority to regulate pesticides within their 
jurisdiction, they cannot impose labeling or packaging 
requirements in addition or different from the scientific 
conclusions of EPA.
    In closing, Mr. Chairman, the pursuit of a healthy farm 
economy must be a top priority, and it is crucial to protect 
those that keep food on our shelves. I encourage urgency as you 
continue to develop the next farm bill, and I want to sincerely 
thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you, and I 
yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Newhouse follows:]

 Prepared Statement of Hon. Dan Newhouse, a Representative in Congress 
                            from Washington
    Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Scot, Members of the Committee,

    As Chairman of the Congressional Western Caucus, a Member of the 
House Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, and as a third-
generation farmer representing Central Washington, it is a privilege to 
work with the Members of this distinguished Committee.
    As we continue to address rural policy issues and support our 
farmers, ranchers, and the agriculture industry, I appreciate the 
opportunity to testify today and want to highlight several important 
provisions as you develop the next farm bill.
    The farm bill impacts all Americans, and this legislation must be 
carefully crafted to promote American agriculture, preserve our 
premiere research institutions, improve forest health to prevent 
catastrophic wildfires, and provide a safety net to ensure the long-
term success of America's agriculture industry.
Trade
    Trade continues to be critical for American farmers and ranchers, 
and American agricultural products are a key part of the global food 
supply.
    The farm bill must ensure that agricultural exports are prioritized 
in market promotion and that U.S. food aid continues to support 
American producers.
    It should reauthorize, and consider expanding, the Market Access 
Program (MAP), which is the main export promotion program that helps 
producers increase exports of American agricultural products.
    Additionally, the Foreign Market Development Program (FMD), the 
Emerging Markets Program, and Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops 
all play an important role in establishing new international markets 
for American products in foreign countries.
    My bill, H.R. 648, the Agriculture Export Promotion Act of 2023 
would expand and extend the MAP and FMD programs to ensure that 
American farmers and ranchers have the support they need to grow their 
businesses.
Organic
    My district is home to a significant number of organic growers and 
I am concerned by the lack of urgency and collaboration from USDA in 
updating organic standards.
    Consumer trust in organics relies on strong and consistently 
updated voluntary standards that reflect the latest facts on 
environmental and ecological data, consumer demands, and innovative 
best practices.
    To address this issue, I, along with others on this Committee and 
with overwhelming support from organic growers, introduced H.R. 5973, 
the Continuous Improvement and Accountability in Organic Standards Act.
    This legislation establishes a 5 year repeating process where USDA, 
its advisory board, and stakeholders work together to ensure evolving 
market data is included in modern organics practices.
EPA
    For farmers, land managers, and other users not in the organic 
space, the ability to produce abundant food, feed, and fiber relies on 
access to safe and effective pesticides. However, some states have 
begun to regulate pesticides in a manner counter to the decades of 
scientific guidance from the EPA.
    The lack of certainty on EPA-approved, science-based labels will 
erode access to current and future pesticides. It will threaten crops, 
grower incomes, conservation practices, public health, vital 
infrastructure, and ultimately raise food prices for families amidst 
record-high inflation.
    My friend, and the distinguished Representative from South Dakota, 
Dusty Johnson, introduced H.R. 4288, the Agricultural Labeling 
Uniformity Act, to reaffirm Federal pesticide labeling uniformity and 
prevent state and local governments from adopting inconsistent labeling 
or packaging that disrupts access to these vital tools.
    Growers and users need assurance that while states have authority 
to regulate pesticides within their jurisdiction, they cannot impose 
labeling or packaging requirements in addition or different from the 
scientific conclusions of the EPA.
Closing
    In closing, the pursuit of a healthy farm economy must be a top 
priority, and it is crucial to protect those that keep food on our 
shelves.
    I encourage urgency as you continue to develop the next farm bill, 
and I sincerely thank you for your time and consideration.
                         Submitted Legislation
  1.  H.R. 648, Agriculture Export Promotion Act of 2023: https://
            www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-118hr648ih/pdf/BILLS-
            118hr648ih.pdf (See p. 308).

  2.  H.R. 4288, Agricultural Labeling Uniformity Act: https://
            www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-118hr4288ih/pdf/BILLS-
            118hr4288ih.pdf (See p. 795).

  3.  H.R. 5973, Continuous Improvement and Accountability in Organic 
            Standards Act: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-
            118hr5973ih/pdf/BILLS-118hr5973ih.pdf (See p. 946).

    The Chairman. Mr. Newhouse, thank you so much.
    I am now pleased to recognize the gentlelady from 
Minnesota, Congresswoman Fischbach, for 5 minutes.

   STATEMENT OF HON. MICHELLE FISCHBACH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
                    CONGRESS FROM MINNESOTA

    Mrs. Fischbach. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr. 
Chairman and Mr. Davis, for holding the Member Day hearing. I 
would like to thank Chairman Thompson very much for being 
engaged with everyone from Members of Congress to, most 
importantly, the farmers as we look at this farm bill.
    As many of you know, rural communities across the country 
are struggling to retain population, much less attract future 
generations. This is often because these areas either lack or 
have outdated basic community infrastructure like hospitals, 
childcare centers, and senior care centers. Unnecessary 
regulatory barriers create a disincentive to providing the 
necessary capital resources to build these important pieces of 
our communities.
    Earlier this year, I introduced the Investing in Rural 
America Act, which encourages investment in rural communities 
by restoring and codifying Farm Credit's eligibility to finance 
community facilities in partnership with local lenders and 
USDA's Community Facilities Loan Program. I encourage the 
Committee to include this important legislation that helps 
build strong rural communities in the upcoming farm bill.
    I would also like to talk briefly about crop insurance. I 
know this Committee strongly supports the current crop 
insurance program, but I believe there is an important issue 
and opportunity in the upcoming farm bill to address. We spend 
billions on disaster assistance not offset outside the farm 
bill to compensate farmers for disasters. Congress has relied 
on inefficient deficit-inducing ad hoc assistance for both 
insurable and uninsurable disaster events. These programs are 
created and administered after the fact with often confusing 
and burdensome programs and leave producers waiting for 
assistance for years in some cases, while also driving up costs 
to the taxpayer. Look no further than the most recent iteration 
of ERP to see the flaws in the current system.
    Crop insurance has proven to be a bedrock risk management 
tool, and while I appreciate the fiscal constraints on this 
Committee, I firmly believe an opportunity exists to build on 
the program's success by making higher coverage levels more 
affordable to producers across the country. This will help 
alleviate the need for ad hoc assistance programs, saving money 
while strengthening this important risk management tool. In 
many ways, this was the reason for the creation of the Federal 
Crop Insurance Program. Building these resources into the crop 
insurance program will help provide timely assistance, require 
producers' skin in the game, and provide the consistency and 
certainty that the ad hoc system currently lacks.
    Finally, Mr. Chairman, western Minnesota produces \1/3\ of 
the country sugarbeets, more than any other district or state 
in the country. Farmers in my district rely on the sugar 
program to provide nature's sweetener to our tables. The 
industry contributes more than $23 billion each year for the 
U.S. economy according to the Sugar Alliance. It is a job 
creator and a community driver at zero cost to taxpayers. I 
strongly urge the Committee to reject misguided and harmful 
attacks on this program and protect it for the next generation 
of sugarbeet and cane farmers across the country and especially 
in western Minnesota.
    Mr. Chairman, I thank you, and yield back my time.
    [The prepared statement of Mrs. Fischbach follows:]

  Prepared Statement of Hon. Michelle Fischbach, a Representative in 
                        Congress from Minnesota
    Thank you, Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member Scott, for holding 
this Member Day. I would like to thank this Chairman Thompson for being 
engaged with everyone from fellow Members of Congress and, most 
importantly, farmers across the country.
    As many of you know, rural communities across the country are 
struggling to retain population, much less attract future generations. 
This is often because these areas either lack or have outdated basic 
community infrastructure like hospitals, childcare centers, and senior 
care centers. Unnecessary regulatory barriers create a disincentive to 
providing the necessary capital resources to build these important 
pieces of our communities.
    Earlier this year, I introduced the Investing In Rural America Act, 
which encourages investment in rural communities by restoring and 
codifying Farm Credit's eligibility to finance community facilities in 
partnership with local lenders and USDA's Community Facilities Loan 
Program. I encourage the Committee to include this important 
legislation that helps build strong rural communities in the upcoming 
farm bill.
    I would also like to talk briefly about crop insurance. I know this 
Committee strongly supports the current crop insurance program, but I 
believe there's an important issue--and opportunity--in the upcoming 
farm bill to address.
    We spend billions on disaster assistance, not offset, outside of 
the farm bill, to compensate farmers for disasters. Congress has relied 
on inefficient, deficit-inducing ad hoc assistance for both insurable 
and uninsurable disaster events. These programs are created and 
administered after the fact with often confusing and burdensome 
programs and leave producers waiting for assistance, for years in some 
cases, while also driving up costs to the taxpayer. Look no further 
than the most recent iteration of ERP to see the flaws in the current 
system.
    Crop insurance has proven to be a bedrock risk management tool, and 
while I appreciate the fiscal constraints on this Committee, I firmly 
believe an opportunity exists to build on the program's success by 
making higher coverage levels more affordable to the producers across 
the country. This will help alleviate the need for ad hoc assistance, 
saving money, while strengthening this important risk management tool. 
In many ways, this was the reason for the creation of the Federal Crop 
Insurance Program. Building these resources into the crop insurance 
program will help provide timely assistance, require producer skin in 
the game, and provide the consistency and certainty that the current ad 
hoc system lacks.
    Finally, Mr. Chairman, western Minnesota produces \1/3\ of the 
country's sugarbeets, more than any other district or state in the 
country. Farmers in my district rely on the Sugar Program to provide 
nature's sweeteners to our tables. The industry contributes more than 
$23 billion each year for the U.S. economy, according to the Sugar 
Alliance. It is a job creator and a community driver, at zero cost to 
taxpayers. I strongly urge the Committee to reject misguided and 
harmful attacks on this program and protect it for the next generation 
of sugarbeet and cane farmers, especially in western Minnesota.
    Thank Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for your time.
                         Submitted Legislation
  1.  H.R. 4736, Investing in Rural America Act: https://
            www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-118hr4736ih/pdf/BILLS-
            118hr4736ih.pdf (See p. 839).

    The Chairman. Well, Congresswoman Fischbach, thank you so 
much for your testimony representing your district.
    Now I am pleased to recognize the gentlelady from Puerto 
Rico, Congresswoman Gonzalez-Colon, for 5 minutes.

    STATEMENT OF HON. JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON, A RESIDENT 
           COMMISSIONER IN CONGRESS FROM PUERTO RICO

    Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am so happy 
to be here, and I wish you a fast recovery. You are a true 
friend of the island. I want to say thank you for visiting our 
farmers and our people on the island during this semester 
discussing actually the farm bill. It was a great opportunity 
for all the local stakeholders to have you there. I thank you, 
and I thank Mr. Davis for having this opportunity to testify 
today.
    As you know, Puerto Rico is not included in the 
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. Instead, 
the island offers Federal nutrition assistance to low-income 
families through the Nutrition Assistance Program, or NAP, 
which is a capped block grant program funded every year by 
Congress. With NAP, U.S. citizens living in Puerto Rico receive 
fewer benefits compared to their SNAP counterparts. We also 
depend on Congress to allocate additional emergency funds 
through supplemental legislation in the event of a natural 
disaster or national emergencies. And these challenges, the 
response on the ground, produces uncertainty. As state 
agencies, officials, and island residents are unaware of what 
if any disaster resources will be available when needed.
    SNAP, on the other hand, will ensure residents in Puerto 
Rico--like those living in the 50 states, Washington D.C., the 
U.S. Virgin Islands, and Guam--are properly supported when in 
need of assistance to cover their dietary expenses. SNAP also 
has built-in tools to bolster the economy like work 
requirements. Some estimates show that if Puerto Rico were 
included in SNAP, and therefore in compliance with work 
requirements, approximately 250,000 residents would be brought 
into the workforce.
    There is ample support from both the public- and private-
sectors on the island for the transition from NAP to SNAP. It 
is a bipartisan issue. And there is potential impact of this 
change in agriculture communities across the country. Puerto 
Rico imports close to 80 percent of the food it consumes, and 
most of those items come from the states. Some of the import 
categories include poultry, meat, dairy, cereals, among others, 
with the mainland being the number one supplier and seller.
    I introduced legislation that will help us achieve 
participation in SNAP, H.R. 253, the Puerto Rico Nutrition 
Assistance Fairness Act, and this bill, which is bipartisan, 
bicameral, and supported by all stakeholders on the island, 
supports the transition and gives us a time frame for both 
Puerto Rico and the U.S. Department of Agriculture to undertake 
this change in full compliance with programmatic requirements 
under SNAP.
    Puerto Rico has been excluded from SNAP since the 1980s, 
and NAP is one of the main programs that island residents turn 
to when there is an economic downturn or emergencies impacting 
their work hours and their livelihood, and yet, they are 
shortchanged compared to their SNAP counterparts. That is the 
reason I urge this Committee to take the opportunity in the 
farm bill to address this issue and support real nutrition 
assistance and security for Puerto Rico.
    Last, I would like to highlight some other priorities that 
will foster greater research opportunity for some of our 
specialty crops, which are bananas, plantains, cacao, and 
mangoes. These are the staple items in our diet and our 
agriculture economy. I have introduced legislation that will 
add these crops as priority research areas for the Department 
of Agriculture. They are H.R. 1455, the Plantain and Banana 
Plan Health Initiative Act; H.R. 1454, the Cacao Tree Health 
Initiative Act; H.R. 3856, the Mango Plant Health Initiative 
Act.
    Including these bills within the coming farm bill will have 
a remarkably positive impact on our ability to conduct research 
of these crops, mainly the pest and plant diseases that 
threaten them and how to mitigate these.
    And I would like to conclude my remarks by thanking you, 
Chairman Thompson, for your time, as well as your dedicated 
staff, who has been working alongside my staff for many years 
on all these issues, as well as Mr. McGovern. I want to say 
thank you, and I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Hon. Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, a Resident 
               Commissioner in Congress from Puerto Rico
    Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Scott, thank you for the 
opportunity to testify in today's Member Day hearing to highlight some 
of Puerto Rico's priorities under the jurisdiction of the House 
Committee on Agriculture.
    As you know, Puerto Rico is not included in the Supplemental 
Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. Instead, the Island offers 
Federal nutrition assistance to low-income families through the 
Nutrition Assistance Program, or NAP, which is a capped block grant 
program funded every year by Congress.
    With NAP, U.S. citizens living in Puerto Rico receive fewer 
benefits compared to their SNAP counterparts. We also depend on 
Congress to allocate additional emergency funds through supplemental 
legislation in the event of a natural disaster, or other national 
emergencies. This challenges the rate of response on the ground and 
produces uncertainty as state agency officials and Island residents are 
unaware of what, if any, disaster resources will be available when 
needed.
    SNAP, on the other hand, would ensure residents in Puerto Rico, 
like those living in the 50 states, D.C., the U.S. Virgin Islands, and 
Guam, are properly supported when in need of assistance to cover their 
dietary expenses. SNAP also has built-in tools to bolster the economy, 
like work requirements. Some estimates show that, if Puerto Rico were 
included in SNAP and therefore in compliance with work requirements, 
approximately 266,000 residents would be brought into the workforce.\1\ 
* These are significant numbers that show why there is ample support, 
from both the public and private sectors, for the transition from NAP 
to SNAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ From NAP to SNAP: Bridge to Economic Liberty for Residents of 
Puerto Rico  (an update). https://institutodelibertadeconomica.org/en/
publications/from-nap-to-snap-a-bridge-to-economic-liberty-for-
residents-of-puerto-rico/.
    * Editor's note: references annotated with  are retained in 
Committee file.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It is also important to highlight the potential impact of this 
change on agricultural communities across the country. Puerto Rico 
imports close to 80% of the food it consumes, and most of those items 
come from the states. Some of the import categories include poultry, 
meat, dairy, cereals, among others, with the mainland being the top 
supplier and seller.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Economic Contributions of the Food & Beverage Industry in 
Puerto Rico.  Macro Policy Advisors. February 2021. https://
puertoricosnap.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/ECONOMIC-CONTRIBUTIONS-
OF-THE-FOOD-BEVERAGE-INDUSTRY-PUERTO-RICO-4859-5257-1968-1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Earlier this year, I introduced legislation that would help us 
achieve participation in SNAP: H.R. 253, the Puerto Rico Nutrition 
Assistance Fairness Act. This bill is bipartisan, bicameral, and 
supported by all stakeholders on the Island. It supports the transition 
and a timeframe for both Puerto Rico and the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture (USDA) to undertake this change in full compliance with 
programmatic requirements under SNAP.
    Puerto Rico has been excluded from SNAP since the early 1980s.\3\ 
And yet, the unsuitability of NAP continues to be apparent. NAP is one 
of the main programs Island residents turn to when there is an economic 
downturn or emergency, impacting their work hours and their livelihood, 
and yet, they are shortchanged compared to their SNAP counterparts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ USDA FNS--Puerto Rico Nutrition Assistance Program Summary. 
https://www.fns.usda.gov/nap/puerto-rico-nutrition-assistance-program-
summary
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, I urge you to take the opportunity 
with the upcoming farm bill to address this issue and support greater 
nutrition assistance and security for Puerto Rico.
    Last, I have other priorities that would foster greater research 
opportunities for some of our specialty crops, bananas and plantains, 
cacao, and mangos. These are staple items in our diet and our 
agriculture economy. I have introduced legislation that would add these 
crops as priority research areas for USDA. These are H.R. 1455, the 
Plantain and Banana Plant Health and Initiative Act; H.R. 1[4]54, the 
Cacao Tree Health Initiative Act; and H.R. 3856, the Mango Plant Health 
Initiative Act. Including these bills within the upcoming farm bill 
would have a remarkably positive impact on our abilities to conduct 
research of these crops, mainly the pests and plant diseases that 
threaten them, and how to mitigate these.
    I would like to conclude my remarks by thanking both of you, 
Chairman Thompson, and Ranking Member Scott for your time, as well as 
your dedicated staff who have been working alongside mine for many 
years on all the issues I have mentioned today.
    Thank you and I yield back.
                         Submitted Legislation
  1.  H.R. 253, Puerto Rico Nutrition Assistance Fairness Act: https://
            www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-118hr253ih/pdf/BILLS-
            118hr253ih.pdf (See p. 288).

  2.  H.R. 1454, Cacao Tree Health Initiative Act of 2023: https://
            www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-118hr1454ih/pdf/BILLS-
            118hr1454ih.pdf (See p. 321).

  3.  H.R. 1455, Plantain and Banana Plan Health Initiative Act: 
            https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-118hr1455ih/pdf/
            BILLS-118hr1455ih.pdf (See p. 324).

  4.  H.R. 3856, Mango Plant Health Initiative Act: https://
            www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-118hr3856ih/pdf/BILLS-
            118hr3856ih.pdf (See p. 715).

    The Chairman. Congresswoman, thank you so much. Thanks for 
being a great voice for your constituents in Puerto Rico.
    Now, I am pleased to recognize our colleague, the gentleman 
from Guam, Congressman Moylan, for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES C. MOYLAN, A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS FROM 
                              GUAM

    Mr. Moylan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this 
hearing and allowing me the chance to speak about issues of 
critical importance to my district of Guam.
    I have come before the Committee today to discuss three of 
my amendments that we will be offering to the farm bill. The 
first of these amendments will designate the Guam Office of 
USDA Rural Development as a state-level office, giving them the 
ability to bring decision-making on the ground in Guam, as 
opposed to the status quo, where final decisions are made 3,000 
miles away in Hawaii. In speaking with my constituents, I have 
heard time and again their concerns with decision-making 
regarding Guam businesses and government were being made in 
Hawaii. This is an unacceptable outcome for my constituents. 
They should not have to call 808 numbers, whether for their 
healthcare or to get help applying for Federal grants for low-
interest loans.
    The second amendment I would like to discuss would extend 
section 7119 of the 2018 Farm Bill. This section authorizes 
grants to support agriculture and food science programs at 
insular colleges such as the University of Guam in my district. 
This money helps our local institutions for higher education 
pay to acquire, alter, or repair facilities and equipment 
necessary for conducting agriculture research.
    My amendment would also pull $40 million from the 
unallocated money within USDA originally from the IRA. This 
will double the availability of money over the next 5 years, 
providing essential boosts to help insular colleges research 
the agricultural field in a tropical climate.
    The third and final amendment I would like to bring to your 
attention would allow for the creation of an advisory committee 
to the Secretary of Agriculture focused on issues relating to 
U.S. Territories and freely associated states. This would 
ensure when USDA is promulgating rules or considering changes 
in an agency policy, that they are consulting representatives 
of the Territories.
    When I am home in district, I hear stories of constituents 
forced to join agency calls at all hours of the night because 
they do not take into consideration their Pacific stakeholders. 
This advisory committee will ensure that does not happen, going 
forward.
    Mr. Chairman, I thank you for allowing me the chance to 
come before you and speak about my priorities for the upcoming 
farm bill. I am always happy to work with Committee staff or 
other Members on these issues. If you have any questions, 
please don't hesitate to reach out. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I 
yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Moylan follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. James C. Moylan, a Delegate in Congress from 
                                  Guam
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman for holding this hearing and allowing me 
the chance to speak about issues of critical importance to my district 
of Guam.
    Mr. Chairman, this term we have the privilege of writing and 
passing the farm bill, this is especially exciting for me as it is a 
privilege that my predecessor did not enjoy.
    I have come before the Committee today to discuss some of the 
amendments that I will be offering to the farm bill.
    The first of these amendments will designate the Guam office of 
USDA Rural Development as a state level office, giving them the ability 
to bring decision making on the ground in Guam, as opposed to the 
status quo where final decisions are made 3,000 miles away in Hawaii. 
In speaking with my constituents, I have heard time and again their 
concerns with decision making regarding Guam businesses and government 
were being made in Hawaii, this is an unacceptable outcome for my 
constituents. They should not have to call 808 numbers, whether for 
their healthcare or to get help applying for Federal grants and low 
interest loans.
    The next amendment I would like to discuss would extend Section 
7119 of the 2018 Farm Bill, this section authorizes grants to support 
Agriculture and Food Science Programs at Insular Colleges. This money 
helps our local institutions of higher education pay to acquire, alter, 
or repair facilities and equipment necessary for conducting 
agricultural research.
    My amendment would also pull $40 million from the unallocated money 
within USDA originally from the IRA. This would double the available 
money over the next 5 years, providing an essential boost to help 
insular colleges research in the agricultural field in a tropical 
climate.
    The final amendment I would like to bring to your attention would 
allow for the creation of an advisory committee to the Secretary 
focused on issues relating to the U.S. Territories and Freely 
Associated States. This would ensure that when USDA is promulgating 
rules, or considering changes in agency policy, that they are 
consulting representatives of the territories.
    When I am home in district, I constantly hear stories of 
constituents forced to join agency calls at all hours of the night 
because they do not take into consideration their pacific stakeholders, 
this advisory committee will ensure that does not happen going forward.
    Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me the chance to come before 
you and speak about my priorities for the upcoming farm bill. I am 
always happy to work with Committee staff or other Members on these 
issues. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to reach out.
    I yield back.

    The Chairman. Well, I thank the gentleman. Thanks for 
representing your constituents in Guam on the important issues 
related to agriculture, much appreciated.
    I am now pleased to recognize the gentleman from Arkansas, 
the Chairman of the Natural Resource Committee, Mr. Westerman, 
for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF HON. BRUCE WESTERMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                         FROM ARKANSAS

    Mr. Westerman. Good morning, Chairman Thompson and Members 
of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to participate 
in today's important Agriculture Committee Member Day hearing. 
I do appreciate the work that you are doing to support farmers, 
foresters, ranchers, and rural America, and also appreciate 
your staff, Parish and Erin, for helping accommodate our 
schedule since we have a markup beginning soon in Natural 
Resources.
    I see Mr. Crawford has left, but he knows well that 
agriculture and Arkansas are synonymous. My home state has a 
wide array of agricultural commodities, and agriculture claims 
first place in the Natural State's largest industry. While each 
segment of the industry is important to feed, fuel, and clothe 
Americans across the country, I would like to talk to you about 
one specific sector. You can probably guess what that is. I am 
proud to hold the title of the only licensed forester in 
Congress, and I enjoy talking about forestry and trees at any 
and every opportunity. I appreciate the work that the 
Agriculture Committee has done to address forestry issues, 
promote active forest management, and improve the health of our 
forests.
    As your Committee continues to the important work of 
crafting the farm bill, I want to share a few priorities with 
you that in my opinion will ensure the strongest and most 
comprehensive Forestry Title in the farm bill that is possible. 
I am passionate about conserving our trees, as I know many of 
you are, and particularly when it comes to national treasures 
like our giant sequoias. As you know, nearly \1/5\ of all giant 
sequoias were destroyed in the catastrophic wildfires in 2020 
and 2021.
    That has prompted me to work closely with colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle to introduce the Save Our Sequoias Act. 
SOS provides a bipartisan and comprehensive response to address 
imminent threats facing the iconic giant sequoias. I believe 
this bill is bigger than just sequoias. Rather, it provides the 
framework for forest management bills that should come down the 
road. It is not every day that you see such powerful support on 
both sides of the aisle for a bill here in D.C., and I am proud 
to be leading this legislation alongside my California 
colleagues.
    I would like to highlight another important tool to improve 
forest health, and that is biochar. For those who may not be 
familiar with biochar, it is made by burning feedstock like 
low-value wood products or chicken litter or crop residues in 
the absence of oxygen. This process is known as pyrolysis. What 
is special about biochar is it is essentially a pure form of 
carbon. Biochar can sequester carbon for hundreds or even 
thousands of years. This ancient technique may be the solution 
to solving one of our most modern problems. Biochar can serve 
as a new market that can make removing low-value excess 
materials from our Federal forest economical. Not only would 
this improve forest health, but biochar could then be used as a 
soil additive to retain moisture and nutrients and neutralize 
acidity.
    I plan to reintroduce bipartisan legislation shortly that 
will unleash this emerging technology to help it reach its full 
environmental and agricultural potential. This bill directs our 
Federal land management agencies to establish biochar 
demonstration projects in each Forest Service and Bureau of 
Land Management region across the nation. I am excited about 
the potential that biochar has to incentivize forest management 
and improve forest health, and I urge you to incorporate it 
into the farm bill.
    Another issue that I would like to see addressed in the 
farm bill is reversing the Cottonwood decision. Cottonwood 
represents unnecessary, unworkable, and costly bureaucratic 
hurdles and empowers environmental litigants with additional 
weapons to delay or cancel land and forest management projects. 
We need to provide a full permanent fix to the misguided 2015 
Cottonwood decision that has significantly hampered responsible 
forest management in many of our western states. We partially 
fixed this issue in the 2018 omnibus. However, that fix expired 
this March. I urge the Agriculture Committee to include the 
Forest Information Reform Act in the upcoming farm bill, which 
would resolve this issue fully and permanently.
    Another critical tool in confronting our forest health and 
wildlife crisis is the Good Neighbor Authority. While state GNA 
projects have flourished, Tribes and counties have not been 
given the same authority that states have to retain timber 
receipts for use on additional conservation and restoration 
work. This removes a significant incentive to partner on these 
projects. My colleagues on the Natural Resources Committee, led 
by Representative Fulcher, introduced legislation, the Treating 
Tribes and Counties as Good Neighbor Authority Act, is a 
bipartisan effort that allows Tribes and counties to 
participate in the Good Neighbor Authority program. This passed 
the House, and I urge you to prioritize it in the upcoming farm 
bill reauthorization.
    There are more forestry issues than we have time to discuss 
today, but again, I thank you for all the work the Committee 
does and appreciate the openness and the ability that we have 
had to work together on these important issues, and I yield 
back.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Westerman follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Hon. Bruce Westerman, a Representative in 
                         Congress from Arkansas
    Good morning, Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member Scott. Thank you 
for the opportunity to participate in today's important Agriculture 
Committee Member Day hearing. I appreciate the work that you are doing 
to support farmers, foresters, ranchers, and rural America.
    Agriculture and Arkansas are synonymous. My home state has a wide 
array of agricultural commodities and agriculture claims first place 
for the Natural State's largest industry. While each segment of the 
industry is important to feed, fuel, and clothe Americans across the 
country, I'd like to talk to you today about one specific sector, and 
you can probably guess what it is.
    I am proud to hold the title of the only licensed forester in 
Congress, and I enjoy talking about forestry and trees at any and every 
opportunity. I appreciate the work that the Agriculture Committee has 
done to address forestry issues, promote active forest management, and 
improve the health of our forests.
    As your Committee continues the important work of crafting the farm 
bill, I want to share a few priorities with you all that, in my 
opinion, will ensure the strongest and most comprehensive forestry 
title in the farm bill possible.
    It's no secret that I'm passionate about conserving trees, 
particularly when it comes to national treasures like our Giant 
Sequoias. As you know, nearly \1/5\ of all Giant Sequoias were 
destroyed in catastrophic wildfires in 2020 and 2021. That has prompted 
me to work closely with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
introduce the Save Our Sequoias (SOS) Act. SOS provides a bipartisan 
and comprehensive response to address imminent threats facing the 
iconic Giant Sequoias.
    I believe this bill is bigger than just Sequoias, rather it 
provides a framework for forest management bills to come. It's not 
every day that you see such powerful support on both sides of the aisle 
for a bill here in D.C., and I'm proud to be leading this legislation 
alongside my California colleagues.
    I'd like to highlight another important tool to improve forest 
health: biochar. For those who may not be familiar with biochar, it is 
made by burning feedstock like low-value wood products or chicken 
litter in the absence of oxygen, also known as pyrolysis. What's 
special about biochar is that it is essentially a pure form of carbon. 
Biochar can sequester carbon for hundreds or even thousands of years.
    This ancient technique may be the solution to solving one of our 
most pressing modern problems. Biochar can serve as a new market that 
can make removing low-value excess materials from our Federal forests 
economical. Not only would this improve forest health, but biochar 
could then be used as a soil additive to retain moisture and nutrients 
and neutralize acidity.
    I plan to re-introduce bipartisan legislation shortly that will 
unleash this emerging technology to help it reach its full 
environmental and agricultural potential. This bill directs our Federal 
land management agencies to establish biochar demonstration projects in 
each Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management region across the 
nation.
    I'm excited about the potential that biochar has to incentivize 
forest management and improve forest health, and I urge you to 
incorporate it into the farm bill.
    Another issue that I would like to see addressed in the farm bill 
is reversing the Cottonwood decision. You all know that Cottonwood 
presents unnecessary, unworkable, and costly bureaucratic hurdles that 
empower environmental litigants with additional weapons to delay or 
cancel land and forest management projects. We need to provide a full, 
permanent fix to the misguided 2015 Cottonwood decision that has 
significantly hampered responsible forest management in many of our 
western states. We partially fixed this issue in the FY 2018 Omnibus, 
however that fix expired this March. I urge the Agriculture Committee 
to include the Forest Information Reform (FIR) Act in the upcoming farm 
bill, which would resolve this issue, fully and permanently.
    Another critical tool in confronting our forest health and wildfire 
crisis is Good Neighbor Authority (GNA). While state GNA projects have 
flourished, Tribes and counties have not been given the same authority 
that states have to retain timber receipts for use on additional 
conservation and restoration work. This removes a significant incentive 
to partner on these projects. My colleague on the Natural Resources 
Committee, Representative Fulcher, introduced legislation, the Treating 
Tribes and Counties as Good Neighbor Authority Act, a bipartisan effort 
that allows Tribes and counties to fully participate in the Good 
Neighbor Authority program. I urge you to prioritize this in the 
upcoming farm bill reauthorization.
    Throughout my time in Congress, I have been proud to lead the 
Trillion Trees Act, a bipartisan proposal that seeks to establish the 
United States as a global leader of the One Trillion Trees Initiative. 
This bill seeks to responsibly grow more trees, use more wood, and 
store more carbon, all with a special focus on responsible management 
of our forests.
    Scientific studies have shown that planting one trillion new trees 
globally would sequester 205 gigatons of carbon, an amount equivalent 
to \2/3\ of all man-made emissions since the beginning of the 
Industrial Revolution.
    Trees are one of the best tools we have to pull carbon out of the 
atmosphere, create a healthier and cleaner environment, and create new 
jobs. Responsibly growing more timber will yield immense economic and 
environmental benefits.
    As Chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, I have continued to 
stress that a healthy environment and a strong economy are not mutually 
exclusive. And as a forester, I don't believe there is any greater 
example of this truth than the responsible utilization of timber and 
wood products that comes from the wise stewardship of our forests. The 
Trillion Trees Act accomplishes these goals through scientifically 
managing our forests to mitigate catastrophic wildfires, and 
incentivizing the use of wood products as renewable resources provides 
a comprehensive, practical solution to the climate issues we're facing 
today.
    In closing, I encourage you all to include policies that 
acknowledge that healthy and productive Federal, state, and private 
forests are a vital part of rural communities. Their proper management 
provides us with many benefits, both environmental and economical. We 
have the opportunity in this farm bill to advance important solutions 
to better our forests, which will in turn, better our environment and 
our economy. I believe the solutions I have laid out in this testimony 
should be a part of the broader effort to comprehensively reform our 
forest management practices so we can increase the pace and scale of 
responsible forest management.
    I appreciate the great working relationship I have enjoyed with the 
Agriculture Committee, and look forward to continued collaboration to 
ensure our forests are managed efficiently and effectively for the 
betterment of the nation. Thank you and I yield back.
                         Submitted Legislation
                             117th congress
  1.  H.R. 2639, Trillion Trees Act: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/
            pkg/BILLS-117hr2639ih/pdf/BILLS-117hr2639ih.pdf (See p. 
            162).
                             118th congress
  1.  H.R. 200, Forest Information Reform Act (FIR Act): https://
            www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-118hr200ih/pdf/BILLS-
            118hr200ih.pdf (See p. 281).

  2.  H.R. 1450, Treating Tribes and Counties as Good Neighbors Act: 
            https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-118hr1450ih/pdf/
            BILLS-118hr1450ih.pdf (See p. 318).

  3.  H.R. 2989, Save Our Sequoias Act: https://www.govinfo.gov/
            content/pkg/BILLS-118hr2989ih/pdf/BILLS-118hr2989ih.pdf 
            (See p. 579).

    The Chairman. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. And, 
obviously, we have your written comments and ongoing 
conversations as well. Thank you for your leadership with 
forestry.
    Mr. Scott from Georgia indicated he has a comment or 
question, and so I yield to him.
    Mr. Autin Scott of Georgia. I just wanted to thank you for 
bringing up forestry. Our forest land, it is extremely 
important to the environment, the protection of our watersheds. 
It is our wildlife habitat. And in my State in Georgia, 
thousands of acres of forest land are being cut down to put 
solar panels up. And land that would be worth, just as an 
example, approximately $5,000 an acre, the solar subsidies are 
so high that those companies in some cases are paying $10,000 
an acre for that land, and then they clear-cut it, all of it. 
The pines, the hardwoods, they destroy all of the wildlife 
habitat, and then they come in with heavy equipment and they 
level the land, changing the watersheds.
    It is a ridiculous waste of taxpayer money to give 
subsidies to destroy our forest land. Whether you are for solar 
panels or not, they shouldn't be going on our forest land where 
they are destroying the wildlife habitat. And I am just 
wondering if you are seeing the same impact of subsidies in 
Arkansas where these companies are coming in and paying as much 
as twice what the fair market value of the land is worth, to 
then clear-cut it, destroy the wildlife habitat, change the 
watersheds, and put solar panels up.
    Mr. Westerman. No, that is an important issue, and I have a 
personal story about that. I live in the same area where I grew 
up, close to the high school I graduated from a few years ago. 
I noticed that a big, mature forest that it was private land. 
Somebody had apparently sold that, they clear-cut it, and I am 
talking about big pine trees like this on the side of a hill, 
and it was on the main road. And I thought, okay, they are 
putting some kind of housing development in or something. And 
as time passed and I would drive by, I saw them put a fence 
around it and start putting solar panels in.
    I did a little research on it, and it was a partnership 
with the local school to reduce their energy cost. But, they 
clear cut a mature forest, put these solar panels out, and 
then, to keep the weeds down, there is nothing green inside 
that fence. And it was all done in the name of protecting the 
environment and lowering the cost for the school, which the 
only way it lowered the cost was because there were subsidies 
involved.
    Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. I think this was something 
that I am baffled that we can't, in a bipartisan manner, stop 
the destruction of the forest land with subsidies. It is not a 
square deal for the environment.
    Mr. Westerman. Yes, and if we want to put solar panels in, 
let's not clear-cut forests to put solar panels in.
    Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. I agree with you, and I 
appreciate you being here to talk about the value of our forest 
land to the environment and our wildlife habitat.
    The Chairman. All right. Well, thank you. Thank you. Thank 
you, Mr. Westerman.
    Now, I am pleased to recognize a fellow colleague from the 
Keystone State, Mr. Smucker, for 5 minutes.

 STATEMENT OF HON. LLOYD SMUCKER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                       FROM PENNSYLVANIA

    Mr. Smucker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the 
opportunity to be with you. And I will share in the comments of 
Mr. Davis that you will be in our prayers, and we wish you good 
health and speedy recovery.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Mr. Smucker. I want to say thank you first to the Committee 
for all of the work that you are doing to promote agriculture 
and on the farm bill. Your Committee staff, the Chairman have 
worked with us very well on many issues that are important to 
the district that I represent and important to Pennsylvania. 
Our crop insurance and other programs, the milk program are 
very important in my region to help to ensure that our farmers 
are continuing to feed America, and I know the Chairman knows 
this very, very well.
    We are also in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, and so some of 
the conservation programs and some ideas to improve the 
efficiency of the dollars for farmers in my area who are very 
interested in implementing best practices, those are important 
as well, and I appreciate all the conversations that we have 
had about how to improve those programs.
    I do want to say in the counties that I represent, 
Lancaster and York Counties, the 11th District, proportionally, 
a significant part of the agricultural products in 
Pennsylvania, nearly 20 percent in Lancaster County alone, we 
have dairy, poultry, hog farmers, as well as grain, fruit, and 
vegetable growers, a lot of different products.
    But what I want to talk just briefly with the Committee 
about today is the importance of encouraging nutritional food 
options for those who are facing food insecurity, and I want to 
do it in the context not only of the importance of ensuring 
that these programs provide for folks' health, but in the 
context of a hearing that we held recently in the Joint 
Economic Committee in which I am a member of that, that looked 
at the economic impact of diabetes. And we all know about the 
growing healthcare costs here in the U.S. and the impact that 
has on our entire budget and on our financial trajectory. At 
that hearing back in July, the total estimated cost of diabetes 
in the U.S. is $413 billion in direct and indirect costs. 
Individuals with diabetes account for one in four of every 
dollar spent on healthcare costs on healthcare in the U.S. And 
we also know that nutritional eating is an important component 
to prevent diabetes, and that a higher intake of fruits and 
green leafy vegetables reduces the risk of type II diabetes in 
consumers quite significantly.
    So just two programs I would like to mention this morning, 
and first is the WIC program. Now, I understand that is not in 
the farm bill and may not even necessarily be in the 
jurisdiction of the Agriculture Committee, but I do want to 
just mention it as a really important program that provides 
access and incentivizes nutritious food options for individuals 
who are accessing these programs. I can tell you firsthand, I 
have talked with individuals in my district who have accessed 
WIC and have talked about how much it has impacted their lives 
as they changed their food purchases and consumption based on 
the foods that were available through that program. In 
Pennsylvania, there are more than 10,000 individuals who 
benefit from the WIC program, and food prices have skyrocketed. 
We know that, and so we are in danger of people losing access 
to the WIC program just because of the cost of food prices.
    The second program I would like to mention, which is 
directly within the agriculture program, is GusNIP, which is a 
positive example of a way that the Federal Government can 
incentivize these healthy dietary patterns. What GusNIP does is 
work with local producers, expanding the universe for eligible 
grant applications who helped ensure that GusNIP programs 
provide the nutritious options but also are spent locally on 
local farms, keeping the money within local communities. 
Studies have shown that individuals who participate in these 
kinds of programs do indeed eat more fruits and vegetables than 
they would otherwise, and they maintain these habits after 
participating in the program.
    So again, I am a proud cosponsor of the GusNIP Expansion 
Act of 2023, introduced by Representative Rick Crawford, who is 
a Member of the Committee, of course. But I would just like to 
urge the Committee to increase the dollars spent on GusNIP, and 
they can continue to consider incentivizing and making 
available nutritious food options for those who are accessing 
these programs to address their food insecurity.
    So thank you so much. I appreciate the opportunity to 
testify here today.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Smucker follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Lloyd Smucker, a Representative in Congress 
                           from Pennsylvania
    Thank you, Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Scott, and Members of 
the Committee, for providing us the opportunity today to discuss the 
importance of our agricultural communities and ensuring reliable access 
to fresh and nutritious foods.
    This morning I want to express my support for two programs that are 
important to my constituents. I proudly represent Pennsylvania's 11th 
District, which is the breadbasket for our Commonwealth. Lancaster 
County alone represents 19% of all agricultural production in 
Pennsylvania. In Lancaster \1\ * and York \2\ counties, there are more 
than 7,000 farms which generate more than $1.7 Billion in annual sales. 
These farms make up a sizeable portion of the Commonwealth's dairy, 
poultry, and hog farmers, as well as grain, fruit, and vegetables 
growers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ USDA 2017 Census of Agriculture, https://www.nass.usda.gov/
Publications/AgCensus/2017/Online_Resources/County_Profiles/
Pennsylvania/cp42071.pdf.
    * Editor's note: references annotated with  are retained in 
Committee file.
    \2\ USDA 2017 Census of Agriculture, https://www.nass.usda.gov/
Publications/AgCensus/2017/Online_Resources/County_Profiles/
Pennsylvania/cp42133.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Food security is national security. As the Committee considers 
critical agricultural programs for the next farm bill, I want to 
express my support for ensuring programs which provide access to 
healthy, nutritious foods are accessible for vulnerable populations 
facing food insecurity.
Importance of WIC
    WIC provides crucial access to healthy foods, as well as nutrition 
education for low-income mothers and children under the age of 5 who 
are found to be at nutritional risk. WIC is a well-tested safety net to 
ensure that newborn children and their mothers have access to 
necessities such as infant formula, whole wheat bread, eggs, and milk. 
In Pennsylvania's eleventh district, there are more than 10,000 
individuals who benefit from the WIC program.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Pennsylvania Bureau of WIC, https://www.pawic.com/documents/
ProgramData/PA%20WIC%20PPT.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Unfortunately, prices for foods covered by WIC have skyrocketed due 
to record inflation driven by ``Bidenomics.'' Food prices increased 
3.5% in 2021 and then 11.4% in 2022.
    I support Congress funding WIC to meet the needs of vulnerable 
families struggling to keep up with inflation.
    If the WIC program does not keep up with rising food costs, up to 
15,200 Pennsylvania applicants could be denied assistance, and up to 
118,800 Pennsylvania applicants could lose access to the fruit and 
vegetable program.\4\ A core function of the Federal Government is to 
ensure a safety net exists for those in need, and I strongly believe 
any assistance should be a hand up, not a handout. WIC plays a vital 
role in giving women and children in need a hand up by allowing 
families to grow up healthy and be prepared for school. No child should 
have to go to bed hungry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, https://www.cbpp.org/
blog/young-children-and-new-parents-in-every-state-could-be-turned-
away-from-wic-or-have-their.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I understand Congress must make many tough decisions on how to 
reduce government spending. I serve as a Member of the Budget Committee 
and care deeply about tackling our nation's growing debt. One of the 
best ways we can send our nation's debt to GDP trajectory on the right 
path is to boost productivity and in turn grow our GDP. This is one of 
several reasons why I support fully funding WIC, to not only protect 
the most vulnerable among us by providing them with food security, but 
also the ability to be more productive and prepared at school and in 
the workplace.
Importance of GusNIP
    The second program I want to highlight and express my support for 
is GusNIP. GusNIP was created in the 2018 Farm Bill. The program 
develops and evaluates projects which incentivize and increase the 
purchase of fruits and vegetables amongst SNAP recipients.
    If a SNAP recipient purchases $5 from a participating retailer or 
farmers['] market on fresh fruits and vegetables, they will receive a 
$10 voucher to be used on fresh fruits and vegetables. Since 2019, 
GusNIP has provided over $270 Million in funding to 197 projects to 
improve health and nutritional outcomes of participating individuals 
and households.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, https://
www.nifa.usda.gov/about-nifa/press-releases/usda-nutrition-incentives-
improve-access-healthy-food.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    GusNIP serves as a positive example of ways the Federal Government 
can incentivize healthy dietary patterns. In fact, studies have shown 
that individuals who participate in nutrition incentive programs eat 
more fruits and vegetables than the average American. They also report 
consuming them the longer they participated in these incentive 
programs. Eating more fruits and vegetables leads to more positive 
health outcomes, thereby decreasing pressure on our overstretched 
health care system.
    I am a proud cosponsor of the GusNIP Expansion Act of 2023, 
introduced by Rep. Rick Crawford. This important legislation will help 
the GusNIP program reach more constituents, including my own, to access 
healthy fruits and vegetables and will help ensure a healthy workforce 
for the future while reducing healthcare costs.
    Because GusNIP works with local farmers, expanding the universe for 
eligible grant applicants helps ensure GusNIP dollars are spent locally 
on local farms, keeping the money within local communities.
Conclusion
    I urge my colleagues to continue supporting both the GusNIP and WIC 
programs. To have national security, we must have food security. And 
that security includes access to healthy fruits, vegetables, and infant 
formula. A population that doesn't worry about its next meal can focus 
on cultivating a 21st century workforce, reducing health care costs, 
expand life expectancy, and support our local farmers.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today.
                         Submitted Legislation
  1.  H.R. 4856, GusNIP Expansion Act of 2023: https://www.govinfo.gov/
            content/pkg/BILLS-118hr4856ih/pdf/BILLS-118hr4856ih.pdf 
            (See p. 842).

    The Chairman. Well, Lloyd, thank you for testifying on 
behalf of your constituents. Certainly, the Nutrition Title is 
very important to this Committee. And you are right; the WIC 
program is outside our--it is implemented by the Department of 
Agriculture, but strange things happen in terms of 
jurisdiction. As someone who--my wife and I, when she was 
pregnant with our first son, who were WIC-eligible and really 
utilized that program, I appreciate your kind words about the 
WIC program. That needs to be addressed. That is more in the 
Education and the Workforce area. And I just appreciate your 
support and your enthusiasm for these nutrition programs.
    Mr. McGovern?
    Mr. McGovern. I just want to say I appreciate your 
testimony, and I am a big supporter of GusNIP, which is within 
the jurisdiction of this Committee, and it is an incredibly 
successful program.
    The Chairman. Right.
    Mr. McGovern. And we need to have a greater focus on 
nutrition, quite frankly, not only in the agriculture bill, but 
in a lot of the bills that deal with healthcare in general. But 
thank you for your testimony.
    The Chairman. Yes, thanks, Mr. McGovern. Thank you, Mr. 
Smucker.
    Now, I am pleased to recognize the esteemed gentleman from 
Georgia, a former Member of--an esteemed Member of this 
Committee in the past, Mr. Rick Allen, for 5 minutes.

 STATEMENT OF HON. RICK W. ALLEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                          FROM GEORGIA

    Mr. Allen. Good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is good to be 
back. And please know that we offer our prayers to your full 
recovery as well.
    I want to thank the Committee for allowing me to provide 
this testimony and to highlight agricultural issues that are 
critical to the 12th Congressional District of Georgia. 
Agriculture is our state's number one industry and plays a key 
role in the economy of my home district, and in Georgia as a 
whole.
    Having served on the House Agriculture Committee for 8 
years, I appreciate the hard work that goes into writing the 
farm bill, which provides certainty for our farmers by 
authorizing farm policy for at least a 5 year cycle. I was 
proud of the work that we did on the 2018 Farm Bill like 
strengthening the farm safety net, expanding access to rural 
broadband, improving program integrity in the Supplemental 
Nutrition Assistance Program, and protecting and strengthening 
sugar policy. And I believe we must continue to prioritize 
these policies. I remain committed to ensuring that America 
produces the safest, most abundant, most affordable food supply 
in the world as we continue our work on reauthorizing the next 
farm bill.
    There are concerns, and the number one concern that I have 
heard from Georgia farmers these past 2 years is declining 
margins. We are in uncharted waters. They are in the fight for 
their lives to survive this crisis, primarily caused by 
inflation, supply chain disruptions, rising input costs, 
combined with depressed commodity prices. In fact, we haven't 
seen anything like this since 1982.
    Food security is national security. We have lived to regret 
our over-dependence on foreign countries for our manufactured 
goods. If we do not act to properly support our farmers, this 
nation could become dependent on global competitors for food, 
which is a national security risk. I have continuously heard 
from my farmers that it is crucial we increase reference prices 
for Title I commodities in the next farm bill. It is also 
imperative that we strengthen risk management options such as 
Agriculture Risk Coverage, or ARC; and Price Loss Coverage, 
called PLC, specifically our support allowing producers who are 
enrolled in ARC or PLC programs to be able to purchase Stacked 
Income Protection Plan, or STAX coverage.
    In addition, I urge the Committee to consider a provision 
to ensure our farmers have coverage should supply chain issues 
cause problems with planting or harvesting like a requirement 
for including lack of agronomic inputs as covered under USDA's 
Multi-Peril Crop Insurance policies. Many farmers in my area of 
the country experience financial hardships when the unusual 
supply chain disruptions were not accounted for by insurance 
policies.
    Regarding market prices, I encourage the Committee to 
address failing market prices due to seasonal inputs. Many 
farmers are forced to compete with foreign subsidized imports, 
causing a large decrease in the market value of many seasonally 
grown commodities. Congressman Austin Scott, my colleague, 
introduced H.R. 4580, the American Seasonal and Perishable Crop 
Support Act, during the 117th Congress. I ask that similar 
language to this bill be included in the next farm bill to 
protect our growers against foreign markets.
    Next, we need to address our workforce issues. Programs 
such as H-2A are critical for many farmers in my district, but 
they need reforms to become more widely used by American 
farmers. Included in the House-passed H.R. 2, the Secure the 
Border Act, were provisions to conduct an agricultural 
workforce study. I ask that the Committee fight for the 
inclusion of sections 814, 815, and 816 of H.R. 2 in any 
immigration package considered by the House in the coming 
months.
    When it comes to our domestic labor policies, As a small 
businessman, I know the employment challenges that we face 
today. A top issue I hear throughout my district is the need 
for workers. We must discuss the income and employment 
requirements on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, 
and let's get Americans back to work.
    I have one final point I would like to raise to the 
Committee's attention. State-led agencies for pesticides who 
often fly under the radar work hard every day to keep homes, 
businesses, and schools pest- and rodent-free. Forty-six 
states, including Georgia, have one lead agency for pesticides. 
We need to support and codify that each state should have a 
robust state-led pesticide agency in the next farm bill. This 
is an initiative I have continued to build support for over the 
last two Congresses, and I have seen firsthand how well the 
Georgia Department of Agriculture, alongside key Georgia 
industries, keep our public safe. Having multiple regulatory 
bodies in the state does not work and is not effective for 
protecting public health and the environment.
    To wrap up, as we continue to process the writing of the 
next farm bill, I hope to work closely with the House 
Agriculture Committee on these issues that are vitally 
important to Georgia's 12th District. Thank you again to the 
Committee for this opportunity to provide input, and I welcome 
the chance to further discuss these topics as we ensure our 
nation's food supply remains secure and sustainable. And with 
that, sir, I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Allen follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Rick W. Allen, a Representative in Congress 
                              from Georgia
    I want to thank the Committee for allowing me to provide this 
testimony and to highlight agricultural issues that are critical to the 
12th Congressional District of Georgia.
    Agriculture is our state's number one industry, and plays a key 
role in the economy of my home district and Georgia as a whole.
    Having served on the House Agriculture Committee for 8 years, I 
appreciate the hard work that goes into writing the farm bill, which 
provides certainty for our farmers by authorizing farm policy for at 
least a 5 year cycle.
    I was proud of the work that we did in the 2018 Farm Bill, like 
strengthening the farm safety net, expanding access to rural broadband, 
improving program integrity in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 
Program (SNAP), and protecting and strengthening sugar policy, and I 
believe we must continue to prioritize these policies.
    I remain committed to ensuring that America produces the safest, 
most abundant, and most affordable food supply in the world as we 
continue our work on reauthorizing the next farm bill.
    The number one concern that I have heard from my Georgia farmers, 
these past few years especially, is that of tightening profit margins.
    They are in the fight of their lives to survive this crisis, 
primarily caused by inflation, supply chain disruptions, and rising 
input costs combined with depressed commodity prices.
    Food security is national security. We have lived to regret our 
over-dependence on foreign countries for our manufactured goods; if we 
do not act to properly support our farmers, this nation could become 
dependent on global competitors for food, which is a national security 
risk.
    I have continuously heard from my farmers that it is crucial we 
increase reference prices for Title I commodities in the next farm 
bill.
    It is also imperative that we strengthen risk management options 
such as Agriculture Risk [Coverage] (ARC) and Price Loss Coverage 
(PLC). Specifically, I support allowing producers who are enrolled in 
ARC or PLC programs to be able to purchase Stacked Income Protection 
Plan (STAX) coverage.
    In addition, I urge the Committee to consider a provision to ensure 
our farmers have coverage should supply chain issues cause problems 
with planting or harvest like a requirement for including ``lack of 
agronomic inputs'' as covered under USDA's Multi-Peril Crop Insurance 
policies.
    Many farmers in my area of the country experienced financial 
hardships when the unusual supply chain disruptions were not accounted 
for by insurance policies.
    Regarding market prices, I encourage the Committee to address 
failing market prices due to seasonal imports. Many farmers are forced 
to compete with foreign-subsidized imports, causing a large decrease in 
the market value of many seasonally-grown commodities.
    Congressman Austin Scot introduced H.R. 4580, the American Seasonal 
and Perishable Crop Support Act, during the 117th Congress. I ask that 
similar language to this bill be included in the next farm bill to 
protect our growers against foreign markets.
    Next, we need to address our workforce issues. Programs such as H-
2A are critical for many farmers in my district, but they need reforms 
to become more widely-used by American farmers.
    Included in the House-passed H.R. 2, the Secure the Border Act, 
were provisions to conduct an agriculture workforce study. I ask that 
the Committee fight for the inclusion of Sections 814, 815, and 816 of 
H.R. 2 in any immigration package considered by the House in the coming 
months.
    When it comes to our domestic labor policies, as a small 
businessman, I know the employment challenges our small businesses 
face. A top issue I hear throughout my district is the need for 
workers.
    We must discuss the income and employment requirements under the 
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and get Americans back 
to work.
    I have one final point I'd like to raise for this Committee's 
attention. State lead agencies for pesticides, who often fly under the 
radar, work hard every day to keep homes, businesses and schools pest 
and rodent-free.
    46 states, including Georgia, have one lead agency for pesticides.
    We need to support and codify that each state should have a robust 
state lead pesticide agency in the next farm bill.
    This is an initiative I have continued to build support for over 
the last two Congresses, and I have seen first-hand how well the 
Georgia Department of Agriculture works alongside key Georgia 
industries to keep our public safe.
    Having multiple regulatory bodies in a state does not work, and is 
not effective for protecting public health and the environment.
    As we continue the process of writing the next farm bill, I hope to 
work closely with the House Agriculture Committee on these issues that 
are vitally important to Georgia's 12th District.
    Thank you again to the Committee for the opportunity to provide my 
input and I welcome the chance to further discuss these topics as we 
ensure our nation's food supply remains secure and sustainable.
                         Submitted Legislation
                             117th congress
  1.  H.R. 4580, American Seasonal and Perishable Crop Support Act: 
            https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-117hr4580ih/pdf/
            BILLS-117hr4580ih.pdf (See p. 268).
                             118th congress
  1.  H.R. 2, Secure the Border Act of 2023, Engrossed: https://
            www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-118hr2eh/pdf/BILLS-
            118hr2eh.pdf (See p. 273).

    The Chairman. Mr. Allen, thanks so much for representing 
your constituents and the number one industry of agriculture.
    Mr. Allen. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. I am now pleased to recognize the gentleman 
from Illinois' 6th Congressional District, Mr. Casten, for 5 
minutes.

  STATEMENT OF HON. SEAN CASTEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                         FROM ILLINOIS

    Mr. Casten. Thank you, Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member 
Scott, and the other Members who are here for holding this 
hearing today and giving me the opportunity to testify. Before 
starting my prepared remarks, I just want to join my colleagues 
in underscoring the importance that the next farm bill 
preserves the nearly $20 billion provided in the Inflation 
Reduction Act for USDA conservation programs.
    But I am here to talk about my bill and to encourage you to 
include the Conservation Opportunity and Voluntary Environment 
Resilience Program, or COVER Act. Several of the folks before 
me here, I am pleased to say, have spoken about the benefits of 
cover crops. Cover crops in a word help farmers to mitigate 
risk. There was a 2023 study that found that higher cover crop 
adoption led to lower levels of crop insurance losses. The best 
quantification I have seen says that a one percent increase in 
cover crops leads to $40 million in savings from reduced 
planting-related indemnities.
    And this is only getting worse with climate change. It has 
already made the Federal Crop Insurance Program more expensive 
and challenging to manage due to drought, due to rain, due to 
extreme weather events. Between 1995 and 2020, crop insurance 
payments have risen by more than 400 percent for drought-
related losses, nearly 300 percent for rain and flooding-
related losses, and the USDA has estimated that without 
mitigating actions, the cost of the Federal Crop Insurance 
Program could increase by up to 37 percent.
    Cover crops are a way to protect farmers from that risk. 
Putting more roots in the soil that holds on to the topsoil, 
prevents erosion, improves soil health, adds more nutrients to 
the soil, increases biodiversity, but it is also a way for 
farmers to play a role in addressing the climate crisis by 
planting crops that move carbon from the atmosphere and into 
the soils. The idea of the cover crop program is to build in 
the successful Federal Pandemic Cover Crop Program by 
incentivizing the planting of cover crops on a voluntary basis 
by providing farmers with $5 per acre of crop insurance 
discounts for every acre that they plant into cover crops.
    If the states are laboratories of democracy, this is also a 
great example of building on what the states have already done. 
In 2018, Iowa implemented a very similar program, was hugely 
successful, over-subsidized. My own state copied it in 
Illinois. It since has been copied in Indiana and Wisconsin. 
And the fact that it has been oversubscribed, and at the 
Federal level, that pandemic program is a nice sign, A, that 
farmers want this, that they want to do it, and that the $5 
level, low as that is relative to other farmer costs, is 
sufficient to drive uptake. A recent poll found that more than 
\2/3\ of crop farmers support making the USDA Cover Crop 
Program a permanent option in the crop insurance program.
    It is an incentive-based program. It is fully voluntary. If 
farmers don't think this is the right thing for their piece of 
land, that is fine. And it would also authorize the USDA to 
evaluate how additional premium subsidies could be offered for 
other soil health practices that reduce risk and comply with 
the goals of the Federal Crop Insurance Program.
    I would frame this as sort of like a safe driver discount. 
If a farmer chooses to reduce their risk by planting cover 
crops, they get rewarded for pursuing low-risk behavior. It 
would also do this at significant value. We have intentionally 
structured this to not affect the actuarial aspects of the crop 
insurance program. The discount is provided outside of the 
underwriting and premium cost calculation process. That doesn't 
change the cost of the policy for farmers or service providers, 
just offers an extra discount that is applied after the initial 
cost calculation.
    The Act, as we have introduced it, has been endorsed by 
over 130 local, state, and national organizations who support 
the legislation. I am proud that it is both bipartisan and 
bicameral, co-led in this Congress by Congresswoman Slotkin of 
Michigan and my friend Mr. Bost of this Committee from Illinois 
and Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio. I hope you will consider 
including this in the 2023 Farm Bill. I thank you again, 
Chairman Thompson, and all the Members of the House Agriculture 
Committee for allowing me to testify today. And I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Casten follows:]

 Prepared Statement of Hon. Sean Casten, a Representative in Congress 
                             from Illinois
    Thank you, Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member Scott for holding 
this Member Day in the House Agriculture Committee today, and for 
giving me the opportunity to testify on behalf of the COVER Act.
    I'm here today to talk about the importance of cover crops and to 
advocate for my bill, the Conservation Opportunity and Voluntary 
Environment Resilience Program (COVER) Act for inclusion in the 
upcoming farm bill. Before I get to the COVER Act, a bill to 
incentivize a climate-smart agricultural practice, I'd like to join my 
colleagues in underscoring the importance that the next farm bill 
ensures the nearly $20 billion provided in the Inflation Reduction Act 
(IRA) for USDA conservation programs is used for its intended purpose.
    In 2023, the USDA witnessed requests exceeding three times the 
available funds for climate-smart agriculture, indicating a substantial 
demand among farmers. By directing these funds toward responsible 
practices, there is an opportunity to provide support to farmers while 
addressing America's climate commitments, just as the COVER Act would.
    Cover crops can help farmers mitigate risk. A 2023 study \1\ * 
found that higher cover crop adoption led to lower levels of crop 
insurance losses due to prevented planting. Another study found that 
just a 1% increase in cover crop adoption led to nearly $40 million in 
savings \2\ from reduced prevented planting related indemnities. With 
climate change threatening our food system, practices that build soil 
resilience are more crucial than ever. No one knows the importance of 
the soil that sustains us better than our farmers; they will play a 
vital role in achieving resiliency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajae.12396.
    * Editor's note: references annotated with  are retained in 
Committee file.
    \2\ https://news.ncsu.edu/2023/03/cover-crops-help-mitigate-farmer-
losses/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition to helping our farmers, cover crops are critical in the 
fight against the climate crisis. We are already seeing how the climate 
crisis is increasing the cost of the Federal Crop Insurance Program, 
and we know that it will continue to do so as extreme weather events 
become increasingly frequent. Planting cover crops is a critical 
conservation practice that reduces production risk, prevents soil 
erosion, improves soil health and water quality, increases 
biodiversity, and sequesters carbon. The COVER Act is critical to 
providing farmers across the nation with the tools they need to make 
their land more resilient in the face of climate-related risks.
    The COVER Act builds on the Federal Pandemic Cover Crop Program and 
incentivizes the practice of planting cover crops by providing a $5/
acre crop insurance discount to farmers who plant cover crops.
    Crop insurance discounts for planting cover crops have already been 
successful in states and prove to be a great example that states are 
often the laboratories of democracy; in 2018 Iowa was the first state 
to implement the Iowa Cover Crop Demonstration program, followed by 
Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin. The COVER Act would provide long-
term, national support to farmers building on these state-level 
programs that have already had strong bipartisan support. A recent poll 
\3\ also found that \2/3\ of crop farmers support making the USDA's 
cover crop program a permanent option in the crop insurance program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ https://www.nwf.org/-/media/Documents/PDFs/Press-Releases/2023/
2303084-NWF-Row-Crop-Farmers-March-2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The COVER Act would establish the Good Steward Cover Crop Program 
to provide producers a $5 per acre crop insurance premium subsidy when 
they enroll in a covered insurance program and plant cover crops for 
conservation purposes. This incentive-based program will be fully 
voluntary and will not require farmers to plant cover crops in order to 
be eligible for crop insurance.
    This bill would also authorize USDA to evaluate how additional 
premium subsidies can be offered for other soil health practices that 
reduce risk and comply with the goals of the Federal Crop Insurance 
Program.
    Climate change has already made the Federal Crop Insurance Program 
more expensive and challenging to manage as drought, rain, and extreme 
weather further stress our soils. Between 1995 and 2020, crop insurance 
payments have risen more than 400% for drought-related losses, and 
nearly 300% for rain and flooding-related losses.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/us-crop-insurance-
payouts-rise-sharply-climate-change-worsens-droughts-floods-2022-01-27/
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Unless we act, climate change will continue to exacerbate losses. 
The U.S. Department of Agriculture has estimated that without 
mitigating actions, the cost of the Federal Crop Insurance Program 
(FCIP) could increase by up to 37%.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/93547/err-
266.pdf?v=8927.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A 2023 poll \6\ found that 78 percent of row crop farmers support 
the USDA offering discounts on premiums for engaging in conservation 
practices that have been shown to reduce the risk of crop failure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ https://www.nwf.org/Latest-News/Press-Releases/2023/5-3-23-
Polling-Reduced-Insurance-Costs%5C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Passing the COVER Act would help our farmers and mitigate climate 
risks. It would essentially set up a program like a safe driver 
discount; farmers who choose to reduce their risk by planting cover 
crops ought to be rewarded for their low-risk behavior. And it would do 
this at great value; the COVER Act would not affect actuarial aspects 
of the crop insurance program. The COVER Act offers a discount that is 
provided outside of the underwriting and premium cost calculation 
process. As such, it does not change the cost of a policy for farmers 
or service providers. Rather, the bill offers an extra discount that is 
applied after the initial cost calculation.
    The bipartisan COVER Act would reward farmers who opt for risk 
mitigation and conservation practices. With over 130 local state and 
national organizations supporting the legislation, I'm proud to co-lead 
this bipartisan bill with Congresswoman Elissa Slotkin of MI, 
Congressman Mike Bost of IL, and Senator Sherrod Brown of OH, and 
advocate for its inclusion in the 2023 Farm Bill.
    I would again like to thank Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member 
Scott, and the Members of the House Agriculture Committee for inviting 
me to testify today.
                           Submitted Articles
                               Article 1


[https://www.agri-pulse.com/articles/20049-opinion-the-early-bird-gets-
the-worm-adopting-regenerative-ag-practices]
Opinion: The early bird gets the worm--Adopting regenerative ag 
        practices
10/03/23 1:16 p.m.

By Keith Berns \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.agri-pulse.com/authors/572-keith-berns.

    ``The early bird gets the worm!''
    We've all heard it before. But for those of us in the world of 
agriculture, we know it's really the best soil that gets the worm.
    As farmers, we know better than most the immense role our soil's 
health plays within our nation's food supply chain. But many of us may 
not know the impact of a simple sustainable practice: cover cropping.
    When I started farming in 2006, I was committed to protecting the 
ground we relied on from erosion. I implemented the use of no-till 
farming on our land. Although these practices worked well, there was 
still a key piece missing--it couldn't create the biological activity 
in the soil needed to provide life for the next round of crops.
    In places like North Dakota and Brazil, farmers had begun 
experimenting with multi-species cover crops, or seeds planted to 
protect and enhance the soil, rather than for the purpose of being 
harvested. I followed suit and saw just how transformative this farming 
method was.
    Since that time, the soil health movement has grown, and so has the 
popularity of cover crops. The technology has gotten better and 
cheaper, and the role of soil has become clearer. While many used to 
talk about sustainable farming, many more are now talking about 
regenerative farming. With a combination of erosion prevention, 
reduction of synthetic inputs and increases in biodiversity, 
particularly through cover crops, we can rebuild our agriculture for 
the future.
    A key aspect of this process: education. Outside of our tight-knit 
community, so many people fail to understand where the food on their 
plate comes from, and the role soil plays in its' well-being. 
Thankfully, policymakers on both sides of the aisle are beginning to 
listen and learn.
    The Conservation Opportunity and Voluntary Environment Resilience 
(COVER) Act, championed by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) 
and its allies, holds immense promise for farmers nationwide. This 
legislation offers a $5 per-acre premium subsidy for those who 
voluntarily participate in a covered insurance program and incorporate 
cover crops into their conservation efforts.
    Furthermore, the COVER Act emphasizes the voluntary nature of its 
incentives. It does not compel farmers to plant cover crops to be 
eligible for crop insurance. Instead, it recognizes the diverse 
conditions in which farmers operate and respects their autonomy in 
choosing the best practices for their land. This legislation is not a 
move toward larger conservation mandates, but rather an approach to 
encourage voluntary action.
    For those of us who understand the importance of cover crops, this 
initiative is a step in the right direction. Cover crops play a vital 
role in reducing erosion, enhancing soil health and mitigating crop 
losses. These crops provide year-round protection for our soil, making 
them a cornerstone of regenerative agriculture. With cover crops 
costing as much as $37 an acre to plant, this modest incentive will 
help nudge growers toward doing the right thing for soil, the planet 
and ultimately the health of millions of people (and earthworms).
    Farmers across the country, and especially here in Nebraska, are 
already using regenerative agriculture practices like cover crops to 
yield high-quality products. According to the 2017 Center for 
Regenerative Agriculture report, ours is one of the top states in the 
country for cover crop acreage on U.S. farmland. Nebraskans know that 
support for regenerative agriculture brings people together across 
political lines. Call us ``early birds'' if you will, but for years, 
the state has led the charge on the use of cover crops, and it is time 
for the rest of the country to do the same.
    I support the COVER Act, and anyone who cares about American 
agriculture should, too. The soil we depend on for the food we eat 
depends on us--and the earthworms we can give it. So let's be the bird 
that catches the worm, before it's too late.

          Keith Berns is the co-founder of GreenCover,\2\ a leading 
        national source for those seeking to improve soil health and 
        biodiversity through cover cropping. Along with his brother, 
        Brian, Keith supplies seed to cover over 5.5 million acres of 
        land, helping to manage soil erosion, retain moisture, enhance 
        biodiversity and improve overall soil health on those lands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ https://greencover.com/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Article 2


[https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/columnists/iowa-view/
2023/05/21/encourage-cover-crops-through-crop-insurance-program/
70229843007/]
Opinion: Encourage cover crops nationwide through the crop insurance 
        program
Published 4:15 a.m. CT May 21, 2023

Aaron Lehman, Guest columnist

    Iowa is a nationwide leader in a conservation practice known as 
cover cropping. For nearly a decade, increases in cover crop incentives 
have resulted in major increases in cover crop adoption among Iowa 
farmers.
    The recently introduced ``Cover Act'' should be a part of the 2023 
Farm Bill to encourage even more farmers.
    Cover cropping is a conservation strategy that has proven highly 
successful in promoting soil health and water quality. A cover crop is 
what it sounds like--a crop (such as winter rye) that covers farmland 
when there are no other crops planted.
    Like a blanket, the growth of a cover crop prevents run-off from 
snowmelt or heavy rainfalls. Instead of the good earth being washed 
away down the river, cover crops allow the soil, along with all of its 
nutrients and microbial composition, to be held in place.
    This leads to higher organic matter and nutrient retention in the 
soil, leading to higher margins for farmers with greater yields and 
lower input costs for treatments like fertilizer. There are many more 
benefits, but all in all, cover crops serve the dual purpose of 
conserving soil and water and making farming more profitable. It's a 
win-win.
    At the Federal level, the Natural Resources Conservation Service 
offers the Environmental Quality Incentive Program and Conservation 
Stewardship Program. At the state level, there is the Water Quality 
Initiative, which administers funds directly through local soil and 
water conservation districts. Private organizations have begun offering 
cost-share for cover crop use as well. All of these services greatly 
aid farmers to begin planting cover crops.
    However, they all have limits to the number of years that a farmer 
can receive payments and/or the number of acres that are eligible for 
payments. Therefore, while they certainly help increase adoption rates, 
these programs are slowing in impact as more and more farmers have 
already reached their year or acre limitations.
    To reach our goals of cover crop adoption statewide, we need to 
succeed in incentivizing farmers to grow cover crops at any scale for 
long periods of time. One of the best ways to do this is to provide an 
incentive through the crop insurance system that almost all Iowa 
farmers use.
    Cover crop insurance incentive programs recognize that farmers who 
plant cover crops are less likely to have crop failures, and so, 
logically, offer a discount on crop insurance.
    This concept started in Iowa and has worked extremely well here. 
Iowa is now in its fifth year accepting applications for the Cover Crop 
Insurance Discount, which takes $5 per acre off of a farmer's crop 
insurance premiums. The cover crop insurance discount offers farmers at 
any stage of cover crop adoption and any size of farm an insurance 
discount for planting cover crops.
    In 2021, the U.S. Government followed Iowa's model with the 
Pandemic Cover Crop Program by offering farmers around the nation a $5 
per acre subsidy for crop insurance if planting cover crops. However, 
being COVID-related, this program is expiring.
    Recently, U.S. Rep. Sean Casten, an Illinois Democrat, and U.S. 
Sen. Sherrod Brown, an Ohio Democrat, introduced the Conservation 
Opportunity and Voluntary Environment Resilience Program (COVER) Act, 
which would make the $5/acre Federal Cover Crop Insurance Discount 
permanent. This program has the potential to create permanent increases 
in cover crop adoption in Iowa and in the rest of the country, if 
adopted.
    By pairing highly utilized crop insurance with growing cover crop 
adoption, the COVER Act would be a big step to continue the growth of 
cover crops in Iowa to meet our state's water quality and soil health 
goals.

          Aaron Lehman is the President of the Iowa Farmers Union and 
        is a fifth-generation farmer from central Iowa.
                               Article 3


[https://foodtank.com/news/2023/11/op-ed-flour-power-the-strength-and-
sustainability-of-sorghum/]

[November 2023]
Op-Ed D Flour Power: The Strength and Sustainability of Sorghum


          Photo courtesy of Abjijeet, Wikimedia Commons

    Sustainable, exceptional ingredients are the cornerstone of great 
food. And healthy, quality soil is the key to unlocking the finest 
ingredients.
    As a born and raised Nebraskan, I grew up understanding the impact 
that agriculture has on our state--and our stomachs.
    I started understanding the crucial impact of regenerative 
agriculture practices on the food I serve to my customers and the food 
served to the world once I became a chef and business owner.
    Agriculture is critical to our state's resilience, our economic 
footprint on the world and the food chain overall. The agricultural 
industry makes up one in four jobs \1\ in the state. Experts say that 
what happens in Nebraska affects food production globally,\2\ all due 
to the dependence on products from right in our backyard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://ianr.unl.edu/growing/report-agriculture-critical-
nebraska-economy-states-resilience.
    \2\ https://www.klkntv.com/drought-is-hurting-nebraskas-economy-
and-the-impacts-could-ripple-worldwide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The world is fed by Nebraskans--that makes me proud.
    It's why I chose to open my business, Goldenrod Pastries,\3\ in 
Lincoln. I grew up immersed in our rich agricultural history and 
continue to instill that same pride through my business, and by raising 
a family here myself.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ https://goldenrodpastries.com/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Goldenrod is a labor of love--an ode to women's empowerment, 
inclusive baking and prioritizing sustainably sourced ingredients for 
the food we eat every day.
    When looking for farms to source ingredients for Goldenrod, we look 
for good stewards of the land. We work with Common Good Farms,\4\ a 
Nebraska business and biodynamic farm that treats plants as living 
things.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ https://www.commongoodfarm.com/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I lead a dietary-conscious business that produces gluten-free and 
dairy-free baked goods, and I look for alternatives to wheat flour, 
which is how I found sorghum flour.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ https://www.thespruceeats.com/what-is-sorghum-flour-5201022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sorghum flour has local roots, as the crop sorghum is grown and 
harvested at farms all across the Great Plains. These farms use 
regenerative agriculture practices to produce successful yields of 
sorghum,\6\ a crop that can diversify typical crop rotations and 
provide some of the same soil health benefits of cover crops.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ https://www.no-tillfarmer.com/blogs/1-covering-no-till/post/
7063-what-cover-crops-can-do-for-your-grain-sorghum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Cover crops \7\ are planted to protect and enhance the soil, rather 
than for the purpose of being harvested. Sorghum is just one example of 
crops that add diversity back to the landscape, like cover crops do--
and I'd argue it's the best crop for making the tastiest cookie.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ https://themessenger.com/opinion/how-to-fix-our-exhausted-soil-
thats-leading-to-worse-food-quality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To highlight the incredible uses of cover crops and other 
regenerative agricultural practices, chefs and farmers alike can come 
together, as a number of us do through the Natural Resources Defense 
Council's Chefs for Healthy Soil \8\ initiative. Chefs have an 
important, and often overlooked, role to play within the world's food 
supply. Whenever a chef and their team buy produce, they are actively 
making a choice about the agricultural practices they are supporting, 
whether they realize it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ https://www.nrdc.org/chefs-healthy-soil.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Chefs have the power to steer the conversation, as well as farmers' 
practices, toward regenerative agriculture that gives back to the Earth 
and yields more nutritious, tastier food.
    Farmers across the country, and especially here in Nebraska, are 
already using regenerative agriculture practices like cover crops to 
yield high-quality products. According to the 2017 Center for 
Regenerative Agriculture \9\ report, Nebraska is one of the top states 
in the country for cover crop acreage on U.S. farmland.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ https://cra.missouri.edu/cover-crops-in-the-us-current-status-
and-trends/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Nebraskans know that support for regenerative agriculture brings 
people together across political lines, but others may not. For years, 
the state has led the charge on the use of cover crops, and it is time 
for the rest of the country to do the same.
    Lawmakers from both parties support the Conservation Opportunity 
and Voluntary Environment Resilience (COVER) Act \10\ as part of this 
year's reauthorization of the farm bill, slated for a decision this 
fall.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ https://www.nrdc.org/press-releases/nrdc-cover-act-will-
finally-make-cover-crop-benefits-accessible-all-farmers-0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The COVER Act will grant farmers who plant cover crops a U.S.$5 
per-acre savings off their crop insurance bills. This savings would 
provide a much-needed reprieve for those who care about supporting 
regenerative agriculture but may not have the financial resources to do 
so. Cover crops can cost as much as U.S.$37 an acre to plant, so this 
modest incentive will help give growers the ability to do the right 
thing for soil, the planet, and ultimately the people.
    Food plays such a critical role in our lives. We value the 
opportunities we get to sit around a table and eat delicious meals with 
our loved ones--so isn't it time we value the practices ensuring the 
health, sustainability (and taste!) of the thing keeping us all alive 
and well every day?

          Angela Garbacz \11\ is the founder and head pastry chef of 
        Goldenrod Pastries. The women-run pastry shop, in Lincoln, 
        Nebraska, emphasizes inclusivity by developing recipes and 
        baking for people who are dietary-sensitive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ https://foodtank.com/news/author/angela-garbacz/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Article 4


[https://themessenger.com/opinion/how-to-fix-our-exhausted-soil-thats-
leading-to-worse-food-quality]
Opinion
          The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the 
        view of The Messenger.
How To Fix Our Exhausted Soil That's Leading To Worse Food Quality
Published 08/05/23 07:30 a.m. ET

Lara Bryant


          Getty Images

    It seems self-evident: Healthy food supports healthy bodies. And 
healthy food needs healthy soil.
    But at a time when the most sophisticated food supply chain in 
history has made it easy to forget where food comes from, the distance 
from dirt to the entrees in our freezers seems vast.
    It isn't. Nearly all food traces its roots to the soil in which 
plants grow. Our attitudes about soil typically range from indifference 
to disdain. But soil is not ``dirty,'' nor is it dead. It is a living 
\1\ and life-giving natural resource. Soil teems with countless 
bacteria, threads of mycelium, animals like worms and nematodes, fungi 
and other microbes that are the very foundation of life on Earth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/conservation-basics/natural-resource-
concerns/soils/soil-health.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Yet, modern agricultural practices have harmed the health of soils 
and contributed to the erosion of 4.63 tons \2\ of cropland soil per-
acre per-year while leaching essential nutrients out of the soil we 
have. While it may seem like an endless resource, soil cannot be taken 
for granted. Our soils are often exhausted, leading to lower crop 
yields, degraded food quality and fallow land.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ https://casten.house.gov/media/press-releases/casten-
introduces-cover-act-support-soil-health-practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The solution is right in front of us: plant more crops. 
Counterintuitive as that may seem, planting more crops can replenish 
nutrients in soil through a process called regenerative agriculture--
growing non-cash crops during the off-season provides more organic 
material that returns to the soil, completing the circle of life. Such 
cover crops also reduce erosion by improving soil structure and 
increasing infiltration, which helps prevent soils from washing away 
during rainfalls or snowmelt. These crops also help suppress weed 
growth, add nitrogen and improve soil biodiversity.
    They can be adapted to fit almost any farm system and climate. They 
also work well with other regenerative practices, like adding compost, 
reducing tillage and agroforestry, that have huge benefits for 
producers.
    For all of their benefits, cover crops aren't free. They can cost 
as much as $37 per acre,\3\ depending on the type of crop and other 
factors such as location. This is where targeted and thoughtful public 
policies can incentivize farmers to plant cover crops at scale, which 
will ultimately make them more affordable for all of us, while 
improving overall soil quality and productivity of agricultural lands 
at a time when they are challenged by climate change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ https://www.sare.org/publications/cover-crop-economics/how-to-
get-a-faster-return-from-cover-crops/creating-a-baseline-for-cover-
crop-costs-and-returns/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A bipartisan group of lawmakers from agricultural states is 
supporting the Conservation Opportunity and Voluntary Environment 
Resilience (COVER) Act,\4\ as part of this year's reauthorization of 
the farm bill, which was last updated in 2018. The COVER Act would 
grant farmers who plant cover crops a $5 per-acre savings off their 
crop insurance bills. The program would be fully voluntary and not 
require farmers to plant cover crops in order to be eligible for crop 
insurance. It is not a step toward any larger conservation mandates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ https://www.nrdc.org/press-releases/nrdc-cover-act-will-
finally-make-cover-crop-benefits-accessible-all-farmers-0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The costs are negligible in the greater picture of subsidies the 
government provides to farmers and large agricultural companies. Last 
year, the Federal Government provided $15.6 billion \5\ in agricultural 
subsidies, down from a pandemic peak of $45.6 billion in 2020 but still 
multiples more than the modest incentive for cover crops. As much as 
40% of farmers' income comes from government subsidies.\6\ What's 
worse, many Federal subsidies actually encourage the very practices 
that cover crops are designed to help remedy--for example, paying for 
infrastructure on industrial livestock facilities that otherwise could 
have been spent on conservation practices that reduce soil erosion and 
improve water quality. Current crop insurance subsidies encourage 
farmers to expand crop production even on the most erosion-prone land.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ https://data.ers.usda.gov/reports.aspx?ID=17833.
    \6\ https://www.marketwatch.com/story/u-s-government-checks-
constituted-40-of-farmers-income-in-2020-usda-01609444429.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It's, therefore, little surprise that cover crops have attracted 
support across the political spectrum. Recent polling by National 
Wildlife Federation showed that 78% of farmers support the concept.\7\ 
A recent Yale School of the Environment report \8\ found overwhelming 
bipartisan support for providing Federal funding to help farmers 
improve practices to protect and restore the soil so it absorbs and 
stores more carbon. Among the 20 practices Yale researchers identified 
to help mitigate climate change, Federal incentives for soil 
regeneration were the most broadly popular, with 82% support overall, 
including 61% from self-described conservative Republicans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ https://www.nwf.org/Latest-News/Press-Releases/2023/5-3-23-
Polling-Reduced-Insurance-Costs.
    \8\ https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/climate-
change-in-the-american-mind-politics-policy-spring-2023/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Americans support cover crops for good reason: They cost relatively 
little, protect our precious natural resources, foster a greener planet 
one field at a time, and enrich the soil that produces the crops that 
enrich our bodies. Americans may disagree on many things, but soil--the 
very foundation of our lives--is universal. As lawmakers deliberate a 
farm bill for the times we live in, they would be wise to remember 
that.

          Lara Bryant is the deputy director of water and agriculture 
        of the Natural Resources Defense Council's (NRDC) Nature 
        Program. Bryant promotes soil health practices and policies 
        that protect water quality, use water more efficiently and help 
        farms to be more resilient to climate change. She previously 
        worked on sustainable agricultural policy at the National 
        Wildlife Federation and World Resources Institute, as well as a 
        chemist at a private environmental laboratory.
                               Article 5


[https://mndaily.com/279509/opinion/editorial-cover-crops-our-soils-
path-to-resilience/]

Op-Eds \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://mndaily.com/category/opinion/op-ed-essays/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opinion \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ https://mndaily.com/category/opinion/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Editorial: Cover crops: Our soil's path to resilience
          The work for better farming cannot be done alone.
        
        
          Image by Sarah Mai.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ https://mndaily.com/staff_name/sarah-mai/.

By Doug Bos \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ https://mndaily.com/staff_name/doug-bos/.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Published October 20, 2023

    Farmers are no stranger to resiliency.
    I've worked the farmlands of Minnesota for nearly the last 3 
decades of my career--time that has been spent tied to my deep roots 
within Rock County's \5\ agricultural landscape. I've witnessed many 
challenges and opportunities that have defined our industry, as well as 
threatened its very livelihood.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ https://www.co.rock.mn.us/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The nature of farming is ever-evolving. But amidst these changes, 
one thing remains constant: the need for sustainable practices that 
safeguard our livelihoods and environment.
    One thing is clear: this work cannot be done by farmers alone. It 
will take a village--of farmers, community members and committed 
students to turn the tide of Minnesota's farming practices.
    Sustainable agricultural practices are, at their core, all about 
resiliency. Our nation's land continues to find itself depleted of 
resources; we have tired soil, increased plant diseases, continued 
erosion, changing weather patterns and a flurry of extreme storms. In 
the last 50 years of Minnesota history, there were sixteen mega-rain 
storms total.\6\ Eleven of those storms occurred since the year 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ https://climate.umn.edu/our-changing-climate/extreme-events.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Those of us who farm the land know we cannot continue on this way. 
Our soil health practices have to change, or we won't be farming at all 
in the next 50 years to come.
    This is where sustainable farming comes into play. The work my 
peers and I have done in Minnesota has helped raise the discussion of 
cover crops, and has been critical to our land's growth.
    A future of sustainable farming practices--in Minnesota or beyond--
isn't possible without student-community partnerships helping to 
educate future ag workers on the importance of soil health practices. 
When students and community members come together, more progress is 
able to be made towards regenerative agriculture practices.
    Cover crops,\7\ or seeds planted to protect and enhance the soil 
rather than for the purpose of being harvested, help put some of the 
life back into our soil \8\--life it desperately needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ https://themessenger.com/opinion/how-to-fix-our-exhausted-soil-
thats-leading-to-worse-food-quality.
    \8\ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dd11VU7AmhI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Farmers know about these practices, but they often don't have the 
financial luxury to take on the added cost that comes with them.
    The Conservation Opportunity and Voluntary Environment Resilience 
(COVER) Act,\9\ championed by the Natural Resources Defense Council 
(NRDC) and its allies, holds immense promise for Minnesota's farmers, 
and farmers nationwide. This legislation offers a $5 per-acre premium 
subsidy for those who voluntarily participate in a covered insurance 
program and incorporate cover crops into their conservation efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ https://www.nrdc.org/press-releases/nrdc-cover-act-will-
finally-make-cover-crop-benefits-accessible-all-farmers-0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Many of us are all too aware of the economic challenges our nation 
is facing. In such uncertain times, the COVER Act's financial incentive 
provides crucial support. It helps alleviate the initial costs 
associated with transitioning to sustainable practices like cover 
cropping. By doing so, it reduces the financial risk for farmers like 
me, making it more feasible to adopt these practices.
    Furthermore, the COVER Act emphasizes the voluntary nature of its 
incentives. It does not compel farmers to plant cover crops to be 
eligible for crop insurance. Instead, it recognizes the diverse 
conditions in which farmers operate and respects their autonomy in 
choosing the best practices for their land. This legislation is not a 
stepping stone toward larger conservation mandates, but rather a 
pragmatic approach to encourage voluntary action.
    For those of us who understand the importance of cover crops, this 
initiative is a step in the right direction. Cover crops play a vital 
role in reducing erosion, enhancing soil health and mitigating crop 
losses. These crops provide year-round protection for our soil, making 
them a cornerstone of sustainable agriculture.
    Many students at the University of Minnesota already have the 
knowledge and the resources to make a tangible impact on the farming 
industry for decades to come. It is critical that all students are 
aware of the changes that currently exist between state and Federal 
programs promoting soil health. Agriculture is a key aspect of life for 
students in Minnesota, and the demand for those able to help farmers 
accept and adapt better soil health practices continues to grow. It's 
crucial we provide our community with everything they need in order to 
allow agriculture to provide a future for them.
    Adopting cover crops and other regenerative practices aren't 
without their own challenges. Transitioning requires not only financial 
investments, but also access to technical assistance. Many of us need 
guidance on how to effectively implement these practices. Collaborative 
efforts between farmers and conservation agronomists, as seen in states 
like Iowa \10\ and Minnesota,\11\ are essential for providing the 
necessary support.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ https://www.iaagwater.org/conservation-agronomists-the-bridge-
between-sustainability-and-profitability-on-the-farm.
    \11\ https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/conservation-basics/conservation-by-
state/minnesota/news/minnesota-embarks-on-a-public-private.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In a state like ours, where agriculture is the lifeblood of our 
economy, this legislation can help build a more robust coalition of 
farmers. When farmers unite to advocate for sustainable practices, 
legislators are more inclined to listen to our collective voice. I've 
witnessed the power of these coalitions within soil health groups, 
where ideas are exchanged, and farmers' concerns are elevated to 
policymakers.
    By embracing the COVER Act, we can position ourselves for a future 
where sustainable farming practices are not just an option, but a 
necessity. Minnesota's rich tradition of agricultural innovation and 
environmental stewardship is at stake.
    It's time to embrace this opportunity for a more resilient farming 
future.

          Doug Bos has been the Assistant Director of the Rock County 
        SWCD/Land Management Office for over 26 years. Prior to this 
        position, Doug served as an agronomist and Assistant Manager of 
        the Hills-Beaver Creek Farmers Coop.
                               Article 6


[https://www.thewellnews.com/opinions/from-carrot-salad-to-carrot-cake-
it-all-begins-with-great-soil/]
From Carrot Salad to Carrot Cake, It All Begins With Great Soil
Commentary
October 18, 2023 by Jamie Simpson, Executive Chef, Culinary Vegetable 
Institute


          A freshly-picked bundle of carrots from a field, Thursday, 
        Sept. 21, 2023, in New Cuyama, Calif., in the Cuyama Valley 
        northwest of Los Angeles. (AP Photo/Marcio Jose Sanchez)

    Great food comes from great ingredients. And great ingredients come 
from great soil.
    In my role as executive chef at the Culinary Vegetable Institute, 
I've seen firsthand the role sustainability plays in our food supply.
    Agriculture and food-related industries are expansive and impactful 
nationwide, employing over 10% of the U.S. workforce.\1\ And yet so 
many outside of the industry fail to understand how good food lands on 
our tables each and every night.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ag-and-food-statistics-
charting-the-essentials/ag-and-food-sectors-and-the-economy/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Consider the humble carrot. We may tend to think of carrots as 
something that comes cut and peeled and packaged in plastic, suitable 
for little more than snacking. The mass agricultural production of 
snackable carrots, concentrated in the deserts of California, pulls 
water from deep aquifers to irrigate carrots, which are then shipped 
far away. The practice contributes to regional water loss, soil erosion 
and the depletion of soil health overall.
    In our zeal to extract more from the Earth--more vegetables, more 
fruit, more livestock--we are stripping soil of vital nutrients without 
putting them back in. And when we take nutrients out of soil, we're 
also taking them out of the fruit and vegetables that depend on the 
soil.
    According to the American Horticultural Society, nutrient values in 
produce over the last 50-100 years have decreased from 5% to 40%. 
Modern agricultural practices also have contributed to the erosion of 
4.63 tons \2\ of cropland soil per acre per year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ https://casten.house.gov/media/press-releases/casten-
introduces-cover-act-support-soil-health-practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Much of our soil is tired and depleted. And that leads to 
agricultural products that aren't their best.
    Vegetables give us life--both the essential nutrients our bodies 
need but also the rainbow of flavors, aromas, textures and colors that 
make our meals come to life. With 95% of our food \3\ directly or 
indirectly produced on our soils, we all have a stake in healthy soil.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ https://www.fao.org/soils-2015/news/news-detail/en/c/277682/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Great ingredients come from great soil.
    Through my work as a chef, I am passionate about the links between 
soil, crops, food and the culinary experiences that chefs deliver to 
millions of diners. Four years ago, we opened a research facility to 
constantly monitor soil health and plant tissue samples, looking for 
ways to increase nutrient density and organic matter through natural 
means.
    In addition to studying soil health, we also study shelf life and 
the science of flavor.
    Our research and experience with growers show that one of the best 
things we can do for soil is to plant cover crops during the off 
season. Planting more crops can replenish nutrients in soil through a 
process called regenerative agriculture.
    This process also reduces erosion by improving soil structure and 
increasing the downward entry of water into soil, which helps prevent 
soils from washing away during rainfalls or snowmelt. Cover crops also 
help suppress weed growth, add nitrogen back into the ground and 
improve soil biodiversity overall.
    I support the Natural Resources Defense Council's Chefs for Healthy 
Soil \4\ initiative because I understand that whenever a chef and their 
team buy produce, they are making a choice about the agricultural 
practices they are supporting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ https://www.nrdc.org/chefs-healthy-soil.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    One carrot at a time, we chefs have the power to steer the 
conversation--and ultimately farmers' practices--towards regenerative 
agriculture that gives back to the Earth and yields more nutritious, 
tastier food.
    Chefs have a massive stake in healthier, more delicious fruits and 
vegetables, but so do all Americans.
    That's why I'm heartened that lawmakers from both parties support 
the Conservation Opportunity and Voluntary Environment Resilience 
Program Act,\5\ as part of this year's reauthorization of the farm 
bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ https://www.nrdc.org/press-releases/nrdc-cover-act-will-
finally-make-cover-crop-benefits-accessible-all-farmers-0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The COVER Act would grant farmers who plant cover crops a $5 per 
acre savings off their crop insurance bills. The program would be fully 
voluntary, and not require farmers to plant cover crops in order to be 
eligible for crop insurance.
    It's time for the farm bill--and the health of our food supply and 
soil--to take priority for all lawmakers.
    With cover crops costing as much as $37 an acre to plant, this 
modest incentive--think of it as a carrot--will help nudge growers 
towards doing the right thing for soil, the planet, and ultimately the 
forks and stomachs of millions of people.
          * * * * *
          Jamie Simpson is chef liaison to the Chef's Garden \6\ and 
        executive chef of the Culinary Vegetable Institute.\7\ Simpson 
        is a lifelong ambassador for using ``every part of the plant, 
        from root to tip,'' as part of an overall mission to build a 
        sustainable business model. Simpson designs dishes around what 
        is available on the farm that day, and his commitment to micro 
        seasonal cooking opens the door for him to be more creative 
        while respecting the plants and maintaining minimal waste 
        policies. He can be reached at [email protected].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ https://www.chefs-garden.com/about-the-farm.
    \7\ https://www.culinaryvegetableinstitute.com/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Submitted Legislation
  1.  H.R. 3478, Conservation Opportunity and Voluntary Environment 
            Resilience Program Act of 2023 (COVER Act of 2023): https:/
            /www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-118hr3478ih/pdf/BILLS-
            118hr3478ih.pdf (See p. 690).

    The Chairman. Mr. Casten, thank you for testifying today. 
Thanks for representing your constituents. Those conservation 
programs, cover crops, and everything else obviously work best, 
as you mentioned, when they are voluntary and locally-led. And 
they are very, very, very effective. And it is not a one-size-
fits-all obviously. I know there are areas I have visited, and 
certain areas were so dry that if you put a cover crop in, it 
will suck every bit of moisture out of the ground. You are not 
going to be able to raise your cash crop obviously. But that is 
why making anything that we do voluntary and locally-led just 
makes sense. But thank you for testifying today. I appreciate 
you.
    And now I am pleased to recognize a fellow colleague from 
the Keystone State. Quite frankly, I think I had dinner about 
400 from his office in Newtown, Pennsylvania, on Sunday night 
where my son lives. Mr. Fitzpatrick from Pennsylvania, I am 
pleased to recognize you for 5 minutes.

  STATEMENT OF HON. BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
                   CONGRESS FROM PENNSYLVANIA

    Mr. Fitzpatrick. Thank you, Chairman Thompson, and thank 
you for opening up the Agriculture Committee to the membership 
today to discuss our legislative initiatives.
    Mr. Chairman, there are three areas that I wanted to talk 
to the Committee about today: animal welfare, conservation, and 
nutrition. Starting with animal welfare--all three of which, by 
the way, I have legislative initiatives that I am actively 
pursuing.
    Recent findings of neglect and abuse in puppy mills across 
our country have stained the reputation of that entire industry 
across the country, negatively impacting, by the way, law-
abiding breeders. And to address these bad actors in the 
commercial breeding industry, I was proud to introduce, with a 
number of Members of this Committee, H.R. 1624, the Puppy 
Protection Act. This is the reasonable protection of animals, 
Chairman Thompson, as I know you agree with, is very, very 
essential. It is a role of the Federal Government. We have the 
responsibility to raise this, the currently what we believe to 
be insufficient standards of care for commercially bred puppies 
and dogs by amending the Animal Welfare Act and cleaning up 
facilities that maintain blatantly inhumane conditions. This 
bipartisan bill will meet that obligation.
    And the increased cases of dogs and puppies being kept in 
cruel and inadequate facilities across the country, in my 
belief, sir, represents a failure of the Federal Government to 
administer its very own regulations. And by strengthening the 
commonsense standards for large, commercially licensed 
breeders, Congress can assure that the USDA inspectors are 
doing the job that is expected of them rather than placing the 
burden on our local law enforcement officers in our hometown 
communities.
    Now, this bill has received broad support. As you know, we 
have over 216 cosponsors since it was introduced, including 21 
Members of this Committee. And I would also like to thank our 
co-leads, Representatives McGovern, Reschenthaler, and Panetta, 
for partnering with me on this issue.
    And to reiterate the importance of this legislation, Mr. 
Chairman, I would like to insert into the record a statement 
from Sheriff Custer from our home State of Pennsylvania, who is 
a member of the National Sheriffs Association Board of 
Directors, in support of this legislation.
    The Chairman. Sure, without objection.
    [The statement referred to is located on p. 41.]
    Mr. Fitzpatrick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Moving on to another issue being addressed by this 
Committee that I would like to highlight is nutrition. One 
topic of concern is combating hunger among seniors and adults 
with disabilities. Food insecurity is persisting amid this 
post-pandemic recovery, and it is affecting our most vulnerable 
communities, which is why I introduced H.R. 4706, the Senior 
Nutrition Task Force Act. Mr. Chairman, this bipartisan, 
bicameral legislation will establish a working group to combat 
malnutrition amongst senior citizens and disabled adults, and I 
urge my colleagues to continue to support this initiative that 
will modernize our bureaucracy to support these vulnerable 
groups.
    In another effort to modernize nutrition programs, I was 
proud to join my colleagues in introducing H.R. 3519, the Hot 
Foods Act of 2023. Mr. Chairman, this bipartisan legislation 
would amend SNAP by removing an outdated prohibition, which 
prevents recipients from purchasing hot foods with nutritional 
benefits. And by allowing SNAP consumers to purchase nutritious 
hot food items such as rotisserie chickens, there will be 
greater flexibility for our families on this program, which is 
a very, very important program that this Committee has 
supported. And I look forward to working with my colleagues and 
having them join us to streamline this program to address the 
unnecessary red tape which restricts business owners, program 
administrators, and SNAP beneficiaries themselves.
    And lastly, Mr. Chairman, to address the issue of 
conservation, my hometowns of Bucks and Montgomery Counties in 
Pennsylvania have a strong tradition of conservation practices, 
and I encourage this Committee to embrace policies that 
preserve our lands, particularly H.R. 3174, the Invasive 
Species Prevention and Forest Restoration Act. Chairman 
Thompson, this bipartisan legislation would expand access to 
the USDA and other programs to eradicate and contain pests that 
are damaging our environment, particularly our farmers. Most 
notably, the increased prevalence of spotted lanternflies 
throughout our home State of Pennsylvania, has been devastating 
to crops, and very damaging to our family farmers. As a 
Congress, we must take serious action to protect our farms and 
our farmers and our crops against invasive species and preserve 
our lands for the next generation.
    Chairman Thompson, thank you for your time. Thank you for 
your consideration of these matters, and I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Fitzpatrick follows:]

 Prepared Statement of Hon. Brian K. Fitzpatrick, a Representative in 
                       Congress from Pennsylvania
    Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Scott, and Members of the 
Committee:

    Thank you for holding this Member Day hearing and providing me with 
the opportunity to share the concerns of my constituents and community.
    As you continue the critical task of authoring a farm bill, I 
strongly urge the Committee to continue to address issues of animal 
welfare. Recent findings of neglect and abuse in puppy mills across our 
country have stained the reputation of the industry, negatively 
impacting law-abiding breeders. To address bad actors in the commercial 
breeding industry, I was proud to introduce H.R. 1624, the Puppy 
Protection Act. The reasonable protection of animals is essential, and 
the Federal Government has a responsibility to raise the currently 
insufficient standards of care for commercially bred puppies and dogs. 
By amending the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) and cleaning up facilities 
that maintain blatantly inhumane conditions, the bipartisan Puppy 
Protection Act will meet that obligation. The increase in cases of 
countless dogs and puppies being kept in cruel and inadequate 
facilities around the country is a failure of the Federal Government to 
administer its own regulations. By strengthening the commonsense 
standards for large, commercially licensed breeders, Congress can 
ensure that USDA inspectors do the job expected of them rather than 
continuing to place an unnecessary burden on our community law 
enforcement officers.
    The Puppy Protection Act has received broad support, with over 216 
cosponsors since it was introduced in April. This includes 21 Members 
of the Agriculture Committee. I would also like to thank the co-leads 
of this legislation, Rep. McGovern, Rep. Reschenthaler, and Rep. 
Panetta for their leadership. I look forward to continuing to work with 
the Agriculture Committee to find a path forward on this and other 
animal welfare issues.
    Another issue being addressed by this Committee that I would like 
to highlight is nutrition. Title IV (4) programs, such as the 
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), are essential and 
impactful programs to many families across the nation. One topic of 
concern is combating hunger among seniors and adults with disabilities. 
Food insecurity is persisting amid post-pandemic recovery, and it is 
affecting our most vulnerable communities. This is why I introduced 
H.R. 4706, the Senior Nutrition Task Force Act. This bipartisan-
bicameral legislation will establish a special working group to combat 
malnutrition among senior citizens and disabled adults. I am proud to 
be leading legislation dedicated to improving nutrition outcomes and 
benefits. I urge my colleagues to continue to support commonsense 
initiatives that will modernize our bureaucracy to support vulnerable 
groups.
    In another effort to modernize nutrition programs, I was proud to 
join my colleagues in introducing H.R. 3519, the Hot Foods Act of 2023. 
This bipartisan legislation would amend SNAP by removing an outdated 
prohibition which prevents recipients from purchasing hot foods with 
SNAP benefits. By allowing SNAP customers to purchase nutritious hot 
items, such as rotisserie chickens, there will be greater flexibility 
for families. I look forward to my colleagues joining me in working to 
streamline this program and address preventable red tape which 
restricts business owners, program administrators, and SNAP recipients.
    Finally, I would like to address the issue of conservation. My 
community of southeastern Pennsylvania has a strong tradition of 
conservation practices, and I encourage this Committee to embrace 
policies that preserve our land. I was proud to join my colleagues in 
supporting H.R. 3174, the Invasive Species Prevention and Forest 
Restoration Act. This bipartisan legislation would expand access to the 
USDA and APHIS to eradicate or contain pests that are damaging the 
environment. Notably, the increased prevalence of Spotted Lanternflies 
throughout Pennsylvania has been devastating to crops and damaging to 
family farmers. As a Congress, we must take serious action to protect 
our farms and crops against invasive species and preserve our lands for 
the next generation. I thank the Committee for your leadership on this 
issue.
    Thank you again for this opportunity to testify.
    I look forward to continuing to work with the Committee and all my 
colleagues on common-ground, commonsense solutions to agriculture 
issues in the 118th Congress and the completion of a successful farm 
bill.
  Submitted Letter by Hon. Brian K. Fitzpatrick, a Representative in 
                       Congress from Pennsylvania
December 15, 2023

  Hon. Glenn Thompson,
  Chairman,
  House Agriculture Committee,
  Washington, D.C.

  Hon. David Scott,
  Ranking Minority Member,
  House Agriculture Committee
  Washington, D.C.

    Dear Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member Scott,

    On behalf of the Humane Society Legislative Fund, we write in 
support for the inclusion of the following, bipartisan animal welfare 
provisions in the upcoming farm bill package as well as urging you to 
reject any provisions that will hinder such efforts. As you know, the 
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is responsible for 
implementing and enforcing major animal welfare laws including the 
Animal Welfare Act (AWA), the Horse Protection Act, and the Humane 
Methods of Slaughter Act. Your colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
have introduced several bills aimed at improving upon these existing 
laws, and we hope they are included in the underlying farm hill. These 
hills include:
    The Puppy Protection Act (H.R. 1624) \1\ will update the welfare 
standards for tens of thousands of breeding dogs and puppies at large-
scale breeding operations licensed by USDA. Although the agency 
upgraded dog care standards (e.g., requiring hands-on veterinary exams 
and 24 hour access to clean water) in a May 2020 final rule, additional 
protections are needed. Reforms, including prohibiting the use of 
stacked cages and wire cage flooring, requiring space for exercise, 
protecting dogs from extreme temperatures, and mandating prompt 
veterinary care, are long overdue. This legislation is endorsed by the 
National Sheriff's Association. This bipartisan bill currently has 223 
Members as cosponsors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/1624.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Better CARE for Animals Act (H.R. 5041/S. 2555) \2\ will 
encourage stronger intra-agency enforcement of the AWA by authorizing 
the Department of Justice (DOJ) to seek license revocations, civil 
penalties, and the use of forfeiture to seize and remove animals 
experiencing harmful treatment. There are only three Administrative Law 
Judges for the entire USDA resulting in a backlog of AWA enforcement 
actions. The AWA requires research facilities, exhibitors, and 
breeders/dealers to meet basic standards of animal care which is 
crucial to protecting over a million animals from inhumane care, yet 
many facilities are getting away with egregious abuses and without 
8trong enforcement, there is no meaningful deterrent to violating the 
law. This bill would also create a memorandum of understanding between 
the USDA and DOJ to encourage greater collaboration and access to 
evidence needed to initiate cases. This legislation is endorsed by the 
National Sheriffs' Association, Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, 
and National Animal Care and Control Association. This bipartisan bill 
currently has 167 Members as cosponsors in the House and 25 in the 
Senate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/5041.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Save America's Forgotten Equines or SAFE Act (H.R. 3475/S. 2037) 
\3\ will prohibit the reopening of horse slaughter plants in the U.S. 
and the export of American horses to slaughter for human consumption. 
Horse slaughter is inherently cruel due to the unique biology of 
horses, and the U.S. public overwhelmingly opposes it (polls show more 
than 80% of the American public support its end). Additionally, 
American horses are nor raised for food, they are routinely given 
hundreds of drugs over their lifetimes that can be toxic to humans if 
ingested. This bipartisan bill currently has 203 Members as cosponsors 
in the House and 12 in the Senate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/3475.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We also urge the Committee to reject any provisions that will 
hinder the strengthening of animal protectionsuch as:
    Opposing the inclusion of the EATS Act or any legislative text 
aimed at undoing Proposition 12. Legislative efforts like the Exposing 
Agricultural Trade Suppression (EATS Act (H.R. 4417/S. 2019) \4\ are 
designed to block states from passing laws related to the sale of 
products within their own borders--targeting California's Proposition 
12 and other cage-free and crate-free laws in 14 states--and could 
jeopardize hundreds of state and local laws involving food safety, 
child labor, pesticide exposure, invasive pests, and much more. 
Previous attempts led by former Rep. Steve King to usurp states' rights 
in this manner in the 2014 and 2018 Farm Bills were rejected with 
bipartisan opposition. Additionally, a bipartisan letter \5\ supported 
by 172 Members of Congress was sent to the Committee urging that 
neither the EATS Act nor any related legislation be included in the 
farm bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/4417.
    \5\ https://drive.google.com/file/d/
1dH9SDB7JYAJefQtJP3HfbAhq7RUuM6m1/view.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While we welcome efforts in the Farm Rill to end cruel horse soring 
through inclusion of the Prevent All Soring Tactics (PAST) Act \6\ 
(H.R. 3090), we strongly oppose misguided attempts to push a so-called 
``compromise'' for the PAST Act. This compromise, which is also opposed 
by the American Horse Council, American Veterinary Medical Association, 
and American Association of Equine Practitioners, was drafted with the 
sorers, would not end the practice of soring and would actually make 
the problem worse.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ https://drive.google.com/file/d/
1qWGUVre0EP59TEQgUtgUX0FyZELkWEjG/view?pli=1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We also support reauthorization in the farm bill of the Protecting 
Animals with Shelter/Pet and Women Safety (PAWS) grant program that 
expands emergency and transitional shelter options for domestic 
violence survivors with pets. Research shows that abusers often 
threaten or inflict violence on pets to intimidate or exert control 
over their partners and prevent them from leaving. PAWS grants enable 
more domestic violence service providers to accommodate pets or arrange 
for pet shelter on behalf of survivors. PAWS grant recipients have been 
geographically diverse, spanning 23 states, and demand for these grants 
has consistently exceeded available funding.
    As you know, the last four farm bills have included significant 
provisions aimed at preventing animal cruelty, including strengthening 
the Federal animal fighting statute and barring the import of puppies 
from foreign puppy mills. Concern for animal welfare is a bipartisan 
issue. Furthermore, food retailers and the agriculture industry, 
recognizing that sound business practices and humane animal policies 
are not mutually exclusive, are already responding to such concerns. 
With that said, we hope this farm bill will serve as an opportunity to 
continue making progress on this important aspect of agriculture 
policy.
    Thank you for your consideration.
            Sincerely,

Tracie Letterman,
Vice President, Humane Society Legislative Fund
 Submitted Statement of Hon. Brian K. Fitzpatrick, a Representative in 
Congress from Pennsylvania; on Behalf of Sheriff James Custer, Fayette 
     County Sheriff's Office (PA), Member of the National Sheriff 
       Association Board of Director and Animal Cruelty Committee
December 5, 2023

    As the first on scene to many animal cruelty situations involving 
large-scale dog breeding operations, law enforcement sees firsthand the 
horrible conditions violators of the Animal Welfare Act keep animals 
in. The Puppy Protection Act will ensure dogs in these facilities have 
the best quality of life. The bill is good for the public, for the 
first responders responsible for addressing animal cruelty, and for our 
four-legged best friends.
                         Submitted Legislation
  1.  H.R. 1624, Puppy Protection Act of 2023: https://www.govinfo.gov/
            content/pkg/BILLS-118hr1624ih/pdf/BILLS-118hr1624ih.pdf 
            (See p. 339).

  2.  H.R. 3174, Invasive Species Prevention and Forest Restoration 
            Act: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-118hr3174ih/
            pdf/BILLS-118hr3174ih.pdf (See p. 615).

  3.  H.R. 3475, Save America's Forgotten Equines Act of 2023 (SAFE Act 
            of 2023): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-
            118hr3475ih/pdf/BILLS-118hr3475ih.pdf (See p. 688).

  4.  H.R. 3519, Hot Foods Act of 2023: https://www.govinfo.gov/
            content/pkg/BILLS-118hr3519ih/pdf/BILLS-118hr3519ih.pdf 
            (See p. 698).

  5.  H.R. 4417, Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression Act: https://
            www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-118hr4417ih/pdf/BILLS-
            118hr4417ih.pdf (See p. 816).

  6.  H.R. 4706, Senior Nutrition Task Force Act of 2023: https://
            www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-118hr4706ih/pdf/BILLS-
            118hr4706ih.pdf (See p. 824).

  7.  H.R. 5041, Better Collaboration, Accountability, and Regulatory 
            Enforcement for Animals Act of 2023 (Better CARE for 
            Animals Act of 2023): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/
            BILLS-118hr5041ih/pdf/BILLS-118hr5041ih.pdf (See p. 853).

    The Chairman. Well, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
for being here and representing his constituents in what I know 
is Pennsylvania's number one industry for sure is agriculture, 
so thank you.
    I am now pleased to recognize the gentleman from Virginia's 
8th Congressional District, Congressman Beyer, for 5 minutes.

  STATEMENT OF HON. DONALD S. BEYER, Jr., A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
                     CONGRESS FROM VIRGINIA

    Mr. Beyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. Thank you, 
Chairman Thompson, and acting Ranking Member Budzinski for 
holding this hearing. It is really wonderful to be able to talk 
about key priorities.
    Mr. Chairman, America was born on a farm in Virginia. All 
of our Founding Fathers and mothers were farmers, including 
George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. So I want to, number 
one, express my concern about the rumors that I have heard 
about using the money provided by the Inflation Reduction Act 
for the USDA conservation programs as a pay-for for this farm 
bill. And frankly, I just feel this will be stealing money from 
Virginia farmers, from America's farmers that they have already 
anticipated receiving, $275 million just in Virginia. These are 
planned investments, and as you know, the worst thing for 
businesspeople is to have uncertainty, to make plans around 
something, then have it taken away. And USDA received requests 
for way more money than the Inflation Reduction Act made 
available, and this just shows how much farmers really want the 
support. So I think the farm bill should be looking at 
addressing future needs rather than undoing the past.
    Second, I am supporting the incorporation of the 
Agricultural Resilience Act authored by Congresswoman Chellie 
Pingree in your farm bill. Particularly, my constituents are 
excited about the provisions in her bill to promote innovative 
practices in soil health, nutrient management, and perennial 
agriculture. Historians have made the connection between soil 
health, the deterioration of soil health, and the rise of 
slavery and eventually the Civil War. And we should use the 
farm bill to direct the USDA to be a better partner for farmers 
practicing perennial agriculture and other good soil health 
practices. Nature is perennial and polycultural, but 
agriculture has always been annual and monocultural, so let's 
learn from nature. And the Land Institute in Salina, Kansas, 
has done some remarkable work.
    Number three, I would like to speak to a proposal on 
developing for a farmer-led energy future. Margins, as we know, 
are very tight for farmers, but not all farmers have the 
bandwidth, the inclination, or support to incorporate 
additional income streams that could be available to them. My 
farmer-led energy future proposal puts rural communities in the 
driver's seat so the farmers themselves can look at 
incorporating potential additional income streams of renewable 
energy when it makes sense to them, and it allows them to set 
the terms. And this can be done in a way so that prime farmland 
isn't lost. Perhaps, we hope, even forests are not lost and 
supports rather than competes with a farming future.
    And, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, my final point is that I 
believe the farm bill is an opportunity for the USDA to improve 
their assistance and recognition of farmers and ranchers who 
have voluntarily conserved their lands as wildlife corridors. I 
have been a champion of wildlife corridors over the last 
decade. In my first term, I introduced the bipartisan Wildlife 
Corridors Conservation Act. Wildlife corridors are critical for 
plant and animal populations, for their natural dispersion and 
migration, and for when they need to respond to changing 
environmental conditions, which are happening all over the 
world. With much of our country privately owned, our private 
landowners play an important role in efforts to conserve and 
protect habitat connectivity and wildlife corridors. USDA just 
announced that they are expanding the Migratory Big Game 
Initiative Pilot Program to Idaho and Montana because this 
works so successfully in Wyoming.
    These wildlife corridors initiatives work. So in the next 
farm bill, we hope to direct the USDA to celebrate wildlife 
corridors and support voluntary landowner actions in the 
context of larger landscapes and waterscapes.
    Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, thank you very much for the 
opportunity to speak with you, and I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Beyer follows:]

 Prepared Statement of Hon. Donald S. Beyer, Jr., a Representative in 
                         Congress from Virginia
    To the Chairman and Ranking Member, I want to thank you for holding 
this Member Day so we can talk about some of our key priorities going 
into the next farm bill.
    First, I want express my concern about the rumors I have heard 
about using the money provided by the Inflation Reduction Act for USDA 
conservation programs as a pay-for for this farm bill. This would be 
stealing money from Virginia farmers. Virginia farmers anticipate 
receiving about $275 million of this investment. USDA received requests 
for more money than the Inflation Reduction Act made available--this 
shows how much farmers want this support. The farm bill should be about 
looking at addressing our future needs, not stealing from the past.
    Second, I am supportive of incorporating the Agriculture Resilience 
Act, authored by Congresswoman Pingree, in the farm bill. Particularly, 
my constituents and I are excited about provisions in her bill to 
promote innovative practices for soil health, nutrient management, and 
perennial agriculture. We should use the farm bill to direct USDA to be 
a better partner to farmers practicing perennial agriculture and other 
good soil health practices.
    Next, I'd like to speak to a proposal I'm developing for a farmer-
led energy future. Margins are tight for many farmers, and not all 
farmers have the bandwidth, inclination, or support to incorporate 
additional income streams that could be available to them. My proposal 
puts rural communities in the driver's seat so they can look at 
incorporating the potential additional income stream of renewable 
energy when it makes sense to them and allows them to set the terms. 
This can be done in a way so that prime farmland isn't lost and 
supports rather than competes with a farming future.
    For my final point, which I know the Ranking Member is very 
familiar with since we have been chatting about this for several 
Congresses now. I believe the farm bill is an opportunity for USDA to 
improve their assistance and recognition of farmers and ranchers who 
have voluntarily conserved their lands as wildlife corridors. I have 
been a champion of wildlife corridors over my past decade in Congress, 
since my first term when I introduced the bipartisan Wildlife Corridors 
Conservation Act. Wildlife corridors are critical for plant and animal 
populations, for their natural dispersion and migration, and for when 
they need to respond to changing environmental conditions. With much of 
our country privately owned, our private landowners play an important 
role in efforts to conserve and protect habitat connectivity and 
wildlife corridors. USDA just announced that they are expanding the 
migratory big game initiative pilot program to Idaho and Montana, after 
seeing its success in Wyoming. These wildlife corridors initiatives 
work. In the next farm bill, we should direct USDA to celebrate 
wildlife corridors and support voluntary landowner actions to the 
context of the larger landscapes and waterscapes.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
                         Submitted Legislation
                             114th congress
  1.  H.R. 6448, Wildlife Corridors Conservation Act of 2016: https://
            www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-114hr6448ih/pdf/BILLS-
            114hr6448ih.pdf (See p. 141).
                             118th congress
  1.  H.R. 1840, Agriculture Resilience Act of 2023: https://
            www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-118hr1840ih/pdf/BILLS-
            118hr1840ih.pdf (See p. 346).

    The Chairman. Mr. Beyer, thank you so much for being here 
and appearing before the Committee and presenting those 
thoughts and ideas, much appreciated.
    Now, we are going to go from Virginia to Arizona, the 
Arizona 6th Congressional District. And I am pleased to 
recognize the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Ciscomani, for 5 
minutes.

STATEMENT OF HON. JUAN CISCOMANI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                          FROM ARIZONA

    Mr. Ciscomani. Thank you, Chairman Thompson, and the House 
Agriculture Committee Members as well for allowing me to 
testify before you today.
    And, Chairman Thompson, I actually want to just take a 
quick moment to say that Laura and I are praying for you and 
keeping your family in our thoughts and our prayers as you 
begin your brave and soon victorious battle for your health, 
sir.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Mr. Ciscomani. We are praying for you.
    I come before the Committee today to testify in support of 
my bipartisan bill H.R. 6497, the Healthy Watersheds, Healthy 
Communities Act of 2023, and more broadly to advocate for more 
drought mitigation assistance in the upcoming farm bill.
    I represent several rural areas with a large agricultural 
presence in southern Arizona, including Cochise, Graham, 
Greenlee, and Pinal Counties. Arizona farmers provide Americans 
with lettuce, nuts, cotton, and other essential goods year-
round thanks to our unique climate. Our farmers and ranchers 
have repeatedly proven themselves to be resilient despite the 
uncertainties they face due to the unpredictable nature of the 
water resources and wildfires in the region. They lead the way 
in conservation efforts and consistently supply our communities 
with the food that we need, but their resiliency depends on our 
watersheds' resiliency.
    As we continue to face a storied drought in the West, more 
communities are turning to the Natural Resources Conservation 
Service's Watershed and Flood Preservation Operation program, 
also known as P.L. 83-566 program, to find solutions to the 
various issues accompanying extreme drought. While the P.L. 83-
566 program has had great success in assisting agricultural 
communities in addressing natural disasters, only about 21 
percent of the program's funds have actually gone to western 
states.
    The Healthy Watersheds, Healthy Communities Act of 2023, 
which I introduced with some of my fellow western colleagues--
Representatives Hageman, Flood, Patterson, Neguse, and 
Caraveo--aims to provide parity for western states by making 
some commonsense modifications to the P.L. 83-566 program. 
Specifically, our bill would encourage western participation in 
this program by making drought resilience an explicit purpose 
of the program, consolidating the planning of one or more of 
sub-watersheds and including irrigation districts as local 
organizations, making them clearly eligible for assistance 
under the law.
    Further, the bill would pull back bureaucratic red tape and 
empower local water experts by giving State Conservationists 
more discretion to oversee watershed plans, simplifying 
planning requirements for natural infrastructure projects 
components, and encouraging interagency coordination. In short, 
the Healthy Watersheds, Healthy Communities Act will make P.L. 
83-566 program more--will make it work for the West. As the 
Committee continues to work on reauthorizing the farm bill, I 
urge the inclusion of provisions from the Healthy Watersheds, 
Healthy Communities Act.
    Additionally, Mr. Chairman, I want to underscore how 
important programs in the Conservation Title of the farm bill 
are for my constituents. Programs like the Environmental 
Quality Incentives Program and Conservation Stewardship 
Program, and the Conservation Reserve Program all serve as a 
critical resource for agriculturists looking to be good 
stewards of the most precious natural resource, water. In the 
past few months, I have visited agricultural stakeholders from 
all walks of life in southeastern Arizona. From these visits, I 
have become keenly aware of what is at stake, the next 
generation of agricultural producers.
    At a farmers' listening session I held a few months ago, I 
heard from Sarah Ogilvie, a pistachio entrepreneur and rancher 
in Benson, Arizona. Sarah is passionate about agriculture and 
traces her passion back to her childhood and her family's small 
ranch. Like many Arizona farmers, she was taught the value of 
water from a very young age. While Sarah looks fondly on her 
agricultural roots and believes the agriculture industry is, in 
her words, not just a job but a way of life, she was moved to 
tears when discussing the future challenges she and her family 
will have to face as the drought persists. Sarah and her 
husband Andrew are still farming and ranching despite these 
challenges so they can teach their children the importance of 
caring for the land and animals. Still, she admits it is 
difficult to remain hopeful about the future of agriculture in 
Arizona.
    To keep our food supply chain stable, America needs to 
retain young agriculturalists like Sarah and Andrew. Only nine 
percent of farmers are under the age of 35, with the average 
age being 58. As we discuss industry resiliency, we must 
remember the human element that is behind it all.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Committee Members, for hearing 
my testimony, and I look forward to working with you all to 
ensure this farm bill works for the West. Thank you, sir.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Ciscomani follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Juan Ciscomani, a Representative in Congress 
                              from Arizona
    Thank you, Chairman Thompson and House Agriculture Committee 
Members, for allowing me to testify before you today.
    I come before the Committee today to testify in support of my 
bipartisan bill, H.R. 6497, the Healthy Watersheds, Healthy Communities 
Act of 2023, and, more broadly, to advocate for more drought mitigation 
assistance in the upcoming farm bill.
    I represent several rural areas with a large agriculture presence 
in southern Arizona, including Cochise County, Graham County, Greenlee 
County, and Pinal County. Arizona farmers provide Americans with 
lettuce, nuts, cotton, and other essential goods year-round, thanks to 
our unique climate. Our farmers and ranchers have repeatedly proven 
themselves to be resilient despite the uncertainties they face due to 
the unpredictable nature of the water resources and wildfires in the 
region. They lead the way in conservation efforts and consistently 
supply our communities with the food we need, but their resiliency 
depends on our watersheds' resiliency.
    As we continue to face a historic drought in the West, more 
communities are turning to the Natural Resources Conservation Service's 
Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations program, also known as the 
P.L. 83-566 program, to find solutions to the various issues 
accompanying extreme drought.
    While the P.L. 83-566 program has had great success in assisting 
agricultural communities in addressing natural disasters, only about 21 
percent of the program's funds have gone to Western states.
    The Healthy Watersheds, Healthy Communities Act of 2023, which I 
introduced with some of my fellow western colleagues Representatives 
Hageman, Flood, Pettersen, Neguse, and Caraveo, aims to provide parity 
for Western states by making some commonsense modifications to the P.L. 
83-566 program.
    Specifically, our bill would encourage western participation in 
this program by making drought resilience an explicit purpose of the 
program; consolidating the planning of one or more sub-watersheds; and 
including Irrigation Districts as Local Organizations, making them 
clearly eligible for assistance under the law.
    Further, the bill would pull back bureaucratic red tape and empower 
local water experts by giving state conservationists more discretion to 
oversee watershed plans; simplifying planning requirements for natural 
infrastructure project components; and encouraging interagency 
coordination. In short, The Healthy Watersheds, Healthy Communities Act 
will make the P.L. 83-566 program work for the West.
    As the Committee continues to work on reauthorizing the farm bill, 
I urge the inclusion of provisions from the Healthy Watersheds, Healthy 
Communities Act.
    Additionally, Mr. Chairman, I want to underscore how important 
programs in the Conservation Title of the farm bill are for my 
constituents. Programs like the Environmental Quality Incentives 
Program, the Conservation Stewardship Program, and the Conservation 
Reserve Program all serve as a critical resource for agriculturalists 
looking to be good stewards of their most precious natural resource: 
water.
    In the past few months, I have visited agriculture stakeholders 
from all walks of life in southeastern Arizona. From these visits, I 
have become keenly aware of what is at stake here: the next generation 
of agriculture producers. At a farmers listening session I held a few 
months ago, I heard from Sarah Ogilvie, a pistachio entrepreneur and 
rancher in Benson, Arizona.
    Sarah is passionate about agriculture and traces her passion back 
to her childhood, bouncing across her small family ranch, checking 
waters, and dropping salts with her father. Like many Arizona farmers, 
she was taught the value of water from a very young age.
    While Sarah looks fondly on her agricultural roots and believes the 
agriculture industry is, in her words, ``not just a job, but a way of 
life,'' she was moved to tears when discussing the future challenges 
she and her family will have to face as the drought persists.
    Sarah and her husband Andrew are still farming and ranching, 
despite these challenges, so they can teach their children the 
importance of caring for the land and animals. Still, she admits it is 
difficult to remain hopeful about the future of agriculture in Arizona.
    When we discuss agriculture resilience, we must also discuss the 
human component--the mental health and well-being of America's farmers. 
It is no surprise that our farmers, ranchers and producers have face a 
unique set of challenges, whether it's the growing cost of goods, 
supply chain issues, or a number of other unprecedented issues brought 
on by the COVID-19 pandemic. Because of this, younger generations are 
less and less interested in taking on family farms. To keep our food 
supply chain stable, America needs to retain young agriculturalists 
like Sarah and Andrew. Only 9 percent of farmers \1\ * are under 35 
years old with the average age being 58. As we discuss industry 
resiliency, we must remember the human element that behind it all--the 
farmers, ranchers and producers who feed and fuel the world.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/09/18/many-gen-z-
farmers-will-never-touch-dirt/b5a635f4-5647-11ee-bf64-
cd88fe7adc71_story.html.
    * Editor's note: the article referred to is retained in Committee 
file.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Committee Members, for hearing my 
testimony, and I look forward to working with you all to ensure this 
farm bill works for the West.
                         Submitted Legislation
  1.  H.R. 6497, Healthy Watersheds, Healthy Communities Act of 2023: 
            https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-118hr6497ih/pdf/
            BILLS-118hr6497ih.pdf (See p. 963).

    The Chairman. Well, Congressman, thank you so much for the 
time that you spend with your constituents that really provide 
us with food, and your passion for water, which is lifegiving, 
right, and really important issues. I appreciate your 
leadership in that area, so thank you very much.
    Mr. Ciscomani. Thank you, sir.
    The Chairman. I am now pleased to recognize the gentlelady 
from Iowa, Iowa's 2nd Congressional District, Congresswoman 
Hinson for 5 minutes.

 STATEMENT OF HON. ASHLEY HINSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                           FROM IOWA

    Mrs. Hinson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We grow and raise a 
few things in Iowa, and so I am very pleased to be before the 
Committee. And thank you to the Members for listening to our 
testimony to highlight some of the most important issues facing 
America's farmers, ranchers, and rural communities.
    So as we prepare to reauthorize the farm bill, I encourage 
the Committee to improve the USDA's existing slate of 
conservation programs to really address the current needs of 
American agriculture. Conservation practices can improve 
resiliency against stressors like drought, while still 
preserving soil and water quality.
    I have recently introduced several bipartisan pieces of 
legislation to improve USDA's conservation programs. One I 
would like to highlight right away here is my Flood Resiliency 
and Land Stewardship Act. This would elevate flooding and 
drought as natural resource concerns under the Regional 
Conservation Partnership Program. This bill will ensure that 
flooding and drought remain a long-term focus of the program to 
improve American farmers' ability to withstand environmental 
threats.
    And I would also encourage the Committee to consider 
efforts to address regional conservation issues like those that 
affect the Driftless region of the Upper Mississippi River. The 
Driftless region's unique topography and position on the Upper 
Mississippi leaves it exposed to erosion and water quality 
issues. Building on the USDA's previous efforts through the 
Driftless Area Landscape Conservation Initiative, DALCI, will 
ensure that my constituents in that region have access to 
voluntary tools to preserve their natural resources. Empowering 
our farmers and landowners who know and love the Driftless Area 
with conservation tools rather than one-size-fits-all mandates 
from the government is the best strategy.
    Technology is another really important tool for farmers to 
manage pests and make more efficient use of inputs. 
Unfortunately, many precision agriculture tools can be cost-
prohibitive, especially for small farmers. So my bipartisan 
PRECISE Act modifies existing USDA programs like EQIP, CSP, and 
the Conservation Loan Program to help our small farmers access 
these technologies.
    I would also encourage the Committee to advance a farm bill 
that preserves market access for American producers. The 
Supreme Court's recent decision to uphold California's animal 
housing mandate, known as Proposition 12, has the potential to 
disrupt the free movement of goods across state lines, and it 
poses a serious threat to small family farms across the 
country. A 2023 study from Dr. Barry Goodwin of North Carolina 
State University found that this legislation, Prop 12, would 
cost farmers between $3,600 and $4,000 per sow for new 
construction in order to comply with California's arbitrary 
standards. And this just isn't a number. These mandates are 
already having a real-world impact on my constituents.
    Since the Supreme Court's decision, I have traveled 
throughout my state hearing from farmers who are concerned 
about mandates like Prop 12 and Massachusetts' Question 3, 
which goes even further. Melissa, a farmer from my district, 
says Prop 12 and legislation like it creates uncertainty in her 
decision-making on her family farm. She shared that regulations 
like this will drive consolidation and provide her and her 
family with fewer options to source and market their pigs, 
while driving up the price of food for families. Trish, a 
farmer from Buchanan County in my district, shared the 
transition to Prop 12 housing would cost her family farm 
between $3 million and $4 million.
    Following the Supreme Court's decision, I introduced the 
EATS Act to push back on mandatory arbitrary mandates like 
California's Prop 12. The EATS Act preserves California's right 
to regulate its agricultural practices within its own borders, 
while also protecting Iowa's farmers' access to interstate 
commerce.
    So I think that any radical activist pushing an agenda like 
this that have never stepped foot on their family farms should 
come visit a farm in Iowa. I have extended an open invitation 
to them. We would love to show you how our farmers care and 
manage their farms and the environment and the process. So I 
look forward to continuing to work with the Committee to build 
consensus around a durable and bipartisan solution to protect 
our family farmers from damaging and arbitrary mandates like 
Prop 12.
    In closing, I would like to thank the Chairman and Members 
of the Committee for providing the opportunity to testify 
today. I think it is really important we bring a farm bill 
forward that improves and expands on the USDA's voluntary 
conservation programs, protects interstate commerce, 
strengthens our risk management tools, and again expands access 
to new foreign markets. Congress can support American farmers 
in their work to feed and fuel the world.
    So thank you for letting me testify today, Mr. Chairman, 
and I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Mrs. Hinson follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Ashley Hinson, a Representative in Congress 
                               from Iowa
    Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Scott, and Members of the 
Committee, thank you for hosting today's hearing to highlight some of 
the most important issues facing American farmers, ranchers, and rural 
communities.
Expanding USDA Conservation Programs
    As we prepare to reauthorize the farm bill, I encourage the 
Committee to improve USDA's existing slate of conservation programs to 
address current needs of American agriculture. Conservation practices 
can improve resiliency against stressors like drought while preserving 
soil and water quality. I've recently introduced several bipartisan 
pieces of legislation to improve existing USDA conservation programs.
    My Flood Resiliency and Land Stewardship Act would elevate flooding 
and drought as natural resource concerns under the Regional 
Conservation Partnership Program. This bill will ensure that flooding 
and drought remain a long-term focus of the program to improve American 
farmers' ability to withstand environmental threats.
    I also encourage the Committee to consider efforts to address 
regional conservation issues like those that affect the Driftless 
Region on the Upper Mississippi River. The Driftless Region's unique 
topography and position on the Upper Mississippi leaves it exposed to 
erosion and water quality issues. Building on USDA's previous efforts 
through Driftless Landscape Conservation Initiative will ensure that my 
constituents in the Driftless Region have access to voluntary tools to 
preserve their natural resources.
    Technology is another important tool for farmers to manage pests 
and make more efficient use of inputs. Unfortunately, many precision 
agriculture tools can be cost-prohibitive, especially for small 
farmers. My bipartisan PRECISE Act modifies existing USDA programs like 
EQIP, CSP, and the Conservation Loan Program to help small farmers 
access these technologies.
Preserving Access to Interstate Commerce
    I also encourage the Committee to advance a farm bill that 
preserves market access for American producers. The Supreme Court's 
recent decision to uphold California's animal housing mandate, known 
Proposition 12, has the potential to disrupt the free movement of goods 
across state lines and poses a serious threat to family farms across 
the country. A 2019 study from the University of Minnesota found that 
it would cost farmers nearly $3,500 per sow to renovate operations to 
comply with California's arbitrary standards.
    This isn't just a number; these mandates are already having a real-
world impact.
    Since the Supreme Court's decision, I've traveled throughout Iowa 
hearing from farmers who are concerned about the impacts of mandates 
like Prop 12 and Massachusetts' Question 3. Melissa, a farmer from my 
district, says that Prop 12, and legislation like it, creates 
uncertainty in her decision making on her family farm. She shared that 
regulations like Prop 12 will drive consolidation and provide her and 
her family with fewer options to source and market their pigs, while 
driving up the price of food for her family. Trish, a farmer from 
Buchanan County, shared that the transition to Prop 12 housing would 
cost her family farm between $3 million and $4 million.
    Following the Supreme Court's decision, I introduced the Ending 
Agricultural Trade Suppression Act to preserve interstate commerce and 
protect Iowa livestock producers from arbitrary mandates like 
California's Proposition 12. The EATS Act preserves California's right 
to regulate agricultural practices within its own borders while also 
protecting Iowa farmers' access to interstate commerce.
    To the activists who think we need more government on our farms, I 
invite you to join me on a farm in Iowa to see the work that farmers 
are doing to care for their animals and the environment.
    I look forward to continuing to work with the Committee to build 
consensus around a durable and bipartisan solution to protect Iowa 
family farmers from damaging and arbitrary mandates like Prop 12.
Closing
    I'd like to thank the Chairman and Members of the Committee for 
providing the opportunity to testify today. By bringing forward a farm 
bill that improves and expands USDA's voluntary conservation programs, 
protects interstate commerce, strengthens risk management tools, and 
expands access to new foreign markets, Congress can support American 
farmers in their work to feed and fuel the world.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
                         Submitted Legislation
  1.  H.R. 1459, Producing Responsible Energy and Conservation 
            Incentives and Solutions for the Environment Act (PRECISE 
            Act): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-
            118hr1459ih/pdf/BILLS-118hr1459ih.pdf (See p. 327).

  2.  H.R. 3972, Flood Resiliency and Land Stewardship Act: https://
            www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-118hr3972ih/pdf/BILLS-
            118hr3972ih.pdf (See p. 733).

  3.  H.R. 4417, Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression Act: https://
            www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-118hr4417ih/pdf/BILLS-
            118hr4417ih.pdf (See p. 816).

    The Chairman. Well, I thank the gentlelady for testifying 
and really being a great voice for those folks in Iowa, a 
great, great agriculture state that provides us with--that do 
both production and processing. And as a grandfather with two 
grandsons that were born in Iowa, very familiar with Iowa 
agriculture. And thank you for being here today.
    Now, we are pleased--we are going to move from Iowa to 
Texas, Texas 16th Congressional District. Congresswoman 
Escobar, welcome. And I yield to you for 5 minutes here. Thank 
you for being with us.

    STATEMENT OF HON. VERONICA ESCOBAR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
                      CONGRESS FROM TEXAS

    Ms. Escobar. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I am so 
grateful to you and Ranking Member Scott for hosting this 
Member Day hearing. I have the honor of representing the great 
community of El Paso, Texas, and I appreciate the opportunity 
to advocate for the needs of my community.
    I would first like to say that this Committee must continue 
to ensure families across this country have access to 
affordable, healthy, and nutritious foods that safeguard the 
well-being of Americans and focus on environmental 
sustainability that improves soil health and water quality for 
millions of farmers and ranchers. Also, it must adequately fund 
rural development programs that foster economic growth for 
communities across the country.
    As the Committee continues to craft this legislation, I 
would like to highlight a few of my priorities. First, I would 
like to discuss my bill, H.R. 2740, establishing an Office of 
Colonia Affairs within the Department of Agriculture. As you 
know, colonias are majority Latino unincorporated communities 
along the U.S.-Mexico border that often lack access to 
infrastructure that many of us take for granted. This includes 
water, wastewater, rural electrification, and other essential 
services. El Paso County alone has approximately 329 colonias 
with an estimated population of 90,582 people.
    Traditionally, there has been insufficient Federal funding 
for colonias, and localities often have faced colonia issues 
all on their own, which can be very costly. By establishing an 
Office of Colonia Affairs within the Department of Agriculture, 
colonias will have the resources they need for technical 
assistance pertaining to Federal programs and can be informed 
on what funding sources apply to their community.
    Second, I would also like to highlight my bill H.R. 2939, 
the PIGS Act, which expands the Animal Welfare Act by 
prohibiting specific methods of confining pregnant pigs that 
restrict their movement. My bill would increase the square 
footage requirement to at least 24 square feet, which allows 
pregnant pigs to lie down, stand up, and move about freely. 
Additionally, my bill establishes a program that provides $10 
million a year to help pig farmers improve housing systems and 
comply with the prohibitions. My bill is an important step 
forward in holding the swine industry accountable by limiting 
the horrific conditions pregnant pigs are kept in.
    Third, I would like to emphasize the need to expand access 
to nutritious and healthy foods for low-income and minority 
communities. Most recently, a new study conducted by the 
University of Texas at El Paso and El Pasoans Fighting Hunger 
concluded that 35 percent of El Pasoans and 61 percent of our 
university students are food-insecure. We must strengthen the 
local food systems by expanding urban farming, investing in 
food security, and continuing to invest in food assistance 
programs like SNAP and WIC. It has been proven that programs 
like SNAP improve current and long-term health, improve 
nutritional outcomes, and lower healthcare costs.
    Also, it is of the utmost importance that the next farm 
bill ensures that nearly $20 billion provided in the Inflation 
Reduction Act for USDA conservation programs is used for its 
intended purpose. This funding is a win-win for farmers and for 
the planet. In 2023, USDA received requests for more than three 
times what the IRA made available for that year for climate-
smart agriculture, meaning farmers want it. And the funding 
benefits all of us by helping to address the climate crisis.
    And finally, as I was sitting waiting to testify, I hear 
Member after Member talking about water. I want to remind the 
Committee that industrial large-scale factory farms are the 
biggest source of water pollution and water use in the USA, and 
we need to engage in some form of reform in that area.
    I will continue to work for and advocate for my community 
of El Paso and prioritize the needs of farmers, rural 
communities, and the well-being of animals, and I hope you 
consider these priorities as you continue to craft the 2023 
Farm Bill. Thank you again for this opportunity.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Escobar follows:]

   Prepared Statement of Hon. Veronica Escobar, a Representative in 
                          Congress from Texas
    Thank you, Chairman Thompson, and Ranking Member Scott, for hosting 
this Member Day hearing.
    I have the honor of representing El Paso, Texas, and I am grateful 
to have the opportunity to advocate for the needs of my community.
    I would like first to say this Committee must continue to ensure 
families across this country have access to affordable, healthy, and 
nutritious foods that safeguard the well-being of Americans, focus on 
environmental sustainability that improves soil health and water 
quality for millions of farmers and ranchers, and adequately fund rural 
development programs that foster economic growth for communities across 
the country.
    As the Committee continues to craft this legislation, I would like 
to highlight a few of my priorities.
    First, I would like to discuss my bill, H.R. 2740, establishing an 
Office of Colonia Affairs within the Department of Agriculture. As you 
know, colonias are majority Latino, unincorporated communities along 
the U.S. Mexico border that often lack access to infrastructure that 
many of us take for granted. This includes water, wastewater, rural 
electrification, and other essential services. El Paso County has 
approximately 329 colonias with an estimated population of 90,582. 
Traditionally, there has been insufficient Federal funding for 
colonias, and localities often have faced colonia issues on their own, 
which can be costly. By establishing an Office of Colonia Affairs 
within the Department of Agriculture, colonias will have the resources 
they need for technical assistance pertaining to Federal programs and 
can be informed on what funding sources apply to their community.
    Second, I would also like to highlight my bill, H.R. 2939, The PIGS 
Act, which expands the Animal Welfare Act by prohibiting specific 
methods of confining breeding pigs that restrict their movement. My 
bill would increase the square footage requirement to at least 24 
square feet, which allows pregnant pigs to lie down, stand up, and move 
about freely. Additionally, my bill establishes a program that provides 
$10 million a year to help pig farmers improve housing systems and 
comply with the prohibitions. My bill is an important step forward in 
holding the swine industry accountable by limiting the horrific 
conditions pregnant pigs are kept in.
    Third, I would like to emphasize the need to expand access to 
nutritious and healthy foods for low-income and minority communities. 
Most recently, a new study conducted by the University of Texas at El 
Paso (UTEP) and El Pasoans Fighting Hunger concluded that 35% of El 
Pasoans and 61% of UTEP students are food-insecure. We must strengthen 
local food systems by expanding urban farming, investing in food 
security, and continuing to invest in food assistance programs like 
SNAP and WIC. It has been proven that programs like SNAP improve 
current and long-term health, improve nutritional outcomes, and lower 
healthcare costs.
    Last, it is of the utmost importance that the next farm bill 
ensures the nearly $20 billion provided in the Inflation Reduction Act 
(IRA) for USDA conservation programs is used for its intended purpose. 
This funding is a win-win for farmers and for the planet. In 2023, USDA 
received requests for more than three times what the IRA made available 
for that year for climate smart agriculture--meaning farmers want it--
and the funding benefits us all by helping to address the climate 
crisis.
    I will continue to work for and advocate for my community of El 
Paso and prioritize the needs of farmers, rural communities, and the 
well-being of animals, and I hope you consider these priorities as you 
continue to craft the 2023 Farm Bill.
    Thank you for this opportunity and consideration of my requests.
                         Submitted Legislation
  1.  H.R. 2740, To establish an Office of Colonia Affairs within the 
            Department of Agriculture, and for other purposes.: https:/
            /www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-118hr2740ih/pdf/BILLS-
            118hr2740ih.pdf (See p. 565).

  2.  H.R. 2939, Pigs In Gestation Stalls Act of 2023 (PIGS Act of 
            2023): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-
            118hr2939ih/pdf/BILLS-118hr2939ih.pdf (See p. 571).

    The Chairman. I thank the gentlelady.
    I am now pleased to recognize the gentleman from Texas 25, 
Congressman Williams, for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF HON. ROGER WILLIAMS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                           FROM TEXAS

    Mr. Williams. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking 
Member, for the opportunity to speak today, and thank you to 
all the Members of the Committee on Agriculture for the work 
you do to support our farmers and our ranchers.
    As a Representative for Texas' 25th District, I am honored 
to represent many farms and ranches, many of whom reach out to 
me regularly about the issues important to them. Today, I join 
you to discuss what we can agree on is an important problem 
facing not just the agricultural industry, but the entire 
country.
    Members of this Committee and many Americans are likely 
familiar with plant-based imitation meats such as chicken and 
ground beef, all of which appear impressively similar to 
traditional meat products but are made with ingredients like 
soy and wheat. While plant-based products have grown in 
popularity over the last decade, there has been a concerning 
lack of oversight on the labeling of such products, causing 
confusion among consumers.
    To add to this confusion, earlier this year, the FDA and 
the USDA approved the sale of cell-cultivated chicken, better 
known as lab-grown poultry. While this process is still new and 
is time-intensive and expensive, Congress should learn from its 
lack of oversight on plant-based imitation meat products and 
consider forward-thinking protections for consumers from those 
who wish to manipulate them through misleading labeling.
    As Chairman of the House Committee on Small Business and 
the owner and operator of a car dealership and a calf-cow 
operation in Texas for over 52 years, I understand the need to 
ensure that consumers are given all the information needed to 
make informed decisions while not interfering with the free 
market. We are a country of competition, of risk and reward, 
and the Federal Government should not be in the business of 
picking winners and picking losers. We must let competition 
drive innovation, allow individuals and businesses to choose 
the product that best suits their needs.
    There are extensive guidelines and regulations surrounding 
the labeling and marketing of traditional meat-based products 
by the FDA and the USDA. Through the requirement of accurate 
and honest labeling of imitation lab-grown products, we create 
a level playing field and support a free market in the 
agricultural industry.
    I am working diligently alongside your Committee Member 
Congressman Alford, who also serves on the House Committee on 
Small Business, to ensure that as the imitation and lab-grown 
product industry grows, the American people and our ranching 
and farming communities are not taken advantage of.
    So, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member and Members of the 
esteemed Committee on Agriculture, thank you again for allowing 
me to join you today, and I look forward to working with each 
of you to support our farmers and our ranchers and tackling 
this important issue. In God we trust. I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Williams follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Roger Williams, a Representative in Congress 
                               from Texas
    Thank you, Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member Scott, for the 
opportunity to speak today, and thank you to all the Members of the 
Committee on Agriculture for the work you do to support our farmers and 
ranchers.
    As the Representative for Texas' 25th District I am honored to 
represent many farms and ranches, many of whom reach out to me 
regularly about issues important to them. Today, I join you to discuss 
what we can all agree is an important issue facing not just the 
agriculture industry but the entire country.
    Members of this Committee and many Americans are likely familiar 
with plant-based imitation meats such as chicken, and ground beef, all 
of which appear impressively similar to traditional meat products but 
are made with ingredients like soy and wheat. While plant-based 
products have grown in popularity over the last decade, there has been 
a concerning lack of oversight on the labeling of such products, 
causing confusion among consumers.
    To add to this confusion, earlier this year the FDA and USDA 
approved the sale of cell-cultivated chicken, better known as ``lab 
grown poultry''. While this process still new and is time intensive and 
expensive, Congress should learn from its lack of oversight on plant-
based imitation meat products and consider forward thinking protection 
for consumers from those who wish to manipulate them through misleading 
labeling.
    As Chairman of the House Committee on Small Business and owner and 
operator of a car dealership in Texas for over 52 years, I understand 
the need to ensure that consumers are given all the information needed 
to make informed decisions while not interfering with the free market.
    We are a country of competition--of risk and reward--and the 
Federal Government should not be in the business of picking winners and 
losers. We must let competition drive innovation and allow individuals 
and businesses to choose the product that best suits their needs.
    There are extensive guidelines and regulations surrounding the 
labeling and marketing of traditional meat-based products by the FDA 
and USDA. Through the requirement of accurate and honest labeling of 
imitation and lab-grown products we create a level playing field and 
support a free market in the agricultural industry.
    I am working diligently alongside your Committee Member, 
Congressman Alford, who also serves on the House Committee on Small 
Business, to ensure that as the imitation and lab grown product 
industry grows, the American people and our ranching and farming 
communities are not taken advantage of.
    Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Scott, and Members of the 
esteemed Committee on Agriculture, thank you again for allowing me to 
join you today. I look forward to working with each of you to support 
our farmers and ranchers and tackling this important issue.
    In God we trust.

    The Chairman. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you for your 
leadership of the Small Business Committee. The majority of our 
farms across this--well, not just our farms or those who 
produce our food and fiber, building materials, energy 
resources, but those are processor small businesses. And I know 
the great work that you are doing really to be able to serve 
all small businesses, including those who provide within the 
agriculture space. So thank you for your leadership, and thanks 
for being a great voice for your constituents.
    Mr. Williams. Thank you.
    The Chairman. My pleasure.
    I am now pleased to recognize the gentlelady from 
Virginia's 4th Congressional District, Congresswoman McClellan, 
for 5 minutes.

 STATEMENT OF HON. JENNIFER L. McCLELLAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
                     CONGRESS FROM VIRGINIA

    Ms. McClellan. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I 
thank you and Ranking Member Scott for holding this hearing 
this morning. I am here today to discuss my bipartisan bill 
with Representative Lawler, H.R. 6232, the Coordination for 
Soil Carbon Research and Monitoring Act.
    Soil carbon sequestration refers to land management 
practices that promote the absorption of carbon into the soil. 
These practices offer clear agricultural and environmental 
benefits, making operations more resilient to drought, heavy 
rainfall, and other severe weather conditions that are 
exacerbated by climate change. Experts estimate that soil could 
store almost 5 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide worldwide 
each year, which equates to preventing about 13 percent of 
global annual greenhouse gas emissions from entering the 
atmosphere.
    In Virginia, some farmers are already utilizing climate-
smart land management practices, increasing their crop land 
productivity while protecting long-term conservation. However, 
increased Federal coordination will allow more farmers and 
ranchers to quickly adopt these practices in their operations.
    Currently, soil carbon research and monitoring efforts 
across the Federal Government are fragmented and siloed. This 
leads to a lack of interagency communication that prevents us 
from fully understanding the gaps in research and monitoring 
technologies for soil carbon. Moving forward, a coordinated 
strategy to scale soil carbon sequestration should be developed 
to streamline these efforts.
    Our bill establishes an Interagency Committee on Soil 
Carbon Research led by the White House Office of Science and 
Technology Policy. It directs the interagency committee to 
develop a cross-agency strategic plan for Federal research, 
development, and deployment for soil carbon research, sampling, 
and measuring technologies. It also establishes working groups 
to coordinate soil carbon research priorities, including 
monitoring, reporting, and verification; data collection and 
management; fundamental research; and robust engagement with 
agricultural producers and communities.
    Finally, our bill requires regular reporting to Congress on 
soil carbon research and monitoring activities. I ask for your 
consideration of this commonsense bipartisan bill and look 
forward to working together to advance carbon sequestration 
efforts. Additionally, I want to urge the Committee to ensure 
that the next farm bill uses the almost $20 billion from the 
Inflation Reduction Act for its intended purposes in USDA 
conservation programs. Soil carbon sequestration and other 
climate-smart agricultural practices are a clear win-win for 
our farming communities and our planet.
    I thank you for your time and consideration, and I yield 
back.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. McClellan follows:]

 Prepared Statement of Hon. Jennifer L. McClellan, a Representative in 
                         Congress from Virginia
    Good morning, Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member Scott. I stand 
before you to discuss my bipartisan bill with Representative Lawler, 
H.R. 6232, the Coordination for Soil Carbon Research and Monitoring 
Act. Soil carbon sequestration refers to land management practices that 
promote the absorption of carbon into soil. These practices offer clear 
agricultural and environmental benefits, making operations more 
resilient to drought, heavy rainfall, and other extreme weather 
conditions that are exacerbated by climate change. Experts estimate 
that soil could store almost 5 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide 
worldwide each year, which equates to preventing about 13 percent of 
global annual greenhouse gas emissions from entering the atmosphere.
    In Virginia, some farmers are already utilizing climate-smart land 
management practices, increasing their cropland productivity while 
protecting long-term conservation. However, increased Federal 
coordination will allow more farmers and ranchers to quickly adopt 
these practices in their operations. Currently, soil carbon research 
and monitoring efforts across the Federal Government are fragmented and 
siloed. This leads to a lack of interagency communication that prevents 
us from fully understanding the gaps in research and monitoring 
technologies for soil carbon. Moving forward, a coordinated strategy to 
scale soil carbon sequestration should be developed to streamline 
efforts.
    My bill establishes an Interagency Committee on Soil Carbon 
Research led by the White House Office of Science and Technology 
Policy. It directs the interagency committee to develop a cross-agency 
strategic plan for Federal research, development, and deployment for 
soil carbon research, sampling, and measurement methodologies. It also 
establishes working groups to coordinate soil carbon research 
priorities including monitoring, reporting, and verification, data 
collection and management, fundamental research, and robust engagement 
with agricultural producers and communities. Finally, my bill requires 
regular reporting to Congress on soil carbon research and monitoring 
activities. I ask for your consideration of this commonsense, 
bipartisan bill and look forward to working together to advance soil 
carbon sequestration efforts.
    Additionally, I want to urge the Committee to ensure that the next 
farm bill uses the almost $20 billion from the Inflation Reduction Act 
for its intended purpose in USDA conservation programs. Soil carbon 
sequestration and other climate-smart agricultural practices are a 
clear win-win for our farming communities and the planet. Thank you for 
your time and consideration. I yield back.
                         Submitted Legislation
  1.  H.R. 6232, Coordination for Soil Carbon Research and Monitoring 
            Act: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-118hr6232ih/
            pdf/BILLS-118hr6232ih.pdf (See p. 950).

    The Chairman. Well, I appreciate the gentlelady. Actually, 
just for the record, that $20 billion from the Inflation 
Reduction Act has already been reduced to $16 billion by the 
Congressional Budget Office based on sequestration and, quite 
frankly, the inability of the USDA to get that money out the 
door by the specified time frame that is there. That is why we 
are talking about that. We want to see what we can preserve for 
investments and conservation more beyond 2031 well into the 
future, 2050 if we do it the right way.
    I really appreciate your interest and your leadership on 
soil sequestration, healthy soils. I was pleased as a 
Subcommittee Chair--well, actually, a number of years ago to 
chair the very first Healthy Soils Subcommittee hearing that we 
have here. And it is an incredibly important topic that I 
appreciate you talking about it. We all need to talk about how 
the fact that the American farmer, rancher, forester are the 
carbon heroes. They sequester 6.1 gigatons of carbon annually, 
which is 10.1 percent more than what they emit. So providing 
those tools to be able to promote really what is American 
agriculture and what it has been. And it is not really new. 
What is new is we are actually talking about it now and giving 
them credit for what they do. So thank you for your leadership 
in that area, much appreciated.
    Ms. McClellan. Thank you.
    The Chairman. All right. I am pleased to recognize the 
gentleman from Washington's 6th Congressional District, 
Congressman Kilmer. Welcome to the Agriculture Committee, and 
look forward to your testimony.

 STATEMENT OF HON. DEREK KILMER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                        FROM WASHINGTON

    Mr. Kilmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am here to talk 
about two bills, but before I do, I just want to echo those 
wishing you a full and speedy recovery. We are all praying for 
you, my friend.
    Forty-nine years ago, I was born in a rural hospital in 
Port Angeles, Washington, and over the years, my family and I 
received high-quality, accessible care from providers at that 
hospital, providers who are from the community and who 
genuinely care about the place that they call home. But, as you 
know, the future of healthcare in rural communities faces some 
extraordinary challenges, including rural hospital closures, 
workforce shortages, and increasing costs of care. Rural 
populations often bear the brunt of healthcare disparities. 
They usually skew older, have less income, and often have 
complex health issues.
    Under these combined pressures, more than 400 rural 
hospitals today are at risk of permanent closure. The rural 
urban healthcare divide is a crisis that demands urgent 
attention from Congress, and that is why I was proud to 
introduce the Rural Hospital Technical Assistance Program Act, 
H.R. 4713, with my colleague from Texas, Representative Ronny 
Jackson. This bipartisan legislation would codify an existing 
USDA program that provides targeted, specialized technical 
assistance to rural hospitals to help them strengthen essential 
healthcare, improve financial and operational performance, and 
ultimately keep the lights on and the doors open. The Rural 
Hospital Technical Assistance Program is critical in bridging 
the gap of healthcare disparities that we see every day, and I 
respectfully ask that this Committee consider taking up that 
important legislation.
    I also ask the Committee to consider the REACH Our Tribes 
Act, H.R. 5113, which is bipartisan and bicameral legislation 
to improve USDA programs for Tribes. I have the great honor of 
representing 12 Tribes who call my district home. The majority 
are in rural areas and benefit from USDA programs to build 
community facilities, to get internet access, to spur economic 
development. But too often, Tribal communities haven't been 
able to take advantage of USDA resources due to a variety of 
factors, including the fact that these programs weren't 
designed with Tribes in mind. They have burdensome application 
requirements and often just don't seem to reach Indian Country.
    That is why I introduced the REACH Our Tribes Act with my 
colleague, Representative Nick Langworthy. Senators Mike Rounds 
and Maria Cantwell recently introduced companion legislation in 
the Senate. The REACH Our Tribes Act aims to enhance the 
efficacy of the USDA's economic and rural development programs 
for Tribal entities by implementing some commonsense, no-cost 
recommendations made by the Government Accountability Office.
    First, the bill would require USDA to establish a formal 
consultation process for annual budget requests in the farm 
bill. This move would promote collaboration and equity in 
decisions regarding budget allocations and reauthorizations. 
The bill would also require USDA to report on obligations made 
to Tribal entities, addressing the current data gap, and 
enhancing our understanding of program impacts, potential 
service gaps, and Tribal utilization.
    The REACH Our Tribes Act also fosters interagency 
collaboration for economic development programs seeking to 
streamline planning, application requirements, and stakeholder 
engagement across the USDA, HUD, and the Economic Development 
Administration.
    And finally, our bill calls for the establishment of a 
repository of Federal economic development programs available 
to Tribal entities managed by the Department of Commerce's 
Office of Native American Business Development. This repository 
would offer a centralized and up-to-date source of information 
facilitating Tribal entities' access to relevant programs.
    The Reach Our Tribes Act not only acknowledges the 
sovereign rights of Tribal nations, but also equips us with the 
knowledge required to enhance service delivery and utilization 
for Tribes. It is endorsed by the National Congress of American 
Indians and the Native Farm Bill Coalition.
    Mr. Chairman, thank you for your time. I look forward to 
working with you and your Committee on these two key 
priorities: the Rural Hospital Technical Assistance Program Act 
and the REACH Our Tribes Act. And I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Kilmer follows:]

 Prepared Statement of Hon. Derek Kilmer, a Representative in Congress 
                            from Washington
    Chair Thompson and Ranking Member Scott, thank you for holding this 
hearing.
    Forty-nine years ago, I was born in a rural hospital in Port 
Angeles, Washington. Over the years, my family and I received high-
quality, accessible care from providers at this hospital--providers who 
are from the community and genuinely care about the place they call 
home.
    But the future of health care in rural communities faces 
extraordinary challenges, including rural hospital closures, workforce 
shortages, and increasing costs of care.
    Rural populations often bear the brunt of health care disparities. 
They usually skew older, have less income, and often have complex 
health issues.
    Under these combined pressures, more than 400 rural hospitals today 
are at risk of permanent closure.
    The rural-urban health care divide is a crisis that demands urgent 
attention from Congress.
    That's why I was proud to introduce the Rural Hospital Technical 
Assistance Program Act (H.R. 4713) with my colleague from Texas, 
Representative Ronny Jackson.
    This bipartisan legislation would codify an existing USDA program 
that provides targeted, specialized technical assistance to rural 
hospitals to help them strengthen essential healthcare services, 
improve financial and operational performance, and ultimately keep 
lights on and the doors open.
    The Rural Hospital Technical Assistance Program Act is critical in 
bridging the gap of health care disparities we see every day, and I 
respectfully ask the Committee to consider taking up this important 
legislation.
    I also ask the Committee to consider the REACH Our Tribes Act (H.R. 
5113), bipartisan and bicameral legislation to improve USDA programs 
for Tribes.
    I have the great honor of having 12 Tribes in my district. The 
majority are in rural areas and benefit from USDA programs to build 
community facilities, get internet access, and spur economic 
development.
    But, too often, Tribal communities haven't been able to take 
advantage of USDA resources due to a variety of factors, including the 
fact that these programs weren't designed with Tribes in mind, have 
burdensome application requirements, and just don't seem to reach 
Indian Country.
    That's why I introduced the REACH Our Tribes Act (H.R. 5113) with 
my colleague, Rep. Nick Langworthy. Senators Mike Rounds and Maria 
Cantwell recently introduced companion legislation in the Senate.
    The REACH Our Tribes Act aims to enhance the efficacy of the USDA's 
economic and rural development programs for Tribal entities by 
implementing commonsense, no-cost recommendations made by the 
Government Accountability Office.
    First, the bill would require USDA to establish a formal 
consultation process for annual budget requests and the farm bill. This 
move would promote collaboration and equity in decisions regarding 
budget allocations and reauthorizations.
    The bill would also require USDA to report on obligations made to 
Tribal entities, addressing the current data gap, and enhancing our 
understanding of program impact, potential service gaps, and Tribal 
utilization.
    The REACH Our Tribes Act also fosters inter-agency collaboration 
for economic development programs, seeking to streamline planning, 
application requirements, and stakeholder engagement across the USDA, 
HUD, and the Economic Development Administration.
    Finally, our bill calls for the establishment of a repository of 
Federal economic development programs available to Tribal entities, 
managed by the Department of Commerce's Office of Native American 
Business Development. This repository will offer a centralized and up-
to-date source of information, facilitating Tribal entities' access to 
relevant programs.
    The REACH Our Tribes Act not only acknowledges the sovereign rights 
of Tribal nations but also equips us with the knowledge required to 
enhance service delivery and utilization for Tribes and is endorsed by 
the National Congress of American Indians and the Native Farm Bill 
Coalition.
    Thank you for your time, and I look forward to working with you on 
these two key priorities: the Rural Hospital Technical Assistance 
Program Act and the REACH Our Tribes Act.
    I yield back.
                         Submitted Legislation
  1.  H.R. 4713, Rural Hospital Technical Assistance Program Act: 
            https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-118hr4713ih/pdf/
            BILLS-118hr4713ih.pdf (See p. 831).

  2.  H.R. 5113, Rural Economic-development Assistance and Consultation 
            to Help Our Tribes Act (REACH Our Tribes Act): https://
            www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-118hr5113ih/pdf/BILLS-
            118hr5113ih.pdf (See p. 864).

    The Chairman. Well, Congressman Kilmer, I know how 
important and what a strong voice you are for rural 
communities. I much appreciate you being here and testifying to 
those priorities, bringing the priorities of your constituents 
before this Committee much appreciated.
    Mr. Kilmer. Thank you. Yes, it is my pleasure.
    The Chairman. Now, I am pleased to recognize the gentleman 
from Oregon's 3rd Congressional District, Congressman 
Blumenauer, for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF HON. EARL BLUMENAUER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                          FROM OREGON

    Mr. Blumenauer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for making time 
for us to share our priorities and observations of this 
critical legislation.
    One of my agriculture priorities is reforming the Federal 
Crop Insurance Program to reduce wasteful spending and make the 
program work better for more farmers. On Monday, the GAO 
published a landmark report detailing how the program is 
failing taxpayers and producers alike. While I support a fair 
and well-targeted farm safety net to guarantee the security of 
our food system, most people would agree that giving 
millionaires hundreds of thousands of dollars in heavily 
subsidized crop insurance is neither fair nor well-targeted.
    Yet, that is precisely what the GAO found. There are 1,341 
producers making more than $900,000 a year in gross income, who 
have \2/3\ of their insurance premium paid for by the Federal 
Government. Millionaires do not need taxpayers to help them 
afford crop insurance, particularly when there are so many 
people who need to be able to take advantage of this. The 
numbers show this program is disproportionately skewed not 
towards small family farmers, but for the largest 
agribusinesses. In fact, only one in five farmers can afford to 
participate in the program at all. Yet, the rising Federal 
price tag for crop insurance is not helping more producers 
access insurance. As proof of how consolidated the benefits of 
the programs are, GAO found that one percent of the 
policyholders received 22 percent of the premium subsidies. The 
top one percent of policyholders got $464,000. This is far from 
a risk management tool for small family farmers.
    In my state, 89 percent of the farmers receive no subsidies 
from the Federal Government. Small- and mid-sized farmers 
around the state, the ones who actually grow the food, get very 
little help. For many smaller farmers and ranchers and nursery 
owners, especially those who grow the specialty crops, there is 
no suitable insurance product on the market. I hear this from 
the wine industry and the nursery industry. These people are 
shut out, and that is not fair.
    States like Oregon, which enjoy a diversified agricultural 
base, are shortchanged by the current crop insurance program. 
You have a very diverse agricultural base in your state, Mr. 
Chairman, and few people have access to crop insurance. 
Commodity crops accounted for 94 percent of crop insurance 
policies, whereas the whole farm revenue policies that service 
smaller diversified farms, which we both represent, accounted 
for less than one percent of the policies sold.
    And that is only half the picture because not only do 
taxpayers receive generously subsidized crop insurance program, 
they guarantee sky-high profits for private companies, many of 
them offshore, which administer the program. Free market 
advocates should be scandalized that the Department of 
Agriculture guarantees insurance providers a 16.8 percent 
market rate of return. You are concerned about having resources 
for farmers and ranchers. Far exceeding the ten percent market-
based return is a misallocation of these resources.
    And while the Federal Government is projected to spend $100 
billion on crop insurance in the next decade, who is receiving 
these subsidies and how much they are receiving is a black box. 
We need more transparency, income limits, or payments caps. 
That is why I introduced the Assisting Family Farmers Through 
Insurance Reform to make commonsense reform to the crop 
insurance program so that it works better for more farmers, 
reduces wasteful Federal spending, and protects the taxpayers. 
I am proud of my work with Congressman Ralph Norman on the Crop 
Insurance Transparency Act to inject much-needed transparency 
into this crop insurance program. With a tight farm bill 
baseline, but multiple programs in need of more funding, the 
crop insurance program is a rare place to find easy savings, 
promote equity, and make overall health of our farm and 
ranching communities work better.
    I appreciate your time and courtesy in sharing this 
observation. I hope you will look here to be able to find 
resources that will help the other programs that are sorely in 
need of resources. And I appreciate your attention and your 
time.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Blumenauer follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Hon. Earl Blumenauer, a Representative in 
                          Congress from Oregon
    Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member Scott,

    Thank you for providing the opportunity to share my priorities for 
the upcoming farm bill.
    As the Committee is aware, one of my priorities is reforming the 
Federal Crop Insurance Program to reduce wasteful spending and make the 
program work better for more farmers.
    On Monday, GAO published a landmark report detailing how the 
program is failing taxpayers and producers alike. While I fully support 
a fair and well-targeted farm safety net to guarantee the security of 
our food system, I think most people would agree that giving 
millionaires hundreds of thousands of dollars to heavily subsidize the 
cost of crop insurance is neither fair nor well-targeted.
    Yet that is precisely what GAO found: there are 1,341 producers 
making more than $900,000 in annual gross income that have nearly \2/3\ 
of their insurance premium paid for by the Federal Government. 
Millionaires do not need taxpayers to help them afford crop insurance.
    Many people are worried that reforming the crop insurance program 
would hurt smaller family farms who rely on this safety net to manage 
risk inherent in agriculture. But the numbers show that this program is 
disproportionately skewed not toward small family farmers but toward 
the biggest agribusinesses. In fact, only one in five farmers can 
afford to participate in the program at all, yet the rising Federal 
price tag for crop insurance is not helping more producers access 
insurance.
    As proof of just how consolidated the benefits of the program are, 
GAO found that one percent of policyholders received 22 percent of 
premium subsidies. Even worse, the top one percent of policy holders 
got $464,900 each. This is far from the risk management tool for small 
family farmers that it should be. The picture is even worse in Oregon, 
known for its agricultural diversity. In my state, 89 percent of 
farmers receive no subsidies from the Federal Government. None. Small- 
and mid-sized farmers around our state--the ones who actually grow our 
food--get lip service.
    But even that is only half of the picture: not only do taxpayers 
generously subsidize crop insurance premiums, but they also guarantee 
sky-high profits for private insurance companies that administer the 
program. Free market advocates should be scandalized that the 
Department of Agriculture guaranteed insurance providers a 16.8 percent 
rate of return over the last decade--far exceeding the 10.2 percent 
market-based rate of return.
    And while the Federal Government is projected to spend $100 billion 
on crop insurance in the next decade, who is receiving these subsidies 
and how much they are receiving is a black box, since crop insurance is 
the only farm safety net program without basic transparency 
requirements, income limits, or payment caps.
    That is why I introduced the Assisting Family Farmers through 
Insurance Reform Measures Act to make commonsense reforms to the crop 
insurance program so that it works better for more farmers, reduces 
wasteful Federal spending, and protects taxpayers. I am also proud of 
my work with Congressman Ralph Norman on the Crop Insurance 
Transparency Act, to inject much-needed transparency into the crop 
insurance program.
    With a tight farm bill baseline but multiple programs in need of 
more funding, the crop insurance program is a rare place to find easy 
savings, and I hope the Committee will consider these proposals.
                            Submitted Report
Crop Insurance--Update on Opportunities to Reduce Program Costs
Report to Congressional Requesters

November 2023

GAO-24-106086
GAO Highlights
          Highlights of GAO-24-106086,* a report to Congressional 
        requesters
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    * https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-24-106086.
    View GAO-24-106086. For more information, contact Steve Morris at 
(202) 512-3841 or [email protected].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why GAO Did This Study
    The Federal Crop Insurance Program offers subsidized crop insurance 
to protect producers against financial losses from crop price declines 
and poor harvests due to natural causes.
    In 2022, the program supported about 1.2 million policies that 
covered 493 million acres and cost the Federal Government $17.3 
billion, according to USDA. The program's cost is projected to total 
more than $101 billion over the next decade, according to the 
Congressional Budget Office.
    USDA partners with private insurance companies to deliver the 
program. The Federal costs for the program include compensation to 
these companies and subsidies to pay for part of policyholders' crop 
insurance premiums.
    GAO was asked to review the Federal Crop Insurance Program and 
opportunities to reduce its cost. This report builds on GAO's prior 
work to provide information on (1) private delivery of the crop 
insurance program through insurance companies and (2) premium subsidies 
for crop insurance policyholders.
    GAO analyzed agency data and reviewed relevant legislation, 
regulations, agency documents, and academic studies. GAO also 
interviewed agency officials and organizations representing those 
affected by the crop insurance program, such as producers and insurance 
companies.
What GAO Recommends
    GAO has previously recommended and still believes that Congress 
should consider repealing the 2014 Farm Bill provision that any 
revision to the agreement with insurance companies not reduce their 
expected underwriting gains and consider reducing premium subsidies for 
the highest-income participants. USDA did not have any comments on the 
report.
What GAO Found
    Compensation to private insurers. The Federal Government pays 
private insurance companies to deliver the crop insurance program--that 
is, sell and service policies--to producers such as farmers. This 
compensation, set in reinsurance agreements between the U.S. Department 
of Agriculture (USDA) and the companies, includes subsidies for the 
companies' administrative and operating (A&O) expenses and their share 
of any financial gains associated with the policies (i.e., underwriting 
gains). The Federal Government and the companies may also share losses 
associated with the policies (underwriting losses).
    In 2022, of the program's total cost of $17.3 billion, the 
government paid insurance companies about $3.7 billion to deliver the 
program. This compensation included about $2.2 billion in A&O 
subsidies, which are calculated as a percentage of premiums. It also 
included about $1.5 billion for the companies' share of underwriting 
gains from the premiums they retained (i.e., did not cede to the 
government). The compensation the government pays participating 
companies is projected to average $3.8 billion yearly from 2024 through 
2033.
Cost of the Federal Crop Insurance Program, 2011-2022


          Source: GAO analysis of Risk Management Agency data. D GAO-
        24-106086.

    From 2011 through 2022, companies received an annual rate of return 
on retained premiums of 16.8 percent on average (about $1.4 billion in 
underwriting gains per year), which exceeded a market-based rate of 
return (10.2 percent), according to GAO's analysis. Adjusting the 
program's rate of return to more closely reflect market conditions 
could save the Federal Government hundreds of millions of dollars per 
year.
    GAO's analysis shows the government could achieve such savings 
while still providing financial incentives for companies to 
participate.
    A provision in the 2014 Farm Bill prevents the government from 
realizing any savings through changes to the reinsurance agreements. 
Specifically, the provision requires that any changes negotiated in new 
reinsurance agreements cannot reduce the total future underwriting 
gains for all insurance companies. Consequently, for the government to 
achieve any savings through revising the agreements, Congress would 
need to repeal this provision, as GAO recommended that Congress 
consider in July 2017.
    Premium subsidies for policyholders. In addition to paying 
companies to deliver the program, USDA subsidizes the premiums that 
policyholders pay. In 2022, subsidies averaged about 62 percent of 
policyholders' premiums and totaled $12 billion, comprising the largest 
portion of the program's total cost of $17.3 billion.
    Congress sets the subsidy rates, regardless of income level. In 
contrast, other USDA farm program benefits are not available to 
producers with incomes that exceed a statutory limit (3 year average 
adjusted gross income of $900,000 or more). GAO found that, of the 
460,615 policyholders who participated in the crop insurance program in 
2022, 1,341 (0.3 percent) were high-income. These high-income 
policyholders accounted for about 0.5 percent of total premiums in the 
program.

  Policyholders in the Federal Crop Insurance Program, by Income Level,
                                  2022
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              High-income
                        policyholders (adjusted    Other policyholders
                           gross income (AGI)         (AGI less than
                           $900,000 or more)            $900,000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Number of                    1,341                  457,650
    policyholders
   Percentage of                     0.3%                    99.7%
    policyholders
Percentage of premiums               0.5%                    99.5%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Department of Agriculture data. D GAO-24-
  106086.
Note: Policyholders' AGIs are averages calculated over a specified 3
  year period.

    GAO found that reducing premium subsidies for high-income 
policyholders could generate additional savings for the Federal 
Government. For example, if subsidies for such policyholders had been 
reduced by 15 percentage points (e.g., from 62 percent to 47 percent) 
in 2022, the government could have saved about $15 million.
    GAO's analysis shows the government could likely achieve such 
savings with minimal effects on producer participation in the program 
and the program's financial soundness. To realize these savings, 
Congress would need to reduce premium subsidy rates for high-income 
policyholders, as GAO recommended that Congress consider in March 2015.
Contents
Letter 1

    Compensation to Insurance Companies Participating in the Crop 
Insurance Program

          How Does Delivery of the Federal Crop Insurance Program Work?
          How Much Does the Government Pay the Insurance Companies?
          How Do the Reinsurance Agreements Share Risk between the 
        Federal Government and Insurance Companies?
          What Is the Distribution of A&O Subsidies That Insurance 
        Companies Receive, by Policy Size?
          How Do A&O Subsidies for Policies Held by Historically 
        Underserved Producers Compare with A&O Subsidies for Other 
        Policies?

    Insurance Companies' Underwriting Rate of Return in Relation to 
Market Conditions

          What Is a Market-Based Rate of Return, and Why Is It Relevant 
        to the Federal Crop Insurance Program?
          How Does the Crop Insurance Program's Target Rate of Return 
        Compare with a Market-Based Rate of Return?
          How Does the Actual Rate of Return That Participating 
        Insurance Companies Earn Compare with the Market-Based Rate of 
        Return?
          What Other Factors Can Affect Insurance Companies' Financial 
        Gains or Losses?
          Besides Rate of Return, Is There Another Way to Assess the 
        Underwriting Profitability of Participating in the Federal Crop 
        Insurance Program?

    Potential Effects of Adjusting the Rate of Return for the Crop 
Insurance Program

          How Could Adjusting Insurance Companies' Rate of Return to 
        Reflect Market Conditions Affect the Future Cost of the Crop 
        Insurance Program?
          How Could Adjusting the Amount of Premiums That Insurance 
        Companies Retain Affect the Future Cost of the Crop Insurance 
        Program?
          What Is Preventing RMA from Taking Steps to Reduce the 
        Program's Delivery Costs? 27

    Amount and Distribution of Premium Subsidies

          What Are Crop Insurance Premium Subsidies, and How Much Does 
        the Government Pay in Subsidies?
          What Is the Distribution of Premium Subsidies among 
        Policyholders?

    High-Income Policyholder Participation in the Federal Crop 
Insurance Program

          What Are ``High-Income Policyholders,'' and How Many Are in 
        the Program?
          How Do High-Income Policyholders Compare with Other 
        Policyholders in Terms of Premium Subsidies, Commodities 
        Insured, and Geographic Distribution?

    Potential Effects of Reducing Premium Subsidies for High-Income 
Policyholders

          How Would Reducing Premium Subsidies for High-Income 
        Policyholders Affect the Costs of the Crop Insurance Program, 
        and What Other Factors Can Affect These Costs?
          How Would Reducing Premium Subsidies for High-Income 
        Policyholders Affect the Actuarial Soundness of the Crop 
        Insurance Program?
          What Steps Are Necessary for the Federal Government to 
        Realize Savings by Reducing Premium Subsidy Rates for High-
        Income Policyholders?

    Conclusions
    Agency Comments

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
Appendix II: Analysis of Market-Based Rate of Return
Appendix III: Measuring Property and Casualty Insurance Companies' 
Profit
Appendix IV: Distribution of Premium Subsidies among Policyholders, by 
State
Appendix V: High-Income and Other Policyholders in the Federal Crop 
        Insurance Program, 2022
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
Tables

    Table 1: Market-Based Rate of Return Estimates, 2003-2022
    Table 2: Crop Insurance Companies' Rate of Return, 2011-2022
    Table 3: High-Income Policyholders and Other Policyholders in the 
Federal Crop Insurance Program, 2022
    Table 4: Crop Insurance Premiums, by Policyholder Income Level and 
Commodity Category, 2022
    Table 5: High-Income Policyholders in the Federal Crop Insurance 
Program, by State, 2022
    Table 6: Market-Based Rates of Return Estimates, 2003-2022
    Table 7: Market-Based Rate of Return, 1989-2022
    Table 8: U.S. Crop Insurance and Property and Casualty Insurance 
Combined Ratio, 2011-2022
    Table 9: Distribution of Premium Subsidies among Federal Crop 
Insurance Program Policyholders by State, 2022
    Table 10: High-Income Policyholders in the Federal Crop Insurance 
Program, by State, 2022

Figures

    Figure 1: Overview of the Federal Crop Insurance Program
    Figure 2: Cost of the Federal Crop Insurance Program, 2011-2022
    Figure 3: A&O Subsidies and Underwriting Gains or Losses for 
Insurance Companies Participating in the Federal Crop Insurance 
Program, 2011-2022
    Figure 4: Federal Crop Insurance Program Distribution of 
Administrative and Operating (A&O) Subsidies, 2022
    Figure 5: Distribution of Premium Subsidies among Federal Crop 
Insurance Program Policyholders, 2022

                              Abbreviations
 
 
 
A&O                                administrative and operating
AGI                                adjusted gross income
CBO                                Congressional Budget Office
FSA                                Farm Service Agency
RBC                                risk-based capital
RMA                                Risk Management Agency
SBBI                              Stocks, Bonds, Bills, and Inflation
USDA                               U.S. Department of Agriculture
 

          This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to 
        copyright protection in the United States. The published 
        product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 
        without further permission from GAO. However, because this work 
        may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission 
        from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 
        reproduce this material separately.

November 07, 2023

  Hon. Kirsten Gillibrand
  Chair
  Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, Poultry, Local Food Systems, and 
    Food Safety and Security
  Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
  United States Senate

  Hon. Cory Booker
  United States Senate

    The Federal Crop Insurance Program offers producers subsidized 
insurance to protect against financial losses from crop price declines 
and production losses due to natural causes, such as drought and 
flooding. In 2022, the program supported about 1.2 million policies 
that covered 493 million acres and cost the Federal Government $17.3 
billion, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). To 
implement the program, USDA's Risk Management Agency (RMA) partners 
with private insurance companies, which deliver (i.e., sell and 
service) insurance policies to producers, or policyholders.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Policyholders are entities (such as corporations or 
partnerships) or individuals that purchase Federal crop insurance 
policies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The program provides subsidies for the insurance companies' 
administrative and operating (A&O) expenses and includes financial 
incentives for these companies to participate. For example, the 
companies share in the opportunity for gains associated with the 
policies, as established in RMA's financial agreements with the 
companies.\2\ USDA also sets premium rates and subsidizes the premiums 
that policyholders pay to obtain their policies, in part to increase 
producer participation in the program. The program subsidizes the same 
percentage of policyholders' premiums regardless of their income, in 
contrast to other USDA farm programs, which are not available to 
producers with incomes that exceed statutory limits.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ USDA designated 13 companies to provide insurance coverage for 
the reinsurance year 2022.
    \3\ For example, to be eligible for benefits under the Price Loss 
Coverage program, a producer's adjusted gross income (AGI) must not 
exceed $900,000. In 2015, we reported that about 5,000 producers whose 
incomes exceeded income limits for other USDA farm programs 
participated in the crop insurance program in 2013. See GAO, Crop 
Insurance: Reducing Subsidies for Highest Income Participants Could 
Save Federal Dollars with Minimal Effect on the Program, GAO-15-356 
(https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-356) (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 18, 
2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We have previously examined the crop insurance program and 
identified opportunities for the government to reduce the program's 
cost. For example, in July 2017 and March 2015, we reported that making 
certain changes related to program delivery and premium subsidies, 
respectively, could reduce the program's cost by hundreds of millions 
of dollars in total.\4\ In each report, we made suggestions for such 
changes, which have not been implemented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ GAO, Crop Insurance: Opportunities Exist to Improve Program 
Delivery and Reduce Costs, GAO-17-501 (https://www.gao.gov/products/
GAO-17-501) (Washington, D.C.: July 26, 2017); and GAO-15-356 (https://
www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-356). See also GAO, Farm Bill: Reducing 
Crop Insurance Costs Could Fund Other Priorities, GAO-23-106228 
(https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-23-106228) (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 
16, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    You asked us to review the Federal Crop Insurance Program and 
opportunities to reduce its cost. This report provides information on 
(1) private delivery of the crop insurance program through insurance 
companies and (2) premium subsidies for crop insurance policyholders.
    For both objectives, we reviewed relevant legislation and 
regulations; RMA data and documents, such as handbooks, and Farm 
Service Agency (FSA) data; and relevant government reports and academic 
studies. We interviewed officials from RMA and FSA, as well as 
representatives of organizations with various perspectives on the crop 
insurance program. We selected these organizations to represent a range 
of individuals and companies affected by the crop insurance program, 
such as small and large producers, insurance companies, and taxpayers.
    To provide information on private delivery of the crop insurance 
program, we focused on three areas: the amount and types of 
compensation the government paid to insurance companies, how these 
companies' financial gains and losses reflect market conditions, and 
how adjusting compensation to reflect market conditions could affect 
the program. We reviewed relevant farm bill legislation, regulations, 
government reports, academic studies, and RMA's financial agreements 
with participating companies. We analyzed RMA data on compensation--
including A&O subsidies--that the government paid to the companies for 
reinsurance years 2011 through 2022; the distribution of A&O subsidies 
in reinsurance year 2022 by policy size, policy type, crop, and 
producer demographic characteristics; and the companies' financial 
performance for reinsurance years 2011 through 2022.\5\ We assessed the 
reliability of these data by, among other things, interviewing agency 
officials and reviewing technical documentation. We determined that the 
data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our reporting 
objectives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ The reinsurance year is the period from July 1 through June 30 
of the following year and is identified by reference to the year 
containing June, according to the reinsurance agreements between USDA 
and participating insurance companies. All RMA data in this report are 
for reinsurance years, unless otherwise specified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We compared the data on companies' financial performance, including 
their underwriting gains and losses and actual rates of return, to the 
target rate of return set in RMA's agreements with participating 
insurance companies. We also compared these data to our updated 
estimate of a market-based rate of return, which follows a methodology 
used in a 2009 study that USDA commissioned.\6\ We reviewed 
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projections for the program's cost--
including compensation to companies--for 2024 through 2033. We used our 
estimated market-based rate of return and CBO's projections to 
calculate potential cost savings if the insurance companies' actual 
rate of return had reflected market conditions in 2011 through 2022 and 
if it were adjusted to do so for 2024 through 2033.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ We initially calculated an estimate of a market-based rate of 
return for our 2017 report; see GAO-17-501 (https://www.gao.gov/
products/GAO-17-501). This estimate follows the methodology used in 
Milliman, Inc., Rate of Return Update--2008: Reasonable Rate of Return 
Section 3.1, a report prepared at the request of the Risk Management 
Agency, U.S. Department of Agriculture (June 23, 2009). While the 
methodology we used makes some assumptions, we believe it is a 
reasonable indication of a market-based return. Moreover, the 
methodology uses the average of two models--the discounted cash flow 
and capital asset pricing model--and both models produced similar 
results. For our report, we also assessed how three assumptions that 
the 2009 study's methodology used could affect the estimated rate of 
return that insurance companies earn from crop insurance policies. We 
also considered the effect of recent increases in interest rates on a 
market-based rate of return.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To provide information on premium subsidies for crop insurance 
policyholders, we focused on three areas: the distribution of premium 
subsidies provided to policyholders by category, including state and 
crop; the extent to which high-income policyholders participate in the 
Federal Crop Insurance Program; and the potential effects on the 
program if premium subsidies were reduced for high-income 
policyholders. We defined high-income policyholders as those with an 
adjusted gross income (AGI) exceeding $900,000.\7\ We analyzed RMA data 
from 2022 on crop insurance policyholders' characteristics.\8\ This 
included matching the RMA data with FSA data from 2021 on participants' 
compliance with income limits for farm programs.\9\ We also analyzed 
RMA and FSA data to estimate the amount of subsidies paid on behalf of 
high-income policyholders. We assessed the reliability of these data 
by, among other things, screening for omissions and anomalies, 
interviewing agency officials, and reviewing technical documentation. 
We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes 
of our reporting objectives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ We chose $900,000 because it was the income limit for some FSA 
farm programs in 2022.
    \8\ Some policyholders are entities such as general partnerships, 
which include multiple members, each of whom is subject to AGI limits 
for farm programs. Our analysis did not include these members.
    \9\ We used the FSA data from 2021 because they were the most 
complete data available on participants' general income levels. In 
matching the two datasets, we determined that about 99.7 percent of all 
crop insurance policyholders were in the FSA dataset.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We calculated the savings that would have resulted if subsidies 
paid on behalf of high-income policyholders were reduced by 15 
percentage points--the amount proposed in a Senate-passed bill in 
2013--for 2022.\10\ We also identified how this change could affect the 
actuarial soundness of the crop insurance program by analyzing RMA data 
on loss experiences of, and premiums paid for, high-income 
policyholders and other policyholders from 2011 through 2021, the most 
recent year these data were available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ We chose 2022 because recent years more closely reflect 
current program provisions and participation levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Additional details on our objectives, scope, and methodology can be 
found in Appendix I. We also provide more details on the methodology 
and models we used to analyze a market-based rate of return in Appendix 
II.
    We conducted this performance audit from June 2022 to November 2023 
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 
conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Compensation to Insurance Companies Participating in the Crop Insurance 
        Program
How Does Delivery of the Federal Crop Insurance Program Work?
    The Federal Government pays private insurance companies to deliver 
the crop insurance program to producers. This compensation includes 
subsidies for the companies' A&O expenses and the companies' share of 
any financial gains associated with the policies (i.e., underwriting 
gains). The government and the companies may also share in financial 
losses associated with the policies (underwriting losses).\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ The crop insurance program's underwriting gains or losses are 
the amount by which total premiums exceed or are less than the total 
claims paid to policyholders for crop losses. These overall program 
underwriting gains or losses consist of the companies' share and the 
government's share. The companies' share of underwriting gains or 
losses is the amount by which the premiums that companies retain 
exceed, or are less than, their share of the claims paid to 
policyholders for crop losses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    RMA administers the program through the standard reinsurance 
agreement and livestock price reinsurance agreement, financial 
agreements that it negotiates with participating insurance companies. 
These agreements incorporate the terms and conditions by which the 
companies sell and service crop insurance policies to producers. RMA's 
most recent renegotiation of the standard reinsurance agreement--the 
2011 agreement--was completed in 2010. RMA's most recent renegotiation 
of the livestock price reinsurance agreement--the 2003 agreement--was 
completed in 2002. Figure 1 shows an overview of the program.
Figure 1: Overview of the Federal Crop Insurance Program


          Source: GAO, adapted from the Congressional Research Service, 
        and analysis of Risk Management Agency data and documents; GAO 
        (icons). D GAO-24-106086.
          Note: In addition to paying 62 percent of the premiums on 
        average, RMA pays A&O expense subsidies on behalf of 
        policyholders. If producers were purchasing policies in the 
        private sector, their premiums would include A&O expenses.

    Both agreements set terms for, among other things, subsidies for 
A&O expenses and the companies' share of underwriting gains and losses:

   A&O expenses. RMA pays subsidies to insurance companies to 
        cover A&O expenses associated with selling and servicing crop 
        insurance policies.\12\ The subsidies are based on a percentage 
        of crop insurance premiums. A&O expenses can include company 
        overhead, such as employee salaries; fees paid to insurance 
        adjusters to verify claims; and sales commissions and other 
        compensation (e.g., profit sharing) paid to the insurance 
        agents who sell crop insurance to producers. The reinsurance 
        agreements set the level of the Federal subsidy for A&O 
        expenses, calculated as a percentage of premiums. The standard 
        reinsurance agreement sets an annual minimum and maximum, or 
        cap, on the total A&O subsidies the government pays to the 
        insurance companies for most, but not all, policies.\13\ The 
        livestock price reinsurance agreement also sets the amount of 
        A&O subsidies, calculated as a percentage of premiums. The 2003 
        livestock price reinsurance agreement did not set an annual 
        minimum or maximum on the total amounts the government pays to 
        insurance companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ While in private insurance, such as automobile insurance, 
these administrative expenses typically are captured through the 
premiums paid by all policyholders, in the Federal Crop Insurance 
Program, such expenses are not captured through the premiums that 
policyholders pay.
    \13\ The standard reinsurance agreement's cap, which was $1.3 
billion in 2022, controls government costs for certain types of 
policies, including revenue protection policies, which are insurance 
plans that provide protection against revenue losses due to yield 
losses resulting from natural causes such as drought, and losses caused 
by a change in the harvest price from the projected price. If the total 
A&O subsidies for policy types subject to the cap exceed the capped 
amount in a given year, the A&O subsidies for these policy types are 
proportionally reduced to make the total A&O subsidies for these 
policies equal to the capped amount. Policies not subject to the cap 
include area policies--insurance plans that provide coverage based on 
the experience of an entire area, such as a county--and livestock 
policies. We refer to policies not subject to the cap as uncapped 
policies.

   Underwriting gains or losses. The government shares 
        underwriting gains and losses with participating insurance 
        companies in accordance with the reinsurance agreements' gain/
        loss sharing provisions. As we describe in more detail below, 
        participating insurance companies keep a portion of total 
        premiums, while USDA holds the rest. The insurance companies' 
        share of underwriting gains are calculated based on the 
        premiums for the policies the companies keep (retained 
        premiums) minus the portion of claim payments to policyholders 
        that the insurance companies are responsible for. This amount 
        is then adjusted based on the reinsurance agreements' gain/loss 
        and quota sharing provisions.
How Much Does the Government Pay the Insurance Companies?
    From 2011 through 2022, the Federal Government paid private 
insurance companies a total of about $36.6 billion--about $3.0 billion 
per year, on average--to deliver the program. This amount, which 
comprised A&O subsidies and companies' underwriting gains (or losses), 
was \1/3\ of the program's total direct cost of about $107.7 billion--
about $9.0 billion per year, on average.\14\ Figure 2 provides the 
program's total cost, including delivery costs, for each year from 2011 
through 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ Total direct cost of crop insurance program less the program 
delivery cost includes the government's cost for premium subsidies, 
which averaged $7.2 billion per year from 2011 through 2022, and the 
government's share of underwriting gains or losses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 2: Cost of the Federal Crop Insurance Program, 2011-2022


          Source: GAO analysis of Risk Management Agency data. D GAO-
        24-106086.
          Notes: Crop insurance costs are by reinsurance years, which 
        begin on July 1 and are referred to by the year containing 
        June. The 2012 program delivery cost was lower than typical 
        ($73 million) because administrative and operating (A&O) 
        subsidies were offset by the companies' underwriting losses 
        caused by extreme drought.
          a Total direct cost of crop insurance program less 
        the program delivery cost includes the government's cost for 
        premium subsidies plus the government's share of underwriting 
        losses or minus the government's share of underwriting gains.
          b Program delivery costs include A&O subsidies and 
        the companies' share of underwriting gains.

    From 2011 through 2022, A&O subsidies averaged $1.6 billion per 
year, and the companies' underwriting gains averaged $1.4 billion per 
year, according to our analysis (See Fig. 3).\15\ We also found that 
during this time frame, participating insurance companies had 
underwriting gains in 11 of the 12 years; in 2012, they had 
underwriting losses.\16\ In 2022, the Federal Government paid the 
insurance companies a total of about $2.2 billion in A&O subsidies, and 
the companies had $1.5 billion in underwriting gains.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ The total A&O subsidy increased from an average of about $1.4 
billion per year from 2011 through 2017 to an average of about $1.7 
billion per year from 2018 through 2022. This increase is due, in part, 
to an increase in the number and size of uncapped policies. In 2022, 
the total A&O subsidy was $2.2 billion, about $900 million over the 
$1.3 billion maximum for capped policies.
    \16\ In 2012, a major drought led to underwriting losses.
    \17\ Of the 13 companies RMA designated to provide insurance 
coverage for 2022, six companies had ultimate parent companies 
domiciled in the U.S. and had approximately 28 percent ($1.0 billion) 
of total A&O subsidies and underwriting gains in 2022. Seven of the 
insurance companies had ultimate parent companies domiciled in five 
foreign countries (Australia, Bermuda, Canada, Japan, and Switzerland) 
and had the remaining approximately 72 percent ($2.7 billion) of total 
A&O subsidies and underwriting gains.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 3: A&O Subsidies and Underwriting Gains or Losses for Insurance 
        Companies Participating in the Federal Crop Insurance Program, 
        2011-2022
        
        
          Source: GAO analysis of Risk Management Agency data. D GAO-
        24-106086.
          Notes: In 2012, a major drought led to underwriting losses. 
        A&O subsidies and underwriting gains and losses are by 
        reinsurance year.

    The crop insurance program is projected to cost a total of over 
$101 billion (about $10.1 billion per year) from 2024 through 2033, 
according to estimates CBO made in May 2023.\18\ Of this $101 billion, 
approximately $38.1 billion (about $3.8 billion per year) will go to 
insurance companies to deliver the program over the same period, 
according to these estimates. Companies' A&O subsidies are also 
projected to average $2.0 billion per year and underwriting gains $1.8 
billion per year from 2024 through 2033, according to CBO.\19\ Thus, 
Federal compensation to the companies for delivering the Federal Crop 
Insurance Program is projected to continue to comprise about a third of 
projected total program costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ Congressional Budget Office, CBO's May 2023 Baseline for Farm 
Programs (Washington, D.C.: May 25, 2023).
    \19\ In its projections, CBO assumed a financially stable program 
in which premiums more than cover the policyholders' claim payments 
each year. As a result, its projections for individual years were 
relatively stable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How Do the Reinsurance Agreements Share Risk between the Federal 
        Government and Insurance Companies?
    The reinsurance agreements set the terms for risk sharing between 
the Federal Government and participating insurance companies.\20\ 
Insurance companies are required to offer policies to all eligible 
producers in any state in which they operate. Under the terms in the 
reinsurance agreements, companies are permitted to retain some of those 
policies and assign others--typically higher-risk ones--to the Federal 
Government. The companies retain or cede policies by, after selling a 
policy, designating it to either the Assigned Risk Fund or the 
Commercial Fund, based on the crop, state, and policy plan.\21\ Higher-
risk policies, which companies generally designate to the Assigned Risk 
Fund, include policies in areas that have historically experienced 
higher insurance claims, such as areas that experience frequent drought 
and flooding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ Under net book quota share provisions in the 2011 standard 
reinsurance agreement, each company cedes to USDA a percentage of its 
premiums and potential underwriting gains or losses. The 2011 agreement 
set the net book quota share at 6.5 percent. The livestock price 
reinsurance agreement does not include a net book quota share 
provision.
    \21\ Companies' gains and the government's losses are due to the 
reinsurance agreements' risk-sharing terms. The standard reinsurance 
agreement's Assigned Risk Fund is a typically higher-risk fund with 
policies in areas that are expected to have more insurance claims and 
provides more loss protection to insurance companies through ``stop-
loss'' coverage that reinsures against state-level disasters. Companies 
retain a 20 percent interest in the premiums and the potential for 
gains and losses from policies allocated to this fund. Those contracts 
cannot represent more than 75 percent of a company's crop insurance 
premiums in the state. All other policies are allocated to the 
Commercial Fund, and companies must retain at least a 35 percent 
interest in the premiums and the potential for gains and losses 
associated with those policies. The shares for the Commercial Fund also 
vary by state, such that insurance companies receive a smaller 
proportion of gains and a larger proportion of losses from Commercial 
Fund policies in the five states in which crop insurance has 
historically been the most profitable (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, 
Minnesota, and Nebraska). With livestock price reinsurance agreement 
policies, companies allocate policies to either the Commercial Fund or 
the Private Market Fund.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The terms in the reinsurance agreements relate to, among other 
things, retained premiums. Specifically, the insurance companies retain 
part of the premiums and associated risk or opportunity for gain, and 
USDA holds the remaining premiums and risk. These allocations determine 
the companies' and government's share of each year's underwriting gain 
or loss.\22\ For example, from 2011 through 2022, companies retained 
approximately 79 percent of total premiums.\23\ During this time frame, 
companies realized a net underwriting gain of $17.2 billion on those 
retained premiums. In contrast, the government realized a net 
underwriting loss of $1.2 billion on the premiums the companies ceded 
to the government due, in part, to the higher risk associated with 
those premiums' policies.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\ For any given year, an insurance company's rate of return is 
the company's underwriting gain (or loss) divided by its retained 
premiums.
    \23\ While there is no single limit on the portion of premiums that 
companies can retain, the reinsurance agreements have risk-sharing 
provisions that prevent companies from retaining all of the premiums.
    \24\ Net underwriting gains are when premiums exceed total payments 
to producers for claims. Net underwriting losses are when premiums are 
less than payments for claims.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What Is the Distribution of A&O Subsidies That Insurance Companies 
        Receive, by Policy Size?
    Participating insurance companies receive more in A&O subsidies for 
larger crop insurance policies--those with higher premium amounts--than 
for smaller ones, according to our analysis of policies held in 
2022.\25\ The A&O subsidy is based on a fixed percentage of a policy's 
premium, as established in the reinsurance agreements. However, as we 
have previously reported, the workload to sell and service each policy 
does not necessarily correspond to the size of the policy.\26\ 
Specifically, an increase in crop prices causes a crop insurance 
policy's premium to increase. As a result, the A&O subsidy also 
increases, even though the increase in crop prices did not increase the 
workload to sell and service the policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\ While premium amounts are one way to measure policy size, 
because the program sets A&O subsidies as a fixed percentage of 
premiums, for the purpose of our analysis, we use A&O subsidy amounts 
as a measure of policy size.
    \26\ GAO, Crop Insurance: Opportunities Exist to Reduce Government 
Costs for Private-Sector Delivery, GAO/RCED-97-70 (https://www.gao.gov/
products/GAO/RCED-97-70) (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 17, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Furthermore, basing the A&O subsidy on a fixed percentage of a 
policy's premium creates incentives for companies to focus on selling 
and servicing large policies and does not adequately service small 
producers, according to representatives from a producer organization. 
Representatives from a crop insurance trade association told us that 
the A&O subsidy should continue to be based on a fixed percentage of a 
policy's premium. However, they also told us that the current cap on 
the A&O subsidy does not cover the actual A&O expenses. They added that 
if the total amount of A&O subsidies increased, it would be possible to 
create incentives for agents to focus on smaller producers. We discuss 
this in more detail later in this report.
    We analyzed data on smaller policies--those that had an A&O subsidy 
of $500 or less--held in 2022 and found the following:

   Smaller policies comprised about 48 percent (579,241) of the 
        1.2 million policies in the crop insurance program and 
        accounted for about six percent ($116.8 million) of total A&O 
        subsidies ($2.1 billion).

   About 56 percent (326,000 of the 579,241) of smaller 
        policies had A&O subsidies that were less than $200.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\ In 2022, 72 percent of producers held more than one policy, 
and the total A&O subsidies for three percent (12,000) of producers was 
less than $30.

   Of the 10,000 policies with the smallest A&O subsidies, 92 
        percent (9,210 policies) were subject to a cap on A&O subsidies 
        under the reinsurance agreements, and eight percent (790 
        policies) were uncapped policy plans. Insurance companies 
        received approximately $75,000 in A&O subsidies for these 
        10,000 smallest policies, which were primarily for field crops 
        (97 percent), such as corn and wheat, but also included 12 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        policies for vegetable crops and three livestock policies.

    We also analyzed data on larger policies--those with an A&O subsidy 
of $10,000 or more--held in 2022 and found the following:

   Larger policies comprised about two percent (29,822) of 1.2 
        million policies and accounted for 36 percent ($759 million) of 
        total A&O subsidies ($2.1 billion).

   The 14 largest policies each had A&O subsidies of more than 
        $1 million. In two cases, insurance companies received more 
        than $3 million for selling and servicing a single policy--one 
        a dairy protection policy, and the other a Pasture, Rangeland, 
        and Forage insurance policy, both in the western U.S.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\ The Pasture, Rangeland, and Forage insurance policy covers 
losses of forage or hay for feeding livestock, if the losses result 
from a lack of precipitation.

   Of the 100 policies with the largest A&O subsidies in 2022, 
        97 were among the policies that were not subject to a cap on 
        A&O subsidies under the reinsurance agreements. These 97 
        policies included 61 for livestock and dairy protection, for 
        which insurance companies received over $37 million in A&O 
        subsidies, an average of approximately $614,000 per policy.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\ In 2022, the A&O subsidy percentage for livestock and dairy 
protection policies was 22.2 percent, the highest among the various 
types of crop insurance policies. According to provisions in the 
livestock price reinsurance agreement, the A&O subsidy percentage 
increases to 23.4 percent for states with a loss ratio greater than 1.2 
in the current year. Moreover, the agreement gives USDA the authority 
to further adjust the A&O subsidies, as needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 4: Federal Crop Insurance Program Distribution of Administrative 
        and Operating (A&O) Subsidies, 2022
        
        
          Source: GAO analysis of Risk Management Agency data. D GAO-
        24-106086.
          a Percent of policies and A&O subsidies from the 
        standard reinsurance agreement and livestock price reinsurance 
        agreement. The 2011 standard reinsurance agreement, the most 
        recently negotiated, capped A&O subsidies for the most common 
        types of policies. If the total A&O subsidies for policy types 
        that are subject to the cap exceed the capped amount in a given 
        year, the A&O subsidies for these policy types are 
        proportionally reduced to make the total A&O subsidies for 
        these policies equal to the capped amount. The 2003 livestock 
        price reinsurance agreement, the most recently negotiated, did 
        not set a cap on A&O subsidies.
How Do A&O Subsidies for Policies Held by Historically Underserved 
        Producers Compare with A&O Subsidies for Other Policies?
    As part of certain USDA farm programs, including the crop insurance 
program, producers can voluntarily self-certify as a historically 
underserved producer, which USDA programs generally define as belonging 
to at least one group that the agency considers historically 
underserved. The four groups USDA considers historically underserved 
are those that are beginning to farm, have limited resources, are 
socially disadvantaged (i.e., belong to groups that have been subject 
to racial, ethnic, or gender prejudice), or are military veterans, 
according to USDA documents.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \30\ The crop insurance program offers additional premium 
subsidies, among other benefits, to beginning farmers and ranchers, and 
veterans. To be determined socially disadvantaged, producers 
voluntarily certify their status (i.e., their race, ethnicity, or 
gender) on an FSA form. FSA, which manages some farm programs, collects 
data to determine whether producers meet the criteria to qualify for 
beginning, limited resource, and veteran status, based on supplemental 
information they are asked to provide. Because a person and farming 
operation member may qualify for more than one historically underserved 
group (e.g., a farmer can have both socially disadvantaged and veteran 
status), the number of such persons and members and their associated 
payments cannot be totaled across the groups without over-counting. 
However, by analyzing FSA data, we were able to determine how many 
persons and farming operation members had self-certified as belonging 
to each historically underserved group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Of the 460,615 policyholders that participated in the Federal Crop 
Insurance Program in 2022, about 7.5 percent (34,413) had self-
certified, through at least one USDA program, as being a historically 
underserved producer, according to our analysis of USDA data. These 
historically underserved producers held a total of 94,080 policies. The 
distribution of A&O subsidies that the government paid insurance 
companies for these policies was consistent with the distribution of 
subsidies it paid for other policies, according to our analysis. 
Specifically, for policies held by historically underserved producers, 
the government paid participating insurance companies more in A&O 
subsidies for larger policies than for smaller policies--a trend 
similar to other policies.We also found the following:

   About nine percent ($188 million of $2.1 billion) of total 
        A&O subsidies paid to insurance companies were for policies 
        held by historically underserved producers.

   Of the policies held by historically underserved producers, 
        about 44 percent (41,525) were small policies, with A&O 
        subsidies of less than $500. About 3.5 percent (3,297) were 
        large policies, with A&O subsidies of $10,000 or more.

   The average A&O subsidy for policies held by historically 
        underserved producers was $1,996 per policy, compared with 
        $1,761 for other policies. According to RMA officials, 
        historically underserved producers tend to grow--and insure--
        specialty crops (e.g., grapes in California) more frequently 
        than other producers. Policies for specialty crops generally 
        have higher premiums and, consequently, higher A&O subsidies, 
        on average, than those for other crops (e.g., corn in Iowa), 
        which could explain the higher A&O subsidy per policy.

    However, historically underserved producers have participated in 
the crop insurance program at lower rates than other producers, 
according to an RMA analysis.\31\ For example, in 2017 (the most recent 
year for which data were available), 64 percent of all producers 
participated in the program. In comparison, 51 percent of Black or 
African American producers and 43 percent of Native American producers 
participated, according to RMA's analysis.\32\ We have previously 
reported on historically underserved producers and the specific 
challenges they have encountered in seeking services from USDA and 
steps USDA has taken to address these challenges.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\ U.S. Department of Agriculture, Risk Management Agency, 
Adequate Coverage for States and Underserved Producers: Report to 
Congress in Response to Section 11108 of the Agriculture Improvement 
Act of 2018 (Washington, D.C.: 2021).
    \32\ RMA used 2017 Census of Agriculture data to analyze 
participation in the crop insurance program. Not all producers who 
identify as members of a historically underserved group may have self-
certified as such to USDA. As a result, these percentages may not fully 
reflect the extent to which producers who identify as a member of at 
least one historically underserved group participate or do not 
participate in the crop insurance program.
    \33\ See, for example, GAO, Agricultural Lending: Information on 
Credit and Outreach to Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers Is 
Limited, GAO-19-539 (https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-539) 
(Washington, D.C.: July 11, 2019); U.S. Department of Agriculture: 
Progress toward Implementing GAO's Civil Rights Recommendations, GAO-
12-976R (https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-976R) (Washington, D.C.: 
Aug. 29, 2012); and Beginning Farmers: Additional Steps Needed to 
Demonstrate the Effectiveness of USDA Assistance, GAO-07-1130 (https://
www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-1130) (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 18, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Insurance Companies' Underwriting Rate of Return in Relation to Market 
        Conditions
What Is a Market-Based Rate of Return, and Why Is It Relevant to the 
        Federal Crop Insurance Program?
    A market-based rate of return is an annual rate of return, 
representative of market conditions, that produces financial earnings 
equal to earnings from alternative investment opportunities relative to 
the risk assumed. For the Federal Crop Insurance Program, a 
participating insurance company's rate of return for a given year is 
the company's underwriting gain (or loss) divided by the premiums on 
which the company retains a risk of loss or an opportunity for gain. 
For example, a company that had $500 million in retained premiums and 
earned underwriting gains of $50 million in a given year would have a 
rate of return of ten percent.
    RMA used an estimated market-based rate of return to inform its 
negotiations with participating companies on the target rate of 
return--the average annual rate of return that insurance companies are 
expected to earn--in the standard reinsurance agreement.\34\ For 
example, when renegotiating the 2011 agreement, RMA used information 
from a 2009 USDA-commissioned study that estimated a market-based rate 
of return on shareholders' equity that companies participating in the 
Federal Crop Insurance Program would have been expected to earn.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \34\ According to agency officials, RMA did not use the target rate 
of return to negotiate the livestock price reinsurance agreement 
provisions that became effective in 2002 because those negotiations 
predated the 2009 study that USDA commissioned that developed the 
market-based rate of return RMA used in its negotiations of the 2011 
standard reinsurance agreement.
    \35\ Shareholders' equity is the dollar worth of a company to its 
owners after subtracting all of its liabilities from its assets. The 
study used data for 1989 through 2008 to calculate this estimated 
market-based rate of return. Milliman, Inc., Rate of Return Update--
2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How Does the Crop Insurance Program's Target Rate of Return Compare 
        with a Market-Based Rate of Return?
    The 2011 standard reinsurance agreement set the target rate of 
return on retained premiums at 14.5 percent, which has continued to 
exceed market conditions since we issued our 2017 report, according to 
our analysis of recent data. Specifically, while analyzing data to 
update the estimates in our 2017 report, we calculated a market-based 
rate of return of 10.2 percent for both the 7 year estimate (from 2016 
through 2022) and the 20 year estimate (from 2003 through 2022).\36\ 
The current target rate of return exceeds this market-based rate of 
return by 4.3 percentage points.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \36\ GAO-17-501 (https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-17-501). In our 
July 2017 report, we estimated a market-based rate of return for 20 
years (1996 through 2015) to be 11.0 percent, and 7 years (2009 through 
2015) to be 9.6 percent. We based our analysis on the 2009 USDA-
commissioned study, which calculated rates of return for 20 years (1989 
through 2008). We calculated a 7 year rate of return to reflect a more 
recent time frame and because it was the length of time that elapsed 
between the 2009 study and our 2017 report and between the dates of 
analysis in our 2017 report and this report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We calculated the average market-based rate of return for these two 
time frames because, as we discuss in more detail below, markets 
fluctuate from year to year. Using a market-based rate of return that 
is averaged over a period of time can moderate the effect of those 
fluctuations. Table 1 presents an overview of our updated analysis, and 
Appendix II provides more information about how we calculated the 
market-based rate of return.

        Table 1: Market-Based Rate of Return Estimates, 2003-2022
                            (In percentages)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Market-based
                                                          rate of return
                                                             on equity
                         Capital asset   Discounted cash    (average of
         Years           pricing model   flow model rate   capital asset
                         rate of return    of return on    pricing model
                           on equity          equity      and discounted
                                                             cash flow
                                                              model)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2003-2022 (20-year              10.3             10.1             10.2
            average)
  2016-2022 (7 year              10.2             10.2             10.2
            average)
               2022              11.3             11.7             11.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: GAO analysis of data from the Federal Reserve; Value Line
  Investment Survey; 2023 Ibbotson Stocks, Bonds, Bills, and Inflation
  (SBBI) Classic Yearbook; and a 2009 study commissioned by the U.S.
  Department of Agriculture. D GAO-24-106086.
Notes: A 2009 USDA-commissioned study found that the reasonable (market-
  based) rate of return on shareholders' equity for the 20 years from
  1989 through 2008 was an average of 12.8 percent. In 2017, using the
  2009 study's method for determining a market-based rate of return on
  equity, we conducted an analysis updating the study's results for the
  20 years from 1996 through 2015. We estimated that the market-based
  rate of return on equity for that period was 11.0 percent. The market-
  based rate of return on equity is the average of the rates from the
  capital asset pricing model and the discounted cash flow model.
  Appendix II provides more information on these models and our
  analysis.

    The models we used for our estimates, which are based on the 
methodology of a 2009 study USDA commissioned, use inputs that include 
interest rates and the share prices of property and casualty insurance 
companies.\37\ Because those inputs fluctuate from year to year, the 
market-based rate of return also fluctuates. Specifically, higher 
interest rates contribute to higher market-based rates of return, and 
lower interest rates contribute to lower market-based rates of return. 
For example, interest rates on U.S. Treasury securities--one measure of 
an average interest rate--fell from 2.2 percent in 2009 to 0.6 percent 
in 2020 and then rose to 2.4 percent in 2022.\38\ During this time 
frame, while the market-based rate of return decreased slightly from 
11.6 percent in 2009 to 11.5 percent in 2022, there were large 
fluctuations during the period. The lowest rate was 8.8 percent in 2013 
and 2015, and the highest was 11.5 percent in 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \37\ Milliman, Inc., Rate of Return Update--2008.
    \38\ These particular average interest rates represent an average 
of yields on short-, intermediate-, and long-term U.S. Treasury 
securities, as published by the Federal Reserve.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Using an average market-based rate of return over a period can 
moderate the effect of year-to-year fluctuations in interest rates. 
Given that individual-year estimates can fluctuate rapidly, 
particularly in periods of economic instability, these estimates could 
be updated annually to reflect the most current economic conditions, 
according to the USDA-commissioned study.\39\ However, the study also 
recognized that there is a balance between stability and 
responsiveness. For example, using the most responsive method, in which 
the rate would be determined based on data for that particular year, 
the market-based rate of return would have been 8.8 percent in 2015 and 
11.5 percent in 2022. Both are lower than the current target rate of 
return of 14.5 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \39\ Milliman, Inc., Rate of Return Update--2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How Does the Actual Rate of Return That Participating Insurance 
        Companies Earn Compare with the Market-Based Rate of Return?
    The average actual rate of return that participating insurance 
companies earn has continued to exceed market conditions, according to 
our analysis. From 2011 through 2022, the insurance companies earned an 
average annual rate of return on retained premiums of 16.8 percent (an 
average of $1.4 billion in underwriting gains per year). This actual 
rate is 6.6 percentage points higher than the market-based rate of 
return of 10.2 percent.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \40\ As described earlier, participating insurance companies' rate 
of return on retained premiums is their underwriting gains divided by 
the premiums that they retain. A 2017 CBO study stated: ``There is some 
evidence that crop insurance companies earn a greater profit than 
similar insurers earn in the private market. However, data limitations 
make that comparison uncertain.'' According to that study, ``Several 
factors make CBO's estimate uncertain. Although any single factor would 
be unlikely to bring the estimated rate of return for crop insurers in 
line with that of other property and casualty insurers, the combined 
effect of multiple factors could conceivably do so.'' Congressional 
Budget Office, Options to Reduce the Budgetary Costs of the Federal 
Crop Insurance Program (December 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The companies' actual rate of return can vary significantly from 
year to year, as we found in our analysis. In 8 of the past 12 years, 
the companies received underwriting gains at a rate of return that 
exceeded the market-based rate; in the other 4 years, their rate of 
return was below the market-based rate.\41\ In some years, such as in 
2016 and 2017, the rate of return exceeded 30 percent, while in 2012, 
the rate of return was negative, as Table 2 shows.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \41\ As we previously reported, for most lines of insurance that 
have a significant catastrophe exposure, insurers expect to earn 
significant profits in noncatastrophic years and significant losses in 
years with catastrophes. See GAO-17-501 (https://www.gao.gov/products/
GAO-17-501).
    \42\ As previously mentioned, a major drought led to underwriting 
losses in 2012.

                          Table 2: Crop Insurance Companies' Rate of Return, 2011-2022
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       20 year
                                                                                       rolling       Companies'
                    Total  program    Companies'       Companies'     Target rate      average      actual rate
       Year           premiums (in     retained       underwriting    of return on   market-based   of return on
                       billions)     premiums (in     gains/losses      retained       rate of        retained
                                       billions)     (in billions)      premiums      return on      premiums b
                                                                                       equity a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            2011           $12.00           $9.56           $1.70           14.5%          12.0%          17.8%
            2012           $11.15           $8.65         ($1.32)           14.5%          11.8%        (15.3%)
            2013           $11.83           $9.24           $0.64           14.5%          11.5%           6.9%
            2014           $10.10           $7.91           $1.04           14.5%          11.3%          13.1%
            2015            $9.78           $7.40           $1.81           14.5%          11.0%          24.5%
            2016            $9.35           $7.55           $2.61           14.5%          10.8%          34.6%
            2017           $10.09           $8.32           $2.61           14.5%          10.7%          31.4%
            2018            $9.92           $7.95           $2.12           14.5%          10.6%          26.7%
            2019           $10.26           $8.47           $0.51           14.5%          10.5%           6.0%
            2020           $10.40           $8.40           $1.32           14.5%          10.3%          22.1%
            2021           $14.29          $11.15           $2.67           14.5%          10.2%          24.0%
            2022           $19.23          $14.99           $1.49           14.5%          10.2%          10.0%
                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Total...........        $138.41         $109.58          $17.21              --             --             --
                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Annual average           $11.53           $9.13           $1.43           14.5%          10.9%          16.8%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: GAO analysis of data from Risk Management Agency (RMA); Federal Reserve; Value Line Investment Survey;
  2023 Ibbotson Stocks, Bonds, Bills, and Inflation (SBBI) Yearbook; and a 2009 study commissioned by the U.S.
  Department of Agriculture (USDA). D GAO-24-106086.
Notes: Using a 2009 USDA-commissioned study's method for determining the market-based rate of return on equity,
  we conducted our own analysis updating the study's results through 2022. The market-based rate of return on
  equity is the average of the rates from the capital asset pricing model and the discounted cash flow model.
  RMA used the target rate of return--the average annual rate of return that insurance companies are expected to
  earn--to inform its negotiations with companies for the 2011 standard reinsurance agreement.
a The 10.9 percent is the average of the rolling averages for each year from 2011 through 2022. For example, the
  20 year rolling average of 12.0 percent for 2011 was the average market-based rate of return from 1992 through
  2011.
b These actual rates of return are estimated as a percentage of retained premiums rather than as a percentage of
  equity because of data limitations. The reinsurance agreement renegotiations use rates of return as a
  percentage of retained premiums, as data on retained premiums have been more easily obtainable than data on
  equity.

    As we have previously reported, adjusting the target rate of return 
on retained premiums to reflect market conditions could produce 
significant cost savings for the Federal Government.\43\ For this 
report, we estimated how much the government could have saved had 
companies earned either the target or market-based rate of return 
instead of the actual rate of return:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \43\ See GAO-23-106228 (https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-23-106228) 
and GAO-17-501 (https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-17-501). The standard 
reinsurance agreement includes provisions for determining the portion 
of underwriting gain or loss retained by participating insurance 
companies. These portions vary with the loss ratio (ratio of insurance 
claims to premiums) by state in a given year. The mechanism by which 
RMA could reduce companies' expected rate of return would be to 
negotiate changes to the provisions, such as by reducing the portion of 
underwriting gains, or increasing the portion of underwriting losses, 
retained by companies.

   Cost savings with target rate of return. If companies had 
        earned the target rate of return of 14.5 percent from 2011 
        through 2022, the Federal Government could have saved a total 
        of $1.3 billion over this period. Participating companies' 
        underwriting gains would have been about $1.3 billion per year 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        instead of about $1.4 billion over this 12 year time frame.

   Cost savings with market-based rate of return. If companies 
        had earned the average market-based rate of return of 10.2 
        percent in 2021 and 2022, the Federal Government could have 
        saved a total of $1.5 billion over this period. Participating 
        companies' underwriting gains would have been about $1.3 
        billion per year instead of about $2.1 billion per year for 
        these 2 years.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \44\ We applied the 10.2 percent rate to the insurance companies' 
retained premiums of about $26.1 billion (from 2021 through 2022) to 
reach this estimate of the decrease in these companies' underwriting 
gains.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What Other Factors Can Affect Insurance Companies' Financial Gains or 
        Losses?
    Other factors that can affect the financial gains and losses 
insurance companies experience from participating in the crop insurance 
program include third-party reinsurance, capital requirements, and 
expenses to sell and service policies relative to A&O expense 
subsidies. The 2009 USDA-commissioned study on the program made certain 
assumptions about these three factors that can have implications for 
whether the actual rate of return on retained premiums fully reflects 
the financial gains or losses that participating insurance companies 
experience. In our examination of those factors, we found that (1) some 
participating insurance companies receive payments from third-party 
reinsurers, (2) the companies may have relatively low capital 
requirements to make crop insurance claim payments, and (3) the 
insurance companies have reported that their expenses to sell and 
service the policies are higher than the A&O subsidies they receive 
from the program.
Some Insurance Companies Receive Payments from Third-Party Reinsurers
    Third-party reinsurance can be an additional tool to insulate 
participating companies in years with catastrophic losses. In addition 
to reinsurance from the Federal Government, participating companies may 
also transfer--or cede--a portion of their retained premiums, and the 
risk of potential insurance claims on those premiums, to a third-party 
private reinsurance company, as we found in our review of RMA 
documents.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \45\ The Federal Government is the primary reinsurer for 
participating insurance companies that take on the risk of covering, or 
``underwriting,'' losses to insured producers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Generally, insurance companies may pay a third party to reinsure a 
portion of their line of business to protect themselves from 
potentially large losses, such as in a catastrophic drought or flood 
year. This means reinsurance is usually a net cost.\46\ However, some 
participating companies receive payments from reinsurers, making third-
party reinsurance potentially a net gain for these companies.\47\ 
Specifically, we found that some insurance companies earned a 
commission on the amount of the premiums they ceded to the third-party 
reinsurer. For example, in our review of 2022 documentation, 11 of the 
13 participating insurance companies ceded a portion of their retained 
premiums to third-party reinsurers and received payments from the 
reinsurers.\48\ Further, we found that five of these companies received 
payments that exceeded the market-based rate of return of 10.2 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \46\ The net cost with these stop-loss reinsurance contracts, is 
the difference between the amount an insurance company pays for a 
reinsurance contract and the amount that the reinsurance company pays 
to the insurance company for the reinsurance company's claim payment 
costs.
    \47\ Another type of third-party reinsurance contract is the quota 
share contract in which the reinsurance company shares in a percentage 
of the companies' retained premiums and underwriting gains or losses.
    \48\ Information about the payment amounts was available for six of 
the 11 companies. Payments for these six companies ranged from 9.5 
percent to 20.0 percent of the portion of premiums ceded to the third-
party reinsurer. For five of the 13 companies, the contracts indicated 
that they received commissions for ceding a portion of their retained 
premiums; however, the amount was not clear.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    However, reinsurance may still have a net cost to the insurance 
company. In particular, the insurance company forgoes some of the 
underwriting gains it would have expected to earn, had it kept the 
premiums it ceded to the reinsurer.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \49\ If the company keeps the A&O subsidy, the net cost would be 
the forgone underwriting gains ceded to the reinsurer less the A&O 
subsidies on the retained premiums and the commission received from the 
reinsurer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Insurance Companies May Have Relatively Low Capital Requirements to 
        Make Claim Payments
    In our review of industry documentation, we found that crop 
insurance has a relatively low capital requirement in comparison to 
other property and casualty insurance. This means companies do not need 
as much capital to participate in the Federal Crop Insurance Program. 
Generally, in property and casualty insurance, companies draw on such 
capital to make claim payments. However, in the crop insurance line, 
companies generally need to put in less capital because of the 
reinsurance arrangement with the Federal Government. According to a 
third-party reinsurer that purchased a crop insurance company in 2016, 
a strategic benefit of the purchase was the low capital requirements of 
crop insurance compared with other insurance lines of business.
    The relatively low capital requirements associated with crop 
insurance also have implications for the rate of return companies earn 
from participating in the crop insurance program. When negotiating the 
current target rate of return of 14.5 percent, USDA used retained 
premiums rather than shareholders' equity, which is the dollar worth of 
a company to its owners after subtracting all of its liabilities from 
its assets. USDA did so because data on retained premiums are 
available, while company shareholders' equity data are not publicly 
available. In short, USDA used the assumption that retained premiums 
were a proxy for shareholders' equity.
    However, the low capital requirements for crop insurance may 
indicate that shareholders' equity is generally less than retained 
premiums.\50\ As a result, participating insurance companies' rate of 
return may be greater than estimates using a rate of return on retained 
premiums.\51\ As mentioned in an example above, a company that had $500 
million in retained premiums and earned underwriting gains of $50 
million in a given year would have a rate of return on retained 
premiums of ten percent. However, if that company had $400 million in 
shareholders' equity, its rate of return on equity would be 12.5 
percent. Appendix III provides more information on capital requirements 
for crop insurance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \50\ According to a company's presentation to shareholders, 
benefits of the company's participation in the program included low 
capital requirements. Current data are not available to determine the 
ratio of shareholders' equity to retained premiums. However, in earlier 
analyses, RMA had found that the average premium-to-equity ratio for 
crop insurance had been an average of 131 percent from 1989 to 2008, 
and an average of 115 percent from 2001 to 2008.
    \51\ Return on equity is return on premium multiplied by the ratio 
of premium to equity (capital). For insurance lines of business that 
require less capital, the return on equity could be higher than the 
return on premium.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Insurance Companies Have Reported That Their Expenses to Sell and 
        Service Policies Are Higher Than the A&O Subsidies They 
        Received from the Program
    Each year, participating insurance companies report to RMA their 
expenses to sell and service crop insurance policies. Such expenses 
include commissions to insurance agents and agencies to sell the actual 
crop insurance policies to producers. In 2020 and 2021, the companies' 
reported expenses exceeded the A&O subsidies that they received.\52\ 
Additionally, in both years, the companies spent over 90 percent of the 
total A&O subsidies they received on commissions, according to our 
analysis of company expense reports.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \52\ RMA requires insurance companies to report A&O expenses 
annually. However, these expenses are not required to be audited and, 
therefore, may not be reliable.
    \53\ The 2011 standard reinsurance agreement capped the amount of 
compensation that a company can pay to crop insurance agents within a 
state to no more than the total A&O subsidy amount for that state. 
Specifically, companies may not pay more than 80 percent of A&O by 
state as base commission to agents. However, a company may pay 
compensation (i.e., base commission and profit sharing) up to 100 
percent of A&O by state, if certain conditions are met. There is no 
limitation on how much any given agent may receive, so long as it is 
within the maximum amount allowable per state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Participating companies have a financial incentive to spend a large 
portion of A&O subsidies on these commissions. Because RMA is required 
by law to set the premiums for crop insurance policies, companies 
cannot compete by making the cost of policies more attractive through 
reducing premiums. As we noted in our 2009 report, a key way for the 
companies to increase their market share is to draw insurance agencies 
(and their books of business) away from competing companies. One way 
they do so is by raising the rates for the commissions they pay these 
agents.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \54\ GAO-09-445 (https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-445).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Additionally, companies' reported expenses have remained greater 
than A&O subsidies since the mid-1990s, according to a study by a 
former USDA Chief Economist and Chairman of the Board of Directors of 
the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation.\55\ Representatives of a crop 
insurance trade association and a public policy institute also told us 
that the A&O subsidies do not fully compensate for the companies' 
expenses. However, the study explained that agent commissions tend to 
be highest in states where underwriting gains are largest, suggesting 
that companies compete for business by buying independent insurance 
agents' books of business by offering higher commissions.\56\ The study 
cited an econometric analysis that suggested a significant and positive 
relationship between net underwriting gains and agent commissions.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \55\ The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation is a government 
corporation managed by RMA and that administers the Federal Crop 
Insurance Program.
    \56\ Joseph W. Glauber, Crop Insurance and Private Sector Delivery: 
Reassessing the Public-Private Partnership (Washington, D.C.: Taxpayers 
for Common Sense, December 2016).
    \57\ V. Smith, J. Glauber, and R. Dismukes, Rent Dispersion in the 
U.S. Agricultural Insurance Industry, IFPRI Discussion Paper 01532 (May 
2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Besides Rate of Return, Is There Another Way to Assess the Underwriting 
        Profitability of Participating in the Federal Crop Insurance 
        Program?
    Since the combined ratio is another method insurance companies use 
to measure underwriting profitability, we used this method to analyze 
insurance industry data for 2011 through 2022. We found that the 
combined ratio method also shows that crop insurance earned more 
underwriting profit than other property and casualty insurance during 
this time frame.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \58\ We used data from AM Best Company, Inc., a global credit 
rating agency, news publisher, and data analytics provider specializing 
in the insurance industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The combined ratio is the sum of losses (insurance claims) and 
expenses divided by premiums, so a lower combined ratio represents more 
profitability.\59\ In our analysis, we found that companies 
participating in the crop insurance program had an average combined 
ratio of 97.0, while companies participating in the property and 
casualty industry had an average combined ratio of 100.4.\60\ The lower 
combined ratio indicates that the companies that participated in the 
crop insurance program earned more underwriting profit than companies 
in other lines of insurance during this period. According to our 
review, this greater underwriting profitability may be due to the 
target rate of return exceeding the market-based rate of return. We 
also found that the participating companies' profits varied more from 
year to year than in the property and casualty industry. Appendix III 
provides more information on our combined ratio analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \59\ For the crop insurance program, this ratio would not include 
expenses in either the numerator or denominator of the ratio because 
the company received the A&O subsidy to cover its expenses, and the 
premium does not include a provision for expenses.
    \60\ A combined ratio less than 100 indicates underwriting profit, 
while a combined ratio that is greater than, or equal to, 100 indicates 
underwriting losses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Potential Effects of Adjusting the Rate of Return for the Crop 
        Insurance Program
How Could Adjusting Insurance Companies' Rate of Return to Reflect 
        Market Conditions Affect the Future Cost of the Crop Insurance 
        Program?
    Adjusting the rate of return to reflect market conditions would 
reduce the cost of the crop insurance program to the Federal Government 
by decreasing the underwriting gains that insurance companies receive. 
As described above, the insurance companies' average actual rate of 
return has exceeded both market conditions and the current target rate 
of return. As a result, the Federal Government has opportunities to 
reduce the crop insurance program's delivery costs by hundreds of 
millions of dollars per year while allowing the companies to earn 
returns that are comparable to market conditions. For example, as 
mentioned above, the government could have saved a total of $1.5 
billion for 2021 and 2022 if it had adjusted the target rate of return 
to reflect market conditions.
    We also calculated potential future savings if the government 
adjusts the rate of return that companies earn to either the target or 
market-based rate of return instead of the average actual rate of 
return of 16.8 percent: \61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \61\ To estimate the potential savings the government could realize 
from adjusting the rate of return, we used CBO projections of future 
premiums from 2024 through 2033, RMA data on the percentage of premiums 
that companies retained from 2011 through 2022 (79 percent), the 20 
year average market-based rate of return we calculated for 2003 through 
2022 (10.2 percent), and the actual rate of return participating 
companies received from 2011 through 2022 (16.8 percent).

   Cost savings with target rate of return. If companies earn 
        the target rate of return of 14.5 percent, the Federal 
        Government could save about $251 million per year from 2024 
        through 2033. Participating companies' expected underwriting 
        gains would decrease from about $1.8 billion to about $1.6 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        billion per year.

   Cost savings with market-based rate of return. If companies 
        earn the market-based rate of return of 10.2 percent, the 
        Federal Government could save about $720 million per year from 
        2024 through 2033. Participating companies' expected 
        underwriting gains would decrease from about $1.8 billion to 
        about $1.1 billion per year.

    According to representatives of a crop insurance trade association, 
reducing the expected rate of return would make it harder for companies 
to generate a profit and could encourage companies to stop offering 
crop insurance in some states. However, representatives from a public 
policy institute and a producer organization we interviewed told us 
that even if rates of return were reduced, the crop insurance program 
would still be profitable for companies. They also said such changes 
would not affect the delivery of the crop insurance program to 
producers because companies would continue to participate in the 
program. Moreover, the representatives further stated that some 
consolidation among the companies would not be a concern because the 
number of companies selling crop insurance has varied over the years. 
In 2023, USDA approved a new company to participate in the program, 
bringing the total number of approved participating companies to 14, 
according to agency officials. Our analysis indicates that USDA could 
adjust the expected rate of return to the market-based rate while still 
providing financial incentives for participation. To do so would 
require renegotiating this provision in the standard reinsurance 
agreement.
    The Federal Government can reduce the cost of the crop insurance 
program without affecting the premiums that producers pay because RMA, 
rather than the companies, sets premium rates. In fact, RMA is required 
by law to set premiums that improve the actuarial soundness of the 
Federal Crop Insurance Program. It is also required to operate the 
program so that losses do not exceed premiums (i.e., its loss ratio 
does not exceed 1.0).\62\ As a result, RMA must set premium rates and 
implement changes to these rates in a timely manner to cover expected 
losses and allow for a reasonable reserve, regardless of the companies' 
underwriting gains.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \62\ Specifically, RMA is directed by statute to operate the 
program ``to achieve an overall projected loss ratio of not greater 
than 1.0.'' 7 U.S.C.  1506(n)(2). The loss ratio is calculated as 
claim payments divided by total premiums, and a loss ratio of less than 
1.0 means premiums were greater than claim payments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The premium rates that RMA sets affect the premiums that producers 
pay and the companies' underwriting gains. Specifically, premium rates 
contributed to the program's loss ratio averaging 0.85 from 2011 
through 2021--meaning that premiums generally exceeded claim payments 
over that time frame.\63\ In general, with a loss ratio of 0.85, 
producers are paying higher premiums than they would if the loss ratio 
was closer to or at 1.0, which would indicate that premiums and claim 
payments are in closer balance. Furthermore, the more that premiums 
exceed claim payments, the greater the companies' underwriting gains. 
If RMA reduces premium rates so that the loss ratio is closer to or at 
1.0, the premiums producers pay would decrease, as would companies' 
underwriting gains. This indicates that the Federal Government could 
realize savings without increasing the premiums producers pay.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \63\ In its May 2023 baseline projection of crop insurance program 
spending for 2023 through 2033, the Congressional Budget Office used a 
loss ratio of 0.85.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How Could Adjusting the Amount of Premiums That Insurance Companies 
        Retain Affect the Future Cost of the Crop Insurance Program?
    We have previously reported, and our analysis continues to show, 
that the Federal Government could realize additional dollar savings by 
reducing the companies' portion of retained premiums. Doing so would 
reduce the companies' expected underwriting gains because they would 
earn their rate of return on a smaller premium base, thus retaining a 
smaller portion of underwriting gains or losses.
    We estimate that the government could save over $100 million per 
year in program delivery costs if it reduced the portion of total 
program premiums that companies retain, as follows:

   Our calculation. To calculate this estimate, we reduced the 
        total premiums that companies retained from 2011 through 2022 
        by 5 percentage points, from 79 percent to 74 percent. We 
        applied this to CBO's projections for total premiums from 2024 
        through 2033 (about $138.2 billion, or about $13.8 billion per 
        year).\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \64\ Congressional Budget Office, CBO's May 2023 Baseline.

   Cost savings. We found that, assuming an average actual rate 
        of return of 16.8 percent, reducing the insurance companies' 
        portion of projected premiums from 79 percent to 74 percent 
        could save the government about $116 million per year from 2024 
        through 2033.
What Is Preventing RMA from Taking Steps to Reduce the Program's 
        Delivery Costs?
    A provision in the 2014 Farm Bill prevents the government from 
being able to achieve cost savings by reducing the delivery costs of 
the crop insurance program, as we have previously reported.\65\ 
Specifically, the provision requires that any changes negotiated in new 
reinsurance agreements be budget neutral. This means that any changes 
to the reinsurance agreements cannot reduce the total future 
underwriting gains for all insurance companies. It also means that the 
estimated total A&O subsidies cannot be less than the amounts that 
would have been provided under the immediately preceding reinsurance 
agreements. The 2014 Farm Bill also requires that if the Federal 
Government realizes any savings from revising the reinsurance 
agreements, these savings be used to increase participating insurance 
companies' underwriting gains or A&O subsidies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \65\ GAO-17-501 (https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-17-501) and GAO-
23-106228 (https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-23-106228).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As discussed above, delivering the crop insurance program from 2024 
through 2033 is projected to cost approximately $38.1 billion (over \1/
3\ of the total $101 billion projected cost of the program), according 
to CBO. In order for the Federal Government to achieve any savings 
through the reinsurance agreements by, for example, reducing the target 
rate of return or the portion of premiums that companies retain, 
Congress would need to repeal the ``budget neutrality'' provision, as 
we suggested in our July 2017 report.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \66\ Legislation has been proposed that would eliminate the 
provision and permit USDA to renegotiate the standard reinsurance 
agreement to achieve savings; however, no such legislation has been 
passed. See, for example, Assisting Family Farmers through Insurance 
Reform Measures Act, H.R. 2332, 115th Cong. (2017-2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount and Distribution of Premium Subsidies
What Are Crop Insurance Premium Subsidies, and How Much Does the 
        Government Pay in Subsidies?
    Premium subsidies for crop insurance are the portion of premiums 
that the Federal Government provides to insurance companies on 
policyholders' behalf. Without these subsidies, producers participating 
in the crop insurance program would have to pay the full amount of 
their policy premiums. Congress sets premium subsidy rates--the 
percentage of the premium that the government pays. These rates vary by 
the level of insurance coverage that the policyholder chooses and the 
geographic diversity of the crops insured. For most policies, the 
statutory premium subsidy rates range from 38 percent to 80 
percent.\67\ The average premium subsidy rate for 2022 was about 62 
percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \67\ See 7 U.S.C.  1508(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Premium subsidies make up the largest portion of the Federal 
Government's cost for the crop insurance program. According to RMA, 
from 2011 through 2022, the program cost the Federal Government $9.0 
billion annually, on average. In 2022, the program's total cost was 
$17.3 billion, while total premium subsidies were $12.0 billion, 
according to USDA.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \68\ In 2022, premium subsidies increased because premiums 
increased, which was a result of prices increasing for major crops, 
such as corn and soybeans. In addition to premium subsidies, the 
program's total cost includes A&O subsidies and underwriting gains paid 
to insurance companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Premium subsidies for producers are separate from the A&O subsidies 
for insurance companies intended to cover expenses for selling and 
servicing policies. However, in private insurance, such as automobile 
insurance, these A&O expenses typically are captured through the 
premiums paid by policyholders. The A&O subsidies for crop insurance 
can, therefore, be considered a subsidy to policyholders, since 
premiums are lower than they would otherwise be. For example, in 2022, 
when premium subsides averaged 62 percent, the addition of A&O 
subsidies would have brought the total subsidy rate to an average of 66 
percent.
What Is the Distribution of Premium Subsidies among Policyholders?
    In 2022, the Federal Government provided about $12 billion in 
premium subsidies to 460,615 policyholders. These policyholders insured 
a variety of commodities and were geographically distributed across all 
50 states.
    We analyzed RMA policyholder and subsidy data for 2022 and found 
the following:

   Smallest subsidies. About 57 percent of policyholders 
        (263,804 of 460,615) accounted for seven percent of premium 
        subsidy dollars ($847 million total), with an average premium 
        subsidy of about $3,200 per policyholder.

   Largest subsidies. About one percent of policyholders (5,537 
        of 460,615) accounted for 22 percent of premium subsidy dollars 
        (about $2.57 billion), with an average premium subsidy of 
        $464,900 per policyholder. The 19 policyholders with the 
        largest premium subsidies each had more than $3 million in 
        subsidies. For example, a nursery in the southern U.S. 
        benefited from $7.7 million, and a dairy farming operation in 
        the western U.S. benefited from $6.6 million.

    Figure 5 shows the distribution of premium subsidies among 
policyholders, by dollar amount.
Figure 5: Distribution of Premium Subsidies among Federal Crop 
        Insurance Program Policyholders, 2022
        
        
          Source: GAO analysis of Risk Management Agency data. D GAO-
        24-106086.

    Of the 100 policies with the largest premium subsidies in 2022, 27 
insured livestock and dairy; 26 insured principal crops such as corn 
and soybeans; 24 insured pasture, rangeland, and forage; and 14 insured 
fruits and nuts.\69\ Of the other nine policies, four insured nursery, 
two insured sugarcane, and one insured each of the following: orange 
trees, annual forage, and all commodities on the farm (whole farm 
insurance).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \69\ While most of our analyses on premium subsidies focus on 
policyholders, in this case, we focused on policies because 
policyholders may hold multiple policies, and these policies may be for 
different commodities, in different states, or both. Principal crops 
are barley, corn, cotton, grain sorghum, peanuts, potatoes, rice, 
soybeans, tobacco, and wheat, consistent with an RMA market report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Distribution of premium subsidies was clustered in certain states. 
Specifically, 24 of the 100 policies with the largest premium subsidies 
in 2022 were for policyholders in Texas. An additional 36 were for 
policyholders in four states--Arizona, California, Florida, and Nevada. 
For more information on premium subsidies by state, see appendix IV.
High-Income Policyholder Participation in the Federal Crop Insurance 
        Program
What Are ``High-Income Policyholders,'' and How Many Are in the 
        Program?
    In this report, we refer to ``high-income policyholders'' as those 
with AGIs that exceeded the farm program income limit of $900,000 in 
2021, according to our analysis of RMA and FSA data.\70\ High-income 
policyholders may have received income from operating farms, non-farm 
sources, or both.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \70\ Statutory income limits have varied by program and changed 
over time, but for 2021, they generally state that a program applicant 
exceeded this limit if their AGI, averaged over a specified 3 year 
period, exceeded $900,000. Because the statutory AGI limit of $900,000 
for FSA farm programs applied to individuals, in some cases married 
couples filing a joint Internal Revenue Service tax return could earn 
up to twice this amount without exceeding the limit.
    \71\ Certain current and past programs, including USDA's 2020-2021 
Coronavirus Food Assistance Program, allow a producer to be exempt from 
the $900,000 AGI limit if at least 75 percent of the average AGI was 
derived from farming, ranching, or forestry operations. In our 
analysis, we included these policyholders in the ``high-income 
policyholders'' group because they had an average AGI that exceeded 
$900,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    According to our analysis, of the 460,615 policyholders that 
participated in the crop insurance program in 2022, 1,341 (0.3 percent) 
were high income.\72\ These high-income policyholders accounted for 
about 0.5 percent of total premiums in the program (see table 3). 
However, the percentage of individual participants (rather than 
policyholders) with an average AGI exceeding $900,000 could be higher 
than 0.3 percent. This is in part because some policyholders are 
entities such as general partnerships, which include multiple members, 
each of whom is subject to AGI limits for farm programs. Our analysis 
did not include these members.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \72\ We did not have FSA data on incomes for 1,624 policyholders 
(0.35 percent) in the crop insurance program.
    \73\ In March 2015, we reported data on individual participants in 
the crop insurance program. Specifically, we found that from 2009 
through 2013, about one percent of participants would have been 
affected if premium subsidies had been reduced for participants with 
incomes exceeding the limits in effect under the 2008 Farm Bill. The 
number of participants that would have been affected during this period 
was about 7,500 annually on average. See GAO-15-356 (https://
www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-356). For USDA's Coronavirus Food 
Assistance Program in 2021, which had AGI limits for applicants 
including members of entities, 2,783 applicants had AGIs exceeding 
$900,000.

    Table 3: High-Income Policyholders and Other Policyholders in the
                  Federal Crop Insurance Program, 2022
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               High-income
                             policyholders a       Other policyholders b
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of policyholders              1,341                  457,650
     Percentage of                    0.3%                    99.7%
      policyholders
Percentage of premiums                0.5%                    99.5%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: GAO analysis of data from Risk Management Agency and Farm
  Service Agency (FSA). D GAO-24-106086.
a High-income policyholders are those for which we have FSA data showing
  that their average adjusted gross incomes, calculated over a specified
  3 year period, exceeded $900,000.
b Other policyholders are those for which we have FSA data showing that
  their average adjusted gross incomes, calculated over a specified 3
  year period, did not exceed $900,000. Other policyholders also include
  entities--such as general partnerships and states and political
  subdivisions--for which FSA did not have data showing whether their
  incomes exceeded $900,000 because the entities were not subject to
  income eligibility requirements. In 2022, about 21,000 policyholders
  were entities that were not subject to these requirements.

How Do High-Income Policyholders Compare with Other Policyholders in 
        Terms of Premium Subsidies, Commodities Insured, and Geographic 
        Distribution?
    In 2022, high-income policyholders differed from other, non-high-
income policyholders in the following ways:

   Premium subsidies. High-income policyholders generally were 
        not among those with the largest premium subsidies--of the 100 
        policyholders with the largest subsidies, two were high-income 
        policyholders.\74\ However, on average, high-income 
        policyholders benefited from more in premium subsidies than 
        other policyholders--about $43,000 in 2022, compared with about 
        $26,000 for other policyholders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \74\ Premium subsidies for the two high-income policyholders were 
$1.8 million and $1.7 million.

   Commodities. High-income and other policyholders most 
        frequently insured principal crops, but high-income 
        policyholders were more likely than other policyholders to 
        insure livestock and dairy. For high-income policyholders, 
        principal crops accounted for 51.9 percent of premiums, and 
        livestock and dairy accounted for 23.5 percent of premiums. For 
        other policyholders, principal crops accounted for 78.7 percent 
        of premiums, and livestock and dairy accounted for 4.3 percent 
        of premiums, as table 4 shows.

   Table 4: Crop Insurance Premiums, by Policyholder Income Level and
                        Commodity Category, 2022
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  High-income policyholders a    Other policyholders b
                 -------------------------------------------------------
    Commodity       Premiums                     Premiums
    category           (in        Portion of        (in       Portion of
                    millions)      premiums      millions)     premiums
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Principal crops          $52.2         51.9%      $15,031.0        78.7%
               c
               Livestock $23.7         23.5%         $822.0         4.3%
           dairy
Fruits and nuts           $5.4          5.3%         $675.1         3.5%
    Other field           $2.1          2.1%         $767.2         4.0%
         crops d
     Vegetables           $2.1          2.1%          $94.6         0.5%
  Other crops e          $15.2         15.1%       $1,715.4         9.0%
                 -------------------------------------------------------
  Total.........        $100.6        100.0%      $19,105.0       100.0%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: GAO analysis of data from the Risk Management Agency and Farm
  Service Agency (FSA). D GAO-24-106086.
a High-income policyholders are those for which we have FSA data showing
  that their average adjusted gross incomes, calculated over a specified
  3 year period, exceeded $900,000.
b Other policyholders are those for which we have FSA data showing that
  their average adjusted gross incomes, calculated over a specified 3
  year period, did not exceed $900,000. Other policyholders also include
  entities--such as general partnerships and states and political
  subdivisions--for which FSA did not have data showing whether their
  incomes exceeded $900,000 because the entities were not subject to
  income eligibility requirements. In 2022, about 21,000 policyholders
  were entities that were not subject to these requirements.
c Principal crops are barley, corn, cotton, grain sorghum, peanuts,
  potatoes, rice, soybeans, tobacco, and wheat.
d Other field crops are herbaceous plants grown on a large scale in
  cultivated fields, such as alfalfa and rye, that are not included in
  principal crops.
e Other crops are all other crops insured by policyholders that are not
  included in the categories above.

    Of the approximately 9,200 policyholders that insured livestock and 
dairy in 2022, 44 were high-income policyholders. Premium subsidies for 
these 44 policyholders ranged from $89 to more than $1 million and 
averaged about $226,000. Among the 44 high-income policyholders, 18 had 
dairy insurance and each benefited from about $362,000 in premium 
subsidies, on average, and 27 had livestock insurance and each 
benefited from about $128,000 in premium subsidies, on average.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \75\ We included one policyholder that had both dairy and livestock 
insurance in counts for both groups. The 18 policyholders with dairy 
insurance held policies in nine states: California, Colorado, Georgia, 
Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, North Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin. The 27 
policyholders with livestock insurance held policies in 13 states: 
Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, 
Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Dairy insurance 
is Dairy Revenue Protection, and livestock insurance is Livestock Gross 
Margin or Livestock Risk Protection.

   Geographic distribution. In 2022, 52 percent of high-income 
        policyholders and 38 percent of other policyholders were in 
        four states (Texas, Iowa, Kansas, and Illinois). Of these 
        states, Texas had the highest number of high-income 
        policyholders, as table 5 shows.

            Table 5: High-Income Policyholders in the Federal Crop Insurance Program, by State, 2022
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         High-income policyholders as portion of
                                                    Total high-income   all crop insurance policyholders in each
                          Number of high-income       policyholder                        state
         State               policyholders a          premiums (in     -----------------------------------------
                                                        millions)           By number of
                                                                            policyholders         By premiums
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Texas                     270                   $12.6                 0.78%                0.56%
              Iowa                     199                   $12.8                 0.38%                0.88%
            Kansas                     156                    $6.2                 0.36%                0.52%
          Illinois                     111                    $3.4                 0.23%                0.27%
          Nebraska                      88                    $4.2                 0.26%                0.42%
        California                      57                    $5.3                 0.36%                0.74%
          Oklahoma                      55                    $1.2                 0.56%                0.33%
          Missouri                      51                    $1.9                 0.24%                0.30%
      South Dakota                      50                    $4.2                 0.26%                0.35%
      North Dakota                      46                    $3.7                 0.27%                0.24%
  All other states                     324                   $45.1                 0.19%                0.60%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: GAO analysis of data from Risk Management Agency and Farm Service Agency (FSA). D GAO-24-106086.
Note: Policyholders are counted in each state where they held policies in 2022, so some policyholders are
  counted multiple times.
a High-income policyholders are those for which we have FSA data showing that their average adjusted gross
  incomes, calculated over a specified 3 year period, exceeded $900,000.

    For information on the number and percentage of high-income 
policyholders for all states, see appendix V.
Potential Effects of Reducing Premium Subsidies for High-Income 
        Policyholders
How Would Reducing Premium Subsidies for High-Income Policyholders 
        Affect the Costs of the Crop Insurance Program, and What Other 
        Factors Can Affect These Costs?
Cost Savings
    By reducing premium subsidies by 15 percentage points (e.g., from 
62 percent to 47 percent) for high-income policyholders in the crop 
insurance program in 2022, the Federal Government could have saved 
about $15 million that year, according to our analysis. In our 
estimate, we assumed all 2022 policyholders remained in the program and 
did not change coverage levels, and we excluded catastrophic 
policies.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \76\ We used this approach for our calculations because it was 
consistent with proposals raised during the 2014 Farm Bill debate, 
including one passed by the Senate. See S. 954, 113th Cong.,  11033, 
engrossed in the Senate (June 10, 2013). GAO does not take a position 
on the specific provisions of this bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Factors That Can Affect the Amount of Savings
    Other factors can affect the amount of savings the Federal 
Government could realize in premium subsidies costs. Such factors 
include crop prices, policyholders' incomes and choices about insurance 
protection, and legislative provisions.\77\ For example, because crop 
prices affect premiums and premium subsidies are a set percentage of 
premiums, the subsidies would rise or fall with crop prices from year 
to year, resulting in smaller or larger savings to the Federal 
Government. Additionally, the government could achieve more savings if 
some high-income policyholders chose less expensive plans or lower 
coverage levels, because total premium subsidies would decrease.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \77\ If policyholders' incomes changed, the number of policyholders 
with incomes exceeding a given threshold could also change, affecting 
the amount of savings to the Federal Government. Additionally, 
legislative provisions could affect savings by specifying an income 
threshold or reduction in subsidies that differs from the ones used in 
our analysis. For example, if premium subsidies were not reduced for 
high-income policyholders that reported earning 75 percent of their 
income from farming, ranching, or forestry-related activities, the 
savings would be smaller. For USDA's Coronavirus Food Assistance 
Program, which had this provision in 2020 and 2021, 2,783 applicants 
had AGIs exceeding $900,000, and 1,440 of these applicants reported 
receiving 75 percent of their income from farming, ranching, or 
forestry-related activities, according to USDA documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While one stakeholder stated that reduced coverage levels would 
increase the demand for ad hoc disaster assistance, we found that this 
potential increase would be small. Specifically, an organization 
representing producers told us that if high-income policyholders 
reduced their coverage levels as a result of lower premium subsidies, 
the demand for ad hoc disaster assistance would increase. However, even 
if some high-income policyholders reduced their coverage levels and 
experienced losses that were not covered, the potential increase in 
demand for ad hoc assistance would be small for two reasons:

  (1)  High-income policyholders account for a very small percentage of 
            total claim payments provided by the crop insurance 
            program. Specifically, from 2011 through 2021, the value of 
            high-income policyholders' claim payments (about $41.8 
            million per year) represented about 0.4 percent of the 
            overall program's annual claim payments.

  (2)  If high-income policyholders reduced their coverage levels but 
            stayed in the program, they would still receive claim 
            payments through the program. Consequently, any demand for 
            ad hoc disaster assistance would reflect only the portion 
            of losses not covered by the reduced coverage levels.

    Moreover, high-income policyholders are unlikely to significantly 
change their program participation for several reasons, which we 
discuss in the next section. These include (1) policyholders on average 
get back much more in claim payments than they pay in premiums, (2) 
premiums are a very small portion of producer costs, (3) insurance 
coverage is important to lenders, and (4) it is risky to operate 
without an insurance safety net.
How Would Reducing Premium Subsidies for High-Income Policyholders 
        Affect the Actuarial Soundness of the Crop Insurance Program?
    As mentioned earlier, RMA is required by law to adopt rates and 
coverages that will improve the actuarial soundness of the crop 
insurance program.\78\ This requirement means that premiums must be 
adequate to cover expected claim payments.\79\ According to our 
analysis of RMA and FSA data and our review of government and academic 
studies, reducing premium subsidies for high-income policyholders 
likely would not affect the actuarial soundness of the program for 
several reasons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \78\ The Actuarial Standards Board, which is the standards-setting 
entity of the U.S. actuarial profession, has noted that the phrase 
``actuarial soundness'' has different meanings in different contexts 
and that its meaning in a particular context might be imposed by an 
entity outside of the actuarial profession (e.g., a statute). The 
board's standards state that if an actuary defines a process or result 
as ``actuarially sound,'' the actuary should define the meaning of 
``actuarially sound'' in that context. We have not reviewed the 
actuarial soundness of RMA's premium rate-setting methodology.
    \79\ The law requires an expected program-wide loss ratio of no 
more than 1.0, meaning that the amount of premiums at least equal claim 
payments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    First, high-income policyholders account for a very small portion 
of premiums. Because high-income policyholders represent about 0.3 
percent of all policyholders and account for about 0.5 percent of 
premiums in the crop insurance program, their decisions to leave or 
stay in the program likely would not affect its actuarial soundness. 
Regardless of high-income policyholders' decisions to leave or stay, 
the pool of policyholders and total premiums in the program would 
remain large, which means that risk would still be widely spread.
    Furthermore, high-income policyholders are not generally lower risk 
to the crop insurance pool than other policyholders, according to our 
analysis of RMA and FSA data. We found that high-income policyholders 
had the same average loss ratio--0.85--as other policyholders from 2011 
through 2021.\80\ This loss ratio of less than 1.0 means that, similar 
to other policyholders, total premiums paid by and on behalf of high-
income policyholders (including the portion subsidized by the 
government) have generally been enough to cover the cost of claim 
payments they received from insurers during this time frame.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \80\ As described earlier, the loss ratio is calculated as claim 
payments divided by total premiums, and a loss ratio of less than 1.0 
means that premiums were greater than claim payments. In 2015, we 
reported the average premium rate and loss cost ratio, or claim 
payments as a percentage of insured coverage, in addition to the loss 
ratio. See GAO-15-356 (https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-356). From 
2011 through 2021, the average premium rate (total premium as a 
percentage of insured coverage) was lower for high-income policyholders 
(7.9 percent) than for other policyholders (9.3 percent). The lower 
premium rate for high-income policyholders is consistent with the types 
of commodities they insured. Premium rates for insuring livestock and 
dairy, fruits, nuts, and vegetables are generally lower than for 
insuring other crops, and proportionally more high-income policyholders 
insured these commodities in 2022 than did other policyholders. To set 
premium rates, RMA uses data on average loss cost ratios for each crop 
and location, among other things, so the loss cost ratio is closely 
linked to premium rates. The loss cost ratio from 2011 through 2021 was 
also lower for high-income policyholders (6.7 percent) than for others 
(7.9 percent), on average.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representatives of a crop insurance trade association told us that 
if premium subsidies were reduced for high-income policyholders, RMA 
would need to raise premium rates for all participants in the crop 
insurance program. They said that this is because high-income 
policyholders might leave the program, which would change the risk 
pool. However, we found that high-income policyholders' premiums 
generally have corresponded to their likelihood of collecting claim 
payments, with loss ratios similar to other policyholders. 
Consequently, their decisions to stay in or leave the program would not 
have affected the program's insurance risk pool or its actuarial 
soundness over the period we studied.\81\ If high-income policyholders 
had left the program, the program's overall loss ratio would have 
stayed the same, and RMA would not have needed to raise premium rates 
for policyholders remaining in the program.\82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \81\ In this report, we use the phrase ``likelihood of receiving 
claim payments'' to denote both the probability of receiving claim 
payments and the amount received.
    \82\ It is possible that, if premium subsidies were reduced for 
high-income policyholders, high-income policyholders that presented the 
lowest risk--those with the lowest likelihood of receiving claim 
payments--would leave the program, and others would stay. In such a 
scenario, policyholders leaving the program would represent less than 
0.3 percent of policyholders in the pool and account for less than 0.5 
percent of premiums. Consequently, their effect on the overall loss 
ratio for the program would be minimal, and RMA would be unlikely to 
need to significantly raise premium rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Additionally, high-income policyholders are unlikely to leave the 
crop insurance program because of the benefits of having crop 
insurance, incentives to retain it, and risks of dropping it, according 
to our analysis. For example, from 2011 through 2021, high-income 
policyholders, as a group, received about $250.1 million more in claim 
payments than they paid in their portion of premiums--an average of 
$2.19 for each dollar they paid, according to our analysis. If 
subsidies had been 15 percentage points lower for high-income 
policyholders during this time frame, they still would have received 
more than they paid--an average of $1.59 for each dollar they paid, 
according to our analysis.\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \83\ Some research indicates that a producer's decision about crop 
insurance coverage may be better explained as an investment decision 
than as a choice about how to manage the risk associated with farming, 
according to the CBO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While reducing subsidies would require high-income policyholders to 
pay a larger portion of their premiums, the effect on their overall 
costs would be limited because premium subsidies generally represent a 
small fraction of average production costs per acre. For example, if 
premium subsidies were reduced by 15 percentage points for high-income 
policyholders, in 2022 total production costs per acre would have 
increased for corn by about 1.3 percent, and for wheat by about 1.6 
percent. In addition, high-income policyholders may have an incentive 
to retain crop insurance because, according to a CBO report, it is 
important to lenders who provide farm production loans to 
policyholders.\84\ Furthermore, according to a document from a producer 
organization, high-income policyholders would be unlikely to leave the 
crop insurance program because of the high risk of operating without 
any subsidized safety net. According to academic literature and 
representatives we interviewed from a producer organization and a 
public policy institute, policyholders would be more likely to reduce 
the amount of coverage they purchased than to leave the program 
entirely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \84\ Congressional Budget Office, Reducing the Deficit: Spending 
and Revenue Options (Washington, D.C.: March 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What Steps Are Necessary for the Federal Government to Realize Savings 
        by Reducing Premium Subsidy Rates for High-Income 
        Policyholders?
    Congressional action would be necessary before the Federal 
Government can realize savings by reducing premium subsidy rates for 
high-income policyholders, as we have previously reported. 
Specifically, Congress sets these subsidy rates, as mentioned above, 
and RMA does not have the authority to reduce them. Our updated 
analysis of recent data corroborates our March 2015 report's findings 
that reducing subsidies for high-income policyholders could save 
millions of dollars, with minimal effect on policyholders and the 
program. To achieve such savings, Congress would need to reduce premium 
subsidy rates for high-income policyholders, as we suggested in March 
2015.
    If such a statutory provision were enacted, USDA agencies could use 
existing procedures to reduce subsidies for high-income policyholders 
without adding requirements for the majority of policyholders. For 
example:

   FSA has existing procedures to administer income limits for 
        its farm programs and for the Natural Resources Conservation 
        Service's conservation programs. FSA could also use these 
        procedures to identify high-income policyholders in the crop 
        insurance program, according to FSA officials.\85\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \85\ For more information about how USDA could implement a 
reduction in premium subsidies for high-income crop insurance 
participants, see GAO-15-356 (https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-356).

   RMA has existing procedures to administer the eligibility 
        requirements of the crop insurance program and to reduce 
        benefits--including premium subsidies--under certain 
        conditions.\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \86\ Specifically, a statutory provision first enacted in the 2014 
Farm Bill, and extended in the 2018 Farm Bill, calls for RMA to reduce 
premium subsidies by 50 percentage points for 4 years if a producer 
chooses to plant an insurable crop on native sod in certain states.

   RMA also coordinates with FSA and the Natural Resources 
        Conservation Service to administer a provision prohibiting crop 
        insurance participants from having premium subsidies, unless 
        they comply with certain conservation requirements. RMA could 
        use similar procedures and coordination mechanisms to reduce 
        premium subsidies for high-income policyholders.
Concluding Observations
    Federally subsidized crop insurance, which helps farmers manage the 
risk inherent in farming, is an important part of the farm safety net. 
The crop insurance program is projected to cost the Federal Government 
$10.1 billion per year over the next decade. As we have previously 
reported, and our analysis of more recent data reaffirms, Congress has 
opportunities to achieve significant savings to the Federal Government 
by reducing the cost of the program. If Congress takes action to reduce 
premium subsidies for high-income policyholders, as we suggested in 
March 2015, it could save taxpayers millions of dollars. And if 
Congress repealed the ``budget neutrality'' provision, as we suggested 
in June 2017, USDA would be able to take steps to reduce the cost of 
the program and save taxpayers billions of dollars over the next 
decade.
Agency Comments
    We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Agriculture 
for review and comment. USDA did not have any comments on the report.
    As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the 
contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 
7 days from the report date. At that time, we will send copies to the 
appropriate Congressional committees, the Secretary of Agriculture, and 
other interested parties. In addition, the report will be available at 
no charge on the GAO website at https://www.gao.gov.
    If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please 
contact me at (202) 512-3841 or [email protected]. Contact points for our 
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 
the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to 
this report are listed in appendix VI.


Steve Morris,
Director, Natural Resources and Environment.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
    Our objectives were to provide information on (1) private delivery 
of the Federal Crop Insurance Program through insurance companies and 
(2) premium subsidies for crop insurance policyholders.
    For both objectives, we reviewed relevant legislation, including 
farm bills, and regulations; Risk Management Agency (RMA) data and 
documents, such as handbooks, and Farm Service Agency (FSA) data; and 
relevant government reports and academic studies. We interviewed 
officials from RMA and FSA, as well as representatives of organizations 
with various perspectives on the crop insurance program. We selected 
these organizations to represent a range of individuals and companies 
affected by the crop insurance program, such as small and large 
producers, insurance companies, and taxpayers.
Private Delivery of Crop Insurance Program
    To provide information on private delivery of the crop insurance 
program, we focused on three areas: the amount and types of 
compensation the government paid to insurance companies, how these 
companies' financial gains and losses reflect market conditions, and 
how adjusting compensation to reflect market conditions could affect 
the program. For all three areas, the relevant statutes and regulations 
we reviewed included provisions of the Food, Conservation, and Energy 
Act of 2008 (2008 Farm Bill), the Agricultural Act of 2014 (2014 Farm 
Bill), and the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (2018 Farm Bill). We 
also reviewed RMA documents, including RMA's financial agreements with 
insurance companies, particularly, among other things, sections of the 
2011 standard reinsurance agreement and 2003 livestock price 
reinsurance agreement.\1\ We also reviewed RMA documents on the 
development and implementation of the reinsurance agreements, RMA's 
crop insurance handbooks, and crop insurance industry documents. In 
addition, we reviewed relevant prior GAO, Congressional Research 
Service, and Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reports. We also 
interviewed RMA officials about the development and implementation of 
the reinsurance agreements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ We reviewed the 2011 standard reinsurance agreement and 2003 
livestock price reinsurance agreement because they are the most recent 
renegotiations between RMA and participating insurance companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To describe compensation the government paid to insurance 
companies, including the distribution of administrative and operating 
(A&O) subsidies, we reviewed and analyzed crop insurance data from RMA, 
CBO, and companies' financial reports from 2011 through 2022. In 
addition, we analyzed CBO budget projection data from 2024 through 
2033.\2\ We reviewed and analyzed the distribution of premium subsidies 
and A&O subsidies by policy size, policy type, and crop for 2022. We 
chose 2022 because it was the most recently completed reinsurance year 
at the time of our review.\3\ We categorized larger and smaller 
policies and analyzed data for each group, for illustrative 
purposes.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Congressional Budget Office, CBO's May 2023 Baseline for Farm 
Programs (Washington, D.C.: May 25, 2023).
    \3\ The reinsurance year begins July 1 and ends on June 30 of the 
following year. The 2022 reinsurance year--the most recent year for 
which complete data were available--began on July 1, 2021, and ended on 
June 30, 2022.
    \4\ In 2022, about 48 percent of policies had A&O subsidies of $500 
or less and accounted for five percent of all A&O subsidies. 
Conversely, about two percent of policies had A&O subsidies of $10,000 
or more and accounted for 36 percent of A&O subsidies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We also analyzed the distribution of A&O subsidies by producers' 
demographic characteristics, including whether they belonged to 
historically underserved groups, as defined by U.S. Department of 
Agriculture (USDA).\5\ To do so, we matched RMA data on producers in 
the crop insurance program with FSA data on producers and their 
characteristics, such as whether they belonged to historically 
underserved groups.\6\ We used policyholder-level data for this 
analysis because a single producer may have multiple policies.\7\ By 
aggregating the policies to the producer level, we were able to assess 
the number, and characteristics, of individuals or businesses 
associated with policies for which insurance companies received A&O 
subsidies in 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Historically underserved producers include producers that are 
beginning to farm, have limited resources, are socially disadvantaged 
(i.e., belong to groups that have been subject to racial, ethnic, or 
gender prejudice), or are military veterans, according to criteria 
established by USDA.
    \6\ We matched over 99.5 percent of the policyholders in these RMA 
data to producers in FSA data.
    \7\ In 2022, 72 percent of producers had more than one policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The RMA data we used provided unadjusted A&O subsidy amounts (i.e., 
the amounts before adjustment in accordance with the 2011 standard 
reinsurance agreement's cap on total A&O subsidies for policy types 
that are subject to this cap).\8\ We calculated adjusted A&O subsidy 
amounts according to the 2011 agreement's provisions and other 
information from RMA officials. We compared our adjusted A&O subsidy 
amounts with other RMA data--such as state and national totals--to 
confirm that our adjustments were accurate. We assessed the reliability 
of these A&O subsidy and FSA producer data by testing the data for 
missing values and outliers, interviewing agency officials about the 
reliability of these data, and reviewing technical documentation. We 
determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for providing 
information about the distribution of A&O subsidies in 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ The 2003 livestock price reinsurance agreement did not have a 
minimum or maximum on the total amounts paid to insurance companies 
annually.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To describe how financial gains and losses that participating 
insurance companies experience reflect market conditions, we calculated 
a market-based rate of return and analyzed data on the financial 
performance of these companies for crop and livestock policies for 2011 
through 2022. To calculate a market-based rate of return, we used two 
models that we previously used in our 2017 report to estimate a market-
based rate of return.\9\ These estimates follow the models used in a 
2009 study commissioned by USDA and which RMA used to inform the 2011 
reinsurance agreement renegotiations.\10\ The USDA-commissioned study 
derived, for the 20 years from 1989 through 2008, the annual rate of 
return on shareholders' equity that companies participating in the 
Federal Crop Insurance Program should be expected to earn (i.e., 
market-based rate of return).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ GAO, Crop Insurance: Opportunities Exist to Improve Program 
Delivery and Reduce Costs, GAO-17-501 (https://www.gao.gov/products/
GAO-17-501) (Washington, D.C.: July 26, 2017). See also GAO, Farm Bill: 
Reducing Crop Insurance Costs Could Fund Other Priorities, GAO-23-
106228 (https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-23-106228) (Washington, D.C.: 
Feb. 16, 2023).
    \10\ Milliman, Inc., Rate of Return Update--2008: Reasonable Rate 
of Return Section 3.1, a report prepared at the request of the Risk 
Management Agency, U.S. Department of Agriculture (June 23, 2009). We 
also used a related report, Milliman, Inc., Historical Rate of Return 
Analysis, a report prepared at the request of the Risk Management 
Agency, U.S. Department of Agriculture (Aug. 18, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In our 2017 report, we used the 2009 study's method to update the 
20 year estimate for 1996 through 2015. In that report, we extended the 
study's results to estimate a market-based rate of return on equity for 
the 7 year period from 2009 through 2015. For this report, we used 
these same models to estimate a market-based rate of return on 
shareholders' equity for the 20 year period from 2003 through 2022 and 
the 7 year period from 2016 through 2022. We also identified factors 
that the USDA-commissioned study used to estimate a market-based rate 
of return and collected data on these factors from sources of financial 
information such as the Federal Reserve, Value Line Investment Survey; 
and the 2023 Ibbotson Stocks, Bonds, Bills, and Inflation' 
(SBBI') Yearbook.\11\ Additional information on the models 
used to calculate a market-based rate of return is in appendix II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ Value Line Investment Survey is an independent investment 
advisory service that provides extensive coverage on approximately 
1,700 publicly traded stocks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We analyzed RMA data on the actual rates of return on retained 
premiums of participating insurance companies to identify these 
companies' underwriting gains and losses and their actual rate of 
return from 2011 through 2022. We then compared these actual rates of 
return with the target rate of return set in the reinsurance agreements 
and with our updated estimate of a market-based rate of return. We 
assessed the reliability of these companies' financial performance data 
by, among other things, interviewing agency officials about the 
reliability of these data; reviewing technical documentation; and 
comparing these data with publicly available sources of data, including 
RMA's summary of business and CBO reports. We determined that the data 
were sufficiently reliable for providing information about the 
companies' gains and losses from 2011 through 2022.
    The 2009 USDA-commissioned study--and by extension, the methodology 
we used to calculate a market-based rate of return for this report--
made certain assumptions about three factors that can have implications 
for whether the actual rate of return on retained premiums fully 
reflects the financial gains or losses that participating insurance 
companies receive from the program. These three factors were obtaining 
third-party reinsurance, capital requirements, and A&O expenses 
relative to A&O subsidies. We assessed how these three factors could 
affect the estimated rate of return that insurance companies could earn 
from crop insurance policies. Although the methodology made these three 
assumptions, we believe it is a reasonable indication of a market-based 
rate of return. Moreover, the market-based estimate uses the average of 
two models, and both models produced similar results. We also 
considered the effect of recent increases in interest rates on a 
market-based rate of return.
    In addition to the model described above, we calculated an 
alternative measure of underwriting gains--the combined ratio--to 
assess and compare the crop insurance companies' underwriting gains 
with the underwriting gains of property and casualty insurance 
companies. More information on our calculation of the combined ratio is 
in appendix III.
    To describe how adjusting USDA's compensation to insurance 
companies to reflect a market-based rate of return could affect the 
crop insurance program, we also used the market-based rate of return, 
as described above, to estimate the potential effects on the program's 
cost if USDA adjusted the rate of return for insurance companies to 
reflect market conditions. To describe opportunities, if any, for the 
Federal Government to reduce its delivery costs for the program, we 
reviewed and summarized RMA data on companies' underwriting gains and 
risk sharing, as expressed by total program premiums and premiums 
retained by companies for the 12 years since USDA renegotiated the 
reinsurance agreements with the companies, from 2011 through 2022.
    To understand the potential effects on the crop insurance program's 
insurance companies and producers, we interviewed representatives of 
four organizations with various perspectives on the program, including 
a crop insurance trade association, producer advocacy organizations, 
and a public policy institute, and reviewed the organizations' position 
statements. We selected these organizations because they had a strong 
understanding of the crop insurance program, and they represented a 
diversity of individuals and companies affected by the crop insurance 
program, including small and large producers, insurance companies, and 
taxpayers.
Premium Subsidies for Crop Insurance Policyholders
    To provide information on premium subsidies for crop insurance 
policyholders, we focused on three areas: the distribution of Federal 
crop insurance premium subsidies provided to policyholders by category, 
including state and crop; the extent to which high-income policyholders 
participate in the Federal Crop Insurance Program; and the potential 
effects on the program if premium subsidies were reduced for high-
income policyholders.
    To describe the distribution of Federal crop insurance premium 
subsidy dollars provided to policyholders by category, we analyzed RMA 
data from 2022 on crop insurance policyholders' characteristics, 
including the amount they had in premium subsidies, the states where 
they were located, and the commodities they insured. To determine the 
extent to which high-income policyholders participate in the crop 
insurance program, we matched RMA data from 2022 on crop insurance 
policyholders' characteristics with FSA data on participants' 
compliance with income limits for farm programs in 2021. We used the 
FSA data from 2021 because they were the most complete data available 
on participants' general income levels. In matching the two datasets, 
we determined that about 99.7 percent of all crop insurance 
policyholders were in the FSA dataset. For those policyholders, we 
identified the number with adjusted gross incomes (AGI), averaged over 
3 specified years that exceeded $900,000, according to FSA data. We 
also analyzed the data to compare the characteristics of high-income 
policyholders with those of other policyholders.
    To determine the potential effects on the program if premium 
subsidies were reduced for high-income policyholders, we calculated 
potential government savings and potential effects on the actuarial 
soundness of the program. To determine potential savings, we analyzed 
RMA and FSA data to estimate the amount of subsidies paid on behalf of 
policyholders with AGI that exceeded $900,000, and we calculated the 
savings that would have resulted if these subsidies were reduced in 
2022 by 15 percentage points. We chose $900,000 because it was the 
income limit for some FSA farm programs in 2022. We chose a reduction 
in premium subsidies of 15 percentage points because it is the amount 
that was proposed in a Senate-passed bill in 2013. We chose 2022 
because recent years more closely reflect current program provisions 
and participation levels.
    To identify effects on the actuarial soundness of the crop 
insurance program, we analyzed RMA data on loss experiences of, and 
premiums paid for, (1) high-income policyholders; and (2) other 
policyholders, from 2011 through 2021. We chose this period to capture 
variability in weather and other factors that change over time, such as 
crop prices. In addition, we reviewed government and academic studies, 
and interviewed officials from RMA and FSA, and spokespersons from 
organizations with a strong understanding of the crop insurance program 
regarding the potential effects of reducing premium subsidies for high-
income policyholders in the crop insurance program. We selected the 
organizations to represent a range of individuals and companies 
affected by the crop insurance program, such as small and large 
producers, insurance companies, and taxpayers.
    We assessed the reliability of RMA data on premium subsidies, 
policyholder characteristics (including commodities insured, type of 
policy purchased, and state of residence), total premiums, claim 
payments, and liabilities; and FSA data on participants with incomes 
exceeding $900,000, and their characteristics. We did so by, among 
other things, screening for omissions and anomalies, interviewing 
agency officials about the reliability of these data and reviewing 
technical documentation. We determined that the data were sufficiently 
reliable for providing information about the distribution of premium 
subsidies, the extent to which high-income policyholders participated 
in the crop insurance program, and the potential effects on the program 
if premium subsidies were reduced for high-income policyholders in 
2022.
    We conducted this performance audit from June 2022 to November 2023 
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 
conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Appendix II: Analysis of Market-Based Rate of Return
    We updated the market-based rate of return for insurance companies 
based on the methodology of a 2009 USDA-commissioned study, which 
derived the annual rate of return that companies participating in the 
Federal Crop Insurance Program should be expected to earn during the 
period from 1989 through 2008.\1\ We used this same methodology in our 
prior work to estimate the market-based rate of return from 2009 
through 2015.\2\ In this report, we have again updated the market-based 
rate of return estimates from 2003 through 2022. The U.S. Department of 
Agriculture (USDA)-commissioned study used the opportunity cost of 
capital as the definition of the market-based rate of return for crop 
insurance. In order to determine a market-based rate of return for 
companies participating in the Federal Crop Insurance Program, the 2009 
study averaged the results obtained using two methods: the capital 
asset pricing model and the discounted cash flow model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Milliman, Inc., Rate of Return Update--2008: Reasonable Rate of 
Return Section 3.1, a report prepared at the request of the Risk 
Management Agency, U.S. Department of Agriculture (June 23, 2009). 
Milliman is a consulting firm.
    \2\ GAO, Crop Insurance: Opportunities Exist to Improve Program 
Delivery and Reduce Costs, GAO-17-501 (https://www.gao.gov/products/
GAO-17-501) (Washington, D.C.: July 26, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capital Asset Pricing Model
    The capital asset pricing model uses the return on a risk-free 
asset, usually a U.S. Treasury security, to estimate the additional 
return an investor should expect as compensation for the additional 
risk associated with alternative investments. The capital asset pricing 
model uses the following equation to calculate the cost of capital:

          K = rf + b * rd

in which rf is the risk-free rate, b is the beta coefficient, and rd is 
the equity risk premium.
Discounted Cash Flow Model
    According to the 2009 USDA-commissioned study, the discounted cash 
flow model is perhaps the most widely used method for estimating the 
cost of capital, particularly in regulated industries, such as public 
utilities. The discounted cash flow model is constructed on the 
assumption that the cost of an investment (for instance, a stock) will 
equal the present value of cash flows (such as future dividend payments 
or capital gains) resulting from the investment. If the present value 
of cash flows resulting from the investment does not equal the price, 
investors will bid on (or against) the investment until the values are 
equal. The USDA-commissioned study collected data for a sample of 
publicly traded property and casualty insurance companies from Value 
Line Investment Survey.
    The discounted cash flow model uses the following equation to 
calculate the cost of capital:




    The first element,        is the dividend yield expected in the 
first year. The divi-

dend, D1, reported by Value Line Investment Survey, is the 
estimate of the cash dividends payable in the next 12 months. 
P0 is the price of the stock at the beginning of the 12 
month period.
    The second element in the discounted cash flow model, g, is an 
average of the growth forecast method and fundamental analysis. The 
growth forecast method is an estimate of growth based on an equally 
weighted average of 10 year historical earnings and dividends, 5 year 
historical earnings and dividends, and a Value Line analyst's 
forecasted dividends and earnings. Sustainable (``fundamental'') growth 
is the rate at which companies retain and reinvest earnings. 
Fundamental analysis assumes that retained earnings can be reinvested 
and used to produce greater earnings in the future-earnings that might 
produce higher dividends in the future. Alternatively, the company may 
grow by issuing stock above book value, proceeds from which could 
finance new investments, thereby generating higher dividends in the 
future.
Results
    We estimated the 20 year (2003 through 2022) average market-based 
rate of return to be 10.2 percent, and for the most recent 7 years 
(2016 through 2022) to be 9.8 percent. Table 6 presents an overview of 
our updated analysis.

       Table 6: Market-Based Rates of Return Estimates, 2003-2022
                            (In percentages)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Market-based
                                                         rate of  return
                                                            on equity
                        Capital asset   Discounted cash    (average of
        Years           pricing model   flow model rate   capital asset
                       rate of return     of return on    pricing model
                          on equity          equity      and  discounted
                                                            cash flow
                                                              model)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003-2022 (20 year              10.3             10.1             10.2
          average)
2016-2022 (7 year               10.2             10.2             10.2
          average)
             2022               11.3             11.7             11.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: GAO analysis of data from the Federal Reserve; Value Line
  Investment Survey; 2023 Ibbotson Stocks, Bonds, Bills, and Inflation
  (SBBI) Yearbook; and a 2009 study commissioned by the U.S. Department
  of Agriculture (USDA). D GAO-24-106086.
Notes: A 2009 USDA-commissioned study found that the reasonable (market-
  based) rate of return on shareholders' equity for the 20 years from
  1989 through 2008 was an average of 12.8 percent. In 2017, using the
  2009 study's method for determining the market-based rate of return on
  equity, we conducted an analysis updating the study's results for the
  20 years from 1996 through 2015 and estimated that the market-based
  rate of return on equity for that period was 11.0 percent. The market-
  based rate of return on equity is the average of the rates from the
  capital asset pricing model and the discounted cash flow model.

    Although we estimated market-based rates of return for 20 year and 
7 year time frames, the market-based rate of return can fluctuate from 
year to year. The models we used for our estimates, which are based on 
the methodology of a 2009 study that the USDA commissioned, use inputs 
that include interest rates and the share prices of property and 
casualty insurance companies. Because those inputs fluctuate from year 
to year, the market-based rate of return also fluctuates, as table 7 
shows. For example, while the market-based rate of return decreased 
slightly from 11.6 percent in 2009 to 11.5 percent in 2022, there were 
large fluctuations during the period--the lowest was 8.8 percent in 
2013 and 2015 and the highest was 11.6 percent in 2009.

             Table 7: Market-Based Rate of Return, 1989-2022
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               20 year
                                                               rolling
                 Market-based  Capital asset   Discounted      average
     Year          rate of     pricing model    cash flow   market-based
                    return      a (percent)      model b       rate of
                  (percent)                     (percent)      return
                                                              (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        1989            15.9           16.3           15.4            --
        1990            16.2           16.2           16.2            --
        1991            15.4           14.8           16.0            --
        1992            14.5           13.8           15.2            --
        1993            13.8           12.6           14.9            --
        1994            13.7           13.8           13.6            --
        1995            13.6           13.8           13.4            --
        1996            13.3           13.7           12.8            --
        1997            12.9           13.5           12.3            --
        1998            13.1           13.2           13.0            --
        1999            12.7           13.5           11.9            --
        2000            13.1           14.5           11.8            --
        2001            12.0           12.5           11.4            --
        2002            10.8           11.6           10.1            --
        2003             9.7           10.2            9.1            --
        2004            10.3           10.9            9.8            --
        2005            10.7           11.2           10.2            --
        2006            11.8           12.6           10.9            --
        2007            11.7           12.4           11.0            --
        2008            11.5           10.2           12.9          12.8
        2009            11.6           10.5           12.6          12.6
        2010            10.5           10.5           10.6          12.3
        2011             9.6           10.2            8.9          12.0
        2012             8.9            8.9            9.0          11.8
        2013             8.8            9.3            8.4          11.5
        2014             9.1            9.2            8.9          11.3
        2015             8.8            9.0            8.6          11.0
        2016             8.9            9.5            8.3          10.8
        2017            10.0           10.1            9.8          10.7
        2018            11.2           10.7           11.6          10.6
        2019            10.7           10.8           10.6          10.5
        2020             9.7            9.2           10.1          10.3
        2021             9.7            9.9            9.6          10.2
        2022            11.5           11.3           11.7          10.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: GAO analysis of data from the Federal Reserve; Value Line
  Investment Survey; 2023 Ibbotson Stocks, Bonds, Bills, and Inflation
  (SBBI) Yearbook; and a 2009 study commissioned by the U.S. Department
  of Agriculture (USDA). D GAO-24-106086.
Notes: Market-based rate of return: Cost of capital estimates are based
  on an average of the capital asset pricing model and discounted cash
  flow model columns for each year from 2009 through 2022. We used
  reasonable rate of return results for 1989 through 2008 from the 2009
  USDA-commissioned study.
a Capital asset pricing model: Our estimated cost of capital is based on
  the capital asset pricing model. We used results for 1989 through 2008
  from the 2009 USDA-commissioned study.
b Discounted cash flow model: We computed the estimated cost of capital
  for 2009 through 2022 using only property and casualty insurance
  companies for which all required values were available in the Value
  Line Investment Survey. We used discounted cash flow model results for
  1989 through 2008 from the USDA-commissioned study.

    Because interest rates are a variable in the formula that the USDA-
commissioned study used to estimate the market-based rate of return, 
fluctuations in interest rates contribute to fluctuations in the 
market-based rate of return. Specifically, higher interest rates 
contribute to higher rates of return, and lower interest rates 
contribute to lower rates of return. For example, interest rates on 
U.S. Treasury securities--one measure of an average interest rate--
ranged from 2.2 percent in 2009 to 0.6 percent in 2020 and then rose to 
2.4 percent in 2022.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ The ``average interest rate'' is the average of yields on 
short-, intermediate-, and long-term U.S. Treasury securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Using an average market-based rate of return over a period of time 
can account for year-to-year fluctuations, such as in interest rates. 
Given that individual-year estimates can fluctuate rapidly, 
particularly in periods of economic instability, according to the USDA-
commissioned study, the estimates could be updated annually to reflect 
the most current economic conditions.\4\ However, the study also 
recognized that there is a balance between stability and 
responsiveness. For example, using the most responsive method, in which 
the rates would be determined based on data for that particular year, 
the market-based rate of return would have been 8.8 percent in 2015 and 
11.5 percent in 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Milliman, Inc., Rate of Return Update--2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix III: Measuring Property and Casualty Insurance Companies' 
        Profit
    This appendix provides information on measures of property and 
casualty insurance companies' profitability and compares these 
companies' profitability with that of insurance companies that 
participate in the Federal Crop Insurance Program. It also provides 
information on capital requirements for property and casualty insurance 
companies and the companies participating in the Federal Crop Insurance 
Program.
Components of Property and Casualty Insurance Companies' Profitability
    The financial performance of property and casualty insurance 
companies, including companies that participate in the Federal Crop 
Insurance Program, is determined primarily by two factors: underwriting 
performance and investment performance. Underwriting performance refers 
to how much an insurer pays out in claims relative to what it earns in 
premiums. Investment performance refers to how much an insurer earns on 
its portfolio of invested assets.
    Underwriting profit is the net profit that an insurer derives from 
providing insurance coverage, exclusive of the income it derives from 
investments. It does not include the gains made from invested premiums 
and equity capital. It is calculated by taking the net collected 
premiums (net of reinsurance premiums) less losses, loss adjustment 
expenses, and underwriting expenses.\1\ Investment profit includes net 
investment income from insurance operations, as well as net investment 
income from an insurer's equity capital.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Underwriting expenses include agents' commission, staff 
salaries, and other overhead expenses paid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Measuring Profitability
    A standard measure of financial performance across all industries 
is the rate of return on shareholders' equity, which is the ratio of 
profit to a company's average net worth (also known as equity for 
publicly traded companies, or surplus for mutual insurance companies).
    The rate of return on equity can be calculated as the product of 
the rate of return on premium and the premium-to-equity ratio. Some 
insurance industry analysts use rate of return on premium as a proxy 
for the rate of return on equity, when equity for a line of business 
for multiline insurers is not readily available. For example, when 
calculating the rate of return on equity for crop insurance, many 
insurance industry analysts use the rate of return on premium (earned 
premium net of reinsurance) to measure the profit. A 2009 study that 
the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) commissioned calculated the 
historical rate of return by using the property and casualty insurance 
industry premium-to-equity ratio and found that the average premium-to-
equity ratio was 130 percent from 1989 to 2009, an indication that the 
actual rate of return on equity might be higher than the rate of return 
on premium.\2\ During 2001 through 2009, a period in which the crop 
insurance program grew substantially, the average premium-to-equity 
ratio was 121 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Milliman, Inc., Historical Rate of Return Analysis, a report 
prepared at the request of the Risk Management Agency, U.S. Department 
of Agriculture (Aug. 18, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capital Requirement
    Crop insurance companies had comparable overall operating ratios to 
property and casualty insurance companies from 2011 to 2022, according 
to an AM Best report.\3\ Since the operating ratio measures a company's 
overall operational profitability from underwriting and investment 
activities, crop insurance companies earned a comparable return 
relative to property and casualty insurance companies, doing so with 
much less investment profit, an indication of lower capital 
requirements for crop insurance companies.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ From 2011 through 2020, the average operating ratios for crop 
insurance and property and casualty insurance were 96.0 and 95.2, 
respectively. 2021 Cumulative By Line Underwriting Experience--Net 
Premiums Written report (New York, NY: AM Best Company, Inc, August 
2021).
    \4\ For example, if (1) Company A and Company B have the same 
amount of written premium and earn the same rate of return (five 
percent) on investment with no other income; (2) Company A had a 
combined ratio of 90 percent, while company B had a combined ratio of 
95 percent; and (3) both companies had the same target profit goal of a 
90 percent operating ratio, Company B would need to have invested 
additional capital to earn an investment return of five percent, while 
Company A would need no more capital investment to achieve the 
operating ratio of 90 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Risk-based capital (RBC) requirements are governed by model laws 
developed by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners and 
adopted in each of the states. Under RBC, each insurance company 
performs a set of prescribed calculations that measure needed capital 
as a function of the particular risks to which that insurer is uniquely 
exposed. Specifically, the RBC instructions ascribe quantitative 
factors to each component of risk to which that insurer is subject--for 
example, investment assets, liabilities, underwriting risk, credit 
risk, interest rate risk and others, yielding an amount of capital 
(``authorized control level'') that is deemed the minimum necessary for 
that insurer in order to carry on its business. Compared with property 
and casualty insurance companies, crop insurance companies have lower 
underwriting risk because of the reinsurance arrangement with the 
Federal Government via the standard reinsurance agreement. Further, 
crop insurance is also subject to less asset risk and interest rate 
risk. As a result, crop insurance companies should have relatively 
lower RBC requirements compared with property and casualty insurance 
companies more generally.
Combined Ratio
    Insurance companies and industry analysts also use a metric known 
as the ``combined ratio'' to measure underwriting profit. The combined 
ratio is calculated by dividing the sum of claim-related losses and 
expenses by earned premium.\5\ Combined ratios are seen as a good 
measure of an insurance company's underwriting performance and health 
over an extended period because they examine profitability only from 
the standpoint of the company's insurance operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Combined Ratio = (Incurred Losses + Expenses)/Earned Premiums, 
where the earned premium is net of reinsurance. For companies paying 
dividends, combined ratio after dividends is a measure or gauge of the 
profitability of an insurer that reflects its financial standing 
relative to the volume of business it generates. Combined Ratio After 
Dividends = (Incurred Losses + Expenses ^ Dividends to Policyholders)/
Earned Premiums.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A combined ratio of more than 100 percent means that an insurance 
company had more losses plus expenses than earned premiums and lost 
money on its operations. Conversely, a combined ratio of less than 100 
percent means that a company had more earned premiums than losses plus 
expenses and is operating at a profit, while a combined ratio of 
exactly 100 percent is the breakeven point. It is in the best interest 
of the company to maintain a low combined ratio of losses and expenses 
relative to premiums earned, to maximize its profitability.
    As shown in table 8 below, companies participating in the Federal 
Crop Insurance Program had an average combined ratio of 97.0 from 2011 
to 2022. Property and casualty insurance companies more generally had 
an average combined ratio of 100.4 over the same 12 year period. Note 
that the premium for crop insurance companies is the ``pure premium,'' 
while the premium for other commercial property and casualty insurance 
companies includes the pure premium and the cost of expenses and profit 
load.\6\ Crop insurance companies earned relatively more underwriting 
profits than the property and casualty insurance from 2011 to 2022.\7\ 
This greater underwriting profitability may be due to the risk-sharing 
provision of the crop insurance program's standard reinsurance 
agreement, which has the target rate of return exceeding the market-
based rate of return, thereby increasing crop insurance companies' 
underwriting gains.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ According to RMA, the pure premium rate is the premium rate 
that should have been charged to exactly pay those losses.
    \7\ The combined ratio for crop insurance had larger year-to-year 
variation, compared with property and casualty insurance companies. 
This is expected, because crop insurance financial results can be 
strongly affected by weather-related losses. For example, crop losses 
due to a 2012 drought in the Midwest caused participating insurance 
companies to have underwriting losses.

    Table 8: U.S. Crop Insurance and Property and Casualty Insurance
                        Combined Ratio, 2011-2022
                            (In percentages)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Property and casualty
                                Crop insurance      insurance companies'
           Year              companies' combined    combined ratio after
                             ratio after dividend         dividend
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                2011                    90.5                  107.7
                2012                   103.9                  103.1
                2013                   103.3                   96.9
                2014                   105.0                   97.2
                2015                   102.4                   97.7
                2016                    81.7                  100.5
                2017                    84.1                  103.7
                2018                    85.0                   99.0
                2019                   108.6                   98.8
                2020                   100.0                   98.8
                2021                    94.9                   99.5
                2022                   103.8                  102.4
             Average                    97.0                  100.4
  Standard deviation                     9.4                    3.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO analysis of data from AM Best Company, Inc. D GAO-24-106086.
Note: The premium for crop insurance companies is the ``pure premium,''
  while the premium for other commercial property and casualty insurance
  companies includes pure premium and the cost of expenses and profit
  load.

    While the combined ratio is a simple and widely used measure of 
underwriting performance, the operating ratio, which reflects both the 
combined ratio and return on investments, measures the overall profit 
of insurance companies.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ The operating ratio is calculated by subtracting the ratio of 
investment income divided by the earned premium from the combined 
ratio. Thus, investment income is included in this profit measure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix IV: Distribution of Premium Subsidies among Policyholders, by 
        State
    Table 9 shows the distribution of premium subsidies among 
policyholders in 2022 for 14 states, which collectively accounted for 
about 75 percent of premium subsidies nationwide. The table also shows 
the distribution of premium subsidies among policyholders in 2022 for 
all other states and the nation.

 Table 9: Distribution of Premium Subsidies among Federal Crop Insurance
                  Program Policyholders by State, 2022
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Premium Subsidies             Policyholders
    State and    -------------------------------------------------------
premium  subsidy  Sum (Dollars
      range       in millions)   Percentage      Number      Percentage
                        a
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Texas
  $1-$10,000....         $62.4          4.1%        20,665         59.4%
  $10,001-$50,00         182.0          12.1         7,864          22.6
   0............
  $50,001-$100,0         165.0          10.9         2,314           6.7
   00...........
  $100,001-$250,         387.7          25.7         2,465           7.1
   000..........
  $250,001 or            710.3          47.1         1,465           4.2
   more.........
                 -------------------------------------------------------
    Subtotal....      $1,507.4        100.0%        34,773        100.0%
                 -------------------------------------------------------
North Dakota
  $1-$10,000....         $21.3          2.0%         5,735         33.5%
  $10,001-$50,00         134.2          12.8         5,106          29.8
   0............
  $50,001-$100,0         200.4          19.0         2,777          16.2
   00...........
  $100,001-$250,         425.5          40.4         2,806          16.4
   000..........
  $250,001 or            270.8          25.7           689           4.0
   more.........
                 -------------------------------------------------------
    Subtotal....      $1,052.2        100.0%        17,113        100.0%
                 -------------------------------------------------------
South Dakota
  $1-$10,000....         $29.0          3.6%         7,885         41.0%
  $10,001-$50,00         173.9          21.4         6,765          35.2
   0............
  $50,001-$100,0         176.3          21.7         2,503          13.0
   00...........
  $100,001-$250,         246.5          30.3         1,650           8.6
   000..........
  $250,001 or            188.1          23.1           434           2.3
   more.........
                 -------------------------------------------------------
    Subtotal....        $813.7        100.0%        19,237        100.0%
                 -------------------------------------------------------
Iowa
  $1-$10,000....        $112.8         14.5%        32,346         61.9%
  $10,001-$50,00         378.6          48.8        16,976          32.5
   0............
  $50,001-$100,0         151.2          19.5         2,236           4.3
   00...........
  $100,001-$250,          83.7          10.8           590           1.1
   000..........
  $250,001 or             49.0           6.3            95           0.2
   more.........
                 -------------------------------------------------------
    Subtotal....        $775.3        100.0%        52,243        100.0%
                 -------------------------------------------------------
Kansas
  $1-$10,000....         $79.8         10.6%        30,110         68.8%
  $10,001-$50,00         229.0          30.4         9,826          22.5
   0............
  $50,001-$100,0         167.1          22.2         2,413           5.5
   00...........
  $100,001-$250,         174.1          23.1         1,194           2.7
   000..........
  $250,001 or            102.2          13.6           225           0.5
   more.........
                 -------------------------------------------------------
    Subtotal....        $752.1        100.0%        43,768        100.0%
                 -------------------------------------------------------
Illinois
  $1-$10,000....         $90.3         12.3%        31,234         65.7%
  $10,001-$50,00         300.3          40.8        12,895          27.1
   0............
  $50,001-$100,0         160.0          21.7         2,347           4.9
   00...........
  $100,001-$250,         128.0          17.4           908           1.9
   000..........
  $250,001 or             58.1           7.9           142           0.3
   more.........
                 -------------------------------------------------------
    Subtotal....        $736.7        100.0%        47,526        100.0%
                 -------------------------------------------------------
Minnesota
  $1-$10,000....         $64.5          9.5%        16,658         52.5%
  $10,001-$50,00         268.9          39.5        11,718          36.9
   0............
  $50,001-$100,0         157.4          23.1         2,287           7.2
   00...........
  $100,001-$250,         131.9          19.4           917           2.9
   000..........
  $250,001 or             58.4           8.6           141           0.4
   more.........
                 -------------------------------------------------------
    Subtotal....        $681.1        100.0%        31,721        100.0%
                 -------------------------------------------------------
Nebraska
  $1-$10,000....         $65.5         11.1%        20,534         59.7%
  $10,001-$50,00         261.0          44.1        11,064          32.2
   0............
  $50,001-$100,0         139.5          23.6         2,050           6.0
   00...........
  $100,001-$250,          95.1          16.1           668           1.9
   000..........
  $250,001 or             30.3           5.1            74           0.2
   more.........
                 -------------------------------------------------------
    Subtotal....        $591.5        100.0%        34,390        100.0%
                 -------------------------------------------------------
Missouri
  $1-$10,000....         $40.1          9.2%        13,400         61.8%
  $10,001-$50,00         142.0          32.7         6,003          27.7
   0............
  $50,001-$100,0          99.5          22.9         1,435           6.6
   00...........
  $100,001-$250,         108.1          24.9           737           3.4
   000..........
  $250,001 or             44.1          10.2           112           0.5
   more.........
                 -------------------------------------------------------
    Subtotal....        $433.8        100.0%        21,687        100.0%
                 -------------------------------------------------------
California
  $1-$10,000....         $32.6          8.1%         9,763         61.4%
  $10,001-$50,00         100.9          25.1         4,456          28.0
   0............
  $50,001-$100,0          65.1          16.2           922           5.8
   00...........
  $100,001-$250,          83.3          20.7           547           3.4
   000..........
  $250,001 or            120.5          29.9           225           1.4
   more.........
                 -------------------------------------------------------
    Subtotal....        $402.5        100.0%        15,913        100.0%
                 -------------------------------------------------------
Indiana
  $1-$10,000....         $32.5          8.1%         9,791         54.8%
  $10,001-$50,00         140.6          35.0         5,859          32.8
   0............
  $50,001-$100,0         102.2          25.4         1,481           8.3
   00...........
  $100,001-$250,          92.4          23.0           648           3.6
   000..........
  $250,001 or             34.3           8.5            87           0.5
   more.........
                 -------------------------------------------------------
    Subtotal....        $402.1        100.0%        17,866        100.0%
                 -------------------------------------------------------
Wisconsin
  $1-$10,000....         $28.7          9.5%         7,397         55.5%
  $10,001-$50,00         100.7          33.4         4,512          33.8
   0............
  $50,001-$100,0          58.9          19.5           845           6.3
   00...........
  $100,001-$250,          71.2          23.6           475           3.6
   000..........
  $250,001 or             42.2          14.0           101           0.8
   more.........
                 -------------------------------------------------------
    Subtotal....        $301.7        100.0%        13,330        100.0%
                 -------------------------------------------------------
Ohio
  $1-$10,000....         $34.8         12.1%        10,500         60.8%
  $10,001-$50,00         123.6          43.1         5,442          31.5
   0............
  $50,001-$100,0          65.8          22.9           965           5.6
   00...........
  $100,001-$250,          46.2          16.1           331           1.9
   000..........
  $250,001 or             16.5           5.7            39           0.2
   more.........
                 -------------------------------------------------------
    Subtotal....        $287.0        100.0%        17,277        100.0%
                 -------------------------------------------------------
North Carolina
  $1-$10,000....          $8.6          3.6%         2,345         42.5%
  $10,001-$50,00          45.7          19.0         1,824          33.1
   0............
  $50,001-$100,0          49.1          20.5           695          12.6
   00...........
  $100,001-$250,          77.0          32.1           510           9.2
   000..........
  $250,001 or             59.3          24.7           140           2.5
   more.........
                 -------------------------------------------------------
    Subtotal....        $239.8        100.0%         5,514        100.0%
                 -------------------------------------------------------
All other states
  $1-$10,000....        $144.6          4.8%        45,441         51.5%
  $10,001-$50,00         669.9          22.4        27,499          31.2
   0............
  $50,001-$100,0         595.0          19.9         8,458           9.6
   00...........
  $100,001-$250,         795.5          26.6         5,291           6.0
   000..........
  $250,001 or            789.8          26.4         1,568           1.8
   more.........
                 -------------------------------------------------------
    Subtotal....       2,994.9        100.0%        88,257        100.0%
                 -------------------------------------------------------
National totals
  $1-$10,000....        $847.4          7.1%       263,804         57.3%
  $10,001-$50,00       3,251.3          27.2       137,809          29.9
   0............
  $50,001-$100,0       2,352.5          19.7        33,728           7.3
   00...........
  $100,001-$250,       2,946.3          24.6        19,737           4.2
   000..........
  $250,001 or          2,574.1          21.5         5,537           1.3
   more.........
                 =======================================================
      Total.....     $11,971.6        100.0%       460,615        100.0%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO analysis of data from Risk Management Agency. D GAO-24-
  106086.
a Numbers may not sum to totals because of rounding.

Appendix V: High-Income and Other Policyholders in the Federal Crop 
        Insurance Program, 2022
    Table 10 provides information on high-income policyholders and 
their premiums, by state.

            Table 10: High-Income Policyholders in the Federal Crop Insurance Program, by State, 2022
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                High-income policyholders as
                                                         Total high-income    percentage of all crop insurance
                                       Number of high-      policyholder         policyholders in each state
                State                       income          premiums (in   -------------------------------------
                                       policyholders a       thousands)        By number of
                                                                              policyholders       By premiums
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Texas                                               270            $12,591              0.78%              0.56%
Iowa                                                199             12,822               0.38               0.88
Kansas                                              156              6,232               0.36               0.52
Illinois                                            111              3,378               0.23               0.27
Nebraska                                             88              4,212               0.26               0.42
California                                           57              5,294               0.36               0.74
Oklahoma                                             55              1,192               0.56               0.33
Missouri                                             51              1,932               0.24               0.30
South Dakota                                         50              4,156               0.26               0.35
North Dakota                                         46              3,737               0.27               0.24
Minnesota                                            41              4,626               0.13               0.41
Colorado                                             36              1,906               0.48               0.56
Idaho                                                24              2,967               0.80               1.76
Wisconsin                                            22             12,160               0.17               2.56
Indiana                                              20              1,077               0.11               0.16
Tennessee                                            17                337               0.45               0.23
Georgia                                              16              3,459               0.32               1.08
Ohio                                                 16                733               0.09               0.16
Kentucky                                             15                526               0.25               0.20
Florida                                               9              2,393               0.24               0.90
Louisiana                                             8                138               0.24               0.09
New Mexico                                            8                412               0.42               0.26
North Carolina                                        8              1,540               0.15               0.42
Oregon                                                8                821               0.26               0.57
Washington                                            8                692               0.11               0.25
Arkansas                                              7                689               0.11               0.26
Maryland                                              7                226               0.43               0.47
Alabama                                               6                 13               0.21               0.01
Montana                                               6                301               0.09               0.09
Michigan                                              5                521               0.06               0.17
Northeastern states with 1-4 high-                   15              2,166               0.21               0.91
 income policyholders b
Southern states with 1-4 high-income                 13              1,995               0.17               0.41
 policyholders c
Western states with 1-4 high-income                   9              5,386               0.24               1.45
 policyholders d
Alaska                                                0                  0                  0                  0
Hawaii                                                0                  0                  0                  0
New Hampshire                                         0                  0                  0                  0
Rhode Island                                          0                  0                  0                  0
Vermont                                               0                  0                  0                  0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: GAO analysis of data from Risk Management Agency and Farm Service Agency (FSA). D GAO-24-106086.
Note: Policyholders are counted in each state where they held policies in 2022, so some policyholders are
  counted multiple times.
a High-income policyholders are those for which we have FSA data showing that their average adjusted gross
  incomes, calculated over a specified 3 year period, exceeded $900,000.
b Northeastern states in this category include Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and
  Pennsylvania.
cS outhern states in this category include Delaware, Mississippi, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia.
d Western states in this category include Arizona, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming.

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
GAO Contact
    Steve D. Morris at (202) 512-3841 or [email protected].
Staff Acknowledgments
    In addition to the contact named above, Frank Todisco (Chief 
Actuary), Thomas M. Cook (Assistant Director), Rose Almoguera (Analyst 
in Charge), Kevin S. Bray, Gary Brown, Stephen Brown, Lilia Chaidez, 
Tara Congdon, Christy Feehan, Steven Flint, Lijia Guo, and Sara 
Sullivan made key contributions to this report. Gwen Kirby, Cynthia 
Norris, Isabel Rosa, and Brennan Williams also made important 
contributions to this report.
GAO's Mission
    The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance 
and accountability of the Federal Government for the American people. 
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates Federal programs and 
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core 
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
    The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through our website. Each weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its 
website [1] newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence. You can also subscribe [2] to GAO's email 
updates to receive notification of newly posted products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \[1]\ https://www.gao.gov/.
    \[2]\ https://www.gao.gov/subscribe/index.php.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order by Phone
    The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO's actual cost of 
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black 
and white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO's website, 
https://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm.
    Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, 
or TDD (202) 512-2537.
    Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information.
Connect with GAO
    Connect with GAO on Facebook,[3] Flickr,[4] 
Twitter,[5] and YouTube.[6] Subscribe to our RSS 
Feeds [7] or Email Updates.[7] Listen to our 
Podcasts.[8] Visit GAO on the web at https://www.gao.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \[3]\ https://facebook.com/usgao.
    \[4]\ https://flickr.com/usgao.
    \[5]\ https://twitter.com/usgao.
    \[6]\ https://youtube.com/usgao.
    \[7]\ https://www.gao.gov/about/contact-us/stay-connected.
    \[8]\ https://www.gao.gov/podcast/watchdog.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
    Contact FraudNet:

          Website: https://www.gao.gov/about/what-gao-does/fraudnet
          Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7700
Congressional Relations
    A. Nicole Clowers, Managing Director, [email protected], (202) 512-
4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 
7125, Washington, D.C. 20548.
Public Affairs
    Chuck Young, Managing Director, [email protected], (202) 512-4800 
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 
Washington, D.C. 20548.
Strategic Planning and External Liaison
    Stephen J. Sanford, Managing Director, [email protected], (202) 512-4707 
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7814, 
Washington, D.C. 20548.
                         Submitted Legislation
  1.  H.R. 5698, Assisting Family Farmers through Insurance Reform 
            Measures Act (AFFIRM Act): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/
            pkg/BILLS-118hr5698ih/pdf/BILLS-118hr5698ih.pdf (See p. 
            923).

  2.  H.R. 5747, Crop Insurance Transparency Act: https://
            www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-118hr5747ih/pdf/BILLS-
            118hr5747ih.pdf (See p. 933).

    The Chairman. Well, I thank the gentleman. Thanks for 
testifying today.
    I am now pleased to recognize the gentleman from Montana, 
Mr. Rosendale, for 5 minutes.

 STATEMENT OF HON. MATTHEW M. ROSENDALE, Sr., A REPRESENTATIVE 
                    IN CONGRESS FROM MONTANA

    Mr. Rosendale. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and 
greetings from Montana, where Chick-fil-A has made an entrance 
into the state, but beef still reigns king as the cattle 
outnumber the people by a 2-to-1 ratio.
    I introduced five bills that have been referred to your 
Committee and would like to touch briefly on each of those 
today. First, I will talk about H.R. 3755, the Industrial Hemp 
Act. This bill would cut red tape and streamline the regulatory 
framework for industrial hemp. Simply put, industrial hemp is 
different from cannabis and deserves different regulations. 
Industrial hemp does not need the same testing requirements. 
Inspectors and farmers can tell that it is different from 
recreational marijuana simply by looking at it.
    Current burdensome regulations prevent farmers across the 
country from capitalizing on this crop. It is estimated that 
industrial hemp has a potential global market worth as much as 
$15 trillion. Industrial hemp has a wide range of uses. It can 
be used as a cover crop, animal feed, biofuel, animal bedding, 
insulation, and much more. I have seen clothing made out of it. 
It also has properties that make it more attractive to farmers. 
For example, it is actually advantageous for it to sit in the 
field and get damp, giving farmers more leeway in when their 
harvest time needs to be.
    My bill would keep the Federal inspection guidelines for 
cannabis in place while cutting red tape for industrial hemp. 
This legislation is pivotal for empowering farmers and 
fostering a robust agricultural sector, eliminating red tape 
and creating job opportunities. By balancing regulation and 
freedom, it unlocks the potential of industrial hemp, 
benefiting both Montana farmers and the nation.
    Second, I introduced H.R. 6580, the Land And National 
Defense Act, the LAND Act, to protect American farmland from 
our enemies. My bill would establish reciprocity by imposing 
the same restrictions on foreign citizens and companies 
purchasing land in the U.S. as Americans face in these 
respective countries. For example, Americans are not allowed to 
buy agricultural land in China. Under my bill, Chinese citizens 
and companies would not be allowed to purchase American land as 
long as those restrictions stay in place.
    I believe this is the best approach because it can stand up 
in the courts. Earlier this year, when Florida tried to ban 
China from buying land, they were immediately sued for 
discrimination. This approach doesn't have that same problem 
but still effectively prevents our enemies from purchasing our 
land. Protecting our food supply chain is critical to our 
national security. Congress must act to stop China from 
purchasing our farmland, and I hope this Committee will take a 
serious look at my bill.
    Third, I introduced H.R. 1604, the U.S.A. Beef Act. This 
bill is a bipartisan solution to protect American beef 
producers. The bill ensures that only beef that is born, 
raised, and slaughtered and packaged in the U.S. can be labeled 
as a product of the USA. The big four multinational meatpackers 
routinely raise or slaughter cattle overseas and then package 
it in the United States and call it a product of this country. 
This undercuts our American ranchers, confuses consumers, and 
distorts the market.
    Unlike other beef packaging bills, my bill doesn't impose 
more labeling requirements, which could be burdensome for 
ranchers and meat processors. Instead, my bill restricts who 
can use the ``Made in America'' label so that it is an accurate 
identifier of American beef. By striking a balance between 
regulatory oversight and ranchers' freedom of choice, it 
empowers small American ranchers, promotes competition, and 
guarantees the authenticity of American beef.
    Fourth, H.R. 636, the Forest Litigation Reform Act, would 
address the endless litigation that blocks responsible forest 
management. Activist environmentalist groups seek to tie up 
forest management in our courts. This prevents states like 
Montana from effectively managing wildfires on our public 
lands. My bill would fix this by preventing taxpayer dollars 
from being used to finance these absurd claims. It would also 
streamline the litigation process by limiting injunctions or 
stays to 60 days pending appeal. My bill creates an alternative 
dispute process to resolve claims through arbitration instead 
of the tedious judicial process. I look forward to the 
Agriculture Committee considering this bill to protect 
responsible forest management practices from activists who 
abuse our courts.
    And last, Mr. Chairman, I would like to touch on H.R. 200, 
the Forest Information Reform Act, or the FIR Act. I was glad 
to see my bill passed the House Natural Resources Committee but 
still want it mentioned today. The bill is a compromise piece 
of legislation that would reverse the disastrous Cottonwood 
decision. The Cottonwood decision requires the United States 
Forest Service to repeatedly consult with U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service on ESA decisions, creating unnecessary delays 
in forest management. My bill would stop the perpetual cycle of 
litigation and promote forest and wildlife conservation. This 
legislation has bipartisan support and was passed by the 
Senate.
    I welcome any questions for my colleagues on the 
Agriculture Committee about this bill, or anything else that I 
have testified on. Thank you so much, and I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Rosendale follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Matthew M. Rosendale, Sr., a Representative 
                        in Congress from Montana
    Thank you, Chairman Thompson for holding this hearing today. I 
introduced five bills that have been referred to your Committee and I 
would like to touch briefly on each of them today.
    First, I'll talk about H.R. 3755 the Industrial Hemp Act. This bill 
would cut red tape and streamline the regulatory framework for 
industrial hemp. Simply put, industrial hemp is different from cannabis 
and deserves different regulations. Industrial hemp does not need the 
same testing requirements--inspectors and farmers can tell that it's 
different from recreational marijuana simply by looking at it. Current 
burdensome regulations prevent farmers across the country from 
capitalizing on this crop. It's estimated that industrial hemp has a 
potential global market worth as much as $15 trillion.
    Industrial hemp has a wide range of uses: it can be used as a cover 
crop, animal feed, biofuel, animal bedding, insulation, and much more. 
It also has properties that make it attractive to farmers--for example, 
it's actually advantageous for it to sit in the field and get damp, 
giving farmers more leeway in harvesting it.
    My bill would keep the Federal inspection guidelines for cannabis 
in place, while cutting red tape for industrial hemp. This legislation 
is pivotal for empowering farmers and fostering a robust agricultural 
sector, eliminating red tape and creating job opportunities. By 
balancing regulation and freedom, it unlocks the potential of 
industrial hemp, benefiting both Montana farmers and the nation.
    Second, I introduced H.R. 6580 the Land And National Defense Act to 
protect American farm land from our enemies. My bill would establish 
reciprocity by imposing the same restrictions on foreign citizens and 
companies purchasing land in the U.S. as Americans face in those 
respective countries. For example, Americans are not allowed to buy 
agricultural land in China. Under my bill, Chinese citizens and 
companies would not be allowed to purchase American land as long as 
those restrictions stay in place.
    I believe this is the best approach because it can stand up in 
Court. Earlier this year, when Florida tried to ban China from buying 
land, they were immediately sued for discrimination. This approach 
doesn't have that same problem, but still effectively prevents our 
enemies from purchasing our land.
    Protecting our food supply chain is critical to our national 
security. Congress must act to stop China from purchasing our farm land 
and I hope that this Committee will take a serious look at my bill.
    Third, I introduced H.R. 1604, the U.S.A. Beef Act. This bill is a 
bipartisan solution to protect American beef producers. The bill 
ensures that only beef that is raised, slaughtered, and packaged in the 
U.S. can be labeled ``Product of the U.S.A.''
    The big four multinational meat packers routinely raise or 
slaughter cattle overseas and then package it in the U.S. and call it a 
product of this country. This undercuts our American ranchers, confuses 
consumers, and distorts the market.
    Unlike other beef packaging bills, my bill doesn't impose more 
labeling requirements which could be burdensome for ranchers and meat 
processors. Instead, my bill restricts who can use the ``made in 
America'' label so that it is an accurate identifier of American beef.
    By striking a balance between regulatory oversight and ranchers' 
freedom of choice, it empowers small American ranchers, promotes 
competition, and guarantees the authenticity of American beef.
    Fourth, H.R. 636 the Forest Litigation Reform Act would address the 
endless litigation that blocks responsible forest management. Activist 
environmentalist groups seek to tie up forest management in the courts. 
This prevents states like Montana from effectively managing wildfires 
and our public lands.
    My bill would fix this by preventing taxpayer dollars from being 
used to finance these absurd claims. It would also streamline the 
litigation process by limiting injunctions or stays to 60 days pending 
appeal. My bill creates an alternative dispute process to resolve 
claims through arbitration instead of the tedious judicial process.
    I look forward to the Agriculture Committee considering this bill 
to protect responsible forest management practices from activists who 
abuse our courts.
    Last, I would like to touch on H.R. 200, the Forest Information 
Reform, or FIR, Act. I was glad to see my bill passed by the House 
Natural Resources Committee, but still wanted to mention it today.
    This bill is a commonsense piece of legislation that would reverse 
the disastrous Cottonwood decision. The Cottonwood decision requires 
the U.S. Forest Service to repeatedly consult with the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service on ESA decisions, creating unnecessary delays in 
forest management. My bill would stop the perpetual cycle of litigation 
and promote forest and wildlife conservation. This legislation has 
bipartisan support and was passed by the Senate. I welcome any 
questions from my colleagues on the Agriculture Committee about this 
bill or any others I testified on.
    Thank you.
                         Submitted Legislation
  1.  H.R. 200, Forest Information Reform Act (FIR Act): https://
            www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-118hr200ih/pdf/BILLS-
            118hr200ih.pdf  (See p. 281).

  2.  H.R. 636, Forest Litigation Reform Act of 2023: https://
            www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-118hr636ih/pdf/BILLS-
            118hr636ih.pdf  (See p. 296).

  3.  H.R. 1604, U.S.A. Beef Act: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/
            BILLS-118hr1604ih/pdf/BILLS-118hr1604ih.pdf  (See p. 337).

  4.  H.R. 3755, Industrial Hemp Act of 2023: https://www.govinfo.gov/
            content/pkg/BILLS-118hr3755ih/pdf/BILLS-118hr3755ih.pdf  
            (See p. 701).

  5.  H.R. 6580, Land And National Defense Act (LAND Act): https://
            www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-118hr6580ih/pdf/BILLS-
            118hr6580ih.pdf  (See p. 991).

    The Chairman. Mr. Rosendale, thank you so much for your 
testimony and bringing those ideas to the Committee, much 
appreciated.
    Mr. Rosendale. Thank you, sir.
    The Chairman. Thank you for your interest in that area.
    Now, I am pleased to recognize the gentlelady from Indiana, 
Indiana 5th Congressional District?
    Ms. Spartz. That is right.
    The Chairman. Congresswoman Spartz, please go ahead with 
your testimony.

STATEMENT OF HON. VICTORIA SPARTZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                          FROM INDIANA

    Mrs. Spartz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate you 
having this hearing.
    And, we had very vibrant debates on the floor, and I was 
the person who actually want us to have a serious conversation 
about farm bill because the farm bill, it is not just a farm 
bill. It is not about only agriculture. It is about a house of 
American people. It is about innovation. It is about the things 
that we can happen in agriculture to feed the world. We have 
wars right now where food is used as a weapon, and we have very 
aggressive countries to take advantage. And we, as Americans, 
can actually think about it, how we can increase production, 
how we can increase competition, because status quo is not 
working. Millions of people are hungry around the world. People 
are dying from hunger. Americans have a lot of health issues. 
So we have to look at this opportunity, that actually think 
what we can do, and maybe have a serious discussion.
    I was very upset that we punted this issue of 
reauthorization of the farm bill till the next fall, but I 
still hope even though it is going to be an election time, 
maybe during the year, this Committee will think about it, what 
we can do, because we can talk about crop insurance and all 
these different things, which is great, but the challenge is 
for the smaller farm--and I am talking about an actual working 
farmer, someone who drives a combine, at least I used to do it 
more often. Now, I don't have time to do real GDP, do a lot of 
talk here, but I think it is something that how we can have 
that a smaller farmer can survive because the input costs and 
regulation are destructive for an American farmer.
    And we can talk about guaranteeing your revenue, but if 
your input costs are quadrupling or more in some of the areas, 
we have monopolies controlling a lot of parts of the markets, 
oligopolies, you cannot survive. And I think we should take a 
serious conversation what we can do in the farm bill to 
increase competition and innovation because ingenuity of our 
businesses and Americans will bring the best outcomes for all 
of us. And I think we have to look at that.
    We have to look at that, we have unreasonable regulation 
created by government and USDA, related to Waters of the USA. I 
am sure it was discussed here. Or the farmer, we have a 
standard like that the USDA can say, well, here was wetlands 
maybe 20 years ago on this map, and you need to prove that you 
actually didn't violate the law. Like you have to prove that 
you are innocent by the farmer without even being like, knowing 
that you could ever be guilty because you never have this 
wetlands on the map. It is ridiculous.
    We have EPA standards on the combine that is a fire hazard 
that were applied to big trucks, but they shouldn't be applying 
the same for emissions because this is a national security 
issue. So the combines stop and you have a very limited amount 
of time that you can harvest your crops. We need to think about 
that. We had the right to repair where big monopolies, that 
actually now try to control the markets of equipment. And I 
think John Deere had like a memorandum of understanding, but 
that just doesn't work. We need to put it in the law.
    We cannot be abusive where a lot of manufacturers of 
equipment try to preclude, for you to maintain your equipment. 
And sometimes, at the time it is the action is significant, so 
we probably should put it in the law where you should be able 
to, to not--when you buy a combine, it shouldn't pay to 
maintain for life to the producer. We have to look at that.
    I think we have a PRIME Act, Representative Massie has, 
where we are actually even regulating where beef is sold within 
the state. I mean, that shouldn't be even the government's 
business because the smaller producers, cattle producers, they 
actually should be able to sell more to consumers. We are using 
the state regulations, and the state will do a much better job 
being closer to the people. And we have to be much smarter in 
doing that.
    There are a lot of things that we are having in regulatory 
environment that actually benefit the larger monopolies, and 
now we have only pretty much most of the markets and 
meatpacking controlled by four meatpackers and one from China, 
two from Brazil. And ultimately, they care about their own 
interests. And countries like China don't particularly care 
about the American consumer, I will be honest with you, but we 
have to. And we need to think about it.
    So I just really hope, as part of this time now that we 
have, the Committee will think about it, how we can bring 
innovation, how we can look at our supplemental programs that 
we have, that actually, bring healthy food to the people, that 
we actually go into American houses even if we have to and get 
them out of poverty and help people to have a healthy 
productive life.
    So I would appreciate this discussion. We will introduce 
some bills since we cannot do amendments now, but I hope 
Committee will actually have a serious discussion. And I yield 
back.
    [The prepared statement of Mrs. Spartz follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Hon. Victoria Spartz, a Representative in 
                         Congress from Indiana
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate you having this hearing. 
We had very vibrant debates on the floor, and I was a person who 
actually wants us to have a serious conversation about the farm bill. 
Because the farm bill is not only about our agriculture, it about the 
health of the American people, its about innovation, and its about what 
can happen in agriculture to feed the world. We have wars right now, 
where food is used as a weapon, and we have very aggressive countries 
that are taking advantage. We as Americans can actually think about it. 
How we can increase production and how we can increase competition 
because the status quo is not working. Millions of people are hungry in 
the world, people are dying from hunger, Americans have a lot of health 
issues. So, we have to look at this opportunity and actually think what 
we can do and maybe have a serious discussion.
    I was very upset that we punted this issue of reauthorization of 
the farm bill until the next fall. But I still hope, even though it's 
going be election time, maybe during the year this Committee will think 
about what we can do. Because we can talk about crop insurance and all 
these different things, which is great. But the challenge is for the 
smaller farmer, and I am talking as a working farmer and someone who 
drives a combine or at least I use to do it more often now I don't have 
time to do real GDP and do a lot of talk here. But I think its 
something about how the smaller farmer can survive because the input 
costs and regulations are destructive for an American farmer, and we 
can talk about guaranteeing your revenue. But if your input costs are 
quadrupling or more in some of the areas, and we have monopolies 
controlling a lot of the market and you cannot survive. We should have 
a serious conversation in the farm bill about what we can do to 
increase competition and innovation because ingenuity of our businesses 
and Americans will bring the best outcomes for all of us.
    I think we have to look at that. We have unreasonable regulations 
created by the government and USDA related to the Waters of USA. I'm 
sure it was a discussed here or we have a standard here that USDA can 
say, ``well here there were wetlands maybe twenty, years ago on this 
map and you need to prove that you actually didn't violate the law.'' 
You have to prove whether you are innocent without even knowing that 
you could be guilty because you never had these wetlands on the map. 
It's ridiculous. We have EPA standards on a combine that's a fire 
hazard that we apply to big trucks, but they shouldn't be applying them 
to emissions because this is a national security issue. If that combine 
stops and you have a very limited amount of time that you can harvest 
your crops, we need to think about that. We had Right to Repair where 
big monopolies are actually trying to control the market of equipment 
and I think John Deere had a memorandum of understanding but that just 
doesn't work we need to put it into law. We cannot be abusive where a 
lot of manufacturers of equipment and try to preclude you from 
maintaining your equipment. So, we probably should put it into law 
where if you buy a combine you shouldn't have to pay to maintain it for 
life to the producers.
    We have the PRIME Act by Representative Massie where we are 
actually even regulating where beef is sold within the state. I mean 
that shouldn't even be the government's business because the smaller 
producers of cattle should be able to sell more to the consumer using 
state regulations and states will do a much better job being closer to 
the people. We have to be much smarter in doing that, there are a lot 
of things that we are having an a regulatory environment that actually 
benefit larger monopolies and now we have most of the markets 
controlled by four meatpackers, one from China, and two from Brazil and 
ultimately they care about their own interests. China doesn't care 
about the consumer ill be honest with you. But we have to think about 
it.
    So I just really hope as part of this time now that we have the 
Committee will think about how we can bring innovation and how we can 
look at our supplemental programs that we have to bring healthier food 
to the people and that we are going to make American healthier and get 
them out of poverty and help people to have a healthy productive life.
    So I would appreciate this discussion and we will introduce some 
bills since we cannot do amendments now but I hope the Committee will 
have a serious discussion and I yield back.
                         Submitted Legislation
  1.  H.R. 2814, Processing Revival and Intrastate Meat Exemption Act 
            (PRIME Act): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-
            118hr2814ih/pdf/BILLS-118hr2814ih.pdf  (See p. 568).

    The Chairman. Congresswoman, thank you so much for your 
passion, for your interest. And obviously, the number one 
industry in Indiana, which is agriculture, both production and 
processing, and American agriculture really has one suitable 
definition, and that is it is science, technology, and 
innovation. And it is not a static industry. It is ever-
dynamic, and we are working hard to be able to make sure that 
that is reflective in this farm bill. Certainly greater 
competition is a part of that because greater competition helps 
to foster all three of those characteristics.
    But once again, thank you for your testimony before the 
Committee here today, much appreciated.
    Looking over the room, I think we pretty much have 
concluded, which is really good. We had 19 Members testifying. 
I have testified before some other committees in the past, and 
sometimes I was the only one, not too often, but on occasion. 
To have 19 just is excellent. But we are not limited to that. I 
want to certainly thank all of my Members, my colleagues for 
testifying today, for their passion for agriculture, for 
bringing their perspectives, different perspectives to the 
Committee.
    Obviously, the goals for this farm bill have remained the 
same as what they were when I started out as Ranking Member 2 
years and 11 months ago, and that is that we do this farm bill 
that is bipartisan, bicameral, and highly effective. And the 
highly effective part is incredibly important. I think the 
roadmap or the recipe for highly effective is very clear. We 
have been on that path, on that trail for now almost 3 years, 
and that is listening to voices outside the beltway of 
Washington. And that is what you heard today as we had Members 
of Congress who came here to be the voice for their 
constituents and to bring their views forward. Add that to the 
public portal where we have had more than 3,000 contributions 
and ideas that have entered in this process, 171 Members that 
have weighed in on the portal, over 1,500.
    The amount of information is a little overwhelming, but we 
have a great team that has been working hard at that and doing 
a great job. More than 80 listening sessions around the 
country, somewhere around 37 states plus one Territory, 80 all 
together, and the public hearings that we have had here like 
the one we have had today with our Members, all important to 
our eventual successful and timely reauthorization of the farm 
bill.
    So we are going to stay on that path to success when it 
comes to America's number one industry and all those 
hardworking families to provide us food, fiber, building 
materials, energy resources, rural economic development, 
connectivity, all the great things that, quite frankly, this 
farm bill will support, so much appreciation.
    So under the Rules of the Committee, the record of today's 
hearing will remain open for 10 calendar days to receive 
additional material and supplementary written responses from 
any Member who testified or offered written testimony today.
    This hearing of the Committee on Agriculture is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 10:50 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
    [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Submitted Statement by Hon. Earl L. ``Buddy'' Carter, a Representative 
                        in Congress from Georgia
    Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member Scott,

    Thank you both for considering my testimony as the Committee on 
Agriculture continues its work this Congress.
    Let me begin by emphasizing to you how important the agricultural 
sector is to my district and the state of Georgia as a whole. 
Agriculture is the number one industry in the state, and the combined 
value of our commodities represent a nearly $14.7 billion of impact on 
Georgia's economy. Of course, the industry is so much more than just 
the products we need and enjoy. In total, food and fiber production and 
related industries represented $73.2 billion in output and more than 
340,827 jobs in 2021 according to the University of Georgia's Center 
for Agribusiness and Economic Development.
    Specific to my district, Georgia's First Congressional District, 
forestry and blueberries are the most important. Because of the 
dedicated work of producers in our district, Georgia is the number one 
forestry state in the country and ranks third for producing 
blueberries.
    With that in mind, I ask that the Agriculture Committee consider a 
few legislative proposals that would directly benefit the most 
important agricultural work in my district and the state. These 
bipartisan proposals would provide much needed certainty and support to 
farmers and rural communities in my district and across the country.
Disaster Reforestation Act (H.R. 655)
    Our nation's family forest landowners face threats on multiple 
fronts. Natural disasters and fires constantly pose dangers to the 
significant investments they make in maintaining forestland. 
Compounding the issue is the fact that our tax code makes it extremely 
difficult or impossible for private forest landowners to recover after 
such devastating events.
    The Disaster Reforestation Act would amend the Tax Code to allow 
forest owners to deduct the full market value of their timber prior to 
the loss caused by the federally declared natural disaster. Further, 
this bill requires those landowners to reforest their land within 5 
years, ensuring the forestland is not converted to other uses and 
preserving the environmental and economic benefits.
    While the Disaster Reforestation Act has been referred to the 
Committee on Ways & Means, forestry falls under the jurisdiction of the 
Agriculture Committee and has its own title in the farm bill. Further, 
there is precedent for including important tax matters impacting 
agriculture in the farm bill.
    Forest landowners provide clean air, fresh drinking water, and 
quality jobs for our nation. To ensure they can continue their positive 
impact, we must pass the Disaster Reforestation Act and urge its 
inclusion in this year's farm bill.
Permanent Disaster Coverage of Freeze Damages for Blueberry Crops
    Blueberries are the number one fruit produced in Georgia with a 
farm gate value of nearly $350 million in 2021. Several state-wide 
freezes over the last few years have caused significant damage to the 
state's blueberry crops, with the last state-wide freeze resulting in 
losses that exceeded $140 million. Unfortunately, these damages were 
not eligible for existing disaster assistance until recently, and 
producers of not only blueberries but other specialty remain uncertain 
about future coverage of damages caused by freezes.
    I am thankful that Congress has acted to support these producers to 
provide support after extreme weather events, but future freeze damages 
to Georgia's blueberries and similar crops must be guaranteed 
eligibility for disaster relief going forward in order to provide these 
producers much needed certainty.
Seasonal and Perishable Crop Program to Support Domestic Specialty 
        Crops
    Growers of seasonal and perishable specialty crops, like 
blueberries, must unfairly compete against significantly and 
artificially low-priced imports. There is a short window during which 
domestic seasonal and perishable produce is harvested and marketed. As 
a result, products that are imported immediately before or during the 
domestic growers' marketing window severely impact demand and price for 
our U.S. grown products. Further exacerbating the issue, these imported 
products are sold at artificially lower prices.
    Since 2016, Mexico more than tripled export volumes to the U.S. 
during the season that California, Georgia, and North Carolina growers 
are producing. Peru has increased exports by more than seven times in 
the same period overlapping with the seasons of producers in Michigan, 
New Jersey, Oregon, and Washington.
    Economic researchers at the University of Georgia examined the 
effects of increased competition from imports on U.S. blueberry growers 
specifically and showed an annual revenue loss to U.S. growers of $72.8 
million in 2021.
    Other Members of Congress and I have raised these unfair trade 
issue with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and U.S. Trade 
Representative, but, nevertheless, domestic producers still remain at a 
distinct disadvantage with little hope for relief through existing 
trade laws.
    To remedy this imbalance, I urge you to consider implementing a new 
seasonable and perishable fruit and vegetable producer support program 
to help domestic specialty crop producers make up losses caused by 
seasonal imports.
    Under such a program, USDA would determine if a grower's revenue 
loss is due to seasonal import volumes by establishing an effective 
price for a seasonal and perishable crop based on the national average 
market price for the seasonal and perishable crop during that seasonal 
marketing window. That effective price would be compared to a reference 
price comprised of a national average market price received by 
producers during the marketing window calculating using an Olympic 
Average for crop years 2018-2022. Seasonal and Perishable Import 
program payments would be issued when the effective price of an 
eligible specialty crop is less than a calculated reference price for 
that commodity. Payments would be calculated using an Olympic Average 
for crop years 2018-2022.
    A seasonable and perishable fruit and vegetable program would allow 
our own American farmers to compete against unfairly low-priced 
imports.
H-2A Visa Reforms
    Last, I would ask that the Committee work with the Judiciary 
Committee and other relevant committees to reform the H-2A Temporary 
Agricultural Workers Program to increase access and affordability for 
producers. As you are certainly aware, producers struggle to find 
domestic workers needed to run their operations and depend on the 
program to bridge those gaps. This is exacerbated by shrinking rural 
communities.
    Proposed rules, like the Department of Labor's Adverse Effect Wage 
Rate that would significantly increase hourly wages by 14% as producers 
face inflationary pressures from all inputs, make the program less 
accessible and negatively impact the operations of producers across the 
country.
    Georgia is one of the top states that utilize the H-2A program, and 
any reforms to improve the program as we face a tight labor market 
across most industries would benefit producers significantly.
    Thank you for your work on the important policies that support our 
country's agricultural industries and rural communities. I greatly 
appreciate your consideration of these proposals and look forward to 
crafting a successful farm bill in the new year.
Submitted Legislation
  1.  H.R. 655, Disaster Reforestation Act: https://www.govinfo.gov/
            content/pkg/BILLS-118hr655ih/pdf/BILLS-118hr655ih.pdf (See 
            p. 312).
                                 ______
                                 
Submitted Letter by Hon. Matt Cartwright, a Representative in Congress 
                           from Pennsylvania
December 15, 2023

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

    Dear Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member Scott,

    The upcoming farm bill reauthorization is an opportunity to build 
on the work Congress has done since the last farm bill to invest in our 
rural communities, our families, and our environment and I thank the 
House Agriculture Committee for its consideration of these priorities 
for the next farm bill reauthorization.
    The last farm bill included a number of policy changes that 
improved opportunities for our nation's agricultural communities and 
businesses. One of these provisions allowed for the full cultivation 
and transport of hemp. Hemp was once a staple of Pennsylvania's 
economy, and is once again presenting opportunities for new businesses, 
farm income, good-paying jobs, and climate friendly, environmentally 
sound products.
    This past spring, I was proud to announce that the National Science 
Foundation awarded a $1 million Regional Innovation Engines Development 
award to Vytal Plant Science Research based in Hazleton, Pennsylvania 
for the development of an Industrial Hemp Engine as part of its newly 
launched Regional Innovation Engines (NSF Engines) program. The grant 
will support the manufacture and deployment of innovative, biobased 
products for application in green building construction, packaging, 
fabrics, renewable energy, and land remediation.
    While the changes made in the last farm bill created a landscape 
for these exciting innovations and opportunities, the hemp industry 
still has challenges to overcome. These barriers include access to 
equipment and capital, as well as confusion from industry about hemp's 
legal status. Hemp producers also face burdensome and expensive 
regulations, including THC limits, testing, and background checks. For 
that reason, I strongly encourage the Committee to include the 
Industrial Hemp Act of 2023, led by my colleagues Representative Matt 
Rosendale of Montana and Representative Chrissy Houlahan of 
Pennsylvania, in the upcoming farm bill.
    The Industrial Hemp Act creates a new sub-definition for industrial 
hemp, creating a more common-sense regulatory framework for farmers 
harvesting hemp for stalk, fiber, grain, or industrial seed production. 
By doing so, industrial hemp will be separated from cannabinoid and 
floral hemp and subject to different regulations. This will ease costs 
and burdens on farmers and allow the industrial hemp industry to 
continue to grow, thrive, and drive innovation and economic 
development. The Industrial Hemp Act eases burdens on farmers while 
ensuring that bad actors are held accountable, and therefore I 
encourage the Agriculture Committee to include it in the farm bill.
    Additionally, in the spirit of optimizing our recent investments in 
our farmers and our rural communities, it is of great importance that 
the next farm bill ensures the nearly $20 billion provided in the 
Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) for USDA conservation programs is used 
for its intended purpose. This funding is a win-win for farmers and for 
the planet. In 2023, USDA received requests for more than three times 
what the IRA made available for that year for climate smart 
agriculture--meaning farmers want it--and the funding benefits us all 
by helping to address the climate crisis.
    Let's take this opportunity to build on our investments in rural 
America and continue to support and grow our rural communities, 
economies, and businesses. Thank you again for your consideration.
            Sincerely,
            
            
Matt Cartwright,
Member of Congress.
                         Submitted Legislation
  1.  H.R. 3755, Industrial Hemp Act of 2023: https://www.govinfo.gov/
            content/pkg/BILLS-118hr3755ih/pdf/BILLS-118hr3755ih.pdf 
            (See p. 701).
                                 ______
                                 
  Submitted Statement by Hon. Jim Costa, a Representative in Congress 
                            from California
    Good morning, it is a pleasure to be here. Thank you Chairman 
Thompson and Ranking Member Scott for holding this Member Day hearing 
in the House Agriculture Committee Room. My testimony today will focus 
on priorities for California's 21st district as it relates to the 
reauthorization of the farm bill. It continues to be a pleasure to work 
on this Committee as this will be my fourth reauthorization of the farm 
bill.
    Food security is a national security issue, and nothing has shed a 
light on this more than what happened during the COVID-19 pandemic. 
From supply chain disruptions to climate change, it is important now 
more than ever we continue to work towards passing a bipartisan bill. 
The farm bill is made up of twelve titles that are important to 
America's production of food and fiber, with each one dealing with a 
key aspect that helps our nation. From trade to conservation to rural 
development and much more, this legislation reauthorizes key programs 
that help our farmers, ranchers, dairymen, and [-women], as we continue 
to build a more sustainable and resilient food supply chain. A key part 
of the farm bill which is always a top democratic priority is the 
nutrition title and ensuring the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 
Program (SNAP) is properly funded. All of these programs touch the 
lives of everyday Americans, and it is necessary we continue to work 
together to ensure this legislation is passed.
    California is the nation's largest producer and exporter which 
contributes $51.1 billion to our nation's economy. Over the span of my 
career as a representative of the San Joaquin Valley, I cannot 
emphasize how important this industry is. California's farmers, 
ranchers, farmworkers, and dairymen and [-women] help produce half the 
nation's fruits, nuts, and vegetables, 20% of dairy, and more than 400 
different agricultural commodities. It is critical that California has 
a seat at the table as we work to reauthorize the farm bill. It is my 
hope that we will have a successful farm bill with input from all 
parties.
    Our diverse agricultural sector in California touches each title 
and we must ensure to advocate for our priorities.
    Notable highlights I would like to emphasize today include:

   Ensuring Nutrition Programs are in place--the Supplemental 
        Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) provides nutritious food to 
        nearly five million Californians. Notably, 25% of California's 
        twenty-first district relies on SNAP as a way to secure 
        nutritious food.

     We must continue to increase funds to address food 
            purchasing, storage, and distribution as our food supply 
            chain is a national security issue and one that must be 
            protected.

     We must also consider measures that would help 
            modernize SNAP to ensure individuals are able to continue 
            to access the program. Some examples I continue to advocate 
            and support include:

       Enhance Access to SNAP (EATS) Act, which would remove 
            certain eligi-
              bility disqualifications that restrict otherwise eligible 
            students from partici-
              pating in the supplemental nutrition assistance program.

       Amending the program to allow for the purchasing of hot 
            foods.

       Ensuring fair access for our military families.

       Access to nutritional dairy products

   Updating rural development population caps to ensure access 
        to the programs across the board

     The Rural Development Modernization Act would build 
            upon efforts made in the 2018 Farm Bill.

   Ensuring the Environmental Quality Incentives Program and 
        the Regional Conservation Partnership Program include new 
        practices that reflect the needs for farmers.

     New conservation methods such as alternative manure 
            management and providing flexibilities for water resource 
            management.

     Notably, Converting Our Waste Sustainably, the COWS 
            Act. This bill would establish a new manure management 
            conservation program which will provide additional 
            resources for our dairy industry. This program would model 
            the successful Alternative Manure Management Program 
            practices utilized in California.

     Making much needed improvements to the Conservation 
            Reserve Program to help modernize the program. The 
            Conservation Reserve Improvement Act addresses those needs.

   Improving the Dairy Margin Coverage Program.

     Our dairymen and [-women] in California must continue 
            to have access to a program that serves.

   Protecting Emergency Disaster Assistance Programs and 
        cutting red tape to ensure there is quick access.

   Automation and mechanization research and development.

     The Advancing Automation Research and Development in 
            Agriculture Act, which would direct the Secretary of 
            Agriculture to establish a specialty crop mechanization and 
            automation initiative.

     The Automation for Specialty Crop Producers, would 
            create a reimbursement-based cost-share program through the 
            Agricultural*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    * Editor's note: Mr. Costa's submitted statement is incomplete; it 
has been reproduced herein as submitted.

   Increase access to critical trade and market development 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        tools.

     Notably, increase funds for the Market Access Program 
            and Foreign Market Development Program. The Expanding 
            Agricultural Exports Act will do that with the doubling of 
            funding for both programs.

     The Specialty Crop Domestic Market Promotion and 
            Development Program, would establish a program under which 
            the Secretary will award grants to eligible organizations 
            to encourage the development, maintenance, and expansion of 
            commercial domestic market for domestically produced 
            specialty crop commodities.

   Protecting pest prevention and ensuring sustainable 
        pesticide management strategies.

   Increasing funding for animal disease prevention and 
        management.

     The Foreign Animal Health Disease Prevention, 
            Surveillance, and Rapid Response Act would reauthorize 
            critical animal disease prevent and management programs 
            (National Animal Health Library, National Animal Disease 
            Preparedness and Response, and the National Animal Vaccine 
            and Vet Countermeasures Bank).

   Fixing adjusted gross income limitation to ensure 
        accessibility for programs.

   Investing in research for the Specialty Crop Research 
        Initiative.

     We have legislation which would reinstate the waiver 
            authority for the Specialty Crop Research Initiative 
            matching requirement which was taken out during the 2018 
            Farm Bill.

   Enhancing our forest management systems.

     The Save Our Sequoias Act remains a priority and a way 
            to streamline and ensure we can reduce hazardous fuels 
            quickly and save the Sequoias as they remain in fire risk 
            areas.

     The Headwaters Protection Act is another critical 
            priority. This bill would reauthorize and reform the Water 
            Source Protection Program to encourage more private sector 
            engagement, increased health of watersheds and forests, and 
            better wildfire management practices.

     The Emergency Wildfire Technology Act, would ensure 
            the Forest Service and the Department of Interior to 
            conduct an evaluation with respect to the use of the 
            container aerial firefighting system (CAFFS).
                            Submitted Letter
June 16, 2023

 
 
 
Hon. Debbie Stabenow,                Hon. John Boozman,
Chair,                               Ranking Minority Member,
Senate Committee on Agriculture,     Senate Committee on Agriculture,
 Nutrition, and Forestry,             Nutrition, and Forestry,
Washington, D.C.;                    Washington, D.C.;
 
Hon. Glenn Thompson,                 Hon. David Scott,
Chairman,                            Ranking Minority Member,
House Committee on Agriculture,      House Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.;                    Washington, D.C.
 

    Dear Chair Stabenow, Ranking Member Boozman, Chair Thompson, and 
Ranking Member Scott:

    We, as Members of the California Delegation, write to provide you 
with our 2023 Farm Bill recommendations. The California Delegation 
views the farm bill as America's safety net for our farmers and 
ranchers, and for vulnerable communities who are food-insecure. 
California's 70,521 farms and ranches are remarkably productive given 
their average size: 70% of these farms are less than 100 acres, and 89% 
are less than 500 acres. California's farmers produce 50% of the 
nation's fruits, nuts, and vegetables; 20% of the milk; and more than 
400 different agricultural commodities. Investment in California 
agriculture is an investment in our nation's future and the next 
generation.
    As the nation's largest agricultural producer and exporter, 
California's $51.1 billion agricultural industry \1\ plays a vital role 
in our national economy and the health of our citizens. The farm bill 
is made up of twelve titles that are important to America's production 
of food and fiber, with each one dealing with a key aspect that helps 
our nation. From trade to conservation to rural development and much 
more, this legislation reauthorizes key programs that help our farmers, 
ranchers, dairymen, and -wom[e]n. The COVID-19 pandemic, supply chain 
issues, and Russia's war in Ukraine have highlighted the need to 
continue to build a more sustainable and resilient food supply chain. 
Each of these pertinent programs is an opportunity to build a stronger 
food supply network, improve the livelihoods of our farmers, reduce 
food insecurity, and take meaningful steps in combating climate change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ ``California Agriculture Production Statistics'', California 
Department of Food and Agriculture, 2021 (https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/
Statistics/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2023 Farm Bill Recommendations
Robust funding for Local Food and Nutrition Programs
    In California, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) 
is a key part of the farm bill and is always a top priority in the 
nutrition title. Food insecurity is a serious problem in our nation and 
California is no exception. SNAP provides 5.01 million Californians 
with food benefits and plays a crucial role in combating poverty. SNAP 
is an effective and immediate way to help lower food insecurity while 
also mitigating racial disparities in rates of hunger. The COVID-19 
pandemic played an outsized role in increasing the rate of food 
insecurity. In the first 3 months of the pandemic, from April to July 
2020, more than three million California adults reported experiencing 
household food insecurity, which is an increase of 22% from the pre-
pandemic rate of 9%.\2\ Any policy change on SNAP should reflect an 
improvement of SNAP benefit adequacy and reduce barriers that allow for 
access to the program. A well-funded and robust SNAP program is 
essential towards continuing to lower the rates of poverty in 
California and combat food insecurity. Any further adjustments on work 
requirements will be viewed as an attack on trying to raise Americans 
out of poverty.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ ``Regional Differences in the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic 
on food sufficiency in California, April-July2020: implications for 
food programs and policies'', April 30, 2021, National institutes of 
Health (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8144834).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Additionally, the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated the importance and 
need to ensure local markets are accessible. Local procurement of food 
is critical to ensure urban and rural communities have access to 
nutritious food. As our nation continues to work to enhance regional 
food systems, reducing barriers to locally grown food for our schools 
would have tremendous benefits such as: variety in options for 
students, supporting local jobs, and reducing carbon emissions in the 
supply chain with reduced [mileage] of transportation. Investments in 
local food procurement and promotion programs are critical towards a 
successful regional food system.
Funding for Critically Important Export and Specialty Crop Programs
    California's role as the largest agricultural producer and exporter 
in the nation must be preserved through fair and competitive trade 
practices, while being backed up by robust crop insurance programs. 
Increased funding for support of market development and competitiveness 
programs is essential for securing California's role in exporting $10.5 
billion in almonds, dairy products, pistachios, and wine, and its 
overall $22.5 billion in total agricultural exports.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ ``California Agricultural Exports 2022'', California Department 
of Food and Agriculture, 2021 (https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/Statistics/PDFs/
2022_Exports_Publication.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Programs that must have an increase in funding include the Market 
Access Program and the Foreign Market Development Program. The 
provisions in Expanding Agricultural Exports Act are critical for 
California as a top exporting state in our nation to stay competitive 
on the global market for our nation. Supply chain disruptions coupled 
with climate change continue to impact our producers as black swan 
events are highly volatile, which is why a robust crop insurance title 
is needed to ensure producers are able to have access to risk 
management tools needed to stay afloat in difficult times. It is 
critically vital to our nation that specialty crop insurance is a top 
priority to keep a variety of crops for Americans to choose from at 
affordable prices. Additional disaster programs as well should remain 
for farmers and ranchers in times of need.
    Investments in research are key towards combating disease, ensuring 
continued access to safe food and improved nutrition, and creating a 
resilient food supply chain to withstand impacts from climate change. 
Funding in the 2023 Farm Bill must reflect continued investment in 
programs such as the Specialty Crop Research Initiative and the 
Specialty Crop Block Grant. Farm bill funding must expand USDA's 
participation and research support through the University of California 
System, California State University system, and minority-serving 
institutional agricultural research programs. Funds must be sustained 
for these research programs, and investments must be made for programs 
that showcase the future of agricultural research and technology. These 
programs are critical towards enhancing the future workforce for farms 
and ranches as we continue to ensure farmworkers are able to use the 
best and safest available technology. These programs are also key to 
USDA plant pest and disease prevention research and inclusion of a 
waiver of matching fund requirements would allow for enhanced research. 
Additional investments in supporting organic research as well is 
critical for producers throughout the state.
A Strong Conservation and Forestry Title
    Since the enactment of the 2018 Farm Bill, California has continued 
to experience record wildfires and drought. Conservation and forestry 
programs build upon the climate investments in bills previously passed 
such as the Inflation Reduction Act and the Infrastructure Investment 
and Jobs Act. The 2023 Farm Bill must reflect funding towards combating 
the climate emergency with funding for climate smart agriculture 
programs designed to continue to enhance the quality of our air, land, 
and water.
    The 2023 Farm Bill must address wildfire mitigation and management, 
in addition to improving the health of our watersheds. Hazardous fuels 
reduction and managing our forests effectively continues to be a top 
priority for the California Delegation. The Good Neighbor Authority 
program is a key tool in wildfire risk reduction and can be more 
effective in providing jobs in rural and Tribal communities. Reform to 
the program must center around increased funding that promotes benefits 
for California as a whole. These benefits include access for counties 
and Tribal partners to retain and expand Good Neighbor Authority timber 
sales revenue, in addition to reducing wildfire risk while providing 
jobs to rural and Tribal communities. Stewardship contracts as well 
should be considered as a vital tool to help encourage partnerships 
towards critical projects. Lastly, reduction of hazardous and 
additional biomass materials helps provide for long-term ecological 
sustainability of our forests while sequestering carbon and providing 
material for new sustainable products.
    Conservation programs are key towards reducing our carbon emissions 
while maintaining California's competitive edge as a top agricultural 
producer and exporter for our nation. Increased funding for 
oversubscribed programs such as the Environmental Quality Incentives 
Program (EQIP) and the Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) 
would continue to provide immense benefits and allow for increased 
enrollment. These programs should be reformed to ensure flexibility for 
all size farmers, ranchers, and dairy men and women and reflect current 
conservation practices. Such programs provide dual benefits such as 
environmental conservation and value-added for crops. The farm bill 
must recognize and provide the means to incorporate on-farm practices 
within these conservation programs. Through this implementation, 
California farmers can address drought, salinity, groundwater recharge, 
irrigation efficiencies, manure management, pollinator declines, and 
carbon sequestration.
Further Developing Future Farmers and Ranchers and Rural Communities
    California is one of the most diverse states in the nation, and its 
agricultural sector is no different. 2023 Farm Bill funding must focus 
on providing the resources necessary for our next generation of farmers 
and farm workers. Young and historically underserved minority farmers, 
ranchers, and producers should be prioritized to ensure that they have 
all the resources needed to be successful. An example of this includes 
streamlining the process through the Farm Service Agency to have access 
to resources to ensure flexible options for producers. Streamlining 
this process and increasing access and funding to technical service 
providers can ensure that the next generation of farmers employ 
sustainable farm practices that can serve generations of Californians 
to come.
    Investments towards our future farmers and communities also include 
updating the definition of what is considered rural. Multiple programs 
define rural populations with various population sizes that are 
outdated, which have left behind multiple communities within the State 
of California that are not able to compete fairly in other grant 
programs. A variety of grant programs ranging from broadband to energy 
to housing, has exacerbated a dire situation even further. A modernized 
approach to rural definition and population caps are critical towards 
investing in the next generation.
    We as the Members of the California Delegation thank you for your 
fair and full consideration of the items listed in this letter. The 
farm bill is a safety net for America as it incorporates twelve titles 
that are critical towards investing in the American Dream and keeping 
food on America's dinner table. We look forward to working with you 
throughout this process.
            Sincerely,
            
            

 
 
 
Hon. Jim Costa,                      Hon. Salud O. Carbajal,
Member of Congress                   Member of Congress
 

                                     
                                     

 
 
 
Hon. Jimmy Panetta,                  Hon. Zoe Lofgren,
Member of Congress                   Member of Congress
 

                                     
                                     

 
 
 
Hon. Sydney Kamlager-Dove,           Hon. Katie Porter,
Member of Congress                   Member of Congress
 

                                     
                                     

 
 
 
Hon. J. Luis Correa,                 Hon. Tony Cardenas,
Member of Congress                   Member of Congress
 

                                     
                                     

 
 
 
Hon. Mike Thompson,                  Hon. Scott H. Peters,
Member of Congress                   Member of Congress
 

                                     
                                     

 
 
 
Hon. Kevin Mullin,                   Hon. Adam B. Schiff,
Member of Congress                   Member of Congress
 

                                     
                                     

 
 
 
Hon. Barbara Lee,                    Hon. Eric Swalwell,
Member of Congress                   Member of Congress
 

                                     
                                     

 
 
 
Hon. Julia Brownley,                 Hon. Pete Aguilar,
Member of Congress                   Member of Congress
 

                                     
                                     

 
 
 
Hon. Robert Garcia,                  Hon. Mark DeSaulnier,
Member of Congress                   Member of Congress
 

                                     
                                     

 
 
 
Hon. Anna G. Eshoo,                  Hon. Brad Sherman,
Member of Congress                   Member of Congress
 

                                     
                                     

 
 
 
Hon. Raul Ruiz,                      Hon. Judy Chu,
Member of Congress                   Member of Congress
 

                                     
                                     

 
 
 
Hon. Jimmy Gomez,                    Hon. Mike Levin,
Member of Congress                   Member of Congress
 

                                     
                                     

 
 
 
Hon. Jared Huffman,                  Hon. Ted Lieu,
Member of Congress                   Member of Congress
 

                                     
                                     

 
 
 
Hon. Ro Khanna,                      Hon. Grace F. Napolitano,
Member of Congress                   Member of Congress
 

                                     
                                     

 
 
 
Hon. Mark Takano,                    Hon. Nanette Diaz Barragan,
Member of Congress                   Member of Congress
 

                                     
                                     

 
 
 
Hon. Ami Bera,                       Hon. Norma J. Torres,
Member of Congress                   Member of Congress
 

                                     
                                     

 
 
 
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,                   Hon. John Garamendi,
Member of Congress                   Member of Congress
 

                                     
                                     

 
 
 
Hon. Doris O. Matsui,                Hon. Josh Harder,
Member of Congress                   Member of Congress
 

                                     
                                     

 
 
 
Hon. Linda T. Sanchez,               Hon. Sara Jacobs,
Member of Congress                   Member of Congress
 

                         Submitted Legislation
  1.  H.R. 648, Agriculture Export Promotion Act of 2023: https://
            www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-118hr648ih/pdf/BILLS-
            118hr648ih.pdf (See p. 308).

  2.  H.R. 2989, Save Our Sequoias Act: https://www.govinfo.gov/
            content/pkg/BILLS-118hr2989ih/pdf/BILLS-118hr2989ih.pdf 
            (See p. 579).

  3.  H.R. 3183, Enhance Access To SNAP Act of 2023 (EATS Act of 2023): 
            https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-118hr3183ih/pdf/
            BILLS-118hr3183ih.pdf (See p. 631).

  4.  H.R. 3389, Emergency Wildfire Fighting Technology Act of 2023, 
            Union Cal. No. 150: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/
            BILLS-118hr3389rh/pdf/BILLS-118hr3389rh.pdf (See p. 634).

  5.  H.R. 3419, Foreign Animal Disease Prevention, Surveillance, and 
            Rapid Response Act of 2023: https://www.govinfo.gov/
            content/pkg/BILLS-118hr3419ih/pdf/BILLS-118hr3419ih.pdf 
            (See p. 639).

  6.  H.R. 4017, Conservation Reserve Program Improvement Act of 2023: 
            https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-118hr4017ih/pdf/
            BILLS-118hr4017ih.pdf (See p. 744).

  7.  H.R. 4018, Headwaters Protection Act of 2023: https://
            www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-118hr4018ih/pdf/BILLS-
            118hr4018ih.pdf (See p. 748).

  8.  H.R. 4173, Advancing Automation Research and Development in 
            Agriculture Act: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-
            118hr4173ih/pdf/BILLS-118hr4173ih.pdf (See p. 766).

  9.  H.R. 4327, Converting Our Waste Sustainably (COWS) Act of 2023: 
            https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-118hr4327ih/pdf/
            BILLS-118hr4327ih.pdf (See p. 800).

  10. H.R. 5062, To amend the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to 
            direct the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a program 
            under which the Secretary will award grants to specialty 
            crop producers to acquire certain equipment and provide 
            training with respect to the use of such equipment.: 
            https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-118hr5062ih/pdf/
            BILLS-118hr5062ih.pdf (See p. 860).

  11. H.R. 5359, Rural Development Modernization Act: https://
            www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-118hr5359ih/pdf/BILLS-
            118hr5359ih.pdf (See p. 902).
                                 ______
                                 
Submitted Statement by Hon. Joe Courtney, a Representative in Congress 
                            from Connecticut
    Thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of a bill that I 
have co-led with a bipartisan group of Members, the Increasing Land 
Access, Security, and Opportunities Act.
    This fundamentally important legislation would provide an avenue 
for young and beginning farmers to secure their own land, helping to 
preserve agricultural operations in posterity.
    The average U.S. farmer is almost 60 years old, and nearly 50% of 
all American farmland is on the brink of changing ownership over the 
next twenty years. With the average price per acre of a farm increasing 
with higher real estate costs, it is more important than ever that 
Congress act to ensure that farmland is preserved and maintained for 
the next generation.
    Our comprehensive legislation would improve access to land, 
capital, markets, and technical assistance for agricultural producers. 
Specifically, this bill authorizes a program that would provide 
competitive grants to entities that are working to preserve 
agricultural land and that help with farm ownership transfers.
    This bill would authorize $100 million for this program, operating 
out of the Farm Service Agency, from 2024 through 2028. Recipients 
could use the funding for a variety of purposes, from down payment 
assistance to securing a clean title to the property, to land use 
planning.
    Beneficiaries would range from colleges and universities, to 
nonprofit organizations, to states, municipalities, and Tribes. And to 
help all types of agriculture producers, including oyster growers 
planting oyster seed along the Connecticut shoreline, I worked to 
ensure that shellfish growers could be eligible for grants from this 
program, too.
    This bill is backed by hundreds of organizations throughout the 
country. In Connecticut, it is supported by the New Connecticut Farmer 
Alliance and spearheaded by one of my constituents, Susan Mitchell, who 
has served as a land advocacy fellow with the National Young Farmers 
Coalition and who has been sounding the alarm about the need for 
Congressional action to preserve and protect American farmland.
    With the broad backing of this proposal by bipartisan Members and a 
variety of organizations, and the need across the country for 
agricultural land preservation, I urge you to include this proposal as 
part of the farm bill reauthorization next year.
    Thank you for your consideration of my remarks and I yield the 
balance of my time.
                         Submitted Legislation
  1.  H.R. 3955, Increasing Land Access, Security, and Opportunities 
            Act: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-118hr3955ih/
            pdf/BILLS-118hr3955ih.pdf (See p. 720).
                                 ______
                                 
 Submitted Letter by Hon. John R. Curtis, a Representative in Congress 
                               from Utah
December 12, 2023

  Hon. Glenn Thompson,
  Chairman,
  House Committee on Agriculture,
  Washington, D.C.

    Dear Chairman Thompson:

    Utah's farmers and ranchers face too many rules while growing and 
raising food for Utahns and folks around the world. They know their 
land best, so it's not fair that they must receive permission from 
Federal agencies to make small changes, like fixing fences or building 
water tanks, on land they use from the government.
    The changes farmers and ranchers make help them take care of their 
animals and produce more, but right now, they lose valuable time 
managing these requests.
    The Ranching Without Red Tape Act will change things for the 
better. Agriculture producers will not need new permission for small 
improvements and the bill ensures government agencies speed up their 
responses to requests.
    This legislation would remove bureaucratic restrictions on 
ranchers, which would allow some of our nation's most important 
producers to conduct their operations more easily while still 
protecting our lands from major unsupervised changes. Ranchers should 
have common-sense streamlining to protect the land.
            Sincerely,
            
            
John R. Curtis,
Member of Congress.
                         Submitted Legislation
  1.  H.R. 6441, Ranching Without Red Tape Act of 2023: https://
            www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-118hr6441ih/pdf/BILLS-
            118hr6441ih.pdf (See p. 957).
                                 ______
                                 
  Submitted Statement by Hon. Tom Emmer, a Representative in Congress 
                             from Minnesota
    Thank you to Chairman Thompson for allowing Members of Congress to 
offer support and outline priorities for the farm bill. The farm bill 
is especially important for the agriculture industry in Minnesota's 
Sixth Congressional District.
    Crafting a farm bill that addresses all the pressures farm families 
and the agriculture industry face is no easy task. This Committee, 
under Chairman Thompson's leadership, has solicited guidance from 
farmers, ranchers and producers across America--even in my home state 
of Minnesota during FarmFest in New Ulm. This bill will focus on the 
farmers of tomorrow, and how we set them up for success.
    Nationwide, our impact is even farther-reaching. Minnesota is the 
number one producer of turkey and sugar beets in the nation. Stearns 
County is our state's biggest dairy producing county with more than 500 
dairy farms in production. These family farms contribute to the more 
than 10 billion pounds of milk produced in our state annually. There 
are more than 600 turkey farms across Minnesota, raising more than 40 
million birds annually. Additionally, Minnesota is ranked second in the 
nation for hog production with more than 3,000 hog farms across the 
state. However, even these powerhouse producers are vulnerable.
    We have heard from the Minnesota ag community through four 
listening sessions across the Sixth Congressional District and their 
needs are clear. Our farm bill needs to invest in rural mental health, 
help train agriculture's next generation and provide a safety net for 
our farmers.
    First, ensuring our farmers and ranchers have access to mental 
health care is a top priority. By providing funding for the Farm and 
Ranch Stress Assistance Network (FRSAN) we can provide rural 
communities have the help they need. Specifically, $15 million per year 
for Fiscal Years 2023 through 2028. This program provides mental health 
resources to Americans living in rural areas and those working in the 
agriculture industry. This program lapsed due to a lack of funding in 
2018 until our STRESS Act was included in that year's farm bill.
    With more than 6.5 million rural American \1\ * suffering from 
mental illness and suicide rates for farmers being 3\1/2\ times higher 
\2\ than that of the general population, this is an important program 
that deserves our support.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7681156/.
    * Editor's note: references annotated with  are retained in 
Committee file.
    \2\ https://www.ruralhealth.us/NRHA/media/Emerge_NRHA/Advocacy/
Policy%20documents/NRHA-Policy-Brief-Increases-in-Suicide-Rates-Among-
Farmers-in-Rural-America.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We also request that you include the ASPIRE Act, which establishes 
a work-based agriculture training program within the USDA's existing 
Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program to fund apprenticeship 
and internship programs available to beginning farmers and ranchers, as 
well as the organizations serving them.

    Between the years of 2020 and 2030, the agriculture sector is only 
expected to grow two percent--lower than the average across other 
industries. Additionally, the average age of workers in the ag industry 
is climbing, and not enough younger workers are filling their shoes.

    Farmers under the age of 35 now make up only 9% of the ag 
workforce. In Minnesota, ag industry apprenticeships make up just 1% of 
the available apprenticeships.\3\ This legislation will create valuable 
opportunities for the young people who will make up ag's next 
generation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ https://knsiradio.com/2022/07/20/central-minnesota-congressman-
introduces-aspire-act-to-support-agriculture-and-farming/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Finally, we ask that this year's farm bill includes the Dairy 
Margin Coverage (DMC) program, which provides essential support to 
dairy farmers during uncertain times. We need to uphold support for the 
DMC Program and allow flexibility for farmers to select an update to 
the production years. Congress overhauled the DMC program in the 2018 
Farm Bill. The program is working. When it comes to dairy policy in the 
farm bill, it will be focused on evolution--not revolution. Over the 
last 4 years, the Minnesota Department of Agriculture estimates that 
the state has lost over 1,000 dairy farms due to the fact that these 
farmers cannot handle rising production costs.\4\ Dairy farms, 
especially small operations with less than 200 cows, need certainty to 
continue doing business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ https://kstp.com/kstp-news/top-news/minnesota-lost-over-1000-
dairy-farms-in-the-last-four-years-says-department-of-agriculture/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The same is true for other types of small operations. Crop 
insurance provides the tools that farmers and ranchers need to help 
manage risk. To keep farmland in the hands of small family farmers, we 
need to prioritize crop insurance protections in the farm bill.
    We understand crafting a farm bill that meets the changing needs of 
our nation's farmers, ranchers and producers is no easy task. Thank you 
for your work to support our nation's agriculture industry.
    Thank you.
                         Submitted Legislation
  1.  H.R. 4309, Assisting Seekers in Pursuit of Integration and Rapid 
            Employment Act (ASPIRE Act): https://www.govinfo.gov/
            content/pkg/BILLS-118hr4309ih/pdf/BILLS-118hr4309ih.pdf 
            (See p. 797).
                                 ______
                                 
Submitted Statement by Hon. Dwight Evans, a Representative in Congress 
                           from Pennsylvania
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, for giving Members of 
Congress the opportunity to speak today about the agricultural 
priorities and challenges facing their constituents.
    I come here today, as the Representative of Pennsylvania's 3rd 
Congressional District, located in Philadelphia. It is one of the most 
urban and densely populated districts in the entire United States, 
which may cause some to wonder why I believe agriculture policy is so 
important to the people in my district.
    Well, as we all know, there is another side to agriculture that 
comes after the very important job of growing and producing the food. 
And that is ensuring that the food we produce gets into the homes and 
stomachs of every American. And that is what I would like to speak 
about today.
    As a Member of the Pennsylvania State House, I led the creation of 
the Fresh Food Financing Initiative in my state. This program allows 
businesses to expand healthy grocery options in communities through a 
mix of public and private funding, attracting food retailers to invest 
in underserved areas and renovate existing stores to improve healthy 
food selections.
    This state initiative created thousands of jobs across the 
Commonwealth and funded nearly 100 new healthy food options for 
disadvantaged families throughout Pennsylvania.
    Eventually, this idea for financing healthy food was taken up at 
the national level by the Obama Administration through the creation of 
the Healthy Food Financing Initiative, or HFFI.
    The HFFI, through a partnership between USDA, the Treasury 
Department, and the Health and Human Services Department, similarly 
provides loans, grants, and technical assistance to improve access to 
affordable and healthy foods in underserved communities.
    Community development corporations and community development 
financial institutions have especially been instrumental in supporting 
this program through providing loans to local projects most in need. By 
steering funds through community groups, we are ensuring that funds are 
distributed to the most worthwhile causes, to organizations that have 
community buy-in, and which are the most trusted in neighborhoods 
affected by a lack of access and a lack of institutional support.
    The USDA's Food Access Research Atlas, which collects data on food 
access in census tracts across America, shows that as much as 6% of the 
U.S. population lives in areas of low-income and low-access to grocery 
stores. That is nearly 20 million people.
    These Americans typically live in low-income urban areas, where a 
lack of reliable public transit, low wages, and a lack of investment in 
their neighborhoods makes it more difficult to buy fresh fruits, 
vegetables, dairy, and cooking ingredients. Or they live in rural areas 
where the closest supermarket may be well over an hour away by car. Not 
to mention that in many of these cases, there's no guarantee the food 
available is either healthy or affordable.
    That is why continued support for the HFFI is so necessary. 
According to a report by The Food Trust, since first being established 
at the Federal level in 2010, the HFFI has been essential to over 900 
healthy food projects being financed across the nation, bringing fresh 
food to millions of families.
    As the U.S. faces inflationary costs that burden low-income 
families the most, we must ensure that the HFFI continues to be 
supported by the Members here today.
    Earlier this year, 55 Members of Congress, including myself, sent a 
letter to the Appropriations Committee in support of funding for the 
Healthy Food Financing Initiative, citing the program's impacts on job 
creation, market opportunities for American farmers, investments in the 
food supply chain distribution economy, ability to decrease obesity 
rates in America, and the increased need to improve access to healthy 
food in rural and urban communities.
    I ask that this Committee keep in mind those same points, 
understanding that this program has the potential to improve America's 
physical, nutritional, agricultural, and economic health 
simultaneously.
    As the Agriculture Committee moves forward with work on the farm 
bill, it must ensure that it continues to support the HFFI throughout 
the process. Ensuring reauthorization and continued engagement with 
statewide initiatives is a necessary step in helping to end the hunger 
crisis in the United States.
    I appreciate your time and look forward to working with any Members 
who want to help support this vital program and permanently end hunger 
in America. Thank you.
                                 ______
                                 
Submitted Statement by Hon. Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia, a Representative 
                       in Congress from Illinois
    Thank you, Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member Scott for hosting 
this Member Day hearing and allowing me to share the priorities of my 
district.
    As the new year begins, and this Committee debates a full 
reauthorization of the farm bill, I urge the Committee to support 
communities across the country by opposing cuts to funding or imposing 
additional restrictions to critical nutritional programs, increase our 
investments in education and agricultural research, and to protect our 
environment by investing in sustainable climate-smart infrastructure 
and food systems.
    In Congress, I proudly represent a Latino-majority district that 
includes working class communities across the Southwest side of Chicago 
and in the surrounding suburban area. Federal Nutrition Programs like 
the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the Emergency 
Food Assistance Program (TEFAP), the Commodity Supplemental Food 
Program (CSFP), and the Healthy Food Financing Initiative (HFFI) have 
helped put food on families tables while also freed up much needed 
resources to offset rising costs of living. The Fiscal Responsibility 
Act's work requirement increases for ``abled-bodied adults without 
dependents'' are putting older community members at risk of going 
hungry. Struggling families should not be forced to make impossible 
financial decisions to have access to nutritious and affordable food; 
we must continue to remove existing barriers to nutritional assistance 
and provide the support our constituents need.
    Land-grant universities and agriculture research programs also have 
an important role in strengthening our communities' access to food. As 
a leading agricultural state, Illinois is home to many agricultural 
colleges and programs that are training a diverse new generation of 
farmers. Increased funding for eligible universities and programs, such 
as the Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSI) Education Grants Programs, 
1890 National Scholars Program, and 1994 Tribal Scholars Program, is a 
first step to correcting past historical wrongs that have limited 
Black, Brown, and Indigenous people from succeeding in the industry.
    Last, as the climate crisis continues to cause more frequent and 
costly droughts, tornadoes, flooding, and other weather related 
disasters, I urge this Committee to substantially invest in the future 
of agriculture to make our food system sustainable for future 
generations. Though the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) included nearly 
$40 billion to bolster climate-smart agriculture, the full farm bill 
reauthorization bill must also take the current crisis seriously and 
take the steps needed to protect our food supply from further harm.
    I urge the Committee to protect the critical investments made in 
the IRA, support climate-friendly practices and production through 
investments in urban agriculture, limiting high greenhouse gas 
emissions, and fully funding emergency preparedness programs, 
especially flood damage reduction and flood easement programs.
    We are at an inflection point. Congress must ensure that this farm 
bill meets the needs of our community by fully funding Federal 
nutrition programs, promoting a diverse group of future producers, and 
building a resilient and climate-friendly food system for future 
generations.
    Again, I thank the Committee for its time and allowing me to share 
the priorities of my district.
                                 ______
                                 
Submitted Letter by Hon. Chrissy Houlahan, a Representative in Congress 
                           from Pennsylvania
    Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Scott, and Members of the House 
Agriculture Committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide 
testimony about the priorities of my constituents in Pennsylvania's 6th 
district.
    These include:

   The Industrial Hemp Act

   The Protecting Mushroom Farmers Act

   The Spotted Lanternfly Research and Development Act

   Supporting Ready-To-Use Therapeutic Food (RUTF)

   Maintaining the Inflation Reduction Act's conservation 
        funding
The Industrial Hemp Act
    The Industrial Hemp Act represents a bipartisan, bicameral solution 
to a problem afflicting farmers across the country. Although the 2018 
Farm Bill's hemp provisions were an important leap forward for farmers 
in many states, especially those looking to transition away from crops 
like tobacco, they created a regulatory scheme that was cumbersome and 
unworkable for those looking to take advantage of the new legislation.
    Growing Hemp was banned for nearly a century due to misplaced fears 
over its close association with the marijuana plant. Industrial hemp 
contains 100 times less THC than its potent cousin, lacking the related 
narcotic effects. Simply put, industrial hemp is different from 
cannabis, and deserves different regulations. The 2018 Farm Bill 
recognized this difference and removed industrial hemp from regulation 
under the Controlled Substances Act, creating opportunity for local 
entrepreneurs like the more than 30 permitted farms in Chester County, 
Pennsylvania.
    Despite the finished products from industrial hemp production being 
exempt from the Controlled Substances Act, the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture mandates that all hemp products are subject to testing/
inspections to ensure they are in compliance with strict Federal 
regulations.
    Under the Industrial Hemp Act, industrial hemp growers would still 
be subject to rigorous compliance standards but would not be required 
to undergo the onerous background checks and testing protocols if their 
crops are deemed compliant. Producers who violate these rules would be 
barred from participating in the hemp program for 5 years.
    This is a commonsense fix that will allow farmers the regulatory 
stability they depend on, while not precluding other regulation of 
products designed for human consumption. It is my hope that this 
bipartisan legislation can be included in the 2023 Farm Bill.
The Protecting Mushroom Farmers Act
    The Protecting Mushroom Farmers Act is a bipartisan, bicameral step 
towards providing mushroom farmers with the same crop insurance 
protections available to many other specialty crop farmers.
    The bill would require the Department of Agriculture to conduct a 
study on the benefits of providing crop insurance for mushroom farmers. 
This study would analyze various threats to production, such as 
inclement weather and pests uniquely harmful to mushrooms, and their 
impact on farmers' ability to grow mushrooms and maintain 
profitability. The 2018 Farm Bill included several studies on new 
insurance products, which the USDA was able to begin offering upon 
better understanding the benefits--no further action from Congress 
necessary.
    Family mushroom farms support more than 9,000 jobs in Pennsylvania, 
and across the country the value of the 2022-2023 mushroom crop was 
more than $1 billion. It is long past time that these farmers had the 
security of the same insurance protections available to so many others. 
Including this legislation in this year's farm bill would be an 
important step towards that goal.
The Spotted Lanternfly Research and Development Act
    The Spotted Lanternfly Research and Development is another piece of 
bipartisan, bicameral legislation that will have a major impact on the 
agricultural sector in my community. The invasive Spotted Lanternfly 
arrived in the United States in 2014, and since then has ravaged farms 
all the way from my community in Southeastern Pennsylvania to upstate 
New York and central Ohio. These pests are responsible for millions of 
dollars in damage and are putting thousands of jobs at risk.
    By designating these insects as a high priority pest under the 
National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), the Spotted 
Lanternfly Research and Development Act will unlock Federal research 
dollars to investigate stopping their spread. The legislation comes at 
no cost, because it will allow researchers to tap into money already 
set aside for NIFA's ``most-wanted'' pests. It is my hope that this 
bill can be included in the 2023 Farm Bill.
Supporting Ready-To-Use Therapeutic Food (RUTF)
    I am also calling for robust support in the 2023 Farm Bill of 
international food aid programs that connect American agricultural 
production with the poorest and most at-risk populations around the 
globe, and in particular for increased funding for Ready-To-Use 
Therapeutic Food.
    When a child is starving, their body can begin to consume itself. 
This wasting process is so severe that they cannot recover with 
ordinary food alone. Right now, exacerbated by [COVID-19] and conflict 
around the world, 45 million children suffer from acute malnutrition 
and starvation. In fact, a child dies from malnutrition every 11 
seconds.
    Ready-To-Use Food (RUTF) is the miraculous solution that can safely 
bring a child back from the brink of death from malnutrition in just 
weeks. Treatment costs less than $1 per day for three servings, and 90% 
of children can recover after just 6 to 8 weeks. It is a made in 
America product with ingredients sourced from 27 states. More than $5.5 
million of dairy products were procured from my home state of 
Pennsylvania this year alone, with more expected in the future.
    However, these products are largely financed via short-term 
humanitarian funding mechanisms, which make it difficult to ensure 
continuous supplies. 90% of RUTFs are purchased with emergency/
humanitarian funding, while only a quarter of children with wasting 
live in such contexts. Last year the Federal Government, private-
sector, and foreign governments contributed a combined half billion 
dollars to scale of wasting treatment and lifesaving care, including 
RUTF. But without multi-year sustained funding, we will fall back to 
abysmal coverage levels of only 25%. This would mean that three out of 
four wasted children worldwide would not receive lifesaving care.
    We must build on this momentum to ensure that treatment is 
accessible, both now and into the future. To do this, it is essential 
that we deliver increased funding for the Food for Peace program. We 
must also provide dedicated funding for RUTF, to continue the progress 
achieved over the last year.
Maintaining the Inflation Reduction Act's conservation funding
    Finally, it is of the utmost importance that the next farm bill 
ensures the nearly $20 billion provided in the Inflation Reduction Act 
(IRA) for USDA conservation programs is used for its intended purpose. 
This funding is a win-win for farmers and for the planet. In 2023, USDA 
received requests for more than three times what the IRA made available 
for that year for climate smart agriculture--meaning farmers want it--
and the funding benefits us all by helping to address the climate 
crisis.
    I thank you for your consideration of my views.
            Sincerely,
            
            
Chrissy Houlahan,
Member of Congress.
                         Submitted Legislation
  1.  H.R. 3755, Industrial Hemp Act of 2023: https://www.govinfo.gov/
            content/pkg/BILLS-118hr3755ih/pdf/BILLS-118hr3755ih.pdf 
            (See p. 701).

  2.  H.R. 3815, Protecting Mushroom Farmers Act: https://
            www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-118hr3815ih/pdf/BILLS-
            118hr3815ih.pdf (See p. 711).

  3.  H.R. 3867, Spotted Lanternfly Research and Development Act:  (See 
            p. 718).https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-
            118hr3867ih/pdf/BILLS-118hr3867ih.pdf (See p. 718).
                                 ______
                                 
Submitted Statement by Hon. Ann M. Kuster, a Representative in Congress 
                           from New Hampshire
    Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Scott, and Members of the 
Committee thank you for the opportunity to testify on key farm bill 
priorities for New Hampshire's Second Congressional District.
    Over the last 2 years, I have heard from Granite State producers, 
foresters, and consumers about their experiences and their priorities 
for the farm bill. From these conversations, four key priorities 
emerged: (1) protecting our environment; (2) reducing bureaucratic 
barriers to accessing nutritious food; (3) strengthening our rural 
economy; and (4) advancing agriculture research and market access.

  (1)  Protecting our environment: the $19.5 billion of conservation 
            funding secured in the Inflation Reduction Act must be 
            protected and spent on furthering our conservation goals. 
            Before the IRA, the Natural Resources Conservation Service 
            (NRCS) was consistently under-funded and over-subscribed. 
            In just over a year, these investments have already 
            benefited agricultural producers in meeting their 
            conservation goals. To continue this upward trajectory, I 
            am proud to lead H.R. 3424, Forest Conservation Easement 
            Program (FCEP) Act of 2023. This bill will promote the 
            conservation of private forestland keeping them intact and 
            working while creating parity between our agricultural land 
            and forested land.

  (2)  Reducing barriers to accessing nutritious food: Our Federal food 
            assistance programs have a proven track record of lifting 
            thousands of families out of poverty. Only 50% of New 
            Hampshire households eligible for food assistance are 
            enrolled. In rural states, like mine, having to apply in 
            person is a barrier to receiving benefits. That is why I 
            introduced H.R. 5643, SNP Act of 2023. This legislation 
            removes unnecessary barriers and allows families to apply 
            for SNAP over the phone, saving time and money for both the 
            family and the SNAP state office.

  (3)  Strengthening our rural economy: Rural Development (RD) is 
            focused exclusively on improving rural America's economy 
            and quality of life, delivering more than $30 billion in 
            investments annually and managing a loan portfolio valued 
            at nearly $235 billion. RD's localized approach and 
            commitment to preserving the rural character of towns has 
            revitalized some of the smallest towns in New Hampshire. 
            The Northern Borders Regional Commission (NBRC) has played 
            a vital role in the economic development of these towns. To 
            continue this critical work, I introduced H.R. [4188], the 
            Northern Border Regional Commission Reauthorization Act of 
            2023, to extend NBRC for 10 years while making critical 
            reforms to encourage economic development in our most rural 
            parts of New Hampshire.

  (4)  Advancing agriculture research and market access: America is a 
            global leader in agriculture, we must continue to invest in 
            innovation and market research through the National 
            Institute of Food and Agriculture. This science and best 
            practices provided to farmers are essential to the success 
            of their small businesses. Small farmers transitioning to 
            organic is a great example of research influencing farm 
            practices, that increase sustainability and access to 
            diverse markets. Last year, U.S. organic was a $67 billion 
            industry, but demand is currently outpacing production. 
            This demand and untapped potential are why I introduced 
            H.R. 5763, the Organic Market Development Act. This bill 
            will strengthen the supply chains between consumers and 
            producers leading to better health outcomes for consumers 
            and increased revenue for producers.

    I am confident in the Committee's ability to draft a farm bill that 
protects our environment, streamlines access to healthy, locally 
produced food, invests in cutting-edge agricultural and conservation 
research, and continues to develop resilient rural communities. I look 
forward to working with you all to achieve a bipartisan farm bill.
                         Submitted Legislation
  1.  H.R. 3424, Forest Conservation Easement Program Act of 2023: 
            https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-118hr3424ih/pdf/
            BILLS-118hr3424ih.pdf (See p. 642).

  2.  H.R. 4188, Northern Border Regional Commission Reauthorization 
            Act of 2023: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-
            118hr4188ih/pdf/BILLS-118hr4188ih.pdf (See p. 783).

  3.  H.R. 5643, Streamlining Nutrition Paperwork Act of 2023 (SNP Act 
            of 2023): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-
            118hr5643ih/pdf/BILLS-118hr5643ih.pdf (See p. 921).

  4.  H.R. 5763, To establish as a permanent program the organic market 
            development grant program of the Department of 
            Agriculture.: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-
            118hr5763ih/pdf/BILLS-118hr5763ih.pdf (See p. 936).
                                 ______
                                 
Submitted Letter by Hon. Lisa C. McClain, a Representative in Congress 
                             from Michigan
December 6, 2023
  Hon. Glenn Thompson,
  Chairman,
  Committee on Agriculture,
  Washington, D.C.;

  Hon. David Scott,
  Ranking Minority Member,
  Committee on Agriculture,
  Washington, D.C.

    Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member Scott,

    Thank you for holding a Members' Day hearing as you work towards 
the next farm bill. I would like to advocate for the vital importance 
of U.S. sugar farmers and factories to our nation's jobs and economy, 
particularly in districts like mine. Year in and year out, U.S. sugar 
farmers generate more than $23 billion in economic activity and create 
more than 151,000 good-paying American jobs.
    Underlying all of this is the U.S. sugar policy, which comes at 
zero cost to American taxpayers. Through the farm bill, loans are made 
to sugar processors to help them repay the costs of planting, growing, 
and harvesting a crop while also affording an opportunity to better 
market that crop. The loan is similar to one made available to 27 other 
agricultural commodities. The key aspect of the sugar loan is that to 
maintain its minimal cost to taxpayers, it must be repaid in full each 
year, at principal plus interest.
    Our sugar producers have done that every year except in one case 
where Mexico was found by the International Trade Commission to have 
illegally dumped sugar onto the U.S. market at below Mexico's costs of 
production.
    So, why do we need U.S. sugar policy? Because the Mexico situation 
is not an isolated event. The global sugar market is highly distorted 
by foreign subsidies and other predatory trade practices. The result is 
a global market where the global cost of producing sugar is actually 
higher than the world market price--more than 50 percent higher over 
the past 5 years. This is evidence of a dump market, not a market that 
is free or fair.
    American farm families can compete on a level playing field, but 
they cannot compete against bloated foreign treasuries. The challenge 
is U.S. sugar policy--like the safety net for other farm families--
hasn't kept pace with general inflation and rising costs of production. 
As a result, we've lost about 40 percent of our processors in the last 
23 years. In the last 8 years alone, three major processors shut their 
doors. The good news is that we can update U.S. sugar policy to provide 
a meaningful safety net for our farm families and do so at no cost to 
American taxpayers. This will also ensure that our sugar producers can 
continue to deliver high-quality, safe, and abundant supplies of sugar 
to both consumers and food companies at low prices.
    Consider this:
    The costs of production reached record highs and outstripped the 
price producers received. Supply of sugar produced by our farm families 
this year alone is expected to exceed demand by at least 3.4 billion 
pounds, ensuring ample supplies and fair prices.
    I urge my colleagues on this Committee to work with me and other 
Members to strengthen the safety net for America's sugar farmers.
            Sincerely,
            
            
Lisa C. McClain,
Member of Congress.
                                 ______
                                 
 Submitted Letter by Hon. Betty McCollum, a Representative in Congress 
                             from Minnesota

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

    Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member Scott,

    Thank you for holding this Members' Day hearing as you prepare to 
craft a new farm bill. I would like to take a moment to emphasize the 
importance of United States sugar farmers and factories to our nation's 
jobs and economy, particularly in states like mine. My home State of 
Minnesota is the largest producer of sugarbe[e]ts in the country. 
Minnesota sugar supports over 20,000 jobs and represents $3 billion of 
the state's economy. Thanks to our current U.S. sugar policy, American 
consumers are provided a reliable supply of safe, high-quality, 
responsibly produced sugar at prices that are among the lowest in the 
world.
    As you look to shape sugar policy in the next farm bill, I urge you 
to support and strengthen the safety net the current U.S. sugar policy 
provides to our nation's family farmers. Unfortunately, America has 
lost about 40 percent of our processors in the last 23 years. In the 
last 8 years, three processors have closed. We should not undermine 
American farmers at a time of record production costs by exposing them 
to the volatility of the global sugar market, a market that is highly 
distorted by foreign subsidies and other predatory trade practices and 
where the cost of producing sugar is higher than the market price. 
American farm families can compete on a level playing field, but they 
cannot compete against foreign governments' treasuries. We must 
maintain strong domestic sugar production and not sell out our nation's 
farm families to foreign suppliers.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify about the importance of 
the U.S. sugar policy, and for your work in crafting the next farm 
bill. I hope we can work together to craft a bipartisan bill that 
supports the needs of the American people.
            Sincerely,
            
            
Betty McCollum,
Member of Congress.
                                 ______
                                 
  Submitted Statement by Hon. Brittany Pettersen, a Representative in 
                         Congress from Colorado
    Chairman GT Thompson, Ranking Member David Scott, and Members of 
the House Agriculture Committee:

    As the House Agriculture Committee continues its work on preparing 
a farm bill, Congress has a historic opportunity to invest in the food 
and nutrition security of our most vulnerable constituents, support 
rural development and broadband access, address our catastrophic 
wildfires that have swept through our public lands and a host of other 
key priorities. The farm bill is a moment to invest in rural 
communities and support those in need and I'm grateful for the 
opportunity to demonstrate my priorities to the House Agriculture 
Committee.
Title IV, Nutrition
    In February 2023, one out of every 11 Coloradans were enrolled in 
the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Because they had 
access to this critical Federal service, between 2014 and 2018, SNAP 
raised 93,000 Coloradans above the poverty line per year, including 
46,000 children. This year we have seen threats made to programs like 
SNAP that support our nation's most vulnerable populations, and the 
farm bill has been a central stage for this. I am deeply concerned by 
the undue work requirements that were placed on SNAP recipients this 
spring. Potential blanketed cuts to critical programs like SNAP that 
support our nation's most vulnerable populations threaten to undo the 
progress that has been made in previous years. Work requirements 
drastically reduce SNAP participation and take food off the tables of 
many struggling families.
    Additionally, I am deeply concerned with the funding level 
allocated to SNAP. With the end of Federal Pandemic-Related Emergency 
Allotments in February 2023, the average benefit for a SNAP recipient 
is $6 per person per day and the minimum benefit is just $23 a month. 
Because of current funding levels, low-income households experiencing 
food insecurity have been forced to make difficult choices between food 
and other basic needs, like housing and medicine. SNAP beneficiaries 
cannot afford to see reduced benefit levels. I encourage the Committee 
to protect the much needed adjustments that were made to the Thrifty 
Food Plan with Congressional authority from the 2018 Farm Bill and 
address inadequate funding levels provided for SNAP.
    I also want to raise the importance of addressing skimming and 
electronic theft victimizing SNAP participants. I encourage the 
Committee to update standards for Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) 
cards, as well as replacement of stolen benefits. This year, over 
$400,000 in stolen SNAP benefits have had to be reimbursed to 
Coloradans that rely on them. Coloradans have claims amounting to 
upwards of $500,000 still awaiting return. The FY23 Agriculture, Rural 
Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies 
Appropriations bill included a short-term fix that ensures stolen SNAP 
benefits will be returned to SNAP participants who fall victim to 
electronic theft, but those protections expire Sept 2024. Should this 
provision expire, SNAP households may again be left without recourse if 
their benefits are stolen. I am proud to be a cosponsor of H.R. 205, 
the SNAP Theft Protection Act and encourage the Committee to include 
this effort in the farm bill and explore greater protections around 
SNAP EBT skimming and theft.
    I am committed to working with Members from the Committee to 
protect SNAP and our Federal nutrition assistance programs and to help 
those who need our support most.
Title VI, Rural Development
    The farm bill is a key vehicle to invest in rural communities 
across the United States. The Rural Development Title of the farm bill 
is a central pillar that supports our rural communities by modernizing 
rural infrastructure, investing in our rural business and housing, and 
infusing our rural communities with access to reliable, high-speed 
internet access.
    As the Committee finalizes the farm bill, I would like the 
Committee to include a notable bipartisan bill that I introduced with 
Rep. Juan Ciscomani, H.R. 5242, Connecting Our Neighbors to Networks 
and Ensuring Competitive Telecommunications (CONNECT) Act. Millions of 
rural Americans continue to lack adequate access to the internet, where 
the cost of connection can be high and existing service too slow or 
expensive to be of much use. While the U.S. Department of Agriculture's 
(USDA) ReConnect Loan and Grant Program (ReConnect Program) provides 
broadband funding for eligible rural areas, the application process can 
be complicated and prohibitively expensive for small providers--those 
most attuned to the needs of their communities and committed to 
providing ongoing service to local residents.
    The CONNECT Act would reform the ReConnect Program's application 
process and boost the ability of local governments, nonprofit 
organizations, and cooperatives to compete for this critical funding. 
My bill works to offset application costs and creates a dedicated 
Office of Technical Assistance to help them complete the process. The 
CONNECT Act cuts red tape and reduces the time it takes to get funding 
to communities, prioritizing the needs of rural Americans and would 
strengthen a key Federal broadband program. I urge the Committee to 
include the CONNECT Act in the farm bill and modify the ReConnect 
Program.
    In addition to streamlining the ReConnect Program within USDA, I 
would like to urge the Committee to protect and bolster investments in 
affordable rural housing assistance programs. In Colorado's rural 
mountainous communities, supply of affordable housing just simply 
cannot keep pace with the demand. Skyrocketing housing prices, 
inflationary constraints on construction and short-term rental 
properties have made affordable housing nearly nonexistent. I encourage 
the Committee to boldly address our affordable housing crisis plaguing 
rural America through the farm bill.
Title VIII, Forestry
    In Colorado and throughout much of the U.S., we are no longer 
experiencing a wildfire ``season''. Instead, the threat of catastrophic 
wildfires persists throughout the year. The 20 largest wildfires in 
Colorado's recorded history have occurred since 2001. In total 2,544 
homes in Colorado have been lost due to wildfire in the past 20 years 
and they continue to threaten populations.
    Wildfire mitigation, response, and resiliency is a complex problem 
and Congress must work to better manage our public lands and forests to 
reduce the risk of a wildfire and protect those living in the wildland-
urban interface. The farm bill is a vehicle that can drive real policy 
to change this dangerous trajectory under the work of the United States 
Forest Service (USFS). I encourage the Committee to assess the robust 
recommendations from the Congressionally-established Wildland Fire 
Mitigation and Management Commission and incorporate appropriate 
suggestions into the farm bill.
    I also encourage the Committee to invest in holistic policy that 
will comprehensively address wildfires on public lands and forests. But 
this issue is not solvable without the work of our Federal 
firefighters. I urge the Committee to invest in supporting services for 
USFS employees.
    I hope to support real conversations about how we can invest in 
strong and robust Federal forest management strategies, to mitigate 
against wildfires and lessen the toll that invasive beetles like the 
emerald ash borer are causing to our forest health. I also welcome the 
opportunity to work with my colleagues on addressing workforce and 
housing support for our USFS workers.
Protecting the Inflation Reduction Act and Investing in our Climate
    It is of the utmost importance that the next farm bill ensures the 
nearly $20 billion provided in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) for 
USDA conservation programs is used for its intended purpose. This 
funding is a win-win for farmers and to combat catastrophic climate 
change. In 2023, USDA received requests for more than three times what 
the IRA made available for that year for climate-smart agriculture--
meaning farmers want it--and the funding benefits us all by helping to 
address the climate crisis. With the passage of the IRA we invested in 
every tool needed to be a global leader on climate change, effectively 
working together to build a more resilient, sustainable, and prosperous 
future for our future. If IRA were cut, Colorado farmers and ranchers 
would lose out on over $92 million between FY 24-26. I urge the 
Committee to protect this historic investment and preserve the nearly 
$20 billion provided for the IRA for USDA's conservation programs for 
their intended purpose.
                         Submitted Legislation
  1.  H.R. 205, SNAP Theft Protection Act of 2023: https://
            www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-118hr205ih/pdf/BILLS-
            118hr205ih.pdf (See p. 284).

  2.  H.R. 5242, Connecting Our Neighbors to Networks and Ensuring 
            Competitive Telecommunications Act of 2023 (CONNECT Act of 
            2023): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-
            118hr5242ih/pdf/BILLS-118hr5242ih.pdf (See p. 886).
                                 ______
                                 
 Submitted Letter by Hon. August Pfluger, a Representative in Congress 
                               from Texas
December 14, 2023

    Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member Scott:

    Thank you for providing Members the opportunity to share our 
priorities for the 118th Congress. As the Representative of a rural 
district, my top priority is to champion policies which protect and 
promote a strong and secure food supply chain.
    No other region in the world does more to contribute to our food 
security than Texas. In fact, my district is home to more than 15 
million acres of farm and ranchland and generates over $1 billion in 
agriculture revenue each year. Agriculture production is not only the 
backbone of local economies, but also the epicenter of America's food 
security.
    As the Committee works to reauthorize the farm bill, it is critical 
that updates are made to reflect the challenges facing producers. 2022 
was recorded as the third-costliest year for weather disasters in U.S. 
history, with an estimated $165 billion in total economic losses. A 
strong farm safety net is imperative, and the upcoming farm bill must 
address current ad hoc disaster programs, which have become a lifeline 
for farmers and ranchers dealing with extreme weather conditions, high 
input costs, and volatile prices. The Committee must find ways to make 
disaster programs more consistent, while ensuring they work in tandem 
with crop insurance and other programs to protect our producers.
    Previous farm bills have recognized that crop insurance is the 
linchpin of the farm safety net and is crucial to rural America. The 
upcoming farm bill must equally recognize this by ensuring crop 
insurance remains a reliable risk management tool for farmers, 
particularly during a time of heightened uncertainty for producers. 
Means testing, income limits, or any policies that limit or negatively 
impact risk pools should not be included.
    It is critical that we provide the tools our producers need to meet 
growing food demand and maintain economic viability. Over the last 
several years, increased predation across the country has contributed 
to declining volumes of domestic livestock herds. In Texas alone, it is 
estimated that predation of sheep and goats results in approximately 
$25 million of annual revenue loss. Two decades ago, there were nearly 
twice as many sheep and goats in Texas. If Texas ranchers could better 
control predation, it could result in well over $100 million in 
farmgate sales. As producers work to meet growing demand, we must find 
ways to address native and invasive predators.
    The upcoming farm bill should extend, through FY 2028, the Feral 
Swine Eradication and Control Pilot Program to help respond to the 
threat feral swine poses to agriculture, native ecosystems, and animal 
health. Additionally, the farm bill should include two bipartisan 
pieces of legislation that will help producers respond to predators: 
H.R. 2695, the WOLF Act to reimburse ranchers for livestock harmed by 
endangered Mexican gray wolves, and H.R. 4939 to allow producers to 
``take'' crested caracaras in order to prevent livestock losses.
    In addition to managing predation and invasive species, producers 
in my district are constantly working to control brush density. Cedar, 
mesquite trees, and other brush take valuable water from desirable 
plants, reducing healthy grass growth and resulting in soil erosion. To 
help control brush, producers in my district have long utilized the 
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). There has been a 
concern that Texas ranks very low in overall EQIP funding, and I 
believe it is important that states receive their fair share of the 
program to help producers in these efforts. Overall, conservation funds 
must recognize diversity in practices and reward the environmental 
gains.
    Robust funding of research in predation, crop sciences, and animal 
health should also be included in the farm bill. However, the farm bill 
should establish funding restrictions on institutions of higher 
education that have a relationship with Confucius Institutes. We know 
that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is utilizing Confucius 
Institutes to infiltrate American university campuses to engage in 
espionage, steal our intellectual property, and funnel information back 
to the People's Liberation Army (PLA). It is imperative for our 
national security that the farm bill includes provisions that prohibit 
these institutions from growing their influence in the United States. 
Under no circumstances should American taxpayer dollars be used to 
enrich the CCP or the PLA.
    The 118th Congress must boast policies that ensure an affordable 
and abundant supply of food, independent of foreign adversaries and 
nefarious actors, and bolster economic viability for producers and the 
communities they support. We must promote and protect American 
agriculture, and I look forward to working with you in these endeavors.
            Sincerely,
            
            
August Pfluger,
Member of Congress.
                         Submitted Legislation
  1.  H.R. 2695, WOlf and Livestock Fairness Act (WOLF Act): https://
            www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-118hr2695ih/pdf/BILLS-
            118hr2695ih.pdf (See p. 561).

  2.  H.R. 4939, To authorize livestock producers and their employees 
            to take crested caracaras in order to prevent the death of 
            or injury or destruction to livestock, and for other 
            purposes.: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-
            118hr4939ih/pdf/BILLS-118hr4939ih.pdf (See p. 850).
                                 ______
                                 
    Submitted Letter by Hon. Guy Reschenthaler, a Representative in 
                       Congress from Pennsylvania
December 5, 2023

  Hon. Glenn Thompson,
  Chairman,
  House Committee on Agriculture,
  Washington, D.C. 20515

    Dear Chairman Thompson:

    Thank you for convening this important Member Day hearing and for 
your leadership on the House Agriculture Committee. I commend your 
Committee for prioritizing policies that make it easier for our farmers 
and ranchers to produce the food and fiber that fuels our nation.
    Additionally, I have introduced and cosponsored multiple pieces of 
legislation to protect our nation's animals from abuse and neglect in 
the 118th Congress. Earlier this year, I introduced H.R. 5041, the 
Better Collaboration, Accountability, and Regulatory Enforcement (CARE) 
for Animals Act of 2023. This legislation strengthens the U.S. 
Department of Justice's (DOJ) enforcement power against animal abusers. 
By bolstering the Animal Welfare Act, the bicameral bill would allow 
the DOJ to levy civil penalties against abusers, suspend and revoke 
their licenses, and remove or relocate animals who may be experiencing 
harmful treatment. Further, I am the co-lead of H.R. 1624, the Puppy 
Protection Act of 2023, which improves the standards for breeding 
practices, housing, veterinary care, and regulations for the placement 
and socialization of retired breeding dogs.
    Thank you for your kind attention to my efforts. As you continue to 
advance the Committee's priorities, I look forward to working with you 
and your staff to advance vital legislation for southwestern 
Pennsylvanians.
            Very respectfully,
            
            
Guy Reschenthaler,
Member of Congress.
                         Submitted Legislation
  1.  H.R. 1624, Puppy Protection Act of 2023: https://www.govinfo.gov/
            content/pkg/BILLS-118hr1624ih/pdf/BILLS-118hr1624ih.pdf 
            (See p. 339).

  2.  H.R. 5041, Better Collaboration, Accountability, and Regulatory 
            Enforcement for Animals Act of 2023 (Better CARE for 
            Animals Act of 2023): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/
            BILLS-118hr5041ih/pdf/BILLS-118hr5041ih.pdf (See p. 853).
                                 ______
                                 
Submitted Letter by Hon. Kim Schrier, a Representative in Congress from 
                               Washington
December 15, 2023

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

    Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Scott, Members of the Committee:

    Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the crucial issues in 
the farm bill. As you continue discussions to deliver a bipartisan 
product that meets the needs of our country from farm to fork, I want 
to ask you to consider several priorities for the New Democrat 
Coalition, as well as priorities for Washington's Eighth Congressional 
District.
    I want to thank both of you for your commitment to working with the 
Coalition on a bipartisan basis. Please consider us partners to deliver 
a farm bill through the House and into law. While no longer with you on 
the Committee this Congress, in line with priorities of my District, I 
continue to provide leadership on these issues as the Chair of the New 
Dems' Farm Bill Task Force, Co-Chair of SEEC Climate and Agriculture 
Task Force, and Member of Leader Jeffries Task Force on Agriculture and 
Nutrition. Specifically, as Chair of the New Dems' Task Force, I want 
to bring attention to issues that the 98 Members of the Coalition 
raised with you in a letter to the Committee in June, a document 
reflecting the principles we want to see in a farm bill sent in July, 
and a slate of endorsed bills communicated to you in September.
    First, New Dems are committed to investments in rural communities, 
particularly investments in rural housing, broadband, and economic 
development. The farm bill also offers an opportunity to change the way 
the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) collaborates with Tribal 
governments through data sharing and good neighbor agreements, 
important reforms that would enhance these partnerships.
    Second, New Dems are committed to addressing the modern nutritional 
needs of Americans and providing innovations for program efficiency. 
During the COVID-19 pandemic, we saw innovations like allowing verbal 
signature for Supplemental Assistance Nutrition Program (SNAP) forms 
via telephone that should be continued in this farm bill. We should 
also seek to make targeted changes to SNAP eligibility for college 
students and improve access to local and fresh foods through The 
Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP). The Committee should reject 
efforts to undermine key nutrition programs like SNAP, TEFAP, the 
Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP) and the Special Supplemental 
Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). In 
particular, efforts that would make sweeping changes to program 
eligibility or benefits would be counterproductive to the goal of a 
bipartisan farm bill that can pass into law. It is imperative that 
eligible Americans not lose access to critical supports that keep them 
and their families fed, healthy, and contributing to society. I would 
also highlight that every bureaucratic hurdle that complicates the 
application process means more money that could go to purchase of food 
instead goes to administrative costs. I don't think any of us support 
that.
    Third, New Dems want to provide farmers, ranchers, and other 
landowners who feed and fuel our nation with certainty from diversified 
income streams and greater support to beginner, young, and socially 
disadvantaged producers. The Committee should seek opportunities to 
invest in research and development infrastructure, encourage new 
technologies in precision agriculture and automation, and provide new 
market opportunities for specialty crops and industrial hemp.
    Fourth, we believe the farm bill should ensure farmers and ranchers 
have access to world class research and the resources necessary for 
successful trade promotion and marketing in order to expand 
international markets. As we increase resources for agricultural 
research, we should also make sure that American farmers benefit from 
that research by funding export promotion programs--so the goods and 
services they provide can reach the world.
    Finally, New Dems believe the farm bill should recognize the 
important role the agriculture and forestry sector continues to have on 
our local environment and the opportunity the farm bill provides to 
build upon historic investments in carbon sequestration and sustainable 
land management. It is of the utmost importance that the next farm bill 
ensures the nearly $20 billion provided in the Inflation Reduction Act 
is used for its intended purpose. This funding is a win-win for 
farmers, particularly on small and medium farms, and for the planet. We 
know these programs are already oversubscribed across the country--
meaning farmers want it--and the funding benefits us all by helping to 
address the climate crisis. We urge the Committee to oppose efforts to 
cut funding, redirect funding, or otherwise undermine critical Title II 
programs and technical assistance within the USDA.
    These critical issues matter not only to New Dems across the 
country, but to my constituents in Washington's Eighth Congressional 
District. As their Representative, over the last year, I have been 
hosting listening sessions throughout my district to hear directly from 
farmers, producers, researchers, nutrition advocates, land managers, 
firefighters, and other critical stakeholder groups in Washington state 
to ensure their priorities are reflected in the final version of the 
farm bill.
    As I travel throughout my district, I hear the same concerns from 
my constituents about rising costs, supply chain issues, and the 
challenges stemming from extreme weather events. Therefore, I urge you 
to also include improvements to the following important themes:

   Research--Ensure the district, state, and country continue 
        to conduct world class agriculture and natural resources 
        research addressing pressing needs (e.g., H.R. 4135 \1\--Ag 
        Research Act, H.R. 679,\2\--SCRI match fix, etc.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/4135.
    \2\ https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/679.

   Trade--Support our farmers, as producers of food locally and 
        exporting to the world, conservationists, and valued members of 
        society (e.g., H.R. 648 \3\--Agriculture Export Promotion Act 
        of 2023)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/648.

   Forestry--Promote healthy forests and lands through 
        ecological restoration, wildfire risk reduction, and 
        conservation, and support those who do the work (e.g., Upcoming 
        reintroduction of The National Prescribed Fire Act, H.R. 3990 
        \4\--Forest Data Modernization Act of 2023, H.R. 4197 \5\--
        Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Partnership 
        Reauthorization, H.R. 5381 \6\--Reforestation, Nurseries, and 
        Genetic Resources Support Act of 2023, etc.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/3990.
    \5\ https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/4197.
    \6\ https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/5381.

   Nutrition--Provide healthy, nutritious food to those in 
        need--protect and grow SNAP and get more local, nutritious food 
        into Federal feeding programs (e.g., H.R. 4185 \7\--Expanding 
        Access to (EAT) Healthy Foods from Local Farmers, H.R. 5136 
        \8\--Supporting Transportation and Refrigeration Expansion Act 
        of 2023, H.R. 3183 \9\--Rep. Gomez's EATS Act of 2023, H.R. 
        4856 \10\--GusNIP Expansion Act of 2023)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/4185.
    \8\ https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/5136.
    \9\ https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/3183.
    \10\ https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/4856.

   Conservation--Protect IRA Conservation funding and support 
        USDA climate smart voluntary partnership programs. 
        Additionally, strengthen deployment of conservation programs 
        (e.g., H.R. 2975,\11\ the ENABLE Conservation Act of 2023)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2975.

    These challenges and more require bold, innovative, and oftentimes 
bipartisan solutions from responsible leaders in Washington, D.C. 
Hopefully this information helps further equip your Committee to get 
its important work done; to pull together a farm bill that is 
responsive to pressing needs faced by my constituents and all of us 
across the country.
    Thank you.
            Sincerely,
            
            
Kim Schrier,
Member of Congress.
                         Submitted Endorsements
    The House Agriculture Committee has a long tradition of bipartisan 
cooperation, which is the key ingredient to passing a farm bill into 
law. We are pleased that the Committee is working to advance the goal 
of a farm bill that supports agricultural producers, invests in rural 
communities, supports American nutritional needs, and boosts American 
agricultural competitiveness. The New Democrat Coalition's Farm Bill 
Task Force \1\ will continue to collaborate with the Agriculture 
Committee, House Leadership, and other stakeholders to produce a strong 
and bipartisan package that meets the needs of American agricultural 
producers and consumers. Building off of our five core policy 
priorities \2\ for a farm bill, the New Dems will work to ensure that a 
final farm bill includes the following endorsed legislation led or co-
led by New Dem Members:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://newdemocratcoalition.house.gov/policy/task-forces/farm-
bill.
    \2\ https://newdemocratcoalition.house.gov/media-center/press-
releases/new-dems-endorse-five-core-policy-principles-for-the-farm-
bill.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  1.  Invest in rural communities and rural broadband.

     H.R. 4351,\3\ Rep. Stacey Plaskett (VI-AL)--Broadband 
            Internet for Small Ports Act. This bipartisan bill would 
            prioritize broadband grant and loan applications from small 
            ports in rural areas to be equal to those that are 
            developed with the participation of a nonprofit or 
            philanthropic organization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/4351

     H.R. 5203,\4\ Rep. Jennifer Wexton (VA-10)--AGRITOURISM 
            Act. This bipartisan bill establishes an office within the 
            Department of Agriculture to promote agritourism activities 
            and businesses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/5203.

     H.R. 1450,\5\ Rep. Derek Kilmer (WA-06)--Treating Tribes 
            and Counties as Good Neighbors Act. This bipartisan bill 
            revises the Good Neighbor Authority program to modify the 
            treatment of revenue from timber sale contracts under good 
            neighbor agreements to require Indian Tribes and counties 
            to retain revenue generated from timber sales under a good 
            neighbor agreement; and allows states, counties, and Indian 
            Tribes to use such revenue for authorized restoration 
            projects on non-Federal lands under a good neighbor 
            agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/1450.

     H.R. 2386,\6\ Rep. Derek Kilmer (WA-06), Rep. Annie Kuster 
            (NH-02)--Community Wood Facilities Assistance Act of 2023. 
            This bipartisan bill would strengthen and modernize the 
            Community Wood Energy and Wood Innovation Grant Program and 
            the Wood Innovations Grant Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2386/
all-info.

     H.R. 3238,\7\ Rep. Suzan DelBene (WA-01), Don Beyer (VA-
            08), Jimmy Panetta (CA-19)--Affordable Housing Credit 
            Improvement Act. This bipartisan bill would amend Title 12 
            to increase LIHTC resources to address the urgent need for 
            additional affordable housing supply and economic 
            development in rural areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/3238/
cosponsors.

     H.R. 2787,\8\ Rep. Terri Sewell (AL-07)--Rural 
            Decentralized Water Systems Reauthorization Act. This 
            bipartisan bill expands and strengthens the existing USDA 
            Rural Decentralized Water Systems Program to support low- 
            and moderate-income households' installation or upgrade of 
            water well and wastewater systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2787.

     H.R. 3809,\9\ Rep. Don Davis (NC-01), Rep. Angie Craig 
            (MN-02), Rep. Abigail Spanberger (VA-07)--Cybersecurity for 
            Rural Water Systems Act. This bipartisan bill would expand 
            the successful rural water circuit rider program to include 
            cybersecurity technical assistance and authorize funding to 
            hire a cybersecurity circuit rider for all 50 states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/3809.

     H.R. 5113,\10\ Rep. Derek Kilmer (WA-06)--REACH Our Tribes 
            Act. This bipartisan bill implements GAO recommendations 
            that USDA consult with Tribes on budgets and the farm bill, 
            share data on funds provided to Tribes, and streamline 
            economic development applications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/5113.

     H.R. 4713,\11\ Rep. Derek Kilmer (WA-06)--Rural Hospital 
            Technical Assistance Program Act. This bipartisan bill 
            codifies a rural hospital technical assistance program 
            under Rural Development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/4713.

  2.  Address the modern nutritional needs of Americans and provide 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            innovations for program efficiency.

     H.R. 5048 \12\ (117th Congress, Reintroduction Expected), 
            Rep. Annie Kuster (NH-02), Rep. Jimmy Panetta (CA-19)--SNAP 
            Act of 2021. This bill allows for verbal signature for SNAP 
            forms via telephone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/5048.

     H.R. 652,\13\ Rep. Julia Brownley (CA-26), Rep. Annie 
            Kuster (NH-02)--Zero Food Waste Act. This bill directs the 
            Environmental Protection Agency to establish a grant 
            program to study and reduce food waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/652.

     H.R. 4185,\14\ Rep. Kim Schrier (WA-08)--The Expanding 
            Access to (EAT) Healthy Foods from Local Farmers Act. This 
            bill will improve TEFAP by providing emergency feeding 
            organizations with better access to fresh, healthy food. It 
            will also create a permanent home for much of the work USDA 
            is currently piloting through the Local Food Purchase 
            Assistance Cooperative Agreement Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/4185.

     H.R. 1230,\15\ Rep. Andre Carson (IN-07)--Food Deserts 
            Act. This bill would create USDA-funded, state-operated 
            revolving funds that will issue low-interest loans for the 
            operation of grocery stores in food deserts. The bill 
            ensures that recipients of these loans, including 
            nonprofit, for-profit and municipal entities, can provide 
            affordable, healthy food, including fresh produce and 
            staples like milk, bread, and meat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/1230.

     H.R. 3183,\16\ Rep. Josh Harder (CA-10), Rep. Jimmy 
            Panetta (CA-19), Rep. Jim Costa (CA-21), Rep. Kim Schrier 
            (WA-08)--EATS Act of 2023. This bill permanently expands 
            SNAP eligibility to college students.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/3183.

     H.R. 706,\17\ Rep. Shontel Brown (OH-11)--SNAP Access for 
            Medically Vulnerable Children Act of 2023. This bill would 
            improve the Excess Medical Expense Deduction to include 
            children that suffer from one or more chronic conditions. 
            Under this bill, SNAP households could deduct allowable 
            expenses over $35 incurred by a sick child and, as a 
            result, may qualify for a higher SNAP benefit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/706.

     H.R. 4103,\18\ Rep. Shontel Brown (OH-11)--EBT Act. This 
            bill would make permanent a temporary protection from new 
            transaction fees first established in the 2018 Farm Bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/4103.

     H.R. 1763,\19\ Rep. Jimmy Panetta (CA-19)--Military Family 
            Nutrition Act of 2023. This bipartisan bill would remove 
            the military's basic allowance for housing from income 
            calculations used to determine SNAP eligibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/1763.

  3.  Provide farmers, ranchers, and other landowners who feed and fuel 
            our nation with certainty from diversified income streams 
            and greater supports to beginner, young, and socially 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            disadvantaged producers.

     H.R. 6003 \20\ (117th Congress, Reintroduction Expected), 
            Rep. Annie Kuster (NH-02)--Veteran and Beginning Farmers 
            Assistance Act. This bipartisan bill extends through FY 
            2028 and makes other changes to a technology transfer 
            program for assisting agricultural producers in rural 
            areas. Among the changes, the bill (1) incorporates a 
            specific focus on beginning, socially disadvantaged, and 
            veteran farmers and ranchers; and (2) expands the scope of 
            the assistance to include improving farm viability, 
            strengthening supply chains, and increasing resilience to 
            extreme weather through conservation practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/6003.

     H.R. 4127,\21\ Rep. Jimmy Panetta (CA-19), Rep. Jim Costa 
            (CA-21)--Fair Access to Agriculture Disaster Programs Act. 
            This bipartisan bill changes the adjusted gross income for 
            USDA disaster programs, including exempting the $900,000 
            AGI limitation for the Emergency Assistance for Livestock 
            and Farm-Raised Fish Program (ELAP), Livestock Forage 
            Disaster Program (LFP), Livestock Indemnity Program (LIP), 
            Tree Assistance Program (TAP), and the Noninsured Crop 
            Disaster Assistance Program (NAP) for producers that get 
            75% of their income from farming or related farming 
            practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/4127/
text.

     H.R. 4059,\22\ Rep. Elissa Slotkin (MI-07), Rep. Jimmy 
            Panetta (CA-19)--To include phosphate and potash on the 
            final list of critical minerals of the Department of the 
            Interior. This bipartisan bill will require DOI to add 
            Potash and Phosphate to the 2022 Critical Minerals list and 
            ask for permitting reform recommendations to increase 
            domestic production of the two minerals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\ https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/4059/
text.

     H.R. 1697,\23\ Rep. Don Davis (NC-01)--Promoting Precision 
            Agriculture Act of 2023. This bipartisan bill would 
            establish a partnership between the Federal Government and 
            the private-sector to create voluntary interconnectivity 
            standards and prioritize the cybersecurity needs for 
            precision agriculture technologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\ https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/1697.

     H.R. 4173,\24\ Rep. Salud Carbajal (CA-24), Rep. Abigail 
            Spanberger (VA-07), Rep. Jim Costa (CA-21)--Advancing 
            Automation Research and Development in Agriculture Act. 
            This bipartisan bill would provide $20 million in annual 
            mandatory spending to establish a new, standalone program 
            that prioritizes mechanization and automation for specialty 
            crops. Such retraining could particularly emphasize 
            retraining production-oriented employees to operate and 
            maintain newly created machinery and systems to ensure the 
            workforce of tomorrow will be ready to operate the farms of 
            tomorrow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\ https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/4173.

     H.R. 3815,\25\ Rep. Chrissy Houlahan (PA-06)--Protecting 
            Mushroom Farmers Act. This bipartisan bill would require 
            the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to conduct a 
            study on the benefits of providing crop insurance for 
            mushroom farmers. This study would analyze various threats 
            to production, such as inclement weather and pests uniquely 
            harmful to mushrooms, and their impact on farmers' ability 
            to grow mushrooms and maintain profitability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\ https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/3815.

     H.R. 3755,\26\ Rep. Chrissy Houlahan (PA-06)--The 
            Industrial Hemp Act of 2023. This bipartisan bill would 
            create a separate classification for industrial hemp and 
            establish a framework that punishes bad actors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\ https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/3755.

     H.R. 3904,\27\ Rep. Angie Craig (MN-02)--Crop Insurance 
            for Future Farmers Act. This bipartisan bill supports young 
            and beginning farmers by expanding the definition of a 
            beginning farmer by 5 years. The current Farm Service 
            Agency definition gives ``Beginning Farmer'' status to 
            someone with 5 crop years or less and allows them to 
            qualify for a 10% subsidy. This legislation expands that 
            definition to the first 10 years and provides a 15% subsidy 
            for the first 5 years, with the remaining 5 years going 
            back down to a 10% subsidy. This additional subsidy will 
            help lower barriers to farming and make it more affordable 
            for newcomers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\ https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/3904.

     H.R. 5381,\28\ Rep. Kim Schrier (WA-08)--RNGR Support Act 
            of 2023. This bipartisan bill would codify and authorize 
            the RNGR program with its own budget line item and funding 
            and allow RNGR to serve as a convener of nursery, tree 
            improvement, and tree planting interests nationwide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\ https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/5381.

     No Bill Number, Rep. Gabe Vasquez (NM-02). Intends to file 
            the Ranching Without Red Tape Act to cut down on permitting 
            requirements for ranchers, and to introduce categorical 
            exclusions for ranchers to make minor range improvements 
            like fencelines, wells, and stock tanks without having to 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            renegotiate their permits.

  4.  Ensure farmers and ranchers have access to world class research 
            and the resources necessary for successful trade promotion 
            and marketing in order to expand international markets.

     H.R. 648,\29\ Jimmy Panetta (CA-19), Kim Schrier (WA-08), 
            Jim Costa (CA-21)--Agriculture Export Promotion Act of 
            2023. This bipartisan bill increases funding for export 
            promotion programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\ https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/648.

     H.R. 679,\30\ Rep. Kim Schrier (WA-08), Rick Larsen (WA-
            02)--To amend the Agricultural Research, Extension, and 
            Education Reform Act of 1998 to authorize the Secretary of 
            Agriculture to waive the matching funds requirement under 
            the specialty crop research initiative, and for other 
            purposes. This bipartisan bill would allow the Secretary of 
            Agriculture to waive the Specialty Crops Research 
            Initiative matching funds requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \30\ https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/679.

     H.R. 4135,\31\ Rep. Kim Schrier (WA-08), Rep. Deborah Ross 
            (NC-02)--AG RESEARCH Act. The AG RESEARCH Act provides $1 
            billion in mandatory funding over 5 years ($200 million 
            annually) plus an additional $1 billion authorization of 
            appropriations over 5 years for the Research Facilities 
            Act. The RFA funding will support competitive grants to 
            land-grant universities and non-land-grant colleges of 
            agriculture for facility construction, alteration, 
            acquisition, modernization, renovation, or remodeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\ https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/4135.

  5.  Recognize the Important Role the agriculture and forestry sector 
            continues to have on our local environment and the 
            opportunity the farm bill provides to build upon historic 
            investments in carbon sequestration and sustainable land 
            management, expand jobs in communities, and most 
            importantly, enhance and protect our food supply chain from 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            the field to America's dinner table.

     H.R. 3424,\32\ Rep. Annie Kuster (NH-02)--Forest 
            Conservation Easement Program Act of 2023. This bipartisan 
            bill would provide mandatory funding to purchase 
            development rights via conservation easements from private 
            and Tribal landowners. This program would replace and 
            expand the Healthy Forest Reserve Program and offer 
            flexibility in two easement options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \32\ https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/3424.

     H.R. 5051,\33\ Rep. Abigail Spanberger (VA-07)--Rural 
            Energy for America (REAP) Modernization Act of 2023. This 
            bipartisan bill would modify and provide additional funding 
            for the REAP program, and focus it on greenhouse gas 
            emission reduction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \33\ https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/5051.

     H.R. 2791 \34\ (117th Congress, Reintroduction Expected), 
            Rep. Stacey Plaskett (VI-AL), Rep. Darren Soto (FL-09)--
            Renewable Energy for Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin 
            Islands Act. This bipartisan bill creates a grant program 
            at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) for renewable 
            energy development in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin 
            Islands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \34\ https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/2791.

     H.R. 3478,\35\ Rep. Sean Casten (IL-06), Rep. Elissa 
            Slotkin (MI-07)--Conservation Opportunity and Voluntary 
            Environment Resilience (COVER) Program Act. This bipartisan 
            bill creates a Good Steward Cover Crop Program to subsidize 
            farmers who use cover crops.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \35\ https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/3478.

     H.R. 2429,\36\ Rep. Susie Lee (NV-03)--Open Access 
            Evapotranspiration Data Act. This bipartisan bill directs 
            the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to establish an Open 
            Access Evapotranspiration (OpenET) Data Program under which 
            the USGS shall provide for delivering satellite-based 
            evapotranspiration data to advance the quantification of 
            evaporation and consumptive water use. The bill defines 
            Evapotranspiration as the process by which water is 
            transferred from the land to the atmosphere by evaporation 
            from soil and other surfaces and transpiration from plants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \36\ https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2429.

     H.R. 4018,\37\ Rep. Jim Costa (CA-21)--Headwaters 
            Protection Act. This bipartisan bill would make 
            improvements to the Watershed Protection Program and 
            reauthorize the program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \37\ https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/4018.

     H.R. 3867,\38\ Rep. Joe Morelle (NY-25), Rep. Chrissy 
            Houlahan (PA-06)--Spotted Lanternfly Research and 
            Development Act. This bipartisan bill would designate the 
            Spotted Lanternfly (SLF) as a high priority research and 
            extension initiative under the National Institute of Food 
            and Agriculture (NIFA). High priority designation would 
            authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to make competitive 
            grants available to colleges and universities for research 
            projects related to the mitigation of the SLF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \38\ https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/3867.

     H.R. 1645,\39\ Rep. Kim Schrier (WA-08)--Biochar Research 
            Network Act of 2023. This bipartisan bill establishes a 
            National Biochar Research Network to test the impact of 
            biochar across various soil types, application methods, and 
            climates to learn more about its capacity to benefit 
            farmers and the environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \39\ https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/1645.

     H.R. 3990,\40\ Rep. Kim Schrier (WA-08)--Forest Data 
            Modernization Act. This bipartisan bill would modernize 
            data collection efforts of the USFS Forest Inventory and 
            Analysis (FIA) program to meet the needs of forestry 
            stakeholders to access standardized, high-quality data to 
            support sustainable forest management decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \40\ https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/3990.

     H.R. 4017,\41\ Rep. Jim Costa (CA-21)--Conservation 
            Improvement Act of 2023. This bill amends the Conservation 
            Reserve Program to increase participation and provide 
            producers with additional conservation tools.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \41\ https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/4017.

     H.R. 5044,\42\ Rep. Andrea Salinas (OR-06)--Timber 
            Innovation for Building Rural Communities Act. This 
            bipartisan bill requires the USDA to establish a platform 
            for measuring, monitoring, verifying and reporting data 
            about the carbon impacts from forest management and wood 
            products, and establishes pilot programs for 
            demonstrations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \42\ https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/5044.

     H.R. 5043,\43\ Rep. Andrea Salinas (OR-06), Rep. Sean 
            Casten (IL-06)--Healthy Soils Healthy Climate Act of 2023. 
            This bill provides funding to expand the On-Farm Trials for 
            soil health through EQIP's Conservation Innovation Grants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \43\ https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/5043.

     H.R. 4327,\44\ Rep. Jim Costa (CA-21)--Converting our 
            Waste Sustainably (COWS) Act. This bipartisan bill would 
            create a standalone program for alternative manure 
            management conservation practices for dairy producers, and 
            support additional practices to help reduce methane 
            efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \44\ https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/4327/
all-actions.

     H.R. 3442 \45\ (117th Congress, Reintroduction expected), 
            Rep. Kim Schrier (WA-08)--National Prescribed Fire Act of 
            2021. This bipartisan bill would invest in hazardous fuels 
            management by increasing the pace and scale of prescribed 
            burns, create a technically skilled preseason controlled 
            burn workforce, and streamline smoke regulations in winter 
            months to reduce catastrophic fires and smoke in the 
            summer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \45\ https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3442.

    New Dems also believe that the Agriculture Committee should reject 
efforts to undermine key nutrition programs like the Supplemental 
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), The Emergency Food Assistance 
Program (TEFAP), the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP) and 
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children 
(WIC). In particular, efforts that would make sweeping changes to 
program eligibility or benefits would be counterproductive to the goal 
of a bipartisan farm bill that can pass into law. It is imperative that 
Americans not lose access to critical supports that keep them and their 
families fed, healthy, and contributing to society.
    Finally, we ask the Committee to oppose efforts to cut funding, or 
otherwise undermine, critical Title II programs and technical 
assistance within the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). We ask you 
to recognize the high demand for these programs among producers--and 
the critical work our farmers, ranchers, and landowners are doing to 
positively contribute to their local environment and community health--
by rejecting efforts to undermine these investments.
                         Submitted Legislation
  1.  H.R. 648, Agriculture Export Promotion Act of 2023: https://
            www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-118hr648ih/pdf/BILLS-
            118hr648ih.pdf (See p. 308).

  2.  H.R. 679, To amend the Agricultural Research, Extension, and 
            Education Reform Act of 1998 to authorize the Secretary of 
            Agriculture to waive the matching funds requirement under 
            the specialty crop research initiative, and for other 
            purposes.: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-
            118hr679ih/pdf/BILLS-118hr679ih.pdf (See p. 316).

  3.  H.R. 2975, Eliminating Needless Administrative Barriers Lessening 
            Efficiency for Conservation Act of 2023 (ENABLE 
            Conservation Act of 2023): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/
            pkg/BILLS-118hr2975ih/pdf/BILLS-118hr2975ih.pdf (See p. 
            577).

  4.  H.R. 3183, Enhance Access To SNAP Act of 2023 (EATS Act of 2023): 
            https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-118hr3183ih/pdf/
            BILLS-118hr3183ih.pdf (See p. 631).

  5.  H.R. 3990, Forest Data Modernization Act of 2023: https://
            www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-118hr3990ih/pdf/BILLS-
            118hr3990ih.pdf (See p. 735).

  6.  H.R. 4135, Augmenting Research and Educational Sites to Ensure 
            Agriculture Remains Cutting-edge and Helpful Act (AG 
            RESEARCH Act): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-
            118hr4135ih/pdf/BILLS-118hr4135ih.pdf (See p. 758).

  7.  H.R. 4185, Expanding Access To Healthy Foods from Local Farmers 
            Act (EAT Healthy Foods from Local Farmers Act): https://
            www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-118hr4185ih/pdf/BILLS-
            118hr4185ih.pdf (See p. 774).

  8.  H.R. 4197, Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program 
            Reauthorization Act of 2023: https://www.govinfo.gov/
            content/pkg/BILLS-118hr4197ih/pdf/BILLS-118hr4197ih.pdf 
            (See p. 791).

  9.  H.R. 4856, GusNIP Expansion Act of 2023: https://www.govinfo.gov/
            content/pkg/BILLS-118hr4856ih/pdf/BILLS-118hr4856ih.pdf 
            (See p. 842).

  10. H.R. 5136, Supporting Transportation Organization and 
            Refrigeration Expansion Act of 2023 (STORE Act of 2023): 
            https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-118hr5136ih/pdf/
            BILLS-118hr5136ih.pdf (See p. 875).

  11. H.R. 5381, Reforestation, Nurseries, and Genetic Resources 
            Support Act of 2023 (RNGR Support Act of 2023): https://
            www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-118hr5381ih/pdf/BILLS-
            118hr5381ih.pdf (See p. 916).
                                 ______
                                 
   Submitted Statement by Hon. Jennifer Wexton, a Representative in 
                         Congress from Virginia
    Thank you, Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Scott, and Members of 
the Committee, for holding this Member Day hearing and for allowing 
Members to share their priorities with the Committee. I am excited to 
provide testimony today regarding agritourism and its importance to 
small and family-owned farms and rural communities and I urge the 
Committee's support for the bipartisan AGRITOURISM Act and its 
inclusion in next year's farm bill.
    From wineries, farm breweries, and distilleries to u-pick farms and 
farm stands, agritourism has a presence in every state and nearly every 
Congressional district. According to the 2017 Census of Agriculture, 
agritourism-related income increased by nearly 370 percent from $202 
million in 2002 to $949 million in 2017, and I am eagerly awaiting the 
release of the 2022 Census data next year to see how this industry has 
continued to grow.
    Farmers, ranchers, and growers are increasingly turning to 
agritourism to diversify their revenue streams, provide educational and 
recreational opportunities to kids and families, and form deeper 
connections with their communities. Agritourism also helps to preserve 
agricultural traditions and spurs economic development in our nation's 
rural areas. In my district in northern Virginia, we have hundreds of 
agritourism businesses of all kinds, and I have heard from many of them 
how agritourism helps them connect with locals and visitors alike, help 
people better understand where their food comes from, and continue 
working their land.
    In 2019, I founded the Congressional Agritourism Caucus along with 
my friend and Member of the Committee David Rouzer. Together, we are 
working to raise awareness of this innovative industry in Congress and 
to better understand the challenges it faces. In our conversations with 
agritourism business owners across the country, we have consistently 
heard that a dedicated voice for agritourism at the Federal level would 
be immensely helpful to make sure relevant policy is formulated with 
agritourism in mind as well as to consolidate the diverse array of 
grant, loan, technical assistance, and other Federal programs available 
to agritourism businesses at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 
and elsewhere in one place.
    Earlier this year, I was excited to reintroduce H.R. 5203, the 
AGRITOURISM Act, in partnership with my friend Dan Newhouse as well as 
Congressman Rouzer. This bipartisan legislation would establish an 
Office of Agritourism at USDA, ensuring that the industry has a seat at 
the table in Federal agricultural policymaking and creating a one-stop 
shop on everything USDA and the Federal Government can offer to support 
the success of agritourism enterprises. We are excited to have a 
bipartisan and geographically diverse group of cosponsors for this 
legislation and we look forward to working with you all to advance this 
legislation to support this important and growing industry.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. I greatly 
appreciate your consideration of the AGRITOURISM Act as you continue 
your work on the farm bill and to support essential agricultural and 
nutritional priorities facing American families and communities.
                         Submitted Legislation
  1.  H.R. 5203, Accelerating the Growth of Rural Innovation and 
            Tourism Opportunities to Uphold Rural Industries and 
            Sustainable Marketplaces Act (AGRITOURISM Act): https://
            www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-118hr5203ih/pdf/BILLS-
            118hr5203ih.pdf (See p. 880).
                                 ______
                                 
Submitted Letter by Hon. Nikema Williams, a Representative in Congress 
                              from Georgia
December 6, 2023

    Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member Scott:

    I appreciate the opportunity to offer testimony before the House 
Agriculture Committee to allow Members to testify on our legislative 
interests and priorities for the remainder of this Congress.
    As the Member who represents the Fifth Congressional District of 
Georgia, including the City of Atlanta, I have seen firsthand how 
important the United States Department of Agriculture's programs are 
for my constituents and stakeholders when it comes to farming and 
nutrition.
    As a Member of the Georgia delegation, I believe most, if not all, 
of the delegation, believe it is important that the Committee delivers 
a bipartisan farm bill that helps all urban and rural communities, no 
matter their [ZIP C]ode.
    My constituents depend on Federal nutrition programs to keep them 
and their children fed. The Committee should reject efforts to 
undermine key nutrition programs like SNAP, the Emergency Food 
Assistance Program (TEFAP), the Commodity Supplemental Food Program 
(CSFP) and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, 
Infants, and Children (WIC). In particular, efforts that would make 
sweeping changes to program eligibility or benefits would be 
counterproductive to the goal of a bipartisan farm bill that can pass 
into law. It is imperative that Americans not lose access to critical 
supports that keep them, and their families fed, healthy, and 
contributing to society.
    As you all consider Members and their legislative priorities for 
this Congress, and as you all begin discussions on the farm bill, I 
would like to highlight some of my priorities that deeply impact my 
constituents in Georgia's Fifth Congressional District:
Protecting and Enhancing the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 
        (SNAP)
    If there are discussions to address changes to SNAP, we should 
ensure that those who are struggling with food insecurity are eligible 
for the program. I urge the Committee to consider policies that allow 
independent students and students at Higher Education Institutions with 
an expected family contribution (EFC) of $0 to be eligible to 
participate in SNAP.
    That is why I, along with my colleague from Connecticut, 
Representative Jahana Hayes introduced H.R. 4456, the Overcoming Higher 
Education Hunger Through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 
(or OHH SNAP) Act of 2023, which would do exactly that.
    The Fifth Congressional District is home to a plethora of higher 
education institutions, including some of the most prestigious 
Historically Black Colleges and Universities in the country. Higher 
education is meant to provide students with the opportunity to develop 
skills for their future career and increase their salary outcomes. 
Unfortunately, far too many students face financial barriers outside of 
the classroom that hinder their ability to earn their degrees, 
including inadequate access to food.
    According to a 2018 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report 
analyzing Federal student survey data, they found that just 31% of 
college students who meet SNAP income limits reported receiving 
benefits while the other 69% of potentially eligible students did not 
receive a benefit. Furthermore, most students who are hungry are not 
even eligible for SNAP: more than one in three college students do not 
have enough to eat, yet only 18% are eligible for SNAP benefits. Food 
security and student success are strongly correlated, and multiple 
studies have shown that access to SNAP increases retention rates and 
degree completion among low-income students.
Supporting and Enhancing the Emergency Food Assistance Food Program 
        (TEFAP)
    My district is also home to the Atlanta Community Food Bank which 
serves twenty-nine counties in Georgia. I know the importance of 
programs like TEFAP: not only from my [conversations] with Atlanta 
Community Food Bank's CEO, Mr. Kyle Waide, but his own testimony that 
he provided to this Committee last Congress.
    TEFAP is too important for this Committee to discredit, as the 
program is a key driver for not only supporting the U.S. agricultural 
economy, but a tool helping people facing food insecurity and hunger. 
Therefore, I ask the Committee to:

   Reauthorize and increase to $500 million per year mandatory 
        funding for TEFAP food purchases.

   Reauthorize and increase to $200 million per year 
        discretionary funding for TEFAP storage and distribution.

   Reauthorize $15 million per year in discretionary funding 
        for TEFAP infrastructure grants.

    Additionally, I urge the House Agriculture Committee to consider 
bolstering the TEFAP Farm to Food Bank Program. The Committee should 
increase funding for the TEFAP Farm to Food Bank Program, remove the 
state match, and allow states to prioritize projects for donated food 
or food purchased at a low cost from local growers and producers.
Protecting the Inflation Reduction Act's Agriculture-related provisions
    It is of the utmost importance that the next farm bill ensures the 
nearly $20 billion provided in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) for 
USDA conservation programs is used for its intended purpose. This 
funding is a win-win for farmers and for the planet. In 2023, USDA 
received requests for more than three times what the IRA made available 
for that year for climate-smart agriculture--meaning farmers want it--
and the funding benefits us all by helping to address the climate 
crisis.
    In closing, thank you Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member Scott 
for the opportunity to testify before you today on these issues that 
not only impact my district, but Georgia, in general.
    I additionally want to thank you for the many opportunities you 
have provided Members to engage in the farm bill process.
            Yours For the People,
            
            
Nikema Williams,
Member of Congress.
                         Submitted Legislation
  1.  H.R. 4456, Overcoming Higher Education Hunger Through the 
            Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Act of 2023 (OHH 
            SNAP Act of 2023): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/
            BILLS-118hr4456ih/pdf/BILLS-118hr4456ih.pdf (See p. 820).
                                 ______
                                 
                         Submitted Legislation
                             114th congress
H.R. 6448, Wildlife Corridors Conservation Act of 2016




                             117th congress
H.R. 2639, Trillion Trees Act




H.R. 4580, American Seasonal and Perishable Crop Support Act



                             118th congress
H.R. 2, Secure the Border Act of 2023, Engrossed \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Editor's note: the bill is 213 pages, for purposes of this 
hearing only an excerpt of the referenced sections are printed herein.




H.R. 200, Forest Information Reform Act (FIR Act)




H.R. 205, SNAP Theft Protection Act of 2023



H.R. 253, Puerto Rico Nutrition Assistance Fairness Act




H.R. 636, Forest Litigation Reform Act of 2023




H.R. 648, Agriculture Export Promotion Act of 2023




H.R. 655, Disaster Reforestation Act



H.R. 679, To amend the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education 
        Reform Act of 1998 to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to 
        waive the matching funds requirement under the specialty crop 
        research initiative, and for other purposes.
        
        
        
        
H.R. 1450, Treating Tribes and Counties as Good Neighbors Act




H.R. 1454, Cacao Tree Health Initiative Act of 2023




H.R. 1455, Plantain and Banana Plan Health Initiative Act




H.R. 1459, Producing Responsible Energy and Conservation Incentives and 
        Solutions for the Environment Act (PRECISE Act)
        <
        
H.R. 1604, U.S.A. Beef Act




H.R. 1624, Puppy Protection Act of 2023




H.R. 1840, Agriculture Resilience Act of 2023








H.R. 2695, WOlf and Livestock Fairness Act (WOLF Act)



H.R. 2740, To establish an Office of Colonia Affairs within the 
        Department of Agriculture, and for other purposes.
        
        
       
        
H.R. 2814, Processing Revival and Intrastate Meat Exemption Act (PRIME 
        Act)
        
        
        
        
H.R. 2939, Pigs In Gestation Stalls Act of 2023 (PIGS Act of 2023)


<
H.R. 2975, Eliminating Needless Administrative Barriers Lessening 
        Efficiency for Conservation Act of 2023 (ENABLE Conservation 
        Act of 2023)
        
        
        
H.R. 2989, Save Our Sequoias Act



H.R. 3174, Invasive Species Prevention and Forest Restoration Act




H.R. 3183, Enhance Access To SNAP Act of 2023 (EATS Act of 2023)




H.R. 3389, Emergency Wildfire Fighting Technology Act of 2023, Union 
        Calendar No. 150
        
        
        <
        
H.R. 3419, Foreign Animal Disease Prevention, Surveillance, and Rapid 
        Response Act of 2023
        
        
        
        
H.R. 3424, Forest Conservation Easement Program Act of 2023






H.R. 3475, Save America's Forgotten Equines Act of 2023 (SAFE Act of 
        2023)
        
        
        
H.R. 3478, Conservation Opportunity and Voluntary Environment 
        Resilience Program Act of 2023 (COVER Act of 2023)
        
        
        
        
H.R. 3519, Hot Foods Act of 2023




H.R. 3755, Industrial Hemp Act of 2023




H.R. 3815, Protecting Mushroom Farmers Act



H.R. 3856, Mango Plant Health Initiative Act




H.R. 3867, Spotted Lanternfly Research and Development Act




H.R. 3955, Increasing Land Access, Security, and Opportunities Act



H.R. 3972, Flood Resiliency and Land Stewardship Act




H.R. 3990, Forest Data Modernization Act of 2023




H.R. 4017, Conservation Reserve Program Improvement Act of 2023




H.R. 4018, Headwaters Protection Act of 2023




H.R. 4135, Augmenting Research and Educational Sites to Ensure 
        Agriculture Remains Cutting-edge and Helpful Act (AG RESEARCH 
        Act)
        
        
        
        
H.R. 4173, Advancing Automation Research and Development in Agriculture 
        Act
        
        
        armers Act 
        (EAT Healthy Foods from Local Farmers Act)
        
        
        
        
H.R. 4188, Northern Border Regional Commission Reauthorization Act of 
        2023
        
        
        
        
        
        
H.R. 4197, Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program 
        Reauthorization Act of 2023
        
        
       
H.R. 4288, Agricultural Labeling Uniformity Act



H.R. 4309, Assisting Seekers in Pursuit of Integration and Rapid 
        Employment Act (ASPIRE Act)
        
        
       
H.R. 4327, Converting Our Waste Sustainably (COWS) Act of 2023




H.R. 4417, Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression Act




H.R. 4456, Overcoming Higher Education Hunger Through the Supplemental 
        Nutrition Assistance Program Act of 2023 (OHH SNAP Act of 2023)
        
        
        
        
H.R. 4706, Senior Nutrition Task Force Act of 2023




H.R. 4713, Rural Hospital Technical Assistance Program Act




H.R. 4736, Investing in Rural America Act

H.R. 4856, GusNIP Expansion Act of 2023




H.R. 4939, To authorize livestock producers and their employees to take 
        crested caracaras in order to prevent the death of or injury or 
        destruction to livestock, and for other purposes.
        
        
        
        
H.R. 5041, Better Collaboration, Accountability, and Regulatory 
        Enforcement for Animals Act of 2023 (Better CARE for Animals 
        Act of 2023)
        
        
        
        
H.R. 5062, To amend the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to direct 
        the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a program under which 
        the Secretary will award grants to specialty crop producers to 
        acquire certain equipment and provide training with respect to 
        the use of such equipment.
        
        
        
        
H.R. 5113, Rural Economic-development Assistance and Consultation to 
        Help Our Tribes Act (REACH Our Tribes Act)
        
        
        
        
        
H.R. 5136, Supporting Transportation Organization and Refrigeration 
        Expansion Act of 2023 (STORE Act of 2023)
        
        
        
        
       
H.R. 5242, Connecting Our Neighbors to Networks and Ensuring 
        Competitive Telecommunications Act of 2023 (CONNECT Act of 
        2023)
        
        
        
        
        
H.R. 5359, Rural Development Modernization Act






H.R. 5381, Reforestation, Nurseries, and Genetic Resources Support Act 
        of 2023 (RNGR Support Act of 2023)
        
        
        
H.R. 5643, Streamlining Nutrition Paperwork Act of 2023 (SNP Act of 
        2023)
        
        
        
H.R. 5698, Assisting Family Farmers through Insurance Reform Measures 
        Act (AFFIRM Act)
        
        
        
        
H.R. 5747, Crop Insurance Transparency Act




H.R. 5763, To establish as a permanent program the organic market 
        development grant program of the Department of Agriculture.
        
        
        
        
H.R. 5973, Continuous Improvement and Accountability in Organic 
        Standards Act (CIAO Act)
        
        
        
        
H.R. 6232, Coordination for Soil Carbon Research and Monitoring Act


<



H.R. 6441, Ranching Without Red Tape Act of 2023




H.R. 6497, Healthy Watersheds, Healthy Communities Act of 2023





H.R. 6580, Land And National Defense Act (LAND Act)