[Senate Hearing 118-79]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                                                         S. Hrg. 118-79

 CULTIVATING STEWARDSHIP: EXAMINING THE CHANGING AGRICULTURAL LANDSCAPE

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

                                HEARING

                               before the

                        COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                              June 7, 2023
                               __________

           Printed for the use of the Committee on the Budget





                  [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
               



                           www.govinfo.gov

                               ______
                                 

                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

53-197                    WASHINGTON : 2023










                        COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET

               SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island, Chairman

PATTY MURRAY, Washington             CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa
RON WYDEN, Oregon                    MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan            LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont             RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
MARK R. WARNER, Virginia             MITT ROMNEY, Utah
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon                 ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas
TIM KAINE, Virginia                  MIKE BRAUN, Indiana
CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland           JOHN KENNEDY, Louisiana
BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico            RICK SCOTT, Florida
ALEX PADILLA, California             MIKE LEE, Utah

                   Dan Dudis, Majority Staff Director
        Kolan Davis, Republican Staff Director and Chief Counsel
                   Mallory B. Nersesian, Chief Clerk 
                  Alexander C. Scioscia, Hearing Clerk










                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                        WEDNESDAY, JUNE 7, 2023

                OPENING STATEMENTS BY COMMITTEE MEMBERS

                                                                   Page
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Chairman.............................     1
    Prepared Statement...........................................    34
Senator Charles E. Grassley, Ranking Member......................     3
    Prepared Statement...........................................    36

                    STATEMENTS BY COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Senator Debbie Stabenow..........................................    12
Senator Ben Ray Lujan............................................    17
Senator Alex Padilla.............................................    19
Senator Tim Kaine................................................    21
Senator Mike Braun...............................................    25
Senator Jeff Merkley.............................................    28

                               WITNESSES

Mr. Brandon Willis, Assistant Professor, Department of Applied 
  Economics, Utah State University...............................     5
    Prepared Statement...........................................    38
Mr. Martin Larsen, Larsen Family Farm & Byron Area Farmers Group.     7
    Prepared Statement...........................................    41
Mr. Brent Johnson, President, Iowa Farm Bureau...................     8
    Prepared Statement...........................................    46
Mr. Bryan Sievers, Chief Operating Officer of Sievers Family 
  Farms, and Director of Government Relations, Roeslein 
  Alternative Energy.............................................    10
    Prepared Statement...........................................    50

                                APPENDIX

Responses to post-hearing questions for the Record
Mr. Johnson......................................................    55
Mr. Sievers......................................................    56
Document submitted to the Record by Chairman Sheldon Whitehouse..    59








 
 CULTIVATING STEWARDSHIP: EXAMINING THE CHANGING AGRICULTURAL LANDSCAPE

                              ----------                              


                        WEDNESDAY, JUNE 7, 2023

                                           Committee on the Budget,
                                                       U.S. Senate,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The hearing was convened, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 
a.m., in Room SD-608 of Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. 
Sheldon Whitehouse, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Whitehouse, Stabenow, Merkley, Kaine, Van 
Hollen, Lujan, Padilla, Grassley, Marshall, Braun, and R. 
Scott.
    Also present: Democratic Staff: Dan Dudis, Majority Staff 
Director; Dan Ruboss, Senior Tax and Economic Advisor and 
Member Outreach Director; Alexandra Gilliland, Climate Policy 
Expert.
    Republican Staff: Chris Conlin, Deputy Staff Director; 
Krisann Pearce, General Counsel; Jordan Pakula, Professional 
Staff Member.
    Witnesses:
    Mr. Brandon Willis, Assistant Professor, Department of 
Applied Economics, Utah State University
    Mr. Martin Larsen, Larsen Family Farm, & Byron Area Farmers 
Group
    Mr. Brent Johnson, President, Iowa Farm Bureau
    Mr. Bryan Sievers, Chief Operating Officer of Sievers 
Family Farms, and Director of Government Relations, Roeslein 
Alternative Energy

          OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN WHITEHOUSE \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Prepared statement of Chairman Whitehouse appears in the 
appendix on page 34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Chairman Whitehouse. Good morning. Let me call to order 
this hearing of the Senate Budget Committee entitled 
Cultivating Stewardship, Examining the Changing Agricultural 
Landscape. Now that our Ranking Member has had the opportunity 
to perform the vital political task of recognizing and greeting 
his fellow Iowans, we will proceed with opening statements from 
myself, and from Senator Grassley, followed by five minute 
statements by each of the witnesses.
    Your full written testimony will be made part of the 
record, so don't worry about that. And we would like to confine 
you to five minutes in your oral opening statement so that we 
can move to the question and answer phase. I believe we're 
going to have quite a considerable turnout for this hearing, so 
the quicker we get to questions, the happier the members, the 
happier the Chair.
    So, now Ranking Member Grassley, members of the Committee, 
witnesses and guests, welcome to our 13th Budget Committee 
Hearing. Today we return to our series on the economic toll of 
a changing climate. This time with a bipartisan hearing. Thank 
you very much Senator Grassley.
    With witnesses on both sides agreed to by both sides. We 
will hear from farmers on the front line about climate risks to 
the agriculture sector, the associated economic and budgetary 
costs, and the important steps we can take to help mitigate 
those costs. As we've highlighted in this series the ongoing 
climate crisis poses enormous threats to people's well-being on 
this planet, and to our industries, our livelihoods and our 
entire economy.
    Our nation's agricultural landscape is changing. 
Unpredictable weather has always been a challenge to raising 
crops and livestock, but farmers are seeing more frequent and 
extreme weather variability than ever before. Events that used 
to be considered anomalies now occur with increasing 
regularity.
    For decades California faced record-breaking droughts. This 
year California crops face record floods. Last year Kansas 
suffered a triple digit heatwave that killed thousands of 
cattle. This year Kansas is struggling with a drought, forcing 
farmers to abandon their wheat fields.
    In 2018, Hurricane Michael swept through Florida and 
Georgia, damaging cotton, pecan and poultry farms. Last year, 
Florida citrus farms hit historic production lows after twin 
hurricanes, Ian and Nicole. Atypical events are the new norm, 
leading to lower crop yields, lower livestock productivity, 
worst pests and disease, and reduced soil fertility.
    Consumers see the impacts of climate change on their 
grocery bills, and will continue to bear the brunt of lower 
crop yields, and increased production costs. As climate change 
affects food production in our country, it's also affecting 
food production around the world. The United States imports a 
third of our fresh vegetables, more than half our fresh fruit, 
and 94 percent of the seafood we consume.
    Global weather variability disrupting supply chains and 
global agricultural productivity will have far reaching effects 
on food prices and supply. U.S. government programs that 
protect growers and stabilize the agricultural economy move the 
costs of damaging weather to the federal government.
    The largest is the Federal Crop Insurance Program. In 2022 
the federal government spent over 15 billion dollars on that 
program, which included over 11.6 billion dollars in premium 
subsidies. Indemnities, what the government paid out to those 
affected in the last year were around 18 billion dollars.
    As climate change makes farming and raising livestock more 
unpredictable, that cost will continue to grow. Spending on 
other disaster assistance programs is also likely to grow as 
extreme weather events become more prevalent. In just three 
years of the Emergency Relief Program, the federal government 
has already disbursed more than 7.4 billion dollars to help 
agricultural producers.
    This is on top of the Wildfire and Hurricane Indemnity 
Program, which provided payments to farmers for losses caused 
by hurricanes and wildfires, and other natural disasters. 
Ranking Member Grassley and I agree that the agriculture sector 
can play a role in the climate solution. As we'll hear today, 
climate smart agriculture can drive down greenhouse gas 
emissions, such as methane. It can improve soil health and 
sequester carbon. And it can help make farms stronger in the 
face of a changing climate.
    Farmers know that climate smart practices, such as cover 
crops, no till, and diversification increase food production 
and make agriculture more resilient. Farmers like those here 
today are on the frontlines of building resilience and adapting 
to a changing agricultural landscape.
    Major agricultural corporations like Cargill warn that 
Midwestern production of some commodities like wheat and corn 
could drop by as much as 69 percent by the end of the century, 
absent significant emissions mitigation, or adaptation. Our 
collective future depends on getting it right on climate, and 
I'm delighted that we have these witnesses here today, and turn 
to my distinguished Ranking Member, Senator Grassley.

           OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR GRASSLEY \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Prepared statement of Senator Grassley appears in the appendix 
on page 36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Senator Grassley. Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. We're 
holding our 9th hearing on climate change. In each of these 
hearings I've taken an opportunity to remind everybody what the 
Budget Committee is about, so I urge the Committee to focus 
more on our country's unsustainable debt, and my reminding 
every opening of this Committee. That isn't going to stop 
today.
    However, I appreciate the Chairman holding this bipartisan 
hearing that will shine light on actions that farmers in Iowa, 
and across the nation, that these farmers are already taking to 
reduce emissions, and improve the environment. And remember the 
family farmers of America are only 2 percent of the population. 
They feed the other 98 percent in America, but they also export 
about one-third of production, so feeding people elsewhere on 
this globe.
    During my time in the Senate I discovered that finding a 
seemingly small area of bipartisan agreement can lead to 
lasting change for the sake of our constituents. So Mr. 
Chairman, I hope today's base of goodwill and camaraderie will 
serve as a springboard for our future work on bipartisan budget 
process reform.
    There are millions of family farmers across the country, 
and 86,000 in Iowa. While they may not ask for it, they deserve 
a pat on the back from the standpoint of what they do about 
global warming, and I thank the Chairman for making that very 
clear in his opening statement. Iowa has a global reputation as 
an agricultural powerhouse. We're a leading producer of pork, 
corn, soybeans and eggs. We feed and fuel millions of people 
around the world.
    From the farm to the fork, Iowa's agricultural abundance 
creates jobs in multiple sectors. The economic benefits of 
agriculture are easy to see throughout the food supply chain. 
But a farmer's relationship with the environment is often 
difficult for folks on the west and east coast to understand. I 
can tell you from personal experience, as a farmer myself, that 
farmers are the greatest stewards of their land.
    They know that it's good for the land. They know it's good 
for future generations. They know it's good for prosperity, and 
it's the right thing to do. From the use of no till, to cover 
crops, to precision agricultural technologies, farmers have 
proven that they place the highest priority on a healthy 
environment. That's because farming is often times a family 
business.
    Family farms want to make sure that they leave the land 
better for the next generation than when it was entrusted to 
their care, and often that next generation comes from within 
that very family. The first step to running a sustainable farm 
is for the farm to at least to be able to pay the bills, only 
then can a farmer implement practices that reduce emissions and 
improve soil health.
    When government adds red tape to farming operations, it can 
add costs, and in turn reduces the ability for farmers to add 
sustainable practices. And one of those regulations that the 
EPA's putting out, maybe will be halted now because of a recent 
Supreme Court decision last week, is waters of the U.S. The 
Iowa Farm Bureau put out a map of maybe during the Obama 
administration, but it would still be applicable in the Biden 
administration, that government regulation would affect 97 
percent of the land in the State of Iowa.
    And how can you farm if every time you go to the field 
you're having to worry about are you violating some regulation. 
That's just one example of a lot of government help that 
farmers don't need if they're going to be prosperous, and do 
for the environment what must be done.
    Today's panel is an impressive group from rural America. 
They illustrate that farmers are actively working to confront 
the impact of weather events like flooding and drought. 
Moreover, they're a testament to the fact that we can reduce 
emissions, improve soil conditions, increase crop yields, and 
yet run successful farming operation at the same time, and we 
can do it without destructive government regulations.
    So I'm going to take the rest of my time to introduce the 
two Iowans that are here. I probably don't do them justice with 
my short introduction, but I want to welcome Brent Johnson. He 
grows corn and soybeans on his family farm in Calhoun County. 
He's a precision agriculture expert, agronomist and certified 
crop adviser. He also happens to serve as President of the Iowa 
Farm Bureau.
    I've been a member of that organization for longer than 
you've been alive, 67 years, so I know that it's a good 
organization, and you're going to be a good spokesman for them. 
He was a 2020 recipient of the Iowa Department of Agriculture 
Land Stewardship, Environmental Leader Award. Few know Iowan 
farming better than Brent does.
    We also welcome Mr. Bryan Sievers who operates a grain and 
livestock farm in Scott County. Following two terms in the Iowa 
State Legislature he commissioned his anaerobic digester system 
in 2013. It processes beef cattle manure, food waste, and bile 
mass with nutrients, fertilizer and biogas. He is the Vice 
Chair of the American Bio Gas Council Board of Directors, and 
recently joined the Roeslein Alternative Energy to produce 
renewable natural gas from his digesters.
    Bryan exemplifies what it takes to be innovative and kind 
of all of the above approach to achieve energy security. And 
the other two people I won't introduce, but I want to welcome 
you as well.
    Chairman Whitehouse. Thanks very much Senator Grassley. I 
cannot improve on your introduction of your fellow Iowans, so 
let me just recognize also Brandon Willis, who is here 
testifying today, an Assistant Professor of Applied Economics 
at Utah State University. Prior to that he served as the 
administrator of the Risk Management Agency at the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture, and as senior advisor to the 
Secretary of Agriculture. Before that he was a Senate staffer, 
so welcome back Mr. Willis, thank you for being here. We look 
forward to your perspective as a former USDA official.
    And our last witness is Martin Larsen, a fifth generation 
farmer near Byron, Minnesota. The Larsen family was recently 
recognized as Olmstead County Farm Family of the year for their 
conservation work and community involvement.
    Mr. Larsen also works for the Olmstead County Soil and 
Water Conservation District, where he provides technical 
assistance to farmers, and manages a 40-acre test plot for 
building healthy soil. Mr. Larsen, thank you for being here, 
and we look forward to your testimony.
    Let me say you're all equally welcome, even if you're not 
Iowans, and as I close with my greetings, let me also recognize 
that the distinguished Chair of the Senate Agriculture 
Committee is with us, Senator Stabenow of Michigan. Thank you 
very much Debbie for being here, and with that let me turn 
first to Mr. Willis. Please proceed.

STATEMENT OF BRANDON WILLIS, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF 
          APPLIED ECONOMICS, UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Prepared statement of Mr. Willis appears in the appendix on 
page 38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Willis. Chairman Whitehouse, Ranking Member Grassley, 
and members of this Committee. Thank you for allowing me to 
testify today. My testimony will focus on crop insurance.
    My name is Brandon Willis, I'm currently an Assistant 
Professor at Utah State University. I grew up on a sheep ranch 
in northern Utah. I spent several years in Washington, D.C. as 
you mentioned, where I worked as an agricultural staffer for 
former Senator Max Baucus, and then I went down to the 
Department of Agriculture where I worked in the Farm Service 
Agency, was a Senior Advisor to Secretary Vilsack, and oversaw 
the Crop Insurance Programs for four years as the administrator 
of the Risk Management Agency.
    In each of these roles I saw the impacts that Mother Nature 
could have on agriculture. I also witnessed the value of USDA's 
safety-net programs. We often discuss the financial impact of 
crop insurance, yet I also saw significant value in the peace 
of mind that it provides to producers struggling through 
challenging circumstances.
    Years ago Benjamin Franklin said, ``I have sometimes 
thought it might be well to establish an office of insurance 
for farms against the damage that may occur to them from 
storms, blights, insects, et cetera. A small sum paid by a 
number would repair such losses and prevent much poverty and 
distress.''
    Today we have that program. It is not perfect, yet it is 
the envy of many other nations because of the value and 
stability it provides. It's easy to overlook what we have, a 
well-ran program that allows farmers to farm, and Congress to 
focus on other issues, rather than constantly passing ad hoc 
disaster.
    Congress has set the program up to balance the unique 
strengths of the private and public sectors. The results are 
that farmers receive payments quickly, and the program has one 
of the lowest improper payment rates of any government program.
    When considering the impact of climate change on crop 
insurance it's worth noting that USDA has already adjusted how 
rates are determined by using a shorter time period to set 
rates. This will help the program adjust quicker than changing 
climate conditions.
    How will climate change impact crop insurance? Numerous 
reports have been written on the topic. The consensus is that 
that climate change has already impacted crop insurance costs, 
and will continue to impact them. However, the exact extent is 
subject to debate.
    A Stanford study from 2021 found that climate change has 
increased crop insurance expenses from 1991 to 2017 by 
approximately 19 percent. This research showed that increased 
costs, primarily due to heat and drought have risen due to 
climate change, leading to more crop losses and damages. 
However, the study also acknowledged some limitations, such as 
the challenges in precisely attributing specific weather events 
to climate change, and uncertainty surrounding future climate 
projections.
    USDA's economic research service analyzed the potential 
impacts of climate change. The study found that climate change 
is expected to raise a program's cost due to two main factors. 
First, increased insured value, and increased yield 
variability. As temperatures rise the insured value of crops is 
projected to increase as farmers aim to protect higher value 
crops from potential losses.
    Additionally, climate change is likely to result in more 
frequent and severe weather events leading to greater yield 
variability and increased insurance claims. The study also 
emphasized that that these projects are subject to 
uncertainties, such as the effectiveness of adaptive measures, 
and changes in farm management practices.
    The study examined two emission scenarios. The modern 
emission scenario predicted a gradual increase in greenhouse 
gas emissions, while the higher emission scenario represented a 
more rapid and extensive rise. The study estimated the moderate 
emission scenario would lead to a 3 percent increase in cost, 
while the higher emission scenario would result in a 22 percent 
increase.
    However, if farmer adaption isn't considered, the cost 
increase was projected at 10 and 37 percent, respectively. The 
stark differences and projected costs between scenarios where 
adaption takes place, and where adaption doesn't take place, 
highlight a need for all USDA programs, particularly crop 
insurance, to ensure that program rules do not inhibit the 
ability of farmer to adapt.
    Finally, what should Congress do to ensure crop insurance 
continues functioning properly during uncertain conditions? 
First, Congress needs to ensure that USDA continues to run the 
program in a way that allows farmers the flexibility to adapt 
to potentially changing conditions.
    Second, Congress must ensure USDA has the ability to hire 
and retain those employees who can properly oversee extremely 
complex insurance products. In conclusion, I would like to 
thank this Committee for the opportunity to be here today. I 
look forward to answering any questions you may have for me.
    Chairman Whitehouse. Thanks very much, Mr. Willis.
    Over to you Mr. Larsen.

                  STATEMENT OF MARTIN LARSEN,
      LARSEN FAMILY FARM AND BRYON AREA FARMERS GROUP \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Prepared statement of Mr. Larsen appears in the appendix on 
page 41.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Chairman Whitehouse, Ranking Member 
Grassley, and members of the Committee for the invitation to 
speak with you today. The Larsen family has been farming near 
Byron in southeast Minnesota for five generations. Parts of it 
have been in continuous ownership of my family for seven 
generations, and my son will be the eighth. He's sitting behind 
me here today.
    In addition to corn and soybeans, we raise food grade oats, 
barley, and forestry, including a sawmill. I also work off the 
farm for Olmstead County Soil and Water Conservation District. 
I was raised, as many farm kids are, and started helping with 
field work when I was 13. I worked on a farm after high school 
and put in my sweat equity.
    In 2010 I took on the decision making role as my father and 
uncle began phasing into retirement. I can share my experiences 
in farming in southeast Minnesota in my lifetime, and I am 
fairly alarmed at the frequency and distribution of adverse 
weather events in southeast Minnesota.
    We are experiencing broken weather records most years, 
potentially multiple, and records may be broken by large 
amounts. It may be from flooding, snow, cold, hot, dry, winter 
derechos, summer derechos, and all things in between. It feels 
something like this. If I put one hand in ice water and the 
other in the oven, I'm on average, an average temperature 
right? An average moisture.
    Weather data indicates we are getting wetter on average. 
However, these precipitation events often come in short 
duration, and that high intensity rain is too much for most 
soils to handle, which is leading to increased erosion and 
flash flooding, such as this spring.
    Much of my region received nearly six inches of rain in the 
second week of May, and not a drop since. The planted corn and 
soybeans were vulnerable, and many acres needed to be 
replanted. In fact, that's what I did Monday night prior to 
boarding the plane to come here yesterday.
    I recall the flooding in August of 2007 when the nearby 
community of Hokah received 15.1 inches of rain in 24 hours. At 
home I received just under 7. Historically annual precipitation 
in my area is a little over 30 inches. In a number of recent 
years, we have received nearly twice that. In May of 2013, 
which has probably shaped my farming practices more than any 
other event was a snowfall that took place in southern 
Minnesota in those first few days of May.
    We received nearly 14 inches of wet, heavy snow. We were 
supposed to be planting corn, but instead we were shoveling 
roofs to avoid collapse, rescuing new calves, and plowing out 
neighbors. This was my first widespread experience with 
accessing prevent planting coverage within USDA's Risk 
Management Agency Crop Insurance.
    Almost half of the region's crops were never planted. And 
of course, there are costs to these events. There's costs to 
our infrastructure, such as building collapse or floods. There 
are costs to our agricultural production, such as in 2019 there 
was a 50 percent reduction of yield in Olmstead County.
    Wildfire and hurricane indemnity plus program, as well as 
large crop insurance indemnities were accessed, so that we 
could bridge the enormous loss of production. There are costs 
to our soils due to the increased erosion. The soil is our most 
valued asset as a farmer, such as Bryan and I were discussing 
before the hearing here about land values, but that fertile 
soil only adds value to us when we can grow crops into it.
    And it is only a cost to the water bodies and communities 
when it moves downstream. Most importantly, there are costs to 
our mental health. No one wants to talk to a farmer who lost 
their Freestall Barn like I did in 2019, and had to find new 
homes for the cattle. They had to clean up the building and 
negotiate with the insurance company, and it clearly took its 
toll on him.
    Of course, this changed the way I farmed. Climate 
resiliency is now something I, and many other farmers in the 
region plan for. And we've integrated large scale farming 
practices to battle the extreme weather. It could be cover 
crops, but also changing from a corn and soybean rotation to 
multiple crops in our rotation.
    We meet as a binary of farmers group to discuss about these 
experiences, and that group is diverse, and covers not just 
small farmers, but large farmers as well.
    In conclusion, weather extremes will increase the risk for 
farmers, and their increased costs associated with reduced crop 
production, crop insurance indemnities and infrastructure 
damage, and encourage that the Committee to take these--my 
comments and my testimony into account, and thank you for 
having me here today.
    Chairman Whitehouse. Thank you Mr. Larsen. We turn now to 
Mr. Johnson.

                  STATEMENT OF BRENT JOHNSON,
                PRESIDENT, IOWA FARM BUREAU \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Prepared statement of Mr. Johnson appears in the appendix on 
page 46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Johnson. Good morning, Chairman Whitehouse, Ranking 
Member Grassley, and distinguished members of the Committee. My 
name is Brent Johnson. I'm a fifth generation farmer from 
Calhoun County, Iowa, and a certified crop adviser of 25 years.
    I founded my own independent crop consulting business where 
I've worked with thousands of farmers to meet their goals on 
over 1 million acres. I'm also the 14th President of the Iowa 
Farm Bureau representing 154,000 members. The United States 
leads the world in production and innovation.
    U.S. agriculture has always been the forefront of that 
innovation. America's farmers know that agriculture is a part 
of the solution to our climate challenges. On my farm we have 
implemented precision ag technology to provide our crops with 
precise levels of nutrients, exactly when and where its needed.
    In conservation tillage practices have evolved over time to 
include strip till, no till and cover crops. While the auto 
industry continues to test driverless cars, my tractors have 
autonomously done the driving on my farm for 15 years.
    My job of driving the tractor has been replaced by my job 
of making sure that the implement pulled by the tractor is 
working correctly and efficiently.
    Planter technology tells me exactly where I've placed every 
kernel of corn, the moisture content of the oil, and even 
adjust the planting population automatically. Sprayers have the 
ability to identify weeds, and spray them independently from 
the crops. I can utilize imagery from drones or satellites to 
monitor my crops, and if needed, make adjustments in real time.
    I can use telematics to virtually connect different farm 
implements, so they can work together. Every pass through the 
field is spatially recorded with multiple layers of 
information, and that data is automatically sent back to my 
farm office for further analysis.
    I have been fortunate to travel the world promoting U.S. 
agriculture, while also talking with farmers from across the 
globe, and I can assure you that Iowa farmers are literally the 
best at what they do. It is wellknown that Iowa is a 
world leader in agriculture production, but we're also early 
adopters and leaders when it comes to proven conservation 
practices.
    In terms of protecting the environment, Iowa ranks first 
nationally in Conservation Reserve program (CRP) acres as a 
percentage of area, as well as first in the use of buffer 
strips, grass waterways, filter strips, pollinator habitats, 
bio reactors, saturated buffers and constructed wetlands.
    We rank third in no till acres, and first in conservation 
tillage. Iowa also has nearly 3 million acres of cover crops 
and over 506,000 terraces that stretch over 85,000 miles. In 
terms of protecting our water, farmers have reduced phosphorus 
lost by 27 percent. Nitrogen use has not increased on Iowa 
farms since the 1980's, and now the use of that vital nutrient 
is also starting to trend down.
    These advancements are possible because of technology 
improvements in machinery, genetics, and a new horizon of 
biologicals and seed treatments that will help farmers continue 
to increase production, while simultaneously improving the 
environment.
    As you can see, farmers are certainly doing their part. 
Personally, I'm really proud of the progress that agriculture 
has made, and I'm amazed at the speed of adoption and depth of 
innovation that is bred on farms across this country. Our 
history shows a track record of progress that is hard wired 
into the soul of farmers.
    Like mine, most farms in Iowa are true, multi-generational 
family farms. Iowa producers are active participants in 
government and voluntary programs, but burdensome regulation 
will drive consolidation, remove creativity and innovation, and 
ultimately impede sustainability progress. My ask of you is to 
help us continue to make progress in sustainability.
    Help us by advancing technology. Help us by funding 
research. Help us by allowing multi-generational farmers, who 
are literally the best in the world, do their job even better 
for years to come. Thank you.
    Chairman Whitehouse. Thank you very much Mr. Johnson. Mr. 
Sievers.

STATEMENT OF BRYAN SIEVERS, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER OF SIEVERS 
 FAMILY FARMS, AND DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, ROESLEIN 
                     ALTERNATIVE ENERGY \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Prepared statement of Mr. Sievers appears in the appendix on 
page 50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Sievers. Good morning Chairman Whitehouse, Ranking 
Member Grassley, and the Senate Budget Committee. Thank you for 
offering me the opportunity to discuss new stewardship 
practices that farmers are implementing on their farms and 
ranches, are leading the way, and are changing agricultural 
landscape.
    My name is Bryan Sievers. My wife Lisa and I operate a 
diversified grain and livestock farm in eastern Iowa. We own 
and operate a 2,400 head beef cattle feed lot, and raise corn, 
soybeans, hay, winter wheat, cover crops, and native prairie 
grasses on approximately 2,000 acres.
    Along with our partner, Roeslein Alternative Energy, we 
also own and operate an on farm anerobic digester, which 
processes the livestock manure from our cover crops, to produce 
renewable energy and sustainable, natural, renewable 
fertilizers for our farmland.
    The relationships we've established with Roeslein 
Alternative Energy, and its founder Rudy Roeslein, along with 
organizations such as the American Bio Gas Council. Solutions 
from the land, the Iowa Smart Agriculture Group, Iowa State 
University, and Penn State University's Grass to Gas Grant 
Program, and a large number of conservation and wildlife 
organizations, veterans' groups, and commodity trade 
organizations, will help grow the opportunities to enhance 
stewardship in our farming and livestock operations in the very 
near future.
    This coalition has increased significantly as scientific 
study of anaerobic digestion has demonstrated the benefits from 
biomass harvest and processing of winter hearty cover crops, 
such as cereal rye, along with the biomass feedstocks from our 
new, or previously established native prairie, along with a 
more traditional feedstocks, such as swine, dairy, and beef 
cattle manure and food waste.
    These recent advances in science, research and 
technologies, coupled with the new federal incentives, will 
allow the anaerobic digestion industry to grow significantly in 
the near future. The growth will allow the agriculture sector 
to provide significant, yet practical solutions to enhancing 
soil health, water and air quality, food security, energy 
security, environmental and ecological services, wildlife 
habitat restoration, and carbon sequestration efforts.
    If I told you there was a way to increase farm 
sustainability and urban recycling, reduce municipal costs, and 
produce renewable energy in many different forms, plus fossil 
fuel free fertilizers, would you say it's worth supporting? All 
of this and more is what anaerobic digestion technology offers. 
And we need to do more to embrace it.
    Putting it on par with other renewables from a policy 
standpoint, but also recognizing that these anaerobic digestion 
systems offer communities so much more than just renewable 
energy. Digesters are unique in being able to produce an all of 
the above set of solutions with respect to energy production, 
while also returning all of its organic inputs back to the soil 
to improve soil health including soil carbon, organic matter, 
fertility, microbial activity, ecological services and wildlife 
habitat.
    Anaerobic digestion is unique with this ability to provide 
multiple benefits, including economic security, energy 
security, food security and fertilizer security, while also 
addressing our changing climatic conditions. While enhancing 
the health of our soils, our water and our natural resources, a 
growing bio gas and anaerobic digestion industry can also 
provide vibrant, exciting new ways for rural economic growth, 
development and job creation, using recent advances in the 
technology of anaerobic digestion of organic feedstocks.
    There are few policies that can help ensure Americans can 
benefit from these wide ranging solutions, which stem from a 
circular approach to agricultural production. While 
approximately 500 farm based anaerobic digesters have been 
built in the U.S. so far, we see the opportunity for at least 
8,000 more systems to be built.
    The energy and conservation titles of the 2023 Farm Bill, 
including the Rural Energy for America Program (REAP) Program 
and its under-utilized technologies reserve are key to this 
deployment, and need full funding. Cuts to the grants, or loans 
portion of the REAP Program will reduce rural investment in 
jobs and sustainability.
    Farmers and small businesses around the United States 
believe the REAP Program is a model for public, private, 
partnering, which promotes rural economic development and 
environmental stewardship with common sense flexibility. 
Finally, we recognize that many of the Senate Budget Committee 
members will also be active in Farm Bill deliberations, and we 
ask you to support and incentivize Farm Bill changes that allow 
the use of CRP acres as a feedstock for on farm anaerobic 
digestion.
    The current policy on CRP acres has not kept pace with 
innovation. We also ask that winter hardy cover crops, such as 
cereal rye, are recognized by Congress as a cellulosic 
feedstock under the renewable fuel standard, so they can be 
fully and fairly utilized in anaerobic digestion systems, and 
provide renewable transportation fuel.
    Mr. Chairman, our ask of the Senate Budget Committee and 
Congress is simple. Evolve our policies in these ways to keep 
up with the innovations in agriculture, modern stewardship of 
our lands, and renewable energy production, so our industry can 
deliver multiple economic benefits and ecosystem services to 
Americans.
    Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Grassley, thank you again for 
the opportunity to provide this testimony, and I look forward 
to answering any questions you might have.
    Chairman Whitehouse. Well Mr. Sievers, your pitch to 
members of the Ag Committee could not be more timely with 
Chairman Stabenow here in order to take advantage of her being 
here what I'm going to do is swap my time for her time, so I 
will go back into the line and recognize first Chairman 
Stabenow, then Ranking Member Grassley, and on through the list 
of the rest of the attendees, and I'll plug myself in in 
Senator Stabenow's spot. So with that, let me turn to the 
distinguished Chair of the Ag Committee.

                 STATEMENT OF SENATOR STABENOW

    Senator Stabenow. Thank you so much. And thank you, Mr. 
Chairman, and Ranking Member, for doing this really important 
hearing. It's so great to see all of you, and I get excited 
listening to the innovation and research and the things that we 
can continue to do, and of course Senator Grassley is a senior 
member of the Committee, a very important voice as we are 
drafting the 2023 Farm Bill.
    I also want to give a shout out to Iowa farmers, no 
questions, congratulations on leading the way. Michigan farmers 
are pretty good too though, I would just say. We're working 
hard as well. But from my perspective, and I know for all of 
you, I mean nobody is impacted more by what's happening on the 
weather from the climate crisis than farmers. Nobody else has 
to get up every morning and look at the weather and figure out 
what's going on, like all of you have to do.
    And it is very concerning to me as we watch this going 
forward, so I appreciate all of your leadership. We know across 
the globe that climate crisis has slowed the growth of 
agriculture productivity. And meeting with farmers around the 
world I certainly have those conversations.
    Extreme weather events destroying crops with alarming 
frequencies. We know the fires, the droughts, the floods in 
Michigan where we grow a lot of specialty crops, a lot of fruit 
trees. We've certainly seen climate driven weather that brought 
the buds on the cherry trees out in February, and then a deep 
freeze in March, and wipeout the crop.
    And so we see this over and over again. And in Michigan, 
frankly, Lake Superior is now one of the five fastest warming 
lakes in the world, which for us is a pretty frightening thing 
to see as well. We know that the crisis has taken a costly toll 
on farmers, which is why I appreciate the Budget Committee 
doing this hearing.
    Financial blows, personal heartbreak, unpredictable weather 
destroying their crop, and we have in fact had as our major 
risk management tool, federal crop insurance. And so, I know 
this is widely used. There are other important pieces of the 
Farm Bill, but this is widely used.
    And we know, and Mr. Willis, I appreciate your work and all 
your many hats over the years, but the USDA has noted that 
costs are going up, and if we don't get our arms around this 
and get, you know, aggressively focusing and supporting your 
efforts, they're going to continue to go on.
    And frankly it's not enough just to assist farmers after 
there's a storm or a drought. We do that. We have put 90 
billion dollars in the last few years, Mr. Chairman, into 
disaster assistance, which is related to what's happened around 
trade with China, or COVID.
    We're good at putting it in after. We need to be supporting 
on the front end, and that's why what we did last year was so 
significant in the investments we did with what we have dubbed 
climate smart agriculture, and climate smart forestry, which is 
what all of you are doing. I mean that's what we're talking 
about, doubling down so more people can sign up for 
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP).
    More people can sign up for Regional Conservation 
Partnership Program (RCPP), or use, you know, CRP and so on. 
That's really what we're doing. The other thing that we did, 
and also we added more money to REAP. I was so pleased to hear 
you talk about that, very, very important for growers, and we 
need to make sure we're keeping that there.
    In the transition to clean renewable energy for our rural 
electric co-ops, which is a very significant piece of what we 
are doing around reducing costs, and reducing pollution. We 
also passed our bipartisan Growing Climate Solutions Act, which 
our Chairman was a significant partner in getting done, which I 
hope is going to make sure that USDA is going to help provide 
more market incentives, and innovative approaches to deal with 
carbon sequestration and so on.
    All of that to say let me move to a couple of questions. So 
glad to see farmers on the panel, and Mr. Larsen let me ask. 
You talked about the importance of planning for climate 
resiliency through crop diversification. So I wonder if you 
might talk more about that. Do you think it's important for 
Congress to explore policy options to help farmers wanting to 
diversify their operations, or do you think at this point it's 
just a matter of making those choices?
    Mr. Larsen. Yeah. Thank you. So, there's a couple ways to 
look at that from my perspective, and one is that crop 
diversity puts vulnerable times for yield production at 
different times of the year. So in the corn belt, and the grain 
belt we see that July makes the corn, August makes the beans. 
What time of year makes the oats? Like my oat crop, which right 
now is they're making grain.
    And oats frankly don't care about a dry August because 
they're in the grain bin, and they're getting processed in the 
food, so that's one way to manage risk from a farmer's 
perspective. From a policy perspective, we need to look at the 
ease of transition from a farmer who's looking at growing a 
crop outside of corn and soybeans, and the ease in which they 
can implement that.
    So in my area we have very good Actual Production History, 
(APH's) on corn and soybeans. That is our proven yields on corn 
and soybeans. But if we were to step outside of those proven 
yields into a crop we haven't grown before, such as oats, or 
something else, we don't have that protection of a good APH. So 
we need some kind of bridge programs to get us into growing 
something different.
    Or we also need to look at the market side of it too, so 
that there is opportunities, grants, et cetera to go to the 
market side of what we can grow in the corn belt. Because we 
grow corn and soybeans doesn't mean that we can't grow a 
plethora of other crops. We can. If that market existed, and 
profitability was there, risk mitigation from a farmer's 
perspective was there, we would do it.
    Senator Stabenow. Thank you. If I might just have just very 
quickly Mr. Willis, and we can follow-up on this. But you 
talked about crop insurance, and making sure that we don't have 
policies prohibiting the ability of farmers to adapt to climate 
change. And I wondered are there things we need to be doing to 
make it easier to use crop insurance, and at the same time 
adapt to the conservation practices that we want to have 
happening?
    Mr. Willis. First of all, let me just say thank you for 
everything you have done, and continue to do for agriculture. 
You've been a tremendous Chair, and I appreciate it. You've 
been a champion.
    Senator Stabenow. Thank you.
    Mr. Willis. You had a Farm Bill provision on cover crops. I 
think that was a very positive thing, and I think USDA 
obviously doing what they can on cover crops. It's an ever 
evolving issue. The other panelists have talked about all the 
innovating things they are doing, and so I don't think there's 
a simple answer. I think the simple answer is well Congress has 
oversight, and I would exercise that, and make sure that USDA 
is keeping up with the newest practices, so that farmers never 
have to make a decision between crop insurance, and doing 
something beneficial for the environment.
    Senator Stabenow. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I very much 
appreciate your letting me go first today, and I'm running over 
to the Agriculture Committee now, where we have a hearing going 
on, so thank you.
    Chairman Whitehouse. Very happy to do it. Now I turn to my 
Ranking Member, and a distinguished Senior. Have you chaired 
the Agriculture Committee also?
    Senator Grassley. No. It's my third committee, and I'm way 
down on seniority. Yes, that's right. Yeah.
    Chairman Whitehouse. So from Ag to Ag you're doing very 
well here Mr. Sievers. Ranking Member Grassley.
    Senator Grassley. Anyway, I think you answered my first 
question because it's going to be how long your family has been 
farming. You said fifth generation. You went into the 
innovative practices that you've done. I think you've touched 
on this a little bit, but I'd like to have you emphasize for 
the Committee how precision agriculture increased your crop 
yields, and at the same time protected the environment.
    Mr. Johnson. Yeah. Thank you Senator. Yeah. So I am a fifth 
generation farmer. Actually my great, great grandfather 
established our farm in 1893, so and he came from a farm in 
Germany, so our family history in agriculture goes back multi, 
multi generations.
    So, as far as adopting precision agriculture on our farm, 
it's become a necessity, you know, when it comes to management 
of agriculture. So as many of the panelists have described 
already, the risks are great, and growing, so the ability to 
make progress to me starts with measurement and management.
    So, if I can't measure it, I can't make progress. So the 
ability to adopt precision agriculture, you know, we've walked 
through the steps as technology has come through the 
generations. When I was a little kid technology meant how much 
tillage could you do? And I remember being in a tractor with a 
plow, and to be a good farmer you had to turn your fields 
black, because that's the technology that we had.
    Fast forward, my family adopted conservation tillage, and 
now as I started farming we've adopted strip tillage, and no 
tillage, and so the progress comes with technology 
advancements, and that also includes the ability for the seed 
in genetics to be able to handle that, and the ability to 
manage machinery properly, and find those efficiencies.
    And so to measure what's happening in the field, understand 
where the parts of the field can actually do better than 
they're doing today, and other parts of the field that, you 
know, we don't need to spend so much money or time, or inputs 
on because the potential just isn't there. It allows me to 
focus dollars, and that allows me to then manage my risk in a 
way to manage these inputs.
    Agriculture has so many aspects about it that are not in 
our control, and when you do find those things the best 
managers take those opportunities and manage those as best you 
can, and for me precision agriculture has allowed me to 
increase my yields, while reducing my inputs, so my efficiency 
numbers have actually been growing.
    There is a measurement that some farmers use that's the 
nitrogen use efficiency number. The old rule of thumb used to 
be it takes 1.2 pounds of nitrogen to produce a bushel of corn. 
Through precision agriculture I have found parts of my field 
where I have been able to reduce that number down to a half of 
a pound of nitrogen per bushel.
    It's not everywhere in the field, so when I find those 
areas I can manage that properly, and so that's where precision 
agriculture for me plays a huge impact into risk mitigation, 
and my ability to do my job even better next year.
    Senator Grassley. Mr. Sievers, let's talk about anaerobic 
digesters. What are the ecological benefits provided by them, 
and how do you anticipate bio gas being used in the future as 
part of the what you call all of the above energy strategy.
    Mr. Sievers. Thank you, Senator. I'll give you the short 
answer when it comes to ecological services first. Really 
that's the benefits that humans derive from nature or natural 
resources, and you know, more specifically the goods and 
services that are provided by those natural resources or nature 
from those ecosystems.
    And so, I can give you an example, and this is where the 
real aha moment came for me when I implemented anaerobic 
digestion was that as we evaluate the grid soil sampling that 
we've conducted on our farm for many years. We obviously 
noticed that our soil organic matter levels had bottomed out if 
you will, in that three and a half to four percent range back 
around 2010 and '11.
    When we started using the material that comes out of our 
digesters, which is what we referred to as digestate, and we 
use that as our soil amendment to help improve our fertility to 
meet the needs of our corn, soybean crops, we noticed within 
five years our organic matter contents were starting to go back 
up.
    You know, that reverses a 150 year trend, and that was 
rather significant. When you could take organic matter contents 
at 3 and a half to 4 percent and increase those to the low 5 
percent range, in just 5 to 7 years after implementing that 
practice. That was significant. Those are benefits that are 
going to be paid forward for many, many generations. That's an 
ecological service, and a benefit we have provided to the 
public.
    How do you measure and monetize that? That's the challenge. 
That's where we think carbon credits come into play. So that's 
one area where I've, you know, been able to identify and 
recognize the benefits from using the fertilizers that we 
produce right on our own farm. We've eliminated essentially 
synthetic fertilization for our crops on almost 2,000 acres, 
and not just our 2,000 acres, but actually another 1,500 acres 
in our neighbor's farms and fields around our facility as well.
    In the future I think there's several pathways. One is to 
be able to use bio gas as a renewable--as you scrub that and 
clean it up, and produce renewable natural gas it becomes an 
alternative to potentially bio diesel, or renewable diesel. 
There are certainly cost advantages to renewable natural gas as 
compared to diesel fuel. We see costs that are in the range of 
40 to 50 percent less on a per unit MMBtu unit, so there's 
certainly some real economic benefits to using the renewable 
natural gas.
    But we also understand that there's challenges to using 
renewable natural gas, however, being able to use our existing 
pipeline system for that renewable natural gas is a tremendous 
benefit that can be provided. We have an extensive well-
connected natural gas pipeline system in this country. Let's 
use it through the utilization of renewable natural gas.
    But even more importantly, we can also see bio gas used as 
what we can an intermediate, or bio intermediate in the 
production of bio diesel, or renewable diesel, or even ethanol. 
So and for Iowa, for example, where we have the 43 ethanol 
plants, and about 10 different bio diesel plants, that input of 
bio gas can help drive down the carbon intensity of those 
renewable fuels as well, so it's very flexible in the benefits 
that can be derived, it can be used as an input on the supply 
side in the production of other renewable liquid transportation 
fuels.
    It can also be used directly as a liquid renewable 
transportation fuel, but then finally another option is to use 
it as electricity as a way to fuel electricity for electric 
vehicles. That certainly is controversial right now. We had 
hoped that there would be an electric renewable identification 
numbers (eRINs) proposal coming from the EPA under the set 
rule. It does not look like that's going to be forthcoming in 
the June 14 Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) announcement, but we 
do anticipate that there would be continued work.
    And we think that the electricity provides options to bio 
gas producers who are isolated. They are maybe have stranded 
assets where they can't access a pipeline with their bio gas 
renewable natural gas. And when you look at the number of 
digesters that are currently on farms right now, close to 500 
that I mentioned earlier, the vast majority of those are still 
producing electricity with their bio gas.
    And so, being able to utilize that electricity for that 
particular purpose would save significant investment for those 
farmers by being able to produce electricity from the bio gas. 
So that's still an option that I think we need to keep in mind, 
and we hope that the EPA can move forward with a very fair and 
equitable approach to integrating eRINs and bio gas from on 
farm and/or digesters.
    But right now, the pathway for bio gas is certainly through 
renewable natural gas, and/or used as a bio intermediate in the 
production of other renewable transportation fuels.
    Senator Grassley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Whitehouse. You are most welcome Senator Grassley. 
Next is Senator Lujan.

                   STATEMENT OF SENATOR LUJAN

    Senator Lujan. Thank you Mr. Chairman, and to our Ranking 
Member for this hearing, and I want to thank everyone for 
making time and coming out today as well. Now crop insurance is 
an important risk management tool that farmers and ranchers 
across this nation rely on to ensure their livelihoods, and not 
put at risk when adverse weather impacts that year's crops.
    I am excited to be working with several other members of 
this Committee on strengthening these programs for the Farm 
Bill. Now today however, I want to focus on how climate change 
impacts our farming and ranching communities, and the resulting 
cost challenges. I have argued that many federal programs were 
not drafted with dry states like New Mexico in mind, but that 
is a conversation for a different day, and for a different 
Committee.
    Producers in New Mexico are already seeing firsthand how 
their coverage is being impacted by long-term drought through 
policies such as the One in Four Rule, which removed a 
producer's coverage when they were experiencing prolonged 
periods of drought.
    As you all know the One in Four Rule is written for I think 
one state in particular, down in the southeastern part of our 
beautiful country. It's a little wetter down there than it is 
for where I come from. I'm grateful that the rule has since 
been temporarily waived for some western states, but farmers 
and ranchers will face similar challenges in the future as 
extreme droughts only grow as a problem.
    Now, Mr. Willis, yes or no, as climate change patterns 
persist will the current risk management tools, such as the 
Federal Crop Insurance Program remain an important safety net 
for the farmers and ranchers?
    Mr. Willis. Yes.
    Senator Lujan. My follow-up there comes from a perspective 
of farmer to farmer issue. As climate change patterns persist 
our farmers and ranchers must be provided with the support and 
tools they need to combat climate change, while ensuring the 
health of their operations.
    Just as important though, as information sharing and 
promotion, especially as new techniques and resources are made 
available. Now Mr. Larsen, I appreciate in your testimony that 
you mentioned the importance of farmer to farmer learning, and 
how that has helped the farmers and ranchers in your community 
adopt soil health practices.
    Mr. Larsen, how can farmer to farmer education help farmers 
not only improve the climate resiliency of their own 
operations, but in turn lower USDA program costs?
    Mr. Larsen. Thanks. You know the Byron Area Farmers Group 
started meeting at the local restaurant, just a few handfuls of 
us. And we started sharing our experiences in good and bad, 
right? And you know, 2013 was our first experiences in our 
region with cover crops.
    We didn't know if they would plug our tile lines. You know, 
the rumors were just as strong as the benefits, right? So, 
about 2015-2016 the small handful started to grow to 28 to 50 
of us meeting now, this year. In fact, we just met on Monday as 
well, Monday afternoon.
    And that information sharing is so important. Now, I work 
for the Conservation District for the local government, and 
farmers have some apprehension when a government employee of 
any size, of any levels says I'm from the government and I'm 
here to help, right? We kind of clam up a little bit. So, 
farmer to farmer is important because many of us grew up 
together, we farmed together our whole life.
    And we can share openly what we're doing. And especially 
when there's a purpose of meeting, and that's to share our 
conservation stories, our no till, our alternative crops, our 
cover crops experiences because it takes the edge off of that 
fence row pressure, that is one farmer looking over the fence 
at the other farmer, and wondering what they're up to.
    So we can share with, you know, our guard down so to speak. 
And it does lower the cost from a federal perspective because 
the more we're doing on the ground level, the grass roots 
level, the more that that can foster. Because we're talking 
about, you know, change. You know, we would like change at a 
great scale, right?
    But grass roots change is where a lot of change starts. And 
it could start at a restaurant in Byron, in southeast Minnesota 
in that information sharing. Now it does take knowledgeable 
staff from whether it be USDA or local government, or other 
agencies to help us study, so that we know which practices are 
most beneficial for the environment, beneficial for us as 
producers.
    And there is companionship with technology. The two don't 
isolate one another. The two can work together, but in some 
cases technology isn't enough to reach the goals that we want, 
and in some cases soil health alone isn't enough to reach the 
goals we want, so it is a combination of all these factors, 
including the small groups of farmers and fostering those 
groups, and adding energy to them.
    Senator Lujan. I appreciate that. And Mr. Chairman, I just 
wanted to share one observation from home. As you know, home 
for me is in New Mexico, western state. It's a little dry down 
there on a good day. And the drought has been hitting us 
horribly over the last few years.
    But what we've also seen as a result of climate, Mr. 
Chairman, is the forests are drier longer. It's not just that 
they're dry up on the surface, but all of that spongy, really 
good stuff that falls from the trees and whatnot, it's usually 
wet, and the fire rolls on top of it if a fire hits.
    This year what we saw is it was so dry the fire duck 
underneath the ground, not through a tree root, would just duck 
under that canopy and shoot. You didn't know where it was going 
to pop back up as well. So while drought is a major concern to 
us as well.
    The other side of this is once you have an episode like 
that, or it's so dry that all the good stuff dries up, and is 
not holding the dirt back anymore, what a normal rainfall can 
be turns into a hundred or 500 year episode, and that mountain 
shed, that water shed, instead of it holding back that water 
it's like a ice rink. Once that water hits it, it goes. And 
it's just devastating.
    And right now we're seeing farmers, producers all over New 
Mexico that are impacted by what I just described, being 
devastated when we're blessed with rain. And it's just it's 
terrifying to see, so I really want to thank you for this 
hearing as well, and I want to thank the witnesses for coming 
in. This is a very serious issue, and one that matters to New 
Mexico, western states, but all of America and around the 
world. Thank you Chairman, thank you to our Ranking Member.
    Chairman Whitehouse. Well thank you, Senator Lujan. I don't 
think you could have teed up a better segue for your colleague 
from California than you just did, so with that let me turn to 
Senator Padilla.

                  STATEMENT OF SENATOR PADILLA

    Senator Padilla. I think that might even have been 
intentional. This 10 X, 20 X, however you want to scale up, but 
that's precisely an issue starting with when forest fires act 
like brush fires. You can just imagine the devastation. But 
thank you all for participating in today's hearing.
    As members of this Committee we need to obviously consider 
the economic impacts of extreme weather events holistically, 
including the many indirect costs to the agricultural industry. 
And I want to lead by referencing farm workers, who often bear 
the brunt of indirect costs associated with extreme weather 
events, which includes, but is not limited to severe storms, 
floods, droughts, wildfire, and extreme heat.
    You know, we saw this in California when recent flooding 
devastated large swaths of strawberry fields in the towns of 
Pajaro and Watsonville. It was farm workers who waded through 
flooded fields, or were forced to go without pay, are still 
being forced to go without pay because of lost crops.
    Mr. Willis, how often and to what extent do you believe 
federal agencies and programs factor in the incorrect costs of 
climate change in the agricultural industry such as loss of 
livelihoods, exposure to various health threats, and lost 
productivity?
    Mr. Willis. I want to make sure that I understand the 
question, so I don't answer it incorrectly. How often does a 
crop insurance program take those things into account? Is that 
the question, sir?
    Senator Padilla. Yeah. That's just that specific program, 
but programs in general, departments and agencies in general.
    Mr. Willis. I think every program is a little bit 
different. The crop insurance is very focused on the value of 
the crop and trying to compensate for that, but other crops of 
the Department of Agriculture I think have a broader purpose to 
them, to be very blunt on that, but the crop insurance really 
doesn't take those into account.
    What it does do though, I think is provide a lot of 
confidence for those growers who, you know, if you don't have 
crop insurance, you're going to make some decisions, letting 
people go off, et cetera, but you might take a much harsher 
reaction than crop insurance. So I think it provides somewhat 
of a buffer financially for producers, and benefits the other 
industries involved, and the other people involved.
    Senator Padilla. In the example I gave is when the floods 
right, that leads to lost crops, so therefore less of a need 
for the workforce to harvest. And what happens is the results 
are those individuals and those families that go without wages, 
but the community in general, goes with a declining tax base 
because of weather, same on the drought side of the equation.
    So any thoughts or suggestions on how to improve these 
federal programs to be more effective reaching out to workers 
and their greater community that relies on seasonal, or even 
permanent agricultural jobs?
    Mr. Willis. The best answer I can give you is probably 
USDA, and they have individuals, probably need to continue to 
do outreach for those sectors. That's a little out of my area 
of expertise, and that's about all I would dare say sir.
    Senator Padilla. Well I appreciate the honesty. But sadly I 
think it's a little out of the expertise, or the attention of a 
lot of federal employees because of the programs, the agency 
that they work in. A follow-up question on a more specific 
topic. California proudly produces 80 percent of wine in the 
United States, and single handedly is the fourth largest 
producer globally.
    But the vineyards, winery operations, and the jobs in the 
communities that they support are now routinely facing the 
threats of wildfires, and trying to deal with the impacts of 
wildfire smoke, which creates an ashy taste known as smoke 
taint, when absorbed into the grape.
    For growers in the northeastern part of the country, 
they're looking up at the skies right now, and looking at the 
smoke coming in from Canada. The impact of smoke isn't always 
predictable. It depends on how long the smoke lingers. The 
variety of the grape, and a number of smoke events, which is 
why Congress provided the Department of Agriculture four and a 
half billion dollars to research the impact of smoke exposure 
on grapes and wines.
    So Mr. Willis, for an industry that generates more than 170 
billion dollars in annual economic activity, and by one 
estimate suffered 3.7 billion dollars in losses in 2020 alone, 
do you believe Congress can do more to assist researchers to 
help protect this vital industry?
    Mr. Willis. I'm going to talk about crop insurance because 
one of the advantages of crop insurance is you do not have to 
wait every five years for a Farm Bill. USDA has the authority 
to adjust those programs to take into account new problems that 
are, you know, coming about, and they have a shorter timeline.
    And so, I do think there are things they can do to address 
those types of situations, and I think crop insurance is a good 
tool because they can take the data, they can take the 
research, they don't have to wait for a Farm Bill, they can 
adjust the policy so that it provides--and so it's more 
responsive.
    Senator Padilla. Thank you, and then I know my time is up, 
Mr. Chairman. I just have one follow-up item. I know the 
general topic of crop insurance has come up, including with 
Senator Stabenow, who Chairs the Agricultural Committee, but 
can you comment specifically on how it works for specialty 
crops which are different than non-specialty crops obviously?
    Mr. Willis. Certainly. Crop insurance started strong in the 
Midwest over time. There has been a significant effort there. 
There was when I was there, and I know there still is, to try 
to make crop insurance continually work better for specialty 
crops, fruits and vegetables.
    I think somebody in your shoes continually to encourage 
USDA to talk to those groups, to do those listening sessions in 
areas. There is improvement that needs to be made, but I can 
tell you from the seat I used to have it is challenging to know 
exactly what to do because the risks they suffer are not the 
same risks that the Midwest suffers.
    Senator Padilla. And they're called specialty crops. Thank 
you Mr. Chair.
    Chairman Whitehouse. Senator Kaine.

                   STATEMENT OF SENATOR KAINE

    Senator Kaine. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Thank you for 
calling this hearing, and to the witnesses for coming. I'm 
frustrated because I'm not on the Ag Committee. I wish I was. 
Ag and Forestry is the number one industry segment in Virginia. 
Most people would think it was high-tech or ship building, and 
those are big industries, but ag and forestry is still number 
one.
    Our state suffers, the primary climate challenges we suffer 
in Virginia are sea level rise in the eastern portion of 
Virginia. And then extreme rain events that aren't changing the 
amount of rain we get annually, it's just coming in much more 
violent episodes, rather than kind of smoothed out over the 
course of the year.
    But I actually want to take advantage of you for a 
different reason because you're all experts in farming. If I 
talked to my Farm Bureau and farmers around Virginia. The 
number one issue that they bring up these days is immigration 
reform. They bring up boy it's really hard to hire the people 
that we need. So let me just start there. How important is a 
workforce from other parts of the world, other countries, the 
United States, to having a successful American agriculture 
economy?
    Mr. Sievers. If I might?
    Senator Kaine. Yeah.
    Mr. Sievers. Senator, thank you. Certainly there are 
industries within agriculture that are very dependent, 
certainly the dairy, swine industry have become very dependent 
on immigrant labor. But on the other hand I think it varies, 
certainly by region, and operation. When I look at our own 
operation I actually take a lot of pride in the fact that the 
six full-time employees that we have on our farm all grew up in 
the area, and probably wouldn't be farming themselves if it 
weren't for a job opportunity that we provided on our farm for 
them.
    So I think that that sentiment, or approach to job creation 
is very important. We need to make sure we're providing jobs 
for the people in our communities, whether they be immigrants, 
or people that might have been born and raised on that farm, 
and may have gone elsewhere, if not for that job opportunity.
    So the immigrant labor is very important, but we need to 
make sure that those job opportunities exist.
    Senator Kaine. That, and Mr. Johnson, I see you're the 
President of the Iowa Farm Bureau, and I know the national 
federation of farm bureaus, the U.S. Federation has a strong 
position in favor of significant reforms to the H2A program, 
maybe even doing something different because it's gotten so 
cumbersome for farmers.
    In addition to that, some additional focus on work visas. 
And I think the National Federation has taken the position that 
if we just enforce, like using E-Verify, or things like that, 
without doing significant revisions to work visas in the H2A 
program, we could have a significant negative impact on 
agriculture. Is that similar to the experience that you would 
have in Iowa?
    Mr. Johnson. So the experience in Iowa, first of all you're 
correct in your comments. The experience in Iowa for farmers, 
for most ag producers in Iowa, immigrant labor is important at 
an arm's length. They're employed at the processor level, some 
of those things.
    Senator Kaine. Right. Which is a sizeable industry in Iowa?
    Mr. Johnson. Absolutely. Absolutely, not diminishing it, 
but as far as farmers employing immigrant labor directly within 
Iowa, the business structures that we have don't require that 
at the processor level. Now I have had many conversations in 
the American level, the American Farm Bureau level as well. I 
actually went down to Arizona, and saw some of the lettuce 
fields, and some of those things, and to see that migrant labor 
come across and watch them come to the fields, understand what 
they're doing.
    And then the Port of Yuma actually, I think there's 15,000 
immigrants that come and go every day through that one single 
port. So immigrant labor is very important to those folks, 
clearly. But you know, the dairy industry, and Mr. Sievers is 
correct. It's regional, and it's industry, so I think it's a 
wide, broad topic.
    If you talk about labor to any fraction of any company 
anywhere, labor is a concern right now, and that includes labor 
from immigrant work force.
    Senator Kaine. I agree with you. There's no one thing 
that's going to fix these labor challenges. You know, America's 
birth rate is not going to dramatically change, and if it did 
we wouldn't see anything for 20 years, so I think immigration 
is a piece of it. There are others as well. Mr. Larsen, how 
about from your perspective in Minnesota?
    Mr. Larsen. Well it's a little outside of my wheelhouse. I 
do not hire anyone to help me get my work done. I'm kind of a 
one man show.
    Senator Kaine. You're kind of like our John Tester 
colleague here right.
    Mr. Larsen. Yeah. Jack of all trades and master of none. 
But I can say from my region, and my perspective that farmers 
do rely, it's particularly the dairy industry relies on some 
help from outside the borders of the U.S. And it actually has 
gotten much harder for the co-ops who supply us our inputs to 
hire help, and to have good applicators, to have good people on 
their team.
    So they have actually accessed outside of U.S. borders now 
too for help. And I do think that it will remain an important 
topic to continue to help us, particularly my dairy farmer 
friends, to keep help, you know, in their parlors and in their 
barns.
    Senator Kaine. Mr. Chair, could I ask if Professor Willis 
could answer the question too, just from your perspective as a 
professor of agricultural economics, how important is the 
immigrant labor force as part of having a healthy agricultural 
economy in this country?
    Mr. Willis. Obviously, it's huge. I can tell you I grew up 
on a sheep ranch. We had an individual from Peru herd the 
sheep. It was in a sheep camp up in the mountains all the time. 
And since my dad passed away I don't have a sheep ranch 
anymore, but it's a huge burden for the sheep producers who I 
talk to day to day. I think, you know, at the risk of putting 
some out of business quite frankly because of the challenges 
they face on that.
    Senator Kaine. Well it's my hope that we as a Congress will 
listen to our employers, who are all telling us they're having 
a hard time hiring, and we'll find a way to do some things in 
immigration reform, particularly focused on work visas, work 
related immigration that will enable an American economy to 
really rocket ahead.
    We just have an Infrastructure Bill, who's going to build 
it? We've just done a Manufacturing Bill. Who's going to make 
it? Immigration isn't the only solution--I think it's part of 
it. I appreciate you all coming here today, and thanks for your 
answers. I yield back, Mr. Chair.
    Chairman Whitehouse. Thanks, Senator Kaine. For my question 
let me turn first to Mr. Willis, as to whether climate smart 
agriculture is starting to show an effect in crop insurance 
claims?
    Mr. Willis. Specifically things just as cover crops, sir? 
Yeah. I mean there was a study put out recently, I think that 
looked at some potential benefits to cover crops as it related 
to prevent plant. I think we're kind of at the early stages of 
data that could, you know, of really great data.
    I know USDA has the pandemic cover crop program, and they 
would have the ability to align, yield data with those who 
utilize that as well. And so, I think we're at the beginning of 
some interesting things. I don't know that I dare say much more 
than that as far as you know, the benefits yet, but listening 
to the panelists it's very impressive to hear what they are 
doing, and the impacts it's having on their operations.
    Chairman Whitehouse. And again, on crop insurance we're 
seeing in the news State Farm and Allstate abandoning 
California. We're hearing about Florida coverage difficulties, 
and frankly defaults as insurance companies go bankrupt. What 
are the lessons for the Federal Crop Insurance Program that we 
should extract from that current news?
    Mr. Willis. I think the lesson is they need to stay on top 
of things. First of all, I have a tremendous amount of respect 
for those who oversee the crop insurance program. They've done 
a great job. I think their job is going to become more 
challenging in the future. You can see the last few years, it 
has become more challenging, even from the time that I left 
there. They're going to have to be ahead of the curve, have new 
programs that address new situations.
    They recently introduced a program a few years back for 
hurricane wind loss. Things like that are examples of where 
they need to be ahead of--to the extent they can, ahead of 
things so that we don't have major disasters that are not 
covered.
    Chairman Whitehouse. Yeah. And their colleagues in the 
flood insurance programs are going to have the same problems to 
see that we see very much in Rhode Island as a coastal state. 
Mr. Larson, most of the harvesting in Rhode Island is done from 
the sea, and when I go out with fisherman, trawlers, I hear 
things like this is not my grandfather's ocean anymore, or 
things are getting weird out there Sheldon.
    And you say in your testimony things aren't the way they 
used to be. Would you elaborate a little bit on what you mean 
by that?
    Mr. Willis. I think that there is widespread agreement in 
my region that we can just we can say that with some level of 
comfort. And it may be talking to our parents or their parent's 
generation if they're still alive, and so I just never recall 
anything like this before. That's pretty simple right? We can 
understand that. We can relate to that because those are our 
family members and our community members.
    Chairman Whitehouse. Yeah. This was a guy who started out 
working on his grandfather's boat, so same experience of passed 
on knowledge.
    Mr. Willis. Yeah. But then there's also, you know, the 
data. I am a data person. And, you know, we look at that as 
well, and that shows a pretty strong trend to that same phrase. 
And in December of last year, December 16th, we had our winter 
derecho. We had never recorded a tornado in the state of 
Minnesota prior to that in December, and we had over 20.
    And as my son and I were hunkered down in the house, and as 
it shook with 70 mile an hour winds that evening, and such 
widespread damage across the region to buildings, to CHS, our 
local co-op, it really resounded. Like no one had experienced 
that. No one had experienced the warm temperatures earlier that 
day that were similar to what we feel here today in D.C., and 
we were experiencing that in our winter in Minnesota.
    So I guess that's what I mean by that widespread agreement, 
that these are our experiences that are occurring, and what we 
need to manage and farm around, and that's what I mean. Thank 
you.
    Senator Whitehouse. Yeah. Mr. Johnson, you mentioned the 
danger of ill-fitting regulations squelching innovation and 
progress. Is it your view that well-crafted incentives can be a 
powerful and positive influence?
    Mr. Johnson. I think progress is always made better with 
carrots instead of sticks. Now voluntary incentive based 
programs have made a lot of positive progress in agriculture, 
in the entire history of the industry as this country has been 
known. And as I've said before, you know when I was a kid, and 
Mr. Grassley was a young, Farm Bureau member back then, you 
know our family was plowing our fields.
    And the progression of practices through the years, and 
through the generations were something that was inherently 
built, bred, and innovative on farms across the entire country. 
Just it's natural to a farmer to want to make progress, to want 
to do better, to want to be more efficient.
    And if you remove that incentive through burdensome 
regulations, my focus changes to meeting a regulation instead 
of meeting innovation, instead of finding new opportunities 
that maybe nobody has even thought of yet, so how can you 
regulate something that's a brand new idea.
    So that's where my comments are based on.
    Chairman Whitehouse. Yeah. That makes a lot of sense.
    Mr. Johnson. To not stifle new ideas and future progress.
    Chairman Whitehouse. I'm going to recognize Senator Braun 
in a second, but while he gets squared away let me ask Mr. 
Sievers. You've been a member of the partnership for climate 
smart commodities. That has been a success I gather?
    Mr. Sievers. Well we're still actually going through due 
diligence with USDA.
    Chairman Whitehouse. Okay.
    Mr. Sievers. So we'd like to speed that process up, but we 
understand there's a lot of scrutiny that's going to be placed 
on that program as it evolves and develops. Roeslein 
Alternative Energy, our partner, was awarded an 80 million 
dollar climate smart commodities grant last fall, and we think 
we're getting very close. We just actually had a call with 
folks at USGA and RCS here about a week ago, and they provided 
a timeline, so we hope that within 30 days we'll have a grant 
agreement in front of us that we can review, and then sign, and 
then get moving forward.
    But yeah, we're really looking forward to that because of 
the ecological services that we think it can provide, we're 
going to start to integrate and provide incentives for 
producers to adopt practices such as seeding cover crops on 
their farmland, and then potentially being able to use that 
feedstock as well as that from native prairie as a feedstock 
for anaerobic digestion, so.
    Chairman Whitehouse. Okay. Well there's going to be a 
period after the hearing closes when if you want to add 
something in writing, you're welcome to. So if you would like 
to expand on your recommendations for that program please don't 
hesitate to do so. If you're satisfied with your comments here 
today that's fine also, and now Senator Tester has been 
mentioned as perhaps the leading farmer in the Senate, and now 
I'm turning to I think the leading forester in the Senate, 
Senator Braun.

                   STATEMENT OF SENATOR BRAUN

    Senator Braun. Thank you Mr. Chairman. That's how I got 
started as a tree farmer back in the late 80's, and fell in 
love with that, and then inevitably got involved in row crops, 
and had the blessing of starting with a few acres where I 
wanted to build a home someday, and then found out it had a 
timber resource on it, and as soon as I bought it, it was land 
locked.
    I got access to it, and the loggers called me, wanted to 
help me out with my trees. So, I took the Perdue short course 
and learned a lot about silviculture in a short period of time. 
This is an excellent topic, cultivating stewardship. I've been 
doing it my entire life. You actually, I think have more 
opportunity on the farm, but there's a lot in the forest as 
well.
    I want to ask the two farmers here. I've been involved in 
Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP), CRP, EQIP, all that stuff over 
the years. I haven't done much recently because I started just 
incorporating that naturally into the practice of managing the 
woods or farm ground. I notice often, especially now, that 
farming has gotten a lot more corporate.
    I remember the days when you could put with direct inputs a 
corn crop out for $140.00, soybeans for 70.00. Board of Trade 
has been nice to farmers, but look at input costs. Look at how 
much more complicated it is. And when you're trying to weave 
land management and stewardship into it, I think it's gotten 
kind of complicated.
    What I'd like to hear from Mr. Larsen and Mr. Sievers would 
be farmers by nature are conservationists, and we went through 
some periods where I don't think it was paid attention to, 
decades ago. I don't know of any farmer that doesn't want to 
keep his dirt on his ground. Then, on the other hand, you have 
something like waters of the U.S. It's been ping-ponging back 
and forth.
    And right after I got in the Senate I had a dust up with a 
local conservation officer chasing somebody down on their back 
farm, and maintaining a ditch that hardly ever has any water in 
it. That's kind of a metaphor for sometimes the good the 
government can do, and then when it becomes overbearing.
    If you would each, weigh in on how that tug of war has been 
an issue on your own farm. I'll start with Mr. Sievers, and 
then I'd like to hear from Mr. Larson as well.
    Mr. Sievers. Thank you, Senator. Thank you for all you've 
done for forestry, and for advocating for forestry as a 
critical natural resource for the United States. Our family has 
implemented, I think just about every conservation program 
through the USDA that I can think of.
    We've implemented field borders and buffer strips, and 
grass waterways, and terraces. We've implemented no till and 
site specific farming practices as Mr. Johnson has talked 
about. More recently obviously, when we built our anaerobic 
digester, and commissioned that in 2013, we received a 
$500,000.00 REAP Grant for that project to be built and 
constructed.
    We received a $300,000.00 EQIP Grant for that for some of 
the storage of either the manure before it goes into the 
digester, or for the digestate once it comes back out. So I've 
been a huge advocate of those kinds of conservation programs, 
and would continue to do so as well going forward.
    I'm probably not going to weigh in on waters of the United 
States as much because it's really not an issue that's 
addressed to us, but I think that protecting our water quality 
is extremely important, but I also think property rights is a 
valuable and noble cause to embrace as well.
    And so, doing things on our farm that improve water quality 
by capturing any excess nitrate nitrogen for example, by 
utilizing cover crops, by making sure--by filter strips are 
another way to capture any excess nitrates that night run off 
that field in the event of an untimely rain.
    Senator Braun. Let me ask you this. Do you think farmers 
would do as much of that without the help from the federal 
government on that particular stuff? Would it be in your own 
best interest to do it? It sounds like you haven't been 
impacted much by the regulations that have come along with it 
in other areas. There are stipulations in terms of how that 
works, but do you think farmers would employ those practices 
otherwise?
    Mr. Sievers. Yeah. I think farmers would be willing to 
employ those practices because of what you just described, the 
reverence that we have for our soil.
    Senator Braun. Yes.
    Mr. Sievers. And keeping that soil in place. The problem is 
how do you monetize or quantify the loss of that soil to the 
public, and to that farmer, and that's where the incentives 
really help because they can help monetize the value of that 
soil, staying on your farm rather than going into a creek or 
river or stream.
    Senator Braun. Thank you. Mr. Larsen.
    Mr. Larsen. On our own farm, and you know it's something 
that the Byron Area farmers we talk about is like being ahead 
of the curve, so to speak, on conservation. So all these 
programs that, you know, you've discussed we enroll in many of 
them. I appreciate that you bring up forestry. I really take 
that to heart. I try to plant 1,000 trees a year in marginal 
productive areas.
    I do have a sawmill. I know how to fell trees. So that's 
one side. The forestry definitely cannot be forgotten, and I 
appreciate that. And there's programs to support that as well. 
In regards to your specific point about the tug of war, and I 
kind of walk the line because I work for a conservation 
district, right?
    So, but I'm also a farmer. I own a tiling machine, you 
know, I install my own drain tile and of course wetland laws 
that come into play with that. But I experienced those wetland 
laws from the other side, at the conservation district too. I 
witnessed these water protection laws from the other side.
    So, from a farmer, you know, I think we really need to look 
at that from the perspective of being ahead of the game, but it 
is hard to be ahead of the game when we see that we need to 
learn how to be ahead of the game. So that's where the programs 
really come in to help us. And in Olmstead County, where is the 
county where I farm and then work, I think the county is ahead 
of the game because they took 3 million dollars of American 
Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding, and dedicated it towards local 
soil health funding.
    And because I work at the conservation office we wrote that 
program, but the most important goal of that program was the 
efficient delivery, so that a farmer could do everything he 
needed to do to get that funding right here on his phone, and 
it could be out on the tractor, he could take the pictures he 
needed to get his payment from it, and upload them, and start 
the payment process.
    So that an efficient delivery is really important. So I do 
see, you know, the ying and the yang, or the balance of things 
just because of my perspective of working both sides.
    Senator Braun. Thank you. Keep up your good stewardship, 
and I found that I've actually had a better return on managing 
my forest ground than my farm ground, once you get used to the 
nuances of it. A lot of farmers don't pay attention to that 
component of it. Thank you.
    Chairman Whitehouse. Senator Merkley. Thank you Senator 
Braun.

                  STATEMENT OF SENATOR MERKLEY

    Senator Merkley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all 
for bringing your expertise to bear. I go and do a town hall, 
and I'll put my 36 counties each year, and beforehand meet with 
the local elected officials of that country, and the city 
officials. And just before COVID I was very surprised in the 
very southeast corner of my state, in an area that's extremely 
rural, and extremely allergic to any form of government 
involvement. It was requested that I get them help with 
monitoring wells.
    And I nearly fell out of my seat because this is a place 
where it would be like the last thing anyone would ever ask for 
is government oversight. And so, I said I'm kind of stunned at 
the question. Give me more background, and they said well 
listen, we've always been against any form of government 
oversight, but we lost three feet on our groundwater last year 
on top of many, many dozens of feet losses over previous years, 
and we're all going to be out of business soon if we don't 
monitor our groundwater use.
    And we need help figuring that out.
    It's both the drought in many parts of Oregon that has been 
persistent over a long period of time now. It's also the 
reduced snow pack. The cascades have approximately 20 feet less 
snow pack on average than they did 90 years ago. This year was 
a good snow pack year, but that's an anomaly.
    So, in your all's experience are we seeing a growing 
concern about climate impacts in terms of groundwater recharge, 
and dropping levels of groundwater in the places that you come 
from? I'm just quick surveying your sense of this as an issue.
    Mr. Larsen. Quick survey of southeast Minnesota is we do 
not have a groundwater supply problem, we have a groundwater 
quality problem, and a lot of work is being done in regards to 
nitrates, and nitrate sequestration, and the eroding zone of 
rural crops.
    Senator Merkley. Okay. Anyone else have groundwater issues, 
or not really in your parts of the country?
    Mr. Johnson. I'm from northwest Iowa, and when we've been 
experiencing droughts, but I'm from a very, very, flat part of 
the state, and so our groundwater, we don't irrigate. We don't 
have any of those issues that change our practices.
    Senator Merkley. Okay.
    Mr. Sievers. Thank you, Senator. And I'd have to say I echo 
the comments that Mr. Larsen and Mr. Johnson just said. In 
eastern Iowa it's more a water quality issue that we want to 
continue to monitor and make sure we keep excess nutrients out 
of our ground.
    Senator Merkley. Well my ag world is very jealous. We also 
have a nitrates problem in different parts of the state, but 
when your wells are dropping dramatically, and you can't afford 
to keep drilling deeper, you're looking at the kind of the 
foundation of the community at risk, so a huge concern.
    I wanted to turn, Mr. Johnson, to the organic farming. 
Oregon is at the forefront of organic farming. And the recent 
data from the National Agriculture Statistics Services shows 
that Oregon doubled its acreage within a few years between 2008 
and 2021. What role does organic farming industry have in 
perhaps being a positive force in helping to address some of 
the climate change issues?
    Mr. Johnson. Well, first of all organic farming--there is a 
fraction of Iowa agriculture that is growing in the organic 
productions systems as well, and I know many farmers across the 
state actually who are farming I'll say traditionally, for the 
lack of a better description, versus organically. And they're 
adopting organics as well, so they run in both modes of farming 
operations.
    I think they're doing that as a market opportunity, and 
also as a risk mitigation opportunity for their own personal 
operations. There are benefits to both systems to be quite 
frank about it. I'm what you would consider probably a 
relatively conservative farming operation.
    I've adopted strip till and no till, so I can conserve some 
of the water resources that you were just talking about. I can 
manage nutrients better, and take care of pests, whether it's 
weeds or insects, a little bit better in some of those. And 
there's tools in that system that allows me to do that very 
efficiently.
    And then there's the market segment of organic farming, 
which seems to be an opportunity for other people. And I 
can't--I don't farm in that system, but I know farmers who do, 
and you know, they spend a lot of time in their fields, and 
they do, they have a lot of passes, and it's more labor 
intensive. And so, there's good and bad, and ying and yang in 
both systems, and I frankly see it as a diversification 
opportunity.
    Senator Merkley. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, do I have time 
for another question?
    Chairman Whitehouse. Sure.
    Senator Merkley. So we have a big nursery industry in 
Oregon, and there's constant concern about the ability to ship 
plants, and make sure that they're healthy throughout, and not 
have anything get banned. And what we're seeing is a lot of 
pests that are spreading. Is the climate problems accelerating 
that?
    And I'll just give you one example. It isn't nursery 
related, but the--we didn't use to have much of a pine beetle 
problem in Oregon, but now we have a huge problem with it 
because mainly the impact of drought has meant that the trees 
have less sap to fight off the beetles, and then the longer, 
warmer summer season means that the pine beetles can go through 
two generations of infestation rather than one.
    But are there--are you seeing other pest issues that are 
aggravated by in our more traditional ag sector by the climate 
impacts? To whomever has any insights.
    Mr. Larsen. I guess I can't specifically say because it's 
outside of my knowledge base about the effect that climate 
change has had on some of our significant pest issues. But what 
I can say is that it absolutely needs to be on the radar 
because for example, emerald ash bore has cost our cities and 
our communities millions of dollars to remove dead ash trees, 
or soon to be dead ash trees.
    So it's not just limited to that one insect of our 
experiences, but it absolutely needs to be on the radar because 
of the potential cost it has to communities, including rural 
land owners that have to remove a few trees around their house 
because they're dead now, so.
    Chairman Whitehouse. I'm going to recognize Senator 
Grassley now for a few additional questions, and then if no one 
else has come we'll close the hearing. Senator Grassley.
    Senator Grassley. For Mr. Larsen, I heard you talk about 
how you meet regularly with a lot of other farmers. Does that 
involve the pooling of their resources to better market their 
oats, or do you have organizations beyond just your regular 
meeting of fellow farmers?
    Mr. Larsen. So, so far we are still very loosely held. That 
is we do not have an entity that we meet under, but we are 
pooling resources, and that could be equipment to get the work 
done. You brought up oats, it may be to plant the oats. It may 
be to harvest the oats, and to market them together, so that we 
have a strength in numbers.
    And you know, I think that was kind of the basis of farmers 
getting together was to, you know, leverage what we have 
together rather than on our own. And it's also again, the 
knowledge sharing that comes with it with something specific.
    But the resources are very important, especially when a 
farmer is considering something, so they're not ready to take 
the leap into buying new equipment, which would be quite 
costly, but the neighbor has that equipment in the group per 
se, and can be hired to get that done.
    They can experience it. They can go through some cropping 
seasons, and see if it's a good fit for them. You know, 
equipment and financing new equipment for conservation 
practices, or climate related practices, climate farming 
practices is an opportunity because that funding, you know, 
it's a leap again.
    Like if we're thinking about something different, if we 
want to learn about it, we need that equipment to do it, and 
funding for it outside of our farmer group is something we 
should look into.
    Senator Grassley. Mr. Willis, I've heard you mention crop 
insurance in your opening statement, and to a couple questions 
that have been asked of you, so I want to ask about President 
Biden's USDA estimates that crop insurance premiums subsidies 
would increase somewhere between 3 and a half percent to 22 
percent by the end of the century due to climate change.
    A broad range, which is extrapolated from using unrealistic 
RCP, 8.5 scenario. What factors do you believe will cause the 
greatest increase in crop insurance premiums subsidies as this 
century evolves?
    Mr. Willis. I'm not sure it will be that much different 
than what has increased in the last 20 years, and not all of 
those things are actually bad. One of those will be crop 
prices, as prices, you know, the value of what you insure 
increases, the insurance is going to cost a little bit more.
    The other thing is increased yields. Obviously, that one 
right there is something that has you know, increased the 
liability historically. The study brought that a little bit 
into question moving forward, but the program naturally will 
cost a little bit more over time just because the value of the 
crops, if it weren't that way, we would have, you know, 
bankruptcies in rural America if it didn't increase a little 
bit.
    But it would be value of the crops, and it would be acreage 
in large part.
    Senator Grassley. Maybe one other question for anybody that 
can speak to it, and this comes from my reading business papers 
that have suggested when it comes to selling carbon credits, 
and getting income from it, I've read of one African country, 
west African country and I read of people in Ecuador that have 
been able to make money selling carbon credits.
    So why aren't we getting advantage, or making any income 
from carbon credits for those things that we've already done 
like no till cover crop, minimum till, and anything else you 
can do that sequesters carbon? Or what you're doing, for 
instance, in your digester as an example. Is there an answer to 
that, or is it just rhetorical?
    I don't mean it to be a rhetorical question, but it might 
be a rhetorical question.
    Mr. Sievers. Well I think that's an excellent question, 
Senator, and thank you for asking that. I've been advocating 
for that. I was a member of the Governor's carbon sequestration 
task force here a couple of years ago, and it's an evolving 
industry, so there's a lot of answers that haven't been 
provided yet, a lot of questions. A lot more questions than 
answers, certainly in the whole carbon credits arena.
    But I advocate, as you've just indicated, that a baseline 
for that effort to create the value of those carbon credits is 
absolutely the most important part. It's just like Mr. Johnson 
said. You have to be able to measure before you can monitor and 
monetize, and once you start measuring, well where do we start 
measuring?
    And I've just half seriously jokingly said it's when I park 
the mobile plow 25 years ago. Maybe that was a good place to 
start to create my baseline, and in so doing the monetization 
of our carbon credits on our farming operation would be far 
greater than maybe the $20.00 or $30.00 an acre that are being 
proposed.
    You know, they might be upwards of several hundred dollars 
an acre when you aggregate and stack those additional carbon 
credit benefits. And what we've really started to see the 
acceleration of those benefits to ourselves once we implemented 
the anaerobic digesters.
    And the utilization of livestock manure and biomass, and 
therefore the advocation that I have been certainly in favor of 
is we need more livestock to be able to monetize more carbon 
credits, so that we need fewer livestock.
    And so in Iowa, and in the upper Midwest, I think that 
that's a revelation we're going to come to at some point that 
more livestock will actually enhance the ability for farmers to 
sequester and capture carbon and create more value in the 
credits there.
    Senator Grassley. Isn't it a little ironic that you're 
asking for a situation you described based upon previous 
practices, and it's not here, but it's here for people in 
Africa and Ecuador to benefit from it. It just doesn't make 
sense.
    Mr. Sievers. Right.
    Senator Grassley. So if there's a market out there for 
that, why isn't there a market for what you're talking about?
    Mr. Sievers. I couldn't agree more.
    Chairman Whitehouse. And that's a very useful question to 
end on. I'd offer two observations. One, the offsets market has 
been loaded up with fake offsets, which doesn't mean that there 
aren't real ones out there. It just means that there's been a 
terrible experience with fake offsets, or double counted 
offsets, or misunderstood offsets.
    It doesn't necessarily mean that they were fraudulent, but 
they were ineffectual at a minimum, and I think some were 
probably even fraudulent. So the market was started off on a 
bad footing.
    We tried in the Growing Climate Solutions Act to give the 
U.S. Department of Agriculture a mechanism to look at what 
actually really works, and is entitled to a proper offset, so 
that the farmer can get the benefit from taking the step that 
the USDA has identified.
    Highly localized thing, we sort of were thinking that it 
might go like the old farm agents who know the county, know the 
farms, know the locality, and could provide good credentialing 
of the climate effects, the sequestering effects, whatever, of 
different practices so that in fact at the end of the day the 
farm does get the reward.
    The USDA has not with great alacrity, picked up the Growing 
Climate Solutions Act problem, despite the fact that it passed 
about two years ago now I think, so that would be a good place 
to put a little bit of attention, I think, on like where are 
they with that. What offsets are credible, and how should they 
be scored because it is useful to our question, Mr. Johnson, 
about incentives.
    If you're going to be paid to do something that you want to 
do anyway, that's a good outcome, and if it encourages better 
behavior and more behavior of that kind, so much the better. So 
I'm going to wrap up.
    Thank you very much again, Ranking Member Grassley, for 
making this a bipartisan hearing. I can't help but note that as 
we sit here in this hearing we are under air quality warnings 
in Washington, D.C.
    The air quality warnings in New York City right now are so 
bad that we are I think only behind New Delhi in terms of 
global bad air quality. It's coming from wildfires. They're 
coming from Canada. They relate to combustibility that we've 
talked about already in forests, it tracks back to the changes 
in the climate that we are experiencing as a result of fossil 
fuel emission.
    So, it's happening in real life right around us, even as we 
sit in this air-conditioning room in this Senate chamber. And I 
would close by asking unanimous consent that we put into the 
record the report that was done by the Commodities Futures 
Trading Commission during the Trump administration, actually, 
with excellent leadership by the former risk manager for 
Goldman Sachs, a firm that has to know quite a lot about risk 
and get it right quite a lot.
    Who was actually a witness of ours in an early hearing, Bob 
Letterman, and supported by a very powerful array of American 
corporate interests, including particularly agricultural 
interests, and I think putting that report from the Trump 
administration into the record would be a useful way to close 
out.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Document submitted by Chairman Whitehouse appears in the 
appendix on page 59.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Chairman Whitehouse. So with that I will thank the 
witnesses. We have a little bit of time, like a day. All right. 
24 hours for any member who wants to ask additional questions 
to all of you to get those things in writing. We'll get them to 
you. We would ask that you respond in a week if you do get such 
questions.
    You can take Mr. Sievers, my question about your 
partnership program as a question if you care to answer 
further, you're most welcome to. Let me thank you for bringing 
your experience here again, for a guy from a state, most of 
whose harvesting comes from the ocean, this has been very 
helpful to hear, so thank you very much.
    [Whereupon, at 11:53 a.m., Wednesday, June 7, 2023, the 
hearing was adjourned.]


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                                 [all]