[Senate Hearing 118-121]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                        S. Hrg. 118-121

                 FARM BILL 2023: TRADE AND HORTICULTURE

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                       COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,
                        NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                            February 1, 2023

                               __________

                       Printed for the use of the
           Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
           
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]           


                  Available on http://www.govinfo.gov/
                  

                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
53-637 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2024                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------                    
                  
           COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY


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

                 Erica Chabot, Majority Staff Director
                 Chu-Yuan Hwang, Majority Chief Counsel
                    Jessica L. Williams, Chief Clerk
               Fitzhugh Elder IV, Minority Staff Director
                 Jackie Barber, Minority Chief Counsel
                            
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                      Wednesday, February 1, 2023

                                                                   Page

Hearing:

Farm Bill 2023: Trade and Horticulture...........................     1

                              ----------                              

                    STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY SENATORS

Stabenow, Hon. Debbie, U.S. Senator from the State of Michigan...     1
Boozman, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Arkansas......     2

                                WITNESS

Taylor, Hon. Alexis, Under Secretary For Trade and Foreign 
  Agricultural Affairs, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 
  Washington, DC.................................................     4
Moffitt, Hon. Jenny Lester, Under Secretary For Marketing and 
  Regulatory Programs, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 
  Washington, DC.................................................     6
Charles, Sarah, Assistant to the Administrator, U.S. Agency For 
  International Development, Washington, DC......................     8
                              ----------                              

                                APPENDIX

Prepared Statements:
    Taylor, Hon. Alexis..........................................    40
    Moffitt, Hon. Jenny Lester...................................    53
    Charles, Sarah...............................................    62

Document(s) Submitted for the Record:
Marshall, Hon. Roger:
    In-Kind and Market Based Food Aid, document for the Record...    70

Question and Answer:
Taylor, Hon. Alexis:
    Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow......    72
    Written response to questions from Hon. John Boozman.........    73
    Written response to questions from Hon. Amy Klobuchar........    80
    Written response to questions from Hon. Kirsten E. Gillibrand    81
    Written response to questions from Hon. Tina Smith...........    81
    Written response to questions from Hon. Richard J. Durbin....    83
    Written response to questions from Hon. Ben Ray Lujan........    85
    Written response to questions from Hon. Raphael Warnock......    86
    Written response to questions from Hon. Peter Welch..........    88
    Written response to questions from Hon. Tommy Tuberville.....    90
    Written response to questions from Hon. Deb Fischer..........    91
Moffitt, Hon. Jenny Lester
    Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow......    92
    Written response to questions from Hon. John Boozman.........    97
    Written response to questions from Hon. Michael F. Bennet....   100
    Written response to questions from Hon. Kirsten E. Gillibrand   102
    Written response to questions from Hon. Richard J. Durbin....   106
    Written response to questions from Hon. Cory Booker..........   107
    Written response to questions from Hon. Ben Ray Lujan........   109
    Written response to questions from Hon. Peter Welch..........   110
    Written response to questions from Hon. Tommy Tuberville.....   113
Charles, Sarah:
    Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow......   115
    Written response to questions from Hon. John Boozman.........   116
    Written response to questions from Hon. Tina Smith...........   143
    Written response to questions from Hon. Raphael Warnock......   145
    Written response to questions from Hon. Peter Welch..........   146
    Written response to questions from Hon. Joni Ernst...........   148

 
                 FARM BILL 2023: TRADE AND HORTICULTURE

                              ----------                              


                      Wednesday, February 1, 2023

                                        U.S. Senate
         Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 
328A, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Debbie Stabenow, 
Chairwoman of the Committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Stabenow [presiding], Brown, Klobuchar, 
Bennet, Gillibrand, Smith, Booker, Lujan, Welch, Fetterman, 
Boozman, Hoeven, Ernst, Hyde-Smith, Marshall, Tuberville, 
Braun, Grassley, Thune, and Fischer.

STATEMENT OF HON. DEBBIE STABENOW, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE 
    OF MICHIGAN, CHAIRWOMAN, U.S. COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, 
                    NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

    Chairwoman Stabenow. Good morning. I call hearing of the 
U.S. Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee to 
order. Senator Brown was just indicating, sitting in Senator 
Pat Leahy's seat, he was caring more about organics and dairy 
this morning. We welcome you to this.
    Speaking of welcoming new members, we are so pleased to 
have Senator Welch and Senator Fetterman as new members of the 
Committee. We appreciate you and are so glad that you are 
joining us, particularly at this moment when we have such 
important work to do on the farm bill, so thank you.
    Also we welcome our witnesses, Under Secretary Taylor, 
Under Secretary Moffitt, and Ms. Charles. Thank you for being 
here today on really, really important topics. I know that 
Ranking Member Boozman and I share the fact that we know we 
have a big job ahead, and we are working closely together to be 
able to pass the next farm bill with strong bipartisan support, 
and I am really confident that this Committee is up to the task 
to be able to do that.
    Last year, our Committee examined USDA's research, rural 
development, and energy programs, and now we begin the new 
Congress with a review of the farm bill's horticulture and 
trade titles. These titles represent the breadth of American 
agriculture, supporting our specialty crop and organic farmers, 
strengthening our local food systems, building new markets 
abroad for all of our commodities and products, and delivering 
critical food aid across the globe. I am proud that Michigan is 
one of our most diverse agricultural States in the Nation. From 
dairy, apples, asparagus to blueberries and cherries, Michigan 
farmers produce over 300 different crops. The message I hear 
from these farmers is clear. Federal farm policy cannot be a 
one-size-fits-all model.
    In the context of today's hearing, let me speak 
specifically about specialty crops. Our fruit and vegetable 
farmers face rising labor costs, increasing import pressures, 
and emerging pests and diseases. I am committed to passing a 
farm bill that will improve their ability to manage risks and 
market their products. Our attention to their issues is vital 
to keep our American-grown fruits and vegetables on our tables.
    Since the passage of the 2018 Farm Bill we have seen 
continued growth in the organic sector, which exceeded $63 
billion in sales last year. We need to continue to support our 
organic farmers, including those transitioning into the 
program.
    It is also important that we made the Local Agricultural 
Market Program (LAMP), permanent in the 2018 Farm Bill, and we 
have seen a surge in demand for locally sourced foods during 
the pandemic, underscoring the need for more investments in our 
local and regional food systems.
    Globally, we are facing unprecedented levels of food 
insecurity, compounded by high food prices, supply chain 
challenges, and, of course, Putin's war against Ukraine. Our 
farmers play a vital role in providing U.S.-grown commodities 
to feed those in need, and farm bill development programs help 
to build resiliency on the ground.
    The farm bill also creates opportunities for American 
farmers to connect with consumers around the world by providing 
marketing assistance and credit access. Agricultural exports 
have grown from $66 billion in 1996, to a record of more than 
$191 billion in 2022. That is more than 1 million American jobs 
on or off the farm.
    Our witnesses today will highlight how those vital programs 
support the diversity of American agriculture. The success of 
our agriculture economy requires continued investments in 
markets and opportunities for farmers. Whether they are selling 
to neighbors or exporting products globally, whether they are 
growing traditional commodities, specialty crops, or organics, 
the farm bill helps farmers put food on tables here and around 
the world. We all have a stake in continuing to make sure that 
happens. That is what this farm bill is all about.
    I would like to now turn to my friend and Ranking Member, 
Senator Boozman.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BOOZMAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF 
                            ARKANSAS

    Senator Boozman. Thank you, Madam Chair, and let me start 
by welcoming the 21 returning members to our Committee. I am 
grateful that you have chosen to continue to serve on the 
Committee. It is an important moment for U.S. agriculture, and 
I believe that together we will be able to craft the policies 
needed to maintain the world's safest, most abundant, and most 
affordable food supply while protecting the land, water, air, 
wildlife and rural communities that we all care about.
    Additionally, I would like to welcome our two new members, 
Senators Welch and Fetterman, to the Ag Committee. I had the 
pleasure of working with Senator Welch when we were in the 
House, and I look forward to continuing our work here. Again, 
he is a good friend and I think is going to be a great member.
    Senator Fetterman is the 11th member from Pennsylvania to 
serve on this Committee since its founding in 1825. I look 
forward to his contributions and to work together in the 
future.
    Chairwoman Stabenow recently surprised us all with her 
announcement that the 118th Congress would be her last in the 
Senate. Leading this Committee and serving as the third-highest 
member of the Democratic leadership, Senator Stabenow has 
climbed her way up the ladder to serve not only the people of 
Michigan but the many Americans who have benefited from the 
policies and programs she has championed. I have no doubt that 
over the next two years the Chairwoman will continue to pursue 
her goals, as determined as ever, and I know that determination 
will be key to passing the next farm bill, which brings today's 
hearing.
    Madam Chairwoman, thank you for convening today's hearing, 
which builds on our work from last year and kicks off our most 
important task for the 118th Congress--drafting and passing a 
farm bill. As we begin to create the next farm bill it is 
important to understand the environment in which we find 
ourselves. In December, the year-over-year consumer price index 
settled at 6.5 percent. The annual average inflation in 2022 
was 8 percent, the highest in more than four decades. Inflation 
is hammering the country, and it is not yielding any time soon.
    In the farm sector, this was seen in record-high production 
expenses including fertilizer, fuel, labor, land, taxes, 
interest, and feed costs, among others. The only saving grace 
for many farmers was relatively high commodity prices, and 
backing those higher prices was a surge in agriculture exports. 
During this last fiscal year, U.S. agriculture exports 
increased by 14 percent to a record of nearly $200 billion.
    While headwinds on trade are beginning to develop, it is 
important to have a focused and proactive trade agenda to 
support farm and rural economies. The farm bill contains 
several programs intended to assist with trade promotion 
activities, including the Market Access Program and the Foreign 
Market Development Program. I look forward to reviewing the 
effectiveness of these programs and ensuring our investment 
matches each program's needs.
    Trade only works if trading partners live up to the 
agreements that they sign. When they do not, they must be held 
accountable. I am pleased that one of the first official acts 
of Ambassador McKalip and Under Secretary Taylor was to travel 
to Mexico and appropriately confront the government for 
proposing to ban imports of U.S. biotech corn, a significant 
departure from science-based trade policy.
    As many countries around the world advance anti-farmer and 
anti-production policies, the U.S. must actively promote and 
defend science-based technologies to help American farmers and 
ranchers continue to feed, fuel, and clothe the world. Global 
food security will only improve if we embrace scientific 
advancements that allow for more productive and sustainable 
agricultural production. Today more than 1 in 10 people around 
the world, around 828 million people, will be going to bed 
hungry. Beyond that, nearly 350 million face acute food 
insecurity, which is more than double the number in 2019. 
Amidst manmade conflict, economic shocks, high supply chain 
costs, and resulting food price increases, we are seeing food 
being taken from the hungry to give to the starving.
    During my travels to East Africa last fall I saw the impact 
firsthand of conflict in the Horn of Africa, which leads many 
to seek refuge in Kenya and other surrounding countries. 
However, the unrelenting drought in this region means all 
countries face a significant food shortage, and U.S. 
commodities provide a vital support to fighting the hunger 
problem.
    The U.S. has consistently been a leader in delivering food 
assistance around the world, beginning with our efforts 
following World War II. Our emergency and non-emergency 
programs continue today, and many are authorized under the farm 
bill. Americans should take great pride in the Food for Peace, 
Food for Progress, and McGovern-Dole programs. These programs 
not only have saved and transformed lives in some of the 
world's most desperate situations, they have also created 
tremendous goodwill toward the U.S. and recipient countries.
    Today's hearing will help flesh out some of the most 
consequential aspects of U.S. agriculture and food security. I 
thank our witnesses for joining us today and look forward to 
the hearing. Again, thank you very much for being here.
    Madam Chair?
    Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much. I will now 
introduce our three witnesses and then ask each of you to give 
us five minutes of opening testimony before questions.
    Alexis Taylor is the Under Secretary for Trade and Foreign 
Agricultural Affairs. Prior to this role she was the Director 
of the Oregon Department of Agriculture. She also has 
experience with United States Department of Agriculture and in 
Congress, having worked as an advisor to Representative Leonard 
Boswell of Iowa and Senator Max Baucus of Montana. It is good 
to have you back.
    Our next witness is Jenny Moffitt, who serves as the Under 
Secretary of Marketing and Regulatory Programs. Before joining 
USDA, Under Secretary Moffitt held multiple leadership 
positions within the California Department of Food and 
Agriculture. She has also spent 10 years as the managing 
director of her family's organic walnut farm in California. 
Thank you again for being here.
    Finally, Sarah Charles is the Assistant to the 
Administrator of USAID's Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance, 
the U.S. Government lead for international disaster response. 
Prior to her current position, she held roles at the 
International Rescue Committee and the National Security 
Council at the White House. Thank you so much for being here as 
well.
    We will turn to Under Secretary Taylor.

STATEMENT OF HON. ALEXIS TAYLOR, UNDER SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND 
 FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 
                        WASHINGTON, D.C.

    Ms. Taylor. Good morning, Senator Stabenow, Ranking Member 
Boozman, and members of the Committee. I am pleased to be here 
with colleagues from USDA and USAID.
    Chairwoman Stabenow, I would like to particularly thank you 
for your leadership and dedication, not just to this Committee 
but to the entire agricultural sector over the years. While you 
are not leaving us quite yet, you will be missed.
    I appreciate the opportunity to discuss trade, market 
development, international food assistance, and capacity 
building programs authorized by the farm bill under the Trade 
and Foreign Agricultural Affairs mission area. This mission 
area promotes U.S. agricultural exports, works to reduce 
barriers that impede trade, opens new markets for U.S. farm 
products, and contributes to global food security.
    The TFAA mission area oversees the Foreign Agricultural 
Service and the U.S. Codex Office. FAS is USDA's lead 
international agency, linking U.S. agriculture to the world to 
enhance export opportunities and global food security. FAS 
supports our food and agricultural sector with a network of 
economists, marketing experts, negotiators, and trade 
specialists, in D.C. and in nearly 100 offices around the 
world, covering over 180 countries.
    We are proud that our role in opening and maintaining 
markets has resulted in a new record, as has been highlighted 
here, in agricultural exports of over $196 billion last year, 
topping the previous year's record by 14 percent. While those 
numbers are impressive, what is more impressive is the real-
world impact those exports have to our producers and their 
rural communities. U.S. agricultural exports support more than 
1 million jobs here at home and contribute more than $154 
billion in additional economic activity.
    Over numerous farm bills, Congress has authorized and 
refined and effective combination of agricultural market 
development programs and export credit guarantee programs. 
These programs are designed to develop markets, facilitate 
financing of overseas sales, and resolve market access 
barriers. We partner with a diverse group of cooperators 
representing U.S. food and agricultural industries and manage a 
toolkit of trade promotion programs to help U.S. exporters 
develop and maintain markets.
    A recently prepared study for the U.S. Grains Council found 
that USDA export market development programs generated a high 
benefit to cost ratio for U.S. agriculture but also the overall 
economy. This study determined that U.S. agricultural export 
value increased by over $24 for every dollar invested in export 
market development.
    Likewise, we are equally as proud of our international food 
assistance and capacity-building programs, which provide 
assistance that has helped millions of people around the world. 
I have seen firsthand the impact of this work, to help 
developing countries improve their agricultural systems and 
build their trade capacity to receive our exports, or supply us 
with products the U.S. needs to meet consumer demand. Before 
developing countries can become customers for U.S. agricultural 
products, they must first become politically, economically, and 
socially stable, and our programs support this work.
    USDA-sponsored fellowship and exchange programs invest in 
the future of developing countries by enabling international 
researchers, policymakers, and agricultural specialists to work 
alongside their U.S. counterparts, acquiring the knowledge and 
skills to help build their country's agricultural sectors. By 
helping developing countries strengthen their agricultural 
institutions and foster regulatory systems that support 
science-based trade policies, these programs also help to 
improve international market access for U.S. agricultural 
products.
    I am proud to lead USDA's efforts to improve foreign market 
access for U.S. product, diversify into new markets, and 
improve the competitive position of U.S. agriculture in the 
global marketplace, all while working to uphold science-based 
standards, and equally as important, support food security of 
millions of people around the world. We look forward for the 
opportunity to refine our programs as Congress works to 
reauthorize the farm bill, so we can make U.S. farm policy more 
efficient, effective, equitable, and sustainable, while 
providing greater export opportunities to a vast range of 
markets for the benefit of our farmers, ranchers, and food 
businesses.
    Thank you again for having me, and I look forward to any 
questions you might have.

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

    Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much.
    Under Secretary Moffitt.

  STATEMENT OF HON. JENNY LESTER MOFFITT, UNDER SECRETARY FOR 
     MARKETING AND REGULATORY PROGRAMS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 
                 AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, D.C.

    Ms. Moffitt. Thank you, Chairwoman Stabenow, Ranking Member 
Boozman, and members of this Committee for the opportunity to 
be with you today and for the wide array of resources you have 
provided USDA as we partner with farmers, ranchers, and 
producers to strengthen American agriculture. In my travels as 
Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs, I have 
seen the impact of the farm bill and the importance of the 
programs in the horticulture title, and I have heard directly 
from farmers and ranchers about how they benefit from these 
programs and our work at USDA.
    Growing up in a small community with a family of farmers, I 
have seen the benefits of the farm bill firsthand, and I know 
the ingenuity and the passion that farmers and ranchers bring 
to the challenges and rewards of producing the food that feeds 
us all.
    Over the past few years, we have seen the challenges that 
farmers and ranchers face, particularly in accessing markets to 
capture their fair share of the food dollar. Even with record 
farm income, many farmers, too many farmers, some 89 percent, 
must work off-farm to meet the needs of their families. We know 
that small and mid-sized farmers are impacted the most, and 
there are still far too many barriers for new and beginning 
farmers.
    Under the leadership of the Biden-Harris administration and 
Secretary Vilsack, and with the support of leaders on this 
Committee, USDA has been hard at work to address these 
challenges and strengthen our food, agricultural, and rural 
economies. Strengthening and transforming local and regional 
food systems is one priority of our efforts. The Local 
Agriculture Market Program in the 2018 Farm Bill and our newly 
created Local Food Procurement Programs are putting rural 
prosperity front and center, adding value to where food is 
produced, ensuring that capital stays in the communities, and 
ensuring and leading to long-term economic growth and vibrant 
rural communities.
    These programs create a win for local farmers, local 
economies, and for people's health. From Eastern Market in 
Detroit, Michigan, to the Alabama farmers supplying their local 
school districts, I have seen, up close, the excitement that 
farmers, schools, food banks, and communities have for these 
programs.
    I have also heard about the fact that our access to our 
programs is also important. It is one of the reasons why we 
launched the USDA Regional Food Business Centers, and why we 
have received over $1.8 billion worth of applications for our 
$400 million program. These centers will provide exactly the 
needed assistance, coordination, and capacity-building to help 
farmers, food business, and rural economies thrive.
    Enhancing the competitiveness of specialty crop products is 
another vital part of our work, and thanks to the support and 
leadership of this Committee we are excited that this year the 
Specialty Crop Block Grant will have awarded $1 billion in 
funding for projects across the country to support vital, 
critical research for marketing, education programs for 
producers, and to support our local economies.
    In addition, we are committed to growing organic markets, 
where producers use climate-smart production methods that can 
meet ever-changing consumer demand for a variety of projects. 
We just capped a series of rulemaking to promote fairer and 
more competitive markets for organic producers, including the 
recent Strengthening Organic Enforcement rule as required in 
the 2018 Farm Bill. These rules, coupled with our Organic 
Transition Initiative, are directly addressing challenges 
facing organic farmers with new programs that will provide 
technical assistance, farmer-to-farmer mentoring, paying for 
voluntary conservation practices, and building targeted organic 
markets.
    We are also supporting farmers as we safeguard crops from 
pest and diseases, and assuring our trade partners of our high-
quality agricultural products. While outside of the 
horticulture title I am also proud of the work that we are 
doing to protect animals from pests and diseases, thanks to the 
resources provided in the 2018 Farm Bill. It is fitting to be 
here today with Under Secretary Taylor, given the close working 
relationship between our technical experts at APHIS and the 
team at FAS as we work together to ensure international 
standards and strong trade are built on sound science.
    There is more work ahead, for sure, but one thing is clear: 
leveraging resources in support of better and more competitive 
markets for U.S. farmers, ranchers, and consumers is in the 
best interest of our Nation's economy, our Nation's food 
system, and the environment. With the support of Congress, I 
believe we can and must continue this effort, and I look 
forward to working collaboratively with members of this 
Committee and Congress as you work to draft the 2023 Farm Bill 
and continue to champion American agriculture.
    I would be happy to answer any questions you have. Thank 
you.

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

    Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you so much.
    Finally, Ms. Charles, you are recognized for five minutes. 
Ms. Charles.

  STATEMENT OF SARAH CHARLES, ASSISTANT TO THE ADMINISTRATOR, 
  U.S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT, WASHINGTON, D.C.

    Ms. Charles. Chairwoman Stabenow, Ranking Member Boozman, 
and distinguished members of the Committee, thank you for the 
opportunity to discuss USAID's food assistance programs 
authorized by the Food for Peace Act.
    As a result of this Committee's leadership and support, the 
United States is the world's largest donor of humanitarian food 
assistance, at a time when these programs have never been more 
critical. As Senator Boozman outlined, today we are in the 
midst of an unprecedented global hunger crisis. Analysts 
estimate that acute hunger levels are 70 percent higher than 
pre-pandemic levels in 2019.
    Amid these record-high levels of need, U.S. leadership to 
fight hunger could not be more important or more evident. In 
Fiscal Year 2022, USAID and USDA drew down the full balance of 
the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust, and in total USAID program 
$2.2 billion in Title II emergency assistance. With these funds 
we provided a significant infusion of American-grown 
commodities to countries in highest risk of famine around the 
world.
    Our leadership is most evident in the Horn of Africa, 
currently experiencing the most severe food security crisis in 
the world. In Somalia, northern Kenya, and southern Ethiopia, 
five forecasted rains have failed. The sun has dried up endless 
miles of orange, cracked earth, and millions of livestock have 
died.
    In the Horn, where I traveled this summer, I met mothers 
like Edina, a pastoralist and a mother of seven. When the 
ground dried up and food vanished her livestock ate plastic 
sheeting out of desperation. All 18 of her livestock, her 
entire livelihood, perished in the drought. With no livelihood, 
Edina and one of her daughters developed signs of acute 
malnutrition, and Edina worried that her young daughter might 
die. Thanks to Food for Peace assistance, Edina and her family 
received nutrition support from our partners, and her daughter 
has now fully recovered.
    This aid was part of a broader U.S.-led mobilization of 
funds that has been key to preventing the onset of famine in 
the Horn, and in particular in Somalia. However, as we speak 
today, a sixth failed rainy season is forecasted, and food 
security in the Horn continues to deteriorate. Without 
sustained assistance famine is projected to emerge this spring.
    While USAID is taking every step possible to meet needs 
worldwide, we also face a sharp decline in humanitarian 
resources now that the agency has exhausted the generous 
supplemental appropriations provided by Congress in 2022. We 
continue to call for other international donors to step up, and 
we are also looking for ways to drive greater efficiency in our 
programs. Over the past decade, we have been grateful for 
bipartisan support from Congress and for reforms made during 
the previous farm bill reauthorizations, to ensure that Food 
For Peace programs can meet the humanitarian challenges of the 
day. Today the scale of global need and skyrocketing costs have 
stretched the limits of these programs, revealing constraints 
to USAID's efficiency.
    As this Committee works to reauthorize the Food for Peace 
Act this year, amid a historic level food security crisis, 
there is an opportunity to maximize American generosity and 
save even more lives. Technical changes to the legislation 
could improve the impact of U.S. food assistance while 
maintaining the proud legacy of Food for Peace programs. For 
example, reducing complex accounting requirements associated 
with the Food for Peace Act would enable partners to spend more 
effort on delivering food assistance while maintaining strict 
oversight of funds. Simplifying accounting systems will also 
reduce barriers to local organizations, States, and becoming 
partners.
    As you look forward to reauthorizing the Food for Peace Act 
I would also ask you consider updating the non-emergency 
authorities to make U.S. commodities and resilience programs a 
programing option rather than a requirement. These non-
emergency programs, known as Resilience Food Security 
Activities, are relatively small but an important part of our 
toolkit in fighting global hunger. These programs target the 
poorest households in areas of recurrent crisis and help 
families graduate from dependence on humanitarian aid.
    We would welcome working with you on adjustments to this 
program to give partners greater flexibility to design programs 
that are tailored to the unique context and most likely to 
reduce need for humanitarian assistance in the future. 
Maximizing these programs will have significant benefits. An 
impact evaluation on Food for Peace Resilience Programs, or 
RFSAs, found that for every $1 invested, households could see 
over $3 in additional benefits, helping families move out of 
dependence on aid.
    As we confront a hungrier future, U.S. assistance programs 
have never been more vital. Thanks to this Committee's 
partnership all around the world, nutrition projects and 
commodities stamped with the words ``From the American people'' 
save lives, are an affirmation of American values worldwide, 
and a source of hope to those affected by some of the world's 
worst crises.
    Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

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

    Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you so much. We will now start 
with a round of questions from the Committee, five-minute 
rounds, and Under Secretary Moffitt, let me first talk to you 
about specialty crops. I was pleased to author this title, the 
horticulture title, back in 2008. I did not know that you did 
not routinely add titles. It was a very big fight but we got it 
done. From us in Michigan, as a group, we grow more fruits and 
vegetables than anything else, certainly from our Michigan 
agricultural economy, and it is almost half the cash receipts 
of the country. I am glad we have a title that represents the 
interests of these products.
    Could you talk about ways we could strengthen domestic 
markets for our specialty crop farmers, including local and 
regional markets? Just speak a little bit more about that.
    Ms. Moffitt. Thank you, Senator Stabenow, and thank you for 
your leadership on the Specialty Crop Block Grant and advancing 
specialty crops, both domestically as well as abroad, 
particularly on domestic. The Specialty Crop Block Grant is a 
strong partnership with State Departments of Agriculture as 
well as the specialty crop industry to identify over 12,000 
projects that are happening and have happened around the 
country enhancing the specialty crop industry.
    The projects that are being funded, one example is for the 
red tart cherries, to create a new beverage product that has 
increased the consumption of red tart cherries grown in your 
home State of Michigan. That has added more than $4.8 million 
to the sales of that program.
    That is just one piece of it. Also addressing production 
challenges is another part. What I was really excited to see 
when I visited the State of Alabama is the Local Agriculture 
Market Programs, the Local Procurement Programs that were 
doing, coupled with the Specialty Crop Block Grant Programs, 
together are building a new economy in Alabama for specialty 
crop products, where they have access to local markets at the 
same time that the grant programs are addressing critical 
research as well as education needs. These programs combined 
are really enhancing and growing domestic, particularly local 
specialty crops so that our communities have access to the 
great, healthy produce and food that is grown in our 
communities.
    Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much. Under Secretary 
Taylor, how can we improve the ability of specialty crop 
farmers to compete internationally, in international markets, 
especially considering the unfair competition they face from 
heavily subsidized imports?
    Ms. Taylor. Chairwoman Stabenow, thank you for this 
question. I think it is really important in thinking about how 
trade policy works for all of our diverse agricultural 
producers here in the United States.
    As I think about this question, first and foremost, we need 
to make sure our specialty crop producers have open access to 
markets. That is access to markets here, and obviously Under 
Secretary Moffitt works very closely on those, but markets 
abroad as well. I actually just met with the specialty crop 
sector two weeks ago, and they were talking about how they have 
leveraged some of the Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops 
(TASC), which is a program the farm bill has created and 
funded, and how important those technical projects are to knock 
down trade barriers that they are experiencing. Programs like 
that, I think, are critical to helping our specialty crop 
sector access new markets around the world.
    Additionally, I think ensuring our trading partners are 
operating fairly, and that trade commitments that are being 
made to our specialty crop producers, and trade commitments 
broadly, are being lived up to, and enforcing them when they 
are not.
    I think it is a multipronged approach that we have to focus 
here domestically but then also internationally.
    Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much.
    Ms. Charles, we know, and you have spoken about the fact 
that food aid programs are incredibly important. A number of 
years ago I led a codel through the Agriculture Committee to 
Africa, and we saw up close how significant this is, and 
because of the weather disasters and growing climate crisis and 
so on things are even worse, I know, than when we were in 
there. We have to provide emergency food assistance. We also 
know growing local markets and building resiliency is 
important.
    From your perspective, how can we improve these programs 
while maintaining a variety of tools in the toolbox and 
ensuring that in-kind commodities remain in the mix?
    Ms. Charles. Thank you for that question, and I certainly 
welcome codels in the future. I think we have a lot to share 
and a lot that the American people and this Committee can be 
proud of that we are doing in the Horn and elsewhere in the 
world to address food insecurity.
    The vast majority of our Title II assistance is for those 
emergency food aid programs, and I think there are some 
efficiencies that can be gained that allow us to layer in IDA-
supported assistance with those, simplify accounting of those 
programs. I also think, speaking to your point about building 
resilience, a small portion of these programs, about 10 percent 
of the program, is really geared toward graduating people off 
of dependence on food assistance, and I would love to work with 
you all, with your teams on some greater flexibilities in those 
programs that allow us to really tailor them to this specific 
context, including in some context not using in-kind 
commodities, if that is the most appropriate way to program.
    Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much. I will now turn 
to Senator Boozman.
    Senator Boozman. Thank you, Madam Chair. What I would like 
to do is yield to Senator Grassley. He has made great effort to 
be here. We appreciate him showing up, and he has some 
important questions he would like to ask. With your permission, 
we will trade.
    Chairwoman Stabenow. Absolutely. Senator Grassley.
    Senator Grassley. Thank you for the accommodation. I 
appreciate it very much, to the distinguished leaders of this 
Committee. My questions are for Secretary Taylor. I am glad you 
are on the job, now confirmed, because in your position you are 
going to be a lead advocate for U.S. farmers across the world. 
Everybody on this Committee knows that when we produce a third 
more than what we consume domestically that international trade 
to get that out of our country around the world is a very 
important issue for prosperity in agriculture.
    When it comes to agriculture trade, the concern I hear most 
from Iowans is access to Mexico's corn market. I am sure other 
Senators have this same concern. With over 90 percent of the 
corn acreage in the United States being planted to biotech 
seeds, and Mexico being the No. 1 purchaser of U.S. corn, I am 
concerned that this decree is not being met with the urgency 
that it deserves. This is the case for both Iowa producers and, 
most importantly, for food insecurity in Mexico and around the 
world.
    As the former Chair of the Finance Committee I was glad to 
lead the effort for the USMCA, which ended up getting 89 votes. 
I was pleased to see yesterday that the U.S. trade 
Representative has formally established a second USMCA dispute 
settlement panel to hold unfair Canadian dairy tariff rate 
quota policies accountable.
    The question is for you, Alexis, why has the Biden 
administration not established such a dispute settlement 
process under USMCA panel with Mexico on this issue of GMOs?
    Ms. Taylor. Thank you, Senator Grassley, for that question. 
I would say that I do think we are engaging with urgency on 
this issue. We certainly appreciate the potential impact that 
the proposed decree could have on our corn growers here in the 
United States. Much broader than that, fundamentally our 
trading system globally but also within the USMCA, is built 
upon science-based policies, and the challenge to that is 
greatly concerning. I have heard from specialty crop producers, 
livestock producers, all with the concern of Mexico with this 
decree moving away from that fundamental principle.
    I, on my third week on the job, and Ambassador McKalip's 
second week on the job, we traveled jointly to Mexico to again 
engage with our counterparts there, highlight our concerns, 
highlight that this is a fundamental principle from the United 
States on what a global trading system is built upon, and not 
something that we can walk away from or negotiate away from.
    We continue to have those conversations with our Mexican 
counterparts, and we are reserving the right, all the rights 
that are awarded to us under USMCA, and we will continue to 
ensure that our trade access that has been granted to us within 
USMCA is lived up to by all of our trading partners, and look 
forward to working with you and this Committee on this very 
important issue, because it is a fundamentally critical 
question that we are answering here.
    Senator Grassley. Are you aware of any timeline to start 
the negotiations, get the process in place?
    Ms. Taylor. Senator Grassley, I would we are still, I 
think, productively engaging with Mexico. We have been very 
clear that the USMCA gives us a process to go down if we cannot 
find resolution on this issue, and that we reserve all of those 
rights. At least today we are still productively engaging and 
hope to find a resolution that does not disrupt trade, impact 
our producers, and ultimately impact negatively Mexican 
livestock producers who are dependent on this product as well.
    Senator Grassley. For you, Secretary Taylor, a key 
component of the farm bill includes investments in export 
market development programs, authorized under Title III. These 
investments help promote U.S. products in emerging and 
developed countries, and can pave the way for bilateral 
agreements. Free trade agreements are essential for U.S. 
agriculture products and in making sure that our producers can 
compete on a level playing field.
    As Under Secretary do you think that your programs can pave 
the way for bilateral agreements?
    Ms. Taylor. Senator Grassley, I think our market 
development programs are critical in a host of ways and areas. 
First, it helps build the bridge to relationships, and trading 
is still very much about relationships--connecting buyers and 
sellers with products that we have and products that they want. 
At the same time, they also help to address many technical 
barriers to trade that our producers are experiencing and our 
exporters are experiencing in markets.
    I do think as we utilize these programs in partnership with 
industry they help strengthen the ties and strengthen our 
economic ties as we continue to look for new diversified 
markets, and I think they are critically important to those 
record $196 billion of agricultural exports that we saw last 
year.
    Senator Grassley. Thank you, Secretary Taylor. Thank you, 
leaders of the Committee, for accommodating me.
    Chairwoman Stabenow. Absolutely. Senator Brown.
    Senator Brown. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I join others in 
extolling your leadership. I have known the Chair of this 
Committee from time in the House together, and we sit on two 
committees in the Senate, and she always puts workers first and 
people first and family farmers first. I am so appreciative of 
that, and the kindness you show around here to other members, 
which is not always the case for all of our colleagues, so 
thank you for that.
    Senator Fetterman and Senator Welch, welcome to the 
Committee. I noticed that the Republican got off on the 
Committee so I understand that too.
    Under Secretary Moffitt, let me start with you. Thanks for 
being here. The pandemic highlighted the vulnerability of long 
global supply chains in agriculture and in industry and 
throughout our economy and the need for more locally and 
regionally produced food. Chair Stabenow and I have been 
advocates for a long time of local food, and proud to have 
played a role in creating the LAMP program, the Local 
Agriculture Market Program in the last farm bill. It was a 
great step toward strengthening local and regional food 
systems, but more must be done. It is why Senator Thune and I 
are introducing the Strengthening Local Processing Act. Our 
bill is about expanding local meat and poultry processing 
infrastructure. It is critical if we are going to lower prices 
and address corporate consolidation, the ever-approaching 
corporate consolidation in the meat industry, as we have seen, 
and far too many places in agriculture in our economy overall.
    I am working on a bill to strengthen LAMP, support 
increased USDA procurement from local producers. I have heard 
concerns from organizations in Ohio, Under Secretary Moffitt, 
about the application process. The program can be too difficult 
to access for, let us say, lower resourced and underserved 
communities. I know we can fix that. I need your help. I know 
we can count on you to do that. Give us some thoughts on how we 
will work together on this, please.
    Ms. Moffitt. Senator Brown, thank you for that question, 
and thank you for your leadership on the Local Agriculture 
Marketing Program. As you said, at the height of the pandemic 
or at the early stages of the pandemic we saw how important 
local and regional supply chains are, and the LAMP program, 
particularly, is valuable in building those bridges, in 
building the connections and the capacity for both communities, 
for buyers in those communities as well as farmers and 
producers in the communities, to really foster those 
relationships so that we can get more product grown locally, 
produced locally, into the local food system as well, enhancing 
our supply chains, and really getting more choice for farmers 
to access more markets as well as more choice for consumers to 
be able to buy from local farmers as well.
    Regarding your question on accessibility at the LAMP 
programs and the application process, I really want to thank 
you for that question and for the leadership in the 2018 Farm 
Bill, directing the Agriculture Marketing Services to work on 
this. Agriculture Marketing Services has done a few different 
things. We have worked directly with producers as well as 
resources at universities to create things like guidebooks to 
access the program. We also answer technical questions. We open 
office hours and answer questions for people who are potential 
applicants.
    I am really proud to say that as we get toward the next 
round, the 2023 round, of the LAMP grants we will be adding a 
new component, a much more streamlined component for 
organizations, for producers, for those who are interested in 
applying for the LAMP grants, to be able to have much easier 
access and a streamlined application process.
    Senator Brown. Thank you for that.
    Switching to Under Secretary Taylor, thank you. When we 
talk about corn, soy, wheat, other agricultural commodities, we 
know that trade promotion and export markets are important to 
farmers, certainly in my State but all over the country. Our 
adversaries know that too. We have seen the Chinese Communist 
Party weaponize agricultural trade again and again, hurting 
farmers in my State in the process.
    Speak to the issue, if you would, of using tools like the 
Market Access Program. What barriers exist to using the Market 
Access Program to further diversify our ag markets?
    Ms. Taylor. Thank you, Senator Brown. The market 
development programs that we have a suite of, the Market Access 
Program is the largest. We received $200 million in funding for 
that program. I would say it is highly oversubscribed. With our 
industry partners, they submit proposals to do export market 
development activities within the frame of that program, and on 
average, with them self-regulating what they are submitting, we 
are getting $300 million, at least, of project proposals.
    I think there is a large need there because these dollars 
are so effective an important to developing, to maintaining 
those markets, and to diversifying away from the People's 
Republic of China and some of the challenges that we have seen 
with them being our largest trading partner.
    These are also, I think, an important note when talking 
about these market development programs, is they are highly 
leveraged. For every $1 of Federal funding that is being 
utilized, somewhere between $2.30 and $2.40 of industry funds 
are going to match those resources. While the Federal 
Government is invested, our industries are invested in these 
markets, and success is there as well.
    Senator Brown. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much. Senator Boozman.
    Senator Boozman. I think what I would like to do, Madam 
Chair, we have got a bunch of members here so I think I will 
bat at the end, and we will just go ahead and go through the 
line on ours.
    Chairwoman Stabenow. All right. You will bat cleanup. All 
right. Senator Ernst.
    Senator Ernst. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, 
Ranking Member Boozman, as well, and to our witnesses. Thank 
you, ladies, for being with us today.
    The continued success and growth of Iowa and the ag 
industry is absolutely dependent on strong trade. 
Unfortunately, we have seen some hesitation with the Biden 
administration in this area, and that is evident by the fact 
that our U.S. trade rep does not believe in free trade 
negotiations, and that it took nearly 20 months to nominate 
Under Secretary Alexis Taylor. Thankfully--thankfully--we were 
able to get Alexis confirmed in the 11th hour of the 117th 
Congress, because she absolutely is well deserving of this 
position. Welcome aboard, Under Secretary Taylor.
    Iowa is the second-largest agricultural export State. In 
2020 alone, our State generated around $26.2 billion in 
agricultural cash receipts--man, that is a lot of money, folks, 
for the State of Iowa--and with the highest of that and those 
valued commodities being corn, pork, and soybeans.
    This is why I am glad to reintroduce the bipartisan 
Expanding Agricultural Exports Act to increase the funding for 
market access programs and foreign market development programs. 
Trade is way too critical for many States, including Iowa, and 
having a strong commodity market, and exports add that value to 
farmers' bottom line and Iowa's economy.
    Under Secretary Taylor, I will start with you. Again, it is 
great to have you on board. In your testimony you had 
highlighted the success of the MAP program for increasing U.S. 
ethanol sales to Korea, which is a great achievement. Many 
countries are looking to utilize low-carbon biofuels to help 
achieve their climate goals. Do you agree that biofuels are a 
cleaner fuel source, and can you talk about the potential that 
we might have for ethanol exports to India, where they really 
do need a lot of help?
    Ms. Taylor. Thank you, Senator Ernst, for that question, 
and thank you for your support and this Committee's support 
late last year. It was greatly appreciated.
    I do believe biofuels are an important way, as not the 
United States but globally, we are trying to address a changing 
climate, lower carbon emissions. Obviously, coming from Iowa I 
am well versed in how important the biofuels industry is to the 
economy, and having a cleaner renewable resource. I think it is 
an important component. It is one we are engaging with trading 
partners on often and frequently.
    I think within India I think there are many countries where 
there is a lot of potential but also large challenges. I think 
we are open to working with industry partners, the U.S. Grains 
Council, to make sure that we are targeting those priority 
markets, having those conversations at appropriately high 
senior levels to make sure they know this is truly an important 
issue, as we are navigating not just opening trade but also 
addressing carbon reduction globally.
    Senator Ernst. Right. No, thank you, and I appreciate that. 
As well, the last time that you were in front of the Committee 
we did discuss the Mexico biotech decree that bans much of our 
Iowa corn, and Senator Grassley has already spoken to that. 
Just so folks know, if President Amlo's ban does go into effect 
it would cause our overall U.S. economy to lose nearly $74 
billion in economic output over a ten-year period. That is for 
our awareness, and an outsized portion of that would impact 
Iowa, which is our top corn-growing State. I appreciate the 
attention to that and your work in that area, working with 
Mexico.
    Under Secretary Moffitt, I want to commend USDA for its 
efforts in handling highly pathogenic avian influenza and for 
keeping African swine fever out of the U.S. HPAI, as you know, 
has been devastating to Iowa's poultry industry, and ASF, it 
would be the absolute worst-case scenario for not only Iowa but 
all American pork producers. It really does underscore the 
importance of the National Animal Disease Preparedness and 
Response Program that was created in our last farm bill in 
2018.
    I just want to commend you on that. We have got a lot more 
work to be, and will be submitted questions for the record. I 
will yield back. Thank you very much, everyone. Thanks to our 
witnesses.
    Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you. Senator Bennet.
    Senator Bennet. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for 
your continued service to the country and to the Committee.
    Secretary Moffitt, I want to say thank you to you for 
coming to the San Luis Valley in Colorado to visit our potato 
producers there and to come to understand, I think, how 
important it is to have the success we have had now opening up 
the Mexican market for them, and that is work that we have to 
continue to build on.
    I will say to my colleagues on the Committee that trade is 
great. We need more trade, and Colorado's producers believe we 
need more trade. If we do not have the labor to actually get 
these crops in we are going to have a huge problem in this 
country, and we are facing a massive crisis when it comes to 
farm labor in the United States, including in the San Luis 
Valley, where you visited.
    I hope for this Congress, miracle of miracles, that we 
might actually be able to finally address this, because there 
is nobody but Congress that can address this. Our growers and 
our producers and our specialty crop folks in my State, and I 
know all across the country, are depending on us to do it, and 
I hope that is not a futile hope that people have.
    I wanted to ask you about hemp, Secretary Moffitt. In 2018, 
in this farm bill, the Committee legalized the production of 
hemp, as you know, for the first time. Farmers in Colorado were 
eager to plant and grow it. Unfortunately, burdensome testing 
requirements and lack of processing facilities have stunted the 
potential for this versatile crop, something that, you know, a 
crop that people all over the country are interested in 
growing.
    What USDA resources are available to help farmers in States 
navigate the complex hemp regulatory framework, and what should 
we look to do in the upcoming farm bill to ensure the success 
of this crop?
    Ms. Moffitt. Senator Bennet, thank you, and it was a 
pleasure to visit the San Luis Valley and to meet with the 
potato producers there. We continue to work on maintaining that 
potato market access that we have worked so hard to achieve.
    Regarding your question on hemp, as of January 1, 2021, we 
have 42 States that have State-approved plans with USDA to 
register and to continue the hemp production in those 42 
States. The rest of the States, USDA directly works with hemp 
producers. We also have 53 tribes around the country that also 
are partnering with us with hemp plans as well.
    As far as the question about what resources that we have at 
USDA to support hemp producers, we have done a handful of 
things as have worked since the 2018 Farm Bill on developing 
the hemp program at the Agricultural Marketing Services. One is 
to make sure that we have an easy registration process and a 
streamlined IT process so that hemp producers and testing and 
all of the procedures that go along with hemp production are in 
one system that is easy to communicate with producers as well 
as with the local officials. That is one key part of it.
    Also, last week we released the first weekly national hemp 
report. This national hemp report is part of AMS's market news 
that will provide weekly, timely information for hemp producers 
to be able to access information on markets so they can make 
informed business decisions.
    Senator Bennet. Okay. Well, if there is more we can do in 
the farm bill I hope you will let us know.
    Ms. Charles, I had a question for you. As you know, 
Russia's unprovoked war on Ukraine has significantly damaged 
global food supply chains, including the export of Ukrainian 
wheat and other grains to Africa, to Asia, and to the Middle 
East. This has exacerbated the food shortages that you talked 
about in your opening testimony in the Horn of Africa that are 
already dealing, as you said, with historic drought.
    How can Congress use the upcoming farm bill to provide 
essential humanitarian food and mitigate the growing global 
hunger crisis that we are now facing?
    Ms. Charles. I think we saw this year, really, the 
importance of flexibility in our toolkit. To address Russia's 
war in Ukraine we both immediately drew down the full balance 
and have exhausted the full balance of the Bill Emerson 
Humanitarian Trust to use U.S.-sourced in-kind commodities to 
get to those places like Yemen and Ethiopia, northern Kenya, 
south Sudan that would be most impacted by shortages and 
critical price spikes as a result of Russia's war in Ukraine.
    We also used IDA assistance, our non-Title II assistance, 
to procure Ukrainian wheat, working with the World Food 
Program, as proof of concept for that Black Sea Grain 
Initiative that has been so important in helping to stabilize 
wheat prices still at quite a high level but with less 
volatility toward the end of the year with that Black Sea Grain 
Initiative in place than we saw in the days after Russia's 
invasion of Ukraine.
    Using kind of all of the different tools in the toolkit to 
help ensure that food is not out of reach for the world's 
hungriest.
    Senator Bennet. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much. Before going to 
the next question I just want to thank you, Senator Bennet. 
Nobody worked harder at the end of the last Congress or through 
the last Congress on farm worker issues. I could not agree more 
about what needs to happen around comprehensive immigration 
reform. Our farmers need a legal system that works for them. 
Thank you.
    Senator Bennet. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much. Senator Hyde-
Smith.
    Senator Hyde-Smith. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking 
Member Boozman, and I certainly appreciate this all-female 
delegation at the end of the table, discussing agricultural 
issues.
    Under Secretary Taylor, this question is for you. Poultry 
is the No. 1 commodity in Mississippi in terms of production 
value, and my State has produced over $3.26 billion worth of 
poultry in 2022. Really important to us. As we all know, the 
avian influenza, the highly pathogenic avian influenza, has 
been spreading across the country. When we served as ag 
commissioners together, that is one thing that kept me awake at 
night, the fear of that. Although the disease itself has 
primarily affected the egg industry, it has put the poultry 
industry on high alert and created trade barriers for the 
poultry industry.
    I am thankful for the efforts of APHIS and their staff and 
employees. They are doing their best under Under Secretary 
Moffitt's leadership. While Mississippi is fortunate to have 
only detected avian influenza in one commercial broiler lot, 
not far from my house, so far, that could change at any time. 
China has imposed barriers to trade on poultry products from 
several States because of the outbreak, directly contradicting 
an agreement it previously entered with the U.S. If we do not 
stay on top of this issue Mississippi will be next.
    In 2020, China's General Administration of Customs China, 
GACC, and USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services 
agreed to a regionalization policy for the avian influenza 
outbreaks. China agreed that in the event that the outbreak is 
detected in poultry a Statewide ban would be enforced for all 
products coming from the State of detection and the resumption 
of the imports and exports would be approved no sooner than 90 
days post-virus elimination, after disinfection and cleaning. 
This was a huge win for our chicken sector, and under this 
protocol China has become the U.S. poultry industry's top 
export market. Of course, as you and I found out in China, they 
only want the paws, the feet.
    Unfortunately, since last August, China has failed to honor 
the 2020 agreement, and during this time GACC has not responded 
to APHIS's request to lift bans on a number of States that are 
now eligible to resume exports under the agreement. I am not 
aware of any real substantive concerns raised by GACC, but it 
is crucial that we really stand up to China, and not only for 
the sake of our chicken growers but to show them we are serious 
about them holding to their commitments. This issue has serious 
implications for the poultry industry for both Mississippi and 
the entire country, and China will be watching our response to 
this.
    Have you and other senior leaders at USDA, have you engaged 
China directly on this issue?
    Ms. Taylor. Thank you for that question, Senator Hyde-
Smith. I have had many internal discussions within USDA. I have 
not engaged with China yet on this. This agreement around 
reopening after a high-path avian influenza outbreak is being 
led by discussions with USTR under the Phase 1 agreement and 
ensuring that China lives up to those commitments. We are 
engaged in those conversations with USTR.
    I will say while China is a very important market they are 
also very challenging, and so constant engagement at senior 
levels is critically important and something I am committed to 
doing with my Chinese counterparts because I know how important 
for chicken paws they are for your growers.
    Senator Hyde-Smith. Okay. You answered my second question 
with that answer. Thank you very much.
    Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you. We will now turn to Senator 
Fetterman, and again, welcome to the Committee.
    Senator Fetterman. Hi, once again, and thank you so very 
much for the opportunity to be a member of this Committee.
    Chairwoman Stabenow. Absolutely.
    Senator Fetterman. This is actually my very first meeting, 
so I am just really honored, being an advocate for 
Pennsylvania's very, very critical kinds of agricultural 
industry. It is going to start out with a very broad kind of 
question, given this being, you know, just starting in on this.
    Ms. Taylor, agriculture is Pennsylvania's single biggest 
industry, and we have over 60,000 farms, and 97 percent are 
farm-owned. What changes are needed to the department's trade 
programs to make them stronger?
    Ms. Taylor. Senator, I think I appreciate those numbers. I 
think that is really important to underscore that the majority 
of our farms in your States and across the country are family 
owned and operated. That was the case--I grew up on my family's 
farm in Iowa, that has been in my family for 160 years.
    As I think about the trade programs that we have, we are 
focused on ensuring that small and mid-sized producers and 
businesses can also access those programs, that they are able 
to be navigated, that they can identify diverse market 
opportunities outside the country that might be of interest to 
them, and certainly welcome any additional engagement from you 
on how we can make sure our family farmers are able to tap into 
our market development programs to connect to the markets and 
the buyers in those markets, and ultimately the consumers who 
will have a desire for our products.
    Senator Fetterman. Thank you. Ms. Moffitt, Pennsylvania has 
an incredibly strong organic farming industry. In fact, I 
believe it is the second-largest in the Nation actually. It 
faces a lot of challenges, as we all know. What changes to the 
USDA made recently to strengthen the organic label and what 
additional tools are needed, do you think?
    Ms. Moffitt. Senator Fetterman, thank you for that question 
and for your interest in organic production. Two weeks ago USDA 
AMS announced that the largest change to the national organic 
standards since the inception of the National Organic Program 
led to Strengthening Organic Enforcement. Strengthening Organic 
Enforcement, as it will be implemented and we are already 
working with producers as well as certifiers on implementation 
of that rule, will close some of the loopholes and add new 
players that have now been part of the organic industry that 
were not part of the organic industry in the inception, to make 
sure that we have a level playing field for all producers.
    At the same time we are also growing the organic producer 
base through a Transition to Organic Partnership Program. This 
is field-based technical assistance driven by producers and 
organizations in Pennsylvania to mentor new and aspiring 
organic farmers to be able to attain certification as well.
    Rulemaking is very important, and also the support that we 
need and the mentorship that we need to grow and enhance and 
increase organic production is another part of what we are 
working on. Thank you.
    Senator Fetterman. Thank you. Well, actually, Madam Chair, 
just again looking forward to really getting in and learning so 
much more from all of you than I am going to be able to 
contribute early on here. Thank you again for the opportunity 
to be here.
    Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you so much. We know 
Pennsylvania agriculture is very important, and we are glad to 
have you on the Committee to be that voice. Thank you so much.
    Senator Marshall.
    Senator Marshall. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking 
Member. I am sure everybody in this room knows that since 1933 
this farm bill, which is authorized about every five years, 
helps provide affordable, safe, reliable food and fiber for 
this country. It is not lost upon me that as I look around the 
room and see the portraits in the room that Senator Pat 
Roberts' legacy stares over all of us, and this is the first 
farm bill in 40 years when his boot prints are not going to be 
all over it.
    I certainly want Kansans and America to know that this is 
every bit as important to me as it is to him, and as I promised 
him I will make sure that as the father of crop insurance that 
we will be protecting that.
    I think about, in so many ways this farm bill is important 
to Kansas and our guests today, that it was in 1953 that a 
farmer in Cheyenne County, Kansas, Peter O'Brian, stood up at a 
Kansas Farm Bureau meeting and said, ``We can help people 
overseas that we can give food for peace,'' and we are so proud 
that that program has continued.
    Another Kansas, President Eisenhower, signed that into law 
shortly thereafter. Of course, I believe this is the 21st 
anniversary of the Dole-McGovern bill, which helps provide food 
for education. We appreciate you all helping us carry those 
legacies forward.
    Now, on to some tough questions. Forgive me. The first 
couple are for Under Secretary Taylor. This is a two-part 
question. The first part, I think, is a yes-or-no answer, but 
before you answer it I will give the second part. Does the 
Biden administration believe that Mexico has a right to exclude 
genetically modified U.S. corn from its market under the terms 
of the USMCA?
    The followup question is this. The Biden administration has 
triggered USMCA's dispute resolution system six separate times 
to complain about Mexico labor conditions. In the meantime, the 
Administration has refused to trigger the USMCA to contest 
Mexico's planned exclusion of American corn.
    Madam Secretary, our farmers feel like that this 
Administration is putting Mexican assembly workers ahead of 
farmers. What are we waiting for? What are we waiting for to 
trigger this mechanism? I am tired of talking about it, forming 
committees, and praying about it. We think it is time for 
action.
    Ms. Taylor. Senator Marshall, thank you for those 
questions. I think, first and foremost, under USMCA we have, 
from the Biden administration, been very clear that their 
proposed ban on genetically engineered corn does not live up to 
the science-based standards that were housed within USMCA.
    Two weeks ago, on my third week on the job, I traveled to 
Mexico with Ambassador McKalip to have these conversations 
directly with our Mexican counterparts. This is a fundamentally 
important question to how USMCA was built but also the global 
trading system.
    Senator Marshall. I am going to back up. Do you feel, yes 
or no, the Biden administration believes Mexico has a right to 
exclude genetically modified U.S. corn from its market under 
the terms of the USMCA?
    Ms. Taylor. We do not, sir.
    Senator Marshall. Next question, again for Secretary 
Taylor. Before the Eighth Circuit, attorneys for the Justice 
Department suggested that the USDA are not experts on the use 
of pesticides. They used this argument to try to convince the 
Eighth Circuit judges to ignore Secretary Vilsack standing by 
the science in a letter to Members of Congress.
    Will you stand up to the Justice Department and emphasize 
that we do feel like we have experts in this area in USDA?
    Ms. Taylor. Senator, we do have experts on this within 
USDA. I know many are under Under Secretary Moffitt's purview. 
We work closely with them as we are working bilaterally with 
trading partners around the world on these issues that are 
impacting U.S. agricultural trade.
    Senator Marshall. Senator Moffitt then, how do you feel 
about the Justice Department basically slapping you on the face 
and saying that USDA does not understand the science?
    Ms. Moffitt. A lot of what we are doing at APHIS is really 
engaging in, as Under Secretary Taylor said, really in the 
bilateral conversations with other countries on making sure 
that we are doing and implementing is science-based and that we 
are following the science. We, of course, and Secretary Vilsack 
talks a lot about how important the science is, whether that is 
with our trading partners, whether that is in the domestic 
industry. We continue to stand by the science and have robust 
conversations across the Administration with science at the 
forefront.
    Senator Marshall. Okay. Last question. I am not sure which 
one of you can answer this. When it comes to food aid, Food for 
Peace, in 2010, we were giving commodities as opposed to cash 
about ten to one, and now about two-thirds of the aid is in 
cash rather than U.S. commodities. Can someone just kind of 
explain, you know, justify that, where we are going? Why are we 
giving cash instead of commodities?
    Ms. Charles. Senator, about 30 percent of our Title II is 
U.S.-sourced in-kind commodities. The other cost--it is not 
about giving cash instead of those commodities. It is really 
the cost of managing those programs, including significantly 
increased shipping and transportation costs to move those 
commodities.
    Senator Marshall. Yes. Madam Chair, I would like to submit 
for the record a document from CRS that shows that two-thirds 
of the money is now being given as cash rather than U.S. 
commodities. Thank you.
    Chairwoman Stabenow. Without objection. Thank you.

    [The document can be found on page 72 in the appendix.]

    Chairwoman Stabenow. Senator Welch, again, welcome to the 
Committee. It is good to make sure that Vermont's voice is 
still here on the Committee.
    Senator Welch. Well, I am being observed here, Madam Chair.
    [Laughter.]
    Chairwoman Stabenow. You are. Every step you make will be 
observed.
    Senator Welch. I am under a little bit of pressure, but I 
am absolutely delighted to be here with you and the Ranking 
Member--as he mentioned, we worked together in the House--and 
with all of my colleagues.
    You know, local agriculture, I believe, is absolutely 
essential to all of us. Most of us are not farmers but all of 
us benefit by not just what farmers do but by what they do 
being the custodians of the landscape. Vermont is very small 
agriculture, as you know, but we have got a find a way, in my 
view, to make local agriculture in every district sustainable.
    I want to turn to the Honorable Jenny Lester Moffitt. We 
had a visit from Under Secretary Moffitt, who came to an 
organic dairy farm that has been in the Course family since 
1868. Just think about the things that the generations of 
family went through, and now they are milking, I think, over 90 
head on this 300-plus-acre dairy farm. They do not use plows. 
In 40 years they have not plowed the land, and it is really 
productive and doing a great job. I just want to thank you for 
coming up and just demonstrating your commitment to that.
    One of the questions that came up was about the organic 
rules, and it is really important we have organic rules to 
protect the brand, but it is also important that the rules not 
be oppressive so that those folks who are honestly trying to 
comply with them do not have to get buried in paperwork. That 
was a question that was asked to you by the fifth and sixth 
generation of Courses who were present. Maybe you could 
elaborate on how you are going to try to thread that needle, 
which I think would be important to all of the farmers that we 
represent for whom that is a concern.
    Ms. Moffitt. Thank you, Senator Welch, and it was a 
pleasure to be up in Vermont last week with you and to meet 
with the Course family. Conversations like those around the 
kitchen table at dairy farmers and other farmers is such a 
valuable part of the job that I have, really informing the 
decisions that we are making at USDA to make sure they are 
really rooted in the best interest of farmers and producers and 
folks around the community. Thank you for having me.
    Regarding your question about organic rules, yes, organic 
rules are such an important part, and the National Organic 
Program is really based on an everchanging organic industry, so 
continuously updating organic rules is an important part. I 
know that as someone who has sold organic products around the 
world how important that level playing field is. At the same 
time, making sure that organic producers, while implementing 
very rigorous standards, are also not doing paperwork that is 
unnecessary is an important part of that.
    We are making sure. A lot of the Strengthening Organic 
Enforcement rule will actually be about bringing in new 
brokers, importers, folks who have not traditionally been part 
and certified under organic standards. There will not be a lot 
of changes that existing organic producers will see aside if 
they are importing products into the country and other trades. 
The paperwork that they are currently filling out will not see 
many changes.
    Senator Welch. Thank you. You know, one thing that could be 
helpful, all of us have organic farmers. If they have issues 
with how the rules are being implemented or interpreted we can 
contact you?
    Ms. Moffitt. Absolutely.
    Senator Welch. Because that, I think, would be a common 
concern. Thank you.
    Ms. Charles, that was just a heartbreaking story you told 
about that woman who lost her 18 cattle and nearly lost the 
life of her daughter, and it is reassuring and wonderful that 
the food aid saved her life. There is a constant issue about 
food aid--leave out the climate issues for a minute--about what 
we can do to help local agriculture culture, because obviously, 
the best food aid is local production. I know that is a concern 
for you because it is not as though we are going to be able to 
really solve that problem, and it is much better for folks in 
those horrible situations to be independent.
    Are there any policies that are under consideration about 
trying to help food insecurity, helping food production 
locally?
    Ms. Charles. Certainly a big piece of our development 
assistance at USAID is about poverty reduction and increasing 
the yields of small-hold farmers in particular, to increase 
food security in the long term. Under the Food for Peace 
program the bulk of that is emergency food assistance, but we 
do have a small percentage, about 10 percent of that program, 
that is dedicated to longer-term resilience activities. These 
are activities often targeting small-scale farmers or helping 
pastoralists transition to agri-pastoralists, to help them 
build resilience and be more able to withstand climate shocks 
or conflict shocks by improving productivity, yields using 
climate-smart agricultural inputs. We would like to work with 
you and your team as you look at reauthorizing the farm bill on 
ways to maximize the effectiveness of those programs.
    Senator Welch. Thank you. I yield back. Thank you very 
much, Madam Chair.
    Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much. Senator Thune.
    Senator Thune. Thank you, Madam Chair and Senator Boozman, 
for holding today's hearing to consider trade and horticulture 
titles of the farm bill. I look forward to working with you, 
both of you, and our colleagues on this Committee to advance a 
farm bill that supports the needs of producers and rural 
America. I also want to thank our witnesses, panelists, for 
being here today to provide your input on this important topic.
    I know it has already been touched on, my colleagues have 
raised this, but before I turn to my questions I also want to 
reiterate my concerns with Mexico's efforts to restrict 
genetically engineered corn imports, which would threaten food 
security and stifle ag biotech innovation that benefits both 
the United States and Mexico. Under Secretary Taylor, I 
appreciate USDA's strong stance on this issue and urge USDA to 
continue holding Mexico accountable on its trade commitments.
    Under Secretary Taylor, as I have previously mentioned to 
you, I am concerned about this Administration's lack of 
attention to expanding market access for U.S. agricultural 
products. I hope you and USTR ag chief and chief negotiator 
McKalip's recent confirmations are a turning point for this 
Administration when it comes to ag trade.
    In your new role, what are some specific new ideas--in 
addition to maintaining existing access to corn exports to 
Mexico, what are your ideas on new market access opportunities 
for U.S. farmers and ranchers, and is the Administration 
considering market access opportunities in Africa? Then 
finally, are you advocating for reauthorization of trade 
promotion authority?
    Ms. Taylor. Senator, thank you for those questions. I 
think, first and foremost, one of the areas that is a priority 
for me coming into this role is looking at market 
diversification. Obviously, the People's Republic of China is 
our largest single agricultural market, but we saw what an 
overreliance on any single market can mean. Looking to help our 
agricultural exporters, our farmers and ranchers, identify new 
markets is really critical.
    I look to a couple of different regions of the world first. 
I think South Asia is a really exciting opportunity. I think 
about countries like Vietnam, when they have some of the 
highest macroeconomic growth projected in Asia. They also have 
an expected five million middle-class households going to come 
online in the next five years. We have an opportunity today and 
early on to create consumers, lifelong consumers. Their 
population is also relatively young, so lifelong consumers of 
American agricultural products. I think there is a lot of 
potential and exciting opportunity there, one that while the 
Indo-Pacific economic framework is still getting underdeveloped 
and exactly what the outcomes might be for U.S. agriculture. I 
am hopeful that we will see successful access there, addressing 
SPS and non-tariff barriers to knock down some trade hurdles 
that we currently experience.
    Likewise, you mentioned Africa. I think Africa generally 
has a lot of potential. Specifically, I think Kenya is a very 
exciting potential market, which obviously we are engaging with 
there as well.
    We are also engaging in a couple of other areas within the 
African continent. We are working with the African Continental 
Free Trade Area that is under negotiation there. One of the 
areas that we are providing support is technical support, in 
particular as they are addressing SPS regulations and how 
science-based principles can really help form that continental 
trade agreement. The U.S. is providing that technical support, 
which will also benefit our agricultural producers. I think 
there is significant opportunity on the African continent as 
well.
    Senator Thune. Let me just say--and again, by way of IPEF, 
and I could not agree more that the way to isolate China is to 
do it economically, and that has, obviously in that region of 
the world, a lot of national security implications as well. It 
just seems like IPEF did not address the issue of market 
access, which is what our agricultural producers in South 
Dakota are looking for, and free trade agreements with 
countries in that region of the world, you know, free trade 
agreements with other places around the world, some that are 
what we think are low-hanging fruit.
    It just seems like the Administration--no request for trade 
promotion authority, has not been an FTA done, and the times 
there have been any sort of discussion around this issue, it 
has been related to issues that do not have anything to do with 
market access. I am just saying, you guys have got to step up 
your game here, and I hope you will.
    I just have a few seconds here remaining, but during your 
confirmation hearing you mentioned your willingness to work 
with me on a path forward for mandatory country of original 
labeling for beef. Last week, I introduced a bill that would 
direct USTR and USDA to develop a World Trade Organizaton 
(WTO)-compliant means of reinstating country of origin labeling 
(COOL) for beef. My question is will you provide technical 
assistance on the legislation and what actions will you take to 
coordinate with USTR on a path forward for mandatory COOL for 
beef?
    Ms. Taylor. Senator Thune, we would welcome the opportunity 
to provide technical assistance on that bill and work with you 
and Congress on implementation with our colleagues at USTR, 
should it pass.
    Senator Thune. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Chairwoman Stabenow. Absolutely. Thank you. Senator Smith.
    Senator Smith. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member. 
It is great to be back in the Committee, and I really 
appreciate the focus today, in part, on trade. Of course, trade 
is incredibly important to our producers in Minnesota. It is 
very, very important to the health and vitality of the 
agricultural community in Minnesota. We need to make sure that 
trade is working for everybody, for all of our producers, 
including small producers. I appreciate the question that 
Senator Fetterman started with.
    Under Secretary Taylor, let me start with you. I have been 
focused on how we can support Tribal agricultural production in 
the United States. With this in mind, Senator Hoeven and I 
worked to include in the 2018 Farm Bill provisions to include 
Tribal representation on trade missions. Historically, USDA has 
not done everything that I think it could have to support 
Tribal producers, so there is a big opportunity here.
    For example, in Minnesota traditional wild rice plays a 
really important role in Native communities, and there is a 
growing export market for traditionally harvested wild ride, 
and Tribal harvesters should have good, fair, equal footing.
    Can you tell us what strategies are in place to promote 
greater inclusion of Tribal agricultural and food products and 
trade-related activities? How is it going in USDA, and how can 
we use the farm bill to continue promoting indigenous food 
products?
    Ms. Taylor. Senator Smith, thank you for those questions. 
Having previously worked for a member from Montana and in the 
State of Oregon I fully appreciate how important our Tribal 
nations are and how important making sure our programs that we 
are administering at USDA, that they are working for them.
    As you mentioned, the 2018 Farm Bill actually directed USDA 
to develop some goals around Tribal participation within our 
trade-related activities. We have a key partner in the 
Intertribal Agriculture Council. We work very closely with 
them. They are our MAP and FMD participant. They often 
participate in trade shows.
    Coming from the State Department of Agriculture in Oregon 
we also had a western regional group that was a State regional 
trade group tapping into market access programs. I know my 
colleagues, in particular, in Alaska, some of the Alaska Tribes 
participated in these programs as well, promoting seafood 
exports.
    I think we appreciated that direction from the farm bill. 
We are ramping up that engagement with our Tribal nations, 
with, in particular, the Intertribal Agriculture Council. 
Certainly welcome additional feedback on how we can continue to 
engage to make sure our programs are working for our Tribal 
nations as well.
    Senator Smith. Thank you. I appreciate that, and we will 
look to work closely with you on this because it is very 
important.
    I have another question for you. This is related to 
geographic indicators. The European Union continues to impose 
geographical indications that can block the use of commonly 
used household names for cheese and other products, and this is 
a significant barrier, a roadblock for U.S. dairy producers.
    For example, a Minnesota dairy, including groups like AMPI 
Co-Op, they cheese like parmesan, asiago, romano, fontina, 
which would face unfair barriers if they tried to export these 
products to the EU or other countries that are influenced by 
the EU's stance on geographical indications. In the USMCA we 
had hard-fought provisions around this issue that forced 
Mexico, for example, not to restrict access to U.S. products.
    Can you tell us how you and your colleague at USTR are 
building upon those efforts, and update us on what your 
strategies are and what more you think that we need to do in 
this area.
    Ms. Taylor. Thank you, Senator Smith. I have yet to see 
feta on a map, so I think, at times, these GIs clearly restrict 
our trade, which is of large concern to, in particular, our 
dairy producers, but broader than that as well, can feel the 
impacts.
    We have a multiple-pronged, I think, approach to trying to 
address this, first working with countries who are either 
engaging in negotiations with the EU and/or have concluded 
negotiations with the EU, to articulate our concerns, to make 
sure they understand the market accesses that we currently have 
and how that could be impactful there.
    I think we are also engaging, just broadly, with our 
trading partners to ensure, again, that this does not become a 
new trade barrier for our exports. Then we are also engaging in 
multilateral fora about this issue. The WTO, the Asia-Pacific 
Economic Cooperative Forum, APAC, and then there is a world 
intellectual property organization as well, where we are 
engaging to make sure that intellectual property rights are 
being respected, but that these generic names that we use, that 
are being used all of the world, do not become a barrier for 
our trade.
    Senator Smith. Thank you very much. Madam Chair, I 
appreciate this. I have one question which I will put in for 
the record, following up a little bit, I think, on Senator 
Thune's question about how we can expand export markets, 
specifically looking at Cuba as an export market and what we 
can do there more. Thank you.
    Chairwoman Stabenow. Absolutely. Thank you. Senator 
Fischer.
    Senator Fischer. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to 
our panelists who are here today.
    Trade is vital to Nebraska's agricultural economy. 
Agricultural exports from Nebraska were valued at $6.5 billion 
in 2021. New and growing export markets drive value back to 
rural America. The Market Access Program and Foreign Market 
Development Programs are critical in helping our producers 
develop those new markets. I agree with many of my colleagues 
to day that as we look toward the next farm bill it will be 
critical to ensure that these programs do continue.
    In order to fully realize our investment from those market 
development programs, thought, the U.S. Government has an 
important role to play. At a bare minimum, we must uphold our 
existing trade agreements, and Under Secretary Taylor, I did 
appreciate your remarks to Senator Grassley earlier that there 
is no negotiating on Mexico's ban on biotech corn because the 
science is clear on that. You mentioned that Mexico's livestock 
sector needs our corn, and that is a large market for Nebraska 
farmers.
    Nebraska is also unique in that we grow half of the 
Nation's food-grade white corn with Mexico being our top export 
market. I understand Mexico's claim that there are cultural 
reasons for wanting to ban imports of white corn.
    Can you assure us that when you say there is no compromise 
with Mexico on their attempts to ban biotech corn that that 
also includes our food-grade white corn?
    Ms. Taylor. Thank you, Senator Fischer. From the 
conversations that I have had with my Mexican counterparts we 
talked about it broadly, to include our yellow corn and our 
white corn exports. There are concerns, I think, in both, and 
fundamentally the science is the same. As it is for many other 
genetically engineered products that have been studied for 
decades, the safety of these products is not in question.
    Senator Fischer. Thank you. I agree with you also on your 
point that this has a broader impact. If we have a country who 
is claiming, in a trade agreement, that they are not going to 
accept our products, that are safe--GMOs, they are safe--that 
is a message we need to get out, not just in our international 
trade but also here within this country. I appreciate you 
standing firm on that and making it clear that GMOs are safe, 
they are secure, they are healthy, they help to feed the world. 
We can go on and on with this as we continue to move forward, 
so I thank you for that.
    In December, I led 25 of my colleagues. It was a bipartisan 
letter that we sent to the Administration to hold Mexico to 
their commitments under the USMCA, and we have not received a 
response yet from that. Could you check on that and let us know 
how the Administration plans to proceed?
    Ms. Taylor. Absolutely, Senator.
    Senator Fischer. Okay. Thank you very much.
    Also you note in your testimony that the Indo-Pacific 
economic framework, there are meaningful opportunities in there 
to address non-tariff barriers and sanitary and phytosanitary 
restrictions. I agree addressing those items would be helpful. 
However, I have heard from many Nebraska egg producers 
concerned about the lack of any meaningful market access 
provisions as part of the Administration's trade agenda.
    In your capacity as Under Secretary will you advocate that 
market access provisions, specifically for agriculture, are 
included as part of the negotiations for the IPEF?
    Ms. Taylor. Senator, thank you for that question. I believe 
broadly that market access, addressing tariffs but also at the 
SPF side of trade, is critically important. Doing one without 
the other does not often equate to market access. We have seen 
that around the world.
    I think while tariff liberalization, broadly, has been 
critical to U.S. agriculture there have been parts that have 
not felt that as equal. I heard this often from some specialty 
crop producers in the State of Oregon about some of the 
challenges that they experienced.
    What I will say is I am interested in pursuing trade policy 
that balanced the need for the diverse set of our agricultural 
producers in this country in pursuing new and diversified 
markets.
    Senator Fischer. Thank you. I look forward to continuing 
our discussions on that, and a special thank you for really 
holding firm on the yellow corn and the white corn with Mexico, 
and my thanks to the Secretary as well.
    Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much. Senator 
Klobuchar.
    Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I 
would add my thanks to Senator Fischer's on the corn issue. 
Minnesota is actually fourth in the country for exports, ag 
exports, so this hearing is really important to us. I also 
thank Senator Smith for her question on dairy, something else 
we care a lot about.
    I am just going to start broader, Ms. Taylor, with the fact 
that we see room to grow with exports. According to the 2021 
study on the Export Market Development Programs you cite for 
every $1 invested in these programs U.S. ag export value 
increased by more than $24, which is pretty incredible. Yet it 
found that these programs are underfunded. I know Senator Brown 
asked you a little bit about this, but could you talk about how 
we compare to other international trading partners? According 
to your testimony, the EU's export program for wine alone was 
greater than the entire budget of all of USDA's market 
development programs. I think that should concern our 
colleagues when we look at a balance, as much as we enjoy 
pairing up with the EU and drinking their wine.
    Okay. Go ahead.
    Ms. Taylor. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar. These programs, I 
think, are critically important, and others around the world 
also have their own versions of programs to promote their own 
products, and we are going head-to-head in many of these 
markets around the world competing. These tools that Congress 
and this Committee have provided is critical to letting our 
producers get into these markets, to navigate oftentimes 
complex regulatory systems, language barriers, to compete.
    Our programs, just MAP alone, while it is funded at $200 
million, we, on average, are seeing about $300 million of 
requests, and I would say that is with our industry partners 
self-regulating because they know we have limited funds. We see 
something similar in the Foreign Market Development Program, 
FMD. That program is funded at $34.5 million, and we roughly 
get about $50 million of requests.
    They are highly prescribed funds, but also highly 
leveraged, as you point out. The impact and return we receive 
is pretty impressive.
    Senator Klobuchar. Next up, Cuba. I lead the bill on 
opening up the market to Cuba, 95 percent of our customers 
living outside our borders. Absent lifting the embargo, I am 
interested, which I would do, I am interested in what options 
USDA has to facilitate more American ag exports to Cuba. Have 
you considered allowing Cuba to be part of the Emerging Market 
Program, which would facilitate easier exports to Cuba? I note 
this has always been a bipartisan bill. Go ahead.
    Ms. Taylor. Yes. Thank you, Senator. I think Cuba is an 
interesting market with a lot of untapped potential. There are 
obviously huge challenges as well.
    In the 2018 Farm Bill, MAP was opened up to be allowed 
explicitly in Cuba, and we have seen some cooperators and the 
industry drive projects there. I believe the Emerging Market 
Program did not have that same authority granted to it, and so 
I think that would be something we would be interested in 
exploring with you and this Committee as you work on 
reauthorizing the farm bill.
    Senator Klobuchar. Thank you. Again, this would be American 
products, and as we know, we were making some headway there. We 
still have to work to do on the human rights front, many other 
things, but I hope we can go back to looking at that.
    My last question, turkeys. Minnesota, No. 1 turkey producer 
in the country. Minnesota turkey farmers have once again been 
significantly impacted by avian influenza. It went better this 
time, I think, in terms of the quick response. Senator Cornyn 
and I had worked hard on a vaccine bank and also on funding for 
these emergencies in this farm bill, supported by all the 
members.
    As this outbreak continues, because it is still going on, 
how is USDA adjusting to address and mitigate what is 
happening, and specifically I know impacted countries in the EU 
are considering implementing a vaccine strategy. What can be 
done in the farm bill to incorporate a vaccine strategy without 
impacting trade?
    Ms. Taylor. Senator, I think as you mentioned that it has 
gone better. I think we learned a lot of lessons from the high-
path avian influenza outbreak in 2014-2015, that we spent the 
time since working with trading partners, working with the 
World Organization on Animal Health around a regionalization 
approach and some science-based standards.
    I think we have seen a different reaction this time than we 
did in 2014 and 2015. We still have many challenges and so we 
are still working to lift restrictions that maybe do not line 
up with the WOAH standards.
    Just recently we were able to work with Taiwan. The lifted 
restrictions on 12 States. This is a continued process of 
engagement, and I think we have made some important progress, 
thanks to our technical colleagues in APHIS. We are going to 
have to continue to work at this.
    Senator Klobuchar. Okay. I am not going to ask another 
question but I know you were asked by Senator Bennet about 
hemp. I am remembering Senator McConnell coming to these 
hearings, the markup of the bill for the very reason of 
including hemp provisions. There continues to be confusion and 
frustration among hemp growers regarding the gaps in regulation 
and guidelines that I know you are aware of at the FDA, DEA, 
and USDA, and I am hoping we can fix those. Thank you.
    Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much. Senator 
Tuberville.
    Senator Tuberville. Thank you, Madam Chair, Ranking Member 
Boozman. I look forward to working with you all on this very 
important bill. Agriculture in my State of Alabama is the No. 1 
industry, and we are proud of it. The problem we are having, as 
we had through COVID, is we have lost a lot of family farms in 
our State, and I would hope doing this farm bill that we would 
really keep in mind of what we are doing and how we are doing 
it for all farmers, but especially try to keep as many family 
farms as we possibly can.
    Most of my questions have been asked, but I am going to ask 
this question of Ms. Taylor. Our cotton producers in Alabama 
and across the Southeast export most of their cotton overseas 
in one form or another. You know what MAP is and FMD. Do you 
have any new plans for these two programs?
    Ms. Taylor. Senator, I think they are well-established 
programs. They have shown a lot of success. I will look forward 
to working with Congress on any changes that you all might be 
seeking, but from our perspective they are highly effective 
programs.
    Senator Tuberville. You are satisfied with them, how they 
are working?
    Ms. Taylor. Yes, sir.
    Senator Tuberville. Okay. Thank you.
    Ms. Moffitt, I understand that our nurseries face the 
emerging threat of the box tree moth, serious pests with 
boxwoods that have begun to spread into U.S. from Canada. 
Boxwoods are the No. 1 evergreen shrub crop grown in the U.S. 
and very important to our State, in Alabama, and I am told the 
USDA Animal Plant Health Inspection Service is beginning 
working well and with the horticulture industry for this.
    Do you have any comments on this?
    Ms. Moffitt. Thank you, Senator, for that question, and 
yes, the Animal Plant Health Inspection Service, APHIS, has 
been working with the industry, making sure that we have 
movement controls so that we are containing the pest where it 
is currently, and then also working to eradicate it. We are 
also working with Canada to make sure that we have movement 
control and restriction control in there. Our engagement with 
industry, as you recognize, is ongoing, and that is a vital 
part of our response mechanism.
    Senator Tuberville. Yes, and as you well know, cogongrass 
is covering over 200,000 acres in Alabama, 75 percent of 
infested land and forest. You know, the weed damage of this 
crop reduces forest productivity. What research is APHIS doing 
to combat this?
    Ms. Moffitt. Senator, that is a great question. I can talk 
with APHIS and get some more information, and we can make sure 
we get back to you on that information.
    Senator Tuberville. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Madam 
Chair.
    Chairwoman Stabenow. Absolutely. Thank you so much. Senator 
Lujan. I do have to say, you are no longer at the end of the 
dais. You are moving up quickly.
    Senator Lujan. I appreciate that, Madam Chair. It is 
incredible what two years will do to somebody.
    Chairwoman Stabenow. That is right.
    Senator Lujan. I appreciate you and the Ranking Member. 
First off, thank you both for your leadership and to all the 
staff that are here, and welcome to our new colleagues as well.
    Look, in New Mexico, as I hope you all know, we have a few 
things that we love, one of them being our chili. I remind my 
friends from Colorado that they should be grateful to New 
Mexico for the seed that they got from us, for the chili they 
brag about, just so long as they do not forget where it came 
from.
    The reason I bring that up is there are many challenges 
taking place in New Mexico and different parts of the country 
when it comes to specialty crops. In our State, not just our 
chili but pecans, pistachios, onions matter to us. Our dinner 
table has job opportunities of that nature. We have seen labor 
challenges throughout the country, and we feeling that in New 
Mexico as well. Specialty crop block grants matter to us. They 
are critical in enhancing the competitiveness of these crops in 
domestic and foreign markets.
    Now my question for Deputy Secretary Moffitt is, can you 
describe if or now the Special Crop Block Grant Program is able 
to assist industry in modernizing specialty crop harvesting and 
especially with the lean toward a State like New Mexico, large 
in geography, 2.1 million population, we do not do as well as 
our other States do in the region or across the country when it 
comes to leveraging these programs. I am looking to see how we 
can learn more about strengthening them but ensure that for 
producers like the ones we have in New Mexico that they have 
access to these programs.
    Ms. Taylor. Senator Lujan, thank you so much for that 
question and your interest in the specialty crop block grant. 
What is very unique about the specialty crop block grant is 
that block grant component, which is a partnership with the 
State Departments of Agriculture so that the State Departments 
of Agriculture, with USDA, work on identifying what are the 
critical needs for the specialty crop industry in that State 
and really tailoring the grants that are administered in those 
States toward the needs in that State.
    As you talk about the specialty crop block grant funds 
research, production challenge research particularly, but 
research writ large as well, which is certainly a big component 
of what the industry needs to enhance that competitiveness of 
specialty crops. There is also promotion, of course, as well, 
through the specialty crop block grant in education. Given your 
question on mechanization and the protection challenges that 
are unique to New Mexico is key part of how that specialty crop 
block grant and the design of the block grant, what the States 
really working with industry on what projects are really needed 
to advance and grow specialty crops in your State.
    I do lean you toward that research component.
    Senator Lujan. I appreciate that. In areas where New Mexico 
has not been successful through the State Department of 
Agriculture in conjunction with producers, where we have not 
been successful, is that an area that I have your commitment we 
can work with you on to better understand how the application 
from the State can be improved such that we are more successful 
in the future?
    Ms. Taylor. Senator, absolutely. We can work with the State 
directly. We will be happy to work also with your staff in 
facilitating those conversations. There is also a specialty 
crop multi-State program where we can address issues that cover 
multiple States across a region or across the country, in 
addressing different issues as well.
    Senator Lujan. I appreciate that. With the program are 
there any updates, any areas to strengthen, given challenges 
that we now see over the last few years, with any changes that 
would be needed?
    Ms. Taylor. The program continues as it has been for some 
time. We are always working on updating that. One big piece 
that we updated in the specialty crop block grant is 
information that we get back from grant recipients. Reporting 
is important, but making sure that reporting is not an 
increased burden on recipients is a key part. That was a big 
update we did last year with the grant program.
    I also want to thank the Committee as well as Congress for 
leadership during the pandemic in adding additional funds to 
the specialty crop block grant to further enhance and grow 
specialty crops.
    Senator Lujan. I appreciate that. Madam Chair, I have two 
other questions. I will submit them into the record, just to be 
cognizant of time. In an area of a program we are real proud of 
back in New Mexico called Nourish New Mexico and the 
cooperative agreement under the Local Food Purchase Assistance 
Cooperative Agreement Plan that I want to pursue more and have 
a conversation about.
    Then in the area of trade promotion, which I hope to visit 
more with Ms. Taylor about as well, specific to New Mexico 
pecans. I do not want to get in a fight with other States but 
they are as delicious, if not more delicious than anywhere you 
go. If you want to have a competition with me, we will lay it 
down and we will do it right. There are some challenges that 
our producers in New Mexico have in other parts of the world 
where some States have done better. I will not get into why our 
pecans deserve to be at the top of that list but I look forward 
to chatting more with you. I thank you, Madam Chair, and to our 
Ranking Member.
    Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you so much, and we are so glad 
you are going to be part of this important farm bill work that 
we are doing on the Committee. Thank you.
    Senator Braun.
    Senator Braun. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    I am from Indiana, which is the No. 1 manufacturing State 
per capita in the country, and Wisconsin is right behind us. 
Agriculture is right there in behind it. I have been a tree 
farmer involved in agriculture for a long time, owned a turkey 
farm for 32 years, half owner of it.
    In general, what is besetting agriculture more than 
anything--and I am going to focus on a specialty, the row crop 
side of it. I remember when you could put out an acre with 
direct inputs of soybeans for $70 an acre, $140 for corn. We 
are so far away from that. The high altitude of financial risk 
involved with farming across the spectrum is significant.
    We have talked about USMCA, other things that we depend 
upon, expanding markets across the world. If that does not 
happen with the help of our Federal Government we are making 
the hardest job God created even more difficult. Keep that in 
mind, in general.
    Specifically, we are not the No. 1 turkey producer but we 
are one of the top poultry producers in the country, and avian 
flu is a big deal. I am part of legislation that wants to 
acknowledge that it is a known threat. We have been running 
into it far too often. Still uncertain how it happens but we 
are getting a good idea. We ought to be certain about protocol 
when it does occur.
    I am introducing some legislation that would try to kind of 
regionally band how you are dealing it to where you are not 
holding a whole State at bay in the process of navigating 
through it, and that is an issue from ducks, turkeys, chickens 
in our State, and it is going to be around. I want to make sure 
through this legislation that there is real definition on what 
happens to still be able to market your product once you know 
you have got a case of it.
    Tell me what you think about that, Under Secretary Taylor, 
and then I have got another question after that. Maybe give me 
30 seconds or so.
    Ms. Taylor. Thank you, Senator. I think we have done a lot 
of work with trading partners since 2014-2015, and while we 
still have some challenges in some markets the reaction 
globally has been drastically different. They did not pull 
whole-country bands on, which is what we were seeing initially.
    We work with experts at APHIS to keep the smallest 
regionalized geographic area possible, depending on where those 
high-path outbreaks are.
    I would offer our assistance in working with you on this 
bill on how our trading partners might react, but also, 
obviously, the experts on these diseases at APHIS will be 
critically important to say what does the science say around 
how small of a region that would make sense.
    We also have been working very closely with the World 
Organization on Animal Health, and have made great progress 
there on what the science says and what appropriate standards 
are, and that has only helped us with our trading partners.
    Senator Braun. Thank you. I will hold you up to that, and 
if you do that, that will be good, I think, to get this moving 
and across the line.
    Under Secretary Moffitt, hemp has been something many 
farmers have been talking about trying to get into it. There is 
so much uncertainty about it because we do not have a real 
established infrastructure for it. I think that is going to 
happen over time. When you look at how big the industrial 
markets are on hemp across the world, I think we need to start 
getting with it.
    Senator Tester and I have got legislation to create a new 
designation within the USDA for a licensing framework for 
producers who only produce industrial hemp, and producers who 
opt into this program would be barred from harvesting flowers 
and resin, and in exchange would receive more regulatory 
certainty. Again, I would love to see help from the USDA to 
give some certainty to what is a very kind of fragile, 
fledgling market. Is that something you would be comfortable 
with?
    Ms. Moffitt. Senator Braun, thank you for that question, 
and we are happy to engage with your staff as you develop this 
bill and provide technical assistance so that it is something 
that we can work on implementing should that bill pass.
    Senator Braun. By the way, Senator Tester is one of the 
other few Senators actually involved in agriculture. I think he 
still drives a tractor now and then.
    One final question. Senator Tuberville hit on it, on the 
forestry side of life, which oftentimes gets not the attention 
it should because it is a long-term product. Invasives are 
impacting forestry much more than it is row crop. You have got 
chemicals in a defined field that generally get rid of them. 
There is stuff like stiltgrass, not to mention the emerald ash 
borer that has eliminated what was about eight percent of our 
trees, ash trees.
    Will the USDA, and is the USDA taking it seriously? Because 
hardwoods, in a State like Indiana, when you get through the 
full food chain, is about as much as the agricultural side 
would be, and yet it seems to get second fiddle in terms of 
attention.
    Ms. Moffitt. Senator Braun, thank you for that question. 
Forest pests are of primary concern, of utmost concern, at 
APHIS. I had the opportunity last year to visit the Forest 
Pests Materials Lab in Massachusetts, out on the Cape, to learn 
about the work that is being done, the research that is being 
done on forest pests. There are many, as you described already, 
and many more, and our forests, our national forests, our State 
forests, all of our forests are a really critical part of our 
network and our agricultural economies and our rural economies 
across America.
    We take forest pests very seriously and continue to do and 
advance research and work with our partners across the world in 
advancing that research and making sure that we are not 
introducing new pests as well in the effort.
    Senator Braun. Thank you.
    Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much. Senator Hoeven.
    Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to 
both you and the Ranking Member, Senator Boozman, for holding 
this hearing today. I appreciate it very much.
    Under Secretary Taylor, I have a number of questions for 
you. Thanks to all of you for being here today. I appreciate 
it.
    One of the programs that is very important to us in North 
Dakota is the sugar program. The Red River Valley, which we 
share Red River Valley, to the north, which we share with 
Minnesota, it is about a $3 billion industry. Obviously it is 
important that we pass and that we get it right. Of course, I 
also want to remind you that this is very important to the 
Chairwoman of the Committee too, because they do raise sugar 
beets in Michigan. Know that it is a matter of great importance 
to our Chairwoman as well, so I want to make sure you are aware 
of that.
    It is about a $3 billion----
    Senator Boozman. We all like sugar.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Hoeven. I know the Ranking Member is trying to 
downplay his intense concerns about the program as well.
    Senator Boozman. I eat my sugar, for sure.
    Senator Hoeven. I am not sure they are doing sugar beets in 
Arkansas, but they do other things they like having us support 
them on their crops. He is a strong advocate as well.
    Anyway, the policy is designed to provide a cost-effective 
safety net for our sugar producers and avoid foreign producers 
dumping on the market, which provides a low-cost, consistent 
sugar price for American consumers. It is very important that 
the program is administered in a way that is consistent with 
the intent in the farm bill.
    My question is do you agree that USDA, your own metric, the 
Department of Ag's metric, a stocks-to-use ratio between 13.5 
and 15.5 percent is appropriate when determining whether the 
sugar market is adequately supplied? I know that is kind of 
technical but it is very important because it has a big impact 
for our producers.
    Ms. Taylor. Thank you, Senator Hoeven. The sugar program is 
being administered between myself, under the Trade and Foreign 
Agricultural Affairs mission area, and the FPAC and Under 
Secretary Robert Bonnie. This is a newer structure as USDA was 
reorganized several years ago with the creation of my position.
    I believe we have long administered the sugar program 
within that stocks-to-use ratio. It is well known. It was 
developed to really try to meet the intent that Congress laid 
out about adequate supplies at reasonable prices in the farm 
bill, and we are committed to using that metric to manage the 
sugar program.
    Senator Hoeven. We actually had Secretary Bonnie out to see 
us and met with our producers, which we appreciate very much. I 
think it was productive for him to hear from them as well.
    Based on your answer then, when the market is adequately 
supplied according to that measure, then you believe that we 
should not be allowing additional imports, even though we get 
pressure from some of our trading partners to do that 
sometimes, as long as we are meeting those metrics.
    Ms. Taylor. Correct, Senator. That is how we have 
historically run the program and how we are running that 
program today, because again, we are trying to be transparent 
in how we are running the program and making those decisions. 
In addition, we have the suspension agreement with Mexico which 
lays out a tie to the stocks-to-use ratio, so I think that is 
an important component.
    Senator Hoeven. I am glad you touched on that because they 
are always pushing to increase their imports into our market, 
and I find that interesting at a time when they want to 
restrict our corn exports to Mexico. On the one hand we need to 
resist that, their efforts to dump into our market, and on the 
other hand they need to abide by WTO when it comes to sales of 
GMO corn to Mexico. Do you agree with that?
    Ms. Taylor. Senator, I do believe that the provisions laid 
out within the USMCA, what Mexico committed to, are 
foundationally built upon science, and we have grave concerns 
that their proposed ban on GE corn walks away from that science 
that they have committed to. I actually was in Mexico two weeks 
ago meeting with my counterparts to highlight our concerns from 
what Mexico has proposed.
    Senator Hoeven. I have seen the Ag Secretary, Secretary 
Vilsack, pushing back, and I trust you all are going to 
continue to do that, right?
    Ms. Taylor. Yes, sir.
    Senator Hoeven. Very good. Thank you.
    Then trade in the Pacific, obviously that is complicated. 
We have tried a number of different approaches. Tell me about 
how you are going to expand our ability to sell and to trade in 
the Pacific.
    Ms. Taylor. I think this is a very exciting part of the 
world. They have growing middle classes. They have growing 
economies, and they have a generally very young population. 
When I think of Vietnam, for instance, they are projected to 
add five million middle-class households over the next five 
years. We have the ability today to build trading 
relationships, to help our producers get into those markets, to 
build those long-term relationships and create life-long 
consumers of American food and agriculture products. I think 
that is a huge market potential.
    We at USDA are invested in these regions. Our Foreign 
Agricultural Service has teams on the ground in this region. We 
are working with U.S. exporters to get their products in. We 
focus on many trade activities. Then, of course, we also have 
the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework, which we are focused on. 
While it is still young, we are focused on----
    Senator Hoeven. That is why I bring it up.
    Ms. Taylor [continuing]. providing meaningful access to 
knocking down those non-tariff trade barriers that are limiting 
factors today. We are interested to see where that framework 
can go to continue to help advance U.S. agricultural interests 
in the region.
    Senator Hoeven. Right. Right on. I joined with Senator 
Thune on a letter in regard to that. I appreciate that very 
much. I have a very pithy question on specialty crops, but I 
know that our Chairwoman, being an expert on specialty crops, 
will sufficiently grill you on that, so I will pass on that, 
and then just once again thank the Chairwoman and the Ranking 
Member for holding this hearing.
    Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you. Thank you very much, 
Senator Hoeven. We look forward to working closely with you as 
we do the farm bill.
    Last but certainly not least, Senator Boozman.
    Senator Boozman. Well, thank you, Madam Chair. This has 
really been an excellent hearing, and hopefully it is just the 
example of the hearings we are going to have in the future. 
This, like I said, has been excellent. The reason is so much of 
this is trade related. Forty percent of the products in 
Arkansas are exported. We have to protect the markets that we 
have, and again, constantly look for new markets. We are 
excited that you are on board, Under Secretary Taylor, and like 
I say, in such an important position.
    Under Secretary Taylor, rice and wheat farmers in Arkansas, 
and rice and wheat farmers throughout the country are seriously 
impacted by India's blatant WTO violations. Can you tell us a 
little bit about what you all are doing in your partnership 
with Ambassador McKalip, how you are able to take some steps to 
hold India accountable? Is there anything that we, as a 
Committee or as a Congress, can do to be helpful in that 
regard? How can we make sure that this egregious 
oversubsidization--and those words are not too strong. I think 
everybody agrees with that. How can we hold them accountable?
    Ms. Taylor. Thank you, Senator Boozman. We continue to 
engage India in multilateral forums on this issue, raising 
questions within the WTO and working on, and your staff's 
counternotifications, to bring out really what we view as the 
truth behind their subsidization policy here.
    I have been engaging with my team since I have been at USDA 
on this topic, as I committed to you I would. I think while we 
do have grave concerns and it is one that we are looking at 
multiple approaches to try and address, within, again, the 
multilateral forum, to try and bring some resolution and 
certainty to our rice and wheat producers, who are seeing 
impact from these subsidies.
    Senator Boozman. Right. Thank you.
    Under Secretary Moffitt, I want to acknowledge the 
incredible work that APHIS does. They do an excellent job in 
ensuring the health and viability of U.S. animal agriculture, 
and the agency's commitment to science-based animal health 
protocols and standards necessary to facilitate market access 
for U.S. producers.
    As Under Secretary--and this has come out again repeatedly 
with the poultry issue, and Senator Hyde-Smith really laid it 
out very, very well--I guess the question is with the 
pathogenic avian influenza outbreak can you tell us again how 
we can help you, what you can do, and then also with Under 
Secretary Taylor, Secretary McKalip, the whole deal, what can 
we do to push this forward? It really is kind of a common-sense 
thing. The science is with us. What steps do we need to take to 
actually get this done so that we can get poultry from these 
areas back in China and other countries?
    Ms. Moffitt. Senator Boozman, thank you so much for that 
question and your recognition of the work that APHIS has done. 
We have had over 800 employees deployed over the course of the 
past year, and that is 800 APHIS employees. This is in 
partnership with States who are also lockstep as well the 
industry and us in implementing biosecurity measures and really 
tackling and making sure that every time we have an uptick in 
high-path avian influenza we stamp it out as quick as possible, 
to do that exactly that, to make sure that the disease is not 
spreading beyond the borders of that one operation. I 
appreciate your recognition of the success that it has had, and 
it is thanks, in large part, to funding that was received in 
the 2018 Farm Bill, taking lessons learned from the 2015 
outbreak.
    We have been working, and our national vet has been working 
across the world in conservations with national vets across the 
world, providing strong epidemiological data, making sure that 
the regionalization approach that we have all agreed on through 
the World Organization for Animal Health is being acknowledge 
and worked on.
    We are working on updating the work that we are doing so 
that we are focused on the most at-risk areas, the most at-risk 
commercial operations, so that we continue to advance and keep 
open as many markets as possible while continuing to stamp out 
the disease. That strong relationship that our veterinarian has 
with other national veterinarians has been able to keep open, 
as Under Secretary Taylor mentioned, keep open many markets 
that we did not have open in the 2015 outbreak.
    Senator Boozman. Very good.
    Ms. Charles, again, you know, the focus has been so much on 
trade. You have such an important mission. We are in a 
situation now where we have drawn down the Bill Emerson 
Humanitarian Trust for the first time in nearly 20 years, based 
on urgent need for emergency commodities. There are all kinds 
of issues going on.
    Very quickly, can you talk to us a little bit how we can 
ensure that the original food program goals, providing food to 
hungry people, are met during this emergency? I hope that maybe 
through the subcommittee that we can have you back where we can 
really discuss this issue and go forward.
    Ms. Charles. I would be happy to come back and talk in more 
detail with the subcommittee and work with you as you work to 
reauthorize the farm bill. I think we have a lot to be proud of 
over the last many years, and in particular the last year, with 
the authorities you all have provided with the supplemental 
funding that Congress, more broadly, has provided, how we have 
been able to respond, including using tools like the Bill 
Emerson Humanitarian Trust to a truly extraordinary year. I 
think we can anticipate high levels of hunger in the years to 
come, and would love to work with you on greater flexibility in 
the program to respond to that.
    Senator Boozman. Good. Well thanks to all of you very much 
for the great work you do.
    Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you so much, and thanks to each 
of you. We very much appreciate your leadership and the roles 
that you are playing and having the opportunity to be here with 
us today. The trade and horticultural programs we have 
discussed cover a lot of ground, but one thing is very clear, 
and that is these farm bill investments support much-needed 
economic opportunities, both here at home and abroad, for our 
farmers. This is a very important part of the farm bill.
    I look forward to working with Senator Boozman and all the 
members of the Committee as we craft these titles. The record 
will remain open for five business days, and the hearing is 
adjourned.

    [Whereupon, at 12:11 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

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


                            A P P E N D I X

                            February 1, 2023

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

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
      
=======================================================================


                   DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

                            February 1, 2023

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

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


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


                         QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

                            February 1, 2023

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

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                 [all]