[Senate Hearing 119-408]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 119-408
PERSPECTIVES ON THE FERTILIZER INDUSTRY:
ENSURING A STABLE AND AFFORDABLE
SUPPLY FOR AMERICAN PRODUCERS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,
NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
May 12, 2026
__________
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
63-764 PDF WASHINGTON : 2026
=======================================================================
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY
JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas, Chairman
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado
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
JAMES C. JUSTICE, West Virginia RAPHAEL WARNOCK, Georgia
CHARLES GRASSLEY, Iowa PETER WELCH, Vermont
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota JOHN FETTERMAN, Pennsylvania
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska ADAM SCHIFF, California
JERRY MORAN, Kansas ELISSA SLOTKIN, Michigan
Fitzhugh Elder IV, Majority Staff Director
Corey Weber, Majority Chief Counsel
Jessica L. Williams, Chief Clerk
Lauren Santabar, Minority Staff Director
Chu-Yuan Hwang, Minority Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Tuesday, May 12, 2026
Page
Hearing:
Perspectives on the Fertilizer Industry: Ensuring a Stable and
Affordable Supply for American Producers....................... 1
----------
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY SENATORS
Boozman, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Arkansas...... 1
Klobuchar, Hon. Amy, U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota.... 2
WITNESS
Green, Andy, Principal and Senior Advisor, Center Market
Strategies, Washington, DC..................................... 5
Kubik, Trent, President, South Dakota Corn Growers, Hamill, South
Dakota......................................................... 7
Melton, Eddie, President, Kentucky Farm Bureau Federation,
Louisville, Kentucky........................................... 9
Rosenbusch, Corey, President and CEO, The Fertilizer Institute,
Arlington, Virginia............................................ 10
Westling, Joshua, CEO, J. Westling & Co., LLC, Omaha, Nebraska... 12
----------
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Green, Andy.................................................. 42
Kubik, Trent................................................. 60
Melton, Eddie................................................ 72
Rosenbusch, Corey............................................ 81
Westling, Joshua............................................. 117
Document(s) Submitted for the Record:
Boozman, Hon. John:
Eggnite Agricultural Solutions, LLC, Letter for the Record... 126
Op-Ed: Secretary Brooke Rollins: President Trump is ensuring
fertilizer affordability and availability for our farmers.. 133
The United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing,
Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International
Union (USW), Letter for the Record......................... 135
Stephen Vaden, Deputy Secretary of Agriculture, Letter for
the Record................................................. 137
McConnell, Hon. Mitch:
Prepared statement from Senator Mitch McConnell.............. 138
Question and Answer:
Melton, Eddie:
Written response to questions from Hon. Adam Schiff.......... 144
Rosenbusch, Corey:
Written response to questions from Hon. Adam Schiff.......... 146
PERSPECTIVES ON THE FERTILIZER INDUSTRY: ENSURING A STABLE AND
AFFORDABLE SUPPLY FOR AMERICAN PRODUCERS
----------
TUESDAY, MAY 12, 2026
U.S. Senate
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 3 p.m., in Room
106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Boozman,
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Boozman [presiding], McConnell, Hoeven,
Ernst, Marshall, Justice, Grassley, Thune, Fischer, Moran,
Klobuchar, Smith, Lujan, Warnock, Welch, Schiff, and Slotkin.
STATEMENT OF HON. BOOZMAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
ARKANSAS, CHAIRMAN, U.S. COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION,
AND FORESTRY
Chairman Boozman. Thank all of you very much for being here
today. As we all know, this hearing is being held during what
continues to be a very precarious time across America's
agricultural economy. I would call that an understatement. I
would say it is a generational event.
While input prices for our producers have been stubbornly
high for the past several years, this situation has recently
become more acute as farm bankruptcies increase, fuel prices
remain high, and interest rates have yet to come down. The cost
of fertilizer, the topic of today's hearing, has also gone up,
and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about the
current state of the fertilizer industry, how these high prices
directly affect our producers, and what potential solutions
exist for Congress to ensure a stable and affordable supply of
this important crop input. Again, this is a national security
issue.
This is not a simple problem to address, as fertilizer is
not a single, uniform input. Nitrogen, phosphate, and
potassium, commonly referred to as N, P, and K, present a
complicated picture of global supply chains that have been
affected by the war in Ukraine, trade disputes that have also
resulted in countervailing duties, and the recent conflict in
the Middle East. Today's hearing is an important opportunity to
learn more about how these factors, and others, directly impact
producer costs.
I want to commend the Trump Administration for the
attention it has given to high fertilizer prices. Over the last
couple months, the Administration has responded by waiving the
Jones Act and refocusing the Fertilizer Product Expansion
Program to ensure projects funded under this program are up and
running as soon as possible.
In November, U.S. Department of Interior Secretary Doug
Burgum also announced the addition of phosphate and potash to
the crucial minerals list, which will streamline regulatory
hurdles and increase domestic production of these fertilizer
inputs. These minerals' important to food security, which is
national security, were clear, and this was a welcome and much-
needed change.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Rollins has
continued to engage with our producers and brought together her
colleagues from across the Administration to determine what
additional steps they can take to provide relief.
Several Members of this Committee have also proposed
legislative solutions to address higher fertilizer prices, and
I welcome hearing from our witnesses about proposals. How they
may help; and what additional actions Congress and the
Administration might take to ensure a reliable and accessible
affordable supply of fertilizer for hardworking American
farmers.
With our colleagues in the House successfully passing a
bipartisan farm bill 2.0, I look forward to engaging with the
Members of this Committee on what we learn today to ensure a
Senate version addresses the urgent needs of agriculture.
Congress owes our Nation's producers an updated farm bill that
will complement the improvements we made last year in the One
Big Beautiful Bill, and I am committed to making that happen.
While the proposals and solutions we hear about today may
help increase production of fertilizer and bring down prices in
the long-term, in the immediate future, Congress must provide
additional assistance to supplement what USDA provided with the
Farmer Bridge Payments and the Assistance for Specialty Crop
Farmers programs, to ensure producers have the working capital
available to see them through the 2026 crop season.
I have been working with my friend, Senator Hoeven, to
advocate for this assistance and appreciate President Trump's
acknowledgement of this need when a larger supplemental funding
package is requested.
Before I turn it over to Ranking Member Klobuchar for her
opening statement, I ask unanimous consent that statements sent
to the Committee for this hearing be included in the record,
including an op-ed written by USDA Secretary Rollins and a
statement submitted to the Committee by Deputy Secretary Vaden.
Without objection, so ordered.
[The letters can be found on pages 126-137 in the
appendix.]
Chairman Boozman. Again, I thank my colleagues and our
witnesses for being here today.
With that, I now turn to Ranking Member Klobuchar for her
opening statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. KLOBUCHAR, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
MINNESOTA
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much, Chairman Boozman,
and thank you for holding this important hearing today and for
bringing such distinguished witnesses. In particular, I would
mention the farmers who have come to Washington in the middle
of planting season to share their perspective. Thank you for
doing that, including a number from Minnesota.
As we hear from our witnesses today, I would say that
farmers need policies that encourage new investment, reduce
supply disruptions, and improve transparency in the fertilizer
market. We know there are many reasons that fertilizer prices
are astronomically high. They were high before the war started,
but I will note that there is a direct link between recent
escalations and this war.
In the months since the President started the war, with no
consultation or authorization from Congress, fertilizer
prices--urea has spiked more than 40 percent, and the cost of
diesel has hit near record highs in Midwest states. Now, why?
Well, nearly half of the global urea goes through the Strait of
Hormuz. Thirty percent of ammonia goes through the Strait of
Hormuz.
Yet even before the war, farmers were walloped by the
presence of across-the-board tariffs. An analysis by North
Dakota State University--you may not like the result, go Bison,
here is what it found--found that IEEPA tariffs added nearly $1
billion in costs to critical inputs like fertilizer, seed,
machinery, and chemicals from February through October of last
year.
I was at the Supreme Court argument, and as you are well
aware, the Supreme Court found the tariffs illegal. Last week,
the Court of International Trade ruled against the President's
authorities to use a different statute for these tariffs.
Again, they are not targeted. They are across the board, and it
has led to part of these problems.
Just last month, I was at a family farm in Cannon Falls,
Minnesota, where I met with corn and soybean farmers who are
facing escalating costs this planting season. Many of them said
stubbornly high fertilizer prices have been an issue for years
in a market with little competition. Some of them were able to
lock in before the war, not knowing it was going to happen, but
others now are even in worse shape.
Beyond the geopolitical challenges, there are other
reasons: farmers have just a handful of domestic suppliers to
choose from, with little transparency about the prices that
they ultimately pay. In 2024, just four fertilizer companies
accounted for 77 percent of U.S. nitrogen fertilizer sales and
all domestic potash and phosphate. That is why I partnered with
Senator Thune, who is here with us, and farmers in our states,
to introduce the Fertilizer Price Transparency Act to create a
mandatory price reporting structure at USDA to ensure farmers
and co-ops have adequate market information on fertilizer
components, especially at times when we see major supply chain
shocks. We believe getting this information out there would be
very helpful.
Aside from price transparency, we need to increase domestic
fertilizer production and storage. Senator Marshall, who is
also with us, and I have introduced the Homegrown Fertilizer
Act to do just that, so we can ease our dependence on imports.
I know Senator Grassley and others on this Committee have
introduced other pieces of legislation to address these issues.
Acting now will ultimately help stabilize prices and give
farmers the certainty they need. It is going to have to be a
combination of things: ending the tariffs, or reducing them, or
making them much more targeted, ending this war, finding a way
to resolve it, so the Strait of Hormuz is open again, and then
going at this long-term systemic problem about the lack of
competition in this area.
Thank you to our witnesses today.
Chairman Boozman. Thank you. We will now introduce our
witnesses.
We are going to Senator McConnell first to introduce our
witness from Kentucky.
Senator McConnell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know how
politicians frequently refer to each other as ``my friend'' or
``my good friend.'' It is usually not true.
[Laughter.]
Senator McConnell. Frequently, we say that about some of
our constituents. I have got a prepared text here. I am going
to ask the Chairman to put it in the record.
[The letter can be found on pages 138-141 in the appendix.]
I want to tell you about Eddie Melton. We have been
literally friends for decades. We have worked together on issue
after issue after issue for a big part of the 42 years I have
been here. He is bright as hell and is extremely creative.
Example, a year or so ago, he came to me and said, ``I'm
really, really concerned, as I'm sure we all are, about the
loss of farmland.'' Not only did he say he was concerned about
it, he had an idea about how to make it less likely to happen,
which was to give a tax relief proposal for people who bought a
farm if they agreed to continue farming for at least 10 years.
I took that idea and put it in the Big Beautiful Bill. It
is law. If Eddie had not thought of that it would not have
happened.
I can tell you, he has made a difference, not only for
Kentucky agriculture but for agriculture all across the
country. I just wanted to come by, Eddie, and thank you for all
you have done.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Boozman. Thank you very much. Senator Klobuchar.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. It is my
pleasure to welcome Andy Green to the Committee today. Mr.
Green is a partner in Center Market Strategies, a bipartisan
firm dedicated to keeping markets fair, and ensuring a seat at
the table for businesses of all sizes. He previously served as
the first senior advisor for Fair and Competitive Markets at
the USDA during the previous administration, where he
spearheaded efforts to promote competitive markets across
agriculture.
In addition, he worked for the Public Company Accounting
Oversight Board, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission,
and started his career in D.C. here in the Senate for Senator
Merkley of Oregon. Thank you for joining us today.
Chairman Boozman. Senator Thune.
Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and by the way,
thank you for shining a light on this really important subject.
I am glad we are having this hearing. We need to get to the
bottom of one of the biggest challenges farmers are facing
these days, and that is the cost of inputs, particularly
fertilizer.
It is my pleasure, Mr. Chairman, to introduce to the
Committee Trent Kubik. He is not only the current President of
the South Dakota Corn Growers but also a farmer and a rancher,
along with his wife and parents. They farm near Hamill, South
Dakota, raise corn, soybeans, alfalfa, and milo, alongside
their cow-calf operation. By the way, for any of you who have
been to South Dakota, in that part of South Dakota, they also
have a very, very abundant pheasant supply.
Trent graduated from South Dakota State University with a
degree in agronomy. He and his wife Shannon have two sons. He
stays very busy as a certified crop advisor and as a
volunteer--FFA and 4-H volunteer, and he is a very active
member of his church. I know also that he is a person--a man--
of great courage because he is a diehard Green Bay Packer fan
in Viking country, which is a distinction that we share, by the
way.
I am very pleased to have him here today and look forward
to hearing a South Dakota perspective on this issue. Trent,
welcome.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Boozman. Corey Rosenbusch serves as The Fertilizer
Institute's President and CEO, where he is responsible for
leading efforts to advance the fertilizer industry. Before
joining TFI, Mr. Rosenbusch served as President and CEO for the
Global Cold Chain Alliance and worked for The Borlaug
Institute. Mr. Rosenbusch holds a degree in international
development from Harvard University, a bachelor of science
degree in agriculture education from Texas A&M. That is a
combination. We appreciate you being here very, very much.
Senator Fischer.
Senator Fischer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased
today to introduce Mr. Joshua Westling, who is here today as a
witness for this Committee on a very, very important subject.
Mr. Westling is leading the development of Project Meadowlark,
a new fertilizer plant in Gothenburg, Nebraska. This facility
is projected to produce 5,000 tons of liquid fertilizer and
reach commercial operation. I am afraid not until 2029.
Before working on Project Meadowlark, Mr. Westling led the
development and construction of an anhydrous ammonia plant in
Geneva, Nebraska, that became one of the few greenfield
nitrogen fertilizer facilities built here in this country.
Mr. Westling, we are so happy to see you here today, and I
look forward to your comments. Thank you.
Chairman Boozman. Thank you. Mr. Green, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF ANDY GREEN, PRINCIPAL AND SENIOR ADVISOR, CENTER
MARKET STRATEGIES, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Green. Thank you, Chairman Boozman and Ranking Member
Klobuchar, for the opportunity to testify this afternoon.
We are here because the American farmer is hurting. For
more than five years, farmers have endured both price spikes
and sustained higher prices, squeezing their margins and
affecting their planting choices.
It is well known that fertilizer markets are highly
concentrated. Indeed, one relatively recent merger created a
giant that controls six percent of one type of fertilizer and
30 percent of the market for another. Amazingly, Federal Trade
Commission economists took a victory lap barely two years after
its completion to say everything is fine. That was a mistake.
What are the pillars of building fair, more competitive
fertilizer markets? First, enforcement. I am pleased to see
this Administration has prioritized investigations into
agricultural competition around both agricultural inputs and
cattle markets. I hope their efforts yield fruit. I would be
pleased if they were building on the groundwork laid out
previously, for example, with the Agri Stats case.
High, sustained increases in profits should also be cause
for antitrust scrutiny, particularly in light of market shocks
that are repeating today. To that end, it may be appropriate to
reconsider those recent mergers that have helped form this
highly concentrated sector. Effective enforcement of the law
also requires funding and staffing at agencies, including USDA.
Second, more transparency would be beneficial for a more
accountable fertilizer market. Kudos to the bipartisan sponsors
of legislation to enhance USDA's role in providing additional
transparency, including, in particular, S. 4152, the Fertilizer
Transparency Act of 2026.
Public reporting can highlight, and in some cases, deter
problematic trends, for example, where there is a disconnect
between price and underlying supply and demand. In that way,
transparency can lead to beneficial outcomes for farmers even
beyond their use of the information itself. I also commend the
legislation for its use of modern dashboards, and the bill
appropriately preserves the ability for the data to be used for
enforcement purposes. Additionally, regular public company
disclosures should be preserved and enhanced as valuable for
both investors' and for farmers' risk management.
Third, investment in an important tool for enhancing
competitive markets. The Fertilizer Production Expansion
Program, FPEP, was USDA's $900 million commitment to support
American-made sustainable fertilizer capacity in the face of
similarly sharply increasing prices and long-term trends toward
concentration. Over the course of three years, FPEP invested
over $778 million in more than 100 projects across 39 states.
That adds up to an estimated 12 million tons of new production
online and more than 1,500 jobs. More than $100 million remains
available to the program, and more via the CCC.
Funding for USDA's Rural Cooperative and Business Services
and the Agricultural Marketing Service are important for these
types of efforts and others that benefit more choices for
farmers.
Fourth, consumers can support pro-competition initiatives
incentives upstream for farmers. Clear labels for consumers
help producers that actually do the hard work of delivering
value-added products that consumers want. In fertilizer,
opportunities may exist to align America's desire for healthy
food and a clean environment with competition and resiliency in
fertilizer. Expanding biofertilizer and nutrient recycling
options for farmers should be part of the equation.
Fifth and finally, economic research and academic legal
analysis are foundational aspects of building and maintaining
effective market competition. Government investment in
objective, unbiased research, such as the land-grant university
system, helps policymakers identify trends and design
interventions to restore market competitiveness.
I want to particularly highlight the importance of research
into seed resiliency. New varieties can help support more
efficient fertilizer choices. To that end, special attention
should go to ensuring the maintenance and staffing for the
Agricultural Research Service's National Plant Germplasm System
to avoid the loss of irreplaceable genetics, including in corn.
In conclusion, more can and should be done on a bipartisan
basis to enhance competition in the fertilizer sector so that
America's farmers can compete based on hard work, smart
investments, and nature's abundance. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Green can be found on pages
42-59 in the appendix.]
Chairman Boozman. Thank you. Mr. Kubik.
STATEMENT OF TRENT KUBIK, PRESIDENT, SOUTH DAKOTA CORN GROWERS,
HAMILL, SD
Mr. Kubik. Chairman Boozman, Ranking Member Klobuchar, and
Members of the Senate Agriculture Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to speak here today. My name is Trent Kubik. I am a
farmer from Hamill, South Dakota, and President of the South
Dakota Corn Growers Association.
I farm in an area of the country where weather varies much
more than normal, and more often than not, we are threatened by
lack of rainfall. Due to this, we try and limit the amount of
fertilizer we purchase and apply at the start of the year to
determine if we need more while the crop is growing, which, in
turn, does not allow us to early book and/or prepay all of our
fertilizer needs.
In the first few months of this year, we were not in a
position to book or prepay for any fertilizer, so we expected
our costs were going to be higher than normal, as we would be
purchasing closer to peak demand season, but now we are left
with costs nearly doubling. This leads me to ask, what is
causing fertilizer to increase in price?
Despite the cost of natural gas in the U.S. being
relatively cheaper than any fertilizer-producing area in the
world, the price of nitrogen fertilizer in the U.S. has
continued to rise in concert with prices in areas with higher-
costing natural gas. The resulting rise in margins for U.S.
manufacturers should, in theory, encourage expansion of
production and higher capacity utilization for the industry.
Instead, market power has allowed manufacturers to maintain
higher prices at the expense of the U.S. farmer.
In fact, last week, a Bloomberg article showed the recent
earning reports indicate record profits for fertilizer
companies. When my input price goes up, my profit margin
shrinks. I will be frank. It is unclear to corn farmers in
South Dakota how the opposite is possible for the fertilizer
industry.
What I do know is that profit increase illustrate an
industry that does not have to increase my fertilizer prices
but can do so. In my written testimony, I also included
analysis that indicated the use of market power to directly
impact fertilizer pricing. An analysis conducted in 2024
illustrated the producer price index, measuring the change in
price of goods sold, both for corn and nitrogen, indicating
that nitrogen fertilizer prices nearly precisely tracked
increases in corn prices.
What is the structure of this marketplace? Over the past 40
years, fewer and fewer fertilizer firms serve the U.S. farmer,
due in no small part to industry mergers. By almost any
measure, these are highly concentrated markets.
In addition, large manufacturers appear to have developed
and to own distribution networks. For instance, Nutrien
operates the largest direct-to-grower distribution network with
distribution points and retail locations. Unfortunately, there
is limited publicly available information regarding
distributors and wholesalers.
It is important to note that vertical integration has not
led to the efficiency gains passed on to growers and consumers.
Instead, our experience is that the integration has resulted in
the largest fertilizer companies locking up and leveraging
distribution channels, entrenching their dominant position, and
extracting excessive profits from farmers and consumers. Market
power allows even the simple act of storing these products to
be turned against the farmer.
For instance, it is my understanding that the fertilizer
manufacturers are able to park barges of product and hold onto
inventory. In addition, under a scenario where there are only
two market participants, the first market participant could set
the price for a barge of fertilizer, with the second one
following at that price. It is easy to see how this might
occur.
We also need the ability of manufacturers to exert pressure
downstream on wholesalers and retailers to be mitigated. As I
have already mentioned, there is not significant amounts of
information available to the public about wholesalers. I have
heard credible reports of practices that undoubtedly could
affect farmers, such as the delay in availability of fertilizer
books by a retailer, but it is difficult to assess what is
really happening, due to the opaque nature of parts of that
supply chain.
Two key pieces of legislation would be helpful to begin to
provide the type of data needed to assess the use of market
output control. The Fertilizer Transparency Act of 2026 would
increase the data available to help improve market signals by
providing public access to meaningful pricing data and give
farmers a tool to help plan for these costs. Ultimately, this
legislation will make the market for key farm inputs more
transparent and therefore represent a step toward making the
market more competitive. It also might help provide data that
would aid in the analysis of whether market control has been
used to limit the supply of fertilizer. We greatly appreciate
South Dakota Senator John Thune and Ranking Member Klobuchar
for introducing this much-needed step toward market
transparency.
In addition, the Fertilizer Research Act authorizes a study
on fertilizer competition trends and pricing. This bill also
increases transparency and would provide much-needed
information to better assess the marketplace, including key
data such as sectors capacity utilization rates. We thank
Senate Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley and Senator Tammy Baldwin
for introducing this bill.
Simply put, farmers need more competition in this
marketplace. We thank the U.S. Department of Ag Deputy
Secretary Stephen Vaden for his significant interest in this
area and call upon the federal agencies that signed the
September 2025 Memorandum of Understanding to take meaningful
steps toward solutions to concentration in this subsector.
Federal antitrust laws exist for precisely this reason, to
promote and sustain competition, the lifeblood of our economy.
Increased competition for more participants in the
fertilizer manufacturing space is the only thing that can
deliver meaningful and durable price relief.
Thank you again for the opportunity to be here and thank
you to Chairman Boozman and Ranking Member Klobuchar for taking
up such a critical issue of fertilizer. I look forward to your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kubik can be found on pages
60-71 in the appendix.]
Chairman Boozman. Thank you very much. Mr. Melton.
STATEMENT OF EDDIE MELTON, PRESIDENT, KENTUCKY FARM BUREAU
FEDERATION, LOUISVILLE, KY
Mr. Melton. Chairman Boozman, Ranking Member Klobuchar, and
Members of the Senate Ag Committee, my name is Eddie Melton and
I am fifth-generation row crop and beef cattle farmer from
Webster County, Kentucky, and I currently serve as President of
Kentucky Farm Bureau. It is an honor to be with you today to
speak on behalf of the farmers of Kentucky as well as the
470,000 Kentucky Farm Bureau member families.
My family has been farming in Webster County since 1900,
when my great-great-grandfather purchased our farm. During my
lifetime, I have helped bring in more than 50 years of crops.
We typically raise corn, soybeans, canola, wheat, and beef
cattle. My business partner, Patrick Howard, and I made a
decision last August to not plant wheat and canola, due to the
increased fertilizer price. This is the kind of decisions
farmers across the country have had to make.
This hearing comes at a critical time as we assess the
current state of the farm economy and the ongoing challenges
facing American agriculture. Today's fertilizer price
challenges do not begin with the recent conflict in Iran. While
global tensions often draw attention to input markets, prices
for fertilizer have been elevated for years. Though the current
crisis is not new, disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz have,
beyond a doubt, exacerbated the problem. The shipping
disruptions contributed to an increase in the price of nitrogen
fertilizer. The unpredictability in the region has led to
concerns about availability, not for just this current crop
year but also for next year, as well.
Since February, we have seen a 33 percent rise in anhydrous
prices, a 55 percent rise in urea prices, and a 25 percent
increase in liquid nitrogen. All the while, corn prices have
declined from $7 a bushel in 2022 to approximately $4.50 per
bushel today. Meanwhile, many farmers are operating with little
or no working capital, limiting their ability to manage risk or
invest in future production.
In the first quarter of 2026, 86 farms have already filed
for Chapter 12 bankruptcy, including 25 of those in the
southeastern region.
Last month, American Farm Bureau Federation conducted a
Fertilizer Availability Survey of more than 5,700 farmers and
ranchers nationwide. The results highlight significant
challenges in fertilizer access. Affordability challenges are
especially acute in the South, with roughly 78 percent of the
respondents indicating that they were unable to afford all the
fertilizer they need. In my home State of Kentucky, just 29
percent of farmers were reported to be able to prebook
fertilizer, with almost 72 percent stating that they could not
afford all the fertilizer that they needed this growing season.
Addressing these challenges requires both immediate and
long-term action. In the near term, greater transparency in the
fertilizer market and ensuring farmers have access to the
fertilizer they need to get through this growing season is
essential. We appreciate the efforts of the Administration so
far, but we continue to call on the President and Congress to
do everything in their power to increase availability of
fertilizer and ease the price burdens on farmers this growing
season.
Over the longer term, the United States must strengthen its
domestic fertilizer production capacity. We are grateful to the
Administration, especially Secretary Rollins and the team at
USDA, for the work on this issue. Expanding domestic production
would improve supply reliability and help moderate price
volatility over time.
These challenges facing agriculture today are the result of
sustained economic pressure that is reshaping the farm economy.
According to the last USDA census, we lost more than 20 million
acres of farmland and almost 200,000 farms nationwide. If farm
closures, farmland loss, and consolidation continue, the long-
term structure of American agriculture will begin to change.
Ensuring that producers have access to affordable inputs and
fair, transparent markets is critical, not only for their
operations but for the long-term stability of American
agriculture and national food security.
For producers operating on thin margins, there is no
flexibility to wait for longer-term solutions. That is why
near-term support matters. Congress should act now with
additional economic assistance to help farmers manage today's
cost pressures to prevent further financial strain and
stabilize operations while longer-term fixes are put in place.
Chairman Boozman, Ranking Member Klobuchar, and Members of
the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak to you
today as both as a farmer and as President of Kentucky Farm
Bureau. This Committee's work is so important to agriculture
and the farm economy to ensure the reliable supply of food,
fiber, and fuel for generations to come. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Melton can be found on pages
72-80 in the appendix.]
Chairman Boozman. Thank you. Mr. Rosenbusch.
STATEMENT OF COREY ROSENBUSCH, PRESIDENT AND CEO, THE
FERTILIZER INSTITUTE, ARLINGTON, VA
Mr. Rosenbusch. Thank you, Chairman Boozman, Ranking Member
Klobuchar, and Members of the Committee.
The Fertilizer Institute represents manufacturers,
importers, wholesalers, and retailers who serve America's
farmers. There are over 500 producers of fertilizer globally,
and the United States is one of three countries that has more
than 20 unique companies producing fertilizer. Half of all the
crop yields in the world today are only possible through the
use of these crop nutrients. Thank you, farmers, because
without farmers, there would be no fertilizer industry.
I grew up in a small Texas town where my dad was my FFA
advisor, and it was really FFA that broadened my horizons to
leave rural America and move to Indonesia, where I spent three
years helping smallholder farmers. It was really that
experience that shaped my view on agriculture. Whether you farm
in Indonesia or in Iowa, farmers are highly exposed to global
markets.
Fertilizer is one of those global markets, which is not a
single product, but they are typically represented by three
macronutrients, nitrogen, phosphate, and potash, each with its
own unique market dynamics.
The United States does have significant production of
nitrogen and phosphate, and while we do have some potash
production, we import over 98 percent. The U.S. only accounts
for seven percent of total global fertilizer production, and we
are a net importer of fertilizer. Over 90 percent of all
fertilizers applied in the world are actually used outside of
the United States.
We also have one of the world's most sophisticated
logistics systems to enable large-scale delivery of fertilizer.
That infrastructure helps support strong competition and
options for farmers, from both domestic and international
suppliers to the market.
Please hear this. Fertilizer is a globally traded commodity
that is subject to fierce competition and global supply and
demand.
To understand that supply and demand, we really have to
begin with geopolitics, starting with Iran. The closure of the
Strait of Hormuz impacted about 34 percent of globally traded
urea, 20 percent of phosphate, and half of the world's sulfur
exports. Iran itself is actually the second-largest exporter of
urea, with about 12 percent of the marketplace. Twenty percent
of the natural gas is supplied from the region, and natural gas
is the feedstock, of course, for all nitrogen fertilizer.
The Strait is really only part of the story. There have
been 31 ammonia plants in the region that have curtailed
production or have been damaged during the conflict. Another 49
plants in India and South Asia were also shuttered due to
disruption of their natural gas supply from the region. Even
with the Strait reopening, we do not know the extent of the
damage to those production facilities.
These issues really just exacerbated what was already a
very tight global supply. China, who is the world's largest
producer of fertilizer, with about a third of all nitrogen
production and 43 percent of the global phosphate supply, are
currently restricting all of their exports. Twenty Russian
nitrogen plants have been damaged due to Ukrainian drone
strikes, and Russia also has implemented an export ban on their
fertilizer, or restriction.
At the same time, we are also experiencing strong demand
for fertilizer. For example, in India, the world's second-
largest consumer of fertilizer behind China, their Federal
Government procures their fertilizer. They then heavily
subsidize it to keep prices low for their farmers. Because a
significant volume of urea was stranded behind the Strait,
India recently did another urea tender for 2.5 million metric
tons of urea, at nearly $1,000 per metric ton.
We recognize that this is a very challenging and
frustrating time for our farmers, that are already experiencing
very low crop prices. That is why we would like to be a
partner, to develop solutions.
In the interest of time, I will refer to my written
testimony for some of those solutions, but we support policies
that bolster domestic supply. Ammonia facilities can take more
than five years and cost $4 to $5 billion to build, or a decade
or more for development of a potash or phosphate mine.
We also support transparency. Farmers need a reliable
source of data and market information. We have proposed the
creation of a crop input economist at USDA that can analyze
price information and supply factors to aid farmers in their
decision-making.
Even with these policy solutions, I want to be clear that
fertilizer is a globally traded commodity. While we cannot
directly influence prices, we can produce productive policies
to bolster domestic supply that mitigates geopolitical risks
for the American farmer. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rosenbusch can be found on
pages 81-116 in the appendix.]
Chairman Boozman. Thank you. Mr. Westling.
STATEMENT OF JOSHUA WESTLING, CEO, J. WESTLING & CO., LLC,
OMAHA, NE
Mr. Westling. Chairman Boozman, Ranking Member Klobuchar,
Members of the Committee, thank you, and Senator Fischer, thank
you for the introduction.
My name is Joshua Westling. I am the Founder and CEO of J
Westling & Company, and I am leading the development of Project
Meadowlark, a new domestic fertilizer complex in Gothenburg,
Nebraska. I am the only developer of new domestic fertilizer
capacity testifying today, and I want to give you a candid view
from the front line.
Six years ago, I started working on this project because
the fertilizer supply problem in our region was getting worse,
and nobody was solving it. Nebraska is consistently one of the
largest agricultural markets in the United States, with farm
cash receipts approaching $40 billion annually, and we are one
of the largest markets for UAN and ATS in the country, yet
local production of nitrogen fertilizer is minimal relative to
what we consume. The cost of moving fertilizer to where it is
needed and the consequences when it does not arrive on time are
borne by our farmers. Very often, they are also exposed to
supply disruptions, thousands of miles away from their
operations.
Project Meadowlark helps change that. Once it reaches
commercial operation in 2029, it will produce 365,000 tons of
UAN per year, 140,000 tons of ATS, and 52,000 tons of diesel
exhaust fluid. The plant is fully integrated. We produce
ammonia as an intermediate, but every pound is converted onsite
into products our farmers and truckers actually use.
This is the second greenfield nitrogen fertilizer plant I
will have developed. When Fortigen came online in 2018, it was
one of only three greenfield nitrogen fertilizer plants of
meaningful scale built in the United States in over 30 years.
Project Meadowlark will be the fourth. My team and I have done
this before.
The total budget for this project is over $1 billion
dollars. We have raised over $50 million in predevelopment
capital to date, the substantial majority from regional
investors, farmer-aligned partners, and members of our
community. These are the people who understand the supply
problem most directly, because they live it every season. They
have always believed the Federal Government should have a role
in solving this problem, but they also recognize the government
often acts only in response to crisis, so they took the
initiative. I am honored and humbled by their support. I take
very seriously the responsibility of delivering what we say we
will deliver. When farmers are putting their own capital into
restoring domestic fertilizer production that is essential to
our Nation's farm and food security, that is rural America
trying to tell you something.
One challenge unique to fertilizer projects is that so
little domestic nitrogen capacity has been built in the United
States over the past several decades. Unlike sectors such as
power generation or data centers, there are relatively few
recent reference projects for institutional investors, lenders,
engineers, and contractors to rely upon. As a result,
substantially more diligence, engineering work, and development
capital are required before large-scale, private capital can
move with confidence. Early-stage funding, through any number
of mechanisms, is one of the biggest areas of opportunity for
any capital deployment program, new or pursuing.
I support the framework announced on April 29th by
Secretaries Rollins, Lutnick, and Bergum, Administrator Zeldin,
Director Hassett, and others as a serious response to a serious
problem, and this Committee's bipartisan engagement is exactly
what this moment requires. If domestic fertilizer production is
truly a strategic infrastructure, then we need to finance and
permit it like strategic infrastructure.
I want to use my remaining time to highlight three
additional steps that would meaningfully strengthen American
farm and food security. First, predictability and execution
certainty. If domestic fertilizer capacity is truly a strategic
priority then federal timelines must operate with the urgency
that this priority requires. Clear and predictable timelines
allow private capital to move faster on strategically important
projects to come online sooner.
Second, coordination across agencies and programs. Large
industrial projects move through multiple federal processes
simultaneously. When agencies operate independently, delays
compound and timelines stretch unnecessarily. Better
coordination would materially accelerate the deployment of
private capital into strategically important domestic capacity.
Third, urgency. If Congress and the Administration believe
domestic fertilizer production is critical to American food and
national security then we should act like it. Every year of
delay is another planting cycle exposed to fragile supply
chains and foreign dependency. Projects like ours are ready to
move. The faster strategic federal support becomes real and
deployable, the faster new domestic capacity comes online.
Three years from now, the measure of success will not be
how many frameworks were announced or how many hearings were
held. It will be whether new domestic fertilizer capacity
actually came online in the United States. This Committee has
the opportunity to help ensure that projects like ours move
fast enough to matter.
I am grateful for your attention to this issue, and for the
bipartisan seriousness this Committee has brought to the
problem. I look forward to your questions and thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Westling can be found on
page 117-123 in the appendix.]
Chairman Boozman. Thank you very much. We are going to go
to our round of questions, and I am going to allow Senator
Thune to take my place in the order. We appreciate the fact
that even though he is the majority leader he is one of our
most active Members.
Senator Thune. Thank you.
Chairman Boozman. He has not forgotten his roots.
Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and you can count
on that. Thank you again for your leadership on this, and
Senator Klobuchar, for taking on this issue. Let me add, I
would be remiss, and I know this is not the subject here, but
we need to get E15 done. That solves a couple of important
problems, one of which is demand for corn in this country, at a
time when we are losing some of our export markets. Secondly,
increasing the supply of fuel in this country, at a time when
gas prices are going up. As an economic matter, it makes all
the sense in the world.
I deviate, and I understand, and thank you for your
indulgence on that subject.
I want to thank all of our panelists for being here today
and for sharing your thoughts on the impact of fertilizer
prices and supply chains on the ag economy. These high input
costs, adverse weather conditions, low commodity provides all
impact our ag economy, and it is important that Congress
continue its work toward long-term solutions that support the
entire ag industry. I am very proud of what we did last summer
in the Working Families Tax Cuts to increase reference prices
for ARC and PLC, improve crop insurance protection, and update
disaster programs.
I will say there remains more to be done. All of the
Members of this Committee know that rising input costs have
been eating into producers' bottom lines over the last several
years, particularly, I would add, the price of fertilizer. This
steep increase would shrink or altogether eliminate any
grower's profit margins, even during times of strong commodity
prices. It needs to be addressed.
Mr. Kubik, would you elaborate on how the price you have
paid for nitrogen and phosphate fertilizer has changed over the
last several years and how those changes have impacted your
planting decisions over the last few years?
Mr. Kubik. Thank you, Senator, for that question. I did go
back and look. From 2020 to 2026, kind of where the trend in
fertilizer, I got a little bit of PTSD from 2022, I will be
honest, and I must have blocked it out of my memory, because I
cannot believe we paid that much for fertilizer in 2022.
Just for reference, in 2020, my farm paid $355 for a ton of
urea. By the time 2022 hit, that price jumped to $830. A little
bit of retract in 2023 and 2024 to $400 and $500, $600 range,
which at the time, it does not take a sharp pencil to figure
out that that is not sustainable, and we cannot be profitable
at those levels.
Then when we look at phosphates, so MAP, $435 a ton in
2020, and it jumped to $1,100 a ton in 2022, and it has stayed
consistently high. It came off that high of 2022, but stayed in
the $700 to $800 range consistently for the last four to five
years. That has changed, and we apply less because of it.
Actually, in 2025, we did not apply any phosphate on our farm
because it just did not make economic sense for us. We are
taking the risk that, hopefully, in the coming years, it will
get cheaper, and we can catch up.
We have dealt with this for a long time, and then when we
have world events that happen, that completely blows that up
and really exacerbates the problem. We feel it. This has been a
longstanding problem for us.
Senator Thune. It predates current events, but
nevertheless, I mean, this is contributing. This is something
that is going back a long ways, and there are some structural
things I think here that need to be addressed, which is why we
have some of these transparency bills.
Could you just very quickly share your experience with the
recent shortages, in particular the shortage of nitrogen in
South Dakota?
Mr. Kubik. I will be honest, Senator, we have not
experienced a shortage of nitrogen yet. For our spring needs,
the nitrogen fertilizer has been there. A lot of this stuff was
in place and in country long before the events around the world
happened. They went up in price significantly, the product that
was here. We do have a product. We are starting to get
concerned about what do we in-crop, as our crop is growing and
needs more fertilizer, and as we look toward 2027. It is a real
consideration.
Senator Thune. As we know, there are a small number of
manufacturers who have the lion's share of domestic fertilizer
production. I would like to ask this question of Mr.
Rosenbusch. In the United States, what percentage of sales for
potash, nitrogen, and phosphorus, respectively, to U.S.
retailers come from manufacturers other than the largest
companies?
Mr. Rosenbusch. Thank you, Senator, for that question. Each
market is very different, so I will start with potash. Potash,
only about two percent of our domestic manufactured product,
represents the market here. When you look at nitrogen, again,
it depends on each of the different products. Ammonia, we have
a large percentage of U.S. domestic producers. We have 18
different companies that make up about 80 percent of that.
Then, when you get to phosphate, about 60 percent of our
domestic manufacturers represent the market share in the United
States. The other 40 percent is imported product.
It depends on each of those, and when you think about the
total market for the United States, it is not just the domestic
produced product, but it is also the imported product that we
need to serve all the farmers' needs.
Senator Thune. Mr. Chairman, my time has expired but if I
can I would like to submit a couple of questions for the
record.
Chairman Boozman. Without objection.
Senator Thune. Thank you.
Chairman Boozman. Senator Klobuchar.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Mr.
Kubik, in March, Leader Thune and I introduced the bill I
mentioned that would create a mandatory price reporting system
for price transparency of fertilizer components. Could you talk
about how price transparency in the fertilizer market helps
farmers like yourself gain insight into the market and can make
informed financial decisions? How is it helpful during the
current market volatility we find ourselves in?
Mr. Kubik. Thank you for that question, Senator, and it
would be huge. You know, we just want to understand this
market. Time and time again, I have found myself saying it, my
neighbors saying it, that when the price of fertilizer is so
high, we keep asking ourselves, why is it so high? You know
what is going on now? This one little event, you know, a couple
of months ago, it was easy to point to, but leading up to that,
nobody knew that answer.
We just want transparency in that for (a) risk mitigation,
so we can understand how we purchase our fertilizer, early when
we do it, the trends, everything else, and just pull back some
layers to see how our fertilizer, our main component, one of
our main input components, is priced, and priced to us.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you. Mr. Green, you spent some
time during the last administration looking at competition
challenges in fertilizer and other input markets. Can you talk
quickly about some of your findings back then?
Mr. Green. Well, we did a request for information around
fertilizer. I gather your question is focused on fertilizer. We
did a lot of different things on seeds, on cattle, on poultry,
but on fertilizer, we did a request for comments, and we did a
summary of that. It was made available. We really found, this
was in 2002, 2003, so many of the trends you are hearing today
were entirely present then. These have been building up for a
number of years, but they are small number of choices, high
concentration, high prices, prices that follow the price of
corn rather than the price of the supply and demand for the
actual product itself, or supply and demand for the inputs into
fertilizer itself. That really just raises questions. I mean,
obviously, there are some reasons why it might be connected,
but the extent of the connection is really a focus of concern.
We made all of that public, hundreds of comments, and we
would certainly be happy to share that with your office.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you. Thank you very much. Mr.
Melton, you mentioned the war, and many of our farmers have
found themselves stuck with higher costs right before the
planting season, or during it actually, which was reflected in
your Farm Bureau Fertilizer Survey. Fifty-eight percent of the
respondents reported that their financial situation has
worsened this year.
How are these costs going to affect the next generation of
farmers that are trying to get started, that maybe do not have
the margin or the savings of some of our farmers who have been
around a while?
Mr. Melton. We have probably seen four years of balance
sheet deterioration. We have had four years of where prices
have declined, and basically all of our inputs have gone up,
but especially fertilizer here.
It is concerning about the next generation, because they
probably do not have the balance sheet strength that some of
our mature farmers, I would say, and it is very concerning.
Plus, actually talking a young person to getting into
agriculture right now is concerning to me, because what would
make you want to do this? I mean, when you are looking at not
being able to make a profit, or basically not planting the
crops that you normally plant because of fertilizer prices. We
have to do something to try to stabilize this market and make
us more profitable. There are a lot of different things that we
can do----
Senator Klobuchar. Agreed.
Mr. Melton [continuing]. but we have to get farmers back to
profitability again.
Senator Klobuchar. Agreed. Thank you. Quickly, Mr.
Rosenbusch, can you talk more about the unique challenges
fertilizer companies are facing with these supply chain
disruptions? You mentioned some things internationally that I
did not even know about, and I want to quickly get to Mr.
Westling. If you could be fast. Thanks.
Mr. Rosenbusch. Yes, thank you, Senator Klobuchar. I think
I would just summarize it by saying that we are competing as a
free market in the United States with a significant amount of
manufactured fertilizer in countries where you have state-
controlled enterprises. I referenced China with almost half of
the world's phosphates. When they decide to keep that all for
domestic consumption, that is what is driving market trends
more so than any other factor right now, is their internal
government policies.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you. Mr. Westling, thanks for
being here. I mentioned Senator Marshall and I introduced the
bill to create a grant and loan program at the USDA to help
domestic fertilizer companies, getting at some of the concerns
that your previous witness mentioned, like yours, to get into
financing. What are the challenges in creating a novel
fertilizer production facility like Project Meadowlark? Nice
name, by the way.
Mr. Westling. Thank you, Senator, for the question. The
biggest challenges on projects that get to a certain scale are
the upfront capital requirements, and in this industry, in
particular, since so few of them built, as I alluded to in my
testimony, there is a real lack of expertise around it. In the
case of our project, for example, we will have spent $50 to
$100 million before we sign some of the major contracts for
construction. That upfront capital cost to bridge to the point
where you have got the certainty to be able to execute and give
certainty to other investors and lenders, I would say is the
biggest challenge, for sure.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much.
Chairman Boozman. Senator Marshall.
Senator Marshall. Thank you so much, Chairman and Ranking
Member, for your leadership in this, as well.
Thanks to the Working Family Tax Cuts Law, crop insurance
and reference prices have been taken care of, for the most
part. Now, input costs are the number one issue concerning
American farmers. In fact, fertilizer costs now account for up
to 40 percent of input costs. That is now the number one issue,
these input costs. American farmers are price-takers on both
ends, paying monopoly prices for inputs. They must buy and
accept commodity prices they cannot control. With no pricing
power on either side, that is not a market. It is a trap for
the American farmers.
I do point out that prices for fertilizer were higher for
some 18 months when Russia invaded Ukraine, and those prices
came down. Of course, now they are up significantly.
We will speak to Mr. Rosenbusch first. As you know, one
particular company controls 64 percent of U.S. phosphate rock
mined, may account for 90 percent of retail sales to farmers.
It is being reported that this largest domestic supplier of
phosphate is closing plants, which will reduce domestic
supplies, while we have a 16 percent duty on Moroccan imports
on phosphate.
I guess the other question I would ask you, what are these
countervailing duties protecting? Aren't farmers not getting
squeezed from both sides with less domestic supply and
restricted imports?
Mr. Rosenbusch. Yes, thank you, Senator Marshall, for that
question, and really, an interesting topic that I think is
going to be the hot topic going forward into the future. I
cannot speak for specific company's business decisions, and as
you are aware, those are companies that are all TFI members on
opposite sides of that case. We remain neutral when it comes to
that specific case.
Senator Marshall. I am not asking you to comment on their
plan, but I think you would agree with me that the farmers are
getting squeezed on both sides now, less domestic supply and
restricted imports. Does The Fertilizer Institute support free
market competition and fertilizer pricing? Yes or no. If the
answer is yes, you have to justify the duties that block the
world's largest phosphate producer from competing for American
farmers' business.
Mr. Rosenbusch. There is no question, Senator, that farmers
are going through a really difficult economic time, and TFI
does support policies that promote open, fair, predictable, and
transparent trading environment. I think when we think about
phosphate going forward, those two raw materials, to
manufacture that, are sulfuric acid and ammonia. With the
sulfur challenges we are now----
Senator Marshall. We understand all that. We understand
there is a shortage of sulfur. We need the sulfur to mine the
phosphate. That is pretty elementary chemistry. I am just going
to ask you directly. Does The Fertilizer Institute support or
oppose removing the 16 percent countervailing duties on
Moroccan phosphate? The farmers in Kansas deserve an answer.
Mr. Rosenbusch. Senator, I understand how challenging that
is for farmers because we have member companies that are on
both sides of that case. We do not take a position on that
particular case at the ITC right now.
Senator Marshall. The American farmers paid almost $7
billion in excess costs over five years because of that 16
percent countervailing duty. Does The Fertilizer Institute
believe American farmers should pay above market prices to
protect a single company's market position?
Mr. Rosenbusch. Senator, we definitely believe that farmers
need access, and TFI member companies are committed to ensuring
they have supply, and that that supply is in line with what
global markets are. In many cases we have seen that the U.S.
market is actually traded at a bit of a discount right now,
almost $150 cheaper than what Brazil pays for their phosphates.
That commitment that I think the U.S. fertilizer suppliers have
is to the farmer, to get an affordable and abundant supply of--
--
Senator Marshall. Mr. Rosenbusch, would you agree that the
American farmers deserve access to the lowest cost, highest
quality fertilizers available, regardless of where it is
produced?
Mr. Rosenbusch. Thank you, Senator. We 100 percent agree
that fertilizer manufactured and bolstering domestic supply of
fertilizer is incredibly important to deliver to U.S. growers
the fertilizer they need in order to be profitable.
Senator Marshall. I just want to reiterate that the number
one challenge for the American farmer today is input costs, and
fertilizers now account for up to 40 percent of those input
costs. Look, trade exports are up. We went from 2.3 to 2.8
billion bushels of corn last year. We are going to have a 20
percent increase in corn and ethanol exports again this year.
The problem are the input costs, and the fertilizer is the
biggest chunk of those that we need to address. I appreciate
again the Chairman and Ranking Member for giving us this
opportunity to discuss these. We have been working on these,
again, since Russia invaded Ukraine, and we need to give the
American farmers some relief now. Getting rid of those
countervailing duties would be the quickest, most immediate
impact that the American farmer could see in their real world
today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Boozman. Thank you. Senator Smith.
Senator Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Ranking Member, and
thanks to all of our panelists today. I want to actually maybe
follow up a little bit on Senator Marshall's questions, because
I think he is touching on something that everyone on this
Committee cares about.
You have got these skyrocketing input costs, and we also
have what we know to be really significant market
concentration, and on the input side we are talking about
fertilizer today. I think, actually, Mr. Kubik, you put it
really clearly. You said basically the fertilizer companies
raise their prices because they can. That is the market power
that they have.
You know, I was just looking at some data, which gets at
this, and I am going to just come to you first, Mr. Kubik,
because I think this is really interesting. This data is a few
years old, so it is maybe prices that were in global markets
were more affected by what is going on in Ukraine, but I would
ask everyone, do we really think it is different now than it
was? This is from the Institute for Ag and Trade Policy in
Minnesota.
They said that in the 2021-2022 time period the nine
largest fertilizer companies made an estimated $84 billion in
profits. In 2022, major fertilizer companies saw profits
increase by somewhere between 100 and 200 percent. Their input
costs did not go up by that much.
Think about that, Mr. Kubik. Their profits are going up
between 100 and 200 percent. How much do you think the profits
of the average farmer in South Dakota was going up during that
time period?
Mr. Kubik. Thank you for that question, Senator, and
bringing light to it. I can tell you personally----
Senator Smith. Yes.
Mr. Kubik [continuing]. they have not gone up by 100 or 200
percent. That is why we struggle with it. I look at my cost of
production. When I look at marketing my corn or my soybeans or
my cattle, and that is how I determine my marketing points.
That is why we kind of feel taken advantage of. They can look
at their cost of production and throw it out the window and
just look at a price to set it at.
Senator Smith. Yes, that is the price that they can charge
because, as you said, they have the market power. Mosaic's
profits in that time period went up 120 percent. Nutrien's
profits went up 142 percent. I mean, that looks like excess
profit to me. Did you want to add?
Mr. Kubik. If I may. I believe that there is a copy of the
article at all of your desks. This is not just two, three and
four years ago. This is like in the last week we have similar
reports of massive profits. That is the thing that we feel the
worst about, is during this last 75 days a lot of money was
being made, but it was not by farmers.
Senator Smith. I always say when I am talking to Minnesota
farmers there is plenty of money in agriculture. The question
is who is getting it. It is not farmers right now.
Now, I am fully in support of the excellent transparency
bills that have been put forth, bipartisan by my colleagues. I
am wondering, Mr. Melton or Mr. Kubik, or anybody who wants to
comment, do you think that those transparency laws, if they
were in place right now, do you think that would change the
behavior of these companies? Because that is what we are
talking about. We are talking about the behavior that they have
of being able to raise prices so exorbitantly.
Mr. Melton. Well, thank you, Senator. I think we need all
the tools in the toolbox that we can use, anything that we can
do to help us get back to profitability. I go back to we have
seen four years of decline in our balance sheets. This cannot
continue on. You cannot keep losing money and continue with the
things that we are doing. I think we need every tool in the
toolbox that we can use. I think transparency in markets will
give us one tool there that we can use.
What we do right now, and I talked to my partner this
morning about it, we get a lot of our information from the
retailer. That is where we get our information on fertilizer
right now. I mean, there are things on the internet you can go
look to, but actual fertilizer pricing----
Senator Smith. To be able to actually see.
Mr. Melton [continuing]. we have to go to the retailer
right now to see where we can price that fertilizer. I think it
would be a good tool in the toolbox.
Senator Smith. Mr. Green, would you like to comment on this
issue that I raised about the exorbitant profits that we are
seeing? I know you work a lot on the question of how we can
have fair markets in agriculture to the benefit of the folks
that are actually growing things.
Mr. Green. I mean, I want to agree with my colleagues here.
You need a lot of toolkits. There is no one toolkit that will
bring those down. When you do have those supernormal profits,
you need to go back and look at the mergers and look at the
other conduct and bring enforcement cases. You have to think
about the transparency toolkit. You have to think about the
investment toolkit of supporting the new competition, the new
choices, which is what we did in the previous administration,
$778 million of investments.
Every single one of those is part of bringing down those
supernormal profits, which are an indication of a broken
market.
Senator Smith. That is exactly right. I agree with that
completely. I know my time is up, Mr. Chair. I think the
question is, what can we do to change the behavior of companies
that are in a position where they can charge such high prices
and get such exorbitant profits? I mean, in some sectors we
look at things, I know it would be radical, but things like a
windfall profits tax, something to change the behavior so that
we can make the market more fair, particularly for the folks
that are doing the work. Thank you.
Chairman Boozman. Thank you. Senator Grassley.
Senator Grassley. Before I ask Mr. Kubik the first
question, I want people to know that there is at least one
other Senator who agrees with the questioning that Senator
Marshall put forward. In 2021, countervailing duties were first
applied to Moroccan phosphate. A study published at Texas A&M
in January found that farmers paid nearly $7 billion in
additional costs between 2021 and 2025 growing seasons because
of countervailing duties. One company, Mosaic, has 80 percent
of the market in the United States, yet they feel like they
need protection from 18 percent tariffs on Moroccan phosphate
coming into this country.
Trump has tried to help with dollars from the U.S.
Treasury, but what I hear, even last week, in 12 different
counties in Iowa that I toured, farmers want to get their money
from the marketplace, not from the U.S. Treasury.
I think this administration ought to get rid of that 18
percent tariff on Morocco phosphate. Lowering production costs
would be as much help as increasing prices for farmers or
getting money for the Federal Treasury.
Now, Mr. Kubik, for many years now, farmers have felt that
when commodity prices increase, input prices are bound to
increase with them. Since 2020, even as the price of corn has
decreased, fertilizer prices have remained elevated. We know
the talking points of the fertilizer industry. The cause would
be Ukraine, Chinese export controls on fertilizers, all
contributing to prices farmers are facing and increased prices
those are. However, farmers have also been seeing increased
consolidation of the fertilizer industry. Farmers want to know
exactly why they are paying the price that they have for
fertilizers, and I think we need more transparency on that.
For you, Mr. Kubik, as a consumer of fertilizer, how much
insight do you have into the price of the fertilizer you use?
Mr. Kubik. Yes, thank you for the question, Senator, and I
will echo what Eddie said. We get a lot of that from our
retailer, and our retailer gets a lot of that from the
wholesaler, and we are just kind of going off of things we hear
in the news and then coming to them. We are still big on the
fertilizer transparency, the Fertilizer Research Act that you
introduced. We just need to see more data and see more trends.
We like to typically purchase our fertilizer in the summer
prior to the growing season, so this summer, a lot of farmers
will be purchasing fertilizer in June and July for the next
growing season. Now we have a lot of uncertainty. Is that trend
going to remain the same? We just do not have a lot of that
data to look at.
If we can just see a lot more of that. Even if it is too
high and we think it is too high, at least we know how and why,
and predict a little more what it is going to do.
Senator Grassley. My second question, I think you just
addressed, but more transparency, and knowledge, and data on
fertilizer prices would be very beneficial to you.
Mr. Kubik. It would be huge, yes. As one piece that was
mentioned before, it is one piece of the puzzle trying to
figure out this market.
Senator Grassley. Yes. Maybe this next question is
difficult for you to answer, but is there any reason you can
think of that the fertilizer industry may not want a study to
be published by the U.S. Department of Agriculture?
Mr. Kubik. Not one that I can think of, and I actually
heard comments today they are very supportive of transparency,
which is nice to hear that they support that. It sounds like,
well, you know, with their support and our support, hopefully
we can get these bills across the finish line and start getting
and collecting this data.
Senator Grassley. Mr. Rosenbusch, does The Fertilizer
Institute support a report that provides insight to farmers on
why they have paid certain prices for fertilizers, including
factors such as market concentration?
Mr. Rosenbusch. Senator Grassley, thank you for that
question. Good to see you again. We had some of these
conversations a few months ago when you chaired the Committee.
Yes, we do support transparency. We think farmers need more
information to understand markets and prices, and we believe
that USDA can play a very important role in being able to
explain that.
I was at a farm on Friday, talking to some growers about
the dynamics, the global dynamics, what was creating the price
structure we have today, and they were very appreciative of
that. I am one person, and I think the more we can do to invest
in providing that market information, the better it will be for
growers to make those decisions.
Senator Grassley. My time is up, Mr. Chairman. I will put
the rest of my questions for answers in writing.
Chairman Boozman. Thank you, Senator Grassley. Senator
Lujan.
Senator Lujan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you and the
Ranking Member for calling this hearing. To all the panelists,
thank you all for being here.
Last week, I had the opportunity to sit down with some
farmers and ranchers in southern New Mexico and just ask them
what is working, what is not working, what is happening to your
bottom lines. A host of issues they shared with me--increased
farm input costs, shortage of farm labor, concern with an aging
farming population, loss of expertise at USDA. Someone said
that it is hindering their ability to get timely assistance
from the United States Department of Agriculture.
Now, many of the issues are larger than one administration.
I recognize that. However, some of the issues can be directly
attributed to policies advanced by this President and by this
Administration. President Trump began by implementing sweeping
tariffs that have closed off entire markets to American
farmers, markets, and relationships that we spent decades
building, driving down prices just as farmers across the
country are headed to the field to harvest their crops.
President Trump then started a war in Iran, I would argue
an illegal war, without seeking congressional approval. As a
result, the Strait of Hormuz is now closed, which has caused
fertilizer prices around the world to skyrocket. While all of
this was happening, President Trump's Department of Agriculture
implemented sweeping reduction-in-force efforts. It is hard to
find inspectors anymore to go in, if you are able to get
approval or a stamp to sell your stuff, and we cannot seem to
agree that empower colleges across the country that are ag
institutions, that when there is not a USDA inspector available
there should be someone from the state available, whether they
are going to look at crop yields or they are going to look at
what is happening with drought for insurance. We are just going
to get a stamp so that they can sell their products. I really
do not understand that.
With the loss in institutional knowledge and talent at the
agency, it creates more of a backlog, on top of all the
pressures that I was just sharing.
Mr. Rosenbusch, I guess a yes-or-no question. Let me just
start with this one. Yes or no, is President Trump's war in
Iran directly related to the spike in fertilizer prices we have
seen since February 2026?
Mr. Rosenbusch. Senator, thank you for that question, and
we have seen significant impact on the global fertilizer
markets because of the events in Iran. There are many, many
factors right now that are at play on a global scale that are
really driving what these markets are, whether that be what
India is doing with their purchasing power right now or what
China is doing to restrict exports.
Senator Lujan. I am not a lawyer, but is that a yes?
Mr. Rosenbusch. Senator, I----
Senator Lujan. If you are not going to say yes or no, I
will just point to the first bullet on your filed testimony.
The answer is yes, and you justify it on the first bullet on
page 10 of your testimony. It is not a gotcha question.
What is harder on Congress these days is stipulating to a
set of facts. You bring yours, I bring mine, and then we fight
about them, and there are no facts. What this war in Iran is
doing to the cost of fertilizer is bullshit. Maybe we should
just be talking about the kind of fertilizer that comes out of
cows and sheep. Maybe we should be using some more of that in
America. Figure it out.
You all do not come in here and tell me that the people
back home are full of shit. I do not understand that, man. The
cost is the cost. Implements are more expensive because of
tariffs. I am not going to ask the Republican witnesses that
because I am going to get some academic justification on why it
is just my imagination. When I went to put in diesel this week,
I guess it was just my imagination that I was paying over $5.50
a gallon. I am one of the few Senators here that probably puts
diesel in a truck and a tractor.
I have a lot of questions to file, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry
I got distracted here. We just want a straight answer, man.
Farmers and ranchers across the country are hurting. You know
this. Whether it is a Democrat or a Republican, whenever an
administration is doing something that is punitive to the folks
that we have a responsibility to fight for, then let's speak
up. I will call out Dem Presidents the same way I am going to
call out a Republican President.
I grew up as a self-sustenance farmer. I did not know we
were poor when I was growing up because we always had good
food. We had lamb chops, fresh chile, tomatoes, and apples.
Sometimes Mom even made an apple pie. I am still one of the
Senators that shakes the milk when I buy it, because we had
milk delivered when I was a kid, and it is the way that you got
the cream from the top into the rest of the milk. My buddies
laugh at me, and they say what the hell am I doing.
I am sorry for vernacular that I am using, Mr. Chairman,
but sometimes when you grow up on a little farm, and you have
to shovel shit in the morning to keep the barns clean, we need
to talk that way over here so we can connect. We can do better
here, and I certainly hope that we can get a farm bill, that we
can work together, that we do not let basic arithmetic get in
the way of what it means, because it takes 60 votes to get it
done. Let's work together to get things done here.
All that I would ask for the panelists, whether we meet
individually or not, let's just be straight with each other,
you all. We do not need to sugarcoat stuff. People are hurting
today. Let's recognize that, and then let's agree to find some
solutions to make things better.
Thank you for the indulgence.
Chairman Boozman. Thank you. Senator Fischer.
Senator Fischer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Westling, can
you take just a minute to discuss the project that you are
doing in Gothenburg and maybe highlight some of the challenges
that you face.
Mr. Westling. Yes. Thank you, Senator Fischer, for the
question. The project that we are doing is to make a fertilizer
type that is utilized in that region or geography in the State
of Nebraska, born from the shortage that exists there and the
difficulty of transporting product there over sometimes huge
distances.
In terms of the challenges faced, like every large project
that is not done by an incumbent or somebody with a big balance
sheet it is upfront capital and raising capital to get those
projects off the ground. I am fortunate and thankful for the
mostly farmers who stepped up to the plate to fund this project
and/or to fund the early stages of the project.
Senator Fischer. You know, we are hearing some discussions
around federal investments. What types of safeguards do you
believe should be put into place to ensure that new
infrastructure projects that happen, that they are not going to
be resold, which Senator McConnell talked about that he was
able to work on, or contribute to consolidation, which is what
I hear from producers. I am sure you do out in the western part
of the state, too, hear from producers. They are worried about
that consolidation and what it does to price. Do you have any
thoughts on that?
Mr. Westling. Senator Fischer, I am certainly not an
attorney and I will not pretend to know how to write bills. I
will leave that to all of you, much smarter than I am. I would
like to think that there is a way, through whatever form
potential assistance comes in, for you to be able to create
those exclusions or prohibitions from trading or consolidating
or putting these types of projects in the hands of whomever you
do not wish for them to be in.
Senator Fischer. Do you worry about regulations, federal
regulations, local regulations? Have you had to deal with any
of that?
Mr. Westling. Senator Fischer, we have had some regulations
that we have had to deal with, not any different from most
projects of this scale. We have been relatively fortunate in
that in our state, the folks who are in charge of administering
those regulations or enforcing those regulations have all been
very reasonable to work with. To the extent at the federal
level where we needed them to weigh in, again, blessed by the
fact that those folks have all been very reasonable to work
with, as well.
Senator Fischer. That is good to hear. Thank you.
Mr. Rosenbusch, as many of my colleagues have shared,
fertilizer availability and the prices are the forefront of
every farmer's mind across the country, and that includes my
friends in Nebraska. For years the United States has been
reliant on foreign fertilizer production to meet that domestic
demand. With a lot of talk around the need to increase that
domestic production, can you share the current regulatory
challenges existing companies face when they tried to onboard a
new fertilizer facility in the U.S.?
Mr. Rosenbusch. Thanks, Senator, for that question. Josh
did an outstanding job of explaining that.
Senator Fischer. Do you feel that it is pretty good to be
able to deal with?
Mr. Rosenbusch. It is really hard to build new capacity in
this country. One recent ammonia plant took seven years to
permit and over $25 million, just to permit it, not even to
start construction. We are talking $4 to $5 billion dollars of
capital. A phosphate mine took over a decade and $32 million
just to permit. That is all about the federal permitting
process across multiple agencies. When you think about actual
production itself, once you get into production, the regulatory
challenges that add the cost to manufacturing, you have got
phosphogypsum, which is a byproduct of phosphate fertilizer
that has to be stacked and costs over $1 billion a year just to
maintain those stacks.
There are a long list of regulations that we would be happy
to share with you, of things that can be done to help bolster
domestic supply.
Senator Fischer. Thank you. Mr. Kubik, so nice to see you
here. Can you take a minute to discuss the role that precision
agriculture has, that new technology that is out there, and the
increased approval we are seeing in the bio-based products that
they can have in providing additional options to growers, to ag
producers, that are faced with the uncertainty they have now
with fertilizer.
Mr. Kubik. Yes, thank you, Senator, for that question. This
is something I am very, very passionate about.
Senator Fischer. Me too.
Mr. Kubik. Yes, coming out of college with an agronomy
degree and always looking to better ourselves. I think that
could be said for all farmers. We are all trying to do what is
best for the land because we want our kids and our grandkids to
farm on that land. This fertilizer costs a lot, so we cannot
just throw it on and waste it and kind of hope it got there
right.
We are very precisely applying it. We are variable rate
applying it, so parts of the field are getting more than
others, based on our soil testing, to make sure we are doing
everything exactly like we should.
The biological space has definitely garnered a lot of
attention over the past couple of years with the increase in
fertilizer. I will be trying a couple of different ones on my
farm. I have tested multiple different ones on our farm. The
problem with that, unfortunately, though, Senator, we live in
reality, and there are not enough right now to rely on. We
still need fertilizer to grow our crops, and we are hopeful. I
dream of a day where I do not need commercial fertilizer
anymore. That would be the best thing ever. I do not know if my
grandkids will experience that. If we can put on less, put it
on accurately, I think it does good for both sides.
Senator Fischer. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Boozman. Thank you. Senator Warnock.
Senator Warnock. Thank you very much, Brother Chair.
Brother Chair, I'm sure you know that the top state for farm
bankruptcies last year was your home State of Arkansas. The
number two state was Georgia, so we are dealing with this same
issue. I am sure the Chair and I agree that while we like to
see our states leading, we do not want to be leading in this
way.
In fact, farm bankruptcies increased by 46 percent last
year, due largely to the President's trade war, and I wonder
how many more farmers may go bankrupt by the end of this year
because of President Trump's war in Iran, a war that is raising
fertilizer and fuel costs, as we all know, due to the closure
of the Strait of Hormuz, which anyone paying attention could
have predicted.
Mr. Rosenbusch, the President's war in Iran has further
increased fertilizer prices for farmers in the United States.
You are the CEO of The Fertilizer Institute, the trade
association representing the companies that provide farmers
with fertilizer. Has the White House presented you with a
viable plan for bringing down fertilizer prices this year?
Mr. Rosenbusch. Senator, thank you for that question, and
we have been very engaged with discussions on Capitol Hill,
with the Administration, on really an all-government approach
to solutions to help mitigate the impacts of the closure of the
Strait, what we can do to prioritize domestic supply, what we
can do to incentivize projects like Josh's, to bolster more
domestic supply, so these supply shocks will not hurt the
farmer in the future when we are so reliant on some of these
foreign supply sources around the world.
Senator Warnock. Do you expect fertilizer prices to go down
this year?
Mr. Rosenbusch. Senator, that is a really interesting
question. I do not know that I can comment or legally predict
what is going to happen to the price of fertilizer. I will tell
you that we are very concerned about particularly phosphate,
with a $1,000-plus sulfur right now due to the restriction of
sulfur coming through the Strait. We are now at a point where
sulfur costs alone are significantly higher than the cost of
phosphate. You have seen around the world right now phosphate
mines around the world starting to curtail production because
of some of that price impact.
Senator Warnock. Same question for the rest of the panel.
Has anyone seen a viable plan from the White House that gives
them confidence that fertilizer prices will decrease in the
near term? No takers. Fertilizer prices are increasing. Diesel
costs have also increased by over $2 a gallon compared to this
time last year, and there is no end in sight.
Mr. Melton, you are the President of the Kentucky Farm
Bureau, so you know farmers in the South typically do not pre-
purchase their fertilizer and are more subject to price
volatility. What are you hearing from your members? Are they
able to afford fertilizer this planting season?
Mr. Melton. In Kentucky we got an early start this year,
and most of the crop has already been planted this year in
Kentucky, Senator. I can tell you that, and especially on our
farm, we did more intensive soil testing and applying
fertilizer where we had to, without trying to reduce yields. I
think that is across the South. I think a lot of people are
doing those things, trying to get more creative to where we can
try to pencil out a profit with where current prices are for
our commodities.
Senator Warnock. People are feeling the affordability
pinch, obviously, right?
Mr. Melton. People are cutting back usage on fertilizer on
their farms. Yes, sir.
Senator Warnock. Dealing with the uncertainty as best they
can. This uncertainty hits farmers at the worst possible time,
planting season. It is not a good time to be dealing with this.
I am not hearing from anyone here that the White House has a
plan that will solve this crisis for farmers. Dialogue is one
thing. A plan is another. At this point, the best-case scenario
for farmers is the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, which was
opened before the war started. Even then, the fertilizer market
will not bounce back overnight if it were to open tomorrow. You
will still be dealing with these prices.
Between the war in Iran, spiking fuel and fertilizer
prices, and the illegal trade wars increasing the cost of
equipment and limiting market access, it is no wonder that
farmers in Georgia I talk to say that they cannot take much
more, and we are dealing with this farm foreclosure crisis. As
a Member of this Committee, I will continue to fight for
farmers and doing everything I can to end this illegal war in
Iran and unfreeze our fertilizer and fuel markets.
Thank you very much to the panelists. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Boozman. Thank you. Senator Hoeven.
Senator Hoeven. Recently, I had an opportunity to get
together with Secretary Rollins as well as our Chairman,
Senator Boozman, and talk about both short-term and long-term
efforts to reduce fertilizer prices. One of the ways we are
doing that is with precision agriculture. As a matter of fact,
Brian Carroll is here with us today from Grand Farm, in the
audience, along with Greg Tavine. Grand Farm in North Dakota
was recently named as the manager for the National Proving
Grounds and the actual first proving ground, or test site, for
ag technology to develop precision ag in a way that helps us
actually accomplish the same by using less inputs, meaning less
chemical, less fertilizer for our crops.
That is exactly the kind of work Grand Farm is doing in
conjunction with ARS, and North Dakota State University, and
NIFA funding. That has an impact both in the short term and the
long term because basically you get the same result with less
fertilizer. I would like to hear from both Mr. Kubik and Mr.
Melton on how that can make a difference for farmers and what
kind of things need to happen so that farmers can utilize that
technology both now and in the future. Starting with you, Mr.
Kubik.
Mr. Kubik. Thank you, Senator, for that question. I think
in terms of what we can do, a lot of farmers are already using
it, especially in fertilizer application. Many of us get our
fertilizer applied by our retailer, and those retailers are
using state-of-the-art machines, they are using, again, like I
said, variable rate technology, and it is all a goal of ours to
use less fertilizer, or to maximize the efficiency of our
fertilizer use, something my farm did last year, where we
learned that with a little bit of rain we can lower the amount
of nitrogen we need to grow a bushel of corn. I think that is
key.
I do not know if we are necessarily using, on whole, a lot
less nitrogen. We are just more precisely placing it where it
needs to be. Ultimately, that is our goal, and a lot of that
equipment, precision technology, is in the field today.
Senator Hoeven. Mr. Melton?
Mr. Melton. Thank you, Senator. I think research and
development is probably one thing, and you brought up your
university. I think our university does an outstanding job of
doing research on projects, like they are talking about in your
state. I think that we have to continue to do research and
development into these technologies, and while I am thankful
that I have some younger folks on my farm that can help apply
these technologies, because some days I have trouble starting a
tractor sometimes now. I am thankful that we do have the
research and development from the universities and the land
grants that can do these projects and work on technologies that
can be brought to us, to where we can get more efficient into
the future.
Senator Hoeven. Yes. Well, Mr. Melton, you may have a
little trouble with some new technology, but they like the fact
that your labor, and they probably do not have to pay too much
for it. I am guessing you volunteer.
Mr. Melton. No, I do not volunteer, but they do tell me
sometimes when I am there, I think some of the jobs I get are
not the most prestigious jobs anymore. Yes, it is good to do
it.
Senator Hoeven. Mr. Westling, in North Dakota, we also have
the Dakota Degasification Company that now takes coal, converts
it to natural gas, and then converts it to fertilizers like
ammonia and urea. How do we get more of that going so we get
our fertilizer here at home, and we have more competition and
lower prices rather than getting it from Indonesia or Russia or
someplace where it is high-priced and a lot of transportation
costs?
Mr. Westling. Yes. I think the question was asked earlier
about the plan from whomever, be it the White House, the USDA,
or whichever agency wants to take it on. Maybe I am just
simple, but I think the plan, in my brain, is if the demand is
going to be there, and it is, increasing supply, right, because
that should lower the costs.
Senator Hoeven. Demand is there.
Mr. Westling. Demand is there. I think some of the ideas
that I alluded to earlier with incentivizing these projects on
the front end of this process, helping bring capital, to bring
additional certainty, certainly when the government leans in,
everybody else leans in too. Those types of things could and
should incentivize folks to build more of these projects, no
doubt.
Senator Hoeven. You would agree we need to do more of it.
Mr. Westling. I absolutely agree we need more of them. The
farmers have invested in my project do, as well.
Senator Hoeven. We appreciate your project, as well, in
Nebraska. Mr. Rosenbusch, what do we do in the short term to
get more competition and fertilizer prices down?
Mr. Rosenbusch. Thank you, Senator, and it is an excellent
question. It is really difficult right now when you have got
countries all over the world that are driving up the price by
subsidizing and paying high prices. I do agree with Mr.
Westling, the Administration has done some things to
incentivize bolstering domestic supply, and we need that,
whether it is permitting reform. Some of the equipment that is
required to build plants, such as his in Nebraska, has to be
imported, so there are currently tariffs on some of those
pieces of equipment that have to come in, driving up the cost
of construction. Then the little things like hours of service
exemptions, to make sure that we can get fertilizer delivered,
prioritizing fertilizer for domestic supply, which is also on
the back of delaying some of the plant turnarounds, to make
sure we are optimizing supply coming out of the existing
plants.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you.
Chairman Boozman. Senator Welch.
Senator Welch. Thank you very much for this excellent
hearing. I just want to compliment the witnesses. It is very
instructive, and I appreciate the information you are providing
to us.
We are in a crisis in American agriculture. There is an
immense amount of wealth that is being created by the farmers.
They are just not getting any. Let me just illustrate that
point by a report from our Department. The average loss for
rice is $220 an acre, for cotton, $202 an acre, for oat, $159
an acre, for peanuts, $131 an acre, for sorghum, $91 an acre,
for corn, $87 an acre. This is not sustainable.
Doing some of the things that Governor Hoeven was talking
about, precision agriculture, things that are within the
control of the farmers, they are doing that every single day
and figuring out ways to do it. If we have this inability to do
any control over what the input costs are, and they march up,
step by step, as the price of corn goes up or the price of oats
goes up, the farmer is totally at the mercy of a market that is
consolidated.
Mr. Kubik, you talked about consolidation, and I was
impressed, with all of you, really, how long and how specific
you are. That is an issue that we have got to deal with. You
can deal with precision agriculture and try to figure out the
best practices, and you have got your own incentive to spend as
little as possible. What about consolidation, where it would
take some federal action to deal with the impact of
consolidation? You see that as a real impact on your pricing,
right?
Mr. Kubik. Yes. Thank you for that question, Senator, and
100 percent, and that is one thing I wanted to emphasize, is
that the Federal Government is the one that has the ability to
go in and look at this. We do not as the South Dakota Corn
Growers Association. We do not as individual states. I think
the Federal Government has the most power.
Senator Welch. Do you see that as beneficial to farmers,
and it does not matter whether they are Republican farmers, or
Democratic farmers, or independent farmers. They like to do the
work they do. That is what they are about, right?
Mr. Kubik. Correct. All we ask for is just to purchase our
inputs in a competitive market.
Senator Welch. All right. What about transparency? Mr.
Chairman, why don't we pass the Thune bill? I mean, the
transparency seems to be something all of you believe,
including you, Mr. Rosenbusch, that transparency is good. Does
anybody have a problem with us moving out and passing the
Thune-Klobuchar bill? All right, good. I would like us to do
it, and like right away. We have got to help these guys.
Now, on small-scale farmers, it is really, really brutal,
as well. We are seeing consolidation among farmers, as well,
but that is not to drive profit. It is because of the smaller
farmers cannot sustain themselves when they are losing this
much per acre. Mr. Green, just talk to me about that. You know,
I was on the Nitty Gritty Farm in Charlotte, Vermont, eighth
generation, and they have got two kids, hoping for the ninth
generation. By the way, all the farmers I know, they just love
the idea of passing that farm on to their kids. Tell me about
that issue.
Mr. Green. Well, the challenge is that a lot of farmers and
ranchers face, whether it be farmers in your state or farmers
in other places, is no matter how big they are, they are still
much smaller than the processors and the retailers that are
downstream from them. Their ability to negotiate fair prices is
very limited. They are price takers. In fact, some of the
processors themselves are price takers versus the retailers. We
have got a system where the consumer is paying more, the farmer
is getting less, and the folks in the middle are getting the
benefits of all the hard work that are being done. That is
where the focus needs to be.
Senator Welch. I want to go back. I believe the Iran war,
it is not me believing it, it is incontestable that it has
raised prices. Diesel is way up, and that is a big use on the
farm. Fertilizer is way up. What I have heard from you is that
has intensified what is a preexisting problem with the
consolidation, the high prices, and the really tight margins
that our farmers are facing. Is that correct?
Mr. Green. Yes. Absolutely, sir.
Senator Welch. All right. Well, I just want to thank you
for your persistence and advocacy on behalf of the people that
are close and near and dear to you. Rural America is really
critical to the well-being of all of America, Mr. Chairman, and
I think we have to act. This Congress has to act. You run a
bipartisan Committee, and everything I have heard from this
affects farmers, regardless of what their political affiliation
is. I hope we move that Thune bill and Klobuchar bill, and I
hope we do everything we can on consolidation and transparency.
Chairman Boozman. I hope we can act with this and several
other things and get a farm bill passed.
Senator Welch. Thank you. Thank you all.
Chairman Boozman. Senator Moran.
Senator Moran. Chairman, thank you. Please know that I join
you in your efforts to combine maybe a few things, but get a
farm bill done. It is hugely important, and another opportunity
for us to provide some certainty to our farmers at home.
Gentlemen, thank you for your testimony. I have been
chairing my own subcommittee while this has been ongoing, but
it is a hugely important issue. I have represented Kansas
farmers and producers for a while. I see this as the most
challenging time that my farmers in Kansas have faced since I
have been a public official. It is, in part, due to five years
of drought, that is not over yet, and so we begin the financial
circumstances of most farmers at home in very difficult
circumstances without the financial capability to weather
another storm. I am very interested in trying to determine if
there is a legislative fix to lots of market forces that go on
that are bigger than just this one issue.
Mr. Rosenbusch, I read your testimony and noted that you
talked about rural fertilizer and fertilizer components. There
is a science that goes into understanding fertilizer, which
this hearing has helped me better understand. It is not just
one component. It is related to so many other items that are
necessary. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz was probably not
a circumstance that my farmers predicted, and as a significant
result related, as I understood your testimony, to the world's
sulfur supply, and 20 percent of the world's supply of
liquified natural gas.
As sulfur is a key component of phosphate production, would
it be fair to say that global phosphate access has been
affected by the closure of the Strait? That is true, Mr.
Rosenbusch?
Mr. Rosenbusch. Senator, thank you for that question. I
appreciate your understanding of the complexity of the markets,
which is one of the reasons why we support transparency,
because it is really difficult to track all of these different
commodities and the markets for them. Without a doubt, sulfur
is a big issue right now. We have the spot market trading as
much as $1,300 a metric ton, and a lot of that is getting
bought by Chinese for mining. When you look at copper that
might be $16,000 a metric ton to sell, that is where the free
market is going to take a lot of that product, as opposed to
into fertilizer production. This is going to continue to be a
challenge going into the 2027 crop year.
It is a bit of a double-edged sword in that we need supply.
We definitely support the idea of bringing more supply to the
U.S. farmer. I was looking at some of the numbers. We have 108
companies that supply nitrogen to the United States. We have 38
companies that supply phosphorus to the United States, 16
companies that supply potash. The double-edged sword is that
you then expose yourself to some of these geopolitical events.
We need to boost domestic production but also find
opportunities to continue to find reliable global sources.
Senator Moran. One of the things that would be useful, I
suppose, in theory, is a tariff to encourage domestic
production, but a tariff also then increases the price of the
inputs, and have we seen any increase in domestic production?
Mr. Rosenbusch. Yes, it is a difficult question, Senator. I
appreciate you raising what is a very challenging topic,
because long-term, when you start to put non-free market
measures in place from a policy perspective, we understand that
is going to actually have a worse consequence on supply for the
United States. We saw that just with Venezuela recently, where
we now have opened up that market, but that product is going to
go to wherever the farmer is going to pay the most, which is
Brazil right now. If we artificially impact the U.S. market, we
are not going to be able to track supply here in the future.
Senator Moran. Why are we being outcompeted? Why is
somebody else more capable of paying the higher price?
Mr. Rosenbusch. That is a good question, Senator. It is
one, because you have foreign governments that are driving up
the price of that through subsidies. I just heard recently
Ethiopia is bidding for a very limited supply right now, and
India is paying nearly $1,000 a metric ton that they subsidize
to farmers. There is your floor price. That sets the global
market price right there.
Senator Moran. While I focused a moment on tariffs, there
is also this other distortion of moral markets in which foreign
governments are subsidizing their farmers in a way that then
disadvantages U.S. farmers.
Mr. Rosenbusch. That is going to attract global supply at
that particular price to those foreign suppliers we need, as
well.
Senator Moran. If the Strait was open tomorrow, what would
happen?
Mr. Rosenbusch. Obviously, you are going to see an impact,
and we need those vessels that are behind the Strait to come. I
think it is going to take a while for that market to work
itself out because, as I mentioned in my testimony, 40 plants
there have been either curtailed because of no natural gas or
they were hit by missiles or drones.
Senator Moran. I understand. Thank you all very much.
Chairman Boozman. Senator Justice.
Senator Justice. Well, you all waited a long time to hear
from me, haven't you? You will find me to be this guy. I will
be the guy with logic and reason, and I appreciate our Chairman
like you cannot imagine. I appreciate all these great Committee
Members right here, and they do a great job. They really do.
There is a real, real, real problem here, and I have heard
lots and lots and lots of stuff from lots of people here just
today, and they say things like, ``What do we do to get
fertilizer prices down?'' Is the Iranian war killing farmers?
Plenty of dollars in ag, but farmers are not getting those
dollars.
You know, Trent Kubik says many things, but the one thing
that absolutely just beams from him is he loves what he is
doing, and he does not want to give it up.
You know, I started our farming operation in, well, 50
years ago, and we grew it. At one point in time we were the
biggest cash grain farmers, I think, east of the Mississippi
River. We were seven or eight times National Corn Growers--and,
you know, Trent, I know you are in the National Corn Growers
and everything--but we were seven or eight times National Corn
Growers winners.
I know a lot about this. I really do know a lot about it. I
am a business guy. You know, I have got an MBA, and I am a
business guy, and I would tell you just this. You have a
colossal problem, because you have got a lot of people here
that would really like to help, but I do not know that they
will. At the end of the day, you have got frustration, and to
be perfectly honest, it is probably going to get worse.
We have to move. Mr. Chairman, you know, and I know too,
that we have to move. We are losing folks every day, and the
tragedy is beyond teetotal belief. You know, I think about
Eddie Melton there, and I have known him forever and a day, at
least known of him forever and a day, and now I am getting the
opportunity to meet him and everything. Eddie, I would say to
you just this. Did you ever know Ken Wells, Dr. Kenneth Wells,
at the University of Kentucky? Dr. Kenneth Wells came to our
operation when I was just a kid, and really basically I owe
just almost everything I know about agriculture, and it is a
boatful, to Kenneth Wells.
You know, there is so much goodness in this room it is
unfathomable. When you think about questions of, well, does the
fertilizer industry really want transparency, are you kidding
me? Really? Do we really believe that? Sure, it is easy for us
to say, but do we really believe? I mean, what we have here is
a monopoly. We do. I mean, if we look back at ag prices, just
think just a second about this. In 2022, not very far ago, corn
prices were $7. Today, at harvest time this past year, they
probably drifted significantly into the $3-and-something price.
Do you realize that when Harry Truman was the President of this
country, corn prices were $2.50? Go back and look.
Think about it. How in the world can we possibly, possibly
not act? We have got to move now, or we are going to awaken to
an agriculture industry that is so different than we could ever
think, and it would be bad. It will be bad for all of us. We
have got to do something right this minute.
I do not know exactly what all the answers are, but there
are all kinds of combinations of lots and lots and lots of
things. It can be done. It can really be done. Absolutely, we
have got to move, and move today.
You know, from the standpoint of fertilizer prices, it is
the most bewildering thing in the world. Just think about this.
I am from a state that abounds in coal, as well. Metallurgical
coal, is it forever more just this. You let metallurgical coal
go from $100 a ton at the mine site to $200 a ton,
instantaneously, freight costs will go from $30 a ton to $53 a
ton. Then if the price goes from $200 to $300, the freight cost
will go from $53 to $61 a ton. Nothing has changed. Nothing has
changed.
It is all up to us. It is all up to all of on this
Committee. It is all up to us as legislators to do something,
because these people are really hurting. It is time right now.
Mr. Chairman, I know how much you love these people, and I
plead with you, some way, somehow, we have got to solve the
riddle, because they are really important.
God bless each and every one of you. Thank you.
Chairman Boozman. Thank you, Senator Justice, and very well
said. Senator Schiff.
Senator Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Green, last
week I was lucky enough to engage with some of the agricultural
leaders across Ventura County. These fresh produce growers
shared a bit about their challenges being squeezed by
retailers, whether that is not being able to sell in the
grocery stores because imported produce is cheaper, receiving
the same cut even when the input prices change, or essentially
subsidizing the remainder of products sold by retailers. Can
you elaborate on how specialty crop growers suffer when buyers
abuse their market power, especially in a consolidated retail
market?
Mr. Green. Thank you, Senator. You raise a very big
challenge, which is there are dominant power buyers in the
retail space that can exercise their power upstream to the
farmer, and no matter how fabulous the product they are
raising, they do not have the opportunity to meaningfully
negotiate when there are so few choices of where they can bring
their product. When the largest power buyers have the footprint
in the market, so that if they go someplace else, or if they go
to USDA and say, can you please inspect instead of dinging me
without documentation for not delivering certain amounts or
things, or when they change contract terms. You know, these are
longer-term contracts. Well, if the price goes up, the power
buyer keeps the same low price. If the price goes down,
suddenly the farmer has to eat that price drop. Same thing
around financing terms that are getting longer and longer. The
farmer is floating the retail power buyers' no-interest rate
loan.
It is real evidence that there are market power problems in
the market you refer to. There are probably violations of the
Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, as well. It is the
same type of thing we see in other sectors, as well, of this
imbalance of market power that requires USDA, DOJ, FTC, and
government to help balance those situations.
Senator Schiff. In some of those mass retailers, isn't the
produce section really the profit driver for most of the store?
Mr. Green. I do not know that per se, but I think it is the
one thing that pulls people into the door. When it is pulling
people into the door, and it is the most attractive part of the
store, that is something that is really important. Making sure
that the farmer is sharing in the benefits is precisely why
there are rules around making sure that volume discounts are
available to every retailer, making sure that when a product
comes, there is a USDA inspector that can make sure that the
farmer is protected against being dinged without documentation
by the retailer, et cetera.
Senator Schiff. You mentioned that some of these practices
might violate a certain statute. Can you explain that?
Mr. Green. The Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act goes
back to 1935, I think. It prohibits unfair, deceptive
practices. It is similar to the Packers and Stockyards Act. It
is similar to certainly the Federal Trade Commission Act. It
basically says if you are doing business, you have got to do
business in a fair way transparent way. These are well-
established principles, and USDA has enforced it for a very
long time. I do worry about staffing at the Agricultural
Marketing Service and other places, but it is very important
statute for the efficiency and competitiveness of the specialty
crop industry.
Senator Schiff. Any other ideas you can share about how to
equalize, even a little, the incredible disparity between the
market power of these mass retailers and farmers?
Mr. Green. You have got to rein in the market power of the
retailers. That is one of the reasons why the Robinson-Patman
Act sets prohibitions against discriminatory, predatory, and
other types of pricing differences, so that you can have a
competitive retail sector, so that the dominant power buyer is
not able to be so dominant that the farmer does not have a
choice. If there is a competitive retail market and a retailer
is not playing fairly, they can go someplace else and sell
their product. If you do not deal with the concentration of
power at the retail level, it is going to flow up to the
farmer.
Senator Schiff. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Boozman. Thank you. Senator Slotkin.
Senator Slotkin. I apologize for being late. I had another
hearing that just finished up. Sorry, gentlemen, and I know you
have gone through a lot of this. If you are getting me, you are
at the very end, so you can rest easy.
I have a question. I come from Michigan, so specialty crop
state. Obviously, we do have row crops, but specialty crops are
what we specialize in. That tends to be small- and medium-sized
farms. We are not the megafarms of some other states. I was
actually hoping to ask a question of Mr. Melton. Just can you
talk about what the pinch on fertilizer is really doing,
particularly in your state, to some of the specialty croppers,
you know, the fruit and vegetable folks? I feel like they are
already on their heels because of all the uncertainty going on
in ag generally, and they are smaller. Can you talk to me about
what you are seeing in Kentucky?
Mr. Melton. Sure, Senator, thank you. You know, we all know
what fertilizer is. It is plant food. I do not care if you are
growing specialty crops, if you are growing row crops, if you
are growing forage for your livestock animals, fertilizer is an
important key to that. When you bring it down to that level,
that is what we all are dealing with right now, so it is the
cost of those fertilizers. In our specialty crop markets, it is
very much noted that it is affecting them on their farms, just
like it is all the other aspects of when we are purchasing
fertilizer.
Senator Slotkin. Yes. It feels like there are so many
variables in ag right now. Obviously, the weather you cannot
control, but there are all these other factors that are just
making it really hard for small- and medium-sized farmers, at
least in my state, to keep farming. I mean, I think there are
real existential questions going on for folks. I live on my
family farm. I lease the land out to a soybean farmer, so I see
those things very clearly.
Does anyone on the panel have a sense, you know, we have
this chokepoint right now in the Persian Gulf, traffic is not
getting back and forth. Let's say the Persian Gulf opened up
tomorrow. How long do we understand it would be until that
fertilizer actually gets through, comes back to the United
States, and we can see this market regulating? I know the oil
and gas people say it will be a year even if the Strait of
Hormuz open up today. Does anyone have a sense on fertilizer?
Sir, go ahead, please.
Mr. Rosenbusch. I guess that is my question, Senator
Slotkin. Thank you for the question. Thank you for your
knowledge of potash, too.
Senator Slotkin. I am a big fan of potash.
Mr. Rosenbusch. You have become the expert of potash, so we
appreciate all you do there.
Yes, once the Strait is open, it would obviously take a
good month for those vessels to clear and to get to the market
destinations. What is still unclear is what the damage has been
to those manufacturing sites in that region. We estimate that
there are about 40 plants that have been shuttered or closed
down because either they no longer can produce or they were
actually damaged because of the conflict. It could be months,
or it could be years, for those plants to come back online.
Senator Slotkin. Can we stay on potash for just one second,
because look, we have discovered potash in Michigan. We are
very excited about it. I am supportive of us mining that
potash. What do you see as the challenge of getting that off
the ground? I do not know, again, if there are others who also
want to answer that.
I am a big believer in permitting reform and making it
easier to make good economic decisions that affect economic
security and national security. I think having access to
critical minerals is part of that. Tell me what the constraints
and the situation is.
Mr. Rosenbusch. I would say that, as you know, we need our
farmers to have as much supply as possible so they can be
successful. Permitting is a huge issue. It takes decades to get
these mines up and running. Capital is a huge challenge, as
well, when you are talking about billions of dollars of capital
that it takes to run, and the return that is required. That is
another issue. I am sure Mr. Westling can comment a little bit
from a nitrogen perspective. Really, it is permitting and
capital that are probably the two biggest challenges.
Senator Slotkin. Yes. I am a big believer. I mean, again,
the answer can be no when you are asking for a permit. It just
should not take 15 years to get a yes or no, right? Just get to
decision faster.
Mr. Rosenbusch. Certainty. If people are putting the
investment into these facilities, in five years, what is the
market going to look like, and can you still justify it?
Senator Slotkin. I think that is fair. I do not want to
abuse my time, Mr. Chairman, but I see there are other folks on
the panel, if it is okay to just finish up.
Mr. Green. I just want to add, Senator, that you also need
a competitive market, and you want to talk about getting new
fertilizer. If the market is constrained and is shut, and the
dominant powers are going to ice anybody that enters it out by
lowering the price or squeezing them, there is really no
incentive to invest.
There have been a series of mergers that go back to 2010,
2013, 2015, and 2018. All of those mergers can be reviewed by
the FTC and the Department of Justice. Under a retrospective
review, they can all be undone. The price of fertilizer, even
if the Strait of Hormuz opens back up, we saw the price of
fertilizer in 2022 drop back, but not basically to where it was
prior to the Ukraine war. It has stayed high.
The issue of these longstanding trends toward concentration
show that the underlying competitive dynamics of the market
really do need to be addressed.
Senator Slotkin. Great. Thank you, Chairman. I yield back.
Senator Boozman: Thank you. I have just a couple of things,
since I gave my time away to Senator Thune.
We talked a lot about transparency today and access to more
information. I guess the question I would have for you, Mr.
Kubik and Mr. Melton, as producers, what information do you
have access to that helps you better understand the input
markets, and what additional information would be helpful? Have
you got anything specific that we can actually sink our teeth
into?
Mr. Kubik. Thank you, Senator, for that question. I think
right now, again, as I said before, a lot of our information
comes from our retailers and the information they are getting.
Chairman Boozman. Can you understand it?
Mr. Kubik. Somewhat. A little bit. It is hard to fathom how
a corn price can be here, and a fertilizer price can be here,
even when corn was here, and fertilizer was here. It is hard to
understand it.
Chairman Boozman. Sometimes it is so complex, too. There is
so much information.
Mr. Kubik. Yes. I would just say if we can see ports of
where fertilizer is coming from, like for us, Minneapolis,
Sioux City, NOLA down in the Gulf, just to kind of get our
heads wrapped around where that market is at, and just see the
margin built in, see what the supply chain is like from
manufacturer to processor to distributor to retail. Like I
said, just to help us plan and mitigate our risk a little bit
more.
Mr. Melton. We know the demand is there. We have talked
about that several times today. I think knowing what the supply
is that we are dealing with ahead of time, what is the supply
going to be moving forward. Because that is what basic
economics is, is supply and demand, and it sets price. If we do
not know what the supply is, and we know the demand is there,
and the supply changes all the time on us. If we had some way
to know and predict kind of what the supply is, moving forward,
and we have access to that information, I think it helps me, as
a producer, and I think it would help Trent, too, knowing where
that supply is, and if we are going to be able to get it when
we need it.
Chairman Boozman. Thank you. Mr. Westling, you are in the
process of building your new facility in Nebraska. Give us a
thing, like I say, you are experiencing this, give us a thing
that Congress or the Administration could do to spur increased
domestic fertilizer production. What would have helped you?
Mr. Westling. Well, I think the FPEP program----
Chairman Boozman. Besides money.
Mr. Westling. Thank you for that question, Senator. I think
the FPEP program, the construct was good, and what it wanted to
do, and incentivizing these types of projects was a good thing,
and ultimately could be distributed in a way that could have a
big impact on bringing more of these to the marketplace. I do
not think there are 20 or 30 projects that need to be built. I
think it is a handful of places to augment the larger
production. Bringing dollars to those projects would absolutely
be impactful.
Chairman Boozman. Very good. Finally, and then we are going
to give you all a break, we have seen military conflict, trade
disputes, all that is going on in the world right now. We live
in a dangerous world. This is for anybody who just wants to
jump in. What else should we be doing to reduce our exposure to
foreign disruptions? We have seen what blocking the Strait has
done. This is national security. Do we need to consider, like
we have an oil reserve? Do we need some sort of reserve of
fertilizer? Has anybody got any ideas?
Mr. Green. I want to underscore the importance of seeds
here, where seed resiliency and the seed bank at the National
Plant Germplasm System is really a national security resource,
so that we have the genetics to be able to adapt to regional
varieties, and the research and the access. The Department of
Justice filed, just yesterday, a very important statement in a
private case around the ability to read the genetics.
I think fertilizer has to be thought of in context of these
other tools that can keep us nimble, flexible, resilient, and
self-reliant, really, across these markets.
Mr. Rosenbusch. Yes, Senator, thank you for that question.
We have talked a lot about strategic reserves recently.
Fertilizer is very different than oil and gas. It would be an
honor to take you to some of these massive facilities and
warehouses where some of these products are stored, and you
will see the capital and complexity of how large these
facilities are.
Fertilizer, as well, if kept for a long period of time, the
quality can deteriorate fast. You get clumping. You start to
see it really kind of form a big old block of concrete. It is
not something that can be stored for long periods of time. The
answer is let's bolster our domestic supply with projects like
Mr. Westling's.
Chairman Boozman. Very good.
Mr. Kubik. I would add to that just simply by saying make
the stuff where you use the stuff.
Chairman Boozman. Great. Thank you all very much. This has
really been a good discussion. I think everyone on the panel
has learned a great deal as a result of this. As you can see,
this Committee is very serious and really does just a good job.
We have got a great group of Members on both sides, that work
hard. As was mentioned, agriculture, farmers are not about
Republican farmers or Democrat farmers or Republican small
towns or Democrat small towns. This is about trying to help out
and trying to stabilize just a tremendous asset of this
country.
With that, again, thank you for being here. The record will
remain open for five business days, and we are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 5:05 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
May 12, 2026
=======================================================================
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
=======================================================================
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
May 12, 2026
=======================================================================
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
May 12, 2026
=======================================================================
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]