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

MEMBER DAY

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

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

----------

DECEMBER 6, 2023

----------

Serial No. 118-18

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

MEMBER DAY

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

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

__________

DECEMBER 6, 2023

__________

Serial No. 118-18

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

______

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

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE

GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania, Chairman

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

______

Parish Braden, Staff Director

Anne Simmons, Minority Staff Director

(ii)

C O N T E N T S

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

Members

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

Submitted Legislation
114th Congress

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

117th Congress

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

118th Congress

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

MEMBER DAY

----------

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 6, 2023

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aaron Lehman, Guest columnist

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

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

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

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

Photo courtesy of Abjijeet, Wikimedia Commons

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

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

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

Lara Bryant

Getty Images

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

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

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

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

Image by Sarah Mai.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://mndaily.com/staff_name/sarah-mai/.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member Scott,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

November 2023

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

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

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

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

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

Compensation to Insurance Companies Participating in the Crop
Insurance Program

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

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

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

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

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

Amount and Distribution of Premium Subsidies

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

High-Income Policyholder Participation in the Federal Crop
Insurance Program

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

Potential Effects of Reducing Premium Subsidies for High-Income
Policyholders

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

Conclusions
Agency Comments

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

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

Figures

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

Abbreviations

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

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

November 07, 2023

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

Hon. Cory Booker
United States Senate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: GAO analysis of Risk Management Agency data. D GAO-
24-106086.
Notes: In 2012, a major drought led to underwriting losses.
A&O subsidies and underwriting gains and losses are by
reinsurance year.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Of the 100 policies with the largest A&O subsidies in 2022,
97 were among the policies that were not subject to a cap on
A&O subsidies under the reinsurance agreements. These 97
policies included 61 for livestock and dairy protection, for
which insurance companies received over $37 million in A&O
subsidies, an average of approximately $614,000 per policy.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ In 2022, the A&O subsidy percentage for livestock and dairy
protection policies was 22.2 percent, the highest among the various
types of crop insurance policies. According to provisions in the
livestock price reinsurance agreement, the A&O subsidy percentage
increases to 23.4 percent for states with a loss ratio greater than 1.2
in the current year. Moreover, the agreement gives USDA the authority
to further adjust the A&O subsidies, as needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 4: Federal Crop Insurance Program Distribution of Administrative
and Operating (A&O) Subsidies, 2022

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Figure 5 shows the distribution of premium subsidies among
policyholders, by dollar amount.
Figure 5: Distribution of Premium Subsidies among Federal Crop
Insurance Program Policyholders, 2022

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

K = rf + b * rd

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Website: https://www.gao.gov/about/what-gao-does/fraudnet
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7700
Congressional Relations
A. Nicole Clowers, Managing Director, ClowersA@gao.gov, (202) 512-
4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room
7125, Washington, D.C. 20548.
Public Affairs
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548.
Strategic Planning and External Liaison
Stephen J. Sanford, Managing Director, spel@gao.gov, (202) 512-4707
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7814,
Washington, D.C. 20548.
Submitted Legislation
1. H.R. 5698, Assisting Family Farmers through Insurance Reform
Measures Act (AFFIRM Act): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/
pkg/BILLS-118hr5698ih/pdf/BILLS-118hr5698ih.pdf (See p.
923).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Submitted Letter by Hon. Matt Cartwright, a Representative in Congress
from Pennsylvania
December 15, 2023

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

Dear Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member Scott,

The upcoming farm bill reauthorization is an opportunity to build
on the work Congress has done since the last farm bill to invest in our
rural communities, our families, and our environment and I thank the
House Agriculture Committee for its consideration of these priorities
for the next farm bill reauthorization.
The last farm bill included a number of policy changes that
improved opportunities for our nation's agricultural communities and
businesses. One of these provisions allowed for the full cultivation
and transport of hemp. Hemp was once a staple of Pennsylvania's
economy, and is once again presenting opportunities for new businesses,
farm income, good-paying jobs, and climate friendly, environmentally
sound products.
This past spring, I was proud to announce that the National Science
Foundation awarded a $1 million Regional Innovation Engines Development
award to Vytal Plant Science Research based in Hazleton, Pennsylvania
for the development of an Industrial Hemp Engine as part of its newly
launched Regional Innovation Engines (NSF Engines) program. The grant
will support the manufacture and deployment of innovative, biobased
products for application in green building construction, packaging,
fabrics, renewable energy, and land remediation.
While the changes made in the last farm bill created a landscape
for these exciting innovations and opportunities, the hemp industry
still has challenges to overcome. These barriers include access to
equipment and capital, as well as confusion from industry about hemp's
legal status. Hemp producers also face burdensome and expensive
regulations, including THC limits, testing, and background checks. For
that reason, I strongly encourage the Committee to include the
Industrial Hemp Act of 2023, led by my colleagues Representative Matt
Rosendale of Montana and Representative Chrissy Houlahan of
Pennsylvania, in the upcoming farm bill.
The Industrial Hemp Act creates a new sub-definition for industrial
hemp, creating a more common-sense regulatory framework for farmers
harvesting hemp for stalk, fiber, grain, or industrial seed production.
By doing so, industrial hemp will be separated from cannabinoid and
floral hemp and subject to different regulations. This will ease costs
and burdens on farmers and allow the industrial hemp industry to
continue to grow, thrive, and drive innovation and economic
development. The Industrial Hemp Act eases burdens on farmers while
ensuring that bad actors are held accountable, and therefore I
encourage the Agriculture Committee to include it in the farm bill.
Additionally, in the spirit of optimizing our recent investments in
our farmers and our rural communities, it is of great importance that
the next farm bill ensures the nearly $20 billion provided in the
Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) for USDA conservation programs is used
for its intended purpose. This funding is a win-win for farmers and for
the planet. In 2023, USDA received requests for more than three times
what the IRA made available for that year for climate smart
agriculture--meaning farmers want it--and the funding benefits us all
by helping to address the climate crisis.
Let's take this opportunity to build on our investments in rural
America and continue to support and grow our rural communities,
economies, and businesses. Thank you again for your consideration.
Sincerely,

Matt Cartwright,
Member of Congress.
Submitted Legislation
1. H.R. 3755, Industrial Hemp Act of 2023: https://www.govinfo.gov/
content/pkg/BILLS-118hr3755ih/pdf/BILLS-118hr3755ih.pdf
(See p. 701).
______

Submitted Statement by Hon. Jim Costa, a Representative in Congress
from California
Good morning, it is a pleasure to be here. Thank you Chairman
Thompson and Ranking Member Scott for holding this Member Day hearing
in the House Agriculture Committee Room. My testimony today will focus
on priorities for California's 21st district as it relates to the
reauthorization of the farm bill. It continues to be a pleasure to work
on this Committee as this will be my fourth reauthorization of the farm
bill.
Food security is a national security issue, and nothing has shed a
light on this more than what happened during the COVID-19 pandemic.
From supply chain disruptions to climate change, it is important now
more than ever we continue to work towards passing a bipartisan bill.
The farm bill is made up of twelve titles that are important to
America's production of food and fiber, with each one dealing with a
key aspect that helps our nation. From trade to conservation to rural
development and much more, this legislation reauthorizes key programs
that help our farmers, ranchers, dairymen, and [-women], as we continue
to build a more sustainable and resilient food supply chain. A key part
of the farm bill which is always a top democratic priority is the
nutrition title and ensuring the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program (SNAP) is properly funded. All of these programs touch the
lives of everyday Americans, and it is necessary we continue to work
together to ensure this legislation is passed.
California is the nation's largest producer and exporter which
contributes $51.1 billion to our nation's economy. Over the span of my
career as a representative of the San Joaquin Valley, I cannot
emphasize how important this industry is. California's farmers,
ranchers, farmworkers, and dairymen and [-women] help produce half the
nation's fruits, nuts, and vegetables, 20% of dairy, and more than 400
different agricultural commodities. It is critical that California has
a seat at the table as we work to reauthorize the farm bill. It is my
hope that we will have a successful farm bill with input from all
parties.
Our diverse agricultural sector in California touches each title
and we must ensure to advocate for our priorities.
Notable highlights I would like to emphasize today include:

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

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

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

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

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

Ensuring fair access for our military families.

Access to nutritional dairy products

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

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

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

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

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

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

Improving the Dairy Margin Coverage Program.

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

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

Automation and mechanization research and development.

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

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

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

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

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

Protecting pest prevention and ensuring sustainable
pesticide management strategies.

Increasing funding for animal disease prevention and
management.

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

Fixing adjusted gross income limitation to ensure
accessibility for programs.

Investing in research for the Specialty Crop Research
Initiative.

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

Enhancing our forest management systems.

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

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

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

Hon. Debbie Stabenow, Hon. John Boozman,
Chair, Ranking Minority Member,
Senate Committee on Agriculture, Senate Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry, Nutrition, and Forestry,
Washington, D.C.; Washington, D.C.;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11. H.R. 5359, Rural Development Modernization Act: https://
www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-118hr5359ih/pdf/BILLS-
118hr5359ih.pdf (See p. 902).
______

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

Submitted Letter by Hon. John R. Curtis, a Representative in Congress
from Utah
December 12, 2023

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

Dear Chairman Thompson:

Utah's farmers and ranchers face too many rules while growing and
raising food for Utahns and folks around the world. They know their
land best, so it's not fair that they must receive permission from
Federal agencies to make small changes, like fixing fences or building
water tanks, on land they use from the government.
The changes farmers and ranchers make help them take care of their
animals and produce more, but right now, they lose valuable time
managing these requests.
The Ranching Without Red Tape Act will change things for the
better. Agriculture producers will not need new permission for small
improvements and the bill ensures government agencies speed up their
responses to requests.
This legislation would remove bureaucratic restrictions on
ranchers, which would allow some of our nation's most important
producers to conduct their operations more easily while still
protecting our lands from major unsupervised changes. Ranchers should
have common-sense streamlining to protect the land.
Sincerely,

John R. Curtis,
Member of Congress.
Submitted Legislation
1. H.R. 6441, Ranching Without Red Tape Act of 2023: https://
www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-118hr6441ih/pdf/BILLS-
118hr6441ih.pdf (See p. 957).
______

Submitted Statement by Hon. Tom Emmer, a Representative in Congress
from Minnesota
Thank you to Chairman Thompson for allowing Members of Congress to
offer support and outline priorities for the farm bill. The farm bill
is especially important for the agriculture industry in Minnesota's
Sixth Congressional District.
Crafting a farm bill that addresses all the pressures farm families
and the agriculture industry face is no easy task. This Committee,
under Chairman Thompson's leadership, has solicited guidance from
farmers, ranchers and producers across America--even in my home state
of Minnesota during FarmFest in New Ulm. This bill will focus on the
farmers of tomorrow, and how we set them up for success.
Nationwide, our impact is even farther-reaching. Minnesota is the
number one producer of turkey and sugar beets in the nation. Stearns
County is our state's biggest dairy producing county with more than 500
dairy farms in production. These family farms contribute to the more
than 10 billion pounds of milk produced in our state annually. There
are more than 600 turkey farms across Minnesota, raising more than 40
million birds annually. Additionally, Minnesota is ranked second in the
nation for hog production with more than 3,000 hog farms across the
state. However, even these powerhouse producers are vulnerable.
We have heard from the Minnesota ag community through four
listening sessions across the Sixth Congressional District and their
needs are clear. Our farm bill needs to invest in rural mental health,
help train agriculture's next generation and provide a safety net for
our farmers.
First, ensuring our farmers and ranchers have access to mental
health care is a top priority. By providing funding for the Farm and
Ranch Stress Assistance Network (FRSAN) we can provide rural
communities have the help they need. Specifically, $15 million per year
for Fiscal Years 2023 through 2028. This program provides mental health
resources to Americans living in rural areas and those working in the
agriculture industry. This program lapsed due to a lack of funding in
2018 until our STRESS Act was included in that year's farm bill.
With more than 6.5 million rural American \1\ * suffering from
mental illness and suicide rates for farmers being 3\1/2\ times higher
\2\ than that of the general population, this is an important program
that deserves our support.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7681156/.
* Editor's note: references annotated with are retained in
Committee file.
\2\ https://www.ruralhealth.us/NRHA/media/Emerge_NRHA/Advocacy/
Policy%20documents/NRHA-Policy-Brief-Increases-in-Suicide-Rates-Among-
Farmers-in-Rural-America.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also request that you include the ASPIRE Act, which establishes
a work-based agriculture training program within the USDA's existing
Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program to fund apprenticeship
and internship programs available to beginning farmers and ranchers, as
well as the organizations serving them.

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

Farmers under the age of 35 now make up only 9% of the ag
workforce. In Minnesota, ag industry apprenticeships make up just 1% of
the available apprenticeships.\3\ This legislation will create valuable
opportunities for the young people who will make up ag's next
generation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://knsiradio.com/2022/07/20/central-minnesota-congressman-
introduces-aspire-act-to-support-agriculture-and-farming/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, we ask that this year's farm bill includes the Dairy
Margin Coverage (DMC) program, which provides essential support to
dairy farmers during uncertain times. We need to uphold support for the
DMC Program and allow flexibility for farmers to select an update to
the production years. Congress overhauled the DMC program in the 2018
Farm Bill. The program is working. When it comes to dairy policy in the
farm bill, it will be focused on evolution--not revolution. Over the
last 4 years, the Minnesota Department of Agriculture estimates that
the state has lost over 1,000 dairy farms due to the fact that these
farmers cannot handle rising production costs.\4\ Dairy farms,
especially small operations with less than 200 cows, need certainty to
continue doing business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ https://kstp.com/kstp-news/top-news/minnesota-lost-over-1000-
dairy-farms-in-the-last-four-years-says-department-of-agriculture/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The same is true for other types of small operations. Crop
insurance provides the tools that farmers and ranchers need to help
manage risk. To keep farmland in the hands of small family farmers, we
need to prioritize crop insurance protections in the farm bill.
We understand crafting a farm bill that meets the changing needs of
our nation's farmers, ranchers and producers is no easy task. Thank you
for your work to support our nation's agriculture industry.
Thank you.
Submitted Legislation
1. H.R. 4309, Assisting Seekers in Pursuit of Integration and Rapid
Employment Act (ASPIRE Act): https://www.govinfo.gov/
content/pkg/BILLS-118hr4309ih/pdf/BILLS-118hr4309ih.pdf
(See p. 797).
______

Submitted Statement by Hon. Dwight Evans, a Representative in Congress
from Pennsylvania
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, for giving Members of
Congress the opportunity to speak today about the agricultural
priorities and challenges facing their constituents.
I come here today, as the Representative of Pennsylvania's 3rd
Congressional District, located in Philadelphia. It is one of the most
urban and densely populated districts in the entire United States,
which may cause some to wonder why I believe agriculture policy is so
important to the people in my district.
Well, as we all know, there is another side to agriculture that
comes after the very important job of growing and producing the food.
And that is ensuring that the food we produce gets into the homes and
stomachs of every American. And that is what I would like to speak
about today.
As a Member of the Pennsylvania State House, I led the creation of
the Fresh Food Financing Initiative in my state. This program allows
businesses to expand healthy grocery options in communities through a
mix of public and private funding, attracting food retailers to invest
in underserved areas and renovate existing stores to improve healthy
food selections.
This state initiative created thousands of jobs across the
Commonwealth and funded nearly 100 new healthy food options for
disadvantaged families throughout Pennsylvania.
Eventually, this idea for financing healthy food was taken up at
the national level by the Obama Administration through the creation of
the Healthy Food Financing Initiative, or HFFI.
The HFFI, through a partnership between USDA, the Treasury
Department, and the Health and Human Services Department, similarly
provides loans, grants, and technical assistance to improve access to
affordable and healthy foods in underserved communities.
Community development corporations and community development
financial institutions have especially been instrumental in supporting
this program through providing loans to local projects most in need. By
steering funds through community groups, we are ensuring that funds are
distributed to the most worthwhile causes, to organizations that have
community buy-in, and which are the most trusted in neighborhoods
affected by a lack of access and a lack of institutional support.
The USDA's Food Access Research Atlas, which collects data on food
access in census tracts across America, shows that as much as 6% of the
U.S. population lives in areas of low-income and low-access to grocery
stores. That is nearly 20 million people.
These Americans typically live in low-income urban areas, where a
lack of reliable public transit, low wages, and a lack of investment in
their neighborhoods makes it more difficult to buy fresh fruits,
vegetables, dairy, and cooking ingredients. Or they live in rural areas
where the closest supermarket may be well over an hour away by car. Not
to mention that in many of these cases, there's no guarantee the food
available is either healthy or affordable.
That is why continued support for the HFFI is so necessary.
According to a report by The Food Trust, since first being established
at the Federal level in 2010, the HFFI has been essential to over 900
healthy food projects being financed across the nation, bringing fresh
food to millions of families.
As the U.S. faces inflationary costs that burden low-income
families the most, we must ensure that the HFFI continues to be
supported by the Members here today.
Earlier this year, 55 Members of Congress, including myself, sent a
letter to the Appropriations Committee in support of funding for the
Healthy Food Financing Initiative, citing the program's impacts on job
creation, market opportunities for American farmers, investments in the
food supply chain distribution economy, ability to decrease obesity
rates in America, and the increased need to improve access to healthy
food in rural and urban communities.
I ask that this Committee keep in mind those same points,
understanding that this program has the potential to improve America's
physical, nutritional, agricultural, and economic health
simultaneously.
As the Agriculture Committee moves forward with work on the farm
bill, it must ensure that it continues to support the HFFI throughout
the process. Ensuring reauthorization and continued engagement with
statewide initiatives is a necessary step in helping to end the hunger
crisis in the United States.
I appreciate your time and look forward to working with any Members
who want to help support this vital program and permanently end hunger
in America. Thank you.
______

Submitted Statement by Hon. Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia, a Representative
in Congress from Illinois
Thank you, Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member Scott for hosting
this Member Day hearing and allowing me to share the priorities of my
district.
As the new year begins, and this Committee debates a full
reauthorization of the farm bill, I urge the Committee to support
communities across the country by opposing cuts to funding or imposing
additional restrictions to critical nutritional programs, increase our
investments in education and agricultural research, and to protect our
environment by investing in sustainable climate-smart infrastructure
and food systems.
In Congress, I proudly represent a Latino-majority district that
includes working class communities across the Southwest side of Chicago
and in the surrounding suburban area. Federal Nutrition Programs like
the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the Emergency
Food Assistance Program (TEFAP), the Commodity Supplemental Food
Program (CSFP), and the Healthy Food Financing Initiative (HFFI) have
helped put food on families tables while also freed up much needed
resources to offset rising costs of living. The Fiscal Responsibility
Act's work requirement increases for ``abled-bodied adults without
dependents'' are putting older community members at risk of going
hungry. Struggling families should not be forced to make impossible
financial decisions to have access to nutritious and affordable food;
we must continue to remove existing barriers to nutritional assistance
and provide the support our constituents need.
Land-grant universities and agriculture research programs also have
an important role in strengthening our communities' access to food. As
a leading agricultural state, Illinois is home to many agricultural
colleges and programs that are training a diverse new generation of
farmers. Increased funding for eligible universities and programs, such
as the Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSI) Education Grants Programs,
1890 National Scholars Program, and 1994 Tribal Scholars Program, is a
first step to correcting past historical wrongs that have limited
Black, Brown, and Indigenous people from succeeding in the industry.
Last, as the climate crisis continues to cause more frequent and
costly droughts, tornadoes, flooding, and other weather related
disasters, I urge this Committee to substantially invest in the future
of agriculture to make our food system sustainable for future
generations. Though the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) included nearly
$40 billion to bolster climate-smart agriculture, the full farm bill
reauthorization bill must also take the current crisis seriously and
take the steps needed to protect our food supply from further harm.
I urge the Committee to protect the critical investments made in
the IRA, support climate-friendly practices and production through
investments in urban agriculture, limiting high greenhouse gas
emissions, and fully funding emergency preparedness programs,
especially flood damage reduction and flood easement programs.
We are at an inflection point. Congress must ensure that this farm
bill meets the needs of our community by fully funding Federal
nutrition programs, promoting a diverse group of future producers, and
building a resilient and climate-friendly food system for future
generations.
Again, I thank the Committee for its time and allowing me to share
the priorities of my district.
______

Submitted Letter by Hon. Chrissy Houlahan, a Representative in Congress
from Pennsylvania
Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Scott, and Members of the House
Agriculture Committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide
testimony about the priorities of my constituents in Pennsylvania's 6th
district.
These include:

The Industrial Hemp Act

The Protecting Mushroom Farmers Act

The Spotted Lanternfly Research and Development Act

Supporting Ready-To-Use Therapeutic Food (RUTF)

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

Chrissy Houlahan,
Member of Congress.
Submitted Legislation
1. H.R. 3755, Industrial Hemp Act of 2023: https://www.govinfo.gov/
content/pkg/BILLS-118hr3755ih/pdf/BILLS-118hr3755ih.pdf
(See p. 701).

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

3. H.R. 3867, Spotted Lanternfly Research and Development Act: (See
p. 718).https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-
118hr3867ih/pdf/BILLS-118hr3867ih.pdf (See p. 718).
______

Submitted Statement by Hon. Ann M. Kuster, a Representative in Congress
from New Hampshire
Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Scott, and Members of the
Committee thank you for the opportunity to testify on key farm bill
priorities for New Hampshire's Second Congressional District.
Over the last 2 years, I have heard from Granite State producers,
foresters, and consumers about their experiences and their priorities
for the farm bill. From these conversations, four key priorities
emerged: (1) protecting our environment; (2) reducing bureaucratic
barriers to accessing nutritious food; (3) strengthening our rural
economy; and (4) advancing agriculture research and market access.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. H.R. 5763, To establish as a permanent program the organic market
development grant program of the Department of
Agriculture.: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-
118hr5763ih/pdf/BILLS-118hr5763ih.pdf (See p. 936).
______

Submitted Letter by Hon. Lisa C. McClain, a Representative in Congress
from Michigan
December 6, 2023
Hon. Glenn Thompson,
Chairman,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.;

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

Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member Scott,

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

Lisa C. McClain,
Member of Congress.
______

Submitted Letter by Hon. Betty McCollum, a Representative in Congress
from Minnesota

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

Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member Scott,

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

Betty McCollum,
Member of Congress.
______

Submitted Statement by Hon. Brittany Pettersen, a Representative in
Congress from Colorado
Chairman GT Thompson, Ranking Member David Scott, and Members of
the House Agriculture Committee:

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

2. H.R. 5242, Connecting Our Neighbors to Networks and Ensuring
Competitive Telecommunications Act of 2023 (CONNECT Act of
2023): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-
118hr5242ih/pdf/BILLS-118hr5242ih.pdf (See p. 886).
______

Submitted Letter by Hon. August Pfluger, a Representative in Congress
from Texas
December 14, 2023

Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member Scott:

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

August Pfluger,
Member of Congress.
Submitted Legislation
1. H.R. 2695, WOlf and Livestock Fairness Act (WOLF Act): https://
www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-118hr2695ih/pdf/BILLS-
118hr2695ih.pdf (See p. 561).

2. H.R. 4939, To authorize livestock producers and their employees
to take crested caracaras in order to prevent the death of
or injury or destruction to livestock, and for other
purposes.: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-
118hr4939ih/pdf/BILLS-118hr4939ih.pdf (See p. 850).
______

Submitted Letter by Hon. Guy Reschenthaler, a Representative in
Congress from Pennsylvania
December 5, 2023

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

Dear Chairman Thompson:

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

Guy Reschenthaler,
Member of Congress.
Submitted Legislation
1. H.R. 1624, Puppy Protection Act of 2023: https://www.govinfo.gov/
content/pkg/BILLS-118hr1624ih/pdf/BILLS-118hr1624ih.pdf
(See p. 339).

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

Submitted Letter by Hon. Kim Schrier, a Representative in Congress from
Washington
December 15, 2023

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These challenges and more require bold, innovative, and oftentimes
bipartisan solutions from responsible leaders in Washington, D.C.
Hopefully this information helps further equip your Committee to get
its important work done; to pull together a farm bill that is
responsive to pressing needs faced by my constituents and all of us
across the country.
Thank you.
Sincerely,

Kim Schrier,
Member of Congress.
Submitted Endorsements
The House Agriculture Committee has a long tradition of bipartisan
cooperation, which is the key ingredient to passing a farm bill into
law. We are pleased that the Committee is working to advance the goal
of a farm bill that supports agricultural producers, invests in rural
communities, supports American nutritional needs, and boosts American
agricultural competitiveness. The New Democrat Coalition's Farm Bill
Task Force \1\ will continue to collaborate with the Agriculture
Committee, House Leadership, and other stakeholders to produce a strong
and bipartisan package that meets the needs of American agricultural
producers and consumers. Building off of our five core policy
priorities \2\ for a farm bill, the New Dems will work to ensure that a
final farm bill includes the following endorsed legislation led or co-
led by New Dem Members:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://newdemocratcoalition.house.gov/policy/task-forces/farm-
bill.
\2\ https://newdemocratcoalition.house.gov/media-center/press-
releases/new-dems-endorse-five-core-policy-principles-for-the-farm-
bill.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11. H.R. 5381, Reforestation, Nurseries, and Genetic Resources
Support Act of 2023 (RNGR Support Act of 2023): https://
www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-118hr5381ih/pdf/BILLS-
118hr5381ih.pdf (See p. 916).
______

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

Submitted Letter by Hon. Nikema Williams, a Representative in Congress
from Georgia
December 6, 2023

Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member Scott:

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

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

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

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

Additionally, I urge the House Agriculture Committee to consider
bolstering the TEFAP Farm to Food Bank Program. The Committee should
increase funding for the TEFAP Farm to Food Bank Program, remove the
state match, and allow states to prioritize projects for donated food
or food purchased at a low cost from local growers and producers.
Protecting the Inflation Reduction Act's Agriculture-related provisions
It is of the utmost importance that the next farm bill ensures the
nearly $20 billion provided in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) for
USDA conservation programs is used for its intended purpose. This
funding is a win-win for farmers and for the planet. In 2023, USDA
received requests for more than three times what the IRA made available
for that year for climate-smart agriculture--meaning farmers want it--
and the funding benefits us all by helping to address the climate
crisis.
In closing, thank you Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member Scott
for the opportunity to testify before you today on these issues that
not only impact my district, but Georgia, in general.
I additionally want to thank you for the many opportunities you
have provided Members to engage in the farm bill process.
Yours For the People,

Nikema Williams,
Member of Congress.
Submitted Legislation
1. H.R. 4456, Overcoming Higher Education Hunger Through the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Act of 2023 (OHH
SNAP Act of 2023): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/
BILLS-118hr4456ih/pdf/BILLS-118hr4456ih.pdf (See p. 820).
______

Submitted Legislation
114th congress
H.R. 6448, Wildlife Corridors Conservation Act of 2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

H.R. 655, Disaster Reforestation Act

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

H.R. 1450, Treating Tribes and Counties as Good Neighbors Act

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

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

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

H.R. 1604, U.S.A. Beef Act

H.R. 1624, Puppy Protection Act of 2023

H.R. 1840, Agriculture Resilience Act of 2023

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

H.R. 2740, To establish an Office of Colonia Affairs within the
Department of Agriculture, and for other purposes.

H.R. 2814, Processing Revival and Intrastate Meat Exemption Act (PRIME
Act)

H.R. 2939, Pigs In Gestation Stalls Act of 2023 (PIGS Act of 2023)

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

H.R. 2989, Save Our Sequoias Act

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

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

H.R. 3389, Emergency Wildfire Fighting Technology Act of 2023, Union
Calendar No. 150

H.R. 3419, Foreign Animal Disease Prevention, Surveillance, and Rapid
Response Act of 2023

H.R. 3424, Forest Conservation Easement Program Act of 2023

H.R. 3475, Save America's Forgotten Equines Act of 2023 (SAFE Act of
2023)

H.R. 3478, Conservation Opportunity and Voluntary Environment
Resilience Program Act of 2023 (COVER Act of 2023)

H.R. 3519, Hot Foods Act of 2023

H.R. 3755, Industrial Hemp Act of 2023

H.R. 3815, Protecting Mushroom Farmers Act

H.R. 3856, Mango Plant Health Initiative Act

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

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

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

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

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

H.R. 4018, Headwaters Protection Act of 2023

H.R. 4135, Augmenting Research and Educational Sites to Ensure
Agriculture Remains Cutting-edge and Helpful Act (AG RESEARCH
Act)

H.R. 4173, Advancing Automation Research and Development in Agriculture
Act

armers Act
(EAT Healthy Foods from Local Farmers Act)

H.R. 4188, Northern Border Regional Commission Reauthorization Act of
2023

H.R. 4197, Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program
Reauthorization Act of 2023

H.R. 4288, Agricultural Labeling Uniformity Act

H.R. 4309, Assisting Seekers in Pursuit of Integration and Rapid
Employment Act (ASPIRE Act)

H.R. 4327, Converting Our Waste Sustainably (COWS) Act of 2023

H.R. 4417, Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression Act

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

H.R. 4706, Senior Nutrition Task Force Act of 2023

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

H.R. 4736, Investing in Rural America Act

H.R. 4856, GusNIP Expansion Act of 2023

H.R. 4939, To authorize livestock producers and their employees to take
crested caracaras in order to prevent the death of or injury or
destruction to livestock, and for other purposes.

H.R. 5041, Better Collaboration, Accountability, and Regulatory
Enforcement for Animals Act of 2023 (Better CARE for Animals
Act of 2023)

H.R. 5062, To amend the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to direct
the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a program under which
the Secretary will award grants to specialty crop producers to
acquire certain equipment and provide training with respect to
the use of such equipment.

H.R. 5113, Rural Economic-development Assistance and Consultation to
Help Our Tribes Act (REACH Our Tribes Act)

H.R. 5136, Supporting Transportation Organization and Refrigeration
Expansion Act of 2023 (STORE Act of 2023)

H.R. 5242, Connecting Our Neighbors to Networks and Ensuring
Competitive Telecommunications Act of 2023 (CONNECT Act of
2023)

H.R. 5359, Rural Development Modernization Act

H.R. 5381, Reforestation, Nurseries, and Genetic Resources Support Act
of 2023 (RNGR Support Act of 2023)

H.R. 5643, Streamlining Nutrition Paperwork Act of 2023 (SNP Act of
2023)

H.R. 5698, Assisting Family Farmers through Insurance Reform Measures
Act (AFFIRM Act)

H.R. 5747, Crop Insurance Transparency Act

H.R. 5763, To establish as a permanent program the organic market
development grant program of the Department of Agriculture.

H.R. 5973, Continuous Improvement and Accountability in Organic
Standards Act (CIAO Act)

H.R. 6232, Coordination for Soil Carbon Research and Monitoring Act

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

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

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