To Review the Implementation of Farm Safety Net, Disaster, and Conservation Programs

Morning, Mr. President. Morning. Good morning, Mr. President. Good morning, Mr. President. I just I don't have the Uh, Uh, committee will come to order, committee will come to order, welcome and thank you for joining today's hearing where we will hear welcome and thank you for joining. Today's hearing where we will hear from the from the Undersecretary for rice from the US Department of Agriculture. Undersecretary for rice from the US Department of Agriculture. After brief opening remarks members will receive testimony from our witness today and After brief opening remarks members will receive testimony from our witness today and And um then the hearing will be open to questions. Um so once again good morning everyone and thank you for being here. Today I'd like to extend a special thanks to my friend, Under Secretary Fordyce, for coming before the committee today to discuss the historic investments made in American foreign policy through last year's Working Families Tax Cuts Act. Um I look forward to hearing your testimony as well as the chance to receive an update on the significant progress that you and Secretary Rollins have made implementing the many provisions included in H R one. House Republicans fought hard to make those key investments to our conservation and farm safety net programs uh not because it was easy but because it was extremely necessary. Uh for the first time in a generation US farmers and ranchers have an adequate farm safety net to fall back on in times of bad weather and market volatility as well as new investments into our locally led conservation programs. Those of us who represent rural America know first hand the times are tough in farm country and that is why the investments included in H R one were so critical. Without those producers would still be waiting for an updated safety net. Because of those investments the farm safety net is now based on the current cost of production and recognizes the needs for modern agriculture. is equipped to meet the moment, providing at least some degree of stability for an industry that has always faced a wide variety of challenges and uncertainty. These updates include enhancements to ARC and PLC, boosted premium support across all levels of crop insurance coverage, and improvements to the dairy margin coverage program, all of which have already been implemented due to the great work under from Under Secretary Fordyce and his team. Uh thanks to the work of this committee as we look to the future, access to commodity programs have been expanded through historic investments for producers to add additional base acres to their operations, changes to standing disaster programs such as livestock indemnity program and the tree assistance program further bolster the tools available to producers in the face of of um uh in the face of uh predation or natural disasters. Last summer we also invested billions of dollars into conservation programs through HRI one by increasing the baseline funding by over twenty-five percent. Conservation programs are now funded at over eight billion dollars per year. We know that locally led voluntary and center-based programs work and this reinvestment will provide significant and increased support for most title two programs which are largely oversubscribed. I look forward to hearing um, Under Secretary Fordyce's insight on the implementation side of these critical programs which we'll continue to champion and seek to make further improvements uh to through passage of the remainder of the farm bill. And while the updates of HR one were much needed across the board, we still have a job to do and must complete the remainder of a full five year farm bill r- authorization. The bipartisan farm bill passed out of the house earlier this year is over in the very capable hands of my good friend Senator Bozeman. And just yesterday he released a discussion draft to move the process forward. In the meantime, I look forward I'm very much looking forward to hearing from Under Secretary Fordyce today on the progress made as well as what we can expect moving forward and with the remaining provisions from HR one that need to be implemented. Uh with that, I'd now like to welcome the distinguished ranking member, the General Lady from Minnesota, Ms. Craig, for any opening remarks that you would like to give.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One year ago, Republicans forced the so-called " one big beautiful bill" through Congress. It gave handouts to Elon Musk, the world's first trillionaire, and the rest of the President's billionaire buddies, even as inflation ate up the paychecks of hardworking Americans. It cut Medicaid by nearly one trillion dollars. putting rural hospitals and health clinics at risk of closure. Today, we aren't talking about those things. Instead, we are looking at some of the investments the bill made, particularly to our farm safety net and conservation programs. Now, we all know that there were many farm-built programs that needed new investment, particularly the farm safety net programs. They should have been done in a five-year twelve title farm bill. Unfortunately, these investments, as well as much of Trump's billionaire ba- bailouts, were paid on the backs of our nation's most vulnerable, hungry children, veterans, and older Americans, by cutting one hundred and eighty-seven billion from SNAP. Since those cuts were made, over four million Americans, including over eight hundred thousand children, have had their food, taken away. So as we talk about implementation of these investments, we need to be clear-eyed about the cost. The cost is increased hunger throughout our country. Of course, while these investments are beneficial, farmers readily acknowledge that they will not cover the pain and the losses inflicted by this administration's ongoing policies and actions. Tariffs Trade wars and Trump's war with Iran have cost farmers tens of billions in lost sales, driven up diesel and fertilizer costs, and suppressed commodity prices. According to the USDA, production costs are expected to be higher than previously anticipated for every major crop for the twenty twenty-six growing season. Farmers are paying more to repair their tractors today because of this administration's tariffs on steel. Farmers are paying more for fertilizer because of this administration's war in the Middle East. Farmers are paying more to service their debt because of this administration's inflationary policies. If the improvements made to the farm safety net were so strong, then why are farmers asking for supplemental farm assistance? They are asking because farmers recognize reality which it h when it hits them. Unlike the President, farmers don't love inflation. Unlike the Secretary, they don't think they're living in the golden age of agriculture. Unfortunately, we have an administration that is out of touch with the challenging reality farmers and American families are facing. In a more normal environment, farmers might turn to the USDA conservation programs to help them weather a difficult farm economy. H R one did at least preserve the historic democratic investments in conservation that were originally made in the Inflation Reduction Act. But the Trump administration undermined those changes by cutting the number of conservation staff by around twenty-four percent, which has meant that those dollars are harder to access than ever. Just last year the number of conservation contracts awarded dropped by twenty to forty percent. even as farmers applied for these dollars. So as we discussed today, the programs intended to help farmers, let's keep these important points of context in mind. I wanna thank the Under Secretary for joining us today, and I like look forward to hearing his testimony. And Mister Chairman, with that I yield back.

The Chairman requests that other members submit their opening statements for the record so our witness may begin his testimony and ensure there is ample time for questions. Pleased to welcome to the committee, our witness for today, the Under Secretary of Farm Production and Conservation at USDA, Mister Richard L. Fordyce. Under Secretary Fordyce, thank you for joining us. We'll now proceed to your testimony. You have five minutes, the timer in front of you will count down to zero, at which point your time has expired. Uh, please begin when you're ready.

Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Craig, and distinguished members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to provide an update on the meaningful work accomplished and underway by the hard-working men and women at the Farm Service Agency, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and Risk Management Agency to support our nation's farmers, ranchers, and rural communities. I come before you not only as Undersecretary of the Farm Production and Conservation Mission area but as a lifelong farmer whose values were shaped by an upbringing in agriculture on a family farm. in Missouri. A few weeks ago Secretary Rollins came before you to outline the importance of the programs we deliver and the people we serve. She spoke about cutting red tape, reforming and modernizing outdated programs, and infrastructure, and restoring the integrity of our programs. At FPAC our mission of putting farmers first is front and center for all these issues. Today I want to discuss how we are modernizing delivery systems, strengthening our programs, in implementing the historic investments Congress entrusted to us so that we can deliver the farm safety net our producers deserve access to capital through various loan programs the resources needed to keep working lands in working hands and the help necessary to recover from natural disasters. Our farmer first philosophy begins with recognizing that farmers and ranchers deserve timely support and exceptional customer service. As was shared by Secretary Rollins, FPAC was running on over five hundred separate antiquated systems costing taxpayers over one billion dollars annually. To address these inefficiencies, we are modernizing a fragmented system through the One Farmer, One File initiative. This initiative provides producers a single streamlined record that follows them across the agencies within FPAC. The Farmer Bridge Assistance Program was the first initiative to operate entirely on our new platform. Through FBA, producers received more than ten billion dollars in less than two months. It was the fastest moving support program FSA has ever launched, demonstrating what is possible when strong policy is paired with modern technology. Building on the FBA, FSA is currently accepting applications for the Assistance for Specialty Crop Farmers program, which provides over one point six billion dollars to fruit, vegetable and nut producers. Another foundational component of our Farmer One file is modernizing acreage reporting by transitioning the process into the twenty-first century. FSA has launched an acreage reporting modernization pilot across counties and eleven states. This pilot enables the use of digital geospatial acreage reporting tools, which reduces burden on FSA county office staff and enables better sharing and utilization of crop acreage reporting within USDA. FPAC has also been hard at work on program implementation. When President Trump signed the historic Working Families Tax Cuts Act, a top priority of FPAC became implementing programs quickly and effectively to deliver the meaningful investment in the farm safety net, crop insurance, and conservation programs Congress provided. RMA has implemented the vast majority of its provisions which expand benefits for beginning farmers and ranchers increase coverage options, and make crop insurance more affordable. The Working Families Tax Cuts Act provide significant and permanent funding for NRCS conservation programs, extending many farm bill authorized programs and delivering over thirty- four billion through fiscal year twenty- thirty-one, the largest long-term investment in NRCS conservation programs in decades. Just this week, NRCS announced the enrollment period opening for the Regional Conservation Partnership program. Today, Farm Service Agency has published two rules implementing ten sections of the Working Families Tax Cuts Act, and I'm proud to say we will be publishing the final two implementing rules. Last week, FPAC announced organizational changes across its four agencies. FPAC has always been a field-focused organization with nearly ninety-eight percent of our workforce already living outside Washington, directly working with producers and local communities across the country. FPAC's reorganization builds on that strength by aligning leadership, resources, and support functions closer to where our customers live and work. The reorganization does not include any changes to county or state, FSA, and NRCS staff. Mister Chairman, Ranking Member Craig, and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to share with you how the entire FPAC mission area is delivering the programs that make a difference for our producers and the nation. We will continue we will continue modernizing our systems and supporting producers across all sectors of American agriculture. I now look forward to answering your questions.

Mr. Under Secretary, thank you so much for your important testimony today. At this time members will be recognized for questions in order of seniority, alternating between majority and minority members, and in order of arrival for those who joined us after the hearing convened. Uh you'll be recognized for five minutes each in order to allow us to get to as many questions as possible. And I'll recognize myself for five minutes. Mr. Under Secretary, I want Well again thank you and your team for the work you've done thus far in implementing the provisions from last summer's Working Families Tax Cuts Act. Uh the number of projects we created for you to get across the finish line is no easy feat. And you also managed to do it while rolling out disaster and economic assistance programs, so I I applaud you for all of that. Uh one thing I hear from the folks back home and around the country is how critical the work of the Farm Service Agency is. and assisting producers across the country. We recently saw a massive historical planting record data dig um by the agency to begin allocating the thirty million base acres added to H R one, which was extremely strenuous and time-consuming. This is the first step of the many that F FSA will take to fully implement H H R one. In your experiences, FSA adequately staffed at every level to continue carrying out the implementation of the remaining pieces of H R one as well as maintain the service that producers across the country have have come to accept and expect.

Mister Chairman, thank you for that question, um and I think before I answer that question I I just wanna give a huge shout out to the staff. Um you know we can make decisions here in Washington, we can uh we can direct policy, but it's the folks in the county offices that are the heroes, they're the ones where the rubber meets the road, and they're the ones that get the work done. Um you know as we know we did have some folks that did voluntarily take the DRP. Uh it was a decision that they made that they felt was best for their families, and in some cases um we do have county offices that um don't have the staff in them, that they did have uh in one in one um in one s in one s in one sense. Um and then um but we do we do feel very strongly that given where we are from a staffing level that we are delivering the mission um we've got as you know we've got uh State Executive Directors in every state that manage the operations of the farm service agency. Um and they have been uh really pretty creative in moving folks around. Um we do not have a hiring freeze, the farm service agency is hiring, unfortunately we are constrained by budget. And we are hiring to attrition. Um and uh but hopefully in fiscal year twenty twenty seven we'll get a little relief um from uh from those budget constraints related to staffing uh, and we'll continue to hire up in those offices. I would also share that the Farm Service Agency has a very um a very robust tool um that they have been using for a number of years to inform staffing. Uh they they can look through this tool, it's it's referred to as the optimally productive office tool. Um and it informs hiring in critical areas, it informs uh the state executive directors and others where the workload is and where additional staffing is needed. I would say that again I applaud uh I applaud those those state leaders uh within FSA for being uh flexible and being nimble and being able to get folks where the

Very good. Um, you know, to help encourage more public-private partnerships, Congress enacted the sustains act in two thousand twenty-two to authorize the donation of private funding into the standing conservation programs. Since then, USDA has not provided details on the use of the th this authority across the covered programs but did mention its availability as a part of the regenerative program announced in in December of two thousand twenty-five. Can you give us an update on the implementation of the sustains act, the The former chief seemed to focus on sustains only in the context of the regenerative pilot. Has that idea been reconsidered?

Uh yes uh yes sir uh uh another great question. Um I really f I really think there's a lot of value in the sustains act, having um having private entities invest in conservation. Uh we are uh uh I think it's fair to say that we're putting the final um kind of the final touches on how we would implement the sustains act. as it relates to conf conservation um uh uh contributions. And uh I think that uh initially we thought that the guard rails uh would fit perfectly with the regenerative pilot program but I think that's under uh under reconsideration and potentially opening that up to all conservation work.

Very good. Well thank you so much. I do believe sustain is really

Thank you, Mister Chairman, um, and thank you for being here in your testimony. As part of the implementing regulations for H R one, the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation removed buy-up coverage for uh preventing planting in federal crop insurance, which wasn't required by that law. Can you please explain to me how it is farmer first to take away risk management tools from farmers by removing this buy-up coverage and based on the overwhelming opposition that USDA received in the comments, will USDA reinstate the optional prevent plant coverage option for farmers?

Uh ranking member, that is a great question. Um and uh I can share with you that uh when the rule was published, it was published as an interim final rule to accept public comment on that provision. Um as you as you indicated, uh we got over three hundred and fifty comments um on that provision in in that uh in that regulation. Uh overwhelmingly uh those comments were to reinstate PP five. Um, that is under consideration currently. Um, I I don't have an answer as to which direction uh we're going to go, but I am positive that I am positive personally that we'll have a positive resolution to that.

Uh, when do you believe you will have an answer by for farmers?

Uh, it should be soon, and the reason that it should be soon um is that we need to certainly uh inform uh the AIP's Um that that option is back on the table. Um so I can't give you, uh ranking member, a specific date, but uh it it it will be very soon.

Thank you. Um Switching topics here just a tiny bit. Uh last year the number of farmers applying for EQIP and CSP contracts increased somewhere between ten and fifteen percent. However, the number of EQIP contracts dropped by thirty eight percent, and CSP contracts dropped by twenty one percent. Do you think this has anything to do with the twenty four percent reduction in in our CS staff? And if not, then how do you explain the percentage of farmers who successfully apply for EQIP contracts is now at the lowest level since twenty twenty?

So, uh certainly EQIP um and CSP are critical programs for conservation, I think um you know uh a lot of the a lot of the components of those programs that make them so desirable is the flexibility that it allows uh land owners, farmers and ranchers to participate in conservation that's that's tailored to uh to their individual farms. Um you know I would say that um there probably are instances, ranking member, where We do have may potentially a staff shortage which could impact that. Um that is a that is a short-term um situation. We are we are advertising and hiring people at the Natural Resources Conservation Service. Um I would also point out as well um that the Natural Resources Conservation Service for many years uh have had extremely strong partnerships with partners um those partners either represent wildli the wildlife um uh advocates um others uh soil and water conservation districts are critical to helping also provide technical assistance and work related to EQIP and CSP. Um and those partners uh you know they're they're incredibly passionate about the work they do. Uh we're fortunate to have them as part of the team at NRCS um and so I think I think you're gonna see good things going forward.

Thank you very much for that. You know, it it's interesting that you were so highly um complimentary of the EQIP program because if the House Republicans' farm bill, skinny farm bill becomes law, it would actually reduce EQIP funding by about a billion dollars t through twenty thirty compared to the H R one funding levels. Um How many fewer EQIP contracts would you expect to see if that

Ranking member, I was not aware of that, um and I can get back to you um with a number.

Thank you. We'd love to know how many contracts I'm family farmers would love to know if the House Republican skinny farm bill is adopted, just how many of them additionally will lose access to this program. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.

She only yields back. Now recognize Mr. Lucas from for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Under Secretary Fordyce, for being here today. Prior to passing H R one, one of the biggest priorities for my farmers was updating the farm safety net to reflect the needs of today. Mr. Fordyce, in your opinion, how will the updates made to ARC and PLC and H R one continue to keep pace with producers as they face new and existing headwinds well into twenty thirty one.

Uh well uh thank you for that question. Um you know I do think that the really some of the historic changes to ARC and PLC that were in the Working Families Tax Cut Act um are are transformative. Um I believe it was two thousand fourteen the last time reference prices were addressed, um so the increase in reference prices related to those two programs is critical. Um, couple that with an additional thirty million acres of base acres that are gonna be allocated across the country. Um, and I think um, you know, I think when we look at what what that program is going to look like for um uh for the next, uh the next iteration of ARC and PLC, it's it's gonna be incredibly positive.

Switching gears uh a bit to conservation, Mister Fordyce, I had an opportunity to discuss the advanced markets for Producers or the AMP Act with Secretary Rollins last year when she testified before this committee and I was encouraged by my discussion with the secretary, and I was particularly pleased to see that the program would focus on providing most of the funding directly to farmers. Mister Fordyce, can you share with us an update on AMP and USDA's vision for the future here? How is USDA redirecting the program to ensure that dollars and practices put farmers first?

Yes sir. Um uh I another good question. Um so the AMP uh the AMP program was uh was an attempt to um get existing grants um reconfigured. And I would just compliment the grantees, the folks that had the initial grants and their ability to work with uh USDA, um to uh to redraft those agreements. And I would say that um one of the one of the paramount changes that we made was each one of those grants needed to at least uh contribute sixty-five percent of the value of that grant directly to farmers. Um and again I will reiterate that um that the grantees were um were more than willing to come to the table and and talk through changes as to how that could happen. And in just in um in just reconfiguring those grants with that

The watershed program is one of the most effective locally led flood prevention programs in the nation and represents nearly one third of all dams ever built by the federal government. HR one rightly included historic investments into this program. However, today there is a significant, unobligated funds, and at the same time a lengthy backlog of projects waiting for approval. This administration has been heavily focused on cutting red tape, and I believe the watershed program could benefit from that mission. Mister Fortes, I'd like to ask you to work with me to identify steps at the RCS that can, they can take to ensure the timely delivery of these life-saving dams. Will you will you work with me on this, Mister Under Secretary?

Yes sir, um yes sir, absolutely.

Your testimony highlighted the thirty four billion dollar increase in conservation programs through twenty thirty one. In your opinion, what will this mean for popular voluntary programs like EQIP that we know are oversubscribed?

So I do I do believe the additional funding is critical. Um you know as I uh as I answered a little bit ago, uh EQIP and and CSP are popular programs along with the RCPP and others within um within the Natural Resources Conservation Service. I think it's I think it's certainly critical. Um you know and one of the things that I've witnessed really in my entire uh adult life is farmers and ranchers um will always uh do the right thing when they know what the right thing is um and I'm referring to conservation really in that vein. Um and I think we've learned a lot. We know more about how can we improve the landscape um through uh new technologies, uh new innovations, um you know a focus on soil health is something that um you know it's relatively new, but I think critically important.

Thank you, Mr. Secretary. You're back, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman, he holds back, and I recognize Mr. Costa from California.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, uh Under Secretary Fordyce, I'm pleased that you're here. You represent fourth generation far farming family. I'm third generation. For years I have said that food security is our national security. And in the San Joaquin Valley that I represent, uh we live that every day. California's the number one farm state in the America, but we're not feeling the loving from the USDA. Bankruptcies are up forty four percent from last year. Farmers, ranchers, dairymen and women and growers are feeling uh not only a a a lack of connection, But we still produce food on America's dinner table and around the world. Let me ask you the first question on farm loans and farm service agency. My office is hearing from California producers and I work with the eight counties from Kern County all the way to Stanislaus. The cuts that have been made in FSA are detrimental. They have delayed payments, prior approvals that have not been paid, the backlog has many causes, both the new SDA cannot cut, reorganize and reshuffle the local and act surprised, act surprised when farmers are stuck waiting, cuz that's the condition. When Fresno County, one of the most important agricultural counties in California and in the country, have trouble recruiting an FSA executive director, that tells me Washington isn't making it, it's making it harder for farmers to do. He thought to threaten to close the Fresno County and Kern County offices, two of the top ag counties in California. I don't get it. The supplemental disaster relief program is a good example. producers whose losses fit existing crop insurance or non-insured crop disaster relief program data can move faster. But the specialty crop university growers often face more paperwork. Under stage two they've had to apply on a crop by crop basis and a county by county basis when some of them farm in multiple counties. It makes no sense. So let me ask uh how many approved and unpaid farm service agency cases are pending in California and what's the USA USDA doing to clear the backlog?

Uh, well thank you, sir, for the question, um and let me be the first to say how how much we appreciate California and its ability to feed the nation and to feed the world. Um, that does not go unnoticed.

I thank you for the compliment. Please answer the question.

The um I I don't know the number uh the number of

I don't know is an answer.

Pardon me?

I don't know is an answer. Could you please get that information for me?

Yes, sir.

Okay, that would be helpful. And on supplemental disaster relief program, will you commit to simplifying stage two? So specialty crops, which are the majority of the crops we grow in California, over four hundred specialty crops that are diversified, so growers are not stuck applying on a crop by crop, county by county basis while other producers uh move faster?

Yes.

Good. Let's work on that. Let me go to the dairy program. Uh, you know, we're the largest dairy producing state in the nation. California dairies have been uh national leaders in reducing methane uh uh h contribution they are recycling nutrients reusing manure and turning waste into compost fertilizer f- long before Washington called it a regenerative agriculture but there's no one size fits all solution digesters can be an important tool for larger operations small and mid-sized dairies need options too manure separators composting compost bedded packed barns and other practices avoid methane before it's created. So, the House Farm Bill did not create a stand-alone alternative manure management program but it did include language in Mike Cal's act, in equip for practices that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including methane. So, will the Natural Resources Conservation Service uh make it clear that the meth manure manure methane practices can qualify under equip? And will you work with California so small and mid-sized dairies can actually use the program?

Uh, yes sir. Um, you know, you you're referring to conservation practice standards within NRCS, and a lot of those practice standards do include um manure management, um digesters and other things, and I know that those are subscribed uh in other parts. I'm assuming that they're subscribed in California. Um, yes, absolutely. We will um uh w we wanna make every practice standard that's available with the natural

Okay. I like that answer, I like that answer. Let's work on it, okay?

Yes, sir.

And let me invite you to California and we can get together with a round table, bipartisan group of folks, and we can list these issues as or lets to the FSA offices that are woefully, woefully undermined. And and when the secretary here talked about a reorganization plan, I tell you, folks back home in farm country where it's hurting are less interested in your reorganization plan than ensuring that the programs that are oversubscribed are able to be made available to farmers, ranchers, and dairymen and women in California and throughout the country. Did you hear me?

Yep. Yes sir.

Okay, much more work to do. Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr. Secretary, um thank you for being here and I hope that uh while we can have pointed questions, maybe we can also be courteous. Um I wanna start by iterating something that is important for people to understand. The working families tax cuts restored nearly sixty billion dollars to um farm safety net programs and conservation programs that had been eroded over the course of time. Is is that correct?

That is correct.

And we know the farm economy is still struggling. My neighbors are struggling. Um you're trying to correct course following four years where we had explosive inflation, we had no new trade deals, um I know my colleagues on the other side like to point out that we have an ag trade deficit from twenty twenty five. That's true. That was the fourth year in a row of ag trade deficits. So those trade deficits started under Biden and it just takes a little while to get it corrected. Uh but because of work done by Republicans last summer higher levels of premium support across all levels of crop insurance coverage were able to be applied retroactively and producers have already seen some of those benefits. Is that correct?

Yes, sir.

Also, because of those investments, producers will have a new bolstered safety net come this October when program payments go out. Is that correct?

It is correct.

And for those who, uh like myself, wonder why those payments won't arrive until October, um That was the Democrats who set us on that course in the two thousand eight farm bill when they insisted that payments be delayed until the following fiscal year, as a budget gimmick. Uh, we can debate all day long how the farm economy got where it is. But the one thing's not abata debatable is that Republicans have delivered time and again for rural America. Mister Secretary, could you provide clarification on USDA's updated ruling regarding the treatment of limited liability companies, specifically how does the new interpretation affect LLC eligibility and participation across USDA programs and what guidance should stakeholders be aware of as the new policy is implemented.

Uh, yes sir, so um equitable treatment of entities uh provision in uh the Working Families Tax Cut Act uh now today will treat LLCs, uh S corporations, uh like other entities. Um and so we, you know, we've worked through that and and implemented uh implemented the equitable treatment of all entities, so that they will be uh be treated equally. Uh as you know the the pass through provision allows um additional pay limits to members if they are actively engaged. That is one of the One of the provisions in there is we are treating all of those entities the same today, um and and and it does carry the actively engaged provision.

Mm 'kay. Thank you for that. Uh Miss Craig asked my second question, so I'm gonna move on to a a third question that I have that deals with uh the crop insurance. And so we increased funding for program compliance and tec and integrity in the federal uh crop insurance system, to six million dollars annually, as well as increasing RMA's budget for compliance activities. to ten million annually. Uh we all know the importance of ensuring that federal crop insurance programs run smoothly and without fraud. Uh so I'm interested to hear about how FPAC plans to efficiently implement these increased funds, and I will be honest with you, I hope that we prosecute people that we catch committing fraud in this system.

Uh you know, I think program integrity is is the most important thing that we can do to protect crop insurance. Um You know, obviously ninety nine ninety nine point nine percent of crop insurance insureds are abiding by the programs, but we occasionally have folks that um don't seem to be able to follow the rules. In that case, we've got uh we've got a very robust compliance department at RMA. Um it certainly is uh Administrator Swanson's priority to make sure that there's integrity across all of the products. all the states, um with everyone that's participating in crop insurance, um and again a robust compliance department that does the investigations, that roots out the folks that aren't playing by the rules, and then a department of justice that's uh very aggressive in making sure that these folks aren't gonna do it again.

Under Secretary, I appreciate you being here and your professionalism. Um I think it's imp- important that we stamp out fraud throughout all activities at the USDA. Uh with that, uh I yield the one second I have left. Acknowledge Mister McGovern uh from Massachusetts four, his five minutes.

Well thank you uh Under Secretary Fortas uh thank you for appearing here today, and I appreciate that you bring some actual career experience to your role. But I'm gonna be honest uh with you that there are decisions being made in your areas at USDA that I don't agree with at all. Um and if I had more time I'd ask you some questions, but my time is limited. And I need to use it to address something uh with our Chairman and the Republicans on this committee. I think this is really an outrageous hearing. It is outrageous for Republicans on the Agriculture Committee to try to take a victory lap over the big ugly bill. I mean we should be doing a hearing on how to fix the damage that was done to our farm economy in the big ugly bill. I mean it takes my breath away that this is the topic of today's hearing. Farm country is hurting and families are struggling in this country. Donald Trump has taken a wrecking ball to the farm economy. Farm input costs are skyrocketing. Tariffs and Trump's stupid illegal war with Iran have sent prices soaring. Uh, shipping is more expensive, processing is more expensive, overseas markets are gone, uh land costs are increasing, food industry monopolies are getting bigger, farm worker communities are being terrorized by ICE, USDA is supposed to be there for our farmers, but it's being run by people who seem intent on dismantling it. Now I did not walk away from our hearing with Secretary Rawlins a couple of weeks ago, feeling confident that she understands what farmers are going through and what USDA is supposed to do about it. Uh, the mass firings, the rescinding of grants and programs that help farmers thrive, the bone-headed reorganization, it feels like it's all done to help the big get bigger and the rich get richer. I mean these genies are not gonna uh are not going back in the bottle any time soon. And with all this going on, what is it the Republicans in Congress are so proud of? The big ugly bill. I mean the largest upward wealth transfer in American history, kicking an additional four million people off of food assistance, making hunger worse for eight hundred thousand children. Republicans in Congress basically said, shu sure, we can help some farmers, but only by increasing hunger. I mean seriously, what farmer asked you to make it harder for four million people to buy their food? What agriculture trade association came in and said, give us a modest insufficient bump in our safety net program by making eight hundred thousand kids go hungry? This is not the work of serious people. Uh people who were serious about helping farmers and families would not turn a blind eye to malpractice at USDA. They wouldn't have advanced the laughable farm pro bill proposal that we saw in the House that we saw in the House or the dead-end one that we just saw come from Senate Republicans. They wouldn't sit quietly while Donald Trump tears everything down. The bottom has fallen out for so many people in this country, especially our farmers. Uh and uh and pretending that these things aren't happening, that everything is just fine, is shameful. It is pathetic. It's something that I'd expect to see from North Korea or Russia. Instead of i instead of admitting that you've gone down the wrong path or that dear leader Trump could ever be wrong, you're holding a pep rally. Uh it's business as usual. You're telling farmers not to believe their lying eyes. I think it is beneath this body and I think it's a rotten thing to do to people whom the Agriculture Committee is supposed to be helping. I don't know whether Republicans talk to farmers uh in their districts. I do all the time. Be but i if you did, you'd know that they are not happy. that they are hurting, that they are struggling. Um and let me make one final point. If we don't do something, if we don't do something to at least stall the implementation of the t nearly two hundred billion dollars in cuts to SNAP, you uh they will go into effect and hunger is going to skyrocket in this country. Already we have forty eight million people in this country who are food insecure or hungry. It is shameful, it is unconscionable, that that is the reality in the United States of America. the richest country in the history of the world. And the idea that we are here not trying to prevent um this catastrophe from from happening not trying to address the real impacts on our farm community that have come directly from the big ugly bill, I think again is outrageous. We need to do better. We need to we get our heads into reality and understand what farmers are going through in this country, what struggling families are going through in this country. So I'm not gonna sit here and just make believe everything is fine, and and ask questions like this is a hearing on something that uh is you know is is business as usual. This is not business as usual, this is outrageous, and we need to do something about it. And I yield back.

Chair would like to submit for the record uh the text of the law enacted July the fourth twenty twenty five which reads uh exception to the rules under eighteen or over sixty five years of age, any of the changes made under the law that were signed in act of July fourth, twenty twenty five. Uh under eighteen or over sixty five were exempt. Chair now recognizes Mister Rausser from North Carolina.

Thank you uh Mister Chairman. Um I had to go back and look at the title of today's hearing to make sure I was in the right place.

Yeah, okay.

It says to review the implementation of farm safety net disaster and conservation programs. My goodness, is that not what we're supposed to be doing? Uh, Mr. Fordyce, thank you for being here. Uh, you have a very important job. I appreciate everything that you're doing. Uh, let me just ask a general question, um, and just top of mind topic here. Um, what, in your opinion, uh, you know, as you're trying to implement the law, what what's your greatest challenge? And then following up with that, uh, how ca how can we be helpful?

That that is a good question. Um I will tell you that um uh I cannot I could not be uh prouder of our team at FPAC. Um they're both political and career um employees at at at the mission area that work every day. They're super passionate about agriculture. Um most of them co ha have a farming background or very close to having a farming background. Um and so I I will I I will start the answer by just saying how how thankful we are that that we have a great team. Um I I think uh the day that I was nominated, Ag Media asked me what is your priority uh as the Under-Secretary if you make it through confirmation, and and ultimately I did. Uh but that very first day I said we need to modernize our delivery systems. We need to modernize our IT systems. We have antiquated systems, I I I alluded to it in in my opening uh testimony. um that are costing taxpayers a lot of money and don't work very well.

Yeah.

And I'm happy to say that we are well on our way to doing that. Um and in that IT modernization, we also are able to develop tools that are going to be tools that our farmers and ranchers appreciate as they engage with our agencies. But maybe more importantly, they're gonna be tools that our employees are proud of. When they come into the office in the morning, they know that things will work, they know that things will uh as they have a farmer standing in front of them, they're not gonna be taking a lot of that farmer's time that day or that rancher's time. And so I think those are the things that I'm the happiest about. Um and certainly um you know the House Agriculture Committee is an institution that supports agriculture and I appreciate that so much. It's really truly an honor to be here today to explain uh how we are moving forward in implementing uh the provisions that you

Well abs absolutely. Uh so I uh talked to our uh state FSA committee a a good little bit. Uh and they're uh they're a little concerned about the uh staffing uh you know issues, and being able to deliver um on these uh programs in a timely in a timely fashion. Um, we've got from what they tell me I think about seventy-four, seventy-five employees uh that will be uh terminated. Now that includes about thirty-four or so as I recall uh that are temporary. And um uh anyhow, the staffing issue definitely is one that uh I think you're gonna hear from a lot of people cause cause of that concern there that rub there.

So um, yes absolutely. And you know what? Um, when I'm traveling the country, talking to farmers, uh they bring that issue up as well. Uh, you know, we are um uh I think I think we're managing in in most cases. Um and the the the DRP was a little unpredictable. We had we had folks in some counties where we had a majority of folks took DRP. In some counties no one took DRP, and so those counties look very much like they did before the opportunities for those folks to select that. And We are again managing that um to the best that we can. Um and really the constraint that we have right now in hiring is uh is is is a budget uh issue. Um we're hopeful that in FY twenty twenty seven through the appropriations process, um that we will um will be able to uh see more of a normal uh appropriation related to uh related to staffing. And at that point um you know we will start to address that in a in a major way.

Yeah. Well I I'd like if you don't mind uh to have your team and my team consult, cuz I wanna make sure that our farmers in North Carolina have access uh to the programs in a timely manner. And I don't want um you know any issue that we could resolve up front um, you know, to be a problem with that.

Absolutely. Yes sir.

Thank you.

Gentleman's time's expired. Gentlelady from Oregon is

Uh thank you to the Chair and the Ranking Member for today's hearing, and thank you to Under Secretary uh Fordyce. According to the Office of Personal Management, as of April twenty twenty-six, there were about eighty-nine hundred employees in the Natural Resource Con- Conservation Service, NRCS, and in twenty twenty-five there were um just about eleven thousand five hundred. And that is a decrease of over twenty-three percent of NRCS staff. I've heard from Oregonians that the lack of NRCS staffing directly affects the ability of producers in my state and district to access federal conservation programs. They rely heavily on NRCS um staff for determining which conservation practices they should pursue on their land help in the application process and other technical assistance on the ground without that adequate NRCS staff support, farmers in my district and across the country are really struggling. Can you tell me how does a twenty-three percent decrease in the NRCS staff support that direct technical assistance on the ground to federal conservation programs under NRCS?

Um, a very good question, and um i i while the numbers that you quote are are correct, uh I believe that um I believe that NRCS is is meeting the mission. Um And and I mentioned earlier that uh NRCS has a very unique um relationship with partners. Um those partners could be um soil and water conservation districts, um you know we know we know the we know the partners ducks, um pheasants forever, quail forever, and those folks are critical in also helping uh provide technical assistance to uh to move out those dollars within NRCS um you are correct. uh farmers rely on those on those conservation programs. Um you know, I think they've they've uh that every farmer and I said this a little bit ago I th every farmer that I've ever met will do the right thing, when they know what the right thing is. And so from a conservation standpoint I think that's critical. Um and so we continue to do that. I w I didn't get a chance to mention um on the NRCS side through our one farmer one file initiative the IT modernization, the ability to provide and create new tools. Um we are right now developing what we're calling the integrated field tool, which is a digital tool that uh NRCS staff will have, and it'll go into conservation planning, uh design, and other things. They're working with a farmer, rancher, landowner on their property. They're all able to look at that, what they've suggested, what the farmer, rancher, or landowner have agreed to. um digitally sign that application, um which then obligates the dollars immediately. There'll have to be some some additional planning and some additional design in most cases, um but should really streamline and um really speed up the interaction between NRCS staff and farmers ranchers and landowners.

And I love efficiency, I love new IT. It's sad though because a lot of my um rural areas don't even have the broadband that they're able to get. um WiFi and and internet access um onto their farm, so it it is really difficult, so we actually do need the personnel and the people on the ground. So I recently heard from a farm service provider about a farmer in Polk County in my district who faced a lot of difficulty due to an unfulfilled NRCS conservation cra um contract related to funding changes and um in quotes, the NRCS cuts made by the current administration have not just reduced staffing, they have eliminated accountability for

Well Congresswoman, if you could share the county with me, we can definitely dig into that and see see what the in what the what the issue is. Um I cuz I would I would like to know that myself. Um that is that is not the way we propose to operate in in any form or fashion. Um, so we we would be happy to work with you and your staff to to dig into that specific issue in that county.

Uh, thank you, I appreciate that. NRCS lost almost a quarter of its workforce in one year. HR one added money to the permanent farm bill baseline for conservation programs. How exactly does USDA intend to get a historic increase in conservation dollars out the door with the fewest

Uh, so uh I can ag again continue to deliver the mission with the folks that we have, um with the efficiencies that we're that we're uh putting into the agency. Um the NRCS um they have they have a hiring plan. Um we so we have folks within that local county office, but we also have folks that are engineers. They're um archaeologists and others that are also critical to the

My time has expired.

Late time expired.

Thank you, and I yield back.

Chair, and I recognize the gentleman from South Dakota for five minutes.

Uh, Mister Fordyce, thanks for being with us today, I don't want anybody to misunderstand me obviously when producers are hurting there is a role for Congress, and yet I can't help but thinking uh about tens of billions of dollars of ad-hoc relief that uh we've come together uh to provide during the eight years I've been in Congress and I'm always left wondering if that's the right approach ad-hoc relief just seems too slow too political too unreliable, again sometimes desperately needed and yet I find myself wondering if there's some things we can do um to the existing safety net the risk management programs whether in title one or or a crop insurance that might make that ad-hoc relief less common so let's just start I'd I'd love to get your take on me opening up this big can of worms.

Well Congressman that is that is a can of worms for sure um.

Not no i- in in uh in fairness you did allude to this in your testimony too, so you're kind of teeing us up here.

Um so you know I believe that uh certainly American agriculture producers are resilient. You know, the if they weren't they wouldn't be in this business, right? I mean there are times when things are good, there are times when things, you know, are not necessarily. Uh, you know, Secretary Rollins has said a number of times um that, you know, the programs that we administer, if we do um you know, if we do anything ad-hoc related to USDA needs to be building on farm resiliency, building on the the the support that that farm um is able to withstand things, right? Whether they're economic or whether they're natural disasters or what not, in a better way. And I think, you know, we look at we look at that and we look at opportunities to be able to do that. Um

So, I I think the secretary is answering a really important question, which is how do we deliver that relief effectively? I'm asking a different question, which is is there a way we can be forced to deliver it less often because uh standing programs fill more of that gap.

Absolutely, and I think the changes to uh to the standing uh safety net programs ARC and PLC and the working families tax cut act, I think do deliver that. Um when you when you see higher reference prices and additional thirty million base acres in that program,

Yep.

um I think that's I think that's critically important.

It does part of the uh issue I sorta

Um, what crops, uh, Congressman, are you referring to? Um, what crops, uh, Congressman, are you referring to?

Well, rice doesn't have a standing crop insurance product, at least if memory, we don't do rice in South Dakota, but it does seem like those folks are more exposed and it would be hard to just tell them to, you know, unless we know times are tough but forget about it, go you know, go bankrupt.

I think um uh and I'd have to check on that um on the rice on the rice piece, but uh you know I think there are a number of there are a number of programs within USDA um almost all of them congressionally um supported uh and mandated. Uh one is the Marketing Assistance Loan. Um Marketing Assistance Loans

Yes.

Uh it appears to me um uh certainly are are conducive to to southern crops. We certainly utilize those in the Midwest as well, but that's a that's another I think important marketing um that's another important marketing uh opportunity for producers uh provides cash flow um gives them options and and things that uh maybe maybe they don't. I just got a note, it says Rice has crop insurance.

Well there we go. It did. Uh you you can't count on the guys from Mississippi and South Dakota to have all the answer or Mi Missouri and South Dakota to have all the answers at all the time,

That that is correct, yes sir.

right? Yeah. So as we close uh with my time, just as we I mean if if w when we're finished with the next farm build, cuz obviously a lot of these ideas take quite a ti quite a little bit of time to socialize, what I what should we be aiming for? What's the center of the target if we wanted to make ad-hoc assistance even less likely? I agree with you, I think uh reconciliation did a good job of moving us in the right direction, albeit incrementally. What what what more can we do?

Uh I I just think continue to provide robust risk management programs um that farmers and and now ranchers we've got a number of livestock products now in in in kind of our risk management suite. And those safety net programs, and make the safety net programs effective. I think that Um, you know certainly when uh when we've got great crops and we've got great prices, obviously those safety nets don't don't come into effect. But I think those are two t two critical um components of our federal farm policy.

Thanks much, and I yield.

And until much time has expired, now recognize Mr. Sorensen from Illinois for five minutes.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, um thank you Under Secretary Fordyce for being here today um to testify. I wanna start by giving credit and thanks to the hardest working people that I know. You know, in my district the sun rose this morning at five twenty, and farmers in Illinois were up to see it. There's more work to be done after supper, and many in farm country are just finished up the day's work when the last light slips below the western horizon at nine twenty in the evening. Uh, farmers want to succeed by using their talents and their know-how, not by cashing a check when the White House feels it's necessary. They want certainty in their jobs, and they want resiliency. when disaster strikes. It doesn't take a meteorologist to tell you that Illinois now leads the nation in tornado touchdowns here this year. And many of those have occurred in farm fields and farm country and small hometowns in Illinois across Mister Boss, Miss Miller, Miss Budzinski's and my district. Mister Uns- Under Secretary, you oversee vital programs like crop insurance and I appreciate your attention to making this work for them. Um you also oversee conservation funding at NRCS, which is essential to keeping our farmland resilient for the next growing season and the next generation. You know, I agree with our ranking member that we should be heralding a bipartisan five-year farm bill that would yield certainty even in the face of a failure, by an administration. Instead, the GOP's HR one is being paid for by funds taken from hungry people and cutting vital programs. in Middle America. Now I believe in fiscal responsibility, but taking funding from vulnerable families is not how we should be budgeting the most important agricultural programs. But uh let's get on to my questions. H R one included an expanded subsidy for administrative and operating costs for states with high loss ratios, uh which disproportionately benefits southern crop growers. And I wanna follow up from uh my friend from South Dakota's question. Is the agency considering

Um, that is a great question, and it is actually very timely. Um, the Risk Management Agency from time to time does rating studies. Uh, we just have uh received a rating study to look at that very thing. Uh, when I travel I hear exactly what what you have said. Um, we haven't had time to necessarily, I think, a hundred percent digest what that rating study looks like. Um, but that is one of the things that RMA does do and conducts those rating studies.

Could you share that with our office?

So Um At at some point, yes, yes, sir.

Okay, thank you. Um, you know, I wanna m move on to conservation. Twenty four hundred people lost their jobs at NRCS in twenty twenty five. uh one of the hardest hit agencies at the USDA. We lost twenty percent of our NRCS workforce in the uh land of Lincoln, uh putting even more strain on farmers who need assistance improving their soil health. Um is there a plan to meet the needs here? Uh because nowadays, you know, it seems like all my constituents here, when they wanna call and get a solution to a problem, is your call is very important to us, stay on the line. Uh shouldn't we be making sure that we have the workforce to meet the demand here?

Uh I I do think um that is

So help me understand. So last year we had seventy-eight NRCS folks working for farmers directly in Illinois and your budget for next year,

S so Congressman, can you repeat that, the the numbers?

That we're cutting down from the numbers of of hundreds down to single digits.

So um NRCS, uh and I don't know specifically uh on Illinois's hiring plan, but we are uh as an agency um, planning to hire up to ninety-five hundred, which uh, if we spread that out across the country, s I would think that Illinois would have a positive number. Um, so I don't know. I would like I would like

Let's let's let's manifest that.

I would like to d I would like to visit more with you uh, or your staff about what that uh, what that number looks like.

Thank you. When we talk about modernizing our agency, I hope that there is that focus on what we are doing for those farm families that are hurting today. Uh, Mister Under Secretary, thanks for being here today. I yield back.

Thank you.

General yields back, now recognize Mister Fenstead for five minutes.

Thank you, Chairman Thompson. Uh thanks for holding this hearing today, and thank you, Under-Secretary Fordyce, for being here and for your service to our farmers and our country. Bu um before I get into a couple questions, I just wanna comment on some of the things that I've heard today. Uh you know, I don't claim to be a high-level thinker in the banking world, or I or a uh nation leading economist, but uh I am a common sense farmer from southern Minnesota. And if you look at the math problem that we've had in agriculture, this math problem hasn't happened overnight. And if you look at bankruptcies, typically they don't happen on the heels of years of success, they've happened on the on the heels of years of challenges and trials. And so if you look at the past administration and really the climate of agriculture that we are you know hopefully scraping our way out of uh that that was an atmosphere that created high you know the highest interest rates that we have seen on operating no on operating lines uh in agriculture uh i in a generation record high inflation, the skyrocketing uh costs of our inputs, and then on top of that an ag trade deficit of which we haven't seen since the Jimmy Carter era. And so the perfect storm developed And we have to figure out how the heck to get out of it. And so I'm proud of the work that we have done here uh as Republicans when we passed HR one the largest investment in the farm safety net since two thousand and two and so uh I wanna talk a little bit about that uh so in in HR one uh and as uh as you've emphasized today crop insurance is farmers number one risk management tool and they wor uh as they work to produce the highest quality most affordable food supply in the world. And included in H R one was my bi- bipartisan legislation, the Farmer Act. This bill increased the premium support for higher levels of crop insurance coverage, including the supplemental coverage option and the enhanced coverage option. Can you speak to how these uh updates will enhance affordability at the farm gate? Uh, you know, reduce that input side of the the the equation and how it can reduce the need for future ad-hoc uh disaster assistance as uh Congressman Johnson had previously talked about.

Uh yes, I think um and thank you for the question. I I do believe that the enhancements to crop insurance that were a part of the working Families Tax Cuts Act um were were were critically important. Um uh another provision that uh was related to crop insurance uh was the opportunity for new and beginning farmers um to have the advantages of being a new and beginning farmer, extended from five years to ten years. And if we think about the average age of a farmer being nearly sixty, um you know, the that next generation of agriculturalists is critically important to our industry and critically important to the country. But back to your question, um I I do absolutely believe that the the lower premium opportunity, the opportunity to purchase higher percentage coverage of the farmer's individual guarantee is critical. And and obviously we don't have all the numbers in, but I think um you know when uh when RMA is has the opportunity um to capture all of the numbers of all of the policies and the percentage uh the percentage of coverage that farmers were purchasing I think we're gonna see that uh it resonated with farmers as well. Uh and I think we're gonna see a much higher percent of much higher percentage coverage.

I appreciate that. Uh, a and and I would just uh ask from from from your uh perch, from your opinion, do do farmers that are purchasing those crop insurance uh tools hope to use them?

A hundred percent not.

Right.

Um, you know, I I've I I w I was a farmer until this year, I can't farm now while I'm doing uh this this job as the Under-Secretary. Um, and you know, writing out that check for uh for my crop insurance premium sometimes was painful um but I was always better off financially if I did not receive an indemnity from crop insurance.

Yeah and I've been uh hearing from from the farmers that I represent in southern Minnesota that the work that we did in H R one to make that crop insurance uh risk management tool more affordable covering at a higher rate has been a a a good uh opportunity when they're talking on front-end of their business, the operating note with the banker, but also it allows them to make better educated decisions on the marketing side. And so that more more security that we have provided hopefully creates opportunities for our farmers to start hitting singles and doubles and and seeing that market opportunity while we also have to continue to work on the input side. Uh you talked about the young and beginning farmers, uh average age of farmers fifty eight years old, I mean we have a strong need for us to think about that next generation. Uh beyond the uh the crop insurance piece, can you talk a little bit about uh from from the USDA's perspective of of other young and new beginning farmer uh type policies and anything that we can do here in Congress to help really um emphasize that part of the conversation that needs to have we need we need to think ahead here uh not react.

Uh absolutely. I uh I had the opportunity yesterday uh over at USDA to meet with uh the Iowa Pork Producers Association Young Leaders program. Um and there was a young man who had indicated to me that he had purchased crop insurance using the advantages of being a new and beginning farmer. He had a farm ownership loan um that he had gotten through farm service agency to purchase a small farm. Uh he had used farm service agency loans to build a a a a a a pig barn to do contract feeding. That loan was through the farm service agency. He said if it had not been for the provisions um that give advantages to new and beginning farmers, he likely wouldn't have been doing that.

Thank you for your service, thanks for being here, and Mr. Chair you're back.

Yeah, Mr. Tom's expired. Uh now recognize Doctor Adams for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to uh Mr. Under Secretary for being here. Um, o over the past several months uh USDA has has made a series of significant announcements affecting the conservation program at this committee overseas. In December of twenty twenty five the department announced a new seven hundred million regenerative um agriculture pilot program funded not through new authorization but by redirecting four hundred million from the environmental quality incentives program and three hundred million uh from the conservative steward stewardship program uh this pilot it was not authorized by H R one, yet it requires every state to to set aside a a quarter of its environmental quality uh uh uh uh incentives program and conservative stewardship program allocations to support it. Uh and if you put that in perspective uh for my home state of North Carolina, in fiscal year twenty twenty five, Natural Resources Conservation Service invested twenty three point two million in North Carolina through the environmental quality incentives program alone to help our our farmers carry out conservation practices. A twenty five percent set aside means a a meaningful share of those dollars, and the comparable share of conser conservation stewardship program funding will now be redirected to a pilot program that didn't exist eight months ago, and that the Congress never explicitly authorized. Uh these are not small administrative adjustments, they represent real changes in how uh conservation dollars reach producers and how long-term partnerships are honored or or un unwound. Uh producers, conservation districts and partners or partner organizations across the country have had to adapt quickly, uh and often with only weeks before an announcement and an application deadline. And so our job i i today is is to better understand the implementation process and the accountability behind these decisions. Uh we wanna know how practices were chosen, funding decisions were made, And what happened to uh commitments already underway, and what producers and this committee can expect going forward. So my first question uh uh concerns the regenerative agriculture pilot program itself. In North Carolina about fifteen percent of the environmental quality incentives program and conservation stewardship program funding supported at least one of the fifteen practices uh pr practices on the approved uh list. And that means that we're we're we're doing our job in in North Carolina. And so, Mister Fordyce, w by requiring every state to set aside twenty five percent of its EQIP and CSP allocations for this pilot program, how much existing producer demand for standard equip and and CSP practices is being displaced?

Uh well Congresswoman that is that is a good question and Um so the regenerative pilot program um the the idea behind putting EQIP and CSP into the regenerative pilot program um was uh was not done lightly. Uh there w it has been a number of uh of different organizations that have asked about uh a focus on a focus on improving soil health and a focus on whole farm planning. And those are really the two pillars that are in the in the regenerative pilot program. And so the idea to use fifteen existing um conservation practice standards to accomplish that was a decision uh that we made, and it has really been over it's been overwhelmingly positive by the conservation folks that we work with.

So so what would a twenty five percent set-aside have meant for the farmers in North Carolina? who applied for traditional conservation practices during that time, and are they now competing for a smaller pool of standard funding because of this?

Uh no ma'am, I don't believe they are, because what we're doing is folks that have uh inquired an int have inquired ab and have an interest in EQIP or CSP uh some of the other uh some of the other uh uh conservation practice standards um are These are the types of things that they are interested in.

Okay, so this seven hundred million announcement came at the same time USDA cut other farmer support programs like farm to school, farm to food bank. So, can you tell us how a small regenerative farmer is supposed to make up for the loss of school and food bank contracts using funds from this pilot program?

So, I would say that uh i that uh that the program is size neutral. Small farmer uh mid-sized farmers can utilize these programs to enhance soil health, uh and to engage in whole farm conservation planning.

Thank you very much. I appreciate you being here and thank you for your uh responses, Mister Chairman. I yield back.

Feel like his time has expired. Now recognize Mister Feenstra for five minutes.

Thank you Chairman and uh for holding this hearing. And I also wanna thank Under Secretary Fordyce for joining us and for your long dedication and service to our nation's farmers throughout your career. I'm very impressed. Um I come from the second largest ag district in the country, and crop insurance is very important to our district with uh corn and and soybeans. And it's worked so important to have this public-private partnership. Uh I used to sell crop insurance through the bank, and I understood how important it was. And it wasn't just a a a safety net, it was actually a marketing a risk management decisions that farmers made to to be successful through the programs. So earlier this year we passed a historic investment to strengthen that partnership and expand the affordable risk of this management tool including a provision that I was very proud to lead and that was to support young and beginning farmers trying to get the start in agriculture. Uh we lowered the cost of through um crop insurance to do this. I wanna recognize the work s d a and r m a did to quickly implement these changes so producers could actually take these benefits for their twenty twenty six reinsurance year. I just wondered could you just talk a little bit about how important this was in implementing this crop insurance improvements and maintaining strong public private partnerships uh and and for farmers to have reliable and timely support that you are creating can you just talk a little bit about that.

Uh yes sir um uh good question and uh I do believe that uh the provisions that were in the Working Families Tax Cut Act related to crop insurance were all positive. Yeah. Um and I think that the numbers bear that out. Um for example ECO and SCO um uh subscription rates have more than doubled. Uh those are the those are basically the add-on products Huge. that get uh the the producer a higher percentage guarantee. Yeah. Um and uh so yes they're very positive uh mor they're getting they're getting a

Yep.

with a smaller investment out of their pocket. So yes, that's incredibly important. Um I would also say you referenced the the public-private partnership. Um in my notion uh that is that is one of the great examples. We talk about public-private partnerships all the time. That should be the gold standard. That should be what we point to and say other things can happen like this. And I would also add that um you know our nearly I think I think seventeen thousand crop insurance agents across the country are also advocates for those, for their customers.

They can.

They they know the FSA programs,

Yep.

um they know certainly their their crop insurance programs, um and they are advocates and advisors to the farmers that they serve.

Uh and you nailed it. I mean when I was on a crop insurance it was together working with a farmer to see what what worked best for them. And each farm was different and each uh uh you know each had their different uh amounts that they needed, I mean it all worked so well. So I wanna talk, one of the biggest challenges facing farmers today is the combination of lower commodity prices and higher input costs that remain obviously well above historical averages. Our farm safety net has traditionally focused on price and production risk, however in recent programs like ECAP and farm bridge assistant program, we recognize the modern farm risk that increasingly is driven by margin pressure and cost production. Now these are ad-hoc assistant programs which I I have no problem with, and they should never replace the predictable safety net programs. But these programs sh sorta highlight the risk of agriculture and how it's evolving continuing to evolve. Can you talk about your role and the future role in USDA when it comes to commodity programs like this, to better address the farm economy and maintaining the market oriented fiscal responsibility of the safety net?

Yes, absolutely. Again, uh provisions in the working family. Tax Cut Act uh related to reference prices uh an a an additional thirty million base acres uh that will be allocated across the country uh specific to the ARC and and PLC safety net programs is also critically important um you know I would also say that um that when we think about um ad-hoc assistance sometimes that is necessary you referenced uh input costs you referenced um commodity prices Um you know uh the US farmer is just really really good at producing and uh and uh i in my mind um you know our our our commodity price um levels that we're at today are uh are a supply and demand um situation we we grew an enormous corn crop last year um yet corn

Yep.

exports are almost at a record high so uh and and domestic use of corn is uh you know is also at

Yep.

Uh, at historic highs. So, we're growing a lot. We've gotta find markets for those, and we continue to do that.

Yeah.

Well, thank you again for being here. Thanks for all you do, and I yield back.

Thank you.

Gentleman yields back. Now recognize Mr. Tokuda from Hawaii for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, Mr. Fordyce, I have a number of questions, mainly surrounding small family farms. Um, now I know here we are talking uh about the eleven billion dollars in in bridge funding, Uh but I do also recognize that a vast majority of those funds are skewed towards large scale crop operations given that I believe there was about five hundred thousand applications that were approved for this particular funding but the distribution was based on a strict per acre model which favors larger farmers. And the cap was increased and I know some would argue that it was a nominal cap increase but large scale operations also have the ability to stack caps. which small, medium-sized mom-and-pop shops don't have that ability to do that. When you stack caps, uh the increase per farm operation can be quite significant in what they benefited from that came out of the OBB A. So I guess my my fundamental question to you is of the eleven billion dollars, um in this bridge funding, and I do know that we had a h one point six two five billion in specialty crop funding as well, what percentage of that actually went to small farmers? Eighty-six percent of farm operations in the United States are small family farms. What percentage would you say went to small farmers and how much of that money went to small to medium size farm operations?

I I don't know that I I don't know that I'm gonna be able to answer your question, Congresswoman. I I I don't know what your definition is of small and medium. Um and I don't mean I don't mean to be but I I I you know I I don't know what the if it, is it by acre, by sales, Um, and I and I I wouldn't have that number anyway.

Does the U I believe the D the USDA does have a definition of a small farm operation, does it not?

Um, uh, there is a definition as a farm, and that's that's that's sales of a thousand dollars in commodities.

I I believe typically when we're looking at small farm operations, it might be three hundred fifty thousand dollars or more more per year of annual sales. I believe that was one statistic I saw in the economic

Okay.

um research s service studies that the USDA has. So do we have a breakdown of how much small farms received out of the eleven billion dollars uh in this bridge assistance funding as well as for the specialty crops?

We we would have some sort of a breakdown and and we can certainly we can certainly get that to you I don't know the answer to that today.

But would you agree that based upon how the money was given out, this was largely skewed towards large farms, large farm row crop operations versus small family farms that exist in all fifty states and territories.

Well

Would you say that a vast majority would have likely gone towards these operations?

Uh I would say that our I would say that our programs whether um whether they're congressionally uh authorized programs or ad-hoc programs, they're size neutral with with caps. Um so smaller farms that have uh have a payment Uh, they're they're eligible for a certain amount of dollars. They didn't hit the cap, so they get a hundred percent of what they were eligible for. Larger farms, on the other hand, may be eligible for higher payments, but they are limited at that cap.

But as I was mentioning, there is that cap, but large corporations and a lot of these non-family farms that we're talking about, these row crop commodity crops, they do stack caps. I think when you do go back and do the research, you'll find that they have the ability to draw down a significant amount more of these federal dollars versus your small um medium-sized farmers that exist again in every single one of our states. And so my big concern is that small family farms are getting screwed. Eighty-six percent of the agriculture producers in this country are small family farms they're the ones who are dying on the vine who are questioning whether or not they leave this to their children um and while this is a lot of money to celebrate how much of it as actually going to these farms to keep them not just alive but to consider continuing on businesses, The connection I have to this is at the same time we cut a hundred eighty seven billion dollars in SNAP we'd would you not agree SNAP money feeds local small to medium-sized family farms because they buy they take these SNAP dollars and they reinvest it into rural local economy small farms. Would we not agree? SNAP dollars aren't buying from row crops, from sugar or soybeans or corn. They're buying from local farms. Would you agree with that?

I would say that um that that small farms have a number of markets um that they sell into.

Would you not say that when we take a look to your own research at USDA, economists have shown at the USDA, SNAP spending supports ag inputs at the local level. So when we cut a hundred eighty-seven billion dollars for SNAP, are we not cutting out one point two five more on return, when you take a look at the return on investment from local farms and local small family producers in every single state?

The USDA and the agencies that I oversee

I'd i if we could have an ask for this question,

Congresswoman.

Mister Chair, I'd like to know of the hundred eighty-seven billions dollars in snap cuts, what are the estimated losses to the local rural economy and local small farmers? Thank you Mister Fordyce for being here.

Thank you.

I yield back Mister Chair.

Generally his time has expired. I now recognize a gentleman from Kansas, Mister Mann, for five minutes.

Thank you uh Mister Chairman and thank you, Undersecretary Fordyce, for being here today. Thank you for all that you and so many folks of the USA are doing to help our great farmers and ranchers all over the country feed us to keep us safe I would just say uh you know as we're celebrating our two hundred and fiftyth birthday here in a couple of weeks I just think we've got to remember that we have been the free prosperous country we have been for many reasons but one of the biggest is which we have never had to rely on another country for our food supply which is why getting the policy right matters um not just for our farmers but of course for entire country and you all are are front and center of that and I I appreciate that. Great catching up with you back in Kansas last week. Thanks for spending time in the state. Um enjoyed having you specifically uh in my district um la last week. As you know uh my district, we have a lot of wheat, lot of beef, lot of sorghum, lot of corn, um soybeans as well. My question is for you. Um first um I was excited to hear about the new pilot program that USDA is introduced to modernize acreage reporting and improve its efficiency for producers um something

Uh yes, yes Congressman, and yes it was good to to see you in Kansas last week. Um and uh you do have vast swaths of of country and a lot of agriculture in your district for sure. Um and I you know I'm I really this is I might get overexcited about this modernized acreage reporting. Uh it's it is a long time coming. Um currently those folks that submit acreage reports um the way we do it at FSA right now is we have a photo copied map that shows that farm and then we ask that, we hand that farmer a pencil and we ask them to write in that field the crop and the plant date and they do that for every field on that farm then they hand the paper map, back to the program analyst, And then he or she then has to do the data entry to enter that in.

Has to be a better way.

There is a better way and and and we're on it. Um you know in my opening testimony I mentioned eleven counties that are pilot count eleven counties and eleven different states that are pilot counties. Um and what we've what we're what we've determined is not only is it a much better experience for the farmer it is a quicker opportunity um to do those acreage reports But it is also uh it's it's it re it reduces the the amount of data entry that our program analysts at FSA have to do. Basic and it's based on a geospatial mapping platform. So we're using a modern geospatial map that is interactive uh farmers if they're not forming that field exactly like that, they can change the boundaries, they can do whatever, they literally will tap on or click on that field, it'll ge bring up a crop code, They'll select the crop, then it'll bring up a calendar, they'll select the they'll select the plant date. And this is pha this is phase one. We have other phases that are gonna that are gonna progress into accepting precision ag data to populate these acreage reports. But when they click on that and they click the crop and they click the date, then it's entered. There is no data entry that happens after that. That's the key, in my mind that's the key, is where you have more accurate acreage reporting without double triple data entry. Um and it is a it is going to be a great thing for our staff and our farmers.

W one farmer one farm is fanta and then the next year you just go and update, you know, the field director in there, so you just update what crop or what the plan is,

Yes, it wou there there will be defaults after that foundational work there'll be defaults.

and there you go.

If you're a corn soybean rotation, this is always corn, this year's soybeans, this year, it'll pre-populate that, but it obviously we give the farmer the opportunity to make sure that that's correct. Um and so we'll have an opportunity If farmers wanna come into the county office and do this exercise every year, we'll use that modernized platform to do it. If they wanna do it on their phone, they wanna do it on some other digital device, phase two will allow for that to happen. Um, and, you know, I use my family as an example, my son's thirty, I'm sixty, my dad's ninety-three. My dad will never use this.

Huh.

He's gonna go to the county office. I can do it either way. My son who's thirty will demand at some point to do his work with USDA uh virtually and digitally.

Yeah. Welcome improvement I think producers I know in Kansas really excited about this and the opportunities that that's gonna be so thank you Mister Chairman with that I yield back to balance of my time and thank you again Under Secretary for being here.

Thank you.

Everybody yields back, now I'll recognize the General A from Illinois, Miss Vizinski for five minutes.

Thank thank you Mister Chairman and and thank you uh ranking member Craig, uh thank you Under Secretary Fordyce for being here, I appreciate it. I wanna ask about crop insurance um as well and the risk pool in particular. In the Midwest we have some of the lower um lowest loss ratios in the country, meaning farmers are paying insignificantly more than they're getting out. Nationally the loss ratio hovers right around uh one point zero, uh but that's not really the reality at a regional level. Illinois is actually far below that, the district I represent in central and southern Illinois, um with a loss ratio below zero point four. Um it was previously mentioned today that increased premium support will help ease the pain for our farmers but this increase won't make the difference between premiums and indemnity payments for farmers in states like mine and the issue within the crop insurance program is only compounded by the pain our farmers are feeling by the president's uh most recent trade wars. If farmers in low risk low loss ratio states like mine reach a point where the financial burden of participating no longer makes sense for their operation and they start walking away, what happens to the overall risk pool?

That is a great question.

Mm-hmm.

That is a great question. Um and I know that that that RMA they monitor that very closely. Um and I've heard ex I've heard the same thing that you just explained um when I traveled to Illinois. Uh I believe you and I had a conversation at the Farm Progress show um last year, Mm-hmm. and I think this I think this topic may have come up. Yeah. Um, you know, we monitor that from an RMA uh perspective, Mm-hmm. um but I do believe that um, you know, with the with the provisions in the Working Families Tax Cuts Act, Mm-hmm. uh lower premiums, higher guarantees, it's a better it's a better risk management product across the board, lower premiums, Um and just the I think I I would say the peace of mind of having that risk management supporting uh supporting that farming operation in the case of adverse weather, um is going to I think folks are gonna continue to purchase crop insurance.

Mm-hmm. Can I one thing I'd like to better understand is how, you know, premiums are calculated, and I think one of the questions Congressman Sorensen might have had, and it sounded like he might be doing a study on this, is if you'd be open once that study's completed to maybe briefing some of us that have these types of questions on premiums.

I think yes, I think we can do that.

Okay, that would be great. Um I'd like to shift gears now um to talking about base acres, um and specifically um making the case for a mandatory base acre update. The last mandatory base acre update was in nineteen eighty five. Um American agriculture, I think we can all agree, has changed uh pretty significantly over the last forty years. This mismatch matters since we're expecting the safety net to support the current farm economy, and right now it just doesn't. Farmers are making planting decisions against a program structure that is forty years out of date. The last reconciliation package took a step with a voluntary one-time update of up to thirty million acres, and I I don't dismiss that, uh but voluntary and capped is the same as fixing the underlying problem. Here's what I think deserves more attention. A mandatory comprehensive base acre update could actually save federal government money. Uh, before these changes the savings estimated was about was around three billion dollars. After the changes with the reference price changes now baked in, that number could be closer to eleven billion dollars. And both figures are expected to grow. So my question is, does USDA believe a mandatory base acre update would better align the safety net with the modern farm economy? And does the department see a path to help making the fiscal case for getting it done in our next farm bill?

So, let me, let me, let me answer that um like the first part of the question first. Um, I don't know that we've done the analysis of what a mandatory base uh acre update would look like. Um you know that's something certainly that that I could visit with the Chief Economist and the folks in the Chief Economist's office about um uh I do think you make, I do think you make a good point. Um base update is different than uh allocating new base related to related to planning history. Um so I think um from my perspective I w I would like to see what that looks like, if in fact that would lower the score um for safety net programs to do a base update. I think that would be interesting to know.

Thank you for being open to that, and I'll yield back my time. Thank you.

General Lee yields back. And I'll recognize the gentleman from Ohio, Mister Taylor, for five minutes.

Thank you. Thank you very much, Chairman, for hosting this hearing and uh thank you, Under Secretary Fordyce, for being with us today. It's been uh very helpful at this point and I appreciate it very much. Uh almost a year ago President Su Trump signed the uh largest investment in our agriculture sector in history. The one big beautiful bill is a transformational piece of legislation that in the end will help all of the eleven thousand family farms in the district I represent, which is um the neediest in Ohio by a wide margin. So I've been pleased to see the progress that USD has made in implementing this sixty six billion dollar investment. There are many wins in the bill for businesses, families and farmers, but I wanna focus on beginning farmers for a moment. Nearly fifty percent of all farmland will transfer hands in the next twenty years,

Uh yes, absolutely, and I I alluded to it earlier uh with an earlier question about the importance of new and beginning farmers entering into agriculture. Um we've gotta have that next we gotta have that next group of folks comin' in to uh to feed, fuel and clothe not only this country but uh but the world and and you know, we've we've done that as a country very well for a long time and um i uh so I I will answer that but but I would first say that the the young folks in agriculture that I interact with are amazing people um they're they're smarter than I was at that age um and uh it's really interesting to hear them talk about the economics of agriculture the business of agriculture the the public policy of agriculture. Um and to me uh when I think about someone entering the the industry, just the the how capital intensive agriculture is, and it has been for a long time, access to land is certainly can sometimes you know be something that is just too costly. So our farm our our farm loan programs through the farm service agency, we have special provisions, specific specific to new and beginning farmers, where we actually chunk off a p a p a p a part of our loan volume, it can only go to new and beginning farmers for direct farm ownership, uh direct farm operating expenses. Um and it is highly subscribed by new and beginning farmers. The the ability for uh new and beginning farmers to access uh risk management um um products through RMA and through crop insurance extending that uh the the the lower premium options for those new and beginning farmers from five years to ten years is is huge, right? If you can if you can double your eligibility time of eligibility, I think that's critically important. And a number of other things, whether it's directly related to um uh language in the bill for s new and beginning farmers they also take advantage of the other provisions, the the uh the increase in reference prices, the the increase in marketing assistance loan um uh prices, uh the thirty million additional base acres. So uh I think we ha we have a number of things that are focused on new and beginning farmers at USDA and certainly there were provisions uh within the Working Families Tax Cuts Act that that move that way as well.

Do you uh do any tracking on the rate at which new people are entering the field of of agriculture? And if so, are we seeing an uptick i as you described there was seems to be more interest and there are certainly programs to encourage it, but are we seeing any changes in those numbers, if that's being tracked?

You know, I I don't know that we're tracking it. You know, the National Agriculture Statistics Service, NASS, I'm sure is is tracking that. Um that would be something I think certainly interesting to look at. I can't answer that um with any sh with any surety today. Um but uh that would be a that would be a good thing to know.

Okay. I have another question that's not gonna be answerable in a minute. I'll submit

Thank you.

Gentleman Yields. Now recognize Mister Figures for five minutes.

Thank you, Mister Chairman and Under Secretary Fortyce. Uh, thank you for being here uh today. Um, while investments in in FPAC that we're here to discuss today uh were certainly meaningful for many producers, we cannot move forward without acknowledging the incredibly harmful pay-for that came at the expense of food security in communities across this country. You know, this Congress has spent far too much time robbing Peter to pay Paul, uh leaving nearly eighty-two thousand people in my state of Alabama uh without the support of SNAP including more than twenty-three thousand uh children. And that's after we repeatedly heard throughout this process that no children will be impacted, that children are exempt. So whether intentional or not, uh exactly what we warned would happen uh is certainly happening across the state of Alabama and I as I'm sure you are aware, Uh the state of Alabama is not one of the more affluent states in this nation. Uh I have an individual median income across my district of about thirty two thousand dollars which means about half the people in my district make lef less than thirty two thousand dollars and so uh the SNAP program is certainly something um that is more than just uh meaningful in my district. Um and that number right now, that twenty three thousand children, eighty two thousand people that have lost uh SNAP support, that number reflects only the impacts we've seen to this point and consequences once these cuts are completely implemented. Uh and look, farmers uh have been asking for a stronger farm safety net and, you know, we have done some work to strengthen commodity programs, expand crop insurance options, increase support for beginning ranchers and farmers, some of which you just uh referenced again there, and invested in additional resources uh into conservation programs. Those are all improvements that producers have long advocated for and farmers have long sought and were certainly necessary and certainly things that I support. Um, well we cannot move forward without recognizing the real people who are paying the price and that's the children who didn't decide the circumstances they were born into and yet go hungry the local grocers who relied on Snap dollars because as you know look Snap Snap dollars are not something that people can store in the bank. Uh, they can't invest Snap dollars, they're spent and they're only spent at grocery stores and those grocery stores are primarily stocked with food that is purchased from materials that are produced on our farms in Alabama and across this country even in you know your home state of uh Missouri. Uh and state budgets will will obviously, you know, fill the ramifications of this at the end of the day, uh once they're make forced to make impossible choices uh related to the cost sharing. Uh but today we're here to talk about, you know, things that H R one did for FPAC and and farmers in my district are still calling for help even after these investments uh and after USDA's bridge payments. While we've made improvements to existing programs, the underlying struggles haven't gone away. Export markets are still feeling the impacts of tariffs and I wanna come back to that. Uh and some of those markets may never return to what they once were, a reliable lifeline that helped keep family farms afloat. Uh input costs remain incredibly high, fuel costs are up, fertilizer costs are up, markets remain volatile, and producers continue to face uncertainty every time they make decisions about planning borrowing or expanding their operations. Uh so yes, we can all agree that something is better than nothing for farmers facing extraordinary challenges, but strengthening the farm safety net, expanding conservation opportunities, and improving crop insurance are meaningful steps Uh but farmers deserve credit for fighting to make those improvements a reality. Uh we cannot keep shifting money around every few years and calling it a solution. We cannot continue to ask farmers to rely on bridge payments and emergency assistance while the same economic pressures continue year after year. Our job uh simply i isn't simply to just help farmers survive uh especially until just the next season it is to create the kind of long-term stability that allows them to plan invest and run the type of operation that is worthy of passing down to the next generation. Uh, Under Secretary, let me ask you this, a have the in your opinion have the have the tariffs been good to farmers?

Well, I think uh I think that the the President's approach to trade has, in my mind, has been a positive to the country. Um,

Mm.

it has oper it has offered an opportunity to open up some new markets for agricultural uh products.

Yeah. Well

And and I would also say that uh from the US Trade Rep and others, uh the Under Secretary for Trade at USDA, that in every trade agreement that's negotiated, agriculture has to be a part of it.

Well understood,

Uh

and I I don't mean to be disrespectful, but I wanna hear begin another question.

No sir, I understand.

The what we hear about markets in Alabama, we have a lot of peanut farmers, I know you have a soybean background yourself, soybean markets as you know, we saw exports to China dry up almost seventy-six percent over the last year, and I understand some deals are in place to make some of that come back. But China is going to Brazil. standing up markets and making investments in Brazil, for not just soybeans but for peanuts and for other uh crops as well. So my concern is those markets aren't coming back to Alabama, that they that they're gone, they're drying up over this these these terror policies. So yes, it may have opened up you know some degree of a market in you know in some respect, but we're losing ground permanently in the state of Alabama and it's my hope that I can work with your office uh to to take steps and push forward legislation that will actually you know mitigate that harm as much as we possibly can.

Yes, sir Congressman.

Thank you, now you're back.

Gentleman yells back, now recognize Mister Mesmer for five minutes.

Thank you m thank you Mister Chairman, uh Under Secretary uh for four nights you have a lot on your plate, uh at FPAC because of the work that has come out of this committee. So thank you for taking the time to share your testimony this morning. I appreciate the work you're doing to insure our farmers are supported, especially through implementation of H R one. I wanted to draw your attention to the poultry insurance pilot program, which was authorized through H R one. As you know, the pilot would help pou poultry producers address uh increased energy costs due to extreme weather events. Uh, Under Secretary, does the Risk Management Agency uh intend to insure this pilot serves not just broilers and laying hens but the rest of the poultry industry?

Uh, yes, Congressman, that that is a good question. Um And uh w we fully understand that there there's a two year time line to get that done so that that product needs to be developed um by July fourth, twenty, twenty seven. The uh the RMA and the board are currently looking at options uh that can that can fit the bill for for that product, uh and we will meet that time line.

'Kay, very good. Under H R one, the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation,

So, I I don't know that we've made any final decisions related to that, but certainly Indiana would be under consideration.

Mm. Mm.

Uh, I was s pleased to see yesterday's an announcement of three hundred ten million dollars in the Regional Conservation Partnership Program. My district is home to one of the largest Navy bases the the largest Navy base in the continental US a Navy Service Warfare Center crane and crane sits within the Southern Indiana Sentinel landscape or CICEL which has been successful in both improving access to USDA conservation programs for private landowners and establishing easement buffers around military installations in twenty twenty three CICEL's key partners applied for RC uh PP funds

So I don't um I don't know what the what the final decision has been made,

Mm.

related to the RCPP's that were uh uh partially through the process.

Mm-hmm.

Uh and then um then weren't finished. Um but certainly we'll have a conversation with the chief related to that and and we can get back to you on that.

'Kay. Any potential for the USDA's one farmer one file effort to apply to organizations like the CICEL partners?

Uh that's possible, yes.

'Kay, very good. Um, Indiana proudly leads the nation in soil conservation. As a result, demand for technical assistance in the Hoosier state is exceptionally high. Uh Indiana's NRCS staff work incredibly hard to meet producers with col with conservation plans that fit their needs, but as demand for N NRCS programs has grown, Indiana's pool of NRCS technical assistance experts has not. Uh can you shed some light on how NRCS plans to increase farmer access to uh credentialed technical service providers as our producers continue to store their lands?

Uh yes, I think all options are on the table from a technical assistance

Okay, thank you. Uh that's all my questions.

Mm.

I yield back.

Mm.

Thanks gentlemen, gentlemen, he goes back, now recognize uh gentleman from Virginia, Mister Vindman for five minutes.

Not quite right. Okay, and the other Mister Faraday?

Right. Thank you, Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member Craig. Uh, Mister Fordyce, thank you for being here today, uh as we have been discussing today, H R one made substantial changes to a number of farm and conservation programs. I continue to believe those changes should have been debated in the context of a Farm Bill rather than a partisan reconciliation package, particularly one that came at the expense of nutrition assistance for millions of families. Also recognize that farmers are counting on the USDA to successfully implement the programs Congress enacted. That is why I want to focus my questions today on whether the department has the capacity and resources necessary to deliver on those commitments. USDA has experienced not only a significant loss of staff across the entire department, But is it also in the middle of a massive reorganization within the farm production and conservation mission area. So, Mister Fordyce, do you believe um it the FPAC currently has the staffing and technical capacity necessary to implement these changes efficiently and provide timely service to producers? And are there particular staffing gaps or operational challenges that concern you as implementation continues?

Uh yes Congresswoman, thank you for the question. Um you know I think that um y by and large I think our agencies are meeting the mission. They are delivering on uh on the promise that we make to uh American agriculture. Um but what I but we will have locations, we will have county offices that um that are having staffing challenges at this point. Um the Natural Resources Conservation Service, they actually have uh they actually have a hiring plan. currently advertising and hiring um folks not only at that local level, but more at the regional level, uh engineers, architects, those kinds of folks that are required to move these projects forward. Um through NRCS, FSA, um our constraint today on on staffing is budget, um and we do recognize that we do have county offices um that are are uh not staffed uh to the level that we would like to see them. Uh so we hope that we get uh we hope that we get some relief in the appropriations process for F way twenty seven uh to be able to um be able to hire staff at FSA.

Well thank you for that, because you mentioned in this hearing that the department will be advertising on hiring for NRCS, and twenty-two percent of the NR uh CS staff was cut. Can you explain the strategy of firing and rehiring staff?

Um uh Congresswoman um I think uh the majority of those folks left through DRP um uh deferred retirement program. That was a voluntary program that was the choice of the employee, was the best decision for them uh and their family. Um and so, you know, if the if those choices were made by the employee, then we will um we will do our best to hire back folks that can that can meet the mission.

Thank you. I'm also concerned about capacity and services changes at USDA that they're going to impact not only farmers who participate in these programs but also USDA's ability to ensure that underserved producers particularly beginning farmers smaller operations and producers who have not had long-standing relationship with USDA offices will continue to be left behind so can um you share with us how you are ensuring your implementation efforts reach a broad range of producers that benefit um that the benefits of these program changes are accessible and operations of all sizes and backgrounds.

Uh yes Congresswoman, I I I am actually pretty uh happy with our outreach um program at FSA, and it and it's really at all levels. Um whether it's the State Executive Director at the state, FSA, the outreach coordinators within those um within those states, um young new and beginning farmer coordinators um there are a number of of meetings, um certainly a good relationship with uh with the l with local media, local newspapers, local radio stations that they engage with on a on a very regular basis. I've heard clips and I've seen some of the some of the work that the outreach teams do uh across the country. Um can we do more? I think we can always do more. Um and it would be my desire to do more. Our programs are open to everyone of of any size, small, medium, large farmers. And we wanna make sure that everyone is aware of the programs that are available in our mission area.

Thank you. I just wanna take a moment to acknowledge that the policies we are discussing here today took place outside of a farm bill where they should have been considered, and at the expense of the largest cut to SNAP in our nation's history. For decades the farm bill coalition has been built on a simple understanding. Farmers need a strong safety net and families, including those who have fallen on hard times, deserve access to food. Those priorities were never in competition with one another. They were partners in a shared commitment to rural communities, producers, and working families. So as we move forward, I hope this committee can recommit itself to the bipartisan foundation that has sustained farm policy for generations. The success of crop insurance, ARC, PLC, disaster assistance and conservation programs is not in conflict with the success of SNAP. Farmers deserve certainty, families deserve vote security, and American people deserve a farm bill that delivers both.

The general's general ladies' time has expired.

Thank you.

Now we'll recognize the gentleman of California, Mister Valadao, for five minutes.

Thank you, Chairman. Good morning, Under Secretary. I wanna thank you for uh being here today and for your testimony. Crop insurance is clearly a valuable tool with enrollment hitting an all-time high. However, specialty crop participation continues to lag significantly beh significantly behind other crops. How has your administration worked to expand USDA's USDA's insurance programs to better c cover America's specialty crops.

Uh, Congressman, that is that is a great question. Um, and let me say first that uh Administrator Swanson, um when she became the Administrator of the Risk Management Agency, uh very soon after she started, conducted a series of specialty crop round tables. And those and those round tables, uh the participants were specialty crop farmers, crop insurance agents that serve regions of the country that that support specially cropped farmers to learn more about what is the gap, what where where are we not meeting um meeting the needs of specially cropped farmers. You know the cr the federal crop insurance system has been around for uh thirty years. They had their birthday a couple of months ago and certainly um th for most of that time it's been in support of of what we would refer to as title one crops. And so there is a learning curve and I fully admit that there's a learning curve but there's certainly a desire. to um to understand more about where is the gap, what are we what are we not doing, what can we be doing to better support um specially crop farmers. Um and I would also um say that i in some cases um the the administrator has expanded coverage, so if we if if we did for example have a product for, I don't know, I'll I'll say apples and as just an example. But we maybe only c we maybe only made that available in certain counties. We've expanded those coverage areas. Um but we still have work to do, and I'll be the first to admit that we still have work to do in providing effective risk management tools uh for specialty crop farmers.

So I don't know if there was an answer in that, but it is one that has a lot of concern in a district like mine. And uh I think there's like fifteen percent of specialty crops are covered. So it's um really far behind. And that is something we need to keep working on. Um whole farm uh revenue protection has been the catch, uh catch-all for diverse farms with multiple commodities. It is also one of the risk management agency's best tools to cover these specialized uh operations. Unfortunately it remains underused due to extensive paperwork requirements and a lack of available policies for insurers from insurers. What more can FSA and RMA do to encourage insurers to offer whole farm policies?

Um that's another good question. Uh you know I think that that whole farm certainly is an option. Um i but you are correct, it does require it does require a lot of uh a lot of management um from the producer, but also from the agency, um just the whole farm uh the whole farm uh policy application. Um and I know that RMA, they're looking at ways to hopefully streamline that, make that more um make that more amenable to folks that are that wanna choose or maybe that's the only option for them is the whole farm coverage.

Alright. With concerns about the new rural screw arm uh growing in this uh southern US, what programs does FSA or RMA have uh or plan to offer to provide dairy or beef operations protection against this new threat?

So um NRCS have uh have a number uh and I can't I ca I can't give you the exact number of of conservation practice standards. that would go toward um helping producers um uh either from uh from an observation and a m and a monitoring standpoint, um uh brush management, um some some forage management kind of programs to hopefully um reduce the reduce the likely positive habitat for for New World screwworm. Um and then on the FSA side we do have some programs we are We are analyzing right now um what uh what might work through an indemnity program. We've not we've not made a final decision on that yet, but certainly looking at that.

Alright, thank you. And then um FSA, uh right now American farmers are experiencing high operational expenses that threaten their bottom line. For many, sale prices remain stagnant while input costs like fuel, fertilizer and seeds continue to increase. How are rising input costs and tighter farm margins

Um you know I think uh I think that uh FSA loan

Mm.

programs are always gonna be an option for folks. Um we have seen maybe a slight tick up in uh in the subscription rate of of FSA um FSA FSA farm loans, whether that's direct loans or guaranteed loans. Um uh I had an opportunity to visit with American Bankers Association some weeks ago. Um and they they very much value the partnership that we provide uh with them through commercial lending.

Alright, thank you. I yield back.

The gentleman's time has expired. Now recognize Mister Vendman for five minutes.

Thank you, Chairman. So this spring thank you for coming here, Mister Fortas. Um this spring Virginia was impacted by a devastating frost and freeze event that impacted orchards vineyards and crops across the Commonwealth. A month ago on May twenty seventh Virginia submitted uh a request to USDA Secretary Rollins for a secretarial designation of a disaster for frost and freeze damage in the Commonwealth. I raised this issue directly with the secretary when she testified before this committee, and she promised to review Virginia's request as quickly as possible. We're still waiting for that approval request from the secretary's office almost a month later. Miss Fordyce, as the only Virginian on this committee, the Commonwealth's farmers can't wait much longer for this critical support. Now there's a lot of rhetoric of support for farmers, farmers first, uh but I just wanna make sure the actions are consistent with that rhetoric. Can you provide an update on the status of that approval?

Uh yes Congressman, I can. Um FSA is finalizing that disaster uh designation. Uh there are fifteen counties in Virginia that are included in that disaster designation and um uh that Virginia will be receiving that disaster declaration this week.

Thank you. That's wonderful news. Um with the si uh let's see. Alright so um I'd like to turn to the question of of the federal workforce at USDA. NRCS experienced a massive drop in its workforce, losing nearly three thousand employees, or almost a quarter of its workforce. Farmers and local communities did not have anyone to call for conservation support and local counties lost knowledgeable, helpful field staff, but the office of the secretary grew by eighteen percent. FSA lost twenty w one percent of its staff. More than a third of the local FSA offices began the year with reduced headcount. On top of that, a survey by AFGE found that seventy-six percent of USDA staff working in and around the national capital region do not plan to relocate with USDA, and plan to leave their jobs instead. In the face of all these cuts in staff losses, It's um it's not like life in farm country has gotten any better. How is USDA going to retain an expert workforce with these types of numbers and ongoing staff cuts? How can farmers in Virginia, which the USDA is moving away from, expect good service from F uh FSA and NRCS?

Uh so um I've I've said a couple of times um during the hearing that um the real heroes in our mission area are folks that are working in those county offices that are delivering programs where the rubber meets the road. And uh I value them uh I value them so much. Um you know, throughout my career I've worked directly with local NRCS and local FSA people, and so I wanna say that up front. Um I think that um you know I think that that from an NRCS and FSA staffing uh perspective, we are on our way back up. the other direction. Um NRCS, they're advertising positions um not only to to fill positions in local county offices but also uh more specialized positions like engineers, like architect like archaeologists um which are critical to to to deliver the mission. Um so NRCS is is hiring um their their target uh hiring number is uh to get back up to around ninety five hundred. uh uh for the total of the agency. Um FSA on the other hand, they're hiring as well, but they're hiring to attrition and they're hiring to attrition because um the constraint is is budgetary. So uh our hope is uh our hope is is through the appropriations process in the nest next fiscal year, um that we will get additional appropriations for staffing for uh for farm service agency.

So I'd like to point out um that a couple of times I've heard you talk about the DRP, the deferred uh resignation or retirement programs. You know, these are government administered programs that the government has announced incentives in order to get people to leave. And so you talk about people leaving for their own, you know, it it it fit their lifestyle, they wanna leave. That was an opportunity provided by the government, and now we're in a position from digging out of that hole in order to build up staffing, make sure we can support our farmers. So it's not, you know, it's voluntary to the extent that it was an offered as an incentive incentive, and it's not uh that it just happened, it was an act of nature, you know, people decided to leave. So that is just not consistent with the needs of farmers and what farmers are facing. And I hope in the future as we go forward that we're a little bit more diligent, deliberate in how we plan uh for staff and make sure we t retain that experience and that expertise that our farmers rely on. Thank you. I'll leave it back.

Thank you.

General Yeltsin back. Uh, Dr. Barron's recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Mister Chairman and Ranking Member, and uh Mister Undersecretary, we really appreciate uh you being here. You mentioned in your introduction about food security as national security, and I think that's a philosophy that we have around here and it demonstrates how important meetings like this are where we're providing the the safety net for uh producers and ranch farmers and ranchers as well as uh um a way to manage risk management. So having said that, my first question deals with um deals with the CRP program, one of which is the the grassland reserve. And I would just appreciate uh your comments and thoughts about how we might use that grassland reserve, cuz different than some of them we've had in that you're able to continue production and yet use the conservation programs to save our soil. So I I'll be interested in your thoughts about that. It's relatively new to Indiana, to our area as far as

Y y Yeah, the grassland grassland CRP is a relatively new practice. Um and really it m it makes a lot of sense. Um you know we we will do a general CRP uh sign up where you know we're gonna we're gonna take uh bigger chunks of land um you know that have been cropped, or maybe they're re-enrolling that um but that is that was cropland that was taken out of production. um through uh really through the general CRP sign up. The grassland CRP as you say Congressman is um is a is a working lands program, it is a conservation program um that uh you know the rental rate for grasslands um doesn't quite get to the level um of a of a general CRP contract but then it also grants the flexibility to the land owner to the producer to utilize that grass while also being enrolled

You know, I can see how the significance of that in the western states, but you know in Indiana we still have a lot of cow-calf operations in parts of the state, and so all of that would be applicable. You know, in another area um uh I t- I ha- I offered a bill called the TSP, or Technical Service Providers, where we where we can certify those people working for some of the agribusinesses and so on. And we have a lot of technology and capability there, so I would just be interested if you think uh and I realize that really works with the NRCS, uh but I was wondering if that doesn't take a load uh some of the load off the USDA and the FSA offices, by having those kind of people that understand the programs and yet, yet we can certify them. So I just be interested to make sure that is something feasible or uh how you feel about it.

Y yes, absolutely. And I think Um, you know, from a technical um uh technical service provider standpoint, um, you know, technical assistance is uh is valuable, whether that comes from NRCS employees, whether that comes from one of our recognized partners that we partner with, uh, soil c- soil and water conservation districts, you know, some of the other organizations, Ducks Unlimited and others. Um, you know, the the the services that they pro- provide from a technical assistance standpoint is critically important. But I think

You know I I think that's a a basic point that I was interested in. They understand the program and so that that really makes that really makes an asset that they can contribute.

Mm.

because they do understand and then when you look at some of the the pharm the CRP programs uh it does it does take some analysis and some effort to try to make sure which one best fits your situation. And so I think the more eyes the legitimate eyes that you have on that, the better you better you uh utilize the programs. So I guess my last question kinda ties that all together, you know I'm partial to Purdue University and I expect everybody around here knows that, but anyway uh stop that. But he but uh I just I just really think that research is our way to compete with around the world. So I'd just be interested in your thoughts about how we're working with the land-grant universities, with agribusinesses, as well as you know a lot more of our farmers and producers have a have a degree. So

Yeah, uh I said I've said multiple times today that farmers will always do the right thing when they know what the right thing is. And They're they're advised through land grant, a lot of land grant university research and innovation. Um, you know, I mean, I'm I'm partial to Mizzou. Um, and uh the land grant university there and the outreach that they do is critically important. Um, so absolutely support uh support the research that happens at those land grant universities and the innovation and discovery that comes out of there.

Thank you very much. I appreciate your answers. Uh, you back.

Don't want to use back, not recognize Miss Hayes from Connecticut.

Thank you. Thank you, Under Secretary uh Fordyce, for being here. I just wanna follow up on my que the questions that were asked by Reps Brown and Vindman about staffing because you did mention the deferred resignation program. Um and as Representative Vindman said, that was an incentive that many people took. But I think it's also important to note that uh massive cuts and efforts made by Doge led to a spike in resignations, and then workforce reduction initiatives and massive relocations also led to a mass exodus in key agencies that we're talking about are understaffed. So, I would submit that appropriations is not the only constraint, that much of what we're dealing with is choices made by this administration that we're now trying to correct for. So, I think i it would have to be a really compelling argument to come back to Congress. And now, asked for appropriations to replace staff that was cut by the administration. And as as Representative Vindman said, these weren't people who just woke up one day and decided they were ready to retire. They were responding to the pressures that were applied to them by both the agency and the efforts of Doge. So those are all things to consider. It's not just appropriations constraints. That's not really a question, I guess, just a statement. Uh, m federal crop insurance is critical to agricultural safety nets. However, in twenty twenty-two of the one point nine million farmers in the United States, just nineteen percent were enrolled in crop insurance. This disproportionately affects small farms, which often cannot access insurance. My legislation, the Save Our Small Farms Act, would address the lack of a safety net for vulnerable farmers who are unfairly shut out of traditional crop insurance. H R one, increased support for commodity crops like cotton through enhanced reference prices. expanded base acres and strengthened ARC and PLC programs. I understand that those farmers have been hurting. In contrast, H R one does comparatively little for farmers growing fresh fruits and fruits and vegetables and nuts that feed American families. Specialty crop accounts for fif- for roughly fifty percent of the total value of US crop production. Yet, these farmers lack the same commodity support infrastructure, they face higher insurance barriers, and they're disproportionately shut out of safety nets. entirely. The specialty crop block grant increase in H R one is welcome, but it does little to address the fundamental gap in crop insurance access for small specialty crop producers. Can you tell me what actions the department is taking outside of H R one to ensure that farmers growing fresh produce have the same level of protection as those producing commodity crops and you can use the time if you would like to address any staffing issues or anything you wanna add there.

Uh yes absolutely, thank you Congresswoman. And I would say um uh so a l a lot of the work um that was done um related to uh to the staffing um was the the the deferred retirement program was offered to folks. We to my knowledge we didn't do any relocations um from uh from FSA or NRCS. Um but that's that's that's that's my that's my recollection.

Mm-hmm.

Um Uh, I would s

I think the correlation speaks for the for itself. The timing of these efforts and then the announcements of ret retirements of of about fifteen thousand people it all happened at the same time so these weren't people who on a rolling basis or over time decided it these efforts took place, these people retired. The this the your own data speaks to that. So I think we should just acknowledge it and move on to the next answer.

S so um so the next answer is um you know we uh I think the Risk Management Agency is certainly looking at at options and opportunities um and I've mentioned a couple of times, Congressw I don't know if you were in here, but um Administrator Swanson uh of the Risk Management Agency has held a series of of specialty crop um uh specialty crop round tables um and also I think that we we we continue to look at how can we the programs uh more responsive to all of our all of our customers.

Mm-hmm.

And um you know the agency and it's it's just a it's just a matter of how things are, the agency was started uh I I mentioned it's the thirtieth birthday of risk management agency was just a month ago, uh was started to support title one commodities. And so it's it's been an evolution and we're we're getting better,

Mm-hmm.

uh we're getting better at at offering uh products. um that are um that are that are more suited to smaller farmers and to farmers that are growing things other than title one commodities. Um again it's it's a it's a moving target, we continue to try to improve uh the offerings that we have related to

Yeah.

the those risk management tools and and we continue to move in that direction.

I don't think I disagree with you, uh we can't hit all farmers on every piece of legislation, but I would just encourage that moving forward we try to find opportunities to address some of the needs of our small farmers and specialty crop growers with that I yield back.

Jolie's time has expired now recognize Mr. Rose from Tennessee.

Thank you Chairman Thompson and uh Ranking Member Craig for holding the hearing today and and thank you uh Secretary Fordyce for your time being here with us today. Um Mr. Secretary I want to thank you for the engagement and response m responses NISS, I'll get it out in a second, that you and your team have shown a as I've worked with producers regarding drought related assistance. Uh I appreciate the Farm Production and Conservation Mission area's continued efforts to ensure that relief programs are administered efficiently and reach eligible producers in a timely manner. Uh with the recent enactment of changes to the livestock forage disaster program that reduced the D two drought eligibility threshold from

Uh yes absolutely, and I think the changes made to the standing disaster programs Um uh and the implementation of those programs is critically important. I uh in the first Trump administration I served as the administrator of the farm service agency and and um because uh I was the administrator of the farm service agency actually went to a lot of places where um you know we were, we were close to close to triggering some of those uh uh standing disaster programs. So uh I think um uh I think the efforts uh uh of this committee and Congress to be able to to uh right size and and make uh those standing disaster programs more responsive certainly uh was very important. Um you talked about eligibility um you know we I think whenever we look at opportunities that we have um you know any kind of a discretionary decision to make, we're going to we're gonna err on the side of farmers um and and the eligibility uh and open that eligibility

Well and and I might just add um I know with that uh that change in qualifications or or determinations uh there's a software update that had to happen and I'm hearing about this from my producers in my area and just the delay in the decisions that come with that particularly with uh reduced staff head counts and so just just uh, you know, hoping that you'll be sensitive

Yeah, absolutely. Um, you know, I think from uh uh from rolling these programs out, deploying them, um, you know, when we when when there is a change to a program, you're correct. Uh, there probably likely is a software change. Um, you know, there's likely will have to be some sort of a very um you know, very quick training so that our staff in the office know how to implement uh implement the new provisions we try to do those as quickly as we can um and I would say if I if I point back to the one farmer one file initiative the uh the IT modernization, our hope is um and we've seen this uh on in one program our hope is is that that IT development that is a part of the deployment of programs can happen quicker um and I mean that's what we all would hope for and I think we're gonna see that uh see that as a benefit, another benefit of the one farm or one file.

Thank you. And uh Mister Secretary, where do you believe the greatest vulnerabilities remain in the farm's safety net, particularly for livestock producers and diversified family operations in states like Tennessee?

Well, you know as as you know um we don't have a traditional safety net program for livestock like we do you know for crops. Um but we do have a number of uh risk management um products, whether that's revenue protection or or other things related to folks that are in the livestock sector. Um you know and I think as we continue to evolve um and and you know as as producers learn more about what those programs can how those programs can be um you know, a risk management tool or a safety net tool for them, I think we'll see higher subscription rates. Uh it hasn't been that long ago that um you know that a li if you were just a livestock producer you probably didn't know where the FSA office was. Because there were not there was nothing there for a livestock producer. But we're starting to see the change in that um uh with some of the some of the uh livestock programs within FSA and then certainly those those tools at RMA.

Thank you. I see my time is expiring and I appreciate you being here and I yield back.

Alright, thank the gentlemen. Gentlemen, yours. yields back, now recognized gentleman from Wisconsin, Mister Van Orden, for five minutes.

Thank you Mister Chairman. Uh, Mister Under Secretary, thank you very much for coming. Uh, we've had the pleasure of having uh Secretary Rollins in my district uh twice. Hopefully she's coming back. It is her second home. You are always welcome there. Um, I feel obligated to address some of the comments that my uh colleagues on the other side of the aisle have made regarding SNAP. And uh, I I was raised in abject rural poverty by a single mother. And we had food stamps, where it was an actual stamp that you put on a card at the grocery store. Um, so these programs are incredibly important. I volunteered to be on the SNAP subcommittee twice, and if I get re-elected I'm gonna do it again, because I wanna make sure that everyone understands, um, how vital these programs are. So let let's let's talk about SNAP roles briefly, and then I'll actually get to the subject of this hearing. So there's over a hundred and eighty-six thousand people that were enrolled in SNAP that are dead. There's over five hundred thousand people that were on SNAP and getting benefits for more than one state or more than one jurisdiction. So, if you cut SNAP benefits for five hundred thousand people in half because they're getting benefits in two different states, you by definition have a reduction in the amount of people on SNAP. That's just a fact. So, what we are trying to do is make sure that every single tax dollar that is allocated to go to a hungry child goes to the hungry child, not a fraudster. And to say that, you know, we're trying to starve children and treat families bad, that's just disingenuous. I mean, I understand their hearts in the right place, I really do. But we just gotta stop that type of rhetoric. Alright, now on to the subject of the hearing, sir. Um, so, there there's some real disparity, I was an enlisted guy. in the SEAL teams for a long time, so it's kinda like process, you know. There there's a disparity between the amount of time to apply to some programs where you get awarded things, like EQIP is three to six months, CSP is three to six months, but like ECAP can be three days, right? So what are we doing, or what are you doing over there, to make sure that we can kinda level these bubbles? Because if, you know, six months to a farmer's, that's an entire growing season essentially, so where I'm up north, you know, down south I grow year-round. So what are you guys doing over there to make sure that, you know, Mister Harris goes to try to get something from the USDA or FSA and it happens in a timely manner? Can you kinda explain that a bit?

Uh, yes sir, Congressman. Um, you know, I think E-cap was um uh was uh was pretty prescriptive. Um, you know, not a lot of uh not a lot of um discretionary decisions. I wasn't here for that yet.

Uh-huh.

Um, and but it did, it was pretty straight-forward, rolled out um I would say incredibly successfully. Uh, the equip uh equip it and it depends on what the contract is. It c it depends on how NRCS is engaging with that producer.

Yep.

Um, we certainly have uh have an opportunity to shorten that time.

Okay.

Um, and and I believe uh we have a new chief uh new chief at NRCS, Colton Buckley. Uh, Colton is laser focused on looking at process times, uh r uh anything that could be uh that could be slowing down these contracts and the d- and the deployment of these contracts. Um, in some cases there may be design work that has to happen as part of the EQIP project. So, um, not an excuse. It needs to be faster, and I think we're certainly looking at that.

Yes.

Okay. Tell Colton to call Kelly Loeffler. So, Kelly has been able to get two hundred billion dollars in fraud recouped from the federal government. And she's also pushed out forty five billion dollars worth of actual loans to businesses. That's the highest amount of money that has gone from the SBA in its seventy-two year history. So they're doing both things. And I'm not saying that to, you know, to be disrespectful, I'm saying, you know, where I come from, you go to somebody that's doing something right, and we call it, that's what right looks like. I'd strongly encourage you to, to speak to her team because she's just killing it over there, as is Brooke, we're very proud of her. So, I don't have anything else for you other than the fact

Thank you, Mister Chair, uh Under Secretary Fordyce, welcome. I represent represent the Central Coast of California where specialty crops make up the majority of agriculture grown in the area. Many farmers across the country, including in my district, are currently dealing with a multitude of challenges. Labor costs continue to rise.

Mm. Mm.

Growers are navigating uncertainty in export markets due to this administration's trade wars, as well as increasing droughts, floods, heat waves, and wildfires are creating production risks. At the same time, many specialty crop producers do not have access to the same farm safety net programs available to producers of major commodity crops and instead must rely on more heavily more heavily on conservation programs. crop insurance and disaster assistance to manage risk and remain competitive. And while H R one included some notable investments in farm conservation and disaster assistance programs under your mission area, this came at a cost of cutting SNAP funding that millions of Americans depend on. Unlike some of my colleagues who supported H R one, I do not believe these priorities are mutually exclusive. We should not have to choose between supporting our farmers and supporting families struggling with food insecurity. We can and should make robust investments in both. Even with H R one only making investments to programs for growers, farm groups have made it clear this funding won't be enough and they will need additional farm aid given the unprecedented economic challenges they are currently facing. Nevertheless, the USDA moves forward with implementing H R one It is critical that these investments are delivered in a way that benefits all sectors of agriculture including specialty crop producers. Can you provide an ex examples of how USDA is ensuring that H R one's investments in farm safety net, disaster and conservation programs are reaching specialty crop growers in a meaningful way, particularly in California?

Uh, yes Congressman, thank you for that. Um Uh you know from an NRCS standpoint, you know, a hundred and sixty eight different conservation practice standards available. Those one hundred and sixty eight w conservation practice standards are available in California. That's a little bit of a change that we've made. Um some states in some cases were not offering all of those uh all of those options. Um that has been a change that we have made and made those available um in every state. Uh from a from a safety net standpoint um Um certainly, you know, the provisions within uh the Working Families Tax Cuts Act, um we are well on our way to getting those administered and certainly uh California farmers can take advantage of those. On the on the risk management side, we've we've had a few conversations about specially cropped um farmers and the risk management tools available to them. Um uh the uh the uh Administrator uh Administrator Swanson at uh at the Risk Management Agency has conducted a series of uh specialty crop round tables, and in those round tables were farmers, also crop insurance agents that serve those uh those areas and serve those farmers to better understand where the gaps are and wha where we're not meeting, um the needs of those specially cropped farmers. It's gonna take a little bit um the development of a new product through Risk Management Agency there is a process and it takes a bit. Um but uh but certainly we are looking at all the opportunities to be able to serve all farmers um and support them in in the way that they need to be supported.

Thank you. Under Secretary, USDA indicated that the reorganization of the farm production and conservation mission area will support the continued growth and effectiveness of the federal crop insurance program. Many specialty crop producers suffer from gaps, as you mentioned. in available insurance products and coverage levels. How will these organizations organi organizational changes impact crop insurance accessibility and effectiveness for specialty crops grown in California and in my district?

So the reorganization as it relates to RMA really is uh it really will the the the organization will look pretty much the same. There is uh there's very minor structural changes, but certainly um Uh again, I would go back to uh the agency's very strong desire um to be responsive to specially cropped farmers um acro across the country. Certainly in California it's critical, obviously. Um but continue to look for options and look for ways to be supportive of specially cropped farmers.

Thank you. I'm running out of time, but uh I think there's some funding limitations with EQIP and the CSP program that need certainly your attention. Uh, but with that I have uh limited time, I'll submit this question for the record. I yield back, Mister Chairman.

Thank you.

All right, thanks, gentlemen. Gentleman yields back. Mister Harris, recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, and uh Mister Under Secretary, thank you so much for being here today for this hearing. As a member of this committee, I was very proud of our portion of H R one last year that uh once again put American farmers first. farmers are dealing with the rising input cost, animal diseases, natural disasters, I know in my district producers are looking for certainty and reliable risk management tools to help keep their operations viable. For example, we've already heard here today our livestock and poultry producers continue to face a steady stream of challenges from drought and the avian influenza to the recent threat posed by the New World Screw Worm. Um, in my home state of North Carolina, we consistently rank among the top poultry producing states in the nation. And the poultry growers in our district would benefit from the results of the poultry insurance pilot program that's been created in H R one. And this pilot program was designed to help producers manage extraordinary utility cost that are associated with extreme weather events that can significantly impact their bottom line. But I wanted to ask you, Mister Under Secretary, if you could just provide us today an update on USDA's progress in developing and implementing this particular pilot program.

Yeah, yes.

Yes, absolutely. Um, I uh I know that in in the in the in the in the bill there was an opportunity for us to give us a two-year runway.

Mm-hmm.

Um, and I know that uh uh I know that the that the Risk Management Agency Um the FCI C board um are already investigating options as it relates to that. Um uh as I explained a little bit to the Congressman uh from California, sometimes these these products take a little bit of time to get through the process.

Sure.

But we're we are um we are certainly well on our way um and we will meet that deadline.

Are you getting feedback from some of the uh poultry industry stakeholders? I'm I would be curious what kind of feedback and how is that feedback shaping the final design of the program that you're developing?

So I know that I know that uh poultry producers are a part of the conversation. Um I don't know that I've been a part of any of those discussions directly, um but have the utmost confidence in the RMA staff um and the administrator at RMA and the FCIC board um to make sure they're having those critical conversations and and gathering all the information that they need.

Okay. And as the USDA evaluates the pilot program over its initial two year period, are there any particular metrics that that you could speak to that would be used to determine its success and effectiveness going forward?

So I think um you know when we look at other products, I think we will apply the same standards, you know, one that it is i that it is effective and and meaningful to the poultry producers. I think that's I think that's number one.

Number one.

Number two, um is it uh is it responsible from a taxpayer's um standpoint? You know number three, is there integrity in the program, right? Is there so there's not gaps and and opportunities for folks potentially to take advantage of it and usually when we're looking at products uh that we're gonna introduce new into RMA and and offer to farmers,

Sure.

um those are the kind of the three things that we wanna really make sure that we've got nailed down.

Excellent, excellent. Last year following President Trump's return to the White House, SDA initiated a review of the conservation projects funded through the IRA, the Inflation Reduction Reduction Act. And as part of that review, I understand several programs were paused, modified, or restructured, including the Biden-era partnerships on climate smart commodities initiatives that were subsequently reworked into the advancing markets for producers' initiative. In fact, following the restructure, Secretary Rollins stated, and I quote, said the partnerships for Climate Smart Commodities Initiative was largely built to advance the Green News scam at the benefit of NGOs not American farmers. And so I know the Department of Agriculture found that in many cases a significant portion of that federal funding was not reaching the farmers directly. Can you walk us through in just the last forty seconds or so how USDA conducted its review of these programs and what criteria is used to determine whether projects again should be continued modified or just terminated.

Uh yeah absolutely and and you know that initial work happened before I was confirmed. Um but I do know that they made a comprehensive uh review of all of the Climate Smart um uh grants and and agreements um looked at and and really one of the things that that had to happen is that sixty-five percent of the value of that grant had to go to farmers uh and so I would also say and I think I mentioned it earlier, you know, would apply uh most of the grantees for coming to the table and negotiating and actually getting to a place where we could um reissue that grant. We um we actually by doing that put um nearly five hundred million dollars of that gr additional five hundred million dollars um out to farmers.

Excellent. Well thank you so much and uh Mister Chairman I'm out of time. You're back.

Yeah I thank the gentleman and it looks like we have um all of our members who um were seeking to speak have have done so. And so um before we adjourn today, I invite the ranking member to share any closing comments that she might have.

Well, thank you. First and foremost, Mister Undersecretary, thank you for being here uh today. USDA has the potential to play an important role in American agriculture and nutrition. Sadly, despite the hard work and professionalism of the civil servants at USDA, the Trump administration and their collaborators in Congress have truly undermined critical aspects of its core mission. Expanding market access for family farmers, ensuring adequate nutrition and food assistance is available for America's young, old and disabled. Advancing evidence-based and science-based approaches to innovation. Too often these days, and to the detriment of hardworking rural communities, partisan politics have taken priority. I appreciate both your testimony and your answers today, um, particularly that you suggest you need more appropriations with respect to staffing, but I wanna make sure specifically we all understand that it is President Trump's fiscal year twenty-seven budget that recommended a three hundred and nine million dollar cut to FSA staffing budget levels. Cuts to food assistance, tariffs and wars, cuts to USDA staff, high input cost, disappearing margins. The Trump administration says it puts farmers first, but its approach to farm country has been far from it. I hope that USDA can continue its mission to help farmers struggling with severe weather, disrupted markets and tough times. Mister Under Secretary, I know that you have a tough job, but I also know that bankruptcies are up nearly fifty percent in our country for farmers, seventy percent year over year with Midwest farmers. It's time to truly put America's farmers first. Thank you and I yield back.

Aye. Thanks, the General Lady. My closing comments you know Under Secretary Ford I just wanna thank you and your staff um you uh we put a lot of responsibility on your shoulders with the incredible uh legislation that we have passed and are in the process of passing investing in the American farmer rancher forester and really rural America um I wanna appreciate your staff they're located here in DC and quite frankly those that are spread so widely across this uh this great nation. Um uh you know I think USDA is is obviously at its best as an agency because of how it's it's out there in those communities. Um I do wanna correct a record uh that's uh uh um that um about cuts to equip. I I think it it's important for folks to understand uh you know they're and this is something I've heard previously and and uh and I think it's important, you know facts the truth matters. Um the uh uh you know there was a charge out there the Farm Food and Land Security Act two thousand twenty six uh cut the the EQIP the Environmental Quality and Service program we all know how important that program is, probably one of the more popular ones or in terms of utilization. Uh, it's actually the complete opposite of a cut, uh, the, uh, Farm Food and Natural Security Act of two thousand twenty six is now sitting in the capable hands of Senator John Bozeman uh as chairman of the Senate Ag Committee um equipped gets a fifty-four percent increase in baseline funding um this is possible because Republicans Congress made the single largest long-term investment equipped in the history of the program through the working families tax cuts, H R one, this summer. Now the you know, the the the budget scoring for the conservation title and, you know, I wanna address that because I think that's where it created the confusion. Um, I get that part. So where is the money going? The CBO analysis of the farm bill proves that no money is leaving the conservation title. Um, HR one allowed Republicans in Congress to capture billions in expiring conservation dollars, uh, and reali- and those dollars would have gone away. You know, they would have been spent. Whether they'd been spent well or not, that's beside the point. They would have been gone. Um, um, and what we were able to do is reallocate those funds into the permanent baseline of the existing program. So they'll be here well in, uh, well into the future. Every farm bill in the future, uh, that this committee takes on for decades. However, the rules governing the process of reconciliation didn't allow Congress to fund new programs or make important policy changes to existing programs. That's outside the scope of budget reconciliation. That's not the House's fault, actually the Senate defines those roles. Um, this created the need to allocate money to EQIP and HR one as a temporary placeholder. Uh, with the reallocation of a smaller percentage of the historic increase in EQIP funding, uh, the Farm, Food and National Security Act was able to do a number of things. It was able to create the forest conservation easement program, uh FSEP uh to protect and restore private working forest lands. Uh we were able to allocate additional funding for the feral swine eradication program. We were able to fund uh the transition incentive program in CRP which was you know a priority of my my colleagues that I'm proud to work with on the democratic side uh within this committee. Um also really wanna clarif- do just a brief clarification on SNAP. I heard about a lot of kids that were taken off of SNAP. And this is why we need to bring the governors or the people responsible for administering SNAP from these states in here, if that is occurring. Because if the parent uh chooses not to engage in uh they say there's there everybody's SNAP eligible for three months. And you know if they uh to continue on you know if they're if they're eligible financially for SNAP The uh, and the criterion are clear out, they're age eighteen to sixty-four, they're able-bodied, that type of thing. They don't have children at home they're t- caring for younger than age fourteen. Um, if they're uh, if they're unwilling to engage in an average of eighty hours a month, eighty hours a month, in uh, uh, in either work, volunteering, or quite frankly my favorite, as somebody who loves career and technical education, some type of in career and technical education or SNAP employment, then yes, that parent will come off of SNAP. That's a choice that they make. Um, the children do not. The children, the family will get uh still get a SNAP benefit if even if it's just for for the children. So the children are not. So if there's something happening in these blue states I'm hearing about, you know, I think that's that's all the more reason we need to have um probably the governor, everything these days come before this committee and explain how they're administering the SNAP program because that what they're doing as far as I can tell is is breaking the rules the regulations of perhaps the law um the um uh I wanna thank you for your work implementing the historic investments in American farmers of all sizes and all types um uh our row crops our specialty crops our organic farmers our livestock uh ranchers um those poultry growers uh um our forests our orchards our groves those who farm them um like I said pretty w- w- gave you a pretty heavy workload here and uh but I got complete confidence of you and you and your team um and you and your team's um and you in particular Under Secretary to let me know if you need ad- if there's additional assistance is needed cuz this implementation of what we have passed is really important. ARC and PLC enhancements, boosted premium support across all levels of crop insurance coverage, first time opportunities for specialty crops. Uh, the fruits and vegetable folks are so excited about this, um, they're so appreciative. Uh, improvements to - to the dairy margin coverage. Um, and I guess one - one last thing I'll - I'll just mention again, uh, a little partial to, cuz it's my piece of legislation, but this committee unanimously passed it. um several years ago and it's been way too long for it to be implemented and that's the sustains act uh where we bring in those private public-private partnerships those um those folks uh corporations whomever it might be they'll you know wanna invest in conservation cuz all that money um uh comes in um uh for conservation so I this is gonna uh this is gonna be on top of the icing on top of the historic investments that we've done on conservation. So thank you to you and your staff. Under the roles of the committee, the record of today's hearing will remain open for ten calendar days to receive additional material and supplementary written responses from the witnesses to any question posed by a member this hearing of the committee on agriculture is adjourned.