[Senate Hearing 117-57]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 117-57
FARMERS AND FORESTERS:
OPPORTUNITIES TO LEAD IN
TACKLING CLIMATE CHANGE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,
NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 11, 2021
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on http://www.govinfo.gov/
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
45-389 PDF WASHINGTON : 2022
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan, Chairwoman
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado JONI ERNST, Iowa
KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York CINDY HYDE-SMITH, Mississippi
TINA SMITH, Minnesota ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois TOMMY TUBERVILLE, Alabama
CORY BOOKER, New Jersey CHARLES GRASSLEY, Iowa
BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
RAPHAEL WARNOCK, Georgia DEB FISCHER, Nebraska
MIKE BRAUN, Indiana
Joseph A. Shultz, Majority Staff Director
Mary Beth Schultz, Majority Chief Counsel
Jessica L. Williams, Chief Clerk
Martha Scott Poindexter, Minority Staff Director
Fred J. Clark, Minority Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Thursday, March 11, 2021
Page
Hearing:
Farmers and Foresters: Opportunities to Lead in Tackling Climate
Change......................................................... 1
----------
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY SENATORS
Stabenow, Hon. Debbie, U.S. Senator from the State of Michigan... 1
Boozman, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Arkansas...... 3
WITNESSES
Stitt, Cori Wittman, Farmer Advisor, Environmental Defense Fund,
Lapwai, ID..................................................... 7
Smallhouse, Stefanie, President, Arizona Farm Bureau Federation,
Gilbert, AZ.................................................... 8
Reifsteck, John, Chairman, GROWMARK Cooperative, National Council
of Farmer Cooperatives, Bloomington, IL........................ 10
Isbell, Mark, Farmer, USA Rice, England, AR...................... 12
Pope, Clay, Farmer, National Farmers Union, Loyal, OK............ 13
----------
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Stitt, Cori Wittman.......................................... 48
Smallhouse, Stefanie......................................... 53
Reifsteck, John.............................................. 59
Isbell, Mark................................................. 78
Pope, Clay................................................... 86
Document(s) Submitted for the Record:
Stabenow, Hon. Debbie:
BASF, letter of support...................................... 96
Societies, letter of support................................. 100
American Forest Foundation, letter of support................ 106
Evangelical Environmental Network, letter of support......... 108
CFAD, letter of support...................................... 110
Forest Climate Working Group, letter of support.............. 126
NAFO, letter of support,..................................... 150
Our Chldren's Trust, letter of support....................... 155
EER, letter of support....................................... 237
NMPF, letter of support...................................... 268
NASDA, letter of support..................................... 271
Warnock, Hon. Raphael:
Emergency Relief for Farmers of Color Act, letter of support. 273
Socially Disadvantaged Farmers, letter of support............ 296
Debt Relief for Farmers of Color, letter of support.......... 302
SFPA, letter of support...................................... 304
Nation's Food Supply Businesses, letter of support........... 306
Emergency Relief for Farmers and Ranchers of Color, letter of
support.................................................... 307
Boozman, Hon. John:
Biotechnology Innovation Organization, letter of support..... 314
National Association of Wheat Growers, letter of support..... 362
Biofuelwatch, letter of support.............................. 364
PPC, letter of support....................................... 366
Question and Answer:
Stitt, Cori Wittman:
Written response to questions from Hon. John Boozman......... 370
Written response to questions from Hon. Sherrod Brown........ 375
Written response to questions from Hon. Michael Bennet....... 377
Written response to questions from Hon. Kirsten Gillibrand... 378
Written response to questions from Hon. Roger Marshall....... 380
Written response to questions from Hon. Charles Grassley..... 383
Written response to questions from Hon. Mike Braun........... 385
Smallhouse, Stefanie:
Written response to questions from Hon. John Boozman......... 388
Written response to questions from Hon. Michael Bennet....... 393
Written response to questions from Hon. Kirsten Gillibrand... 393
Written response to questions from Hon. Roger Marshall....... 395
Written response to questions from Hon. Charles Grassley..... 398
Reifsteck, John:
Written response to questions from Hon. John Boozman......... 400
Written response to questions from Hon. Sherrod Brown........ 403
Written response to questions from Hon. Michael Bennet....... 405
Written response to questions from Hon. Kirsten Gillibrand... 406
Written response to questions from Hon. Roger Marshall....... 409
Written response to questions from Hon. Charles Grassley..... 413
Isbell, Mark:
Written response to questions from Hon. John Boozman......... 414
Written response to questions from Hon. Sherrod Brown........ 417
Written response to questions from Hon. Kirsten Gillibrand... 418
Written response to questions from Hon. Roger Marshall....... 419
Written response to questions from Hon. Charles Grassley..... 422
Pope, Clay:
Written response to questions from Hon. John Boozman......... 424
Written response to questions from Hon. Sherrod Brown........ 428
Written response to questions from Hon. Michael Bennet....... 428
Written response to questions from Hon. Kirsten Gillibrand... 429
Written response to questions from Hon. Roger Marshall....... 431
Written response to questions from Hon. Charles Grassley..... 435
FARMERS AND FORESTERS: OPPORTUNITIES TO LEAD IN TACKLING CLIMATE CHANGE
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 11, 2021
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:21 a.m., in
room 301, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Debbie Stabenow,
Chairwoman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Stabenow, Brown, Klobuchar, Bennet,
Gillibrand, Smith, Durbin, Booker, Lujan, Warnock, Boozman,
Hoeven, Ernst, Hyde-Smith, Marshall, Tuberville, Grassley,
Thune, Fischer, and Braun.
STATEMENT OF HON. DEBBIE STABENOW, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE
OF MICHIGAN, CHAIRWOMAN, U.S. COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,
NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY
Chairwoman Stabenow. Good morning. I would like to call
this hearing to order of the U.S. Senate Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. This is the first hearing
for our new members, and I want to welcome Senators Booker,
Lujan, Warnock, Marshall, and Tuberville. Welcome to the
Committee. We look forward to working with you, and I certainly
look forward to continuing to partner with Senator Boozman. I
appreciate working together to get our Secretary confirmed.
Thank you so much. I am looking forward to some really positive
bipartisan efforts through the Committee.
I am so pleased to be holding our first policy hearing this
Congress on the climate crisis, a topic that is critical to the
future of every farmer, every rancher, and every forester in
the country.
Just ask our Michigan cherry growers, who experienced an
unseasonably warm spring followed by a late freeze that
destroyed their entire crop in 2012. They have had challenges
ever since. Or the foresters and communities out West, who
spent years growing trees and building their outdoor recreation
economies, only to watch those potential dollars literally go
up in flames from worsening wildfires. Or the countless farmers
in the Southeast who have seen their fields ripped apart by
destructive hurricanes.
The climate crisis might seem insurmountable, but our
farmers and foresters are an important part of the solution.
Right now, sustainable practices on farms and forests are
helping producers cut down on their emissions and pull carbon
out of the air and store it in the soil, roots, and trees.
The foundation of this vision is the bipartisan Growing
Climate Solutions Act, which I am pleased to have introduced
last session with Senator Mike Braun. This is common-sense
legislation to establish a structure at the U.S. Department of
Agriculture to help farmers, foresters, and others implement
climate-smart practices and tap into new economic
opportunities. Our legislation enables producers to build new
streams of income through innovative carbon markets. Many
farmers are interested in this opportunity but just do not know
how to get started. That is what I hear in Michigan and that is
understandable.
While the potential of carbon markets and addressing other
serious greenhouse gases is very promising, I want to
acknowledge that they are not going to work for everyone. That
does not mean farmers cannot benefit from embracing climate-
smart farming.
Whether it is a corn and soybean grower planting cover
crops after harvest, or a dairy farmer installing solar panels
on the roof of their barn, or a forester managing their land to
grow more mature trees that hold more carbon; these climate-
smart steps are good for the planet and good for business.
Healthier, carbon-rich soil means lower fertilizer costs.
Renewable energy helps lower utility bills. Thinning out
smaller trees can help the big trees grow bigger and provide a
revenue opportunity for family forest owners.
These approaches are working. They make sense. Now it is
time to dramatically scale up this work through policies that
are voluntary, producer-led, and bipartisan.
To do that, we need strong coalitions. The Food and
Agriculture Climate Alliance, made up of nearly 60 leading
organizations, is one of them. We are so appreciative of their
leadership. Today we will hear from producers representing five
organizations: the American Farm Bureau, the Environmental
Defense Fund, the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, the
National Farmers Union, and USA Rice.
However, the conversation does not end today. This is the
beginning. We want to hear perspectives from every part of the
agriculture and forestry economy--small and large operations,
row crops, specialty crops, conventional and organic farmers,
biofuel producers, and other drivers of the biobased economy.
We also need to bring the research community, land grant
universities, and other perspectives into this dialog.
Grassroots organizations focused on equity and front-line
communities are vital to this discussion. We will continue to
engage with them.
Additionally, trees and forests have the ability to store
hundreds of millions of tons of carbon, a reality recognized by
another impressive coalition in this space called the ``Forest-
Climate Working Group.'' That is why I have introduced two
bipartisan forestry climate bills, one with Senator Portman and
another with Senator Braun, that support responsible tree
planting and climate-smart forest management as tools to
address the climate crisis. I look forward to working with all
the members of the Committee and our cosponsors to reintroduce
both of these bills in the coming weeks and moving them
forward.
In advance of this hearing, we have received a number of
supportive letters and statements from important stakeholders,
which I now request be added to the record. Without objection.
[The letters can be found on pages 96-313 in the appendix.]
Chairwoman Stabenow. Everyone in agriculture and forestry
should make their voices heard because now is the time to act
and to lead. We cannot afford to wait any longer, and I am very
proud to see so much leadership going on from our agriculture
and forestry community.
I now want to recognize our Ranking Member, Senator
Boozman, for his remarks.
STATEMENT OF HON. SENATOR JOHN BOOZMAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF ARKANSAS
Senator Boozman. Well, thank you, Chairwoman Stabenow, for
setting the stage for this morning's hearing, and I want to
especially thank our witnesses, a really stellar panel, for
their time today. I appreciate your interest and commitment to
finding solutions to numerous complex challenges posed by
climate change and how farmers and ranchers and foresters can
play a proactive role in this endeavor while finding themselves
on a better footing. This Committee has a keen interest in
learning about opportunities for farmers and foresters that
allow them to continue to evolve as they increase yields,
conserve natural resources, sustain economic prosperity, and
now potentially engage in new markets that value climate change
mitigation.
The progress of American agriculture has been continuous
during our lives. Today's chicken industry uses 75 percent
fewer resources--land, water, and fossil fuels--than it did in
1965. Today's dairy industry produces 60 percent more milk than
it did in 1950 and does so with a herd that is nearly two-
thirds smaller. The U.S. beef industry produces 18 percent of
the world's beef with only six percent of the world's cattle.
Since 1980, U.S. rice farmers have increased rice production by
32 percent while decreasing greenhouse gas emissions by 41
percent and decreasing water use by 52 percent.
Every crop grown in the U.S. has similar success stories
that demonstrate their environmental gains, and U.S. farmers
will continue to lead the world in making advancements to
improve the environmental sustainability of our food system.
Exciting new opportunities to compensate farmers and foresters
for these environmental gains hold promise.
However, the current reality is that farmers must navigate
complex barriers in order to access this uncertain marketplace.
There are costs associated with verification, validation,
technical services, new technologies and equipment, and often
times costs associated with the reduced yields. These costs add
up and can become prohibitive. For this new opportunity to be
viable for producers and forest owners, the benefits must
outweigh the risks and costs they take on. Farmers should not
be expected to accept a reduction in crop yield or to be forced
to compensate for that reduction by relying on a speculative
new income stream derived from developing greenhouse gas credit
trading.
We need to foster an environment where we can increase
yields while improving economic sustainability and new
opportunities for American farmers, ranchers, and foresters. As
Congress and the administration develop a framework to promote
farmer, rancher, and forester participation in combating
climate change, we must avoid policies that would distort
planting decisions or markets. Requiring farmers to engage in
complex activities in order to qualify for vital business needs
such as credit, insurance, or other farm programs would be a
mistake.
Variances across soil types, regions, crops, species, and
topography pose different complications for farmers with regard
to capturing carbon in soils. New opportunities for producers
growing corn are different than opportunities for a producer
growing specialty crops in a greenhouse or opportunities for
livestock and so on. This may be a potential income stream for
some producers, which is a very good thing. For others it could
be cost-prohibitive. Farm policy must take this complex reality
into consideration and must not penalize producers to spur
participation.
While protecting our climate is critical, we must avoid a
heavy-handed Government approach that could place unbearable
requirements on our small farmers, in particular, and likely
drive concentration within the agriculture sector, which I do
not think any of us want.
Madam Chair, I have three documents that I ask to be
included in the record for today's hearing: two letters and a
written statement submitted by stakeholder groups interested in
climate policies.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Without objection, so ordered.
Senator Boozman. Thank you.
[The letters can be found on pages 314-367 in the
appendix.]
Senator Boozman. Before I close, I have to express my
disappointment in learning that leaders in the House are
looking to utilize the budget reconciliation process again this
year to advance climate change policies. Budget reconciliation
has unfortunately become a partisan process that does not take
into consideration the views of the minority at all.
Climate change poses many complexities for the agriculture
sector, and input from the Republican members of this Committee
should be taken into consideration. Climate change policies
impacting agriculture should be developed here at the
Agriculture Committee on a bipartisan basis. This has been our
history and our long-term tradition. I would implore the
agriculture and forestry stakeholder groups to consider whether
this is an appropriate path forward to establish policies on an
issue as important and complex as this. There is too much at
stake for the agriculture sector and rural America for climate
policies to be advanced in this manner.
I am eager to hear from our witnesses who represent unique
interests to understand how you are approaching these new
opportunities while also managing the challenges encountered on
your unique operations.
With that, I yield back. Thank you.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much, Senator Boozman.
Let me just add that the reason, as you know, that we are
jointly doing this hearing today is because we want to show
that we can work together on a bipartisan basis on these issues
and make sure that, again, the efforts that we are doing for
agriculture and forestry are voluntary, work for producers,
they are producer-led, and I believe that we can do this in a
way that is bipartisan and is something that will be very
meaningful in terms of leadership. Frankly, I am very proud of
agriculture and forestry leading on this in terms of the folks
across the country and some we will hear from today.
We are going to introduce each of the witnesses, and we
realize that we have a lot of members as well who are with us
virtually that we will call on as well for questions. We will
begin to do--we will introduce all of the witnesses together,
and then come back to Mr. Clay Pope for his opening statement
as the first witness.
Our first witness, Clay Pope, is a sixth-generation farmer
and rancher from Loyal, Oklahoma, and he and his family grow
winter wheat and raise cattle using soil health and
regenerative agricultural practices. He is a member of Oklahoma
Farmers Union and serves as its representative on the National
Farmers Union Climate Change Policy Advisory Panel. He served
in the Oklahoma House of Representatives from 1994 through
2004. Additionally, he helps to facilitate the work of the USDA
Southern Plains Climate Hub. I have to say on a personal level,
because my mom was born and raised in Oklahoma, it has a
special place in my heart for the work being done, and she
worked on a farm picking cotton. I have a special place in my
heart to Oklahoma and our growers.
I would now like to recognize Senator Durbin, who will
introduce our next witness.
Senator Durbin. Thank you very much, Madam Chair and
Ranking Member Boozman, for having this important hearing. It
is my pleasure to introduce one of our witnesses today from my
home State of Illinois, John Reifsteck. John is a graduate of
the University of Illinois and is too modest to add that their
basketball team is 20 and 6 and ranks third in the Nation, but
I want to put that in the record.
John Reifsteck has a great story to tell. He is a grain
farmer in central Illinois and also serves as President and
Chairman of the board of GROWMARK in Bloomington, Illinois. He
is here representing the National Council of Farmer-Owned
Cooperatives. What a story he has to tell. For 25 years, John's
farm has served as a National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration research station where NOAA has measured his
farming activities and how they interact with weather, climate,
soil, water, nutrients, and carbon emissions.
Can we reduce carbon on the farm? Can we measure it? Just
look at what John is doing. It is not a theory. He is doing it.
His activities are being measured and quantified by scientists.
His farm has generated billions of data points. John is showing
us not only can it be done, but how it is being done, and many
farmers are already doing it.
Ten years ago, I had farm groups visiting my office, as I
do to this day, and I asked them if any of them believed that
human activity had anything to do with climate change. Not a
single hand went up in the room.
Now, the farm organizations in Illinois are actively
engaged in this dialog. Madam Chair, that is exactly why this
hearing is so important. Farmers base their living on science,
successful science, productive and profitable science. I think
we ought to have this conversation with him because I believe
there is room for us to reach agreement on the future.
I would say to Senator Boozman, your points are well taken.
I think this is the moment in history where this conversation
should take place, and I am sure glad that this Committee is
leading.
John, of course, is going to be an important part of it,
and he has data, statistics, and science to back him up. Our
job is to figure out how to expand these carbon reductions
throughout farmland in America. I look forward to John's
testimony.
I am sorry that I have another Committee meeting this
morning in the Judiciary Committee, but we are following the
testimony carefully because it is so timely. Thank you.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you so much. Thank you for your
leadership, Senator Durbin.
Our next witness is Stefanie Smallhouse, President of the
Arizona Farm Bureau. She represents the American Farm Bureau
Federation. She manages her family's fifth-generation cow-calf
operation, cactus greenhouses, and lumber business in Arizona's
San Pedro River Valley. The Smallhouse family has received
conservation awards for their farm and ranch management. She is
past Chair of Farm Bureau's Environmental Issues Advisory
Committee and represents the Western Region on the Farm Bureau
Board of Directors. Welcome.
Next we have Mrs. Cori Wittman. She is a farmer advisor to
the Environmental Defense Fund. She is a partner in Wittman
Farms, a diversified crop, cattle, and timber family business
in northern Idaho. The Wittman family is no stranger to the
Agriculture Committee. In fact, Cori's father, Dick Wittman,
testified before the Committee on carbon markets in 2008. It is
good to see climate-smart expertise runs in the family. Cori
also spent six years working in agricultural policy here in
Washington, DC, including as Legislative Assistant for former
Senator Larry Craig during the passage of the 2008 Farm Bill.
I would now like to recognize Senator Boozman for an
introduction.
Senator Boozman. We are very, very pleased to have Mark
Isbell representing Arkansas and, more importantly, he was
really a pioneer in this area. He was one of the first
individuals to actually sell into carbon markets. Regarding
rice, rice is a little bit different than some of our other
crops, and I think it is important that he is here to really
demonstrate that a one-size-fits-all simply does not work. He
is an Arkansan. We are ranked number 12, I think, in
basketball, or we were. Maybe we are a little better than that
now. We hope to do well as we go forward in that regard.
Again, we are very pleased to have him, all of his
expertise, the fact that his farming operation is based on
science. I think the other thing that I hear as I read the
testimony with all of these witnesses, it is all about soil
health. That really is the key.
Again, we appreciate Mark taking his time and appreciate
his expertise. Thank you.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much, Senator Boozman.
We will turn to the witnesses. I have now been given the
correct order of the witnesses as they have been told that we
would call on them. First, Cori Wittman, then Mrs. Smallhouse,
Mr. Reifsteck, Mr. Isbell, and finally Mr. Pope.
Cori Wittman, we are very pleased to have you. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF CORI WITTMAN STITT, FARMER ADVISOR, ENVIRONMENTAL
DEFENSE FUND, LAPWAI, IDAHO
Mrs. Wittman Stitt. Thank you, Chairwoman Stabenow, Ranking
Member Boozman, and all the members of this Committee for the
invitation to testify before you today. I am honored to share
with you about my family's farm, some of our experiences and
our hopes for the future of our industry.
I am also here today representing the Environmental Defense
Fund. For more than a decade, my family has partnered with EDF
to design voluntary, incentive-based programs that keep farmers
farming while improving the surrounding environment and
ecosystem. It is quite the unexpected partnership that has led
us to this table today.
Our farm is a diversified crop, cattle, and timber
operation covering about 18,000 acres just outside of Lewiston,
Idaho. Our 9,000 crop acres are rotated between wheat, barley,
peas, lentils, chickpeas, canola, mustard, flax, hay, and
alfalfa. We also run 350 head of cattle on about 9,000 acres of
managed pasture and timber ground. I farm in partnership with
my cousin and brother-in-law, and my husband recently joined
the operation as well. Our seven-month-old son is the newest
addition and joins his cousins as a fifth-generation farm kid.
As multigeneration stewards of the land, we are on the
front line of impacts from a changing climate. My partners and
I are seeing hotter hots, colder colds, wetter wets, and drier
dry spells. It is tougher to get crops in the ground in the
spring and harder to finish harvest before snow flies. Weather
extremes have challenged our cattle operations with reduced
forage and increased invasive weeds. Our timber stands are more
vulnerable to damage from invasive pests, drought impacts, and
severe wind.
Our farm has the potential to be a significant contributor
to the climate solution. Proven methods like no-till farming
and diverse crop rotations that decrease reliance on chemicals
and fertilizers have long held a central place on our farm, and
we value the environmental benefits these practices provide, as
well as the economic benefits they deliver for our business.
In recent years, we have also experimented with cover crops
and inter-seeding methods with an aim toward further improving
soil health. Our experiences have had varied levels of success,
and more work needs to be done to help adapt these practices to
different regions, topographies, and growing conditions.
We need Federal policies that encourage broader adoption of
climate-smart methods. Financial and technical assistance needs
to be directed to help increase adoption of these known
methods. At the same time, recognition for early adopters is a
critical issue that needs to be addressed. We do not want to
inadvertently penalize those that made early investments in
climate-smart methods, nor do we want to risk farmers unwinding
these good practices just to qualify for new markets.
Last, we need robust investment in research to help define,
develop, and refine methods that take into account the
diversity of this country's growing regions.
In order to tackle this challenge, we need Congress and
this Committee to support the design of voluntary, incentive-
based programs and market-driven opportunities for the
agriculture sector. We need policy that maximizes measurable
net carbon sequestration and greenhouse gas reductions, while
increasing the resilience of the land. Luckily, the Food and
Agriculture Climate Alliance has proposed more than 40 policy
recommendations that would meet these criteria, including
support for the Growing Climate Solutions Act.
I would urge this Committee to consider policies that will
accelerate the development of a whole suite of supportive
options for producers who want to participate in market-based
sustainability incentives, while also ensuring that
participation is equitable, farmer friendly, and transparent.
I recognize that this is no easy task and that no
individual policy will be a panacea for climate. I believe that
we have a unique opportunity for bipartisan congressional
action to get this process started.
One of my husband's favorite sayings is, ``You can only eat
an elephant one bite at a time.'' I think it is time we take a
first bite in tackling this giant climate challenge.
Climate change is arguably the greatest threat to our
industry in this generation and one that is only going to get
worse without action. I am here as a farmer, manager, and
forestland owner standing ready with knowledge of the land we
steward and the potential it holds to be part of this solution.
I am asking for your help in moving this process forward.
Thank you, Madam Chair, for holding this hearing and for
taking the time to hear from producers, and I look forward to
any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Wittman Stitt can be found
on page 48 in the appendix.]
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much for your
testimony. We will now hear from Mrs. Smallhouse. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF STEFANIE SMALLHOUSE, PRESIDENT, ARIZONA FARM
BUREAU FEDERATION, GILBERT, ARIZONA
Mrs. Smallhouse. Good morning, Chairwoman Stabenow, Ranking
Member Boozman, and distinguished members of the Committee. I
want to begin by thanking you for inviting me to speak on
behalf of America's farmers and ranchers, and thank you for
your continued commitment to American agriculture.
This pandemic has shed light on our Nation's reliance on
America's farmers and ranchers. With supply chain disruptions
and market volatility caused by COVID-19, this past year has
been especially difficult. As we emerge from the pandemic and
think about our future, we must consider the critical role that
farmers and ranchers play in our national security, our
economy, and our environment.
Agriculture is no stranger to conversations about the
changing environment within which we must adapt and press
onward. For decades, we have met research challenges head-on
and been committed to the better stewardship of our resources
and our livestock.
In the U.S., agriculture accounts for only 10 percent of
total greenhouse gas emissions. By contrast, global ag
contribution is more than double that of U.S. farmers and
ranchers at 24 percent. Meanwhile, carbon sequestration
achieved through the management of soil, forests, grasslands,
wetlands, and croplands offset 12 percent of total U.S.
emissions, more than enough to counter agriculture's
contribution to total emissions.
U.S. agriculture is a model of sustainability, and
producers are already involved in climate-smart practices. In
this discussion, we must be considerate of the impacts of
climate variability on all of agriculture, the unique needs of
each sector, and regional differences.
For example, as a rancher in the West, every drop of water
is invaluable in producing feed and water for livestock. What
is being referred to as a ``mega drought'' has severely
impacted Arizona ranchers and forced the reduction of herd
numbers and threatened the health of our businesses.
Drought also contributes to what is perhaps the most
visible natural resource catastrophe in the West: the dramatic
increase in frequency and intensity of wildfires. The last
three years have been three of the worst fire seasons in
Arizona history, providing a dire reminder of the need for
proactive forest management.
Just as the Southwest has unique challenges to overcome
when it comes to climate sustainability, it also provides
unique opportunities for voluntary solutions. The Four Forest
Restoration Initiative is an example of an innovative public-
private partnership that implements forest management
strategies to prevent and recover from wildfires. Our farms and
ranches can provide ecosystem services year-round in the
Southwest. Grazing, the major use of public land in Arizona, is
a key forest management tool that contributes to plant and
animal biodiversity and protects watersheds. For example, my
family's ranch, operating in the same location for over 130
years, has implemented numerous practices to promote healthy
soils and conserve water.
The policy proposals of the Food and Agriculture Climate
Alliance, of which American Farm Bureau is the founding member,
give priority for effective voluntary conservation programs.
Much of the current success of agriculture's sustainability
model are attributed to voluntary stewardship investments and
practices, such as those in the farm bill.
There are certainly farms and ranches across the U.S.
implementing conservation practices without participating in
Government cost share, but the great majority are likely
contracted with the USDA due to the high cost of investing in
such practices as compared to the return on investment. The 15
percent of farm acreage enrolled in conservation programs is
significant, but there is certainly room for growth.
Competition for this funding can be intense, and staffing
shortages result in project approval and implementation
backlogs.
As we look forward, any policy that addresses proactive
measures to influence climate conditions cannot be one-size-
fits-all, as was mentioned in the opening statements. Just as I
have highlighted the unique needs of Arizona's farmers and
ranchers in the West, all regions of the U.S. can explain ways
in which any given climate policy may or may not work for the
landscape, sector, or ecology present in that region. Every
farm and ranch is unique, and policy considerations must be
able to encompass the distinctive needs of everything from corn
and soybeans to leafy greens and public lands grazing.
We also urge our policymakers to expand the scope through
which we view climate policy to include other natural
resources, especially water. Unprecedented drought in the West
threatens the sustainability of thousands of farmers and
ranchers growing food and fiber on millions of acres.
Therefore, investment in water infrastructure is something that
must be considered.
Finally, to develop innovative technologies to capture more
carbon in our croplands, forests, and grasslands, we really
need increased investment in agricultural research. American
farm families such as my own want to leave the land better than
when it was entrusted to us. Working with our partners, land
grant universities, lawmakers, and the farmers and ranchers we
represent, American Farm Bureau and its federations of States
and counties intend to continue finding bipartisan solutions
that meet both our current and future needs.
Madam Chair, I thank you for convening this hearing and for
your efforts on behalf of American agriculture, and I look
forward to answering questions.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Smallhouse can be found on
page 53 in the appendix.]
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you so much. We really
appreciate your testimony. Mr. Reifsteck, welcome.
STATEMENT OF JOHN REIFSTECK, CHAIRMAN, GROWMARK COOPERATIVE,
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF FARMER COOPERATIVES, BLOOMINGTON, ILLINOIS
Mr. Reifsteck. Chairwoman Stabenow, Ranking Member Boozman,
and members of the Committee, thank you for holding today's
hearing. Senator Durbin, thank you for your kind introduction.
I am John Reifsteck, a grain farmer from Champaign County
in central Illinois and chairman of the board of GROWMARK, a
North America agriculture cooperative based in Bloomington,
Illinois. Our co-op is owned by local member cooperatives and
provides inputs and grain marketing services.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today on
behalf of GROWMARK, the National Council of Farmer
Cooperatives, and the Food and Agriculture Climate Alliance.
Our farm has sustained three generations of my family. I
live in the farmhouse my grandfather built 107 years ago. My
father and grandfather were good farmers, but how they farmed
then would not work today. This is particularly true because
the climate they faced is not the same one I face today.
Throughout my time farming, I have constantly sought out
ways to reduce my footprint because it is good for the
environment, it is good for my farm, and it is the right thing
to do.
Since 1996, we have collaborated with the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration by hosting a climate research
site on our farm. It is estimated that more than eight billion
pieces of data have been collected both above and below this
field since the research began. This site, and its data, has
been utilized in nearly 400 scientific publications by multiple
Federal agencies and universities to better understand the
interaction between crops, soils, and the climate. The data
collected literally spans from the enzyme to the ecosystem.
For example, during harvest, I collect and report yield,
crop moisture, and GPS location data every second. Each year,
750 plant and soil samples are analyzed for as many as 20
different attributes. Measurements are taken of nutrients,
carbon, water, and energy entering and leaving the field.
The results have shown the impact that climate-friendly
farming practices can have. Researchers compared my fields,
which use conservation tillage, with nearby research sites
using conventional tillage. We have learned that on my farm
conservation tillage sequesters about 1,000 pounds of carbon
per acre annually. In comparison, sites that use conventional
tillage release nearly 2,000 pounds of carbon on average. That
is a meaningful difference.
As Congress works on climate legislation for agriculture,
programs need to be based on this kind of hard data, drawn from
real-world operations, not from theoretical models. If farmers
are going to adapt new practices, they need to know how and if
it is going to work and how it will improve the productivity
and sustainability of their farms.
At the end of the day, we want to do this the right way. It
should be about the practices that have a noticeable and
meaningful impact. At the same----
[inaudible] the unpredictable. Thoughtful legislation such
as the Growing Climate Solutions Act introduced by Chairwoman
Stabenow and Senator Braun will be essential in making their
impact.
So, too, will be the work that NCFC has done with the other
members of the Food and Agriculture Climate Alliance. The
policy recommendations they have outlined would give farmers
and their co-ops, such as GROWMARK, the chance to play an
important role in addressing climate change. Please refer to my
written testimony for more details.
In conclusion, I would like to add one observation. Just a
few years ago, climate change was not an issue that farmers
talked about among themselves, at meetings, or in the coffee
shop. Today it is. There is a growing realization that, done
correctly, policies that promote climate-friendly practices can
produce farm income, increase productivity, and address one of
the most pressing challenges the planet faces.
Policies should recognize that farming is increasingly a
collaborative effort. The best will come from partnerships
between farmers, Government, land grant institutions, and
organizations that are dedicated to helping farmers be
successful and their farms remain sustainable. Cooperatives, by
their very nature, have a key role to play.
Again, thank you for holding this hearing, and I look
forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Reifsteck can be found on
page 59 in the appendix.]
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much. We would now like
to turn to Mr. Isbell.
STATEMENT OF MARK ISBELL, FARMER, USA RICE, ENGLAND, ARKANSAS
Mr. Isbell. Thank you, Madam Chair Stabenow, Ranking Member
Boozman, esteemed members of this Committee. I appreciate the
opportunity to speak to you today on behalf of the U.S. rice
industry.
Through the innovation of farmers, the insight of
scientists, and the impact of important USDA programs, U.S.
agriculture has grown ever more efficient in its ability to
provide food for our fellow citizens. During my lifetime, rice
farmers have reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 41 percent,
cut water use in half, and decreased energy use by 34 percent.
U.S. rice farms also enhance water quality, create an estimated
$3.5 billion in the central habitat for migratory waterfowl,
and provide a host of other environmental co-benefits. In
addition to these economic, nutritional, and environmental
contributions of U.S. farmers, is there also opportunity for
the farmers of America to address climate change? The answer to
that question is a resounding yes. I know this because farmer
already are.
This Committee and Congress at large can facilitate and
accelerate the role of agriculture in answering these
challenges. If we are to succeed, it is vital to get the
details right.
On my family's farm in Arkansas, while working with the
Agricultural Research Service and the University of Arkansas,
we have adopted strategies to decrease methane emissions by
over 60 percent. These practices led us to being among a small
group of farmers who in 2016 sold the first-ever carbon credits
associated with rice production. When people ask me about that
experience, I tell them this: ``Let me buy you a drink and tell
you the story. If I am buying the drink with money we made from
those credits, I can only afford to buy you one drink.''
This is the reality. Agriculture has potential to mitigate
and sequester greenhouse gas. A viable marketplace that
adequately and equitably values and incentivizes this remains
elusive. This Committee can be part of the catalyst that is
needed, but several essential pillars must form the foundation
of the work this Committee endeavors.
Climate solutions must be based on the best available peer-
reviewed science. We must follow the science, and we must
follow the data. New programs cannot come at the expense of
proven programs like CSP, EQIP, and RCPP. We cannot build
higher by dismantling the foundation beneath us. In fact,
Congress should increase investment in the existing suite of
NRCS working lands programs. While these programs work well,
they are severely underfunded.
In Arkansas, for example, applications have exceeded
funding by a factor of 3:1 over the last five years. New
funding should also include adequate resources for FSA and NRCS
staff, who are integral to the success of these programs.
New programs must be voluntary and eliminate regulatory
barriers. Participation must forever be voluntary and never
become a precondition to accessing other USDA programs.
Additionally, regulatory and bureaucratic hurdles must be
eliminated.
Also, we must ensure that the value flows equitably through
the supply chain. It is important that solutions to address
climate concerns are developed in a way that farmers can be
partners with the public in addressing climate change. It is
likewise imperative that carbon markets not morph into a
fulcrum organization that middlemen use to leverage value from
farmers that is not equitably distributed throughout the supply
chain.
Finally, no single solution will be appropriate to each
cropping system or region. It is essential that this Committee
understand that climate opportunities in agriculture extend
beyond the buzz words of soil health, cover crops, and carbon
markets. A shortsighted approach not only excludes multiple
crops in regions, but neglects transformative opportunities for
creating a diverse portfolio of solutions. The importance of
soil health is well established, but even though at my family's
farm in Arkansas we have some of the highest organic matter in
the State, the science and the data reveal that irrigation
practices hold the greatest potential for us and other rice
farmers to offset greenhouse gases. The potential of cover
crops in rice must be balanced against known benefits of winter
flooding for migratory waterfowl habitat. You will find many
similar examples from other farmers, other crops, and other
regions.
The consequences of getting this wrong are dire. Imprudent
policy could have the unintended consequence of shifting
production overseas and away from the well-regulated, secure,
and sustainable supply of domestically produced food. It could
mean lost time, wasted resources, and distorted markets. With
an open mind and an inclusive approach, this Committee can play
a role in unleashing the enduring creativity of American
agriculture to attenuate climate change. If the Senate intends
to address climate change, agriculture is a proven sound
investment. Farmers of America must have a strong voice in
shaping this policy, and careful attention must be paid to the
details. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Isbell can be found on page
78 in the appendix.]
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much. I appreciate your
comments. Mr. Pope, welcome.
STATEMENT OF CLAY POPE, FARMER, NATIONAL FARMERS UNION, LOYAL,
OKLAHOMA
Mr. Pope. Thank you, Chairwoman Stabenow, Ranking Member
Boozman, and members of the Committee. My name is Clay Pope. I
am a sixth-generation wheat and cattle producer from Loyal,
Oklahoma. I am also a member of the Oklahoma Farmers Union, and
I am honored to have the chance to testify today on behalf of
National Farmers Union about climate change and U.S. gal.
For more than a century, my family has farmed the same land
following largely the same cycle. After harvest, we would use
conventional tillage to control weeds and prepare the ground
for planting. Once our wheat was planted and up, we would graze
cattle in early March--or until early March, and then we would
harvest in the summer and start the cycle all over again.
Then, in 2004, worn-out equipment, concerns about erosion,
and rising input costs, we worked with NRCS and utilized EQIP
to convert to no-till. A few years later, with more help from
USDA, we began incorporating cover crops and enrolled in the
Conservation Stewardship Program. We have never looked back.
We still grow winter wheat and graze cattle, but now we
work to minimize soil disturbance, maintain residue cover on
the soil, keep something growing on the land as much as
possible, and graze cover crops as well as wheat--all practices
that help promote soil health.
Now, I cannot scientifically quantify all the benefits our
land has received from soil health. What I can tell you is that
for the last four years we have had some of our best wheat ever
while using roughly half of the fertilizer that we did when we
conventionally tilled. We are burning less fuel and benefiting
from grazing cover crops.
Our soil health practices have also helped us adapt our
operation to the extreme weather events that climate change is
exacerbating. The bottom line is that our investment in soil
health has helped us better prepare for climate change in a way
that has helped both our bottom line and the environment. It
has worked for us, and I believe it can for others, too.
The benefits of soil health practices do not stop with
climate change My State of Oklahoma is a great example. For
nearly 30 years, we have been helping ag producers adopt soil
health practices through incentive-based, voluntary programs to
improve water quality in an effort that has resulted in the
removal of over 90 streams from the EPA impaired streams list,
more than any other State in the Nation.
Climate change presents several challenges for agriculture
for sure, but it also presents opportunities. Carbon and other
ecosystem service markets potentially could provide additional
income streams for farmers and ranchers, but we need to ensure
that these markets achieve their goals and work for producers.
Again, my home State has an example. In 2001, the State
established a carbon credit program that made the Oklahoma
Conservation Commission the referee for carbon credits. Local
conservation districts with training from NRCS verified
practices implemented by farmers and ranchers. Verification
costs were paid by credit purchasers with no cost to
participating producers. Congress and USDA should look to this
model to ensure producers have an affordable and reliable way
to generate tradeable credits.
Looking forward, we must use all the tools at our disposal
to help agriculture address climate change. First, Congress
must work with USDA and farmers to emphasize climate adaptation
in the implementation of all conservation programs. I truly
believe the last Farm Bill was the most important piece of
Federal climate legislation to date, but the programs
authorized in this act need to be improved to reflect the scope
of the challenge.
Congress must work with USDA to emphasize climate adaption
in conservation programs and provide additional funds for local
NRCS staff to assist with conservation planning and technical
assistance.
It is also vital to recognize early adopters of soil health
practices, many of whom will not be able to participate in
carbon markets due to the issue of ``additionality.'' There are
thousands of producers who have worked years to improve their
land. It would be a horrible mistake not to provide
opportunities for these pioneers.
Congress and USDA should work together to ensure that
carbon markets are accessible and affordable for producers by
having USDA serve as the arbitrator of these efforts with the
authority to establish a public sector verification system for
credits. We must recognize that not all farms will be able to
sequester large amounts of carbon due to factors such as
region, soil type, and farm size. Additional ecosystem markets
or other conservation payment programs perhaps like an expanded
CSP should exist for those farmers and ranchers who employ soil
health practices and provide public benefits like improved
water quality, but who, due to location or other factors,
sequester little carbon.
Finally, USDA must build on its research efforts because
from drought-resistant seeds to cattle bred to deal with
extreme weather stress, farmers and ranchers need all the tools
that they can get.
The Agricultural Research Service and public research
entities must have the resources necessary to undertake this
work.
As part of this, Congress and USDA should buildupon the
existing climate hub network, which pulls expertise from across
USDA and engages farmers and ranchers. They can help coordinate
efforts and information among agencies through education and
outreach efforts and help overcome hesitancy with both
producers and USDA employees who are just a little bit hesitant
about broaching the subject of climate change.
In closing, I would like to reiterate that agriculture is
indeed facing numerous challenges resulting from climate
change. The good news is we have a path forward. The question
is: Will we take it?
Remember, Members, the secret is in the soil, and cows
really can save the planet.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pope can be found on page 86
in the appendix.]
Chairwoman Stabenow. Well, thank you so much, Mr. Pope.
Let me start with a question to followup on what you
indicated when you said that the most important piece of
Federal climate legislation to date was our 2018 Farm Bill. We
worked very hard in a bipartisan way, as you know, to put in
some very important climate-smart policies, particularly around
conservation. It is hard to believe we actually are thinking
about another farm bill a couple years away, but I want to make
sure that we are building on that. Mr. Isbell talked about not
taking from existing programs to fund something new on climate.
I could not agree more. This has got to be about adding. I
think we all want to make sure that we are adding to the
resources for farmers and foresters.
Could you speak a little bit more about how we can use the
conservation title and other authorities to do even more to
tackle the climate crisis?
Mr. Pope. Well, you know, to start with, I mentioned about
additional resources to your local NRCS staff, especially for
conservation planning and technical assistance. If you look at
what conservation planning is designed to address and then put
it up next to a lot of the challenges that we are facing from
climate change, you start to see some similarities in them.
That is why the first place to start is to really make sure
that we have got the resources at the local level to help
implement those programs and that we are providing a focus to
help deal with climate change, and then, of course, obviously,
fully funding the suite of programs like EQIP and the
Conservation Stewardship Program. Also I mentioned CSP,
possibly looking at making CSP or starting from whole cloth to
maybe do something as far as an actual program that would fall
underneath the WTO green box definition, you know, a program
that actually pays producers based on their stewardship. I
think that is key.
Stepping away from the conservation title, I think making
sure that we have solid risk management tools. I know crop
insurance has been mentioned, what we see with the programs at
FSA like ARC and PLC, making sure that we maintain the strength
of those programs. Clearly, in the conservation title,
providing that focus and making sure that we have got that deal
with, also the Research Title to make sure that we are giving
the emphasis, the focus, and the resources, not just at ARS but
at land grant institutions, and then utilizing that climate hub
network like I spoke to, to try to help cut back on some of the
stovepiping that we see between agencies and help get that
outreach and communication out to those producers and agency
staff.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much.
Mrs. Wittman, based on your testimony, it seems like you
have grown every crop possible in Idaho, and you know how
important diversification is. One of the great things about
voluntary carbon markets is that, as we know, they can provide
farmers with an opportunity for additional income. I wonder if
you might speak to the importance of having multiple revenue
streams for a farm like yours and how carbon markets could
improve a farm's financial position.
Mrs. Wittman Stitt. Absolutely, Senator. Thank you for that
question. Yes, we always say if it can grow in this area, we
have probably tried it. Whether or not it has been successful
is another question. Our generation is always looking for new
and innovative revenue streams, particularly when we are trying
to buy into a capital-intensive environment and coming off of
three to five years of a tight margin environment. Carbon is
one of those things that we can look at and say this is a
service that we can provide to the economy, to the public, that
they value, and there are incredible ways to tap into that.
The challenge has been that we do not really have an
effective mechanism to do that. Right now there is not a lot of
certainty or credibility or structure to how we can access
carbon markets. Right now, if we want to go out and measure the
amount of carbon that we sequestered, we do not really have any
idea where to start. What tests do we use? Where do we send it?
How can we test the results? That is some of the reason we
really wanted to get behind your Growing Climate Solutions Act.
That piece of legislation would provide some structure,
validity, and certainty to those of us who are willing to enter
that market, to diversify the revenue streams that we have.
Access to these markets would further support our ability to
implement some really important conservation strategies.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Great. Thank you very much.
Mr. Reifsteck, your written testimony indicated that
Government researchers have called your farm ``the most studied
agricultural field on the planet''--that is quite a
distinction--because of your long-time carbon research station
which you started in 1996. I wonder if you might tell me,
before my time runs out here, what you have learned in the last
25 years, and, for example, what practices are the best at
storing carbon. How long did it take for you to see benefits
from that?
Mr. Reifsteck. Well, thank you for the question, Senator.
Yes, this has been a fascinating process to work with these
researchers. They are very smart people that are trying to
understand what is going on in the agriculture environment. It
has taken a long time to gather that kind of data, but that is
what is important, is we have long-term quality data.
The challenge for us now is to turn that data into
actionable items that can be implemented across not just my
farm but lots of farms. That is going to be the next challenge
that we have here, because I really do believe that what we
have learned can reduce greenhouse gases and improve the
quality of our soils and make agriculture a contributor to the
challenges.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Great. Thank you very much.
Senator Boozman.
Senator Boozman. Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, I thank all
of you for being here.
Mr. Isbell, we appreciate your testimony. You are a guy
that has got--you have two Bachelor's degrees, a Master's
degree, formed a company that has to do with intelligence and
data. You are the guy that really does look at the data, try
and do things the best that you can do. You participated in a
pilot project that was designed to help you sequester carbon on
your farm and trade those carbon credits for additional
revenue.
Would you please describe to the Committee what you learned
in participating in the pilot program and your experience
navigating the market?
Mr. Isbell. Certainly. Well, you know, the first thing I
would say we have learned is that there are a lot of good
people, well-intentioned people out there trying to make this
process work, a lot of good researchers, a lot of good
scientists that are interested in making sure that we can find
viable markets for the ecosystem benefits that farmers are able
to create.
In our pilot project, what we also learned is with the
current way things work, it was not profitable. It was a multi-
year process over a couple hundred acres. I was looking
earlier. I think there were seven different organizations that
were part of the transaction that took place. At the end of the
day, it was $133 that we made, and I know that because we
cashed the check. We put it in an envelope, and we decided that
we might do something special with it someday. You know, who
knows what? Maybe invest in GameStop or something.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Isbell. It did not work in our situation very well.
That does not mean that I do not remain hopeful that there are
opportunities, but it tells me that we have to be more open-
minded in what those opportunities look like. There is a
difference that can be made with agriculture. That is clear.
How we access the carbon markets and whether that is the best
way, we need to be careful that we do not pin ourselves down to
only that potential revenue stream, and look at other ways that
we can maximize the benefits, the environmental benefits that
we bring to the table.
Senator Boozman. Very good. Thank you.
Mrs. Stitt, there is interest from the administration in
achieving net zero emissions for the agriculture sector by
2050. When you consider that goal for the entire agriculture
and food value chain, the proposition becomes quite
complicated. You still have to fuel the equipment, dry the
corn, or process the sugar beets or ethanol, and manage the
transportation of commodities and fresh products.
In light of these realities, do you have concerns about the
cost of energy on your operation and throughout the value chain
to meet the President's goal of reaching zero emissions by
2050?
Mrs. Wittman Stitt. Thank you for that question, and, yes,
the cost of energy is always top of mind in our operation.
Really, as we are looking at the broader climate question, our
biggest concern is: Are we going to be asked to make additional
changes on our operation without being compensated for those
changes? Energy certainly filters into that discussion.
Right now in the carbon markets, there are companies that
are not really willing to pay as much as we believe they should
be for these changes in practices. There are reports that as
much as 75 percent of the carbon payments are going to
verifiers and certifiers. That does not, obviously, leave much
for the farmers. We have a real opportunity here. We have an
opportunity to take a step forward and create some structure
where farmers can access that additional revenue stream and can
offset things like energy costs. That is what I am really
hoping for today, that we can take that first step forward and
create some structure.
Senator Boozman. Good. Thank you.
Mr. Isbell, you come from a State with a cropping system
that has unique considerations for environmental sustainability
and mitigating climate change. Planting cover crops to foster
greater carbon sequestration holds a lot of promise for some
producers, but that practice in a one-size-fits-all approach
may not be viable for producers in regions like yours.
Given this reality, what are some specific considerations
for producers in States like this, and regions, as they operate
with an eye toward sustainability?
Mr. Isbell. You know, the benefits that rice can bring to
sustainability and to climate solutions are well established.
We create significant biodiversity and habitat for waterfowl.
Our friends in California are creating salmon habitat and ways
of raising baby salmon in the rice fields there. My friends
down on the gulf coast are providing habitat for crawfish and
yellow rails.
Soil carbon, as I mentioned, and cover crops are not the
only thing that can be done. Water savings and water quality is
another big thing. I am sure many of you have a cup of water
sitting there in front of you. Other parts of the world, 100
grains of rice, 20 cups of water to grow those 100 grains of
rice. Here in Arkansas, we can do it with five.
There are a lot of environmental benefits that we can bring
to the table, and there are a lot of ways we can support that
if we buy U.S.-grown agricultural products and use processes
like this to help bring those practices more forward.
Senator Boozman. Thank you very much.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much, Senator Boozman.
Now just for our members, as people have logged on or been
here in the meeting today, we are keeping track of who is here
and who has logged on and then who is now available to be able
to ask a question at this moment. Based on that information, I
would turn to Senator Smith.
Senator Smith. Well, thank you so much, Chairwoman Stabenow
and Ranking Member Boozman. It is great to be with all of you,
and I really appreciate this bipartisan hearing on this
incredibly important issue.
Let me just start with this. You know, I think that a lot
of this conversation has been about how farmers can be a big
part of the solution to the climate crisis, and I know that
producers in Minnesota are really leading the way in developing
innovative solutions that are reducing carbon emissions,
improving soil health, and protecting land for future
generations. Of course, these are the things that nobody cares
about more than the farmers that live on this land.
I also know that farmers know a lot about mitigation and
adapting to climate change, and that this is not just a
necessary step; it is something that is going to be good for
their bottom lines.
In Minnesota, and I know many other places around the
country, we are seeing also how renewable energy is providing a
new source of revenue for farmers. You know, you can have a
wind turbine on your land and also still have that land
underneath the turbine be productive and be farmland also.
There are many, many ways that farmers are adapting. I have
been inspired by what I have seen with this.
Let me just ask all of the panel, if I could, what role do
you see clean energy on farmland playing in the broader effort
to address climate change within the agricultural sector? What
are some of the current challenges that are holding back
progress on deploying clean energy technology on farms and in
rural communities? If you have any success stories that you can
share, I would be really interested in hearing them so we can
learn from that.
Who wants to dive in?
Mr. Isbell. I will be glad to speak to that, Senator Smith.
On our farm here in Arkansas, we installed solar panels here a
few years ago, and it was made possible by being able to store
up the credits that those create, that we put--``net metering''
is what it is called, where we buildup credit in the system,
and then we are able to use that when we need it. We are able
to offset a third of the energy use that we need, and some of
the things that have come through, tax credits and stuff, help
make that possible for farms to establish that and to use
cleaner energy.
Even in front of that, adaptation from other types of power
to electricity are very helpful. You could do that through
EQIP, CSP, and things like that where you can adapt your diesel
engines to electric, and those are important steps to be taken
so that we can access a cleaner energy market with things like
solar and wind.
Senator Smith. Thank you.
Mr. Pope. I would also add to that, just kind of building
on that comment, you know, I mentioned EQIP and the energy
incentive programs that are underneath EQIP. I think also, you
know, the REAP program that is at rural development that
provides loan assistance to rural businesses to try to produce
activity that you can undertake under EQIP.
I think one of the challenges, though, that you find with
both of those programs, at least our experience in Oklahoma has
been the ability of the agencies to provide--or to find people
with the expertise to do the initial audits with the producers.
I think that kind of goes back, again, to what we have been
talking about, about making sure that our existing USDA
agencies have the resources and personnel to be able to do some
of these things. Again, it is one of those tools I referred to
from the last farm bill that if you look at it a certain way,
it is a great climate change adaptation and mitigation tool. We
have just got to make sure that we are making the right focus
and we are giving the love to it that it needs to make sure
that it really works the way that we want it to. Then you see
the opportunity on some of these things, as was mentioned,
about conversion to electricity, wind, and solar, I think there
are some opportunities out there. Biofuels also has been
something there is a lot of interest in. As a wheat producer,
you know, we do not produce corn or soybeans, but I definitely
know it helps the agriculture industry across the board while
also helping reduce the overall carbon level that we have in
our transportation system.
I think there are a lot of opportunities out there to
making sure we have got the resources we need to carry them
out.
Senator Smith. Right. Thank you. This is particularly an
issue, isn't it, when we think about how to ensure that these
opportunities are available to smaller-scale farms. You know,
we know we have so much work to do to make sure that farmers of
color, diverse farmers have access and can participate and also
that the programs are flexible enough to be able to account
for, you know, their traditional ways of doing things.
Mr. Reifsteck. Senator, if I may add, the Rural Energy for
America Program is an example of a Federal program that is
oversubscribed, and there is a certain barrier to entry. For
example, cooperatives cannot participate in that. I think there
are small things that we can do. I talked about living in my
farm home from 107 years ago. It was originally heated with
coal. We use geothermal today. We have made great progress in
reducing the amount of fuel that we use to grow every acre of
the crop. These are small things, but small things add up over
time.
Senator Smith. Yes. This is a ``yes, and'' answer, I
believe, not a ``pick the right solution'' answer. We have to
be able to do a lot of different things.
Did you want to say something, too?
Mrs. Smallhouse. Senator Smith, I was just going to mention
that I still think the return on investment--I know that we
have looked at solar investment on our place, and it is still
extremely high, and so I know there are a lot of farmers that
are still looking at that in terms of the return on investment.
There is a lot of pushback for a lot of farmers and ranchers to
put in wind and solar from their communities, people that does
not like to see windmills and do not like to see solar panels.
That is a challenge.
I would also add to the ethanol discussion, in terms of
renewable energy and how much that has reduced carbon emissions
in the United States, so that is something we would continue to
support, obviously.
Senator Smith. Me, too. I totally agree with that. Thank
you very much for your comments. It is very helpful.
Thank you, Madam Chair Stabenow.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you, Senator Smith, very much.
We will now turn to Senator Tuberville, and, again, welcome
to the Committee.
Senator Tuberville. Thank you, Chairwoman. Thank you very
much. Ranking Member Boozman, thank you for your help.
I am excited about being here. Alabama's farmers and rural
communities sent me here to be their voice, and I plan to fight
hard on their behalf. Rural Alabama and rural communities all
across our Nation must not be forgotten, and I will use my
position on this Committee to express the views and opinions of
Alabama farmers so that they can continue to do what they do
best: farm their land with undue burdens on them. With farming
and forestry combining to make agriculture the largest industry
in Alabama, I look forward to serving the Ag Committee to
ensure they continue to thrive.
In order for the agriculture economy to continue to thrive,
farmers must have productive land to produce a crop year in and
year out. Farmland acreage across this country, including in
Alabama, is not expanding; it is shrinking. The trend continues
on our farmers having to produce more with less to feed our
country and the world. If the Department of Agriculture is
going to play a direct or indirect part in carbon banking or
greenhouse gas reduction practices, highly fertile and
productive lands cannot be moved into retirement in attempts to
achieve this. Additionally, any programs like this either
through the Government or the private sector must be voluntary,
market-driven, and incentive-based.
According to the Biden administration with the Executive
order on climate change, they outlined a 30/30 initiative of
conserving at least 30 percent of our lands and water by 2030.
Mr. Isbell, as a farmer, if you lost 30 percent of your
farmland, would you still be profitable? Or would then level of
reduction to your productive lands have a largely negative
effect on your operation?
Mr. Isbell. Thank you, Senator Tuberville. Having working
lands programs is always important to active farmers. That is
why things like CSP, EQIP, and RCPP that actually promote
sustainable practices on land that we are making productive are
in my mind the most important things to address climate
solutions.
To your question, removing significant ground out of
production would have a negative economic impact, and that is
why I think we need policies that support the activities on
working lands and are able to help us continue with that.
Senator Tuberville. Thank you. You know, today's hearing is
``Farmers and Foresters: Opportunities to Lead in Tackling
Climate Change,'' and I am all for that. Alabama has 23.1
million acres of forest; 94 percent of those forests are owned
by more than 250,000 private forest owners. Forests need to be
protected, but we protect them by managing them, and in keeping
a managed forest, it remains healthy and productive. In the
South, particularly in Alabama, healthy forests are driven by
healthy markets for the products growing in these forests.
As I read, you have some timber in your operation, Ms.
Wittman. Do you think there is an opportunity to do more in
existing forests, especially private and family owned forests,
many of which are also part of a farm, to address climate
change?
Mrs. Wittman Stitt. Well, Senator, thank you for that
question, and, yes, I absolutely agree. There is a huge
opportunity for forests, both large and small, to be part of
the climate solution. Trees, as we know, are amazing carbon
sinks. A growing tree stores carbon. When it is harvested, it
converts that carbon into--that carbon resource to permanent
storage if you are taking it into lumber or construction
products, then you can replant the tree and start the process
over. It is a brilliant mechanism, really.
We believe that, like you said, with proper forest
management you can really optimize the forest's ability to
sequester and store the maximum amount of carbon. It will also
improve forest health and its resilience. We really believe
that much like we need to keep farmers farming, we want to keep
our foresters' forests, and we need to have the mechanisms
available to continue that cycle of growing, harvesting, and
replanting those trees.
There are a lot of things that we can do to do that better,
and I think that we need to continue to develop voluntary,
market-based incentives, again, to help forest owners like us
increase that sequestration. A particular need in our area is
continued support for reforestation. It is extremely cost-
prohibitive to replant after a timber harvest. It can cost
upwards of $400 to $500 an acre to replant. Oftentimes it is
equal to the value of the property itself in our area. That is
one area that we can really emphasize the need for continued
market-based incentives in that area.
Senator Tuberville. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you.
Senator Klobuchar.
[No response.]
Chairwoman Stabenow. I believe that Senator Klobuchar had
logged on. We will give her one more minute. Senator Klobuchar?
[Pause.]
Chairwoman Stabenow. I believe we do not have Senator
Klobuchar at the moment. Senator Hyde-Smith is next. Thank you.
Senator Hyde-Smith. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking
Member. Good to be here.
Following up with one of the questions Senator Tuberville
had talking about forestland, we have a little less acreage of
that in Mississippi, but we still have about 20 million acres
of forestland in Mississippi and about 125,000 private forest
landowners.
About a year ago, last Easter, we had tornadoes that came
through Mississippi, and it destroyed acres, just thousands of
acres of timberland. They just really do not have a lot of
protection, a lot of options after that. They just literally
lose millions of dollars worth of timber, and they can either
sell the land, replant the forest, or just accept the financial
losses. We have so many families that say, ``That was my kid's
college education, that stand of timber, and now it is
destroyed by a natural force, and I have no protection of
someone coming in and paying me for that or any help with it.''
Last Congress, I introduced the Forest Recovery Act which
would provide a tax deduction for at least the casualty losses
of that timber, and, you know, it not only helped the
landowners recover, but also encourage other people to invest
in forestry and reforesting damaged acres.
My question to you as a group--this is really concerning to
me because it is such a major industry in my State. Should
Congress develop better policies to protect private forest
landowners? Given the importance of these forestlands
throughout the Southeast, in particular in my State, how do we
need to go about or should we develop more programs that would
assist in these natural disasters of tornadoes and hurricanes
that we have in my State particularly?
Mr. Pope. Well, I will jump in real quick. I know just
enough about forestry to be real dangerous. Where I live at, we
have got to drive about--on the fall foliage tour, we say we
drive 30 miles to go to town to watch a tree change color. At
the end of the day, as far as the idea of risk management with
producers dealing with extreme weather events, as I alluded to,
making sure that we do have those tools, I think it is
extremely important for all sectors of production agriculture,
because if there is one thing all the folks with crystal balls
seem to agree with, it is that what we have always considered
to be wild weather in the past is going to become more and more
the norm. You know, coming from Oklahoma, I could give you a
whole litany of what we have been dealing with, ending with the
big cold snap that we had a couple weeks ago and how after a
few days after we got above freezing, we were back up around 80
degrees.
You know, the bottom line is that I think anything that
helps us with extreme weather, to be ready for that, and then
also on the carbon market side, just kind of an aside, the
Oklahoma program I referenced in my testimony, we actually did
have the ability to hold back some of the money that went to
producers over the life of the contract, and then once their
contract was done, they just that full amount paid to them.
That was held in reserve in case there was a natural disaster
to cover any loss from an act of God that they had no control
over, but to make sure they were not penalized. I think keeping
that in mind with the extreme weather we are looking at is very
critical.
Mr. Isbell. Senator, I would add to that that I know
nothing about forestry or timberland, but I do know a thing or
two about natural disasters and how they affect crops. Whatever
type of crop that is is something that we should be as
supportive as we possibly can be and helping recovery. Rice, we
have seen floods that have impacted rice ground here in
Arkansas and throughout the mid-South. We have seen droughts
that have impacted things seriously in California and in Texas
and in Louisiana. Hurricanes have impacted harvests. It is very
important that we have strong programs like prevent planting
programs that help when we are unable to plant and harvest-
based programs that keep us from being able to reap all of the
investment that up until that point we have put into the
product that a natural disaster can take away overnight.
Certainly in forestry, hearing your story about our friends
to the east in Mississippi, I can very much empathize with
that, and there certainly should be ways that they can be
helped, just as across all crops we need to find ways to have
strong disaster relief mechanisms in any policies that we have.
Mrs. Smallhouse. Senator Hyde-Smith, I would like to say
something about that, and I appreciate that question. You know,
the management of forests, whether in the Southeast or the
West, is extremely important. They do not manage themselves.
You have to have proactive management. In the same token, our
working lands are extremely important to this country, and we
need to have risk management tools available to anyone who is
actively managing those resources.
I think farmers and ranchers and those who have timber are
doing the tough job of managing more resources hands-on than
anyone else, and ecosystem services obviously have a value to
the rest of the country, especially in this carbon
conversation. I absolutely think that we need to be supportive
of those working lands in whatever way we can and proactively
manage and proactively anticipate risk.
Senator Hyde-Smith. Thank you for your comments.
Is there anyone else?
[No response.]
Senator Hyde-Smith. Okay. I think my time is about to
expire, and I have another question hopefully I will have the
opportunity to ask.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much, and now I believe
we have Senator Klobuchar with us.
Senator Klobuchar. Well, thank you very much, Chairwoman,
and I am reporting here from the antitrust hearing over in
judiciary, which, as we know, has some ag implications as well.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Yes.
Senator Klobuchar. I am looking forward to working with
both you and Senator Boozman on these issues. I want to thank
you for holding this really important hearing to discuss how
farmers and foresters can play a leading role in climate change
solutions.
I want to start out on the renewable fuel issue. It is
clear that renewable fuels are one of the pathways toward de-
carbonizing the transportation sector while lowering gas
prices, driving rural economic growth, and creating jobs.
Since 2008, the RFS, renewable fuel standard, has already
eliminated 980 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions
from the transportation sector. Most recently, a study by
Harvard--we consider that the University of Minnesota of the
East--demonstrated that using first-generation ethanol in place
of gasoline cuts greenhouse gas emissions by 46 percent.
Mr. Pope, can you talk about the role of renewable fuels in
meeting our mission reduction goals?
Mr. Pope. Senator, I think you hit the nail on the head as
far as, you know, what we have seen as far as biofuels and
their overall impact as far as that de-carbonization of the
transportation fuel supply. One of the things, too, that I
think needs to be considered in all that is not just the impact
it has coming out of the tailpipe, but when you take that with
producers using practices like no-till and cover crops, those
soil health practices that can help sequester carbon dioxide in
the soil--and you had mentioned the Minnesota of the East. I
want to throw out there Oklahoma State University, which
sometimes is called the ``Princeton of the Prairie,'' actually
did a study a few years back that showed that if you convert to
no-till, you are burning at least with winter wheat acres in
Oklahoma three gallons of diesel or less per acre per year. If
you think about that, convert that to corn and soybeans in
States like yours, the Upper Midwest, that is something that
does not get looked at either, the impact that it has on that
lowering of emissions and that de-carbonization that you talked
about.
Clearly, I do believe that, you know, biofuels have a very
strong role to play, and I think when you tie that with the
farming practices that fall underneath that soil health
agriculture suite of practices, I think clearly that is
definitely one of the arrows in our quiver that we want to hang
onto and shoot at the target when we have a chance.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much.
Another piece of this, of course, is soil health and
conservation practices. Senator Thune and I have been working
on this cover crop issue for a long time. We also are going to
be reintroducing our legislation to improve the use of
conservation data analysis so that farmers can identify the
most effective conservation techniques.
I have been out with some of our farmers, and with the new
technology you can literally figure out how much water you need
in plants in certain parts of fields and save water that way.
There are all kinds of things you can do with the data.
Mr. Reifsteck, can you talk about how you have used data to
inform decisions about conservation practices?
Mr. Reifsteck. Certainly, Senator. One of the challenges
farmers have is it is easy to go out and make changes in your
farming operations and observe the changes in yield or in soil
conservation practices. One of the big challenges we have is it
is very hard for a farmer to see and know what is going on in
terms of their greenhouse gas mitigation. You cannot walk out
in the field and say, ``Oh, I am doing a good job today.'' You
just cannot do that. We have to rely on good data that will
help foster good practices.
Now, farmers cannot have the kinds of research tools that I
have available to me on my farm, but in the future, I think
there will be more of those tools that are available. We need
to make sure that we are measuring outcomes that are desirable.
When we cannot measure outcomes, we have to measure the
practices. We know on my farm that conservation tillage reduces
the amount of carbon that is released into the air. We know
from other research that cover crops can be a very important
factor. That is on my farm. Every farm will have a different
story about how they need to make changes, because I do think
there is a role for every farmer, and we need to make sure the
policies there encourage every farmer to participate to the
best of their ability.
Senator Klobuchar. Very good. I know my time is running out
here, but just to spur what we just said, a recent study
conducted on 100 farms across nine States, including Minnesota,
by the Soil Health Institute and Cargill showed that adopting
soil health management practices led to 86 percent of farmers
increasing their net income, reducing average costs by up to
$24 an acre, and 97 percent of participating farmers reported
increased resilience in extreme weather. We look at the
droughts that I know--I was just talking to Senator Hoeven and
Senator Thune about the droughts that they are seeing in their
States kind of creeping into Minnesota right now. I think all
of this, as we take on climate change in a big, big way, we
must find solutions not just for the world, but also it
actually will benefit our farmers if we do this right. Do you
see it that way?
Okay, good. It was muted, but I could hear what you said.
Mr. Reifsteck. Absolutely.
Senator Klobuchar. Excellent. Okay, thank you, and thank
you to Chairwoman Stabenow and Senator Boozman for a great
hearing.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thanks so much, Senator Klobuchar.
I believe that Senator Fischer is with us. We will give her
a moment to see if she--I know she is logged on, but I am not
sure if she is in front of her computer. I am not sure.
If not, if Senator Fischer is not, then we have--Senator
Thune I believe is.
Senator Thune. Madam Chair, thank you, and Ranking Member
Boozman. Thanks for holding the hearing to discuss the role
producers play in environmental stewardship, conserving our
resources, and sequestering carbon, all while continuing to
feed a growing population. I want to thank our witnesses for
appearing before the Committee today and for your input on this
issue.
Farmers and ranchers, I would say, have made tremendous
progress in increasing efficiency and improving the
environmental sustainability of agriculture in recent decades,
and this has occurred without Federal mandates, which is why it
is so critical that we maintain a voluntary producer-driven
approach.
Mrs. Wittman Stitt and Mr. Pope, in your testimoneys you
both mentioned that you utilize no-till farming in your
operation. South Dakota is a leader in no-till farming. Even in
2019, the wettest year on record for South Dakota, no-till
farming was used to plant 50 percent of our State's crops, and
we expect this figure to continue to rise.
As we look at proposals to help facilitate farmers' access
to carbon markets, could you talk about the importance of
ensuring that early adopters like yourselves and the many
producers across South Dakota who have already invested
significant amounts of time and resources into no-till farming
and other conservation practices are able to benefit from that?
Mrs. Wittman Stitt. Certainly. Thank you, Senator. As I
mentioned in my testimony, how early adopters will be treated
is one of the huge issues that causes concern to growers. Right
now everybody wants new carbon. Very few companies right now
seem willing to pay for any sort of past performance, and there
are huge risks with that model. Not only are you creating
adverse incentives to those that did the right thing on their
own dime in previous years, but you risk incentivizing the
unwinding of past practices.
The bottom line is we really need Congress and USDA to step
in and help provide a viable path forward for early adopters,
or we risk getting left behind.
Mr. Pope. I will just echo that 100 percent. She is spot-on
as far as the question of early adopters and making sure--you
know, as I said in my testimony, I cannot think of anything
that would be a bigger policy mistake than not having some way
to recognize those folks that have been doing good stewardship
on their land for in some cases decades. There is also the
issue, too, of recognizing that there are some folks, just
because of where they are at, they are not going to be able to
sequester a whole lot of carbon. If you think about somebody
down around Lubbock in that golden spread area in West Texas
that is growing cotton, doing no-till, doing coverage,
incorporating livestock, everything we want them to do, but
because they are down there, it is going to take them a heck of
a long time to build organic matter compared to somebody up in,
say, Iowa that is a corn and bean producer. At the same time,
they are controlling soil erosion, protecting water quality,
lengthening the live of that aquifer down there, conserving
water, burning less diesel, multiple things that are benefits
to society. We have got to have a way to recognize those guys.
Yes, the issue of early adopters and the bundled benefits,
the co-benefits beyond just carbon from these practices we are
talking about, we need to find a home for them in policy
somewhere.
Senator Thune. Thank you. Mr. Pope, in your testimony you
mentioned the recent study that shows corn ethanol has 46
percent lower life cycle emissions than conventional gasoline.
A 2019 USDA report suggested that improved biofuel
technologies, higher crop yields per acre, and the ag
conservation practices that we are discussing here today could
reduce life cycle emissions by as much as 70 percent.
Could you discuss or affirm the importance of having
accurate modeling and data to make sure that we are fully
recognizing the environmental contributions of biofuels?
Mr. Pope. Well, I think you said it well. I think making
sure that we have got that good data, that we have got that
accurate modeling, that is showing what is going on. I would
even take it a step further, Senator. I think it would be
helpful for USDA to look at the suite of all the activities
that have happened since the passage of the last Farm Bill and
get a handle on what we are doing as far as impacting the
climate, because I think there is a lot of good work that is
going on out there that is not getting credit, and I think that
we need to do that, because everybody likes to be recognized
for the good work they are doing. At the same time, it also
helps to let people know that, you know, there is a way forward
and that working together through these practices we talked
about, through these voluntary, incentive-based programs, we
can get a handle on it.
I mentioned water quality in my testimony and some of the
success we have seen in addressing that problem. Whether you
are talking about biofuels, whether you are talking about some
of these other areas of environmental improvement, I think
clearly having that modeling and recognizing the good work that
is being done is critical to moving forward.
Senator Thune. Thank you. I do not have a clock in front of
me, so, Madam Chair, you will have to let me know here. I would
just want to quickly touch on----
Chairwoman Stabenow. You have 20 seconds.
[Laughter.]
Senator Thune. All right. Mrs. Smallhouse, as a cattle
producer, I am sure you are well aware of the recent efforts to
shift U.S. consumers to fake meat products to mitigate climate
change. Could you react to that and talk about some of the
things that cattle producers are doing to address this issue?
Mrs. Smallhouse. Absolutely. Thank you, Senator Thune. Such
a great question. The fact is that shifting livestock
production to other countries does not make any sense.
America's livestock producers are the most efficient in the
world. As Senator Boozman stated in his opening comments, we
produce 18 percent of the beef with 6 percent of the herd. The
fact is that beef is an affordable, easily accessible source of
nutrition, high protein, low calorie, which is something that
we certainly need in our communities today. The fact is that we
have done a lot. We have reduced carbon emissions by 30 percent
since the 1970's, so we should be rewarded for that. The
American consumer should feel happy about eating beef and other
livestock products in the United States, knowing that we have
done much work in the last several decades to decrease our
carbon footprint.
Senator Thune. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thanks very much, Senator Thune. You
will be happy to know we have been talking a lot about soil
health and the efforts that you led in the last farm bill, so
thank you.
Senator Warnock, welcome. Another one of our wonderful new
members.
Senator Warnock. Thank you so much, Chairwoman Stabenow. It
is great to serve with you on this Committee, and it is an
honor to be at my very first Agriculture Committee hearing
under your leadership.
My home State of Georgia has a diverse agriculture economy,
leading the country in poultry production. We are also a high
producer of cotton, peanuts, fruits, and vegetables. It is also
the home of a large number of black farmers and other farmers
of color who have historically suffered discrimination at the
hands of the United States Department of Agriculture.
I am proud that the American Rescue Plan Act includes many
of the provisions that I put together to begin the process of
addressing this discrimination, including debt forgiveness and
new investments. Indeed, we have to do more. These farmers,
because of disparities rooted in our racial past, exacerbated
by COVID-19, are struggling just to stay afloat.
Mrs. Smallhouse, you noted in your testimony that policy
which addresses proactive measures to influence climate
conditions cannot be one-size-fits-all. I agree with you there.
Can you or anyone else on the panel talk about equity, talk
about the importance of ensuring that farmers who have faced
historical discrimination are included in these policy
conversation related to climate change and agriculture? How can
these farmers, particularly those who have small-scale farms or
manage diversified operations, to the climate change solution,
even while struggling to stay afloat?
Mrs. Smallhouse. Well, Senator, I would be happy to answer
that. Thank you for that question. You know, the fact is that
one of the reasons that I am involved in Farm Bureau is
because, with no disrespect to other agricultural groups, we
are one of the most inclusive and transparent organizations
that exist. We have lots of policy which tries to promote
farmers of all ethnicities, all types, traditional farming,
organic farming, urban farmers, rural farmers. I think that any
discrimination that has happened within the USDA or anywhere
else in the past is an absolute tragedy. The fact is that the
Farm Bureau at all levels, from the county to the State to the
national level, is ready to step up and fight for those farmers
and ensure that does not happen within the Federal Government
or anywhere else.
American agriculture is strong because of our diversity--
our diversity of thought, our diversity of types of farming,
our diversity of agriculture. I think that any programs that we
talk about for carbon sequestration and environmental
stewardship should be open and available to anyone who is a
steward over our natural resources regardless of who they are,
where they come from, or what they are farming.
Senator Warnock. Thank you for your response. It is
certainly true that historically disadvantaged farmers have to
be center in a policy around addressing the issue of climate
change, and I look forward to working with you in the future to
ensure that.
I am looking for the clock. It looks like I have got a few
more minutes.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Yes, you do.
Senator Warnock. Mrs. Wittman Stitt, your testimony noted
that technical and economic barriers often discourage and limit
the adoption of climate-smart practice. Additionally, Mrs.
Smallhouse asserted that the 1890 land grant institutions,
which are HBCUs, have served as an invaluable resource in
developing new technologies for our farmers to implement. We
have got land grant institutions in Georgia, including Fort
Valley State University. The Agricultural Research and
Cooperative Extension activities happening at these
universities are a lifeline for farmers in Georgia.
Could either of you speak to this question: What are the
barriers farmers face when attempting to adopt climate-smart
practices? How can our Cooperative Extension Service in Georgia
help farmers overcome these barriers?
Mrs. Smallhouse. Yes, if I may, I would be glad to speak to
that. Cooperative Extension is extremely important in our land
grant universities. I know here in Arizona, in the Southwest,
in New Mexico, we have desert ag centers and cooperative
extension experimental ranges. I am sure you have something
similar in the Southeast. Funding for ag research, which I
stated in my testimony, is absolutely imperative for this
effort moving forward. You know, we need to find crops that
grow faster and stronger in shorter growing seasons. That is
one of the challenges for cover crops. We need to find better
technologies for irrigation and holding that water in the soil.
Those would just be a couple of things, and I do not want
to monopolize the time, so I would then throw it to Mrs.
Wittman Stitt.
Mrs. Wittman Stitt. Absolutely, and thank you, Senator, for
that question. As I mentioned, we do quite a bit of on-farm
research just to figure out what is going to work in our
growing area. What we have discovered is that what works on one
end of the farm may not work on the other end, let alone in the
next county or region. These can be really costly experiments.
We still have to pay the rent on the ground whether or not a
certain experiment works or not.
The bottom line is we really need more robust research to
help develop these practices and get that information into the
hands of the producers that are implementing them on their
farms, and that research needs to span the country and cover
diverse growing regions.
Senator Warnock. Thank you very much.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much, Senator.
I believe we have Senator Fischer with us now.
Senator Fischer. Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Good morning.
Senator Fischer. Good to be with you today.
To Mrs. Wittman Stitt, in developing any voluntary climate-
focused program, our top priority should be ensuring
opportunities are easily accessible to producers. Repeatedly we
see solid, well-intentioned programs get lower-than-intended
participation, often because the regulatory red tape outweighs
any benefit farmers would receive. Put simply, if our goal is
to improve the environment, credit verification cannot be more
burdensome than absolutely necessary.
How does the Alliance plan to address this issue and ensure
that producers across the country are incentivized to
participate in the voluntary program?
Mrs. Wittman Stitt. Thank you for that question, Senator.
The Food and Ag Climate Alliance has put together package of
really incredible proposals that span the gamut. I will focus
specifically on the Growing Climate Solutions Act because I
think that is one of the first things that can provide a marker
in the ground. One of the things this legislation does is house
this process in the USDA. Farmers are accustomed to working
with USDA and with our local agencies, and that gives farmers
access to those programs. That bill is going to help give some
structure and validity and certainty to those wanting to enter
the carbon market. It would create a clearinghouse at USDA to
do that, and that would address some of our challenges with
certification and verification, process that right now are
extremely costly. That is just one thing that we can do to get
this ball rolling.
Senator Fischer. I know you know that the Corn Belt is
very, very diverse, and the country outside of that even more
so. This marketplace needs the flexibility to allow the various
cropping and grazing regions across the country to leverage any
tool to improve sustainability in a way that fits their unique
challenges, resources, and the crops and the livestock that is
raised.
How do we make sure that we do not create a program that
favors certain regions and their practices over another?
Mr. Pope. Well, if that is thrown out to everybody, I will
jump in real quick.
Senator Fischer. Good, okay.
Mr. Pope. One of the things that I had mentioned, going
back to your earlier question about verification, is this idea
of making USDA the referee, and I would use CSP as an example
where you have those local resource concerns through your State
that kind of drive that initial process of putting together
your plan to qualify underneath CSP. I think idea of having
USDA and those local service centers involved and, of course,
using conservation programs as an example, where you have
locally elected conservation districts that help set priorities
for those programs, you have your State agencies that work be
those districts and USDA, NRCS, I think you have got a system
that gives you some flexibility, if it is kind of modeled into
that, locally led, voluntary, incentive-based method that we
have had going back to the days of the Dust Bowl. I think we
can craft something that takes that into consideration because
it is not a one-size-fits-all. Even in my home State, I am a
wheat and cattle producer on dual-purpose winter wheat. I also
run cow-calf on grassland. You know, you go to eastern
Oklahoma, and you have got guys--we do have some timberland. I
made a joke about trees earlier, but there is timberland in
Oklahoma. You know, we have got cotton producers in southwest
Oklahoma. Even within just counties, just a couple counties
over, you have got a change in dynamics. That is why it is so
important that you have that locally led focus. I will put a
shout out to that. I think having that input--but, again, that
is why it is so critical that USDA serve as the referee and be
the guider in this system and use that same approach to tackle
this natural resource challenge the way that we have dealt with
so many in the past, and going back to that experience with the
Dust Bowl, quite frankly, did it in a good way.
Senator Fischer. Thank you, Mr. Pope.
I had a couple questions I wanted to get to Mrs.
Smallhouse. The opportunities for farmers to sell greenhouse
gas credits seem to be focused on projects that sequester
carbon in the soil. For a Nebraska feedyard or a cow-calf
producer, that may not be an area where they can engage. In
what ways are the voluntary markets valuing credits that are
derived from livestock practices, such as reduced methane
emissions?
Mrs. Smallhouse. Thank you so much for that question,
Senator Fischer. I think that, you know, a lot of practices
having to do with livestock operations, especially concentrated
feeding operations, are extremely expensive, and that is where
it comes into play again of having incentive-based, voluntary
actions. You know, California has done a lot of work with
digesters, methane digesters, and things like that. I think
that, you know, the partnering of the livestock feed operations
with the range operations shows that with the whole food system
in those industries, you are sequestering carbon, and it is
important that we all do it efficiently on every end.
If I could, I would like to agree with Mr. Pope. We are
both big fans of the conservation districts, and I did want to
answer your first question in the sense that I think that this
hearing today on behalf of Chairwoman Stabenow and all of you
Senators is a great first step, because, absolutely, it would
take you forever to talk to every farmer and get their
situation. The fact is that if you go to the farmer, if you go
to the rancher, and you get local input--and those conservation
districts were built for that--it is extremely important.
Senator Fischer. I agree. If I could, Madam Chair, I would
just like to make a point that I hope the Committee will look
at. Roughly 68 percent of the Ogallala aquifer sits directly
below Nebraska, and our farmers and ranchers are good stewards
of that precious resource. I would like to see us also get into
a discussion on the role of water conservation when we look at
the climate market space. Thank you very much to our panel.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much, Senator Fischer.
Those are points well taken that we need to work on together.
[Pause.]
Chairwoman Stabenow. I believe Senator Booker is with us,
another one of our great new members. Welcome.
Senator Booker. I am here for my first Ag Committee
hearing.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Wonderful.
Senator Booker. I am so grateful to the Chairwoman as well
as the Ranking Member for holding this hearing. I am so excited
and honored to be joining this Committee. It is really a
culmination of my Senate experience to be a part of this
convening where you see so much bipartisan work. I am really
glad we are focusing today on how we can help America's farmers
and foresters be partners in solving the climate crisis, I
believe be leaders in getting us out of this crisis.
We know climate change is a grave threat to our planet, and
we are already feeling its severe impacts. In recent years,
farmers have been on the front lines of some of the worst
extreme weather events, from droughts to floods to wildfires
and more. In addition to presenting us with big challenges,
climate change also presents us, I believe, with extraordinary
opportunities, and we have already had effective science-based
solutions that just need to be scaled up. We are already doing
things that point the way to the future.
Currently in the U.S., our forests and wetlands absorb
about 10 percent of carbon emissions. Scientists are telling us
that there is a lot of potential to sequester so much more
carbon if we make the right investments. I believe the people
that should be receiving those investments are farmers and
ranchers who will not only reduce the agricultural emissions
but substantially increase carbon sequestration in our soils.
Our witnesses have told us in their testimony that this
will make our farms and communities more resilient, protect
drinking water, reduce flooding, enhance biodiversity. With the
climate crisis here, I believe we do not have time to wait. We
must unleash the power of forests and farmlands to remove
carbon from the atmosphere and maximize the benefits of these
conservation practices.
I just want to say to all the witnesses, I was excited in
your testimony to see that there are many areas of agreement on
a potential path forward that we should take now, and I want to
say, if I can condense your testimony into four principles that
have broad agreement, that can be an immediate part of the
solution, and I believe should be the Committee's focus:
One, that any solution needs to be voluntary. Farmers are
already too often selling crops below the cost of production
and have a hard enough time keeping their operation going. We
need voluntary transition.
No. 2, Mrs. Stitt told us, ``We need to think big if we
want to tackle this problem.''
Which brings me to No. 3, increasing our investments in
existing voluntary USDA conservation programs such as EQIP,
CSP, CRP, must be a top priority. These programs are known and
trusted by farmers. They are already vastly oversubscribed.
Farmers are demanding more for these programs, and they include
practices that have been scientifically tested as well as
ground-tested.
Mr. Isbell stated in his testimony, ``The adoption of
innovative practices at the farm level has been largely due to
the financial and technical support provided through the USDA
working land programs.'' As Mr. Isbell also pointed out, in
2018, in the mid-South region, only 22 percent of EQIP
applications were funded. In other words, the overwhelming
majority were turned down because these programs are too darn
small.
Finally, is the fourth point: that we must invest heavily
in farm-level technical assistance. As Mr. Pope said and others
have told us, there is no cookie-cutter solutions here.
Practices that work on one type of farm in one region of the
country will not work for other farms. We simply will not be
able to achieve the adoption of climate-friendly practices at
the scale we need to without substantially increasing our
investment in USDA conservation programs.
I am really proud that in 2019--and this is what I want to
get my one question on--the Climate Stewardship Act which we
introduced is really a bill focused on climate solutions that
fall into the four principles I just laid out by massively
existing the proven programs with the USDA, including CSP,
EQIP, CRP, and the REAP program. The bill would triple the
funding for these practices and make a big difference.
Mr. Pope, in your testimony you reference how good
investing in soil health has been good, not just from an
economic--excuse me, not just from a climate change
perspective, but also from an economic perspective from your
farm's bottom line. Can you elaborate on that, please?
Chairwoman Stabenow. Senator Booker, I am just going to
jump in as well because I know you do not have a clock in front
of you. As a new member, I just want you to know, we have let
you go long on your time. We will let Mr. Pope answer the
question, but we very much appreciated your comments. Mr. Pope?
Mr. Pope. Well, Senator, like I said--and I appreciate that
question, because like I said, you know, if you look at where
we are at right now, we are cutting some of the best wheat we
have ever cut, and, you know, we are using roughly half the
fertilizer we did with conventional till, plus we are burning
less fuel. I mean, lower input costs, better yields. We are
still grazing cattle, plus we get 60 to 90 days worth of
grazing off the cover crops that we are following our winter
wheat crop with. For us economically, it has been a home run.
One thing I would like to say, though, kind of building off
of your statement leading up to the question, you mentioned
about conservation programs. I would also like to throw out
there that one of the things that I think needs to be given
consideration is how other programs fit in with this idea of
land treatment practices and, quite frankly, with the
conservation title. In my testimony I referenced the water
quality success of Oklahoma. A lot of that was done through EPA
Section 319 funds, which in Oklahoma we basically turned into
another cost-share program, and RCS provides technical
assistance for our State conservation agencies. It is a
priority area, FSA where applicable to help start a
Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, and we get all these
things working together. There is more that can be done in that
area, whether it is using State drinking water revolving fund
to encourage cities to look at land treatment as an alternative
to brick-and-mortar treatment plants when they have nonpoint
source pollution challenges, using some of the tools that rural
development, some of their water and wastewater loan programs,
and maybe trying to incentivize more in the way of partnering
again on land treatment practices.
FSA, talking about loan programs for things like redoing
grain storage facilities, incorporating energy efficiency into
that. It is real tempting, and it is easy to do, it is human
nature to get stovepiped, and this is what we look at. We look
at this practice. I had a chance to talk about water quality a
few years ago, and a gal from EPA said, ``Well, how is Oklahoma
addressing all this water quality? These producers are doing
this stuff to control soil erosion, to reduce input costs. They
are not doing it for water quality.'' My answer to her was,
``Look, ma'am, I like to drink beer, and I like to eat chicken-
fried steak. If I go to my doctor and my doctor says, `Clay,
you are drinking too much beer and eating too much chicken-
fried steak, you are getting fat, you are going to have a heart
attack,' well, I may or may not listen to him. If I walk home
and my wife opens up the door and says, `Clay, you are getting
too fat, you are drinking too much beer and eating too much
chicken-fried steak, you have got to lose weight because I do
not like the way you look--Senator,' I have got a problem.''
When I lose that weight to make my wife look happy, I am still
going to be avoiding a heart attack, and that is kind of the
same thing. If we can get these issues working together across
agency lines, I think we can get a bigger bite at this than we
really understand. The challenge is we have got to have that--
and I will throw in a plug for the hubs that were created under
Secretary Vilsack's first run as Secretary of Agriculture. The
idea of bringing everybody together and looking at what the
pieces of the puzzle look like and seeing what pieces are
missing I think is critical, and I think some success can be
there as well.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you, Senator Booker. We are so
glad you are part of the Committee. Mr. Pope, there was a lot
there to think about here. Thank you very much.
A vote has started for our members' awareness. At this
point I have Senators Marshall, Lujan, and Braun, who are still
wishing to ask questions. I do not have others at this moment.
We will just continue. I believe we can get through our
questioning before we have to vote. Senator Marshall, welcome
to you as well. We are very, very happy to have you on the
Committee from the wonderful State of Kansas, home of the
former Chairman.
Senator Marshall. Well, Chairwoman Stabenow and Ranking
Member Boozman, it is the honor of a lifetime as a fifth-
generation farm kid to now be sitting on the Senate Ag
Committee. I feel like I carry the weight of so many farmers
and ranchers and really so many Kansans as I come here and, as
you mentioned, filling some huge boots of Senator Pat Roberts
who certainly goes on that Mount Rushmore of ag policy
developers here in Washington, DC. We do not know who the other
three are, but certainly he goes on there somewhere--oh, of
course, yes, the Chairwoman and the Ranking Member as well.
It is an honor to be here, and I am excited that our first
Committee meeting that I get to attend is on really the
environment and innovative solutions, and this being my first
hearing on the Ag Committee, I want to go on the record that I
am in favor of a cleaner, safer, healthier environment, that I
want to leave it better than I found it, that I love the great
outdoors. My favorite memories are memories with friends and
family, hunting, fishing, boating, and even--it is hard for me
to believe I am saying this, but some of my favorite memories
were sitting on an Allis Chalmers tractor cultivating milo as a
young 15- and 16-year old, maybe driving a wheat truck to the
Burns co-op. I appreciate everybody who has been here, and I
just want to remind folks that farmers and ranchers were the
original conservationists, the greatest conservationists in the
world, that we are growing more today with less than we ever
did before, that we are feeding this country, we are feeding
the world, and being judicious with our resources.
Folks walk up to me and talk about no-till farming,
something we have been doing for 20 years on my farm. People
talk about precision agriculture. We have been doing that for
20 or 30 years in Kansas, but now let us take it to the next
level. We are here to talk about conservation and innovative
solutions, and I appreciate everyone's testimony and all the
many, many things that they have shared with us.
My first question is for Mrs. Smallhouse, and this is a
tough one. Is carbon a commodity? Mrs. Smallhouse, how do you
feel, is carbon a commodity?
Mrs. Smallhouse. Well, thank you for that question, Senator
Marshall, and I guess I would be a little tongue-in-cheek and
say that if farmers starting growing it, quote-unquote, then it
will be a commodity. We tend to do that to things because we do
such a good job and we are so efficient.
I think it certainly might be looked at that, but like
other commodities, we need to really be careful about the share
of that value that goes to the farmer, because what ends up
happening when you commoditize things is the share that goes to
the actual farmer who is doing the bulk of the work gets
smaller and smaller. I guess I would just leave that as my
answer.
Senator Marshall. Okay. I am going to try to help answer
then. I think this is a great discussion for us to have in this
Committee. Where is the value? If you are going to call carbon
a commodity, which I do not think it is, where is the value?
People are not being paid to produce the carbon. The value is
in the service of sequestration. For it to be considered a
commodity, we would have to develop standardized contracts for
trading the value of it as well. We do not trade on services
like shingling a house. I think that it is not a commodity.
Agriculture is already leading the way and is really the only
industry in the world that can actually already--is already
doing this. I think that someday we will be talking in terms of
when you grow an acre of corn, how much carbon are you taking
out of the atmosphere to grow an acre of corn or to grow an
acre of soybeans, or if you have 80 acres of pastureland, how
much carbon is that pasture taking out of the atmosphere?
My next question--I guess it will be my last question--this
is for Mr. Isbell. What are your thoughts on additionality and
permanence? This is for Mr. Isbell. What are your thoughts on
additionality and permanence? To participate in carbon
programs, how frequently do you think producers should be
adding new practices? How long should carbon be stored to be
eligible for carbon programs? What do we do for those producers
that have been doing innovative practices already for decades
to make sure they are not left out in the cold? That is for Mr.
Isbell.
Mr. Isbell. Absolutely. Well, thank you for that question,
and it is an important question because the reality is there
are a lot of farmers that have been doing these practices for
many years, and on our farm we have got some fields that we
have had in rice production for 60 years and built organic
matter up to seven-plus percent. If we create markets or create
policies that create perverse incentives, I mean, I would never
do this, but what the market would tell you to do would be to
go out and plow all that up, burn that carbon out of the soil
so I can soak it back up, basically squeeze the sponge dry so
that I can soak the sponge back full and then get paid for
that. We have to approach things in a manner that we do not see
that happen and we are not incentivizing that.
Now, on the other side of that, that is why it is important
that we look at practices beyond just carbon sequestration. A
ton of carbon that is mitigated is a ton of carbon that we
never have to sequester. A ton of carbon that is avoided or a
certain amount of methane or nitrous oxide that is avoided is
one that automatically has permanence, because we do not have
to track that further beyond that activity. We have activity-
based incentives that could flow through NRCS contracts, just
like the CSP, just like EQIP, where once that activity is done,
it has permanence. That would be a good approach.
Senator Marshall. Thank you so much. I yield back.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much. The clock is
moving on the vote. We are going to move to Senator Lujan. Are
you with us?
Senator Lujan. I am, Madam Chair. It is an honor.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Welcome. Another one of our great new
members. Welcome.
Senator Lujan. I appreciate that, Madam Chair Stabenow.
Good to be with you and Ranking Member Boozman for this
hearing. It is a pleasure to be with you all. I also grew up on
a small farm where we predominantly were self-sustenance
farmers, and all we have growing right now is a little bit of
hay and some alfalfa and some other tracts, but God willing, I
will be able to get back to growing and producing here soon.
Now, these issues matter to my constituents in New Mexico,
and like many other places, we are already living through the
impacts of changing climate. New Mexico has already seen
reduced snowpack, increased risk of wildfire, and severe
droughts.
Mr. Pope, in your testimony you talk about the importance
of using the best science and how we need to invest in research
monitoring, farm-level technical assistance to achieve these
emission reductions. New Mexico State University in Las Cruces,
New Mexico, is leading the way on this work for arid and semi-
arid climates across the globe. Why is this research so
important, especially for arid and semi-arid climates like
those in New Mexico?
Mr. Pope. Well, I think it has been touched on earlier. You
know, we have got to have across-the-board--we have got to have
that research and have it site-specific because we are dealing
with different realities even within States. As you know, when
you have variation between different regions of a State, you
are going to have different realities for those producers.
Making sure that they have information that is usable to them
and that they can access it, which goes to the point that was
made earlier about the extension service and getting that
information out there, I think is critical, because, again, one
of the challenges that we get into and one of the things I
think we really need to focus on is making sure not just that
those research dollars and resources are there, but they are
utilized in a way to really look at the challenges that we
face.
As I mentioned earlier, it is human nature to get
stovepiped, and sometimes you will have, you know, someone who
is working in the area of soil health who is an agronomist.
They do not necessarily focus the same way or address the same
issues that a soil scientist would. They do not incorporate
livestock because they are not an animal science producer.
Nobody is an econ professor, so they are not looking at the
economic impact.
We have got to have a coordinated approach that takes all
these things into consideration; otherwise, we are never going
to be able to crack that nut. I think it is critical that we
have those dollars out there for institutions like New Mexico
State, like Oklahoma State, Texas A&M, Texas Tech. You start to
go picking down through the list--and the Agricultural Research
Service, quite frankly, so that we have got those dollars out
there and that we are focusing them in a way so that producers
can have good, useful information that make sense to them,
close to home, that works on their farm.
Senator Lujan. Mr. Pope, you touched on this briefly, but
can you just briefly maybe answer this one. How can the Federal
Government better leverage our land grant universities' work in
this space? If you could talk about the importance of creating
demonstration projects and programs in different regions?
Mr. Pope. Well, I will jump on that last one first, because
I really think that is where the rubber hits the road. You
know, I will talk about from our own operation. I mentioned our
equipment when we converted to no-till. My dad was serious
about soil conservation. When you start talking about cover
crops, you know, the argument always comes back in. That might
work in Iowa, but it ain't going to work in Oklahoma. Then we
went to a meeting, and we had a producer who was doing a lot of
this work about 60 miles west of us. I remember dad coming home
and saying, ``Well, they are a hell of lot drier than we are at
Leedey. If they can do this at Leedey, I bet it could work at
Loyal.''
Having the chance--and professors and folks with ARS,
researchers, technical staff can talk all day long. If you
really want to make a difference, a producer who is doing
something on their land is always the best resource for another
producer to talk to, and hopefully having a demonstrationsite
within 40 miles of where they live so they do not have that
argument that it does not work here, if they can go talk to
that fellow and see what works for them, what did not work for
them, what they do different, what they are going to try next,
that is really where you get success. The demo farms, I
cannot--whether it is land grant schools, ARS, the conservation
partnership with NRCS or nongovernment organizations, having
those demos out there and those mentors for producers to turn
to, to talk to about some of this stuff is critical. I think
that is absolutely important and one of the best things we can
do, quite frankly.
Senator Lujan. I appreciate that.
Chair Stabenow, I have another question, but I will submit
it into the record. It really is talking about community solar,
small-scale renewable energy projects, looking at efforts with
some of dairies like in New Mexico where we are using this kind
of power to get the emergency we need for anaerobic digesters
and things of that nature. I will submit it back into the
record and just thank you for the time today, and I appreciate
the witnesses being available today.
I yield back.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Well, thank you so much. We are so
glad--as Senator Boozman and I both indicated,--to have you as
a great new member. You are yielding back time. You get extra
points.
We will now turn to Senator Braun, certainly no stranger to
this topic. We appreciate your partnership and leadership.
Senator Braun.
Senator Braun. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Ranking
Member Boozman and new member Lujan that wisely, with a vote
here, yielded back some time.
I am in an interesting place. I have spent a lifetime
building a logistics distribution business, but my true love is
becoming a tree farmer back in the late 1980's, and along with
that, I have been actively involved in agriculture. All I can
tell you is it is my therapy each weekend from my new job of
being a U.S. Senator.
For the witnesses that came in today, and such a breadth of
knowledge and input, I am not going to end up with a question,
but I want to invite any one of you on the panel today, as a
co-founder of the Senate Climate Caucus, to engage us, to come
in, and we do reach-outs to all kinds of stakeholders. What I
am going to use my four minutes here for is to give you an
overview. It was interesting, Senator Marshall's discussion:
What is a commodity? What is the cost of it?
I am going to give you an analogy of an emerging technology
that is reflected in the stock market in so many different
places where you see that there is no profit being made by the
company, but--and as a business owner over the years, I have
always tried to be ahead of the curve, spent time here in
trying to reform health care. I think climate is actually more
doable. I think so much of the quantifiable value of being a
good steward of your land or of your forest is yet to come.
I want to reflect something else we have heard from Senator
Booker as well. It has got to be voluntary. We have too much
that asks of the Federal Government for a Federal Government
that is definitely being strained to the max when it comes to
our own financial health. The more we can do it and do it to
where we have got stakeholders doing it in the trenches and it
is voluntary, it is going to work, it is going to stick.
Talk about ag farming and forestry, not to mention
livestock and poultry. I have been involved as a poultry farmer
for many years. The amount of improvement and things that we
are doing that you would have never imagined 10 to 20 years
ago, it is happening throughout agriculture.
I want to talk a little bit about the Growing Climate
Solutions bill. I have asked almost every Republican to look at
it. I think I have got enough that we can get that thing across
the finish line. I think where you can find real merits is not
in the row crop side of it at first, but on the forestry side.
Every farmer has forest ground that they generally do not pay
attention to because it has got intermittent income, it has got
a long-term return. Being involved in both, if you work either
investment well, I think you can get a better investment out of
your forest, because it is generally not managed
professionally.
Mother Nature generally takes care of the woods, and if you
let Mother Nature take care of it, she is good at many things;
but when it comes to sequestering carbon or actually using the
woodland in a way that is going to help this current
discussion, to me I view a lot more potential there, because
the other discussion was made: How do you measure your
baseline? How do you get markets to respond to the amount of
CO2 that you are sequestering? I think it is probably going to
be a little easier there out of the gate.
Many people that own woodland view it as kind of something
for recreation, not something that you get a great return on
your investment with or that you would be able to use as a tool
to effectively sequester carbon.
Talking to some folks this morning in the Climate Caucus
group with the technology of how you can measure CO2 that is
being emitted from forests. That might be easier and less
costly than farm ground.
I think what we need to know here is that climate is an
issue that is going to get increasingly more important. I think
it is going to be easier to tackle on a bipartisan basis. I
view it as a comparison to health care where you have got
stakeholders and an industry that is resisting it. I see across
the spectrum of climate different levels of business, finance,
technology, agriculture, transportation, energy production,
there is a willingness to do something. The bill that we have
got out there, the Growing Climate Solutions bill, would be the
easiest way to start, and I think for anybody that owns
forestland across the country, you are going to find that it
might even be more applicable to how you can help the climate.
Agriculture farmers are doing so much already.
Thank you.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you, Senator Braun, I very much
appreciate working with you.
The vote is near its end, and Senator Boozman and I are
going to need to go vote. I am going to leave the final
question and the closing of the hearing to Senator Hoeven. The
record will remain open for five business days for members to
submit a statement or additional materials.
I am going to turn this to Senator Hoeven. I have great
trust in Senator Hoeven to be in charge of this Committee.
After that, Senator Hoeven, if you would adjourn the meeting.
We want to thank again all the witnesses. It has been really an
excellent hearing.
Senator Hoeven.
Senator Hoeven. Chairwoman Stabenow, thanks so much. Thanks
for calling this hearing on this important issue. I likely will
go over my time because Ranking Member Boozman said he did want
to come back. He may have some additional comments. Yes, I will
keep it going until he gets back, just so you know in case
there is anything you want to come back for. I did say I----
Chairwoman Stabenow. This is a very dangerous situation, so
I am leaving the Committee in the hands of you and Ranking
Member Boozman. This is a bipartisan Committee.
Senator Hoeven. I would say based on our working
relationship, and with all the things we worked on, I think you
are in pretty safe hands.
Chairwoman Stabenow. I think I am.
Senator Hoeven. You know how much I like working with you.
Chairwoman Stabenow. All right, Senator Hoeven.
Senator Hoeven. [Presiding.] Again, thanks for calling the
hearing and for the opportunity to question these witnesses.
I am going to start--really, this is question for all of
the witnesses, and essentially with any program that we work on
in agriculture, I believe they have to be what I call ``farmer
friendly.'' Good farm policy benefits every American every
single day with the lowest-cost, highest-quality food supply in
the world, thanks to our farmers and ranchers. Good farm policy
benefits every single American every single day, but it starts
with making sure those programs are farmer friendly, rancher
friendly.
As we talk about CO2, we need to make sure that they are
farmer friendly, and so I would like each of the witnesses to
tell me: How do we make sure, how do we make sure as we
implement these programs, that they are truly farmer friendly?
You may want to touch on in each of your regions, how do the
proposed carbon payments compare with the cost of implementing
conservation practices needed to obtain the payments? Also what
is the break-even price for implementing carbon-reducing
conservation practices? So kind of keep those two things in
mind and then give me--and I do not want the whole litany, but
from each of you, I want the most important thing in your
opinion to make sure that these programs, whatever programs we
deploy, are, in fact, farmer friendly. Perhaps, Mr. Isbell, do
you want to start? Then we will just go through and have
everybody respond.
Mr. Isbell. Certainly, and I think the last part of your
question focused on the economics of practices and how this
would bring about certain credits. That is something that we
have got to be very cautious of paying attention to, because if
you look at the price of a ton of carbon, call it $20, and say
we can sequester or mitigate half a ton, that is $10 an acre.
Sometimes the cost of implementing the practice can exceed
that. The first thing that we can do that is farmer friendly is
make sure that as farmers adopt more risk and adopt more--as
farmers adopt more risk, that we find ways to offset that risk
through different incentives so that those costs do not
overwhelm the potential benefits economically.
You asked about farmer friendliness, too, and the first
thing I would say is that we have to listen to farmers. We
cannot impose solutions from above. We have to make sure that
the farmers are part of coming up with the solutions. The
previous Senator was talking about the Growing Climate
Solutions Act. One of the things I would say there is we have
to make sure that if that goes through, there are certainly
some tweaks that have to be taken care of. One of those is to
make sure that farmers have a voice on the Advisory Council. It
said that there are going to be ten members from agriculture,
but that is fairly broad, and I think some of those should be
focused on having a farmer voice there, as well as NRCS and FSA
seats on that.
The other thing I would say is that it has to be voluntary.
If it is going to be farmer friendly, it has to be voluntary,
and that does not just mean that you do not have to do it if
you do not want to. It also means it cannot be a predicate for
access to other programs. We have to make sure that these
programs----
Senator Hoeven. Can I stop you for just a minute?
Mr. Isbell. Sure.
Senator Hoeven. Can we put that last sentence in capital
letters and underline it twice when you talked about it being
voluntary? When you say ``voluntary,'' not just voluntary but
not be predicate for other programs, right? That is what you
said?
Mr. Isbell. Absolutely.
Senator Hoeven. Yes, let us put that in capital letters and
underline it twice. Thank you very much for saying that. I am
sorry to interrupt, but I felt that was very important.
Mr. Isbell. Absolutely. Then the last thing I would say is
that it has to be flexible. As I spoke about earlier, every
region, every crop can bring different themes to the table, and
we have to make sure that the programs allow for that, that
they unleash innovation rather than stifle innovation. If we do
not openly look at all possibilities, what we can do is we can
create distortions in the marketplace. We can create
distortions on planning what people plant. On our farm in
Arkansas, we grow only rice actually on our farm, which is kind
of an outlier. I tell people we do it because that is what the
dirt tells us to plant. If you try to plant something else, it
is not very sustainable because you are overusing resources to
underproduce a commodity. When we grow rice, we get the best
return not just on our economic investment but on the ecosystem
investment that we are making as well. We have to make sure any
policy that is implemented does not drive people to have to do
things on land that is less efficient than it should be.
Senator Hoeven. Right. Okay, Mr. Pope, how about you go
next? Add in also the role of our land grant universities in
this. I think it was Senator Lujan who mentioned that. I
strongly agree with him that we need to have our land grant
research universities involved in this as well. That could be a
component you may want to touch on, too. Maybe, Mr. Pope, you
would like to go next.
Mr. Pope. Well, I will touch on that real quick, because
clearly research is a key component, as I told Senator Lujan,
in making sure that we have got information that is application
to where we are at I think is critical, and that idea of
demonstration farms fits into that, and busting across research
doctrines from hygronomy to soil science to animal science, ag
economics, you name it.
Beyond that, we are talking about, you know, what we need
to do to make sure that this is farmer friendly. I am going to
echo--I am not going to go over a lot of the same ground that
has been gone over. I think clearly voluntary, incentive-based
programs that have local leadership--and I think that local
leadership component is extremely key because that helps as far
as making sure it is addressing local natural resource
concerns, and it also feeds up that information up the line to
the USDA, to help them know what is working and what is not and
how programs can be tweaked, I think that is critical as well.
Part of that I am going to put in here is this idea of
having USDA serve as the referee on any ecosystem's marketplace
and having, I believe, a public sector option for verification.
I think that is critical. We have experience in carbon credits
in Oklahoma. I have experience both on selling credits as a
producer and working with the conservation districts on setting
up the program that was run. That was a State program by State
statute.
One of the things I think is important is that you do not
have a situation where for a $10 credit a producer is paying
$9.50 for verification and having to take two days to go out
and do all the work that has to be done or hire somebody to do
it. It is just going to be too unwieldy, too expensive, too
complicated, and they ain't going to do it. If you can have a
situation that is offered as part of the technical assistance
from USDA--probably NRCS would be the best fit, but that is up
for discussion. Clearly, some sort of verification system that
is public in nature, that is made available to that producer, I
think that is a key component. Then also, I think,
understanding--and that it has got to be part of the economic
model. You know, everybody wants to go green. Cash is green,
too. If a farmer and I entered into a cherry operation, we
would have to make a profit. It has to be something that makes
economic sense for the producer, but at the same time
recognizes the other co-benefits that go with it. That is
something I am going to throw out there for the Federal
Government to look at. We talk a lot about producers that are
in areas that may not sequester as much carbon or early
adopters. Society gets a benefit when agricultural producers
undertake practices that control soil erosion, that protect
water, that sequester carbon, that avoid emissions, reduce
overall greenhouse gas levels, that do things to improve
wildlife habitat, that conserve water. All of these
environmental benefits, I think there needs to be consideration
of that given as to how that does assist the body politic, the
social society in multiple ways, and recognize that, whether it
is through marketplaces, whether it is through some form of
incentive-based program. You know, I mentioned an expanded CSP
or a CSP on steroids, some hybrid, whatever it would be.
I think that is key, and, again, as we said, voluntary,
incentive-based, locally led that makes sense for producers,
having USDA serve as that referee, having research from the
Agricultural Research Service and our land grant schools, I
think that is the model. Now the question is how we build on
that, that super structure to make it work.
Senator Hoeven. Yes, I think both those answers have been
strong answers.
Let me go to Mrs. Smallhouse.
Mrs. Smallhouse. Yes, thank you, Senator. This is such an
important questions, really, right? Farmer friendly, the ones
that are going to be doing the work.
First of all, I want to say--I am not going to repeat what
has already been said because I agree largely with Mr. Isbell
and Mr. Pope, but a couple of new points. We cannot rob Peter
to pay Paul. You have a lot of good programs at USDA that
farmers are already using, and those farmers are using programs
to accomplish other things, like air quality. They may not get
the value that another farmer might get for a certain practice
to do carbon sequestration, but the fact that they are doing it
is just as important.
We tend to tackle problems, especially in Government, I
think, that we look at something in a vacuum. It is like, okay,
climate sustainability, now we are going to put all of our
efforts into this, and every dollar is going to go to this,
everything is going to go to this. Well, agriculture is a
completely and very complex system, as we saw during the
pandemic. Very complicated. We have to remember when we are
looking at these policies, what impact is that going to have on
maybe a trade relationship or something else, emerging markets
for farmers? Is it going to keep them from entering other
markets for growing things?
Also, you know, along those lines is access to technology.
Much of what we can accomplish for carbon sequestration is
dependent upon biotechnology. If farmers are discouraged from
using biotechnology based on labeling issues or trade issues--
so what I am trying to do is bring around the response of how
interconnected agriculture is and how complex the system is,
and we cannot create this policy in a vacuum with just looking
at certain aspects.
The other thing I will say to this point is that the
Western region cannot be left out of this conversation in the
sense that, you know, there is a lot of land in the West that
is owned by the Federal Government, and the fact is that, you
know, ranchers that are public land grazing on those lands
provide a huge service to the Government and to the country as
a whole in the work that they are doing to manage those
forests. We have a lot of forests that are not in good shape
right now. You look at the travesty of wildfires. It is not
something we have talked a lot about today. A huge issue. There
is more carbon being emitted into the atmosphere from fires in
the West right now than we can possibly sequester or that
States have already sequestered. A huge issue.-
In terms of farmer friendly, do not make policy in a
vacuum. Regulation will lead to consolidation, and that is not
what we want. Basically, just do no harm to existing programs
that farmers are already making use of, maybe for another
purpose but still just as important to our environment and our
society.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mrs. Smallhouse. Again, I think
you make really important points, and particularly as we are
looking at drought this year in our part of the world, your
comments in regard to fires. Across the board, again, I think
you made very important points as we look at this issue.
Let me turn to Mr. Reifsteck, same question.
Mr. Reifsteck. Okay. Thank you, Senator. You know, we are
going to be asking a lot of our farmers to implement these
plans on their farms. That is going to take a lot of technical
expertise. Today we simply do not have the capacity, with
Government agencies, with extension, to provide that kind of
expertise on every farm. We have to recognize that.
Now, we could add more expertise, more funding to help
those, but we also have to realize that there are other
organizations that want to collaborate with farmers in reaching
good solutions. My cooperative, my cooperative system, has
hundreds of trained agronomists. We have Ph.D.s, we have soil
scientists. We are on those farms all the time. We have
relationships with those farmers. We understand how they farm.
We can be and we are planning on being part of the solution. We
can help them implement practices. We are already exchanging a
lot of the data that is going to be necessary to do the
verification. We are looking at technologies that we can add on
with our cooperative system that can provide that kind of
verification.
We have to encourage other parties to be a participant in
this, recognizing the limitations on the land grant
institutions and on the Federal agencies. I think that we have
to recognize that contribution that is available.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you. I appreciate that. Mrs.
Smallhouse, you mentioned not cannibalizing good programs that
we have now that are working for our farmers and ranchers, like
EQIP, as we deal with this issue. Again, I want to highlight
that point you made, which I think is a very important one as
well.
Then, finally, I would ask Mrs. Wittman Stitt for your
thoughts on the same question.
Mrs. Wittman Stitt. Absolutely. I am not going to belabor a
lot of things that have already been said. I think my
colleagues have touched the majority of the huge points, things
like voluntary, incentive-based, must make economic sense for
farmers, but the concept of do no harm to existing programs is
critical. I want to zoom out a little bit and make sure we do
not forget the process of how we can get to some of those
goals, and that is really----
Senator Hoeven. Do not leave out the part on research
universities, because you did a good job of summarizing the
rest, but make sure you touch that, too, will you?
Mrs. Wittman Stitt. Absolutely. I think to that end,
facilitating partnerships, whether it is with universities or
other technical service providers, that is a huge component.
To zoom out for just a minute, I think we really need to
focus on ensuring any policy is written and influenced by
farmers. We have an unprecedented opportunity with the Food and
Agriculture Climate Alliance having put forward policy
recommendations. We can continue to have this dialog with the
Ag Committee taking a leadership role in a very bipartisan
discussion, I think we really have a unique opportunity to pass
legislation with the input of farmers, which can then pass to
the USDA that has great relationships with those farmers for
implementation.
I think we are on the right track and I am excited to have
the invitation to continue this dialog with the Committee.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you to all of the witnesses for the
thoughtful answers. I very much appreciate it, and I will turn
it back to our Ranking Member.
Senator Boozman.
[Presiding.] Thank you, John, and I just want to say
quickly how much I appreciate Chairwoman Stabenow having the
hearing today, all the people that have participated. The
witnesses have been great. Then, as always, the people that
make this happen are staff who work so very hard to get these
things together. It is difficult.
I think we have learned a lot in today's conversation, and
it is one of those issues that the more you learn, the more you
want to delve into it, and we certainly want to look at all of
these proposals that will make such a tremendous impact on
agriculture, make sure we do it right.
We had a great panel today from the FACA group, and
something I hope that we can do in the future is hear from
forestry a bit more in-depth in the sense that really does
offer--you know, it is a group that really can offer a great
deal as far as carbon sequestration.
With that, the meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:46 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
MARCH 11, 2021
=======================================================================
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
=======================================================================
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
MARCH 11, 2021
=======================================================================
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
MARCH 11, 2021
=======================================================================
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]