HOUSE AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE HEARING
Overview
For questions on the note below, please contact the Delta Strategy Group team.
On February 11, the House Agriculture Committee held a hearing entitled “Examining the Economic Crisis in Farm Country.” Witnesses in the hearing were:
- Dr. John Newton, Executive Head, Terrain, Washington, D.C.
- Alisha Schwertner, Owner, Eric and Alisha Schwertner Farms, Miles, TX
- Ryan Talley, Partner, Talley Farms, Arroyo Grande, CA on behalf of the Specialty Crop Farm Bill Alliance
- Rodney Weinzierl, Owner, Weinzierl Farms, Stanford, IL
Below is a summary of the hearing prepared by Delta Strategy Group. It includes several high-level takeaways, followed by summaries of opening statements as well as witness testimonies and a summary of the Q&A portion of the hearing.
Key Takeaways
The following is a summary of the main topics explored in the hearing. Each is discussed in further detail in the Discussion section below.
- Chairman Thompson (R-PA) emphasized the necessity of addressing rising input costs, global competition, and outdated safety nets for rural economic stability, warning that farmers are operating at a loss, burning through equity, and struggling to secure financing. Republicans called for a modernized Farm Bill safety net and raising reference prices to match market conditions and increased input costs, emphasizing that the American Relief Act was only a band-aid for farmers, while Scott (R-GA) pointed to the need to increase the current ten percent of Farm Bill funding allocated towards production agriculture. Witnesses discussed the importance of creating policies and making investments in trade that support farmers in developing new markets, alongside increasing domestic demand to raise commodity prices and export values.
- Representative and witnesses highlighted that input costs, including fertilizer, fuel, and seed, remain at record highs, while commodity prices have dropped significantly. Representative Rose (R-TN) emphasized that reference prices in the Price Loss Coverage (PLC) and Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) programs must be updated to better reflect current production expenses.
- Schwertner called for extending certain Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) provisions, arguing that eliminating the estate tax would prevent farms from being forced to liquidate assets in generational operation.
- Representative Miller (R-IL) highlighted that Brazil’s soybean exports has grown dramatically, overtaking the U.S. as the world’s top soybean exporter and eroding U.S. market share, with concerns about U.S. farmers losing competitiveness in global markets. Representative Nunn (R-IA) called for increased funding for the Market Access Program (MAP) and Foreign Market Development (FMD) Program to help U.S. farmers expand export markets and counter foreign competition.
- Representative Rouzer (R-NC) raised concerns over declining ethanol demand and its impact on corn prices, questioning whether the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) still provides sufficient market support for corn growers. Weinzierl advocated for the implementation of a high-octane fuel standard to expand biofuel markets, increase demand for corn-based ethanol, and stabilize commodity prices.
- Representative Budzinski (D-IL) raised concerns about trade uncertainty, specifically questioning whether a ten percent tariff on Canadian ethanol would provide greater certainty for U.S. producers, with witnesses unanimously opposing the measure. Representative McDonald Rivet (D-MI) warned that a twenty-five percent tariff on Canadian fertilizer imports could significantly increase input costs, with Weinzierl cautioning that it would exacerbate already tight farm margins and make production less viable.
- There was bipartisan recognition of and concerns about the adverse effects of federal funding disruptions on individual producers and agricultural economies. Representative Craig (D-MN) noted that funding freezes on key programs, including Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), have left farmers with outstanding payments and delayed projects. Witnesses expressed concerns over outstanding Department of Agriculture (USDA) contracts and grant payments, warning that continued funding disruptions could destabilize farm operations.
Opening Statements & Testimony
Chairman G.T. Thompson (R-PA)
The agricultural economic crisis is severe, with commodity prices plunging while input costs remain at record highs. Many farmers are operating at a loss, burning through their equity, and struggling to secure financing to survive another year. According to the Agriculture and Food Policy Center, the five-year outlook for major commodities is the bleakest on record. Instead of choosing profitable crops, producers are now considering which will result in the smallest losses. Thankfully, Congress secured $31 billion in aid to offset 2024 economic losses.
We must confirm Brooke Rollins as Secretary of Agriculture to expedite this aid; farmers and their lenders cannot wait. Agriculture has always been cyclical, but the bad times are now longer and more severe, underscoring the urgent need for a new Farm Bill with a strengthened safety net. We cannot afford a repeat of last year’s Farm Bill debate this year. Beyond immediate relief, we must address the root causes of this crisis: burdensome regulations, tax uncertainty, and harmful energy and environmental policies. We need to expand markets for U.S. agriculture. While concerns about tariffs and trade retaliation exist, recent negotiations show the U.S.’s strong leverage, which must be used wisely to advance an America-first agenda and protect U.S. agriculture. We need to navigate this crisis by crafting a Farm Bill that meets the needs of our producers and provides stability.
Ranking Member Angie (D-MN)
Farmers across the country are struggling with the daily challenges they face, from high input costs and low prices, persistent inflation, and climate-related risks to shifting consumer behavior and market volatility. USDA grant dollars, already appropriated by Congress and under contract, have been frozen; Trade wars with key partners and major export markets have been threatened; American-grown food is rotting in warehouses in Texas. We have seen how trade wars lead to retaliatory tariffs on farmers, cutting off foreign food assistance programs that serve as vital markets and farm income sources, which directly harms producers and rural communities. Congress must do its part to bring stability, and that starts with passing a new Farm Bill. This would strengthen the safety net, reduce red tape, and create new opportunities for beginning farmers. Whether farmers rely on PLC, ARC, or crop insurance, they need a Farm Bill to keep their businesses running and continue feeding our communities as well as the world. This Committee has always found a way to bring Democrats and Republicans together for the common good of farmers, rural communities, and families across America. We must do so again in negotiating a bipartisan Farm Bill.
Dr. John Newton, Executive Head, Terrain, Washington, D.C.
Since the high-income environment of 2022, we have seen a stark divide in the farm economy, with inflation-adjusted net cash farm income for corn and soybean farm families declining by 45 percent, reaching its lowest levels in fifteen years. Since 2022, excluding government payments, inflation-adjusted net farm income has fallen by $43 billion, or 26 percent, to $138 billion in 2025. For many row crop and specialty crop farmers, profit margins have been tight or below break-even for years due to high inflation, input costs, and lower farm gate prices.
When factoring in the $30 billion emergency financial assistance to farmers from American Relief Act, inflation-adjusted net farm income is projected at $180 billion, an increase of 26 percent from last year. Farmers prefer to earn their income from the market rather than rely on federal aid and in today’s farm economy, ad hoc support is providing the only financial lifeline. Over the past decade, agriculture has faced unprecedented economic challenges that traditional Farm Bill programs were not designed to address, leading to an overreliance on emergency support. Ad hoc assistance is unpredictable and cannot be relied upon during economic crises like the one we are experiencing today. The next Farm Bill must end this uncertainty by strengthening risk management tools, with the cost of critical farm risk management and conservation programs as less than eight cents per meal. The American people would support additional investment in the Farm Bill to ensure a more secure, sustainable, and economically viable food system. Farm credit institutions stand by farmers through the highs and lows of the agricultural economy, but the time to act is now.
Alisha Schwertner, Owner, Eric and Alisha Schwertner Farms, Miles, TX
Farming has never been easy, but the past three years have been especially challenging for farm and ranch families. We have endured extreme and unpredictable weather disasters, inflation, supply chain disruptions, and international conflicts; all of which have driven up input costs and cut into already thin margins. The farm economy is at a crossroads. We are price takers, not price makers, at the mercy of volatile markets. Since peaking in 2022, crop prices have plummeted, with corn and wheat down 37 percent, soybeans down 28 percent, and cotton has dropped 22 percent. Despite these declining prices, farm program payments are projected to be the lowest since 1982.
Another contributing factor to declining farm income is the failure to secure additional trade agreements for agriculture. Trade is vital to agriculture, as more than 95 percent of the world’s consumers are outside the U.S., and nearly 1/3 of U.S. farm income comes from exports. The possibility of retaliatory tariffs on our agricultural products threatens market access and could severely impact farm profitability. As farmers and ranchers work to maintain equity and secure financing for 2025, economic uncertainty has made it increasingly difficult to access credit. We are continuously looking for ways to diversify our income while questioning whether a future in farming remains viable for our family. Many farms like ours will not survive under these current economic conditions. Without adequate policies and support, farmers risk losing everything, including the ability to pass our legacy and profession on to the next generation. Congress must take further action in making significant investments in farm safety net programs that reflect current economic conditions. Long-term solutions are needed to address rising input costs and market volatility, with the strength of our food system, rural communities, and national security depending on it.
Ryan Talley, Partner, Talley Farms on behalf of the Specialty Crop Farm Bill Alliance
Investing in specialty crops is a strong value for taxpayers and is an investment that benefits all Americans. Specialty crops account for nearly half of the farmgate value in the U.S., yet, under current law, specialty crops receive only a small fraction of their proportional share of Farm Bill resources. Exporters face uncertainty in foreign markets, while domestic producers struggle with competition from lower-cost imports. Meanwhile, severe weather events such as hurricanes and droughts are occurring more frequently. Although USDA has improved its ability to provide ad hoc assistance to specialty crop growers, we need Congress to enact a comprehensive, bipartisan Farm Bill that invests in the long-term competitiveness of our industry.
Rodney Weinzierl, Owner, Weinzierl Farms, Stanford, IL
Two fundamental issues are driving this downturn: lack of demand and rising input costs. That is why we continually invest in and advocate for U.S. government investment in three key markets: livestock, ethanol, and exports. Last year’s Farm Bill included increased funding for the Foreign Market Development and Market Access Programs, targeting demand growth from international buyers. Expanding investment in these programs could significantly impact the agricultural economy, especially as we face the fifth annual trade deficit in seven years. Export markets drive demand and profitability, creating new opportunities for family farmers. Another crucial opportunity is ethanol and the potential to expand this market to substantially improve farm profitability. If the U.S. implements a robust, high-octane, cleaner-burning fuel standard, it will allow for increased sales of corn-based ethanol, directly benefiting U.S. corn farmers. The second issue is input costs. These costs surged during a period of high commodity prices and have yet to decline to sustainable levels for family farmers to remain profitable.
There are two key areas where this Committee can make an impact: crop insurance reform and increased transparency in input costs, particularly fertilizer prices. Nitrogen fertilizer costs have risen dramatically in recent years, despite the relatively stable price of natural gas, the primary feedstock. While global market factors, including the Russian invasion of Ukraine, have created supply challenges, the fertilizer industry has twice had opportunities to expand production to meet demand yet failed to do so. Increasing market transparency or developing risk management tools, such as futures contracts on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME), could help farmers manage input costs more effectively. If crop insurance rates were reevaluated, particularly in the Midwest, we could generate hundreds of millions of dollars in savings directed toward improving crop insurance and supporting other Farm Bill programs. From my on-farm experience, I have observed trends in conservation practices that could further reduce risk and generate additional savings in crop insurance. On my farm, no-till and cover cropping have strengthened soil resilience to drought and excess rainfall, reducing the need for insurance indemnity payments and lowering loss ratios. However, these conservation practices have been implemented without the assistance of Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) programs, as their rigid practice standards limit innovation and sometimes pose risks to productivity. NRCS should focus on providing much-needed technical support to all farmers, regardless of program enrollment, to encourage more widespread adoption of conservation practices.
Discussion
Chairman Thompson: (R-PA): Why do we need crop insurance and Title One programs, and why is there such robust support for Title One? Newton: With crop insurance, farmers have very large deductibles as they often take more than fifteen or twenty percent of deductible and crop insurance, and at times, farmers take very deep losses before crop insurance ever triggers an indemnity to the grower. Title One programs have always been layered with crop insurance and offered a cushion in the event of a low price or low revenue environment like today. Farmers need to have options for risk management tools and a larger toolbox for their customized risk management strategies. Farm production expenses hit a record high in 2022, but the support levels and reference prices that we have in the Farm Bill are based on decade-ole information. Farmers want to see increased reference prices with higher levels of support to match the additional financial burdens, such as very high input costs.
Chairman Thompson: (R-PA): What is the extent of farmer’s having trouble with the banks and loans, and what will be the impact be if the farm economy direction does not shift? Schwertner: As a new and beginning farmer, and for many other producers, there have been many tough conversations with bankers over the last three, consecutively challenging years. Roughly twenty percent of farmers and ranchers are having these tough conversations as a significant challenge that we face. The Farm Bill is not just for farmers and ranchers; it is a rural Farm Bill for all rural communities, and agriculture supports rural communities.
Chairman Thompson: (R-PA): What is your experience with the Temporary Agricultural Worker Program (H-2A) program, and what reforms or improvements should be top priority? Talley: In 2016, the H-2A program saved our family farm because we could not find labor anywhere. Fast forward seven or eight years, the cost has gone up thirty to forty percent. Each dollar added to the H-2A wage is a million-dollar expense in labor costs to our farm, taking off our bottom line. H-2A likely saved likely saved our farm but now could possibly spell the demise of our farm due to escalating wages.
Ranking Member Craig (D-MN): How many farmers are taking such steps to try to avoid future costs from potential tariffs? Weinzierl: Fertilizer has already gone down, with concerns about Canada supplying ninety percent of our imported potassium fertilizer, one of three macronutrients in row crops. Hopefully, some of the uncertainty around trade will have resolved by the time ag retailers begin stocking up for the fall and locking in season contracts.
Ranking Member Craig (D-MN): How will federal funding disruptions affect USDA following through on contracts? Do you all have or know of anyone with outstanding frozen funds? Schwertner: We expect USDA to honor contracts, but I am very concerned about it. As a producer, I have several hundred thousand dollars of outstanding funds with EQUIP funded projects and we have never not been paid. I am confident this Administration will continue holding true to its promise of taking care of producers. We will get paid regardless of freezes that might be in place, but given the currently tight margins, there needs to be urgency in figuring out a path forward; Talley: Adjusted gross income (AGI) limitations make it so specialty crop producers cannot meet the criteria due to the high-value of their products. Farms or businesses with seventy-five percent of their income derived from agriculture are more aligned with the specialty crop industry, allowing them to better qualify for and utilize programs.
Representative Lucas (R-OK): What are specific input costs and operational burdens you have experienced? Schwertner: Input costs used to reflect an increase in commodity prices, but since 2022, commodity prices have been cut in half, with input costs only coming down twenty percent with several hundred percent increases. The safety net does not recognize or reflect current market conditions. At the risk of accommodating those rising input costs, we are looking at ways to streamline operational efficiency, such as adopting conservation practices that avoid input costs for chemical products, but the tillage over no till situation contradicts the conservation practices we tried so hard to implement. It also restricts our capital investment and opportunity for operational growth; Weinzierl: Where a corn-soybean rotation is common, variable costs per acre are around $700, with fixed costs at $300. Fertilizer, mainly nitrogen, makes up about $300 per acre with corn at over forty percent of costs, and soybeans at fifteen percent. In recent years, phosphorus and potassium levels have been built up in the soil, allowing for reduced application rates. Once nutrients are depleted, they must be replenished. Saving money with soil fertility is much harder than spending it, and rebuilding soil fertility will require good financial conditions; Talley: We continue to pay elevated input costs, with across-the-board input expenses going up from a minimum of thirty five percent to up to sixty percent; Newton: Every single input category cost is up, and we have seen some land values come down a little bit due to the critical state of the farm economy. We have reached a new base-line level for input costs; Schwertner: For cotton, fertilizer input costs are roughly twenty to thirty of our overall input costs.
Representative Costa (D-CA): What will the effect of a full-out tariff war with Mexico and Canda be on U.S. agriculture? Talley: For specialty crops, many of our commodities are highly perishable and could be decimated by a trade war. I agree that tariffs are not the way to create a level playing field. Specialty crops still did not benefit from the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) subsidy, creating a floor for agriculture production because AGI is always an issue.
Representative Costa (D-CA): How do we make the crop insurance effort more user friendly to the specialty crop industry? Talley: The specialty crop industry is unique, particularly in its current insurance needs. We are not able to utilize it to its fullest because it needs to be revamped, especially for the crop industry, and we believe it can serve as a safety net.
Representative Scott (R-GA): Do you agree that the projected sharp increase in net farm income for 2025 is largely driven by and comes from economic and disaster assistance? Newton: Yes, 23.6 percent of net farm income is expected to come from disaster or assistance payments. The anticipated increase in ARC and PLC payments is primarily due to projected declines in commodity prices, alongside natural disasters, with three years of tight margins. This will be a tough time for farmers to break even, as the ad hoc support is not going to make anyone whole. Our farm safety net is broken and does not work where it really needs to work, with $30 billion in ad hoc support over six years. There is a six to one ratio between ad hoc support and the support from Farm Bill programs. We need a modernized, five-year Farm Bill that will give producers the toolbox they need to manage risk in today’s farm economy; Scott: We need a three-year, not a five-year Farm Bill due to the market changes, such as reference prices no longer reflecting the cost of production.
Representative McGovern (D-MA): If USAID is dismantled and stops buying commodities for global food aid, valued at over $2 billion, would that have a ripple effect of uncertainty on the farm economy and producers? Weinzierl: There are a couple USAID commodities programs of value, with ones on soy and soy-corn mix. I do not how the amount in order to determine how it would affect farm commodity prices.
Representative Crawford (R-AR): Do you support the idea around the Farm Risk Abatement and Mitigation Election (FRAME) Act establishing a tax-deferred farm savings accounts to give farmers a choice in responding to disasters? Newton: The Arkansas Farm Bureau explored this topic, and the challenge we face is that farmers must have money before they can contribute to an HSA-type account. Given the current downturn in the farm economy, there is not much money available for such contributions. However, the concept has value, as it allows farmers to set aside funds during good times to help offset downturns.
Representative Brown (D-OH): What are some of the changes that should be made to crop insurance programs to encourage access, improve coverage, and increase industry resiliency? Talley: We need to revamp the crop insurance program and by collaborating with USDA for a thorough improvement process. The current system is clunky and hard to use, creating more uncertainty for users. Access to this safety net is invaluable, with uncertainty driving up prices for consumers.
Representative Rouzer (R-NC): Do you think this Committee’s Farm Bill advantaged southern producers over others, affecting prices? Weinzierl: We were hoping for some improvement in Title One and as I look at the projections, we would lose $200 per corn and bean acre, with a $20 increase. We need to look for better ways to improve the program, with a focus on Title XI.
Representative Rouzer (R-NC): Is about forty percent of the corn market due directly to the RFS? What would the price of corn be, and what would the ethanol industry look like without RFS? Weinzierl: From a net standpoint, twenty-seven percent but forty percent of the corn goes into ethanol, and then distiller’s dried grains with solubles (DDGS) is sold as a co-product. The ethanol market is in decline, which is why we are advocating for another generation of biofuels policy around a high-octane fuel standard. Demand is everything for soy and corn producers, all row crop producers, due to the demand for biofuels. When the RFS passed, it did not just impact corn and soybean farmers; anything we can do that will turn that around from a corn standpoint will help all crow crops. I do not have an estimate for corn pricing without RFS. When you chew up thirty percent of the corn crop as a demand point, it certainly helps support prices.
Representative Bost (R-IL): Have you felt secure in industry over the last several years? Can you speak to the importance of expanding and streamlining credit programs for producers who struggle with access to credit? Schwertner: No, I have not felt secure; Newton: We have lost 300,000 acres from over 7,000 farms since 2017; Weinzierl: As we look at the three demand sectors in corn, none of them are very healthy, but there is a bright spot in Canada as the largest importer of U.S. ethanol.
Representative Budzinski (D-IL): Would the potential imposition of a ten percent tariff on Canadian ethanol imports create more certainty for farmers? All: No.
Representative Budzinski (D-IL): With the farm safety net and crop insurance as primary risk management tools, do you believe crop insurance is functioning effectively, and do Title One payments sustain your operations? Is it a sustainable investment? Do you believe payments on planted acres are a more thoughtful approach to commodity assistance? Weinzierl: No, it is not. Changes are needed as crop insurance is a crucial part of producer operations. We initially had some apprehension about the program but recognized that planted acres align well with addressing input costs for the crops we are growing now. With the payment structure being moved up, payments will arrive when needed rather than a year after the marketing year. We need to reset and align Title One to be more responsive. We have received very little from Title One in the past; it is not part of our cash flow budgets, and lenders do not expect or want it factored into cash flow statements.
Representative Johnson (R-SD): Why is it problematic that Title One coverage does not always align with the recent changes in planted acres, and is this issue exacerbated regionally? Weinzierl: Title One acreage was originally based on 1980 to 1983 figures and there have been limited opportunities to update those acres. We updated ours in 2014 to reflect recently planted corn and soybean acres, my family will have to live with my 2014 decision, with many farms still tied to decisions made by their grandparents. The ad hoc relief passed last fall was critical, as using recently planted acres helps producers manage current input costs. Corn expanding regionally has affected our crop insurance rating, as we have likely lost about 2 million acres to soybeans. For those familiar with the corn-bean rotation, there is tremendous synergy in alternating the crops each year for agronomic and yield benefits. However, Title One bases have not been updated to reflect these changes.
Representative Johnson (R-SD): Is Title One out of alignment with what we need and have those concerns been alleviated in the policy process? Weinzierl: In a downturn when farmers do not have money, they cannot pay for the input costs, which tend to be very sticky, and it takes a downturn to force those input costs down.
Representative Miller (R-IL): What can Congress do to help ensure the risk management agency is able to balance cheaper insurance while still maintaining enough premium in the risk pool to help cover losses from catastrophic events? Weinzierl: We have changed our crop rotation in order to insulate ourselves from climate events and lower risk. We began moving towards cover crops because it the organic matter into soil, building more resilient soil with more water holding capacity oil, especially if planting is more resilient and can take water faster due to bigger rain events. We are doing everything we can to mitigate risk and not use the program. We just want our risk management practices to be reflected in the rates we pay.
Representative Miller (R-IL): What provisions in the Tax Cut and Jobs Act (TCJA) do you support for extension? Schwertner: Any savings that we have on taxes is something that we can add back into investments on our operation. Specifically, we need expanded tax brackets and an extended or eliminated estate tax. Those are two areas that significantly impact operation, particularly the estate tax in generational ownership.
Representative Sorenson (D-IL): What does crop insurance mean for the financial viability farms, and what do we need to do to level the playing field? Weinzierl: It is the risk management tool farmers rely on. Anything we can do to make those rates more competitive and lower costs for those policies is critical. The practices farmers are adopting lower their risk, with corn and soybean yields going up. One thing to address is Actual Production History (APH) rules in regard to the timeline captured, such as twenty versus ten-year period.
Representative Mann (R-KS): What are the challenges agricultural lenders facing when working with producers? What does it do to the lender in regard to ad hoc disaster assistance versus working with producers on more certain long-term programs like crop insurance? Newton: Farm Credit supports producers through both good and bad times, ensuring and helping them understand how various risk management tools and crop insurance, as well as ARC and PLC, will function for the 2025 crop year. We are beginning to incorporate expected farm program payments, including Farm Act ad hoc assistance, into financial outlooks. Our partnering Farm Credit associations have developed a crop insurance tool called Optimum, which helps farmers make the most informed decisions for their operations. By combining crop insurance, ad hoc support, and Title One programs, Farm Credit is working closely with producers to create a comprehensive plan to navigate the challenges of this growing season.
Representative Wied (R-WI): Is there a deficit surplus in exports regarding the state of trade between Mexico, Canada, and China? What has changed in the last two years, and do we need to do better in negotiating agricultural fair-trade policy? Newton: Mexico is our top agricultural export market. Canada is number two and China is number three. Agricultural exports have fallen sharply over the last few years, with a projected largest agricultural trade deficit of nearly $46 billion. We had record agricultural exports in 2022, largely on the back of record purchases by the Chinese under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) Phase One agreement that was renegotiated and contributed to very strong agricultural exports several years ago. In the last two years, the value of our agricultural products in this current downturn in the farm economy has shown lower corn and cotton prices, contributing to a lower value of our agricultural exports. At the same time, agricultural imports continue to set new records every single year. Americans want year-round access to fruits and vegetables, with our agricultural imports exceeding $200 billion for this fiscal year. We need to do better in negotiating freer and fair trade as it relates to agriculture.
Representative McDonald Rivet (D-MI): How will the impending tariffs affect agricultural imports and exports as well as producer decisions? Weinzierl: The potential twenty-five percent on ninety percent of our Canadian potash imports will add costs, with soybean or corn farmers putting on around $100 to $125 worth of potassium per crop, at a $25 per acre impact. We are estimating that we will lose $288 for a corn acre across those three years, and $140 for bean acres. Farmers make their money on a margin, and we already have a negative margin that will get larger. Agricultural retailers will have to price in the tariffs on fertilizer and that will cut into our margins.
Representative Messemer (R-IN): How would policies, like the Farm Food and National Security Act, promote farms succession help ensure generational operation? Schwertner: The estate tax is a huge deal for farmers and ranchers because of the capital that goes into farming operations and the expenses. We also need a modernized Farm Bill that reflects the current market solidifies crop insurance programs because while ad hoc payments are helpful, they do not provide certainty to the lender.
Representative Taylor (R-OH): How can we adopt precision agriculture technology, such as GPS and yield mapping, and what are the benefits for rural connectivity? Schwertner: I rely heavily on rural connectivity in order to provide off-farm income. Equipment and new technology rely on connectivity, and we cannot lose out on those inefficiencies. We need to leverage these tools; Talley: With lasering, ripping, and discing, we have seen twenty percent savings across time and costs.
Representative Taylor (R-OH): How does increased competition in the international markets and the U.S.’s eroded edge in the soybean export market highlight the need for a Farm Bill, and what are the main barriers to expanding our agricultural export markets? Please submit your response for the record.
Representative Newhouse (R-WA): What is the importance of trade programs like the Market Access program, the foreign market development programs, and what impacts would doubling our investment have? Newton: Sixty-seven percent of our agricultural exports go to our top six markets. Doubling the funding would help farmers expand to and develop in new markets to continue to grow export opportunities.
Representative Gray (D-CA): Do you share concerns about the long-term prospects of funding for the Pima Cotton and Wool Trust Fund? Schwertner: I am not familiar with Pima cotton considerations, but I will respond in writing.
Representative Nunn (R-IA): Do you agree on the importance of foreign market access for row crops, especially with the trade deficit, what will happen if we fail to pass a Farm Bill that includes additional Market Access Program (MAP) and the Foreign Market Development (FMD) program funding? Weinzierl: Funding for MAP and FMD is crucial in continuing to open markets and maintaining existing relationships.
Representative Nunn (R-IA): If improvements to last year’s Farm Bill safety net had been implemented for this crop year, would there be any indication of positive effects? If the safety net had been aligned with current costs, would ad hoc assistance have been necessary? Weinzierl: From data I have seen it would be slightly better for corn and soybean farmers but not to the magnitude that is needed. What the Committee did in the ad hoc program was much more substantial, with at least twice the impact of what we would have seen, but also because the payments were not tied to a marketing year. Because it was tied to planted acres, it directly affected the cost that we are seeing in the high prices; Schwertner: No, it is not necessary with an adequate farm safety net that prevents the need for ad hoc assistance.