"Increasing Demand and Opportunities for Homegrown Products Here and Abroad"
Legende
Markierungen im Transkript
- Text Aktuell abgespielter Satz
- Text Suchergebnis
- Text Redebeitrag, auf den der geöffnete Link verweist
Klicken Sie auf einen Satz, um das Video ab dieser Stelle abzuspielen. Markieren Sie Text, um ihn mit Redner, Zeitstempel und Link zu zitieren.
Weitere Optionen
House Agriculture U.S. House of Representatives
Ihren Sitzungen folgenAngie Craig
For example, and I know I sound like a broken record on this point, making simple policy reforms like allowing year-round E15 would be a big help to the farmers that I represent in Minnesota. The truth is, though, that this administration can't seem to get out of its own way. Earlier this Congress, Republicans and Democrats worked hard to get E15 included in an omnibus appropriations package, only to have that effort fail once again. The administration destroyed USAID, which in previous years purchased roughly $2 billion worth of US-grown agricultural products annually. The administration cancelled the previous administration's programs that resulted in purchases of food from local farmers for our schools and communities.
And the Trump administration more recently sold out American cattlemen by prioritizing 300,000 metric tons of Argentinian and Brazilian beef, even as our ranchers struggle to rebuild the US herd. The president's govern-by-tweet approach has rattled cattle markets with small producers selling calves at $300 to $400 less than they were just a few months ago. That's money taken from farmers and handed to our foreign competitors. Not exactly America first. Congressional Republicans cut $187 billion in nutrition assistance, throwing millions of American citizens off SNAP, including more than 1.5 million children, resulting in less American food being bought and more hungry Americans.
That represents about $25 billion in lost revenue for family farmers. The administration cancelled funding to help young and beginning farmers acquire farmland so they could get into farming. The president declared a worldwide trade war. The American Farm Bureau calculates losses due to Trump's tariffs to be around $30 billion for the 25-26 crop year. And that's before he threw the latest trade grenade at Canada, one of our largest trading partners.
Now, I know that a number of my colleagues on the dais today can't criticize or complain many of the policies that I also know they don't support. The administration began a war with Iran that sent the cost of fertilizer and fuel to record highs. Farm diesel is at $6.31 per gallon as of this morning. I could go on and on and on, but at some point the chairman would probably ask me to stop. The result of all these actions are lost opportunities and higher costs for farmers.
Consequently, Americans' America's farm country is in a crisis. 15,000 farms were lost just last year, according to USDA's own data. Farm production expenses are forecast to increase by $7.1 billion this year. Farm bankruptcies were up 70% in the Midwest over the past year.
The administration brags about reducing the ag trade deficit, but it's not because farmers are exporting more. It's because Americans are importing less because they cannot afford Trump's tariffs. So I say again, if we want to create opportunities instead of closing them out of markets and putting a bullseye on their backs with tariffs and trade wars, maybe the administration should start by getting out of its own way. When you're in a hole this deep, the first step to getting out is to stop digging. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today who represent a wide range of perspectives and expertise.
I hope to hear an honest assessment, not only about what proactive, positive things can be done to improve demand for their products, but also what this administration should stop doing that undercuts those opportunities. I'll conclude with one final statistic, which I think speaks for itself. USDA expects direct government farm payouts will increase by nearly 70% this year. If the president or the country was winning, like he says we are, farmers wouldn't need 70% more government payouts this year than last year. They would be getting it from the marketplace, like they want.
Trump is running up a tab that hardworking Americans cannot afford. Congress must start standing up for farmers and stop giving the president a free pass at the expense of farm country. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Glenn Thompson
I thank the gentlelady. The chair would request that other members submit their opening statements for the record so the witnesses may begin their testimony and to ensure that there's ample time for questions. Our first witness today is the Honorable Alexis Taylor, the Chief Global Policy Officer at the International Fresh Produce Association. Prior to this role, she served as the Under Secretary of Agriculture for Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs. Our next witness is Mr. Patrick Johnson, a farmer in Tunica, Mississippi.
Our third witness today is Mr. Carlyle Currier, the President of the Colorado Farm Bureau. Our next witness is Dr. Alex Buck, the Chairman of the Board of the Plant Based Products Council. Our fifth witness is Mr. Tyler Shields, the Chief Operating Officer of the Bingaman and Son Lumber Incorporated. And our final witness today is Mr. Chad Franke, the President of the Rocky Mountain Farmers Union. Thank you to all for joining us today and we're now going to proceed to your testimony.
You'll each have five minutes. The timer in front of you will count down to zero, at which time your point, at which point your time is expired. Under Secretary Taylor, please begin when you're ready.
Alexis Taylor
Thank you. Good morning, Chair Thompson, Ranking Member Craig, and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today and for holding this hearing to better understand the issues that are critical to the future of American agriculture. As was mentioned, my name is Alexis Taylor, I'm the Chief Global Policy Officer at the International Fresh Produce Association. IFPA proudly represents growers, shippers, distributors, retailers, and food service providers across the fresh produce and floral supply chain.
They feed American families, support two million jobs, and contribute more than $335 billion to the US economy each year. American specialty crop growers have faced a convergence of economic pressures over the past several years. Input, regulatory, and labor costs have all risen sharply, while farm returns have not kept pace. And these challenges are amplified for specialty crops, which are uniquely labor intensive and often have limited ability to absorb input cost increases because of their perishable nature. A strong specialty crop sector requires more than productive farms.
It requires profitable markets, growing consumer demand, and the ability to compete.
But the amount of assistance is only part of the equation. Program structure matters just as much. Assistance should be based on actual sales losses, not acreage, to provide a more accurate measure of economic harm across a sector with widely varying crops, costs, and market values. This committee took an important step in the farm bill to establish a framework for specialty crop assistance, but stronger language is needed to require this framework to be used. Beyond the immediate need, labor reform would provide critical long-term support for the sector.
The H-2A program has not been meaningfully updated in decades, which is why IFPA strongly supports Chairman Thompson's Securing Agriculture's Workforce Act. Thank you, Chair Thompson, for your leadership on this issue. Beyond these improvements in the long-term viability of the specialty crop sector, Congress also has powerful tools at its disposal to increase demand for fresh produce here at home. Today, nine out of ten Americans fall far short of the recommended fruit and vegetable intake levels. Strengthening federal nutrition programs to ensure they provide consistent access to fresh fruits and vegetables will not only help Americans improve their health through better diets, it also strengthens domestic markets for American farmers.
To meet this opportunity, we need systematic solutions to make it easier for everyone to choose fresh fruits and vegetables. This includes fully funding the WIC fruit and vegetable benefit and modernizing USDA's procurement to prioritize produce. And because convenience and trust drive what people buy, investing in reliable, efficient supply chains and in maintaining confidence in the safety of fresh produce deeply matters as well. Finally, we need to preserve access to key trading partners and open real opportunities abroad to strengthen the competitiveness of the US produce industry. The US exports over $7 billion in fresh fruits, vegetables, and florals each year, but our growers face real barriers to competing.
Tariffs on critical ag inputs raise costs to farmers who are already economically strained and create uncertainty that makes planning difficult. Non-tariff barriers like shifting pesticide residue limits and unscientific sanitary and phytosanitary requirements can shut American products out of foreign markets entirely. Trade also plays an important role in maintaining year-round access to affordable fruits and vegetables for consumers while also creating new opportunities for American growers abroad. Continued federal investment in market development programs such as TASC, MAP, and FMD provide US growers and businesses with critical tools to address trade barriers and expand export opportunities. Congress has a vital role to play in easing the pressures facing specialty crop growers, strengthening their competitiveness, and growing demand for American fruits, vegetables, and florals.
These are not separate objectives. When we invest in nutrition, reinforce consumer confidence, expand markets at home and abroad, we create a stronger demand and a stronger future for US specialty crop producers. On behalf of the International Fresh Produce Association and the US growers we represent, thank you all for your leadership on these important issues and holding this hearing today. I look forward to your questions.
Glenn Thompson
Under Secretary Taylor, thanks so much for your testimony. Mr. Johnson, please begin when you're ready.
Patrick Johnson
Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Craig, and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify here today. My name is Patrick Johnson, and I'm a partner in Cypress Brake Planting Company, a family farming operation in Tunica, Mississippi, where we grow cotton, rice, corn, soybeans, and wheat.
While recent years have been very difficult, let me first state that I'm enormously grateful for all of the things that Congress, USDA, and the Trump administration have done to help producers. But significant challenges remain. In the Mississippi Delta, producers like me are facing the fourth consecutive year with input costs that exceed market prices. Additional short-term assistance is important, but the long-term sustainability of our operation depends on building stronger markets and increasing demand for the crops we grow. In the case of cotton, nothing would be more beneficial to me than the passage of the Buying American Cotton Act, or BACA.
Under BACA, items fully manufactured in the United States or imported into the US would qualify for a tax credit based on the level of US cotton content and US-based processing. Higher credit values would apply to US cotton items produced entirely in the US or in countries with which the US has a free trade agreement or preferential trade program. The opportunities are enormous. American consumers currently purchase about 18 million bales worth of cotton products each year, of which about 4 million bales worth of goods contain US cotton. BACA is designed to close that gap and turn the purchasing power of the American consumer into demand for US-grown fiber.
In addition, the bill would reorient cotton supply chains by incentivizing manufacturing in the US and with our partners in this hemisphere. BACA is common-sense legislation. It is no surprise that congressional support for the bill continues to grow. So far, the House legislation has the backing of nearly 100 cosponsors from both sides of the aisle, stretching across the country from California to Maine. In fact, only one other bipartisan tax bill introduced in this Congress has more cosponsors.
Cotton farmers will also benefit from increased consumer awareness of the virtues of choosing natural fibers over synthetic alternatives. Last year, the cotton industry launched the Plant Not Plastic campaign to educate consumers on the environmental harm and adverse health impacts caused by microplastics from polyester clothing and textiles. So far, this campaign has reached tens of millions of US consumers. Because cotton is not the only commodity I produce, I'm also encouraged by the increasing support for the Grown in America Act, which would establish a tax credit to incentivize the purchase of US-grown crops, including rice. The legislation's 25% tax credit would apply to qualifying businesses, including farmer cooperatives, based on the value of the commodities purchased from US growers that are used in domestic manufacturing of food and beverage products.
Passage of the Grown in America Act would boost demand here at home, where producers can realize more of the value of their crop while generating greater economic activity and jobs in our rural communities. Reducing our dependence on foreign markets would also decrease volatility and ease supply chain pressures. Both BACA and the Grown in America Act share the same goal and are parallel in purpose, even though the mechanics of the two bills differ to meet the unique needs of each supply chain. Both bills are essential, and I hope that Congress will move to pass these pieces of legislation before the end of the year. We must work to bring our cotton and rice markets back to profitable levels and strengthen domestic demand.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to your questions.
Redner 7
Mr. Johnson, thanks so much for your testimony. Much appreciated. Mr. Currier, please begin when you're ready.
Carlyle Currier
Good morning, Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Craig, and members of the committee.
My name is Carlyle Currier, and I serve as president of Colorado Farm Bureau. I'm also here today representing the American Farm Bureau Federation. I want to thank you for the opportunity to join these committee proceedings and share my testimony. I live and ranch in Colorado's Western Slope, in the rural community of Plateau Valley, home to about 1,400 residents. Ranching is the lifeblood of our community, sustaining families like mine since the 1880s.
My son Joel is the fifth generation on our ranch. Joel and I raise beef cattle and ship calves in the fall when they come off our US Forest Service permit at around 600 to 700 pounds. Our beef is fed, finished, and enters the supply chain for consumers. Like many other businesses, ranching return is tied to demand. The return on my investment in my own herd is forever tied to consumer demand for American beef.
As an aging rancher, I often run calculations as to how tax liabilities impact today's bottom line and tomorrow's next-generation ownership. Fortunately, Congress fortified long-term capital investments into the beef industry by making permanent critical tax provisions in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act passed last summer. Provisions like permanent estate tax exemptions and business income deductions will enable farmers to invest back into our businesses, encouraging herd rebuilding and empowering succession planning. Ranching in the West comes with many challenges. I'd like to thank the committee for including necessary updates to the Livestock Forage Program, or LFP, the Livestock Indemnity Program, and vitally important animal health programs.
Because of these changes, ranchers who experience D2 or greater drought for more than four weeks are eligible for LFP. More importantly, LIP will now cover unborn livestock losses. Nothing helps a cattle rancher more than strong demand, fair and free trade, and a consistent marketplace. Recently, producers have been receiving record prices for their cattle. This is due in part to the closure of the Mexican border because of New World screwworm, persistent drought, and ranchers exiting the business while cattle prices are at record levels.
These factors and others have led to the lowest cattle numbers in the United States in many decades. We greatly appreciate American consumers' unwavering demand for beef, and we are acutely aware of the sensitivities surrounding the cost of it at the grocery store. Ranchers are no different. Numerous products essential to our operations have also increased in price. The fact remains that the price consumers are paying for beef in the store are the result of supply and demand.
I'm not alone when I say I was caught off guard by the recent decision to waive the tariff-rate quotas on 300,000 metric tons of lean beef trimmings for 90 days. Since the announcement, cattle prices have dropped 15%, which equates to $300 to $400 per head. Furthermore, this is happening when most ranchers are selling their spring calves. To put it simply, the timing of this announcement could not have been worse. I mentioned earlier about premiums.
There is no better premium than the USA label. We are thankful that the President and his administration are continuing the voluntary Product of the USA label that was proposed and finalized under his predecessor. This voluntary label can create increased opportunities for ranchers like me to capture additional premiums within the market. Under the 2026 standards and criteria for the voluntary label, the Trump administration empowered Americans, producers and consumers alike, to leverage the power of the free market. While consumers often face sticker shock at the grocery store, prices have not discouraged consumers from purchasing muscle cuts of beef.
In fact, demand has increased year over year.
The improved quality of beef has kept demand strong. Suffice to say, consumers around the world cannot get enough of the high-quality beef produced by American ranchers. We must continue to pursue open trade opportunities that allow us to supplement our country's demand for beef. Producing high-quality American beef and bolstering the market for primal cuts as center-plate proteins equips producers to capitalize on premier retail opportunities that are expanding like never before. Durable policy decisions have long been the hallmark of federal ag policy that has provided much-needed sustainability for ranchers in their communities.
It is legislation like the farm bill that has provided the framework for farm economies and our local food system. As both a rancher and a consumer, I certainly recognize that we must carefully balance producers' bottom lines with the affordability of our nation's food supply. Reactionary policy decisions often cause unrealized turbulence rather than realized gain. Thank you for having me here today, and I'm happy to answer any questions the committee may have.
Redner 3
Mr. Carrier, thank you so much for your testimony. Dr. Buck, please begin when you're ready.
Alex Buck
Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Craig, and members of the House Agricultural Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this important topic. It's my first time testifying before Congress, and I'm honored to appear before you as the chairman of the Plant Based Products Council. In addition, I serve as the director of industrial innovation at the Iowa Corn Growers Association, where I direct research and business development projects on behalf of Iowa's corn farmers. The Plant Based Products Council, or PBPC, represents businesses large and small that contribute to the bioeconomy supply chain, including farmers, feedstock processors, manufacturers, and companies that use plant-based products.
As a feedstock-agnostic organization, we are dedicated to policies that expand consumer-driven markets for plant-based products and advance the adoption of renewable plant-based materials for uses beyond food and fuel. Some plant-based products already on the market today include power tool lubricants, soaps and shampoos, construction materials, textiles, and lightweight packaging, to name just a few of the thousands of products on the market today. As a PhD chemist, but more importantly as a husband and a father, I trust plant-based products and use them every day in my home. PBPC launched its annual consumer research program in 2020 to better understand how Americans view plant-based products and the broader transition to renewable materials. In 2025, 86% of consumers said they are likely to purchase or use plant-based products within the next three months.
Plant-based products are no longer a hypothetical market. Consumers increasingly see these products as everyday options, creating demand for farmers and others across the supply chain. PBPC's research also shows more than 72% of consumers say they support federal laws, including tax breaks, that would incentivize the build-out of the American ag bioeconomy. As demand for bio-based products grows, so does demand for the corn, soybeans, wheat, and other crops used to produce them. Every new bio-based product represents a new customer for America's farmers.
By supporting the bioeconomy, Congress can help ensure that agricultural production remains connected to a diverse and growing range of markets in the United States. The bipartisan, bicameral Biomanufacturing and Jobs Act would strengthen USDA's support for bio-based products and help modernize federal policies that support market growth.
And we appreciate the Ag Committee's leadership to include provisions of this legislation in the House-passed Farm Bill. Among its provisions, the legislation would modernize USDA's BioPreferred program and improve federal procurement opportunities for bio-based products. The legislation would also enhance data collection and market visibility and establish more consistent terminology for bio-based products. Additionally, the bipartisan bicameral Agricultural Biorefinery Innovation and Opportunity Act, or the Ag Bio Act, would greatly strengthen and improve USDA's biorefinery, renewable chemical, and bio-based product manufacturing assistance, also known as Section 9003. We are again appreciative of Chairman Thompson and the committee's leadership on this issue and glad to see many of these provisions also included in the House Farm Bill language.
Simply put, we cannot win the global race for bio-manufacturing if American innovations must leave the United States to scale. The US has world-class farmers, abundant agricultural feedstocks, and outstanding research and innovation. However, we need stronger incentives to ensure that those advantages translate into domestic bio-manufacturing investment. The bipartisan Bio-based Materials Investment and Production Act would offer tax incentives to expand production capacity for plant-based products in the United States. Let's export valuable plant-based materials, not jobs and technology.
The agricultural bioeconomy offers an opportunity to expand markets for farmers, create jobs in rural communities, strengthen domestic manufacturing, improve global competitiveness, and enhance national security through a stronger domestic bio-manufacturing base. On behalf of the Plant Based Products Council, thank you for holding this important hearing on new markets and the opportunities they create for American agriculture. Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I'd be pleased to answer any questions.
Glenn Thompson
Dr. Buck, thank you so much for your testimony. Mr. Shields, please begin when you're ready.
Tyler Shields
Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member, and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Tyler Shields and I serve as Chief Operating Officer of Bingaman & Son Lumber, a third-generation family-owned hardwood products manufacturer headquartered in Pennsylvania. Our company operates five facilities across the Commonwealth and purchases green lumber from more than 125 sawmills throughout Pennsylvania and neighboring states. We produce a full range of hardwood products, from logs and lumber to chips, pulpwood, and value-added products, serving customers in more than 40 states and 35 countries, generating more than 75 million in annual sales. Today I come before you as a proud member of an industry facing significant challenges.
US hardwood lumber production has fallen from 12 billion board feet in 2000 to roughly 4 billion board feet in 2025, driven largely by low-cost imports and substitute products. Hundreds of rural sawmills and pulp mills have closed as a result, and in just the last five years, the industry has lost more than 40,000 jobs. Despite these challenges, I believe our industry remains optimistic about the future of American hardwoods because we understand a simple truth. Americans are deeply connected to their forests, and healthy forests are only possible when strong, reliable wood products markets make active management economically feasible. Well-structured federal programs and policies can help rebuild demand for American wood products while supporting our rural economies and forest health.
Federal innovation programs already demonstrate what's possible. Efforts like the Farm Bill's Wood Innovation and Community Wood Grant program help manufacturers modernize equipment, adopt advanced technologies, and bring new value-added hardwood products to market. Bingaman is proud to be Pennsylvania's first manufacturer of thermally modified hardwood lumber, and we are now a partner in advancing emerging hardwood mass timber applications.
With assistance from the USDA and the US Forest Service, we've invested over $20 million in modernizing our material handling systems, expanding kiln drying capacity, and implementing AI-enabled lumber inspection technology. These investments have improved our efficiencies, addressed workforce challenges, and strengthened our ability to remain resilient in rapidly changing global markets. But innovation only reaches its full potential when paired with strong, reliable markets, and that's where federal policy plays a critical role. Federal procurement is one of the most direct tools available. When federal agencies build, renovate, or furnish facilities, American hardwood should be prioritized.
This aligns with recommendations advanced by the National Hardwood Lumber Association, sets an example for state, local, and institutional investment, and ensures taxpayer dollars support domestic hardwood manufacturers, our forest landowners, and our rural communities. A targeted tax incentive would further strengthen demand and encourage broader adoption of sustainable, domestically produced wood products. Wood innovation grants that strengthen the Real American Hardwood Coalition boost consumer and specifier demand and awareness, while abroad, the American Hardwood Export Council, funded through the USDA's Market Access and Foreign Market Development program, expands markets, reduces trade barriers, and grows global demand for American hardwoods. Research investments should be increased and coupled with a stronger results-driven commercialization strategy to accelerate the transfer of promising forest products laboratory innovations into marketable products. Workforce development also remains essential.
Programs like the Jobs in the Woods Act and the RISE program will support training models shaped by employers, responsive to modern skill demands, and capable of preparing workers for the full forest product supply chain. Bioenergy and renewable fuel markets offer another opportunity to create demand for low-grade wood, mill residuals, and forest restoration material. Updating the Renewable Fuel Standard to allow woody biomass from public and private lands to qualify as RIN-eligible feedstock will create exciting new renewable fuel markets while supporting forest resilience. However, as we work to strengthen those long-term foundations, short-term stability also matters. The proposed $12 billion agricultural relief package includes $200 million designated for hardwood manufacturers.
This will provide critical short-term support to businesses as they continue to navigate economic uncertainty. We appreciate the Hardwood Federation and Chairman Thompson's leadership in ensuring hardwoods were included in this package and look forward to its passage. A stronger future for the American hardwood industry depends on vibrant, well-functioning markets that reward innovation, support existing infrastructure, sustain our rural communities, and keep forest landowners engaged in the active management our forest desperately need. Thank you to the committee for your leadership on these issues, your support of rural manufacturing, and your commitment to America's working forests. I look forward to your questions.
Chad Franke
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Craig, and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Chad Frankie, and I serve as president of Rocky Mountain Farmers Union, representing over 14,000 family farmers and ranchers across Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico. I also serve on the board of National Farmers Union. I grew up on a fifth-generation farm and cattle ranch in northeastern Colorado. My wife and I created and operated a Berkshire pork business and a feed mill before selling that and moving to central Wyoming several years ago.
Today's hearing is about building demand. We need strong local and regional markets, new opportunities for farmers and ranchers, and stable export markets. But demand alone is not enough if farmers and ranchers cannot capture the value of that demand. Family farmers and ranchers have been under tremendous economic pressure for decades and are at a breaking point. Congress has had to repeatedly step in with emergency assistance because decades of failed farm policy has not addressed the underlying causes of farm income instability.
Family farmers and ranchers want fair markets, not government payments. One of the biggest barriers to creating new opportunities is the lack of fair and competitive markets. Recently, I spoke with a colleague about building a USDA-inspected facility capable of processing about 200 head of cattle per day. This would be for a source-verified, state-branded beef product. On paper, the investment makes sense.
In practice, it will probably never be built. The reason is not a lack of cattle. It is not a lack of consumer demand. It is not a lack of profitability. It is uncertainty created by a marketplace dominated by a handful of large companies with enormous market power, as recognized by President Trump and Secretary Rollins.
When people do not believe they can compete on a level playing field, they won't put their investment at risk. When investment in new ideas stops, we miss opportunities to meet local demand for homegrown products. We see the same challenges at RMFU's Cooperative Development Center, where we help evaluate new business opportunities to build stronger local economies and the demand this hearing is about. But too often, good ideas run into the same obstacle: highly concentrated or unstable markets make the dollars not work. That is why increasing demand and increasing competition must go hand in hand.
Congress should protect and strengthen the Packers and Stockyards Act to bring more accountability to the large meatpackers, reinstate mandatory country-of-origin labeling for beef so that consumers know where their product comes from and American ranchers gain that recognition for their products, continue the efforts to strengthen antitrust enforcement across the economy. These are not separate issues from demand; they are essential to ensuring that demand actually benefits family farmers and ranchers. We should also continue investing in local and regional food systems. Many Farmers Union members expanded production and invested in the equipment necessary to serve schools and food banks through USDA's local food purchasing initiatives. Those programs created stable markets and helped growers connect with their communities.
When the programs were canceled last year, not only did it hurt the communities that they were serving, but many farmers were left with the lost markets and lost investment dollars. That experience highlights an important lesson: building new markets takes time, financing, consistency, and commitment. Farmers need confidence that successful programs and markets will not disappear overnight or be taken from them. The House Farm Bill authorizes these local food efforts and is a good start, and we're thankful for their inclusion. Family farmers and ranchers are always looking for ways to create more value, develop new markets, and meet consumer demand.
We are ready to do our part. But if we want more investment, more processing, more local foods, and better opportunities for American agriculture, we need markets that are fair, competitive, and stable. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you, and I look forward to any questions.
Frank Lucas
Thank you, Mr. Franklin.
At this time, members will be recognized for questions in the order of seniority, alternating between majority and minority members, and in the order of arrival for those who joined us after the hearing convened. You'll be recognized for five minutes each in order to allow us to get to as many questions as possible. I recognize myself for five minutes. Mr. Johnson, would you set the scene for us on some of the unique challenges the cotton industry is facing today? From your perspective, how do you see the Buying American Cotton Act mitigating some of those challenges and further benefiting the entire cotton supply chain from the producer to the consumer, and in particular, the unfair competition we deal with the Chinese and what's going on in the ginning industry?
Patrick Johnson
Okay. The cotton industry, cotton production, just like many other crops, producers are facing ever-increasing input costs. We have USDA projects that in 2027, per-acre cost for cotton will exceed $1,000 for the first time, and that'll be a, that would be a record high. Cotton has a, very requires specialized equipment. A cotton picker costs $1.2 million, or a stripper that is used in Oklahoma and Texas close to a million dollars.
It has a single purpose. And so our markets really haven't kept up with that. BACA, we have two major challenges. Brazil has come on and is now the number one exporter of cotton that we compete with, and also synthetic fibers are our other competition. And BACA works to incentivize brands and retailers first of all to use cotton rather than synthetics, and in particular to use US cotton.
And if you look at that in my testimony, we're using 18 million bales, buying 18 million bales worth of cotton in this country. Only 4 million is US, but there's an additional 22 million bales of polyester, synthetic fibers that's being used. So BACA helps shift some of that market share back to cotton, and in particular US cotton.
Frank Lucas
Ms. Taylor, wheat is one of Oklahoma's top export commodities. And I know my wheat farmers in Oklahoma see the value in market promotion programs like MAP and FMD. In your opinion, how will the investments made into these programs from the Working Families Tax Cuts Act and the Farm, Food, and National Security Act help expand markets abroad and provide greater certainty for farmers who are dealing with tough commodity prices here at home?
Alexis Taylor
Thank you, Congressman. I think for those market development programs that are based at USDA, what we have found is they are highly effective. Texas A&M did a study a few years ago that found for every $1 in those export promotion programs invested from USDA, about $24.50 of US exports resulted. I don't know about you, I wish my portfolio performed that well. And so I think what we find is while there are federal dollars invested in these programs, industry also comes to the table to invest their own resources into opening markets, addressing technical issues, building consumer trust, building consumer knowledge.
And so we find them highly effective programs.
And I think it's an important part of the overall economic picture is having reliable, predictable markets for US agricultural products all over the world.
Frank Lucas
Mr. Curry, your testimony notes that the most effective way to bring down beef prices is to rebuild the domestic cattle herd. Producers in turn are making difficult decisions today, knowing that rebuilding the herd is a long-term investment that they may not see the benefits of for several years. In your view, what can Congress do now, if anything, to support producers as they work to rebuild the domestic beef cattle herd?
Carlyle Currier
Thank you for the question, Congressman. I think the most important thing is stability in the market, that we don't have changing regulations as we go along. Every time a regulation is changed after we make a decision, it interferes with our long-term plans. So we're very thankful for having stability. We very much want regulations that are consistent and fair.
That's part of the reason we support so strongly the voluntary USA label so that we can promote our product and not be burdened with a high cost that would come from some kind of mandatory program. Those type of programs do not benefit the average cattleman in the long run, but voluntary programs that we can use to our advantage are what really help us. Thank you.
Frank Lucas
Mr. Franky, I'm out of time, but I'm much calmer now thanks to local volunteer firemen than the last time we were together. I would ask you to respond in writing to that question I just asked Mr. Curry when you have chance. With that, my time's expired. I now recognize the ranking member for five minutes for questions.
Angie Craig
Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Franky, let me start with you. While there are a number of good farm policy changes contained within the House version of the farm bill that passed, you've remarked to the press that the farm bill passed by the House would have little impact on farmers' bottom lines in the midst of a very serious economic downturn. You've also noted that farmers have become increasingly reliant on ad hoc payments. What would you like to see changed in federal farm safety net policy to help mitigate the reliance?
And then, further, what policies that may not be included in the farm bill one way or the other are impacting the need for these payments? So really two-part question.
Chad Franke
Yeah, thank you for that question. Our position is the underlying food and farm policy contained in both versions passed by this House and being debated later today in the Senate really accentuates that it is decades of failed farm and food policy. The prices that our producers get for their product, they don't get any say in that. What they pay for their input costs, they don't get any say in. They are price takers, not price makers.
So we really need some policy that supports them that cannot make their own prices. Over the last 10 years, we are very thankful that we've gotten it, but the 100 billion dollars of ad hoc emergency payments just goes to show that the underlying farm economy is not working. One thing that we could add, we have a program called IMSET that's a voluntary supply management that would benefit soil health. It's also driven by the producers and not by an outside agency. So each year, each family farmer could decide whether they participate in a program or not.
That would reduce the oversupply that we have currently and provide them a way to make a little money while also improving soil health.
USMCA.
Chad Franke
Yes, they're a good trading partner. I believe overall it is. However, I disagree with my colleague from Colorado. I believe that the burden is not large on mandatory country of origin labeling and the actions to reduce or remove MCOOL in 2015 as a result of a World Trade Organization action, I don't think was beneficial to our family farmers and ranchers. I think it was beneficial to those who process the meat and I would ask as we negotiate USMCA that MCOOL be included in that.
Angie Craig
Do you think we should renegotiate USMCA? Mexico and Canada are important trading partners for us.
Chad Franke
I believe that we do need good trading partners and I do believe we should renegotiate USMCA.
Angie Craig
Thank you. I want to turn to Ms. Taylor now. Last year, Republicans cut about 187 billion from the SNAP program. So far, 5 million Americans have lost access to those benefits, including 1.5 million children. In fact, in Minnesota, 77% of those who've lost SNAP since the bill passed are children.
That's not just the millions of Americans, but producers and grocers too are going to suffer financially. That $187 billion cut actually translates to about 25 billion in lost revenue to farmers. Can you explain just a little bit about how SNAP dollars drive domestic demand and how can Congress attempt to prevent this impending harm to American producers and consumers?
Alexis Taylor
Thank you, Ranking Member Craig. As we think about producer profitability, markets domestically are a key part of that. At the same time, we're balancing that the vast majority, nine out of 10 Americans, do not meet the minimum recommendation. So a priority for IFPA and our members are how do we get more fruits and vegetables to American consumers all over the country? One of our big priorities is around incentives.
We know and we have data and evidence to back up that incentives do encourage additional consumption. That's why one of our priorities in the farm bill was the GusNIP program, Double Up Bucks, and because we have seen that to be highly effective. I think another area that we're really focused on from the fresh produce perspective is in school meals, is getting more fruits and vegetables to those students every single day, not just because they are it is an important market for our producers, but also because that access and diversity of access from a very young age really grow lifelong consumers of fresh fruits and vegetables.
Ms. Taylor, I'm out of time, so I'm going to have to say that as a mother of four, I appreciate your efforts. And Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Redner 21
Thank you, member's time has expired. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia for five minutes, Mr. Scott.
Austin Scott
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Mr. Currier, Mr. Lucas asked basically the same question that I had for you, but I want to reiterate that the US cow herd is at a 75-year low, is that correct?
Yes, that's true.
Austin Scott
And one of my concerns as I listen and talk with my producers back home is that as we continue to sell heifers and other things, it's kind of like when you have a CD and you're eating into your principal sometimes. And I worry about the long-term implications of that for some of for our individual producers.
But it's hard for me to believe, and I was at an auction a couple of weeks ago at the Turner County Stockyards, what a calf that was going to have to be bottle-fed that was just a couple of days old sold for at that auction. And I would just ask, when you've been to auctions, what have you seen these calves sell for that are under a week old?
Carlyle Currier
Well, I never sell calves under a week old, but I know this last year there were some that were selling at local auction barns for over a thousand dollars, so they are valuable.
Carlyle Currier
I've been in it all my life. I got out of college in 1976 and went immediately back to work on the ranch with my parents.
Austin Scott
Fair enough. Have you ever seen a calf that could hardly walk sell for a thousand dollars?
Redner 19
I've seen calves that could hardly walk that would sell for ten or twenty dollars, and so yeah, a thousand dollars is pretty amazing.
Austin Scott
Yeah, I've sold cows at sixty cents a pound after I fed them all winter long. But you mentioned the nature of, you know, as we see this press for the mandatory country of origin labeling, you're supportive of voluntary, correct?
Austin Scott
And that's what most of the cattlemen that I talk to are in favor of is voluntary, because if you go mandatory, you basically have to go with the digital tags where somebody knows that animal is one hundred percent of the time, is that correct?
Carlyle Currier
Well, I think if a mandatory program was going to have any credibility, it would have to be tied to some kind of identification.
Austin Scott
I do too, and that's what one of my concerns is is all of those increased costs falling back on the producers. So I appreciate you being here. That's good living when you get to ride around with range pellets in the back of your trucks and share that with the next generation. Ms. Taylor, you stressed that non-tariff trade barriers like burdensome certifications and inconsistent residue standards can shut US growers out of key markets. I can tell you in the timber industry we've seen this specifically with the European Union and their deforestation regulation and the European Union's selective enforcement of who they apply it to and choose not to apply it to.
The Trump administration's been working to eliminate the non-tariff trade barriers and the selective enforcement of trade barriers over the course of the past year. Trade deals such as US-Ecuador agreement and other reciprocal trade have removed or reformed burdensome non-tariff trade barriers such as licensing and facility registration. Can you talk more about the importance of removing the non-tariff trade barriers and the positive implications that these actions are having on producers? And I would just suggest to people who don't deal with trade, the non-tariff trade barriers are harder to deal with than the tariff. If a tariff is ten percent, it's ten percent.
If it's twenty percent, it's twenty percent. It's the non-tariff, you can at least see it. It's these non-tariff trade barriers that continue to hamper our producers.
Alexis Taylor
Congressman Scott, absolutely. I think one of the things with non-tariff trade barriers that are so challenging to your point exactly, they can limit access full stop for a variety of specialty crops, fresh fruits and vegetables to export markets. And so really tackling those in a systemic way, one that is science-based and transparent is a huge priority. And there are a variety of programs at USDA and tools USDA has that are critical to this. So TASC, the technical assistance to specialty crops, which this committee passed and expanded that funding was critically important.
Also a program at USDA known as the ACE program, the Assisting Specialty Crop Export program, another tool to try and tackle some of those non-tariff barriers which again can fully limit access to that market. So they are critically important and tackling them for the produce industry is key to developing those markets that we need.
Austin Scott
I know people are frustrated with trade and and other things. I'll tell you as someone who's actually been in the room, we we want science-based and transparent trade negotiations. And unfortunately what gets reported more often times than not is a is a one-sided story from someone who simply doesn't like our president. And so with that I yield.
Eric Sorensen
Gentleman's time has expired. Gentleman yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Sorensen, for five minutes.
At the Freeport, Illinois Fast Stop today, gas is $4.58 a gallon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to our witnesses for being here today. Diesel there is $6.30 a gallon. The policies of the Trump administration are taking farm country to the end of its rope.
As harvest season gets underway, farmers in my district have been undercut by Trump's reckless trade policy, tariffs, and his war with Iran. I recently visited Eastland Feed and Grain in Shannon, Illinois, population 1,000, and the war in Iran has spiked their fuel costs so much that they're trying to figure out how to pass on nearly $10,000 of extra fuel costs every month. When farmers tell me that they can't take much more, we now have a tit-for-tat trade war with Canada. What that means as we we need the import potash from Saskatchewan, that's input costs for next season. We export ethanol to Canada, our neighbors to the north, they need it.
And so this new trade war, the effects remain to be seen. But one thing is for sure, no one back home asked for this. I will say as my blood pressure rises, the sky isn't completely cloudy. Forgive me, I'm the weather man in Congress. A ray of light does shine as a new opportunity for year-round E15 exists.
You know, I I fought so hard here in this committee room in our farm bill markup to make sure that E15 would not be left out. And I'm so happy that it still remains in our discussions today. You know, I've been asking people at gas stations all across my district and here just the other day right on Southeast Pennsylvania Avenue what they think about E15. Well, a lot of people don't know what it is. When I tell them what it is and what it means for our farmers, what it means for people at the pump, it's a complete win-win.
The truth is, it also helps our economy. To Dr. Buck, two weeks ago I didn't think that my first question to you would be a trade war with Canada, but here we go. Canada matched Trump's recent tariffs dollar for dollar, rate for rate. It's a hit to Illinois's economy by more than a billion dollars. Are you concerned that the administration's reckless and unnecessary trade war with Canada could affect the certainty of our ethanol market?
Alex Buck
I appreciate your question. I would say the Plant Based Products Council, we're broadly supportive of the biofuels industry, but we focus primarily on non-feed and non-fuel products. However, a lot of the fuel can also be used as an input for chemical markets. And so anything that increases the cost of production can be a challenge in terms of commercializing a technology that will allow consumers to benefit, excuse me, benefit from bioproducts.
Eric Sorensen
Right. So, for instance, in my district, there's an ethanol plant in Peoria, Illinois, that takes corn ethanol and now they're manufacturing homegrown nail polish remover. Didn't know that we could do that until just a couple of years ago. How can we make sure that this is a part of our economy going forward?
Alex Buck
The most impactful ways that we can expand and impact these sorts of markets is to ensure that we have commercializable pilot-scale and demonstration facilities. We have a lot of laboratory technology. We have a lot of opportunities in commercialized scale, but these new technologies need to be demonstrated in a mid-tier size. And so that's where the Agriculture Biorefinery Innovation and Opportunity Act, or the AgBio Act I mentioned, can reestablish cost-share for these pre-commercial opportunities as well as the loan guarantees to help make that scale. There is a huge amount of scaling outside of the United States, and if you can't start your scaling inside of the United States, you can't commercialize inside of the United States.
Eric Sorensen
Thank you, sir. I have my time remaining is minimized, or maximized. To Under Secretary Alexis Taylor, I just wanted to talk with you about LFPA. Do you support mandatory LFPA being reinstated?
Alexis Taylor
Congressman, IFPA is supportive of market developments wherever they be, and I think local markets are an important component, particularly where we when we can leverage local and regional supply chains to bring that local produce to consumers in their communities.
So you do support it?
Alexis Taylor
We had many members utilize that program, and from what we understand, over half actually went to fresh produce. And so it was a very important program, I think, for many of our members who participated in LFPA.
Redner 15
Gentleman yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Washington State, Mr. Newhouse, for five minutes.
Dan Newhouse
Yeah. Thank you, Chairman Lucas, Chairman Thompson, and Ranking Member Craig, thanks for having this very, very important hearing, and also thank our witnesses for making the effort to come here today. Appreciate very much your input. You know, as a former director of agriculture to the state to the north, Ms. Taylor, and also a farmer, I think I can say I relate to what all you guys are talking about. I understand very well the necessities of both domestic and foreign markets and enhancing our ability of our producers to find those markets.
That's why I and others successfully led legislation to literally double our funding for the Market Access and Foreign Market Development programs, which we're very proud of and is long overdue. So I'm happy to report that. So let me ask a couple questions. First of all, I'll start with you, Ms. Taylor. You know, in my conversations and work with the current administration, I'm very happy to report that I've seen an increased interest and focus on specialty crops.
And this is something that we've been working very much to gain that kind of awareness of the importance of that part of the agricultural industry. Could you tell us a little bit maybe more about what you hope to see out of this administration in terms of the market access that we should work towards for specialty crop producers, and maybe particularly in terms of, and you mentioned some of this, but some of the non-tariff barriers that we should be working on? I'd appreciate your, you mentioned that in your testimony, but if you could delve into that a little bit more.
Alexis Taylor
Certainly. Thank you, Congressman Newhouse. I think it's an important question. You know, we think about market development both here at home, and that is why some of our large priorities are about how do we expand consumption here, right? Only nine out of ten Americans do not meet the minimum recommendations for fruit and vegetable consumption.
So how can we get more Americans, more fruits and vegetables on Americans' plates? As we look to overseas, I think developing those markets are really important.
The programs you mentioned, MAP and FMD, are critical to that, where the industry comes together, leverages federal dollars to be able to provide consumer information, build awareness of these specialty crops in these markets. TASC is another really critical component to addressing some of these non-tariff barriers. A non-tariff barrier can keep products out of a market wholesale. And so tackling these very challenging technical issues and having resources and programs to do that is, I think, vital to the specialty crop industry to be able to not just open the market, but then build that awareness through programs like MAP and FMD.
Dan Newhouse
Yeah, thank you very much. To kind of stay on that thread, that thought, Mr. Shields, welcome. I'm shocked somebody from Pennsylvania is here, but good to see you. You mentioned also in your testimony, similar to Ms. Taylor, about the MAP and FMD programs. Could you expand on how that has been helpful to producers in the lumber industry?
Tyler Shields
Yeah, so, you know, for us, really, the American Hardwood Export Council is a huge component of getting access to those markets. And they do a great job in a couple of ways. I'll say, number one, they're out there representing the industry as a whole, going to emerging markets where it might not be feasible yet for companies to maybe go out there and market themselves. But they're connecting the industry with opportunities. But also, they're a great conduit to work through issues that we find with non-tariff barriers and trade barriers.
Example being Turkey, for example, just had a wholesale ban on the importation of oak products from anywhere that has oak wilt. And AHEC was really important in communicating that information and keeping the market up to date. And similarly, they're very active with issues related to EUDR in the European Union. Some of the aspects of that policy just, you know, they want a geolocated tag for every piece of wood fiber that could go into a tablet of paper like this. When you think about a log, okay, we know where that's harvested.
But how many logs go into creating this piece of paper or this tablet? And so those sorts of things and the support that's offered through those programs are really helpful to the industry because you can't work through those issues yourself as just a standalone company.
Redner 22
Yeah, appreciate that. Well, five minutes goes by quickly, but I just want to express my appreciation to every single one of you for coming and talking about some of the not only opportunities we have, but the necessity of trying to get some profitability built back into our agricultural industry. So thank you all for being here. Mr. Chairman, I'll yield back.
Gentleman yields back. The chair now turns to the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Jackson, for five minutes of questions.
Frank Lucas
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Can I pass at this time? I just stepped in. Yield back, sir.
Redner 23
Absolutely. The chair now turns to the gentlelady from Oregon, Mrs. Salinas, for five minutes.
Andrea Salinas
Thank you, Chair Lucas. Thank you to the chair and the ranking member for holding today's hearing, and thank you to our panelists, and especially to Ms. Taylor, who I know has had a number of years in Oregon. So thank you. Oregon has been hit really hard on trade and tariffs this past couple of years. Ms. Taylor, I'd like to discuss Oregon wine for a minute.
You are familiar with the industry from your time at Oregon's Department of Ag. Canada has historically been the most lucrative export market for Oregon wine. Last week, I sat down with our wine producers who share that their sales are down 83% from last year.
I want to say that one more time. I want everyone to hear that. 83% to Canada, our largest export market. The picture is the same on the national level. In 2024, the US ran a $254 million wine trade surplus with Canada, but in 2025, that turned into a $90 million deficit.
In response to tariffs enacted by the Trump administration, Canadian stores retaliated and pulled Oregon wine off their shelves. I've also had trouble, and I've heard from again our producers who have had trouble getting corks, barrels, and glass bottles at a reasonable price as a direct result of these tariffs. These wineries, these are small family-owned businesses who cannot simply pivot and try to find domestic markets when their export markets are disrupted. Effective on the 29th of this month, the administration is banning Canadian wine and spirits from entering the country. So Ms. Taylor, you open markets for a living at USDA.
Once a market like Canada is lost, approximately how many years does it take to win it back?
Alexis Taylor
Thank you, Congresswoman Salinas. I think it is a real challenge once a market is lost. We have seen this over the years. Consumers develop recognition, particularly I think for a branded product like wine. They develop different purchasing habits, and I think it is very challenging once those markets are lost.
I do think that is why some of these programs like MAP, FMD, for the specialty crop sector in particular, TASC, are so important because once you are out of that market, these programs can be leveraged to help build that consumer awareness, try to rebuild back some of that consumer demand.
Andrea Salinas
Thank you. So just a follow-up. MAP and FMD did exist last year, correct?
Correct.
Andrea Salinas
Okay, you're nodding yes. They did not stop an 83% drop in sales for Oregon wine. Is that correct?
Correct.
Andrea Salinas
That is correct. Okay. So has the Trump administration, or did the Trump administration in any way that you know of work with the wine industry or any of these agricultural products to develop alternative markets to replace Canada as their export sales?
Alexis Taylor
Congresswoman, I can't speak to the wine industry specifically, but I will say that is part of what these MAP, FMD programs are. They are year over year, so that can be challenging projects in a snapshot in time. Additional program that was created several years ago is known as the RAPP program, the Regional Agriculture Promotion Program, which allowed the industry to actually fund projects over a five-year window, which gives them a lot more ability to fund some of these long-term projects. And that I think has also been useful as they look to diversify markets around the world.
Andrea Salinas
And that is what I'm hearing right now from my ag industry and our specialty crops is that they need some stability right now and some predictability. So staying with you, Ms. Taylor, the Market Access Program and the Foreign Market Development Program are great, and I'm so glad they are still standing. I want to be clear about what they can and cannot do. Canada bought 28 billion of American farm products last year. It's our second largest market behind only Mexico.
In August, the USMCA negotiations collapsed, and on September 8th, Canada put tariffs of 15, 25, and 50% on $20 billion of our goods. The same day, this administration escalated again. So the federal government is spending real money to promote American products in markets it is destroying with tariffs. And that is the contradiction here at the center of this discussion and this hearing. And last week, I held a trade roundtable with lots of organizations from around Oregon, but many producers, and I heard the same recurring theme.
Trade relationships take decades to build, and stable market access is not easy to come by.
A grower builds these relationships over years to earn a buyer's trust, and some of that work was funded by these very programs. And these relationships have been wiped out in a year by this administration that is presumably trying to help. They are not helping, they are hurting my farmers in Oregon, and I'll leave it there.
Gentlelady yields back. Now recognize the gentlelady from Illinois for five minutes.
Redner 25
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for hosting this hearing, and thank you to our witnesses for being here today. As many of us on the committee know, harvest season is just around the corner. In fact, my guys are at home in the tractors. Total farm output has nearly tripled since 1948 with many thanks to the continuous innovation in seed genetics and farm equipment. My husband and I run a fourth-generation family farm, and like many of you on this panel, I have a diverse operation that includes both row crops and cattle.
Ms. Taylor, thank you for being here. Illinois utilizes 104 acres to grow fresh produce across 3,200 farms. A sizeable amount of the harvested produce is transported on refrigerated trucks. In the first quarter of 2025, the US shipped around 9.3 million tons of fresh fruit and vegetables on trucks. Given the dependence on trucking, I want to talk more about how this Congress can better invest and build a more reliable transportation network for our producers.
Would you please expand on that?
Alexis Taylor
Congresswoman, thank you for that question. I would say, you know, the supply chain and supply chain reliability is so important for the specialty crop sector. From the moment that produce is harvested to the moment a consumer buys it and uses it, we're under really time constraints, right, because of the perishable nature. Many of the products that are being harvested in the field go directly into refrigerated trucks. So I think having reliable infrastructure, roads, bridges, ports, rail, all become a really important part of how we can ensure that fresh produce gets to consumers in the fastest time frame possible.
I would also say that the fresh produce industry is more, maybe one of the most sensitive to fuel costs increases because those trucks are refrigerated and running on diesel fuel. And so costs there hit us first and hit us more often at more stages in that supply chain.
Redner 25
You mentioned in your testimony that without access to reliable cold chain and transportation infrastructure, perishable US produce is unable to enter global markets, risking quality and freshness. Can you talk about our ports of entry and expand upon this issue of refrigerated transportation?
Alexis Taylor
Absolutely, Congresswoman. As we think about sending US-grown fresh produce to other parts of the world, cold chain becomes even more of a challenge and even more important. Ports of entry, if they don't have reliable cold chain to move that product into, right, the degradation of that product just accelerates. We're also seeing for several parts of the world increased time on the water, which also then becomes a challenge. So FAS, the USDA Foreign Agricultural Service, actually has a program which has been highly underutilized.
They have worked to try to reform it several times over the years, but just haven't been able to really get it to be utilized, which would invest in cold chain in infrastructure at ports to be able to bring in US-grown products. And so I think there are some tools out there that we would welcome the opportunity to kind of look at to see if we can better utilize those programs to be able to move US fresh produce, fruits and vegetables into those markets.
Redner 25
That's great, and we'll look forward to continued conversations on that and how we can work with you.
Mr. Currier, thank you for being here. I want to talk about family farming. You mention in your biography how you're a fourth generation to work your family farm, your son is fifth generation. Congratulations. You also mentioned how your parents were both very involved in various church, civics, and farm organizations.
Mr. Currier, you have also been involved in several committees or task forces for the local school district and chaired the advisory committee for the local FFA program. Can you speak about the importance of raising the next generation of family farmers?
Carlyle Currier
Absolutely, Congresswoman, thank you for the question. If we're going to have continue to have viable agriculture into the future, it's hugely important that we do get our young people involved and we make all the possibilities available to for them to continue in in farming. I think both for those who are children of of farmers and ranchers and coming back to the farm need to have the ability to do that, but I'm also very concerned about being able to to bring new and beginning farmers into the into the business. There are I know at Colorado State University, our land grant in Colorado, the actual majority of the ag majors in the College of Agriculture today are not traditional farm family members, they're they're people that are interested in agriculture that are are interested in getting in the business and they need a lot of help and assistance in getting them involved and that's, you know, that's our future.
Redner 25
Absolutely, and considering the age of the average farmer and the possible largest turnover of land possibly in the history of the world in light of what's going on in the future with farm farmland, I think we need to look for ways to allow our young people to get into the industry. Thank you, and I yield back.
Redner 29
Gentlelady's time's expired, recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Jackson, for five minutes.
Jonathan Jackson
Thank you, Ranking Member Craig, thank you, Chairman Thompson. Mr. Chairman, when we talk about increasing demand and opportunity for homegrown products here and abroad, we should begin with the basic principle of markets. You cannot strengthen the American farmer by making his inputs more expensive and his customers harder to reach. Yet that is precisely the danger created by this Trump administration's trade policy. For example, in 2025, American agriculture exports to China fell 66%.
All because of policy, not because of the hard work of the farmers. The farmers were taken out of growing markets. USDA specifically associates that decline with reciprocal tariffs and reduced Chinese demand for American soybeans. This was policy once again that has hurt the American farmer. Look at the other side, tariffs affect imports on our fertilizer, the machinery cost, equipment, and other inputs.
This year, farmers have confronted particularly sharp increases in the fertilizer, all because of an unnecessary war. So think of this as as an investor would: your costs are rising, your export opportunities have been disrupted, your margins are narrowing, and your debt is accumulating. Chapter 12 bankruptcies have reached an all-time high in 2025 under these trade policies. It's 46% higher this year than it was last year.
And I'm still trying to find the opportunity. So that's why I want to direct a question to you, Mr. Buck. Dr. Buck, thank you for your service. Um, in the bioeconomy as a new chapter, a new pillar for growth for agriculture beyond the food, the fuel, and the, uh, feed. Farmers in my district can paint the picture of what this means.
How does turning their corn into soybean into plant-based new products, uh, benefit the United States?
Alex Buck
Uh, thank you very much for your question. Uh, right now the US economy, uh, the bioeconomy adds about 489 billion dollars in annual value to the economy and there's over 4 million jobs. In fact, the bioeconomy has demonstrated a 2.79 multiplier in terms of jobs for, uh, opportunities. And so what that means is those jobs, uh, affect rural, uh, communities and, and Main Street because biomass is bulky. And by converting the, uh, usually the starch or the, or the oil from the different crops into chemicals, we still have the, the co-products of feed, but we're then able to export and transport pure, uh, products.
That means these are high-value jobs, uh, high median, higher than the median income jobs as well as a higher, uh, property tax base increase in the local community.
Jonathan Jackson
Well, Dr. Buck, let me ask one other question. How can we win this in the global race? Who are your competitors? How is China doing? How's Europe doing?
And where are we on the global market?
Alex Buck
The main competitors in the bioeconomy are exactly those two, uh, um, regions as you mentioned. Uh, China has, uh, emphasized bioproducts, uh, in three of their last, uh, five-year plans. And in fact, the European Union has 10 times the number of, uh, of biorefinery facilities, uh, pilot facilities as the United States does. And so we're losing, uh, the opportunity to try to benefit our, uh, rural farmers. And they, the China has, uh, been investing private dollars as well as their, uh, government dollars, uh, 14.4 billion dollars from China versus the 10.4 billion dollars from the US private sector.
We are, uh, losing the opportunity to commercialize and utilize farm products in the United States.
Tracey Mann
Gentleman yields back. Now recognize the gentleman from Kansas, Mr. Mann, for five minutes.
Thank you, uh, Chairman Thompson. Thank you all for being here today. I represent the Big First District of Kansas, the western two-thirds of Kansas except for the counties that are around Wichita. You know, in Kansas right now, combines are rolling. Uh, our family, I think if I called my dad right now, he's sitting in his combine, um, which, which is happening.
And, and we're really seeing this increase we've seen the last few weeks in this uptick in commodity prices is really helpful. But as we all know, they need to continue to be higher given where input costs are. And I appreciate the chairman for having this hearing focused on how do we raise demand for our products. Um, state fair's going on in Kansas right now as well. Met with a group of farmers on Saturday and, and conveyed to them I think the three things we ought to be doing to increase demand and put upward pressure on prices.
I think the, the three clearest things in my view are getting trade deals done. And I appreciate that the, you know, at these deals we've gotten done, agriculture in many ways has been the lead, um, products in those deals. Um, the dollars we put for doubling MAP and FMD in the Working Families Tax Cuts last summer, very important, um, that those are in place as we get these trade deals done. Number two, getting year-round E15, um, finalized, signed into law, I think is probably the clearest path to the end zone on immediately raising demand. And the third thing is getting Food for Peace moved, um, to the back home to Department of Agriculture permanently.
All three of those things to me are, are some of the things we ought to be focusing on. And I appreciate you all's comments about your sectors, um, all of which I agreed with as well.
Couple of quick questions. First off for you, Dr. Buck, when we talk about the overall ag sector, year-round E15 continues to be part of that conversation. I appreciate you mentioning that in your opening testimony here and throughout your testimony. As you know, in the House, we passed year-round E15 legislation a few months ago, and the Senate farm bill includes that, hopefully is going to get passed out later today. Can you share what it would mean for the biofuels industry in the country if year-round E15 were to get passed, and specifically, what would the impact be on our commodity prices as best as you can forecast it?
Alex Buck
Thank you very much for your question. The Plant Based Products Council, we are broadly supportive of biofuels and enhancing the opportunities within there. However, we focus primarily on and extensively on biochemicals and bioproducts, such as ethanol for use in as a feedstock for chemicals, acetic acids, polypropylenes, other opportunities to produce bioproducts that we can then diversify the markets within ethanol. But in terms of the impact of the market, the fuels, just like bioproducts, both will help impact commodity prices in a positive way because as demand for those increases, we know that the basis in local communities is very beneficial.
Tracey Mann
Yeah, I'm all for year-round E15. It removes the regulation and it lets the market work. And that way the market and not this regulation is dictating how much ethanol the consumer wants, and they should have the right to be able to sell into that market. Second question for you, Mr. Currier. Appreciate your work, Colorado Farm Bureau, of course, right next door to Kansas.
Last year, you know, the committee, this committee in the Farm Food and National Security Act earlier this year, when we passed it out, it included my legislation that would transfer Food for Peace program from the State Department to its rightful home at USDA, which is where it used to be, so it's returning Food for Peace back home. I've always felt like having that at the back at Department of Agriculture, where they would really be the steward of it and making sure that we're sending commodities and not just dollars, would be really important. I was also glad to see that that transfer is included in an amendment to the Senate farm bill that's being considered here today. Can you further highlight the importance of Food for Peace, what it means for the ag industry and to our trade partners?
Carlyle Currier
Yes, thank you for the question. I think Food for Peace has been a very successful program for many years and can always be improved upon. You know, I look at the fact that there's over 8 million people in the world today that need to be fed. And I'm very proud of what we've done as farmers in the US to be able to achieve the ability to feed those large populations. And, you know, Food for Peace has been a program that has really helped us be able to accomplish that in countries where they don't have the financial resources to feed themselves, and it's a program that has been very successful and we strongly support it.
Tracey Mann
Yeah, and I appreciate Farm Bureau's support of Food for Peace. And, you know, obviously the notion of sending American-grown commodities overseas to people that otherwise are not going to be able to eat, you know, there's also a soft policy dynamic to that as well, really important for us on the world stage. So, Mr. Chairman, thank you for having this hearing, and I yield back.
Glenn Thompson
Gentleman yields back. Now recognize the gentlelady from Ohio, Ms. Brown, for five minutes.
Shontel Brown
Thank you, Chairman Thompson, and to the ranking member as well. Mr. Chairman, we all agree that increasing demand for homegrown agricultural products is a worthy pursuit. But I fear this administration's rhetoric on this subject doesn't match reality because the so-called America First administration has undercut our American farmers and made their products less competitive both at home and abroad.
The President's reckless tariffs agenda has disrupted agricultural export markets and pushed some of our biggest customers toward competing suppliers. The war in Iran has sent diesel prices skyrocketing, almost seven dollars per gallon here in Ohio. We've seen the administration open the door to hundreds of thousands of tons of additional foreign beef imports at a time when American cattle producers are trying to rebuild a herd that has fallen to a seventy-five year low. And we're seeing deep cuts at USDA where farmers go for market information, technical assistance, conservation programs, and the basic services that keep American agriculture running. While I'm glad my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are interested in talking about new markets, I think the moment we are in warrants a conversation about how this administration is harming existing markets, propping up foreign agriculture competitors, and stifling opportunities here at home for the American farmer.
Mr. Frank, thank you for being here today. Would you agree that importing hundreds of thousands of tons of additional foreign beef does not increase demand for beef produced by American cattle producers and is actually harmful to our domestic producers?
Shontel Brown
And would you agree that when American cattle producers are trying to rebuild the domestic herd, putting additional foreign beef on the market makes that job harder?
Chad Franke
I think the downward pressure on cattle, live cattle prices is not helpful for rebuilding the herd and that is the result that we've seen.
Redner 32
Thank you. And would you say that if our goal is to increase demand for American agricultural products, imposing tariffs that make those products more expensive and less competitive in global markets is working against that goal?
I would agree with that.
Shontel Brown
Thank you. Look, market access is down, input costs and farm bankruptcies are up, and American farmers are being asked to compete in a global marketplace while facing more uncertainty at home and more competition from foreign products abroad. And small and family farmers are the ones being hit the hardest. They are facing rising costs on the front end and increasing consolidation and concentration across agriculture economy on the other, leaving them with less leverage and fewer choices. So when we talk about increasing demand for homegrown agricultural products, I want to make sure we are also talking about fairness and make sure that those opportunities translate to the backbone of American agriculture, the family farmer.
Our farmers and ranchers can grow, produce, and compete with anyone in the world, but they need a stable and competitive marketplace that works for them, not one that is compromised at every turn by short-sighted policies and unnecessary uncertainty. Farmers deserve a fair shot. They deserve the certainty to plan for the future, the opportunity to compete, and the ability to earn a fair return on what they produce. And I look forward to working with my colleagues to hold this administration accountable and make sure that when we say we are supporting American agriculture, our policies actually deliver. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Redner 31
Gentlelady yields back. Now recognize the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Finstad, for five minutes.
Brad Finstad
Thank you, Chairman Thompson. Thank you for holding this important hearing today and thank you to our witnesses for being with us. I'm a fourth generation farmer from Southern Minnesota and honored and humbled to be giving that fifth generation a chance to do the same thing. I know firsthand American farmers, we produce the highest quality, most affordable food supply in the world.
I want to level set here a little bit. The Trump administration inherited a huge problem, a $50 billion egg trade deficit. We saw no new egg trade deals, and we haven't really lived that life since the Jimmy Carter era. And because of it, what we have seen is a very stale commodity markets at the same time over the last years, I would say, you know, pre-COVID, COVID, post-COVID, inputs that have been just continually on the rise with a very stale market side. So the simplistic farmer in me says the math doesn't math.
Now, here's the good news. The egg trade deficit has been reduced over the last 18 months. We have seen that $50 billion get down towards the $20 billion mark. We're seeing new egg trade deals. And because of it, I will say again, as a farmer, not political spin, not political rhetoric, but what I see on my farm, I'm able to sell my soybeans that I'm going to be combining here in the next week and a half for over $13 a bushel.
Last year, it was closer to a little under $11 a bushel. Corn, I'm getting close to $5. Last year, it was $4. So the opportunities to make a little bit in the market right now are there. We have to really address now the input side.
We also on that input side, I mean, there's the cost of doing business as a farmer, and one of that that doesn't get talked about maybe enough is just the whole tax burdens. So Mr. Currier, you know this, the average age of farmer in this country right now is 58 years old. And like you, I'm a fourth-generation farmer thinking about the fifth generation and how we can transition the farm to the next generation. Family farmers in my district wake up every day to ensure that we can get our operations to that next generation. And so tax policy is a key factor in that.
Last summer, Republicans passed the tax cuts that will save farmers across this country more than $10 billion. Can you speak to the importance of these tax cuts to your generational operation and your ability to pass the farm on to the next generation?
Carlyle Currier
Yes, thank you for the question. And absolutely, the Big Beautiful Bill Act, most importantly to me, basically eliminated the problem with estate taxes, which is a huge problem for any business and particularly agricultural businesses, farms, to pass on to family members. You know, estate taxes is really largely a tax on inflation. It's a very unfair tax. And for years, if you build a business and the value of the dollar went down, it became more valuable in terms of the dollar that it was worth, you tax that and a farmer would have to sell half his farm to pay the estate taxes to pass it on to the next generation.
So that has been huge. And you know, I have land that my great-granddad paid less than $2 an acre for that today, because of various forces and changes in markets, is worth several thousand dollars an acre. It's the same value for agriculture it was when my great-granddad bought it. And that shouldn't be taxed away from my family for me to be able to pass it on to my kids. So that's huge.
Brad Finstad
Yeah, I appreciate that, Mr. Currier. And I am sure that you can relate to this, but in southern Minnesota, we say farmers are land rich, cash poor. And that tax policy really a farmer is faced with, well, I don't have the cash, so I'm going to have to sell the land, which breaks up the family farm. And so the tax changes that we made are very important to the generational operations to make sure we do give a fighting chance for that next generation.
I have a few seconds left here. I want to go to the input side because we've talked about the market side a little bit and the tax burden, but on the input side, Mr. Johnson, you highlighted in your testimony the dichotomy of greater certainty on the input side and the opportunities with the market, but the need on the input side. I've helped lead legislation that requires USDA to publish weekly fertilizer price reports, giving farmers more transparency. Do you believe actions like this, along with USDA's efforts to increase domestic fertilizer production demand, can be helpful for farmers right now?
Patrick Johnson
I do, Congressman Finstad, and I appreciate you introducing that legislation. I think in conversations with growers, one of the things that causes more confusion is what is actually driving the price of fertilizer components, so more transparency is a great thing. Also encouraged by what Secretary Vilsack and the administration is doing to try to bring more fertilizer production into the US to maybe bring more stability so we're not exposed to the volatility caused by geopolitical events.
Glenn Thompson
Gentleman's time has expired. Now recognize the gentlelady that hosted an outstanding subcommittee visit to her home state of Hawaii, Ms. Tokuda, for five minutes.
Jill Tokuda
Aloha, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much, by the way, for coming to Hawaii, even despite the fact that a hurricane literally blew through a few days before and was on its way. I know my community, our farmers, ranchers, producers really appreciated everyone's visit. I know we've talked about a lot of different things today. I wanted to touch upon two particular areas.
When we talk about having a dependable market for our farmers, ranchers, and food producers, as I've gone out into the community, talked with our farmers, talked with our grocers, in fact, the grocers in particular really emphasized that they chase the SNAP dollar. That's literally what they told me. They chase the SNAP dollar because that helps keep their doors open, but because they recognize that for every dollar of SNAP on that card, it's at least a dollar fifty in economic activity, even more in rural communities like mine, probably closer to a dollar eighty. And so when we cut 187 billion dollars in SNAP assistance, we didn't just take food off the table of hungry Americans, we took a guaranteed, stable, committed market away from a lot of our farmers, ranchers, and food producers. Between SNAP, between GusNIP, which even doubles up the amount of fresh food and proteins that people can get from our farmers and ranchers, that really hurt a lot of our folks back home, and I would guess across the country.
In addition to that, if you take a look at the billions in cuts to TEFAP, to local school, LFPA programs, local food for schools and food that went to our food pantries as well, again, they weren't buying exported, imported food, they were buying from farmers and ranchers locally. So when we talk about creating a stable market for agriculture here in the United States, what did that do when we cut 187 billion dollars from SNAP, a billion dollars from LFPA, local food for schools program, LFS, for TEFAP? What did that do when we took those billions of dollars out of the markets and destabilized potentially a guaranteed buying from our ranchers and farmers? Any thoughts on that? Do you think it hurt our farmers and ranchers when you cut 187 billion dollars from SNAP?
Chad Franke
I'll answer that. Um, I've got a number of members that participated in the local food procurement assistance and the LFS program. They geared up, they bought the equipment needed to ensure that they met the FSMA requirements and produced that local food for the local population. That pause in that program severely hurt them. I had one member who owns a peach orchard.
She was selling her seconds, the stuff that's not necessarily the prettiest. It was going to the schools for the lunches. She lost that market. She couldn't even afford to get them to the school because the school couldn't pay for them. So she lost that production, she lost that contract, and she almost lost the investment in that equipment needed to produce those.
Jill Tokuda
Does anyone else have experiences like that in terms of $187 billion in SNAP money gets cut and a billion dollars for local food for schools and the LFPA, which goes directly to food banks and food pantries, gets cut? Have you seen impacts on farmers and ranchers? Maybe the better question is, who's going to replace that money in terms of spending and buying power? Do we know the answer to that? Because we're talking about increasing, you know, buying capacity here.
Who has the ability, do we think, to replace $187 billion in SNAP cuts and a billion dollars in potentially not A-grade produce, um, from our farmers and ranchers? I think the silence sometimes speaks everything, that we don't have someone to take the place of buying up the $187 billion and counting in lost purchases from our farmers, our ranchers, and producers. And that hurts not just the farmers and ranchers and producers, but the hungry Americans who used to rely on those food baskets. And I can tell you that as someone who almost on a weekly basis goes out to these distributions and I see the faces of the people who are just hungry for the vegetables and the proteins that are in those baskets. Um, maybe this is a question for Ms. Taylor.
You talked a little bit about food safety as well. We have seen a huge reduction in food safety staff. FSIS staff, 860 positions cut, lost, retired, deferred retirement. That's 12% of their total staffing. FDA lost over 800 food safety personnel.
What is this going to do to increase confidence in purchasing American produce?
Alexis Taylor
Congresswoman, thank you for that question. I think, you know, having consumer confidence is first and foremost, um, important to the fresh produce industry. We are a product that is often eaten raw and our members, uh, in every step of the supply chain take food safety very seriously. IFPA has long advocated for ensuring that FDA, state public health officials, um, have adequate resources to be able to ensure not just food safety but the consumer confidence. And I think clear communication is critical, um, coming out of this summer in some recent food safety outbreaks that we've really, uh, been experiencing, uh, on what is safe and what is, uh, what is not safe at that point in time and what is safe and when that outbreak is over.
Um, and so I think having adequate resources, um, both domestically and for those inspections abroad are critical, uh, to having that confidence in the food safety of our US products.
Jill Tokuda
Thank you. And I'm sure everyone with explosive diarrhea in this country wished we had those staff in place to do the inspections. I yield back, Mr. Chair.
Glenn Thompson
Gentlelady's time has expired. I'll take the liberty of doing my five minutes. Uh, first of all, I want to just correct the record. Uh, any savings that we found in the SNAP program came from the inefficiency of the operation. Uh, the fact is that nobody's SNAP benefits were cut.
And for those who are paying attention, last week, uh, using a proper methodology that we put into the farm food and national, uh, that we put into actually to, I guess it'd been HR 1, um, the agriculture title, USDA just announced an increase to SNAP benefits as of October 1st. And so, uh, you know, facts, uh, facts matter. Um, in recent months, the price of beef and the lowest cattle supply in 75 years has been at the forefront of policy discussion here in DC.
Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling, or MCOOL, has been offered as a solution. While MCOOL is perhaps well-intentioned, I have serious concerns that reinstating it would increase costs across the supply chain while providing little to no benefit to producers. A recent economic analysis found that reinstating MCOOL for beef and pork could cost more than $1 billion per year, driving up costs on both production and the consumption side. Mr. Carrier, as a producer who retains ownership of your cattle, would MCOOL increase your operational costs, and if given a choice, would you prefer a mandatory standard or a voluntary, voluntary one?
Carlyle Currier
Thank you for the question. Yes, you know, as you said, a study by Meat Institute said it would add a billion dollars per year to the cost of operation, over 700 million of that from the cattle industry. I question who's going to pay for that. I don't think the packers are going to cover that cost. I don't think the consumers are probably going to be hit with part of that cost, but not the majority of it.
I think us cattle producers would be the main ones paying that cost, and that's why I would not support a mandatory program. The voluntary program is, can work very well to our benefit, and if a producer wants to spend the money to have a voluntary program, they can use it.
Glenn Thompson
Oh, thank you for that. Mr. Shields, what specific forest products do you see as a bright spot with revenue growth potential in the coming years in the Pennsylvania wood products market, and do you see these trends happening in other parts of the country as well?
Tyler Shields
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the question. You know, I think what we're seeing is that value-added products, and what I mean by that would be thermally modified hardwood lumber, mass timber applications, and while the pipeline for hardwood in mass timber might be smaller than softwood, there's still a market to be had there. And particularly the bill you sponsored, the Mass Timber in Federal Buildings Act, those are the sorts of things that we see as new up-and-coming things that are going to help grow demand. And I think there's a lot of opportunities for the federal government to really lead by example and, you know, look at applications where they can use these, these products that are new or old existing products and, you know, see what that can do to help create trends in the marketplace and create more demand for our industry.
Glenn Thompson
Oh, thank you, Mr. Shields, for that. Ms. Taylor, first of all, thanks for your leadership. Just, you've always been a great leader in agriculture, and congratulations on your current role that you've stepped into. I'm proud of the work that this committee has done to increase funding for our trade promotion programs at USDA. Can you speak about the benefit of additional resources for programs like MAP, FMD, and TASC, and what it means for your members?
Alexis Taylor
Thank you, Chairman, for that question. I think those export promotion programs are vital to opening, not just opening new markets and addressing some of the very technical barriers that prevent US specialty crops from accessing them, but also then to building those consumers and those markets and that demand for those products. Sometimes it might be the first time a certain product, US-grown cherry or blueberries, are accessing those markets, and consumers aren't sure what they are, how to eat them.
And so some of those development and promotion programs I think are critical to so opening the door to US products and then helping our industries actually walk through that door and build those trading relationships to expand market export opportunities. TASC, MAP, FMD are all critical to that. And we greatly appreciate the over doubling of those programs in the farm bill.
Glenn Thompson
Very good. Thanks so much. I just have a few seconds left, so I'm going to take that opportunity to send best wishes and my prayers to the Senate Agriculture Committee today. That they get that Farm Food and National Security Act passed out of committee. Sounds positive.
We'll see at the end what happens. And I'll yield back the balance of my time and recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Carbajal, for five minutes.
Salud Carbajal
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all the witnesses for being here today with us. I think it's fair to say that many of the Trump administration's actions this last year and a half have run counter to the goals of increasing demand and opportunities for homegrown products here and abroad. There has been a lot of talk about putting American farmers first, expanding markets, and increasing demand for American-grown products. But you cannot simultaneously tell farmers that you want them to produce more for the world while making it more difficult for them to reach that world. Right now, our farmers are being asked to navigate a considerable amount of uncertainty.
We are seeing a trade war that is disrupting long-standing markets. Retaliatory tariffs that make American products more expensive overseas, as well as the conflict with Iran that has contributed to major disruptions in global energy markets. Farmers are getting squeezed from both sides: higher costs to produce and move their products while facing greater uncertainty about whether they will have access to the customers they need. Ms. Taylor, we know that farmers, especially specialty crop growers, plan well out into the future. Can you speak to how uncertain market access and changing trade relationships today will impact farmers' investments into their operations and supply in the long term?
Alexis Taylor
Thank you, Congressman. For many specialty crops, in particular some of our tree fruit, it takes many years before after planting before they come to commercial production. And so they are looking, those growers and those operations are looking to long-term to have consistent, stable markets to be able to sell their products to. And so I think that is one of the top priorities for those longer-term, more perennial specialty crops is that those consistent markets that they're able to plan for and plan to what they will be down in the future when their crops really come online.
Salud Carbajal
Thank you. Mr. Frankie, in your testimony, you mentioned the economic benefits farmers saw from the Biden administration's Local Food for Schools Cooperative Agreement Program, LFS, and the Local Food Purchase Assistance Cooperative Agreement Program, LFPA. Lots of acronyms here. I can attest that farms and schools within my district were beneficiaries of the Local Food for Schools Cooperative Agreement Program and have since had to deal with the fallout of this no longer being in place. Can you provide examples of how the LFS and LFPA programs have helped farmers access new markets and opportunities that were previously unavailable?
And can you also share how the cancellation of these programs have affected farmers' ability to maintain or continue accessing those new markets?
Chad Franke
Absolutely. Thank you for the question.
The Greeley-Evans School District north of Denver is a big or was a big user of the LFS program. I have some members who geared up to provide those foods for the school district. The food safety requirements to ensure that we are feeding good, healthy, safe food to our students can be pretty significant. The equipment needed to do it, the processes, make sense when you've got a long-term contract where you can provide a significant amount of your product to one source, you can invest in that equipment. Going to farmers' markets, it's a little bit tougher to pencil that.
So when those LFS programs were in place, they had that good stable contract. When the LFS ended, that also ended their long-term contract. Now they have a bunch of expensive equipment and they're not sure where that product's going to go. Some of it they ended up just destroying, which is a real shame.
Salud Carbajal
Thank you for that insight. Ms. Taylor, an often overlooked piece of the specialty crop industry is floriculture. But we know cut flowers provide valuable economic contributions, not to mention mental health benefits. Who doesn't smile when you see flowers? What are ways we can continue to promote cut floral production in the United States?
Alexis Taylor
Thank you for that question, Congressman. I think the floral industry in the United States faces many of the same challenges that other specialty crop sectors do. So access to a reliable workforce, some increasing input costs, particularly on say seeds and bulbs that are necessary for expanded US production, rising input costs due to tariffs on say packaging and greenhouse growing equipment. And so I think really looking at some of the broader challenges or broader long-term support and long-term policies that we've been advocating for absolutely spread to the floriculture sector as well as ensuring that any economic assistance that passes, they are eligible for as well as a defined part of the specialty crop definition outside from the Farm Bill.
Glenn Thompson
Time has expired, now recognize the gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Crawford, for five minutes.
Eric Crawford
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Johnson, my district in Arkansas is the largest producer of rice in the nation. This is, I'm actually very proud of that, but as you know, rice farming has not been profitable for several years now. You touched on this in your testimony, but one big way we can increase demand for domestically produced agriculture products such as rice and even as an aside, catfish, is to stop foreign nations from dumping cheap products that undermine US farmers in our own market. For rice, India is by far the most egregious trade cheater in the world, and to help combat their blatant violations, I introduced the bipartisan Prioritizing Offensive Agricultural Trade Disputes with my colleagues Congressman Troy Carter and Congressman Higgins.
I also led a bipartisan letter of 17 members to Ambassador Greer requesting the initiation of a Section 301 trade investigation against nations violating international trade norms and hurting our rice farmers, which I hope will be acted on soon. Let me ask you this, if something's not done to prevent the flow of unfairly traded rice and bring all parties to a level playing field, how do you think that benefits our domestic rice producers?
Patrick Johnson
I think those things have presented a lot of challenges for our domestic rice production and it's just critical that we do bring that playing field to a place where we can be competitive. I think this Grown in America Act is another piece to help support the domestic rice market by incentivizing the use of our US-grown production.
So I think all of those are very important.
Eric Crawford
You mentioned in your testimony how important the Grown in America Act is would be for crops for such as rice that rely on domestic market consumption at least half of annual rice production. Can you expand on those thoughts just a little bit more? Why do you think the Grown in America Act is so important to the rice industry in particular?
Patrick Johnson
I think when you think about the supply chain and just downstream from our rice production, we need to incentivize investment in that supply chain and also incentivize the use of our domestically grown crop and that Grown in America Act does both of those.
Eric Crawford
Gotcha. I'm going to shift crops a little bit. Back in in May, USDA came out in support of the Buying American Cotton Act. Secretary Rollins also announced the new Great American Cotton Plan. If you can, what are some of the positive things that you've seen or look forward to seeing from that new initiative?
Patrick Johnson
Well, as I said in my testimony or earlier, we really have two major challenges facing the cotton industry. We have competition from Brazil and synthetic fibers. And the Buying American Cotton Act incentivizes the use of cotton over synthetics and specifically US cotton. And it's also very supportive of our domestic manufacturing, which has struggled in recent years and by providing a higher credit for cotton products that are processed in the US fully, it's supportive of them as well.
Eric Crawford
Let me go back in just a historic reference and you may recall the Step 2 program in cotton and the dismantling of that that took place as a result of a WTO grievance that was filed, Brazil using proxy nation to basically attack US cotton and that was one of the vulnerabilities. Okay, that was ruled out of compliance. We had to dismantle Step 2 cotton, which was an important mill-direct marketing option for producers. And not only did we dismantle that, but we effectively dismantled our textile industry too, wouldn't you say?
Patrick Johnson
I would agree, the trend has not been good for our US textile industry.
Eric Crawford
Do you see this as an opportunity to rebuild some textile infrastructure and what that implies for job production, particularly in rural communities that have lost a lot of the manufacturing base? But if you've got the cotton present and the incentives to utilize it here at home, would you see a maybe a resurgence in the textile industry?
Patrick Johnson
I think it definitely would be helpful in protecting what we have and hopefully we could see additional investment in US textile industry.
Thank you, I appreciate it. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Jahana Hayes
Thank you and thanks to our witnesses for being here today. I would first like to say that 62,770 people in Connecticut, residents in Connecticut, did in fact lose their SNAP benefits. So there have been people who have lost benefits. And the increase that we just heard about a minute ago is a mandatory COLA for SNAP that is required by law as a result of the 2008 Farm Bill, so nothing new. It happens every year and this year's increase was probably a little bigger because of the inflationary prices caused by the President's policies.
But the people who rely on SNAP have been impacted by cuts, the $187 billion in cuts to this program. I could not let that go unanswered. But one of the most important ways to increase demand for products grown and produced by American farmers is to ensure that farmers have reliable markets in their own communities.
I'm deeply concerned about the decision by the Trump administration to cancel the Local Food Purchase Assistance programs, or LFPA, and the Local Food for Schools Cooperative Agreement programs, or LFS. These programs were designed to do exactly what we are discussing today: create new and consistent markets for American farmers. These programs go a step further by not only benefiting farmers, but also strengthening their local communities by helping schools, food banks, and families access nutritious, locally produced foods. LFPA and LFS allowed schools, food banks, and other organizations to purchase directly from local and regional producers, and they can even throw in the pretty fruits and vegetables as well to schools. When USDA canceled these programs in March of 2025, the relationships farmers built with schools and farm banks were disrupted, and the investments farmers made to meet demand were undermined.
If our goal is to increase demand for homegrown products, eliminating programs increasing these markets is not the right strategy. We're seeing the consequences in my home state of Connecticut. Connecticut Foodshare, the largest food bank in the state, initially received $3 million through LFPA and was slated to receive an additional $1 million before the program was canceled. The unexpected loss of this funding disrupted its inventory planning and required immediate adjustments to ensure it could continue meeting the needs of the people. Connecticut Foodshare also previously used LFPA funds to develop its Farm to Neighbors program, working with nearly 100 local farms to strengthen and diversify the food system in Connecticut.
Connecticut was expecting an additional $9.3 million in funding through the LFPA and LFS programs, with $3.7 million aimed at connecting Connecticut farmers directly with local pantries through LFPA and $5.6 million to bring local products to K-12 schools and early childhood education centers. This funding was critical to helping Connecticut farmers maintain stable markets while helping schools and food pantries produce fresh, locally grown foods. These programs were particularly important at a time when costs are high and food insecurity remains a serious concern for so many Americans who see all of their other benefits being cut. Mr. Franke, after the USDA canceled LFPA and LFS in 2025, how does this affect farmers who increased production or invested in equipment because of the demand created by these programs, and how does this cancellation affect local supply chains, food banks, and schools?
Chad Franke
Yeah, thank you for that question. As I had stated earlier, the entrance into this market can be pretty high in cost, the equipment, the processes, and everything to get into this system. So the stable, higher quantity orders make a big difference. It allows them to put that equipment and the processes in place that then lets them sell to farmers markets and to locally as well, building demand locally for those products. And when these funds were lost, we lost that market, and it was tough for some of those producers to continue.
Jahana Hayes
Thank you. I think I'm particularly concerned because one of the parts of SNAP that people don't really talk about is SNAP education. So it is critical to introduce young kids to healthy food and produce very early if you want them to be lifelong healthy eaters. How important are schools and food banks as reliable markets for growers, particularly small and specialty crop producers?
Chad Franke
Yeah, so when these programs are in place, they're vital. And as you said, getting youngsters to understand that, you know, fresh food is good, you don't have to eat the processed food all the time, it builds demand not just now but into the future with those consumers.
Redner 44
Thank you. I still have students talk to me 15 years later about the first time they had star fruit, and it was with me in class.
With that I yield back.
Redner 47
The gentlelady yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Rose, for five minutes.
John Rose
Thank you, Chairman DesJarlais, and thanks Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member Craig for holding this hearing. And thank you to our six witnesses for being here with us in Washington today. American farmers and ranchers and foresters are among the most productive in the world, but productivity alone does not pay the bills. Our producers need buyers, dependable markets, and prices that allow them to keep operating. That is the central challenge before us today: ensuring that the demand for American products is strong enough to sustain the people who produce them.
That requires looking seriously at what is displacing American products in the first place. We cannot talk about increasing demand for goods grown and manufactured here while ignoring unfairly priced foreign products that take their place. That means confronting China's role in undercutting American producers. On behalf of Tennessee's agriculture community, I have urged the administration to address several concerns that speak directly to today's hearing: Chinese products routed through Canada and Mexico to circumvent our anti-dumping duties, the severe strain on American hardwood producers competing with cheaper Chinese products, and unfairly priced steel imports that undercut American manufacturers. Across these industries, my concern is the same: American businesses should not lose their customers and livelihoods because foreign competitors refuse to play by the rules.
I appreciate President Trump's willingness to confront these practices and the administration's commitment to putting American producers first. But the work is not done. We need enforcement that reaches companies evading our duties, trade agreements that deliver meaningful access, and policies that translate "Buy American" into actual purchases from American producers. For Tennessee, that means keeping sawmills operating, strengthening domestic processing and manufacturing, and finding more customers for what our farmers and foresters produce. It also means developing markets beyond China so that our producers' futures are not dependent on decisions made in Beijing.
Today I want to hear what more we can do to turn American demand into American sales, American jobs, and stronger American farms. Our producers have demonstrated that they can compete. Our responsibility is to ensure they get a fair chance and that cheating does not determine who wins. In this spirit, Mr. Johnson, I support the goal of increasing demand for American cotton, but we must ensure that an incentive intended for American growers cannot be exploited through false origin claims, including claims that disguise Chinese cotton as American. Stakeholders have raised concerns about the cost and reliability of tracing cotton through processing into a finished product.
I have also heard that testing every bale would not be feasible. Under the Buying American Cotton Act, how would a business reliably verify that cotton it is claiming a credit for is actually American, and what would that verification cost relative to the credit's value?
Patrick Johnson
So one of the key components of the Buying American Cotton Act is the traceability of US cotton.
We have programs, the US Cotton Trust Protocol is one program that I participate in that has a sustainability aspect to it as well as a traceability aspect. And we fully understand that the integrity of that traceability is a key component for the success of the program.
John Rose
If an upstream supplier falsifies the cotton's origin, who bears the financial and legal consequences and what protection would a manufacturer or retailer have if it relied on that certification in good faith?
Patrick Johnson
That's a difficult question for me to answer as a producer. The industry has come together to put this program together and is supportive of it, and I think that the supply chain is confident that they can create that integrity of traceability that we need.
John Rose
Thank you. I would be interested if you can reach out and see if you can get us an answer to that question. I see my time's winding down, Chairman, and so I'm going to just yield back the balance of my time.
John Mannion
Gentleman from Tennessee yields back. The chair now recognizes Mr. Mannion for five minutes.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Shields, Environmental Science and Forestry, SUNY ESF, you earned your graduate degree there, which is in the district, so it seems like the perfect opportunity for me to brag a little bit about the great work that happens there and the work that you're doing to train the next generation of forestry and forest product professionals. I happen to volunteer in the American Chestnut Foundation with Dr. Powell and Dr. Maynard. I don't know if they were around when you were around, but from the looks of your goatee, probably. In your testimony, you talk about workforce development as essential to the future of the industry, particularly as manufacturers adopt more advanced technologies and modernize their operations.
I also serve on Education and Workforce Committee, so I spend a lot of time thinking about how we can better align education and training with the needs of employers. I've seen the great work in and out of my district at SUNY Cobleskill and SUNY Morrisville, Cornell, and SUNY ESF. So from your experience at ESF and now in the hardwood industry, is there anything Congress should be doing better to connect institutions like SUNY ESF with forest product manufacturers so we're training workers for the increasingly technical jobs that the industry needs?
Tyler Shields
Yeah, thank you for that question. So I'll answer it on two tracks. So if we look at the forestry side of it, I think the best thing that the federal government can do is make sure that any dollars we put toward job training is robustly informed by the industry, because the methods by which we collect data, actually do surveying on properties, and our forestry work changes quickly with our technology. But on the other side of it, if we move away from forestry and even just to our hourly employees, Binghamton's a perfect example. We moved from a very labor-intensive operation to just implementing new AI-enabled lumber grading technology.
So the type of employees that we're looking for, even from our local high school or trade school, is very different. So in the same vein, anything we can do, whether it's at the high school level, trade school, or university level, to make sure that we're getting direct input from our companies in the industry to prepare everybody, that's what we need, because it's changing fast.
John Mannion
That's great to hear. And I watch our community colleges and those higher ed universities, FFA, and our K-12 school ag programs, which is really inspiring to see do that kind of pivoting.
So I thank you for that. Dr. Buck, you mentioned, thank you, in your testimony that the next generation of agricultural prosperity will come not only from growing crops but from transforming those crops into higher value products that create new markets for farmers and support domestic manufacturing. We have a great example in Central New York with Dumond Farms in Union Springs. They grow and process soybeans locally, produce soybean oil that can be used for fuel, and have worked with engineers at Cornell University and the State of New York to evaluate opportunities to produce biodiesel and renewable diesel. For a company like Dumond that already has the feedstock, processing experience, and some of the infrastructure in place, what more should USDA and Congress be doing to help unlock this new manufacturing capacity?
Alex Buck
Thank you. I think some of the priorities that can help to expand these would be the Biobased Materials Investment and Production Act. It's an opportunity for new capacity to come online to lower the burden of investment in these new capacities. But part of the other issue that happens is in order to be able to track the impactfulness of some of these, like the Biobased Materials Investment and Production Act, the Biomanufacturing and Jobs Act, and the Ag Bio Act, is to ensure that we have a way to track the impactfulness within the federal government. For example, NAICS codes, the North American Industry Classification System.
Back in the 2018 Farm Bill, OMB was told to update the NAICS codes for the bioeconomy. In their 2027 revision that they've recently posted, they declined to follow Congress's directive in order to update those NAICS codes. And so I think with all of these policies, as well as the ability to see and the transparency for consumers as well as the government, I think that there are great opportunities to ensure your region and regions across the United States have the opportunities.
John Mannion
Great. Thank you, Dr. Buck. I appreciate that. I'll use my last 20 seconds to say in New York 22, we have a thriving wine industry. Exports to Canada have decreased by 91%.
I yield back.
Redner 43
Gentleman yields back. The chair now recognizes himself for five minutes. Good morning and thanks to all of our witnesses for being here today and for sharing your testimony on this incredibly important issue. Farmers and producers across the country are facing significant financial pressures and ensuring that they have strong, reliable markets for products they grow is an important part of strengthening farm country. So my first question is for any of our witnesses.
What steps can Congress take to strengthen domestic demand for American-grown products while preserving market-driven decision-making?
Alexis Taylor
Congressman, I'll maybe start. I think from a specialty crop perspective, particularly fresh fruits and vegetables, really tackling that, policies and targeting policies that try to tackle the lack of Americans who actually meet the minimum recommendations. So nine out of 10 Americans do not meet those minimum recommendations. So I think policies such as GusNIP, Double Up Bucks, that incentivize more fruits and vegetable purchases, developing markets through schools where we're creating lifelong consumers of fruits and vegetables are very important to helping develop those markets. And then I think the other component of that is having a reliable workforce for the specialty crop sector is paramount if we want to expand demand to meet these new markets that we're developing domestically.
We need to have a workforce to be able to do that. And that's why IFPA and many others are supportive of Chair Thompson's Securing Agricultural Workforce Act.
Chad Franke
Yes. One way we can support farmers and ranchers across this country is ensure that they capture a fair share of the value that they create. When we look at the farmer's share of the food dollar, it varies from small to very small. We need to make sure that those that are creating these safe nutritious foods have the benefit of fair markets that allow them to capture that value.
Would any other members like to chime in?
Alex Buck
I'd say dependable markets are required, and part of that is the BioPreferred program when it comes to bioproducts. The USDA has a robust opportunity for labeling for consumer transparency of bioproducts through the BioPreferred program, and expanding the federal procurement side of BioPreferred would be critical to expanding markets for biobased products.
Redner 43
As you know, farmers are experiencing increasing challenges to maintain a reliable workforce and meet increasing demand. Chairman Thompson's Securing Agricultural Workforce Act takes major steps towards addressing some of those challenges. What would comprehensive ag labor reform mean for your farms or the farms you represent? And anyone who wants to jump in.
Carlyle Currier
I can speak to that. We are strongly supportive of the proposed bill that Chairman Thompson has introduced. Labor is a huge issue across agriculture. I happen to be in a situation where I am fortunate enough I'm able to hire locally the labor I need for my particular ranch. In fact, most of my employees are related to me in one way or another, but that is not true of many of my neighbors.
You have to have a secure labor supply if you're going to produce food of any kind because farming is very labor intensive. Labor rules have and an inability to get adequate labor has really harmed agriculture. And when you can't get labor at harvest time or in my case when cows are calving in the spring, you're going to lose production. So that labor piece is vitally important to us, and we need to have not only availability of labor but be able to get it at a price we can afford.
Chad Franke
Yeah, I agree with my colleague. The need for labor in agriculture is pretty intense. It's also very seasonal. We had a pilot program that came out a few years back that allowed the sharing of H-2A workers across different operations. When you've got one operation in a town that needs a set of workers intensely for two or three weeks, and then another one that needs it for two or three weeks, and then another one that needs it for two or three weeks, the H-2A program, that pilot program, worked very effectively to allow them to pool together to pull one group and move them through the community.
And we would appreciate understanding the flexibility needed in seasonal workers.
And someone else can take the last 20 seconds.
Alexis Taylor
Congressman, I would love to. I think one of the other priorities in Chair Thompson's bill that is critical to specialty crops is some of the changes to the controlled environment agriculture known as greenhouses. Today they cannot access the H-2A program. Expanding it to them is critically important. Several of our greenhouse grower members have told us just in recent weeks they would invest up to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars of additional production in the United States except for they cannot get a reliable workforce.
So as we think about wanting to expand domestic production, a workforce, addressing a reliable workforce with predictable costs for the specialty crop sector is one of our top priorities.
Jim Costa
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member. I think today's topic, increasing demand and opportunities for homegrown products here and abroad, is appropriate given the fact that folks are hurting in farm country, whether it's in the various regions that we represent or California, my home state, the largest agricultural state in the nation, last year 61 and a half billion dollars at the farm gate of over 400 commodities that we grow. And as a third-generation farmer, I can tell you firsthand how challenging it is these days. I want to talk about the impacts of tariffs, which I think are part of a one-two punch impacting the difficult challenges where bankruptcies are at an all-time high in California and elsewhere. And Ms. Taylor and Mr. Franki, you're probably the two best on the panel to talk about tariffs.
My time has expired, so I yield and I am now pleased to recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Costa, for five minutes.
I have never been a fan, and members of this committee know, of tariffs. I guess in some instances they can be a tool that can be used, but I think we're seeing déjà vu all over again, as Yogi Berra once said, with the tariff run that the first Trump administration did and now this second run of it. Tariffs are a tax on American consumers. That's what they are. They're a tax on American producers, agricultural producers and manufacturers.
That's what they are. And we pay for them. It's not the other countries that pay for them. I'm glad to see that the Supreme Court recognized the fact that it is under the Constitution the domain of the Congress. But I think you've got a lot of factors that are engaged right now in this one-two punch: tariffs and detain and deport, because 70% of our workforce in California are undocumented.
And these are some of the hardest-working people you'll ever meet in your life. But for farmers, ranchers, dairymen and women and the farmworkers to be able to make that magic with less than 5% of the nation's population and ensure that food, which is a national security issue, that we're able to put food on America's dinner table every night is a continued challenge that we deal with. The markets, you know, like stability, right? And they like certainty. And I can tell you that our agricultural producers, I've been farming for 25 years, work real hard to establish those markets.
To what degree do you think the impacts of the economic challenges we face in American agriculture, California agriculture, where 44% of our agriculture is exported, have impacted the farmer's bottom line, Ms. Taylor?
Alexis Taylor
Thank you, Congressman Costa, for that question. You know, one of the challenges I think the specialty crop sector has been experiencing, especially, you know, fruit, vegetable and floral, is some of the tariffs on inputs, and those critical inputs that we need.
Redner 50
85% of the potash that we receive in California comes from Canada. You look at diesel prices, you look at other impacts of this war in Iran that's impacting every segment of the food supply chain.
Alexis Taylor
And broader than that: seed, bulbs, packaging that is critical for protecting from food safety to the shelf-life availability of many specialty crops. All of that or much of that is being imported and there are not necessarily alternative sources.
Redner 50
And 40% of our market with Canada and Mexico. What's this all about, 51st state? I mean, is this the way you treat your friends and your neighbors? It makes no sense.
Alexis Taylor
Canada and Mexico are our two largest trading partners in the specialty crop sector and the fresh produce sector, and so we have highly integrated markets and they have long been very reliable and predictable.
Jim Costa
So do you believe that this is a direct impact in terms of the issue of costs that farmers and ranchers are facing, that dairymen and women, because of this impact of the tariffs?
Alexis Taylor
I think they are being impacted potentially on both sides, and certainly on the input side, but also on the export side as we have seen some...
Mr. Franki, do you care to comment?
Chad Franke
I'm sorry. I do agree. We need good trade across the borders. And what's been going on in the very chaotic way that trade policy has been carried out has not been good for family farmers and ranchers.
Jim Costa
And guess what? Farmers, ranchers, they're price takers, not price makers. Is that not correct?
100%.
Jim Costa
Since I was a kid, I learned that written in my father's forehead: price takers, not price makers. But the President doesn't understand that clearly. He doesn't care, obviously, as he continues to this chaotic effort to, you know, I'll take these tariffs and I'll raise them more. And then American taxpayers are paying the bill. My time's expired, Mr. Chairman, but I think we've got to let the rest of the world know that we want to continue to be a honest broker and let American agriculture do what it does best, which is put food on America's dinner table.
Redner 43
Gentleman yields back. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Messmer, for five minutes.
Mark Messmer
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to start by thanking the witnesses for sharing your perspectives with the committee today. I would argue that increasing demand for US-grown products is one of the most pressing issues facing agriculture in America. While it is certainly important to solidify access to foreign markets, we must also be diligent to establish new and innovative markets on American soil. Overreliance on foreign markets for market opportunities makes us very vulnerable to demand shocks.
By encouraging domestic demand, we hedge our farm economies from instability. One of these critical domestic market opportunities is the bioeconomy. Dr. Buck, in your testimony, you mentioned the Biomanufacturing and Jobs Act, a bill that I introduced alongside with Representative Alford to expand biobased, the biobased marketplace. Given your unique experience in the bioindustry, can you explain the merit of the bioeconomy as a value-added opportunity for our farmers, especially with the ongoing challenges that farmers are facing?
Alex Buck
Absolutely, thank you. Agriculture has always thrived on a diversification in its operation, and so does the demand for those products. So by having a unique diversity in demand for the products from ag commodities for feed and fuel is beneficial, and now adding the bioproducts will be a very advantageous addition. Additionally, most of the products that go into biobased as a feedstock do utilize the vegetable oil or the starches and glucose sugar. And so that leaves the high-protein, high-fiber feed very beneficial for our cattle producers and our general animal agriculture.
Mark Messmer
Thank you. As our farmers have endured season after season of financial pressure, I've been proud to support supplemental assistance packages, but my producers would always rather rely on well-functioning markets than government aid. Dr. Buck, how can market development legislation like the Biomanufacturing and Jobs Act provide long-term stability for American farmers in ways that supplemental disaster insurance can't?
Alex Buck
The Biomanufacturing and Jobs Act definitely gives an advantageous opportunity for the BioPreferred Program, expanding for federal procurement and also transparency for consumers by understanding the uniform terminology and labeling that is utilized within bioproducts. And so I think that by giving the transparency and given the stats that show that many consumers are interested and likely to purchase biobased products, we have an opportunity to marry together the agricultural feedstocks that we have with the demand that we see from consumers.
Mark Messmer
Thank you. Also in your testimony, you highlight the utility of the North American Industry Classification System as an investment driver. How much private investment is the bioeconomy missing out on purely because market data is lacking and what does it mean for access to critical market opportunities for our farmers?
Alex Buck
I believe it's actually challenging to estimate how much private investment has gone into the United States for these products because of the lack of NAICS codes, the North American Industry Classification System. The 2018 Farm Bill did direct the administration at the time to develop these NAICS codes and the 2027 revision that's been proposed declined to follow the Farm Bill from 2018. And so by having these codes, not only can we identify the impactfulness of the products, but we can also identify the impactfulness of legislation like the Bio-Based Materials Production and Investment Act proposed as HR 8137. So I think that it's needed for us to track. If we can't measure something, if we can't track it, we can't affect it.
You can't prove what you don't measure.
That's right.
Mark Messmer
Well, thank you. The Bio-Manufacturing and Jobs Act, which included the House-passed Farm Bill, is a solution to that data problem and a demand driver for Hoosier farmers. This committee's Farm Bill meaningfully invests in rural communities and facilities' long-term profitability for American producers. To oppose the Farm Bill is just to turn your back on the American farmer. I'm going to thank the witnesses for your time and with that, I yield back.
Jennifer McClellan
Gentleman yields back. The chair now recognizes Ms. McClellan-Delaney for five minutes.
Thank you to the chair and ranking member and thank you to all the witnesses. I think I'm one of the last ones to bring it home, so I really appreciate you going through this. I so support policies that drive demand for our ag products, really help incentivize foreign markets and new products research, and really help promote a stable workforce as we have discussed, you know, time and time again in this hearing. And I am a problem-solving Democrat, the daughter of an Idaho potato farmer, although I represent Maryland's 6th Congressional District. But sadly, many of the policies of this administration and what has come out of this Congress has really done the opposite of much of what we want to do here.
This August, I traveled across Maryland's 6th Congressional District to meet with our county farm bureaus, gone to their fairs, met with the Maryland Secretary of Ag and local farmers, and I even convened a hearing about SNAP and farm-to-table with all of our western and mountain Maryland farmers and specialty farmers. But their message was clear: we have an administration that is really not helping rural America and our farmers. In fact, they said two refrains: we want trade, not aid, and this is promises made and sadly promises broken to us. Between the cuts to USDA to unfortunately embark our research in USDA research center in Beltsville, workforce instability, technical assistance programs being cut, obviously the nonsensical tariffs, cuts to SNAP, the war in Ukraine, and as we talked about, driving up diesel and fertilizer, imported mystery beef, and labor shortages, our agricultural producers are being squeezed. We've heard about this time and time again.
And what is also very sad is that 85%, I think I just heard from my colleague, of these products in the trade war which are being impacted with Canada. To me, if Vladimir Putin had a hit list to break America, this administration is checking off every item on the wish list and serving it on a silver platter. But I am a member of this Ag Committee and I believe that we have to solve problems and that we have to help our farmers.
I was just on the steps of the Capitol with my Democratic colleagues talking about the issues of affordability, and the head of the farmers in Nebraska, a man named John, got up and talked about all of these issues, and he said, "We need help, and we need help now." So, not to bemoan this, it's really hard to hold a hearing on increasing opportunities for American farmers when we have systematically dismantled the very markets and programs that farmers rely on and upset the labor. So, if we really want to increase opportunities for farmers right now, why not repeal these nonsensical tariffs, reinstate SNAP, and end the war in Iran? So I'm going to ask a couple of things. Mr. Frank, you represent a wide variety of agricultural producers.
Given the rising cost of inputs and loss of critical domestic and export markets, what are the most crucial steps that right now Congress and this administration could take to ensure that our producers and farmers remain competitive and sell the crops they grow? And then, Ms. Taylor, you know, with respect to our specialty crops farmers, you know, SNAP, for every dollar you put into SNAP, $1.50 comes back to our farmers, our truckers, our, you know, our markets. You know, how are you looking at that with our specialty crop farmers? And some of your issues on workforce is very instructive. And then any of you would also like to comment.
Chad Franke
The single biggest thing that legislature and the administration could do is take steps to ensure that the value created by our producers is captured by our producers, that they're not held captive to the increasing input costs. And although the price of commodities has come up, it still doesn't match the cost of production. So that would be the single biggest thing is implement those policies.
Jennifer McClellan
The farmer in Nebraska today said, "This is a catastrophe not unlike that of the 1980s." And by the way, my dad, the Idaho farmer Tom, he was the one that crashed and burned after the '80s. So we don't want to have that happen again.
Tyler Shields
Well, I'm not in the farming industry, hardwood industry, but I would say the single biggest thing for us is obviously it's a very global market. So stability is important. And, you know, maybe China and some other countries aren't the best trading partners all the time, but in particular some of the disruptions right now with the Canadian market have been really impactful. So, you know, stability and what the federal government can do to lead by example and use American hardwoods, I think those are the two biggest things that can come from the federal government right now to help the industry.
Excellent, Tyler.
Alexis Taylor
Congresswoman, just on your nutrition question and SNAP in particular, you know, SNAP is an important market for Americans to be able to afford fruits and vegetables, in particular fresh fruits and vegetables. About 10% of SNAP is redeemed for fresh produce. And as we think about, you know, nine out of 10 Americans do not meet the minimum recommendations, it's an important way to be able to support all Americans' access to these key products to diet and human health.
So agree.
Alexis Taylor
And programs like GusNIP, the incentive-based programs, I think are also instrumental. And we have data and evidence to show when we incentivize produce purchases, people buy more fruits and vegetables and consume more fruits and vegetables. And so incentives like that, I think, are also key as we look to improve Americans' health through diet.
Jennifer McClellan
Anybody else? All right. Thank you very much and I will be submitting a few questions for the record, but I thank you all for being here. I yield back.
Redner 53
Gentlelady's time has expired. Now recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Van Orden, for five minutes.
Derrick Van Orden
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to clear up a couple things here. We passed the farm bill out of the House on April 30th. That's four and a half months ago. It's been sitting at the Senate and I'd like to thank the chairman for his prayers for the Agriculture Committee there, see if they can get that done.
We passed E15 May 13th. That's five and a half months ago. It's been sitting at the Senate. So the issue is not the Trump administration, it's the Senate. It's just the way it is.
We have 700 bills sitting at the Senate that have been passed through this body. So it is not the Trump administration, it is the Senate. That is the problem. For my colleague from Illinois, they could lower gas prices by 48 cents immediately and 55 cents for diesel if they just reduced their individual state tax on the fuel. That would be very helpful to my neighbors to the south.
We've all noted that trade takes time to establish trade relationships. And I will just remind everybody there was zero new trade deals under the Biden administration. Zero in four years. It was a very, very dark hole the Biden administration put us in that we are trying to get out of now. There's been 20 new agriculture trade deals by the Trump administration in 19 months.
So we went from zero to 20. And again, these take time. Can somebody turn off their phone? It's been beeping for a while here. So we do not want to have issues with our Canadian brothers and sisters.
We don't. But friends don't treat friends like this. So Canada is not the good guy in this story. They've been jamming my dairy farmers for an extended period of time. They are not following the tenets of the USMCA that they agreed to and they're going to.
So when the American farmer can compete on a level playing field, we win every time. And Canada has been jamming us. And Prime Minister Carney is doing this for political purposes because he's unpopular in his own country and he is trying to confront President Trump. And that is to the detriment of Canadians and Americans. And every time they undercut something, it hurts our American workers and our farmers.
And we're simply not going to put up with this any longer. It's just not going to happen. And people seem to forget there's a 25% spike in diesel fuel when Russia invaded Ukraine. And Russia invaded Ukraine because of Biden's strategic weakness that he projected around the globe. That's what happened.
Is diesel where we want it right now? Absolutely not. Absolutely not. I had a very, very uncomfortable discussion with our refiners this morning. We're still exporting diesel out of this country right now.
And there's you can argue about second and third order effects if we reduce exports, but you know, they're American companies and Americans need a break at the pump right now, especially for our farm diesel. Farm diesel's about 30% a gallon less than road diesel right now. My buddies, they contracted out at 2.64 for last year for diesel. And we want to make sure that, you know, by the November, December timeframe when our farmers are going to start contracting for the next year, that these prices are reduced. And we're working diligently to get that down right now.
I kind of have a kind of an odd question for you, Mr. Shields. Can you explain to me what China is doing to our mills right now?
Tyler Shields
Thanks for the question. You know, I think there's some differing opinions in the industry because it's a global market for hardwoods. Over 50% of our grade lumber is exported. China's the biggest buyer. But they're also importing a lot of hardwood logs right now.
So, you know, it's we want to maintain people's ability to make their own decisions for their their own company. But the issue that we're running into is that some of that lumber gets turned into low-cost cabinet components and gets re-imported back into the US, either directly or transshipping. And, you know, we have firsthand knowledge of this where we are. We're buying we're selling to people who are saying we're finally starting to maybe see that some of those cheaper components that are transshipping, they're running out of inventory. And we are getting some more orders as a result of that.
Derrick Van Orden
So this is what I I've got some excellent companies in my district that that build mill machinery. And what they're seeing is the Chinese are coming in, they're buying bulk. They're shipping it to China and then they're selling it at reduced prices in the United States. And our mills are closing because of this. That's exactly what the Japanese did to the United States of America in the 1970s with consumer electronics.
And China's on notice. We're not going to put up with this any longer. With that, I yield.
Redner 57
Gentleman yields back. Now please to recognize Mr. Davis for five minutes.
Don Davis
Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, and to the ranking member and to our witnesses who are here today. Our cattle producers are challenged with making long-term investments in a market where they face real uncertainty, rising costs, and pressure from imported beef. If we want to rebuild the American herd and strengthen our rural economy, we need policies that put American cattle producers in a position to compete. Mr. Correo, do you believe American cattle producers have enough competition and marketing options today? And if not, what specifically should Congress do to expand independent processing capacity and give producers more leverage in the marketplace?
Carlyle Currier
Thank you for the question. I think it's a very complicated issue because efficiencies of size are very important in in meat processing. But we also need small processors to process locally, especially for those that are producing for niche markets that want to be able to sell farm to fork locally. There are not a lot of options available in many communities for that to happen because they're in my own community, I I don't have that option. The nearest processor that's USDA inspected is is more than 100 miles away from where from my ranch.
If I wanted to do that, it would be very difficult to do. So it there are issues involved in the inspection as well as issues involved with having the processor itself. On the other hand, you know, most of my most of the beef produced in the US is not sold locally. It it is sold through big retailers. You need a strong market seller to to be able to negotiate with those big retailers and and to be able to sell our beef overseas where, you know, 15% of our beef is sold is exported.
So it's it's not as easy issue as it it might appear on the process. We need both local small processors as well as the big processors.
Redner 60
Thank you so much. Our soybean growers are facing continued uncertainty in global markets. Rising input costs and increased competition. As I emphasized recently to a letter to the President, our farmers need predictable, sustained access to export markets, not sporadic purchases or emergency assistance. Mr. Johnson, ahead of the planned September 24th Trump-Xi summit, how does uncertainty about China's purchase commitments affect the 2027 planning and marketing decisions?
Patrick Johnson
Well, all of our commodities, soybeans, cotton, rice, the crops I grow are all much better than they have been. And I think there's uncertainty about how much optimism about that meeting is built into the markets now, but we're thankful for the opportunities that the market's presenting right now and we hope that those market levels will continue as we get into this winter and start planning for 27.
Redner 60
And shifting gears, Ms. Taylor, to labor. What would legislation like Securing American Agricultural Workforce Act, what does that really mean to farmers and have we really jumped in at this point to assess and understand a potential impact of back payments?
Alexis Taylor
Congressman, I can tell you every week we hear from our members, US producers, and their number one challenge is an accessible, reliable workforce. I think with predictable costs. And so as we look to the Securing Agricultural Workforce Act that Chair Thompson introduced, it's a top priority for IFPA because if we want to expand domestic production, we need a reliable workforce to be able to do that.
Redner 62
I think I'll have to get back to you, your office maybe in writing, we could reach out and have a deeper discussion on that.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, with that I yield back.
Van Taylor
I thank the gentleman, gentleman yields back, now recognize Mr. Harris for five minutes. I'm sorry, Mr. Taylor for five minutes.
We've talked extensively today about cutting regulations and how it's essential to keeping our ag industry productive and profitable. Thank you, Chairman, and thanks to each of you for being here today. I know it's a great imposition and we appreciate your time and expertise. Ms. Taylor, you mentioned in your testimony that the regulatory cost on specialty crop growers increased over 1300% for lettuce farmers in California over an 18-year period from 2006 to 2024. You also mentioned that the regulatory compliance costs rose from just 1% of production costs to 12 and a half percent over the same period.
In your opinion, how can we expect our farmers to compete on the global markets with these massive outside costs and what can Congress do to help lower this regulatory burden?
Alexis Taylor
Thank you, Congressman Taylor, for that question. So I think it is challenging and that is why we articulate some of these long-term challenges that our specialty crop producers have been facing. I think agricultural workforce reform is critically important to be able to compete on a global scale, as is the farm bill. There are key investments in updating risk management so it works for the specialty crop sector and then some of those market development programs that we've talked about today, TASC, MAP, FMD, to be able to tackle really technical issues that might be preventing specialty crops from accessing those markets, but then also building demand once in those markets.
Van Taylor
Thank you, Ms. Taylor. Mr. Courier, are you concerned that if California's onerous, hair-brained, and in my opinion, unconstitutional Proposition 12 is not addressed, that states will start coming after our cattle and other livestock producers as they have our pork producers?
Carlyle Currier
Yes, I'm very concerned about that. I think that the Prop 12 problem needs to be addressed. I had the privilege earlier this year of doing some farm tours in Ireland and seeing what the regulations are that have been imposed on ranchers, on cattle producers in Ireland. If we had the same requirements here, I don't think I could stay in business. And I think that's a danger when you can have one state making regulations that affect producers across the country.
So it does need to be addressed.
Van Taylor
Thank you, Mr. Courier. Thank you all again for being here today. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Redner 56
Thanks to the gentleman. The gentleman yields back. Now recognize Mr. Figg-Res from Alabama for five minutes.
Shomari Figures
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to start by expressing my condolences to a farm family in my community, in my district back in Alabama. Over the summer break, like many of us, I had the opportunity to tour a lot of farms. One was the J.L. Brown Farm in McKenzie, Alabama, run now by Mr. Miles Brown, who is at least a third-generation, possibly fourth-generation farmer there in Alabama. His mother was there when we went out to the farm and unfortunately passed away shortly after we left, Ms. Margaret Brown.
And so I want to extend my condolences again to Miles Brown, his wife, and the entire Brown family. Mr. Chairman, thank you for hosting this hearing. I appreciate the folks at this hearing because when we talk about the future of American agriculture, we have to accept the fact that American farmers are currently being squeezed from both sides. We are seeing that right now, particularly in the cattle industry. In August last month, the administration announced that up to 300,000 metric tons of lean beef trimmings could enter the United States over a 90-day period without the applicable above-quota tariffs applying to them, and even went a step further saying that that could be sold for 25% under market value.
That decision, as you are well aware, raised serious concerns among cattle producers, including the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, including the Alabama Cattlemen's Association, and others across this country, particularly in this moment as American ranchers are already working to rebuild the domestic cattle herd. The concern is simple. If we make it easier to bring in foreign beef and we allow it to undercut market prices while American producers are working to rebuild their herds, we have to ask what that means for the future of American beef production and long-term sustainability and its long-term viability. That is why I wrote to you, Chairman Thompson, requesting an emergency committee hearing on that decision, on that issue, because we need to know more about that. And it's also why I introduced legislation to nullify the administration's proclamation to waive those applicable tariffs on certain beef products that are imported into the United States.
But this issue is bigger than just beef. We have an administration imposing tariffs that have disrupted long-standing agricultural markets and made it harder for American producers to compete overseas. And I want to be clear, I don't care if your name is Donald Trump or Joe Biden, when you implement policies that are harmful to our agricultural industry, that matters. And that is something that this committee should be addressing and should be making sure that we're leveraging our responsibilities here and our authority in this committee to make sure we're standing up for our farmers.
Families are spending less at the grocery store and most of the products sold in the grocery store originate on our farms. So that is inevitably something that's going to hurt the bottom line of farmers more than any other industry. When farmers are simultaneously losing access to foreign buyers, we are creating a serious problem for producers who already have to contend with high input costs, debt, and volatility in commodity prices. We need to build demand. We need to build domestic demand and we need to be able to satisfy foreign demand.
That means opening and protecting reliable export markets. It means investing in domestic processing. It means encouraging businesses to purchase American-grown commodities. And it means making it easier for consumers, schools, hospitals, institutions, and businesses to buy American agricultural products. Unfortunately, Congress has increasingly been forced to respond to problems that are being created, particularly in this administration most recently.
That is why I introduced the Tariff-Impacted Farmer Support Act to provide temporary assistance to farmers who are being harmed by the current trade environment. But I want to be clear, these temporary measures are not the solution, certainly not the long-term solution. I don't want American farmers to have to depend on emergency assistance because an administration, any administration, Democrat or Republican, has taken steps that disrupts their markets. If we are serious about supporting American farmers, we cannot simply compensate them after the market has been lost. We must build the markets and sustain those markets in the first place.
Until this administration reverses policies that are actively undermining those markets, Congress has a responsibility to stand up for the farmers and ranchers who are bearing the consequences. Ms. Taylor, we're here today talking about increasing demand for American agricultural products. How difficult is it to increase demand when we're simultaneously giving our competitors an opportunity to take away markets that American farmers have already built and been supplying?
Alexis Taylor
Thank you, Congressman. For the specialty crop industry and the fresh produce industry in particular, nine out of ten Americans do not eat the minimum recommendations for fruit and vegetable intake every day. So I think there are a lot of opportunities to build additional demand through incentive-based programs in SNAP that we have data and evidence to know that when we incentivize additional purchases, individuals consume more fruits and vegetables through other institutional buying such as the school meals program. These are great venues to get more fruits and vegetables in front of young people to build lifelong consumers. So I think there are opportunities within the existing programs today to expand consumption, which then will drive new markets and drive additional production of US fruits and vegetables.
Glenn Thompson
Well, thank you. I see my time has expired. I yield back, Mr. Chair.
James Baird
Gentleman's time has expired. Now recognize Dr. Baird from Indiana for five minutes.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for holding this meeting. And you know, I've spent my whole life in agriculture and so we're starting harvest in West Central Indiana across that section. So it's pretty hard to sit here and talk when I know the work's going on. But anyway, having access to people like you and I want you to know from my perspective, you're the foundation of this country and from the very beginning. And what you do and that positive attitude you had about keeping us fed and clothed and the fiber that we need around the world is impressive.
And I think you ought to be proud of that. And I know you are because if you weren't, you wouldn't stay in the business. But I'm going to start and I've got questions for everyone, but I'm probably not going to get to them. But I want to start with Dr. Buck because I was reading your bio and you've been directing research for Iowa corn farmers for the past twelve years or so. But I found the things that you're looking at covering new plant-based polymers, platform chemicals, biofuels, fermentation-derived products.
And so I'm going to give you just a few moments of my time because I think that is relevant to how we've stayed successful in agriculture and because of research and the background and it leads to my question here in a minute. So Dr. Buck, I'd like to give you an opportunity to express what you see in your research projects that's critical and how you're expanding that and what you're looking at as being essential.
Alex Buck
Sure, thank you very much. I believe that the biomanufacturing and bioeconomy is potentially the next domino to fall against China, especially after we lost electronics and other pharmaceutical industries. And so having the opportunity to try to develop those markets here within the United States will keep those jobs and those opportunities here for our farmers and our ag products. But what I see in products is that chemicals and polymers are the next phase where we have biopolymers like plants being designed in Nebraska for polypropylene, having opportunities for ethanol as a feedstock as a platform chemical into products, as well as bioproducts that go into textiles like monoethylene glycol in your state. And so I think it's very impactful that if we have these bioproducts, we have these jobs, we have these higher property tax opportunities because of the plants being located, we have an opportunity to expand rural economies because the plants and the manufacturing will be in the rural economies.
It's easier to ship pure chemicals and pure products than it is to ship the grains and the other products. Of course, grains and products are shipped globally anyway, but having those stay local, having the co-products of proteins and fibers and feeds stay local as we utilize the vegetable oils and the carbohydrates will be extensively important for us.
James Baird
Thank you. And you know, it's we have a good corn, soy, and corn growers and soybean producers alliance in Indiana. One of the things the soybean alliance has done with their checkoff dollars is find another material that we can put into concrete or asphalt, fills all the voids better and it's a product of the soybean. And I'm getting off track there, but that's the kind of thing I think research and scale-up is really important to making products from the commodities that we produce and the livestock we produce. And so I just wanted to give you an opportunity to express that because I think it's so important to what we're doing.
But I'm going to go on with this question and this relates to what we were just talking about. You know, we've got tremendous agricultural research taking place at universities like Purdue, which I'm extremely fond of. But an invention in the university laboratory doesn't really make that product capable of being scaled up and manufactured in America. So what infrastructure or partnerships are most important to make sure that federally supported agriculture research results in manufacturing facilities and in jobs and new commodity demand here in the United States? So I'm really looking to how we successfully take it from the laboratory on into scale-up and making actual manufacturing.
Alex Buck
As you noted, we have incredible opportunities and innovation happening in the United States, but the Biomanufacturing and Jobs Act, the Agricultural Biorefinery Innovation Opportunity Act is going to be extremely important to scale those facilities. We are losing our technologies to China and the EU because they have significantly more investment and biorefinery for pilot and demonstration scale. And so by having the 9003 loan guarantee and establishing cost-share for pre-commercial plants, it will be extremely important, as well as the Biobased Materials Investment and Production Act, which will help encourage investment from private companies into biomanufacturing of new products and new capacity.
James Baird
Thank you very much, and I appreciate all of you being here. I could spend the rest of the afternoon, but I'm sure you're tired of listening to this, so okay. Thank you. I yield back.
Redner 64
Gentleman's time has expired. I now recognize Mr. Harris for five minutes, please.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to all of you that have been so patient with your time today and your willingness to persevere for this general time. American farmers and ranchers, no question, are the best in the world at what they do. And thanks to that expertise and hard work, you know as well as I do that the quality of American agricultural products is unparalleled around the world. American producers do take great pride in the fields they cultivate and the crops they grow and the livestock they raise as they work hard to meet demand and feed families across the country.
We know that's certainly true when it comes to American ranchers, as beef demand remains strong both domestically and internationally. And Mr. Currier, that's why I wanted to come to you for a moment. I've also heard from ranchers in my district that few things are more important to their operations than strong demand for American beef, especially as ranchers are being asked to make the long-term investment necessary to rebuild the domestic herd that we've heard a good deal about. How does increasing and strengthening demand for beef, both domestically and internationally, influence a rancher's decision about whether to retain heifers and invest in rebuilding the US cattle herd?
Carlyle Currier
Well, thank you for the question. Yes, demand is really what drives whether we're profitable or not. And I can't retain heifers if I don't have a pretty good idea I'm going to be able to pay for that cost of development of that heifer, which is a two or three-year process before I get any return back from that heifer. You know, demand is great because of the quality of the beef we're producing. Even with the high prices we have today, our exports this year are they're not quite record high, they're a little four or five percent below record, but on a value basis, they're going to be record high this year, what we're exporting.
So we both domestically and internationally, our demand is great for beef because of the quality of what we produce. We've really improved our quality through the way we produce them.
Redner 65
So you would ultimately say strong demand gives ranchers an important incentive to invest in the future of their operations. And I was interested in your testimony that you had shared in writing, actually, deciding whether to retain heifers to rebuild the herd is not always an easy decision for ranchers because it requires them to forego revenue today for the possibility of a greater revenue in the future. And so it's a long-term investment that doesn't always pay off overnight. I was also thankful to hear you highlight the permanent tax provisions Congressional Republicans secured in HR 1 last year, which is going to give American producers greater certainty and confidence in making those long-term investments. I do want to ask from your perspective as a rancher, how will those tax provisions help give ranchers the confidence to make the long-term investments necessary to rebuild the domestic cattle herd?
Carlyle Currier
Well, it all comes back to being whether we can be profitable or not. Even if we can sell our product for a price that we can secure a profit, if it's going to all go to pay taxes, it isn't worth going to the work of doing that.
It's not worth making the investment. We need to have a good return on our investment if we're going to invest that money into developing a heifer. It's, you know, beef production is a long-term process. You don't do it overnight. It takes two or three years before, well, at least three years before you get the first calf ready to sell from a replacement heifer.
And you've got to have the incentives of profitability and not lose that profit through taxes to be able to do that.
Redner 65
Thank you, sir. Mr. Johnson, I do want with the just a brief few moments remaining, I would like to touch on the Buying American Cotton Act, which I'm proud to be a co-sponsor along with other members of this committee. Even though the United States is one of the largest cotton producers in the world, much of that cotton we produce is exported and relatively little being utilized here at home. The Buying American Cotton Act is a common sense bill designed to strengthen domestic demand for American-grown cotton while benefiting both our producers and manufacturers. In your view, Mr. Johnson, how will this bill not only benefit American cotton producers, but also strengthen the relationship between domestic cotton producers and manufacturers right here at home?
Patrick Johnson
Sure. Well, first, we appreciate your being a co-sponsor of the bill. And as I said, that Buying American Cotton Act not only will be supportive of our cotton market by incentivizing the use of US cotton, but the credits that are generated by that program increase with the amount of processing that takes care takes place in the US, so it's very supportive of our manufacturing as well.
Zachary Nunn
Thanks, the gentleman. Gentleman yields back. Now recognize the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Nunn, for five minutes.
Well, thank you very much, Chairman. And Chairman, I want to say thank you very much for coming to Iowa and the Great State Fair. You showed a phenomenal steer out there in the cattle barn. Thanks to our cattle farmers as well. We have been aggressive on the Trump administration about making sure our cattle farmers have first opportunity not only to grow it here, but Made in American cattle starts in America.
I also want to say thank you. We have two incredible guests here today, Alexis Taylor as well as Dr. Alex Buck. Not only are they great Iowans, Chairman, they're both Cyclones. The very fact that we had a rough last Saturday doesn't mean the rest of the season can't be just as good as this committee hearing. So I will kick it off and say thank you very much for taking the time.
We did lose to the Hawkeyes, but it was a it was a good game to watch. We're here today to talk about I think one of the most impactful aspects of what we can do for American agriculture. And that's about opening up new markets, driving demand for what farmers and ranchers here in the US produce, but also provide to the entire world. This is especially timely in the conversations I've had with farmers across my 21 counties. I go out every time with listening sessions and invite farmers around the round table.
And consistently what I've heard from these folks is they don't want a handout. They want the opportunity to produce and make a fair market return on their hard work. And that's exactly what I think we intend to do here in Washington to help them. It's one of the reasons that this committee has been such a forward leader on not only passing the Farm Bill, but things like our Biofuels Bill that was able to be pushed through both this committee in a bipartisan way, end up on the floor, and again pass. I hope the Senate's listening because the House has delivered and the American people, the American farmer, are asking for it.
So Dr. Buck, I'd like to thank you first of all for your incredible work with Plant Based Products Council and as the Director of Industrial Innovation at Iowa Corn Promotion Board. Iowa's providing what E15 demand looks like. In August alone, Iowa fuel terminals moved more than 46 million gallons of E15. Not only has that helped fill up, you know, the F-150, it helps fill up my wife's minivan, and that's important for all of us. At this pace, E15 is on track to overtake E10.
And I'm proud to say the momentum doesn't just stop in Iowa.
Just this month, even California said that they're going to start selling year-round nationwide E15 in that state. And if California can do it, I think that's a wake-up call to the rest of the world. We've got a real opportunity here because we see a new statistic that shows that ethanol exports are up 41%. There's a global market demand for it, and we can grow it, produce it, and make it right here in America. The message, I think, for everyone is clear: year-round, year-round nationwide E15 is here to stay.
But we also need to support the development of new innovations in this space, from sustainable aviation fuel to biodiesel in maritime, to help drive down costs but also expand new markets. Maritime fuel in particular has enormous potential. It's estimated that it could create an additional 4 billion, with a B, gallons of American biofuels, making it both more affordable for the consumer at home and also providing a domestic source of diesel rather than blending it with oil coming from countries like Russia or Iran. So with that, I'd like to talk about what do you think, Dr. Buck, are some of the biggest barriers preventing American farmers and biofuel producers from tapping into these new markets, and what should we in Congress be doing to help unlock it?
Alex Buck
Thank you very much for the question. I think the biggest impacts for farmers and biofuel producers is the access for those same chemicals as platform chemicals into the bioproduction facilities. So your leadership on the Agricultural Biorefinery Innovation and Opportunity Act is critical because we need those opportunities to reestablish cost-share for these pre-commercial plants, and we need the 9003 loan guarantees proposed to help expand those because getting from innovation at our land-grant institutions and getting on into the commercial phase is a huge gap, and we're losing our technology, we're exporting technology and jobs to Europe and China because we don't have those facilities.
Zachary Nunn
Spoken like a good Cyclone right there. God bless you, brother. And I think you're absolutely right. It's one of the reasons I've worked across the aisle with my friend Nikki Budzinski here from Illinois on the Ag Bio Act, which looks at ways we can turn American agriculture and feedstock into the next generation of bio-based products. Now, speaking of bio-based products, something that doesn't get enough attention is how we do compostable packaging and provide farmers.
Ms. Taylor, I'm going to turn to you here. When we look at food companies with a more consistent option to be able to deliver this, how much does bio-based, you know, packaging help in this area to drive down costs, and where is it competing with traditional petroleum-based packing?
Alexis Taylor
Thank you, Congressman, for that question. So packaging is an important part of fresh produce and how much many pieces of fresh produce are marketed to consumers, right? I've never seen a bulk raspberry bin, for example. It helps, can help protect food safety, it can help shelf-life longevity, and those are all important parts at a highly perishable product. The industry has actually invested quite a bit in compostable packaging.
As international regulations are evolving and changing around this, we want to move away from single-use plastics. It's an important priority. We've actually tapped into some ACE funding at USDA from IFPA to really help the industry bring some of these new novel compostable packaging technologies to our industry to see how they can still perform to protect food safety, to extend shelf life of our highly perishable products. So it's an important priority for the industry.
Zachary Nunn
Helps a local farmer, doesn't fill up a landfill. All good news all around. Mr. Chair, thank you very much for convening this. I yield the remainder of my time.
Redner 68
I thank the gentleman. Before we adjourn today, I invite the ranking member to share any closing comments she may have.
Angie Craig
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to first say thank you to our witnesses. This has been one of the most insightful panels that we have had in such a critical moment in farm country to hear from you directly. So thank you.
The political environment, of course, is one right now where it's very hard for some people just to speak openly and plainly. But we all know, on both sides of the aisle, in fact, we know that the President's tariffs and trade wars have made things tougher for farmers. The bankruptcy levels really do speak for themselves. We all know that the war in Iran is making diesel and fertilizer way too expensive and that even if commodity prices improve a bit, those benefits are swallowed by higher input costs. That's just the simple math.
We all know that canceling grants, firing Farm Service Agency staff, making farm equipment more expensive with the tariffs, delaying the implementation of year-round E15, it just doesn't help. Farmers need this administration to get out of the way and let them farm and focus on developing domestic and international markets. That's what the country should be focused on from a policymaking perspective. There's been too much disruption and it's time for policies that stabilize farm country. With that, again, I just want to say thank you for your insightful comments today and Mr. Chairman, I yield back to you.
Glenn Thompson
I thank the gentlelady. I want to thank our witnesses as well. You've brought a wide swath of expertise to the table as we really looked and explored this topic today. You know, I, with seeing no cuts to the SNAP benefits and in fact an increase, marginal as it is as of October 1st, you know, my colleagues made a great point about how that is, those SNAP benefits result in the purchase of agriculture commodities. And that's, that's important.
There was a lot said about opportunities with farm to school and farm to food banks, two programs that were never authorized by Congress and therefore discontinued when the administration changed, no surprise. But the fact is, both of those programs are included within the Farm Food and National Security Act that passed out of this committee in April with marginal Democrat support, but more importantly, under consideration today around 3:00, I'm told, in the Senate. You know, we have had 19 trade agreements, all that positively impacted agriculture, that have been agreed upon in the past like 20 months at this point. We're seeing investments in nitrogen-based fertilizer plants to be being built here in our country so we're not dependent on other countries, nor do we run into geopolitical issues that prevent access to fertilizer. That's not an overnight solution, it's going to take time, but I'm really pleased with what the administration is doing in leading on that.
And it is an all-of-government approach. It's not just Department of US of Agriculture, it is Department of Energy and many other cabinet positions and quite frankly agencies, including the EPA, that are pulling on that rope. And then the benefits to at least the largest commodity in Pennsylvania, dairy, where we see on the private sector investments, Chobani building a plant in Lehigh Valley. I wish it was in PA-15, but Lehigh Valley's a great place and that's going to take a one-third of our fluid milk for that plant. That's an amazing boost to dairy.
You put that on top of whole milk for healthy kids and restoring whole milk and flavor, increasing consumption, demand within our schools, that's a good thing and it fits within the theme of what we're talking about today.
This committee has stood and acted on the principles of supporting American producers. That has been our true north, has guided us in everything that we have done, in everything we have accomplished, and everything we will accomplish through the end of this calendar year. As we heard today, the momentum of expanded markets are exciting. This includes increasing demand like including resources to help producers navigate foreign markets, technical assistance for specialty crops to help producers navigate non-tariff barriers, something that we didn't always attend to in the past. Doubling of MAP and foreign market development moneys as tools to help create new markets and quite frankly to be able to access them.
The wood innovation grants, which being from Penn's Woods, Pennsylvania, is very exciting. The opportunities for those types of projects, the investments, and those moneys have been rolled out at least in the first wave of the most recent wave of innovative grants and really strengthening our forest products industry, which is an important part of agriculture. The BioPreferred Program, which we have heard so much about, that proposal within the farm bill. And I'll just close as I always do to say thank you so much to the staff on both sides of the aisle who really do such a great job of preparing us for for our hearings and they did so today with and just offer my tremendous appreciation for that. Under the rules of the committee, the record of today's hearing will remain open for 10 calendar days to receive additional material and supplementary written responses from the witnesses to any question posed by a member.
This hearing of the Committee on Agriculture is adjourned.