Congressional Testimony
Congressional Testimony
Here's a look at documents involving congressional testimony and member statements
Featured Stories
King Island Native Community Chief Onders Testifies Before House Natural Resources Subcommittee
WASHINGTON, April 1 -- The House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries released the following testimony by Megan Onders, chief of the King Island Native Community, and chair of the Bering Strait Development Council, Nome, Alaska, from a March 26, 2026, hearing on Alaska's Right to Ivory Sales and Tradition Act (H.R. 5694):* * *
Chair Hageman, Ranking Member Val Hoyle, distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to join you today. My name is Megan Onders and serve as Chief of the King Island Native Community; Chair of the Bering Strait Development ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 1 -- The House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries released the following testimony by Megan Onders, chief of the King Island Native Community, and chair of the Bering Strait Development Council, Nome, Alaska, from a March 26, 2026, hearing on Alaska's Right to Ivory Sales and Tradition Act (H.R. 5694): * * * Chair Hageman, Ranking Member Val Hoyle, distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to join you today. My name is Megan Onders and serve as Chief of the King Island Native Community; Chair of the Bering Strait DevelopmentCouncil, our regional economic development organization and serve as the Bering Strait region village representative of the Alaska Federation of Natives Board of Directors. I also serve on the Kawerak Board of Directors, our regional self-governance non-profit for the Bering Strait.
It truly is an honor to share with you why this bill is so important for Alaska. Thank you, Congressman Begich, for being our advocate in Congress and working to advance this bill. This bill is central to the economic health of Alaska Native villages, especially in the Bering Strait communities of Diomede, Gambell, Savoonga and Shishmaref. This bill is about our way of life.
This bill affirms the right of Alaska Native people to utilize the bones, ivory and baleen of whales and walrus in cultural and traditional art. The Artist Act is a jobs bill.
Our artists or ivory carvers are our cultural bearers, who hold the knowledge of the environment and of the relationships with marine mammals of which are reflected in ivory carvings. Carving is a skill passed down from generation to generation. This bill ensures that our way of life and the Native art we create and be sold legally in State that have banned our Alaska Native walrus ivory carvings. This bill enables our carvers to pay their heating fuel bills which can cost upwards of $1000/month during our recent Dec-March 30 below zero winter. This bill enables Native people in our villages to afford groceries and other non-durable goods such as cleaning supplies. This bill is also an employment bill; carving is a form of cash employment and a social support system. Ivory carving is an art form passed from generation to generation.
Alaska Native marine mammal hunting is regulated, through cooperative agreements with the federal government. Section 119 enacted in the 1994 amendments to the Marine Mammal Protection Act established the authority for the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to enter into cooperative management agreements with Alaska Native Organizations for the purpose of conservation and subsistence use by Native people. The Eskimo Walrus Commission and the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission are two of such ANOs that comanage the species within the context of national and international law. Our tribes in addition have enacted tribal codes with regard to subsistence hunting.
The exemption for Alaska Natives in the MMPA allows for the taking of marine mammals for subsistence purposes (16 USC Sec.1388(b)(1)) as well as for the purpose of selling handicrafts and clothing (16 USC Sec.1388(b)(2)). The Marine Mammal Protection Act authorizes the Secretaries of Interior and Commerce to enter into cooperative agreements with Alaska Native organization for the co-management of subsistence species including the collection and analysis of data on marine mammal populations, monitor the harvest for subsistence, participate in marine mammal research by federal, academic and private organizations, as well as develop co-management structures with State and Federal agencies (16 USC Sec.1388). This is a regulated way of life, and our Alaska Native walrus ivory carvers are a central driver of village economies. This bill specifically amends the MMPA to prohibit any State from banning the importation, sale, barter or possession of authentic Alaska Native art, such as made from ivory or baleen.
We are here today, because our right to carve and sell walrus ivory was included in a noble, yet overly broad effort to curb the sale of elephant ivory from Africa. In 2014, New York and New Jersey banned the sale of ivory. In 2015 California banned the sale of ivory from walrus, mammoth and mastodon. Residents often find mammoth ivory and create beautiful carvings. By 2016 both Hawaii and Oregon banned the sale of ivory. For more than a decade this effort has threatened the stability of our walrus art market and the economic system that pays the bills. It has also caused confusion. Tourists who are increasingly visiting our homeland believe they cannot legally buy ivory. This is not the case. In fact, the Indian Arts and Craft Board and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have played their part with education pamphlets on the legal purchase of walrus ivory.
Our way of life is not just one of survival, but an economic system of hunting, gathering, sharing and in fact thriving. Our marine mammals provide basic food and nutritional support for people in our communities. In fact, it's among the healthiest foods on earth known for high levels of omega 3s and a source of vitamin D that enables Inuit to survive long dark winters. Our ivory and baleen art reflects the intelligence, knowledge and talent of our people. It's a blending of cultural and cash economy that makes life possible in our rural and remote communities. The passage of this bill through Congress will ensure the health, well-being, social support and employment within our communities.
Thank you for the opportunity to join you today. In closing, For the record, I would like to thank Senator Sullivan of Alaska who has been a champion of this bill for nearly a decade. Thank you for not giving up on our way of life, on our economy and acknowledging the importance of bill to our people.
* * *
Original text here: docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II13/20260326/119078/HHRG-119-II13-Wstate-OndersM-20260326.pdf
International Fresh Produce Association CEO Burns Testifies Before Senate Agriculture, Nutrition & Forestry Committee
WASHINGTON, April 1 -- The Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee released the following testimony by International Fresh Produce Association CEO Cathy Burns from a March 10, 2026, hearing entitled "Increasing Domestic Consumption of U.S.-Grown Agricultural Products":* * *
Chairman Boozman, Ranking Member Klobuchar, and Members of the Committee: Thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the International Fresh Produce Association, the largest and most diverse association representing the full supply chain of fresh fruits and vegetables--growers, shippers, distributors, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 1 -- The Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee released the following testimony by International Fresh Produce Association CEO Cathy Burns from a March 10, 2026, hearing entitled "Increasing Domestic Consumption of U.S.-Grown Agricultural Products": * * * Chairman Boozman, Ranking Member Klobuchar, and Members of the Committee: Thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the International Fresh Produce Association, the largest and most diverse association representing the full supply chain of fresh fruits and vegetables--growers, shippers, distributors,wholesalers, retailers, food-service partners, and allied companies. Our members include thousands of U.S. fruit and vegetable producers whose work not only feeds American families but strengthens rural communities, supports hundreds of thousands of jobs, and contributes billions to the national economy.
IFPA is committed to advancing a simple but powerful objective: to grow a healthier world by increasing access to--and consumption of--fresh fruits and vegetables.
We know the science is clear: eating more fresh fruits and vegetables is one of the most effective actions Americans can take to improve their health. Recent federal initiatives-- such as Make America Healthy Again and the updated Dietary Guidelines for Americans-- underscore that increasing fruit and vegetable intake is essential for preventing chronic disease, reducing health care costs, and improving overall well-being...Yet most Americans still fall far short of recommended consumption levels.
Increasing access to U.S.-grown fruits and vegetables is not just a nutrition issue; it is an economic opportunity. When we strengthen produce consumption, we strengthen domestic markets for American farmers.
To meet this opportunity, growers and consumers need systemic solutions that integrate produce into health care, strengthen federal nutrition programs, modernize procurement practices, and make it easier for families in every community to choose fresh fruits and vegetables. When we support evidence-based policies, we create the opportunity to increase consumption. At the same time, we cannot lose sight of the need to make U.S. production economically viable for producers so they are able to meet the increased demand and prosper.
Strengthen Federal Nutrition Programs
Federal nutrition programs feed tens of millions of Americans every day. Ensuring these programs provide consistent access to fresh fruits and vegetables is one of the most direct strategies to increase consumption of U.S.-grown produce. Investing in nutrition programs can make individuals healthy eaters for life - providing longer-term benefits to both health and grower outcomes.
1. Fully fund the Women's Infants & Children (WIC) fruit and vegetable benefit and expedite online redemption. This monthly benefit is one of the most proven, effective tools for improving young children's and mothers' nutrition and reducing healthcare costs. Stable funding and online purchasing options will create a more consistent and reliable experience for producers, retailers, and participants.
2. Expand produce incentives in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Healthy incentive models help low-income families purchase more fruits and vegetables while directly supporting U.S. producers.
3. Strengthen school meal standards to ensure a wide variety of fresh produce. Children consume up to half their daily calories in school. Today, students receive both a vegetable and a fruit for school lunch. Continuing to ensure a wide variety of fresh options in both the National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program improves lifelong eating habits and is one of the most reliable markets for U.S. producers, especially locally. For some rural communities, the school lunch program is literally the largest restaurant in town.
4. Expand the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (FFVP) to more elementary schools nationwide. This phenomenally successful program introduces students to a broader array of fruits and vegetables--many for the very first time.
5. Increase USDA procurement of fresh produce and transition from low-cost to values-based purchasing. Today, only five fresh produce options are available in the USDA Foods direct purchasing program. We are leaving most varieties of U.S. grown produce off the table. Lev-eraging the existing U.S. produce supply chain for federal procurement supports farmers while ensuring high-quality, nutritious foods reach families.
6. Allow states to use up to 20% of their Temporary Emergency Feeding Assistance Program (TEFAP) funds for fresh produce through the USDA DoD Fresh Program. Food banks are eager to offer more fresh products; this change will deliver healthy fresh fruits and vegetables to families who need them most and support the U.S. fresh produce supply chain.
7. Support FDA labeling reforms that require clear disclosure of "meaningful amounts" of fruits and vegetables. Accurate labeling empowers consumers to make informed, healthier choices.
8. Make Produce Prescriptions a standard benefit in Medicare, Medicaid, Indian Health Services, and the Veterans Administration.
Produce prescription programs improve health outcomes and reduce costs--an approach that pays dividends for patients and taxpayers alike.
9. Ensure Health Savings Accounts (HSA) and Flexible Spending Accounts (FSA) allow purchases of fresh fruits and vegetables. If we believe food is medicine, the nation's tax-advantaged health accounts should reflect that reality.
A More Responsive Supply Chain
Fresh produce moves fast--and it depends on a reliable, efficient supply chain. To expand domestic consumption, fruits and vegetables must be affordable, accessible, high-quality, and convenient options for consumers.
* Make fresh fruits and vegetables more accessible and convenient choices. Counter unworkable produce and floral packaging bans, while leading a national dialogue on reform and supporting research and development of packaging alternatives.
* Keep fresh products convenient and affordable with better shelf life.
Guide members while supporting regional and state allies navigating Enhanced Producer Responsibility (EPR) requirements. Encourage local and state governments to provide the key exemptions recognizing the key role packaging serves in reducing food loss and waste, preventing cross-contamination, and extending the shelf life of most fresh and fresh cut products.
Without thoughtful policy, a patchwork of state regulations could reduce access to fresh produce--an outcome no one can afford. Confusing designations and definitions within state EPR laws will also stifle innovation, actually reduce recycling and composting of packaging waste, and will increase both the cost to the- consumers and to the local communities dealing with trash.
Federal Investment in Domestic Production
To allow for increased consumption of fruits and vegetables in the United States, we must also ensure that domestic production keeps pace with consumer demand. Fresh produce growers are facing rising input costs, labor challenges, regulatory pressures, and increasing natural disasters, all of which make it harder to sustain and expand production.
Over the past two decades, the United States has lost over 230,000 farms, underscoring the economic pressures facing producers across the country. Policies that support farm viability and encourage new investment in specialty crop production are essential to maintaining a strong domestic supply.
* Strategic investments in research, technical assistance, risk management tools, and conservation programs can help growers remain competitive while adopting a wide range of production approaches--including conventional, organic, and regenerative systems--that respond to evolving consumer preferences and marketplace demand.
Supporting domestic growers across these production models will help strengthen supply chain resilience, expand consumer access to fresh fruits and vegetables, and ensure more of that production happens here in the United States.
Modernize Food Safety Regulation
Consumer confidence is essential to increasing produce consumption. Food safety must be consistent, transparent, risk-appropriate, and science-based.
* Push for improvements at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that create a prevention- focused culture within the Human Foods Program.
* Sustain implementation of the 2022 FDA traceability rule, including continued investment in technological tools--such as a Warehouse Management System--to support compliance along the entire supply chain.
* Encourage uniformity between state and federal regulators as Produce Regulatory Program Standards are implemented.
* Ensure reliable federal funding for state food safety training and compliance programs.
A strong, modernized food safety framework benefits consumers, retailers, and America's growers.
Lasting Impacts on American Producers and Human Health
Despite tremendous economic headwinds, fresh fruit and vegetable producers are ready to meet growing demand, but they cannot do it alone. Congress has a vital role to play in ensuring every American has access to the fresh, nutritious foods that support good health and strong communities.
By strengthening federal nutrition programs, supporting a resilient supply chain and all forms of production, and modernizing food safety oversight, we can incentivize and increase domestic consumption of fresh produce while creating economic opportunity for farmers across our nation.
On behalf of the International Fresh Produce Association and the many U.S. growers we represent, thank you for your leadership and partnership. IFPA is happy to answer your questions.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.agriculture.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/dca45105-ca2f-4467-7806-31663d8955e8/Testimony_Burns_03.10.2026.pdf
Independent Petroleum Association Executive VP Naatz Testifies Before House Natural Resources Subcommittee
WASHINGTON, April 1 -- The House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources released the following testimony by Daniel T. Naatz, executive vice president and chief policy officer of the Independent Petroleum Association of America, from a March 25, 2026, hearing on the Bureau of Land Management Mineral Spacing Act (H.R. 1555), License to Drill Act (H.R. 7831), and legislation to provide for the leasing of deposits of minerals in Carlsbad, New Mexico (H.R. 7882):* * *
Thank you, Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member Ansari and the members of the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 1 -- The House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources released the following testimony by Daniel T. Naatz, executive vice president and chief policy officer of the Independent Petroleum Association of America, from a March 25, 2026, hearing on the Bureau of Land Management Mineral Spacing Act (H.R. 1555), License to Drill Act (H.R. 7831), and legislation to provide for the leasing of deposits of minerals in Carlsbad, New Mexico (H.R. 7882): * * * Thank you, Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member Ansari and the members of the Subcommittee on Energy and MineralResources. My name is Dan Naatz. I am the Executive Vice President and Chief Policy Officer of the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA), and I am here today to testify in support of H.R. 1555 sponsored by Representative Bice, H.R. 7831, sponsored by Representative Kennedy and H.R. 7882 sponsored by Chairman Stauber.
IPAA is a national trade association representing thousands of American independent oil and natural gas producers. Our members, who operate in thirty-three states as well as offshore, are the primary producers of the nation's oil and natural gas and account for 85 percent of America's oil production and 90 percent of its natural gas output.
These independent producers are a driving force in our economy and support roughly 4.5 million jobs in the United States. IPAA member companies are innovative leaders that broke the code to usher in the shale oil and natural gas revolution in the United States. Furthermore, our average member company employs twenty people. These small businesses are unique and are best served by having a cooperative federal regulatory system with input from the states and the federal government rather than a one-size-fits-all structure coming from Washington.
Currently, of the 640 million acres of land that are federally owned in the United States, roughly four percent are leased for oil and natural gas development. Despite this small percentage, oil and natural gas have an enormous monetary impact on the federal treasury. All federal oil and gas royalty, rental fees and bonus bid revenue is split roughly half between the U.S. Treasury and the states where development occurs. That revenue helps fund critical investments in communities across the United States and supports jobs, schools, conservation efforts, and infrastructure projects. The amount of annual revenue that federal mineral development provides to the U.S. Treasury is second only to that provided by the Internal Revenue Service.
Included here are details on IPAA's support for three important pieces of legislation that are being considered today.
H.R. 1555 - "To amend the Mineral Leasing Act to streamline the oil and gas permitting process and to recognize fee ownership for certain oil and gas drilling or spacing units, and for other purposes."
IPAA strongly supports H.R. 1555, the "Bureau of Land Management Mineral Spacing Act" sponsored by Representative Bice. This important legislation would streamline the permitting process for energy development, remove duplicative regulations, and respect the rights of private mineral holders when dealing with split estates. IPAA members have a commitment to the places they call home - they live where they operate and want the air they breathe and water they consume to be clean. They follow the rules that govern them, but there's frustration when they face overly burdensome, redundant bureaucracy.
Currently, BLM triggers National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis for wells on state or private lands if any of the oil and natural gas resources being drilled are federally owned. This occurs even when the federal government has a small/minority mineral interest. For too long, the BLM has used this federal nexus as a way for the agency to become involved in state and private mineral development decisions. In addition, once the federal interconnection is established, the full cavalcade of Washington's regulatory agencies can become involved in projects. Even when there is the smallest percentage of federal ownership, an operator must go through an entire NEPA review that would otherwise not be required. At a time when Congress is working to reform our nation's permitting system for infrastructure projects, this outdated policy moves in the opposite direction creating more overlapping bureaucracy and red tape.
H.R. 1555 brings common sense to the federal mineral leasing process. It removes the BLM permitting requirement in instances when less than half of the subsurface minerals within a drilling spacing unit are owned by the federal government and when the government does not own or lease any surface rights within the impacted area. The legislation makes no changes to the current royalty system and allows the federal government to receive royalties from oil and natural gas production within a particular drilling or spacing unit. Finally, the bill ensures that drilling and exploration activities are subject to all state laws, regulations and rules governing oil and natural gas production within that state. This legislation reduces bureaucracy, clarifies the permitting of oil and natural gas wells across the Intermountain West, and encourages responsible energy development.
H.R. 7831 - "To extend the period for collection of fees for applications for permits to drill under the Mineral Leasing Act."
IPAA has a long history of support for the concepts found in H.R.7831 sponsored by Representative Kennedy. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 set up a pilot program for BLM oil and natural gas permit processing improvement. At the time, there was a boom in onshore federal oil and natural gas exploration and BLM offices were backlogged in processing applications for permits to drill (APDs). The initial program established fieldbased "pilot offices" in high demand areas and added staffing and agency coordination.
By 2007, the program had roughly 150 approved positions to handle the workload (Source: Energy Policy Act - 4/17/07 | U.S. Department of the Interior). The program began working towards a cost recovery model, which IPAA has always supported.
Instead of relying on congressional appropriations, the program was funded through a higher APD fee indexed to inflation. Effectively, industry pays for the additional staff to process APDs. The program was reauthorized with these changes as part of the National Defense Reauthorization Act of 2015, extending the Permit Processing Improvement Fund (PPIF) and continuing the fee-based funding model.
It is important to note that the PPIF has garnered bipartisan support in both chambers in previous reauthorizations as the concept is sound - industry pays their own way. The PPIF provides practical outcomes with more predictable permitting and better coordination among energy producers and federal agencies. Without Congressional action, the authority for the PPIF is set to expire at the end of FY 2026. IPAA urges Congress to pass H.R. 7831 expeditiously so this vital program can continue.
H.R.7882 - "To provide for the leasing of certain deposits of minerals located within the City of Carlsbad, New Mexico."
IPAA also supports H.R. 7882 sponsored by Congressman Stauber that would provide for leasing of oil and natural gas resources within the city limit boundaries of Carlsbad, New Mexico. The municipality supports this measure and has advocated for changing existing federal policy. Currently, the Mineral Leasing Act (MLA) prohibits the BLM from leasing federal resources underlying incorporated cities, towns, and villages. However, with the advent of modern horizontal drilling technology, wells can be drilled several miles laterally to access the federal mineral acres under the City of Carlsbad.
Approximately 1,600 federal mineral acres under the City of Carlsbad are unleased. As a result, oil and natural gas producers operating around Carlsbad must avoid federal acreage when drilling underneath the city. This not only causes inefficiencies for the operators but also substantial loss of revenue for the federal government and the State of New Mexico. The City of Carlsbad has long enforced a drilling ordinance for wells drilled within the Carlsbad city limits and provides abundant safeguards for health and safety protocols as well as robust public comment opportunities for any project.
The City of Carlsbad has been extensively consulted about this legislation and supports the measure. In November 2025, City of Carlsbad Mayor Rick Lopez wrote the BLM New Mexico State Director and urged the agency to take action to remove the drilling restrictions for minerals underlying the city. However, the removal of the restriction cannot be accomplished via regulatory avenues and needs a legislative fix to enact the change. IPAA agrees with Mayor Lopez and urges passage of this legislation as soon as possible to allow these federal minerals to be included in a federal lease sale, be sold to the highest bidder, and accessed safely and efficiently.
IPAA member companies are committed to finding creative solutions to problems that exist within the scope of oil and natural gas production on federal lands. We commend the House Natural Resources Committee for seeking innovative legislative pathways to resolving these issues that will enhance the ability of America to continue to have a robust onshore oil and natural gas program.
Thank you for the opportunity to join you today.
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II06/20260325/119099/HHRG-119-II06-Wstate-NaatzD-20260325.pdf
House Education & Workforce Committee Chairman Walberg Issues Opening Statement at Hearing on Foreign Espionage on Universities
WASHINGTON, April 1 -- Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Michigan, chairman of the House Education and Workforce Committee, released the following opening statement from a March 26, 2026, hearing entitled "U.S. Universities Under Siege: Foreign Espionage, Stolen Innovation, and the National Security Threat":* * *
Dominating global research rankings, American universities remain among the top academic institutions in the world. They are entrusted with hundreds of billions in taxpayer-funded research dollars and federal student aid to help develop the next generation of leaders and drive cutting-edge scientific ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 1 -- Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Michigan, chairman of the House Education and Workforce Committee, released the following opening statement from a March 26, 2026, hearing entitled "U.S. Universities Under Siege: Foreign Espionage, Stolen Innovation, and the National Security Threat": * * * Dominating global research rankings, American universities remain among the top academic institutions in the world. They are entrusted with hundreds of billions in taxpayer-funded research dollars and federal student aid to help develop the next generation of leaders and drive cutting-edge scientificdiscovery.
The free exchange of ideas is a core American principle and a cornerstone of higher education. International collaboration, whether through welcoming international students or creating international research partnerships, can, when done right, have very positive effects for our country.
However, it would be naive and reckless to ignore the serious dangers facing our higher education system. Foreign adversaries, particularly geopolitical rivals like the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), are actively competing against our nation's interests on the battlegrounds of our university campuses. They are unafraid to exploit American good intentions for ill-gotten gains.
I'm proud that this Committee has been a leader in combatting malign foreign influence on college campuses. Last year the House passed the DETERRENT Act with a strong bipartisan vote for a second Congress in a row. DETERRENT would bring much-needed transparency to foreign gifts and contracts under section 117 of the Higher Education Act, and I will continue working to get it signed into law.
This Committee's oversight has also brought to light troubling partnerships between American universities and the CCPs defenselinked institutions, including "joint research institutes" operating with American campuses. As a result of this work, many universities have taken steps to shut down these programs.
The Trump administration and Secretary McMahon have also taken this issue seriously. The Education Department has launched multiple section 117 compliance investigations, improved the usability of disclosed data, and just last month announced an interagency agreement with the Department of State to incorporate the State Department's national security expertise.
Despite this progress, recent events make it clear that the threat remains active. Last summer there were multiple disturbing instances of potential foreign espionage on U.S. campuses. At the University of Michigan students, employees, and faculty have been charged and sentenced for conspiracy and smuggling related crimes. At Stanford, students were approached by foreign nationals posing as peers in an effort to get students to travel to China and share research. These instances must not be swept under the rug, and I'm excited to discuss them more in depth today at this hearing.
Institutions must be proactive in addressing these threats. They should not wait for a Congressional inquiry or hearing before taking a hard look at their campus culture, vetting processes, and compliance with the law.
Openness is one of our greatest strengths--but it cannot become our greatest weakness. We can--and must--ensure that academic collaboration strengthens America, not our adversaries.
* * *
Original text here: https://republicans-edlabor.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Walberg_Markup_OS_3.26.26.pdf
Dry Prairie Rural Water Board Chairman Knick Testifies Before House Natural Resources Subcommittee
WASHINGTON, April 1 -- The House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries released the following testimony by Rick Knick, board chairman of Dry Prairie Rural Water, Culbertson, Montana, from a March 26, 2026, hearing on legislation to reauthorize the Fort Peck Reservation Rural Water System Act of 2000 (H.R. 7250):* * *
Good morning, Chair Hageman and Honorable Members of the Committee.
Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony on the need for a two-year extension of the construction completion date of the Fort Peck Reservation Rural Water System from December ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 1 -- The House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries released the following testimony by Rick Knick, board chairman of Dry Prairie Rural Water, Culbertson, Montana, from a March 26, 2026, hearing on legislation to reauthorize the Fort Peck Reservation Rural Water System Act of 2000 (H.R. 7250): * * * Good morning, Chair Hageman and Honorable Members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony on the need for a two-year extension of the construction completion date of the Fort Peck Reservation Rural Water System from December2026 to December 2028. I would also like to thank our congressman, Mr. Troy Downing, for introducing H.R. 7250 to address the extension.
My name is Rick Knick, and I am the Board Chairman of Dry Prairie Rural Water in Northeast Montana. My project is partnered with our friends and neighbors, the Assiniboine and Sioux Rural Water Supply System. Together, we were Authorized by Public Law 106-382 in December 2000.
The combined Project's current indexed cost is $432,764,593. The Project currently provides safe and reliable drinking water for over 18,000 residents located in Northeast Montana including the Fort Peck Indian Reservation. The Project is designed for population growth of 32,000 residents and is served by an intake located on the Missouri River, a 14-million gallon per day regional water treatment plant, and over 3,200 miles of pipeline. The Project covers an area of more than 9,100 square miles or nearly 1/5th the size of the state of Arkansas.
The authorizing legislation provided a construction period of 10 years ending in 2010, but three previous amendments were required to extend the completion date to 2015, 2020, and 2026. All of the previous extensions were accomplished in Appropriation Acts by striking the original completion date and inserting the new date. We understand the reluctance of the Appropriation Committee to take that approach in this instance.
The reason for each previous extension was that appropriations had not been sufficient to build the Project within the authorized construction period. There were five rural water projects in the Reclamation Rural Water Program throughout this period, and all were struggling to build with the limited annual budget requests from the respective Administrations and the corresponding level of appropriations. Congress assisted us by adding additional rural water funds to the Administration's budget requests, and those funds have accelerated the pace of construction over the last decade.
We were on track to finish all construction before December 2026 in the early part of this decade, but inflation during and after the covid years more than doubled the prices of pipe material and other inputs and increased our construction costs by an additional $60 million. Serious supply chain shortages and delays as well as construction inflation contributed significantly to our project costs and pushed the ability to complete construction into 2027. However, it is of major significance to note that both projects anticipate completing all construction $56 million under the Authorized Construction Ceiling.
The Bureau of Reclamation has provided us the final allocation of funding that will complete the remaining 2 of 23 pipeline phases in the Dry Prairie Project Area and we will be able to finish in 2028.
A contributing factor for the extension to December 2028 is the recent notification by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) that they cannot permit the construction of one of our final two projects until 2027 at the earliest. This is a project we had intended to bid and award this spring, having submitted our permit application six months ago. Our project crosses lands that the BLM designates as priority habitat management for the greater sage grouse, a sensitive species, but one that is not listed as threatened and endangered.
Given that Dry Prairie cannot begin construction on the final pipeline project until early to mid2027, it will take the 2028 construction season to complete. Our budget is possibly threatened by extraordinary mitigation fees that exceed our current project budget, and the additional year of waiting to start construction adds inflation costs that are not covered by the final funding granted by Reclamation.
The Assiniboine and Sioux Rural Water Supply System has recently completed all phases of its pipeline projects and is now working on construction of two small storage buildings and other beneficial project improvements that will be completed in 2027.
Chair Hageman, I thank you for the opportunity to present the reasons for the two-year extension of time to December 2028, and welcome any questions you and the members of the committee may have.
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II13/20260326/119078/HHRG-119-II13-Wstate-KnickR-20260326.pdf
BLM Eastern States Director Leverette Testifies Before House Natural Resources Subcommittee
WASHINGTON, April 1 -- The House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources released the following testimony by Mitchell Leverette, Eastern States director of the U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management, from a March 25, 2026, hearing on energy and mineral management legislation:* * *
Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member Ansari, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on behalf of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) regarding the bills discussed below.
The public lands and minerals stewarded by the BLM include approximately ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 1 -- The House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources released the following testimony by Mitchell Leverette, Eastern States director of the U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management, from a March 25, 2026, hearing on energy and mineral management legislation: * * * Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member Ansari, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on behalf of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) regarding the bills discussed below. The public lands and minerals stewarded by the BLM include approximately245 million acres of public lands and about 700 million acres of subsurface and mineral estate. The mineral resources contained in these lands are critical to achieving American Energy Dominance, and their development will power our economy, bolster national defense, and support emerging technologies. The BLM is working every day to responsibly develop our national assets to grow our economy, help balance the budget, and generate revenue for American taxpayers, while at the same time protecting our beautiful lands, abundant wildlife, and clean air and water.
H.R. 1555, Bureau of Land Management Mineral Spacing Act
H.R. 1555 would eliminate the requirement that an oil and gas operator submit a federal drilling permit to the BLM in instances where there is non-federal surface estate and where the subsurface mineral estate that would be accessed is less than 50 percent federal. Under the bill, an operator would be required to provide the Secretary a copy of a state-approved drilling permit and may commence activities 30 days after submission. H.R. 1555 also states that nothing in the bill alters the amount of royalties due to the United States from production of federal oil and gas resources and would allow the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to conduct onsite reviews and inspections to ensure payment of royalties. The bill would not apply to Indian lands, including trust lands.
Currently, the Department of the Interior (Department) is working to reverse and remove bureaucratic hurdles that impede domestic oil and gas production. Supported by its bureaus, the Department is delivering on the President's promise to put American workers first, cut burdensome regulations, and unleash our vast energy potential. The Department supports H.R. 1555 as it furthers the Administration's priorities to cut red tape and strengthen oil and gas development.
Analysis
In the first year of President Trump's second term, oil and gas lease sales from the BLM brought in $356.6 million, more revenue than in the previous four years combined. The BLM appreciates further efforts to improve and streamline the processing of oil and gas permitting by reducing redundancies with state regulatory agencies. This will help expedite permitting of our oil and gas resources by establishing a predictable and streamlined permitting process, fulfilling statutory requirements, and advancing the Trump Administration's broader goals of energy security and economic growth. The Department would like to work with the Sponsor and Subcommittee on technical edits to ensure the BLM's ability to access private surface to conduct federal measurement and royalty accountability inspections.
H.R. 5639, Co-Location Energy Act
H.R. 5639 would authorize the Secretary to issue permits for constructing or operating solar or wind energy facilities on areas currently leased for oil, gas, coal, or geothermal energy - requiring consent from the applicable leaseholder on federal lands and waters. The bill would also require the Secretary to determine whether any actions under this bill would be suitable for a categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act. Finally, the bill would direct the Secretary to issue a rule to implement H.R. 5639. The Department believes the bill is not necessary because it currently has the authority to authorize new uses that are compatible with existing authorized uses.
Analysis
The Department notes that Congress has provided the BLM with sufficient authorities to consider and issue rights-of-way (ROWs). Under Title V of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the Mineral Leasing Act, and implementing regulations, the BLM may issue ROWs to co-locate electric transmission and distribution lines; oil, gas, hydrogen, and carbon dioxide distribution pipelines; and renewable energy projects, along with any other type of ROW, on hydrocarbon leases. The BLM's Title V ROW regulations at 43 CFR Part 2800 allow the BLM to approve solar and wind energy generation facilities on public lands, including lands where it has authorized other uses, such as the development of oil, gas, or geothermal resources.
Once the BLM has authorized a certain use of the public lands, such as by issuing a lease for oil, gas, or geothermal development, the agency may authorize additional uses of that land if it determines that those additional uses are compatible with the existing authorized use. In practice, this involves close coordination among the authorized user (such as a lessee), the sponsor of the proposed activity, and the BLM.
Similarly, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) already possesses broad authority under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) to authorize the co-location of offshore wind and solar energy facilities on existing oil and gas facilities on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). Section 8(p) of OCSLA, as amended by the Energy Policy Act of 2005, grants BOEM the authority to issue leases, easements, and rights-of-way for the production, transportation, or transmission of energy from sources other than oil and gas on the OCS. For example, this authority enables BOEM to authorize renewable energy activities in proximity to, or in conjunction with, existing hydrocarbon facilities, provided that such activities are compatible with those existing authorized uses.
BOEM's regulations at 30 CFR Part 585 and 586 establish a comprehensive framework for renewable energy activities on the OCS and allow BOEM to consider and approve compatible uses on existing leased areas. Under this framework, any proposed co-location of renewable energy infrastructure on OCS areas with existing facilities or subject to existing oil and gas leases would require coordination among BOEM, the existing leaseholder, and the renewable energy developer to ensure operational safety, environmental compliance, and compatibility of uses. This process already reflects the leaseholder consent framework contemplated by H.R. 5639.
If the bill moves forward, the Department would like to work with the Sponsor and Subcommittee on technical edits to aid in implementation.
H.R. 7831, License to Drill Act
H.R. 7831 would extend for 10 years the BLM's authorization to collect oil and gas permit processing fees, which are set to expire at the end of FY 2026. The BLM strongly supports H.R. 7831. The bill would enable the agency to continue fulfilling the objectives of the President's Executive Order, Unleashing American Energy, (E.O. 14154) and the Secretary's Order of the same name (S.O. 3418).
Background
The Energy Policy Act of 2005, as amended by the National Defense Authorization Act of 2015 (NDAA, Section 3021(b)), authorizes the BLM to collect an oil and gas processing fee for new Applications for Permit to Drill (APDs). The BLM's authority to collect such fees is set to expire at the end of FY 2026. The fee amount is established by law - currently $12,850 per APD - and is adjusted annually to account for inflation according to the Consumer Price Index. After collection, these fees are transferred to the BLM Permit Processing Improvement Fund (PPIF), which supports the processing of APDs and related use authorizations.
In FY 2025, the BLM collected approximately $49 million in APD fees from the submission of nearly 4,000 applications. During the same fiscal year, more than $40 million from the PPIF was used to process over 6,000 APDs, a 55% increase compared to the same period in 2024-2025, including associated sundry notices and ROWs. APD fees are essential in supporting the growing demand for permitting services and maintaining timely and defensible permit reviews.
The majority of funds collected from APD fees are allocated to the BLM offices responsible for processing oil and gas permits. A portion of these fees also support improvements in database and processing software.
Analysis
H.R. 7831 supports oil and gas exploration and production on federal lands to meet the energy needs of our nation and solidify the United States as a global energy leader. If the authority providing for APD fees expires, the BLM would need to rely on an increase in appropriated funds to make up for any loss of revenue to support APD processing.
Finally, the BLM would like to work with the Sponsor and Subcommittee on technical edits to the bill to broaden the scope of the PPIF to include expenses related to construction and drilling inspections tied to the APD, and to provide flexibility to allocate resources across offices supporting oil and gas development. Specifically, the BLM would like to include associated sundry notices, lease administration activities, and inspection and enforcement actions as authorized uses of the collected fee.
H.R. 7872, To amend the Mineral Leasing Act to provide for the payment of bonus payments of certain coal leases issued under that Act
H.R. 7872 would amend the Mineral Leasing Act to allow that bonus payments for coal leases issued under the deferred bonus payment system be payable in ten equal annual installments, rather than five, as required by current regulation. Under the bill, the first payment would still be submitted with the bid for the lease. President Trump issued E.O. 14261, Reinvigorating America's Beautiful Clean Coal Industry and Amending Executive Order 14241, establishing support for the domestic coal industry as a national priority by removing regulatory barriers to coal production and encouraging the use of coal to meet America's energy needs. H.R. 7872 incentivizes coal production by deferring a portion of the start-up costs of coal operations on federal lands and the Department supports the bill.
Analysis
The BLM manages coal leasing and development on approximately 570 million acres of federal land, under the Mineral Leasing Act, the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, with the goal of providing a fair return for the American taxpayer while allowing responsible energy development. The BLM's coal program conducts lease sales, administers leases, inspects Federal and Indian operations to ensure compliance, and provides pre-lease evaluations of mineral tracts when requested by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Indian Tribes, or Indian mineral owners.
Under the Mineral Leasing Act, the BLM is required to receive fair market value for all acreage that is leased for coal development, which includes a bonus bid, or value that is a cash payment in addition to the required annual rental payments and production royalties. Additionally, at least half of the acreage offered for competitive coal leases in any one year must be offered on a deferred bonus payment basis. By regulation (43 CFR 3422.4(c)), the bonus is paid in five equal annual installments, with the first payment being submitted with the bid. If a lease is relinquished or otherwise cancelled or terminated, the unpaid remainder of the bid must be paid immediately.
Since the beginning of the Trump Administration, the Department has reaffirmed its commitment to supporting American Energy Dominance with a renewed focus on coal. Coal is a critical component of a secure, stable and diversified American energy portfolio. By expanding access to coal reserves and streamlining permitting processes, the administration is removing longstanding regulatory barriers that have undermined American coal production. These efforts support high-paying mining jobs and rural economies, strengthen U.S. energy independence, and reduce reliance on foreign energy sources. Due to the nature of coal development, the changes being proposed in the bill would be beneficial to both the coal industry and the American taxpayer. The Department supports the bill and looks forward to continuing to work with Congress to position coal as a cornerstone of the nation's energy strategy.
H. R. 7882, To provide for the leasing of certain deposits of minerals located within the City of Carlsbad, New Mexico
H.R. 7882 would authorize the Secretary to lease minerals on federal lands within the City of Carlsbad, New Mexico, subject to written consent by the City.
The BLM supports the bill with recommended changes discussed below to facilitate responsible management of federal mineral resources. H.R. 7882 aligns with President Trump's objective to achieve energy dominance and economic security through increased domestic oil and gas production, as directed by E.O. 14154 and E.O. 14241, Immediate Measures to Increase American Mineral Production.
Background
The BLM's Carlsbad Field Office administers over 2 million acres of federal surface estate and 3 million acres of federal mineral estate in the southeastern portion of New Mexico. The Field Office is located within the Permian Basin, a prolific oil basin in the United States, and one of the oldest oil fields in the nation. Under the Trump Administration, the Department and the BLM have substantially increased the amount of federal lands available for lease to provide a reliable, diversified, growing, and affordable supply of energy for our nation. Oil production on federally managed lands within the City of Carlsbad could provide important contributions towards furthering America's standing as a global energy leader and strengthening national security.
Analysis
The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, (MLA) and the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands of 1947 (MLAAL) provide for the commercial development of the federal subsurface for deposits of coal, potassium, sodium, phosphate, oil shale, native asphalt, tar sands, oil, and gas.
H.R. 7882 would provide the Department with the authority to lease deposits of these federal minerals within the City of Carlsbad, New Mexico, notwithstanding exclusions within the MLA and MLAAL, subject to written consent of the City. Currently, the MLA and MLAAL generally prohibit leasing within incorporated municipalities; however, the BLM has existing authority to issue protective leases within incorporated cities, towns, and villages when lands are subject to drainage of the oil and gas resources from wells on adjacent lands.
The Department supports H.R. 7882, which would expand the federal lands available for development. The Department recommends that the Sponsor consider including an explicit authorization for protective leasing in drainage situations, even when a city does not provide consent to lease, to prevent avoidable loss of federal oil and gas resources and associated revenues. We look forward to working with the Sponsor and the Subcommittee to address this technical issue.
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II06/20260325/119099/HHRG-119-II06-Wstate-LeveretteM-20260325.pdf
American Soybean Association President Metzger Testifies Before Senate Agriculture, Nutrition & Forestry Committee
WASHINGTON, April 1 -- The Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee released the following testimony by American Soybean Association President Scott Metzger, Williamsport, Ohio, from a March 10, 2026, hearing entitled "Increasing Domestic Consumption of U.S.-Grown Agricultural Products":* * *
Good afternoon, Chairman Boozman, Ranking Member Klobuchar, and distinguished members of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. It is an honor to join you today to testify on behalf of the American Soybean Association regarding increasing domestic consumption of U.S.-grown ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 1 -- The Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee released the following testimony by American Soybean Association President Scott Metzger, Williamsport, Ohio, from a March 10, 2026, hearing entitled "Increasing Domestic Consumption of U.S.-Grown Agricultural Products": * * * Good afternoon, Chairman Boozman, Ranking Member Klobuchar, and distinguished members of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. It is an honor to join you today to testify on behalf of the American Soybean Association regarding increasing domestic consumption of U.S.-grownagricultural products. My name is Scott Metzger, and I am a sixth-generation farmer from Williamsport, Ohio, where I farm soybeans, corn, and wheat alongside my family. This year, I have the privilege of serving as the president of the American Soybean Association (ASA). Our association, founded in 1920, represents U.S. soybean farmers on domestic and international policy issues important to the soybean industry. ASA has 26 affiliated state soybean associations representing nearly 500,000 farmers in the 30 primary soybean-producing states.
The U.S. soybean industry has a profound, positive impact on the U.S. economy. While we have long been U.S. agriculture's #1 export crop, half of our harvested soybeans stay at home for a variety of uses. A by-the-numbers look demonstrates the value of the soybean industry to our domestic economic health. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) estimates that over 80 million acres of soy were harvested in 2025, with production of 4.3 billion bushels. Soybean production accounts for more than $4 billion in wages and over $80 billion in economic impacts, according to a study by the United Soybean Board (USB)/Soy Checkoff and National Oilseed Processors Association (NOPA). This economic impact does not include secondary soy markets and supporting industries like biofuels, grain elevators, feed mills, ports, rail, refining, barges, etc., which bring the national total economic impact of the soybean value chain to a significant $124 billion.
However, the impact of trade uncertainty for Marketing Year (MY) 2025/2026 highlights how important strong domestic markets are for U.S. soybeans. Across the board, U.S. agriculture is facing significant challenges, which are illustrated by rapidly plunging margins for farmers.
Commodity prices are down nearly 50% from highs experienced three years ago, while farmers are still facing elevated prices for land, seeds, fertilizer, and pesticides. As the U.S. soybean industry continues to diversify export markets, supporting current domestic markets for our crop while embracing the policies and systems that promote research and development for new uses is more critical than ever.
U.S. soybean growers play an essential role in feeding and fueling the world, while also providing feedstocks for over 1,000 soy-based bioproducts. When processed, soybeans are divided into protein and oil. Soybean protein or meal (approximately 80% of the bean) is used in livestock feed and plant-based foods like tofu, but is also a key ingredient in plastic composites, synthetic fibers, and more. Soybean oil (the remaining 20%) is one of the most versatile natural oils available. In addition to being a staple of heart-healthy food, its molecular structure and suitable fatty-acid profile make it ideal for a variety of applications including biomass-based diesel and countless bioproducts.
Due to rising costs of production and low crop prices, U.S. farmers have needed to turn to Congress and the administration too many times for ad hoc assistance to make ends meet over the past several years. Developing strong and growing domestic markets for our crops will support our farm economy, and we welcome the Senate Agriculture Committee's interest in exploring opportunities to support U.S. soybean farmers and the entire domestic agriculture industry.
Biofuels: The Urgency of Now
The domestic biomass-based diesel (BBD) industry was developed with the support of soybean farmers and initially helped offset losses from food use when the Food and Drug Administration started regulating trans fats in partially hydrogenated soybean oil in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Since the development of biodiesel, the renewable fuel industry has identified pathways to develop soybean oil-based renewable diesel and sustainable aviation fuel (SAF). Soybean farmers are proud of their role in developing this industry and continue to play an integral role in domestic biofuel production.
Increased utilization of BBD over the past several years has had a marked impact on the rural economy. According to a study conducted by Clean Fuels Alliance America, domestic markets consumed over 5.3 billion gallons of BBD in 2024, which supported over 107,400 U.S. jobs - many in rural America - and created an economic impact of $42.4 billion./1
Looking ahead, the BBD industry is poised for additional growth.
The overall growth of the BBD industry has been spurred by strong federal and state-level policies that promote increased production and utilization. Looking specifically at federal policies, the 45Z Clean Fuel Production Credit and annual renewable volume obligations (RVOs) set under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) are critical components of a thriving biofuel industry.
Soybean Oil and Domestic Biofuel Markets
While domestic BBD production increased in the past several years, the increase in soybean oil feedstocks was not proportional. BBD production increased from MY 2021/22 to MY 2023/24, resulting in a 65% increase in overall feedstock utilization, from approximately 22.5 billion pounds to 37.2 billion pounds. However, over the same three years, the share of virgin vegetable oils (predominantly soybean oil) in domestically produced BBD decreased from 67% to 58%.
The shift in BBD feedstocks is also reflected in rising feedstock imports. Used cooking oil (UCO) from China accounted for 7% of the feedstocks used in domestic BBD production in MY 2022/23 and increased to 13% in MY 2023/24, with over half of China's UCO exports destined for the United States. A similar trend occurred with animal fats: while just 10% of Brazilian tallow exports came to the U.S. in MY 2022/23, that figure jumped to 95% the following year.
* * *
1 GlobalData. 2025. Economic Impact of Biodiesel on the U.S. Economy 2024. GlobalData on behalf of Clean Fuels Alliance America.
* * *
Several policies unfairly disadvantaged soybean oil use in U.S. BBD production. These can be summarized in three main areas.
1. Carbon-based biofuel programs that penalize agriculture: Both the 45Z Clean Fuel Production Credit as originally enacted in the Inflation Reduction Act and state low carbon fuel standard (LCFS) programs located on the West Coast use an indirect land use change (ILUC) value when quantifying the carbon intensity of soybean oil. ILUC is a theoretical model that assigns an additional carbon intensity to soybeans and other crops based on global growing practices. Simply put, while total U.S. farmland has been in a sustained decline for over 40 years, expansion of soybean acreage in Brazil increases the ILUC penalty for U.S. soy. While UCO imports were already increasing in earnest due to LCFS incentives for the feedstock, the 2022 enactment of the IRA aligned with a surge in UCO imports. While both LCFS programs and 45Z spurred BBD production, the stacking credits created a market that heavily incentivized UCO and other non-agricultural feedstocks over soybean oil and other agricultural feedstocks.
2. Coastal renewable diesel production: The California LCFS program has significantly increased BBD consumption in the state and created a market for the establishment of renewable diesel production facilities on the coast--typically tied to petroleum refiners.
While UCO and tallow are already the highest-value feedstock for returns in LCFS programs, there are added costs in shipping soybean oil to coastal BBD facilities, whereas UCO imports can arrive on site via ship. BBD facilities in farm country are typically located near soybean processing facilities. In turn, this improves the localized basis for soybean farmers and provides a critical market when there is trade uncertainty.
Policies that support and expand soy-based BBD value chains will improve the basis, lower transportation costs, increase domestic market opportunities, and offer long-lasting stability for soybean farmers.
3. Uncertainty in other UCO export markets: The European Union Renewable Energy Directive (RED) II spurred an increase in UCO imports from Asia, which were on the rise until MY 2022/23. In 2023, the EU launched an investigation into potentially fraudulent UCO (virgin palm oil marketed as UCO) being imported. This investigation resulted in an even larger volume of Asian UCO exports being redirected to the U.S. and growing volumes of imported UCO feedstocks used in domestic BBD production.
However, legislative changes to 45Z and the proposed 2026-2027 RVOs from EPA offer solutions that will support the position of U.S. soy as a preferred feedstock for domestic BBD production. Federal and state biofuel policies combine to form a "credit stack" which informs the overall return for a biofuel producer based on the feedstock utilized. With each positive policy change, biofuels produced using soybean oil become more competitive, which in turn will increase domestic market demand for U.S. soy.
45Z Clean Fuel Production Credit
ASA appreciates Congress for its work to amend, improve, and extend the 45Z Clean Fuel Production Credit through the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Specifically, Congressional changes to 45Z included removal of the ILUC penalty on agricultural biofuel feedstocks which, as noted above arbitrarily assign agriculture with higher carbon intensity scores based on South American farming practices. Removal of agricultural ILUC penalties effectively doubles the tax credit for soy-based BBD. This puts soybeans on par with the tax credits available to biofuels from tallow and used cooking oil, which removes a disincentive to use soy. Further, the 45Z amendments prohibit both biofuels and biofuels produced using feedstocks outside of North America from utilizing the tax credit. While ASA supports feedstock diversity in biofuel production, federal biofuel policies must reflect the actions of this Congress to safeguard domestic agriculture markets by incentivizing biofuels produced using homegrown feedstocks rather than those imported from overseas.
Looking ahead, it is imperative that the U.S. Department of the Treasury move swiftly to finalize draft 45Z tax guidance released in February to ensure that the BBD industry can utilize the tax credit to help realize additional planned investments in soybean oil processing (Figure 1) and biofuel production. In addition to the rapid expansion in soy crush capacity that has come online over the past three years, over 140 million bushels of additional domestic crushing capacity is slated to come online for the 2026 soybean crop and can provide increased domestic demand for soy with the proper policy incentives.
* * *
Figure 1: Current and Planned Soybean Processing Facilities
* * *
In addition, ASA encourages the U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Energy, and Treasury to work in partnership to promulgate guidance for value-added farming practices included in the 45Z tax credit through the USDA Feedstock Carbon Intensity Calculator (FDCIC). As it stands, the 45Z tax credit will support expansion of U.S. biofuel production with incentives to better position domestic feedstocks like soybean oil. However, supplemental tax guidance that utilizes the USDA FD-CIC to quantify additional credit value for farming practices like no-till and reduced tillage, cover crops, and timing of fertilizer applications creates a unique opportunity for farmers to access a new premium market and receive direct benefits from the 45Z Clean Fuel Production Credit. To be clear, the current statute directs Treasury to provide a stepped-up tax credit for biofuels produced using agricultural feedstocks grown using specific farming practices. While the February draft 45Z guidance states that supplemental guidance may be forthcoming, farmers are entering yet another planting season with no clarity on whether this domestic value-added market may be available by harvest. Under two presidential administrations, USDA has worked to develop the FD-CIC, soliciting feedback from key stakeholders and beta testing the calculator with farmers who produce BBD feedstocks, including ASA farmer-leaders. With Treasury currently soliciting public comments ahead of developing final 45Z tax guidance, ASA encourages the Committee to urge relevant agencies to swiftly finalize supplemental guidance for agricultural feedstock production practices to ensure U.S. farmers can access this value-added domestic market as intended by Congress.
Renewable Volume Obligations
The annual renewable volume obligations set under the RFS are perhaps the single most important driver for BBD demand in the U.S. In June 2025, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed the 2026-2027 RVOs - the most favorable draft rule that the soy-based biofuel industry has ever seen. Historically, EPA has undercut volume obligations for BBD by not accounting for imported finished biofuel and assuming fuel produced beyond the RVO category for BBD would backfill into unused conventional ethanol volumes under the RFS. This previous operating procedure at EPA in calculating RVOs stymied BBD industry expansion and stunted domestic market growth for U.S. soy. The present-day result of this is the idling of BBD facilities, specifically biodiesel plants located in farm country, and decreased domestic market opportunity for U.S. soybean oil.
Importantly, in its most recent proposal, EPA considered both domestic production and imported fuel, and increased BBD volumes to 5.61 billion gallons - a 67% increase over the 2025 RVO of 3.35 billion gallons and in line with current domestic consumption. This increase represents an acknowledgement of the ongoing and proposed investments to expand both BBD production and domestic soybean processing capacity. If the EPA proposed volumes are carried forward in the final 2026-2027 RVO, the domestic BBD industry is poised for incredible growth.
Additionally, the proposed 2026-2027 RVO rule offered a novel solution to address surging imported waste feedstocks by recommending a 50% reduction in RFS renewable identification number (RIN) credit value for both imported biofuels and biofuels produced from imported feedstocks - similar to 45Z tax credit restrictions established by Congress. Prior to the release of the proposed RVOs, ASA had requested that EPA identify a testing standard and mechanism to ensure that UCO importers were not engaging in fraud, as anecdotal evidence suggested. The EPA "half RIN" proposal acknowledges that there is currently no efficient, nor cost-effective, method to regulate the surge of imported UCO for domestic biofuel production.
Supporting Soy-Based Biofuels Today
While the domestic biofuel industry has evolved rapidly in response to changing federal and state-level policies, ASA still sees a bright future for domestic market growth. First and foremost, Congress must protect the integrity of the Renewable Fuel Standard at all costs, including any statutory changes that seek to limit annual RVOs for BBD like mandatory RFS compliance exemptions for petroleum refiners. Second, the administration must finalize the longdelayed 45Z tax credit guidance, so the changes Congress secured in 2025 can be fully realized.
In addition, the administration must follow Congressional directives to develop additional 45Z guidance for value-added farming practices.
Lastly, the delayed 2026-2027 RVOs, which are currently undergoing Office of Management & Budget review, must be finalized immediately. The biofuels industry has already lost one quarter of potential growth due to the delay, and a positive final rule would provide a market for the 2025 soybean crop that was impacted by Chinese trade retaliation. In fact, a strong RVO and continued sustained growth, paired with guardrails to support domestic biofuel and agriculture dominance, would help insulate the U.S. soybean industry from future trade uncertainty.
Perhaps White House Senior Counselor for Trade and Manufacturing Peter Navarro said it best: "Finalizing and expediting the new Renewable Fuel Standard rule is a concrete step toward ... fueling American energy, strengthening rural manufacturing, and denying Beijing one of its most effective economic weapons."/2
Supporting Soy in the U.S. Food Supply
Soy-Based Protein
Soy provides millions of Americans with access to an affordable and domestically produced source of healthy protein. As the recently published U.S. Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGAs) point out, foods such as tofu and tempeh are rich in protein content. Furthermore, soy is one of the few plant proteins that provide all nine essential amino acids necessary for human health. The health benefits of consuming soy are not limited to protein.
* * *
2 Navarro, Peter. 2026. "How to disarm China's weaponized soybean purchases." The Hill, January 15. https://thehill.com/opinion/international/5685497-how-to-disarm-chinas-weaponized-soybean-purchases/
* * *
Soybean Oil
Today, about half of domestically produced soybean oil is used for biofuel production, while the remaining half supports a wide range of food uses. The FDA approved a qualified health claim for soybean oil that indicates it reduces the risk of coronary heart disease, supported by 160 publications. More broadly, vegetable oils or seed oils are a critical component of dietary patterns associated with lower chronic disease rates. A study published by JAMA Internal Medicine last year demonstrated that a higher intake of plant-based oils (e.g. soybean oil)./3
In its analysis, the study found that soybean oil provided substantial health benefits when substituted for butter. Beyond its health benefits, soybeans are an efficiently grown crop that produces a versatile, neutral-tasting oil that plays an important role throughout the U.S. food system - from home cooking to package foods that may be considered "ultra-processed."
ASA believes that a food's health should be based on its role in the diet and its nutritional profile rather than based on its ingredients and processing method. This is why ASA is increasingly concerned about state-level legislative efforts to related to defining and labeling "ultra-processed foods." The ever-growing threat of a patchwork of state food labeling laws will create a food affordability crisis without federal intervention. A recent economic analysis on the impact of labeling patchworks concluded that prices for consumers could rise as much as 12%./4
The USDA Economic Research Service "Food Dollar" for 2023 - the last year with available data - noted that farm production translated to by U.S. consumers on food./5
The remaining $0.84 is the market share--or the costs borne by consumers after the farm gate. Creating new labels for food products to satisfy state labeling laws comes at an enormous cost, which will ultimately be passed down to the consumer. Food affordability impacts consumers most acutely, but as consumers make difficult decisions to limit food purchases, downstream impacts will impact U.S. agriculture producers across the board.
Soymilk & Infant Formula
Soymilk is the only plant-based milk alternative with a nutritional profile of calories, protein content, and protein quality that is similar to that of dairy milk. Access to soymilk provides millions of people in the US and abroad with access to essential nutrients that otherwise would not be available. This is also true for soy-based infant formulas and infant formulas that contain soybean oil. Fats are an essential nutrient for development, which is why the current nutritional requirements for formulas include fat and linoleic acid./6
* * *
3 Zhang, Yu et al. 2025. "Butter and Plant-Based Oils Intake and Mortality." JAMA Internal Medicine vol. 185,5: 549-560. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2025.0205
4 Policy Navigation Group. 2026. Costs of recent state nutrition laws. Policy Navigation Group on Behalf of Americans for Ingredient Transparency. https://americansforingredienttransparency.com/wpcontent/uploads/2026/02/COSTS-OF-RECENT-STATE-NUTRITION-LAWS.pdf
5 USDA Economic Research Service. 2025. "Food Dollar Series." Last modified December 15. https://ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-dollar-series
6 U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (n.d.). Title 21, Sec. 107.100 Nutrient specifications. In Electronic Code of Federal Regulations.
* * *
Disparagement of soy products negatively affects a critical domestic market for U.S. soybean growers and ignores the overwhelming nutritional data that supports consumption of soy protein and oil. Whether consumed as soy-based products, like tofu or soybean oil, soy offers a healthy source of fatty acids and protein for humans and animals and provides soybean growers with a robust domestic market.
Soybean Meal: Feeding Livestock & Aquaculture and Beneficial Novel Uses
Livestock
Animal agriculture is the largest customer for U.S. soybean farmers, consuming 97% of domestic U.S. soybean meal. According to research conducted by the United Soybean Board (USB), 37.3 million tons of soybean meal were consumed by animal agriculture in 2024./7
Over 50% of that consumption was comprised of broilers, while hogs, dairy, layer hens, and turkeys consumed the majority of the rest. Soybean meal is a high-density nutritional component in animal feed rations due to its amino acid profile, protein content, and ease of digestibility. Through USB and our sister organization, the U.S. Soybean Export Council (USSEC), ASA has continued to support innovations in animal feed to benefit our partners in the livestock sector domestically and abroad.
Importantly, as the soybean processing industry expands to meet growing biofuel market demands for soybean oil, the volume of soybean meal produced increases in tandem. The increased soybean meal availability lowers production costs for the livestock sector. Further, a 2022 study from Purdue University noted that a 20% increase in the volume of soybean oil produced to meet biofuel market demand results in lower retail prices for consumers on animal protein products including dairy, beef, eggs, chicken, and pork./8
So, as one critical market for U.S. soy expands, the resulting impact is lower costs for our largest customer - the livestock industry - and in turn, lower prices at the grocery store meat counter.
Aquaculture
In addition to livestock, there is growing adoption of soybean meal as a high-quality feed source for aquaculture production around the world. Aquaculture is one of the fastest growing animal protein sectors and is expected to continue trending in that direction. However, the majority of aquaculture demand remains outside the U.S. A staggering 91% of U.S. seafood is imported, and foreign-produced aquaculture accounts for about half of those imports. According to USDA's Economic Research Service, the United States had a seafood trade deficit of $20.6 billion in 2024.
* * *
7 Decision Innovation Solutions. 2025. 2024 Soybean Meal Demand Assessment. Decision Innovation Solutions on behalf of the United Soybean Board. https://marketviewdb.unitedsoybean.org/uploads/SBM/SBM_Demand_Assessment_Report_U.S.Total_2024.pdf
8 Lusk, Jayson. "Food and Fuel: Modeling Food System Wide Impacts of Increase in Demand for Soybean Oil." Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, November 10, 2022.
* * *
ASA sees the expansion of domestic aquaculture as another opportunity to create new markets for U.S. soybean farmers. We have endorsed the Marine Aquaculture Research for America (MARA) Act of 2025, which would authorize an Office of Aquaculture within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and establish commercial-scale demonstration projects. The projects would direct NOAA to permit offshore aquaculture, creating opportunities for the domestic aquaculture industry to grow. Thanks to research and promotion activities conducted in export markets with global aquaculture producers, we know there is a demand for U.S. soybean meal as a high-quality, high-protein feed ration for farmed fish. The moment is ripe to streamline the U.S. aquaculture regulatory system to bring new innovations to market, decrease our seafood trade deficit, and create new domestic markets for U.S. soybean meal.
However, growing the domestic aquaculture market is a long-term demand growth opportunity.
At the same time, livestock production in the U.S. continues a slight downward trend that began in 2019. With soybean meal demand likely to remain even for the foreseeable future, looking outside the feed sector for new soybean meal market opportunities is increasingly important.
Novel Soybean Meal-Based Bioproducts
As noted above, increased demand for soybean oil for biofuels will create a surplus of soybean meal domestically. While our partners at USSEC and the World Initiative for Soy in Human Health (WISHH) continue to diversify export markets and identify new and emerging soybean meal markets abroad, smaller domestic market opportunities have emerged. Soybean meal is used in a variety of bioproducts for industrial products including plastic composites, formaldehyde-free wood adhesives, polyurethane foams, and more. As the price of soybean meal decreases, value-added bioproducts can offer scalable market opportunities.
One of the most exciting soybean meal-based bioproducts on the market today is SoyFoam(TM) TF 1122. Developed by Cross Plains Solution with supporting investments from the Soy Checkoff, SoyFoam is a biobased firefighting foam that does not include any per- or polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and has no detectable fluorines. PFAS is an ever-growing topic of concerns on Capitol Hill and communities around the country, as exposure to the "forever chemical" is linked to cancer and other health concerns. SoyFoam offers a solution to one of the biggest continuous PFAS polluters: firefighting suppressants.
SoyFoam is produced using soybean meal milled into flour and is USDA certified as 84% biobased - the highest percentage of any firefighting foam on the market today. It is effective on both class A burns (ordinary combustibles) and class B burns (gasoline and other flammable liquids) and boasts a biodegradable certification of 60% after 18 days and 91.6% after 180 days.
For comparison, the biodegradability requirement for conventional firefighting foam is 60% after 180 days.
When considering opportunities for identifying new domestic market opportunities for agricultural products, ASA sees significant potential with SoyFoam. However, the process for federal agency approvals is onerous and time consuming. Even after passing all nine burns on Jet A and gasoline fuels as required by the Department of Defense, this process may still take 18 months. The Wildlands Fire Chemical Systems division at the U.S. Forest Service currently has the opportunity to approve SoyFoam for their qualified products list. That process may take up to two years. After the wildfires in Los Angeles last year, reports started emerging about the environmental cleanup costs due to the significant levels of PFAS left behind from the firefighting efforts. On a mass-scale, SoyFoam creates a safe alternative, so when victims of fires begin to rebuild their lives, they have one less worry - PFAS exposure. The support of Congress can help expidite and navigate the red tape required for these critical federal approvals to bring this PFAS-free alternative to firefighting foam to the market much sooner.
Firefighters face significant PFAS exposure risk - perhaps more than any other profession. My family has a rich history of firefighting, and I am the proud brother, brother-in-law, and father of firefighters. With the support of the federal government to support greater adoption and scalability of SoyFoam, firefighters like my eldest son, Dalton, would face a significantly lower risk of PFAS exposure immediately upon switching products.
Growing Markets for Biobased Products
Beyond soybean meal, soybean oil-based bioproducts offer an additional modest, yet scalable driver to expand domestic demand for U.S. soy. Soybean oil is one of the most versatile natural oils with a molecular structure and suitable fatty-acid profile that make it suitable for many applications beyond biofuel. Through the Soy Checkoff, U.S. soybean organizations are partnering with major companies and universities to create new rapidly renewable materials made with soy. The Soy Checkoff is also partnering with major manufacturers to create demand for these new products that can meet consumer desires for high-performing sustainable products.
BioPreferred Program
According to USDA, the biomanufacturing sector employs an estimated 4 million Americans and contributes nearly $490 billion to the U.S. economy annually./9
Through initiatives like the Biobased Markets (BioPreferred) Program, the federal government is already positioned to champion expansion of the bioproduct market to drive additional domestic demand of U.S. agricultural products. Created in the 2002 Farm Bill and expanded in 2018, BioPreferred has two primary functions: overseeing a mandatory federal procurement program for biobased products and administering a voluntary "USDA Certified Biobased Product" label.
* * *
9 USDA Rural Department BioPreferred Program. An Economic Impact Analysis of the U.S. Biobased Products Industry. Mr. Andrew Jermolowicz, et. al. 2023. https://www.rd.usda.gov/media/file/download/usda-rdeconomic-impact-analysis-us-biobased-products-industry-2023-508.pdf
* * *
While BioPreferred is the cornerstone of the bioproduct industry, its authorization has been neglected. As a Farm Bill "orphan program," BioPreferred has endured years without regular funding, as its mandatory funding status must come with explicit extensions when authorization lapses for a Farm Bill, and was not included in recent extensions of the current legislation. ASA was glad to see the House Committee on Agriculture favorably report the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026, which included the reauthorization of the Biobased Markets (BioPreferred) Program and urges the Senate Agriculture Committee to renew authorization for BioPreferred when it considers 2026 Farm Bill legislation in the near future.
Soy-Based Bioproducts in Infrastructure Projects
Soy-based bioproducts are increasingly utilized as part of state and local roadway projects. One longtime soy-based product with a proven track record is PoreShield(TM), a revolutionary soybased concrete protector that was first developed through a partnership between Purdue University, the Indiana Department of Transportation, and the Indiana Soybean Alliance to address the growing need to extend the lifespan of concrete highways. In addition to providing long-lasting concrete protection, PoreShield(TM) is nontoxic and requires no personal protective equipment for workers while applying. Recently, Crafco, Inc. acquired PoreShield(TM), offering global market potential for this soy-based, 100% American-made product.
For asphalt-based roads, Soylei, an innovative company born from a partnership between Iowa State University and the Iowa Soybean Association, has developed a soybean -oil-based rejuvenator for asphalt. These soy-based rejuvenators produced by Soylei restore the flexibility and binder quality of reclaimed asphalt pavement. This technology allows for higher percentages of recycled asphat to be used in new, durable pavement construction.
Unlike agencies like the U.S. Forest Service, the Federal Highway Administration relies on stateadministered qualified products lists rather than a national list, which inhibits widespread adoption of bioproducts for major construction projects. To support increased utilization of soybased materials in federal transportation projects, ASA is exploring a federal pilot program concept that would provide a federal qualified products list for bioproducts with proven success in multiple state transportation projects.
The Value of Farmer-Driven Development of Soy Products & Markets
Over 30 years ago, Congress passed the Soybean Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Act, creating the United Soybean Board (USB)--an agricultural research and promotion program funded and managed directly by soybean farmers under the oversight of USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service. Through direct farmer investment, this program, also referred to as the Soy Checkoff, finances research, promotion, and education initiatives, all of which are aimed at improving yield, sustainability, and demand for U.S. soy products.
Checkoff-driven initiatives have brought a return on investment--$12.30 for every farmer dollar invested in the checkoff--to growers like me, who are then better able to support our families, employees, and rural communities. Many of the innovations highlighted today in my testimony are a direct result of checkoff-funded research. From partnerships with animal nutritionists to study animal feed rations for livestock production to research into biobased products to grow non-agricultural uses for U.S. soybeans, to the inception of the U.S. biomass-based diesel industry, the Soy Checkoff has supported farmers by supporting research and furthering demand both here and abroad. The success of the American soybean farmer and the U.S. soy value chain would not be as robust as it is today, were it not for the Soy Checkoff.
Farmers are overwhelmingly supportive of the Soy Checkoff. During the last USDA-led Request for Referendum in 2024, only 0.06% of eligible soybean farmers called for a referendum - far short of the 10% required by statute to reconsider the structure of the checkoff. It is clear the Soy Checkoff is overwhelmingly supported by farmers, and as this Committee considers an updated farm bill, ASA strongly urges this committee to recognize the important role checkoffs play and to protect them from unnecessary and harmful amendments.
Conclusion
It is no secret that the U.S. soybean industry is facing unprecedented economic distress. The losses faced on our 2025 soybean crop were so profound that even with the support provided to farmers through the USDA Farmer Bridge Assistance Program, U.S. soybean farmers are still facing an average of $73/acre in uncovered losses.
During every trade conflict that has impacted U.S. soybean farmers, you have heard our leadership echo a united refrain: "Farmers want markets, not handouts." That holds true today, just as it did in 2018 and 2025. Farm assistance has become a necessary lifeline to ensure we can survive through the next planting season, and we sincerely appreciate the work of Congress to pass prior economic assistance packages, and for our champions on this Committee who are leaving no stone unturned as they continue to pursue additional avenues to help farmers keep their legacies - their land - alive for the next generation.
As I close, I want to reemphasize the five key topics I identified to support domestic markets for U.S. soy:
1. Biofuels: Finalizing the 45Z Clean Fuel Production Credit and supplemental USDA FDCIC and the 2026-2027 RVOs will provide the U.S. soybean value chain - from farmers to processors, to BBD producers - with both immediate and long-term benefits.
Supporting federal policies that reward North American biofuel feedstocks while removing arbitrary penalties on agriculture will create domestic biofuel market certainty for U.S. soy while supporting American energy dominance.
2. Soy Foods: While ASA supports the goals of this administration to improve health outcomes for Americans, policies must be backed by sound science and not arbitrarily malign soybean oil and seed oils more broadly. The safety and health benefits of soy foods are backed by a longstanding FDA heart health claim and countless studies, and preserving this market for U.S. soy is imperative.
3. Soybean Meal: U.S. soy has enjoyed consistent domestic soybean meal markets, thanks to our partners in the livestock industry. As soybean processing expands to meet additional domestic soybean oil demand, prices for meal will continue to decrease, supporting lower protein costs for consumers. Additional uses for soybean meal like SoyFoam demonstrate untapped market potential for U.S. soy.
4. Bioproducts: Soybean farmers are proud of the variety of bioproducts that are being made using our crop. Identifying policies that cut through the red tape for federal approvals and supporting a reauthorization of the BioPreferred Program are just two ways to support the bioeconomy fueled by U.S. agriculture.
5. Farmer Investments in Soy: The Soy Checkoff plays an integral role in our ability to identify new markets and develop novel uses for U.S. soy. Soybean growers are immensely proud of their investments, which help open markets, develop new uses, and improve the farm economy for our industry.
Thank you, Chairman Boozman and Ranking Member Klobuchar for holding this critically important hearing to explore a variety of options to expand existing domestic markets and develop new markets to support U.S. agriculture. As I sit here today, the ASA Board of Directors is receiving a briefing a few blocks away to prepare for their visits with Congressional offices tomorrow. This Committee's unwavering focus on improving the economic viability of U.S. farmers is not lost on a single one of those farmers who took the time to come to D.C. this week.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before the Senate Agriculture Committee today. I look forward to your questions and continuing this dialogue regarding our shared goal of expanding domestic markets for U.S. agriculture.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.agriculture.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/dca45105-ca2f-4467-7806-31663d8955e8/Testimony_%20Metzger_03.10.2026.pdf
American Farm Bureau Federation President Duvall Testifies Before Senate Agriculture, Nutrition & Forestry Committee
WASHINGTON, April 1 -- The Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee released the following testimony by American Farm Bureau Federation President Zippy Duvall, Greene County, Georgia, from a March 10, 2026, hearing entitled "Increasing Domestic Consumption of U.S.-Grown Agricultural Products":* * *
Chairman Boozman, Ranking Member Klobuchar, and Members of the Senate Agriculture Committee, thank you for the opportunity to share the views of the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) on how we can strengthen domestic demand for U.S. agricultural commodities to ensure America's farmers ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 1 -- The Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee released the following testimony by American Farm Bureau Federation President Zippy Duvall, Greene County, Georgia, from a March 10, 2026, hearing entitled "Increasing Domestic Consumption of U.S.-Grown Agricultural Products": * * * Chairman Boozman, Ranking Member Klobuchar, and Members of the Senate Agriculture Committee, thank you for the opportunity to share the views of the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) on how we can strengthen domestic demand for U.S. agricultural commodities to ensure America's farmersand ranchers can keep our nation's food supply secure and continue supplying food, fiber, and fuel for generations to come.
My name is Zippy Duvall. I am a third-generation farmer from Georgia. My family and I raise beef cattle, poultry, and hay. Like many farm families, we have experienced good years and hard years. On our family farm, we diversified during the economic crisis of the 1980s to keep from going under. We understand market volatility. We understand what it means to borrow against a crop and hope that prices hold through harvest. We understand weather risks and have helped our neighbors pick up the pieces after a storm. Farming has never been easy.
I am honored to have served as president of the American Farm Bureau Federation for the last 10 years. American Farm Bureau represents more than five -million member families in every state and Puerto Rico. Our members grow every commodity produced in the United States and care for livestock, milk cows, and raise poultry across all regions. They operate farms and ranches of every size, from specialty crop operations serving local markets to multi-generational row crop and livestock farms that help feed the world. They are leaders in their communities and are the economic backbone of rural America.
Let me begin by expressing sincere appreciation for the work the President, this committee, and Congress have done to strengthen farm programs through the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. You made a generational, and much-needed, investment in farm bill risk management tools, trade promotion programs, conservation programs, and animal disease preparedness and response. Our farmers are grateful for that leadership.
At the same time, today's hearing is in response to something deeper than a short-term downturn.
The challenges facing agriculture are not merely cyclical. They are structural. Farmers and consumers have faced historic levels of inflation. On top of that, farm input costs are expected to be record high again in 2026. On the farm, productivity continues to rise and technology continues to advance. We do more with less every year.
The prices we receive, however, have not kept pace with that productivity or the input costs. As one farmer told me recently: "I'm paying 2026 input costs, but I'm receiving prices from the 70s and 80s and paying the freight both ways." Whether it's cotton or milk, corn or apples, or any other commodity, farmers have been dealing with a cost-price squeeze for the better part of five years.
In October 2025, the American Farm Bureau Federation sent a letter to Congressional leadership and the President outlining the extraordinary economic pressure farmers are facing./1
We requested immediate economic assistance to ensure producers could reach the next planting season, and we also emphasized that long-term stability cannot rest on emergency programs alone. That letter outlined a roadmap focused on building durable demand, restoring domestic processing capacity, and ensuring competitive, rules-based access to global markets. Those principles guide my testimony today.
Farmers do not want to rely on ad hoc support. We want markets with fair competition. We want value-added opportunities close to home. We want to compete and win. But doing so requires policy that encourages and facilitates domestic consumption, and that also recognizes and adjusts to unfair trade policies and market-distorting practices in markets around the world.
Achieving these priorities is important to our food security--and our national security. The food and agriculture sectors contribute more than $9.5 trillion to U.S. economic activity and support more than 24 million jobs across farming, processing, transportation, retail and food service./2
Agricultural exports alone were valued at over $170 billion in 2025 and supported more than one million American jobs. Every dollar of agricultural exports generates over two dollars in additional economic activity. When farms struggle, rural communities struggle. When processing plants close, towns hollow out. When farmland is converted permanently to other uses, that capacity is unlikely to ever return.
Food production is not only critical to our economy; it is also a strategic national asset. Global disruptions, including ongoing military conflicts abroad, supply chain breakdowns during the pandemic, and water scarcity in major producing regions around the world, remind us that food security and national security are closely linked. America's farmland and processing infrastructure must be treated as strategic assets if we are to maintain resilience in the face of global uncertainty.
* * *
1 American Farm Bureau Federation, Farm Bureau to President and Congress: Farmers Are at a Breaking Point, available at https://www.fb.org/news-release/farm-bureau-to-president-and-congress-farmers-are-at-a-breakingpoint.
2 Feeding the Economy, 2025 Feeding the Economy Report, available at https://feedingtheeconomy.com/.
* * *
The path forward is clear. We must strengthen domestic demand for American agricultural products. We must reinforce our production capacity of critical inputs such as fertilizers, crop protection tools, and pharmaceuticals for animal health. We must restore and modernize domestic processing capacity. We must expand fair and enforceable market access abroad, and we must ensure our safety nets remain anchored in predictable, farm bill-based policy.
The Structural Economic Problem: High Productivity, Weak Margins
To understand why demand growth and processing capacity must now be central to agricultural policy, we must begin with the scale and persistence of the financial stress American farmers and ranchers face. USDA's most recent farm income forecast, released in February, underscores the magnitude of that imbalance. Net farm income for 2025 was revised downward to approximately $154.6 billion, roughly $25 billion lower than projected just months earlier. The outlook for 2026 remains essentially flat at $153.4 billion. That level is nearly $48 billion, or 24%, below the record high reached in 2022. While those totals remain above long-run averages in nominal terms, they mask a troubling reality. Much of the recent resilience in aggregate farm income has been concentrated in the cattle sector, where tight supplies have supported historically strong prices.
Outside of cattle, most major commodity markets are weakening, and a broad swath of crop producers and specialty growers are operating at or below full economic cost.
The depth of losses across principal crops is significant and sustained. Across the nine major row crops, returns were below total economic costs by approximately $20 billion in the 2023 and 2024 crop year, down $35 billion in 2024 and 2025, and down $34.6 billion in 2025 and 2026. These figures are calculated before accounting for crop insurance indemnities and ad hoc government assistance. Over a three-year period, cumulative losses exceed $90 billion across major crops alone. That scale of sustained negative return is not typical of normal commodity cycles. It signals that market prices have not kept pace with the cost structure farmers face.
Corn illustrates this dynamic clearly. For the 2025 crop year, U.S. farmers planted nearly 100 million acres of corn, committing close to $90 billion in production expenses. With average total costs of near $900 per acre, producers have significant capital at risk before a single bushel is harvested. Even assuming record yields approaching 186 bushels per acre and a national average price near $4 per bushel, projected returns exceed negative $150 per acre. On a national scale, losses for corn alone are estimated to surpass $15 billion. Similar cost-price compression is occurring in soybeans, wheat, and cotton. Since 2022, corn prices have declined by roughly 54%, soybeans by nearly 58%, wheat by more than 50%, and cotton by over 40% from pandemic-era highs. At the same time, production costs have not returned to pre-2021 levels.
Total farm production expenses are projected at approximately $473 billion in 2025 and are projected to remain historically elevated heading into 2026. While the pace of inflation has moderated, cost levels have not reverted. Since 2020, interest expenses have risen more than 70%, labor costs approximately 47%, fertilizer roughly 37%, and fuel and oil more than 30%. Chemical, seed, and maintenance costs remain materially higher than prior to 2021. These increases have permanently raised break-even thresholds across commodities. In this environment, even modest price declines translate quickly into negative margins.
The result is what many producers describe as a high-yield, low-margin farm economy. American farmers are producing at historically high levels. Corn and soybean yields have increased more than 50% since 1990, reflecting sustained gains in genetics, mechanization, and precision agriculture. These productivity gains are a success story. However, productivity growth without proportional demand growth suppresses prices. When global supplies expand faster than consumption, market-clearing prices fall even if individual farms operate efficiently.
Specialty crop, hay, and other field crop farmers face parallel pressures, often with fewer tools to manage them. Specialty crops generate more than $75 billion in annual farm-gate value and account for over one-third of total U.S. crop sales. Yet these operations typically lack the same depth of countercyclical support available to major program crops and operate with a more laborintensive cost structure. Analysis of six key commodities (almonds, apples, blueberries, lettuce, potatoes, and strawberries) which together represent roughly one-quarter of total specialty crop receipts shows billions of dollars in projected losses in 2025 alone. Labor accounts for approximately 38% of cash expenses on specialty crop farms, nearly three times the average across all farms. In sectors dependent on hand harvest, pruning, and packing, rising wage rates and labor scarcity significantly compress margins. When farm-gate prices fail to keep pace with these increases, producers have limited financial cushion. Similar pressures extend beyond specialty crops: alfalfa, the fourth-most valuable U.S. field crop, is projected to face roughly $2.9 billion in losses in 2025, or about $203 per acre, despite having little access to the core farm safety net.
These pressures extend beyond individual enterprises to farm households. According to the USDA, more than half of farms in the U.S. lose money each year and 77% of household income is derived from off-farm sources. While USDA's definition of a farm includes many small operations, the statistic remains instructive. For many families, off-farm income is not supplemental but essential to keeping the operation intact. At the same time, farm sector debt is projected to approach $625 billion in 2026, and lenders report growing operating loan balances as producers finance working capital to bridge losses. Elevated interest rates compound that stress by increasing the cost of borrowing precisely when margins are thin.
Government payments have played an increasingly important role in stabilizing income. Direct payments totaled approximately $30.5 billion in 2025 and are projected to rise to roughly $44.3 billion in 2026, in part due to disaster assistance and the USDA Farmer Bridge Assistance Program. These programs are appreciated and necessary in the short term, but their growing scale underscores the widening gap between market returns and production costs. Repeated emergency assistance since 2018 reflects a persistent structural imbalance rather than isolated shocks.
Global market conditions are contributing to this imbalance. U.S. agriculture operates within a highly integrated global system where prices are shaped by international supply growth, trade relationships, and shifting demand patterns. When global supply expands or trade flows change, those effects transmit quickly to U.S. farm prices. In that environment, productivity gains at home do not automatically translate into stronger returns.
Taken together, sustained crop losses exceeding $90 billion, billions in specialty crop strain, rising leverage, increasing reliance on government payments, and heavy exposure to export volatility point to a structural imbalance between productivity and profitable demand. This is not merely a low-price year. It is a market alignment challenge.
If productivity continues to rise, market development must advance with it. If export markets remain concentrated and volatile, domestic demand must be strengthened. If margins remain compressed, predictable risk management must support functioning markets rather than replace them.
Export Reliance in a More Competitive and Volatile World
The margin compression described above is occurring in a farm economy that is structurally reliant on export demand. For many commodities, exports are not simply an additional marketing channel.
They are the mechanism that clears surplus production when domestic utilization is insufficient.
More than one-fifth of total U.S. agricultural output is sold abroad in a typical year, and for certain commodities the share is far higher. Approximately 86% of U.S. cotton production is exported in most years. More than half of sorghum production moves into foreign markets. Wheat, rice, and soybeans also depend heavily on export channels to maintain price stability. When that export engine slows, farm-level prices adjust quickly.
Export reliance becomes more complex in a global environment that is more competitive and more coordinated than it was two decades ago. The United States remains one of the most productive agricultural producers in the world, but competitors have expanded acreage, improved yields, and invested heavily in ports, rail systems, crushing facilities, and logistics networks that lower their delivered cost to key buyers. The result is a global marketplace with more supply options. When trade relationships shift or buyers reallocate sourcing, the United States is no longer the default residual supplier.
This shift is visible in market share data. In wheat, U.S. global export share has fallen from roughly 25% in the early 2000s to approximately 11% today. In soybeans, Brazil's rapid acreage expansion and productivity gains have materially reduced U.S. dominance in global trade. Yet even as U.S.
share has declined, exposure remains significant. That combination increases vulnerability: the United States still depends on export markets to absorb production but has less influence over price formation than in prior decades.
Trade concentration compounds that exposure. In 2024, China purchased nearly half of all U.S. soybean exports. When a single country represents that magnitude of demand, shifts in purchasing patterns can quickly become price events. From January through August 2025, U.S. soybean exports to China totaled roughly 218 million bushels, down sharply from approximately 985 million bushels during the same period the previous year. Over that same timeframe, Brazil exported roughly 2.5 billion bushels to China. Global soybean demand did not contract. It was redirected. When demand shifts at that scale, domestic prices respond regardless of farm-level efficiency.
The consequences extend beyond one commodity. When soybean export prospects weaken, acreage adjustments follow. Producers shift into alternative crops such as corn, expanding supply and increasing downward price pressure. Storage builds, basis weakens, and working capital tightens. In an export-dependent system, volatility in one major crop can quickly transmit across the broader row-crop economy. Once planting decisions are made, producers cannot reverse course mid-season. They are committed to clearing the market at whatever price global demand supports.
Logistics vulnerabilities add another layer of exposure. Inland waterway disruptions, low river levels, congestion at export terminals, and rail bottlenecks all influence the price farmers ultimately receive. When export markets carry a large share of utilization, transportation disruptions translate directly into wider basis and lower net returns. Competitiveness is therefore not only about negotiating new agreements. It is also about ensuring reliable, efficient infrastructure so that U.S. commodities reach global buyers at predictable cost.
Trade policy itself increasingly revolves around non-tariff barriers that affect real-world demand.
Sanitary and phytosanitary measures, biotechnology approval timelines, maximum residue limits, and regulatory standards can restrict access even in the absence of formal tariffs. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative continues to document practices ranging from opaque import licensing to state-supported enterprises that distort competition. For American producers, the effect is uncertainty about whether the market will be open when the crop is ready to ship.
Recent trade frameworks and negotiations offer meaningful opportunity. Commitments to reduce tariffs, address non-tariff barriers, and expand agricultural purchases can support farm income if fully implemented. Farmers strongly support open and enforceable trade relationships. At the same time, experience over the past decade demonstrates that episodic purchase agreements alone cannot serve as the foundation of long-term profitability. Markets must be stable, diversified, and rules-based.
For trade to work effectively across commodities, it must also be fair. American producers operate under stringent labor, environmental, and food safety standards. When imported products enter the U.S. market under materially different regulatory regimes, domestic producers can be placed at a disadvantage within their own marketing windows. Ensuring that trade is reciprocal and sciencebased protects both export opportunity and domestic stability.
Exports remain indispensable to American agriculture. But heavy export reliance in a world of intensified competition, concentrated demand, and infrastructure vulnerability increases income volatility. When foreign sourcing decisions shift abruptly, the presence or absence of strong domestic demand and processing capacity determines how much of that shock is absorbed downstream versus transmitted back to the farm gate.
The Erosion of Domestic Processing Capacity
U.S. agricultural demand only becomes farm income when domestic infrastructure can convert raw commodities into finished products. That infrastructure determines where value is added, where rural jobs are anchored, and how much volatility is absorbed within the supply chain rather than transmitted back to producers. When processing capacity narrows or concentrates, resilience declines.
Several sectors illustrate this long-term structural shift.
Cotton is the clearest example of permanent capacity loss. In 1980, more than 2,200 cotton gins operated across producing regions. Today, roughly 446 remain. While some consolidation reflects scale efficiencies, the broader story is the collapse of domestic textile manufacturing after global restructuring of apparel production. As mills closed and capacity moved overseas, domestic mill use of cotton fell to historic lows. Producers now export 80% to 85% of annual production. Once textile infrastructure and skilled labor networks dissipated, they did not return. The result is a globally competitive production base that depends heavily on foreign processing demand.
Rice milling and sugar refining show similar consolidation patterns. These facilities require steady throughput and regulatory certainty to justify capital investment. When regional production fluctuates or compliance costs rise, marginal plants close. Rebuilding requires not just capital but labor, supplier networks, and predictable permitting environments. Over time, fewer facilities serve larger regions, increasing transportation costs, and narrowing marketing options.
The beef sector illustrates how concentration affects resilience even without long-run decline. A small number of large packing plants process the majority of fed cattle. When a major facility shuts down, regional cattle prices can weaken quickly because alternative buyers are limited within economic hauling distance. During the pandemic, temporary disruptions widened spreads between wholesale beef prices and cattle prices, highlighting how concentrated capacity can amplify shocks. Modern packing plants require hundreds of millions of dollars in capital, specialized labor, and wastewater infrastructure. Investment decisions depend on regulatory stability, labor availability, and long-term throughput certainty.
Recent expansion in soybean crushing tied to renewable diesel demand shows the opposite dynamic. When domestic utilization grows predictably, capital follows. Additional crush capacity has created new local marketing options and strengthened regional basis levels. That contrast underscores the broader principle: processing investment responds to stable demand signals and predictable policy environments.
Capital hesitates when those conditions are absent. Agricultural processing margins are cyclical.
Environmental permitting and wastewater approvals can extend timelines. Rural labor availability remains uncertain. Elevated interest rates increase financing costs. Imported processed goods can enter at competitive prices when labor and regulatory costs differ abroad. These realities do not argue against efficiency. They explain why distributed, resilient capacity does not expand automatically.
Processing determines whether a nation captures value or exports it. When infrastructure erodes or concentrates excessively, rural communities lose employment, producers have fewer buyers, and geographic production diversity narrows. Productivity gains alone cannot offset that structural shift. Without adequate domestic conversion capacity, even strong demand signals are less likely to translate into durable farm income.
Domestic Produce: High Value, High Cost, and Growing Import Exposure
Specialty crops operate under a different structure, but the pressure is the same. These are high-value, labor-intensive, perishable commodities sold into concentrated marketing channels and increasingly integrated North American supply chains. Even when consumer demand is strong, the farm gate price depends on cost competitiveness, seasonality, and buyer sourcing decisions.
Imports have increased steadily over the years. In 2023, Mexico supplied 51% of U.S. fresh fruit imports by value and 69% of fresh vegetable imports, with Canada supplying another 20% of vegetable imports. These supply chains reflect geography and year-round consumer expectations, but they also define the competitive environment domestic growers face. When retailers prioritize consistent supply at the lowest delivered cost, domestic producers compete against products grown under different labor structures and regulatory regimes. Imports frequently overlap with U.S.
harvest windows, compressing prices at critical marketing moments. Over time, these pressures have coincided with a notable decline in domestic production, with U.S. vegetable output falling by roughly 14 million metric tons since 2000, a 39% decline, while fruit production has dropped by about 9 million metric tons, or 24%./3
Potatoes illustrate how production strength does not guarantee domestic value capture. The United States is a leading potato producer, and most utilization is tied to processed products. Yet the United States has been a net importer of frozen French fries in recent marketing years. In the 2024/25 marketing year, frozen fry imports approached 2 billion pounds, with roughly 85% supplied by Canada and another significant share by the European Union. This is not a production constraint. It reflects processing economics, energy costs, labor availability, and capacity distribution. When buyers need finished product, they source where capacity exists at competitive cost.
Specialty crop producers are also uniquely exposed to labor instability. These operations are highly labor-intensive, with harvesting, sorting, and packing that cannot be fully mechanized. Workforce uncertainty raises break-even thresholds quickly and introduces production risk. When labor is unavailable during peak harvest windows, product can be left in the field and buyers shift sourcing elsewhere. Once shelf space or contract volume is lost, recovery is difficult.
Market structure compounds these pressures. Unlike grains traded on transparent exchanges, many specialty crops are sold through negotiated contracts or concentrated buyer channels with limited price discovery. Perishability limits storage flexibility. If supply exceeds immediate demand, price declines can be swift. When imports are readily available, they provide an alternative supply source that weakens domestic bargaining leverage.
The implication is practical. Domestic fruit and vegetable production will remain viable only if labor policy provides stability, regulatory implementation remains science-based and enforceable, procurement policy genuinely prioritizes U.S.-grown products where feasible, and domestic packing and processing capacity expands in step with demand. Without those conditions, strong consumer demand can coexist with shrinking domestic production share.
* * *
3 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), FAOSTAT: Production--Crops and Livestock Products Database, available at https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QCL.
* * *
Specialty crop growers do not lack productivity. They face structural competitiveness pressures in a market where imports can respond quickly and where processing and labor constraints shape whether domestic supply reaches consumers.
Building Durable Domestic Demand
With rising productivity in American agriculture, durable domestic demand must be a structural feature of agricultural policy. Export markets remain essential and must be strengthened through fair and enforceable agreements. But driving domestic demand for a diversity of farm products provides stability when global markets fluctuate and supports investment in local infrastructure.
Biofuels represent the clearest example of policy-aligned domestic demand. Ethanol production now utilizes roughly 5.5 billion to 5.6 billion bushels of corn annually, accounting for approximately 40% to 43% of total U.S. corn use. That demand channel did not exist at that level three decades ago. It was created by matching our nation's agricultural strength with our energy priorities. Renewable diesel and biodiesel markets have similarly transformed oilseed demand.
Approximately 40% to 45% of domestic soybean oil utilization is now tied to biofuel production.
That shift has driven expansion in domestic soybean crushing capacity across multiple states, creating jobs and strengthening local markets.
However, growth in ethanol utilization faces structural constraints. The national gasoline blend remains close to E10 in many regions due to outdated seasonal volatility limitations. Permanent, year-round authorization of E15 would expand blending opportunities significantly. Moving from a nationwide E10 baseline to broader E15 adoption would increase ethanol demand by approximately 6.8 billion gallons, or on the order of 2.4 billion bushels of corn annually. For producers facing multi-year margin compression, demand of that magnitude significantly tightens balance sheets and supports local processing margins.
Sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) represents another opportunity. As the aviation sector seeks to reduce lifecycle carbon intensity, domestic SAF production capacity is expanding. U.S. Energy Information Administration data from 2025 show SAF output increasing as new facilities come online. Feedstocks derived from corn, soybeans, and other agricultural products can supply this emerging market if policy frameworks provide stable incentives and clear lifecycle accounting standards. With long-term growth projected in global air travel, SAF has the potential to become a stable demand channel if development occurs domestically rather than shifting overseas.
Domestic demand tools extend beyond energy. Federal procurement is an established lever for reinforcing domestic production. In fiscal year 2025, federal agencies purchased approximately $6.9 billion in U.S.-grown food and agricultural products. While this represents a small fraction of total consumption, it provides stable baseline demand in key sectors. Strengthening oversight and enforcement of Buy American provisions in school meal programs, Department of Defense procurement, and nutrition programs can ensure that public dollars consistently reinforce domestic agriculture when practicable.
The National School Lunch Program alone serves roughly 30 million children per day and provides nearly 5 billion meals annually. Under current rules, a product qualifies as "domestic" if it is processed in the United States and contains at least 51% U.S.-grown ingredients. That definition allows a substantial share of foreign inputs in composite or processed foods. In addition, tracking of Buy American exceptions remains uneven across districts, and waivers are often granted when imported products are modestly less expensive or more readily available. As a result, the realized domestic share embedded in institutional demand can fall short of its potential. Strengthening reporting transparency, improving enforcement consistency and gradually raising domestic content thresholds would more fully align nutrition spending with domestic agricultural production without expanding overall program costs.
Procurement alignment is particularly meaningful for specialty crops and fiber markets. Programs that enable schools, food banks, and institutional buyers to source directly from U.S. farmers can strengthen regional fruit and vegetable markets and improve supply chain transparency. In cotton, legislation that encourages use of U.S.-grown fiber in government procurement and uniform manufacturing, like the Buying American Cotton Act, can anchor segments of domestic demand even if broader textile production remains globalized. Legislation that encourages businesses to buy U.S.-grown agricultural products could help increase domestic demand by incentivizing companies to purchase commodities from American farmers.
Regulatory clarity also influences domestic demand realization. Policies affecting ethanol blending, lifecycle carbon accounting, labeling standards, and product definitions shape private sector investment decisions. When rules are predictable and science-based, capital responds. When policy signals fluctuate, investment hesitates.
Labor policy is central to sustaining domestic production and processing. Specialty crops and many processing facilities depend on reliable, legal labor availability. Without modernization of agricultural labor programs and workable improvements to guestworker programs, production could migrate to regions with more predictable workforce conditions. Labor instability is not simply a cost issue. It is a supply continuity issue that affects harvest timing, processing utilization, and buyer sourcing decisions.
Risk management modernization also supports domestic diversification. Producers investing in value-added processing, specialty crops, or emerging markets often face revenue volatility not fully addressed by traditional commodity programs. Updating risk management tools to accommodate diversified production can facilitate domestic investment.
Building durable domestic demand is not about retreating from global trade. It is about ensuring that American productivity is matched by American utilization wherever economically feasible.
Energy policy, procurement alignment, regulatory stability, labor modernization and risk management reform all influence whether demand growth catalyzes domestic processing and strengthens farm income.
Domestic demand functions as a stabilizer. It complements exports, supports processing investment, and reduces vulnerability to external shocks. As agricultural productivity continues to increase, policy alignment between production, processing and utilization will determine whether that productivity strengthens or strains the farm economy.
Preserving American Farmland as a Strategic Asset
Farmland is more than real estate. It is productive sustainability and the foundation of our food security. When farmland leaves production permanently, the country loses the ability to respond quickly when global supplies tighten, when conflicts disrupt trade corridors, or when weather shocks hit multiple regions at once. In agriculture, capacity is built over decades through soil stewardship, drainage, irrigation, local agronomy, equipment networks, and nearby processing and transportation. That system cannot be recreated on demand.
The data show that America's production base is slowly but steadily narrowing. USDA's 2022 Census of Agriculture reported just over 1.9 million farms, down 6.9% from 2017, and 880.1 million acres of farmland, down 20.1 million acres in five years. Even as farms and acres declined, average farm size rose from 441 acres to 463 acres, a sign that consolidation pressures continue to reshape the structure of production. These changes are not inherently "good" or "bad" on their own, but they mark an unmistakable shift. In a period when margins are thin, the economic pressure to exit farming rises, and when land is sold into non-agricultural uses, it rarely comes back.
Development pressure is one of the most permanent drivers of farmland loss, and the scale is often underestimated because farmland slips away, one parcel at a time. USDA's Economic Research Service estimates that developed land totaled 116.3 million acres in 2017 and has increased by roughly 43 million acres since 1982, an 85% increase over that period. That is not just growth at the edges of cities. It reflects a long-running expansion of housing, commercial and industrial footprints, transportation corridors, and supporting infrastructure into land that was previously part of the working landscape.
Importantly, the land being converted is not always marginal. ERS reports that about 22% of newly developed land from 2012 to 2017 was cropland. Cropland is where much of America's highest productive potential sits, and once it is subdivided, paved, or converted into industrial footprints, rebuilding that capacity is extremely difficult. Even where soil remains, fragmentation changes what can be farmed economically. Roads, utility corridors, zoning constraints, and conflicting adjacent land uses can permanently alter where modern production systems can operate.
This matters for national resilience because food production cannot be switched on and off like a factory line. When global disruptions occur, the United States benefits from having a broad, geographically diverse base of productive acreage and the supporting infrastructure that makes it usable. Recent years have reminded the world that grain and oilseed flows can become strategic chokepoints when conflict disrupts a major exporting region. In those moments, domestic capacity is not a talking point. It is leverage and stability.
The economic consequences of farmland leaving production also show up in rural communities long before anyone calls it a "national security" issue. When farmland disappears, local businesses lose customers, school enrollment drops, and the service economy that supports agriculture thins out. In many towns, farms are not only employers: they anchor the local economy, keeping equipment dealers, agronomists, veterinarians, trucking, repair services, and food processors viable. If we want rural communities to be places where the next generation can live, work, and raise families, keeping farmland in production must be treated as a long-run economic development strategy, not an afterthought.
That is why a modern farm bill remains essential. The farm bill is the backbone for risk management, conservation working lands, research, and rural development, and it shapes whether farming remains economically viable enough for land to stay in agriculture rather than being paved over. A strong farm economy is not only about surviving the next weather event or the next price cycle. It is about maintaining a production base that the nation can rely on when the world is less predictable.
If we want American agriculture to remain resilient, we should treat farmland as a strategic asset by keeping it economically viable to farm, creating opportunities for farmers to grow and invest in their businesses, and making it realistic for the next generation to take up this calling. Demand, processing capacity, market access, and a predictable safety net all support that objective, but the objective itself is straightforward: preserve the productive base, because once it is gone, the country cannot buy it back.
Call to Action
Chairman Boozman, Ranking Member Klobuchar, and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak today as both a farmer and as president of the American Farm Bureau Federation.
On my farm in Georgia, every decision begins with the numbers. Before we plant a crop or expand a herd, we calculate costs, evaluate expected prices, and determine whether the margin justifies the risk. That discipline applies just as much nationally as it does on my own farm. Today, farmers across this country are producing at historically high levels, but they are doing so in a high-cost environment where demand growth and market access have not kept pace with rising productivity.
When markets lag behind output, margins tighten and financial resilience erodes.
The data we discussed today tells a consistent story. Sustained losses across major row crops.
Significant financial pressure in specialty agriculture. Rising debt levels. Increasing reliance on government payments to stabilize income. Heavy exposure to concentrated export markets.
Erosion and concentration of domestic processing capacity. These are not temporary disruptions.
They reflect structural misalignment that must be addressed deliberately and strategically.
American agriculture remains one of the most innovative and productive sectors in the world. The opportunity before us is to ensure that markets, infrastructure, and policy evolve alongside that productivity. Demand must grow in durable ways. Processing capacity must be modern, regionally resilient, and economically viable. Trade relationships must be enforceable and reciprocal. And the farmland that underpins this system must remain economically viable for the next generation.
Food security is national security. A resilient agricultural system provides stability during geopolitical conflict, supply chain disruption, and economic uncertainty. When productive land leaves agriculture, when infrastructure narrows, or when markets become unstable, flexibility declines. Once that capacity is lost, rebuilding it is costly and slow.
The path forward requires coordinated policy. Strengthen predictable farm bill-based risk management so producers can plan beyond a single season. Expand domestic utilization through energy policy, procurement alignment, and regulatory clarity. Encourage long-term investment in processing infrastructure by reducing uncertainty and supporting workforce stability. Protect fair and open markets abroad while ensuring reciprocity at home. Treat agricultural land and water resources as strategic production assets.
Farmers are ready to compete. We are ready to innovate. We are ready to meet demand at home and around the world. What we need is policy that is stable, aligned, and forward-looking.
This hearing is an important step in that direction. I look forward to working with this Committee to ensure that American farmers and ranchers can continue supplying food, fiber, and fuel for generations to come.
Thank you.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.agriculture.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/dca45105-ca2f-4467-7806-31663d8955e8/Testimony_Duvall_03.10.2026.pdf
American Farm Bureau Federation President Duvall Testifies Before Senate Agriculture, Nutrition & Forestry Committee
WASHINGTON, April 1 -- The Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee released the following testimony by American Farm Bureau Federation President Zippy Duvall, Greene County, Georgia, from a March 10, 2026, hearing entitled "Increasing Domestic Consumption of U.S.-Grown Agricultural Products":* * *
Chairman Boozman, Ranking Member Klobuchar, and Members of the Senate Agriculture Committee, thank you for the opportunity to share the views of the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) on how we can strengthen domestic demand for U.S. agricultural commodities to ensure America's farmers ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 1 -- The Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee released the following testimony by American Farm Bureau Federation President Zippy Duvall, Greene County, Georgia, from a March 10, 2026, hearing entitled "Increasing Domestic Consumption of U.S.-Grown Agricultural Products": * * * Chairman Boozman, Ranking Member Klobuchar, and Members of the Senate Agriculture Committee, thank you for the opportunity to share the views of the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) on how we can strengthen domestic demand for U.S. agricultural commodities to ensure America's farmersand ranchers can keep our nation's food supply secure and continue supplying food, fiber, and fuel for generations to come.
My name is Zippy Duvall. I am a third-generation farmer from Georgia. My family and I raise beef cattle, poultry, and hay. Like many farm families, we have experienced good years and hard years. On our family farm, we diversified during the economic crisis of the 1980s to keep from going under. We understand market volatility. We understand what it means to borrow against a crop and hope that prices hold through harvest. We understand weather risks and have helped our neighbors pick up the pieces after a storm. Farming has never been easy.
I am honored to have served as president of the American Farm Bureau Federation for the last 10 years. American Farm Bureau represents more than five -million member families in every state and Puerto Rico. Our members grow every commodity produced in the United States and care for livestock, milk cows, and raise poultry across all regions. They operate farms and ranches of every size, from specialty crop operations serving local markets to multi-generational row crop and livestock farms that help feed the world. They are leaders in their communities and are the economic backbone of rural America.
Let me begin by expressing sincere appreciation for the work the President, this committee, and Congress have done to strengthen farm programs through the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. You made a generational, and much-needed, investment in farm bill risk management tools, trade promotion programs, conservation programs, and animal disease preparedness and response. Our farmers are grateful for that leadership.
At the same time, today's hearing is in response to something deeper than a short-term downturn.
The challenges facing agriculture are not merely cyclical. They are structural. Farmers and consumers have faced historic levels of inflation. On top of that, farm input costs are expected to be record high again in 2026. On the farm, productivity continues to rise and technology continues to advance. We do more with less every year.
The prices we receive, however, have not kept pace with that productivity or the input costs. As one farmer told me recently: "I'm paying 2026 input costs, but I'm receiving prices from the 70s and 80s and paying the freight both ways." Whether it's cotton or milk, corn or apples, or any other commodity, farmers have been dealing with a cost-price squeeze for the better part of five years.
In October 2025, the American Farm Bureau Federation sent a letter to Congressional leadership and the President outlining the extraordinary economic pressure farmers are facing./1
We requested immediate economic assistance to ensure producers could reach the next planting season, and we also emphasized that long-term stability cannot rest on emergency programs alone. That letter outlined a roadmap focused on building durable demand, restoring domestic processing capacity, and ensuring competitive, rules-based access to global markets. Those principles guide my testimony today.
Farmers do not want to rely on ad hoc support. We want markets with fair competition. We want value-added opportunities close to home. We want to compete and win. But doing so requires policy that encourages and facilitates domestic consumption, and that also recognizes and adjusts to unfair trade policies and market-distorting practices in markets around the world.
Achieving these priorities is important to our food security--and our national security. The food and agriculture sectors contribute more than $9.5 trillion to U.S. economic activity and support more than 24 million jobs across farming, processing, transportation, retail and food service./2
Agricultural exports alone were valued at over $170 billion in 2025 and supported more than one million American jobs. Every dollar of agricultural exports generates over two dollars in additional economic activity. When farms struggle, rural communities struggle. When processing plants close, towns hollow out. When farmland is converted permanently to other uses, that capacity is unlikely to ever return.
Food production is not only critical to our economy; it is also a strategic national asset. Global disruptions, including ongoing military conflicts abroad, supply chain breakdowns during the pandemic, and water scarcity in major producing regions around the world, remind us that food security and national security are closely linked. America's farmland and processing infrastructure must be treated as strategic assets if we are to maintain resilience in the face of global uncertainty.
* * *
1 American Farm Bureau Federation, Farm Bureau to President and Congress: Farmers Are at a Breaking Point, available at https://www.fb.org/news-release/farm-bureau-to-president-and-congress-farmers-are-at-a-breakingpoint.
2 Feeding the Economy, 2025 Feeding the Economy Report, available at https://feedingtheeconomy.com/.
* * *
The path forward is clear. We must strengthen domestic demand for American agricultural products. We must reinforce our production capacity of critical inputs such as fertilizers, crop protection tools, and pharmaceuticals for animal health. We must restore and modernize domestic processing capacity. We must expand fair and enforceable market access abroad, and we must ensure our safety nets remain anchored in predictable, farm bill-based policy.
The Structural Economic Problem: High Productivity, Weak Margins
To understand why demand growth and processing capacity must now be central to agricultural policy, we must begin with the scale and persistence of the financial stress American farmers and ranchers face. USDA's most recent farm income forecast, released in February, underscores the magnitude of that imbalance. Net farm income for 2025 was revised downward to approximately $154.6 billion, roughly $25 billion lower than projected just months earlier. The outlook for 2026 remains essentially flat at $153.4 billion. That level is nearly $48 billion, or 24%, below the record high reached in 2022. While those totals remain above long-run averages in nominal terms, they mask a troubling reality. Much of the recent resilience in aggregate farm income has been concentrated in the cattle sector, where tight supplies have supported historically strong prices.
Outside of cattle, most major commodity markets are weakening, and a broad swath of crop producers and specialty growers are operating at or below full economic cost.
The depth of losses across principal crops is significant and sustained. Across the nine major row crops, returns were below total economic costs by approximately $20 billion in the 2023 and 2024 crop year, down $35 billion in 2024 and 2025, and down $34.6 billion in 2025 and 2026. These figures are calculated before accounting for crop insurance indemnities and ad hoc government assistance. Over a three-year period, cumulative losses exceed $90 billion across major crops alone. That scale of sustained negative return is not typical of normal commodity cycles. It signals that market prices have not kept pace with the cost structure farmers face.
Corn illustrates this dynamic clearly. For the 2025 crop year, U.S. farmers planted nearly 100 million acres of corn, committing close to $90 billion in production expenses. With average total costs of near $900 per acre, producers have significant capital at risk before a single bushel is harvested. Even assuming record yields approaching 186 bushels per acre and a national average price near $4 per bushel, projected returns exceed negative $150 per acre. On a national scale, losses for corn alone are estimated to surpass $15 billion. Similar cost-price compression is occurring in soybeans, wheat, and cotton. Since 2022, corn prices have declined by roughly 54%, soybeans by nearly 58%, wheat by more than 50%, and cotton by over 40% from pandemic-era highs. At the same time, production costs have not returned to pre-2021 levels.
Total farm production expenses are projected at approximately $473 billion in 2025 and are projected to remain historically elevated heading into 2026. While the pace of inflation has moderated, cost levels have not reverted. Since 2020, interest expenses have risen more than 70%, labor costs approximately 47%, fertilizer roughly 37%, and fuel and oil more than 30%. Chemical, seed, and maintenance costs remain materially higher than prior to 2021. These increases have permanently raised break-even thresholds across commodities. In this environment, even modest price declines translate quickly into negative margins.
The result is what many producers describe as a high-yield, low-margin farm economy. American farmers are producing at historically high levels. Corn and soybean yields have increased more than 50% since 1990, reflecting sustained gains in genetics, mechanization, and precision agriculture. These productivity gains are a success story. However, productivity growth without proportional demand growth suppresses prices. When global supplies expand faster than consumption, market-clearing prices fall even if individual farms operate efficiently.
Specialty crop, hay, and other field crop farmers face parallel pressures, often with fewer tools to manage them. Specialty crops generate more than $75 billion in annual farm-gate value and account for over one-third of total U.S. crop sales. Yet these operations typically lack the same depth of countercyclical support available to major program crops and operate with a more laborintensive cost structure. Analysis of six key commodities (almonds, apples, blueberries, lettuce, potatoes, and strawberries) which together represent roughly one-quarter of total specialty crop receipts shows billions of dollars in projected losses in 2025 alone. Labor accounts for approximately 38% of cash expenses on specialty crop farms, nearly three times the average across all farms. In sectors dependent on hand harvest, pruning, and packing, rising wage rates and labor scarcity significantly compress margins. When farm-gate prices fail to keep pace with these increases, producers have limited financial cushion. Similar pressures extend beyond specialty crops: alfalfa, the fourth-most valuable U.S. field crop, is projected to face roughly $2.9 billion in losses in 2025, or about $203 per acre, despite having little access to the core farm safety net.
These pressures extend beyond individual enterprises to farm households. According to the USDA, more than half of farms in the U.S. lose money each year and 77% of household income is derived from off-farm sources. While USDA's definition of a farm includes many small operations, the statistic remains instructive. For many families, off-farm income is not supplemental but essential to keeping the operation intact. At the same time, farm sector debt is projected to approach $625 billion in 2026, and lenders report growing operating loan balances as producers finance working capital to bridge losses. Elevated interest rates compound that stress by increasing the cost of borrowing precisely when margins are thin.
Government payments have played an increasingly important role in stabilizing income. Direct payments totaled approximately $30.5 billion in 2025 and are projected to rise to roughly $44.3 billion in 2026, in part due to disaster assistance and the USDA Farmer Bridge Assistance Program. These programs are appreciated and necessary in the short term, but their growing scale underscores the widening gap between market returns and production costs. Repeated emergency assistance since 2018 reflects a persistent structural imbalance rather than isolated shocks.
Global market conditions are contributing to this imbalance. U.S. agriculture operates within a highly integrated global system where prices are shaped by international supply growth, trade relationships, and shifting demand patterns. When global supply expands or trade flows change, those effects transmit quickly to U.S. farm prices. In that environment, productivity gains at home do not automatically translate into stronger returns.
Taken together, sustained crop losses exceeding $90 billion, billions in specialty crop strain, rising leverage, increasing reliance on government payments, and heavy exposure to export volatility point to a structural imbalance between productivity and profitable demand. This is not merely a low-price year. It is a market alignment challenge.
If productivity continues to rise, market development must advance with it. If export markets remain concentrated and volatile, domestic demand must be strengthened. If margins remain compressed, predictable risk management must support functioning markets rather than replace them.
Export Reliance in a More Competitive and Volatile World
The margin compression described above is occurring in a farm economy that is structurally reliant on export demand. For many commodities, exports are not simply an additional marketing channel.
They are the mechanism that clears surplus production when domestic utilization is insufficient.
More than one-fifth of total U.S. agricultural output is sold abroad in a typical year, and for certain commodities the share is far higher. Approximately 86% of U.S. cotton production is exported in most years. More than half of sorghum production moves into foreign markets. Wheat, rice, and soybeans also depend heavily on export channels to maintain price stability. When that export engine slows, farm-level prices adjust quickly.
Export reliance becomes more complex in a global environment that is more competitive and more coordinated than it was two decades ago. The United States remains one of the most productive agricultural producers in the world, but competitors have expanded acreage, improved yields, and invested heavily in ports, rail systems, crushing facilities, and logistics networks that lower their delivered cost to key buyers. The result is a global marketplace with more supply options. When trade relationships shift or buyers reallocate sourcing, the United States is no longer the default residual supplier.
This shift is visible in market share data. In wheat, U.S. global export share has fallen from roughly 25% in the early 2000s to approximately 11% today. In soybeans, Brazil's rapid acreage expansion and productivity gains have materially reduced U.S. dominance in global trade. Yet even as U.S.
share has declined, exposure remains significant. That combination increases vulnerability: the United States still depends on export markets to absorb production but has less influence over price formation than in prior decades.
Trade concentration compounds that exposure. In 2024, China purchased nearly half of all U.S. soybean exports. When a single country represents that magnitude of demand, shifts in purchasing patterns can quickly become price events. From January through August 2025, U.S. soybean exports to China totaled roughly 218 million bushels, down sharply from approximately 985 million bushels during the same period the previous year. Over that same timeframe, Brazil exported roughly 2.5 billion bushels to China. Global soybean demand did not contract. It was redirected. When demand shifts at that scale, domestic prices respond regardless of farm-level efficiency.
The consequences extend beyond one commodity. When soybean export prospects weaken, acreage adjustments follow. Producers shift into alternative crops such as corn, expanding supply and increasing downward price pressure. Storage builds, basis weakens, and working capital tightens. In an export-dependent system, volatility in one major crop can quickly transmit across the broader row-crop economy. Once planting decisions are made, producers cannot reverse course mid-season. They are committed to clearing the market at whatever price global demand supports.
Logistics vulnerabilities add another layer of exposure. Inland waterway disruptions, low river levels, congestion at export terminals, and rail bottlenecks all influence the price farmers ultimately receive. When export markets carry a large share of utilization, transportation disruptions translate directly into wider basis and lower net returns. Competitiveness is therefore not only about negotiating new agreements. It is also about ensuring reliable, efficient infrastructure so that U.S. commodities reach global buyers at predictable cost.
Trade policy itself increasingly revolves around non-tariff barriers that affect real-world demand.
Sanitary and phytosanitary measures, biotechnology approval timelines, maximum residue limits, and regulatory standards can restrict access even in the absence of formal tariffs. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative continues to document practices ranging from opaque import licensing to state-supported enterprises that distort competition. For American producers, the effect is uncertainty about whether the market will be open when the crop is ready to ship.
Recent trade frameworks and negotiations offer meaningful opportunity. Commitments to reduce tariffs, address non-tariff barriers, and expand agricultural purchases can support farm income if fully implemented. Farmers strongly support open and enforceable trade relationships. At the same time, experience over the past decade demonstrates that episodic purchase agreements alone cannot serve as the foundation of long-term profitability. Markets must be stable, diversified, and rules-based.
For trade to work effectively across commodities, it must also be fair. American producers operate under stringent labor, environmental, and food safety standards. When imported products enter the U.S. market under materially different regulatory regimes, domestic producers can be placed at a disadvantage within their own marketing windows. Ensuring that trade is reciprocal and sciencebased protects both export opportunity and domestic stability.
Exports remain indispensable to American agriculture. But heavy export reliance in a world of intensified competition, concentrated demand, and infrastructure vulnerability increases income volatility. When foreign sourcing decisions shift abruptly, the presence or absence of strong domestic demand and processing capacity determines how much of that shock is absorbed downstream versus transmitted back to the farm gate.
The Erosion of Domestic Processing Capacity
U.S. agricultural demand only becomes farm income when domestic infrastructure can convert raw commodities into finished products. That infrastructure determines where value is added, where rural jobs are anchored, and how much volatility is absorbed within the supply chain rather than transmitted back to producers. When processing capacity narrows or concentrates, resilience declines.
Several sectors illustrate this long-term structural shift.
Cotton is the clearest example of permanent capacity loss. In 1980, more than 2,200 cotton gins operated across producing regions. Today, roughly 446 remain. While some consolidation reflects scale efficiencies, the broader story is the collapse of domestic textile manufacturing after global restructuring of apparel production. As mills closed and capacity moved overseas, domestic mill use of cotton fell to historic lows. Producers now export 80% to 85% of annual production. Once textile infrastructure and skilled labor networks dissipated, they did not return. The result is a globally competitive production base that depends heavily on foreign processing demand.
Rice milling and sugar refining show similar consolidation patterns. These facilities require steady throughput and regulatory certainty to justify capital investment. When regional production fluctuates or compliance costs rise, marginal plants close. Rebuilding requires not just capital but labor, supplier networks, and predictable permitting environments. Over time, fewer facilities serve larger regions, increasing transportation costs, and narrowing marketing options.
The beef sector illustrates how concentration affects resilience even without long-run decline. A small number of large packing plants process the majority of fed cattle. When a major facility shuts down, regional cattle prices can weaken quickly because alternative buyers are limited within economic hauling distance. During the pandemic, temporary disruptions widened spreads between wholesale beef prices and cattle prices, highlighting how concentrated capacity can amplify shocks. Modern packing plants require hundreds of millions of dollars in capital, specialized labor, and wastewater infrastructure. Investment decisions depend on regulatory stability, labor availability, and long-term throughput certainty.
Recent expansion in soybean crushing tied to renewable diesel demand shows the opposite dynamic. When domestic utilization grows predictably, capital follows. Additional crush capacity has created new local marketing options and strengthened regional basis levels. That contrast underscores the broader principle: processing investment responds to stable demand signals and predictable policy environments.
Capital hesitates when those conditions are absent. Agricultural processing margins are cyclical.
Environmental permitting and wastewater approvals can extend timelines. Rural labor availability remains uncertain. Elevated interest rates increase financing costs. Imported processed goods can enter at competitive prices when labor and regulatory costs differ abroad. These realities do not argue against efficiency. They explain why distributed, resilient capacity does not expand automatically.
Processing determines whether a nation captures value or exports it. When infrastructure erodes or concentrates excessively, rural communities lose employment, producers have fewer buyers, and geographic production diversity narrows. Productivity gains alone cannot offset that structural shift. Without adequate domestic conversion capacity, even strong demand signals are less likely to translate into durable farm income.
Domestic Produce: High Value, High Cost, and Growing Import Exposure
Specialty crops operate under a different structure, but the pressure is the same. These are high-value, labor-intensive, perishable commodities sold into concentrated marketing channels and increasingly integrated North American supply chains. Even when consumer demand is strong, the farm gate price depends on cost competitiveness, seasonality, and buyer sourcing decisions.
Imports have increased steadily over the years. In 2023, Mexico supplied 51% of U.S. fresh fruit imports by value and 69% of fresh vegetable imports, with Canada supplying another 20% of vegetable imports. These supply chains reflect geography and year-round consumer expectations, but they also define the competitive environment domestic growers face. When retailers prioritize consistent supply at the lowest delivered cost, domestic producers compete against products grown under different labor structures and regulatory regimes. Imports frequently overlap with U.S.
harvest windows, compressing prices at critical marketing moments. Over time, these pressures have coincided with a notable decline in domestic production, with U.S. vegetable output falling by roughly 14 million metric tons since 2000, a 39% decline, while fruit production has dropped by about 9 million metric tons, or 24%./3
Potatoes illustrate how production strength does not guarantee domestic value capture. The United States is a leading potato producer, and most utilization is tied to processed products. Yet the United States has been a net importer of frozen French fries in recent marketing years. In the 2024/25 marketing year, frozen fry imports approached 2 billion pounds, with roughly 85% supplied by Canada and another significant share by the European Union. This is not a production constraint. It reflects processing economics, energy costs, labor availability, and capacity distribution. When buyers need finished product, they source where capacity exists at competitive cost.
Specialty crop producers are also uniquely exposed to labor instability. These operations are highly labor-intensive, with harvesting, sorting, and packing that cannot be fully mechanized. Workforce uncertainty raises break-even thresholds quickly and introduces production risk. When labor is unavailable during peak harvest windows, product can be left in the field and buyers shift sourcing elsewhere. Once shelf space or contract volume is lost, recovery is difficult.
Market structure compounds these pressures. Unlike grains traded on transparent exchanges, many specialty crops are sold through negotiated contracts or concentrated buyer channels with limited price discovery. Perishability limits storage flexibility. If supply exceeds immediate demand, price declines can be swift. When imports are readily available, they provide an alternative supply source that weakens domestic bargaining leverage.
The implication is practical. Domestic fruit and vegetable production will remain viable only if labor policy provides stability, regulatory implementation remains science-based and enforceable, procurement policy genuinely prioritizes U.S.-grown products where feasible, and domestic packing and processing capacity expands in step with demand. Without those conditions, strong consumer demand can coexist with shrinking domestic production share.
* * *
3 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), FAOSTAT: Production--Crops and Livestock Products Database, available at https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QCL.
* * *
Specialty crop growers do not lack productivity. They face structural competitiveness pressures in a market where imports can respond quickly and where processing and labor constraints shape whether domestic supply reaches consumers.
Building Durable Domestic Demand
With rising productivity in American agriculture, durable domestic demand must be a structural feature of agricultural policy. Export markets remain essential and must be strengthened through fair and enforceable agreements. But driving domestic demand for a diversity of farm products provides stability when global markets fluctuate and supports investment in local infrastructure.
Biofuels represent the clearest example of policy-aligned domestic demand. Ethanol production now utilizes roughly 5.5 billion to 5.6 billion bushels of corn annually, accounting for approximately 40% to 43% of total U.S. corn use. That demand channel did not exist at that level three decades ago. It was created by matching our nation's agricultural strength with our energy priorities. Renewable diesel and biodiesel markets have similarly transformed oilseed demand.
Approximately 40% to 45% of domestic soybean oil utilization is now tied to biofuel production.
That shift has driven expansion in domestic soybean crushing capacity across multiple states, creating jobs and strengthening local markets.
However, growth in ethanol utilization faces structural constraints. The national gasoline blend remains close to E10 in many regions due to outdated seasonal volatility limitations. Permanent, year-round authorization of E15 would expand blending opportunities significantly. Moving from a nationwide E10 baseline to broader E15 adoption would increase ethanol demand by approximately 6.8 billion gallons, or on the order of 2.4 billion bushels of corn annually. For producers facing multi-year margin compression, demand of that magnitude significantly tightens balance sheets and supports local processing margins.
Sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) represents another opportunity. As the aviation sector seeks to reduce lifecycle carbon intensity, domestic SAF production capacity is expanding. U.S. Energy Information Administration data from 2025 show SAF output increasing as new facilities come online. Feedstocks derived from corn, soybeans, and other agricultural products can supply this emerging market if policy frameworks provide stable incentives and clear lifecycle accounting standards. With long-term growth projected in global air travel, SAF has the potential to become a stable demand channel if development occurs domestically rather than shifting overseas.
Domestic demand tools extend beyond energy. Federal procurement is an established lever for reinforcing domestic production. In fiscal year 2025, federal agencies purchased approximately $6.9 billion in U.S.-grown food and agricultural products. While this represents a small fraction of total consumption, it provides stable baseline demand in key sectors. Strengthening oversight and enforcement of Buy American provisions in school meal programs, Department of Defense procurement, and nutrition programs can ensure that public dollars consistently reinforce domestic agriculture when practicable.
The National School Lunch Program alone serves roughly 30 million children per day and provides nearly 5 billion meals annually. Under current rules, a product qualifies as "domestic" if it is processed in the United States and contains at least 51% U.S.-grown ingredients. That definition allows a substantial share of foreign inputs in composite or processed foods. In addition, tracking of Buy American exceptions remains uneven across districts, and waivers are often granted when imported products are modestly less expensive or more readily available. As a result, the realized domestic share embedded in institutional demand can fall short of its potential. Strengthening reporting transparency, improving enforcement consistency and gradually raising domestic content thresholds would more fully align nutrition spending with domestic agricultural production without expanding overall program costs.
Procurement alignment is particularly meaningful for specialty crops and fiber markets. Programs that enable schools, food banks, and institutional buyers to source directly from U.S. farmers can strengthen regional fruit and vegetable markets and improve supply chain transparency. In cotton, legislation that encourages use of U.S.-grown fiber in government procurement and uniform manufacturing, like the Buying American Cotton Act, can anchor segments of domestic demand even if broader textile production remains globalized. Legislation that encourages businesses to buy U.S.-grown agricultural products could help increase domestic demand by incentivizing companies to purchase commodities from American farmers.
Regulatory clarity also influences domestic demand realization. Policies affecting ethanol blending, lifecycle carbon accounting, labeling standards, and product definitions shape private sector investment decisions. When rules are predictable and science-based, capital responds. When policy signals fluctuate, investment hesitates.
Labor policy is central to sustaining domestic production and processing. Specialty crops and many processing facilities depend on reliable, legal labor availability. Without modernization of agricultural labor programs and workable improvements to guestworker programs, production could migrate to regions with more predictable workforce conditions. Labor instability is not simply a cost issue. It is a supply continuity issue that affects harvest timing, processing utilization, and buyer sourcing decisions.
Risk management modernization also supports domestic diversification. Producers investing in value-added processing, specialty crops, or emerging markets often face revenue volatility not fully addressed by traditional commodity programs. Updating risk management tools to accommodate diversified production can facilitate domestic investment.
Building durable domestic demand is not about retreating from global trade. It is about ensuring that American productivity is matched by American utilization wherever economically feasible.
Energy policy, procurement alignment, regulatory stability, labor modernization and risk management reform all influence whether demand growth catalyzes domestic processing and strengthens farm income.
Domestic demand functions as a stabilizer. It complements exports, supports processing investment, and reduces vulnerability to external shocks. As agricultural productivity continues to increase, policy alignment between production, processing and utilization will determine whether that productivity strengthens or strains the farm economy.
Preserving American Farmland as a Strategic Asset
Farmland is more than real estate. It is productive sustainability and the foundation of our food security. When farmland leaves production permanently, the country loses the ability to respond quickly when global supplies tighten, when conflicts disrupt trade corridors, or when weather shocks hit multiple regions at once. In agriculture, capacity is built over decades through soil stewardship, drainage, irrigation, local agronomy, equipment networks, and nearby processing and transportation. That system cannot be recreated on demand.
The data show that America's production base is slowly but steadily narrowing. USDA's 2022 Census of Agriculture reported just over 1.9 million farms, down 6.9% from 2017, and 880.1 million acres of farmland, down 20.1 million acres in five years. Even as farms and acres declined, average farm size rose from 441 acres to 463 acres, a sign that consolidation pressures continue to reshape the structure of production. These changes are not inherently "good" or "bad" on their own, but they mark an unmistakable shift. In a period when margins are thin, the economic pressure to exit farming rises, and when land is sold into non-agricultural uses, it rarely comes back.
Development pressure is one of the most permanent drivers of farmland loss, and the scale is often underestimated because farmland slips away, one parcel at a time. USDA's Economic Research Service estimates that developed land totaled 116.3 million acres in 2017 and has increased by roughly 43 million acres since 1982, an 85% increase over that period. That is not just growth at the edges of cities. It reflects a long-running expansion of housing, commercial and industrial footprints, transportation corridors, and supporting infrastructure into land that was previously part of the working landscape.
Importantly, the land being converted is not always marginal. ERS reports that about 22% of newly developed land from 2012 to 2017 was cropland. Cropland is where much of America's highest productive potential sits, and once it is subdivided, paved, or converted into industrial footprints, rebuilding that capacity is extremely difficult. Even where soil remains, fragmentation changes what can be farmed economically. Roads, utility corridors, zoning constraints, and conflicting adjacent land uses can permanently alter where modern production systems can operate.
This matters for national resilience because food production cannot be switched on and off like a factory line. When global disruptions occur, the United States benefits from having a broad, geographically diverse base of productive acreage and the supporting infrastructure that makes it usable. Recent years have reminded the world that grain and oilseed flows can become strategic chokepoints when conflict disrupts a major exporting region. In those moments, domestic capacity is not a talking point. It is leverage and stability.
The economic consequences of farmland leaving production also show up in rural communities long before anyone calls it a "national security" issue. When farmland disappears, local businesses lose customers, school enrollment drops, and the service economy that supports agriculture thins out. In many towns, farms are not only employers: they anchor the local economy, keeping equipment dealers, agronomists, veterinarians, trucking, repair services, and food processors viable. If we want rural communities to be places where the next generation can live, work, and raise families, keeping farmland in production must be treated as a long-run economic development strategy, not an afterthought.
That is why a modern farm bill remains essential. The farm bill is the backbone for risk management, conservation working lands, research, and rural development, and it shapes whether farming remains economically viable enough for land to stay in agriculture rather than being paved over. A strong farm economy is not only about surviving the next weather event or the next price cycle. It is about maintaining a production base that the nation can rely on when the world is less predictable.
If we want American agriculture to remain resilient, we should treat farmland as a strategic asset by keeping it economically viable to farm, creating opportunities for farmers to grow and invest in their businesses, and making it realistic for the next generation to take up this calling. Demand, processing capacity, market access, and a predictable safety net all support that objective, but the objective itself is straightforward: preserve the productive base, because once it is gone, the country cannot buy it back.
Call to Action
Chairman Boozman, Ranking Member Klobuchar, and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak today as both a farmer and as president of the American Farm Bureau Federation.
On my farm in Georgia, every decision begins with the numbers. Before we plant a crop or expand a herd, we calculate costs, evaluate expected prices, and determine whether the margin justifies the risk. That discipline applies just as much nationally as it does on my own farm. Today, farmers across this country are producing at historically high levels, but they are doing so in a high-cost environment where demand growth and market access have not kept pace with rising productivity.
When markets lag behind output, margins tighten and financial resilience erodes.
The data we discussed today tells a consistent story. Sustained losses across major row crops.
Significant financial pressure in specialty agriculture. Rising debt levels. Increasing reliance on government payments to stabilize income. Heavy exposure to concentrated export markets.
Erosion and concentration of domestic processing capacity. These are not temporary disruptions.
They reflect structural misalignment that must be addressed deliberately and strategically.
American agriculture remains one of the most innovative and productive sectors in the world. The opportunity before us is to ensure that markets, infrastructure, and policy evolve alongside that productivity. Demand must grow in durable ways. Processing capacity must be modern, regionally resilient, and economically viable. Trade relationships must be enforceable and reciprocal. And the farmland that underpins this system must remain economically viable for the next generation.
Food security is national security. A resilient agricultural system provides stability during geopolitical conflict, supply chain disruption, and economic uncertainty. When productive land leaves agriculture, when infrastructure narrows, or when markets become unstable, flexibility declines. Once that capacity is lost, rebuilding it is costly and slow.
The path forward requires coordinated policy. Strengthen predictable farm bill-based risk management so producers can plan beyond a single season. Expand domestic utilization through energy policy, procurement alignment, and regulatory clarity. Encourage long-term investment in processing infrastructure by reducing uncertainty and supporting workforce stability. Protect fair and open markets abroad while ensuring reciprocity at home. Treat agricultural land and water resources as strategic production assets.
Farmers are ready to compete. We are ready to innovate. We are ready to meet demand at home and around the world. What we need is policy that is stable, aligned, and forward-looking.
This hearing is an important step in that direction. I look forward to working with this Committee to ensure that American farmers and ranchers can continue supplying food, fiber, and fuel for generations to come.
Thank you.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.agriculture.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/dca45105-ca2f-4467-7806-31663d8955e8/Testimony_Duvall_03.10.2026.pdf
GAO Director Emrey-Arras Testifies Before House Education & Workforce Committee
WASHINGTON, April 1 -- The House Education and Workforce Committee released the following written testimony by Melissa Emrey-Arras, director of education, workforce and income security at the Government Accountability Office, from a March 26, 2026, hearing entitled "U.S. Universities Under Siege: Foreign Espionage, Stolen Innovation, and the National Security Threat":* * *
Chairman Walberg, Ranking Member Scott, and Members of the Committee:
I am pleased to be here today to discuss the Department of Education's role in ensuring accountability in higher education. In fiscal year 2025, 10.5 million ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 1 -- The House Education and Workforce Committee released the following written testimony by Melissa Emrey-Arras, director of education, workforce and income security at the Government Accountability Office, from a March 26, 2026, hearing entitled "U.S. Universities Under Siege: Foreign Espionage, Stolen Innovation, and the National Security Threat": * * * Chairman Walberg, Ranking Member Scott, and Members of the Committee: I am pleased to be here today to discuss the Department of Education's role in ensuring accountability in higher education. In fiscal year 2025, 10.5 millionstudents and their families received over $131 billion in assistance from Education to help them pursue higher education./1
Education plays a key role in maintaining accountability and protecting the federal investment in higher education. Education's responsibilities include overseeing colleges, federal student aid, and the servicers that help administer the student loan program.
My remarks today address recent work examining the impact of staffing reductions on Education's oversight of its student loan servicers and key prior GAO recommendations that Education has yet to implement. My testimony is based on four prior reports issued from 2016 through 2026 and cited throughout this statement./2
We used multiple methodologies to develop the findings, conclusions, and recommendations for these reports. A more detailed discussion of the objectives, scope, and methodologies, including our assessment of data reliability, is available in each report. In addition, we reviewed information we received in December 2025 and February and March 2026 from Education officials about steps they took to address our recommendations./3
The work upon which this statement is based was conducted in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
* * *
1 This assistance is provided through financial aid programs authorized under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (Higher Education Act) (codified at 20 U.S.C. Sec.Sec. 1070-1099d).
2 GAO, Federal Student Loans: Education Needs to Address Gaps in Servicer Oversight, GAO-26-108534 (Washington, D.C.: March 5, 2026); GAO, Federal Student Loans: Education Needs to Verify Borrowers' Information for Income-Driven Repayment Plans, GAO-19-347 (Washington, D.C.: Jun 25, 2019); GAO, Higher Education: Education Should Address Oversight and Communication Gaps in Its Monitoring of the Financial Condition of Schools, GAO-17-555 (Washington D.C.: Aug. 21, 2017); and GAO, Federal Student Loans: Education Could Improve Direct Loan Program Customer Service and Oversight, GAO-16-523 (Washington, D. C.: May 16, 2016).
3 We made a total of 10 recommendations to Education in the four reports included in this statement. Seven have yet to be addressed, six of which are discussed in the statement.
* * *
Background
Education's Office of Federal Student Aid (FSA) is responsible for managing federal student aid programs authorized under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended./4
These federal student aid programs administered by FSA staff include federal grants, loans, and work study funds to support students attending more than 5,200 colleges.
To safeguard these funds, Education monitors the financial health of these colleges on an annual basis to determine if they are financially responsible and able to fulfill their obligations./5
Education uses a financial composite score to measure the financial health of colleges participating in federal student aid programs.
FSA's responsibilities have grown substantially in recent years based on changes to the size and complexity of the federal student loan program, which now exceeds $1.6 trillion in outstanding loans. After a prospective borrower applies for and is awarded a federal loan, Education disburses it through the borrower's college and assigns it to a loan servicer under contract with Education. These loan servicers are responsible for such activities as communicating with borrowers about the status of their loans, providing information about and enrolling borrowers in repayment plans, and collecting payments (see fig. 1). Once borrowers leave college, they are responsible for making payments directly to their assigned loan servicer.
* * *
4 For this statement, we define federal student aid programs as financial aid programs authorized under Title IV of the Higher Education Act.
5 In order to participate in federal student aid programs, colleges must meet the Higher Education Act's definition of an institution of higher education for purposes of student assistance programs and comply with other requirements, including those related to financial responsibility.
* * *
Figure 1: Selected Roles and Responsibilities in the Federal Student Loan Program
* * *
A variety of repayment plans are available to eligible borrowers, including income-driven repayment (IDR) plans. IDR plans are designed to make loan repayment more manageable by basing monthly payment amounts on borrowers' income and family size and forgiving any remaining balances at the end of the repayment period. To participate in an IDR plan, borrowers must submit an application to their loan servicer that, among other things, includes information about their income, marital status, and family size.
Over the next year, Education will implement various changes to federal student loan programs affecting millions of borrowers. Public Law 11921--commonly known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA)--includes provisions changing the repayment plans available to borrowers starting in July 2026./6
For example, OBBBA sunsets existing IDR plans and creates a new Repayment Assistance Plan./7
Education Needs to Address Gaps in Servicer Oversight
In March 2026, we reported on the impact of recent staffing reductions on Education's oversight of its student loan servicers./8
Specifically, we reported that in February 2025, FSA stopped assessing student loan servicers on accuracy and call quality due to lack of staff capacity, according to Education officials. The two metrics were intended to measure whether student loan servicers were (1) keeping complete and accurate records for borrowers and (2) providing borrowers good customer service.
The decision to stop assessing these performance metrics occurred shortly after the administration began issuing presidential directives and guidance on downsizing the federal workforce in January 2025. Education reported that between January and December 2025, the number of staff at FSA decreased from 1,433 to 777, a 46 percent reduction in personnel.
FSA continued to assess servicer performance on the other performance metrics, which it characterized as less labor intensive to monitor./9
We reported that in total, four of the five servicers did not meet the performance standard for accuracy in at least one of the two quarters during which FSA previously assessed accuracy (see fig. 2). As a result, FSA levied financial penalties totaling $850,000 on the servicers for not meeting the performance standard./10
Each servicer met its performance standard for call quality in those two quarters. However, servicers may have less incentive to maintain call quality if they are not assessed on it, putting borrowers at risk of receiving incorrect information.
* * *
6 An Act to provide for reconciliation pursuant to title II of H. Con. Res. 14, Pub. L. No. 11921, Sec. 82001, 139 Stat. 72, 337-48 (2025) (hereinafter OBBBA). The eliminated IDR plans include the Income-Contingent Repayment plan and the Pay as You Earn plan. These plans will be closed to new borrowers who take out loans on or after July 1, 2026, and will close for current borrowers--those who take out loans before July 1, 2026--on July 1, 2028. The Income-Based Repayment plan will also be closed to borrowers who take out loans on or after July 1, 2026, but will remain an option for loans taken out before then. In addition, in December 2025, Education announced a proposed joint settlement agreement that would end the Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) IDR plan, and on March 10, 2026, a federal court order granted the parties' joint motion and vacated the SAVE plan.
7 Payments on the Repayment Assistance Plan are tied to a borrower's adjusted gross income, generally ranging from 1 to 10 percent depending on income, with forgiveness of remaining loan balances after 30 years of payments.
8 GAO-26-108534.
9 The servicer contracts set performance standards for student loan servicers on six metrics: accuracy, call quality, call abandon rate, customer satisfaction, timeliness of completion of certain servicing tasks, and financial monitoring. In quarters 2 and 3 of fiscal year 2025, FSA continued to assess servicer performance for call abandon rate, timeliness of completion of certain servicing tasks, and financial monitoring. In the first three quarters of fiscal year 2025, FSA assessed servicers on the customer satisfaction metric but did not penalize servicers who were unable to meet the performance standard.
* * *
Figure 2: Student Loan Servicer Performance on Accuracy Metric
* * *
Without this oversight, Education lacks reasonable assurance that borrower records are correct and that servicers are giving borrowers correct information. Inaccurate records can result in borrowers being billed for incorrect amounts or placed in the wrong repayment status.
Additionally, borrowers need to be given correct information when they call for help. This is particularly important for the millions of borrowers affected by recent statutory changes to available repayment options.
To address these concerns, we recommended in March 2026 that Education assess servicer accuracy and call quality. Education disagreed with our recommendation, stating that it uses a variety of other methods to assess servicer performance. We maintain these methods are not effective substitutes and also maintain the importance of assessing servicer call quality and accuracy. Addressing gaps in servicer oversight will assist Education in carrying out its statutory responsibilities and also help the government avoid overpaying servicers for poor performance.
We will continue to monitor Education's efforts in this area.
* * *
10 FSA can enforce financial penalties associated with these metrics by withholding payment for part of a servicer's bill for the final month of the quarter if it determines that the servicer was unable to reach its performance standards that quarter.
* * *
Prior GAO Work Identified Additional Opportunities for Education to Strengthen Accountability
We previously reported on several areas in which Education could further strengthen its accountability efforts and made recommendations for improvement that remain open. These areas include:
* verification of borrower income and family size information on income-driven repayment applications;
* better measurement of colleges' financial conditions;
* and streamlined tracking of borrower complaints.
Verification of Borrowers' Income and Family Size for Income-Driven Repayment Plans. In our June 2019 report, we identified indicators of potential fraud or error in income and family size information for borrowers with approved IDR plans./11
IDR plans base monthly payments on a borrower's income and family size and offer forgiveness of any remaining balances at the end of the repayment period.
Findings included in our 2019 report indicated that some borrowers may have misrepresented or erroneously reported their income or family size.
* Zero income. About 95,100 IDR plans were held by borrowers who reported zero income yet potentially earned enough wages to make monthly student loan payments./12
According to our analysis, about 32,600 of these plans (34 percent) were held by borrowers who had estimated annual wages of $45,000 or more, including some with estimated annual wages of $100,000 or more.
* Family size. About 40,900 IDR plans were approved based on family sizes of nine or more, which were atypical for IDR plans./13
Almost 1,200 of these 40,900 plans were approved based on family sizes of 16 or more, including two plans for different borrowers that were approved using a family size of 93.
Because income and family size are used to determine IDR monthly payments, fraud or errors in this information could result in Education
* * *
11 GAO-19-347.
12 This analysis was based on wage data from the National Directory of New Hires, a federal dataset that contains quarterly wage data for newly hired and existing employees.
13 We considered IDR plans with family sizes of nine or more atypical because they comprised the top 1 percent of all family sizes in Education's data at the time of our analysis.
* * *
losing thousands of dollars of loan repayments per borrower each year and potentially increasing the ultimate cost of loan forgiveness./14
We reported that weaknesses in Education's processes to verify borrowers' income and family size information limited its ability to detect potential fraud or error in IDR plans. While borrowers applying for IDR plans must provide proof of taxable income, Education generally accepted borrower reports of zero income and borrower reports of family size without verification. In addition, Education had not systematically implemented other data analytic practices, such as using data it already had to detect anomalies.
Given these limitations, we recommended that Education obtain data to verify income information for borrowers who report zero income on IDR plan applications. We also recommended that Education implement data analytic practices and follow-up procedures to verify borrower reports of zero income and family size, respectively. Education generally agreed with these recommendations.
In response, Education has taken some steps to implement these recommendations. For example, to verify income information, Education established a direct data exchange with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and created a new IDR application in response to a law that granted statutory authority to access certain IRS data for the purpose of determining eligibility for IDR plans, among other things./15
Borrowers who apply for an IDR plan can now provide their consent for Education to automatically obtain their income information from their latest IRS tax return. Borrowers who provide such consent can have their IDR enrollment automatically recertified each year, rather than having to fill out an application every year to recertify.
However, borrowers can decline to provide this consent and instead self-certify that they have zero taxable income. We previously found there is a risk for potential fraud or error when borrowers self-certify they have zero taxable income. Education has reported that it does not use data to verify borrower reports of zero income. In addition, Education has not yet implemented specific data analytic practices or follow up procedures for verifying income for borrowers reporting zero income on their IDR applications. Similarly, Education has not yet implemented data analytic practices or follow-up procedures for verifying the family size entries provided by borrowers on their IDR applications. Taking these actions could help reduce the risk of using fraudulent or erroneous information to calculate IDR payments and save over $2 billion./16
* * *
14 Where appropriate, we referred these results to Education for further investigation.
15 Fostering Undergraduate Talent by Unlocking Resources for Education Act (FUTURE Act) Pub. L. No. 116-91, Sec. 3, 133 Stat. 1189, 1189-92 (2019).
* * *
We will continue to monitor Education's efforts.
Better Measurement of Colleges' Financial Conditions. Our 2017 work found that Education should strengthen its efforts to hold colleges accountable for their financial condition to better protect taxpayers and students against the risk of college closure. Education uses a financial composite score to measure the financial health of colleges participating in federal student aid programs. The score can help Education identify schools that are struggling. If warranted, Education can require a letter of credit from at-risk colleges to help cover federal costs if the college later closes. Federal costs can be significant because eligible students may have their federal student loans discharged when a college closes.
Closures can affect tens of thousands of students and result in hundreds of millions of dollars in financial losses for the federal government and taxpayers from unrepaid student loans.
However, we reported in 2017 that Education's composite score has been an imprecise predictor of college closures./17
Half of the colleges that closed in school years 2010-11 through 2015-16 received passing financial composite scores on their last assessment before they closed.
We found the composite score's inconsistent performance in identifying at-risk colleges was due in part to limitations of the underlying formula and the fact that it remained unchanged for more than 20 years.
We recommended in our 2017 report that Education update the composite score formula to better measure colleges' financial conditions and capture financial risks./18
* * *
16 Our recommendation for Education to obtain data to verify income information for borrowers reporting zero income on IDR plans was highlighted as having the potential to yield more than $2 billion in cost savings over 10 years in GAO's review of federal efforts to reduce fragmentation, overlap, or duplication and achieve cost savings. GAO, 2025 Annual Report: Opportunities to Reduce Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication and Achieve an Additional One Hundred Billion Dollars or More in Future Financial Benefits, GAO-25-107604 (Washington, D.C.: May 13, 2025), 32.
17 GAO-17-555.
* * *
Education has taken some steps to implement the recommendation; however, Education has yet to update the composite score to better measure colleges' financial health by looking at issues such as liquidity and financial trends over time. We will continue to monitor Education's efforts to fully implement this recommendation.
Streamlined Tracking of Borrower Complaints. Our May 2016 report identified a need for improvement regarding how Education tracks borrower complaints. We found that Education and the servicers used different systems to capture borrower complaints, which made it difficult to determine overall trends in borrower complaints./19
To strengthen oversight of federal student loans, we recommended in our 2016 report that Education ensure its complaint tracking system includes comprehensive and comparable information on the nature and status of borrower complaints made to both Education and the servicers.
Education generally agreed with this recommendation.
In response, Education reported taking some steps to implement the recommendation. For example, Education requires that servicers provide monthly comprehensive lists of complaints, which Education can compile and use for review and trend analysis. However, Education does not have a unified complaint tracking system, and differences in complaint information maintained by Education and the servicers do not allow for easy comparison. To ensure the program effectively meets borrower needs, Education should collect comprehensive and comparable information on borrower complaints made to both Education and servicers. This would allow Education to track trends and better manage the program. We will continue to monitor Education's efforts to fully address this recommendation.
In conclusion, the significant federal investment in higher education depends on the federal government maintaining a robust system of accountability to protect student loan borrowers and taxpayers. My statement has highlighted several actions Education could take to strengthen its accountability over student loans and colleges to protect borrowers and taxpayers. Fully implementing the recommendations discussed in this testimony would improve federal accountability, help borrowers, and potentially lead to financial savings for taxpayers.
* * *
18 At the time the report was issued, Education generally disagreed with this recommendation and stated that the issues identified in our report did not necessarily mean that the composite score was an unreliable measure of colleges' financial strength.
19 GAO-16-523.
* * *
Chairman Walberg, Ranking Member Scott, and Members of the Committee, this completes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to respond to any questions that you may have at this time.
GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
If you or your staff have any questions about this testimony, please contact Melissa Emrey-Arras, Director of Education, Workforce, and Income Security, at emreyarrasm@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Media Relations may be found on the last page of this statement. GAO staff who made key contributions to this testimony include Debra Prescott (Assistant Director), Kathryn O'Dea Lamas (Analyst-in-Charge), Charlotte Cable, Abby Marcus, Mimi Nguyen, and Lauren Shaman. Other staff who made key contributions to the reports cited in the testimony are identified in the source products.
* * *
Original text here: https://edworkforce.house.gov/uploadedfiles/melissa_emrey-arras_written_testimony.pdf
Fairfax County (Va.) Board Chairman McKay Testifies Before House Natural Resources Subcommittee
WASHINGTON, April 1 -- The House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Federal Lands released the following testimony by Fairfax County (Virginia) Board Chairman Jeff McKay from a March 26, 2026, hearing on the Parkway Safety and Reinvestment Act (H.R. 6778), Long-Term Good Neighbor Authority Act (H.R. 7951), American Battlefield Protection Program Amendments Act (H.R. 7618), and Public Lands Access Restoration Act (H.R. 7979):* * *
Thank you for having me here today. My name is Jeff McKay, and I am Chaiman of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors.
In my role, I have seen firsthand the impacts ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 1 -- The House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Federal Lands released the following testimony by Fairfax County (Virginia) Board Chairman Jeff McKay from a March 26, 2026, hearing on the Parkway Safety and Reinvestment Act (H.R. 6778), Long-Term Good Neighbor Authority Act (H.R. 7951), American Battlefield Protection Program Amendments Act (H.R. 7618), and Public Lands Access Restoration Act (H.R. 7979): * * * Thank you for having me here today. My name is Jeff McKay, and I am Chaiman of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors. In my role, I have seen firsthand the impactsof speeding on the GW Parkway. Speeding has caused a number of casualties, and, tragically, more than 20 fatalities since 2007, the most recent of which was this past New Year's Eve. With nearly 7 million drivers taking the GW Parkway annually, making it the 8th most visited Park site in America, our ability and responsibility to protect driver safety is great.
The 2021 National Park Service Traffic and Safety Context Sensitive Solutions Assessment of the GW Parkway showed significant speeding./i
For example, in the Northbound lanes South of Belle View Boulevard, 99% of vehicles exceeded the speed limit. And these speeding cars are rarely just a few miles per hour over the limit; the average velocity of speeding cars was 10 to 15 miles per hour above the posted limit on the Parkway, with a quarter of speeding cars going 20 miles per hour or more above the posted limit. Excessive speeds can increase both the frequency and severity of crashes./ii
Since the 2021 study of the Parkway, Fairfax County has had the opportunity to study photo speed enforcement on other roads in the county. Our speed camera pilot began in 2023 with 10 photo speed enforcement cameras in school zones across the County; today, we have 20 in school zones and one in a work zone. The goal of these programs is to change the behavior of drivers and make our roads safer for drivers, pedestrians, and bicyclists. Vehicle speeds dropped an average of over 10 percent in the first locations where we placed these devices. In a 25 mile per hour (mph) zone, that means that the average driver is now going approximately 27 mph rather than over 30 mph./iii
If a photo speed enforcement program were implemented on the Parkway, it is our hope that the outcomes would be like what we have experienced in other areas of Fairfax County. Getting drivers to slow down saves lives, prevents crashes, and protects all users of our roadways. As we have seen, photo enforcement is a critical tool in doing that.
That is why I support the legislative solution described in Congressman Beyer's Parkway Safety and Reinvestment Act. This bill does not authorize any new speed mitigation technology--speed cameras are already authorized for use on Park lands as the Administrator sees fit.
To be clear, this bill is not a punishment, nor is it intended to place a tax on those who use the GW Parkway every day, as many government workers from administration officials to congressional staffers do. Local drivers who take the Parkway every day will know where the speed cameras are and be prepared to slow down in advance. Public awareness and signage will help prepare drivers and promote safety for all the people who use the Parkway. As the Parkway Safety and Reinvestment Act can improve driver safety and lower speeds on the Parkway and other facilities, helping to reduce the number and severity of collisions and allowing people to enjoy the beauty of our national parks.
This committee has provided support for the GW Parkway in the past, through the Great American Outdoors Act. This bill supports a common goal of ours, focusing not on the road itself but on the safety of the people who use it. It is a smart, responsible policy that keeps Americans safe and strengthens the national parks and major transportation corridors they use every day.
Thank you for your consideration, and I hope to see this important bill passed through this Committee soon.
* * *
Footnotes:
i Villwock-Witte N, Clouser K, Silberman P, Romo A, Laverty B, and Keller C. 2021. George Washington Memorial Parkway Traffic and Safety Context Sensitive Solutions Assessment. National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, April 2021. https://parkplanning.nps.gov/showFile.cfm?sfid=468517&projectID=89079.
ii Aarts L and van Schagen I. 2006. Driving speed and the risk of road crashes: A review. Accident Analysis & Prevention 38(2): https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2005.07.004.
iii Fairfax County, Speed Camera Program website: https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/topics/speed-cameras
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II10/20260326/119029/HHRG-119-II10-Wstate-McKayJ-20260326.pdf
American Battlefield Trust President Duncan Testifies Before House Natural Resources Subcommittee
WASHINGTON, April 1 -- The House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Federal Lands released the following testimony by American Battlefield Trust President David N. Duncan from a March 26, 2026, hearing on the American Battlefield Protection Program Amendments Act (H.R. 7618):* * *
Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and Members of the Committee:
Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony to the Federal Lands Subcommittee. My name is David Duncan, and I am the president of the American Battlefield Trust. I testify today in strong support of the American Battlefield Protection Program ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 1 -- The House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Federal Lands released the following testimony by American Battlefield Trust President David N. Duncan from a March 26, 2026, hearing on the American Battlefield Protection Program Amendments Act (H.R. 7618): * * * Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and Members of the Committee: Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony to the Federal Lands Subcommittee. My name is David Duncan, and I am the president of the American Battlefield Trust. I testify today in strong support of the American Battlefield Protection ProgramAmendments Act of 2026 (H.R. 7618).
The American Battlefield Trust is a national, nonprofit organization dedicated to preserving America's remaining Revolutionary War, War of 1812 and Civil War battlefields. Thanks to the generosity of our 500,000 members and supporters from all 50 states, the American Battlefield Trust has protected more than 61,000 acres of critically important battlefield land in 25 states.
H.R. 7618 is bipartisan legislation that would reauthorize the Battlefield Land Acquisition Grant Program and two smaller grant programs for interpretation, planning, and restoration of America's battlefields, all of which are administered by the National Park Service's American Battlefield Protection Program (ABPP). The legislation would maintain the current authorized annual funding of $20 million through FY2036. Since its inception in FY1999, this public-private partnership program has been the primary mechanism for saving historic battlefields outside National Park Service boundaries.
Battlefield Land Acquisition Grant Program
The origins of the Battlefield Land Acquisition Grant (BLAG) Program trace back to a 1993 Congressional commission, the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission, that identified the 383 most historically significant Civil War battlefields in America. The Commission recommended the establishment of a federal matching-grant program to preserve these battlefields before they were lost to development and suburban sprawl. Due to the program's remarkable success, a similar study was released in 2007 identifying the most historically significant Revolutionary War and War of 1812 battlefields. BLAG was expanded by Congress as part of the FY2015 National Defense Reauthorization Act to include these two conflicts.
The program, funded through the Land and Water Conservation Fund, requires a 1-to-1 federal-to-non-federal match, although on most occasions the federal dollars are leveraged well beyond the 1-to-1 requirement. It can only be used to acquire land outside existing National Park Service boundaries, therefore, it does not add to or contribute to National Park Service maintenance costs. The program, currently authorized at $20 million through FY2028, has been fully funded since FY2016, thanks in large part to its wide bipartisan support in Congress.
Preservation Successes
Since its creation more than two decades ago, the BLAG has been utilized in 20 states to preserve more than 38,000 acres of hallowed ground from the three wars. Its matching-grants formula, which encourages private sector and state investment in battlefield preservation, is the key to its success. In fact, it is often referenced as a model for cooperative conservation partnerships between the federal government and the private sector.
Battlefield land can only be acquired from willing sellers on the fair market.
Without the program, utilized by nonprofit groups such as the American Battlefield Trust, the Shenandoah Valley Battlefield Foundation, the Capitol Region Land Conservancy, Central Virginia Battlefields Trust, and the Battle of Franklin Trust, large swaths of early American history would have been lost.
Among the battlefields that have benefited from ABPP, where land has been preserved outside established NPS park boundaries are Antietam, Maryland; Bentonville, North Carolina; Brandywine and Gettysburg, Pennsylvania; Glorieta Pass, New Mexico; Mansfield, Louisiana; Petersburg and Yorktown, Virginia; Princeton, New Jersey; and Vicksburg, Mississippi. Additionally, ABPP has been instrumental in preserving battlefield land at Prairie Grove Battlefield State Park, Prairie Grove, Arkansas; Kettle Creek Battlefield, Washington, Georgia; Battle of Franklin, Franklin, Tennessee; Culpeper Battlefields State Park, Culpeper, Virginia, and numerous other sites.
A great example of the program's importance is the preservation and restoration of Robert E. Lee's headquarters in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. The structure, just outside the park boundary, survived the battle remained under private ownership. It had been extensively modified and converted into a gift shop as part of a motel complex. When the property became available for sale, the American Battlefield Trust and its members utilized the American Battlefield Protection Program to purchase the property and restore it to its wartime appearance. It is now a crown jewel of the Gettysburg battlefield experience; we are proud to open it to the public, complementing and enhancing NPS' educational and interpretative offerings.
Opportunities
The Trust has seen an increase in both battlefield preservation opportunities, along with the potential for increased public access and interpretation, as well as increasing cost of acquiring land. In many instances, we are seeing competition for acquisition of unimproved farmland notably increase, driving up costs. This phenomenon is even more acute in urban areas, where land prices have skyrocketed as we compete with residential housing, commercial development, data-centers, and related infrastructure.
In addition to reauthorizing the program, the legislation would make targeted improvements to two additional grant programs managed by ABPP: the Battlefield Interpretation Grant Program and the Battlefield Restoration Grant Programs. The bill creates efficiencies by consolidating the two programs into a single $2 million grant program, simplifying administration and providing the National Park Service with greater flexibility in awarding grants. Further, the bill reduces the non-federal match of the combined Restoration and Interpretation Grants program to 25 percent, lowering the barrier for participation by local and regional battlefield nonprofit groups.
Lastly, the bill directs NPS to investigate the feasibility of expanding eligibility for BLAG grants to battlefields associated with the French and Indian War and the Mexican-American War, building on 2020 historic preservation studies previously funded by ABPP and conducted by Michigan State University.
Reauthorizing and improving the program will ensure private nonprofits like the American Battlefield Trust can continue utilizing this critical conservation tool to protect America's endangered battlefields for years to come.
Outdoor Classrooms and Military Training Grounds
America's battlefields are irreplaceable parts of our shared national heritage. When preserved, these battlefields serve as outdoor classrooms to educate current and future generations about the defining moments in our country's history. They are living memorials, not just to the soldiers who fought and died there, but to all who have proudly worn our nation's uniform.
Preserved battlefields are also economic drivers for communities, generating heritage tourism dollars that are extremely important to state and local economies. Battlefield visitors, who typically travel in groups and as families, tend to stay longer and spend more than other types of tourists. Tourism industry surveys indicate that travelers to battlefield parks are seeking authentic experiences and enjoy combining their stays with visits to local eateries, businesses and other nearby historic sites.
Additionally, battlefields serve as training grounds for our men and women in uniform in the form of customized battlefield tours known as "staff rides." Preserved battlefields are frequently used by the modern military to place officers and enlisted ranks alike in the shoes of combat commanders, asking them to make difficult choices, in the face of daunting obstacles, over the same terrain. The American Battlefield Trust is proud to work with America's military to host staff rides on battlefields we own and have preserved.
Conclusion
America's battlefields are key to understanding who we are as a nation, and where we come from. They are open spaces and outdoor classrooms that commemorate the sacrifices of those who fought and died on these fields. The grant programs administered by the American Battlefield Protection Program are irreplaceable tools for preserving and interpreting our country's hallowed grounds. By reauthorizing ABPP at level funding of $20 million through FY2036, you will ensure that this cooperative public-private partnership program will continue to be available for use by nonprofit organizations to save these national treasures.
This year, the nation will observe the 250th anniversary of the American Revolution and the founding of the United States. Americans are expected to visit battlefields and historic sites in record numbers to learn more about events that led to our nation's independence. Enactment of this legislation will create an enduring legacy that will outlive the anniversary.
Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, I sincerely hope you and your subcommittee will consider reporting this bill favorably out of the Federal Lands Subcommittee. We look forward to working closely with you as we continue our important work to preserve America's battlefield lands. Thank you for the opportunity to address the committee.
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II10/20260326/119029/HHRG-119-II10-Wstate-DuncanD-20260326.pdf