[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
ACCELERATING AGRICULTURE: HOW FEDERAL REGULATIONS IMPACT AMERICA'S
SMALL FARMERS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, ENERGY, AND TRADE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS
UNITED STATES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD
JUNE 21, 2018
__________
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Small Business Committee Document Number 115-081
Available via the GPO Website: www.govinfo.gov
_________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
30-506 WASHINGTON : 2019
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio, Chairman
STEVE KING, Iowa
BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri
DAVE BRAT, Virginia
AUMUA AMATA COLEMAN RADEWAGEN, American Samoa
STEVE KNIGHT, California
TRENT KELLY, Mississippi
ROD BLUM, Iowa
JAMES COMER, Kentucky
JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON, Puerto Rico
BRIAN FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania
ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas
RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina
JOHN CURTIS, Utah
NYDIA VELAZQUEZ, New York, Ranking Member
DWIGHT EVANS, Pennsylvania
STEPHANIE MURPHY, Florida
AL LAWSON, JR., Florida
YVETTE CLARKE, New York
JUDY CHU, California
ALMA ADAMS, North Carolina
ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York
BRAD SCHNEIDER, Illinois
VACANT
Kevin Fitzpatrick, Majority Staff Director
Jan Oliver, Majority Deputy Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Adam Minehardt, Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
OPENING STATEMENTS
Hon. Rod Blum.................................................... 1
Hon. Brad Schneider.............................................. 2
WITNESSES
Mr. Craig Martins, Operations Manager, Three Rivers FS,
Dyersville, IA, testifying on behalf of the National Council of
Farmer Cooperatives and GROWNMARK, Inc......................... 4
Mr. John Weber, Owner, Valley Lane Farms Inc., Dysart, IA,
testifying on behalf of the National Pork Producers Council.... 6
Mr. Glenn Brunkow, Co-Owner, Brush Creek Cattle Company, Wamego,
KS, testifying on behalf of the American Farm Bureau Federation 7
Ms. Laurie Ristino, Associate Professor of Law, Director, Center
for Agriculture and Food Systems, Vermont Law School, South
Royalton, VT................................................... 9
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Mr. Craig Martins, Operations Manager, Three Rivers FS,
Dyersville, IA, testifying on behalf of the National
Council of Farmer Cooperatives and GROWNMARK, Inc.......... 26
Mr. John Weber, Owner, Valley Lane Farms Inc., Dysart, IA,
testifying on behalf of the National Pork Producers Council 39
Mr. Glenn Brunkow, Co-Owner, Brush Creek Cattle Company,
Wamego, KS, testifying on behalf of the American Farm
Bureau Federation.......................................... 53
Ms. Laurie Ristino, Associate Professor of Law, Director,
Center for Agriculture and Food Systems, Vermont Law
School, South Royalton, VT................................. 78
Questions for the Record:
None.
Answers for the Record:
None.
Additional Material for the Record:
None.
ACCELERATING AGRICULTURE: HOW FEDERAL REGULATIONS IMPACT AMERICA'S
SMALL FARMERS
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 21, 2018
House of Representatives,
Committee on Small Business,
Subcommittee on Agriculture, Energy, and Trade
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:32 a.m., in
Room 2360, Rayburn House Office Building. Hon. Rod Blum
[chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Blum, Chabot, King, Leutkemeyer,
Comer, Marshall, and Schneider.
Chairman BLUM. Good morning. I call this hearing to order.
Thank you for joining us for today's Subcommittee on
Agriculture, Energy and Trade hearing. Welcome.
Today, the Subcommittee will examine how federal
regulations affect America's small farmers. Family and small
farms play a vital role in the American economy. More than 90
percent of farms in the United States are considered small, and
most small farms are family owned and operated. These farmers
account for 90 percent of America's farm production. Small
farms also operate half of the farmland in the United States.
My home state of Iowa has the third highest number of farms
in the country, and Iowa is ranked number one in export value
for pork, number one for corn, foods, and other grains. I just
had to get that in there. So farming is especially important in
Iowa and in my district.
The agriculture industry also plays an important role in
providing jobs. In 2016, direct on-farm employment accounted
for over 2 million jobs, or 1.4 percent of total employment in
the United States. I consistently hear from farmers in my
district in Iowa about the challenges they face, including
federal regulations. The House Small Business Committee has
held many hearings on the top of regulations and this continues
to be a problem for small businesses across the country. Our
small farmers are no exception.
The current regulatory environment in the agriculture
industry disproportionately burdens small farmers. With many
regulations taking a ``one-size-fits-all'' approach and many
federal agencies having the authority to regulate agriculture,
small farmers are forced to comply with expensive, confusing,
and time-consuming regulations, which in turn negatively
impacts the American economy.
Today, we will hear from farmers and experts who are
experiencing the impact of regulations out in the field--no pun
intended. They will provide real examples of what it is like
for a small farmers to navigate the confusing regulatory
landscape. I look forward to discussing this important topic
and what Congress can do to help provide some regulatory relief
to our nation's farmers.
I now yield to the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on
Agriculture, Energy and Trade, Mr. Schneider, for his opening
statement.
Mr. SCHNEIDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And again, I am
glad we are able to have this hearing, and I thank the
witnesses for joining us today to share their perspectives and
insights on this issue.
Since the founding of this Nation, farms and farmers have
always played a significant role in the United States' economy.
They provide the country and the world with enough food to eat,
fuel jobs for workers up and down the supply chain, and keep
American agriculture at the forefront of innovation.
Many of these farmers are small businesses who continue to
work hard to support themselves and their customers in an
increasingly global market. It is our role in Congress to help
support farmers so that they can continue their work growing
our food and our economy and make our farming communities
strong. Today, we will examine how Federal regulations impact
America's small farms.
Regulations serve an important purpose in helping to keep
us safe. Agriculture regulations help to improve water quality,
protect animal welfare, and consumer welfare through food
safety and labeling regulations. Without these safeguards,
small farms and producers could be hurt by illicit business
practices, left in the dark when combatting nationwide
challenge like avian influenza and struggling without Federal
assistance on issues ranging from organic standards to
conservation practices.
Despite these important aspects of regulations, it is also
important to recognize that regulation can also place a burden
on small businesses, especially those in the agriculture
industry. Farmers and ranchers are faced with a flurry of
requirements through a variety of regulations from the
Endangered Species Act and the Food Safety Modernization Act,
to the Federal Land Policy Management Act to name just a few.
Compounding much of the complexity is the overlap of agency
jurisdiction in a variety of farming practices. The end result
is often burdensome on farmers who just want to manage their
farms.
It is critical that agencies are considering the economic
impact of the regulations on small farms. At the same time,
Congress needs to know what steps are needed to help agencies
achieve this goal. Adequate communication and transparency are
critical to an effective system of regulation. An open line of
communication can ensure that regulations are written
effectively, minimizing unnecessary burdens for small business.
And that is what I hope to achieve in today's hearing.
Congress plays an important role in ensuring that the
American public is protected while simultaneously ensuring that
regulations are not too burdensome on farmers. It is therefore
irresponsible for the government to haphazardly create change
or get rid of a regulation without thoroughly looking at and
understanding the impact of the long-term consequences.
I look forward to the insights this pane will provide on
this topic, and again, I want to thank the witnesses and I
yield back.
Chairman BLUM. Thank you, Mr. Schneider.
If Committee members have an opening statement prepared, I
ask that it be submitted for the record.
I will take a minute to explain the timing lights for you.
You will each have 5 minutes to deliver your testimony. The
light starts out as green. When you have one minute remaining,
the light will turn to yellow. That does not mean you speed up
like with the traffic lights. And finally, at the end of your 5
minutes--well, maybe you should speed up--it will turn red. And
I ask, please, that you adhere to that time limit.
I would now like to formally introduce our witnesses.
I am pleased to introduce our first witness, Mr. Craig
Martins, who is a constituent of mine from the district and the
great state of Iowa. Mr. Martins is the Operations Manager of
Three Rivers FS in Dyersville, Iowa, a locally-owned
agriculture cooperative serving producers in Northeast Iowa.
His responsibility includes developing and leading the sales,
operations, and service teams within the cooperative. Mr.
Martins is testifying on behalf of the National Council of
Farmer Cooperatives and GROWMARK, Inc., an agriculture
cooperative based in Illinois. Thank you for joining us today,
Mr. Martins, and welcome.
I am also pleased to introduce our second witness, who is
also a constituent from my district in Iowa, Mr. John Weber is
the owner of Valley Lane Farms, a gain and livestock operation
in East Central Iowa. He has been in pork production for 44
years and has lifelong experience in grain and livestock
farming. Mr. Weber served as the President for the National
Pork Producers Council (NPPC) from March 2016 to March 2017,
and will be testifying on behalf of NPPC today. Thank you for
joining us today, Mr. Weber, and welcome as well.
And I now yield to the gentleman from Kansas, Dr. Marshall,
to introduce our third witness.
Mr. MARSHALL. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you so much. And we
will see if we cannot kind of balance out this witnesses'
testimony up here.
I am very proud to introduce Mr. Glenn Brunkow. As you
know, Glenn is from the largest agriculture producing district
in the country, and Glenn, much like myself, is a fifth
generation farmer. They grow corn, soybeans, wheat, hay, and
raise cattle and sheep, so he brings a great diversity to talk
about some of the regulations we have going on here. Probably
most importantly, he is from the top agriculture university in
the country, having a bachelor's degree and a master's degree
from the home of the ever-fighting mighty Kansas State
Wildcats. So without further ado, Glenn, we welcome you and
look forward to your testimony. I should add, Glenn is here
representing the American Farm Bureau Federation as well,
something near and dear to my heart back home as to all of us.
Thank you.
Chairman BLUM. Thank you, Dr. Marshall.
I now yield to our Ranking Member, Mr. Schneider, for the
introduction of our final witness.
Mr. SCHNEIDER. Thank you.
It is my pleasure to introduce Professor Laurie Ristino,
the director of the Center for Agriculture and Food Systems and
associate professor of law at Vermont Law School. She is a
legal and policy expert on food security, the Farm Bill
conservation title, ecosystem services, and private land
conservation. She was previously an attorney at USDA and served
during the President George H. W. Bush administration and
President Barack Obama administration. Professor Ristino has a
BA from the University of Michigan, a JD from the University of
Iowa, and an MPA from George Mason University. Welcome,
Professor Ristino.
Chairman BLUM. Thank you, Mr. Schneider.
I think you are outranked here and outweighed, Dr.
Marshall. University of Iowa. Good stuff.
Welcome to our witnesses today to you all.
I now recognize Mr. Martins for 5 minutes.
STATEMENTS OF CRAIG MARTINS, OPERATIONS MANAGER, THREE RIVERS
FS; JOHN WEBER OWNER VALLEY LANE FARMS INC.; GLENN BRUNKOW CO-
OWNER BRUSH CREEK CATTLE COMPANY; LAURIE RISTINO ASSOCIATE
PROFESSOR OF LAW DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR AGRICULTURE AND FOOD
SYSTEMS VERMONT LAW SCHOOL
STATEMENT OF CRAIG MARTINS
Mr. MARTINS. Chairman Blum, Ranking Member Schneider, and
members of the Subcommittee. On behalf of National Council of
Farmer Cooperatives and GROWMARK, Inc., I appreciate the
opportunity to testify this morning.
I applaud this Subcommittee for taking a closer look at how
regulations affect small business owners. Expensive and
confusing regulations are detrimental to all the business
owners, including farmers and their co-ops. This morning, I
would like to highlight two regulatory efforts that will have a
direct impact on my co-op.
The first is OSHA crane and derrick construction rule and
its impact on propane suppliers. Propane is an important part
of on-farm energy use. Propane sales, service, and delivery are
a critical part of many co-op business strategies. Over 35 NCFC
members provide propane services, including GROWMARK and its
co-op owners. However, the crane rule is making it harder and
more expensive for co-ops to do so. It imposes certification
requirements on crane operators, which include propane
technicians, operating on what OSHA defines as a construction
site or performing a construction activity.
There are several problems with this rule. First, the
regulations are burdensome and cause duplication since propane
companies are highly regulated already.
Second, they treat telescoping and knuckle boom cranes,
which can fit in the back of a pickup truck even, the same as
huge tower cranes you see looming over construction sites here
in Washington, as an example can be seen in this picture. This
is the type of crane that we use out in the field to set tanks.
It is not a 40-story crane. It is just a truck with a crane and
a guy.
Third, is how OSHA defines both construction sites and
construction activity. This is something that can serve as
Exhibit A on the absurdity of governmental regulations.
According to OSHA, a construction site is considered any
property where construction activity is taking place, whether
or not any of those activities are associated or even located
near the delivery location for a propane tank. For example, a
propane technician might need to be certified if he were
dropping off a tank on the ground at a house where a second
floor bathroom is being remodeled, or at a farm where a barn is
being painted.
Even more problematic is how OSHA defines a construction
activity. A technician would not need certification if the tank
was simply left on the ground without connecting it to the
piping; however, if the propane tank is placed on the ground
and the crane is put away and the technician connects it, that
could be considered construction activity.
One concern is that the rule sets two standards for the
same activity using the same machinery based on arbitrary
factors. This inconsistency is causing a high level of
confusion among the industry.
In addition, the certification cost would be nearly $3,800
per employee, a total of close to $114,000 for our co-op every
5 years. Across the industry, the burden would be close to $151
million over the same time period.
We are asking the House members to cosponsor the Common
Sense Certification Reform Act, which provides relief for
propane field technicians from certifications when appropriate.
The NCFC also calls on Congress to instruct OSHA to delay the
November 10, 2018 compliance deadline.
I would also like to touch briefly on the Department of
Homeland Security's Chemical Facility Antiterrorism Standards
Rule. Three Rivers, as many other co-ops, supply anhydrous
ammonia fertilizer to their farmer members. It is also
regulated under the DHS's Chemical Facility Antiterrorism
Standards. Our industry takes its responsibility to prevent
anhydrous ammonia from falling into the wrong hands seriously.
Unfortunately, many of the regulations enacted by DHS has
led to confusion among the agricultural community on how to
comply. In my written testimony, I have provided detailed
descriptions of the difficulties that we have in working with
the DHS. The end result has been that the DHS's advice has been
vague and without explanation as to steps necessary to reach
compliance.
DHS should follow their own regulations to provide clarity
as to how cooperatives can become compliant without excessive
costs. Further, they should provide better tools and resources
to facilities so they can achieve compliance with the standard.
DHS should also examine how it can partner with state
Departments of Agriculture so that small cooperatives have
resources that are easily accessible to help comply with the
rules.
Before I conclude, I would also like to note that my
written testimony also contains details of several important
regulatory reform provisions contained in the House Farm Bill.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today, and I
look forward to your questions.
Chairman BLUM. Thank you, Mr. Martins.
Mr. Weber, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JOHN WEBER
Mr. WEBER. Good morning, Chairman Blum, Ranking Member
Schneider, and members of the Subcommittee. My name is John
Weber. I am a pork producer from Dysart, Iowa, and past
president of the National Pork Producers Council, which
represents the interests of America's 60,000 pork producers and
on whose behalf I am testifying.
As has been previously stated, regulations add to the cost
of doing business, and right now, the pork industry certainly
does not need more costs. Many of the rules we have seen coming
out of Washington have had harmful, unintended consequences,
including stifling innovation and impeding the inherent
motivation of farmers and small business people to get better
and more efficient at what they do. One example of a regulation
that would have devastated the pork industry was the 2010 rule
from USDA's Grain Inspection Packers and Stockyards
Administration. It would have dictated the terms of private
contracts between the sellers and buyers of livestock,
restricted marketing arrangements, required reams of paperwork,
and made certain industry practices per se violations of the
Packers and Stockyards Act, throwing simple contract disputes
into Federal court.
According to an Informa Economics study, this rule would
have cost approximately $4 per pig, or about $420 million to
our industry. In my relatively small family operation, that
would amount to over $56,000 in lost revenue or added costs.
Worst of all, the regulation, which also would have raised
consumer prices, was a solution in search of a problem. The
rule had no input from farmers, and as a result, was a gross
bureaucratic overreach that did an end run around Congress and
the courts. No economic analysis was done.
Another troublesome Federal regulation that could have had
a significant negative impact on agriculture was Waters of the
United States rule. It broadened the definition of navigable
waters to include grass waterways, upstream waters, and
intermittent streams, which are used on many farms for
drainable or irrigation. It also covered lands adjacent to such
waters. The rule gave expanded jurisdiction to EPA and the Army
Corps of Engineers to regulate all kinds of farming activities
because under the Clean Water Act there is an absolute
prohibition on discharging anything, including pesticides,
fertilizer, and even seeds into waters of the United States
without a Federal permit.
Bureaucrats wrote a regulation again without input from the
regulated community that would have subjected farmers to
criminal penalties and civil fines of up to $38,500 per day for
planting crops without a discharge permit. And they gave
private citizens and activist groups the power to enforce this
rule. Furthermore, this would have been an additional layer of
regulation.
One of the biggest fears that I and other farmers had with
this was implementing conservation practices. We already are
required to deal with NRCS, the Army Corps, and our state DNRs.
Would the WOTUS rule have been another hurdle to get
desperately needed conservation practices in place?
I do want to make it clear that farmers like myself are not
opposed to regulations. Believe it or not, there are some good
ones, and NPPC has even encouraged that some be issued. They
are in our written testimony. But rules, whether Federal or
state, should be based on sound science and analysis, be
practical to implement, and cost-effective, and address actual
problems that need solutions. And those who will be regulated
must be involved in developing the rules.
Additionally, before implemented, regulations should be
subject to cost-benefit analysis and rules whose costs far
outweigh their benefits should be scrapped.
Congress can take steps to ease the regulatory burden.
First of all, by reforming the Administrative Procedures Act,
which has not been updated in a significant way in 70 years.
Secondly, by changing congressional oversight to require
approval for major regulations, those costing $100 million or
more. And third, by increasing transparency in rulemaking by
allowing more public participation in developing regulations.
This Congress and the Trump administration have done a good
job of starting to rein in red tape but more needs to be done.
These are incredibly trying times for America's pork producers,
and for that matter, all of agriculture. With record production
built on optimism for global demand and a marketplace that is
now in disarray, the last thing we need is more burdensome
regulations.
Thank you for allowing me to testify today. I would be
happy to answer any of your questions.
Chairman BLUM. Thank you, Mr. Weber.
Mr. Brunkow, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF GLENN BRUNKOW
Mr. BRUNKOW. Chairman Blum, Ranking Member Schneider, and
members of the Subcommittee, my name is Glenn Brunkow. I am co-
owner of Brush Creek Cattle Company in Wamego, Kansas, a fifth
generation farmer and rancher with my father, wife, and kids.
I thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony on
Federal regulations affecting America's small farmers and
ranchers. I do so on behalf of the American Farm Bureau
Federation.
Right now, as you know, every penny counts in agriculture.
Farm income is at its lowest level in more than a decade. When
the business cycle works against you, it makes it even tougher
to shoulder the costs of regulation, especially when those
regulations are duplicative, unnecessary, or just plain
misguided.
One good example is in Kansas. The Flint Hills region where
I live is home to the largest undisturbed tall grass prairie
ecosystem in the world. Generations ago, bison roamed this vast
expanse and both lightning strikes and Native American tribes
set fire to the prairie each year. Those fires rejuvenated tall
grass prairie plans and kept at bay common species found just
east of the ecosystem's herbaceous plants, deciduous and
carnivorous trees, without prescribed fires, the ecosystem
would rapidly change. But prescribed burns in the Flint Hills
have caused national ambient air quality standard monitoring
system stations to record an exceedance of either ozone or
PM2.5 on more than one day. Agriculture producers have worked
with the state of Kansas in creating a smoke management plan
and groups like Kansas Farm Bureau and Kansas Livestock
Association encourage farmers and ranchers to look at
www.ksfire.org prior to striking a match to see what their
smoke will affect downwind.
But even with the 2010 Smoke Management Plan, it is
becoming more difficult every year to find windows of
opportunity to successful burn large areas of grasslands for
fear of knocking an air monitoring station out of compliance.
KFB and other groups have actively lobbied Kansas's
congressional delegation and the Environmental Protection
Agency to create a regulatory mechanism to continue to allow
for an annual prescribed wildlands to burn and not count toward
nonattainment exceedances at monitoring stations.
We are hopeful this can be addressed once and for all so
all land owners will have the certainty of knowing that they
can use this tool that Mother Nature and Native Americans have
known for centuries was the only way to maintain the natural
ecosystem and keep invasive species and trees from taking the
Flint Hills.
Another important regulatory concern is how the Federal
government implements the swampbuster provisions of the Farm
Bill. Swampbuster enacted in 1985 was designed to prevent
conversion of wetlands, but the understanding was that the
lands created before the enactment would be exempt.
Unfortunately, the USDA sits as both judge and jury and farmers
can face repercussions when they undertake basic, every day
farming activities, such as removing or cleaning up fence rows,
squaring off or modifying a field footprint, and improving or
repairing drainage. Cleaning out drainage ditches or removing
trees in or adjacent to farm fields.
It should not be that way. USDA should follow the intent of
Congress and recognize prior converted farmlands once it has
been converted remains in that status. Farmers should not have
to fight the Federal government repeatedly to assert their
rights. Instead, USDA should recognize and accept mandatory
minimal effect exemption. And just as importantly, the appeals
process is heavily weighted in favor of the government and
against farmers and should be reformed.
The 2015 WOTUS rule is probably the most challenging. The
rule broadened the definition of a tributary to include
landscape features that may not be visible by the human eye.
Make no mistake, the features occur in abundance in our farm
fields. There is no question the 2015 WOTUS rule would have an
enormous impact on producers. It is true the rule contains
exclusions but these are narrow and vague and up to agency
interpretation. It seems impossible that we would be engaging
in discussions about what is a puddle or dry land.
We applaud the proposed releasing of the advanced notice of
proposed rulemaking which is intended to speed up and ensure
transparency in how rules are proposed.
This concludes my statement, and I ask that my written
statement be included in record in full. I am pleased to share
these remarks with the members of the Subcommittee and happy to
answer any questions.
Chairman BLUM. Thank you, Mr. Brunkow.
Ms. Ristino, I believe I have that correct, you are now
recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF LAURIE RISTINO
Ms. RISTINO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Schneider, and members of the
Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to testify today
before the Committee on how regulations to ensure human health
and safety can go hand in hand with supporting the growth of
small farming and food production operations.
In my testimony today I will make the following key points:
Regulation of the agriculture sector is essential to safeguard
public safety and health. At the same time, in some cases,
regulations may be better tailored to small farmers and food
producers by taking into account their different production
methods and associated risk in a way that ensures health and
safety while allowing for local innovation.
Producer financial and technical assistance, as well as
public research dollars that assess production methods and
associated risks are needed to help level the playing field for
small and mid-size producers. Based on these points, I will
conclude that the question is not whether to regulate but how
to do so in a way that protects the public while fostering
innovation at different scales of agricultural and food
production.
To that end, I offer several practical suggestions for how
government can improve regulatory design and outcomes for small
farmers and food producers. A key area where agriculture is
regulated is food safety. Indeed, the Federal government's
police power has long been used in the area of food safety to
protect the health and welfare of our citizens, often
preempting state and local laws in creating a ``one size fits
all'' regulatory regime. Although the American food supply is
among the safest in the world, the Food and Drug Administration
estimates over 48 million cases of food-borne illness a year. A
2015 study by the Ohio State University estimates the annual
cost of food-borne illness at approximately $55 billion.
A recent example showing the scale of modern food-borne
illness outbreaks given the concentration consolidation of our
food system is the recent E.coli outbreak caused by the
contaminated romaine lettuce. One hundred ninety seven people
in 35 states were sickened. The contaminated lettuce was
eventually traced to Yuma, Arizona, a major growing region of
leafy greens in the United States.
The Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), which was passed
in 2011, is the first major overhaul of our food safety
regulatory system since 1938. FSMA is designed to address the
type of food-borne illness exemplified by the romaine lettuce
outbreak. In particular, FSMA attempts to prevent food-borne
illness in the first place by requiring farms and processing
facilities to improve recordkeeping and sanitary practices
associated with producing, handling, and distributing fresh
fruits and vegetables. This new regulatory framework has the
effect of allocating much of the cost of food safety to the
beginning of the food supply chain.
While Federal regulatory regimes create national uniform
standards benefitting public health and safety, they can have
unintended consequences, as you have all noted, for small
farmers and food producers making market entry challenging or
too costly. The public's growing interest in local healthy food
and related support of farmers, farmers markets, and community-
supported agriculture is a bright spot in America's
agricultural economy.
To support the continued growth of small farms and improve
the health of rural economies, it is important to assess the
impact of regulations in terms of how they support or hinder
small food and farm businesses and then tailor policy where
health safeguards may be assured to this growing sector.
For example, under the Tester-Hagan Amendment to FSMA,
small farming operations serving only local markets were
exempted from FSMA's requirements out of a concern regarding
regulatory burden and based upon the argument that small
producers do not make large numbers of people sick.
However, there has been debate and an apparent lack of data
regarding the actual magnitude of food-borne illness risk
associated with small farm produced food. One survey of farmers
and farmers market managers showed that many good food safety
practices were in place but there was room for improvement in
production handling and transportation practices. The Tester-
Hagan Amendment reflects a larger debate in which local food
advocates and producers question the need for across-the-board
application of Federal health and safety regulations.
Fortunately, there are a number of strategies that
policymakers can employ to better align critical Federal
regulatory regimes to ensure health and safety with supporting
the growth and innovation of small farmers and emerging food
economies. One is outreach in developing legislation and
implementing regulations. Outreach to small farmers and food
producers and subject matter experts is critical to understand
the policy needs of these groups and regulatory risks.
The second is publicly funded food science research.
Agribusiness and large food producers have the resources to pay
for research to support the product lines small and midsize
producers do not.
Three is financial and technical assistance. Compliance
with regulatory regimes is not surprising, as also has been
noted, more burdensome for small producers who have less
resources to leverage. Consequently, both financial assistance
to help pay for the cost of compliance as well as technical
assistance.
And I yield. Thank you, and I am happy to answer any
questions.
Chairman BLUM. Thank you, Ms. Ristino. You mentioned in
your testimony government regulatory regimes. That is
interesting. I agree with that, the regime part, especially.
Now we will be asking you questions, and I will recognize
myself first for 5 minutes.
As I have been in politics for the last 5 years and
traveling Northeast Iowa, when I talk to farmers I kind of
recognized an interesting phenomena. And that was when they
dealt with the Iowa DNR, they did not have issues with our DNR.
And they said, in fact, they coach us to compliance. And I
wrote that down 5 years ago, coached to compliance. So they
worked. The DNR in Iowa works with farmers and producers to
achieve the desired results. However, when the EPA was
involved, the federal agency, not so much so. They show up with
a subpoena or the threat of a subpoena at the end of a bayonet.
And I heard it time and time and time again. And that bothers
me how a state organization--I do not know the way it is in
Kansas, maybe you can tell us about that, Mr. Brunkow--but
coach to compliance, work together versus it is our way or the
high way. And I would just like to hear from especially the
three gentlemen that are in business, what your experience has
been with your state regulatory agency versus the EPA and
federal regulatory agencies, and have you observed this or have
you encountered this?
Whoever wants to go first, fine.
Mr. WEBER. Mr. Chairman, I would respond a little bit to
that. I think your assessment is absolutely correct, especially
with the DNR. I have had the opportunity to work with the DNR
multiple times and I have always had the impression that they
were there to help or to help me do a better job. You know,
there are rules to follow and we have to follow those rules. We
understand them. We go to training with DNR. But they are
probably a little closer to the farm level than maybe EPA is.
But I would sense the same thing in the countryside that you
did.
I think it is an issue that is extremely important. I could
cite the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy as another one of
those programs that tends to educate and encourage farmers as
to what they can do. It puts out a little incentive. Let us
improve water quality. It is not mandatory but here are some
things that we offer and here is what you can do. And it has
made huge headways. It has stimulated a lot of interest in
water quality in the state of Iowa.
Chairman BLUM. And it is not mandatory?
Mr. WEBER. It is not mandatory. I call it an incentive
program. All of these programs such as that, I do not want them
to become dependency programs, but certainly, I think there is
a time when incentivization is needed to accomplish a goal,
maybe better than regulation or mandatory regulation. So
another observation I would make in the countryside.
I will yield with that.
Chairman BLUM. Mr. Brunkow? Kansas?
Mr. BRUNKOW. I absolutely agree. In Kansas, it works the
same way. The state agencies are there to help us, to coach us
through it, to help us find funding, to help correct any issues
we might have. The smoke management issue that I talked about
in Flint Hills is a perfect example of that. You know, the air
quality standards in Kansas City, Omaha, Wichita run really
close anyway, and when we burn in the spring it just pushes
them over the edge. We have to burn in the Flint Hills,
otherwise, we get taken over by invasive species. Fire is the
only effective management tool to keep them healthy. We have to
burn when the winds are right. To be safe, to ensure the safety
of surrounding structures, to ensure the safety of roadways, we
have to burn when the winds are right.
The Kansas Department of Agriculture, Kansas State
University, Kansas Farm Bureau, the Kansas Livestock
Association all work together to come up with a smoke
management plan, a website that we can go to and model where
our smoke is going to go that day, and we are working really
hard. We understand and we are really aware of the issues
caused by our smoke. But we also understand there is a very
limited window of when we can burn and burn effectively.
We have all seen the wildfires out west, even in Kansas. We
are trying to reduce our fuel load on those acres also in
addition to maintaining the health of the prairies. We are
trying to lower the fuel loads and lessen any catastrophic
fires along with that.
Chairman BLUM. Have you had interaction with the EPA or
federal agencies, and how is it different?
Mr. BRUNKOW. I have not. My neighbors have. And yes, you
are right. The EPA is there at the end of a bayonet, whereas,
our local state agencies show up and they are there to help us
through and help find a solution.
Chairman BLUM. Mr. Martins, anything in that area?
Mr. MARTINS. Absolutely. We are in contact with the IDALS
daily, if not weekly. When we are doing site remodels or we are
looking towards the future, we actually call them and ask them
what is coming down the line, and they will help us be pre-
compliant so that when we are building something new, we
actually build it so that legislation that could be coming down
the road, we have already put it in place. And I feel that if
the EPA or the DHS would work with those guys and get them
involved, they would be easy to get in contact with to come out
and help us be compliant because we want to be compliant. We do
not want to be out of compliance because a fine really hurts
our company.
I brought a couple of examples. For an anhydrous facility,
the Iowa group sends us a checklist. Here is what it takes to
be compliant. So as you are planning or you are getting
prepared, you just check off the boxes, talk to the inspectors.
They will come out and look at it and say, yep, you are
compliant. The DHS, there is a lot of ambiguity with what is
giving. You know, some of it is classified, some of it is
sensitive, obviously, in the algorithm that makes you compliant
or out of compliance. But really, just give us a checklist of
what we need to do to be compliant and we will do it.
Chairman BLUM. Thank you. My time is expired.
I now recognize Mr. Schneider, the Ranking Member, for 5
minutes.
Mr. SCHNEIDER. Thank you. Again, thanks to the witnesses
for joining us today.
I am trying to think through the framework. You know, I
think about regulations. I sense or focus on three compatible
goals but one is working to ensure and preserve the prosperity
of our farm sector, including and specific to our small farms,
our family farms. At the same time, we want to ensure the
safety and security of our food supply. And thirdly, it is the
health protection and sustainability of our environment. And
collectively, that is what we are trying to achieve, ideally
collaboratively. Like you said, coach to compliance I think
makes sense.
All of you kind of touched on this idea of unintended
consequences or sometimes not seeking to do the right thing
perhaps but not understanding the implications for small farms.
And I would like to focus on that.
Ms. Ristino, I want to give you a chance because in your
remarks you talked about strategies--outreach, funding
research, providing financial and technical assistance. You did
not get to your fourth one, which was improving regulatory
design, which I think touches on what we were talking about.
What do we have to do to improve regulatory design? And I will
open it up to everyone but I will start with you, Ms. Ristino.
Ms. RISTINO. Thank you for that because I was not able to
get that last point. It is actually something we do a lot at
the law school and we try to teach lawyers this because we do
not always do a good job with that in law school, is to really
make legal regulations and requirements and law, actually, more
accessible to the people who have to comply or to the people
who are protected by those laws. And so I think there are,
especially with the emergence of, you know, digital websites
and apps and things like that, there is a way that we can take
really complicated information, and to my other colleagues here
at the table, make that more accessible to farmers. Like, for
example, we actually have a farmland access toolkit we put
together, which is more accessible. And it is actually designed
so that farmers who want to get on land can easily access that.
We are also creating a free leasing application because a lot
of farmers do not have easy access to land or they do not have
the ability to get a lease without spending a lot of money on a
lawyer. So there are many different ways that I think both
regulators and folks in Congress and state legislatures can
make information more accessible by designing it to be that
way.
Mr. SCHNEIDER. And let me turn to you, Mr. Brunkow. In your
testimony you talked about, and maybe you can explain it, how
can agencies, regulators engage better with our farmers and
ranchers when they are drafting regulations or writing the
rules and laws that are going to affect what you all are doing?
Mr. BRUNKOW. I think just to talk to us to find out what
will work in the country. We want to do the right thing. We
breathe the same air. We work with the same soil. My family has
been there for well over 100 years, 130, 140 years. We want to
make sure that that is there, too. We eat the same foods. So we
want to work with you. We just need to make sure that those
regulations are not burdensome. We need to make sure that they
are regulations that we can comply with easily and just help us
to make those regulations something that does not crush us in
terms of what we have to do to comply with them.
Mr. SCHNEIDER. Mr. Weber, do you have thoughts?
Mr. WEBER. Well, I have some thoughts. You know, I think
our Federal agencies need to work through the states because I
think a lot of small business and farmers feel more
comfortable. Just with Chairman Blum's comments, they feel more
comfortable working with a state agency and more local people.
And I think if they work through the DNR or they work through
even local FSA offices and so on and so forth, or extension
work, farmers are much more receptive to that type of help than
receiving a rule that is printed in the Federal Register and
how are we going to comply with this? And not having had the
chance to have some input into that rule.
Mr. SCHNEIDER. And let me bring it back because the focus
is on the small farms. What can we do to help the small farms?
You have got your large corporate operations and they have
resources and facilities, experts with very narrow focus, but
the small farm, small farmer is responsible for everything. How
do we help make sure they have the resources to do what they
need to do?
Mr. WEBER. I think in certain cases that can be a real
challenge. Because there are larger organizations that do. They
have funding to provide legal staff to do paperwork, things
like that that small farmers may not. That is a tough one.
Mr. SCHNEIDER. My red light is on. I am out of time. But
Mr. Martins, if you have something you want to add? Or I will
yield back otherwise.
Mr. MARTINS. I think just include the states because we are
interacting with them every day, all day. You know, we can call
them and they will come up within a couple days if it works out
for them. But I do not have a problem dealing directly with the
Federal people, but bring the state along so that they can be a
resource for us, too.
Mr. SCHNEIDER. Thank you. And I will close with this, Mr.
Brunkow, you touched it and we all nodded our head. We all
breathe the same air. We eat the same food. I think we are all
in this together. So thank you, and I yield back.
Chairman BLUM. Thank you, Mr. Schneider.
And I will recognize my esteemed colleague from the great
state of Iowa, Mr. King, for 5 minutes.
Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the witnesses
for your testimony. I know that there are three Hawkeyes and a
Wildcat down here. Or how we missed the Fourth District, but I
will not bring that up. I would just win the argument if I did.
And I appreciate everybody bragging about the production that
we do in each of these sections that feed the world. I mean, it
is something for everybody to take great pride in. And to go
back, I think it is at 140 years, Mr. Brunkow, and that tells
me family operation that is tied together, and I hope it can go
on for a long, long time. That is the American dream being
lived out, and that is true across the board here in some ways
one way or another.
I would like to first turn though to Ms. Ristino. And I
want to ask just kind of a basic question. We are talking about
regulation here. Where does the authority come from for the
Executive branch to regulate our farmland in this country?
Ms. RISTINO. The laws that Congress passes.
Mr. KING. So I want to make this point, and I will just ask
you if you agree with me that Congress has delegated the
regulative authority to the Executive branch of government who
writes rules and regulations promulgated, published under the
Administrative Procedures Act that have the force and effect of
law; fair enough?
Ms. RISTINO. Well, I mean, a bit of that authority is in
the constitution, but yeah, because it implements the laws. But
I think there is a complication with the APA. But yes, I
generally agree with what you said.
Mr. KING. In that there would not be any regulatory
authority for the Executive branch if Congress did not
authorize them to have the authority to do so?
Ms. RISTINO. Through the APA. It is kind of like a mini
legislative process.
Mr. KING. Yeah. And so where I am going is that Congress
has delegated this responsibility to the Executive branch of
government, I think in part, knowing politics like I do,
because they did not want to face the minutia of burden that
comes down on that. They had people who were appointed in the
branches that they had created, in the Executive branch that
they had created that were experts in the field. And so
therefore, in order to delegate that responsibility and get it
away from Congress, they have created the Administrative
Procedures Act and a number of other acts that established this
regulation. I want to ask you a question. I just assert that.
And if you would shake your head I would listen to rebuttal.
So I put that down because I think Congress has ducked its
responsibility and I listened to Mr. Weber call for some
changes in the APA, and reform was the language they used, Mr.
Weber, and I think you also advocated for what we refer to here
as the REINS Act, which is any regulation that has more than
$100 million in impact to our economy is required under that
act, which has not passed the Senate yet but it does sit on
Mitch McConnell's desk right now, that it has to come back to
Congress for an affirmative vote before it has the force and
effect of law. I certainly support that, but I wanted to expand
a little more on that because if we get a REINS Act out of the
Senate, I am really confident the president will sign that as
quick as he can get his pen to the paper. But it does not
address the regulations that exist up to this point. It
grandfathers them all in. So do you have any suggestions on
what to do with that, Mr. Weber?
I put you on the spot here.
Mr. WEBER. Yeah, you are putting me on the spot, other than
I would, you know, if there could be some type of, I do not
know, of review at least or go back a certain amount of time,
you know, to look at the cost of these regulations. And we had
a discussion in our office this morning about the number of
$100 million. And we came to the conclusion that any time you
impact an industry to that extent, I do not care whether it is
a large industry or a small industry, I think there needs to be
a second set of eyes that would look at that regulation and
hear input from your constituents on how it may or may not
impact. So that was a number we put in there.
Mr. KING. It was also the number that was written into the
REINS Act.
Mr. WEBER. Yes. Yes.
Mr. KING. So it conforms to that.
I just serve back a suggestion, and that is that of all the
existing regulations and the new regulations, whether they are
$100 million more or less, without an amount to it, and I
propose that the agencies serve up a minimum of 10 percent of
their regulations each year to Congress to be reexamined and
that they would sunset if Congress does not affirm them with an
affirmative vote. And that way we would scour through all the
existing regulations. We would reset them over a period of a
decade and then any new regulations, eliminate that $100
million and just allow for any new regulations have to come
back before Congress. I think we would pass most of them in a
block, and those that were brought to our attention, like
WOTUS, we would examine that and it would be the voice of the
people rather than the agency.
I see you nodding your head, Mr. Brunkow, so I would like
to hear what you would say to back up that statement. Leading
the witness, I confess.
Mr. BRUNKOW. Well, certainly, any time that we would have
advance notice in review of regulations I think would be really
good. Too often we do not know about, do not see those
regulations until it is almost too late.
One thing that did alarm us about WOTUS was the EPA's
campaign on social media to promote the rule, the WOTUS rule.
There were several posts on Facebook, on Twitter, leading
people to support their proposed rule changes. So, that really
concerns me when I have a government agency trying to lead.
Mr. KING. In conclusion, as my time has run out, I would
just say that that that I have described also sits on Mitch
McConnell's desk, and the press did not hardly catch it. So if
you all want to go back and take a look at that, I think we can
have a continuing conversation on how to get this government
right and hold Congress accountable so that you are not
burdened by overregulation.
Thank you, and Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman BLUM. Thank you, Mr. King.
Welcome to Chairman Chabot, who is the Chairman of our
entire Small Business Committee. Thanks for being here today.
And now I would like to recognize Dr. Marshall for 5
minutes.
Mr. MARSHALL. Thank you so much, Chairman.
Glenn, most of our brothers and sisters, they moved off the
farm, and you came back to the farm. What is your passion? Why
do you do it? What do you love about farming? Why do you wake
up in the morning?
Mr. BRUNKOW. Well, there is just something about living on
the land, knowing that I am there working the land that my
grandfather, my great grandfather, my great great grandfather
worked, working with my father every day, and I am very
passionate about the crops I produce, the livestock that I
produce. We are really tied to that land, and I want to make
sure that I maintain it, I grow it, I develop it, and I have
something there for my kids to come back to.
Mr. MARSHALL. Yeah, I think that is something that I am not
sure all the city dwellers realize is that most farmers are
cash poor. And we think about what are you leaving to your
children? Is there anybody more motivated than you to make sure
that your children have rich soil? And you guys are blessed
with much richer soil than I have in my part of the state. What
is your vision for your children and your grandchildren with
that land that you are using?
Mr. BRUNKOW. Well, certainly, I want them to come back to
it, and I want to maintain it the way it is. We talked about
the Flint Hills being the last area of tall grass prairie, the
biggest area left. I certainly want to maintain that. We do
want to do what is right and we want to make sure that we
maintain our environment, that we produce safe food, but our
margins are razor thin and we want to make sure that we have
the ability to maintain our businesses for the long term.
Mr. MARSHALL. And certainly, these regulations, every
regulation adds up to your input cost. Maybe we will talk about
WOTUS here for a second, the swampbuster.
Do you guys have terraces on your farm?
Mr. BRUNKOW. Oh, yeah.
Mr. MARSHALL. I remember as a young kid growing up and my
grandfathers building these terraces. And then I woke up as a
congressman and now they want to regulate the runoff from the
water. Can you just maybe explain, I think people have this
vision of what a wetland is, what we are regulating. And talk
about a field with a terrace that your grandfathers made. Maybe
it was your great grandfather. You are a little younger than
me. Those terraces and the runoff and a little bit about soil
erosion, and just kind of run with water conservation and soil
conservation.
Mr. BRUNKOW. Sure. The terraces and waterway systems that
we have in our fields are meant to slow down the water running
across those fields, slow down and maybe in some cases
eliminate erosion. And we want to make sure that we maintain
that topsoil on the field. They catch the water. The terraces
are berms that are across the field. They catch the water and
they direct them into a waterway that is grassed, grows grass
and filters the water and slows it down before it hits the----
Mr. MARSHALL. And then when WOTUS comes along what happens
to some of that runoff?
Mr. BRUNKOW. It is all classified as Waters of the United
States, and therefore, regulated by the EPA.
Mr. MARSHALL. So my point is, our grandfathers making great
conservation practices and now I am being penalized for the
great work that they did.
Mr. BRUNKOW. Exactly.
Mr. MARSHALL. And again, I am out hunting a lot in these
big pivots of cornfield and I look down in the corners and I
will say, why are we not farming that? And they will say it is
a wetland. I mean, when I envision a wetland when I am sitting
here reading about them in college, I was envisioning this 6
inches of water, a foot of water year-round, thousands of ducks
on it and flamingos or something. What are wetlands to you
guys? Just describe some of the wetlands that you have to work
around?
Mr. BRUNKOW. Some of them are no more than in the spring
when it is rainy, places that collect water. And you know, it
is very temporary in most cases.
Mr. WEBER. Basically, the function of a wetland is to slow
water flow down, and it serves some other purposes as well. But
again, we are seeing a few more of them in the state of Iowa,
some actually trying to be established, especially with large
tile drain areas, to run them through a wetland before the
water does reach a stream. Usually, a grassland and to me it is
a method that is really being explored and getting a lot of
press as far as being a new water quality.
Mr. MARSHALL. So with or without WOTUS, you, as a producer
that owns the land, I assume are trying to work with those
situations and try to figure out what is best to prevent the
water erosion and things?
Mr. WEBER. Absolutely. I have to keep referring to Iowa's
Nutrient Reduction Strategy. I think it was just a great
program that was developed at the right time. My son is a sales
rep and has about 75 to 80 customers, local farmers that come
in, and it is amazing how that has blossomed in our area, the
use of cover crops, simple things that farmers can afford to do
and work into their programs. The interest in conserving and
building soil----
Mr. MARSHALL. We are in.
Mr. WEBER. It is. It is what farmers live for. It is what I
live for. I want to leave my soil better than when I got it for
my next generation. And do not see near as much abuse of
farmland as I did maybe 20 or 30 years ago, and I am more than
impressed with a bunch of the young farmers in our area that
really want to adapt these practices, whether it is for an
economic reason for a conservation reason. They are aware of
the pollution in the Gulf and they are aware of what is going
on. And so to me you are seeing a lot being done in the
country, especially in Iowa. And I really credit the program
for getting the ball rolling. And I think we are going to
accomplish what we set out to accomplish.
Mr. MARSHALL. Thank you for all what you do. I yield back.
Chairman BLUM. Thank you, Dr. Marshall.
I now recognize the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Comer, for
5 minutes.
Mr. COMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is always good to
see fellow farmers in Washington on the Hill testifying.
My first question is for Mr. Weber. We have a fair amount
of pork production in Kentucky, the majority of which is in my
congressional district. Can you give us a quick example of some
of the Federal permits you are required to have to operate a
hog barn?
Mr. WEBER. Well, basically, from the state of Iowa's
standpoint, I certainly can. We are required to go through a
master matrix program in the state of Iowa. DNR is involved
with that. They have basically final approval of that. It goes
through our county board of supervisors. It is a points-based
system on siting new facilities. Not easy to do. It is not easy
to do. It is not easy anymore to find a location that will
gather you enough points in the master matrix to build any
sizeable type operation. There is still room for some 2,400
head finishing sites and so on, but when you start going to
4,800 or larger sites, it is extremely difficult to get siting.
And there is a lot of objection to a lot of those that are
done. But the master matrix, what we use in Iowa, again, I
think a very good program. We want buildings to be built in the
right place, that they are not offensive to neighbors, and so
on and so forth. I think it is working very well, but it is
coming under more and more scrutiny every day.
Mr. COMER. How long does it take the average farmer if they
wanted to get all the permits necessary to begin construction
on the infrastructure?
Mr. WEBER. I would say you better plan on 2 years. A
minimum of 2 years' time.
Mr. COMER. And that is the same problem we are having in
Kentucky. It is very unfortunate. Very few business plans would
succeed in any industry if it took 2 years to get approval from
the permitting process. So that is an issue that obviously we
need to try to work on. I think the president, with his focus
on reducing the regulatory burden on small businesses, I think
he is aware of this. I know Secretary Perdue is. It is
something that as a member of the Ag Committee, it is certainly
important to me, and we are going to keep trying to streamline
the regulatory process to get the Federal government out of the
way for the private sector and allow a quick decision. It does
not take 2 years to decide whether or not that permit is going
to be approved.
My question for the farmers on the panel, how would the
revitalization and the possible expansion of the H2A program
benefit the Ag sector in my home state of Kentucky where we
have poultry, we have tobacco, soybeans, corn. These are the
top commodities in Kentucky. Can you all touch on that?
Mr. WEBER. Agriculture is in desperate need of a workforce.
The pork sector and the poultry sector are together on this.
The H2A program, H2AC program would allow these people to come
into our country for at least 10 months to a year's time. We
need that. We desperately need that.
We have got plants, we have new packing plants in the state
of Iowa that are not going to second shift because they cannot
get enough help. They cannot get enough labor. We have got
plants under construction that I know the owners of that lay
awake at night worrying about getting the help to man these
plants when they are up and running. And so I think it is a
huge issue for agriculture. It is absolutely a huge issue and
we need some reform to allow these people to come to our
country that are willing to work and have a set of criteria to,
whether they go back or renew their visa or whatever it is, we
desperately need that in agriculture.
Mr. BRUNKOW. And I absolutely agree with Mr. Weber. We have
to have those workers. They are very necessary for us to
produce the food and fiber we all need. We need some sort of a
common sense streamlined approach to that. I know many of our
plants, just like Mr. Weber said, are struggling to find
workers, worry about the documentation of the workers they do
have. And so we need to find a way to help out the people that
are willing to work and help us.
Mr. COMER. One last question. Could you touch real quickly
on the impact the ELD is having with livestock transportation?
I represent, my district goes all the way to Eastern Kentucky,
and it takes a long time to haul those cattle from Eastern
Kentucky or even the Carolinas and Virginia all the way out to
the Midwest, to the feed lots. We have worked hard to get the
exemption for livestock haulers. My time has run out but real
briefly touch on that impact of that regulation.
Mr. BRUNKOW. There is another regulation that needs some
common sense applied to it. As livestock haulers, you have got
to get the livestock from point A to point B in a timely
manner. It may take a little bit longer than those regulations
require. And just the burden of the electronic logbooks are
burdensome.
Mr. WEBER. Another classic example of exactly why we are
here. We needed to hear from the livestock sector before rules
were printed and implemented, and I think that is going to
happen. I think we are going to have the opportunity to have
input in that, but certainly, hauling perishable goods is
different than hauling a lot of other material. And we want to
be safe. We want to have good equipment. But it is a different
world out there when you are hauling livestock. Fourteen hours
in a day, a total of 14 may or may not be enough to get the job
done.
Mr. COMER. Thank you all very much. I yield back, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman BLUM. Thank you, Mr. Comer. I noticed you omitted
Kentucky bourbon as one of the products of your state. Is that
on purpose?
Mr. COMER. No. No. I am proud of the bourbon, especially
Maker's Mark which is in my district.
Chairman BLUM. Thank you for those excellent questions.
I would now like to recognize the gentleman from Ohio,
Chairman Chabot, who is also, as I said previously, Chairman of
our full Small Business Committee.
Mr. Chairman, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And even though I am the Chairman of the Full Committee, I
am actually on other Committees as well, and I was in Judiciary
for the past hour or so. So that is why I did not make it
earlier. And I apologize. And some of the questions that I may
ask may have already been asked or you may have referred to
them in your testimony. If so, I apologize. But it never hurts
to let it sink in twice or sometimes multiple times. Or at
least I find that to be the case.
So my first question I would like to ask you about is we
hear a lot that one of the groups that is most significantly
adversely impacted by the estate tax is farmers. And small
businesses also in general can be impacted, and of course, by
definition, most farmers are small businesses. But have you
seen, do you know stories about, is that true or is that just a
myth? Sometimes you will hear from folks who are not concerned
about that. They will say, oh, that is really not true. But I
think it is, and I have heard from others. Would anyone like to
comment on that about the impact of the estate tax on farmers?
Mr. BRUNKOW. Oh, it is absolutely true. One my family
worries about constantly. As I said, one of our farms we
homesteaded in the 1860s. That has been passed down through the
generations. And as we pass that through it gains value every
time. We may be cash poor but our net worth looks pretty good.
But when it comes to, you know, one of the things I worry about
is paying the taxes, that burden, when the income just does not
add up. We have no intention of ever selling any of the
property we have. That property is part of us. That property,
it is as much a part of me as anything and I cannot imagine
selling it. But the burden that the estate tax would bring if
it was passed directly on down to me might force some of that.
I certainly do not have the cash on hand, and I do not really
want to refinance to pay for the estate tax.
Mr. CHABOT. Yeah. And as you know, I mean, we have a long
time in this country bemoaned the fact of the fewer and fewer
family farms being out there and what an important part of the
American being, the American story family farms are.
Have you heard, is it true that sometimes literally the
family farm does have to be sold and does not go down to the
next generation because it has to be sold literally to pay the
taxes? Anybody?
Mr. WEBER. I think that scenario could easily exist. I
personally have not heard of that happening. I think about this
a lot at my age. But I guess I might have a little different
view. The estate tax does not bother me if the exemption keeps
up with inflation or is above, you know, where it is now, in
our area that probably is okay. If we eliminate the estate tax,
we need to keep a stepped up basis for our errors. Those would
be comments I would make on it. We cannot give them both up
because that is absolutely not going to work. If you have
multiple children in your family and they may want to sell some
property, they cannot be hit with the tax. So, stepped up basis
is critically important to us. The estate tax, it could and can
be a big hit if people have not planned for it. And certainly,
increasing the exemption, the lifetime exemption was, I think,
the right move because it was well overdue for where inflation
was and the price of land.
Mr. CHABOT. And as you have mentioned the exemption, it was
in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that was passed last December that
the president signed into law, did double the exemption.
Mr. WEBER. Yes.
Mr. CHABOT. And so I assume you would agree that is
certainly a step in the right direction?
Mr. WEBER. Yes.
Mr. CHABOT. Okay.
Mr. WEBER. Correct.
Mr. CHABOT. Many of us did want to and still want to
eliminate it all together. We think it is unfair that when an
individual or family who has already paid taxes on it once,
that it is not right to pay taxes again on it another time
based upon death. We think that is unfair, but we do think
this, and I notice by nodding, both, at least you gentlemen
agree that that was the proper move.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman BLUM. Thank you, Chairman Chabot.
We are now going to start our second round of questions.
And I would like to recognize Mr. Schneider, the Ranking Member
for, well, as long as he wants to take.
Mr. SCHNEIDER. I will be quick, but actually, Mr. Brunkow,
I want to talk to you. Just dig a little bit more about the
Flint Hills because you touched on it. And it is a unique
ecosystem, not just in Kansas and Oklahoma but in the entire
country, distinct. And you talked about the need to have the
annual burn, controlled burn.
What are the invasive species you worry about, and what
would be the impact of those species coming in?
Mr. BRUNKOW. Well, it starts out as shrubs, whether that be
bock brush, dogwood, those kind of things. Builds up to cedar
trees, eastern redcedar tree, and eventually, larger trees. It
just progresses. The pretty ecosystem is not a stable ecosystem
and it wants to progress into a forest if left alone. Without
the fire, it will progress. And there is plenty of examples of
that just around my hometown where development has not allowed
for burning and brush has not been controlled. And you can see
the shrubs turn into small trees. Small trees burn into large
trees. And eventually, you have a forest area with a lot of
underbrush, with a lot of fuel, and there again, I talked
about----
Mr. SCHNEIDER. The second issue; right?
Mr. BRUNKOW.--the wildfire danger, which is a very real
danger. But also, you lose that ecosystem.
Mr. SCHNEIDER. I want to take it to the logical conclusion.
What is the impact to our industry of the prairie moving to a
progression towards forest rather than prairie?
Mr. BRUNKOW. We lose a lot of grazing lands that we use for
our cattle right now. As that progresses, as the brush takes
over, as the invasive species take over, the grazing capacity,
the carrying capacity of those lands is greatly diminished, if
not completely lost.
Mr. SCHNEIDER. Right. And I know the answer but I am going
to ask it anyway. There is a reason that this is cattle land
and not like Kentucky, Illinois where I am from, Iowa, we are
not growing corn because of the terrain and the ecosystem.
Mr. BRUNKOW. The terrain and the rocks.
Mr. SCHNEIDER. Right. So it is not that you replace one for
the other; it is cattle thrive in this ecosystem. I am going to
say this wrong. Farmers will struggle harder because you cannot
till the soil. So the need to maintain the ecosystem as a
prairie is important.
Mr. BRUNKOW. Exactly.
Mr. SCHNEIDER. I am asking leading questions but that is
where this is unique. When we set rules across the country, we
have to be able to have the--and we talked earlier about Mr.
Martins working with the states, understanding of each
ecosystem is different.
I want to turn to you on that, Ms. Ristino, because you
come at this from both having been in the Federal government,
but also studying it and trying to understand it. How do we do
better at this? And you touched on this a little bit with your
strategies, but I am going to give you the last couple of
minutes of my time. What are the takeaways we should, as
policymakers, focus on to say we have to do a better job of
creating that balance to ensure the prosperity of our farms,
protect our environment, and the security and safety of our
food supply?
Ms. RISTINO. Well, it sounds simple but we have to work
together. I mean, because clearly we have real environmental
challenges, especially with climate change. And then loss of
soils, clean water, and we want to be food secure moving
forward. We want to encourage farming. We are losing farmers.
Farmers are getting older and going to retire. Much of the land
will be turning over to hopefully new farmers. And so estate
planning and working together to make sure that we have that
next generation and that we protect those resources is really
important. But I think it takes a lot of hard work. And my
colleagues here at the table talked about the fact that working
with the state has been easier than NRCS, who used to be a
client of mine, but I know that NRCS tries to be highly
collaborative and works with organizations like Ducks Unlimited
or Pheasants Forever and works with the states and works with,
say, the Iowa Soybean Association. Those highly collaborative
relationships with farmers on the ground and with the
institutions that those farmers are familiar with are
incredibly important but it does take a lot of work and we have
a lot of challenges. But there are places like Iowa, excuse me,
that has made some real strides with nutrient management. There
are also places in Wisconsin that have been successful as well
working together on watersheds. But it takes a lot of
collaboration and the real will to voluntarily, collaboratively
come together to make those changes.
Mr. SCHNEIDER. Thank you. I appreciate that.
And I will use my last couple of seconds to emphasize two
other points.
Immigration reform, as you touched on, Mr. Weber, we need
to make sure that we have that work supply and I think there
are ways we can find to work across the aisle to do that.
But we are also losing people. Your family is unique. Not
unique, but it is distinct. Too many people are leaving the
Heartland, if you will, but creating opportunities, whether it
is education. We have veterans coming back, and whatever we can
do, especially to help veterans, maybe go to farming for first
generation would be a wonderful thing.
So with that, I yield back.
Chairman BLUM. Thank you, Mr. Schneider.
Brad mentioned the word ``balance,'' and that leads me
right into my question. I tend to think of it as right-of-way
lines and, you know, businesses, I am a small business person,
we can handle regulations as long as they fit within the right-
of-way lines. Are you with me? So they are reasonable, you have
time to adapt to them so they do not bankrupt your business,
you do not have to hire a bevy, with all due respect, a bevy of
lawyers to comply. So I would like to hear from the three
gentlemen that are in business, are we inside or outside the
right-of-way lines? And I would like to hear from Iowa and
Kansas's standpoint. Are your states inside or outside? And
then the federal government, are we inside or outside the
right-of-way lines? And if we are outside, is it because the
rules are too complex? Is it because it takes too much time to
comply with them? Is it because it is too much out-of-pocket
expense? And so I would just like to hear your thoughts. Inside
or outside the right-of-way lines? Federal government versus
state?
Mr. MARTINS. I would say the state is inside the lines.
They make sense. And they come and talk to us and they help us
get ready. The Federal government sometimes falls outside of
the lines because they are trying to make one compliance rule
fit everything and they need to get more input to make it
adjustable. You know, you still have to have rules and you
still have to have compliance, but not everything is going to
fit into one highway I guess I would say.
Chairman BLUM. Mr. Weber?
Mr. WEBER. And I think there have been times. I think the
two I highlighted in my presentation were two that I would say
got outside the line. Big regulations affecting the entire
country, and there just was not enough input. I am talking
about the WOTUS rule and I am talking about the GIPSA rule. And
so to me those were two that to me got outside the line. There
are a lot of regulations, Federal regulations that have come
down to us that I think are very workable and livable that we
live with every day. It has got to be the challenge. It is
about this transparency I talked about. I think if we can be
more transparent, I think we can stay in the lanes that you are
talking about.
The industry you are trying to regulate needs to be
involved in some way, shape, or form, or at least have a chance
to have input into developing the regulation to achieve the
goal you are after, whatever agency it is, whether it is EPA or
whoever it might be, OSHA, whatever it might be. I think they
need to talk to these people, make it more of an education,
more of an incentive type process than just say we are going to
write it and you are going to live by it. And that does not sit
well in the country.
Chairman BLUM. Mr. Brunkow?
Mr. BRUNKOW. I would absolutely agree. Our state has been
within those right-of-ways for the most part. Federally, we
veer out of them, sometimes fairly severely, in the case of
WOTUS, and there needs to be more transparency. There needs to
be more input from those affected by the regulations. And as I
said, we want to work with them. We want to work with and
ensure that we are doing the right thing, but there is a limit.
And you asked if they were burdensome, if they were expensive.
Yes. The answer is yes. They can be.
Chairman BLUM. I thought it might be.
Mr. BRUNKOW. We want to make sure that they are common
sense, that they work for us, and that we can live within that.
Chairman BLUM. And then, Ms. Ristino, one of the parts of
you presentation today, testimony, was outreach. And what I
hear here is I am hearing the states are within the right-of-
way lines. Federal government can get outside of the right-of-
way lines. So is this an outreach program? Is it a problem or
is it a problem with not getting enough input when they are
making these rules and regulations? Or both?
Ms. RISTINO. Well, I think when you are at the Federal
government and you are governing essentially the entire
country, you cannot have or you do not have naturally that
close connection except through your representatives to
Congress because it is so large. But I do think there are ways
that we can innovate that are better than notice and comment
because there are only certain groups and certain people that
have enough access or wealth or time to really feel that they
can access that kind of method of providing input. I think we
saw that with the FSMA rollout that notice and comment was not
enough and the FDA did listening sessions and went around. And
I know the USDA also does listening sessions especially during
a Farm Bill cycle. I think that, but also, there are going to
be other ways, too, that we can have better communication and
outreach and more productive conversations regarding how we can
work together to actually make changes on the ground that do
not harm producers but also make real measurable improvements
to the environmental outcomes on working lands in America.
Chairman BLUM. Thank you. And that was votes, so the timing
worked out beautifully here.
I would just like to make some closing remarks briefly. I
would like to thank our witnesses for being here today. I
thought your testimony was excellent. It was a great
conversation. We appreciate your testimony very much.
It is clear that we have more work to do to ensure that our
nation's small farmers, who play a vital role in our economy,
are not being hurt by federal regulations. A ``one-size-fits-
all'' approach to federal regulations is not the right approach
for small farmers.
As chairman of the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Energy and
Trade, I look forward to working with my colleagues to find
solutions that will lighten some of these regulatory burdens
that have been discussed today, not only for our farmers but
for all small businesses across our great nation.
I now ask unanimous consent that members have 5 legislative
days to submit statements and supporting materials for the
record.
Without objection, so ordered.
And if there is no further business to come before the
Committee, we are adjourned. And I would just like to adjourn
with the final words, I think it was Mr. Brunkow said, we are
all in this together, basically. So more communication would be
a great thing.
And that concludes our hearing. Thank you very much.
[Whereupon, at 11:48 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]