Senate Standing Committee on Agriculture

Our IT personnel will put you back on mute when you are done. Once recognized to speak, please make sure you can be seen on the screen. State your name and then you are ready to address the Committee. Today we are holding our first informational hearing on the U.S. Farm Bill, update on the 2023 reauthorization, and its impact on Californians. For today's hearing, we will listen to both panels of witnesses on the agenda prior to taking any public comment.

Once we have heard from all witnesses, we will have a public comment period for those who wish to provide input on topics in today's agenda. First and foremost, good morning and welcome back to the State Senate Committee on Agriculture. Before we begin, I want to give a warm welcome and thank you to our Committee consultant Rochelle Everhart, Committee assistant Sienna Kendall for putting together this important hearing. I also want to give a warm welcome to our Committee Members.

This year, we have new faces in our Committee. Welcome to Vice Chair Senator Shannon Grove, Senator Marie Alvarado-Gil, and Senator Steve Padilla. As our viewers can see, we are a small Committee, but as a new chair of this Committee, it is my goal and vision, with the help of the Committee Members, to elevate the role and importance of agriculture. There is urgency in elevating agriculture because climate change is threatening our food security beyond ways we can physically see.

Experts believe that if not more is done to adapt, global yields could decline by up to 30% by 2050. These threats impact us all, but they are first and most felt by those living in rural communities. Senior fellow for the Brookings Institute, John W. McArthur stated that in one of his reports that one of global society's foremost structural changes underway is its rapid aggregate shift from farm-based to city-based economies.

But one corresponding downside is that the city based societies become increasingly disconnected, certainly physically, likely, psychologically and physiologically. Sorry, can't pronounce that word today. From the practicalities of rural livelihoods, especially agriculture, the crucial economic sector that provides food to fuel humanity. It is my vision for this Committee to help reconnect the importance of rural communities and the role they play in our food system. That is why last year I attended the climate conference in Egypt.

The conference was really a breakout on the climate scene for agriculture. As a matter of fact, agriculture was one of the headline issues called out in the Charmel Sheikh Implementation Plan with the establishment of a four-year joint work plan to ensure that food and agriculture remain on the International Climate Agenda in the coming years. And why is that?

It turns out that people realizing that the food system generates one-third of all greenhouse gas emissions, California has always taken pride in leading and providing food for the world. But we must give agriculture the attention it deserves, one that extends beyond farming and considers everything within the food system. That is why I felt important to have our state weigh in on the reauthorization of U.S. Farm Bill.

By bringing together the stakeholders who have a vested interest in the state state agricultural economy, the Legislature can better advocate for the needs of our farmers, ranchers, and rural communities. As part of the Senate's Effectiveness and Accountability Initiative, the Senate Committee on Agriculture is holding this hearing to look at the 2023 reauthorization of the U.S. Farm Bill with California's priorities in mind.

The goal is to ask those who work with the programs that receive funding from the Farm Bill what is working and what might need more funding and attention. The U.S. Farm Bill is an omnibus bill governing policy in many areas related to agriculture, including crop insurance, food assistance, conservation programs, and rural development for California's diverse agricultural sector. As a chair of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, I want to thank the witnesses here today for providing us with their expertise on programs impacted by the Farm Bill.

For the purpose of timing, I will ask each presenter to speak between 5 and 10 minutes, keeping the hearing around 2 hours. The public will have the ability to comment at the conclusion of the presentations. Once again, thank you for being here today and to all of our witnesses for your participation in this hearing. Before we proceed, I wanted to provide an opportunity to our Committee Members and to our Vice Chair to give any comments before we begin with the hearing.

Good morning. I want to thank all of you. Who are here today, Senator Alvarado-Gil, one of the new Members of the freshman class here in the Senate, as well as new to the Ag Committee. It is my pleasure and my honor to be here. I serve the fourth district, which is predominantly agricultural. I cover from Truckee all the way down to Bishop,, Death Valley and the Central Valley, Stanislaus County.

So for me, this is a wonderful opportunity to jump right in to support our growers, our farmers, our producers, our farm workers, and ensure that we are thriving in our agricultural economy here in California. And I am 100% committed to ensuring that the voice of our agriculture community is represented here in the Senate. Thank you.

Thank you. And at this moment, I would like to invite our first panel to come forward. We have Congressman Jim Costa, who represents the 21st Congressional District and Member on the House Committee on Agriculture. Karen Ross, secretary of the California Department of Food and Agriculture, and Dan Sumner, Professor of agriculture and resource economics at UC Davis. We'll go ahead and begin with Congressman Jim Costa, who is with us via Zoom. And please begin when you are ready. Congressman.

Thank you very much, Senator Hurtado, and for the other Members of the Senate Agriculture Committee, an important Committee in California, and I appreciate having the opportunity to testify before you on what is a very important subject matter as we reauthorize the Farm Bill this year, a process that Congress undergoes every five years to refocus on the priorities of American agriculture policy throughout the nation and its impact regionally. And for all of you.

And by the way, congratulations, Senator Hurtado, for your chairmanship and other Members that are on the Committee. I'm looking at the Committee room this morning, and I have fond memories. As the Senator knows, this is a Committee that I used to Chair when I was in the State Senate. It was a bit different then. It was the Senate Agriculture and Water Committee. The portfolio was a bit different. But those were terrific years that I had an opportunity to do the work that you're doing today.

For six of the eight years I was in the State Senate, I chaired the Committee. So I know the challenges that you face and the important role that you play. Let me begin by saying food is a national security issue and we should treat it as such. The majority of Americans, I think, don't really think about it in those terms.

The majority of Americans get their food out of a grocery store or their favorite restaurant or fast food place, and they think there's all the food they need. Right. They don't understand the challenge and the difficulty of getting that food to the grocery store or to their favorite restaurant. They don't understand the hard work it takes for farmers, ranchers, dairymen and women, and the farm workers, the campacinos that are some of the hardest working people you'll ever meet in your life.

I know because I've done that work. As a third-generation family farmer, my family and I have been engaged in that effort to put food on America's dinner table every night. And so the importance of that and the importance of having a farm policy that reflects the needs of our country and every region is, I think, very critical. Very critical not only to put that important nutritious.

The highest production of food in terms of value and in terms of nutrition than grown anywhere in the world is in California. We're very proud of that. The number one agricultural state in the nation and has been for decades with almost 400 commodities that are growing in California and the bounty full of harvest. 20% of the milk produced in the entire country is produced in California. Almost half the nation's fruits and vegetables are grown in California. 70% of the world's, the world's almonds and pistachios.

50% of the world's pistachios are grown in California. And the tomato production is, again, so much of what we produce in California is eaten throughout the country and in areas where there is extreme food shortages in nations that desperately need it. As a matter of fact, 44% of California's agriculture is exported. And the recent challenges with the pandemic and supply chains in our ports of Los Angeles Long Beach and Oakland have reminded us that we need to invest.

We need to invest in our supply chains to allow us to take advantage of markets where we can compete and where we have products to sell. But with the inability to get consignments on those container ships, it has dramatically impacted our ability to sell our products abroad. We're trying to change that. And we passed legislation the President signed into law that gives us a better job to do just that.

But we've also had supply chain issues within our country with the railroads and getting feed car trains to California to support our dairy and poultry industry. The list goes on. We have lessons to learn. Last fall, it was determined that the annual dollars that went to the farm gate exceeded $51.1 billion, ensuring that California is still the number one agriculture state in the nation. But we have challenges. We have challenges that we have to address.

And therefore, it's important that we look at the reauthorization of the Farm Bill and that the State of California, the Senate Agriculture Committee, which you and Chair, Senator Hurtado, and other Members that are on this, that we work closely together and we communicate during this next year as we're marking up the Farm Bill. The Farm Bill. I think, as most of you know, and certainly it's an honor to be on this panel with the other two witnesses.

But Secretary Karen Ross, who's a friend of mine and who's worked back here in Washington, Secretary, as administrative assistant to Secretary Vilsack, knows the challenges of rewriting the farm Bill. And she's in a great position to give the Committee advice as to the other witness as well. But as I will tell you, and she will tell you, there are 12 titles in the Farm Bill that we reauthorize, the commodity title. There's the conservation title, trade title, nutrition programs. And of course, they're important.

And they also break down into the school lunch and breakfast program, SNAP and WIC, Women, Infants, and Children and credit program title, rural development, research and related matters, forestry, energy, horticulture, crop insurance, and other miscellaneous items. And I think for the benefit of the Committee, it's important to think in these terms. The Farm Bill that we authorize every five years is a safety net.

It's a safety net to America's farmers, ranchers, dairymen and women, and farm workers, but it's also a safety net to American consumers. The nutrition programs are a critical component of the Farm Bill. For working poor, for those that are part of the needy and have hunger issues, young and old alike, people who are retired, people with disabilities, veterans. So many of these folks rely on the nutrition programs in the Farm Bill as well as the other titles that I spoke of.

So look at it and think about it as America's safety net, not only to our agricultural community, which is less than 4% of our population, but to a large, significant part of our population that without the benefit of the nutrition programs in our school lunch and school breakfast would be hungry. It's said that many of our children that go to school, the best nutritious meal they get out of the day is either school lunch or school breakfast.

It's hard enough to teach kids that if kids are hungry, good luck. In the district I represent that overlaps with you, Senator Hurtado, parts of our great Samuel King Valley, we have significant, incredible agricultural production and wealth, yet at the same time, we have significant poverty. My congressional district and the congressional district that Congressmember David Valladale represents have the two highest levels of SNAP, or food stamp recipients in the entire State of California. Think about that.

52 congresspeople and our two districts in the San Joaquin Valley have the highest level of people who rely on food stamps or the Women, Infants and Children's Program. So that's why it's important to understand that it's a safety net that is so critical to not only all of California, but to our entire nation.

So I think from my perspective, when we look at the priorities that I'm focusing on, we need to ensure the Environmental Quality Incentive Program, otherwise known as EQIP, and the Regional Conservation Partnership Program that includes practices in 2023, such as alternative management and flexibility as we continue to manage our water resources, but deal with climate change and air quality. And I know that Secretary Ross will talk about that.

I told you that earlier that we produce 20% of all the milk products in the entire country here in California. But when my family was involved in the dairy business, Costa Brothers' Dairy, there were 20,000 dairies in California. That was over 40 years ago. We were the number one dairy state then. As a matter of fact, there are counties in the valley that produce more milk than Wisconsin. And we're proud of that fact. But there are now 1,200 dairies plus in California.

And when we were in the business, the average size was milking 250 cows. The average size of a dairy in California today is milking over 2,000 cows and three and 4,000 cow dairies and 5,000 cow dairies are not unusual. And so we have to deal with the issue of manure management and methane and the salt load on our groundwater. And the dairy industry is being very innovative. They're taking advantage of programs like EQIP. They're taking advantage of regional conservation programs.

I saw in an article in the Farm Bureau publication last fall, Ag Alert, that, at that time, there were 119 out of the 1200-plus dairies in California that had implemented dairy digesters. Dairy digesters is a way to handle methane. It's a way to handle the water management. And guess what? You can develop electrical power as a result of that. I think with the incentives that California adds, plus with those that are in the Farm Bill, we can add to that number significantly in the upcoming will.

That will not only bring other energy to our grid, that's necessary renewable energy, but it will help deal with the issues of methane and also water waste management. And that's a good example. There are also improvements in the Dairy Margin Program that I'm closely working with the California dairy industry. We increased in the last Farm Bill for California dairy producers to enter into the market access program, the Milk Marketing Order, which has been very helpful to California dairies.

That was one of the ways we helped in the last Dairy Bill. We're also looking to provide additional emergency disaster assistance programs. And with the extreme droughts we've had for the last three years, and then in the last two months, we get more rain and snow than we know what to deal with. And that talks about an effort to reauthorize and provide additional funding for water conservation and better water management. We also need to increase funds for the Market Access Program in foreign markets.

I have introduced legislation that would double the funding for the Market Access Program. This allows us to compete on a level playing field with other agricultural producers that are subsidized in ways that otherwise we would not be able to compete with. 44%, as I said earlier, of California's agriculture is exported and therefore, increasing the Market Access Program is important to allow our ability to continue to compete as we export products.

In addition to that, we need to ensure that we provide additional pest preservation. That remains in efforts. We do a lot with California's Department of Agriculture for Pest Management, Research, and Development. We've had problems with infestations of fruit flies and other things over the years. This is an important area. In addition to that, we need to provide additional support for animal disease, animal disease prevention and management.

Additional funding for investing in research for specialty crop initiatives is critical, and we need to do everything we can to ensure that the US Department of Agriculture provides support with the California Department of Agriculture for Plant Pest Disease Prevention Research. I'm certain that the Secretary will talk more about that. In addition to that, I am a co-sponsor of legislation that will provide and reinstate the waiver for the Specialty Crop Research Initiative, a matching requirement that was taken out of the 2018 Farm Bill.

Finally, we have the Save Our Sequoias Act, which is a priority to look at bipartisan legislation that Speaker Mccarthy and I and other Members of the California delegation to protect part of our natural heritage and resource, which is the great redwoods of California. And with these horrific fires that we've had in recent times, we've seen threats to our redwood groves. But this underlines a more broader issue, and that's better management of our forests.

We frankly have not done a very good job in recent decades, not only in California, but other western states in forest management. This Administration has plused up the forest management. As many of you know, the United States Department of Forestry is under the USDA, the United States Department of Agriculture. As a matter of fact, the current head of the U.S. Forest Service is a Californian who did a terrific job when he was in California.

But with horrific fires, it just goes to underline and the growth that we have not been able to manage, how horrific these fires can be and the damages that they create to life and property throughout the state, and the amount of resources and costs to California. So this plusing up to do a better job of our water management, I mean, our fire management, our forest management in turn, also helps provide greater water resource.

Because what this additional growth has taken a great deal of water that universities such as UC Merced and others have determined would otherwise flow into our reservoirs. So forest management is a big part of this. One other challenge that we're going to have to deal with, and I'm looking forward to your advice and your recommendations, but I want you to be mindful of this, and that's baseline funding, and the Secretary may talk to that as well.

All of these 12 titles have baseline funding based upon the last farm reauthorization, just as you have your budget process in the State of California and how you fund your various departments and agencies within the state. I know because I did that for the 24 years I was in Sacramento. We similarly have baseline funding for the various departments and agencies here in our nation's capital.

And the popular programs, the popular programs in the Farm Bill, like the EQIP Program that is oversubscribed, like the MAP Program that is oversubscribed, we're going to have to figure out a way to ensure that California's farmers, ranchers, dairymen and women, and our farm workers and other parts of our safety net are able to provide the continued funding in some areas. We, frankly, I believe, need to expand the amount of funding available on these popular programs that are oversubscribed.

But the baseline funding is going to be a challenge for us to do that, just so you understand. Clearly. So with that testimony, I want to thank you again for giving me an opportunity to relive a previous part of what I thought was my legislative productive efforts when I was in Sacramento.

I commend you for the hard work you do and the passion and the desire to represent your constituents, as I try to do with my district and part of the San Joaquin Valley that I represent. And obviously, when we work together, we can get a lot more done. And therefore, the importance of your Committee participating in the Farm Bill and giving us your input and your thoughts, I think is important for California, for California agriculture and the work that we do in feeding our nation.

So thank you so much. I'll be happy to answer any questions you might have at this time.

Thank you. Congressman, if you have a few extra minutes, I want to open it up to Committee Members for any questions that they may have for the Congress Member? Okay, I have one. I have maybe a couple, but I'll start with one at the moment. And that's, do you have a timeline for the passage of the U.S. Farm Bill or what should we kind of expect there?

Yes, we do, but in Congress, I suspect it's different than in the State Legislature. In the sense that we sometimes miss our timelines. But we have the timelines because if we didn't have timelines, it might be more challenging to produce the legislation when we need to. In this Congress, we have two years to, in essence, produce and reauthorize the Farm Bill. The hope is between the Senate and the House that we'll be able to do it by the end of this year. That's somewhat ambitious.

This is my fourth Farm Bill reauthorization, and I've had situations with past administrations, and notwithstanding whether I was in the minority or in the majority, and I've been in both when we've reauthorized the Farm Bill, just as I've been in Congress, when we've had republican and then democratic presidents. So I worked this with different situations in the House and the Senate. But the Chairman of the House Ag Committee, and we're holding listening sessions as we're beginning to do the work on the markup.

We held such a listening session last month at the Tulare Ag and Equipment Show, the international ag and equipment show. And we had nine members that were there. We had the speaker. It was wonderful to have him there. And we listened for 2 hours as people testified up and down the state on what their priorities were for the Farm Bill. We're having a similar listing session this month in Texas.

The Chairman of the Committee, Congressman G.T. Thompson from Pennsylvania, told me last week that he hopes to produce a Bill out of the Committee and out of the House floor before our August recess. That's an ambitious timeline. I don't know that we're going to meet that. Our August recess is for the entire month and then into the first week of September. And so whether we meet that timeline or not, but the law requires us to produce a farm Bill with a five-year reauthorization.

And sometimes we've gone beyond that timeline and we've had to have an extension. And then there's been threats in the past, and I've been in situations where President Bush vetoed the Farm Bill twice, and in a bipartisan fashion, we overrode his veto. So this legislation, and I failed to mention this, is one of the most bipartisan pieces of legislation that Congress acts on. And I'm hopeful that once again, we will maintain that bipartisan effort.

We're trying to do that here in the House, in the House Ag Committee. And I know from my conversations with Senator Stavinal from Michigan, who Chairs the Senate Ag Committee, and Senators Mitch McConnell and other Senators from the Midwest that they are busy working on a bipartisan piece of legislation there.

What will happen is, is we'll probably vote the Senate measure, they'll vote their measure out at some point in time, we hope, before the end of this year, and we will do the same in the House, and then we'll go to a conference Committee to iron out the differences. It would be great if we can do that before the end of this year. Secretary Vilsack and other departments and agencies will have input.

The Administration has its priorities and we have to consider them if we want the President to sign the Bill, of course. And so all of that has to take place, and we hope to do it before the end of the year. Now, whether or not that happens remains to be seen. I could see a scenario in which we go into next year, but hopefully we'll produce a Farm Bill to the President's desk sooner than later.

But that's roughly a timeline under a legislative calendar that one can never, always predict.

Thank you. And last question I have is really in regards to Title 12, I noticed that there's a new authorization for the USDA Office of Homeland Security and requires states to develop comprehensive strategic response plans regarding several factors. And just wanted to get any kind of insight that you may have on that particular item or anything in terms of food defense and what more could be potentially done here in California.

As I said on the opening of my statement, food is a national security issue, and we don't always think about it in those terms. But on Title 12, we're really attempting to try to see how we can work in a more cooperative fashion with the production of our food and fiber, from the farms to the processing facilities to areas where we provide value-added, as we do in California so well. And then we get it to the marketplace.

And when that food that is grown in our fields goes through all of those different hands, there's the potential where we could have efforts that food safety comes into question. And clearly we have a host of issues that we deal especially with our efforts to export a lot of our food products, on meeting phytosanitary standards, whether it's with Mexico or with Canada.

And then sometimes, sadly, we have countries that invoke nontariff barriers that really have nothing to do per se with food safety, but they use that for trade advantages. So we're trying to work with our customs and port authorities to deal with our food security issues and to ensure that the potential impact for terrorists to be engaged in our food supply chain, whether they be foreign terrorists or domestic terrorists, is one that we should never, ever lose sight of.

It's a different world that we live in today, and clearly these are areas that I think we need to be conscious of. And look how we can do a better job of ensuring that when Americans sit down at their dinner table, they've got absolutely the safest food that they could have anywhere in the world.

Thank you, Congressman, for that insight. And if there's no other questions, we want to thank you for participating in today's Committee hearing, and we really value your input, and we look forward to continue working with you.

Absolutely. And when you finish the efforts of your hearing today, any recommendations you have, we'll look forward to hearing and how we might be able to address them with the Members from California that are on the House Agriculture Committee.

And we'll be working together to try to ensure that we implement a Bill that not only produces this safety net for our entire country and for those who put that food on the dinner table every night, but for the nutrition programs, and we do it in the way that makes the most amount of common sense, as my mother used to say. So I look forward to working with all of you and very proud of, again, Madam Chairman, your new chairmanship.

And obviously, we see each other back home. Look forward to getting together here soon and working with all of you. So thank you so very much. And for the other panel Members, I'm sorry that I can't stay on, but I will look forward to reading your testimony, and we'll work together, because I work together with Karen all the time, and she does a terrific job, one of the best secretary of agriculture in our entire nation. So thank you so very much.

Thank you. Thank you, Congressman. And at this moment, we'll move on with our next panel speaker, which is Secretary Karen Ross. You may proceed.

Is there a button? It's on. Oh, okay. Great. Well, Congressman covered that very thoroughly. So I'm already crossing out a number of remarks here, and I'd really prefer to spend my time to convey, first of all, how important the farm Bill is, how we went about putting together the position paper that you have that was signed by my colleagues from three other agencies.

This has become an important part of our process to be able to show a California position because of all the ways that the farm Bill touches every citizen of California, whether they realize it on a daily basis or not.

So I would say and want to reinforce, yes, the farm Bill is a safety net, but I think it's really important that we also look at the farm Bill as an opportunity for growth, an opportunity to improve the health of our citizens, the health of our agricultural economy, and the health of our rural communities, because that's how broad and diverse the titles of the farm Bill are.

And I think if we start with that mindset and we think about some of the remarkable programs and investments that this Legislature and the Governor have made in recent years, this farm Bill and some of the federal spending that's now available couldn't come at a better time because of the change in our revenue picture. So I just wanted to call that out and say thank you. I also want to say thank you, Chairwoman, for having me here today.

And to all of you Members, you're new faces for me, and I'm looking forward to working with you. So with that, I just want to touch on some of the highest level programs that I think reinforce where I think we want to go on this bigger picture. One is that I want to thank my undersecretary, Christine Birdsong. She actually served as General counsel for the House Ag Committee a number of years ago. She has excellent experience.

She has helped lead a lot of our listening sessions, along with our state board Executive Director, Josh Eddie and our deputy secretary, Alma Cosina, to put together all of the comments, literally from over 100 stakeholders in addition to a number of ag organizations. We did public listening sessions virtual and in person. We had a number of in person roundtable discussions, and then we had unsolicited comments that were provided. Does this mean that every 40 million of our Californians got a chance to weigh in?

No, but we think we have a good sense of where the priorities are, and that's how we tried to sort them out. I would say the most resounding message we got wherever we were in the state is do not. At 1.0 there have been discussions about separating the nutrition title as a separate Bill. And what we heard in a resounding way is nutrition title is vital to the farm Bill. Production is vital to the farm Bill. Why would we separate those two things?

So the nutrition aspect of this, as the congressman said, it mitigates poverty. It helps people when times are tough, but it's self regulating in the way that if they have full time and are making a middle class income, they don't need to use the SNAP benefits. We also know that in California, we are undersubscribed in that program.

There's a renewed effort with our partners at DSS to really try to do even more education and outreach through trusted cbos to really increase the enrollment in a program at a time that it's very needed because of the loss of some of the benefits that were made available during COVID and the fact that we don't want to have even more numbers of food insecure citizens.

We have a little over 5 million Californians that now rely on the SNAP program, a couple of programs that I think are of interest and really speak to that opportunity. Piece one is the California Nutrition Incentive program, which the Legislature and the Governor have funded the last two years. With a $10 million appropriation each year, we've been able to leverage that into a $12.8 million federal grant from USDA.

This is an opportunity for our low-income citizens to get the coupons and use them and redeem them for double their value for fresh fruits, vegetables, tree nuts at farmers markets and small businesses, really keeping dollars circulating in those local economies. And I think that's the beauty of really thinking about some of these opportunities. They're meeting an important need. They're supporting local farmers, and they're creating economic opportunities within our rural communities.

One of the areas that the Farm Bill is so important and the congressman talked about this is the conservation title. We have seen so many disruptions from extreme weather, wildfire, drought, climate change is here. It's real. It's creating so many disruptions in farm productivity. And the conservation title can truly be part of that mitigation and adaptation.

We have had over $500 million of climate smart agricultural programs, healthy soils on farm water use efficiency, the methane reduction program that the congressman talked about, pollinator habitat programs at the Air Resources Board. I know that you're very aware of this, Chairwoman for the farmer, the engine replacement program, the phase out on ag burning, and the energy efficiency program over at CEC for food processing.

This is where the rural development title as well as the conservation title can provide support programs at a time where we may have fewer state dollars going into these programs. But we have proven with our pilot programs that these are effective programs. They're overly subscribed. They're bringing new innovation and technology to our farms, to our processing plants. And so there's real opportunities to really encourage more farmers to look at some different titles. But the conservation programs in this state are oversubscribed.

There's new money that was made available through federal spending in the last year. It's coming at the right time, as we've had reductions proposed for our on farm water use efficiency program. But I wanted you to be aware that technical assistance is key to making these programs work. We in October of last year, signed a memorandum of agreement with our colleagues at USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service, University of California Cooperative Extension, and the California Resource Conservation districts.

We're training all of our staffs together so that you can be speaking to anyone from any one of these agencies and learn about programs that are available through the agencies. Get technical assistance in applying for those programs so we can start to direct people more towards federal programs that have received increased dollars with some of the inflation Reduction act that was passed last year. Those will be critically important in this regard.

Crop insurance is vital to the state because of the sheer diversity of the many crops we grow, some at small acreage, but high value. They may not have crop insurance, so having disaster relief of some kind through noninsured crops and specialty crops is going to be critical with the kind of volatility that we're trying to manage.

In addition to our climate Smart Ag programs, I did want to call out marketing and the specialty crop block grant program and the specialty crop title for horticulture in particular colleagues, and you'll hear from Ian later this morning from the specialty crops and western growers and others have really added a lot of value to this farm Bill for California because of the focus on specialty crops. These are highly nutritious, fresh, high risk, high cost of production, high value.

These are really important crops for nutrition as well as for circulating dollars in our rural communities. That specialty crop block program, since the time it was created in 2008, has brought over three hundred twenty million dollars in block grants to the state we administer that it allows us to be more regionally responsive and more immediately responsive to needs of the farm community, the farm worker community, as well as for health and nutrition aspects.

And of course, we support increasing the map dollars, which is a way for us to continue to grow our exports, which are very vital to jobs in the fields and jobs at the ports. It's a full, comprehensive program. I want to call out. One of our programs here at the state that the Legislature appropriated dollars for is the Community Economic Resiliency Fund. Some really excellent regional planning going into how do we grow our economies?

Centers of excellence in the heart of the Central Valley is the Fresno Merced Future of Food Innovation initiative in the northern San Joaquin.

It's an initiative all around bioindustrial manufacturing, which is capitalizing on food and the food that we grow, the byproducts that come from processing that for food and beverage and repurposing those waste streams into useful products, including renewable energy, potential for alternatives to plastics and other petroleum based products, and creating a partnership with Lawrence Berkeley in proceeding with really identifying exciting new advanced manufacturing that's built on agriculture. Being front and center is where all of this can be made possible.

And I think there's real opportunities there, as well as for farm worker housing, something that's near and dear to my heart and so vital to our communities, and so want to make sure that I've raced through a lot of things, but the one thing I want to say to you is please call on us. We want to be available to go into depth. One of the things I learned as Chief of Staff at USDA is what an amazing Department the United States Department of Agriculture is.

I think there are areas at USDA that perhaps we've underutilized in the State of California. And I think the new challenges we face and the opportunities they bring allow us to really make an imprint on the farm Bill from a California perspective and really do what we like to do best in California.

Innovate, bring dollars to the state, build upon our research programs that are also funded through this to make sure that we continue to keep viability on our farms, health in our communities, and nutrition security for all of our citizens. Thank you for this opportunity. I'm happy to answer questions.

Thank you. And we'll go ahead and move to our next speaker, Dan Sumner, Professor of Agriculture and Resource Economics at UC Davis. And then after your presentation, we'll go ahead and do questions and comments for the panel.

Thank you, Senator. And thanks to all of you for inviting me. I want to say at the outset, I'm not representing the University of California here today. I'm giving you some perspectives of my own. And I wouldn't presume to speak for the. And as the secretary just said, given the fine presentation from the congressman and what the secretary just went through, I was crossing out things I don't have to say, which is great, and we can move along.

I do want to start with a little bit of historical perspective. Farm policy in the United States as a whole began long before there was a United States. Tobacco grown in North Carolina in 1820s, or, excuse me, the 1620s. There were policies related to that, and the same was true for the pilgrims in New England. So this goes back a long way. If we would have had a farm Bill, the programs creating the USDA would have been a part of it.

But that was during the civil war. That was a long time ago. And early on, a lot of our agricultural policy had to do with the abundant land, long before California was a state. Even so, that's a perspective we want to have on this. The farm Bill started 90 years ago, really, during the New Deal, the very early days of the new Deal. And lots of the most important things about that period with President Roosevelt was agriculture.

It was 30 or 40% of the people were tied directly to agriculture at that time. Not the tiny percentage we have now, but also a big chunk of the overall economy even larger than now, was agriculturally based. That meant a farm legislation. And so at that time, the nickname, the Farm Bill, really applied. I think it's been said here. But if not, we should remind ourselves that this is an authorization Bill. Mostly it authorizes programs, some of which are then automatically funded. They're called mandatory programs.

The others have to be appropriated. So every year, watch that appropriation Committee, different Committee within Congress, and that Appropriations Committee. So the farm Bill, and this happens all the time, authorizes a program. The program doesn't have the support over in the Appropriations Committee, and there's little or no funding for it. Now, that doesn't mean the authorization is irrelevant, because you can't get funding unless you have the authorization. So it's a two step process. But that's something for this Committee to watch.

Keep your eye also on the appropriation side, because it's really crucial. The big mandatory programs in the farm Bill are some of the food and nutrition items, especially the SNAP program, the old fashioned, what we used to call food stamps. And that's most of the money. So let's be clear. When people talk about $1.0 trillion Bill, most of that is food assistance, and it's really an income support program.

People with a debit card that they can use for food purchases, most people spend out of their own pocket as well, on top of that. And it reinforced what we knew about that program during the pandemic when people lost their jobs. We increased the availability of assistance in those programs. And it was very dramatic how that helped people in real need to have adequate diets. The other mandatory programs are the standard old fashioned farm subsidy programs. And I'm not afraid to use the word subsidy.

No Legislature likes to call something a subsidy, but that's what they are, and they do stimulate production. Let me say California participates in those, but for the most part, most of that money. California is 12 or 13% of us agriculture and gets two or 3% of that money. And it's not that people don't like Californians. Maybe they don't, but that's not the main reason. It's what we grow. Because the programs went back to the 1930s.

It's the bulk commodity programs that are especially supported by that title commodities, title dairy is part of it. But I'm going to get to that in just a second. So that means if you're representing California, we do produce corn and we do produce a lot of rice and a few other things that are supported there. But the bulk of that money doesn't come here and the more they spend there. It's just inevitable. There's less for California commodities, especially the fruits and vegetables.

And not to speak ill of anybody, it's just a reality we need to keep in mind if we go down the authorized programs, there's lots of titles. In the last farm Bill there were 12, but that's not etched in stone. And if somebody said in this farm Bill, gee, we need two extra titles, or gee, let's pull climate out of the conservation title and give it as a title, I wouldn't be shocked. Every farm Bill process is different. You've got different leadership.

Fortunately, as the congressman showed, we have people with senior leadership, people who have been around a while, and that's crucial. That's also on the Senate side. But there's also new Members and Members who've learned some things and said, gee, here's something that wasn't as important as it used to be, or is more important than it used to be, and let's emphasize it. So just because the last farm Bill had 12 titles doesn't mean that this one will.

It's also, as we just heard, not written in stone that it's going to be reauthorized in five years. I remember working on the 2012 Farm Bill. Well, look it up. There isn't one. It was 2014. These things slip. And that's something that encourages your Committee to be vigilant and perhaps patient. We'll see how they do on that. I'm not going to go title by title, but I will mention a couple of things where California is a bit unique. Trade is one of those.

Trade is absolutely crucial. And not just exports, imports, too. And they go together. And it's very easy to emphasize, gee, we want to export things and keep stuff out. Well, as the secretary knows, that doesn't work that way. It really has to be a two way street and to recognize that. And that's true when it comes to the technical barriers to trade often associated with phytosanitary or sanitary issues. Those have to be a two way street, too.

And USDA and the State of California have global leadership, great respect, and it's crucial that we keep that. And the farm Bill is important in that. The other thing I would emphasize about California is innovation. Our agriculture, even more than most places, relies on innovation. When I say that, let me mention that the farm Bill is so broad. Everybody has an interest and everybody has a special interest. I'm at the University of California.

When I say innovation, I think about R and D. There's an R and D title that funds some of my colleagues and some of my work. So watch what I say. I'm a special, you know, like almost everybody else. And you'll hear from a lot of us here this morning. We really believe that what we're telling you is crucially important. And I believe the economics of innovation is really what's behind the success of agriculture, not just here in California, but globally.

Remember, it's not that many generations ago that we wouldn't be here. We'd all be out at the farm scratching the ground, trying to stay fed. And it's innovation that has led to that. And then the last thing I'll say is our farms in California tend to be large by national standards and by global standards, and throughout the farm Bill, and watch for this. There's things that say, zero, well, we'll support milk, the milk industry, but only up to 100 cows. Where are dairy farms?

Just 100 cows? Vermont, someplace where they don't actually produce very much milk. So we have to watch that throughout the farm Bill. There are programs that California really can't take full advantage of because our farms are large, they're large, they hire a lot of people. There's a whole bunch of folks that depend on a California dairy farm that isn't eligible for some of the support that's available in other places. And that's just something to keep your eye on as you go through farm Bill programs.

I'll stop there. Thank you.

Thank you. At this moment, I'll go ahead and open it up to questions and comments from Committee Members.

Want to thank you, because this information was very thorough, very easy to follow. I did have a little bit of time there, Professor, where I said, ok.

I'm feeling some doomsday, but then you.

Picked it right back up.

So thank you.

So I do see this as an opportunity. What I'm missing is what do we, as a Committee Members need to do both here in California and in DC, to help move things along and to bring the voice of California farmers in our farm industry to DC decisions.

Well, I'll give you 2 seconds worth. And the secretary knows all the players and worked with them closely. She can tell you the inside story. But one thing I will say, and we heard this from the congressman, that our delegation relies on you folks as much as they're connected to people back home.

You're here every day, and I think speaking with the kind of expertise that you have and the knowledge and the working with the people back home, you can be a conduit of information that the Committee will respect. It was great news that Members of the Committee were here in California for the farm show, and the more you can invite them back, I think it really is an eye opening experience for even knowledgeable, experienced Members of the House and Senate.

When they get out to California, they learn two things. They learn that our farms are just like everybody else's farms. Farmers all over the country, in my experience, all over the world, are the same folks. And secondly, they learned that our farmers are really bright, talented people who are doing everything they can to get commodities and products out to consumers. So I think they learn great respect for our agricultural community when they get here.

If I could just add to that, I think that your voice to our congressional delegation in particular, to keep it unified on the positions. And the other thing is, I have to reinforce what Dr. Sumner has just said. People have a hard time grasping the scale and the diversity of what we do in California. We should all be so proud of it. And yes, we do have large farms, but 89% of our farms are 500 acres or less, and people are always surprised by that.

And we also have just the diversity of what we farm and the stewardship practices we use. The Chairman of the House Ag Committee spent over two and a half hours, just he and his wife, with our state board Chairman in helm California, which is right in the heart of Fresno county, and saw automation and technology and met with the farm workers and was just blown away by the, I call it the gology whiz aspect of what happens in the fields every day.

And so being able to help people see that is really. It's a fun, educational, and I think it's a way of unifying us around. It takes all that to bring food to the table.

Thank you.

I have a couple of questions anyone can really answer. If you have the answer to some of these questions. I'm really specifically kind of interested in, again, going back to the innovation, the research piece. I know that the UC system receives funding through the land grant. I would like to know a little bit more about that, if you're familiar with it and wanted to know where perhaps there may be gaps in funding for research.

Personally, I think that the CSUs and even the community colleges, especially in the rural parts of California, could use additional funding for research and wanted to see what you know about land grants, because that's something that I briefly kind of studied on my own, but would appreciate any additional comments and information.

I'll give you a bit. And Secretary Ross has worked very closely with all the universities in California and has been on advisory boards. And she'll have much more to say on this. Let me step first and say CSUs and community colleges are a part of the whole system with the UC, and I don't really think of much distinction there. I work very closely with people at Cal Poly or Fresno State or Chico State.

Often in the projects that I work on, they will help Fund me, I will help Fund them. And often it is with federal money. There are grants through USDA that we apply for. So these are competitive funds. And I will tell you that when it's a competition, we win. We are very successful at competing for funds when it's open because we have very good scientists in California. The second thing I'll say is there are lots of programs that disadvantage us.

And I'll just tell you, for example, they set aside funds for multi state programs. Well, that's great. You put Vermont together with Massachusetts, together with New Hampshire, and you qualify for a multi state program. What we can fit those in Sacramento county or know, and then we grow a number of commodities that really aren't grown anywhere. So if somebody says, here's all this money for multi state programs, work on almonds, well, sorry, we can't Fund that. Pistachios? No.

zero, well, we'll get somebody from New Mexico, who happens to be a UC Davis graduate, on the faculty of the University of New Mexico, where they do have a few acres of pistachios. The idea that a state with 40 million people has to do multistate stuff just doesn't work. I don't think it's a conscious bias against California. It's just a lack of awareness. And from the Federal Government they say, gee, multi state, that sounds like a good idea.

So the crop mix and these other things are a bit of a problem for the University of California and for the CSUs and for the community colleges when we do things jointly. I also want to emphasize community colleges are not primarily research organizations, and we don't want them to be. We want them to really focus on their teaching, but they can be involved in the innovation programs with us and particularly where they do things related to food and agriculture and those sciences.

So I think the University of California participates in all of those programs. The final thing I'll mention to you is the cooperative extension system, which we're so proud of in California. We do so well here in California, and that is also a federal program. So when we think of research and development, we think about going all the way out to getting something actually applied at the farm, actually used and I think that's a beauty of the system that we're very proud of and rightly proud of.

If I could just add a couple of perspectives to that, because I wholeheartedly agree with Dr. Sumner and I spend a lot of my lifetime advocating for more research dollars because public investment makes it trusted more than when it's all corporate or privately owned. So I just want to call that out, how important it is at USDA. There's the programs that he was talking about that are based on formuLA competition. And then there's the in house research arm of USDA, the agricultural Research service.

Historically, the research was focused on the six major commodity crops that were referenced earlier. And it's very difficult for many specialty crops we have, over the years, been able to eke our way into. I was with wine grapes for a number of years to make sure that all the crops that make up a nutrition profile can get that research. And the pest and plant diseases that we're going to have the plant breeding that's necessary.

There's three different areas that I really want to call out for special attention this time around. The need for automation will continue. It will ease the job of our current workforce. It will create new and different jobs in our workforce. But we do need automation for the kinds of crops that we grow is going to be very important. So that would be one important initiative. Two would be for food safety. We continue to be at the heart of the implementation of the Food Safety Modernization act.

It's more critical than ever that because of the huge capital changes that are having to be made on some of our small farms, just to upgrade some of their equipment and stuff, that we really focus on research results, practical findings that can help them with the implementation of food safety. And last, the state last month, or was it the end of January, February flew by, released the sustainable pest management roadmap to 2050, where we really want to identify even more biological and technology solutions to pesticides.

And that will require research and investment and capital to make that happen. And I think those are really ripe for bringing a California perspective to the research title of the US farm Bill. Thank you.

Let me quickly add one point and reinforce something the secretary just said. When we think about farm Bill funding for RnD, it's easy to think about farm productivity. But rural environment research is equally crucial. And we know that here in California we have huge expertise at, for example, the College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences at Davis that gets this kind of funding. Secondly, food safety research that we just heard about. And thirdly, nutrition research, because nutrition is a lot of what we're talking about here.

It's fundamental. It takes research in all those areas and the farm Bill can be a source of that funding. And it's not just the University of California again, it's the other universities working with the private sector. I will say so. Our research program isn't competing with the private sector research, it's complementing it. We do what we can do best, they do what they can do best.

Got it.

And continuing on the research piece, what is the UC systems or the education systems here in the state doing to protect intellectual property? What more could be done? Is there funding already in that, in terms of the recommendations that you've provided?

I'm going to look at Dan. I've been involved in the IP issues, but not to be an mean, they have very sophisticated and I think generally speaking, they work very, very well. It's a system that's put in place for UC. It's through the office of the President, the legal office and CSU has similar programs. But it's when you start a research project, you know what the IP agreement is going to be.

I'm looking at Dan because I want to make sure there have been disputes in the past that continue to prove this.

Me say so that's a really complicated technical issue and we're all going to hire our lawyers and settle it. But broadly speaking, the best way to look at this is the University of California does the part that we do best and the private sector does the part that they do best. And where we leave off for the most part, as the University is the public basic science and we want to be public.

We'll collaborate with researchers in Israel or Researchers in France on some wine grape genetics that isn't putting together a product that some rootstock company will sell. It's doing that basic part of science and then it's handed off generally to the more private sector people who will have planned patents and other things. Now it overlaps. Any good handoff, you got to have some overlap. And there have been conflicts there, but usually those can be worked out and they worked out ahead of time.

So a researcher at the University will know that their research can get pretty practical. And they worked out an agreement through the University and the private companies so that the handoff is smooth and to minimize the conflicts. And sometimes the University will get some royalties from that, they'll get some payments for that. Other times you'll have companies that Fund research saying we don't need any property rights, we don't need to own it. We just want to know what you're doing.

We want to be involved in the conversation because they can see the profitable opportunities later.

Let me say the final thing to say is on the extension side, there's lots of R and D done by private companies that they want the University to know about, because the University has credibility, as was just said, so that when they want farmers to believe that, say, some technology they're developing has some credibility, they'll encourage cooperative extension faculty, professors whose job it is to make sure technology gets extended, they want to get credibility with that group of people.

It helps them in their process, and it helps all of us because good technology gets adopted. So there's a couple of places where these handoffs happen. This full system, I would say those.

Field trials with farmers present the practical application, and that really is the strength of the cooperative extension.

We had, but he wanted us to ask on behalf, what is the regional eligibility for SNAP? Is it an option? Does that make sense? No?

Well, we can always circle back, too.

Yeah, I think I want to make sure I understand it. It has income criteria. Often one of the barriers is immigration status, which becomes a barrier. But I think it would be better for us to work with DSS and get you a fuller response to make sure we're answering what he was wanting to know.

And just one last question on my end for you, Secretary. You provided the Farm Bill recommendations. What's kind of been added, what's new in terms of the recommendations? It's not.

Yeah, I think one of the things we're acknowledging is just the risk that's been presented by volatility due especially to climate change-induced changes, and then just having gone through the disruptions of COVID and the supply chain that probably created more emphasis on crop insurance, the disaster relief, and making sure non-insured crops can have some way of being able to sustain themselves to get into the next crop year. The map program, because we've got setback so much, not being able--like last year was a year we produced the crops, but we couldn't ship them because of export supply chain. So we really need to double our efforts in that. Those would be the main ones. And then it's always been fundamental to California, the nutrition title, some of the newer programs, like the nutrition incentive program that I mentioned.

There we go. I wanted to follow up on the disaster relief because I think what we're seeing here in California is--due to climate change--is the increase in extreme weather patterns and that impacts our crops, particularly around our central valley and our Sierra region. I'm also cognizant of the wildfires, increasing wildfires, and how the smoke damage also impacts our farming community. So do you see an opportunity in this renewal of the Farm Bill to be able to emphasize those changes in climate change patterns? And are there situations here in California that we could escalate to bring that case study to DC?

Yeah, those are perfect examples. I know that for some of the crops that do have crop insurance, the risk management agency is taking a look at their process of how do they include those as addendums to a regular crop insurance package, if that's possible. The smoke taint issue is pretty challenging because it's a chemistry thing, it's a timing thing. How do you quantify it? You don't know it till later. We had the same situation in walnuts this year with that.

We had those 10 extreme heat days that broke every record in the book and the sunburn issues, or not having the nut finish its development. So they're definitely looking at, because we have so many crops, some of them have more advanced crop insurance programs, so they have more data, which is what underwriters need to be able to go there. That's why I think taking a look at those that don't have full coverage or the, I know they're continuing to do the whole farm coverage that is still in a demonstration phase, I think, as a way to bring people into managing risk through that tool in addition to disaster relief when it's necessary. There's not perfect answers yet. Takes a lot of data to put those together.

If I could just add one quick thing. A colleague of mine, Brittany Goodrich and others, and I myself over the years have worked pretty closely with the Risk Management Agency people trying to help them understand, talking to people in Kansas, trying to explain smoke damage for Cabernet Sauvignon grapes. And to their credit, they say, "we don't know how to deal with this, can you help us?"

And that's another place where the Secretary and you folks can help people in Washington understand the kind of diversity and the kind of risks that it may not occur to them what it means. So I really do appreciate you raising those kind of questions. They're not unique to California, but we just have more of them than everybody else.

And more frequently. I had one more question, and Congressman Jim Costa helped to validate one of my concerns as a new member, in that we have an Ag Committee, but we're not talking about water in this Committee. And so when I also look at the USDA Farm Bill, I'm missing that title on water. And when we're talking about feeding the world, we're talking about our ag community, our economy.

It feels to me like incomplete, that we're not talking about water and we don't have a title specific to water. Can you say a little bit about how that has evolved over history and what are some opportunities for us to advocate for?

I would say there has been, in my experience, including my time at USDA, there is a complete lack of understanding of western irrigated agriculture. In many parts of the country where crops are grown, they have too much water, or it's water so near to the surface that they're putting in drain tiles. So it is a situation that the western-wide drought is really calling the attention to not everything fits for western irrigated agriculture.

I can't say why there hasn't been a water title, but I would say it's because of the diversity of water situations throughout the country. However, again, NRCS has the most robust programs for on-farm water use efficiency. There was a very good article in the Sacramento Bee over the weekend, where they are now using EQIP dollars to fund some on-farm water recharge issues.

And I was just with Secretary Vilsack yesterday, and he's really looking at other ways that USDA can be more relevant to the water situation of the west. And I think if we think of it as a western caucus, western approach, there are many land issues because of the large amount of land that's owned by public federal agencies. And the water situations are something that we have in common.

If we can fix our water issues in western United States, these are the same water issues that they have in Africa and other places in the world for food security on a global basis. And I think we heard that in Egypt, didn't we, Senator?

Thank you both, so much for your testimony today and for answering all the questions that we have. And I look forward to continue working with you both. And I thank you for coming.

Thank you. I want to note that tomorrow, the UN has declared tomorrow the International Day of the Women's. So happy International Women's Day. Thank you.

Thank you both. Okay, we will move on to our second panel, if you don't mind. Coming forward, we have our first speaker, Jamie Johansson, President of the California Farm Bureau, Ian LeMay, President of the California Fresh Fruit Association, Michael Delbar, CEO of the California Rangeland Trust, Mary-Ann Warmerdam, Senior Vice President of the Rural County Representatives of California, and Peter Nissen of a, President of the Napa County Farm Bureau. Okay, and we will go ahead and begin with Jamie Johansson, President of the California Farm Bureau.

Thank you.

Jamie, please begin whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Chairwoman Hurtado and distinguished Members of the Agricultural Committee. Thank you for hosting this Farm Bill listening session today. My name is Jamie Johansson. I'm President of the California Farm Bureau, California's largest farm organization with over 20,000 members across 53 states or counties, and have long served as a leading agricultural organization representing over 400 different commodities. With the diverse production practices, our producers contribute to the largest agricultural economy of any state in the nation, providing food, fiber and feed to communities and families across America.

In addition to serving as California Farm Bureau President since 2017, I'm also a first generation farmer. My family grows olives and citrus fruit in Oroville, California, and I also serve on the Board of Directors for the American Farm Bureau. We appreciate the attention and interest this Committee has taken in the Farm Bill. The bipartisan legislation represents one of the most significant drivers of support and change for our industry. Given the size and scope of its many titles, a recent congressional budget office, which was referred to earlier, puts a 10 year price tag at over $1.0 trillion--of course, with roughly 80% of those funds going towards nutrition programs. It is easy to see that the impacts of the legislation are not just limited to farmers and ranchers, but to entire communities that we live in.

American agriculture has faced significant challenges since the passage of the 2018 Farm Bill, a global pandemic, labor shortages, wildfires and other natural disasters, rising input costs, trade disputes, and supply changes function at our ports and overseas. For the farmer, those challenges have resulted in economic disruption, tighter margins, and even permanently closed farms.

While some of these have been addressed in meaningful ways, we know there's still much that can be done to help ensure that our family, farmers and ranchers have the tools necessary to provide safe, nutritious and affordable food for U. S. Consumers as well as the nations abroad. While we know the primary development of the legislation is in the hands of lawmakers in Washington, D. C., our federal legislators rely heavily on input and guidance from both public and private partnerships all across the country.

It is our hope that some of the conversations here today can help educate and engage our state elected officials as they look to elevate our industry's priorities with our state's congressional delegation. In terms of specific priorities, I have a few key areas I'd like to highlight on behalf of our organization. First, this Farm Bill should prioritize development of a new crop insurance tools for uncovered producers, as well as improvements to existing tools in a practical, affordable way, regardless of commodity or farm size.

Here in California, less than 80%, or less than a quarter of our 400 commodities are actually covered by existing crop insurance programs. That means 80% of our commodities in California do not have a crop insurance program. In order to recover from significant losses, our producers have often had to rely on significantly delayed ad hoc federal funding.

In this case, more recently was Emergency Relief Program, or what was formerly known as WHIP+. Many producers in California have had to wait nearly three years for disaster payments and financial support while recovering from these disasters, such as wildfire and drought. It should go without saying that many family businesses simply cannot afford to wait so long, and increasing crop insurance for our commodities will go a long way in alleviating these long financial delays, which puts all our California farms and ranches at risk.

Second, we support a more robust forestry title in the upcoming Farm Bill. The US Forest Service recently announced there are over 38 million dead trees in California alone. To keep our forest healthy and mitigate wildfire risk to communities and natural resources, the Farm Bill should seek to address forest health challenges on federal, state and non-federal lands. Third, relative to conservation programs and producer assistance programs, we have urged the US House Agriculture Committee to be mindful of program delivery capacity.

In recent years, staffing challenges have made it difficult at times for our members to access timely help. In addition to financial assistance, it is essential that USDA has adequate technical assistance resources both advise and serve producers. Lastly, California Farm Bureau recognizes the significant role of the nutrition title in any Farm Bill as it helps to ensure families and communities have access to fresh, healthy foods.

As with so many other federal programs, we believe that connecting state and local organizations, together with their community, farmers and ranchers is an invaluable resource in ensuring such goals are met. In closing, our industry understands the direct challenges and opportunities a Farm Bill can provide. We hope that some of the stories shared here today will highlight will help highlight both of those that you are looking to engage with our federal partners.

The continued investment in our nation's foods and other goods for millions of Americans each day is essential, and that's what makes the farm Bill essential. And despite the many challenges our industry continues to face, we look forward to improving upon existing programs and finding ways to better support the nation's food supply chains. I want to say thank you to the Chairwoman again for helping organize this hearing and allowing us the opportunity to testify before you all today.

We appreciate your engagement on these issues and look forward to working together to support California agriculture. Thank you.

Thank you. And up next, we have Ian LeMay, President of California Fresh Fruit Association.

Madam Chair, Senator Alvarado-Gil. Pleasure to be with you both today. Good morning. My name is Ian LeMay. I serve as President of the California Fresh Fruit Association, also known as CFFA. CFFA represents growers and shippers of 13 permanent fresh fruit commodities. Those commodities are peaches, plums, nectarines, apricots, table grapes, apples, pears, persimmons, pomegranates, blueberries, cherries, figs and kiwi.

Our growers are located as far north as Lake County and as far south as the Coachella Valley and we have been proudly advocating on their behalf for 87 years. Beyond CFFA's individual efforts to advocate for the 2023 Farm Bill reauthorization, CFA is a proud Member of the Specialty Crop Farm Bill Alliance.

The alliance is a national coalition of more than 200 organizations and was established to enhance the competitiveness of the specialty crop agriculture and improve the health of Americans by broadening the scope of US agricultural public policy. We appreciate the opportunity to make comments today regarding the 2023 Farm Bill. It goes without saying that the Farm Bill is an extremely important piece of legislation for our members and with each reauthorization brings with it renewed hope and expectation for our industry.

At minimum, it is our members' belief that Congress should approach this reauthorization with a goal of maintaining baseline funding. But in all truth, we know that US growers deserve a bolstering of resources that can help propel our industry towards a sustainable and competitive future. Global consumers rely on and trust the US agriculture industry more than any other agriculture production region in the world. The production of food and fiber is not only a national security issue, but a global security issue.

We have the opportunity to fortify that security with this reauthorization, and it is CFFA's hope that Congress will be bold enough to make the meaningful investments necessary to meet this moment. As follows are some of CFFA's top priorities: In title one, the California Fresh Fruit Association is a proponent of the creation of a permanent disaster program. With an ever changing climate, California growers have become far more susceptible to extreme, weather-related events such as drought and fire.

CFFA was pleased to see the inclusion of fire and smoke exposure in the 2020 and 2021 WHIP+ reauthorization. Fire and smoke exposure continued to be major threats to California growers and one that does not always directly impact our vines and trees, but can also severely impact our employee community and our ability to harvest our crop. If we cannot operate in a safe working environment, our employees lose out on work opportunities and we potentially can't sustain the crop loss due to the perishability of our commodities.

A permanent program that considers the full breadth and depth of climate-related impacts on our commodities is needed and timely. With regards to Title II: Conservation, the California Fresh Fruit Association has been a proponent of the continuance of programs such as the Environmental Quality Incentive Program, also known as EQIP, which has been heavily utilized by industry to improve our irrigation and conservation practices, as highlighted by Secretary Ross recently, even moving into groundwater banking. With the continuing drought and the steady drumbeat for California growers to do more with less, programs that can leverage federal resources with farmers' own financial contributions to maximize industry's ability to make meaningful investments for sustainable future. With regards to trade, US exports of fresh fruits, vegetables and tree nuts saw a reduction of more than 4.8 billion from 47.7 billion in 2018 to 42.9 billion in 2021. In addition, USDA's Office of the Chief Economist forecasted lower farm income for specialty crops by another 780,000,000 in 2022 from 2021.

With high production costs, inflation, and shrinking incomes, the specialty crop sector is arguably one of the hardest hit segments in the farm economy. We grow commodities that are in high demand globally. Consumers across the world have immense trust in our growing practices and become accustomed to our high quality product. In turn, they are willing to pay premium prices if we are able to deliver it.

The ongoing China trade dispute, continuing impacts related to the COVID-19 pandemic, slowdowns at the port, and arduous negotiations related to access with our trading partners have all been impediments to our ability to deliver our in-demand product. The current Market Access Program, also known as MAP, is heavily overprescribed. Private funding from industry exceeds 70% of the total annual investment in the MAP program. Applications for cost share funding consistently exceed federal allocation amounts. Econometric studies consistently indicate that export market development programs are underfunded.

That is why we join a growing chorus and appreciate the advocacy by Congressman Costa that partners in the calling of the doubling of MAP. Establishing a fair and level playing field for American specialty crop producers includes assisting producers with unfair foreign competition, promoting American specialty crops in foreign markets, and eliminating trade barriers that discriminate against US specialty crop exports.

With regards to nutrition, the California Fresh Fruit Association is a proponent of investments in the competitiveness and sustainability of the US specialty crop industry that will produce a strong return for all Americans. Expanding access and availability to safe, wholesome, healthy, and affordable foods will encourage lifelong healthy eating habits and help address national priorities such as obesity, heart disease, and food and nutrition insecurity.

Specifically, we would like to see the permanent strengthening of SNAP by basing benefit allotments on the low-cost food plan, removing the cap on sheltered deductions, increasing the minimum benefit level, and better accounting for medical expenses incurred by SNAP participants who are older or have disabilities.

With regards to TEFAP, we believe that the Farm Bill should include additional mandatory funding for TEFAP food in recognition of the sustained high need for food assistance at food banks nationwide, TEFAP mandatory funds should be authorized at least at 450,000,000 per year in the next Farm Bill. TEFAP storage and distribution funds should increase to reflect the actual distribution costs needed to $200 million per year, and TEFAP infrastructure grants should remain at least 15 million per year.

Congress should also ensure USDA retains the authority to purchase bonus commodities in times of high need for emergency food relief, in addition to times of low commodity prices, so that the program is responsive to excess supply and excess demand. This authority should be bolstered in both TEFAP and Section 32: Purchases. CFFA is also a proponent of changing the bid assessment from a low cost, which is the current assessment, to a best value.

Lastly, our partners in the food distribution are impacted by rising costs of food and food inflation. Their private donation support isn't stretching as far as need remains stable. Continued investment in federal programming like TEFAP and SNAP are vital to ensure neighbors in Central California and throughout California and throughout the United States can continue to have access to food they need to thrive. With regards to research, again, the California Fresh Fruit Association is supportive of funding that can lead to scientific breakthroughs, technological innovation, and data-enabled decision making that will continue to drive long-term sustainability and profitability of the specialty crop industry as we adapt to labor, climate and environmental challenges, as well as pest and disease, rising global competitiveness, shifting consumer preferences, supply chain disruption, and other challenges.

A sustained federal investment into research and innovation must be of meaningful scale to catalyze opportunities for the industry to alleviate existing challenges and propel US specialty crop industry to a new level of global competitiveness. Funding should also be made available for technologies that already exist, but due to high costs, might not be affordable enough for widespread adoption. We must create and fund programs that incentivize industries to move towards an efficient, safe and sustainable operation.

The extension of mandatory Farm Bill funding for competitive grant programs, such as the Emergency Citrus Disease Research and Extension Program, should also be fully funded. CFFA doesn't necessarily represent citrus, but that was for my good friend Casey Kramer. With regards to Title II and horticulture, similar to the challenges of our producers face in the international markets, there are obstacles currently in the US domestic market that prevent expanding or even threaten consumer demand.

A secure and prosperous agricultural sector, especially for the specialty crop industry in more populous states, will ensure vibrant rural communities. With this in mind, CFFA is supportive of the action to direct USDA's Agriculture Marketing Service, AMS, to develop and field domestic generic marketing programs structured around competitive grants with a goal of creating an increasing consumer demand for US specialty crops. That's an interesting point that I want to point out.

USDA currently does not have the authority to promote U. S. Goods within the United States, so that in itself seems nonsensical. So we would like to see that changed. Getting closer to the end for many of our growers, federal crop insurance is the most important component of the farm safety net.

Given the breadth of commodity coverage and capability to reimburse producers for crop losses, the Federal Crop Insurance Program is an extremely important policy that helps farmers manage risks associated with natural disasters, including drought, excessive moisture, and other perils. Increased program funding and the opportunity for expanded commodity coverage are all elements we are supportive of. One last additional point. Congress should address the critical market challenges that exist with the seasonal and perishable nature of specialty fruit and vegetable producers who face surging and sometimes unfairly priced imports during a short marketing window in which many such producers have to sell their products. Competitiveness would be enhanced by providing regulatory or legislative solutions. Again, I thank you for the opportunity to make comment today and for your attention on this important piece of legislation.

Thank you. And up next we have Michael Delbar, California Rangeland Trust.

Good morning, Madam Chair, Senator. Thank you so much for putting this together. This is such an important topic that the interest that the Committee is showing in this is so valuable, and I hope that we're able to provide you some feedback that we can take back to our great congressional representatives. We have two members on the House Ag Committee, both Congressman Costa and Congressman LaMalfa, who spent some time in this building. So thank you for taking the opportunity to provide them some feedback. I'm Michael Delbar.

I'm the CEO of the California Rangeland Trust, and I come from a ranching family in Mendocino Lake counties, where we produce beef cattle, sheep, timber, and hay. And I'm honored to be part of an organization that provides agricultural land conservation services to the ranchers in the State of California. Dr. Sumner made a comment about we all have a special interest, and obviously my special interest before you today is to share with you our feedback on the conservation title.

But there is no more special interest to everybody in this state than the production of food and fiber. And as California being the largest agricultural state, it is so important. The California Rangeland Trust is celebrating its 25th year, established in 1998 by the California Cattlemen's Association. This is our silver anniversary, and over that short 25 year period, we have conserved permanently 371,000 acres across the State of California. Rangelands, however, are disappearing. Agricultural land is disappearing across the country.

Between 2001 and 2016, more than 465,000 acres of ag lands were lost to development just in California. Of that, 60% was rangeland and pasture land. We talk about food security. California is the fifth largest producer of beef cattle. We lose that land, we lose those producers, the folks that raise this food and fiber. The SNAP program is wonderful, but if we don't have food, it's pointless.

We did a study--UC Berkeley did a study on our behalf--to find out how important agricultural land conservation is. How valuable is that? Because we could only say it's really, really valuable so many times before someone says, "well, how do you define really, really?" So out of our 371,000 acres, 306,000 was studied, and the return on investment of public dollars from both the State of California and the federal government turned out to be $3.47 for every dollar invested. That's a great return on investment.

I'd love to get $3.50 back, especially in the markets today. But a bigger impact to your constituents throughout the State of California was on an annual basis of what's that value of that open space, that wildlife habitat, that clean air, clean water provided by these working ranches, and the food production, of course. And that number just on 306,000 acres, that's just a fraction of what's in this state, was $1.44 billion a year. That's how important agricultural land conservation is to Californians.

I mentioned we have 371,000 acres that's conserved, but we have over 200,000 acres, representing 90 ranching families, waiting to be conserved. And they're waiting because we need the funding to make that happen. We are part of the Partnership of Rangeland Trusts, or PORT. There's been a lot of acronyms today, so I'm going to try to stay away from those until I can define them for you.

But the 200,000 acres that we have in PORT has collectively conserved over 1300 ranches throughout the nine western states that encompass PORT. That's over 3 million acres. This is important work. But that 200,000 acres that we have, just us, just the California Rangeland Trust, it would take about $250,000,000 to completely secure those acres. That would go a long way towards meeting the 30 x 30 goals that State of California has set out.

The Farm Bill traditionally has distributed to State of California between $5 million and $8 million a year. That's it. For the largest ag state in the nation for the Agricultural Land Conservation Easement Program, to get $5 million to $7 million. While that's a lot of money, that's a drop in the bucket. So we've, of course, I know you've never heard this before, but we can sure use some more money out of that allocation. Just a piece of the pie for California.

We've provided you with a very wonky paper on changes. We found that folks, our friends and the congressional staff love to see the wonky papers. But rather than read that to you, I just want to touch on a few points that are really critical for the success of the Farm Bill programs for agricultural land conservation. For us, it's keeping privately owned working lands play a critical role in delivering the meaningful conservation. That's a key.

This is a voluntary program, and it's keeping working lands in private hands. It comes with a family or operators, stays on the tax roll, continues to provide those benefits. The changes that we were able to secure in the '18 Farm Bill were great, and they went a long way to improving the program. But we still have some changes to make. And one of those is, like I mentioned, an increase of the funding for California. The second one is increasing the cost share.

Right now, through the Farm Bill, 50% of the costs are provided, or 75% if it's grasslands of special significance. We like to see that increased to 65% and 80%, especially for states. Unlike California, we're very fortunate to have some wonderful cost share programs on the state level, through the SALC Program, Sustainable Ag Land Conservation, and through Wildlife Conservation Board. But other states do not have that. But by increasing that cost share, even in California, that would be a big benefit for us, to make those dollars go further on the state side. The adjusted gross income is an issue that really impacts landowners. We're trying to protect the land. It's the resource that's being protected. This isn't a subsidy program. It's not a program that is based on production. It's a real estate program. So by eliminating the adjusted gross income, does two things. One, it allows the landowner to. Let me back up. I'm sorry.

If government is acquiring fee title, we don't look at the landowner, so why are we looking at it for an easement? Let's get the land conserved regardless of who owns it. The other part of the AGI is not counting that as part of going forward in Farm Bill programs. For example, a landowner sells an easement, and then the proceeds from that easement are used in the AGI calculations, and that landowner could be prohibited from doing further conservation work through EQIP and other programs through the Farm Bill. So we're asking that the AGI not be considered in those calculations.

The last ones I want to touch on is transaction costs. The transaction cost, it's expensive to do this work, and that cost is borne by the landowner. So particularly for landowners that are really trying to make it, and it's a smaller property, it's a smaller easement value to pay those costs. It's a big burden. We have landowners that take those funds oftentimes and then do more land conservation, which is great.

But if that money is taken out to cover the transaction costs, it prohibits them from doing more conservation work. So, we'd love to see the transaction costs covered by the Farm Bill. Some of the state programs do that now, and it's a big, big benefit. So, we would encourage that as well. And then finally, finally, one of the challenges we have with NRCs and the service delivery is the requirement that a lot of the processes go back to DC.

We would strongly encourage the states to have more authority. We have a great state office in Davis for NRCs. They're wonderful people. They work hard. But when we send stuff back to DC, to headquarters, it could take literally nine to 10 months just to get an appraisal review when we have the capability of doing that in California. So it's a big structural change in the service delivery, but it would mean a lot to the process and getting those dollars on the ground quicker.

The rest is there for your reading enjoyment and happy to answer any questions that you may have. But thank you again for the opportunity today to share this with you.

And up next we have Marianne Warmerdam, Senior Vice President, Rural County Representatives of California.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator Alvarado-Gil, thank you for the opportunity to be here today. My name is Mary Ann Warmerdam and I represent Rural County Representatives of California. We represent 40 of the state's 58 counties, roughly 60% of the geography of California. And as I like to say, if everyone is home, 12% of the population, we go from Imperial county in the far south to Del Norte county in the far north. And we're proud of the areas that we represent.

They are very dependent upon a recreation, tourism or agricultural economy, which explains why I'm here before you today. We are looking at the Farm Bureau in a couple of different areas. We have a keen interest in the five titles that we've talked about today. Let me call out three in particular. I do want to acknowledge that both the nutrition title and the conservation title are extremely important to the communities that we serve. Many of the communities in our counties are disadvantaged.

I don't know if that's the point of pride. It's not pride, but it's the point of place, rather, of having relatively low education values in many of our communities and relatively low income values in many of our communities. And that presents particular challenges where programs like the nutrition title provide key nutrition supplements to our communities and the people that live there. Likewise, as Michael referenced, the conservation title is very important to counties as we try to participate in meeting our ecological and environmental goals.

We really are mostly owned in many areas by state and federal agencies already. So when Michael comes with his constituent to put a conservation easement to meet those environmental goals and keeps those properties on the tax rolls, that means those dollars continue to flow to our General Fund to allow our counties to continue to serve in the way that they are obligated to do so.

We really respect the opportunities that the conservation title presents, but our focus is really on three titles, the rural development title, the forestry title, and the energy title. Senator Alvarado-Gil asked about water infrastructure. The rural development title is about as close as we get to providing local communities the opportunity to improve their water supply and water treatment facilities. So it doesn't really get at those big picture items, but it does provide the funds at the local level to do improvements.

And as the recent drought has pointed out, it's our communities, whether we're talking about East Porterville or Kaloosa County, where domestic wells are going dry, where we don't have the water treatment facilities for the resulting sewage. And these programs are key to allowing local communities and the counties to have access to funds. There is an impediment in several of the other folks here that today have talked about California's size, and we're proud of our size and we do great things because of our size.

But the rural development title has a variety of population caps that limit our ability to access those programs. So we have been working with Congressmember Costa and Congressmember Lamalfa in securing a definition that would increase those population caps to 50,000. Right now, the range is somewhere between five and 25,000. And for many of our communities, if Terabella wants to access some of these programs, they're cut out, because Visalia is such a big community within Tulare County. So, we're trying to get some equity.

We understand it's a heavy lift, but we're very pleased that Mr. Costa and Mr. Lamafa have taken this on, and we're very hopeful that we'll get some improvement. We were able to move in the 2018 Farm Bill up to 25,000 in a couple of the programs. So, we're hopeful. We also would like to see some opportunity to use monies out of the rural development title to help meet our loan loss Reserve and deploying broadband to our rural communities.

And we're getting some traction on that because of rural reconnect and similar type programs. And then finally, we're asking for some accommodation in the rural development definitions to allow for joint powers authority, for example, to allow for what I call regionalization of communities.

So let's say Trinity county wanted to work with Siskiyou county and Humboldt County in developing a project, allow a JPA to represent those three areas, secure the grant, do all the heavy lifting around a grant, and make those dollars available to those three counties who might not have the resources to do that on their own. Again, we're getting a lot of encouragement in that area, so we're hopeful that we'll be able to make that kind of change.

The second area I'd like to touch on just briefly is the forestry title. And for us in California, it's pace and scale continue to invest in the way we've been investing to better steward our forests and bring those forested lands into a sustainable environment. The good neighbor authority that was adopted in the last farm Bill has been key to allowing in our case, CAL FIRE and the Forest Service to do some really good work.

We'd like to see that expanded to allow for the National Park Service as well as Bureau of Land Management to also have that authority to manage their forested landscapes. Similarly, in terms of cooperation between the feds and the state, the other two areas within the forestry title that we are keen on, one has to do with providing some small funding sources for Wood product innovation.

Whether we're talking about cross laminated Wood timbers or other innovations that we haven't even thought about yet, we think there's a real opportunity to take that forested overburden and create something out of it that has value. Finally, the availability of housing for those who make those recreational spaces work is a critical need.

We've been working with Chief Moore of the US Forest Service to try to identify areas within the forested landscape where we might be able to build out additional housing for the workforce that we need to bring those forested landscapes into a sustainable configuration. We're getting, again, a lot of positive feedback, but it's going to take some additional work for us to get it over the line. Finally, let me touch briefly on the energy title.

We haven't really talked about that today, but as we've all experienced, if we've been in California for any period of time. We've had some outages that have made our deficiencies in our overall grid very apparent. The energy title won't solve all those problems, but what we are looking for is some opportunity to make small community investments, whether it's micro grids or generators, frankly, to keep our critical infrastructure, our hospitals, our police stations, our schools, in production when we have these multi day outages.

So we think there's an opportunity there for us to bring some of those investments into California and mitigate for the current scenario, whether it's epss or PSPS outages, but to bring our communities into a more robust environment. So with that, I'm happy to answer any questions. I know it's been a long morning. I really appreciate the opportunity to give a little more granular local community perspective, and we are happy to answer any questions.

Of course. Thank you. We do have one more speaker. We have Peter Neeson, President of Napa County Farm Bureau. Please begin when you are ready.

Bear with me. I have a little bit of laryngitis issues, but Chairwoman Hurtado and Members of the Agricultural Committee, thank you for hosting this Farm Bill listening process session today. I really appreciate it. My name is Peter Nissan. I'm the current President of Napa County Farm Bureau. I'm a wine grape grower of over 50 years. I own a vineyard management company that farms a little over 900 acres. I have owned personal property.

I feel that it's important that we get the perspective of a grower who's used some of the programs that the farm the farm Bill has afforded me over the years. I've also been a Member of the Farm Service Agency Committee for Napa County back in 1995 to 2004, and during that time, we had multiple flood issues with disasters where a number of people of the farming community were able to use the resources of national disaster assistance through the farm Bill.

That made it an important impact on trying to recover from flooding. Thankfully, Napa County had a flood control district bond pass, and since that time, we've had very little of any flooding. So everybody's taking an active part in our community to try to offset some of the exposures of natural disasters. The unfortunate thing is in risk management, crop insurance is a very important component of farmers, especially the north coast. We've had at least three major wildfire Years201517 and 20.

I personally had losses in 17 and 20, and without the farming crop insurance opportunities, it would have been a difficult situation for me to work with keeping a viable business going. This risk management tool is very important to the farmers and ranchers in the north coast. It's important that this safety net of crop insurance continues. And the catastrophic component is very critical for crop insurance, risk management for farming. And if people have the opportunity, they can buy up to 85% of insurance coverage with crop insurance.

The other issue, and we've talked about it multiple times today with the different presenters, is the way climate has changed, not only with wildfires, but last year in the early part of September, we had, at least where I live in Calistoga, five days, where it was over 115 degrees. It was very debilitating to a lot of people who hadn't harvested at that time. And there was also crop losses there. And I had another crop insurance claim on three of my four varieties that I farm.

So the crop insurance component is really important to making a very reasonable way to farm in your farming plan with the risk management of crop insurance. The other component of the farm plan that has been very beneficial to growers and farmers in my area is the whip plus, or now the emergency relief program. I personally had to replace irrigation equipment that I went through the whip program in 2017. It did take a while.

It took a couple of years, but it's an important component of the farm Bill to have that disaster assistance, even though it's cost sharing with the producer, it's important that it's available, and it's important that this particular component of the farm Bill continues. And the other and last thing I'd like to speak about is the equip program. Equip is a very sustainable part of the programs that the farm Bill makes available through nrCs.

And I personally have had three or four stream bank restoration programs on rivers and creeks to cut down on soil loss, and also the whole availability of the expertise and technical assistance of NRCS. And then the other part of the equip program, which we've talked about a little bit today, is water. And they also have programs with water efficiency evaluations through equip.

So it's very important that as a grower, you have these different tools available to you to make sure that your farming is more useful and more sustainable as we move forward with these climatic conditions that we are confronted with. Thank you again for the opportunity to speak today.

Thank you so much. And thank you for joining us. We really appreciate you being here with us today at this moment. I'll go ahead and open it up for questions and comments from Committee Members. Feel free.

I'm just going to say that all that we share today feeds into one of my favorite topics and really gets me excited about representing California in this seat and working with Senator Otado on agriculture. We are really looking to elevate the issues and to bring forward kind of a new vision to the agricultural economy here in California. And this is just the beginning of bringing all the experts into the room and ensuring that we're building those partnerships.

I have relied heavily on our farm bureaus in my county or my counties. The majority of my counties have farm bureaus, and by far, the experts are in that room that every single day are growing the food for us, packaging, producing, making sure that all the behind the scenes work is not notable to the consumer. Right? So that we have that beautiful product, that beautiful slap of beef, the dairy, all of the markets of the dairy that allow us to live in California, thrive in California.

One thing from the consumer's perspective that we've been seeing is the high cost of food and the astronomical rise in just everyday housing, transportation costs and food. And I love the note of food is a national security issue, because without that, our whole economy will collapse. And I don't think that those of us who are not in the ag industry, that are not living and breathing it every day, understand the value of that.

And I think that's why, for me, it was so important to also bring forward water, because without that very vital resource, we're not going to be able to have the food commodity here in California and be able to lift up our economy. So I want to thank all of you for bringing forward your expertise as well and to encourage you to continue to collaborate and to build coalition within the delegation that will be representing us in DC.

I'm always excited about visiting some of the farms and the production sites so that we, as legislators, can also see and experience firsthand. And I would encourage you also to extend that out to some of our other colleagues that represent more of the urban centers that rely on our work in the rural centers.

Right.

And I look forward to partnering with you to do that as well. So, thank you.

Senator, if I might just real quickly, your district in particular, with its forested landscape and the fire scarred areas, one of the things that the forestry title does allow us to do is bring monies in for watershed improvements and protection. And without that, our forested landscapes are not producing the water supply or the water quality that they have historically. Same is true in sequoia.

So it's one of the titles that we don't always talk about in context of water supply and water quality, but it's a very important title in maintaining the health of the landscape that does provide that in California.

That's right. And you underscore one of the other issues that is so vital to us here in California that touches the ag industry is our disconnect in understanding that proper forest management contributes to the overall cycle of food and life. And so I think back to our ancestors, where cattle was allowed to graze the land freely. And with that, our land, our infrastructure, thrived. And right now, we're so over regulated in that even our cows don't know what to do sometimes. Right.

They've got to check the laws. So I think we are beholden to going back to basics and understanding that food and water is a basic necessity of life. And when we overregulate, underfund and underappreciate that commodity, then we are essentially taking the human race down a path of death and destruction. So I want to make sure that I underscore the importance of the conversation we're having here today. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator. I feel very much the same way that agriculture is a national security issue, and every issue that you cover today is just, I think, extremely important. And we may end up having to have more hearings just on the US farm Bill because it covers so much. And a lot of these. Well, all the titles have all these different programs that are just so important to our livelihoods, to our food security. And that is something.

Food security, I don't think it's in the top of our minds or for anyone that's living outside of rural California or rural America, but it plays a huge role in everyone's lives. And when people start talking about is when you feel it at the grocery store. But the reality is that the situation could be much worse. And water is extremely essential to food production and to growing food, and we need to do more in this area.

And there's a lot of questions that I could have for all of you, really. I'll try to keep them minimal. But particularly, I know there's been a lot of concern about the global competitiveness. Ian, I don't know if you'd like to speak a little bit more to that. I'm also interested in learning a little bit more and seeing what more we can do for rural development. I believe there's programs under rural development, for hospitals, grants, and seeing what more we can do in that area.

I know that in rural communities we're significantly struggling with provider shortages, hospital closures. We're seeing that a lot throughout the state. And I think that that's where, in a way, we're going to need more support, financial support, and also seeing if there's any opportunity or room under rural development to further get additional dollars in this area.

And then anything else in terms of land conservation, if there's anything else that you'd like to add in terms of the AGI and keeping the land private, any comments or answers are appreciated.

My comments with regards to global competitiveness, it really, at least for my commodity sector, comes down to the perishability of our commodity. When we pick a piece of fruit from a tree or a vine, that clock starts and it all comes down to our ability to deliver that high quality piece of fruit in a timely manner. And so really, in the immediate time frame going back the last two or three years, the dysfunction at the ports has severely impacted our commodity sector.

And the unfortunate part is that we can't send our commodity to the port and then have it sit there three or four weeks and ultimately we're delivering jelly and not a fresh plum to the end consumer. And so you've seen some of my Members actually take a step back from moving their fruit or through the ports. And the issue there is that we aren't the only country in the world that produces some of these commodities.

And so if you as a US producer, are not in a foreign market, a competitor is trying to fill that market. And if you lose that market, ultimately it will take decades, multiple decades, to regain any of that market share. And so the dysfunction at the ports, our inability to truly have confidence in moving our goods through there, has severely impacted us. It's rectifying itself a bit. Still not where we need it.

On top of that, going back to 2017, as I referenced in my comments, the China trade dispute for the specialty crop industry continues to this day. We're very appreciative and supportive of some of our brethren in us ag and maybe corn, soybeans, pork, seeing a rectification, and maybe any actually growth in the Chinese market since the China phase one deal for commodities like the California specialty crop and California fresh fruit, China is still a dead market.

We are not because of the tariffs, because of the continuance of some of those barriers that the Chinese government has, because the US government holds tariffs on Chinese imports, it is too expensive to deliver to the China market.

But I will challenge, and the market data shows this, if you take a California table grape or a California peach, and you put it next to a China peach or a China table grape, which they have a domestic industry themselves, the China consumer will take our product day in and day out, but we have to be able to deliver it in an affordable way. Those negotiations still go on.

Secretary Vilseck has reminded us quite often that we'd all like Us Ag policy to dictate the relationship between China and the United States. There's some maybe heavier issues that are currently being negotiated between those two nations, but it is still one of the fastest growing middle classes in the world, and one that if we're able, as California growers, to deliver to the China market, we know we can succeed in. But we haven't been able to do that since 2017.

Rural hospitals, they're an ongoing challenge. We're seeing a domino effect, whether it's Kawea Delta in Visalia, or hospital facility in Watsonville, Kaloosa County, they're up and down the state. We're seeing rural hospitals. Madera, I think, was the most recent one that declared bankruptcy. And it's a real challenge finding the resources, even in the rural development title, it's just so modest.

And our sense is that the issue is Medicare reimbursement, and that's where we're spending a bit more of our time to see if we can get that to reflect the market conditions in California so that our rural hospitals stay. And I was talking to one of our supervisors out of Mono County, and their hospital is really there to serve the tourist industry. So when folks come and ski mammoth and things don't go right, there is a hospital facility to meet their urgent care needs.

And those are the kind of facilities that our urban friends who come to recreate or otherwise come to enjoy. The rural parts of California don't really get a sense of. And yet, having that facility there is so important, whether it's to serve the community that lives there or those who visit us. So we're looking at that. But there's not a real, as you might imagine, there's not a real easy, clean funding opportunity that we've identified right now.

Funding under rural development for basic things like sidewalks or pavement, when you're talking about unincorporated communities that you'll have to go through the counties, but sometimes there's just not enough money or funding. Are there any specific programs under rural development, or what more could be done on that end?

The rural development title has an infrastructure component that's actually quite broad. It also has that population limitation that I was talking about. So many of the communities that would otherwise benefit from accessing that program because of the population cap don't even have a chance to compete. So it's one of the challenges of making the rural development title really relevant to California's rural communities, which is why we're working with Costa and Lamolfa to try to increase the population cap.

Okay, I don't have any other questions. I don't know if there's any additional comments or y'all would like to provide.

Madam Chair, you asked about the AGI, and thank you for the opportunity to do a better job of explaining that, because I realized I didn't do a very good job with that one. There's two aspects of adjusted gross income when it comes down to land conservation. We're looking at conserving the resource, that land, and it should be done regardless of who owns it, because who owns it today may not be who owns it tomorrow, but that land is going to be the same if it's conserved.

So that's the premise of that. I'll give you a quick example. We have a project right now which is in Kaloosa county. It's a high priority project for the funders and for us. And that particular landowner sold a piece of ground in California. And California, as we know, the real estate prices are rather high. So that sale throws that landowner out of qualifying for a farm Bill for conservation dollars.

So here we are, losing an opportunity, potentially losing an opportunity to conserve this ranch just because of who owns it. And again, the land doesn't change. The other half of that is the proceeds from a sale of a conservation easement now goes into that calculation. So that landowner may not be qualified, through the AGI limitations to do further conservation through equipment, other programs. So those are the changes.

And again, in the paper you have before it goes into more detail, but that's, in essence, what we're looking at. I hope that helped.

Thank you. Okay. Well, if there's no other further questions. Yes, we will open up the public comment line at this moment. Thank you so much for joining us today. And I believe they can stick around. Right? You're more than welcome to stick around, of course, but we're opening up public comment. And do we know how many people we have waiting in our public comment line? Or maybe we should begin here in the room. Is there anyone who wants to provide comment here in room 112?

Okay.

Seeing none, we'll move to the telephone. Public comment line. Operator.

If you would like to speak in this legislation, please press one, then zero at this time.

And, Madam Chair, we have no one.

Queuing up at this time.

All right, well, that's great. Having heard all public testimony, both here in room 112 and on the telephone, public comment line individuals are always welcome to continue to provide through our consultants or our Committee testimony if they wish to do so. I want to thank all the individuals who called in to participate in public testimony today or that participated here as well.

If you are not able to testify via the telephone conference service, please submit your comments, suggestions in writing to the Senate Committee on Agriculture or visit our website. Your comments and suggestions are important to us, and we want to include your testimony in the official hearing records. Thank you, and we appreciate your participation. Thank you, everyone, for your patience, for your cooperation, and we have concluded the agenda and the Senate Committee on Agriculture is now adjourned. Thank you. It.