Bird flu has decimated poultry flocks and contributed to spikes in U.S. egg prices. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

Planting corn near Dwight, Ill. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Farm and commodity trade association leaders lobbied for updating commodity programs and strengthening crop insurance programs at a Tuesday hearing of the U.S. Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry committee.

The industry officials said federal crop insurance and the Department of Agriculture’s Price Loss Coverage and Agriculture Risk Coverage programs are not serving as a “true safety net” for farmers, and that reference prices for crops must be increased to counter declining farm income and high input costs.

A reference price is the estimated cost of an agricultural product set in the farm bill, used for crop insurance and commodity risk management program reimbursement purposes. The last update to reference prices came in the 2014 farm bill.?

The commodity assistance title of the farm bill, called Title I, contains the commodity insurance programs, federal crop insurance, certain disaster relief programs for products like sugar, and a fixed-rate loan program that uses commodity stocks as collateral.

Rob Larew, president of the National Farmers Union, said in the Tuesday hearing that while the 2018 farm bill provided a strong financial safety net for farmers, it is “being tested in new and unprecedented ways.”

“Whatever we can do to build on those successes in Title I, making sure that we update the price triggers and the reference prices, making sure that we broaden and strengthen the success of crop insurance, I think will go a long way towards providing that certainty,” he said.?

Commodity risk management program payouts under the 2018 farm bill totaled $33 billion from 2018 to 2023, and crop insurance indemnities totaled roughly $27 billion over 2021 and 2022. These totals also do not account for the roughly $90 billion in ad-hoc disaster aid distributed over that same time period, mostly during the COVID-19 pandemic.?

The 2018 farm bill expires at the end of September 2023, was projected to cost $867 billion over 10 years when enacted, and has cost roughly $428 billion over the past five years.

Crop insurance?

Zippy Duvall, a witness and president of the American Farm Bureau Federation, told the committee on Tuesday that what he hears most often from farmers about the farm bill is the need to strengthen and expand federal crop insurance programs.?

Federal crop insurance plans can be purchased for both specialty and commodity crops by acres planted, and generally cover up to 85% of a given year’s market price for the good.??

Caleb Ragland, a witness and row crop farmer from Kentucky, said federal crop insurance is one of the main tools he uses on his farm to stay viable. He said that protecting the programs from cuts and “harmful amendments” should be a top priority for legislators in the coming farm bill.?

“Without crop insurance, the risks would be more than many farmers and lenders could handle,” he said. “It certainly would be for me and my family.”

Arkansas Republican Sen. John Boozman asked Duvall about the benefits of the flexibility of the current safety net, in light of talk in Congress of tying eligibility to climate practices, and mandatory payment limits.

“Our farmers go to those risk management products to be able to protect their farm, for enough revenue to be able to get to the next crop in the wake of a disaster,” he said. “Those are real threats. We need not dilute the program. We need to make it better, not more challenging.”?

Committee Chair Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, a Democrat, asked Larew and Duvall how to better provide crop insurance options for specialty crop farmers in the coming farm bill.?

Duvall said that the most important thing is to make sure that the crop insurance program is funded correctly, and is easy for farmers to use.

Larew suggested more actively applying a provision of the Federal Crop Insurance Act to encourage adoption and continued use of climate-smart agricultural practices by developing new specialty crop insurance policies.??

Reference price increases

All of the industry representatives on the panel spoke in favor of raising reference prices for the Agriculture Risk Coverage and Price Loss Coverage programs in the upcoming farm bill.?

The Agriculture Risk Coverage and Price Loss Coverage programs protect farmers from poor growing seasons and low prices, respectively. These federal programs, located in Title I of the farm bill, are intended to lessen the risk of farming for producers of major commodities like corn, wheat, soybeans and other crops.

“I know it takes a tremendous amount of money to get those where they need to be so we can keep calling them a safety net,” said Kody Carson, a past chairman of the National Sorghum Producers. “And I’m not sure if it’s two inches above the concrete that is doing the American farmer a lot of good.”?

Brent Cheyne, president of the National Association of Wheat Growers, said that cuts were made to crop insurance in previous farm bills in efforts to be fiscally conservative that caused the farm safety net to “come up short” in recent years.

He added that this lack of funds required the federal government to institute the existing ad-hoc disaster payment program, which has delivered relief too late to salvage growing seasons for producers.?

Republican Sen. John Thune of South Dakota asked the panelists how they could improve the Agriculture Risk Coverage and Price Loss Coverage programs for farmers.?

Larew suggested allowing producers to enroll in both programs at the same time in a given year, as oftentimes they do not know which program will better support their operation.?

Harold Wolle, a vice president of the National Corn Growers Association, added that the ARC program could be improved if Congress removed the provision stating that county payment rates to farmers cannot exceed 10% of the county benchmark revenue. He said that this rule has limited the assistance provided to producers experiencing major disasters.

He added that strengthening the reference price escalator in the PLC program will allow for more responsive price protection. The provision for reimbursement is capped at 115% of the statutory reference price for corn, or $4.26 per bushel, which is far below market price.?

Debt ceiling worries

Stabenow said that the ongoing threat of default on the nation’s economy has her concerned about funding cuts to the ARC and PLC programs in the farm bill.?

She said that the last debt ceiling crisis in 2011 resulted in annual cuts of 5.7% to these mandatory programs year-over-year, and she worries about similar changes in the ongoing negotiations.?

“If we do not have additional funding in the baseline, we’re going to need to focus on our top priorities, and need your best thinking on how we do this together to be able to target this,” she said.?

Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa asked how Congress might bolster the farm safety net without costing the country more money.?

“I think we’ve just got to make sure that we determine what’s going to keep our safety net strong, and determine what it’s gonna take to keep our farmers strong, so that we keep our national security strong,” Duvall said. “But to do it without any more money, I don’t have any suggestions.”

Grassley also asked Larew if commodity farmland owners should be eligible for safety net programs if they are not actively farming the land, given that the largest 10% of farms in the United States have received 70% of the payouts.?

Larew said the National Farmers Union supports provisions that limit payments to those who are truly invested in management and labor, and would be willing to work with Congress to find ways to ensure that those rules are being met.?

Baseline spending for the coming farm bill is projected at $1.5 trillion over the next 10 fiscal years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.?

Conservative members of Congress, including Kentucky Republican Sens. Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul, refused to extend the universal school meal policy as part of the omnibus spending bill passed in March 2022. (Photo by Amanda Mills/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack addresses the annual Agricultural Outlook Forum, the largest annual meeting of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. (USDA photo by Tom Witham)

An aerial view from a drone shows John Duffy planting corn on April 23, 2020 near Dwight, Illinois. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

Sponsor calls Kentucky bill a ‘preemptive strike’?

Kentucky has its own legislation under consideration, House Bill 500, which would prevent foreign residents, businesses and financial agents of specific countries from purchasing Kentucky agricultural land or taking part in state agriculture programs.

Rep. Richard Heath, R-Mayfield, the primary sponsor of HB 500, when it passed the House of Representatives this month, said it would be a “preemptive strike” to protect Kentucky farmland and national security. It would have to receive a Senate vote on one of the two last legislative session days at the end of March to be sent to Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear for consideration.?

Under the legislation, 24 countries would be subject to the ban including China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea and Russia. A 2021 report from the U.S. Department of Agriculture found less than 1%? of Kentucky agricultural land was foreign owned, below the national average. — Liam Niemeyer

WASHINGTON — Bipartisan momentum is building in Congress to restrict China and other foreign adversaries from purchasing U.S. farmland, a reflection of a similar push by some states as well as apprehension over Chinese spy balloons, rising land prices and growing international competition.

“Foreign ownership of agricultural land threatens small family farms and the overall health of the agricultural supply chain,” wrote a bipartisan group of House lawmakers in a Feb. 27 letter to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, condemning the department’s insufficient foreign transaction reporting from 2015 to 2018.

“I don’t think we should be allowing countries who don’t give a damn whether we exist or not to own land, whether it’s farmland or agribusiness, in this country,” said Democratic Sen. Jon Tester of Montana in a Feb. 28 Senate committee hearing.

“I believe that one acre of American farmland owned by the Chinese Communist Party is one acre too many,” said Republican Alabama Sen. Katie Britt in the same February hearing.

And while policy and legal experts outside Congress believe a national restriction on foreign ownership could get passed this session, they also believe there could be challenges in its rollout, as well as unintended consequences for the agricultural community.

John Schwarz, a row crop farmer and lawyer in Cass County, Indiana, questioned if any national bill would be enforceable due to the sheer scope of farmland in the country. He suggested it may be better left to counties and localities to handle.

“If this is going to work, it really has to be on a micro level,” Schwarz said. “I don’t think a macro level is going to do it because there’s just way too many ways to slip through, getting cute with the ownership and companies.”

Vilsack said in a Thursday Senate hearing that Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea together own under 400,000 acres of agricultural land as of 2021. He added that the nation’s largest foreign landholders include Canada, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom.

The secretary expressed concern over how federal foreign ownership restrictions could be implemented in a way that was fair and legally sound for international investors.

Clay Lowery, former assistant secretary for international affairs at the Department of the Treasury, also raised questions about a wide-reaching foreign ownership restriction at the Senate hearing in February.

“I do believe strongly in the ability for countries and entities to invest in the United States, because I think that is actually a positive,” he said.

Jennifer Zwagerman, director of the Drake University Agricultural Law Center in Iowa, said she understands that there are growing national security concerns over farmland. Yet she is concerned a federal ownership restriction could exacerbate problems with farmland loss, and provoke xenophobia across the country.

“It’s easy to focus on one area of concern and one aspect,” Zwagerman said. “My bigger fear is that we limit groups or entities or individuals that are really interested in farming or production themselves. And in doing so, we end up with land that is purchased by those less interested in farming and more as development.”

Foreign land holdings

The USDA reports that foreign persons and entities held an interest in just over 40 million acres of U.S. agricultural land in 2021.

This number marked an increase of over 2.4 million acres from the Dec. 31, 2020, report, and the agency added that foreign land holdings have increased by an average of 2.2 million acres per year since 2015.

Challenges persist with ownership transparency, outdated sales, and incomplete price information in the Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act. Gaps in this legislation – which facilitates USDA oversight of foreign transactions through the Farm Service Agency – make it unclear if more or less acreage is actually owned by foreign governments.

Regardless, at the USDA Agricultural Outlook Forum in late February, Micah Brown of the National Agricultural Law Center said momentum for foreign ownership bills is being fueled by shifting ownership trends and national security concerns.

The Arkansas-based lawyer added that the current movement follows some farmland ownership “flash points” in American history dating back to the Revolutionary War.

Schwarz said the current push is likely in response to the Chinese spy balloon event in early February, along with recent Chinese land purchases close to North Dakota and Texas Air Force bases over the last three years.

Zwagerman said that another one of the “always-valid” concerns driving this issue is access to sufficient and adequate farmland for producers. Farmland prices have not declined by a significant margin since the late 1980s, according to the USDA Economic Research Service.?

In early February, Republican Sen. Mike Rounds of South Dakota introduced the PASS Act of 2023 with Tester, which would bar North Korea, Iran, China, and Russia from purchasing U.S. farmland. The bill would also add the USDA to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a multi-agency council that reviews financial transactions that affect national security.

Rounds said in an interview with States Newsroom that he and his co-sponsor have “done their due diligence” in writing long-term legislation that protects its citizens, “the primary responsibility of the United States government.”

“We’ve seen evidence of an attempt by China to purchase land near a very sensitive military installation,” Rounds said, referring to the North Dakota and Texas incidents. “That should be a heads-up that you address it before it becomes a problem, rather than waiting until it is a problem.”

Rounds added that another pressing issue is the intellectual property concern surrounding foreign ownership, in which China could reproduce high-yield seeds and pesticides while circumventing intellectual property law.

States limit foreign investments?

While there is no federal law that restricts foreign investors from acquiring agricultural land in the United States, 14 states currently have laws restricting foreign private investment in agricultural land.

These states include Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Kansas, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Wisconsin. Virginia will be the 15th state to adopt a restriction in the coming days when Governor Glenn Youngkin is expected to sign S.B. 1438.??

Renée Johnson, an agricultural policy analyst with the Congressional Research Service, spoke at the February USDA Agricultural Outlook Forum about four categories of foreign farmland ownership restrictions that have gathered interest in the 117th and 118th Congress.

The first category of legislation Johnson identified was legislation which restricts foreign entities from accessing USDA-administered programs, like the Farm Credit for Americans Act introduced in 2022 by Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa.

Johnson noted that these bills, while popular, would be “extremely complicated” to do as a general restriction given there are many different USDA programs that have different constituents and requirements.

Schwarz said he does not believe curbing access to USDA programs will reduce foreign investment, since the value of the farmland as an asset may outweigh the benefits of being eligible for voluntary programs.

The second category Johnson identified was adding the Department of Agriculture to CFIUS, like in the FARM Act of 2023 introduced by Republican Sen. Tommy Tuberville of Alabama. This change would give the agriculture community a voice on the committee, which can request the President block land sales it deems threatening to national security.

Johnson said that Congress’ agriculture committees would not have the ability to pass the bill, as CFIUS is governed by the Treasury. Yet she noted that this change is feasible if advanced through the Senate Banking Committee.

Lowery said in the February Senate hearing that he views adding the USDA to CFIUS as “totally reasonable.”

Johnson added that the idea is worth keeping an eye on as it has gained bipartisan support.

Bans on foreign land purchases

A third category Johnson identified was sweeping bans on ag land purchases for “foreign adversaries,” such as in Rounds’ PASS Act.

Johnson noted that these bills have much more to do with military infrastructure and conflict between the U.S. and the governments of China, Iran, Russia, and North Korea.

Zwagerman said that while the federal government may have the right to restrict foreign ownership for national security reasons, passing the bill would require an “extreme set of circumstances with a lot of fighting.”

“There are concerns about already-owned foreign property, and that the government is taking its authority to regulate land ownership for security concerns too far,” she said.

Schwarz said that the Farm Service Agency and Natural Resources Conservation Service, which would likely be responsible for handling oversight on laws like these, may become “over-bloated programs” if this is done at the national level.

Zwagerman added that she holds other concerns with discussions of these wide-reaching land ownership restrictions, especially the “isolationist aspect” she thinks it could pull the country towards.

Rounds said concerns about this section of his bill are misplaced.

“It is strictly based upon whether or not they have an affiliation with the government of those four countries,” Rounds said. “That’s pretty straightforward.”

A fourth category that Johnson identified is large-scale agricultural land ownership restrictions on China alone, as in the Prohibition of Agricultural Land for the People’s Republic of China Act introduced last session by Republican Rep. Dan Newhouse of Washington.

Brown, in a National Agricultural Law Center webinar, said the broad language of some USDA program-related and foreign ownership restriction bills could affect many entities with looser ties to China.

Johnson said that some members of the House Select Committee on Strategic Competition between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party are concerned about fueling backlash against “certain Asian communities in the United States.”

“It’s concerning,” said Manjusha Kulkarni, executive director of AAPI Equity Alliance, of proposed restrictions in a message to States Newsroom.

“Our elected leaders are responsible for ensuring we don’t pass or propose any laws that will do little good but cause real harm to Asian Americans.”

What Congress might consider

The evidence that prohibiting foreign farmland purchases would serve any national security or economic purpose is inconclusive.

The Department of Agriculture could find “neither a consistent nor significant relationship” between foreign ownership and land values or rental rates.

The Center for Strategic and International Studies also found that “these acquisitions do not represent a substantial enough portion of food production in the United States to threaten national food security.”

Still, a number of industry groups have publicly acknowledged support for restricting foreign farmland ownership, including the American Farm Bureau and Family Farm Action, an advocacy group for family-owned farms.

Zwagerman said that when it comes to monitoring foreign investment through the USDA and FDA, it “sort of feels like that ship sailed.”

“There isn’t just a local, or even national, agriculture-and-food economy anymore,” she said. “Everything we have is already at an international level.”

Schwarz said he doubts anything will get done at the federal level on foreign ownership, but state or county taxing infrastructure could be a better way to monitor foreign farmland transactions.

Brown said at the Agricultural Outlook Forum that despite an uncertain outlook for a federal foreign ownership law, “something he’s been thinking about” is the prospect of a random audit system for foreign transactions monitored by the USDA.

He added that the Farm Service Administration already does randomized audits with participants in its other programs, like crop insurance.

Zwagerman said she thinks the energy being given to this issue may be better spent on encouraging the next generation of producers, and keeping land in production.

From 2001 through 2016, the U.S. converted more than 11 million acres of agricultural land to other uses, according to the American Farmland Trust.

“I would rather have more of a consideration or discussion about how we just keep farmland, as a whole,” Zwagerman said. “That’s a bigger concern.”

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack addresses the annual Agricultural Outlook Forum, the largest annual meeting of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. (USDA photo by Tom Witham)

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack on Monday announced new steps the Department of Agriculture is taking to recenter U.S. agriculture and benefit small and midsized operations, including a proposed new “Product of USA” labeling rule and an $89 million expansion of the USDA intermediary lending program.

At the National Farmers Union conference in San Francisco, Vilsack also discussed creating a new “seed liaison” in the department to increase fairness in the commodity biotech industry, and proposed changes to the Packers and Stockyards Act. The Packers and Stockyards Act governs competition in the livestock and poultry industries, and is supposed to prevent unfair market manipulation or consolidation.

The secretary said these developments mark progress in the Biden administration’s approach to transform the existing food system and increase resilience and profitability.

“I want this audience — and every audience I’ve been speaking to —? to understand that it’s not just this ‘organic over here, and local original food over here, and processing over here,’” Vilsack said.

“It’s part of a concerted effort to create another model. One that doesn’t necessarily require us to not produce — we want to produce what the world needs us to produce. But one that creates more revenue opportunities within that same small and midsize farming operation.”

The National Farmers Union is a nonprofit organization with the mission to “protect and enhance the quality of life of American family farmers and ranchers and their communities,” according to its website.?

Negative farm income

Vilsack, a former governor of Iowa, broke out a whiteboard and marker to illustrate the challenges American farmers are facing with land consolidation and declining returns. He said that despite record farm income in 2022, 50% of farms nationwide brought in negative farm income.

The secretary added that while 10% of farms made a net profit, nearly 40% of these profitable farms were owned by investment banks and large landholders who bring in more than $1 million per year in revenue.

Vilsack attributed this imbalance to the “get big or get out” structure of production-based agriculture, which took hold in the 1970s. He noted that his Trump administration predecessor, former Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue, was honest about this reality. Yet Vilsack said the approach is one he refuses to accept.

“That does raise the question of what do we do,” Vilsack said. “This is the game, but it’s based on production. I think we’ve got to develop a new game. A game where farmers can not only raise crops and sell them, and raise livestock and sell them, and get government payments, but they can get other ways to make money from the same landmass.”

Loan program?

To punctuate his vision, Vilsack announced new investments in diversifying local and regional meat processors, including $89 million in guaranteed loans through the USDA’s intermediary lending program.

The loan program will provide credit to independently owned-and-operated meat processing facilities to expand or purchase equipment. The investment comes in addition to the more than $100 million being invested in grants this year to expand processing supply chain capacity.

“These are resources that didn’t exist before, that creates competition to create better value,” Vilsack said.

Vilsack also mentioned a USDA rule proposed Monday that would alter the criteria for a product to use a “Product of USA” label. The secretary noted that while producers voluntarily put this label on packages for marketing purposes, prior criteria only required that labeled food products be processed in the United States. As such, the primary agricultural product could be grown, slaughtered, or raised outside the country.

Vilsack said that the new rule would require goods that use a “Product of USA” label to have their whole production cycle based in the United States.

Vilsack also said that the USDA was releasing a “seed report” on Monday, which details agency plans to provide oversight on intellectual property within the plant science sector. He said that the report outlines plans to create a “seed liaison” through the Agricultural Marketing Service, which will address concerns over intellectual property claims in the commodity seed market.

Vilsack said that this individual’s responsibility would be to gather input from farmers and breeders on the fairness of a given patent claim during the process of approval.

“They will now have a place and person to go to, to share information and to make sure that information is supplied in the complex formal process of a patent,” Vilsack said. “This now gives these folks an opportunity to have input.”

Vilsack added that the USDA will also partner with the U.S. Patent and Trade Office on a task force designed to limit unnecessary trait-stacking in genetically modified seeds, and encourage seed market competition.

Packers and Stockyards Act

Vilsack also addressed the USDA’s proposed changes to the Packers and Stockyards Act and efforts to bring increased fairness to the meat industry

The secretary noted that the department expects to push through four new rules related to the act over the next two years, which would drive market competition and open space for small and mid-sized producers to prosper.

The first rule Vilsack discussed would require increased financial disclosures for large-scale processors and integrators in the poultry supply chain. The secretary noted this first rule is in the comment analysis period, and will likely be approved in 2023.

The other rule Vilsack expects the agency to issue this year would prohibit large-scale operations from retaliating against independent producers if these large commercial farms are reported to a regulatory agency. He said that this rule is currently in the comment gathering stage, and will likely become law in 2023.

The third Packers and Stockyards rule would alter the structure of the tournament system, in which poultry breeders are forced to compete over processor markets. Vilsack said he expected the process of approving this rule to “bleed over into 2024.”

“That rule is in the process of being worked on as a kind of a new concept,” the secretary said. “When we first started this, we weren’t actually thinking about it. But by virtue of the comments that we got, we thought we needed to do that.”

Vilsack also touched on a fourth rule which is in the process of being written. The rule will address the scope of harms required to bring an unfair competition or injury claim under the Packers and Stockyards Act.

“It is the most complicated rule,” Vilsack said. “That rule is obviously going to attract a lot of attention.”

Vilsack said the goal would be to have all four rules in place by 2024.

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack addresses the annual Agricultural Outlook Forum, the largest annual meeting of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. (USDA photo by Tom Witham)

Planting corn near Dwight, Ill. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

Planting corn near Dwight, Ill. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Members of the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee quibbled Thursday over spending on crop insurance and ad-hoc disaster relief, previewing potential fights in the 2023 farm bill.

Legislators of both parties emphasized their support at a Thursday hearing for better funding programs that protect underserved producers, and accounting for future natural disasters in crop insurance negotiations.

“Farming remains one of the riskiest businesses, and farmers still need these tools,” said Democratic Michigan Senator Debbie Stabenow, chairwoman of the committee. “We need to work together to create a farm safety net that is responsive to the needs of all of our farmers.”

But Republican members of the committee raised concerns about the amount of recent spending on emergency aid. The committee’s ranking member, John Boozman of Arkansas, said authorized farm bill programs formed a better safety net than ad-hoc aid.

“We owe it to all Americans to ensure the bottom does not fall out of agriculture,” Boozman said. “We cannot only focus on certain programs and not others when all farm bill programs are necessary to achieve economic sustainability for our farmers, ranchers and rural communities.”

The federal farm “safety net” is a collection of policies that provide billions of dollars worth of annual risk protection and income support to American farmers. The programs protect producers from the financial impacts of poor growing seasons, low market prices and disaster relief.

From 2018 through 2021, average annual expenditures included $8.9 billion for the federal crop insurance program, $660 million for the standing disaster assistance programs, and $5.7 billion for the commodity support programs.

If continued into the next farm bill, the Congressional Research Service estimates combined spending on the federal crop insurance, agricultural commodity support and agricultural disaster programs would be $13.4 billion annually over the next 9 years.

The USDA also administered more than $65 billion in ad-hoc farm aid from 2019 through 2023, to help farmers navigate trade wars, natural disasters, and the COVID-19 pandemic.

Assessing the net’s impacts

USDA Under Secretary for Farm Production and Conservation Robert Bonnie, Farm Service Agency Administrator Zach Ducheneaux, and Risk Management Agency Administrator Marcia Bunger briefed the panel on the current state of farm aid programs.

Bonnie said the FSA has processed over 350,000 applications totaling over $8 billion in payments to livestock and crop producers to help offset losses from 2020 and 2021.

He added that the omnibus spending bill passed last year will allow for close to $10 billion annually of USDA ad-hoc relief in 2023, similar to recent years.

Bonnie said that crop insurance still remains a “vital tool” for producers, and the department has made efforts to expand crop insurance options in a greater range of options.

Bunger spoke to the necessity of expanding high-quality crop insurance policies to specialty and organic crop producers, along with smaller operations.

“My husband and I have been farming together for the last 40 years, and in the last 27 years, crop insurance has been a cornerstone of our operation,” Bunger said. “It’s a passion of mine that all of these growers, whether they are beginning farmers, whether they are veterans, that they have the same kind of policy my husband and I have used.”

Increasing equity, access to protection

Stabenow asked Bunger about how the Risk Management Agency plans to bolster options for specialty crop producers.

Bunger responded that the agency has been hosting stakeholder meetings across the country, and has worked to ease the application process and lower requirements for insurance plans for small-scale farms.

Democratic Sen. Tina Smith of Minnesota asked how the farm bill could improve access to credit and insurance programs for farmers of color.

Ducheneaux replied that a culture shift must take place within the agency, adjusting tests of credit, using Inflation Adjustment Act resources to make loan modifications and lowering barriers like excessive paperwork.

“We should look to be the lender of first opportunity, as opposed to the lender of last resort,” Ducheneaux said.

Sen. Ben Ray Lujan, a Democrat from New Mexico, expressed concern over a lack of eligibility for some drought-stressed New Mexico farmers to receive prevented plant payments due to the Trump administration’s “one-in-four” rule. This rule states that agricultural land must be planted, insured, and harvested in one of the past four years to receive prevented plant compensation.

“We have come to hear from groups stakeholders that we maybe didn’t have all of the conversations that we needed to have,” Bunger replied. “One in four is very regionalized in a lot of cases. And so for this coming year, we’ve made an exception for several Western states to step outside of that one-in-four.”

Bunger noted New Mexico will be receiving one of these waivers.

Planning for disaster in the farm bill

A number of senators spoke to the imbalance of farmer aid resources between the farm bill and ad-hoc programs, voicing concerns over inequity and wasteful spending. Ad-hoc farm payments to farmers have dwarfed crop insurance payments, $70 billion to $3 billion, over the last 6 years.

“The reality suggests the existing safety nets need to be enhanced, and that we must find a better way to more quickly deliver relief to producers,” Boozman said.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, an Iowa Republican, noted that the crop insurance title of the farm bill is one of the most heavily funded. He asked if there is any way to better set up crop insurance to mitigate the need for ad-hoc funding.

Bonnie noted that reducing paperwork is key to ensuring that existing disaster programs in the farm bill get rolled out quickly, along with expanding access to crop insurance and the Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program.

Still, Bonnie noted that while the USDA structures their ad-hoc programs to recruit enrollees into the crop insurance and disaster assistance programs, there is growing interest in the ad-hoc programs among producers.

“I think our job on the implementation side is to get those out as efficiently and quickly as we can to help our producers,” Bonnie said. “We’re open to discussion.”

Addressing foreign ownership

Republican Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa asked, in light of the recent Chinese suspected spy balloon incident, if Congress can use the farm bill to modernize the Agriculture Foreign Investment Disclosure Act.

Bonnie said that monitoring and disclosing of foreign agriculture investments to the USDA is a “paper-based process,” and the department lacks enforcement tools to enforce oversight of that paperwork.

Republican Sen. Mike Braun of Indiana asked if the USDA would commit to blocking purchases of land from countries like China, Iran, North Korea and Russia.

Bonnie said that he would not commit to blocking purchases, but offered technical assistance on drafting the legislation.

Wisconsin farm (Photo by Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — After two strong years of growth, U.S. farm income is forecast to drop substantially in 2023 as commodity prices fall and expenses rise, the U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service reported Tuesday.

And with food prices projected to rise into 2023, the nation’s producers will not be reaping the financial benefits.

The economic team said inflation-adjusted net cash profits are expected to decline from a record-high $195.3 billion last year to $150.3 billion in calendar year 2023, a drop of 22.9%.

Projected net farm income will fall to $136.9 billion, according to the ERS, 18.2% below the calendar year 2022 levels when adjusted for inflation. 2022 marked the best year on record for inflation-adjusted net farm income since 1973.

The division added that declines in farm income are expected to affect nearly all specialty operations and regions across the country.

The farm sector income and wealth forecast was the first of 2023. ERS senior economist Carrie Litkowski also spoke on a webinar about what the details of the forecast hold for farmers and legislators.

“The goal of forecasting is not to predict the future, but to tell you what you need to know to take meaningful action in the present,” Litkowski said.

She said that USDA data on farm income and wealth can contribute to discussions in Congress this year on the upcoming farm bill.

The U.S. farm sector comprises roughly 2 million farms, which operate close to 900 million acres of land.

Broader farm income?

Litkowski said that the drop in net farm cash income and net farm income levels can be largely attributed to lower commodity prices. She noted the ERS forecast a 4% reduction in commodity cash receipts from calendar years 2022 to 2023, equal to $23.6 billion.

Litkowski added that total crop cash receipts are expected to decline close to 6% from 2022, with corn and soy most affected. Still, Litkowski said cash receipts for both crops will remain at relatively high levels.

The economist also cited the impacts of a $5.4 billion reduction in direct government payments to farmers in 2023, to $10.8 billion. This number reflects a forecast 34.4% drop in federal spending, which Litkowski attributed to declining payouts for USDA pandemic aid and disaster assistance programs.

Litkowski also attributed net farm income declines to growing production costs, forecast to increase by an inflation-adjusted $18.3 billion from 2022. Litkowski said these cost increases are driven predominantly by growth in interest rates, livestock and poultry expenses, and labor expenses.

The economists also cited growing operator dwelling expenses as affecting production costs for farmers, including factors like property taxes.

Farm businesses

Litkowski noted that all farm businesses in the report, regardless of location or crop specialty, are forecast to see declines in cash receipts and government payments along with increasing costs.

The ERS noted that average net cash farm income for farm businesses is expected to fall 17.7% in nominal terms, to $92,400. A nominal dollar measure is an amount of money that has not had its value adjusted for the effects of inflation.

The economists added that all commodity specializations of farm businesses are forecast to receive lower average cash net income.

Total animal cash receipts are forecast to decline 8% from calendar years 2022 to 2023. The largest dollar decline for commodities is milk, which is forecast to see a $10 billion decrease in cash receipts.

“Milk receipts will fall in 2023 because of a lower milk price,” Litkowski said.

Dairy and hog farmers are expected to see the largest relative decline in animal cash receipts from calendar years 2022 to 2023.

Cash receipts for eggs are also expected to decline 26% in 2023, compared to calendar year 2022.

Litkowski noted that avian flu caused the price of eggs to skyrocket over the past three years, and that the sector will start to recover from the shocks of these outbreaks in 2023.

Litkowski said that farmers growing cotton and specialty crops are also expected to see large nominal dollar declines.

Geographically, farm businesses in the Fruitful Rim and Northern Crescent regions are among those expected to see the largest net farm income declines.

The Fruitful Rim includes western Oregon, western Washington, south-central Idaho, western California, most of Arizona, the southern rim of Texas, Florida, southern Alabama and southern Georgia.

The Northern Crescent includes the upper Midwest and the Northeast, including Wisconsin, eastern Minnesota, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Rhode Island.

Farm businesses in the Fruitful Rim region are forecast to see the largest median nominal dollar decrease, of $46,700, and those in the Northern Crescent region are forecast to see the largest median percentage decrease in net cash farm income at 29.9% per farm, according to the ERS.

Farm household income?

The wellbeing of farm operator households is determined by a combination of on-farm and off-farm activity. Most income for many of these households comes from off the farm, according to the ERS.

The government service found that median total farm household income is forecast to decrease 0.4% in 2023 from 2022, to $96,715, when adjusted for inflation. Yet median net farm income earned by farm households is expected to drop another $442, producing a median average of $1,123 in adjusted net farm household income losses in 2023.

Litkowski said this number should not cause panic.

“At the median, farm income is negative,” Litkowski explained. “But recall that half of all farms are what we call residential farms, where the primary occupation of the operator is not farming. So this results in a low and usually negative farm income at the median.”

Litkowski added that median off-farm income in 2023 is projected to grow to $91,080, a 0.4% increase from 2022 when adjusted for inflation.

Douglas Dam on the French Broad River. (TVA photo)

WASHINGTON – Extreme weather patterns have sparked several improvements to the climate resiliency of Tennessee Valley Authority electrical infrastructure over the past two decades.

However, a report from a government watchdog found the huge utility still has work to do in mitigating climate hazards to the regional power grid.

“TVA has taken several steps to manage climate-related risks,” the Jan. 30 report from the Government Accountability Office said. “However, TVA has not conducted an inventory of assets and operations vulnerable to climate change, or developed a resilience plan that identifies and prioritizes resilience measures to address specific risks.”

One issue: The Southeast has experienced a period of accelerated warming since the 1960s. Among cities in the region, 61% are experiencing worsening heat waves, a percentage greater than anywhere else in the country, according to the GAO.

The report came in response to a five-part joint request for information on the climate resiliency of U.S. infrastructure, from U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chair Joe Manchin III of West Virginia and Environment and Public Works Committee Chair Tom Carper of Delaware. The two Democrats sent their request to the GAO on May 13, 2019.

Their request followed the release of the GAO’s biennial High Risk List in 2019, which found that “neither global efforts to mitigate climate change causes nor regional adaptation efforts currently approach the scales needed to avoid substantial damages to the U.S. economy, environment, and human health over the coming decades.”

TVA’s “accelerating” climate challenges

The GAO examined the climate resilience of TVA facilities from August 2021 to December 2022 — in other words, the ability to prepare for, recover from and adapt to the effects of climate change.

The report said that increasing temperatures, changing precipitation patterns and more frequent extreme weather events pose a number of risks to TVA’s operations.

“Because TVA is the nation’s largest public power provider, potential climate change effects on TVA’s infrastructure and operations could have significant economic and social consequences,” the GAO said.

The authors said the effects of regional warming may include increased demand for electricity, along with a decrease in capacity for hydroelectric, gas, and nuclear power generation.

Intensifying heat and rainfall patterns can also damage transmission lines, and cause problems for worker health, according to the report.

The GAO also interviewed an unidentified source, who said that tornadoes are increasing in frequency, which could damage transmission lines. An Oak Ridge National Laboratory report found that increasing wildfire risk threatens electrical transmission and distribution systems. Since utilities can be held liable from fires linked to power lines, the TVA could hold serious financial liability, the GAO said.

To punctuate its claims, the GAO referenced a climate-connected series of shutdowns at the TVA’s Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant near Athens, Alabama. In 2007, 2010, and 2011, the TVA had to shut down the nuclear facility because water temperatures were too high to cool the generator “without significant environmental impact.”

The authors said these challenges may lead the TVA to buy power from other suppliers, hiking rates for their more than 10 million customers across Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, and Virginia.

Steps towards resilience

The GAO credited the TVA for taking a number of steps in identifying and assessing climate-related risks, including integrating climate-related risk assessment into its strategic planning.

The GAO also pointed out that the TVA has done assessments for the flood resistance of infrastructure near the Tennessee River, and collaborated with both the University of Tennessee and Oak Ridge National Laboratory on climate-based river management strategies.

Furthermore, more than $160 million has been spent on moving substations and bolstering flood resistance at the TVA’s nuclear plants since 2009, according to the GAO report.

However, the auditors found that the utility has not conducted a full inventory of “its assets and operations vulnerable to climate change.”

They cite that in TVA’s 2016 Climate Change Adaptation Action Plan, TVA officials state that major planning processes for the utility should identify all significant climate risks, which could “significantly impair, obstruct, or prevent agency success.”

But the utility has not assessed broader climate risks in its major projects or assets, like the risk of flooding to its substations.

“This is particularly important as these vulnerabilities become more acute and as new and better climate information becomes available, thereby reducing uncertainty,” the report said

The authors also found that the TVA does not maintain an overarching climate resiliency plan for all of its at-risk operations and assets.

Instead, the utility relies on a series of “resiliency documents,” which include no portfolio of climate-based risks, action steps, or plans for how and when to mitigate those vulnerabilities.

“This (larger climate resiliency plan), in turn, would help TVA fulfill its mission of providing reliable and affordable power to its customers,” the authors said.

TVA responds

The GAO auditors recommended that the TVA conduct a complete inventory and assessment of climate-vulnerable assets and operations, along with developing a periodically updated “resilience plan” with a portfolio of mitigation measures and action plans.

However, the TVA Board of Directors position did not accept or reject the GAO’s recommendations. Instead, the TVA argued that it is already working on most of the actions advised in the federal audit, but that an overarching resilience plan would be impractical for the utility.

The Tennessee Valley Authority faces no legal obligation to act on GAO recommendations.

“The GAO’s recommendations to the TVA for improvement are appreciated,” said Rebecca Tolene, chief sustainability officer at the Tennessee Valley Authority, in a written response included in the GAO report.

“It is important, however, to note that as it relates to these recommendations, that the TVA uses a constant, ongoing risk process to ensure that each TVA major business unit identifies significant climate change risks on an ongoing basis.”

Tolene said that while the TVA does not have one consolidated inventory of climate-vulnerable assets and operations, “we continually evaluate climate-related risk to each area of operations.”

She added that the TVA has partnered with Oak Ridge National Laboratory and the Department of Energy to create an asset-specific risk management system, and a “corporate-level initiative” to monitor climate resilience and associated efforts began at the start of 2022.

With regards to the recommended TVA resilience plan, Tolene said that the TVA issues an annual climate adaptation report, which receives periodic updates.

She added that the TVA has an enterprise risk management division, which conducts annual assessments of risks to each individual branch of the utility.

“This helps to ensure identified risks and risk mitigation actions are properly managed based on a probability and impact assessment,” Tolene said.

GAO skeptical

The TVA officer’s statements on the comprehensiveness of its climate-risk inventory were met with skepticism from the GAO.

“TVA continually evaluates climate-related risks to each area of its operations,” the auditors said. “However, TVA has not assessed the risks that climate change may pose to all major planning processes or assets.

“We continue to believe that our recommendation that TVA conduct an inventory of assets and operations vulnerable to climate change is valid and will help TVA better plan and implement appropriate actions to address climate change vulnerabilities.”

The GAO added that the TVA’s resistance to a climate resilience plan rested on assumptions that the information contained in that plan and the climate adaptation plan would be the same.

“While TVA’s climate adaptation reports highlight certain risks and resilience measures, the reports do not outline a portfolio of resilience measures or identify an action plan that specifies which risks to address, as well as how and when to do so,” the authors said.

“We continue to believe that our recommendation would help TVA identify what options exist to determine whether mitigating certain risks are worth the investment.”

This GAO report follows a larger 2021 audit on the limited climate resilience of the nation’s power grid.

Carper issued a statement to States Newsroom Thursday, crediting the GAO for its work in revealing climate vulnerabilities in the nation’s power grid.

“As our nation’s largest federally-owned utility, TVA should be a leader in transitioning to clean energy and making its electricity grid more resilient,” Carper said.

“Doing so is critical for TVA’s ability to deliver reliable, affordable energy for the more than 10 million Americans it serves well into the future. I look forward to hearing what TVA plans to do differently in response to this report.”

A view of medical marijuana products at Vireo Health's medical marijuana cultivation facility in 2016 in Johnstown, N.Y. (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

Mountain biking in the. Wayne National Forest near Ironton, Ohio. (U.S. Forest Service photo)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Agriculture began planning this month to develop outdoor recreation opportunities near national forests and grasslands, part of a broader Biden administration push to help communities reap economic rewards from the growing recreation sector.

Three USDA agencies — the U.S. Forest Service, the National Institute of Food and Agriculture and the Office of Rural Development — signed a memorandum of understanding last fall pledging to collaborate on plans to develop outdoor recreation economies in “gateway communities” near national forests and grasslands, according to a Jan. 19 press release.

The agency selected its final team to begin developing the first annual plan in mid-January, a Rural Development spokesperson said. The spokesperson declined to be identified by name.

“We know that when we invest in rural and tribal communities and people, we create an economic ripple effect that benefits everyone,” the spokesperson said in a written statement to States Newsroom.

Many of the rural communities near national forests and grasslands have experienced significant economic downturns in recent years. The multi-agency effort is meant to help those communities harness the economic power of outdoor recreation.

“We want to be intentional about making sure that they are getting economic, social, and physical benefits,” Toby Bloom, the national program manager for travel, tourism, and interpretation with the Forest Service, said.

Some communities may have been reliant on a large employer that closed, forcing people to find work elsewhere and leading to a shrinking workforce that discourages further investment, Bloom said.

“If we can address that vicious cycle by creating opportunities, creating jobs, there’s a huge amount of jobs that are generated by recreation every year,” she added.

Bloom highlighted a mountain biking trail network near Ironton, Ohio, as an example of a community reorienting its economy around outdoor recreation tourism.

The USDA program is an acknowledgement from the government about the clear economic benefits of the outdoor recreation sector for rural areas, Chris Perkins, the senior director at the industry and nonprofit coalition group Outdoor Recreation Roundtable, said.

“What this partnership will do is just make the process of economic development around outdoor recreation a possibility for more communities,” Perkins said. “That will help demystify the process. And it will help them access funding and take on challenges before they arise.”

The great outdoors: a booming economic sector

Funding for the initiative will come from existing USDA grant, loan and service programs, though specific figures have not been set, the Rural Development spokesperson said.

The spokesperson added that the agencies will prioritize projects that advance Biden administration goals to address climate change, environmental justice, racial equity and improved market opportunities.

Bloom explained that this is the first time the partnership will push recreation opportunities as projects for funding.

“Previously, we never thought about using a recreation lens,” Bloom said. “And we’re seeing now what an important piece of the economy it is.”

The U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis found that outdoor recreation produced $454 billion in economic activity, accounting for 1.9% of the nation’s gross domestic product in 2021. The agency also found that employment in outdoor recreation grew by 13.1% from 2020 to 2021. The sector supports close to 6.1 million jobs directly nationwide, according to the USDA.

Interest in outdoor activity is only accelerating, Perkins said. The sector grew at three times the rate of the larger U.S. economy last year, as people turned to the outdoors as a tool for physical and mental health, he added.

Rural communities close to public lands also tend to have a lower tax base, as no one is building on the land, Bloom said.

“This is really an attempt to help those communities that are near public lands and water capitalize on the financial opportunities that exist,” the program manager said. “Yes, you may have a smaller tax base, but you have these recreation amenities that have the potential to generate as much, if not even more, income.”

COVID-19 highlighted the importance of outdoor recreation, Bloom said. The pandemic’s early months saw an explosion in outdoor recreation. And while some rural communities handled the influx of tourists effectively, others were left scrambling to accommodate the jump in visitor numbers, she said.

“It’s kind of like America rediscovered its outdoors,” Bloom said. “And so as federal agencies, we need to help both the visitors have their best peak experience and also help those communities that are receiving visitors be able to manage that visitation and also benefit from it.”

The roots of the USDA initiative?

President Barack Obama launched the Federal Interagency Council on Outdoor Recreation in 2011. The council, made up of representatives from USDA, and the departments of Interior, Commerce and Defense, conducted the country’s first wide-scale economic analysis of the recreation economy.

Obama’s successor, Donald Trump, disbanded the council when he took office in 2017.

The Biden administration re-established the council last summer, laying the groundwork for the renewed partnership, Bloom said.

The council helped raise the recreation sector’s profile with politicians, Bloom said, setting the stage for the USDA agencies to bring their own expertise to the project.

‘Open the faucet’

The agencies will help communities plan to create or enhance outdoor recreation opportunities. They will also provide funding for development programs and help communities apply for federal grants.

As the agencies develop their annual plans, an emphasis will be on “sustainable growth,” according to the release. That means helping the local outdoors sectors grow at a pace the communities can handle, while also keeping in mind resilience to climate change and natural disasters.“Anybody who opens their eyes has seen the impact of natural disasters on our country,” Bloom said. “We really need to start thinking about how we are going to approach recreation, knowing that we have these challenges ahead of us.”

Priorities for the first plan will include development of affordable housing around gateway communities and giving more opportunities for people of color, low-income residents and members of the LGBTQ community to visit outdoor recreation spaces.

Affordable housing and accommodations for the existing local workforce should be priorities in the plan, Perkins said, as should equitable access to funding and the planning process for local residents.

“The communities that do best in developing these recreation economies are the ones that have everyone at the table,” Perkins said. “So many people are craving recreation right now, it’s tough to close that faucet.

“But if you can think about how you want to open the faucet and invite people to your community, and the messaging you want to share with them about how to be a responsible visitor, that’s where this work really benefits everyone.”

The program is already attracting attention from state-based groups such as the Alaska Outdoors Association and other agencies within the Forest Service, she said.

The program’s goal is to boost both environmental stewardship and economic benefit, Bloom said.

“You can’t ask people to decide between putting food on the table and conserving nature,” she said. “But if I can help somebody put food on the table by conserving nature, that’s a success for me.”

Kindergarten teacher and class. (Photo by Getty Images)

WASHINGTON – A panel of policymakers and educators, including author Dave Eggers and former U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, gathered at the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday to promote the American Teacher Act.

The bill, if passed, would authorize the federal government to create four-year grants for states to enact and enforce minimum school teacher salary requirements of $60,000 or more. The program would start in fiscal 2024. It would not mandate teacher raises.

“We’re here today to advocate for our teachers, our educators, our saving grace that rescues families and our children every day,” said Rep. Frederica Wilson, D-Florida, sponsor of the bill and a former school teacher. “We want our teachers to be paid a livable wage. A wage that is fair, a wage that is commensurate with today’s economy.”

Wilson introduced the American Teacher Act in the House of Representatives on Dec. 14, and is expected to re-introduce it in this Congress, though it’s likely to run into opposition from Republicans who control the chamber.

The legislation states that 15% of the four-year federal grants could support state-level educational agencies, while the remaining 85% must go directly to a state’s local school districts.

The bill includes a cost-of-living adjustment that would peg teacher salaries to inflation, along with a clause allowing for a national awareness campaign on the importance and work of teachers.

Phelton Moss, a senior policy adviser to Wilson, said that the bill also incorporates a maintenance-of-effort provision that requires states not to pull back on their commitment to a $60,000 minimum salary, if they are to keep their funding. Additional language inside the bill would ensure states prioritize Title I schools and districts in distributing funds.

In the 2020-2021 school year, public school teachers made $61,600 while working 52 hours per week, on average. Yet there is significant variation in teacher salary among ?states.

Mississippi, the lowest-paying state for teachers in the 2020-2021 school year, paid an average of $46,862, according to the National Education Association. Meanwhile, in New York, the average teacher salary sat at $90,222.

‘Heroes’ struggle to stay afloat

Wilson commended the dedication of school teachers during the COVID-19 pandemic, who taught online or went door-to-door to instruct students who lacked access to technology.

”It was during this time that the world finally saw what we’d known for years, that teachers are heroes,” she said. “They deserve a livable, competitive salary that accurately reflects the importance of their role in society.”

Wilson said that 1 in 5 teachers across the country currently works a second job to supplement their income, and over 9,000 districts across the country pay teachers less than $40,000 per year.

She said this lack of adequate pay is largely contributing to some reports of a teacher shortage affecting school districts.

“We should be embarrassed,” Wilson said. “The teacher shortage is among the most pressing threats to education access today. And we must address it. Our classrooms are at stake, our children are at stake, and the future of our country is at stake.”

Ellen Sherratt of the Teacher Salary Project said that over her 20 years of experience as an economist analyzing teacher salaries and shortages, the pay gap and morale of teachers is the worst it has ever been.

Last fall, the Economic Policy Institute performed an analysis of teacher pay trends from 1970 to 2021, and found that teachers earn 23.5% less on average compared to their peers of similar educational backgrounds.

Sherratt also said that 62% of parents surveyed in a PDK poll on public schools last year said they did not want their child to go into teaching, with low pay the top-listed reason.

Rodney Robinson, the 2019 National Teacher of the Year, estimated that roughly 50% of the Ubers and Lyfts he takes during the week are driven by schoolteachers. The Richmond, Va., resident added that one of these Uber drivers was a former teacher in Alabama. The driver was studying to be a principal, and had to quit his job as a teacher to pay for school.

“We really need to re-examine what we are doing as a country,” Robinson said. “If teachers — who are our most prized possessions, who raise the next generation — have to quit or take on another job just to make ends meet.”

Nicholas Ferroni, a history teacher at Union High School in Union, New Jersey, added that teaching is one of the few jobs in which people can have the greatest impact on the greatest number of people. Ferroni lamented the fact that teachers have to use GoFundMe to “beg for supplies.”

“I’m just here because I don’t want to marry rich, become an administrator, or switch jobs,” Ferroni said. “I do want to stay in the classroom.”

Teachers and students’ futures

Duncan, the former education secretary, said the impacts of a good teacher are not just test scores and graduation rates, but financial security. He said that an economic analysis from Raj Chetty showed that one good middle-school teacher raised the lifetime earnings of a given class by $250,000.

“So you think about putting two good teachers back-to-back, or three good teachers back-to-back,” Duncan said. “What does that do for young people in perpetuity?”

Duncan also spoke to the institutional barriers to socioeconomic equity that high-quality education can surmount.

“No kid grows up wanting to be poor,” Duncan said. “The only way I know how to break the cycles of poverty and create upward mobility is to create opportunity. Getting great teachers where we need them most is critically important.”

Robinson said the bill could reduce barriers for people of color in entering the profession, and eroding the national achievement gap.

“People don’t understand the extra burden for people of color to take on more student loan debt,” Robinson said. “We know having educators of color, teachers that look like their students, is the most important thing to lowering that achievement gap and increasing graduation rates.”

“By increasing teacher salaries, we can make a dedication to increasing diversity in the teacher workforce.”

Blowback predicted?

Moss said that there are still details yet to be finalized in the teacher salary bill, including the concrete definition of “teacher” and provisions for veteran educators.

Robinson added that he sees this bill inevitably facing resistance, yet that blowback should not deter its supporters.

“You know, pious D.C.,” Robinson said. “‘How are we gonna pay for this? How are we gonna do this?’”

“How can we afford not to pay for this? This is an issue of national security.”

Duncan challenged claims from some teachers that the American Teachers Act represents federal overreach. “Education is the ultimate bipartisan issue,” Duncan said. “This is nation-building. Our teacher workforce in our country is the best offense for our nation.”

Robinson added that the bill will put pressure on states to raise and maintain wages even after the grant is over, as they face competition from other states paying teachers more, who leave to work in a higher-paying community.

Eggers praises his teachers?

After the roundtable, Eggers talked about the “uninterrupted string of extraordinary teachers” in his education during an interview with States Newsroom. The author said that he still sends his books in manuscript form to a former high school English teacher, Peter Ferry, who is one of his first readers.

“Every single study that has ever tested what’s the most important thing in a student’s education —? it’s not the color of the paint on the walls, or the facilities,” Eggers said. “The very most important thing is the teachers. It’s a school. It has to be teachers first.”

The author emphasized that if the pay schedule for teachers rises, talent will enter and stay in the profession, and the nation will grow to recognize the value of what teachers bring to the table.

“We know there’s a crisis,” Eggers said. “ We have hundreds of thousands of empty classrooms.? We have schools that only have one or two qualified teachers. This is maybe the most urgent moment in the last 150 years. And so there isn’t any other option. We have to start somewhere.”

Stacks of boxes holding mail are seen at a U.S. Post Office sorting center. Photo by Justin Sullivan | Getty Images