Last year, the President’s budget called for $231 billion in cuts to mandatory farm bill programs. You were not yet at USDA when the budget was released but I hope that we’ll be able to see your influence when the new budget is unveiled next week. I’m not sure anybody in the Administration really understands agriculture so we’re relying on you to be a voice of reason at the table.

We need to do something to address forest management concerns and I believe this bill seeks to do that. I’m supportive of moving the process along so we can negotiate with our Senate colleagues and find a workable solution to address these issues.

I’ve generally been impressed with how the Commission has gone about enacting these changes and look forward to seeing continued efforts to bring more transparency to the derivatives marketplace.

This is more of a political exercise than a serious debate but it could have a very real impact on the fate of the farm bill. There are ways for us to work together but this isn’t it. I believe there are areas of SNAP that can and should be reformed and where we can reach bipartisan consensus.

I believe the specialty crop area is in a very unique position. Consumer demand is increasing but natural resources remain fixed and the labor supply is shrinking. It seems to me that the key to being successful will be through the wise use of technology and with an optimum regulatory structure that allows innovation to flourish.

When we wrote Title Seven of Dodd Frank we anticipated that clearing could also become a central component of the swaps industry. Now, nearly 10 years after the financial crisis, that change is taking place. I think we can all agree that making our markets safer is a good thing.

Agriculture research is vital to the industry’s future. The research done by our land grant universities and other institutions invests in the next crop of agricultural scientists and producers while ensuring that our farmers can be competitive and continue to meet the growing, worldwide demands for their products.

Watershed programs are an incredibly important part of the conservation toolbox. Unfortunately, I don’t think a lot of folks are really aware of the programs themselves or the benefits they provide which is why today’s hearing is so useful.

As trade deals continue to dominate the discussion, it is worth pointing out that 11 of our top 15 trading partners in 2017 were once recipients of U.S. assistance. Unfortunately, the budget put forward by the administration would completely eliminate two key U.S. Assistance programs: the Food for Peace Program and McGovern-Dole.

This deal is an improvement over current agreements that have hurt U.S. sugar growers but the details will be important. It is disappointing that the agreement in principle appears to leave in place a loophole that keeps the door open to dumping. Mexico and sugar users could annually petition for excess refined sugar to be allowed into the United States.