U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

97–972 PDF 2016

OVERSIGHT OF USDA’S USE OF CENSUS OF 

AGRICULTURE AUTHORITY TO ACQUIRE 

FARMERS’ PERSONAL FINANCIAL 

INFORMATION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

BIOTECHNOLOGY, HORTICULTURE, AND RESEARCH 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

DECEMBER 9, 2015 

Serial No. 114–37 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture 

agriculture.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE 

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas, Chairman 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas, 

Vice Chairman 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York 

VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri 

DAN BENISHEK, Michigan 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

DOUG LAMALFA, California 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana 

RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia 

MIKE BOST, Illinois 

DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina 

RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana 

JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan 

DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington 

TRENT KELLY, Mississippi 

COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota, Ranking 

Minority Member 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

JIM COSTA, California 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio 

JAMES P. MCGOVERN, Massachusetts 

SUZAN K. DELBENE, Washington 

FILEMON VELA, Texas 

MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico 

ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

PETE AGUILAR, California 

STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands 

ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina 

GWEN GRAHAM, Florida 

BRAD ASHFORD, Nebraska 

SCOTT C. GRAVES, Staff Director 

ROBERT L. LAREW, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON BIOTECHNOLOGY, HORTICULTURE, AND RESEARCH

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois, Chairman 

GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania 

AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia 

CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan 

DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington 

SUZAN K. DELBENE, Washington, Ranking 

Minority Member 

MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio 

JAMES P. MCGOVERN, Massachusetts 

ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire 

GWEN GRAHAM, Florida 

(II) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Davis, Hon. Rodney, a Representative in Congress from Illinois, opening 

statement .............................................................................................................. 1 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 3 

Submitted report .............................................................................................. 37 

Submitted form ................................................................................................. 97 

DelBene, Hon. Suzan K., a Representative in Congress from Washington, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 9 

Submitted memorandum ................................................................................. 121 

Peterson, Hon. Collin C., a Representative in Congress from Minnesota, opening statement ........................................................................................................ 23 

Submitted article .............................................................................................. 122 

WITNESS

Reilly, Joseph T., Administrator, National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. .................................................. 10 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 12 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT OF USDA’S USE OF CENSUS OF 

AGRICULTURE AUTHORITY TO ACQUIRE 

FARMERS’ PERSONAL FINANCIAL 

INFORMATION 

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 2015 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON BIOTECHNOLOGY, HORTICULTURE, AND

RESEARCH, 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:00 p.m., in Room 

1302 of the Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Rodney Davis 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Davis, Thompson, Scott, Gibson, Yoho, Newhouse, DelBene, Kuster, Graham, and Peterson (ex 

officio). 

Staff present: Ashley Callen, Haley Graves, John Goldberg, Mary 

Nowak, Mollie Wilken, Stephanie Addison, John Konya, Anne Simmons, Keith Jones, Liz Friedlander, Matthew MacKenzie, Mike 

Stranz, Nicole Scott, and Carly Reedholm. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RODNEY DAVIS, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM ILLINOIS 

The CHAIRMAN. This hearing of the Subcommittee on Biotechnology, Horticulture, and Research, regarding oversight of 

USDA’s use of Census of Agriculture authority to acquire farmers’ 

personal financial information, will come to order. 

I will tell you, this is my first time in this room, and the technological disadvantages we have here are interesting. We actually 

have a toggle switch on the microphone. I haven’t seen one of those 

here, so welcome to history. 

I would now like to offer up a welcome to our witness, Mr. Reilly, 

from the USDA. Thank you for being here. 

I will go ahead and commence with my opening statement, and 

then let the Ranking Member commence with her statement. I will 

let the Members know that we are expecting votes during this 

hearing. Hopefully, they will not last long and we can immediately 

come back here and complete the hearing in a very timely manner. 

So with that, I want to begin by saying thank you again, Mr. 

Reilly. And today the Subcommittee will begin a public dialogue 

with the USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service regarding 

concerns raised by producers pertaining to a perceived abuse of discretion in conducting the Census of Agriculture. 

2 

The Census of Agriculture is conducted every 5 years by NASS, 

the most recent Census being taken in 2012. Data collected from 

the Census of Agriculture is incredibly important as it provides the 

only source of consistent, county-level statistics on agriculture operations throughout the United States. This data is used to prepare 

estimates of farm income and production costs, calculate research 

and extension formula allocations to land-grant universities—like 

the one I serve, the University of Illinois—evaluate agricultural 

programs and policies, to administer farm programs, and plan for 

operations during disease or pest emergencies. The Farm Credit 

Administration also uses the data to evaluate farmer loan programs. It is also intended to assist Congress in considering legislation, most notably the farm bill, and in overseeing farm programs. 

Implementation of the 2014 Farm Bill is particularly data-driven. It cannot be overstated how important it is that farmers have 

confidence in NASS’ process and participate in the Census. 

States and local governments, as well as farm organizations, use 

the data collected from the Census of Agriculture to analyze and 

develop policies on land use, water use and irrigation, rural development, and farmland assessment. Rural electric companies use 

such statistics, they do this all the time, to forecast future energy 

needs. 

Prior to 1997, the Census of Agriculture was taken by the Census Bureau, an agency within the Department of Commerce. Following proposals by the Census Bureau to redefine farms solely in 

order to reduce its own workload and costs involved, the Agriculture Committee determined that it would be in the best interests of all parties to transfer the authority to conduct the Census 

from the Secretary of Commerce to the Secretary of Agriculture. 

Legislation was subsequently enacted to transfer the Census of Agriculture to the USDA. 

When we reported this legislation, Congress was cognizant of the 

amount of time taken by producers to respond to the Census questionnaire. In the report filed by this Committee, we specifically 

highlighted these concerns and instructed USDA to ensure that the 

Census questionnaire would be concise, easily readable and understandable, and relevant to today’s agricultural operations. 

In fact, Congress specifically instructed the Secretary of Agriculture to undertake a review of all questions currently asked as 

a part of the Census of Agriculture to ensure their relevancy. 

In January of 2015, the Committee, both Majority and Minority, 

were contacted by farmers and ranchers concerned that the NASS 

improperly used the Census of Agriculture authority to conduct a 

survey entitled Tenure, Ownership, and Transition of Agricultural 

Land, or otherwise known as TOTAL. By invoking the Census authority, NASS rendered the TOTAL survey compulsory. 

The farmers and ranchers in touch with the House Agriculture 

Committee were confounded by the duplicative, intrusive, and overbroad nature of TOTAL. The TOTAL survey inquired about all aspects of an operator’s personal financial portfolio, as well as all aspects of farm-related income and expenses. We will discuss the specific questions on the TOTAL survey during our question and answer time, but I would like to welcome Mr. Joe Reilly, the Administrator of the National Agricultural Statistics Service, to help the 

3 

Committee understand how decisions were made to develop and 

mandate intrusive survey questions, questions that, on their face, 

have little to do with agricultural production. I think it is accurate 

to point out that these types of questions were certainly never intended by Congress to be included in a mandatory Census of Agriculture. In fact, the instructions Congress gave to the USDA at the 

time that the legislation was enacted point out that Congress was 

specifically concerned about this type of abuse of discretion. 

Mr. Reilly, thank you for being here today. It is our hope that 

you can shed some light on the decision-making process. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Davis follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. RODNEY DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM ILLINOIS

Today the Subcommittee will begin a public dialogue with USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) regarding concerns raised by producers pertaining 

to a perceived abuse of discretion in conducting the Census of Agriculture. 

The Census of Agriculture is conducted every 5 years by NASS, the most recent 

Census being taken in 2012. Data collected from the Census of Agriculture is incredibly important as it provides the only source of consistent, county-level statistics on 

agriculture operations throughout the United States. This data is used to prepare 

estimates of farm income and production costs, calculate research and extension formula allocations to land-grant universities, evaluate agricultural programs and policies, to administer farm programs, and plan for operations during disease or pest 

emergencies. The Farm Credit Administration also uses the data to evaluate farmer 

loan programs. It is also intended to assist Congress in considering legislation, most 

notably the farm bill, and in overseeing farm programs. 

Implementation of the 2014 Farm Bill is particularly data-driven. It cannot be 

overstated how important it is that farmers have confidence in NASS’ process and 

participate in the Census. 

States and local governments, as well as farm organizations use the data collected 

from the Census of Agriculture to analyze and develop policies on land use, water 

use and irrigation, rural development, and farmland assessment. Rural electric companies use such statistics to forecast future energy needs. 

Prior to 1997, the Census of Agriculture was taken by the Census Bureau, an 

agency within the Department of Commerce. Following proposals by the Census Bureau to redefine farms solely in order to reduce its own workload and costs involved, 

the Agriculture Committee determined that it would be in the best interests of all 

parties to transfer the authority to conduct the Census from the Secretary of Commerce to the Secretary of Agriculture. Legislation was subsequently enacted to 

transfer the Census of Agriculture to USDA. 

When we reported this legislation, Congress was cognizant of the amount of time 

taken by producers to respond to the Census questionnaire. In the report filed by 

this Committee, we specifically highlighted these concerns and instructed USDA to 

ensure that the Census questionnaire would be concise, easily readable and understandable, and relevant to today’s agricultural operations. 

In fact, Congress specifically instructed the Secretary of Agriculture to ‘‘undertake 

a review of all questions currently asked as a part of the Census of Agriculture to 

ensure their relevancy.’’ 

In January 2015, the Committee, both Majority and Minority, were contacted by 

farmers and ranchers concerned that the NASS improperly used the Census of Agriculture authority to conduct a survey entitled Tenure, Ownership, and Transition 

of Agricultural Land (TOTAL). By invoking the Census authority, NASS rendered 

the TOTAL survey compulsory. 

The farmers and ranchers in touch with the House Agriculture Committee were 

confounded by the duplicative, intrusive, and over-broad nature of TOTAL. The 

TOTAL survey inquired about all aspects of an operator’s personal financial portfolio as well as all aspects of farm related income and expenses. We will discuss the 

specific questions on the TOTAL survey during our question and answer time, but 

I would like to mention that NASS asked farmers how much they spend on health 

care and dental visits. You may think those are relevant areas to probe, but then 

we discovered NASS asked farmers how much they spend on vacations and going 

to the movies, if that is one’s hobby. If a farmer or rancher ignored the survey, that 

producer could face a monetary penalty. 

4 

The Committee began oversight in February 2015 by requesting briefings by 

NASS officials and has since reviewed approximately 49,000 documents produced by 

USDA. Over the course of the Committee’s oversight, it became clear that certain 

anomalies occurred during the planning and approval phase of the survey. The emails produced to the Committee show USDA leadership involvement in the process, which raises questions about the motivations for the compulsory nature of the 

TOTAL survey. The motivation for conducting TOTAL as a mandatory survey is unclear. 

Today we have invited Mr. Joe Reilly, the Administrator of the National Agricultural Statistics Service to help the Committee understand how decisions were made 

to develop and mandate intrusive survey questions, questions that on their face 

have little to do with agricultural production. I think it is accurate to point out that 

these types of questions were certainly never intended by Congress to be included 

in a mandatory Census of Agriculture. In fact, the instructions Congress gave to 

USDA at the time the legislation was enacted point out that Congress was specifically concerned about this type of abuse of discretion. 

Mr. Reilly, thank you for being here today. It is our hope that you can shed some 

light on the decision-making process. 

I now yield to the Ranking Member, Ms. DelBene for her opening comments. 

POWERPOINT PRESENTATION

Slide 1 


11437084.eps
5 

Slide 2 

Slide 3 


11437085.eps 11437086.eps
6 

Slide 4 

Slide 5 


11437087.eps 11437088.eps
7 

Slide 6 

Slide 7 


11437089.eps 11437090.eps
8 

Slide 8 

Slide 9 


11437091.eps 11437092.eps
9 

The CHAIRMAN. And I now yield to the Ranking Member, Ms. 

DelBene, for her opening comments. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SUZAN K. DELBENE, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM WASHINGTON 

Ms. DELBENE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing today. And thank you, Mr. Reilly, for being with us. 

The thoughtful acquisition of data is essential to an informed decision-making process, both in the public and in the private sectors. 

What data to collect, how and when to collect it, and how to protect 

its appropriate use are all important questions for any organization 

engaged in data collection. 

Big data is a buzzword in agriculture these days. It is kind of 

a buzzword everywhere, and we had a hearing on it recently here 

in the Agriculture Committee. And this afternoon, we will hear 

from the National Agricultural Statistics Service, or NASS. NASS 

has been involved in the collection of big data long before today’s 

innovation age, including things like The Internet of Things. 

In light of this new and exciting time, it is critical to better understand not just how the private-sector collects data through the 

newest production hardware and software, but how agencies such 

as NASS and the Economic Research Service collect their data. 

Even more important, we need to understand and ensure an individual’s data is protected with the utmost care. 

The data that flows from the various NASS and ERS products 

are critical to virtually every aspect of sound decision-making within USDA and U.S. agriculture at large. Why? Because in some form 

or another, the data NASS collects informs decisions ranging from 

EPA pesticide registrations and USDA commodity program participation, to improving risk management tools for organic producers. 

I even use data collected from the Census of Agriculture when I introduced a resolution emphasizing the importance of specialty 

crops. 

Federal agencies have a responsibility to fully and transparently 

explain the relevancy for each of their data sets, and to engage in 

producer outreach to reassure a sometimes skeptical public that 

data is essential to a producer’s access to farm programs, and being 

appropriately and safely collected. Furthermore, we should work together to ensure those collecting data hear from a range of opinions 

when constructing their surveys, and that they are not duplicating 

what we are asking individuals to complete. 

Realistically, if these data collection surveys are to adequately inform both public- and private-sector decision-makers, they may 

need to ask about some sensitive personal information; however, it 

is essential that this type of data be handled with the utmost care 

and concern. 

I look forward to hearing from our witness today, and hope everyone will leave this hearing with a better understanding of this 

topic at hand. 

And with that, I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Ms. DelBene. 

And with that, Mr. Reilly, the floor is yours for your verbal statement. 

10 

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH T. REILLY, ADMINISTRATOR, 

NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS SERVICE, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. REILLY. Chairman Davis, Ranking Member DelBene, and all 

the Members of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to 

present the National Agricultural Statistics Service important role 

in agriculture. 

NASS administers the U.S. Agricultural Estimates program, 

which began in the Department of Agriculture back in 1863, and 

NASS also has the responsibility for conducting the U.S. Census of 

Agriculture every 5 years. And this was first done in the Department of Agriculture in 1997. 

Both the Agricultural Estimates program and the Census program align with the basic mission of NASS to provide timely, accurate, and useful statistics in the service of U.S. agriculture. NASS 

prepares estimates for numerous crops and livestock items, and we 

issue 400 separate reports annually, of which over 100 of them are 

Principle Economic Indicators of the United States. NASS provides 

technical assistance and training to other countries in support of 

the U.N. Global Strategy for Agricultural and Rural Statistics in 

the U.S. Feed the Future Program. NASS also conducts over 150 

special surveys on a cost reimbursable basis for other agencies, 

State Departments of Agriculture, and universities and other agricultural organizations. 

The work that NASS does is critically important. It provides stability to our commodity markets, it supports our crop insurance 

program, it supports our disaster assistance program, and various 

farm bill programs. Inputs for farmer decisions and data to inform 

policy debates, and overall national security that comes from having a stable, reliable, nutritious and affordable U.S. food supply, is 

part of our core mission. 

I understand that the Committee has some concerns over this recent survey that we conducted, the Tenure, Ownership, and Transition of Agricultural Land Survey, or TOTAL, and that we conducted in partnership with the Economic Research Service, and I 

am going to be happy to address all of those concerns today. 

Precursors of this survey began in 1960, and the most recent, 

prior to this year, was conducted by the Department of Agriculture, 

called the Agricultural, Economic, and Land Ownership Survey in 

1999, and these were conducted as special surveys under the Census of Agriculture authority. And myself, having worked with the 

government for 40 years, I was with the Agriculture Program back 

when it was at the Census Bureau during the transition, I led the 

Agriculture Program during the transition, and have been with 

NASS since 1997, so I have a strong background in this area. 

NASS acquired the authority for the Census of Agriculture in 

1997, and prior to that, as I have stated earlier, the Census of Agriculture and all of the special studies, including AELOS, were conducted by the Bureau of the Census pursuant to Title 13 of the 

United States Code, to require responses to the Census and its follow-on programs. 

In 1997, as you know, Congress adopted the Census of Agriculture Act, which required and transferred the authority to conduct the Census of Agriculture from the Department of Commerce 

11 

to the Department of Agriculture. In addition, the Act authorizes 

the USDA, in connection with the Census, to conduct any survey 

or other information collection, and employ any sampling or other 

statistical method that the Secretary determines, or that USDA determines, is appropriate. 

In summary, it is this Census of Agriculture Act that provides 

NASS the authority not only to conduct the Census and associated 

special studies, and where we invoke the mandatory reporting authority. 

Publication of information on land ownership began as far back 

as 1880, with the classification of farm tenure. Land ownership has 

been an important tool to gauge who owns the land, what is going 

to happen to the transition of land, and what are the finances surrounding the land, and how it affects the availability of the land 

going to farmers, especially new and beginning farmers. The Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Agriculture Statistics provided advice to us in two meetings conducted in 2012 and 2013, which stated that as one of the top priorities for the agriculture community: 

the importance of this land ownership and tenure data. 

Also in partnership with ERS, NASS conducts an annual farm finance survey, which is called the Agriculture Resource Management Survey, or ARMS. The sampling population for our TOTAL 

survey and our ARMS survey were determined to have a very high 

level of overlap between the respondent farms, and, therefore, 

NASS and ERS decided early on in our planning activities to integrate the two surveys, which was a hope to reduce overall respondent burden, to save the taxpayers’ resources, and would improve 

the quality of the data provided for this critical topic. 

Subsequently, NASS requested funding in our Fiscal Year 2015 

President’s budget to conduct a mandatory survey under the Census of Agriculture authority on land ownership and farm finance. 

And if you read the details of our explanatory notes in our 2015 

budget submission, it was clear that we did describe the process of 

how we were going to integrate this with the Agricultural Resource 

Management Study. 

In April of 2014, the Office of Management and Budget approval 

process required us to issue a Federal Register notice, notifying the 

public and everyone else of our intention to conduct the TOTAL 

survey, and to incorporate questions from the ARM survey. And it 

was noted in there, and in the subsequent Federal Register notice 

issued during the summer of 2014, with more specific details on 

our intent, including a copy of the final questionnaire which notified the public and everyone else of the mandatory reporting status. NASS in that process received one public comment from the 

Bureau of Economic Analysis heavily supporting and identifying 

the important use of this land ownership information. 

NASS conducted the first mailing of the TOTAL questionnaire in 

December 2014, and subsequent mailings occurred through the 

spring of 2015. Once the data collection began, we did our editing 

analysis, and issued the results released on August 31 of this year. 

This publication provided hundreds of important estimates, covering land ownership arrangements, the economics of land ownership, demographic characteristics, land unit uses, and a look ahead 

12 

at potential ownership transfer, and this data has been highly valued since its release. 

NASS clearly understands the sensitivity of some of the questions that we pose to farmers and land owners. Questions covering 

the cost of health insurance, medical expenses and other things, 

appear to be of particular concern. In order to gauge the well-being 

of farm families, it is important to have a clear understanding not 

only of the farm operating expenses, but also of the farm household 

expenses. Similar questions have historically been asked in previous land ownership surveys and in the ARM surveys, and were 

both integrated in the TOTAL survey. Household expenses can be 

a significant factor in determining whether or not a farmer can 

pursue their full profession in agriculture, or are they necessitated 

to seek and obtain off-farm work and off-farm benefits. For all the 

information that NASS collects, we consistently offer a pledge of 

confidentiality, and we go to extreme measures to ensure that that 

occurs. In fact, I just left our crop report issuance which went out 

at noon today, and I invite all of you to see the security that is in 

place when we put out our crop report every month. 

By integrating the ARMS and TOTAL survey, and using mandatory authority, this reduced overall respondent burden and data 

collection costs, and greatly increased the quality and reliability of 

the data. NASS estimates that by having this integrated approach, 

we saved over 53,000 burden hours on our American farmers and 

operators, and saved not only from our appropriations but the taxpayers about $3 million in the implementation of the survey. While 

this is not a lot of money in the total Federal budget, to us in our 

data collection activities, it is quite a great deal. 

In summary, I feel strongly that NASS has been open and transparent and consistent with Congress through our funding requests 

with OMB and through our survey approval process, and with the 

American public through the issuance of all the Federal Register 

notice and conversations about the land ownership program. We 

have fulfilled the recommendations of our advisory council and 

many of the NASS customers by providing a product that has been 

highly valued and appreciated throughout the agricultural industry. 

And this concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman, and I am open 

to any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Reilly follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOSEPH T. REILLY, ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL

AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Chairman Davis, Ranking Member DelBene, and Members of the Subcommittee, 

I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to discuss the National Agricultural 

Statistics Service’s (NASS) and Census of Agriculture’s important role in agriculture. NASS’ mission is to provide timely, accurate, and useful statistics in service 

to U.S. agriculture. NASS administers the U.S. Agricultural Estimates program, 

which began at the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) in 1863. NASS 

also has conducted the Quinquennial U.S. Census of Agriculture since 1997, first 

collected by the Department of Commerce in 1840. 

Agricultural Estimates and the Census of Agriculture 

The primary activity of NASS is to provide reliable data to meet the decision-making needs of the agricultural industry. The agency fulfills its mission through an annual agricultural estimates program and the quinquennial Census of Agriculture. 

13 

NASS prepares estimates for over 120 crops and 45 livestock items that are published annually in more than 400 separate reports, of which 110 are Principal Economic Indicators of the U.S. Farmers, ranchers, and agribusinesses voluntarily respond to a series of nationwide surveys about crops, livestock, prices, chemical use, 

and other agricultural activities each year. Surveys are conducted during the growing season to measure the impact of weather, pests, and other factors on crop production. In many cases, NASS supplements farmer surveys with field observations 

of plan counts and measurements. NASS also uses administrative data from other 

USDA, Federal and state agencies; data on imports and exports; and other survey 

data to ensure official estimates accurately represent agricultural inventories. 

Stakeholder Input 

NASS annually seeks input from the public on determining priorities and improving its products and processes. It consults with customers and stakeholders through 

meetings of the Secretary of Agriculture’s Advisory Committee on Agriculture Statistics, interaction with producers, data users meetings with agribusinesses and 

commodity groups, special briefings for agricultural leaders during the release of 

major reports, numerous individual contacts, and through Federal Register notices 

issued to the public. In response to this input, NASS continues to improve the quality and accessibility of its reports. The agency has adjusted its agricultural estimates program and published reports, and has expanded electronic access capabilities. All reports issued by NASS’ Agricultural Statistics Board are made available 

to the public at a previously announced release time to ensure equal access to the 

information. All national statistical reports and data products, including graphics, 

are available on the Web, as well as in printed form, at the time they are released. 

Customers can electronically subscribe to NASS reports and download them in an 

easily accessible format using standard software. NASS also provides free Rich Site 

Summary (RSS). A summary of NASS and other USDA statistical data is produced 

annually in USDA’s Agricultural Statistics, available on the NASS home page or in 

hard copy. 

Collaboration with Other Agencies 

NASS conducts special surveys and provides consulting services for USDA agencies, other Federal or state agencies, universities, and agricultural organizations on 

a cost-reimbursable basis. Consulting services include assistance with survey methodology, questionnaire and sample design, information resource management, statistical analysis, and data collection. NASS has assisted USDA agencies in programs 

that monitor nutrition, food safety, environmental quality, and customer satisfaction. In cooperation with State Departments of Agriculture, land-grant universities, 

and industry groups, NASS conducts over 130 special surveys each year covering 

a wide range of issues such as farm injury, nursery and horticulture, equine, farm 

finance, fruits and nuts, vegetables, and cropping practices. 

International Programs 

NASS provides technical assistance and training to improve agricultural statistical programs in other countries in cooperation with other government agencies on 

a cost-reimbursable basis. The NASS international program focuses on developing 

and emerging-market countries in Asia, Africa, Central and South America, and 

Eastern Europe. NASS assists countries in applying modern statistical methodology, 

including sample survey techniques. Accurate information about other countries is 

essential for successfully marketing U.S. farm products throughout the world. NASS 

has been an important contributor to the U.N. Global Strategy for Agricultural and 

Rural Statistics, and to the U.S. Feed the Future Program, contributing to better 

statistics for USDA global estimates of food supply. 

An Enhanced Research Program 

NASS’s research program, which is focused on innovation and enhancement in 

statistical methods, business processes and data products in support, sustainment 

and improvement of NASS programs, has allowed the development of new statistical 

models for the estimating program; computer editing applications to replace manual 

review; expanded modes of data collection to include Computer Assisted Personal 

Interviewing and Computer Assisted Web Interviewing; implemented quality assurance protocols in routine operations; developed two new tools using remote sensing 

data—CropScape and VegScape; and further benefited from computer-based processing technology. 

Agricultural Estimates 

Annually, NASS issues over 400 agricultural estimates reports that are critically 

important in assessing current supply and demand in agricultural commodities. ProVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:51 Feb 10, 2016 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\114-37\97972.TXT BRIAN
14 

aSee 1987 Census of Agriculture, Volume 3, Part 2, ‘‘Agricultural Economics and Land Ownership Survey (1988)’’, at Appendix B, Report Forms and Information Sheets (available at http:// 

usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/AgCensusImages/1987/03/02/1987-03-02-appendixes.pdf), 

which has a copy of the AELOS questionnaire, which states: ‘‘[R]esponse to this inquiry is required by law (title 13, U.S. Code).’’ bPub. L. 105–113 (codified primarily at 7 U.S.C. § 2204g); 7 U.S.C. § 2204g(b). 

ducers, agribusinesses, farm organizations, commodity groups, economists, public officials, and others use the data for decision-making. The statistics NASS collects and 

disseminates ensure buyers and sellers have access to the same official statistics at 

the same pre-announced time, and making markets fair. The free flow of information minimizes price fluctuations for U.S. producers, makes commodity markets 

more efficient, and makes our nation’s agricultural industry more competitive. The 

data has become increasingly important as producers rely on future contracts to 

manage risks. In the latest farm bill, county level information is critical in implementing the Agriculture Revenue Coverage (ARC) and Price Loss Coverage (PLC) 

programs administered by the Farm Service Agency. 

Census of Agriculture 

In 1997, Congress adopted the Census of Agriculture Act of 1997 (the ‘‘Act’’), 

which requires USDA to conduct the Census of Agriculture every 5 years. The Census of Agriculture provides comprehensive data on the agricultural sector at the national, state, and county level. The Census of Agriculture is the only source for this 

information on a local level and is extremely important to the agricultural community. Prior to 1997 the Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census (BOC) conducted the Census of Agriculture and Census special studies. These surveys were 

conducted by BOC pursuant to BOC’s authority under Title 13 of the U.S. Code to 

require responses to the Census.a In addition to the requirement to conduct the 

quinquennial Census of Agriculture, the Act authorizes USDA, ‘‘in connection with 

the Census,’’ to ‘‘conduct any survey or other information collection, and employ any 

sampling or other statistical method, that [USDA] determines is appropriate.’’ b The 

Act also provides that anyone ‘‘who refuses or willfully neglects to answer a question, shall be fined not more than $100.’’ The Act of 1997 is what provides NASS 

the ‘‘mandatory’’ authority to conduct the Census of Agriculture and associated special studies. 

NASS recently published a Census of Agriculture for all 50 states and Puerto Rico 

through a progressively detailed series of releases. NASS issued a preliminary release of 2012 Census of Agriculture data in February 2014 that contained high level 

estimates at the U.S. and state level. In May 2014 NASS released the full Volume 

I series of data at the U.S., state and county level. In addition to the in-depth large 

publication released in May 2014, a number of special tabulations were subsequently released. Those include state and county profiles; Congressional District 

Profiles; Watershed Publication; Race, Ethnicity and Gender Profiles and Specialty 

Crop Report. 

After each Census of Agriculture is complete NASS uses the results to identify 

specific sectors of agriculture to collect in-depth details. Since the 2012 Census was 

published, NASS has conducted the following special studies: Farm and Ranch Irrigation Survey (FRIS), Census of Aquaculture, Tenure Ownership and Transition of 

Agricultural Land (TOTAL), Census of Horticulture, and Organic Production Survey. In 2016 NASS plans to conduct a special study on Local Foods. This will help 

evaluate the manner in which local food systems improve community food security, 

and assist populations with limited access to healthy food. 

There are numerous, important uses for the data that come from the Census of 

Agriculture and the subsequent special studies. Below are a few: 

• Provide critical data about the demographics and financial well-being of producers and the economic health of the farm sector; 

• Evaluate historical agricultural trends to formulate farm and rural policies and 

develop programs that help agricultural producers and ultimately, consumers; 

• Allocate local and national funds for farm programs, e.g., extension service 

projects, agricultural research, soil conservation programs, and land-grant colleges and universities; 

• Develop new and improved methods to increase agricultural production and 

profitability; 

• Plan for operations during drought and emergency outbreaks of diseases or infestations of pests; 

• Make informed decisions for individual operations within the farm, agribusiness, and related food and fiber sectors; 

15 

• Provide geographic data on production so agribusinesses can locate near major 

production areas for efficiencies for both producers and agribusinesses; 

• Develop new and improved methods to increase agricultural production and 

profitability; 

• Appraise water use trends and research crop production technologies that maintain precious water resources; 

• Analyze land ownership and the prospect for new and beginning farmers to either start farming or expand their operations; [and] 

• Study historic trends, assess current conditions, and plan for the future for both 

private and public decision-making. 

In 2015 NASS started producing the vital Current Agricultural Industrial Reports 

(CAIR) that were previously discontinued by the Department of Commerce. Commodities covered in these reports include: Oilseeds, Beans & Nuts; Fats and Oils; 

Cotton Manmade Fiber Staple & Raw Linters; Flour Milling Products, and Grain 

Crushing’s & Co-Products Produced. Like other NASS products, these reports support estimation requirements for NASS, Economic Research Service (ERS), the 

World Agricultural Outlook Board (WAOB), and the USDA Chief Economist. Private 

industry uses CAIR and other NASS data to monitor the effect of international 

trade on domestic production, evaluate the relationship between company and industry performances, market analyses, assess current business conditions, and plan 

future operations. 

NASS is currently looking into the modern farm structure and its contributors, 

focusing on women and new farmers. NASS will modify statistical tools to better 

reflect the changing face of agriculture, especially including women, new farmers, 

and veterans on the farm. 

Protecting Producers’ Personal and Financial Information 

With every survey NASS conducts, a pledge of confidentiality is provided to survey respondents and extensive measures are taken to honor that pledge. Title 7, 

U.S. Code, Section 2276 specifies neither the Secretary of Agriculture nor any USDA 

employee may, ‘‘disclose such information to the public, unless such information has 

been transformed into statistical or aggregate form that does not allow the identification of the person who supplied particular information.’’ NASS employs a rigorous process to ensure that that the intent of this statute is met. Each year NASS 

employees are required to sign a ‘‘Confidentiality Certification’’ form that ensures 

understanding and compliance of Title 7 and other statutes covering data confidentiality. NASS processes information using approved and certified computer technology and protocols that protects data integrity. NASS maintains internal policies 

that specifies algorithms used to aggregate data and to determine if a summarized 

total may be disclosed or suppressed, prior to publication. Last, all NASS reports 

are released at an exact pre-determined and publicized time, to ensure that everyone has equal and fair access. 

Surveys Regarding Farmers’ Financial Information 

Publication of data on land ownership characteristics began in 1880, with the 

classification of farm tenure. Land ownership surveys have been an important tool 

used to gauge who owns land, the transition of land, finances surrounding land, and 

the availability of land to new and beginning farmers. Varying elements of farm financial data have been collected since the first agriculture Census was taken in the 

United States in 1840. The principal financial characteristics in earlier data collections were value of farm land and sales of agricultural products, but in 1890, Census data were also requested on farm mortgage debt. In later Censuses, farm taxes 

were included. Prior to NASS taking over the Census of Agriculture from the Department of Commerce in 1997, BOC conducted land ownership surveys using mandatory authority under Title 13 of the United States Code. Most recently, BOC conducted the Agricultural Economics and Land Ownership (AELOS) survey in 1988, 

as a follow-on survey to the 1987 Census of Agriculture. AELOS included the majority of the financial measures collected in the 1979 and earlier Farm Finance Surveys and greatly expands the data on land ownership. That survey was conducted 

under BOC’s mandatory authority. After the adoption of the Census of Agriculture 

Act, NASS conducted the AELOS survey in 1999, as a follow-on survey to the 1997 

Census of Agriculture, using mandatory authority. As set forth in the report on the 

1997 Census of Agriculture, ‘‘AELOS was an integral part of the 1997 Census of Agriculture and was conducted under the authority of the Census of Agriculture Act 

of 1997 . . . .’’ In 2014, NASS changed the name of the AELOS survey to the Tenure, Ownership, and Transition of Agricultural Land (TOTAL). As set forth in the 

Federal Register notice announcing it, ‘‘[t]he 2014 Tenure, Ownership, and TransiVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:51 Feb 10, 2016 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\114-37\97972.TXT BRIAN
16 

tion of Agricultural Land (TOTAL) is an integral part of the 2012 Census of Agriculture and is conducted under the authority of the Census of Agriculture Act of 

1997.’’ The 2014 TOTAL sampling population heavily overlapped the sampling population for the Agricultural Resources Management Survey (ARMS). The ARMS is an 

annual economic survey conducted jointly by NASS and the Economic Research 

Service (ERS). In order to save taxpayer resources and minimize burden on respondents, NASS and ERS integrated the two surveys. 

Summary 

NASS’s dedication to research and continued process improvement will ensure the 

organization remains relevant and viable to fill the urgent need for timely, accurate, 

and useful statistics in service to U.S. agriculture. Knowing where our food is coming from, who is producing it, how much is being produced, and how the agricultural 

sector is performing financially adds to our national security by providing assurance 

that Americans have a safe, nutritious, affordable, and adequate supply of food. 

This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the opportunity to 

submit this statement for the record. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Reilly. We appreciate you recognizing some of the points that I brought up during my opening 

statement about personal information, especially dental insurance, 

health insurance costs, but I want to start with a question. 

Are you generally a person willing to take risks, or do you try 

to avoid taking risks? 

Mr. REILLY. Well, sir, if you ask my wife, she will tell you that 

I am a risk-taker sometimes, but I am also very conservative in nature. 

The CHAIRMAN. But how does one man answer in your situation 

question number 7? Please put Slide 8 up on the screen. 

The CHAIRMAN. Question number 7 in the Census TOTAL survey 

asks that exact question, and asks you to rate from a score to zero 

as not willing to take risks, or 10, willing to take risks, how do you 

answer that question? And you can imagine the frustration some 

of our farmers feel. And I guess I need to ask you, why is that 

question on there? 

Mr. REILLY. When you look for questions like that, part of what 

individuals are looking for is dealing with farm and farm operations, and looking at the issues that they have to deal with managing their operation, how much risk do they want to incur, and 

what are they doing to try to mitigate risks involving with the farm 

operation. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, Mr. Reilly, the farmers in my district are 

risk-takers. I don’t think we need to ask the psychology of the 

farmer and the farm operation on a questionnaire that is already 

being determined to be intrusive. That is a question that does not 

need to be on there, among other questions, and I would hope that 

you would take that statement back. 

Let me go into a couple more issues. The House report language 

that accompanied the Census of Agriculture Act of 1997 contains 

some instructions for your agency. It reads, ‘‘The Committee recognizes the intrusive nature of a Census and the need to obtain relevant data for policymakers. Producers have serious time constraints and should only have to answer questionnaires that are 

concise, easily readable, understandable, and relevant to today’s 

agricultural operations. The Committee is sympathetic to concerns 

of time spent filling out unnecessary paperwork.’’ 

That is why I bring this question up. I don’t think it is relevant. 

But were you aware of this report language? 

17 

Mr. REILLY. I was involved in the transfer program when the 

Census transferred, but no, sir, I was not aware of that specific 

language. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. Do you think NASS was mindful of this 

when TOTAL was drafted? 

Mr. REILLY. We go through a pretty extensive review process of 

trying to determine the content of all of our questionnaires that we 

issue. We gather information from our stakeholders, that is why we 

have such avenues as our advisory committee on agriculture statistics. We meet with various officials throughout the Department. We 

meet with farm organizations. I have ongoing meetings with the 

National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, and all 

of their Commissioners, Secretaries, and Directors of Agriculture, 

and we often discuss what are the data needs and what is necessary, and what individuals are looking for to manage various programs. And then to the best of our ability, we try to craft questions 

and things that will provide that needed information. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. When and why did the USDA and 

NASS decide to conduct the TOTAL survey using the mandatory 

authority of the Census? Please put up Slide 1. 

The CHAIRMAN. This document produced to the Committee by 

USDA shows there was a plan being carried out. It reads, ‘‘I 

stopped by to see Joe R.,’’ which is you. I believe so. Is there another Joe R.? 

Mr. REILLY. No. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. ‘‘To clarify how he wants to proceed. 

He says, He is in agreement to replace ARMS III with TOTAL, and 

asked for mandatory authority.’’ Take a moment to read that email to refresh your memory. And I ask you again, when and why 

did the USDA and NASS decide to conduct the TOTAL survey 

using the mandatory authority of the Census? Was it before or 

after this e-mail? 

Mr. REILLY. Since I was not a party of this e-mail, and looking 

at the date of March 26, 2014, again, I will go back and look at 

our budget planning documents that were part of the 2015 budget 

submission. And clearly in our explanatory notes there, in our request for the appropriations, we did spell out that we were requesting to conduct a survey using mandatory reporting authority, and 

we did have descriptions in there describing how we intended to integrate this with the Agricultural Resource Management Study. 

So—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Do you recall—— 

Mr. REILLY.—when you talk about the—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Do you—— 

Mr. REILLY.—decision that—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Do you recall this conversation with Renee 

Picanso? 

Mr. REILLY. I don’t recall this specific conversation, but I do recall the general process of what we were going through because, 

from the beginning of the process, since, again, we looked at historical precedence in being that every one of the land ownership surveys that was conducted under the Bureau of Census’ authority, 

and the first one of which was transferred and conducted by the 

18 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, each one of those was conducted 

under mandatory authority. 

My understanding from the beginning, even from day one, and 

again, I just want to say that we were open and transparent because, even in our budget request, which went in early March, 

March 4 of 2014, we clearly put in there what our intention was 

and how we planned on doing it. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Reilly, as you look at that e-mail from Renee 

Picanso, says she, who refers to you, seemed to think we were the 

ones pushing the dual mandatory authority. What do you think 

that means? 

Mr. REILLY. I am unclear what that means, what dual mandatory authority means. I think we were working on the details of 

how to integrate the two processes between the land ownership 

survey TOTAL and ARMS, and in doing so, and even in our Federal Register notice that we issued, it was our intention that we 

were suspending ARMS for the data collection year, and replacing 

the data collection with this TOTAL survey, again, with the idea 

that we were trying to minimize the reporting burden on the American farmer and the American public, and to ensure that we could 

obtain quality data, and to do it in a more cost-effective measure. 

The CHAIRMAN. So what you said just a few minutes ago was 

that the mandatory nature, in your opinion, was based upon the 

mandatory nature of what was expected when this was part of the 

Census Bureau, right? 

Mr. REILLY. And also with the first survey, the land ownership 

survey, conducted by USDA back in 1999. The same survey was 

mandatory at that time. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay, and as you sit here today though, what is 

your understanding of the decision to mandate TOTAL? It is the 

Census’ fault? What is it? Or it is the 1999 survey? 

Mr. REILLY. Well, again, many of the follow-on surveys are mandated because of the nature of what we are trying to do, and the 

sensitive data that we are trying to collect on those programs. If 

you think about the land ownership survey, it is essentially a Census of agricultural land in this country, and it is very important 

to try to figure out what is going on with the 915 million acres. 

And so having this mandatory authority in conducting this land 

ownership survey is really critical because we are going to two separate audiences. One is the farm operator, who is very involved 

with agriculture, but the other critical component is the farm landlord who, in many instances, is not involved in agriculture. Could 

be a resident, attorney, doctor, whatever, and have a practice, in 

New York City or any city across the country. 

So again, I am taking it back to the broader spectrum of, to do 

a complete agricultural land survey, you have to cover both of those 

segments; both the farm operator and owner, and the land owner 

who is not an operator. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Well, thank you. 

I will defer to my Ranking Member, Ms. DelBene, for 5 minutes 

of questions. 

Ms. DELBENE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I would like to 

submit for the record this memo from USDA that talks about both 

NASS and ERS wanting to use mandatory authority from the CenVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:51 Feb 10, 2016 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 P:\DOCS\114-37\97972.TXT BRIAN
19 

sus to increase response rates. So that is some information to highlight what we were just talking about. 

[The document referred to is located on p. 121.] 

Thank you again, Mr. Reilly, for being here today. I appreciate 

that you and others at NASS have been working with folks on the 

Committee, and I would like to note here for everyone that 

throughout correspondence with the Committee, NASS has provided 49,000 documents and two briefings to the Committee. And 

so we appreciate all of your cooperation. 

Mr. Reilly, I am aware that there is an Advisory Committee on 

Agricultural Statistics, and I wondered if you could tell us a little 

bit about the makeup of that committee, and how their opinions 

are incorporated in the process. 

Mr. REILLY. Our Advisory Committee on Agriculture Statistics is 

a diverse membership. It is 20 committee members with two ex 

officio members. Out of the 20 members, we try to make sure that 

we have diverse representation from across agriculture. So we will 

have representatives that are there from commodity groups, commodity organizations. We will have representatives there from the 

universities’, land-grant universities, we will have representatives 

that represent State Departments of Agriculture, and most importantly we have farmers and operators themselves who sit on our 

committee to provide us advice. 

Normally, knowing there is a lot of competing interests for agricultural data, the committee helps us to shape what are the data 

needs out there needed to define policy and implement certain programs throughout agriculture. Knowing that we have limited financial resources, they give us a gauge of how to put it in priority 

order. Knowing that you can’t do everything, what is the most important. So with limited financial resources, we can focus on what 

the committee says are the most important agricultural data needs 

in the country. 

Ms. DELBENE. It seems like it could be helpful to make sure that 

representatives, like all of us here in D.C., could help alert our producers to surveys that are coming out, and reiterate the importance 

of accurate information and how that might be used, as well as the 

number of programs that use NASS data so that folks are aware 

of that. 

Do you meet with agriculture groups on a regular basis, and is 

this something you have discussed so that people have more information about what is happening with the information you are collecting? 

Mr. REILLY. Yes. We hold a very large agricultural data user 

meeting in Chicago each year. It conducted in October. We meet 

regularly with people from different areas across the country who 

advise us on our chemical use program. I meet quarterly and at the 

end of the year with the National Association of State Departments 

of Agriculture, all the Commissioners, Secretaries, and Directors, 

who are advising me what needs they have to administer agricultural programs within their states, and on an ongoing basis I am 

meeting with representatives of all the different commodity groups. 

My door is always open, and normally on any given week, I have 

visitors who will come in from the corn growers, horticulture industry, Soybean Association, everything, and we are always discussing 

20 

about the needs that they have for their particular industry and for 

agriculture in general. 

Ms. DELBENE. Several years ago, you suspended several specialized reports that were important to some sectors in agriculture. I 

understand that it was budget concerns that led to those suspensions, but can you share with the Committee how your budget 

works; whether you get funding for specific work or whether you 

are prioritizing what types of work you are doing, given the resources that you have? 

Mr. REILLY. That is a very good question. Again, going back to 

my statement, talking about our overall program, we have two defined appropriations. So we get funding and appropriations for our 

Agricultural Estimates program and then for the Census of Agriculture program. And on the Agricultural Estimates program, 

many of these are the ones I refer to as the Principle Economic Indicators of the United States. So if any financial limitations come 

in play, those are our core ones that we want to keep in place. Second to that, we work with other USDA agencies that administer 

many aspects of the farm bill. So if something is required and data 

is needed, whether it is for crop insurance, disaster assistance, or 

things like that, those are our next level of priority that goes out 

in our Agricultural Estimates program, and—— 

Ms. DELBENE. And just one last thing, since I am running out 

of time. Do you get a specific line item for the Census of Agriculture itself in the budget? 

Mr. REILLY. Yes, we get an appropriation for the Census of Agriculture and all its related programs, and one for the Agricultural 

Estimates program and its sub-activities. 

Ms. DELBENE. Thank you very much. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

The chair will let everyone know votes have been called. I would 

like to allow my colleague, Mr. Scott, to ask his questions before 

we take off, and then we will go into recess and come back immediately after the two votes. 

Mr. Scott, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, Mr. Reilly, did I understand you to say that the reason the 

questions were on the survey were to deal with whether or not the 

farmer could pay their bills? Is that effectively what you are asking? 

Mr. REILLY. Well, not necessarily, sir, whether they could pay 

their bills. 

Mr. SCOTT. What was your justification for asking those additional questions? 

Mr. REILLY. Okay. In recognizing agriculture, 97 percent of all 

the farms in this country are family-operated farms, and many individuals and policymakers, as you know, are concerned about 

maintaining the family farm in our nation. A family farm as a component, we know what their operating expenses are just for the 

business side of the farm operation, but out of our 2.1 million farms 

in the country, less than 1⁄2 of them are actually full-time farmers 

who can make a living doing farming full-time. So in looking at future security, the off-farm, what they do off-farm in their private 

21 

employment, what kind of benefits, and what kind of expenses that 

they have to incur are key to the overall economic picture of the 

farm. 

Mr. SCOTT. Let’s talk—— 

Mr. REILLY. And is kind of unique to agriculture. 

Mr. SCOTT. Let’s talk about one of those expenses. First, what if 

I simply choose not to fill this form out? I have, as a citizen of this 

country, the ability to just say I am not filling this out. 

Mr. REILLY. And many people do. Not everyone, even though it 

is mandatory fill it out, that—— 

Mr. SCOTT. But according to the law, the citizen is required to 

fill it out? 

Mr. REILLY. That is correct. 

Mr. SCOTT. But what are the consequences for not filling it out? 

Mr. REILLY. The penalty is a $100 penalty. 

Mr. SCOTT. It is a $100 penalty. That may be the solution, to 

eliminate the penalty. 

I want to ask you about this question. Contributions to individuals outside of the household, including alimony, child support, 

gifts, and charitable contributions. With all due respect, it is none 

of your business what somebody gives to a charity. It is not. None 

of my business as the government. We have a First Amendment in 

this country. What gives you the right to demand that people tell 

you what they are giving to a charity? 

Mr. REILLY. Well, Congressman, and I respect privacy as well as 

everyone, and I know the sensitivity of a lot of this information, 

and I want you to know that we put a lot of effort on making sure 

that the same law that requires mandatory answers is the same 

law that guarantees the confidentiality and the protection of that 

information. 

Mr. SCOTT. Let me interrupt you there, I am sorry, because we 

are getting short on time. OPM was hacked. So when you have my 

information, if you have all of my information, can you guarantee 

me that it will never be hacked and never be made public? 

Mr. REILLY. We do extensive security—— 

Mr. SCOTT. Would you, yes or no? OPM couldn’t guarantee it. 

Mr. REILLY. Well—— 

Mr. SCOTT. Can your agency guarantee that all of this privileged 

personal information, including what a person gives to their church 

or another charity they may choose to, could never be hacked and 

made public? 

Mr. REILLY. Well, sir, what I can guarantee is that we do everything possible to secure the information. We try to stay up-to-date 

with all of our IT protocols—— 

Mr. SCOTT. I will—— 

Mr. REILLY.—and things like that. 

Mr. SCOTT. I will take that as a no, with all due respect. I am 

somewhat taken aback by this, and I am also taken aback by the 

fact that it seems, as you go through the questions, and the slides 

that we have looked at and the e-mails, it seems that if it wasn’t 

specifically illegal, then the discretion was used to do it anyway. 

And so where Congress gives an authority to do a survey that 

much of the information might be necessary for land use, since we 

22 

didn’t specifically say you can’t do this, this, and this, you used 

your discretion to make it mandatory. Is that fair enough? 

Mr. REILLY. The discretion that we used was to look at the entirety of the data that was trying to be collected, and apply that 

discretion to everything that was on the form. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SCOTT. But you used discretion to make it mandatory instead of voluntary. 

Mr. REILLY. Well, when I say discretion, again, following the 

principles and practices that every program that we have conducted since moving the Census of Agriculture—— 

Mr. SCOTT. But would you—— 

Mr. REILLY.—program—— 

Mr. SCOTT.—agree that there was a change to make this mandatory instead of voluntary? 

Mr. REILLY. Could you repeat that again, sir? I—— 

Mr. SCOTT. Would you agree that there was a change to make 

this mandatory? This was not a mandatory report. The household 

characteristics was not a mandatory report until you used your discretion to make it one. Is that correct? 

Mr. REILLY. No. Again, going back and looking at all the previous 

surveys of the aspects of this, the household characteristics and information of off-farm income—— 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, let me—— 

Mr. REILLY.—and things like that were—— 

Mr. SCOTT. Let me rephrase it. What did you—— 

Mr. REILLY.—in previous surveys. 

Mr. SCOTT. What did you add this year? 

Mr. REILLY. Which exact questions? 

Mr. SCOTT. Yes. 

Mr. REILLY. I would have to look and go through every exact 

question. But one of the principles of—— 

Mr. SCOTT. Let me ask one other thing then. What do you not 

have the authority to add to the question? 

Mr. REILLY. We have the authority to do the survey and add 

things that are relevant and have to have a justified need for what 

the data is going to be used for. 

Mr. SCOTT. Justify the need for making somebody disclose their 

charitable contributions to the government. 

Mr. REILLY. Again, sir, that would go to the overall economic 

well-being of that household on how much—— 

Mr. SCOTT. Using that standard, there is no limit to what you 

can ask the American public. 

Mr. REILLY. And, again, going through the process, what I rely 

on is being open and transparent. When we go through this in our 

discussions and in the development of the questionnaire, we lay out 

right from the beginning in all of our Federal Register notices what 

we intend to ask. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, my time has expired, but this is just 

a clear example of government overreach that we have responsibility to rein-in. 

And with that, I will yield what time I don’t have left. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

23 

With that, since we are in the midst of a two-vote series, the 

chair will call this Subcommittee into recess until we return immediately after votes. 

[Recess.] 

The CHAIRMAN. This hearing of the Subcommittee on Biotechnology, Horticulture, and Research will come back to order. 

Welcome back, Mr. Reilly. I—well, actually, thanks for allowing 

us the time to get back here. I apologize for making you wait. I appreciate your time here. 

We are going to go straight into the questioning, and it is for the 

Minority side. 

I recognize the Ranking Member of the full Agriculture Committee, Mr. Peterson, for 5 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. COLLIN C. PETERSON, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM MINNESOTA 

Mr. PETERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, Mr. Reilly, yesterday or the day before, there was a story 

in a paper back home about farmers in two counties in North Dakota not receiving ARC county payments apparently because their 

neighbors had not sent in the NASS data, or the ones that did send 

them in were people that irrigated, and the ones that didn’t irrigate didn’t send them in. In any event, all of the counties around 

these two counties received payments, and it was quoted in there 

they thought their payments should have been $30 an acre but 

they got zero. Are you familiar with this situation? 

[The document referred to is located on p. 122.] 

Mr. REILLY. Not of that particular situation, no, but I am familiar with the program itself and how our data is used in the program. 

Mr. PETERSON. Well, so we are using data to determine these 

payments, that is given by farmers that are not actually required 

by any law to do it. 

Mr. REILLY. It is voluntary, yes. 

Mr. PETERSON. Well, what kind of a crazy system is that? Now, 

I was never in favor of this ARC county thing in the first place. 

If we had the PLC, this wouldn’t have been an issue. But you can’t 

explain to people how this is possible; that they were expecting to 

receive $30,000 worth of payments, and they are getting zero. And 

apparently, for some reason or another, they can’t use the RMA 

data in those counties either. So this is I believe Stutsman and 

LaMoure County in North Dakota. 

First of all, I guess you need to become familiar with it, and second of all, there has to be a way to fix this. It is not right to treat 

people like this. So would you be able to fix it if there was—they 

said that it was only 15 percent of the people that sent their surveys in in that county? 

Mr. REILLY. Well, Congressman, this goes back to one of our fundamental missions is providing credible, reliable data in support of 

all kind of policies in farm programs. And in the data that is used 

for this, we are providing information on county estimates, which 

is the acreage, average yield, and production within the county, 

and we rely on the voluntary cooperation of the farmers to do that. 

And in our working relationship, both with the Risk Management 

24 

Agency and the Farm Service Agency, we do, to the best of our 

ability, collect enough information to provide that data that is reliable for the counties. One of the situations that we deal with is not 

every county is equal with the number of people and the number 

of farms, but in the situations where we cannot provide credible, 

defensible information, we do not publish the information for that 

particular county. 

Mr. PETERSON. Then if you don’t publish information, they 

wouldn’t be able to get the payments? 

Mr. REILLY. Well, again, my agency does not administer the program. All we do is deliver the data. 

Mr. PETERSON. So if—— 

Mr. REILLY. And FSA and RMA are looking for the best, most accurate data available, and in the situations like that, they have difficulties finding a source of data to determine, but that is not in 

my area. 

Mr. PETERSON. If they only had 15 percent of the farmers respond with the NASS data, would that be considered inadequate? 

Mr. REILLY. It is not necessarily 15 percent of the farmers, there 

are two indications; we want to get a good distribution of the farmers, and we look to see how much of the coverage or the acreage 

or production we cover. So in a situation, if there were large operators and maybe a handful of them that we knew covered over 25 

percent of the production of that commodity in that county, that 

would meet our criteria for reliability. 

Mr. PETERSON. I think that—— 

Mr. REILLY.—would be able to do it. 

Mr. PETERSON.—maybe is what happened, because the large 

farmers that are irrigated sent in their data, and the smaller farmers that are not irrigated didn’t, and so the irrigated acres got 

counted, and the yield is 40, 50 bushel more than the non-irrigated. 

Now, I don’t know. 

Anyway, I would appreciate it if you would look into it. It is not 

my district, but—— 

Mr. REILLY. We could look into that and get back to you with 

more information, yes, sir. 

Mr. PETERSON. All right. And then the other thing that I am having questions about in my district is how you set the barley nationwide numbers. This is something I have been fighting over ever 

since I have been here in terms of trying to differentiate between 

feed barley and malting barley. And apparently, there have been 

questions asked of your agency about how you came up with this 

number on barley, and my people don’t think they have gotten a 

good answer about how that was established. Do you know if it is 

some percentage of malting barley, some percentage of feed barley, 

how you came up with that number? 

Mr. REILLY. Well, sir, on our prices program, what we do is that 

we publish the prices of barley in three different categories. We 

publish an all-barley price, we publish a feed barley price, and a 

malting barley price. So we have that available, those three different components. 

Again, you have to look back to the actual ARC—I am not sure 

if that is the right program, but the farm program itself, as to 

which one of those did they choose to use. Are they choosing to use 

25 

the all-barley price or the feed barley price? And I believe in the 

past, they were using the feed barley price, and now may be using 

the all-barley price. We don’t set which price is used, we just give 

the prices on the three different categories. 

Mr. PETERSON. Well, I guess the issue is if my farmers don’t feel 

like they have gotten a good answer on how you came up with the 

all-barley price, which apparently was $5.30 for 2014, could you 

submit to my office how you came up with that price—— 

Mr. REILLY. Yes, we can. 

Mr. PETERSON.—and what it was based on, and—— 

Mr. REILLY. Yes. 

Mr. PETERSON.—so forth? 

Mr. REILLY. We can give you an analysis of how we come up with 

that price. 

Mr. PETERSON. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Peterson. 

I now recognize my colleague, Mr. Thompson, from Pennsylvania, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much. Mr. Reilly, 

thank you for being here. 

I appreciate the fact that we work hard to try to have good data 

in order to make good public policy. I think the farm bill that we 

did was a reflection of that and we appreciate that data. Although 

it is not to say I don’t hear from my farmers from time to time, 

and they understand that good policy is driven by good data. I have 

tried to make that point when it comes to reflecting on the really 

good things that we were able to accomplish in the farm bill. But, 

they do have a point at times, certainly, where there is a balance 

and making sure that we are collecting just the information we 

need, and we do it in a way that is efficient so it doesn’t become 

a burden. And I appreciate your help achieving those two objectives. 

I have a couple of questions for you. I understand there are two 

versions of TOTAL. Is that correct? 

Mr. REILLY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Okay. Now, there was the operator version and 

the landlord version. Does that sound accurate? 

Mr. REILLY. That is correct, yes. 

Mr. THOMPSON. The 1999 AELOS does not look like TOTAL, correct? 

Mr. REILLY. When you say does not look, it also had two different 

versions. It had an operator type of version and a landowner type 

of version as well. The exact content in that does change over time, 

but there were two separate components. 

Mr. THOMPSON. It is the current contents that is the distinguishing difference? 

Mr. REILLY. It would be the actual content that—yes, that would 

be a little bit different from the previous. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Okay. Now, farmers and ranchers are routinely 

asked these questions by ERS through the ARMS III Survey. Is 

that correct, Mr. Reilly? 

Mr. REILLY. They are asked questions in the ARMS survey primarily focusing on farm finances and other aspects, yes, but nothVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:51 Feb 10, 2016 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 P:\DOCS\114-37\97972.TXT BRIAN
26 

ing on land ownership or intentions of transition of land or anything like that. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Okay. So trying to determine the difference then, 

the difference is that the ARMS III Survey is optional. Is that correct? 

Mr. REILLY. It is voluntary, yes. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Okay, voluntary. Great. Now, one obvious rationale for making the TOTAL survey mandatory is to increase response rates, and I get that. The more complete data, the better 

the information. Perhaps historically NASS and ERS were not satisfied with the response rates for prior surveys, however, this document shows that the response rates historically were acceptable, 

and I am assuming statistically acceptable. Can we put up Slide 

2 up on the screen? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Is it there already? Okay. The 50 percent and 

the 74 percent returns seem acceptable. Now, again, Mr. Reilly, 

what was the motivation for conducting TOTAL using the mandatory Census authority? 

Mr. REILLY. Well, when you look at the term acceptable on the 

two response rates, and when you look at the reliability, especially 

for the landlord side, it is pushing some of our reliability boundaries of what we would deem acceptable. Now, we do publish with 

all of our numbers sort of a measure of error that goes with each 

one, but if sometimes those bounds are too great then we will not 

be able to publish the data. 

Now, since that time, we have been experiencing, and all statistical agencies have been experiencing, declining response rates. So 

a response rate that you achieved in 1999 looking forward, we were 

very apprehensive that, especially on the landlord side, whether we 

were going to be able to collect enough reliable data. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Also in the e-mail shown on the screen, it says, 

‘‘We didn’t actually publish the percent.’’ Instead, they published ‘‘a 

bunch of text to try and confuse people about our actual rate.’’ Who 

was NASS staff trying to confuse and why? 

Mr. REILLY. Well, I cannot say who is the author of this e-mail, 

but in looking at our description, we put out a lot of different numbers and adjectives to describe the quality of our data. Response is 

one of them, and response is sort of how many do you send out, 

how many do you get back and take that out. We also put in there 

reliabilities of how variable the information is, and also within a 

survey itself, we may have gotten a questionnaire back but major 

portions of those questions or items within that may remain blank. 

So you just can’t always look at just one number and say I received 

X percent back, you have to look at the details within that, how 

many of the questions were actually answered, or how many had 

to be statistically looked at, and whether it was imputation or 

something, to try to complete the missing items. So there are different measures of quality that we try to issue. 

Mr. THOMPSON. No, I understand—— 

Mr. REILLY. Okay. 

Mr. THOMPSON. I understand that, and I just want to clarify— 

the narrative concerns me, just the implications about, ‘‘a bunch of 

published a bunch of text to try and confuse people about our actual rate.’’ I certainly understand the standard deviation, and there 

27 

are so many places to glean information from a survey participation rate and response, and those types of things, but any clarification in terms of what was being communicated or inferred in that 

e-mail by that statement? 

Mr. REILLY. And, again, I am not sure what specifically we are 

talking about, but over time, OMB has changed some of their requirements of how we calculate and the formula that goes into calculating a response rate. It used to be simple, taking sort of the 

number of forms you sent out and the number of forms that you 

received back in. But since that time, there have been new parameters and requirements placed on how we calculate this, and when 

you start describing out-of-businesses, how you treat an out-of-business or somebody that says they are no longer a farmer, or things 

like that, and you do that, the text is very confusing based on what 

people normally perceive as a response rate. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Sure. If you wouldn’t mind and then I—— 

Mr. REILLY. But we could clarify, we could provide you exactly 

how the responses—— 

Mr. THOMPSON. Yes, if you work with your staff—— 

Mr. REILLY.—calculate. 

Mr. THOMPSON.—to get a clarification for that, I would appreciate it. 

Mr. REILLY. Yes. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

I would now like to recognize my colleague, Ms. Kuster, for 5 

minutes. 

Ms. KUSTER. Thank you very much. Thank you Chairman Davis 

and Ranking Member DelBene. And thank you to the Administrator for being with us. 

I actually find this information helpful and very interesting, but 

I come from a much smaller state with much smaller farms. And 

it is important for me to understand the health and well-being of 

the communities in the rural part of my state, as well as the economy, and within families to understand do they have to take jobs 

off the farm to make life work, which is typically the case. It does 

seem to me, from this hearing, that there may be either a lack of 

coordination or maybe a lack of information and outreach that is 

causing the issues that have come up. I am wondering, can you 

suggest to me ways that NASS could improve outreach efforts to 

farmers, to industry, so that farmers will have a better understanding of the survey, know when and how the survey will be administered. But most importantly, they would have an understanding of how this is information on an aggregate level, not personal information. Also, how this type of data is helpful in making 

policy that then will come back to benefit their lives and rural communities. 

Mr. REILLY. And that is a very good question, and we, within our 

agency, realize that we rely on the cooperation of the farmers and 

ranchers, and we are doing a lot through our public affairs area of 

describing sort of what it is we are collecting. But more importantly, we are trying to educate as many as we can on the uses. 

And, for example, we have worked with many of the commodity industries, going back to show how the information we collect relates 

28 

back to the ARC programs, how it relates back to crop insurance. 

And we have had joint brochures and explanatory statements developed both from us, RMA, the Corn Growers Association and Soybean Growers Association, that are looking at and trying to describe back to the farmers and ranchers how the data you provide 

to NASS is used to get you a crop insurance payment. And the 

more we educate and the more we can get that, the better off we 

are going to be able to complete our mission of getting the data, 

and the farmers will know how it is being used. And that is the 

critical thing that we are trying to communicate. 

Ms. KUSTER. Yes, and I agree with you. I think that is critical. 

And I would say this is a very bipartisan Committee, that is rare 

on Capitol Hill, and we would like to work with you if there is a 

way that we can help communicate to our constituents, put out a 

press release, put it up on our websites in a way that helps make 

that case that this information is not meant to be intrusive, it is 

meant to be instructive as to how we make these decisions of public 

policy, and as you say, how the checks flow coming back to the 

farmers. 

So thank you for your testimony. I appreciate your time. 

Mr. THOMPSON [presiding.] The gentlelady yields back. 

I now recognize the gentleman from Washington, Mr. Newhouse. 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. 

Reilly, welcome. 

Mr. REILLY. Thank you. 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. I appreciate your time here, your contributing to 

this conversation. It is very important stuff. 

I am a farmer myself. I have filled out many of the surveys, 

sometimes begrudgingly. 

Mr. REILLY. Yes, I understand. 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. But I understand the importance of the information as it is gathered. Information is power and we need to make 

sure that producers in this country have good information, and so 

it is important stuff. That is why I am concerned about the program overall, and we want to make sure that there is confidence 

in it, that people see not only the need for it, but it is given that 

surveys are conducted in such a way that people feel that they are 

being treated fairly, and not questioning the information or the use 

of it, but just in the manner it is secured. Like I tried to express 

at the outset, farmers are busy—— 

Mr. REILLY. Yes. 

Mr. NEWHOUSE.—as you well know. We have a million things to 

do before yesterday, and to sit down and fill out a survey that is 

going to take 30 minutes, and turns out to be several hours, we 

don’t get any money for that, and there are other things that are 

high on the priority list. So it is a very sensitive thing that we have 

to be very careful in protecting our credibility in this. 

I have a couple of questions. The 2014 TOTAL survey, administered by NASS, my understanding was 24 pages long, had 326 

questions. Is that correct? 

Mr. REILLY. Well, that would probably have been the operator 

component, yes. 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Okay. 

Mr. REILLY. There are two different components, yes. 

29 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. So would you describe in your estimation as that 

questionnaire being concise as Congress directed that it should be? 

Mr. REILLY. Well, again, in looking at serving the needs of the 

public, we operate under several different parameters. We have to 

be very cognizant of minimizing the response burden. And we work 

with strict guidance through the OMB pre-approval process of looking at the response burden that we have, and we still have to be 

able to collect the needed information. So as we go through, again, 

every step of our process, I won’t say it is actually one of our golden 

rules, but we try to keep the response burden as minimal as possible. And if we are looking for new items and things like that, we 

try to take items off to keep it equivalent. But the needs and the 

data needs for agriculture do change over time, and there has been 

an appetite for more information as more needs are being identified 

across the country. But we are very aware of the response burden, 

and we work to make sure that everything that gets on that document. And again, as part of the review process in the Federal Register notice, we do send it out and give it to the public to look at— 

here is the type of questions, and see are we hitting the target, 

anybody have any comments, is there something that we are missing, is there something too much or—— 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. So you—— 

Mr. REILLY.—anything like that. 

Mr. NEWHOUSE.—saying it needs to be relevant information, relevant questions? 

Mr. REILLY. Yes. Yes. 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Would you say questions about furniture and office supplies and license taxes, health expenses, how much was 

spent on entertainment, generally, are those relevant questions? 

Mr. REILLY. Well, again, especially dealing with agriculture, 

which is kind of unique, is because of the high percentage of farm 

operations that are family farms. Ninety-seven percent of all of our 

farms meet that criteria. And there is a difference, and there is a 

thing to look at the whole economic profile of the operation which 

doesn’t just stop at the farm operation. So there is a need to gather 

some information about the off-farm-related activities to get a complete overall—— 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Well—— 

Mr. REILLY.—economic well-being picture—— 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. I have—— 

Mr. REILLY.—of our farms and—— 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. I have just a short amount of time left, if I could 

ask quickly. I apologize for this, but in e-mails we have gotten from 

OMB, they directed NASS to speak with the USDA General Counsel about the content of the survey and whether USDA had the authority to combine TOTAL and ARM surveys to make them mandatory. I want to know if you were aware of those concerns, and do 

you know if that consultation ever took place? And I apologize for 

leaving you very little time. 

Mr. REILLY. I am not sure specifically which concerns you are 

talking about, but in looking at our consultation with OGC, I am 

in constant communication with them about various aspects of our 

program. And we can get back with you on any type of what their 

opinion is or whatever. We have had discussions not only on this 

30 

program but other aspects of the Census of Agriculture program 

and the mandatory reporting over the years, and have a very 

strong working relationship with them. And in going through the 

OMB approval process, we do provide answers and questions and 

documentation to the OMB examiner, sort of justifying our request 

and our authority to do that. 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. So you are saying those consultations did occur? 

Mr. REILLY. Well, on this specific program, not necessarily, but 

I do consult with them all the time. And we did provide, and I have 

had recent conversations with them on other programs under the 

Census of Agriculture, and we did provide some of our 

documentations that we had from previous conversations to the 

OMB examiner. And we can get any clarification—— 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Okay. 

Mr. REILLY.—for the record if you need it of what OGC—because, 

again, every Census follow-on that we have conducted since the 

transfer at the Department of Agriculture has been conducted 

under the mandatory reporting authority. 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. I have gone over my time, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your leniency. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN [presiding.] It is freshman leniency, Mr. 

Newhouse. It won’t happen in your next year. Thank you very 

much. 

The chair would like to recognize the Ranking Member, Ms. 

DelBene, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. DELBENE. We all support other Washington State Members 

of the Committee, I just had a couple of extra questions, Mr. Reilly. 

We talk about voluntary and mandatory surveys, and so I wanted to know if you could explain for us the difference, why you decide to use one versus the other. 

Mr. REILLY. Well, first of all, when you talk about a decision 

process, essentially, with the Census of Agriculture program and 

the authority that we have had, all the special follow-ons that we 

have conducted as part of that program have been mandatory. 

Okay. So it is not like yes, no, or whatever, we have just conducted 

all of them as mandatory. And other than those programs, and 

knowing the important nature of what we are trying to get on 

those programs, on our Agricultural Estimates programs we have 

very little mandatory reporting on that side at all. So again, I look 

at this, and you look at the Census of Agriculture program and all 

the key related issues that it is trying then to subsequently measure are critical. With the response rates and the quality of the data 

to measure those sometimes are difficult to get to, so each one, 

starting with the 1999 AELOS and every special study that has 

been conducted under the Census of Agriculture authority has been 

mandatory reporting. 

Ms. DELBENE. Can you give us more information on the types of 

responses you get, what the difference in responses you get between a mandatory and a voluntary—— 

Mr. REILLY. Typically, we find that our response rate will probably increase and improve around 15 percent going from a voluntary to a mandatory program, about a 15 percent increase. 

Ms. DELBENE. And how does that show itself in terms of the 

quality of the data that you get as a result? 

31 

Mr. REILLY. In many times, it is absolutely critical, because when 

you look at the Census of Agriculture program, yes, we are looking 

at measuring things at a national level, but oftentimes you have 

to make sure we are putting out information on a sublevel, whether it be a state, or in some instances even below the state level. 

And that is where it becomes critical. If you look at response rates 

and making sure that certain issues are important in all states, it 

is difficult for some of the smaller states for us to collect certain 

data at a defensible statistical level without the use of that mandatory reporting. 

Ms. DELBENE. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. I appreciate your time. 

Ms. DAVIS. Thank you. 

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Yoho, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. YOHO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Reilly, thank you for 

being here. 

And I am going to pick up where my colleagues from Washington, in Washington, left off. And I am not as refined as my colleague to the left. 

Where I come from—I am a large animal veterinarian, I practiced for 30 years, I have dealt with rural agriculture all of my life 

since I was about 15. Where I come from, people are angry about 

these surveys. They are intrusive. If I were to ask you how many 

children do you have? 

Mr. REILLY. I do not have any children. 

Mr. YOHO. Do you travel? 

Mr. REILLY. Yes, I do travel. 

Mr. YOHO. Where do you like to travel? 

Mr. REILLY. State of Washington—— 

Mr. YOHO. And if I kept going—— 

Mr. REILLY.—because that is where my family is from. 

Mr. YOHO. And if I keep going and say how much do you spend 

on this, and what is in your annuity and things like that, you 

might get to a point where you say it is none of your darned business. That is what I run into. 

And, these questions, I find them offensive, and especially when 

it is mandatory. It was brought up by Austin Scott about the 

Fourth Amendment, the right of the people to secure their persons, 

their house, their papers and effects against unreasonable search 

and seizures, shall not be violated and no warrants shall be issued 

but upon probable cause supported by an oath. I think we have 

overstepped the boundaries of this. And this is why, at this point 

of time in our country, especially where I come from, it is a very 

conservative district, there is a lot of mistrust of government. And 

this is an intrusive program. And I understand the importance of 

having the information, to get that information to make the decisions that we have to up here, but there is a better way to do that, 

and I would encourage you highly to do that. If not, Congress will 

act, and you will have help from your own government. 

What I wanted to ask you is, OMB—and if you could raise Slide 

5 please. 

Mr. YOHO. OMB raised concerns about making the TOTAL survey mandatory. This will be Slide 5. In the document on the screen 

32 

now, an OMB employee advises, he is referring to the OMB General Counsel, believes that only the survey content named in the 

title is designated as mandatory. Were you aware of these concerns 

raised by OMB? 

Mr. REILLY. Well, I am not aware of these specific concerns, but 

in getting back to our OMB approval process, as you know, examiners come, examiners go, different things, and oftentimes people 

are not aware of all the rules and parameters. I have had conversations over the course of the year and my time, trying to explain to 

people what the authority provided to us under the Census of Agriculture Act was. And in looking at this, I can’t comment specifically 

on this, but we have been through this. We have been through this 

several cycles. And I have talked with staff and I have a good relationship with OGC on many of the issues, but as far as my staff 

goes, we go back to what we have done before, how we have justified things before, and apparently whatever information that we 

provided back to OMB met their satisfaction because they did end 

up approving—— 

Mr. YOHO. Well, let me go on to my next question then. OMB 

staff then directed NASS staff to consult with the USDA General 

Counsel to determine whether the Secretary had the discretionary 

authority to mandate TOTAL as part of the Census for Agriculture 

program. Did any such consultation occur in your knowledge? 

Mr. REILLY. Well, I am not aware—well, first of all, I am not 

aware of this request, and any conversation I am not—— 

Mr. YOHO. Okay, so—— 

Mr. REILLY.—aware of that, but—— 

Mr. YOHO. But—okay. 

Mr. REILLY.—in dealings with the General Counsel, we just recently instituted a new Census of Agriculture report, current industrial reports, requested under Census of Agriculture authority, and 

I have had complete discussions with the General Counsel on that 

and those programs are being conducted—— 

Mr. YOHO. Well, let me ask you this. Do you think the NASS 

staff has the right to ask those questions, to mandate TOTAL as 

part of the Census for Agriculture program? Is that a yes or a no? 

I mean I am just kind of looking for a yes or no. 

Mr. REILLY. Again, going back, all the programs that we have 

conducted on the Census of Agriculture and the special studies 

since the transfer over have been conducted under mandatory authority. 

Mr. YOHO. All right. So the question is, do they have the discretionary authority to do that? You are saying yes? 

Mr. REILLY. Well, I would say that, yes, all of them have 

been—— 

Mr. YOHO. Okay. 

Mr. REILLY.—conducted that way. 

Mr. YOHO. I have a follow-up question then. Why were there no 

related documents produced to the Committee then when requested? And if you can’t answer that, I would appreciate a written 

answer for that for this Committee so that we can look at that 

more in-depth. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I believe I have run out of time. And I am 

going to ask you to submit that. The question is, the OMB staff diVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:51 Feb 10, 2016 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 P:\DOCS\114-37\97972.TXT BRIAN
33 

rected NASS staff to consult with the USDA General Counsel to 

determine whether the Secretary has the discretionary authority to 

mandate TOTAL, and did any such consultation occur? You said 

yes, you thought. If yes, why were then no related documents produced to the Committee that was requested? 

And I yield back. Thank you, sir. I will make sure you have 

them. 

Mr. REILLY. If I can make one clarification. I did not have a discussion with OGC about the TOTAL survey, I had discussions with 

them about other Census of Agriculture special studies, and more 

recently, the current industrial reports. So those are the conversations that I had. And if you need something from OGC that would 

document the authority to conduct the TOTAL, we can provide—— 

Mr. YOHO. I will write this down. I am out of time, and I want 

to respect the Chairman’s time and everybody else’s. And I will get 

you those questions. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. Reilly, thank you again. I have a few more questions. 

Following up a little bit on what Mr. Yoho started, several of the 

documents show various employees being instructed not to reveal 

ERS’ involvement in the TOTAL survey. Let’s put up Slide 7. 

The CHAIRMAN. This is an example of this. This employee is 

under the impression that you do not want third parties to know 

about ERS’ involvement and thereby create the appearance that 

NASS is conducting a Census for another agency. How do you explain this? 

Mr. REILLY. Well, sir, I am not familiar with this specific e-mail. 

And, again, I will go back to the process and the plan that we put 

in place for this. When we looked at doing the two different surveys, we identified there was much overlap between the two, and 

we attempted to try to do something that was efficient and reduce 

respondent burden. So essentially, we eliminated or suspended 

ARMS III for the particular year and incorporated some of those 

questions and some of the content into the TOTAL survey. And 

what we didn’t want to do is that, when we were talking about this 

to anyone, is that we were not conducting ARMS this year. We 

wanted to make sure all of our materials and stuff like that reflected that we were doing a land ownership survey. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, for the record, I would like to note that this 

information was submitted to you on Monday. So at some point in 

time, I would like to make sure that you have had a chance to see 

that before you arrived here, which is why we gave it to you—— 

Mr. REILLY. Okay. 

The CHAIRMAN.—and I would hope we could get more of a response. 

And one last question on this issue. Did you direct employees to 

hide ERS’ involvement in TOTAL? 

Mr. REILLY. I never directed or had any communication about 

hiding anything. In fact, I believe, and again, in my opening statement we, right from the beginning from our explanatory notes 

through the Federal Register process, talked about the collaboration 

with ERS on the program. So we never hid anything about the involvement or whatever. We were open and transparent right from 

the beginning. 

34 

* Editor’s note: The 1999 AELOS survey and the ARMS III survey are Attachments 1 and 

2 of the House Committee on Agriculture staff report, Oversight of USDA’s Use of the Census 

of Agriculture Authority To Acquire Farmer’s Personal Financial Information. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you. I wanted to follow up on Mr. 

Yoho, since he started that line of questioning, and then go back 

now to something that was mentioned earlier by many of my colleagues and me about the mandatory nature of TOTAL. 

Can we put Slide 3 up please? 

The CHAIRMAN. This e-mail from NASS’ OMB liaison states, ‘‘Joe 

said we have the approval to treat this as a mandatory survey 

under the discretionary rights of the Secretary.’’ And you just mentioned the mandatory issue in regards to OGC. Who granted that 

approval? 

Mr. REILLY. Well, I am not familiar with the particular e-mail, 

but again, in our process of submitting everything for OMB in our 

Federal Register notice and all the OMB approval process, we were 

right from the beginning with our intention to conduct this as mandatory reporting. So in our first Federal Register notice and in our 

second Federal Register notice, it was the intention in there that 

we were doing this as a mandatory reporting. And then, in essence, 

once we received OMB approval, then we proceed with implementing the program. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, Mr. Reilly, again, this information was in 

the report that was submitted by your employees to us. I find it 

disheartening that we can’t have a conversation here on information that your agency provided to us and get questions answered. 

Do you agree that the—well, you know what, I am going to skip 

that question. 

Mr. Thompson, do you have any more questions? All right, I will 

go into our closing statements. 

Mr. Reilly, thank you. I think all of us here on both sides, we 

understand the value of the Census of Agriculture survey. We truly 

do. Some of the responses that you have given today frustrate us 

to the point that maybe we will have another hearing on this. You 

mentioned the 1999 survey being the basis of the mandatory 

TOTAL survey. Well, let me for the record, and I will submit the 

1999 survey for the record and also the TOTAL survey, you already 

know there is a major difference in what is being asked on the 

1999 survey, and many of the questions that have been deemed intrusive on the TOTAL survey. 

[The information referred to is located on p. 58, and p. 73.] * 

The CHAIRMAN. Our farmers have been frustrated by this new 

mandatory survey. They have been frustrated by the questions that 

have been asked. I appreciate your responses regarding dental insurance, health insurance questions, but I still don’t see the need 

to ask that in an agricultural survey. That is something other surveys within the Federal Government ask. My colleague, Mr. Scott 

from Georgia, brought up the issue of spending and even charitable 

contributions. Well, the IRS gets that information from every 

American if they itemize, and if they don’t, why does the Census 

of Agriculture survey, why does TOTAL have to ask that information? I started today by asking you about if you are a risk-taker. 

By your own response, Mr. Reilly, you couldn’t answer that question accurately. And how can we expect our farmers who don’t unVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:51 Feb 10, 2016 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 P:\DOCS\114-37\97972.TXT BRIAN
35 

derstand the survey, who don’t know the background of the survey, 

who don’t know what that survey is going to be used for, how can 

you expect them to answer that question? 

I hope you can see today why we are frustrated. I hope you can 

see today why we expect you and the USDA to go back and rework 

something like this. Let’s use some common-sense. And I would 

hope that what we take away from here is an opportunity to continue to work together; because we do truly value the statistical 

analysis that this survey can give, and I am personally afraid that 

the response rate is going to continue to go down when you add 

questions that are seemingly absurd to many of us. 

So with that, I want to say thank you again. Thank you to your 

staff. And I appreciate the opportunity to be here with you, and I 

look forward to working with you in the future. 

And now I have to go through my usual adjournment speech. 

Under the rules of the Committee, the record of today’s hearing 

will remain open for 10 calendar days to receive additional material and supplementary written responses from the witness to any 

questions posed by a Member. 

This Subcommittee on Biotechnology, Horticulture, and Research 

hearing is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:55 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

37 

SUBMITTED REPORT BY HON. RODNEY DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM

ILLINOIS

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, CHAIRMAN

Oversight of USDA’s Use of the Census of Agriculture Authority To Acquire 

Farmer’s Personal Financial Information 

Staff Report Prepared for the House Committee on Agriculture, U.S. House 

of Representatives, 114th Congress 

November 30, 2015 

I. Executive Summary 

In January 2015, the Committee, both Majority and Minority, were contacted by 

farmers and ranchers, also referred to as producers or operators, concerned that the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) National Agricultural Statistics Service 

(NASS) improperly used the Census of Agriculture authority to conduct a survey entitled Tenure, Ownership, and Transition of Agricultural Land (TOTAL). By invoking the Census authority, NASS rendered the TOTAL survey compulsory. Farmers 

and ranchers across America were enraged when they realized the broadly scoped 

Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS III) was now being mandated by 

USDA. 

The farmers and ranchers in touch with the House Agriculture Committee, having 

no insight into the behind-the-scenes planning and execution of the survey, were 

confounded by the duplicative, intrusive, and over-broad nature of TOTAL. The 

TOTAL survey inquired about all aspects of an operator’s personal financial portfolio as well as all aspects of farm related income and expenses. 

Examples of the intrusive nature include the following queries: ‘‘income 

from private pensions,’’ spending on ‘‘health and/or dental insurance costs,’’ 

and values of ‘‘financial assets held in non-retirement accounts’’ such savings bonds and mutual funds. These questions on the TOTAL survey were 

required to be answered. Otherwise, the operator could face a monetary 

penalty. In order to understand all the facts surrounding this novel approach to 

ARMS III, on February 2, 2015, Chairman Conaway and Ranking Member Peterson 

sent a letter to Secretary Vilsack requesting information, documents, and a stafflevel briefing related to the TOTAL survey. 

On February 5, 2015, and again on March 27, 2015, NASS officials briefed House 

Agriculture Committee staff regarding the TOTAL survey. Both briefings were 

fraught with contradictions and confusion. At one point, during the February briefing, NASS staff stated that the TOTAL survey had been conducted ‘‘for years—since 

1998.’’ Then, when Committee staff challenged this statement, it was retracted. 

Based on the confused nature of the February briefing, Committee staff determined 

it was necessary to continue to press USDA for documents related to TOTAL and 

NASS’s authority to conduct TOTAL as a mandatory Census of Agriculture followon survey. 

For 7 months, USDA produced approximately 49,000 documents, which Committee staff reviewed. On September 9, 2015, Chairman Conaway sent Secretary 

Vilsack a letter requesting transcribed testimony of two NASS employees, who have 

significant factual knowledge of the planning and execution of the TOTAL survey. 

USDA refused this request. Instead, USDA offered another briefing. Because USDA 

refused to produce witnesses to clarify certain documents and elaborate on the circumstances surrounding the TOTAL survey, the Committee is left with outstanding 

questions. These gaps in the record are addressed in Section III of this report. 


11437069.eps
38 

1 H. Rep. No. 105–296 (Oct. 2, 1997). 

Over the course of the Committee’s oversight of the TOTAL survey, it became 

clear that certain anomalies occurred during the planning and approval phase of the 

survey. The pace, timing, and fact that TOTAL resembled the ARMS III survey— 

a survey traditionally conducted as an optional survey to inform research by the 

Economic Research Service (ERS)—was driven by department-level leadership. The 

electronic mail messages (e-mails) produced to the Committee show USDA’s involvement in the process, which raises questions about the political motivations for the 

compulsory nature of the TOTAL survey. Administrator Reilly, the official in charge 

of NASS and other NASS staff appear to have been receiving input from USDAmain headquarters. It is unclear who at the department-level was involved in planning the TOTAL survey. Either USDA failed to produce documents and communications to answer this question or the directions were verbal. Without having the opportunity to question appropriate witnesses and USDA officials, the Committee’s 

oversight efforts are impaired. This also shields facts from Congress and American 

agricultural producers. However, one thing is clear: the TOTAL survey that was 

sent to operators is essentially a mandatory version of the ARMS III survey. The 

complete rationale for mandating TOTAL is, at this point, opaque to the Committee. 

Beyond the novel approach of mandating TOTAL, producers and ranchers from 

around the U.S. raised concerns about the survey content and the fact that it was 

extremely burdensome to complete. The TOTAL survey was broad and in some instances duplicative. While the Census of Agriculture is an important tool used by 

economists; state, local, and Federal policy-makers; financial analysts; and farmers 

themselves, it cannot be overly burdensome requiring farmers fill out unnecessary 

paperwork rather than focusing on their land. The House Agriculture Committee 

understood the importance of the Census as well as the balance that must be 

struck. 

In the report accompanying the Census of Agriculture Act of 1997, the Committee 

wrote that ‘‘[p]roducers have serious time constraints and should only have to answer questionnaires that are concise, easily readable and understandable, and relevant to today’s agricultural operations.’’ 1 Historically, the Census mandated reporting information focused on farm-related data such as crops planted, yields, crop insurance, and on-farm finances. With regard to the TOTAL survey, NASS engaged 

in a series of actions to convince the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to 

sign off on making TOTAL mandatory for all recipients to complete. These actions 

allowed them to compel—through the threat of a monetary penalty—the collection 

of a vast amount on-farm and off-farm data from farmers, ranchers, and land owners. This report calls into question the propriety of invoking the Census authority 

to require American farmers and ranchers to fill out a burdensome questionnaire 

probing not only their farm-related finances, but also their off-farm financial information. 

OMB plays a role in approving mandatory information collections across government. Notably, documents produced to the Committee demonstrate that OMB raised 

questions about NASS’s authority to conduct TOTAL as a mandatory Census followon. The OMB General Counsel provided an informal opinion stating that 

NASS could not conduct the TOTAL survey under its mandatory Census authority. The OMB General Counsel stated that only survey content enumerated in 

Title 7 could be mandatory. NASS, in contrast, argued the Secretary of Agriculture 

had the discretion to determine survey content. 

OMB Staff advised NASS staff to seek guidance from the USDA General Counsel 

on the question of the Secretary’s discretionary authority. NASS declined to follow 

OMB’s advice. The record before the Committee is void of any legal analysis on the 

subject of whether it is permissible to conduct the TOTAL survey as a mandatory 

Census follow-on survey. In e-mails provided to the Committee, USDA contends it 

has broad authority to conduct smaller surveys containing material beyond what is 

enumerated in the Census of Agriculture statute. In responding to the TOTAL survey, operators are essentially providing all financial data related to farm and land 

operations as well as personal household financial data. USDA, by taking this new 

approach, has delved into data ranging from how much a rancher’s family spends 

on everything from health insurance to dental checkups to how much they spend 

on vacations. The House Agriculture Committee staff disagrees with this approach. 

39 

2 7 U.S.C. § 2204g states, in pertinent part: 

(a) Census of agriculture required 

(1) In general 

In 1998 and every fifth year thereafter, the Secretary of Agriculture shall take a Census 

of Agriculture. 

(2) Inclusion of specialty crops 

Effective beginning with the Census of Agriculture required to be conducted in 2008, 

the Secretary shall conduct as part of each Census of Agriculture a Census of specialty 

crops (as that term is defined in section 3 of the Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act of 

2004 (7 U.S.C. 1621 note; Public Law 108–465)). 

(b) Methods 

In connection with the Census, the Secretary may conduct any survey or other information collection, and employ any sampling or other statistical method, that the Secretary 

determines is appropriate. 

(c) Year of information 

The information collected in each Census taken under this section shall relate to the 

year immediately preceding the year in which the Census is taken. 

Frequently Asked Questions, About the Census, http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Help/FAQs/ 

General_FAQs/ (last visited Oct. 13, 2015). 

The Paperwork Reduction Act ‘‘requires agencies to submit approval requests for information 

collections to [the Office of Mgmt. & Budget’s] Office of Information & Regulatory Affairs 

[OIRA]. OIRA then evaluates them under the standards of the Paperwork Reduction Act, approving them if they comply and assigning a control number.’’ See https://www.whitehouse.gov/ 

omb/OIRA_QsandAs/. The Census of Agriculture and its follow-on surveys must be vetted in 

advance by officials at OIRA. 3http://www.nass.usda.gov/About_NASS/ (last visited Oct. 21, 2015). 4See http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/About_the_Census/ (last visited Sept. 11, 2015). 

II. Background 

Relevant Agencies 

The Census of Agriculture is conducted every 5 years pursuant to the Census of 

Agriculture Act of 1997.2 NASS is the USDA agency delegated the authority to conduct the Census. According to the NASS website, the agency ‘‘conducts hundreds of 

surveys every year and prepares reports covering virtually every aspect of U.S. agriculture.’’ 3 NASS employs approximately 435 staff members in Washington, D.C. and 

650 staff in field offices across the U.S. Its headquarters is in Washington, D.C. with 

12 regional field offices serving the nation. NASS’s annual budget is $172 million 

in discretionary dollars. The Administrator of NASS is Joseph T. Reilly. Reilly has 

served at NASS since 1997 and prior to joining NASS, he served at the Department 

of Commerce’s Bureau of Census for 21 years. 

ERS is the USDA agency responsible for producing analyses of economic and social science information on agriculture, rural development, food, commodity markets, and the environment. It compiles and disseminates data concerning USDA programs and policies to various stakeholders. Presently, ERS has no authority related 

to the Census of Agriculture. Since 2011, ERS has been led by Dr. Mary Bohman. 

Both NASS and ERS are housed within the Research, Education, and Economics 

mission area of USDA. These agencies are overseen by Under Secretary of Agriculture Dr. Catherine Woteki. 

The Census of Agriculture 

According to the NASS’s website: 

[T]he Census of Agriculture is the leading source of facts and figures about 

American agriculture. Conducted every 5 years, the Census provides a detailed 

picture of U.S. farms and ranches and the people who operate them. It is the 

only source of uniform, comprehensive agricultural data for every state and 

county in the United States. Participation by every farmer and rancher, regardless of the size or type of operation, is vitally important. By responding to the 

Census, producers are helping themselves, their communities and all of U.S. agriculture.4

NASS conducted the most recent Census of Agriculture in 2012. Initially, the U.S. 

Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Census (BOC) conducted the Census every 10 

40 

5S. Rep. No. 105–141 (Nov. 7, 1997); H. Rep. No. 105–296 (Oct. 2, 1997). 6 Id.; noting that between 1978 and 1982, the Census of Agriculture was conducted every 4 

years so as to align it with other economic surveys. 7 Id. 

8Frequently Asked Questions, About the Census, http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Help/FAQs/ 

General_FAQs/ (last visited Oct. 13, 2015). 9The Paperwork Reduction Act ‘‘requires agencies to submit approval requests for information 

collections to [the Office of Mgmt. & Budget’s] Office of Information & Regulatory Affairs 

[OIRA]. OIRA then evaluates them under the standards of the Paperwork Reduction Act, approving them if they comply and assigning a control number.’’ See https://www.whitehouse.gov/ 

omb/OIRA_QsandAs/. The Census of Agriculture and its follow-on surveys must be vetted in 

advance by officials at OIRA. 10 [Redacted], Chief, Census Planning Branch, U.S. Dep’t of Agric., National Agric. Statistics 

Serv., Tenure, Ownership, and Transition of Agricultural Land [TOTAL] Survey PowerPoint 

Presentation [USDA–CENSUS–0025401]; see also Letter from Hon. Todd Batta, Assistant Sec’y, 

Office of Cong. Affairs, U.S. Dep’t of Agric. to Hon. K. Michael Conaway, Chairman, H. Agric. 

Comm., Mar. 13, 2015 [hereinafter Batta Letter, Mar. 2015]. 11 [USDA–CENSUS–0025401]. 

years.5 From 1920 through 1992, the BOC conducted the Census every 5 years.6 In 

1997, the House and Senate passed the Census of Agriculture Act of 1997 to transfer the authority for conducting the Census from the BOC to USDA.7 On November 

21, 1997, President Clinton signed the Act (P.L. 105–113), which is now part of Title 

7 of the United States Code. 

Data collected through the Census of Agriculture is used by numerous entities in 

both the public and private sectors. Farmers, farm product manufacturers, and the 

financial industry are among private sector consumers of the data. Additionally, 

state, local, and Federal policy-makers use the data to make decisions that will affect agriculture.8

In addition to the Census, NASS also conducts follow-on surveys. Follow-on surveys are authorized in order to collect detailed information about specific agriculture 

related topics. Past follow-on surveys have included the Census of Horticulture, Organic Survey, and the On-Farm Energy Production Survey, among others. With 

proper notice and opportunity to comment,9 the follow-on surveys can be mandated 

under the Census of Agriculture authority. 

As mentioned above, participation in the Census of Agriculture and many of its 

follow-on surveys is required by law. Producers failing to answer the Census of Agriculture questions may be fined up to $100. 

NASS’ funding varies from year to year and it is difficult to parse out Census 

funding from the numerous follow-on surveys NASS conducts. The appropriation is 

at its largest sum the year after a Census year which can be attributed to the fact 

that the survey is a look back at the data from the previous year. In the table below, 

the highlighted years are the peak years—those in which the survey is released. 

FY Census Funding * 

2016 (request) $45.747 

2015 $47.842 

2014 $44.545 

2013 $58.029 $58.029

2012 $41.639 

2011 $33.073 

2010 $37.908 

2009 $37.265 

2008 $51.985 $51.985

2007 $32.644 

2006 $28.824 

* Dollar figures are in millions. 

The Agricultural Economics and Land Ownership Survey (AELOS) 

The Agricultural Economics and Land Ownership Survey (AELOS) was a survey 

conducted to gather information related to ‘‘non-farming landlord contributions to 

production agriculture.’’ 10 The AELOS survey ‘‘provided estimates of farm and 

ranch land acquisition and ownership, capitalization and debt, operating inputs and 

costs, and operator-landlord relationships.’’ 11 It provided a more comprehensive picture of the financial conditions in agriculture. The inaugural AELOS survey was 

conducted by NASS in 1999. Although USDA stated that the AELOS survey has 

41 

12 Batta Letter, Mar. 2015. 13 1997 Census of Agric.: History, AC97–SU–4, Vol. 2, Subject Series, Part 4, http:// 

www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/1997/History/history1997.pdf (last visited Oct. 8, 2015). 14 Batta Letter, Mar. 2015. 15 U.S. Dep’t of Agric. Budget & Explanatory Notes, (available at http://www.obpa.usda. 

gov/). 16 [USDA–CENSUS–0025401]; see also Letter from Hon. Todd Batta, Assistant Sec’y, Office 

of Cong. Affairs, U.S. Dep’t of Agric. to Hon. K. Michael Conaway, Chairman, H. Agric. Comm., 

Mar. 13, 2015 [hereinafter Batta Letter, Mar. 2015]. 17Overview, What Is the Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS)?, http:// 

www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/arms-farm-financial-and-crop-production-practices.aspx (last 

visited Oct. 7, 2015) [hereinafter ERS webpage]. 18 USDA–CENSUS–0003565. 19 ERS webpage; 1997 Census of Agric.: History, AC97–SU–4, Vol. 2, Subject Series, Part 4, 

http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/1997/History/history1997.pdf (last visited Oct. 8, 

2015). 20 ERS webpage. 21 ERS webpage. 22 Batta Letter, Mar. 2015. 23 Batta Letter, Mar. 2015; http://www.nass.usda.gov/About_NASS/Advisory_Committee_on_ 

Agriculture_Statistics/ACAS_Nov_2013_Meeting_Executive_Summary.pdf (last visited Sept. 14, 

2015). 24 [Redacted], Workshop Overview: Why We Are Here PowerPoint Presentation, U.S. Dep’t of 

Agric., [USDA–CENSUS–0004451]. 

‘‘been completed about every 10 years as a follow-on survey to the Census of Agriculture,’’ 12 documents show the sole AELOS survey was conducted in 1999. AELOS 

was an updated version of similar surveys which were conducted in 1959, 1964, 

1970, 1979, and 1988.13 NASS had planned to conduct an AELOS survey in 2011, 

but canceled it due to budget constraints.14 Between 1999 and 2000, NASS received 

$2 million to fund the AELOS survey.15

The 1999 version of AELOS was conducted as a mandatory Census of Agriculture 

follow-on survey.16 A copy of the 1999 AELOS survey is provided as an attachment 

[Attachment 1] to this report. 

The Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) 

According to ERS’ website, the ARMS survey is USDA’s ‘‘primary source of information on the financial condition, production practices, and resource use of America’s farm businesses and the economic well-being of America’s farm households.’’ 17

ARMS has three phases. The third phase, ARMS III, which is relevant to this oversight initiative, contains broad, probing questions about ‘‘whole farm finance information’’ and ‘‘operator characteristics.’’ 18 For at least the past 10 years, ARMS has 

been conducted by ERS and NASS, jointly.19

ARMS is an annual survey which provides data used by economists for various 

sorts of research, by producers in decision-making, and policy-makers.20 ARMS III 

data, in particular, is utilized by economists, financial analysts, and producers, 

among others. Data obtained through the ARMS survey is available on ERS’ website 

dating back to 1996.21 Funding for the ARMS survey comes from funds appropriated 

for ERS and has been approximately $19 million annually since Fiscal Year 2006. 

It is important to note that historically the ARMS survey has not been mandatory 

for farm operators and has not been a part of the Census of Agriculture program. 

A copy of the ARMS III survey form is attached [Attachment 2] to this report. 

The Tenure, Ownership and Transition of Agricultural Land Survey (TOTAL) 

In March 2012, the Advisory Committee on Agriculture Statistics (ACAS) recommended that NASS conduct a land tenure survey. Based on this recommendation, 

NASS decided to conduct the TOTAL survey for the first time.22 Specifically, the 

ACAS report stated: ‘‘[t]he Advisory Committee recommends that NASS perform a 

Land Tenure survey as early as possible but no later than 2015. This should be the 

highest priority ‘optional’ [Census of Agriculture] follow-on.’’ 23 In its recommendation, the ACAS was not specific with regard to what questions should be included 

or excluded on a land tenure survey. 

NASS and ERS, at some point, decided to combine ARMS III and AELOS to establish TOTAL, a Census follow-on that probed the agricultural and personal finances of farmers, ranchers, and land owners. The new survey was described by a 

NASS employee as ‘‘[a]n integrated survey of farm finance and land ownership from 

all agricultural land owners.’’ 24

42 

25 E-mail from NASS Staff to NASS Staff, Re: TOTAL Supporting Statements, Oct. 20, 2014 

[USDA–CENSUS–0029795]. 26 U.S. Dep’t of Agriculture, Nat’l Agric. Statistics Serv., Tenure, Ownership, and Transition 

of Agric. Land (TOTAL) Survey, Mar. 19, 2014 [USDA–CENSUS–0002042]. 27TOTAL Data Collection PowerPoint Slide [USDA–CENSUS–0004175]; see also Memorandum from [Redacted], Chief, Census Planning Branch, Nat’l Agric. Statistics Serv., Oct. 15, 

2014 [USDA–CENSUS–0025932]. 28TOTAL Data Collection PowerPoint Slide [USDA–CENSUS–0004175]. 29 U.S. Dep’t of Agric., Nat’l Agric. Statistics Serv., New Release available at http:// 

www.agcensus.usda.gov/Newsroom/2015/08_31_2015.php (last visited Sept. 15, 2015.). 30Press Release, Most of the U.S. Rented Farmland is Owned by Non-Farmers, available at 

http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Newsroom/2015/08_31_2015.php (Oct. 5, 2015). 31 [Redacted], Chief, Census Planning Branch, U.S. Dep’t of Agric., National Agric. Statistics 

Serv., Tenure, Ownership, and Transition of Agricultural Land [TOTAL] Survey PowerPoint 

Presentation [USDA–CENSUS–0025401]; see also Batta Letter, Mar. 2015. 32 1997 Census of Agric., Volume 2, Part 4 ‘‘History,’’ at 159, (available at http:// 

www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/1997/History/history1997.pdf) (last visited Oct. 21, 2015). 33Tenure, Ownership, and Transition of Agric. Land (TOTAL) Survey [USDA–CENSUS– 

0026258]. 34 [USDA–CENSUS–0026258]. 35 [USDA–CENSUS–0026258]. 36 Electronic mail [E-mail] from NASS Staff A to a group of unnamed NASS Staff, Dec. 8, 2014 

(emphasis added) [USDA–CENSUS–0004371]. 

NASS plans to conduct the TOTAL survey every 10 years to assist policy-makers, 

economists, financial analysts, and others who use the data.25 The TOTAL survey 

received $4.5 million in funding—$2.5 million from NASS in Fiscal Year 2015 and 

$2.0 million from ERS in Fiscal Year 2014.26

On December 26, 2014, NASS sent the target populations the initial mailing related to TOTAL.27 A second mailing was sent on January 27, 2015, and telephonic 

and field follow-up took place between February 17, 2015 and April 2015.28 NASS 

published preliminary TOTAL results on August 31, 2015.29 Complete 2014 TOTAL 

results were released October 5, 2015.30

Historical Relationship Between AELOS and ARMS III 

The 1999 version of AELOS was conducted as a mandatory Census of Agriculture 

follow-on survey.31 Management level coordination occurred with respect to AELOS 

and ARMS III. The coordination resulted in: 

Approximately 1⁄3 of AELOS records were completed using data from the 1999 

ARMS Phase III. The goal was to have an ARMS questionnaire no longer in 

length than in 1998. Hence, some detail was sacrificed to make room for the 

needed AELOS items.32

In other words, NASS chose to rely on the non-mandatory ARMS III survey to gather some of the data needed for the mandatory AELOS. This allowed the agency to 

lessen the burden on producers and avoid redundancy, yet gather the necessary 

data without creating a super survey such as TOTAL. 

Two Versions of TOTAL 

TOTAL was comprised of two versions—the operator or producer version and the 

landlord-only version.33 According to USDA documents, the operator version 

‘‘target[ed] farm and ranch operators in the 48 contiguous states,’’ whose agricultural product sales totaled at least $1,000 annually.34 The operator version is most 

similar to the previously optional ARMS III survey. 

For the landlord-only version, NASS targeted land owners who rent their land, 

but do not engage in farming operations.35 The landlord-only version of TOTAL is 

similar in content to previously mandatory AELOS survey. 

The content of ARMS III and the operator-only version of TOTAL are almost identical. This fact is borne out in numerous NASS staff e-mail messages. At one point 

a NASS staff member points out the confusion created by calling the landlord only 

version of TOTAL by its former name, ARMS III. On December 8, 2014, NASS staff 

wrote: 

I am a little confused on our use of ARMS in this news release. We continue 

to use ‘‘ARMS’’ internally to attempt to lessen the confusion in the 

TOTAL—Landlord Only survey and ARMS III but as far as any external 

communications go I was under the impression both surveys should be 

referred to as TOTAL. ‘‘ARMS III’’ was suspended in the OMB docket for this 

year and in its place is TOTAL. The ‘‘ARMS’’ form that the respondent receives 

says TOTAL on it.36

43 

37 Electronic mail [E-mail] from NASS Staff A to a group of unnamed NASS Staff, Dec. 8, 2014 

[USDA–CENSUS–0004371]. 38 Batta Letter, Mar. 2015. 

To lessen NASS staff confusion, the TOTAL operator version was often referred 

to as ARMS III. As part of the same e-mail exchange referenced above, NASS staff 

wrote: ‘‘It does say ARMS III on it off to the side [of the questionnaire form] but 

the actual title of the survey is TOTAL.’’ 37 Similarly, USDA, in correspondence with 

Chairman Conaway, referred to the TOTAL survey as being previously known as 

AELOS and ARMS.38

The TOTAL Survey Received Extensive Criticism from Recipients 

Documents reveal that in January 2015, many operators received both the ARMS 

III survey as well as the TOTAL survey. Farmers, ranchers, and operators objected 

to the government demanding that they respond to these questions not once in the 

ARMS III survey, but twice when they received the TOTAL survey. Section N of 

the TOTAL survey, operator version, required that all income, assets, debt, and 

spending be reported to USDA. Following is a snapshot of one of the most intrusive 

sections related to household financial information. 

44 

Farmers receiving the TOTAL survey were required to spend a great deal of 

time—time off the land they work—delving into their on-farm banking accounts as 

well as off-farm banking accounts. Numerous recipients had questions related to the 

survey. Agricultural producers e-mailed NASS’s customer service address to ask 

questions and express consternation with the TOTAL survey. One respondent complained directly to USDA as is evidenced in the following e-mail in which the respondent requests assistance from NASS. 


11437070.eps
45 

39 Anonymous landowner to NASS Staff, Re: Survey Completion, Dec. 26, 2014 [USDA–CENSUS–0049069]. 40 Anonymous landowner to NASS Staff, Re: Previous years survey, Dec. 30, 2014 (emphasis 

added) [USDA–CENSUS–0049080]. 41 E-mail from NASS Staff to NASS Staff, Re: Landlords being surveyed, Aug. 27, 2014 

[USDA–CENSUS–0020008]. 

One operator referred to the TOTAL survey as ‘‘this extremely long form.’’ 39 Another operator requested a copy of the survey he or she filled out just the prior year. 

Specifically, the operator wrote: 

Is our survey from last year available to us to use? There will be no changes 

and I would like to refer to it. We had no idea this was going to be an annual event.40

The individual above likely received the ARMS III survey and the TOTAL survey 

less than a year apart which shows both the duplicative nature of TOTAL and the 

burden NASS placed on American agricultural producers. 

In another case, an incensed landowner took his frustration with the TOTAL survey out on the dairy and grain farmer renting his land. The dairy farmer was fearful of losing the lease. NASS staff had not foreseen that land owners would be inconvenienced by the survey.41 Below is a related e-mail showing NASS staff did not 

foresee landowners being perturbed by the length and breadth of the TOTAL survey. 


11437071.eps
46 

42See Public Law 104–13. 43See Public Law 104–13. 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, the department or agency gathering information from U.S. citizens is required to reduce the burden by means such as employing information resources and technology.42 In addition, the Act requires the Director of OMB to ‘‘establish and oversee standards and guidelines by which agencies 

are to estimate the burden to comply with a proposed collection of information.’’ 43

These estimations must be reported OMB and provided on the survey form for recipients. In a nutshell, OMB must approve all mandatory information collections 

sent by the U.S. government. Even before NASS engaged OMB in the approval process, officials at USDA and NASS had decided to conduct the TOTAL survey as a 

mandatory Census of Agriculture follow-on survey. 

Decision to Make TOTAL Mandatory 

The driving force behind the decision to mandate TOTAL is unclear, however 

based on the documents produced to the Committee by USDA, it is apparent that 

officials at the department-level were aware of the shift to mandatory. 

According to documents, the plan was to merge ARMS III and AELOS to create 

a hybrid survey and use the Census authority to require producers to answer the 

survey questionnaires. On January 24, 2014, the NASS Assistant Administrator 

sent an e-mail to two other NASS staff relaying a conversation she had with Administrator Reilly. Her e-mail, inserted below, shows that Administrator Reilly was receiving direction from USDA officials on how to proceed with the TOTAL survey. 

USDA was dictating the timeline, content, and future decisions as indicated by the 

clause ‘‘sounds like we will know something maybe next week from USDA.’’ The entire e-mail is pasted below. 


11437072.eps
47 

44 U.S. Dep’t of Agriculture, Nat’l Agric. Statistics Serv., Tenure, Ownership, and Transition 

of Agric. Land (TOTAL) Survey, Mar. 19, 2014 [USDA–CENSUS–0005647]. 45 U.S. Dep’t of Agriculture, Nat’l Agric. Statistics Serv., Tenure, Ownership, and Transition 

of Agric. Land (TOTAL) Survey, Mar. 19, 2014 [USDA–CENSUS–0002042] (emphasis added). 

The following e-mail shows that numerous NASS staff members were aware of 

USDA’s involvement in creating the content for the TOTAL survey. In the e-mail 

below, NASS staff suggested checking to insure content requested by USDA was included in the TOTAL survey. These e-mails demonstrate that USDA officials, perhaps within the Office of the Secretary, were dictating certain factors related to the 

TOTAL survey. 

It appears that USDA, NASS, and ERS conducted the TOTAL survey as mandatory to increase response rates.44 Yet, documents show USDA officials were influential in the execution of the survey—a fact which may indicate a political rational 

for mandating TOTAL. In March 2014, a memorandum was circulated throughout 

NASS that noted in order to mandate the TOTAL survey, NASS suspended the 

OMB docket for ARMS and ‘‘submitted [a new docket] so we can carry the 

mandatory reporting statement on the questionnaires.’’ 45

This March 26, 2014, e-mail confirms that Administrator Reilly, referred to below 

as Joe R., was carrying out the plan to rename ARMS III, TOTAL and make it mandatory. According to the e-mail, Reilly was not sure whose plan he was ratifying. 

Subordinate staff wrote: ‘‘He seems to think that we were the ones pushing the dual 

mandatory and voluntary authority.’’ On September 9, 2015, Chairman Conaway requested to interview two NASS staff members in order to fill gaps in the record such 

as this one. This request was not granted. Instead, USDA offered a third briefing. 

Without questioning NASS staff members, it is unclear who was proposing mandatory versus voluntary. 


11437073.eps 11437074.eps
48 

46 H. Rep. No. 105–296, Purpose & Needs Section (1997). 47 E-mail from NASS Staff to NASS Staff, Re: TOTAL Supporting Statements, Oct. 20, 2014 

[USDA–CENSUS–0029795]. 48See Pub. L. No. 104–13. 

The TOTAL Survey Contravenes Congress’ Intent for the Census of Agriculture 

Mandating a burdensome survey such as ARMS III by renaming it TOTAL was 

not what Congress likely intended when it enacted the Census of Agriculture Act 

of 1997. On the contrary, Congress was aware of the burden placed on producers 

when responding to Census questionnaires. In reporting the Act, Congress adopted 

House Report 105–296, which clarifies their intent. It states: 

The Committee recognizes the intrusive nature of a Census and the need to 

obtain relevant data for policymakers. Producers have serious time constraints 

and should only have to answer questionnaires that are concise, easily readable 

and understandable, and relevant to today’s agricultural operations. The Committee is sympathetic to concerns of time spent filling out unnecessary paperwork.46

Based on the documents produced to the Committee, it does not appear that USDA 

complied with spirit and intent of Congress when deciding to include the TOTAL 

survey as a mandatory, follow-on element of the 2012 Census. 

OMB Raises Questions Related to the Funding and Frequency of ARMS and TOTAL 

In an e-mail dated October 30, 2014, OMB staff asked about the frequency of the 

TOTAL survey. E-mails from NASS staff, in response, state that TOTAL will be conducted every 10 years.47 The funding, according to an e-mail dated April 21, 2014, 

would come from ‘‘combining Congressional appropriations’’ earmarked for the Census of Agriculture as well as ERS’ funds. Combining funds from two agencies to conduct what NASS couched as a Census of Agriculture follow-on study raised a red 

flag for OMB. 

OMB’s Role in Mandating TOTAL 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, NASS is required ‘‘to submit approval requests for information collections to the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB), 

Office of Information & Regulatory Affairs (OIRA).’’ 48 The Census of Agriculture 

and its follow-on surveys must be vetted, in advance, by officials at OIRA. OIRA 

evaluates the materials related to the surveys vis-a`-vis the standards of the Act, approving them if they comply and assigning a control number. In the summer of 

2014, OMB staff engaged both in person as well as through e-mail regarding the 

mandatory nature of the TOTAL survey. 

Internal NASS documents show that NASS staff knew to portray TOTAL as one 

survey—its precursor being AELOS in order to achieve mandatory status. If OMB 

suspected TOTAL was too similar to ARMS III, then OMB may not sign off on mandatory status for TOTAL. When asked about the public relations strategy for 


11437075.eps
49 

49 E-mail from NASS Staff to NASS Regional Field Office Staff, Re: ARMS III news release, 

Dec. 18, 2014 [USDA–CENSUS–0039968]. 50 Electronic Mail [E-mail] from NASS Staff B to OMB Staff A, Meeting to Discuss the Combing [sic] of ARMS III survey with a new survey called TOTAL, Mar. 21, 2014 [USDA–CENSUS– 

0009324]. 51 E-mail from NASS Staff B to OMB Staff A, Meeting to Discuss the Combing [sic] of ARMS 

III survey with a new survey called TOTAL, Mar. 21, 2014 [USDA–CENSUS–0009324]. Id. 52 Id. 53 E-mail from NASS Staff B to OMB Staff, Re: Follow-up Information to TOTAL–ARMS meeting, Apr. 21, 2014 [USDA–CENSUS–0012904]. 54 E-mail Exchange between NASS Staff B and OMB Staff A, Apr. 21, 2014 [USDA–CENSUS– 

0012904]. 

TOTAL, and whether there would be a distinction for ARMS III and TOTAL landlord-only, NASS staff responded tersely stating: ‘‘For OMB purposes it is one survey.’’ 49 In actuality, operators received a now-mandatory ARMS III survey and the 

landlords received a version similar to AELOS. The entire e-mail exchange is below. 

On March 21, 2014, NASS staff sent an e-mail to OMB staff, introducing the concept of the TOTAL survey.50 When NASS staff engaged OMB staff on TOTAL, 

NASS staff portrayed the TOTAL survey as similar to AELOS and therefore deserving of mandatory status. NASS staff explained that they would like to ‘‘discuss some 

of the proposed details for integrating this new survey with the existing ARMS program.’’ 51 NASS staff also intimated that since the AELOS survey was mandatory, 

the TOTAL survey should be mandatory as well.52

Then, when OMB staff learned in an e-mail that ERS and NASS appropriations 

would be combined to fund the TOTAL survey,53 OMB staff deemed it necessary to 

consult with their Office of General Counsel (OGC) to inquire as to whether NASS 

had the authority to mandate the TOTAL survey.54 The following e-mail exchange 

shows NASS staff describing the funding sources for TOTAL. In response, OMB 

staff informed NASS that OGC was reviewing NASS’ statutory basis for mandating 

TOTAL. 


11437076.eps
50 

OMB Advises NASS on Whether It Is Permissible to Mandate TOTAL 

On May 8, 2014, the OMB OGC provided an informal legal opinion regarding whether the Census of Agriculture mandatory statutory authority was 

applicable in the case of the TOTAL survey. He found it was not. Below is 

the e-mail OMB staff sent NASS staff conveying the OMB OGC’s opinion that only 

Census follow-on surveys with content laid out in the statute could be mandated. 

OMB staff also advised NASS staff to seek guidance from the USDA Office of General Counsel. 


11437077.eps
51 

55 E-mail Exchange between NASS Staff B and other NASS staff, May 8, 2014 [USDA–CENSUS–0013920]. 56 E-mail Exchange between NASS Staff B and other NASS staff, May 8, 2014 [USDA–CENSUS–0013920]. 57 E-mail Exchange between NASS Staff B and other NASS staff, May 9, 2014 [USDA–CENSUS–0013937]. 58 E-mail from NASS Staff to OMB Staff, Apr. 21, 2014 [USDA–CENSUS–0012904]. 59 Email from OMB staff to NASS staff, Re: Submitted Request List, July 17, 2014 [USDA– 

CENSUS–0016781]. 

Documents show this was not the response NASS staff anticipated.55 Staff contemplated giving Administrator Reilly ‘‘a heads up on this [development].’’ 56 On 

May 9, 2014, according to internal NASS e-mails, Administrator Reilly verbally assured staff that ‘‘we [NASS] have approval to treat this as a mandatory survey 

under the discretionary rights of the secretary [sic].’’ 57 NASS staff operated under 

the assumption that the Secretary of Agriculture has the discretionary authority to 

render TOTAL mandatory since AELOS had been mandatory.58

NASS Staff Continued to Ignore OMB’s Guidance 

In the e-mail inserted above OMB suggested NASS seek the advice of USDA’s 

General Counsel regarding the question of whether NASS had the authority to conduct TOTAL as a mandatory survey. 

On July 17, 2014, OMB Staff again reiterated their opinion that if funds 

other than NASS funds are used for a particular survey, then that survey 

cannot carry the mandatory Census authority (see e-mail below).59 Continuing on July 18, 2014, OMB staff and NASS staff had a significant amount of 

correspondence related to the matter of whether the TOTAL survey could carry the 

Census mandatory authority. During the same time frame, NASS staff and OMB 

staff debated whether the Organic Survey was eligible to be conducted as a mandatory Census follow-on. 


11437078.eps
52 

Ultimately, the Federal Register notice (FRN) submissions to OMB were amended 

to reflect the fact that these surveys would be conducted as mandatory Census follow-ons. Both the TOTAL Survey FRN and the Organics Survey FRN required 

amendment to notify the public of the compulsory nature of the surveys. This 

amendment is reflected in the e-mail message above. 

NASS Staff Admits They Did Not Seek Guidance from USDA’s General Counsel 

In the following document related to the Organic Survey, NASS staff admitted he 

was not aware of any legal analysis related to the question of which surveys are 

authorized to be mandatory. 

In the e-mail above NASS staff argued that since the Organic Survey was partially funded by the Risk Management Administration of USDA, and conducted as 


11437079.eps 11437080.eps
53 

60 E-mail from NASS Staff to OMB Staff, Re: Ag Surveys Program (201312–0535–001), July 

18, 2014 [USDA–CENSUS–0017084]. 61 E-mail from NASS Staff to OMB Staff, Re: Ag Surveys Program (201312–0535–001) DRAFT 

note to [Redacted], July 18, 2014 [USDA–CENSUS–0017040]; see also [USDA–CENSUS– 

0013937]; [USDA–CENSUS–0017058]. 62 E-mail from NASS Staff to NASS Staff, Re: Ag Surveys Program (201312–0535–001) 

DRAFT note to [Redacted], July 18, 2014 (emphasis added) [USDA–CENSUS–0017058]. 63 E-mail from OMB Staff to NASS Staff, Re: Ag Surveys Program (201312–0535–001), July 

18, 2014 [USDA–CENSUS–00171155]. 64 E-mail from NASS Staff to NASS Staff, 6_20_14 Version 9 (5).docx, June 20, 2014 (emphasis 

added) [USDA–CENSUS–0015310]. 

a mandatory follow-on, then NASS could proceed with TOTAL as a mandatory follow-on survey.60

E-mails show that NASS staff internally debated the Secretary’s authority to 

mandate the TOTAL survey. Instead of seeking guidance from the USDA Office of 

General Counsel, NASS staff decided, in a vacuum, that the Secretary had the discretion based on conversations with the NASS Administrator Reilly.61

On July 18, 2014, an internal NASS e-mail exchange shows that NASS staff did 

not believe it was necessary to clarify NASS’ position with regard to mandating the 

TOTAL survey. In response to the question of whether Administrator Reilly needed 

to verify the agency’s position on the question of authority, NASS staff wrote: ‘‘I 

think if OMB wants clarification [on the mandatory authority] they can initiate that process.’’ 62

Also on July 18, 2014, OMB staff directed NASS staff to resubmit the FRN ‘‘clearly stating that this collection would be mandatory and the authority under which 

NASS can make it mandatory.’’ 63

NASS Staff Believed Re-Titling the ARMS III Survey Sufficed to Render it Mandatory 

According to documents produced to the Committee, certain NASS staff believed 

the re-titling of the TOTAL survey allowed NASS to mandate the survey. On June 

20, 2014, one NASS staff member wrote an e-mail expressing the idea that a simple 

title change in the survey was sufficient to render the TOTAL survey mandatory. 

Specifically, he wrote: ‘‘Unfortunately, we had to change the title [from ARMS 

III to TOTAL] to allow for the OMB statement of ‘required;’ however I am 

going to continue to refer to this document and all other related items as 

2014 ARMS III.’’ 64 See below for the full e-mail text. 

On August 4, 2014, the NASS staff member who liaises with OMB sent an e-mail 

to other NASS staff informing them that the TOTAL survey, landlord and operator 

versions were granted mandatory status by OMB. He directed his colleagues to inVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:51 Feb 10, 2016 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\114-37\97972.TXT BRIAN

11437081.eps
54 

65 E-mail from NASS Staff to NASS Staff, TOTAL/ARMS Question, Aug. 4, 2014 [USDA– 

CENSUS–0018429]. 66 E-mail from NASS Staff to NASS Staff, Re: ARMS III news release, Dec. 18, 2014 [USDA– 

CENSUS–0039961]. 

clude the appropriate language to reflect the mandatory status in all public relations materials.65 The fact that ERS was a partner in funding and planning the 

TOTAL survey, however, remained concealed from the public. 

NASS Concealed ERS’ Cooperation on the TOTAL Survey 

Administrator Reilly, according to NASS staff e-mails, ‘‘did not think it is appropriate for us [NASS] to conduct a Census for another agency,’’ 66 in this case, ERS. 

The e-mail below shows that as a result of Reilly’s views, NASS staff did not insert 

references to ERS in the publicity materials for the TOTAL survey. News releases 

and all other promotional materials related to the TOTAL survey did not contain 

the ERS logo or make mention of the fact that ERS was a partner in TOTAL. Following is an e-mail showing the rationale for excluding references to ERS. 

Internally, NASS staff appears to have disagreed with the approach taken in referring to TOTAL as a Census of Agriculture follow-on. In the instance below, a 

NASS staff member pointed out: ‘‘the Census [was not used at all] to sample.’’ The 

tone of the e-mail indicates contempt for the approach to TOTAL, and shows that 

the manner in which it was conducted was novel. Staff appears not to approve of 

leadership’s decision with regard to the TOTAL survey. In particular, the staff member cited below stated: ‘‘People are horribly picky about this whole TOTAL thing.’’ 


11437082.eps
55 

67Letter from Hon. Todd Batta, Assistant Sec’y, Office of Cong. Affairs, U.S. Dep’t of Agric. 

to Hon. K. Michael Conaway, Chairman, H. Agric. Comm., Sept. 28, 2015. 

The record before the Committee demonstrates that USDA’s NASS mandated a 

burdensome survey—ARMS III cloaked in the TOTAL title—a survey previously optional for producers. Their motives for this are unclear, but when questioned about 

it by OMB rather than seek counsel from USDA’s OGC, NASS relied on Reilly’s 

word. Since USDA has declined to fully cooperate with the Committee’s oversight 

of TOTAL, gaps remain in the record. The following section focuses on what we do 

know—the findings, as well as the unanswered questions. 

III. Findings and Unanswered Questions 

➢ The TOTAL Survey is over-broad, duplicative, and burdensome. 

➢ The documents produced to the Committee showing numerous producer complaints related to TOTAL coupled with the feedback received by the Committee 

from producers indicates that the TOTAL survey simply goes too far. 

➢ OMB advised NASS that the TOTAL survey could not be mandated under the 

Census of Agriculture authority and instructed NASS to seek guidance from the 

USDA Office of General Counsel. 

➢ NASS failed to consult the USDA Office of General Counsel as advised by 

OMB before mandating the TOTAL Survey. 

Despite a request from Chairman Conaway to interview pertinent NASS staff, 

those requests were denied by the Office of Congressional Relations.67 As a result, 

the Committee needs answers to the following outstanding questions: 

• When and why did USDA and/or NASS decide to conduct the TOTAL survey 

using the mandatory authority of the Census? 

• Who at the department-level was involved in the decision to mandate TOTAL 

as well as the planning and execution of the TOTAL survey? 

• When was the decision made to add ARMS III to the land tenure survey recommended by the Advisory Committee on Agriculture Statistics? 

• Who influenced the decision to integrate ARMS III and AELOS to produce the 

TOTAL survey? 

• Who at USDA was involved in orchestrating the TOTAL survey and its execution plan? 

• What was the rationale for mandating the TOTAL survey? 

• Who, if anyone, was directing Administrator Reilly with regard to the TOTAL 

survey? 


11437083.eps
56 

• Why did NASS staff choose not to consult USDA’s OGC when OMB advised 

that they do so? 

• Whether Congress and more specifically, the Appropriations Committee is 

aware that NASS uses funds from other USDA agencies to conduct Census follow-on surveys? 

Today, many questions linger. Either USDA failed to produce documents and communications far enough back in time to answer these questions, or the directions 

were verbal. Without having the opportunity to question appropriate witnesses and 

USDA officials, the Committee’s oversight efforts are impaired. This also shields 

facts from Congress and American agricultural producers. 

IV. Conclusion 

This report is the result of Congress and, in particular, the House Agriculture 

Committee listening to its constituents. Farmers, ranchers, producers, and other operators contacted the Committee to raise concerns about what they viewed as an 

intrusive, burdensome, overreach of executive power. They had seen this survey before—it was the ARMS III survey. This time it was different. This time the USDA 

exercised its Census authority to mandate each farmer and rancher’s participation. 

The fact that farmers and ranchers failing to fill out the 24 page operator version 

would be subjected to a monetary penalty was a tough pill to swallow. It was novel 

approach. This oversight initiative revealed that there were anomalies in the process. 

USDA and NASS’ motivation for renaming ARMS III as TOTAL is unclear. If 

they were hoping to deceive farmers, their plan failed. They were not deceived and 

they did not stay silent on the matter. Instead, farmers and ranchers were angry 

that the government would require them to report how much their household spent 

on health care, dental care, and the values of their homes, vehicles, and retirement 

accounts. 

USDA, when crafting the TOTAL survey, failed to take into consideration the privacy of America’s farmers, ranchers, and landowners. OMB advised NASS that their 

interpretation of the Census of Agriculture statue did not allow for mandating the 

TOTAL survey, which is essentially the ARMS III survey. NASS was unwilling to 

accept this answer. Repeatedly, NASS communicated to OMB that it was within the 

Secretary’s discretion to mandate TOTAL. At the end of the day, OMB accepted this 

on face value and allowed NASS to resubmit the Federal Register notices indicating 

the mandatory status of the survey. NASS took all of these actions without once 

asking the advice of USDA’s Office of General Counsel. 

The Committee is deeply concerned with regard to the TOTAL survey, that USDA 

and NASS exceeded their authority under the Census of Agriculture. The Secretary, 

in this case, abused his discretion. This oversight initiative has borne out the fact 

that anomalies occurred in the process of mandating TOTAL. As a result of the findings above, Committee staff recommends that Members of the Agriculture Committee review the attached surveys and the findings herein to determine whether 

it is appropriate to narrow the statutory language in 7 U.S.C. § 2204g. 

V. Options for Legislation Related to the Census 

Following are some legislative options for Members and their staffs to consider: 

1. Statutorily limit the number of questions in Census surveys to reduce the 

time burden on survey recipients. 

2. Amend the statute to make clear that Census follow-on survey may not mandate responses. 

3. Requests of other agencies regarding content of any survey must be first subject to notice and comment, and detailed explanation of any question (purpose, how the data will be utilized, etcetera) must be provided well in advance. 

VI. Timeline of the Committee’s Oversight of TOTAL and the Census 

• On February 5, 2015, USDA and NASS staff briefed Committee staff. There 

were numerous unanswered questions flowing from this briefing. 

• February 10, 2015, at the request of numerous producers, the Chairman and 

Ranking Member sent a letter to Secretary Vilsack requesting information and 

documents related to the Census of Agriculture and surveys conducted pursuant 

to that authority. The documents were due February 26, 2015. 

• On February 26, 2015, Committee staff followed up with USDA staff to inquire 

about the status of the production. 

57 

• On March 16, 2015, USDA staff sent an e-mail containing a letter from Under 

Secretary Todd Batta, signed March 13, 2015. This letter answered the questions posed in the Chairman and Ranking Member’s letter. No documents were 

provided. 

• On March 18, 2015, Committee staff sent an e-mail to USDA staff narrowing 

the scope of and prioritizing the documents in the request. 

• On March 23, 2015, USDA staff communicated to Committee staff that they 

would provide primarily publicly available documents to the Committee at the 

briefing on March 27, 2015. 

• On March 27, 2015, USDA staff provided a briefing to Committee staff and produced a disk containing publicly available documents related to the Census of 

Agriculture. 

• On April 7, 2015, USDA staff communicated that USDA was reviewing 56,000 

documents that were potentially related to the Census of Agriculture request 

and that the Committee would receive relevant documents between April 10 

and April 14, 2015. 

• USDA produced documents to the Committee on April 17, 24, and June 8, 12, 

26, and July 20, 2015. In total, USDA produced 49,000 documents. 

• On September 9, 2015, the Chairman sent letter to Secretary Vilsack requesting 

transcribed interviews of two NASS employees with factual knowledge of the 

planning of execution of the TOTAL survey. 

• On September 28, 2015, Under Secretary Todd Batta wrote Chairman Conaway 

offering another briefing, and thereby declining to produce witnesses for a transcribed interview. 

58 

[ATTACHMENT 1] 

1999 Agricultural Economics and Land Ownership Survey Operator’s Report 


11437029.eps
59 


11437030.eps
60 


11437031.eps
61 


11437032.eps
62 


11437033.eps
63 


11437034.eps
64 


11437044.eps
65 


11437036.eps
66 


11437042.eps
67 


11437043.eps
68 


11437037.eps
69 


11437038.eps
70 


11437039.eps
71 


11437040.eps
72 


11437041.eps
73 

[ATTACHMENT 2] 

Agricultural Resource Management Survey Costs and Returns Report 2013 


11437045.eps
74 


11437046.eps
75 


11437047.eps
76 


11437048.eps
77 


11437049.eps
78 


11437050.eps
79 


11437051.eps
80 


11437052.eps
81 


11437053.eps
82 


11437054.eps
83 


11437055.eps
84 


11437056.eps
85 


11437057.eps
86 


11437058.eps
87 


11437059.eps
88 


11437060.eps
89 


11437061.eps
90 


11437062.eps
91 


11437063.eps
92 


11437064.eps
93 


11437065.eps
94 


11437066.eps
95 


11437067.eps
96 


11437068.eps
97 

SUBMITTED FORM BY HON. RODNEY DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM

ILLINOIS

2014 TENURE, OWNERSHIP, AND TRANSITION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND (TOTAL) 


11437005.eps
98 


11437006.eps
99 


11437007.eps
100 


11437008.eps
101 


11437009.eps
102 


11437010.eps
103 


11437011.eps
104 


11437012.eps
105 


11437013.eps
106 


11437014.eps
107 


11437015.eps
108 


11437016.eps
109 


11437017.eps
110 


11437018.eps
111 


11437019.eps
112 


11437020.eps
113 


11437021.eps
114 


11437022.eps
115 


11437023.eps
116 


11437024.eps
117 


11437025.eps
118 


11437026.eps
119 


11437027.eps
120 


11437028.eps
121 

* Editor’s note: this is an excerpt of the Memorandum. 

SUBMITTED MEMORANDUM BY HON. SUZAN K. DELBENE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM WASHINGTON

USDA–CENSUS–0003500 

USDA United States Department of Agriculture 

National Agricultural Statistics Service 

Tenure, Ownership, and Transition of Agricultural Land (TOTAL) Survey 

March 19, 2014—DRAFT 

Background 

The TOTAL Survey has been funded $4.5 million ($2.0 million from ERS in FY14 

and $2.5 million in NASS’ FY15 Census budget). Unlike the Agricultural Economics 

and Land Ownership Survey (AELOS) conducted for 1999, we are decoupling the 

request for names and addresses from the operators and expanding the scope of the 

Agricultural Resources Management Survey (ARMS), Phase III to collect data from 

the owners/operators. We are building a frame of landlords only from the June Area 

Frame (2014, rotated out segments from 2013, and rotated out segments from 2012) 

matched against administrative sources. The two administrative sources will be tax 

records purchased from CoreLogic and owners identified to Farm Services Agency 

(FSA). When those two sources do not provide information, NASS will utilize 

NASDA staff to visit the county tax assessor office to identify the land owners. Data 

from the landlords only will be collected on a questionnaire separate from the ARMS 

Phase Ill but during the same data collection window. It is a requirement that data 

be turned over to ERS no later than the end of July 2015 so products can be developed and shared with USDA by the end of September 2015. 

Issue 

NASS and ERS both desire to use the mandatory authority of the Census of 

Agriculture to increase response rates. The current ARMS docket will be suspended and a new docket submitted so we can carry the mandatory reporting 

statement on the questionnaires. 

One issue is the access to ARMS records by sworn data users via the ERS data 

lab and through the data enclave. NASS has prohibited access to Census of Agriculture data and without approval, this combined effort under the Census authority 

would limit record level access. Should ERS and the data enclave be given access to the data file? 

A second issue is the NASS publication. Due to the narrow window of time between clean data file and data dissemination, should NASS agree to data dissemination via only on-line methods? 

In regards to the publication, should NASS utilize the new ERS farm typology definitions? The revised farm typology is summarized on page 2 and page 

3. Note that the categories size breaks are different and that they use gross cash 

farm income instead of gross farm sales. 

Proposal * 

122 

SUBMITTED ARTICLE BY HON. COLLIN C. PETERSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM MINNESOTA

Scrooged by the survey: Farmers miss out on ARC payments 

Video hyperlink: https://content.jwplatform.com/videos/zXmgQ62zhWqsCqCS.mp4. 

By Mikkel Pates/Agweek on Dec. 7, 2015 at 9:34 a.m. 

JUD, N.D.—Jeremy Nitschke says he fills out a lot of Federal agricultural surveys 

and responds to government surveys, but says a National Agricultural Statistics 

Survey that failed in his county shouldn’t have cost him $30,000. 

At age 38, Nitschke is a farming partner with his younger brother, Nathan. The 

two farm in both Logan and LaMoure counties in North Dakota. They work in a 

loose association with an older Nitschke partnership that includes their father, Jon 

Nitschke, and their uncle, Jeff Nitschke. 

Jeremy Nitschke (right) and his uncle, Jeff Nitschke, are partners in separate family farming ventures. They farm primarily in North Dakota’s 

LaMoure and Logan counties—the only two counties in North Dakota that 


11437001.eps 11437002.eps
123 

are not eligible for corn payments in the Agriculture Risk Coverage-County 

program for the 2014 crop year. (Mikkel Pates/Agweek). 

LaMoure and Logan counties were the only counties in North Dakota 

that didn’t get payments for corn in the Agriculture Risk Coverage-County 

program for the 2014 crop year. Farmers had budgeted $20 to $67 per acre 

but got nothing, largely because they didn’t fill out a voluntary yield survey. (Mikkel Pates/Agweek). 

Farmers in North Dakota’s LaMoure and Logan counties, including the 

Nitschke families who farm in Jud, N.D., didn’t get the expected payments 

from the Agriculture Risk Coverage-County program for the 2014 crop year. 

(Mikkel Pates/Agweek). 

When only one out of five farmers who received NASS corn yield returned those 

surveys last fall, it affected whether farmers in the two counties would get a payment in the Agriculture Risk Coverage-County, also called ARC–CO. 

Jeremy and Nathan’s partnership is typical and easy to calculate. The younger 

partners together have 1,000 acres of corn base on their FSA farm. With help from 

their loan officer, they calculated that, depending on yield, they might expect a net 

ACR–CO ranging from $20 to $67 per acre, or roughly $20,000 to $67,000. 


11437003.eps 11437004.eps
124 

Instead, they got nothing. Jeremy says he might have made different program decisions if he’d known how ARC–CO could go wrong. ‘‘How can you take $30,000 away just because people didn’t fill out a survey?’’ he 

says. 

How could it be? 

The Federal Agricultural Act of 2014, signed into law Feb. 7, 2014, is administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Farm Service Agency. Corn farmers 

who wanted to participate were offered a choice of two FSA farm programs on a 

farm-by-farm basis—the Price Loss Coverage program or the Agriculture Risk Coverage-County program. The PLC program has a reference price of $3.70 per bushel. Corn farmers would 

need to see the 2014 marketing year average fall below that to get a PLC payment. 

Few predicted prices would fall below that level. 

The final 2014 marketing year average national price came in right at $3.70 per 

bushel, so farmers did not receive a PLC payment on corn. 

Most corn farmers chose ARC–CO, which allows participants to receive revenue 

coverage when the current year revenue falls below a guarantee. Under ARC–CO, the benchmark price for corn is $5.29 per bushel. Software programs largely predicted that if farmers received normal yields and decreased prices 

the next 2 or 3 years, they’d likely get a payment in ARC–CO. 

In North Dakota, farmers typically relied on spreadsheets provided by North Dakota State University Extension Service. NDSU farm management specialists estimated 140 to 150 bushel per acre yields for LaMoure County and 90 to 100 bushel 

per acre yields for Logan County. 

Farmers wanting to participate in ARC–CO for the 2014 crop year had until April 

7 to make program elections. By Sept. 30, they had to sign up a second time, to 

enroll into a contract. The same deadline was used for both the 2014 and 2015 crop 

contract. 

Olympic Averages 

ARC–CO guarantees were based on 5 years of county average yields and marketing year average prices—2009 to 2013. 

The benchmark revenue figure to determine whether payment should be made is 

the combination of yield and price—the Olympic average yield for those years multiplied by the Olympic average price for the same years. 

The ARC–CO payment guarantee was based on 86 percent of benchmark revenue, 

calculated with a formula based on Federal budgetary limits. It is further reduced 

by a factor of 0.932 (another seven percent reduction) for Congressional sequestration, another budget cut passed in 2011. 

In educating farmers about their options, the FSA and Extension Service routinely noted payments would be made on county yields generated by a hierarchy of 

sources: National Agricultural Statistics Service county yield surveys, if available; 

FSA data-mined yields from the Risk Management Agency, or crop insurance; crop 

reporting district; and a yield set by the FSA state committee, using neighboring 

counties with similar production. 

Everybody heard how it worked, but no one imagined the first option wouldn’t be 

available because of a NASS survey. No one expected the second option would have 

such a negative impact. 

Survey Failure 

Darin Jantzi, NASS state statistician in Fargo, says there are roughly 282 corn 

producers in LaMoure County, according to the 2012 Census of Agriculture. 

Yield surveys for the 2014 crop year were sent to 125 county producers in midOctober 2014. NASS waited for mailed responses for 3 weeks. NASS surveyors then 

attempted to phone recipients, giving up only if the farmer refused, or at the end 

of the survey period. 

Only 27 of the surveys came back—three shy of the 30 producer minimum required. Further, the responses represented only 9.5 percent of the production acres 

in the county—far short of the 25 percent needed for a valid NASS yield. 

The next option was the RMA figure, which was 165 bushels per acre. 

Jeremy wasn’t aware this was a problem until October. 

He got word from AgCountry Farm Credit Services officials in Jamestown. It sunk 

in when he wanted to pay a farm loan bill with his ARC–CO payment, and a clerk 

in the office said it would be impossible. 

‘‘She said I got paid on 270 acres of wheat,’’ he says. ‘‘Nothing on the corn.’’ 

Jeremy’s uncle, Jeff, 59, thinks he failed to fill out the survey. But he also says 

if it were critical to paying farmers what they’re owed, NASS should have done 

something to redo the surveys ‘‘if it was this important for our payments.’’ 

125 

RMA, FSA Differ 

Dale Ihry is a former FSA state specialist in Fargo and part of the ARC–CO farm 

bill team. He left that post in October to take a job as executive director of the 

North Dakota Corn Utilization Council. Ihry says FSA and RMA matches best in 

years when almost everyone in a county reports losses and RMA adjusts them. 

In years of no loss, RMA corn yields often run roughly 10 bushels per acre higher 

than the NASS yield. 

Ihry says the most reliable yield average for administering ARC–CO is the NASS 

County average yield. The FSA found that for corn counties in North Dakota, RMA 

yields would run roughly 10 bushels per acre higher than the county NASS yield. 

Yields certified to RMA during non-loss years might not reflect moisture content, 

test weight or damage. 

Aaron Krauter, North Dakota FSA state executive director, says he can vividly 

remember telling farmers about the NASS survey basis for ARC–CO, and the ‘‘seed 

corn caps going up and down.’’ 

He says farmers need to understand the surveys are more important today. Farm 

programs have become more of a safety net and aren’t simply direct payments. 

‘‘The reality is that farmers say they just throw these in the basket,’’ Krauter 

says. ‘‘I tell them, you can’t.’’ 

Farmers right now are in the middle of filling out surveys for the 2015 crops. 

In October, the FSA state committee requested the FSA in Washington, D.C., 

allow them to skip the RMA yield step for Logan and LaMoure counties, because 

it is ‘‘obvious the yield is an outlier.’’ 

The national officials declined. 

Krauter says the 165 bushel per acre yield for LaMoure County is a record yield 

for any county in the state. The FSA state committee requested to use NASS yields 

for counties with similar productivity. 

Corn council and grower association boards have asked for the situation to be revisited. Krauter says he will keep asking Washington to ‘‘consider the anomaly’’ and 

allow the state committee to make a ‘‘reasonable yield decision.’’ 

Sen. John Hoeven, R–N.D., has requested that FSA Administrator Val Dolcini revisit the issue and consider making things right in LaMoure, Logan and other counties with similar situations, such as Ransom and Steele. 

County Rules 

Some counties in southeast North Dakota received $40 to $60 per acre payments 

on their corn base acres. 

‘‘A lot of corn producers in LaMoure and Logan counties think that is what they 

should be getting,’’ Ihry says. 

Most realize LaMoure County was unlikely to have gotten a payment that high. 

He says if the state committee had been allowed to adjust the yields properly, 

LaMoure County would have received about $30 per base acre on their corn. 

But Ihry says it makes no sense that LaMoure County—a predominantly non-irrigated county—could exceed the state’s record average corn yield by 10 bushels an 

acre. Next door, Dickey County, which completed its NASS surveys, had a yield of 

150—a difference of 15 bushels per acre. 

‘‘How, statistically, would that ever happen?’’ Ihry asks. 

The FSA did change the rules for farmers in multiple counties. Farmers like Jeremy who declare LaMoure County their ‘‘control’’ county for FSA payments, can be 

paid for acres they farm in nearby counties, such as Stutsman County. 

About 90 percent of the Nitschkes’ land is in LaMoure County, within 5 miles of 

the Stutsman County border. 

Meanwhile, some farmers who live in LaMoure County, but declare Stutsman 

County as their control county, receive the Stutsman County payment rate, before 

budget-reduction factors, of $61.36 per acre, even for land they farm in LaMoure 

County. 

Jeremy doesn’t indicate his operation is jeopardized by the ARC–CO snafu, but 

it did hurt. 

He came back to the farm in 2004 and holds an associate’s degree in agricultural 

finance from North Dakota State College of Science in Wahpeton. He is the Chairman of the CHS-Dakota Prairie Ag elevator board in Edgeley, N.D., and is concerned about the dozens of farmers have been hit with the problem. 

‘‘It’s a lot of money,’’ Jeremy says, estimating it is a multi-million-dollar difference 

from what was anticipated. ‘‘It’s going to make a huge impact in LaMoure County.’’ 

Æ